a reply to: redhorse
Further, throwing that entire "diagnosis" of borderline personality at the feet of his parents in a frothing internet screed is morally
Huh? Umm, I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. Have you, for a second, asked yourself: how much do I know about human psychological
development? You should ask yourself that question. Or, on the other hand, expose yourself to the literature.
Human personality development follows a law-based system. You seem to be under the impression (in your ignorance) that someone can become as Elliot
Rodgers became in a vacuum.
Here's a list of books that I suggest you pick up off Amazon:
Allan Schore: Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self
D.W Winnicot: Playing and Reality
Peter Fonagy: Affect Regulation, Mentalization and the Development of the Self
Philip Bromberg: The Shadow the Tsunami and the growth of the relational mind
I wonder if that would be fair to say to an engineer or a biologist when they dare to speculate at to the causes of an event. You think it's fair to
call me "angry and crazy"? You don't think maybe, in your ignorance, you are building a sand-castle? That perhaps, if you knew more about the
subject you deign to comment so heavily upon, you would realize how little you knew and change your perspective?
At the very least, you should recognize a) my compassionate focus to pin-point the causes of the matter. Accuracy of perception is everything. Elliot
was a victim, in a sense. His parents, unbeknownst to them, allowed themselves to create a child who committed a horrible atrocity. They too are
victims. Their ignorance of how poorly they raised their son will probably never be reflected upon by them; but the deeds he committed will no doubt
haunt them. And for this, I am very sorry that they have to suffer with this. Most of all, of course, are the innocent bystanders who happened to be
in his way. His innocent roommates. The poor girls sitting outside the sorority house. And the 11 others he injured.
EVERYONE was a victim to one extent or another. And in my life, I've learned that the way to combat this situation is with ACCURACY OF PERCEPTION.
I'm someone whose spent many hours reading many books on this subject. You aren't. You should recognize your own inaccuracy of perception by not
only questioning the validity of my argument (without having any concrete base for doing so) and in particular for calling me angry and crazy for
speculating as to the cause.
Everything in life is a matter of probability. Because I know how people become the way they are, I allow myself to speculate IN ORDER TO CREATE
AWARENESS in other minds as to how things like this happen.
There may be a personality disorder skewing the mix and it may even be BPD, but it would be difficult to be that specific with the information that we
It's not that difficult. Again. Probability. There's a chance I'm wrong, but I believe theres a larger chance that I'm closer to the truth.
Spending so much time spewing hate and bile their direction just tells me that you have a disproportionate emotional aspect distorting your own
Show me where I spent so much time spewing bile and hate in their direction? Maybe it came off as dispassionate. But I don't think anything I've
written would deserve the description of "bile and hate".
And I thank you for not making yourself look anymore foolish by trying to 'diagnose" me.
If I made any mistake, it was perhaps it not writing a disclaimer or putting more emphasis on how the parents too were victims of their own ignorance.
They too had parents. The way they are, just as in the case of Elliot, was dependent upon early-life relationships. I do not hate them, and I do not
think they deserve excoriation. But their INFLUENCE AND ROLE SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED. If, of course, you care to think accurately about things.
There is quite a bit of debate on this actually. The nature vs. nurture argument will likely never be settled in terms of what percentage of what goes
where with whom in many circumstances in psychology.
I'm constantly updating my knowledge on this subject. The consensus is Nature is modified by nurture. Were born with potentialities and those
potentialities are modified by early life experiences. No one thinks in terms of nature vs. nurture, but nature AND nurture.
I'm guessing you would like to stick with the official explanation and say that he was likely Aspergers? Again, I'm not sure how many books you've
actually read on the subject, or how many psychiatrists/psychologists and other professionals you've had debates with on this subject? Fill me up on
what you know. The only thing that could possibly imply "aspergers" is his flat effect. And flat effect is better explained by developmental trauma
and schizoid personality disorder than aspergers. To say this differently, his pathology is likely a consequence more of experience than of genetics.