|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 291
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 12:45 pm: |       |
Hello Again All -
So I happen upon this thread again to find that David has done something that I did NOT anticipate... He's responded to a post I made!!
Yay!! Now we are getting somewhere. Here's the rub: He responded to a post I made to Mephisto (Hi Mephisto, sorry I haven't had a chance to respond you. My sincerest apologies) not him. The thing I find funny is that he responds like my post was written to him. Constantly asking if I have a question. Daring me to write 2 or 3 pages on a plethora of subjects.
David, I attribute your inability to find a question in that post of mine to the simple fact that there were no questions for you. That post wasn't even directed at you!! Those were statements, not questions. The questions that I had for you were asked way back in April. Since I know you read every post here, I know you saw them. You chose not to respond. Hey, your loss. If you want them resubmitted then I will draw your attention to the search button at the top of this page.
Oh, while were on the subject of questions. Let me state that I refuse to help you 'fill' in any of the 'blanks' in your theory. Unless of course you pay me. Your theory, your holes, you plug them. I have no need to write 2 or 3 pages on anything that you might request. My ability to form paragraphs of an arbitrary length still has no dramatic effect on my experience with sociopaths. Despite your best efforts to show that I have no idea what I am talking about, I believe I know great deal more about dealing with sociopaths than you do. You are incorrect in thinking that I have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to your summary or the subject matter therein. It's ok, there are worse things to be.
Speaking of filling holes. Tell me David, will you properly credit all those who have helped you fill your holes when you make it big (i.e. become published or receive some sort of monetary compensation)? As I see it, that's really all this thread has become. Has anyone else noticed that all that seems to have been accomplished here on this thread is David noodling through whatever particular problem his theory has at the moment? Not that there is even anything innately wrong with this approach, providing you let everyone involved know wtf is up.
I believe your real problems are going to begin when a real psychiatrist comes along and reads your summary. Well actually, I've shown your summary to more than one psychiatrist. A resource that I feel you do not have readily available, because if you did I feel your summary and theory would be written in almost the opposite direction. I don't think it will come as a great surprise to many people on this forum to learn that not only did they seem to think that all you had done was read a few books about the subject (as opposed to having any real world knowledge or experience) they also had some very interesting remarks about the author. I used to deal with this all the time in my old profession. We called them "paper MCSE's". Loosely translated, it means that someone has gone to school to get their MSCE (Microsoft Certified Engineer) yet has no real world experience. Drop these guys in a NOC (Network Operations Center) and they don't know their arse from a network port. This ties back into the comment I made about the value of doing something as opposed to reading about it. You can, if you wish, read every available book on the subject of "psychopathy". This however, does not equip you for diagnosing, treating and dealing with one in real life. Certainly you can see why this is. Real world sociopaths are very selfish, greedy and focused.
This alone has severe implications when you apply it to your summary. If JTR was a "psychopath" ANY of the communication, if written by the killer, would have been both clear and concise. Do you know why? Because he would not want to take a chance of his message getting misconstrued. This would take away from his goal (in your case, monetary compensation). What good is a message if the intended party does not understand it? The answer is that it is of little value. Of the sociopaths I have dealt with, neither of them would risk something like this. Not because they would have been afraid of getting caught, but because if their message is lost on the recipient they do not achieve their selfish goal (in your case, getting a reward). Follow me so far?
What follows is my personal opinion on the subject. I could be incorrect. However, I've done my homework and I hope that I am not 
So if JTR was a psychopath like you describe, not only would he have made his presence known (so as to ensure he would be feared, thus a reward would be offered) he would have written missives on a regular basis proclaiming his intentions to 'get medievil' on us. Socipaths think things through, almost to the point of obsessiveness. They do this in an attempt to ensure their goal. Whatever it maybe. Not that this behavior alone is sociopathic, etc. However, it bears repeating: Sociopaths are very selfish and self-centered. Say this out loud a few times: "My will be done!!" This will allow you a little bit of insight into what a sociopath thinks. Often. It's almost a mantra...
At anyrate, the "psychopath" you describe almost at times seems unable to function in society. While there are always exceptions, I believe most sociopaths function really well in society. They are _great_ manipulators. This is why they make great politictians. I believe this is because they develop those people and manipulation skills to attain what they want in life, i.e. tying back to the selfish issue I alluded to a moment ago. Of course, there are those who wish to wax nature vs. nurture when it comes to the skill set they seem to have been innately imbibed with. I am not personally skilled enough myself to determine whether it's nature or nurture. I'm inclined to think that both play a pivotal role, however.
In the end, I could fill up a lot of space on your computer screen in an attempt to show you the folly of you ways. Quoting you, quoting me and then responding in time. Suffice it to say, I am not being paid to show you the folly of your ways and quite frankly, David, you seem like the sort of person who will have to be taught the hard way.
I do have to ask you: Did you really think this through enough to realize that not only might someone read your theory who knows a great deal more about sociopaths than you do, but they themselves might also be a sociopath? What then? At what point to do you finally realize that you are incorrect and come forward? I'd be willing to bet that not only would you do your best to discredit said sociopath, you would never admit defeat. Don't act as if I am attacking you here with this statement (or any others I've made thus far for that matter) I'm not. Promise. Tis just how I feel in having dealt with you on more than one occasion. Bearing in mind that we all get to have an opinion.
And there in lies another little rub. Even when we prove you wrong, you seem unwilling to accept it. This makes civilized conversation and normal methods of communication difficult, to say the least. So I tell you what: You keep on believing that you are right and I'll continuing forward knowing that you are not. In the end, lets agree to disagree and move forward. Shall we?
Otherwise, I fear, we are at an impasse. You will not accept defeat and I will not accept that you are correct in all of your presumptions.
Besides.. your arguments are almost always going to be circular in nature because you can always play the "prove me wrong" card for any given topic. Just as we can play the "prove us wrong" card. I'm certain you can see how this gets nothing accomplished. Lack of evidence means that our odds are not very good for solving this case. Once you fully accept this, I believe that you will be a lot easier to be around. I know I was
So David, Though you say you'll be gone for a few days, I know that you'll read this when you return. I can only hope that you decide to respond to it in an adult manner. There is no need to attack me. I believe our mutual friend heir Mephisto suggest it was best if you attack the criticism and not the critic. I am inclined to agree with him.
Then again, what do I know? I'm just some schmuck with nothing better to do than to hang out and debate with you on a message board
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1878
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 2:01 pm: | |
"unregisteredposter" wrote:
"Is there a possibility that someone can sum up David's theory in a short paragraph or two, because I have tried to read it, and found the writing to be pointlessly wordy and rambling, as if trying to impress by using obscure vocabulary and convoluted phrasing."
I absolutely agree with you, but I am afraid -- looking at its complexity and the long dissertation comments it has launched on this thread -- it is evident that such an effort is both pointless and impossible. If that was how Radka's own "summary" looked like, how could any other manage to summarize it satisfactory?
"Also, a question: are Mephisto and D. Radka actually the same person? i.e. is Mephisto an invented pseudonym used by David to both support his theory, and to try to referee and control the tone of the argument?"
Well, I once had the nerve of suggesting it -- as a pure joke and nothing else (and I wasn't the only one carrying those thoughts).
However, I seriously do not think that is the case.
I can't believe this thread still lives, but have fun, people.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 983
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
Hi all
Well having read or should I say printed off and tried to read this 'epic'.....am at ...... I hate to say it what passes for speechless!...
Mephisto??!! one would have thought the esteemed Mr R could come up with a less shall we say trasparent nom de plume...Mr Cellophane maybe......! I appears to me that if you're going to 'do a ruse' then DO IT!!!! VERY OBVIOUSLY!!!!!!and maybe have a few laughs and cheer people up on the way ....but to put us all throught the printing out........and then the READING of it all....!!!!!!Come on David!!!!! it makes Mr Edwards Black Magic number positively palatable!....NOT TO SAY A TAD...........INTERESTING!!!!
Take all the above postings as good advice David,hate to say it but lighten up and give us all a break and save us a lot of money on printer paper!
Suzi |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 175
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 1:02 am: | |
"Mephisto"-
Since you asked, I had straight As in every class dealing with the topics being discussed here, specifically including Psychological Testing and Counseling, Adlerian Psychotherapy, Abnormal Psych, and others. The first two were graduate level, Abnormal Psych I mention for what should be obvious reasons.
By your own long autobiographical post earlier you have no background whatsoever on the topic other than introductory psych classes. The same goes for David based upon his comments. Yet you both continue to argue that you know more than anyone here and also more than everyone on the American Psychological Association board who created the standard manual used to diagnose mental illness. That's an amazing level of self-delusion there.
And then "Rocky Norder, Space editor" is your attempt to respond to the messages pointing out the numerous mistakes in your earlier posts?
Frankly, the more you two rant and rave the less anyone is going to take you seriously, assuming you even have any credibility left with anyone at this point.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 176
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 1:49 am: | |
And some comments on other posts,
John: Great line from Casablanca. That's my favorite movie.
Unregisteredposter: A quick summary is that David says he solved the case by claiming that a psychopath (but he's not sure who) is responsible, except one who acts psychotic instead of psychopathic, who kills to emulate Mr. Hyde / to get a brother in law kicked out of the house instead of just having the balls to do the kicking himself / to try to cause religious tension / to get a reward that's hasn't been offered for catching himself -- and specifically makes sure witness see him in the act because this ridiculously stupid strategy somehow advances this bizarre plot -- and then cuts "tailor's marks" that aren't really actual tailor's marks on the face of Eddowes so a witness who may never be near the body could understand the hidden message and chalks a reference to a 1960s German Christian organization on a wall so the 1888 Jews would understand some other message, and then sets up a teapot that doesn't whistle so it would whistle on a roaring fire to attract attention to the next murder scene, and then somehow gets caught, but escapes punishment, and someone else gets locked up for it because the witness who says he ddn't see anything saw everything but names the wrong person anyway and everyone decides it'd be better that way -- or mainly so David can ride the coattails of a much better theory but still claim to break new ground. Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, and David says he's a genius and everyone else would be worshipping his brilliance if they weren't blind and stupid, that's pretty much his main argument in favor of it.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 417
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Dan,
I think you've missed a most important point that just might not make the summary look so weak. Remember, the witness who was unlikely to see the body with the intended, but not actual, tailoring marks was himself a butcher! I'm sure that must somehow clarify how he would understand the marks to be tailoring marks, and what said tailoring marks would mean. At the same time he would not realise the marks weren't really tailoring marks (which a real tailor would recognise) because he's a butcher. In fact, being unlikely to actually see the body would mean the intended reciever of the message is less likely to notice how "un-tailor like" these marks were and how they looked more like "random slashes" with a few "careful cuts" thrown in for good measure (see that: good measure, came very naturally because JtR's message has somehow gotten into my subconcious and is making even me think of tailors!)
Hmmm, then again, maybe things aren't really getting any better and I just need some coffee! ha!
All kidding aside, I think you've summarised both the sumary and the concerns quite well. Once one removes David's idiosyncratic way of presenting the information in his summary, it becomes obvious that much re-thinking is required. The story makes for interesting fiction, but such links rarely exist in three dimentions, no matter how convincing they appear when projected in two.
- Jeff |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 8:34 pm: | |
Part 1
Hi RJ,
Please accept my apologies, you are not among R.'s incompetent critics. My first few messages under this nom de plume were meant as calling cards. I was wondering who would be able to recognize me from my "New York, jab to ribs" literary style. :-) For the record, your narrative is distinguished by its clarity, focus, and insight. And you don't cut any corners either; you support your arguments well. I respect you for these attributes, but more so for your honesty, intelligence and good humor. I'm truly sorry if I gave you reason to believe otherwise.
Regarding my replies, I don't believe I've ever responded coyly to any of your questions. What I try to do is explain my interpretation of the subject matter in a clear, and forthright manner. I've never avoided answering what you've asked me, nor have my responses been evasive. Actually, I always assume that if I miss a question, or that I don't respond as fully as you'd like, that you'll ask for more details. I think my post of Sunday, July 11, 4:07 pm is a good example of my attitude.
That post addressed the exchange between Mr. Linford and yourself, which concluded that Levy wasn't reluctant to cooperate with the police investigation, i.e., he wasn't "secretive and evasive" (Palmer: July 9, 12:05 pm), and therefore, his behavior constituted "A serious blow to the [Radka's] theory that he was hiding something" (ibid). You wrote: "to the contrary it was his willingness to freely cooperate with a house-to-house enquiry that allowed them to know about the Duke Street ‘event’ in the first place". Mr. Linford eventually agreed: "Fair enough, RJ. I agree, Levy seems to have helped the enquiry" (Linford: July 10, 12:37 pm).
In my response, I provided four plausible motives, which either independently or in some combined configuration, could drive the model I constructed to demonstrate that Levy was being "secretive and evasive" (Palmer: July 9, 12:05 pm), and therefore, his cooperation was "inevitable, rather than intentional" (Mephisto: July 9, 12:05 pm). I concluded that, "the model tends to support Radka's notion that Levy had something to hide, however, it retains no greater plausibility than your claim that Levy cooperated voluntarily. It's reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Levy's motivation to cooperate with the police investigation remains open to interpretation" (ibid). If you feel that I can be any more open minded or forthright than this, please let me know.
In your post of Thursday, July 15, 3:12 pm, you pointed out that I incorrectly implied that Levy was a first generation immigrant from Eastern Europe. You also pointed out that he was a thoroughly "assimilated" Londoner (Palmer), which is not an unreasonable term for a first or second generation descendant of immigrants. My reasoning, however, remains sound.
Consider the cultural implications, is it reasonable for a first or second-generation descendant of Jewish immigrants to be unaware of the reasons his or her family left their homeland? I think he or she would also be aware of the history of the persecution that his or her family and his or her ethnic group in general, suffered in Eastern Europe, e.g., Czar Nicholas I's institution of the Pale of Settlement in 1835 (see the dissertation by Robert House), or for that matter in Western Europe, e.g., the notorious Dryfus Affair in France c 1897-98, which resulted from a insidious undercurrent of anti-Semitism that pervaded the upper ranks of the French Army.
In your post of July 15, 3:12 pm, you asked me to cite the historical evidence I used to make the claim "that anti-Semitism in the East End was “unrestrained” (Mephisto: July 9, 12:05 pm). To answer your question, I couldn't possibly cite anything more convincing then the evidence you used to support your counter-argument, which claimed anti-Semitism in the East End was not unrestrained. You wrote: "And The Met’s own Ripper files show how the police & government took considerable pains to eleviate the possibility of a pogrom, up to, and including, erasing the Graffiti, and allowing Pizer to clear himself by addressing the coroner’s inquest" (Palmer: 3:12 pm).
Why would the British government, Scotland Yard, and more than likely, the City of London Police department, trouble themselves to lessen the risk of a "pogrom" if there wasn't any sign of unrestrained anti-Semitism in the East End of London (Palmer: 3:12 pm)? Why would they allow "Pizer to clear himself by addressing the coroner’s inquest" (ibid), if they didn't feel that the East End was an anti-Semitic time-bomb waiting to explode into violence if Pizer, wasn't cleared of murdering Polly Nicholls and Annie Chapman (Harris 1994: 7-14)? And why would Scotland Yard commissioner, Sir Charles Warren order the Goulston St. graffito "rubbed out" (Harris :14)? I'm sure it wasn't because he was annoyed by the author's bad grammar. In his 1994 book, The True Face of Jack the Ripper, Melvin Harris suggests that Sir Charles acted because "Anti-Jewish feelings at the time ran high. As early as 15 September the East London Observer had reported a potential riot against the Jews" (Harris: p14). Look at it this way...would your local fire company park their equipment in front of your house and start hosing it down if it wasn't burning?
In your 7/15, 3:12 pm post, you claim that I gave "an alternative interpretation to the 'data'", and that I did so "without adding any new empircal supporting evidence" (Palmer: 3:12 pm). I felt that I didn't need to introduce new empirical evidence in the hypothetical model I constructed, because I wasn't challenging the accuracy of the historical record or "data" as you called it. I was challenging your conclusion that Levy's behavior was not "secretive and evasive", and that he willingly and freely cooperated with the house-to-house police investigation (Palmer: July 9, 12:05 pm). I based my argument on the exchange of ideas between you and Mr. Linford, which began with Mr. Linford's post of Saturday, July 10, 7:42 am, and ended with his post that afternoon, at 12:37 pm.
After I read the exchange, I asked myself…what circumstances could account for Levy appearing candid and willing on the surface, as you were claiming, while in his mind, he was holding back, or not fully disclosing certain information, as Radka suggested? I got some ideas, and built a model around a scenario and four alternative motives that could plausibly explain why Levy only appeared willing to cooperate with police, but had actually held back vital information. I believe the model successfully demonstrates the possibility that Levy's state of mind, and so his cooperation, is not as clear-cut as you claim.
The model is an example of inductive argument, i.e., I made an observation based on your statement that Levy "freely cooperat[ed] with a house-to-house enquiry" (Palmer: July 9, 12:05 pm), and then formed an alternative hypothesis. The scenario, and the motives in the model, are not absolute certainties, rather, they argue that there exists some range of probability that Levy was being "secretive and evasive" (ibid), as opposed to your claim that he wasn't.
You attempt to dismiss the entire model by disputing one of the four motives I proposed, with the brief observation, "Skeptical of police? Maybe so" (Palmer: July 15, 3:12 pm). In motive 3, I claim that Levy "doesn't trust the police or the criminal justice system. He recalls that government agencies were involved in persecuting Jews in his former homeland. When he considers his experiences with the unrestrained anti-Semitism that exists in London's East End, he finds no reason to believe that he will be treated any better by British government agencies, than he was by those in Eastern Europe" (Mephisto: July 11, 4:07 pm).
To be fair, I recognize that you supported your claim with a reasonable argument, based on information from the forthcoming article by Mr. Jonathan Edelstein, however, as I have pointed out, you also contradicted your implied argument that Levy had absolutely no reason to believe that anti-Semitism would motivate a police frame up, or that the British criminal justice system would treat a Jew any better then the criminal justice systems in Eastern Europe.
To demonstrate why the model succeeds as an inductive hypothesis, let's assume that you've proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that motive 3 is unlikely. That leaves me with 3 motives you have not challenged, which means that there is a 75% chance that the model is 100% plausible, i.e., that it adequately explains why Levy's behavior can reasonably be interpreted as "secretive and evasive" (Palmer: July 9).
I'll stop here, and continue this discussion in Part 2
Sincerely,
Mephisto
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 5:44 pm: | |
Part 2
Here's some food for thought RJ.
You used the same analytic process as Radka (here after R.) to formulate your July 15, 3:12 pm response to my hypothetical model (see Mephisto: July 11, 4:07 pm), i.e., You read through the scenario, but when you came to motive 3, you stopped and asked yourself, "but how do we know this?" (Palmer: July 15, 2004).
It is evident that you researched my proposal; "I’ve recently been in brief contact with a Mr. Jonathan Edelstein who has completed considerable pioneering work on Jewish Constables in London, and intends to write a scholarly article on the subject" (ibid); you acquired some insight, "he has unearthed the fact that there were Jewish policemen in Aldgate (which is where Levy lived) as far back as the 1740s. Indeed, the Jews were specifically put in Aldgate since it had a large Jewish population and they could gain the confidence of that community" (ibid), then penned a reasonable null hypothesis, "…The Met’s own Ripper files show how the police & government took considerable pains to eleviate the possibility of a pogrom, up to, and including, erasing the Graffiti, and allowing Pizer to clear himself by addressing the coroner’s inquest. Could Levy have been scared? Of course. Was he lying? There's no empircal support for this contention" (ibid). R. followed the same pattern when he began researching his thesis, he read the historical record, and asked himself, why, e.g., Why would the murderer write graffito? Why would that graffito be so weird, and convoluted? Apparently, he does his homework too.
R.'s summary lists a few of the sources he used to reason with the historical record. As I mentioned in a previous post, Cleckley, Hare, and Lykken supply only a fraction of the citations we'll find in the thesis (Radka: April, 2004). These three books are where you'll find the empirical support you've been looking for. The raw data they contain are the independent variables that, according to R., caused the events in the historical record.
You asked…How does he "allow" the evidence to speak for itself ((Palmer: July 15, 2004, 3:12 pm). In a general sense, he does this by using the information from his primary sources to build hypotheical models that show the correlations between the independent variables and the relevant dependent variables at each high point along the historical time-line. This has also allowed him to distinguish the flotsam and jetsam that loitered around the periphery of the historical record, from the real evidence and the actual events. Next, R. took his most viable models, and developed inductive arguments to explain why psychopathy caused the historical events associated with the Whitechapel Murders to occur. His primary source material supplies the empirical evidence that connects these arguments together in a continuous theory. This procedure is comparable to you contacting Mr. Edelstein, and then using the information you received from him as your primary source material. Your narratives, i.e., yours and R.'s, explain motive as a necessary condition of cause and effect without manipulation or embellishment, which allows the evidence to speak for itself.
I recalled that some time ago, R. told us that he coalesced his ideas using Hegelian Dialectical Reasoning, i.e., thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, to build a procedural framework. He claimed that this framework permitted him to systematically analyze the dependent variables, a.k.a., the historical record. It looks to me like he used used his sources' quantitative data, which they compiled from their research projects, to reason with the events in the historical record and form a tentative thesis.
He often mentioned that he used his primary source material to construct a series of null propositions to verify his hypotheses; these in effect correspond to Hegel's notion of antithesis. He claims that he tested all the possibilities he could think of, eliminating anything that didn't show a relationship with his source's empirical data, when he was finished, he had a compendium of proofs that he could analyze. He then synthesized this portfolio into a qualitative description, and combined the empirical evidence from the many sources he used, into a single concept he called the Epistemological Center, i.e., the causal element that links together the related dependent variables.
From my reading of his summary, I've gathered that R.'s arguments deal with inductive probabilities, rather than the absolute certainty of deductive reasoning. You may have noticed that R. freely admits that some of the premises in his models are open to interpretation. He says he's confident that the force of reason will always lead the questioner to place a higher premium on his (Radka's) conclusion. Why is R. so confident? Because he knows that he synthesized the quantitative data from his primary source material into a tight series of highly probable inductive arguments. Is this analysis accurate? Let's find out. The basic method I use to evaluate the success of an inductive argument is the same as the one I used to defend my Levy model's success. I proposed four premises, hypothetically, if you're only able to successfully challenge one, then there's a 75% probability that my model is 100% accurate, in contrast to your 1 in 4 chance that it isn't; R. structured the content of his arguments to succeed in exactly the same way.
The truth-value of an inductive argument is not susceptible to sweeping generalizations. Mr. Norder's attempt to do just that is a good example of why that trick doesn't work. Norder wanted to negate the underlying principle of R.'s theory as a whole, so he attacked the main idea, i.e., psychopathy. He failed because his criteria were too vast, unreliable, and open to interpretation to sustain his argument; he needed to be a lot more focused. If he truly wanted to put forward a realistic challenge to R.'s theory, then he would have to argue each premise individually, and try to reduce its truth-value to less then 50%. If you can't reach that goal with the majority of your arguments, it's a push; you're not going to discredit anything. This is the main reason why I continue to argue for an analysis of each of the arguments in the summary individually, starting with #2. It's the only way we'll ever get a true understanding of the value of R.'s theory.
It is also important to bear in mind that R. constructs his arguments' to explain why the events in the historical record went down the way they did, and not to describe how they went down, which is crucial when one wishes to challenge his concepts. How relevant is it to your argument to ask R. how the murderer killed his victims, when he's trying to tell you why he killed them?
And finally, in your post of July 15, 1:35 pm you asked me to explain: "What...[Radka] meant by 'logical satisfaction' or what the exact relationship is between this mental state of 'satisfaction' and reality" (Palmer: 1:35 pm). I believe it means that R. is confident that his arguments satisfy the necessary conditions of logic, thus, there is a high degree of probability that his arguments are a realistic explanation of why the Whitechapel Murders happened the way they did.
In sum, the underlying principle of R.'s summary is relativistic, i.e., he explains why the pertinent events and conditions of the historical record are connected to each other. The empirical evidence that support his theory, are the quantitative and explanatory data he derived from his primary source material. R. describes this information as, what is known about the evidence from the historical record, which he calls his "epistemological center" (Radka: April, 2004). He uses his primary source data to reason with the events and conditions in the historical record. He generates a series of related arguments that explain why the murderer acted the way he did. His arguments are inductive in nature, i.e., he explains them as probabilities. His summary contextualizes the Whitechapel murderer's mental frame of reference, in a qualitative account of the historical record.
Once again RJ, it is a pleasure exchanging ideas with you.
Sincerely,
Mephisto
Note: Unfortunately, other then Mr. Linford's contribution, these exchanges haven't had the benefit of other reader's insights. Personally, I hope Mr. Souden decides to comment on this post. I'm also very interested in learning what Mr. Raney, Ms. Severn and Ms. Hillard's thoughts are regarding these topics.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
>>Whereas Mr. Palmer introduces a new term with this post, I think a definition is in order. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines “solipsism” as follows:
Solipsism, n. [from L. solus, alone, and ipse, self; and –ism.] in philosophy, (a) the theory that the self can be aware of nothing but its own experiences and states; (b) the theory that nothing exists or is real but the self.—David<<
Mr. Palmer wrote:
1. "As a Sophist..." Come, come; it's getting a bit stale. As a Solipsist it's fairly clear that you haven't answerd my objection; viz. the necessity of Empiricism. (As a philosopher, it's also a bit embarrassing for you to resort to ridiculous & inaccurate deflections rather than respond to a well-stated critique).
>>This should not have been written of me. I have not made “ridiculous and inaccurate deflections rather than respond to a well-stated critique” on this thread. Look at the time and effort I have made in responding thoughtfully to scores of posts. I write here about as much myself as everyone else combined. I don’t have to do that. I am still not finished proceeding chronologically through the archives to respond to each and every even partly serious post made about my theory. I have responded forthrightly and honestly to every post made in sequence. Give us some specific examples of the “ridiculous and inaccurate deflections” I’ve made, if you can. And as far as your “necessity of empiricism” goes, every single empirical solution offered by others in 116 years has either been proven incorrect or remains unproven, for a zero batting average. When will you empiricists quite waiting for Godot, for your pie to fall down to you out of your blueberry sky?
2. “The funny thing is that I actually believe that it is you who open yourself up to the accusation of relativity and solipsism with this gibberish about 'logical satifaction.'”
>>In other words, you mean you can’t understand how anyone would simply want to tell the truth, instead of scheming behind the scenes to take the most currently publicly unassailable positions on everything, in order to cultivate the utility of his public image as a “teller of the truth.” Spoken under your breath like a true sophist, Mr. Palmer. Let me tell you something truly. My theory on the case is completely open to logical question, and this is its strength, not a weakness. My theory is philosophical, not sophistical, as you would prefer. My theory lives in a danger zone of not being entirely resolved in all respects, it retains its dynamism and suppleness over a great length of time; it is not like the fixed, black and white, and memorizable formulae of sophistry. Whether or not Socrates knows anything is left up to question in the dialogues isn’t it? In Plato you get epistemological theorems of sorts here and there, but you get them under dramatic and ironic conditions that can’t be entirely finalized or specified. Maybe the birdcage example in the “Theaetetus” is what Socrates really thinks, maybe it isn’t; maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t, or maybe only under certain circumstances. And you’ll find the same conditions in my Thesis, my friend. Epistemology in philosophy is always questionable, and even when present even is evanescent. You are not going to get a settled, separable epistemology apart from the content of my theory from me; whether there is knowledge in it is going to be left up to the reader in his own philosophical meditation. Neither should my Thesis necessarily break down into any one particular epistemological theory—I can offer a number of possibilities and let the reader decide which one, or which combination of what elements of each, may be apposite, if at all. I off my reader a question: “DO we have enough to believe we know the solution to the case?” After all, isn’t knowledge merely what we little life forms crawling about on the surface of this planet invent for ourselves once in awhile? Don’t we periodically need to ask ourselves if we really have knowledge or not? All of your alleged discoveries of “weaknesses” or “circularity” in my work are merely your own stubbornness and unimaginativeness coming home to roost on you, Mr. Palmer, and you deserve them.
3. “Let me understand you. Tell me (this is a serious question) how might you determine that your 'logical satisfaction' isn't merely in your own head, as per Mr. Longman's {Stewart P Evans} suggestion? Or are you, in fact, endorsing a type of solipsism?”
>>Mr. Evans suggested I was a subjectivist, not a solipsist. The reason I’m called a subjectivist is because I’m the first person to make the logical connections among the various elements of the case evidence enabling the solution to be reached, and hence the inaccurate thought that there is something of “me personally” about the solution. And no, I am not endorsing solipsism either. Several elements of my theory come from outside it, and can be adequately verified irrespective of how I deal with them. The center of psychopathy and the empirical evidence are not simply elements of David Radka’s self. They come from outside me and are critically and historically appraisable as such. How the two are put the two together is a logical matter that can be apprised by anyone with a logical mind. The resulting theory can be judged on its own merit. I work with nothing but the known objective evidence of the case, and don’t introduce anything empirical from “my own world” in order to reach a solution, such as D’Onston’s blood-encrusted ties. Logical satisfaction need not refer to subjectivism or relativism; if done in a critically appraisable fashion, acceptance of it can be required on the part of reasonable people. Many of your own school lessons were taught to you in this way.
4. “If you aren't, then you still haven't made a coherent answer to the circularity that I've revealed in your method. If a man hits a golf ball and a tree falls over in the next fairway, it's not intellectually "superior" to see a connection between the two events.”
>>We’re not talking about only one pairing of events when we’re talking about my theory; we’re talking about a large number of such pairings or logical oppositions, not to mention their chronology. How many golf balls do you have to hit before you realize that the tree falling down in the next fairway does indeed connect to your hitting the ball, despite that you can’t intuitively imagine what that connection might be? If you hit ten golf balls and each and every time a tree in the next fairway immediately fell, and no tree fell when you didn’t hit a ball, then wouldn’t you have to accept that something was going on?
4. “Your method has an inescapable bias. One might argue that the 'connecting tissue' between Stride, Eddowes, the Lusk Kidney, etc., might merely be the workings of the London Press or the general hysteria in the East End in response to the murders or a false emphasis they have in secondary sources.”
>>Did the London press suggest the murderer might be after the reward money? Did it suggest that the markings on Catherine Eddowes’ face might be a communication to one of the witnesses that had just walked by? How about the fact that Israel Schwartz did not report seeing the tipsy young man crossing Commercial Road? I could give several more examples of the “connecting tissue” that are unique to my theory. What other connecting tissue THAT SOLVES THE CASE do you have in mind, Mr. Palmer?
5. “The Lusk kidney could be D'Onston getting in on the act with an anatomical specimen copped from the London Hosipital.”
>>Think about what you are saying here. You’ve got no evidence whatever that D’Onston did this. If D’Onston wasn’t the murderer (i.e., if he had to steal a kidney as you say because he didn’t have Eddowes’) then there is no logical or evidentiary way to connect him to the kidney that Lusk received. On the other hand I’ve got the kidney connected to the complex plan to get the reward money, and to the evidence in several other ways.
6. “I am not saying you need to agree with this. It's certainly "o.k." for you to theorize along different lines; heck, I can even appreciate your wishing to throw in everything including the smoke from Kelly's chiminey. What I am arguing it that it's not o.k. for you to claim your theory is somehow mystically transformed into reality by some ill defined term such as "logical satisfaction" at the "holism". Define your terms. What do you mean by "logical satisfaction"? (Throwing around loaded words like "chaos" and "shards" doesn't answer the objection). (I'd like to hear Mephisto's thoughts on this one).”
>>Logical satisfaction applies to a set of critically appraisable logical arguments that a reasonable person would be compelled to accept. Examples: Kant’s transcendental deduction, Hegel’s science of logic.
7. But I don't wish to flog a dead horse. I've stated my objection, and I'll accept your next response as your final statement on the matter. RP
Philosophy has meditations, not final statements. Sophistry has final statements, THAT’S WHY IT ISN’T KNOWLEDGE. Grow up for the first time in your life, and learn how to find satisfaction in a line of thought like a man.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 2:11 am: | |
Uh.....Rocky,
Go back and read my long autobiography. I think you missed a few things.
Credibility is the last thing you should stand on dude. I will bring the reasons for my caution to your attention shortly.
And by the way, you didn't respond to my question: What does Dr. Hare's PCL have to say about psychopathy and cultural diversity?
Here's another question for you: How does Dr. Hare's insight re: cultural diversity deal with the topics addressed here? Now run along and ask the folks at APA to answer the question for you.
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 474
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 2:16 pm: | |
Hi Rosey,
You ask me, "what's the point?"
Somewhere up above, I've just read David Radka telling us, "Epistemology in philosophy is always questionable, and even when present even is evanescent."
The point is, this is just silly stuff.
Thanks for asking,
--John
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 991
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
Hi all
Epistemology!!!!!!Thats the one!!!!! I do hope that the esteemed Mr Radka would be flattered that I have printed out and taken the tome to bed to read.. three nights on the trot.God what a waste of reading time.....sorry David....it may help if it were actually READABLE
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 992
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 3:08 pm: | |
Hi
EPISTEMOLOGY---the theory of knowledge
Sorry David.....an Oxymoron I feel
suzi
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 180
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 9:25 pm: | |
"Mephisto,"
Funny how you insist on trying to get my goat by calling me "Rocky" when your friend David just recently wrote: "The whole scheme of misspelling a proper name to create animus seems puerile and childish, the kind of thing that happens on playgrounds, and thus well might have occurred to a puerile person like a psychopath."
If you want to try to respond to my earlier posts disputing your claims that the leaders of the American Psychological Association don't know what they are doing, please do. If you'd like to try to prove why you think you know more about psychopaths than me or the APA or Dr. Hare's explicit statements on the topic, please do. If you'd like to try to give any reason at all why David's ridiculous, self-contadictory theory should be taken seriously, please do. But I won't be drawn into pointless arguments on unrelated topics just because you of all people claim I have no credibility.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 999
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 4:14 pm: | |
Dan!
Just re read through all this.
It seems to me that we are dealing with quite a few issues here.......as you say 'Ridiculous,Self-Contradictory' seems the Best 'critique' yet. However,as we know the boards are place for all to have their say however contentious that may be...not saying I agree with the 'Alternative Ripperology ' thing here by a Long Chalk tho!!!!!! Please dont get hurt about this stuff tho because I hope the boards are older and wiser and wont let things(!) like this upset people!! surely this isnt what the boards are all about!
In hope
Suzi
Suzi |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 2:05 am: | |
Dear Rocky,
I'm not trying to nic your goat, but it does appear that dealing with you, is just about as rewarding as communicating with a mule, i.e., you both have a fondness for intractable open mindedness.
So, Rocky isn't to your liking, eh. Well, I'll just have to go back to calling you Mr. Bullschist artist. Hey, don't blame me; I tried.
Speaking of humor, I think it's laughable how you can characterize Radka as an arrogant, wrong-headed nitwit out of one side of your mouth, but you don't hesitate to quote him from the other side of your mouth when it suits your purpose. Can you spell ethics Mr. Bullschist artist?
Like your stubborn, long-eared mascot, you're set in you ways, and just as predictable, i.e., you love compounding your errors. On Sunday, July 25, at 9:25 pm, you wrote: " If you want to try to respond to my earlier posts disputing your claims that the leaders of the American Psychological Association don't know what they are doing, please do" (Norder: 2004).
To begin with, there is no written proof that you've actually disputed my claims, or anyone else's for that matter. So far, all of your posts on this thread, describe you as a troubled soul who has desperately tried, but failed to reason with clearly presented arguments, and has no other recourse but to respond to his own distorted statements. Perhaps you could make it a little easier for those folks who aren't as familiar with your claptrap as I am, and quote the passages where you became confused regarding the target of my criticism, e.g., in one post, I was critical of your disingenuous attempt to pass off an unreliable manual as a universal opus of undeniable truths. I never mention, or refer to the expanse of the APA membership's collective knowledge or to Dr. Hare. I do, however, argue that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. And the way you try to align yourself with the APA and Dr. Hare is inappropriate, and truly bizarre coming from a man with a bachelor's degree in basket weaving.
In that same unfortunate post you scribbled: "If you'd like to try to prove why you think you know more about psychopaths than me or the APA or Dr. Hare's explicit statements on the topic, please do" (ibid). Mr. Bullschist artist, Dame Edna knows more about psychopaths then you do. Why? Because the depth of your knowledge is purely superficial. Your unwillingness to discuss the specific areas of Dr. Hare's theory that correspond to: a) The Whitechapel Murders; b) Radka's summary, and c) The issues that Dr. Hare has himself identified as congruent with the internal validity of the PCL-R, and its utility as a diagnostic tool in the way you wish to apply it, clearly demonstrates that your inability to recognize these simple themes as appropriate topics for debate, is driven by your shallow understanding of the structure of the PCL-R. I seriously doubt that you have ever read Dr. Hare's book, Without Conscience. Hare, R. D. (1993). (New York: Pocket Books.), or troubled yourself to read any of his related journal articles. Just for the record, unlike yourself, I don't subscribe to pretense, or to hiding behind deceptive smoke screens. I recognize that the collective knowledge of the APA membership, far exceeds my own. And I acknowledge the fact that Dr. Hare is an eminently qualified and accomplished scholar.....and you're not. Furthermore, I recognize that David Radka has a greater understanding of human nature, and a broader knowledge of psychopaths in a single hair on his ass, than you have in your entire booty my brother.
You continually bellyache that you "won't be drawn into pointless arguments on unrelated topics" (Norder: July 25, 9:25 pm). I think that all the fair and open minded people who read this thread would agree that a diagnostic instrument that is poorly understood is poorly applied, regardless of whether or not it is well conceived, or widely used. I have, with my first post under this nom de plume, argued that Radka's summary had not been properly analyzed, because the criteria was not understood, and therefore, wrongly used. And among those critics, you are the least knowledgeable; the least prepared, and the most vocal advocate in favor of condemning what you don't comprehend. Maybe other readers here are interested in finding the truth, and are willing to discuss these issues in an intelligent manner, but you have made it abundantly clear that despite your protests to the contrary, you're not interested in debating the issues.
By the way, I've already explained the reasons why I think Radka's summary has merit. You gotta to stop playing with your goat dude, and start paying more attention to the other kids in class; you never know, you might learn something about all those topics that are currently beyond your grasp.
Your friend,
Mephisto
(Whisper: I wonder whom Mr. Bullschist artist will try to attribute these observations to in his next post. Odds are 5 to 1 it's Dr. Hare).
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Mr. Palmer wrote: “Most of the people posting here have no idea, I think, what sophistry is, and what an extreme sort of guy you are for advocating it, Mr. Palmer. It is essentially anti-civilzation, anti-truth, anti-science, anti-everything.” --David Radka, April 2, 2004.
And perhaps a few here might not have heard much about Solipsism. While Mr. Radka is certainly within his rights to endorse it, one might point out just what an extreme philosophy it can be. The true Solipist believes that there is no objective reality outside his own mind, or, at least not one that he can 'know.' In the extreme form, he might even believe that only he exists, refusing to accept the reality of walls, chairs, stones, etc... (Usually this sort of philosopher can only be found in Colney Hatch). A careful reading of Radka’s theory reveals that he doesn't believe any historical 'solution' is dependent on Empirical "evidence"---indeed, he holds such notions in contempt. It is revealing that Radka argues that a "solution" to the case is determined by obtaining a certain mental state, ie., what he calls "logical satisfaction."
>>I am not a solipsist, as I’ve pointed out in a recent previous post. Make no mistake, the A?R theory absolutely and totally depends on the empirical case evidence. It is a way of organizing the case evidence according to a logical, critically estimable paradigm (psychopathy) instead of having no particular organization for the evidence or an adventitious one as in every previous purported “solution” to date; it is not a way of doing an end run around the empirical case evidence as Mr. Palmer implies. It is true that the solution to the case is in your own mind; but by that we mean when you have critically organized the empirical case evidence, not when you have attained a state of nirvana, riptah-ziptah, or any other trance opaque to reason. There is a sense of contempt in my philosophy concerning the case, but it is of a different order than Mr. Palmer suggests. It is contempt for those efforts in solving the case which advance pseudo-empirical manipulations of the evidence for critically inestimable, self-serving purposes, such as discussing how Mabel and Vittoria fantasized over D’Onston’s alleged blood-encrusted ties, or how George Hutchinson really would have to have walked past his lodgings because the house had an admissions curfew.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 4:19 pm: | |
Mr. Radka wrote: Wait a minute, here. Mr. Palmer is exaggerating. I am not going around solving the case 100 times all differently, as if I were some kind of demented metaphysician working out how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. What I said was the solution of the case is determined by the center chosen. If you went down the line choosing 100 different centers you might get 100 different solutions of the case evidence. I didn’t say all of those solutions would be satisfying, or exhaust the case evidence, or control subjectivity adequately. Only the one that solves the case would do that, I think.“
Mr Palmer wrote:
1. “Commentary. “An infinity of solutions?” I can only gather that Radka and I have radically different notions of what constitutes a meaningful case “solution.” Evidently Radka believes ‘truth’ is primarily a subjective mental state; thus, three or four different people could come up with different solutions, and all be ‘truth’ because they all excite this same sense of ‘satisfaction.’”
>>No, no, God no. Logical satisfaction has compulsory characteristics for reasonable people like academicians, scientists, philosophers, and such. That is what I am talking about here. I wish I could give you my class notes from my several Hegel courses. He was the quintessentially logical person himself, and being satisfied with respect to knowing was his sine a qua non. If you tried 100 centers you’d get possibly 100 solutions, but likely all would be horse spit but one, and that assuming your center was right.
2. “He seems to consistently describe ‘truth’ or ‘the solution’ in terms of achieving some sort of mental arousal. An eccentric and lonely sort of definition. I reckon we’ve come to the fork in the road, mate, as I still hold that it’s nonsensical to describe a ‘solution’ to a criminal case in terms that are not recognizably in a legal context. At a fundamental level, I accuse Radka of degrading the meaning of evidence. I don't buy the argument that 116 years makes a difference. In my Harry Truman world, the barmaid from Missouri still needs to be shown the smoking gun, whether Radka wishes to give her the time of day or not.”
>>This is not a criminal case. It is no more a criminal case than it is an afternoon of water skiing at the lake with the family and potato salad. The idea that it is a criminal case is a fixed stare burned into the brain cells of Ripperologists. It was a criminal case for the people of 1888, but it is for us a pile of papers describing some apparently related events. What we need do is organize the pile using hermeneutic to find the message of relation among those events, not follow jurisprudence. Perhaps if we didn’t use the term “evidence” so much you wouldn’t be fooled into thinking you were in court. What would be a better word? Information? Documentation? Records? Maybe we need to stop using the word “case” as well. Let’s challenge anyone reading this to give us a studied paragraph demonstrating that the Whitechapel murders should be treated as a criminal case today. That would be fun.
3. “Of course Radka denies this, and states he's not trying to "hang anyone." Am I unduly harsh? Maybe, but recall that Mr. Radka was the same fellow who foamed at the mouth when Patty Cornwell "solved" the case; stating, if I remember right, that she was "empowering" her feminist self by deliberately and knowingly accusing an innocent man. If we hold others to standards, we must hold ourselves to them. It's a form of intellectual cowardice to do otherwise; Radka is accusing Lubnowski of a grave charge.”
>>If Cornwell’s theory on Sickert were damning, more power to her, that was my point! Cornwell exhibits anti-male prejudice of many kinds throughout her book, and only one example is her accusing Sickert on nonsensical deductions. You are taking what I said about her totally out of context—you are NOT “remembering right.”
4. “I expect him to do better, as he doesn't even have the beginnings of a circumstantial case against the man. He needs not change his methodology--that's his business-- but softening his rhetoric now and then might help his cause.”
>>When you say you want me to “soften my rhetoric” you want me to say one thing and one thing only—that I haven’t solved the case. That has been the masturbatory fantasy of countless wannabe posters, from “Juwes” to the tailoring symbols, to psychopathy, to the epistemological center, to here. No deal.
5. “P.S. Here’s the citation you asked about: {Mr. Radka wrote:}
"3. “Inferences are shaky, because even if the evidence from the other cases is shown to be entirely accurate, it does not necessarily follow that the JtR case must be anything like them at all. Inferences should be viewed as "hypotheses", or guesses, that still need verification.” -June 19th, 8:20 P.M.
>>Inferences may be used to define oppositions, which would then define further oppositions in the tripartite Hegelian sense. Following the evidence, I define a series of such oppositions in the Thesis. This ultimately justifies my epistemological center by the completeness of my analyses of the case evidence. “Verification” takes place only at the end of the evidence, not opposition by opposition. Hegel only knew he was right when he was done. Two-sidedness is the foundation principle of the universe, you know.' --June 19th, 8:20 P.M.”
{Mr. Palmer writes:} PPS. It's interesting to note how much lying Radka reads into the 'case evidence.' To accept A?R one has to accept that the historical records is teeming with lies. Levy was lying to the Inquest. The Jewish witness (evidently Levy again) was lying to Anderson. Anderson was lying to his subordinates. Sims' and Macnaghten's description of the Jewish suspects are further falsehoods that can be traced to the lies of the psychopath. The Colney Hatch admissions papers are more lies by Kosminski's family. All these lies are discernable by the Great Truth of Cleckley, when any dumb sod who's every spent an afternoon in a Psychology Department at a major University knows that no two Shrinks can agree on anything let alone a diagnosis. Take care and best wishes.”
>>Obviously marred by exaggerations with respect to my various positions. But the point is clear: Once Levy started lying and covering up in Duke Street he and others had to keep lying in order to maintain the deception. That is the way lying has worked from time immemorial, hasn’t it?
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Hi all,
Good grief why all this background babble from Dan and Mephisto on DSM. Is it really relevant.
Dan took a few courses with straight A's and believes DSM is a better diagnostic tool than Cleckley, and Mephisto asked some practitioners what they thought of DSM and they said it was crap (not that they commented on Hare or Cleckley so it's irrelevant what they think of DSM in those circumstances as the others may be thought of as crappier).
Dan keeps referring to other previously stated questions and seems vague (sorry Dan) and you keep just asking for a 2-3 page summary (I somehow get the impression that for you the quantity of argument is more important than the quality but sometimes less is more).
As the author of the theory/summary David, does your theory stand or fall on DSM Vs Cleckley? I do you the respect that you actually have read DSM and so know and analysed it's contents.
If the theory fails what are the points in which DSM would flaw the theory, and no you don't have to write 2-3 pages to answer this as you acknowledge there are "shades" of psychopathy and I expect neither Cleckley nor DSM say a psychopath has to be "pure" and not suffering from other mental disorders - I'm not sure whether DSM or a reading of Cleckley have a checklist which says you must have all these attributes to be a card carrying psychopath (and that may mean DSM validates the theory as much as Hare/Cleckley does).
What _me_ check it out myself? I'm assuming you've done the reading and can adequately summarise it David and I'm happy to follow on your coat tails on this; or do you just enjoy toying with Dan and he with you?
Same goes to you Dan, how does DSM disqualify the theory - lack of emotion? is it a must in DSM and can it acknowledge a difference between surface emotion and deep emotions? Could it be another mental disorder being combined with psycopathy.
Is it a knockout blow if we had to rely just on DSM in your opinion.
Me, I happily accept he is a nutter - the precise type of nutter he is I'm open to persuassion.
Cheerio,
ian
PS Errr... when I'm happy to say he's a nutter I mean of course JtR not Dan, David, or Mephistio (thought I'd just clarify ;--)
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Mr. Palmer wrote:
“The house to house search on Sunday produced Levy, who told the police he had seen a couple near Church Passage. Further, he directed them to his companion, Joseph Lawende, who would not have been in the immediate vicinity that day. If Fido is right-- and I think he is--then we can make a reasonable conclusion. Joseph Hyam Levy was not only not being secretive and evasive with the police, but, to the contrary it was his willingness to freely cooperate with a house-to-house enquiry that allowed them to know about the Duke Street ‘event’ in the first place. A serious blow to the theory that he was hiding something.”
>>This is no blow whatever to my theory; in fact it rather confirms it. Please think about the position in which Levy finds himself Sunday morning. He wakes up to news that Jack the Ripper committed two murders of prostitutes the previous night, one in Mitre Square just after he and his companions passed by at 1:00 AM. Immediately Levy reckons that the man he recognized in Duke Street standing with a prostitute was likely to have been JtR. This is crushing, because he knows that if he provides truthful information to the police he and his family may be blamed by the Jewish community for his being unnecessarily indiscrete and thus exposing it to the possibility of a pogrom. Levy knows that his presence at the time in Duke Street is not something he can hide; because Harris and Lawende were with him, they will certainly be in contact with the police themselves, and they will certainly tell the police that Levy was present. Therefore Levy knows he will certainly be interrogated by the police and will have to testify at the inquest. Therefore all he can do to avoid catastrophe is lie about what he saw when the time comes at various points. He knows that if he attempts in any way to avoid the police, such as by denying or soft peddling the matter of his presence in Duke Street or by ducking the interrogation, it will immediately be revealed that he might have something to hide. Thus he knows he must present the image of a normally concerned, typically cooperative witness, and this is what he does to the best of his ability. His evasiveness shown toward the reporter later is another matter. In this case, Levy is being asked questions by someone he feels he doesn’t necessarily have to talk with, thus he promptly clams up; but in so doing he inadvertently makes an appearance of having something to hide. And if you consider the whole of the evidence in review, Levy repeatedly reveals himself as a tightly wound character under pressure. First in Duke Street he inadvertently blurts out to Harris that he doesn’t like the looks of the couple when they are in fact doing nothing unusual. Then as we have seen he imprudently reacts testily to the reporter’s questions when he ought to speak evenly with him, simply giving the same baloney story he has been to the police. Then he inadvertently gets himself hung up on the Coroner’s questions, and has to double-clutch to extricate himself from saying too much and giving away the farm. Then when he is presented with Aaron Kosminski at Hove, he inadvertently blurts out his identification, but all that does is put him in the extremely dangerous position of having to disavow testimony in order to stave off the very consequence he has been trying so hard all along to avoid, the possible censure of the Jewish community. This is the pattern of an ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances, doing his utmost to hold himself together and just get through it.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 4:26 pm: | |
Quick look-in post, out of order:
Typographical error in my 1:56 PM post above: What I typed was: "Epistemology in philosophy is always questionable, and even when present even is evanescent."
What I should have typed is: "Epistemology in philosophy is always questionable, and even when present may be evanescent."
David
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:06 am: | |
Mr. Palmer wrote:
1.“I don’t think I very much care for this new watered-down version of Radka.
R.P.: “He is, in fact, stating that the theoretical is argued so brilliantly that it creates it's own critical mass and becomes true without empirical support.”
>>I have no such position. I’ve stated MANY times on this thread that my account of the case depends on and is justified by the empirical case evidence. Like Mr. Norder and Mr. Omlor, you use dishonesty in misrepresenting my positions here..”
Hmm. Let me revisit an old conversation:
"And you never did answer whether there is any proof either that Levy was related to Aaron, or that Levy was Anderson's witness. One of these must be proven to proceed."--Submitted by Ally.
>>In two simple words: Proof, schmoof. If you go about trying to solve the Whitechapel murders by looking for empirical data to back up every single point you make, you will wind up in the same place a great many otherwise rational people wound up: Believing your own BS----David Radka, April 30th, 2:54 PM.
[Editor’s note: And if you DON’T look for empirical data to back up your points you’re even MORE LIKELY TO BELIEVE a bunch of B.S. And that, I reckon, is the bottom line...]”
>>Mr. Palmer, you sat so long in the mud you got yourself stuck deep in a rut when it dried up. As Mephisto and I have been trying to explain to you, what A?R is designed to do is develop a means to overcome the problem of there not being enough empirical data to solve the case based on empirical data alone. Because we can no longer interact with the case as we can concerning more recent criminal matters, we have no prospect of getting any more empirical data. Therefore we simply can’t proceed to explain who did the crimes along the tired old lines of how he did it, where he lived, where his bolt hole was, what kind of knife he used, whether or not he was medically trained, what so-and-so may have said about him, what Abberline thought, how the pattern of his murders apparently forms a star on the map, or any other of the myriad sundry and often trivial empirical categories of thought attempted over the years. The whole empirical paradigm—not the empirical case evidence, mind you—has been exhausted. We need a new paradigm. This is my primary thought and contribution to the case.
Mephisto explains it better than I do. As he says after much experimentation, I hit upon the idea of changing the kind of questions to be asked about the case evidence. The change was from the empirical “how” to the rational “why.” I GAVE UP trying to explain the case evidence in terms of whom, how or what happened, and tried alternatively to explain why it happened, in terms of ideas. I gave up only on empiricism, not on the case evidence itself! Likely neither you nor I nor Ally will ever have any empirical proof that Levy knew Aaron or that Levy was Anderson’s witness, and this is my very point. It is not a faux pas on my part, something I’ve skipped over as Ally asserts, and it is instead my very purpose in writing. BECAUSE WE CAN’T prove these things, we shouldn’t wait around for another hundred years hoping for a miraculous revelation from some steamer trunk to prove them, or worse yet pride ourselves on declaring the case empirically unsolvable and call it a day. Different paradigms have different intellectual properties, and one may not have the same limitations as another. I determined that it may be possible to think entirely through the whole case evidence in terms of why it happened, despite that to do so in terms of how it happened is impossible. Thinking through the whole is what we’re after; it is mastery, it enables the agreement of subject and object on the greatest scale, and if our theory explains the entire case evidence satisfactorily it would put us in a position of knowing.
2. “But to continue... Ally repeats the question.
Mr. Radka: >>These oppositions are logical, not empirical in nature. “ etc. etc.
Now: consider the following, from A?R. Item #1:
"We become able to determine what elements are related, and what unrelated, by their logical relation to the center. The case reaches solution as predication of all the evidence under psychopathy attains an adequate, critically appraisable holism. "
But the "evidence" hasn't been comprised of empirically verified data--it is only referenced back on itself---'the idea.' Levy isn't shown to have any relationship to Lubnowski---no, nothing so bland; rather, the smoke in Mary Kelly's chimney and the Lusk letter suggests this fact. [Holism=Solution]
>>I don’t use anything but empirically verified data, Mr. Palmer. I use the empirical evidence straight out of the MEPO’s and other original documents, as it has been evaluated for inherent truthfulness over and over in the secondary sources. No one has ever respected the data of this case as genuinely as I have. This is because I add no empirical information to it, and I explain logically the whole of it in an internally consistent and plausible manner. I understand why Ripperologists don’t feel queasy when they read purported solutions that blatantly add empirical factors. It is because they’ve brainwashed themselves to believe there can’t be too much empirical data as long as there’s no solution, so the more the merrier. What they don’t suspect is that the solution to the case is unity.
2. “So, dreary me, my objection remains. Radka can water it down now, if he wishes. But he’s stated clearly many times that he doesn’t concern himself with backing up his claims with “Empirical data.””
>>I have not been watering anything down. You, along with a number of other people, made fundamental misinterpretations of my work to start, and now when I explain myself to you further you misperceive me as altering my position. I don’t back up all my claims with empirical data it is true, but these are not in the category of empirical claims.
3. “It only ‘ham-strings him.” Fine, if he wishes to play that parlour game. But his solution as clearly stated in A?R Part #1 is determined when these loose free-flowing hamstringy theories reach a satisfying whole.”
>>I wouldn’t call them that. I develop them directly out of the case evidence and chronology. They accumulate and crescendo—each is based on the sum of the previous. We’re not talking mere guesswork here.
4.“And that's why I talk about alchemy and razzle-dazzle and critical mass and good ol' English Law. If by "critical appraisable" Mr. Radka means anything other showing that Levy was Anderson’s witness, then I simple don't buy his arguments: I'll merely condemn him to that special circle in Limbo reserved for unabashed Theorists.”
>>I am not an unabashed theorist. I am a rationalist/idealist who, concerning the Whitechapel murders, works with empirical material. I’ve innovated logical means to deal with that.
5. “But most of my criticism was stated before I realized Radka was a Solipsist. We really no longer have any common ground to discuss matters, as I don't even really exist independent from Radka's mind. He does seem to be now admitting that he has, afterall, only a unified theory, and it needs some empircal data to back up some of it’s wilder claims. So there it is. Hey, I have no problem with that and we can call it a wrap. Good-night. RP”
>>I have a unified theory OF THE WHOLE EMPIRICAL CASE EVIDENCE, and the empirical case evidence exists independently of my mind, and the basis of the theory is an epistemological center that exists independently of my mind, and the combining of the empirical evidence and the center is critically appraisable independently of my mind.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
I don't think David even meant it ironically...
5. “The Lusk kidney could be D'Onston getting in on the act with an anatomical specimen copped from the London Hosipital.”
>>Think about what you are saying here. You’ve got no evidence whatever that D’Onston did this. If D’Onston wasn’t the murderer (i.e., if he had to steal a kidney as you say because he didn’t have Eddowes’) then there is no logical or evidentiary way to connect him to the kidney that Lusk received. On the other hand I’ve got the kidney connected to the complex plan to get the reward money, and to the evidence in several other ways.<<
I talk about tautology and you talk about a closed system feeding off itself and David replies as above.
Is he joshing with us?
He starts with the case evidence which obviously for him includes JtR himself sending the Lusk letter, builds a logical argument (several actually) to test against the case evidence and one works best.
Because he now has a logical argument to explain the Lusk letter was from JtR, it must now be empirical case evidence not a fraud or medical student prank.
How can you have the temerity to suggest the Lusk letter wasn't from JtR? He has a theory which explains it all.
Methinks he either is joshing or he's up so close and personal he has lost the ability to stand back and see what he's built.
The logic is only good it seems when it's all encomapssing - and as Mephisto would say, it does fit all the historic evidence so it must be good.
Its quantity that counts not quality - even where the case evidence is weak (Tabram) throw it in and if the logical argument can cover it then it's a good argument which then proves the evidence you started with beyond a shadow of doubt (Note: I suspect David has no doubt Tabram is considered empirical case evidence and beyond doubt)
I understand there has to be some playing with the evidence and scientific method should encourage one to build an argument as such.
In the real world we can often test/retest a theory, but when a case is 115+ years old, the evidence you start with is in dispute, the theory has no predictive power and no empirical testing method, it all comes down to a logical game and advances ripperology in no definable way I can see.
Apart from an academic viewpoint I can't see when one achieves logical satisfaction from building a castle upon (possible) quick sand.
Even if you have to have a chronology of sub plots and motivation (to remove Aaron, front Leather Apron, claim the reward) as long as they can be encompassed by an umbrella of psycopathy the three fragmented motivations become united in a great scheme.
The Dear Boss letter... well perhpas there were actually four sub plots and motivations. Throw as much "evidence" as you like (even remove evidence - tailoring marks) and it all still stands as 100% consistent as far as I can tell.
David and Mephisto talk about some "empirical" case evidence as if we really know which parts are true and which are false (in the sense they may point to another killer of Tabram, Stride or Kelly).
David builds a logical argument which covers everything including the kitchen sink (or whistling teapot) to him it's a game I think.
Cute... Amazing... but cute.
Cheerio,
ian
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
Dear Rocky,
The item you over-looked in my autobiography is pertinent to any discussion you and I have, which is why you should go back and read through it, thoroughly this time, so that you understand the source of my credibility.
Regarding the two questions that I asked you:
1--What does Dr. Hare's PCL have to say about psychopathy and cultural diversity?
2--How does Dr. Hare's insight re: cultural diversity deal with the topics being addressed here?
If you had as much education and experience in the field of psychopathy as you allege, then you would have realized that both questions are relevant to this discussion.
Dr. Hare places a high degree of importance on cultural diversity re: psychopathy. Your lack of familiarity with the connection between the two concepts, means that you don't fully understand the utility of Dr. Hare's PCL-R. Therefore, you don't have enough knowledge of psychopathy to make your opinions meaningful, i.e, you're full of hot air.
Dude, let me know when you reach Oz, I'll hook you up with the Tin man, maybe he can help you acquire the necessary insight.
Your friend
Mephisto
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 182
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:57 pm: | |
"Hemustadoneit"-
Those who haven't followed the thread probably do wonder where some of the topics came from. You specifically ask if the DSM is relevant. Let's go back to the beginning.
David claims to have solved the case. He says it was simple once he decided that Jack was a psychopath and based everything else on that point. OK so far, lots of serial killers are psychopaths.
But then his theory has his killer doing very un-psychopathic things, like purposefully hanging around waiting for a witness to show up before attacking Stride and deciding that some random guy out of three walking behind him when his back was turned must have seen him so he decides to carve tailor's symbols on the victim's face, except, oops, he doesn't know tailor's symbols so just fakes them trusting that this other person will somehow see the body and read this secret personal just invented on the spur of the moment code and then not turn him in. I mean, really, this theory isn't talking about a psychopath here but a delusional imbecile or something, because none of the theory makes any sense.
So a number of people tell him that his "psychopath" doesn't sound like a psychopath, including people who teach psychology, took classes, etc. He insults them. Most of them chalk him up as a kook and don't bother posting anymore. I'd rather not have anyone wander through and take his rantings at face value, so I decide to more specifically point out where he's wrong.
A good example comes up when David tells someone else that they don't know what they are talking about because psychopaths are incapable of being angry. Hello, what? Some psychopaths have some shallow emotions, mostly related to the fact that they have no empathy with anyone else so are selfish and generally uncaring, but that's not at all the same as saying that they are incapable of being angry. In fact, explosive anger is one of the defining characteristics of a psychopath.
David says no it isn't, you don't know what you are talking about. I say, uh, I kind of specifically took high level classes on this topic, but if you'd even taken an introductory course you should have known this. David calls me a liar.
So then I say, OK, well, here's the American Psychological Association's diagnostic criteria as printed in the DSM, which specifically says they are violently angry, and Dr. Hare's checklist for psychopathy says the same thing.
So right there we have someone with far more education on the topic pointing out to David that something he said is *completely opposite* of what the professional references (including someone who he claimed earlier was someone he read) say, in no uncertain terms. Proof positive, end of story, David can't be taken seriously.
But then "Mephisto" jumps in and says the DSM isn't taken seriously by professionals. Huh? The standard professional reference for diagnosing mental illness supposedly isn't taken seriously by professionals? That's kind of like saying that chemists don't follow the information about elements as listed on the Periodic Table. It's absurd. It's on the level of the people who say the moon landing was faked. It's so obviously off the deep end that it boggles the mind.
So David decides to jump in and say the same thing. He says the DSM isn't real knowledge by clinical psychologists about disorders they treat. At this point it's pretty clear that they either have no clue whatsoever or know they are wrong but are just saying whatever weird things they can think of to try to cover up their mistakes. Then they both say we should ignore the DSM and go with what Dr. Hare says.
So I point out, OK you two are nuts on the DSM thing, but you kind of missed the point that Dr. Hare ALSO says that psychopaths are very angry people and uses that point as a defining characteristic in deciding if someone is psychopathic or not.
And then pretty much everything they've said after that has gotten more and more desperate and absurd. David says Dr. Hare doesn't agree with the DSM... except he conveniently ignores that even for their disagreements on some points they both agree that psychopaths are violently angry people. Mephisto asks me if I passed my classes (uh, yeah, with flying colors). David starts quoting Cleckley on shallow emotions and avoids anything specifically talking about anger. Mephisto pops back and says I don't know what I'm talking about and claims that his sociology classes trump my classes in abnormal psych, counseling and psychological testing. Mesphisto tries to prove he's smarter by asking me about what Dr. Hare says about cultural diversity, of all things. I say, uh, hello, get back to what he says about the thing we were talking about. Mephisto, proving that it's possible for him to sink even lower into the sewer, responds with juvenile insults, poorly masked profanities and direct references to the hair on David's butt...
All this to avoid talking about the fact that the entire foundation of David's theory -- that Jack the Ripper was a psychopath -- is pointless because David's idea of what that word means changes to try to support any bizarre thing he comes up with, even if it's the exact opposite of what a psychopath is really like.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 433
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:05 am: | |
Hemustadoneit--Thanks for the message. Unfortunately, I think you're probably right on both accounts-- "no" Mr. R didn't mean it ironically, but "yes", he's joshing us.
"In the real world we can often test/retest a theory, but when a case is 115+ years old, the evidence you start with is in dispute, the theory has no predictive power and no empirical testing method, it all comes down to a logical game and advances ripperology in no definable way I can see."
Absolutely.
Yet note that Mr. R still states time again that his system is open to critical and historical assessment: viz. "the center of psychopathy and the empirical evidence are not simply elements of David Radka’s self. They come from outside me and are critically and historically appraisable as such." (D.R. July 23)
To my mind, this is the weakest point in his theory. So much of the "evidence" is not historically appraisable; we have no way whatsoever to assess it's value, except to revert back to Mr. R's tautology. Ex: that Levy knew Lubnowski. However "logical", however "whole", however "internally consistant", however "brilliant", Mr. Radka's arguments are, to me they remain strangely isolated from the events of 1888-1891. Even if one were to entirely agree with Mephisto's assessment of Radka, Mephisto's arguments really can tell us nothing about A?R's actual relationship to "what really happened in 1888."
One cannot hope to disprove that Levy or Anderson lied, or that the Colney Hatch admission records weren't falsified, just as one can't disprove that the Devil didn't put the fossils in the stones. He could have, I reckon, but I rather think he didn't.
Finally, it's useful to look up the entry on "psychopathy" in the Oxford Book of the Mind. Clearly, there is no professional agreement on what a psychopath is. The Cleckley Umbrella, as you call it, might indeed cover Mr. R's "case evidence." But then, one might well argue that it would cover anything that Mr. R would decide to pick & choose from the historical record. (A certain Mr. Richard Wallace anticipated the diagnosis, by the way, and used Cleckley's Mask of Sanity in his study of Lewis Carroll as psychopath). As far as I can fathom, Levy's prominent role in A?R has nothing whatsoever to do with Cleckley allowing Mr. R "to know what to look for in the case evidence." Rather, Levy's appearance has everything to do with the fact that a Joseph Levy appeared on the naturalization papers of Martin Kosminski in the 1870s.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 434
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:32 am: | |
Mephisto--Hello. This sub-plot has really nothing to do with the validity of Radka’s methods, but, since you asked, let me tackle it.
You asked me the following:
“Why would the British government, Scotland Yard, and more than likely, the City of London Police department, trouble themselves to lessen the risk of a "pogrom" if there wasn't any sign of unrestrained anti-Semitism in the East End of London ? * * * You [Mr. Palmer] also contradicted your implied argument that Levy had absolutely no reason to believe that anti-Semitism would motivate a police frame up...” --Mephisto.
No, I didn’t contradict myself; it’s only that you’ve moved the goal posts. Your original statement was about Levy’s suspicion of the POLICE; how did I contradict myself? You’re now generalizing the argument to merely state that he has fear of anti-semitism in the East End.
Your original suggestion:
“3--He doesn't trust the police or the criminal justice system. He recalls that government agencies were involved in persecuting Jews in his former homeland. When he considers his experiences with the unrestrained anti-semitism that exists in London's East End, he finds no reason to believe that he will be treated any better by British government agencies , than he was by those in Eastern Europe.” (my emphasis)
So I’m certainly not disputing that there is (somewhat) of a burning house. I’m disputing that the firetruck out front wouldn’t try to put it out, and that Levy wouldn’t have confidence in the firemen. That’s why I brought up Warren, Dew, and the Jewish Constables in the East End. I am hardly denying that there was anti-semitism in Spitalfields. I am suggesting that there is reasonable doubt that Levy, the assimulated Jew, would have perceived that this anti-semitism extended to those in authority, that he could not (or would not) have trusted the police, or that he would have perceived the situation so helpless that he resorted to not only lying, but also framing an innocent man. (Not the least of which is the allegation that he comes back to the police 18 months later!) Warren wiping out the graffiti & Baxter giving Pizer his day at inquest is certainly an indication of the tensions in the East End; it is by no stretch of the imagination an argument that the authorities in London “would treat him no better”, as you put it.
Your other three hypothesis I ignored, because I felt they were irrelevant:
“1--He's indifferent, he doesn't want to get involved.
2--He's afraid he'll be framed for a crime he didn't commit (See A.P. Wolf's, Jack the Myth).
4--He's involved in an illegal activity, and wants to avoid prolonged contact with the police.
How could any of these be a probable explanation for *the fact* that Levy volunteered evidence during the house to house search? His cooperation & his volunteering of Lawende would have resulted in more police contact, not less. My point was that he did “get involved” at a time when the matter could have been avoided altogether if he had merely shrugged his shoulders and said nothing. There is no compelling evidence that allows me to conclude that he was lying. Radka’s suggestion remains merely a vague “possibility” that I have no way of assessing.
And this is merely one-side of the coin. Even if you convince me that Mr. Radka’s explanation for Levy’s behavior is more probable than mine, I might still deny that Levy is “part of the case evidence” to begin with. Cleckley didn't lead us to Levy, Radka's reading of Uncensored Facts did. In short, you can only argue that Radka's theory is consistant with his original hypothesis, not that it relates to the actual events of 1888-1891.
By the way, you haven’t yet tackled my post-script. Why, in situ was Levy being evasive with his companions in Duke Street? As I noted, Radka has him being evasive with Harris & Lawende before a crime was even committed.
RP |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1206
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
Dan,
Thanks for that, I was laughing by the end. I know what you mean though, I gave up ages ago trying to get David to stick to what we were talking about. He insulted me too (and I am taking psychology classes too) so I gave up but I came back to see what was going on here still, just curious I suppose. You don't think that David and "Mephisto" are one and the same now do you?? LOL
David,
Not that I think you'll respond to this anyway as it goes against what you believe but, I happen to know someone who was clinically psychopathic and I can tell you now that one of the telling traits was that she was excessively angry. She attacked her parents for the smallest things because they made her angry, she tried to attack her brother for turning off the heating when she was cold (I mean bashing in his bedroom door to get to him, whilst yelling "I'm gonna kill you") and she yells at her mother nearly everyday over such trival things (like breathing too loud - I'm serious).
So don't even try to tell me that psychopaths are not angry.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1913
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 1:36 pm: | |
This is getting ridiculous.
Firstly:
Dan, great post and a fair (and rather entertaining) summary of the "controversy" that's been raving on these past weeks -- I quite enjoyed it and I agree with all of it.
Secondly:
I don't have a degree in psychology and have not taking any class whatsoever on the subject. I have only a personal interest in criminal psychology (yes, I know... I must get a life...)and am plainly an amateur.
However, one does not need to be a scholar in order to put a stake through the heart of Radka's theory and his definitions of psychopathy, as well as through the wall of confused remarks by "Mephisto".
First of all we must acknowledge the fact that although experts on the subject have different opinions regarding certain details concerning this very difficult "disorder", most of them agree on several major characteristics of psychopaths: shallowness, lack of empathy, manipulative and charming traits, mood swings with often sudden outbursts of rage, selfishness, a controlling conduct etc. Anybody knows this. So, Mephisto and his buddy Radka clearly thinks this is rubbish and says that Dan and others are wrong. Fine. It doesen't help Radka's suspect character one bit.
I have no trouble at all going along with Dan's arguments here and I think he delivers his points very well indeed.
We can of course -- as Mephisto and Radka chooses to do -- ignore the American Psychological Association's own professional diagnostic criterias in the DSM as well as Dr. Hare's checklist of psychopathy. But on what grounds? Because of Cleckley? Because of Radka the Accountant?
Let's all be frank here.
Let's ask ourselves the question why Radka has chosen to refer and cling to Cleckley especially and then chooses to discount criterias based on other, rather distinguished sources, like the APA.
Answer: because it fits his theory! This is what it is all about; namely pick-and-choose reasoning to fit "facts" into theory. Anybody can do that. Furthermore, when that is done, the door opens immediately to arguments about minimalistic details in order to win retorichal points, with dissertation posts even longer and complicated than Radka's own "summary" (which in itself is an achievement) -- which is how and why this extraordinary thread -- like the ones dealing with Maybrick -- has managed to live on way past its exporation date.
The fact is, we can't, 115 years in retrospect, even know for certain that Jack the Ripper was a hard core psychopath to begin with -- there are other disorders to choose from. But even if he was, Radka's character suspect goes down the drain on several points. He just does not fit the bill. I have said it before and I'll say it again; Radka's "psychopath" is a mish-mash of all thinkable retarded and violent traits in this particular context, otherwise this "psychopath" wouldn't fit the puzzle of events, criminal conduct and constructed "motives" that Radka suggests.
Radka has stated that we must throw empirical and classic investigation methods out the window to solve a case that is over hundred years old. OK. So what else does he suggest instead? Fabrications and home-grown psychological "solutions", based on the "crime scene evidence". I don't think so.
Radka has clearly shown that his new "ground-breaking" methods are useless, since they allow us to claim practically everything we like, as long as we have a vivid imagination and are prepared to bend facts, witness statements and crime scene evidence beyond the boundaries of reality, as well as pick and choose among the sources in order to make it all fit. Not to mention writing in such a complex style, hoping that the reader will be confused enough so that the holes in the theory become invisible to the naked eye.Or maybe it's unintentional (but I wonder what's worse).
I am sorry, Radka et. al., but I prefer to stick to my old-fashioned detective methods and empirical data, and to the case evidence at hand, rather than enter the world of speculations and psychological generalizations.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 29, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 9:27 pm: | |
Dear Ian,
I believe we must wait awhile to review David Radka's finished thesis before any further progress, in this matter, is possible.
Since Mr Radka's thesis is a demonstration of the Hegelian dialectical method, or, as he puts it, a rationalist and idealist exposition vis., the events in Whitechapel, 1888, we must then await the opposite and opposing materialist dialectic to kick in.
Still a long way to go folks!
On the question of this DSM thing...some of my psychopathic acquaintances do exhibit behaviour not unlike the angry/violent trait, unlike me... mine is a controlled ice-cold rage masked by a stony-faced countenance(very difficult to diagnose at the best of times :-)
Rosey, (Putting the ontic back into ology.)
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 10:46 pm: | |
Hello Ian,
On July 27, at 10:57 pm, Norder wrote: "I'd rather not have anyone wander through and take his [Radka's] rantings at face value, so I decide to more specifically point out where he's wrong" (Norder: 2004).
Ian, ask yourself these questions: What arguments has Norder actually been able to prove on this thread? Have his arguments been as specific as he claims? Does he support his arguments with evidence? Are his arguments trustworthy?
Norder wrote: " Some psychopaths have some shallow emotions, mostly related to the fact that they have no empathy with anyone else so are selfish and generally uncaring, but that's not at all the same as saying that they are incapable of being angry. In fact, explosive anger is one of the defining characteristics of a psychopath" (ibid). Does Norder support this argument with any evidence?
Ian, in the context of your value system, do a couple of courses in psychology give someone enough background and credibility to make claims without citing his or her sources? Does Norder cite the year, author and pages of peer reviewed books, or the year, author, volume number, and pages of the peer reviewed journals that support his arguments? When he makes claims without citing his sources, not only does he deny you the opportunity to check his claims for accuracy, he also prevents you from gaining the knowledge to draw your own conclusions.
Ian, aren't Norder's unsubstantiated claims the same kind of hearsay, and speculation that he's accusing Radka of perpetrating? Certeris paribus, does Norder have a degree in anything at all? Does he work in the field of psychology? Has he ever worked in the profession? Ask yourself if you're willing to lend your support to a man who thinks one or two courses in psychology allows him to make unsubstantiated claims?
Norder wrote: "In fact, explosive anger is one of the defining characteristics of a psychopath" (Norder: July 27, at 10:57 pm). I ask... Norder, where's your proof? How do we know this is accurate? How do we know you didn't make this up just to break Radka's bells? In the real world, explosive anger is not a defining characteristic of a psychopath (ibid). Why? Because psychopathy is not as cut and dried as Norder needs us to believe.
In August 1994, Christopher J. Patrick, Bruce N. Cuthbert, and Peter J. Lang, all from the Department of Clinical Health Psychology at the University of Florida, published an article in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology entitled: Emotion In The Criminal Psychopath: Fear Image Processing (Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1994, Vol. 103: No. 3, 523-534). Patrick, et. al. set up an experiment to test their hypothesis, i.e., the response that normally accompanies imagery during emotional stimulations, is deficient in psychopaths. The test used a two group, pre-test, post-test comparative research design to determine the reactions of "low-and high-psychopathy groups" to stimuli (ibid). This point is significant, because it destroys Norder's claim that Radka's conceptualization of psychopathy lies wholly outside the broad range of symptoms of the disorder, i.e., "explosive anger is one of the defining characteristics of a psychopath", when in fact it is only characteristic of some psychopaths (Norder: July 27, 10:57 pm). This glaring error supports my argument that Norder's claims are without foundation, and therefore, his understanding of the subject is no better than Radka's. Ask yourself, what has Norder actually proved so far?
His arguments are vague generalizations that crumble under scrutiny. Let's take a closer look at his claim that the DSM-IV manual is a reliable diagnostic tool for determining the accuracy of Radka's description of psychopathy. Norder wrote: "These days there are two checklists for determining psychopathology, the DSM IV Antisocial Personality Disorder diagnostic criteria and Dr. Hare's PCL-R (psychopath checklist-revised). Neither one includes this irrationality and delusional thinking you [Radka] keep bringing up. These two references are used by the professionals in this field" (Norder: May 13, 9:24 am). If you [Radka] make a claim about psychopaths that is not supported in these two references, then your claim is wrong" (Norder May 15, 2:36pm). I ask you, are these arguments specific? Does he support these arguments with evidence? Are these arguments trustworthy?
To begin with, Norder claims that the DSM IV manual is used by "professionals in this field" as a reliable diagnostic tool (ibid). In my June 24, 10:23 am, post I argued that the DSM IV is considered an unreliable diagnostic tool by a wide majority of the professionals in the field, and I cited three reputable sources to support my argument, e.g., In a 1991 article, published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Dr. Robert C. Carson of Duke University wrote:
As is generally known and conceded, psychiatric diagnosis of the official sort ... had become something of an embarrassment ... because of the routine inability of clinicians to agree on what diagnosis ought to be assigned to a given patient. The DSM-III fixed that problem ... by effectively removing the professional judgments of clinicians from the diagnostic process and substituting sets of (almost) judgment-free decision rules. Looking a bit more critically, however, one sees that the diagnostic reliability ensured in any such venture can be purchased rather cheaply if one is not concerned unduly with the usefulness, predictiveness, or construct validity of the information gained by the newfound assurance. In the progression from DSM—II to DSM—IV, there has been and seemingly remains an unaccountable neglect of specifically directed efforts to establish networks of correlated variables that in the aggregate affirm and support the concept to which any proposed diagnosis must be presumed to refer (Carson 1991: Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol. 100 (3): 302-307)".
My post also contained the views of other scholars: Dr. Jeffrey Poland, Dr. Henry E. Adams, Dr. Richard D. Laws, and Dr. William O'Donohue, which I cited as references at the end of the post. And do you know how Norder chose to debate my arguments, and substantiate his claims? He charged that I overstated the issue, with three modest sources?, come on Norder, who do you think you're kidding? He then insulted the scholars I cited by calling them "a handful of people with inferior credentials ". He made these claims without any quotes or citations; in other words, his declarations are merely his opinions (Norder: June 27, 10:59 pm). He goes on to state a series of convoluted and contradictory generalities that simultaneously confirm and deny the utility of the DSM-IV, and to top it all off, he states that the controversy surrounding the manual is "completely irrelevant to this debate" (ibid). Ian, how pertinent to this debate is the diagnostic instrument that Norder used to support his claims that Radka is wrong? If using the DSM-IV to classify symptoms for psychiatric diagnoses is considered unreliable by professionals, then Norder's use of the same faulty instrument to classify Radka's descriptions of psychopathic symptoms, is equally unreliable. I ask you, can an unreliable comparative device generate reliable information?
I cited my references at the end of that post to give the readers the opportunity to read the articles, determine the accuracy of my quotes, and if they wished, to use the bibliographies in each article to gather their own information so they could judge for themselves the relevance and extent of the controversy surrounding the DSM-IV manual.
In my post of June 24, at 10:23 am, I argued that Norder purposely deceived the Casebook readers, and Ripperology in general, by using a diagnostic instrument he knew to be unreliable. He claimed that, "these days there are two checklists for determining psychopathology, the DSM IV Antisocial Personality Disorder diagnostic criteria and Dr. Hare's PCL-R (psychopath checklist-revised) These two references are used by the professionals in this field" (Norder: May 13, 9:24 am), but he failed to inform his readers about the controversy surrounding the DSM IV manual's reliability, and instead insinuated that the manual was a dependable means to measure the validity of Radka's concept of psychopathy. If he was deceptive and misleading in this instance, can the veracity of his other arguments be trusted?
As of this writing, Norder has not proved that:
1--Radka's descriptions of psychopathy are wrong.
2--the DSM-IV manual is reliable.
3--he has gained any benefit from the courses he allegedly took in psychology.
4--he is familiar with the profession of psychology.
5--he is familiar with the use of either the DSM-IV manual, or Dr. Hare's PCL-R.
6--he has more than a pedestrian understanding of the relationship among the social sciences, and how those relationships affect the viability of his use of Dr. Hare's PCL-R as a comparative device to measure the accuracy of Radka's description of psychopathy, relative to the Whitechapel Murders.
In conclusion, Norder's statements confirm that he has shamelessly distorted and misrepresented the accuracy and focus of my arguments. Therefore, his concern for the impression that a novice, or an uninitiated surfer might get from reading what he considers wrong information is touching, but the knowledgebase of either would be better served by someone with less ego and more sincerity.
Thank you for time and consideration Ian.
Sincerely,
Mephisto
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Ally wrote:
“Darling, your being crapful again. You wrote, "there is a difference in Britons between a man like Byron and that fellow who got the idea to get the Chinese addicted to opium, so ... This is one of the most emotionally cold things I can imagine. It happened. It was a British institution of longstanding." Heard of the native americans? Heard of us sending them alcohol and blankets ...blankets infested with disease so as to wipe them out? It was an American tradition of longstanding so we could get their land. It ain't just Brits, it's people.”
>>Certainly the Brits are no worse than the Americans, and I’m making only a relative distinction between them. But when Brits are bad, they are bad in a different way. Brits it seems to me are bad out of cold, superior cynicism toward or detachment from the lot of the other. It has the bitter taste of betrayal. A kind of cutting off of feeling occurs—I don’t know exactly what triggers it; you’d probably have to be a Brit to know, or maybe if you were a Brit you wouldn't have any clue whatever of it. But there are many examples of it beyond the China opium matter. The July 1947 Indian Independence Act is one. There were basically three ethnic groups involved: the Muslims, the Hindus and the Sikhs. Lord Mountbatten sought as rapid as possible a partitioning in order to basically get the Brits out of there before the whole situation exploded. So he quickly approved a plan to partition the country between the Hindus and the Muslims (thus creating Pakistan for the Muslims), and that was that. The Sikhs were left with little or no say in their own country, an almost unimaginably bitter result after their having served so loyally under British rule. When Americans are bad, it usually involves an obnoxiously obtuse jingoism or racism, just as you suggest. Here again I can’t seem to fathom what triggers it, even though I am an American and must be guilty of it myself. It has a naïve, childish kind of taste to it. Americans are capable of a delightful and unprepossessing unwariness or faith in the goodness of others whilst dropping the atomic bomb. The rub is that it’s slopes that get vaporized.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 12:04 pm: | |
Dear Mr. Norder,
Based on your most recent two posts, it has become clear to me there is nothing further I can do for you. As anyone willing to read through the long archives of our conversations can see, you have made no sensible response to anything anyone has said to you, and have not shown the slightest interest in its meaning. You have been unreachable, intractable and uneducable. Whatever your agenda or obsession may be, and I suspect it is the building up of interest in your new magazine as a competitor to “Ripperologist” through sensationalism, exploitation and place-grabbing, in part effected by manipulating the court of public opinion with one-sided indoctrination and propaganda, it does not include reasonable consideration of theories on the case or the people who publish or read them. I believe taking over the reigns of “Ripper Notes” has gone to your head, and that you are on a fantasy power trip the foolishness of which will someday become clear to you. I hope you can get help now.
I forgive you for all the things you have written about me.
God bless you,
David
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 482
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:38 pm: | |
David Radka actually comes here and writes things like:
"But when Brits are bad, they are bad in a different way. Brits it seems to me are bad out of cold, superior cynicism toward or detachment from the lot of the other."
and
"When Americans are bad, it usually involves an obnoxiously obtuse jingoism or racism..."
And there are people here still taking this discussion seriously?
God, I love the internet. 
--John
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1916
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:48 pm: | |
Mephisto,
I don't care how many quotes, articles or sources you deliver.
Like in the rest of the academic world in general, no subject or constructed "manual tool" is without controversy. The DSM-VI manual and Dr. Hare's PCL-R are no exceptions from this rule, and I think most of us realise that.
Psychopathy is one of the hardest psychological conditions to spot and determine, mainly because of the person's manipulative traits. Therefore there is an ongoing debate about its origin and its characteristics, and subsequently a lot of controversy, as always when it concerns checklists, generalizations and manuals. So what else is new? Tell us something we don't know.
The scholars and academics can scream all they like and disagree on several points, but still the DSM-IV manual and Dr. Hare's PCL-R are the best tools there is up to date, regardless of its flaws and generalizations. Because tools and guidelines are needed, unless we want total anarchy as a basis for psychological definitions. That is not the same as saying that these tools are unanimously and widely accepted as a whole. Because no manual is.
If you ask police officers and detectives that has come across psychopaths and sociopaths, most of them agrees that they display such traits as the ones I listed in my previous post. Psychopathy is a tricky disorder but there ARE general traits that in many cases becomes evident, and those are quite consistent with the manuals and checklists (yes, although I don't have a degree on the subject, I have actually read them).
No one here can prove anything, nor can you and Mr Radka.
What we can determine is, that Radka's description of a psychopath is so loose in his outlines that it could fit a number of different disorders. Sometimes his character acts like a confused schizofrenic, sometimes as a psychopath, depending on the situation in the scenario, in order to make it all hang together. That will not do.
The point here is, that Radka's "psychopath" is not especially credible.
Yes, it's true that a psychopath is not a uniform character and with all generalizations there are pit-falls. But in Radka's case we get a psychological explanation that's stretching in all possible directions (well, that's a great way to keep your back covered, isn't it?).
If Mephisto is as well-read on the subject as he thinks he is, he would notice that Radka's character doesen't hang together in a psychological sense. To explain this with nonsense like "we can't understand what's reasonable in a psychopath's mind" (Radka) is just rubbish and a way to avoid to deal with the problematic elements of the story.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 188
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 3:37 am: | |
Well, it's nice that "Mephisto" stopped the juvenile name-calling, but he still has some fundamental and obvious problems hidden in his long post.
"Does Norder support this argument with any evidence?"
I (and other posters) have given the addresses to websites directly quoting the relevant sections of both the DSM and Hare's Psychopathy Checklist. If you or anyone else does not trust those websites, you are more than free to go look up the originals yourself.
"Ask yourself if you're willing to lend your support to a man who thinks one or two courses in psychology allows him to make unsubstantiated claims?"
1) You and David had less than one or two courses and expect people to listen to you.
2) I've had far more than one or two classes on the topic, and as I've named three of the ones most relevant to this topic in recent posts, you either can't count or are purposefully trying to downplay what you know is superior qualifications.
3) Calling the claims unsubstantiated is pretty silly when I've backed them up with the two most respected sources that exist on this particular topic.
"Norder wrote: "In fact, explosive anger is one of the defining characteristics of a psychopath" (Norder: July 27, at 10:57 pm). I ask... Norder, where's your proof? How do we know this is accurate?"
Any abnormal psychology textbook in the world. Most intro to psychology textbooks. Oh, and the DSM and PCL-R I have repeatedly referenced, gee, how could you forget that?
"In the real world, explosive anger is not a defining characteristic of a psychopath "
You are incorrect, and the references I have given prove it.
Mephisto then namedrops a single journal article (as if that could possibly dispute the people at the American Psychological Association who wrote the DSM, or Dr. Hare, who David admits is the current world expert) about fear image processing. Fear image processing? We are talking about anger, not fear. Unless there's something specific in there about anger that he's forgot to mention, he's yanking some reference to something completely unrelated and trying to claim that psychopaths are not explosively angry. Ugh.
But this part is HILARIOUS:
"This point is significant, because it destroys Norder's claim that Radka's conceptualization of psychopathy lies wholly outside the broad range of symptoms of the disorder, i.e., "explosive anger is one of the defining characteristics of a psychopath", when in fact it is only characteristic of some psychopaths"
Anybody else catch what just happened here? Come on, somebody must have gotten it... Oh, I can't wait for someone to guess, here it is:
David earlier claimed that it's *impossible* for a psychopath to be angry. I said that it's not only possible, but it's very likely. Now Mephisto comes along and says only some psychopaths are explosively angry.
Hello, Mephisto, you just proved David wrong. David said it was impossible for a psychopath to be angry. You admit that some are explosive angry and present a professional source to try to back it up. Some (even though it's actually most, but some is fine) being explosively angry means that "impossible to be angry" is completely wrong.
Whether you can try to make me look bad by pretending I said they were ALL that way is pointless, because you yourself proved David wrong. Of course you were too busy trying to get at me to realize what it was you were arguing, but, hey, that's not a big surprise.
So, folks, even if we to take Mephisto at his word that the DSM is totally unreliable (which is absurd, but OK, whatever, for the sake of argument) and tossed it out completely, the other references that are left still describe psychopaths as something different than what David is describing. For example, the explosively angry attribute is also in Dr. Hare's PCL-R criteria, but also now Mephisto's alleged source.
So, there it is: David's most vocal (and only) supporter just proved him wrong.
And of course the only way he can deny it is to try to change his mind about what the reference said, but then he'd have to admit that his source for trying to prove me wrong was wrong itself.
Can't see how they are going to dig themselves out this one.
Oh, and David had a funny post, including:
"I hope you can get help now."
Not that I needed any, but Mephisto sure handed some to me on a silver platter.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1208
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 5:06 am: | |
I can't help but notice the similarity in Mephisto and David's writing. Are we sure they are not one and the same? Just wondering.
I love the part about hoe Brits and Americans are different when they are bad. How someone can generalise like that is beyond me. This thread has just turned into the most entertaining thread on the board.
Obviously I totally agree with Dan and Glenn on this thread and it is plain to see that David and Mephisto are just completely ignoring their very valid points, just because they do not fit David/Mephisto's (I'm still not convinced) theory.
I've already shown how psychopaths can get angry so I would love for David or his alter ego to confront me about that because I've seen it with my own eyes.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1918
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 6:56 am: | |
Radka wrote:
>>This is not a criminal case. It is no more a criminal case than it is an afternoon of water skiing at the lake with the family and potato salad. The idea that it is a criminal case is a fixed stare burned into the brain cells of Ripperologists. It was a criminal case for the people of 1888, but it is for us a pile of papers describing some apparently related events. What we need do is organize the pile using hermeneutic to find the message of relation among those events, not follow jurisprudence. Perhaps if we didn’t use the term “evidence” so much you wouldn’t be fooled into thinking you were in court. What would be a better word? Information? Documentation? Records? Maybe we need to stop using the word “case” as well.
This is probably one of the most stupid and hilarious passages I have ever read on these Boards.
So, dear Mr. Radka: the special police departments that's involving themselves with "cold cases" all over the world, decades after the actual event and sometimes with important clues and evidence missing, are doing... what? Playing Monopoly?
Of course this is a criminal case, and there is no other way to go about it. It doesen't matter if it's 115 years old. It still consists of suspects, witnesses, coroner inquests, murder victims, crime scene investigations, authopsy reports etc.
It is required to be treated as a criminal case because the sources belong to this category. It is really quite simple.
After all, when you treat it as a criminal cases, you are dealing with the hard facts and then you deduce from that.
So what does Radka suggest as an alternative method? Philosophy and psychology? Imagination?
Thank you, I think I'll pass...
I can understand that you'd rather treat it as fiction or a fairy-tale, considering your own approach in trying to "solve" it. Fine, but then your mind-bending dissertation (sorry, "summary"...) makes more sense, actually. The manner in which you choose to deal with the problem wouldn't in any way be accepted by any detective force, so I can appreciate why you don't want it to be a criminal case.
And as far as Alternative Ripperology is concerned, well, we can all see the result. Hmmm...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 30, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1921
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
Sarah,
Thanks for the support. And nice to have you back.
"I can't help but notice the similarity in Mephisto and David's writing. Are we sure they are not one and the same? Just wondering."
Watch out, Sarah. I was suggesting the same thing -- as a joke -- when Mephisto first arrived, and it was obviously not a popular remark.
Still, I can understand why you're picking up on it as well.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
Glenn,
And I'm glad to be back. I'm in a strangely good mood, must be because it's Friday.
Ah well, got snippy did they/he? Well if they want to snap at me let them, it'll be something else for them to change the subject to just to avoid admitting that David's definition of a psychopath is wrong.
I just realised what it is about David/Mephisto's writing that I find so amusing. It's his funny metaphors and similies, like this:-
It is no more a criminal case than it is an afternoon of water skiing at the lake with the family and potato salad.
Or this:-
you sat so long in the mud you got yourself stuck deep in a rut when it dried up.
I mean, what are they for? Why can't he just write in normal English like the rest of us.
I am still awaiting a response from David, or whatever he is calling himself these days, on what I have told him about psychopaths indeed being angry, and extremely angry at that.
Sarah
P.S I just read the post at the top of this page by Jason and even he said that David posted a response to a post he wrote to Mephisto and that he answered him in a way that sounds like Jason addressed him in the first place. What a surprise....not.
(Message edited by Sarah on July 30, 2004)
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1924
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 10:13 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
Yes, who knows. One can't help but wondering.
Who can blame us, eh?
Hehe... those two sentences you quoted are probably among the best on the "Mephisto & Radka Greatest Hits" list.
I don't know if Radka is out of town at the moment, but it wouldn't surprise me if you get an answer. When you least expect it -- one time I discovered that Radka responded to a message I had written over a month before that.
Well, I expect he's being kept busy here...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 30, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 9:58 pm: | |
Hello Mr. Andersson,
I'd like to clear up a few of the misconceptions in your July 29, 1:36 pm post.
First off, I'm not Radka's "buddy". He wrote a summary that I believe is well structured, and that's all I'm concerned with. One of the concepts that has a great deal to do with that structure is the central theme, i.e., psychopathy. Norder, yourself and a few others (here after-the Norder Group) have claimed that both the DSM-VI manual, and Dr. Hare's PCL-R checklist are appropriate diagnostic instruments to use as comparative tools to measure the value of Radka's description of psychopathy. OK, fair enough.
One thing I find troubling about the Norder Group's arguments, is that they failed to mention how they used those instruments to arrive at their conclusion, i.e., that Radka's description is incorrect. Was there some scientific procedure you followed? Did you cluster all the discrete clinical judgments together in one group, and all the idiosyncratic prototypical criteria in another (Hart et. al. 1991, The Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol 100, No. 3, 391-398)? I'm also interested in finding out how your interviews with an unknown dead person went. How did you manage to operationalized the variables you collected from that interview (ibid)? Did you use an ANOVA test to determine the variance between the DSM-VI's behavioral paradigms, and the respondent's actual personality characteristics that you observed and recorded (ibid)? Will you publish your finding in an APA peer reviewed journal, or will you publish them here on the Casebook's dissertation page? Did you code your data after you collected it? How did you account for the threats to validity in your study, e.g., interviewer bias. The proper use of either instrument requires that you use these basic techniques, which are found on the APA methods checklist. If you didn't use these methods, then how do the Casebook readers know if your DSM-VI and PCL-R based arguments actually prove Radka wrong.
In a previous post, sorry I can't cite it right now, it hasn't been posted as of this writing, I asked Norder for his insight regarding the connection between cultural diversity, and psychopathy, but he refuses to answer, he claims he has a problem discussing the aspects of Dr. Hare's study that show cultural diversity as an important evaluative factor; I guess it has something to do with his misguided ideas about how the PCL-R is actually used. Perhaps you'd like to share your insights on that subject with the readers.
While we're on the subject of insight, now might be a good time to quote the remarks I made that have caused you so much confusion. I'd be happy to clear up any of your misunderstandings regarding the nature of my arguments.
In your post you asked: "Why Radka has chosen to refer and cling to Cleckley especially and then chooses to discount criterias based on other, rather distinguished sources, like the APA. Answer: because it fits his theory". An alternative answer to your conjecture might be that the DSM-VI is distinguished for its unreliability, uncertainty, and inaccuracy (Hart et. al. 1991). And is there some valid reason, other than your personal opinion, why the Casebook readers should believe that Dr. Cleckley's work is an inappropriate reference? Apparently, some members of the APA disagree with your hasty assessment, "the original PCL was a 22-item clinical rating scale designed to assess the traditional clinical construct of psychopathy, perhaps best exemplified in the work of Cleckley" (ibid).
You see Mr. Andersson, using either instrument is not a simple process. If you expect intelligent people to believe that your arguments have greater plausibility than Radka's, then you're obliged to supply the evidence that proves you're right, and he's wrong, otherwise you're just giving the readers your opinion. And in that sense, you're not doing anything different than what you're accusing Radka of doing, i.e., not supplying evidence to support his hypotheses. One thing that lends his effort more credibility than yours, however, is the fact that he wrote his ideas down so you could criticize them, and so far, the Norder Group has failed to return the favor. Therefore, yours is an argument that demands of Radka to do as you say, and not as you do. How do you justify that?
The Norder Group has consistently pointed their collective finger at the DSM-VI and Dr. Hare's PCL-R and insinuated that the evidence is in there. Great. For starters, why don't you tell the Casebook readers on what pages we can find the pertinent information that will support the many unsubstantiated arguments you've made? Then, you can tell us how you went about using the APA methodology to collect and analyze your data. In other words Mr. Andersson, don't tell me your right; show me how Radka is wrong. If you can't do that, then you're just wasting bandwidth.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Mephisto
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:24 pm: | |
"The formula organizes the evidence according to what the true meaning of the evidence is, thus allowing the evidence for the first time to tell us what really happened in 1888. Mr. Palmer for example finds this extremely hard to understand, but here you have done so superbly. " --David Radka
1.Roger Palmer wrote: “"Mr. Palmer" does not find it extremely hard to understand. It is a common ploy of the crank theorist to dismiss his critics as being obtuse.”
>>The following theorists also dismissed their critics as being obtuse: Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, Spinoza (especially), and Socrates (very especially). It’s part of the ballgame when you think. Don’t take it personally.
2.“The fact is that I not only fully comprehend Mr. Radka's methods, I suspect that I comprehend them better than Mr. Radka does himself.”
>>No you don’t. All you do is take potshots at me from your ready-made empirical fortress. It’s all canned and predigested stuff. It has little to do either with what I say, really or me. I don’t take it personally. I’m a rationalist and you’re an empiricist, and thus be the divide. You are a respectable empiricist, however, and I appreciate you for that.
3.“I merely have denied that Radka's theory tells us anything about what "really happened" in 1888, anymore than Gosse's theories told us anything about the creation of life on earth. It is a bogus claim. Radka is offering us a closed system; a unified theory using the elements of "Ripper History" that have been repeated and reified until they have taken on the rather dubious claim of being the "Case Evidence."”
>>If there are empirical errors in the case evidence, then you can take David Radka’s theory and throw it in the wastebasket, my friend. If there are no errors, at least with what I take and use as the case evidence, then you are compelled to accept my theory under the basic ethos of logical satisfaction. Aren’t you an ethical man? If we were to find evidence, for example, from someone loitering in Duke Street that Eddowes rejected John #1 just after three men passed and then immediately went down Church Passage with John #2, goodbye David. I have two ways of dealing with any problems with the empirical evidence in this type of scenario: (1) I use only the most likely, most reasonable, most worked-over case evidence. You can question that the three Jews didn’t emerge from the Imperial Club until after the murder, for example, but if you do I’ll say that’s just an empirical question, and not a problem with my reasoning. If you can’t show compelling reasons to accept them not emerging until later, then we have to go with the canon. (2) My theory tends to justify the case evidence I use. In other words, I wind up with a coherent and internally consistent explanation for everything whilst using up all the case evidence. This tends to confirm, more or less, that the case evidence I use is what really happened. No way is it perfect, however. I don’t believe you just gotta be 100% empirical, as you do. What I do is accept for the purposes of rationality the most likely case evidence in an angelic sort of way. I take it and love it just the way it is.
4.“He has arranged them ("organized" is his word) into what to him is a pleasing explanation.”
>>Into what is a compellingly logically satisfactory explanation, you mean. Subjective pleasure has nothing to do with it.
5.“But what does this really tell us about the relationship of his theory to reality? Mr. Radka can kick against the pricks all he wants, he still needs to demonstrate that his empirical data was good to begin with. (For example, he doesn't bother demonstrating that Levy had any knowledge of Lubnowsi or his relatives; in his system, the smoke in Kelly's chimney is evidence of this).
>>The reason I write is BECAUE I CAN’T demonstrate these things. If we could demonstrate a connection between Levy and either the Lubnowski’s or the Kosminski’s, we wouldn’t be here. *** If you could completely explain a complex reality by a complex theory, wouldn’t you therefore have proved a relationship between the two? Why would you then even need to explain why the theory worked? The two would be the same; you’d have it all right there. Wouldn’t you? Why not? Seems straightforward to me, but I’m still thinking.
6.“So, in other words, what I've always objected to is Radka's strange and unreasonable claim that his theory somehow mystically reaches a critical mass whereby it tell us something. How so? Notice how coy and evasive Mr. Radka and Mr. Mephisto become when they are asked about the meaning of "solving the case" or what is meant by "logical satisfaction" or what the exact relationship is between this mental state of "satisfaction" and reality. Mr. Radka's favorite catch-phrase (now enthusiastically embraced by Mephisto) is "don't hamstring yourself" by worrying too much about empirical data. It's a jolly fun idea. But of couse, an actual scientist, using the scientific method, is going to make damn sure the yellow powder he is using is sulfur and not dried mustard seed. And he's certainly not going to claim he's proven anything until he's found out. (For mustard seed you might wish to read "Martin Kosminski").”
>>”Coy” is your subjective interpretation. *** Martin Kosminski has NOTHING to do with my theory on the case, as I clearly state in the Summary. Because a connection with him has not been empirically proven, I dismiss him entirely. If I say I dismiss him, you have no right to throw him in my face. I have no mustard, and you are trying to gild your lily.
7. “I can't help conjuring up the image of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. The Great Idealist charging at windmills he believes are dragons, and his somewhat more reasonable side-kick desperately trying to downplay his friend's madness. It seems to me, though, that Sancho is rather ginger in avoiding the more outlandish claims of his mentor. I'd like to ask him point-blank, What do you think of Mr. Radka's claim above that he's "allowing the evidence for this first time to tell us what really happened in 1888." Is this proven? How? Or do you think that perhaps his "incompetent" critics (your phrase) might, afterall, not have been entirely amiss in asking for better empircal data before they agree with this conclusion? RP”
>>If the empirical data should change, I’d either have to change or abandon my theory. You are correct. A good post from you after all, Mr. P!
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1212
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
David,
Just want to point out that throughout this whole thread you seem to be saying:-
"I have no evidence for my theory, nor can I find any, however, if you don't believe everything I am telling you without this evidence you are ignorant."
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1926
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 11:46 am: | |
Sarah,
Spot on. Spot on!
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1927
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 1:17 pm: | |
OK, now it's really getting silly here.
Mr Mephisto,
I am not confused, but obviously Radka's piece of work has managed to confuse you more than me, since you don't see the flaws in his accounts.
1. I had no idea I belonged to a group (if you had read most of my previous discussions with Mr Norder you would come to the conclusion that it would not always be the greatest of constellations, sadly enough -- however, that doesen't mean I can't support him on this issue, though, where I think he's completely right). I work alone, you see.
Secondly, you and Mr. Radka are the ones that seem to be in a pathetic minority here -- not the "Norder group".
2. "Norder, yourself and a few others (here after-the Norder Group) have claimed that both the DSM-VI manual, and Dr. Hare's PCL-R checklist are appropriate diagnostic instruments to use as comparative tools to measure the value of Radka's description of psychopathy."
Another confused remark. I, for my part, have only said, that those are the academic and professional tools available, good or bad. And so far, the points on those checklists and manuals are rather consistent with how psychopaths work, according to people I know who work in the field and from my contacts within the police force as well as from my own studies. Those are the tools that exists, if you don't want to give in to academic anarchy. But since you obviously agrees with Radka on the point that empirical knowledge is useless, I can surely see where you're coming from...
To claim that a bunch of professionals "doesen't agree" with the manuals is a hopeless argument. So what? Since then has scholars and academics -- and especially those in the psychological field -- really agreed on anything? Wake up! That doesen't mean that those manuals and check-lists are wrong.
3. "If you expect intelligent people to believe that your arguments have greater plausibility than Radka's, then you're obliged to supply the evidence that proves you're right, and he's wrong, otherwise you're just giving the readers your opinion."
Duh! That was what I thought was the purpose of a discussion board -- giving ones opinions! Where do you think you are? At university?
So you mean, just because I can't -- or won't -- enclose footnotes, references of litterature and page references with my posts posts on an open discussion board, my opinions are worth nothing?
Do you think that Radka is credible, when he in his summary only cites one important source, namely Cleckley? Do you really think that is a coincidence? Please... Direct your critial eye where it belongs.
"If you didn't use these methods, then how do the Casebook readers know if your DSM-VI and PCL-R based arguments actually prove Radka wrong."
They can't. I can't prove anything, and neither can you, in spite of passage after passage of namedropping.
4. Regarding the DSM-VI, in M. D. James Morrison's book DSM-VI Made Easy on the chapter of APD (Antisoical Personality Disorder), we can read that agression, physical cruelty and fights, and irritablilty are common traits already in an early age.
On the website AllPsych Online we can read the following statements regarding the symptoms of APD (former psychopathy and sociopathy):
The symptoms of antisocial personality disorder include a longstanding pattern (after the age of 15) of disregard for the rights of others. There is a failure to conform to society's norms and expectations that often results in numerous arrests or legal involvement as well as a history of deceitfulness where the individual attempts to con people or use trickery for personal profit. Impulsiveness if often present, including angry outbursts, failure to consider consequences of behaviors, irritability, and/or physical assaults.
Note the words "angry outbursts"!
Now, both these sources -- two among numerous others -- clearly rates aggression and irrational angry reactions as traits in APD.
On this website :
http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/narcissism/psychopathy_checklist.html
there is a comparison between Cleckley's and Hare's checklists.
Not one of these sources fully support Radka's version of a "psychopath", who's mental condition seems to stretch in all kinds of pathological directions. Yes, a psychopath can be irrational, but rarely in the confused -- almost schizofrenic -- manner that Radka suggests in the Mitre Square example. It just doesen't add up. "Irrational" and "impulsiveness" is not the same as stupid!
And yes, a psychopath can do things for gain and profit, but when they committ these types of murders (which are not always done by psychopaths!), profit or gain is NOT among the main motives. They are sexually based or a result of demented, uncontrolled and unfocused rage. So, their motives -- if there are any -- are irrational, not well thought out like in the way Radka describes.
5. As far as psychopathy goes, I have critizised Radka for pinning the suspect down as a psychopath to begin with, since we can't know in retrospect -- 115 years after the crimes -- that the Ripper truly had this personality disorder.
Radka suggests that the spin-off motives for the murders was the suspect's need to a) raise his own status as the man of the house and b) for gain, namely to pin the murders on Kosminski and cash in the reward (unless I have completely misunderstood Radka's very complicated text).
I then suggested, that these are completely wrong types of motives in connection with murders of this kind, that are to be considered as lust murders -- a term Radka refuses to acknowledge, although already the police at the time as well as modern criminology know that these types of murders in general are completely motiveless and based on nothing but rage and sexual fantasies.
The point is, the behaviour of Radka's character suspect is NOT consistent with psychopathy on several points, and is definitely not consistent with the behaviour of a lust murderer.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 30, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 436
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 2:24 pm: | |
"There is a failure to conform to society's norms and expectations.."
Oh my!!
Listen, my old friend Anderrson. You say that psychopathy is difficult to determine.
On the contrary, 'psychopathy' is easy to determine---heck, anyone can be afflicted; all it requires is the rubber-stamp.
A cynical fellow might tend to agree with Mephisto's statement: Radka's definition is really no better or worste than the DSM's. But that's hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?
These definitions are so vague as to be meaningless. The diagnosis of 'psychopath' naturally developed out of the study of criminology in the 19th Century; all its various definitions merely reflect the subject's inability to conform to society. But societies are different, no? A pacifist would have been a psychopath in Ancient Rome. (Indeed, he was). It's only a leap or two away from phrenology and those photo albums of "criminal types." Your definition immediately gives the "diagnosis" a political & legal tint. (See the British legal definition of the psychopathic personality in the Oxford Book of the Mind entry; since it is a medical condition, it must be defined as something susceptible to treatment. If it's not susceptible to treatment, then, by definition, it's not a medical condition). Cleckley disputes that it can be treated, so he's really out of his element. It's a moral question, not a medical one. But to continue. The point is, the definitions are so cloudy that they can include anyone from the abolitionist John Brown to Joan of Arc to John the Baptist to barmy Courtney Love to Socrates to Salvidore Dali to Messrs. Radka, Andersson, and Mephisto.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1931
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
Palmer,
If psychopathy was easy to determine, then psychopaths wouldn't fool as many as they do. Not to mention how many doctors they fool to believe that they are completely healthy.
I am myself not that keen on generalizations, but after all, psychopathy -- or APD -- does involve some rather extraordinary personality traits that can't be confused with those in any other disorder; I don't agree the slightest on your description of them as being vague.
When they speak of "inablity to comform to society" it clearly refers to "society" of the particular period or area that each case concerns -- not a general concept of society (because there is no such thing, as you yourself imply). This is obvious to even a ten year old.
And no, you're wrong; Radka's definition is clearly worse than those in the DMS. Radka don't even have a real definition -- he has created a character that suffers from all possible mental disorders packed together, and then he calls it a psychopath.
Whether it's a medical condition or not, I don't know, but most experts agree on that there really is no cure for this disorder. Every attempt that I know of, has failed.
I think it is self-written that definitions by such can't be trusted and be relied on totally. All criminals with a similar disorder are individuals. But that doesen't take away the fact that Radka's suspect is a psychological figure of his own imagination and a clear construction cooked together to fit all the different scenarios in his thesis.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 30, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 612
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
Hello David,
Nothing like making rash generalisation (you know the one about British people) did you do that with your theory of psychopaths too?
JT,
Give up!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 437
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:24 pm: | |
"And no, you're wrong; Radka's definition is clearly worse than those in the DMS."
No offense, Glenn, but you're muddling two or three different questions here. One is Cleckley vs the DMS. The other is Radka's interpretation of Cleckley, and whether or not he adheres to it, and the third is whether or not it adequately describes the Whitechapel Murderer--a more complicated set of questions.
I'm referring mainly to the first question. To my mind, Cleckley's study of the psychopath is superior to the DMS checklist, because a checklist is likely to be nothing but a catalogue of behaviors that many people can exhibit. Mr. Radka can correct me here if my memory fails, but I'm not at all certain that Cleckley ever even gives a definition, largely because he admits that the man he's attempting to diagnose is likely to take many forms and is also likely to fall below the radar. All his psycho-gibberish aside, I suspect that this is the brunt of the criticism that Dr. Carson (Duke Univ.) is aiming at the DMS checklist (see Mephisto's post). A strictly "objective" checklist of behaviors is apt to turn a whole lot of folks into two dimensional caricatures. For instance, taking the definition you posted from the AllPsych Online:
"The symptoms of antisocial personality disorder include a longstanding pattern (after the age of 15) of:
disregard for the rights of others. [Ayn Rand]
"A failure to conform to society's norms and expectations" [Isadora Duncan]
'that often results in numerous arrests or legal involvement" [M.L. King, Jr.]
"as well as a history of deceitfulness where the individual attempts to con people or use trickery for personal profit.' [Harry Houdini]
"Impulsiveness if often present, including angry outbursts," [Beethoven]
failure to consider consequences of behaviors, [Edw. Trelawney]
irritability, [Schopenhauer]
and/or physical assaults." [Andrew Jackson]
This is particularly pointless in diagnosing Cleckley's psychopath, since one of the main attributes is that he's a chameleon. I'd say that even the first sentence of your description "There is a failure to conform to society's norms and expectations.." is somewhat amiss, since Cleckley's man is highly likely to be a conformist (superficially, of course). He might well be the Church Deacon, the student body treasurer, co-captain of the football team, etc. He does conform, but only in order that he can manipulate. (The whole time he's treasurer, he's embezzling; when he's co-captain of the football team, he's busy selling the playbook to the opposing team). Cleckley makes this clear because he has a whole chapter devoted to the "Mad Genius" tha appears to be anti-social---Richard Wagner, Lombroso, etc. These non-conformist blokes might well cause the psychologist to tick off nearly every box on the checklist, but fail the definition because it is clear that they are three dimensional souls--- inward-looking egoists. Their non-conformity is clearly a personal ethic, as opposed to the sociopath that (according to Cleckley, anyway) has no inside to begin with. [One might argue that the difference is largely subjective--I don't know; that's one for the priests & the philosophers to wrestle with].
Good luck, I'm taking a breather. RP
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
