= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
soreff comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (2012) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1430)
(edit)
I have the feeling that I've got to state the following belief in plain text:
Regardless of whether "babies are people" (and yeah, I guess I wouldn't call them that on most relevant criteria), any parent who proves able to kill their child while not faced with an unbearable alternative cost (a hundred strangers for an altruistic utilitarian, eternal and justified damnation for a deeply brainwashed believer) is damn near guaranteed to have their brain wired in a manner unacceptable to modern society.
Such wiring so strongly correlates with harmful, unsympathetic psychopaths that, if faced with a binary choice to murder any would-be childkillers on sight or ignore them, we should not waver in exterminating them. Of course, a better solution is a blanket application of unbounded social stigma as a first line deterrent and individual treatment of every one case, whether with an attempt at readjustment, isolation or execution.
There is another, quite different, situation where it happens: Highly stressed mothers of newborns.
Interesting. Having suspected that something along these lines was out there, I did mention the possibility of readjustment. However,
1) sorry and non-vindictive as we might feel for this subset of childkillers, we'd still have to give them some significant punishment, in order not to weaken our overall deterrence factor.
2) This still would hardly push anyone (me included) from "indiscriminating extermination" to "ignore" in a binary choice scenario.
If the problem is that almost everyone who could kill their ten-month-old kid is psychotic (something I'd disagree with particularly in light of the above and in light of the fact that it currently means defying one of our society's strongest taboos, but leaving that aside for now)...
Then why, exactly, are we trying to deter killing your babies? It's not going to have any effect on the number of psychotic people out there.
I suspect that "babykilling is OK in and of itself, but it's a visible marker for psychosis and we want to justify taking action against psychotics and therefore we criminalize babykilling anyway" isn't a particularly stable thought in human minds, and pretty quickly decomposes into "babykilling is not OK," "psychosis is not OK," "babykillers are psychotic," a 25% chance of "psychotics kill babies," and two photons.
I know it's stupid to jump in here, but you don't mean psychotic or psychosis. You mean psychopathic (a.k.a. sociopathic). Please don't lump the mentally ill together with evil murderers. Actual psychotic people are hearing voices and miserable, not gleefully plotting to kill their own children. You're thinking of sociopaths. Psychotics don't kill babies any more than anyone else. It's sociopaths who should all be killed or otherwise removed from society.
Some of the traits listed on the wikipedia page for psychopathy are traits that I want and have modified myself towards:
Lots of sociopaths as the term is clinically defined live perfectly productive lives, often in high-stimulation, high-risk jobs that neurotypical people don't want to do like small aircraft piloting, serving in the special forces of their local military and so on. They don't learn well from bad experiences and they need a lot of stimulation to get a high, so those sorts of roles are ideal for them.
They don't need to be killed or removed from society, they need to be channelled into jobs where they can have fun and where their psychological resilience is an asset.
Huh, okay. Thanks.
(It's odd how the words "schizophrenic" and "psychotic" bring up such different connotations even though schizophrenia is the poster-child of psychosis. (Saying this as a schizotypal person with "ultra high risk" of schizophrenia.))
Aren't sociopaths mentally ill too?
Yes, but people with different types of illness vary in whether they are likely to kill other people, which is the question here. This metastudy found half of male criminals have antisocial personality disorder (including sociopaths and psychopaths) and less than 4% have psychotic disorders. In other words, criminals are unlikely to be people who have lost touch with reality and more likely to be people who just don't care about other people.
Interesting, I knew that the rate was very low for psychotic people, but not that it was so high for sociopathic ones. I still don't think all sociopaths should be killed.
If you say they are, it's in a totally different way. Taboo "mentally Ill".
I was being a bit pedantic. When she says "don't lump the mentally ill together with evil murderers" I think she means "don't lump [psychotic] people in with evil murderers", which I don't disagree with. However, not all sociopaths are evil murderers. I would even say it's wrong to lump these mentally ill sociopaths together with evil murderers.
In other words, AspiringKnitter,
Okay. I've never heard of any non-evil sociopaths before, but I'll accept that they exist if you tell me they do.
What I meant was indeed that psychotic people aren't any more evil on average than normal people. The point is irrelevant to the thread, but I make it wherever it needs to be made because conflating the two isn't just sloppy, it harms real people in real life.
Are we talking about psychotic people here or sociopaths (psychopaths)? The two are vastly different. Or are you saying that neither psychotic people nor sociopaths are necessarily evil?
OK.
Where did the two photons come from?
The photons come from unjustified pattern-matching.
Oooh.
Exhibit A: me.