Regarding Hate Crimes/ 2022

[H2O Man]

“But there is a critical point about differences between individuals that exerts arguably more influence on worker productivity than any other. The factor is locus of control, a fancy name for how people view their autonomy and agency in the world. People with an internal locus of control believe that they are responsible for (or at least can influence) their own fates and life outcomes. They may or may not feel they are leaders, but they feel that they are essentially in charge of their lives. Those with an external locus of control see themselves as relatively powerless pawns in some game played by others; they believe that other people, environmental forces, the weather, malevolent gods, the alignment of celestial bodies-- basically any and all external events-- exert the most influence on their lives.”
― Daniel J. Levitin, The Organized Mind: Thinking Straight in the Age of Information Overload


Malaise and I were discussing hate crimes yesterday, on an OP/thread about the July 4th mass shooting. "I wonder what goes through their miserable unhappy, hateful minds. They never think about consequences. I don’t get that part," she said. I noted that I would try to use a model that I learned decades ago, one that has been expanded upon since J. B. Rotter introduced it in 1954, as a social learning theory.

Since my OP yesterday included music and a quote by Carlos Santana, I thought it would be proper to begin with the above quote by Dan Levitin, the psychologist and musician. His quote sums up the model of "locus of control" in an accurate, easy to understand manner. Plus, it spares readers from yet another of my long and tedious rants. I will say, however, in this discussion, we are not focused upon "worker productivity," but rather "how people view their autonomy and agency in the world."

Briefly -- if I can control how long and boring this essay will be -- we can likely all identify people we have met who have a confidence in their ability to exert some degree of control over events in their lives by making choices that bring about the best potential results. That's not to suggest that any human being can control all that life brings, or that any healthy person is confident about every situation. For we are all but sad and weakly human as we tread upon this living planet.

Likewise, we have all encountered individuals who self-define as victims of circumstance, and sufferers of other people's focus on meeting the victim's needs. When, for example, one attempts to make a suggestion or give advice, they will surely say, "I tried that. It doesn't work." By no coincidence, these individuals have a high frequency of traits found among the Cluster B personality disorders.

Most of us lean towards an internal locus of control. One can debate the relative influences of nature versus nurture -- the yellow and blue that combine to make green, my supervisor noted years ago in a staff meeting. But, for sake of this conversation, I think it is fair to say that the current environment in the United States makes it more likely that those with Cluster B traits will continue to become increasing unstable.

Now, briefly -- if you can believe that -- those who engage in hate crimes generally have personality disorders, not major mental illnesses. Note that the freak from July 4 had a plan that he worked on for weeks, which included the disguise, and most importantly, an escape plan. Thus, he understood right from wrong. To quote M'Naghten, the freak knew "the nature and quality of the act he was doing."

Rotter's students, having learned that locus of control is not an either/or, but a continuum, expanded the model to include the potential outcomes of various individuals in what are known as typical- and atypical expectancy shifts. Will success or failure at one thing likely be followed by another similar, or dissimilar, outcome with their next effort? That can range from a teenager in school being helped by a teacher or social worker building upon a strength, to the person who says, "I tried that. It didn't work."

Now to those who commit hate crimes. There is, of course, a spectrum, since some Cluster B traits can be found in those who are "successful" in their employment. We won't focus on those here, other than to say today, they appear more likely to call upon the negative impulses of others. Instead, we are focused on those who clutter the margins of society, with an external locus of control.

Now let's look at those who engage in mass shootings. I am listening to a live court hearing for Nikolas Cruz as I write this. Their names change, but they share some common traits. They are unhappy, unpopular, and unsuccessful in social settings. They tend to isolate, have a limited and often unhealthy support system, and access to other disturbed individuals on the internet. Think of the incel fellows, for example.

They hate their lives, and hate themselves. They become hate. They hate everyone else, too, especially those groups of people they hold responsible for their suffering. They express this hatred by, like Cruz, having a diseased interest in researching gas chambers. The latest freak imagined himself the rap star of hatred, and hated others for not recognizing the significance of his message.

Oh, one more common trait: these people have relatively easy access to guns. You know, Amendment 2 rights. Surely the Founding Fathers intended for tem to have high-powered weapons of war.

I hope that this is useful in understanding the nature of the freaks that commit these hate crimes.

[Saoirse9]

1. I once wrote a paper

on external locus of control. Helped me process the grief from my violent alcoholic of an ex-husband.

I hope understanding why these shootings happen might help some process their grief over the senseless death of their loved ones.

[H2O Man]

3. Nice.

Glad you got rid of him.

I think that adding to the general stress in society is that in almost every community, there is one or more young men in the high risk category. The majority of them aren't going to engage in a mass shooting, of course. But some of them are. Schools, mental health professionals, and/or law enforcement cannot predict which ones, though they might be aware of the warning signs. But politicians could take steps to deny access to the weapons of war.

[Saoirse9]

7. They must take those steps

But it seems that we won't be able to do it until next year when the (at least) 2 new senators are sworn in.

[H2O Man]

8. I did a

"Zoom" conference, and then some phone-banking. Also sent e-mails. It was great working with a bunch of young people. Of course, any person under 50 is a kid! (grin) I'd say that most were in their 20's or early 30's. Plus I've been asked to help the campaign of a good candidate in the next district.

[rubbersole]

2. How much is income responsible for a person...

...having internal or external locus of control? Being "upwardly mobile" gives one an extra level of hope. Is having an "unhealthy support system" include struggling financially?
Great and informative post. Thanks H20 Man!

[H2O Man]

4. Great questions.

Gandhi said that poverty is the worst form of violence. Now, of course there are levels of poverty, and what Gandhi witnessed in India was different in many ways than what we see in the US today. But there are also similarities, and poverty -- like other social problems -- can and does have an effect on the chances of a segment of a poor neighborhood/ community developing an external locus of control.

It is true that many people survive things such as the violence of poverty -- including poor schools, high rates of crime and substance abuse. But multi-generational poverty decreases the chances of an individual having an internal locus that gives them confidence or hope for the future.

There was a time when our society took a greater interest in not only addressing poverty, but welcoming the poor into the Democratic Party. It was right around the time one of the Beatles' greatest albums, "Rubber Soul," was released. These days, it seems to be more of a maintainance effort, in large part because republicans have found there is a great deal of money involved in poverty.

[rubbersole]

12. LBJ 's War on Poverty was the last time...

...the real power of the federal government addressed inequality. Probably won't happen again unless money is taken out of politics. It's not happening in my lifetime.
"Rubber Soul" was pivotal in my outlook that's still part of me today. I wore that album out playing it on a mono record player. Nothing was ever going to be better....then "Sgt.. Pepper's" came out and by then I had a stereo record player. We had a little garage band that could play 20 songs, which 15 were Beatles' tunes. All was good. I use the moniker "rubbersole" out of respect for the greatest band in history. An accurate spelling seemed a little pretentious for a fan that took a year to learn how to tune a guitar!
Thank you, H2O Man. I learn a lot on DU.

[H2O Man]

14. LBJ

would rank as high among the greatest presidents, if not for Vietnam. His Great Society had great goals, and was set up to deliver. But, of course, he opted not to run in '68. Under Nixon, those programs were not just attacked, but largely destroyed by republicans' top-heavy bureaucratic approach to everything.

LBJ would have instituted RFK's plan to address poverty in Bedford-Stuyvesant, but for his dislike of Robert. That would have been the best approach to urban poverty ever. Years later, republican Jack Kemp tried proposing a similar model, but his party wasn't supportive. There are things that can be done, that are being ignored.

"Rubber Soul" is as powerful today, music-wise, as the day it was released. But it's impact back then added to its legend. As a collector of Beatle records since they appeared on Ed Sullivan, I was able to get a copy of the English release. But CDs these days have all the songs on it. (I regret to say I didn't get a cover of the infamous baby butcher LP when it was released. Their humor was biting!)

If I get talking about the Beatles, I won't know when to shut up! Recently watched the "Get Back" special with my older daughter. She and the other three all have musical talent. I don't. My history is limited to three experiences: doing a mighty fine imitation of Jim Morrison at his most intoxicated when I was in college (my friends never asked me to join them again!; playing with David Peel & the Lower East Side Gang (they were part of the Plastic Ono Band for a bit); and being mistaken for a musician when a friend & I were looking at instruments at a music store.

[rubbersole]

16. Jim Morrison at his most intoxicated got arrested

For indecent exposure....if memory serves. You scamp!

[H2O Man]

17. I had a bootleg

of the Miami incident years before it was included in the box set of CDs. However, that is at best his second most intoxicated performance, though the most significant.

I have, somewhere around here, a copy of Jimi Hendrix and I think Johnny Winter jamming in a night club. An extremely intoxicated Jim decides to join them on stage. He begins shouting, more than could properly be called singing, before passing out on the stage.

[Sympthsical]

5. I think you've hit upon one of the core problems

One thing to recognize in most adolescents is that what we commonly refer to as "teenage rebellion" is really just the assertion of agency. How much someone some can or does assert their own agency comes down to so many different factors. Social skills and support, economic positioning, understanding of familial relationships, education, inculcation of self-awareness.

The one factor I see crop up again and again in mass violence episodes - not always, but usually - is that last desperate grasp at being able to assert their will. We are, as a culture and a society, taught that we can always assert our own will. Our capitalist system is built upon the illusion and marketing of personal choice. If you want it, you can have it. More than you can have it, you deserve to have it. It is your American birthright to get what you want.

One of my pet theories for why we see this kind of violence in young men is because late adolescence is the point in brain development where understanding the idea and implementing the idea start making the complicated connections between the primal and the idealized intellectual for the first time. "I have been told I can have this, that I will have this. But I am not getting this."

I think most people have had those moments when they were young, when they realized, "The world's a sham. I was always told it works this way, and it doesn't. I was lied to. I am actively being thwarted."

Most people work past this and make adjustments to their approach. Most people have coping skills to various degrees and find ways best suited to their nature/nurture on how they assert themselves moving forward. Others develop, as you highlighted, that Cluster B personality where they functionally surrender their agency.

And then there's people who just don't go past that point. All they are aware of is that their agency has been thwarted. By whom is a question whose answer will be settled upon based on available materials. Maybe the answer will be racial. Maybe religious. Maybe economic. Maybe cosmic. We never know. The problem with the wide availability with extreme ideologies and materials is that it is easier for an increasing amount of people at that crossroads to find the wrong answers to settle upon for what is largely an existential question.

When there is no concern or support for people who break and choose to exercise the most extreme forms of agency, we get what we've been seeing. Easy access to violent means to effect extreme expressions of ends.

It's a much more complicated question than most people allow for. It is certainly not intended for passing social media discussion. People need their answers in neat boxes that are consonant with their worldviews. But human nature is a messy beast and is rarely ever as pat as our politics of the moment require. Perusing social media in the days following a major violent event is just about my least favorite place to be on account of this tendency. I'm not gleaning insight. I'm watching reptilian brains taking over with herd redirections. It's not helpful.

We don't really teach about agency in schools. When we discuss that word, it's usually in the terms of books or television shows. Characters in entertainments, not real people. Not flesh and blood.

As a gay man, I've spent a lot of time watching and thinking about the topics you've touched upon in your OP. There are many different kinds of gay men in this world, but two types of people seem to dominate. There are gay men who assert themselves in whatever it is they choose to do. They succeed or fail, but they don't let the idea of discrimination limit the making of the attempt. Then I have friends who sit around all day, talk about how hard it is to be LGBT, it's all society's fault their lives aren't working out. It's all bigots and haters. Why try, because society won't let them succeed. We're all going to be imminently rounded up into FEMA camps anyway.

Guess who's on Twitter all day.

And that isn't being dismissive to the discrimination faced by the community. It's the reaction to it. It's the surrender and the self-pity. It's the inability to recognize one's own agency, to assert that agency, and recognize that we actually do have choices in how we face the world. When you sit there and let the world happen to you, you're never going to mentally be in a strong or productive place. In some personalities, that helplessness can fester and become hateful. Statistics tells us there are going to be extremes who go further. In all kinds of individuals and in all kinds of ideologies. I think we recognize the type, as it is damn near universal across all spectrums.

There's a kind of learned helplessness in our society we have to come to grips with. When left unaddressed, it can go sideways. And once someone like a mass shooter decides they're not going to be helpless anymore, it's terrible for everyone.

How to start recognizing and grappling with it? I don't know. It's a question above social media's pay grade for certain. But I will say there are many different religious, ideological, and political movements that have a vested interest in maintaining learned helplessness and explaining you have no agency. People with no sense of their agency are far easier to control, convince, or persuade to do what you want them to do.

I've tried, especially over the past ten years, to recognize those impulses in myself, to know when I'm being acted upon and put in a position where it feels like I have no say-so or choice. I'm a fairly shy, introverted type (no, really, it's true). But I can effect being social very, very well. But when it's time to get on the phone with a bank or government agency about whatever, I throw the phone at my partner. That man asserts himself. He's like magic. Any problem over the phone? "Pretend to be me." I get the phone back. "Yes, thank you, Mr. Sympth. We'll be sending you that refund directly to your account."

I want lessons from those people. And we should be teaching those things to our children so that they have the appropriate and mature avenues to assert themselves instead of keeping it all inside until it pops. Because once it's out in the wrong way, it's out. There's no putting it back in.

(Hokay, too much coffee and I'm procrastinating on taking an exam. Whew. Sorry!)

[H2O Man]

6. Wow! I love it!

Thank you so much for this great response! I'm taking a short break from doing a phone bank with the Josh Riley for Congress campaign, and so this response will be a shorter one, with more to follow.

My younger son works with kids in crisis at an area school. One of his co-workers also does part-time at the school the guy that shot people at the store in Buffalo attended, as the districts are next to each other. My impression is that there are "at risk of violence" kids in most districts. And I am not confident that our systems are reaching that many of them.

It would seem to me that "conflict resolution" should be taught in schools, since a growing number of students are not going to learn it at home. Parents can't teach what they don't know. And the closest thing that too many parents -- both fathers and mothers -- know is violence. Physical violence, verbal violence, emotional violence.

I think that every sub-group in society that faces hostility has a span of individual responses, as you have noted. I'll say more later.

Again, thank you!

[malaise]

10. But then why do these mass shootings happen

mostly in the USA? Isn’t the assertion of agency global?

[Sympthsical]

11. I addressed that

"Easy access to violent means to effect extreme expressions of ends"

We have mass shootings because we make it very easy.

[H2O Man]

15. Absolutely!

Another closely related factor may be that social pathologies can increase rapidly under the more widespread decay that the US is undergoing. I think back to something Rubin told me long ago: every organic life form on earth either evolves or decays. This includes not only individuals, but systems such as anthills or bee's nests. Or empires.

This doesn't include a balanced increase across the noard of pathologies. We are witnessing an increase in severely disturbed young men. Then, of course, add the guns. But it appears a matter of time until similar things take place in industrial and/or high tech societies, including in parts of Europe. And this increases the paranoia of the white nationalists, who put out the poison that encourages "lone wolf" assaults on society.

[malaise]

9. Very useful

Thanks

[H2O Man]

18. Thank you!

I've seen reports that while driving about after he left the scene, the freak saw another parade in a different community. He considered doing another mass shooting, but opted not to, because he hadn't had time to plan it. Once again, we see that the M'Naghten rule does not apply to him: he knew right from wrong, and did not want to get caught.

[Solly Mack]

13. Never tedious. Ever.

[H2O Man]

19. Thanks!

I do appreciate that.