[removed]

> That's the assumptions you've made. That's not the same as that actually being the case, nor is it the same as there being a logical basis to from that conclusion

there's definitely a logical basis :) now of course, you're clearly not honest with me, so I'm only permitted suspicions

>not at all; I'm not recommending a basic book because it will give you the answer you're looking for, but because it's where you need to start

That implies that I have no "start" in understanding statistics. This is a baseless (and inaccurate) implication.

>its my job

Ok, so apply that. If you get a real-world scenario that you are trying to analyze, you don't consider how observable it is? You don't consider how easily you can measure it? You don't consider how accurate your measurements are? You don't consider how complex the system is?

Instead as long as it occurs "many" times more frequently than a problem that can be successfully analyzed with a high degree of accuracy, then you "know" that this problem will be "easier?"

Seriously, there are instances where you can get statistically meaningful results with a frequency of a few dozen. 1,000 is certainly "many" more than that. Your stance is literally that you can model the most complex systems in the universe as long as they have happened at least 1,000 times.

Not 1,000 times that you've seen. Not 1,000 times that you can accurately measure. They just have to have happened 1,000, period.

Again, this assertion is just ridiculous on its face, yet that's what is suggested by your position. When I've pointed out that it is ridiculous, your go to move is to resort to personal attacks.

>it seems you have formal training in physics but not in statistics

That's the assumptions you've made. That's not the same as that actually being the case, nor is it the same as there being a logical basis to from that conclusion.

>you keep denying elementary statistical principles, so I assume that you don't have that knowledge

The idea that many more occurrences always makes one thing easier to analyze than another, regardless of relative observability, measurability, accuracy of measurements, system complexity, etc. is not an elementary statistical principle. Saying it repeatedly doesn't change the reality.

>you keep failing to see the problem from a broad statistical perspective.

Well your claims aren't limited to a broad statistical prospective though. When you claim that this is "always" the case and you make personal attacks on the knowledge base of anyone that disagrees, then you are pretty clearly taking the stance that it applies in any and all scenarios, including very specific circumstances.

Either you need to be mentally "compromised" to kill another human being or killing another human being compromises your mental health.

[removed]

No wonder bolsanaro wanted to murder them. Surprise surprise he fled the country as soon as it was obvious he couldn't do a successful coup to stay in power. And guess what piece of crap country took that brutal dictator in? Why the same one that helped put him into power, the United States.

[removed]

> I think that this might highlight your problem here. This idea that it "always" comes down to which scenario has more frequent occurrences is exactly the type of dumbed-down, overgeneralized claim you'd find in a basic statistics book

not at all; I'm not recommending a basic book because it will give you the answer you're looking for, but because it's where you need to start

> Seriously, have you ever been involved in a real-world research study where you were going to have to collect a ton of data and then analyze it?

its my job

> Don't know anything about me.

it seems you have formal training in physics but not in statistics

> Insist on repeatedly stressing how incompetent/untrained/unskilled I am, despite knowing nothing about me.

you keep denying elementary statistical principles, so I assume that you don't have that knowledge

you keep failing to see the problem from a broad statistical perspective. That alone is proof of your incompetence, and why I recommended reading a basic book. You don't have the foundation to transfer your knowledge of physical data analysis to medical data analysis

Well I'm not ready to completely discount mental illness, but I am definitely saying that people killing each other is not a new phenomenon and has been going on for at least as long as our species has been writing things down. If it weren't guns, it would be swords. If not swords, sharp rocks. If not rocks, sticks. We will always find a way to kill each other because we have always been killing each other.

"For cognitive activity (writing, reading, playing cards, mahjong, and other games) and social contact (participation in meetings or attending parties, visiting friends or relatives, travelling, and chatting online),..."

So I guess it depends. If you use the chat function I suppose that'd be a yes.

Exactly! Ppl love looking at Germany in WW2 and think “wow that could never be me, I would definitely be one of the good guys fighting the regime” when in fact, unless they are very low on agreeableness and have a huge tendency to challenge authority, traits that are actually super uncommon in humans, they would put their head down and do exactly what they were told to do.

It seemed like you were arguing for the prevalence of mental illness in humans that kill other humans. I was trying to point out that a regular human killing other humans is not as alien as modern society would have u thinking it is. Maybe I have failed to understand ur comment.

I'm confused as to how anything you said disagrees with what I said. I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm saying that murder was not invented in 14th century Western Europe, which is obvious. And the troubles that the USA, in particular, has been facing are new. Therefore, the weapons that have been widely available for 600-700 years are likely not to blame and there is a deeper societal issue at play. I don't know why more and more kids are deciding to just start shooting people, but I do know that it isn't the gun's fault.

Nope. That shows a misunderstanding of history… Humans are fucked up. They will kill others for the smallest of reasons. They will genocide others in the flick of an eye if left to their own devices. A teen would murder you as a rite of passage without even thinking about it if that is what his culture tells him to do. Respect for human lives in the level we have now is definitely a modern accomplishment.

So after a brief period of emerging market growth we’re going back to the dark old days of European dominance? Ugh…I just hope we don’t see Europeans arguing that they’re culturally superior and deserve to survive and lead the world once again.

There are elevated risks of violence associated with some categories of mental illnesses but they can’t be lumped together.

[removed]

“Research has shown that individuals with psychopathic traits are overrepresented among offenders, particularly those who have committed violent or repeat offenses”

It appears they were continuing to test this theory. It looks like 15% showed no signs vs. the majority who did.

This should be unsurprising. After WW2, it was opened up to the academic community to interview the people who ordered the Holocaust, from the leadership down to the death camp soldiers. Most psychologists declined the offer on the grounds that the results wouldn't be interesting. Those that did the interviews found that the mass murderers were almost all normal, well adjusted people responding to social forces beyond their control. People love to delude themselves into thinking broken, bad people do evil things, but in reality everyday people do evil things. Evil isn't a mustache twirling villain, it's banal.

Well obviously that's true because they used people convicted of murder in the US as the sample population. That will skew the numbers because an appreciable portion of those people are probably innocent.

Clearly, they should have looked at the 200-year colonial history to really appreciate this process.

[removed]

Should psychological evaluation determine who is put to death? The ones who aren’t psychopaths are perhaps capable of being rehabilitated. FWIW I personally don’t believe in capital punishment.

Gosh, it's like different people are . . . different . . . .

I’m not deflecting at all.

I’m explaining why I used the term ‘ammosexual’ to describe someone is so unreasonable about the right to bear arms, that they think the leading cause of children’s deaths in America is an acceptable price to pay for the unfettered access to guns…

…on a comment about gun violence in America…

…on a post about the surprising level of heterogeneity in psychopathy of among condemned capital murders.

And I am also pointing out that you’re not nearly outraged over the facts of gun violence as you are outraged over the slang ‘ammosexual’.