Is Arizona about Politics or Mental Illness?
Posted on January 9th, 2011 in Uncategorized |
That’s the title of Jeffrey Goldberg’s post on TheAtlantic.com.
Goldberg’s thinking is confused:
It seems fairly obvious so far that the terrible massacre in Arizona is less about Tea Party politics and more about mental illness, and how the mentally ill gain possession of handguns. This could change radically, of course, in the coming hours and days…
It is probably far easier to categorize him in psychiatric terms. That said, of course it is true that hostile, violent political rhetoric on cable TV and on the Internet provides fodder and comfort to the mentally ill.…
To me, this argument constructs a false dichotomy between politics and mental illness. Where do we draw the line and say what parts of Jared Loughner are healthy or sick, sane and insane?
(After all, is no part of him coherent? Cogent?)
Moreover, how can we say that right-wing politics of hate and anger, with a violent undercurrent, weren’t part of what contributed to this man’s descent into paranoia (or whatever it was)?
This is the point: That when you create a climate of fear, hatred and violence, as the Tea Party and various Republicans have been doing for the past two years or so, you might well contribute to the destabilizing of people teetering on the brink. And you might fill them with a suggestion (a target, for example?) of what they should do.
Which is why it’s probably a good idea not to use images of violence and murder (”Reload”) when you’re talking about the proper mode of expressing political dissent…
And I’m not the only one to think this way:
‘When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government,’ Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told a news conference…
To suggest that there’s no dialectic between personal psychosis and the external environment is bizarre, and I seriously doubt that most theories of mental illness would concur with that argument.
19 Responses
1/10/2024 10:46 am
Feste commented yesterday that the mentally ill are no more likely to commit violent crimes than anyone else. I’m not an expert on either mental health or crime, but I’d recommend (especially to SE) this article on Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2280619/) about whether mental illness is a valid explanation for acts of violence. I have no idea how credible it is, but it’s certainly something to think about.
1/10/2024 11:16 am
You sound niave. You obviously have not spent much time with someone who is seriously mentally ill.
1/10/2024 11:23 am
As someone who had a paranoid schizophrenic father and brother, I know that while sometimes they seemed rational, a wayward dust bunny could have set them off on a rage filled rampage. There was some organiztion to their thoughts, but it didn’t last. So I wouldn’t really put much credance to Jared’s reasoning. Palin should be kinder, but she is no way responsible. And it is a disservice to the disease to blame that and not the seriousness of his illness.
1/10/2024 12:23 pm
It doesn’t matter if I’ve spent time with someone who was seriously mentally ill or not. That would just be one example. One violent mentally ill person (or two, or ten, or 1000) doesn’t mean that mentally ill people are predisposed to violence or that we can establish a causal link between an individual’s acts of violence and his mental illness. The first question (Are the mentally ill-esp. those with schizophrenia-predisposed to violence?) is addressed in the Slate article, but I’m not in a position to judge the credibility of the studies the author cites. The second question (Is there a causal link between this person’s mental illness and his acts of violence?) is much trickier, since our understanding of how and why people decide to take any kind of action is fairly rudimentary.
1/10/2024 12:25 pm
The piece on Slate is remarkably dimwitted. Total failure to keep track of the difference between [fact A given fact B] and [B given A].
Is Slate the worst edited major outlet of ideas today? I think so. Dahlia Lithwick edits herself, thank God,
1/10/2024 12:30 pm
Like you said, Whimsy, you are not an expert on mental health or crime, so stop please. Beisdes I was commenting that this post sounded niave, not you. But now you do.
1/10/2024 12:52 pm
Anon 11.23, you are the person who sounds ill informed, not wimsy. If you read this you will see that there is relationship between schizophrenia and violence against others.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/schizophrenia/are-people-with-schizophrenia-violent.shtml
This is a topic on which SE could enlighten us, given his background in neuroscience.
1/10/2024 1:50 pm
I don’t have a background in neuroscience, but I do have a lot of nerve.
1/10/2024 3:12 pm
I never said there wasn’t a relationship between schizophrenia and violence against others. I firmly believe there is. My very experience with schizophrenics tells me they are irrationally very violent against people. Emphasis on the word ‘irrationally’. Again, you can’t blame Palin for the actions of a paranoid schizophrenic. Because he is irrational. Without reason. However, you can call her to tone down her rhetoric, because that is kind and polite.
1/10/2024 3:15 pm
Also I was responding to richard’s post, not whimsy.
1/10/2024 5:45 pm
Arizona is about the GOP inciting to political violence, according to Paul Krugman
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1
1/10/2024 6:02 pm
SE, I appreciate that your strident tone and the insults directed at Matt Bai, Vaughan Bell, and Slate in general are in keeping with your blog persona and I enjoy reading your comments even when I disagree with you.
Nevertheless, the research (Fazel et al) noted in the Slate piece cited by Whimsy seems to be a credible meta-analysis. Your blanket dismissal of Bell’s argument and rejection of Richard’s comments with a “he was just a nut” remark are perfunctory responses. Would you please explain why you find the “paranoid schizophrenia” explanation sufficient by itself.
1/10/2024 10:49 pm
The mental health establishment has long asserted that psychiatric patients pose no greater threat than the general population. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that those not taking their medications — and the estimated 10 to 15 per cent who do not respond to treatment — are prone to violence.
A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association, cited by Bradford, showed the risk of violence is six to seven times higher among people with major depression or schizophrenia. The risk rises to six to 12 times higher in schizophrenics who drink alcohol and 35 to 40 times higher for those on cocaine.
“Unfortunately there is a correlation between severe mental illness and violence,” said Bradford. “Up until the early ’90s psychiatrists played down the fact there was a relationship because we were worried about the stigma to patients.”
Clearly, families and friends are shouldering more of the burden of caring for the mentally ill. Over the past 30 years the number of mental-health beds in Canadian hospitals has dropped by more than two-thirds, to 15,011 from 47,633.
Meanwhile, the mentally ill represent the fastest growing segment of Canada’s prison population, with estimates that by 2020, more than 60 per cent of people with schizophrenia will have a criminal record.
- from schizophrenia.com
1/10/2024 10:50 pm
The mental health establishment has long asserted that psychiatric patients pose no greater threat than the general population. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that those not taking their medications — and the estimated 10 to 15 per cent who do not respond to treatment — are prone to violence.
A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association, cited by Bradford, showed the risk of violence is six to seven times higher among people with major depression or schizophrenia. The risk rises to six to 12 times higher in schizophrenics who drink alcohol and 35 to 40 times higher for those on cocaine.
“Unfortunately there is a correlation between severe mental illness and violence,” said Bradford. “Up until the early ’90s psychiatrists played down the fact there was a relationship because we were worried about the stigma to patients.”
Clearly, families and friends are shouldering more of the burden of caring for the mentally ill. Over the past 30 years the number of mental-health beds in Canadian hospitals has dropped by more than two-thirds, to 15,011 from 47,633.
Meanwhile, the mentally ill represent the fastest growing segment of Canada’s prison population, with estimates that by 2020, more than 60 per cent of people with schizophrenia will have a criminal record.
From schizophrenia.com
1/10/2024 10:53 pm
whoops sorry for the duplicate posts.
1/10/2024 11:09 pm
Patients more likely to engage in significant violence include those with substance abuse, persecutory delusions, or command hallucinations and those who do not take their prescribed drugs. A very few severely depressed, isolated, paranoid patients attack or murder someone whom they perceive as the single source of their difficulties (eg, an authority, a celebrity, their spouse). -NIMI
-what this article doesn’t tell you, but any NIMI support group will is that the hardest part to treating a schizophrenic is to get them to continue to take their medication, because it doesn’t make them feel very good. Their lives are an endless cycle of going off and on their meds and the subsequent breakdowns and scary and violent behavior when they do stop taking the medication.
I’d like people to focus on fixing that problem! This is a perfect opportunity for the nation to focus on that and so many people are using this as political leverage. It honestly makes me sick.
1/10/2024 11:39 pm
The Slate article is mostly devoted to arguing that people with mental illness are not necessarily violent. But the question here is whether a primary source of Loughner’s violence was his mental illness (Is B a cause for A?, not Is A necessary given B?). Since he lacks a coherent political or personal motive for the crime, according to his apparently quite thorough and unguarded online expressions, the overwhelmingly likely answer is that he acted out of derangement instead of from societally preventable impulses or thought patterns.
I disagree with Krugman’s emphasis today, and think his column is a mistake. It’s very rare for me to say that. There’s no sentence in it I think is wrong, I just don’t think the thrust properly respects the individuality of this particular individual and his particular story.
I recommend Jonathan Chait instead today. I think he nailed it.
SE
1/10/2024 11:41 pm
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/81168/the-arizona-shooting-not-product-right-wing-rage
1/12/2023 9:00 pm
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/the-gamer.html