|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2001
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 6:54 am: |       |
AIP, whoever you are.
A splendid and well-written post.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
Hi David,I looked in on this thread for the first time in a few weeks and noted your comments on the British and their reputation for "cold reserve".
It is true that we are reluctant often to reveal our inner feelings to the outside world.In fact the phrases about "stiff upper lips" and others like "its not cricket" etc
more or less true with regard to noticeable behaviour in trying circumstances.Whats wrong with this?The British people came through two world wars,suffered great hardships after them and have only recently[during the last thirty years or so ]
had a reasonable standard of living compared with other European powers[this despite an earlier advance on everybody else viv a vis the rate of industrialisation etc.But I dont believe we are cold-hearted just because we dont wear our emotions on our sleeves.I think you may be confusing surface appearances with reality here.
But the BBC has never gone in for a big display of slush and goo -whatever the circumstances-as this can be seen as inappropriate if you dont know someone very well.Also our news is given out in "slots" and so unfortunately can come over as a bit too compartmentalised sometimes-as seems to have happened over the incident you cite.
Best Natalie |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 710
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:12 am: | |
Mep,
What difference does it make if Norder has a college degree or not? Let's face it, a college degree doesn't necessarily make you a qualified expert in a subject. I know less about the subject I got my BA in than I know about a whole range of subjects, mostly because that was years ago and I have forgotten most everything I studied and wasn't particulary interested in it in the first place!
BTW Dave, I do remember studying the British Romantics and uh...woo hoo! And maybe American news anchors are just better at faking concern...no journalist really gives a flip or pays attention to what's on screen and I'd rather have a cut away than a supposedly neutral journalist going oh tut tut that's terrible...now here's the sports! They never fake it convincingly anyway.
Now back to Mep..A college degree isn't necessary to be intelligent or well informed on a subject. And besides, if he had a college degree in French, would that make him any more or less capable to discuss psychology?
We all discuss our education when attempting to prove we know what we are talking about (I did it recently myself) but taking a class doesn't confer wisdom...there were only four of us actually interested in the subject under discussion and the rest were there just to get the credit.
College degree don't mean diddly.
(Message edited by Ally on August 07, 2004)
 |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
Hi John and Ally,re our Romantics,there is a line in Robert Gittings biography of Keats that in a way sums up what I was saying in the post above[1024].In discussing Keats"s reaction to his dying brother Tom who he cared for most diligently until the last,"Keats felt the dangers of identifying himself too closely with the patient in a self-destroying sympathy that should be reserved only for poetry."He called this the "hateful siege of contraries" and to explain his seeming coldness in the face of such tragedy he writes"if I think of fame of poetry it seems a crime to me,yet I must do so or suffer-I am sorry to give you pain-I am almost resolved to burn this-but I really have not self possession and magniminity enough to manage the thing otherwise"
And Gittings goes on to say all poets in the long run have this iron sense of values:in the long run,poetry must be served.The fact that Keats could express such a complex emotional state so beautifully doesnt take away from the fact that his attitude to the crisis had at the time come across to some as uncaring even callous.
And this is what I was getting at when I was speaking of the supposed "British reserve".It can be all there under the surface but appear otherwise.
But Ally I agree with you totally about those jounalists who could be from any country.But then you cant really take a journalists behaviour as representative of the British people.
Natalie |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 440
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
Mr. Radka is entirely right about British coldness in the face of famine. It was we Yanks (George Harrison and Bob Geldof) who brought aid to Bangladesh and Ethiopia while you Brits were busy getting stoned out of your minds in L.A.
He's also right about linking the British Empiricists to political tyranny and Colonialism, etc. Like what he said about Gandi and Jefferson. Anyone who isn't an idiot knows that Berkeley (an Irishman) and Hume (a Scot) were head over heels about British Colonialism. Oh, and that opposing view? Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies , linking 20th Century Totalitarianism to Mr. Radka's own philosophical darlings Hegel and Plato? Pure rubbish, of course. Stick to your guns, Mr. R!
P.S. In addition to AIP's post, in might be noted that Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis first appeared in 1886. (I think I'm right in stating that AP Wolf keeps a copy on the coffee table). Or maybe it's under the wobbly leg of the table. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2002
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 1:02 pm: | |
Ally,
I completely agree.
A college degree doesne't necessarily mean that you're an expert. I myself have a college degree in art history, but I actually knew more about the subject before I went to university than I did after I got my degree, since I in my courses and classes had to deal with completely irrelevant stuff. Now, after my degree, I am forced to read up on the subject to become as well read as I was before!
Al the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 547
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 1:03 pm: | |
Hi All,
We needn't just discuss the Romantics. Sure Shelley and Coleridge and Blake might put David's little pet theory about you Brits' "emotional coldness" into its properly ridiculous perspective, but we could of course go way back to talk about the heat and passion in language of Shakespeare and Marlowe, or the exuberance of Spencer, or the seductive heat of Marvell ("Thus, though we cannot make our sun / Stand still, yet we will make him run") all the way through to the Blood Consciousness of Lawrence and the postmodern longings of Fowles.
"Emotional coldness" is a vague and uninteresting phrase in any case, but when it is used to describe an entire history of a nation's many diverse people, it's just stupid.
David's claims about "you Brits," like his pretentious claims about the philosophical elements of his work, are just so much posturing puffery, having little or nothing to do with either reality or this case.
But they are a pleasant amusement.
All the best,
--John
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 360
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 1:19 pm: | |
Yeah, I remember how cold and unemotional the British were when they held 9/11 memorials throughout the U.K.
And if you want some real Vulcans, let me point you towards The Sex Pistols.
|
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
Hi David.
It's really an interesting coincidence that just this very morning a reporter stated that yet another American had been beheaded in Iraq, then she smiled inanely and said that nevertheless it was an absolutely byoootiful day in Tennessee. I was appalled, but used to it, because she does it all the dang time. Guess what? She's not British. Never say never.
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 204
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:53 pm: | |
Regarding David calling Brits irrational and emotionally cold: Gee, wouldn't that in his sloppy understanding of psychology make them all psychopaths? So, does that mean they are all Jack the Ripper? Way to solve the case.
Regarding Mephisto's quizzing me on my credentials: I can't believe he is still desperately hoping to get a ding in on that. I've said (even directly to him) that I've had *graduate* level classes in counseling. I've also already explained way back that I have no professional experience in psychology, but then you need a graduate level degree for that.
Even asking the question is stupid, because how would only having 3 years of study in clinical psychology versus 4 or 5, or even 6 or more years and professional experience, mean that I'm less educated on the topic than his and David's combined 0 years of study?
But even if someone here had a graduate degree and direct professional experience in the field they'd still be foolishly claiming to know more about the topic, judging from their ridiculous arguments that the APA doesn't know what it is talking about.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 700
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 5:32 am: | |
Hi,
I would just like to point out how cold and unemotional we British were in the aftermath of the tragic death of Princess Diana.
I guess what I am saying is that it is wrong to make generalisations (such as in this case about British people). It is wrong - and it really gets on my nerves and I might add it is hardly a way to win me over to your point of view.
I expect an apology form David for saying Brits don't know what rationalism is, when in under half an hour i found plenty of examples of Brits who did not only know what it was but followed it as a principle.
David, that is all.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1234
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 7:44 am: | |
I can't believe this. I hope all these people saying us Brits are "cold and emotionless" are being sarcastic.
Mr Palmer, in case you weren't being sarcastic, it is FACT that the Brits send much more charity and aid to the third world than America (I have researched this subject) so don't start saying we do nothing. Do have anything like Comic Relief? That one with pudsy (forgotton the name off hand). I'm not saying Americans are not caring about other countries because I obviously I don't know every American and I do not generalise (LIKE SOME PEOPLE).
We are a very compassionate country. All those agreeing with David should be ashamed. How can you generalise when not every Brit is the same? I am completely different in my views and how I act to many others in my country, just as not all Americans are arrogant or racist (as I'm sure David also said somewhere). You cannot generalise the population of a whole country, that is arrogant and completly ignorant of other cultures.
All this country bashing is pathetic. You cannot generalise and that's that.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 206
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 8:11 am: | |
Sarah,
R.J. Palmer was being over the top sarcastic. His points actually prove David wrong. Geldof and Harrison aren't Yanks, for example, but famous (although not as much recently) British musicians who put together some big charity events and so forth. R.J. expected everyone to get the references, but you might be too young to catch the names.
As far as I've seen, David's the only one making ridiculous stereotypes about Brits. (Although perhaps Mephisto did as well and I missed it.) Everyone else here is clearly disgusted by the country bashing.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1235
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
Dan,
I know. I just hate people who make ridiculous assumptions. To be fair, I did say that they may have been being sarcastic (I know Jennifer was). It's hard to tell on here.
Anyway, I think we should all join together in giving David a great big slap round the face.
David, you are ignorant and arrogant. Don't EVER generalise and point fingers at my country again. I wish you were registered so you could be banned. I don't care if that's harsh, just wise up or get out.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 711
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
Woo Sarah,
You best be careful. Any minute now people are going to be showing up asking who do you think you are and not to be such a witch and tell you how you aren't the moderator so you better shut up.
Waiting for them...
Waiting...
LOL
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 712
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
One thing I do wonder is how David claims that brits are both irrational and emotionally cold. I mean, most people behave irrationally when their emotions get in the way, yet David is claiming they are both lacking in logic and emotions. So uh..what then is their mental impetus exactly?
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 10:15 am: | |
Hi, Sarah
Just in case you were thinking of a post I made yesterday, I was definitely being sarcastic.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1037
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 10:32 am: | |
Steady on Sarah.This might be getting a tad jigoistic now.David doesn"t need a slap around the face---maybe a clip on the ear from time to time! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 707
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 12:43 pm: | |
Everyone,
I guess there are some words David should look up, one is bigoted, one is racist and the other is Xenophobic.
I'm with Sarah (hey there!)I go with the principle if you want to win me over to your, at best, dubious theory a good place to start is by not make huge generalistion/assumptions about my countrymen and women.
Sarah,
you are thinking of children in need (pudsy bear Gabby and Terry).
and well spotted i was being sarcastic.
Dan,
thats Sir Bob Geldof to you and I mere mortals!
Ally,
don't you realise by now that what David says.....
All,
I would no more generalise that Brits were caring and charity giving than I would that other nonsense.
David,
I'm waiting for my apology, I'm waiting for you to apologise for saying Brits couldn't understand rationalism. I'm waiting for you to apologise for saying I, my mother and most of the people i know are cold and unemotional and I'm waiting because what you said in your posts above offended me a a Brit. I'll keep popping up to remind you of this fact until you see it fit to apologise.
thats everything!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 9:30 am: | |
Fellow Britains,don't bite,
Don't get drawn into arguments over Mr Radkas claims that because of their Empirical pursuits of the 18th and 19th centuries, the British are cold hearted
Everyone knows that this is absurd, including Plato,and Mr Radka.
Don't play his game.
P.S. It would be interesting to learn in which part of the world the name Radka originates.
Was it coloured pink in 19th century atlases Mr Radka.
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 9:25 pm: | |
Ladies and gentlemen!
Let us refocus on the matter at hand, namely,
(1)Was the Whitechapel killer a "psychopath"?
(2) By what measure and means can we infer that the Whitechapel killer and the "psychopath" are one and the same?
(3) Is there an alternative to (1), namely,
(4) The Whitechapel killer is a SPECIES of "psychopathy" as yet undetermined by the contemporaneous psychiatric literature, i.e., it's precise aetiology and diagnostics are still being determined?
[Speaking from 30 years experience dealing on a day-to-day basis with variant forms of "psychopathy" in maximum security institutions in the United Kingdom.]
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 10:46 pm: | |
Hi Ally,
To my parents and grandparent's generations, earning a bachelor's degree was a source of personal satisfaction. They were proud of the fact that they had studied hard, and were able to reach the goals they had set for themselves; it was an incredible achievement for them. By-and-large, my generation shared the same appreciation for a college degree as our parents, but for different reasons. The goal was no longer education for the sake of gaining knowledge, earning a bachelor's degree had become the starting point for a successful career, economic reward, and a happy family life. Now you may be saying to yourself, nice story dude, but what has it got to do with Dan Norder?
Well, it seems Norder has an appreciation for education too. Perhaps you've noticed that he isn't exactly shy about telling the readers how some graduate level courses he allegedly took, have provided him with "superior qualifications". And by virtue of the massive volume of wisdom that he surely absorbed from nine grueling class hours of study, he is empowered to lecture on the subject of psychopathy with unconditional authority. OK, if he wants to lecture the readers about psychopathy, then he should be held accountable for the content of his lectures. Your argument, "if he had a college degree in French, would that make him any more or less capable to discuss psychology", is well taken, however, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a man, who frequently states that some courses in psychology have given him a superior understanding of the subject, to put those courses into a larger context so that I can judge the extent of his superiority for myself. Your argument is also consistent with Radka's reference to Paul Begg, software engineer, and distinguished Ripperologist. But, it seems that so far, only you, Radka, Mr. Andersson, and I believe that that concept has any significance. Norder, on the other hand, has a different point of view.
Radka has stated that he has spent seven years studying psychopathy, but this has not stopped Norder from invoking his alleged superior qualifications, and claiming that Radka's effort is uninformed. It has also not prevented other readers from ridiculing his summary as the inept work of an accountant. I want to know if there's any real difference between Radka's knowledge base and Norder's. If Norder doesn't have a college degree, or any experience in the field of psychology, then the origin of his intelligence and information is independent study, and in that sense, he's no better informed than Radka. It follows that Norder doesn't have the superior qualifications that he claims empower him to dismiss Radka's epistemological center with authority. Ceteris paribus, Radka has at least one college degree, and seven years of independent study, and thus, is better qualified than Norder to lecture the subject. I'm not trying to be contentious with you Ally, but why didn't you write the "if he had a college degree in French" comment on Radka's behalf when he was being attacked from all sides? I'll agree in advance that Radka is capable of defending himself, but so is Norder. What makes him worthy of your defense, when I'm alone in questioning his qualifications?
Let's take your argument, "a college degree isn't necessary to be intelligent or well informed on a subject", and place it in context with my questions, Does Norder have a college degree, and Has Norder ever worked in the field of psychology, and ask a new question. How does one become intelligent and well informed without a college degree? I can think of two ways: independent study, and practical experience. Radka has already stated that the source of his intelligence and depth of knowledge is seven years of study. I'm asking Norder if his intelligence and depth of knowledge were gained from academic achievement, or failing that, has he had any practical experience in the field that will confirm that he does indeed have "superior qualifications". Was he informed through rigorous academic study, or independent study? Was it from work related experience, or volunteer work. I think those are reasonable questions to ask a man who is responsible for bringing reliable information to a specific body of researchers and aficionados. If he has nothing to hide, then he should be willing to answer my questions with the same enthusiasm he has for touting his supremacy.
I also agree with your assessment that, "we all discuss our education when attempting to prove we know what we are talking about". I'm asking Norder to discuss the source of his education, and prove that he knows what he's talking about.
Thanks for your time Ally.
Sincerely,
Mephisto
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 9:16 am: | |
Fellow Britains,don't bite,
And don't get drawn into arguments over Mr Radkas claims that because of their empirical pursuits of the 18th and 19th centuries, the British are cold hearted.
Don't play his game.
Everyone knows that this is absurd, including Plato,and Mr Radka,
Don't play his game |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 7:57 am: | |
Response to Norder's July 31, 7:28 pm, Post
Part 1
Please note:
Norder likes to distort my arguments by pretending that I'm referring to the APA, Dr. Hare, and the Holy Ghost. In order to make it clear that I'm discussing him exclusively, I have highlighted all second and third person references to Norder in Bold.
Norder,
I wrote: "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..... 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)?" (Mephisto: July 31, 4:23 am).
In response to this detailed paragraph that I addressed to Mr. Andersson, you comment with your typical distortions, superficial blather, and intellectual dishonesty.
You wrote: "Ah, but it has been explained very clearly even so people with no background can understand. David claimed an absolute: that it's impossible for a psychopath to be angry, as they don't experience emotions. To disprove an absolute statement, all one needs to do is provide one counter example. You yourself did this. Sarah provided a personal counter example. A number of people did it also" (Norder: July 31, 7:28 pm).
Uh.…..Mr. Bullschist, your reply may answer some question you have rolling around inside your head, but it doesn't address the questions I asked Mr. Andersson. Perhaps I'm expecting more information from you than you're capable of providing, because if you knew anything about Dr. Hare's PCL-R, you'd understand exactly what I was talking about. But since you chose to avoid answering these questions when I put them to you, I decided to ignore b{you}, and ask an honest and straightforward man for his perspective. You obviously don't have anything of substance to contribute to this discussion, if you did, I'm sure you would have told us about it two months ago.
You wrote: "(Then Mephisto tries to B.S. his way through by asking us to provide a peer review process for our conclusions,.....data coding, and all that)" (ibid).
Norder, You've never seen Hare's checklist have you? You've been lying all along. I asked Mr. Andersson to briefly explain how he managed to operationalize the interview data he collected from a dead man. If you had a working knowledge of the methods used to analyze psychometric data, you'd know that you have to collect, record, and analyze information according to Dr. Hare's, APA approved methodology. But you don't know the first thing about the PCL-R. I asked you if you were able to show the readers how you identified the criteria that you claim, verifies your argument re: Radka's suspect. You replied like you have a mouse in your pocket. Who's this us you're referring to? I didn't ask "us" about the "peer review process". Oye vey, du bist ein maroon.
The following argument demonstrates that Norder clearly doesn't know how to use PCL-R methodology, therefore, he never generated any criteria to substantiate his claim that Radka's description of his suspect's psychopathology is incompatible with the PCL-R checklist.
You wrote: "the DSM-IV and PCL-R are organized so it's really easy to find information. In the DSM, we know we're looking for Antisocial Personality Disorder, so you flip toward the back of the book to the personality disorder section, see the name listed there, and the short list of diagnostic criteria are right there, short and to the point. And, heck, the PCL-R is a short document solely dedicated to one diagnosis, so you don't even have to flip to the right section, it's just there" (ibid). ARE YOU KIDDING?
To begin with–your assertion that you can pull a few psychopathic characteristics out of Radka's summary, then beat your chest like some triumphant little gorilla when your interpretations don't appear in Hare's check list–is absurd. Cheetah barranga, go fetch Tarzan Martini while Tarzan explain PCL-R to readers.
This is what every 3rd year psychology major knows, and Norder doesn't know. The PCL-R is a composite data scale, which distributes units of analysis among the categories of a variable (Bernard: 2002. 299). It uses a Guttman rating scale to assign a value to the intake data that is collected from in-depth interviews, extensive file reviews, collateral interviews, or all three (Cooke and Michie: 1997. An item response theory analysis of the Hare psychopathy checklist- revised. Psychological Assessment Vol. 9 (1), 3-14). This data is used to rate the subject on 20 characteristics (ibid).
An interviewer or rater asks a subject a sequence of questions from a standardized PCL-R questionnaire. The interviewer rates the subject's answer to each question as a value: 0-it definitely does not apply, 1-it applies somewhat or only in a limited sense, or 2-it definitely applies to the subject. The rater marks the value in a box, next to each question; newer manuals have ample space for notes. The same type of manual is used to evaluate file reviews, and collateral information. The collected information is the subject's dependent variables, i.e., the characteristics (traits) of his or her psychopathology. Collecting relevant data is only the first step in the process.
Everyday, hundreds of raters use the PCL-R to collect data and make judgments regarding the extent to which a subject has a particular psychopathic characteristic (ibid). Rating the subject's psychopathology vis-à-vis making a judgment, operationalizes the subject's dependent variables, i.e., assigns a value of 0, 1, or 2 to a trait. Do you, the Casebook reader, think it's possible that an individual rater's judgment could be influenced by factors unrelated to the subject's psychopathology? Do you think these factors will produce consistent data sets or inconsistent data sets? I say yes to both questions, and so does Dr. Hare, but Norder's August 04, 3:28 am post doesn't mention this crucial confound, because he doesn't know it exists, what's more, he doesn't understand how this phenomenon affects his arguments and his credibility.
Inconsistent interrater judgments, pose the greatest threat to internal validity, i.e., the uniform collection of data, and external replication, i.e., second opinions by other reseachers. If psychopathology is diagnosed subjectively, i.e., without accounting for threats to validity, then the ability to identify a general psychopathic threshold, and measure psychopathological extent, becomes a carnival game of guess your weight, or in Norder's mental circus, guess your pathology.
End of part 1
Mephisto
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 708
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
Here's something for you to chew over Joe, do you have a degree in ripperology?
Anyway, you sure seem overly concerned with everyone elses education.
Also, I was under the impression you were told about Dan's qualifications because you asked but no worries we won't try to fathom it out too much.
Really you don't want to get me started on the education system, I could never stop talking about it!!!
I know plenty of intelligent people without degrees and plenty of people with degrees who one might describe as a bit stupid - what is your point those who can afford a good education are smarter than the rest of us??
Furthermore what does any of this have to do with Davids rather interesting and enthralling theory involving psychopathic Jews?? Perhaps you would like everyone to provide a CV just to be sure that your level of formal knowledge on the subject is higher than everyone elses?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2799
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Jennifer, I take it the idea is that if "Joe" quickly scrolls through your post without reading it, he suffers an epileptic fit. 
Robert |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 208
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 2:55 am: | |
"Mr. Bullschist, your reply may answer some question you have rolling around inside your head, but it doesn't address the questions I asked Mr. Andersson."
Actually, it does. You apparently are either too stubborn or too ignorant (or both) to understand. (See link at bottom.)
"Norder, You've never seen Hare's checklist have you?"
Yes, actually, that's how I know it contradicts what you and David are saying.
"You've been lying all along."
Rightttt. You disagree with someone who clearly and undeniably has more experience in the field and then you assume I *must* be lying.
"Who's this us you're referring to?"
Oh come on. The "us" on this thread. Lots of people have pointed out to you that David's description of a psychopath doesn't match with what they've read, what they've been taught in classes, and what they know about relatives who have been diagnosed in that way.
"This is what every 3rd year psychology major knows, and Norder doesn't know."
1) You're a zero year psychology major. You have no educational background in it whatsoever. How on earth can you make a judgment on what "every 3rd year psychology major" knows?
2) You are assuming I don't know, when, in fact, I do. I also know enough about it to know that it does not support your argument one bit. The fact that you think it does shows desperation or very poor reasoning.
3) Most 3rd year psychology majors wouldn't know the explicit details on administering a PCL-R test, as they would have no reason to. The PCL-R is mentioned by name briefly in intro classes along with the criteria, but it'd take a high level class specifically about clinical psychology (which a significant portion of the psych majors aren't pursuing and so would have no need of) to cover it in enough detail to know the specifics on the scoring. Even then the PCL-R is not considered as important in classes as the DSM, which is where the majority of the time would go in the classes that discuss the issue in any detail.
In other words, you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. But then that's nothing new.
[Snip long portion of scoring info on PCL-R that he pasted from somewhere... Of course he skips over the point that know that he knows how it is really scored, he's proven his earlier statement (that any characteristic of a psychopath must be in ALL psychopaths) is completely wrong. I pointed it out to him, and now he proves it himself, but then he oddly doesn't apologize for his mistake. You'd think he was, I don't know, desperately trying to change the topic yet again.]
Do you, the Casebook reader, think it's possible that an individual rater's judgment could be influenced by factors unrelated to the subject's psychopathology? Do you think these factors will produce consistent data sets or inconsistent data sets? I say yes to both questions, and so does Dr. Hare, but Norder's August 04, 3:28 am post doesn't mention this crucial confound, because he doesn't know it exists,"
That's quite the lame tactic. Because I said it's unrelated to the debate, and you don't understand and are desperate to try to make an attack, you claim I don't know it exists. That's pretty pathetic and intellectually dishonest, but then nothing Mephisto tries surprises me anymore.
We aren't talking about judgments to figure out if an individual person is a psychopath or not, we are talking about David consistently describing all psychopaths as people completely opposite of the criteria specified by the clinical sources. He says it is impossible for a psychopath to have a trait that every expert says they usually have. That means he's wrong, and you are wrong for believing in him. You coming up with these strange lengthy side discussions as a way to try to support him is just laughable.
What you are trying to do here is the same as if David had said that it's impossible for someone to have chest pains if they are having a heart attack and then you trying to defend him by saying that medical professionals need to have extensive years of experience to judge the health of one person and make an accurate diagnosis and that bias could slant the results. It's true... but it's unrelated to the argument that chest pains are impossible.
Only someone who just doesn't get it would try to argue about something so simplistic and obvious as if it were some devastating attack on my credibility.
Here's a link to a professional journal article that goes a good job explaining a likely reason why you (and David) are having so many problems admitting mistakes that are so blatantly obvious to everyone else:
"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 709
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 3:54 am: | |
Hi Robert,
certainly wasn't my intention, just having fun,
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1237
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 4:32 am: | |
Hi all,
Yes, sorry for my outburst yesterday, guess I find it hard to control my emotions sometimes. Huh, guess I proved David wrong there about us Brits.
Sorry to everyone else, I was just annoyed about what David was saying and sometimes can get a little blind when I'm angry. I realise now that all the others were joking.
Anyway, I still think David needs a great big virtual smack round the face. Just let him try all that "cold and emotionless" stuff again.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 560
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 9:17 am: | |
The most frightening words I've read on this thread today, by Mephisto, above:
"End of part 1"
--John |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 10:51 am: | |
Dear Mr Norder,
Believe me, take a hike in the hills, go to the beach, take a breather somewhere. You are now beginning to thrash about in fathoms-deep stuff.
Unfortunately, I must conclude that you are the epitome of "textbookology".
Get some experience of life, sir!
(We Brits are a cold-hearted bunch of baaarrrstadddds!)
Rosey :-) |
Steve Laughery
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 2:53 pm: | |
Dear all,
I'm not really sure if I want to contribute to this particular conversation's longevity, but ...
I'm an American. I've heard the "Brits tend to be a bit cold, stand-offish, even snobbish" bit all my life. Its just the silly image we get planted in our heads based on stereotypes in jokes, cartoons, and old movies. I don't know anyone who really believes it.
I'm sure the British have heard the same sort of nonsense about Yanks - we're all over-paid and over-sexed. We all drive big cars, are loud, intrusive, and rude. Most of us are either cowboys, gangsters, or ruthless, carpetbagging businessmen. I hope/trust none of you really belive that, either.
I hope we stop posting things that others take as "country bashing". I'm very proud of my country - and I can certainly understand anyone from the U.K. being equally proud of his/hers.
Looking forward to posts from all of you on the subject of Ripperology (you have all taught me a lot),
Steve
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 7:14 pm: | |
My response to Norder's July 31, 7:28 pm, post.
Part 2
Please note:
Norder likes to distort my arguments by pretending that I'm referring to the APA, Dr. Hare, and the Holy Ghost. In order to make it clear that my arguments are with him exclusively, I have highlighted all references to Norder in Bold.
Monkey see, monkey do. Norder doesn't know that accounting for threats to internal validity is an integral part of APA and PCL-R methodology, because I didn't mention interrater bias (inter alia) in my post of July 31, 4:23 am. If he doesn't read about it in one of my posts, he has no way of knowing it exists, therefore, he doesn't mention interrater bias in his August 04, 3:28 am post. Monkey didn't see, so now, monkey looks like a jerk.
It comes as no surprise to me that Norder's August 04, 3:28 am post also fails to mention how APA and PCL-R methodology control interrater bias. Every rater's PCL-R data is evaluated using Classical Test Theory or CTT (inter alia). CTT is a statistical analysis that measures the relationship between the rater's assigned item response values, and the subject's specific psychopathological characteristics, and compares them with the norms established by Dr. Hare's original data. If Norder knows APA and PCL-R methodology, then he should be able to tell us what these statistical tests are. But he won't. You see, he doesn't want to be drawn into a discussion on an irrelevant topic, i.e., a relevant topic that he knows nothing about . Ouch!
OK, let's discuss rater bias. What kinds of phenomenon influence a rater's judgment? Well, maybe the rater has a head cold and had a bad night, maybe the rater's significant other is feeling a bit randy, and the rater had an excellent night, so to speak. Maybe the rater's bias isn't internal, maybe the subject's appearance and/or mannerisms influence the rater's judgment. CTT analysis compensates for these outliers by comparing data sets with sample frames. According to APA practice, and standard PCL-R methodology, CTT analysis is not optional. If you don't use Classical Test Theory (inter alia) to analyze the rater's evaluation scores, then the diagnosis is worthless.
CTT analysis does three things:
1--It expresses each of the subject's psychopathological traits in terms of the standard normal distribution (SND) of each characteristic in the control sample frame.
2--It takes each subject's data set, and statistically compares its varience with the SND of varience in the control sample frame.
3--It measures interrater reliability, and expresses that value in terms of standard deviation (SD), and compares that value with the SND of SD in the control sample frame.
Items 1 and 2 show you how the subject's scores compare, as individual traits, and as data sets, with their respective control sample frames. If those values fall outside the standard normal distribution, then either the subject is a real whack job, or the interviewer/rater was biased. The values in item 3 tell you how many units away from the SND the rater's assessment of a subject's individual trait was, relative to other rater's assessments of those same characteristics; it expresses the variance as standard deviation (SD). It also tells you if the value of each subject's data set, falls outside the normal distribution of SD for data sets with the same trait configurations. Sound complicated? It's not. A computer program does the tricky math, a rater supervisor, or masterrater as they're sometimes called, enters the data into the CTT program, and badda bing, badda boom interrater bias is accounted for, and internal validity is secure; it's a beautiful thing.
According to Norder's one-dimensional model (see Norder: July 31, 7:28 pm), all he needed to do is take one of Radka's descriptions of psychopathology, put his biased interpretation on it, flip through the DSM, and see if matched any of the "names listed there". The PCL-R was even easier for him to bungle, because as he explained, it's "a short document solely dedicated to one diagnosis, so you don't even have to flip to the right section, it's just there". Right, and Dr. Hare has long fuzzy ears and eats carrots. Notice that it's only after Norder reads my July 31, 4:23 am post (posted six messages before his August 04, 3:28 am post) that he's able to do some quick Internet research, and post a generalized, but revealing response.
What Norder reveals in that post, is that he fails to comprehend that his use of the PCL-R to corroborate his assessment of Radka's description of psychopathology is bogus, because he didn't follow the APA, or Dr. Hare's standard scientific procedure. Think about it for a minute readers. How plausible could his claim be, i.e., that Radka's description of his suspect's psychopathology is wrong, if he didn't utilize a critical analytic process that's necessary for making an accurate diagnosis? How realistic could Norder's claim of "superior qualifications" be, if he didn't know enough to use APA standard methodology to collect and analyze PCL-R data (see Norder: August 04, 3:28 am)? Norder's shopping list approch is inferior to standard APA practice. His criticism is ego driven, and his conclusions are invalid. It's a no-brainer, if he's unaware of an essential step in the PCL-R process, then he won't notice how omitting it affects his results.
One thing you will notice, is that I didn't discuss CTT analysis in my July 31, 4:23 am post to Mr. Andersson, and that Norder didn't refer to it in his August 04, 3:28 am post. Why do you think that happened? Because he's not leading this debate, he's following my lead. If he were truly "calling the shots" in this discussion, then he would have used those superior qualifications he keeps crowing about, to explain the process the first time I questioned his credentials. Ask yourself, why would anyone want to prolong a public argument that questions his honesty and integrity? Was he milking the controversy to sell subscriptions to his flagging magazine? Is his ego writing checks his knowledge can't cash? Or is he just plain full-o-crap? You be the judge. One way or another, it doesn't diminish the fact that he's neither superior nor qualified. He obfuscated and distorted his way through two months worth of posts and didn't offer his half-assed explanation of the PCL-R, until I gave him his first clue. His July 31, 7:28 pm post (posted 15 messages before my July 31, 4:23 am post) makes it is quite obvious that he thinks the PCL-R is a psychopathic shopping list where he simply checks off the items after he puts them in his little shopping cart. Norder, if it were that easy, anybody could do it.
If all he had to do was play Psychopathy Matchgame, there would be no need for a symptom to exceed the .25 to .30 diagnostic threshold that Norder so confidently told us about. The question we should all be asking ourselves is.....If Norder knew how the PCL-R was used, then why didn't he use it to prove Radka wrong in April or May, or June, or July? Because he lied to you, Casebook readers. He doesn't know doodly squat.
After you read Norder's July 31, 7:28 pm post, it becomes obvious that he had an epiphany on the road to Palookaville. On July 31, he's dumber than dirt, on August 4, after he reads my July 31, 4:23 am post, (six messages before his August 04, 3:28 am post), the tiny flashlight bulb over his head begins to flicker. If he weren't so pre-occupied with making a visual inspection of his lower intestine, he would have realized that his August 04, 3:28 am post, provides ample proof that his claim of "superior qualifications" is utterly absurd, and that his argument that Radka's description of psychopathy is wrong, is completely bogus. You think not Norder? Then prove you're right. Provide the readers with the empirical evidence that shows that Radka's descriptions of psychopathy has a less then .25 z score. "Superior qualifications" your ass. PUT UP OR SHUT UP NORDER.
I think it's evident that Norder didn't need "superior qualifications", distortions, or lies to explain how he used the PCL-R. All he had to do was explain why he assigned a particular value to each of Radka's descriptions, and how he analyzed the data set. You can buy a statistical data analysis program, like Stephen Borgatti's ANTHROPAC 4.0, on the Internet for about $15.00 US. If the nine-credit genius really took those grad level courses, then he should know what statistical tests to use. It's not rocket science folks, he puts the CD in the computer; opens the ANTHROPAC program; looks at the main menu, clicks on data entry, enters a name for the data set, e.g., Radka's Description of Psychopathy; he enters the values he assigned to Radka's descriptions, and clicks save. He then goes back to the main menu, chooses the correct analytic tests, he knows what these are because he has "superior qualifications", and starts the process. The whole thing takes about 30 minutes, from input to output. Apparently, you're not worth the effort Casebook readers. By the way, how much was that subscription again?
In this post, I briefly described basic APA and PCL-R methodology, including the primary analytic statistical processes that are essential to the proper use of the PCL-R. My discussion offers a compelling account of Norder's inferior knowledge, and lack of qualifications.
My arguments expose Norder's claim–Radka's description of his suspect's psychopathology is wrong–as bogus, and intellectually dishonest.
Thank you for your time Casebook readers.
Mephisto
Norder, in your July 31, 7:55 pm post you asked Radka: "Do you or do you not still say (as you did while trying to defend your Jack the Ripper theory) that it's impossible for a psychopath to be angry?" (Norder: 2004). You then asked me: "Mephisto: With the same info, was David correct when he said that it's impossible for psychopaths to be angry?" (ibid).
I want to read Radka's statement in context before I comment; could you please cite the post (time and day will do just fine) where Radka allegedly claims "that it's impossible for a psychopath to be angry" (ibid).
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 5:38 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
Wow... you too? Angst, anger, scorn, fury, emotions all set out on public display?
Didn't your parents bring you up properly or give you a decent education?
You're British young lady and we don't show our emotions like that, you have a stiff upper lip so learn to use it :-o
Sometimes I think You and Jennifer are the same person ;-)
Cheerio,
ian - Keeping one eye open and the other one closed.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 1:58 pm: | |
Hi David,
The three Brit comments you made recently seem to have been aimed at me since they were in your posts to me (and yes I am a Brit).
I think Ally covered most of my points to your last dismissal of the Brits on the basis of a BBC newscast more than adequately (ie Yank journalists feigning concern at appropriate times; perhaps feeling a need to guide/educate the "unsophisticated" American audience).
Interesting that you think the Bits think of you guys as unsophisticated, I'm not sure I'd say that is how we sum up the Yanks (but, move it to pub talk)
The national news here is formulaic and as Nat says it's just news, there is little/no emotion put in it, and, perhaps that does give some insight into the national character/culture, I'm not too sure on a yes or no really.
My experience of US, European, Asian, African, South American, Australian news isn't so great that I'd feel qualified to make a judgement. Strange that based on as far as I know US news and BBC news you feel you can when there are literaly hundreds of countries in the world.
If you were a logical thinker you may ask yourself why is US news different to the rest of the world, perhaps all other countries have no emotion in the news and perhaps it isn't us who is odd but you! (I simply don't know, maybe our news is "cold" and we're the odd one out.)
Sometimes lets just say logic doesn't always come up with the right answer when faced with limited facts at our disposal (and OK I suspect you have more tid bits from other media or personal experience)
That does serve to illustrate a good point that is worth bearing in mind; if the only "case evidence" were US news and BBC news, how would you know which was the odd man out... and how it reflects on the local culture...
Maybe you are joshing with us again David and that question was a test of our logic, Did I win? What's my prize (hopefully not a free copy of the thesis).
Cheerio,
ian - keeping one eye open and the other one closed.
PS Is Yanks a derrogatory term? To the British, "Brits" isn't, as far as I'm aware.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 1:48 pm: | |
Hi David,
Now about this summary thing...
I'm glad you make it so clear for us, your readers:
>>...twice mistaking writing for speaking. Use of the term Juwes in the written graffitus is a mispronunciation as “JOOZ” of a term a German speaker would say “YOO-whez,” and the Lusk letter is written as if in a spoken Irish accent. Bilateral language disorder is typical of psychopaths,... <<
and
>>...person. The Irish accent was prevalent at the time in many theatrical productions around London. <<
and
>>...Juwe is a contraction of the German jugendwerk, meaning literally “early work;...” <<
You seem to attribute a language disorder to the Irish accent and word Juwes and yet also attribute them to being used deliberately in the same summary.
Are you (1) unsure or (2) hedging your bets (3)unclear in your thinking (4) unclear in your writing?
If he is using them deliberately then he is not showing any bilateral language disorder which is typical of a psychopath and I can't fathom out why logically you could concede he _may_
At least you should have had some cross references between the various explanations.
Cheerio,
ian - Keeping one eye open and the other one closed.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 4:59 pm: | |
Hi Jennifer,
Like... wow... multicoloured... heated debate... cool...
Chill out gal - or being a Brit, at least use that stiff upper lip you have and don't let the side down by revealing your emotions in public for gawds sake ;-)
My reading of Mephisto's comments wasn't along your lines - he was addressing specifically Dan to back up his background and specifically with respect to psycopathy.
He's never asked other posters to do it (well apart from you at one time if I remeber correctly, or he at least slurred your academic achievements ;-o)
The same questions were asked of David by crix0r who (not in response to crix0r, but, elsewhere) says he's "studied" for the past 7 years but not told us whether he has practical experience or how many psychopaths he's interviewed face-to-face or how many he's diagnosed.
No-one took crix0r to task about it.
...and if you're holding your breath until David apologises to us Brits then... you know you'll only go blue in the face and fall over.
BTW - why is it everyone knows Mephisto's name apart from me (not that it'd mean anything until I get round to ordering the casebook CD for the archives).
Cheerio,
ian - Keeping one eye open and the other one closed.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 9:06 pm: | |
In response to Jennifer's August 09, 3:02 pm post.
Jennifer, chew on this. Ally made it clear that "a college degree isn't necessary to be intelligent or well informed on a subject" (Ally: August 07, 11:12 am). In my August 07, 10:46 pm reply, I basically agree with her argument, however, I think I've clearly stated the reasons why I'm questioning Norder's qualifications. In case you might have missed it, the subject I'm discussing with your chum, isn't intrinsic to Ripperology.
You wrote: "Anyway, you sure seem overly concerned with everyone elses education" (Pegg: August 09, 3:02 pm). You're beginning to sound like your editor Jennifer. I'm not concerned with everyone's education, I am concerned with the credentials of a man who's in a position of responsibility, because he uses his credentials to make irresponsible and deceptive accusations. If you read my posts, then you'd know this to be the case.
You wrote: "Also, I was under the impression you were told about Dan's qualifications because you asked but no worries we won't try to fathom it out too much" (ibid). Jennifer, what are you babbling about here?
You wrote: "Really you don't want to get me started on the education system, I could never stop talking about it!!!" (ibid). Thanks for the warning. Based on the profound meaning of "because you asked but no worries we won't try to fathom it out too much", I wouldn't want to get you started on anything. The Whitechapel Murders provide me with enough ambiguity.
You wrote: "I know plenty of intelligent people without degrees and plenty of people with degrees who one might describe as a bit stupid" (ibid). Well good for you Jennifer. I'm not sure of what you're trying to say here: "what is your point those who can afford a good education are smarter than the rest of us??" (ibid). Are these two separate questions do you want me to answer you twice??
You wrote: "Furthermore what does any of this have to do with Davids rather interesting and enthralling theory involving psychopathic Jews??" (ibid). I could ask the same question about your post. I could ask the same question about your post.
You wrote: "Perhaps you would like everyone to provide a CV just to be sure that your level of formal knowledge on the subject is higher than everyone elses?" (ibid). Perhaps if you read my posts, you'd realize that your editor is claiming he has "knowledge on the subject... higher than everyone elses" and not me. Perhaps if you think of the words now Jennifer, maybe things will come to you later. Then again, maybe not.
By the way, is there any significance to the subdued color scheme?
Mephisto
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 1:51 pm: | |
Hi David,
Now about this summary thingy....
A major question in the summary is missing?
The EC is that JtR was a psychopath not a lust murderer.
The question is "Why did JtR remove organs from the crime scene?"
You hint at reasons but the logic is diffuse and too dispersed in the summary for me to glean any sensible/clear/concise answer.
1. Why can't a uterus/womb be bilaterally disected and used as a message to Lusk, why go for a kidney? Isn't a kidney harder to get at and why take that extra risk?
2. If he feels a need to perform corrective surgery, why not in the case of Stride? Simply because he has another murder on the cards doesn't wash and appears weak to the reader.
3. Why not remove the uterus from Kelly? Not maternal enough? Fine. So why remove the heart? Was he going to send another message to Lusk?
4. Wandering away with bloodied organs in your pocket is not too clever; are psychopaths that dumb? why not leave the organ after the need to "making surgical correction via hysterectomy"?
Your loyal readership could be lead down a path that JtR is a trophy hunter or lust murdererer unless you give them some more guidance.
Cheerio,
ian - Keeping one eye open and the other one closed
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 1:43 pm: | |
Hi David,
Now about this summary...
I see the following in the summary:
"22. A Resolution of All Other Communications Allegedly Received from the Murderer: NOT GENUINE."
How enlightening, I'm glad you dealt with the Dear Boss and Saucy Jack postcard so logically with just two words.
Why are you so sure? Does Cleckley, Hare, DSM et al so adamantly believe a psycopath wouldn't communicate with figures of authority or the media?
Isn't the thesis and summary working with the case evidence, yet no logic/reason/rational thinking appears to have gone into this case evidence other than it being dismissed by the author as "NOT GENUINE", no logical reason they can't be true as far as I can see.
The big danger is your audience will simply assume you are picking and choosing your case evidence to fit the summary (and other letters are most definietly case evidence).
But, I'm sssooooo glad you sorted that thorny problem of the other communuications for me David ;-o
Cheerio,
ian - Keeping one eye open and the other one closed.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1237
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 2:01 pm: | |
I finally found out where Radka gets his inspiration from:
The rules of Russian Roulette are quite simple. All you require are two players, a revolver and a bullet. The bullet is placed into one of the chambers in the cylinder which is then spun and quickly snapped back into position, randomising the position of the bullet in the cylinder.
The first player points the gun at his own head and pulls the trigger. If the bullet is in the top chamber then the gun will go off and he loses. If the bullet is in one of the other chambers then the gun will not go off and he survives.
If the first player survives then the cylinder is re-spun and the second player points the gun at his own head and pulls the trigger. If he survives then the action returns to the first player. The players take it in turns until one of the players shoots himself in the head. The surviving player is deemed the winner.
Assuming you are forced to play, what are your best chances of survival?
The answer is to be the second player. Here's why.
Suppose we have two players, A and B. Player A is the first player and has a probability a of losing. Player B is second and has a probability b of losing. We assume that the revolver has six chambers and that the position of the bullet is perfectly random after each spin so that the probability of the bullet being fired on any turn is 1/6.
You could find a and b by calculating the probability of each player's demise after a general number or turns and summing the resultant infinite series but there is a nifty shortcut that cuts down on the arithmetic.
Because one of the players will eventually lose, no matter how long it takes we can say:
a + b = 1
Furthermore, suppose player A survives the first turn, which he will do with probability 5/6. It is now player B's turn and this is equivalent to a new game starting with B as first player. Therefore player B's probability of losing becomes a. Similarly player A's probability becomes b. If player B survives his first shot then it is back to player A again, and player A's probability of losing is restored to a again. Consequently, until the gun goes off the players' chances of demise will switch between a and b each turn.
Therefore the probability of B losing is equal to the probability of A surviving the first shot multiplied by the probability of losing as a first player. Therefore:
b=(5/6) X a = 5a/6
Combining these two results gives:
a=6/11
b=5/11
So that player B has a lower probability of losing than player A.
In a general two player game where the players take it in turns until a particular outcome occurs then if the outcome has probability r at each turn, the probability of the game ending on one of the first player's turns is 1/(2-r) and the probability of the game ending on the second player's turn is (1-r)/(2-r). Whatever the value of r, 1/(2-r) is never less than 1/2 so the game is always more likely to end on the first player's turn.
There you go David, you got friends. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 717
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 2:30 pm: | |
Ian,
me and Sarah aren't the same person. But I take that as a compliment because Sarah is one nice lady (hi Sarah).
And I'm sure David will apologise. I doubt it was his intention to offend anyone. despite how much fun this thread is I'm sure he's a nice guy too.
If you are wondering how we know what Joe's name is it is because he told us on this thread in response to a post by Jason.
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 720
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
Mephs,
The subject your discussing isn't important in ripperology. But I thought that it was important to this theory, which you are supporting about Jews with psychological disorders. I'm so sorry, I must have missed something! It happens a lot.
Well sorry I have misunderstood your motives you are interested in what Dan has said, not what school he went to - sorry for the misunderstanding.
You wrote: "Also, I was under the impression you were told about Dan's qualifications because you asked but no worries we won't try to fathom it out too much" (ibid). Jennifer, what are you babbling about here?
Excuse me if you are finding my posts hard to follow - now you know what it feels like for the rest of us. Don't worry I bet you can figure it out all by yourself
Seriously you don't want to get me started about it and I'm not going to mention it again!!!
Now the first is a statement about people I know of - the second is a question so I only require the one answer.
Indeed you could ask the same question about my post but it was about both my post and your earlier post I was referring to ducky!
Well twigged on by the way, only I could have sworn I'd mentioned that fact months ago.
Bye Bye
Jennifer
ps I'm sure you'll twig eventually - I'm off to lie in a dark room and contemplate my stupidity.
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Police Constable
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 5
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 4:13 pm: | |
Finally , David's theory is here !
Not my particular choice of suspect for the Ripper though...
I'm not impressed by the definition of the word ' Juwes ' either , its okay to say “The Jewish community of Whitechapel will justifiably blame the Jewish witnesses, should they identify me, as proto-Christians.” but that doesn't really correspond with what was written on the wall , does it ? |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1239
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 4:40 am: | |
Jennifer,
Cheers me dears. Ah, it's so difficult to get compliments these days 
All,
This suspect of David's seems to be a very intelligent and ahead of his time. I still don't see how he could have used the term JUWE as David said he did. Impossible if it wasn't around then (sorry if I've missed the evidence to show it was around, please correct me if this is the case - someone other than David, since he seems to have a hard time knowing what evidence is).
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 210
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 5:11 am: | |
Mephisto said, amongst a lot of babbling:
"You see, he doesn't want to be drawn into a discussion on an irrelevant topic, i.e., a relevant topic that he knows nothing about ."
And of course you decide that it's relevant and that I don't understand when you have no evidence of either and no background in the topic to base those conclusions off of.
The exact method of scoring of test for a specific individual has abso-freaking-lutely nothing to do with the debate here. You can't score a test based upon David's theory, because the person in question isn't named, and even if he were would no longer be around to run through the test. But David's statements about psychopaths in general are clearly wrong.
"How plausible could his claim be, i.e., that Radka's description of his suspect's psychopathology is wrong, if he didn't utilize a critical analytic process that's necessary for making an accurate diagnosis?"
It is a critical analytic process, and a rather straightforward one, actually: David says something is impossible. The APA's DSM and PCL-R says it's common. Common proves impossible wrong.
You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that because I didn't follow the process to score an *individual* test that I cannot say anything about David's *sweeping and incorrect generalization*. By that logic David could say that the sky is never blue, I could point out clear references to scientists saying that it usually looks blue, and then you'll defend him because I didn't apply a spectrographic analysis to specific air samples when I said that he's wrong.
Now if my argument were that you or David were a psychopath, yes, then you could legitimately complain about how that individual decision was made and if I followed all the rating methods and so forth.
"Because he's not leading this debate, he's following my lead."
Sure, in the sense that, you say something totally ridiculous, so I point out that it's stupid, yes, you are leading the conversation.
"Ask yourself, why would anyone want to prolong a public argument that questions his honesty and integrity?"
Funny, shouldn't you be asking that of David and yourself?
As far as you or David calling me dishonest, that affects me in no way whatsoever. People consider the source, and they can see you have no credibility yourself.
"Was he milking the controversy to sell subscriptions to his flagging magazine?"
Flagging? You must be joking, or just not paying attention.
"Is his ego writing checks his knowledge can't cash? Or is he just plain full-o-crap? You be the judge."
And that's exacly what I'm counting on: other people looking at the posts and judging. And so far, the vast majority of the people on the thread have judged and found you and David severely lacking in credibility. I mean, come on, are you that far in denial about what a disaster your posts have been? Have you even read the responses?
"Provide the readers with the empirical evidence that shows that Radka's descriptions of psychopathy has a less then .25 z score."
If you'd really read all the scoring info you posted here, you'd know that the tests can't be used to give a total score for *descriptions* about psychopathy as presented here and there in a Jack the Ripper theory, they are used to test individuals. What you are demanding is not only impossible but pointless, and only someone who doesn't understand the process could even make such a suggestion.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 295
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 1:09 pm: | |
Hi There Ian -
Recently you typed:
"The same questions were asked of David by crix0r who (not in response to crix0r, but, elsewhere) says he's "studied" for the past 7 years but not told us whether he has practical experience or how many psychopaths he's interviewed face-to-face or how many he's diagnosed.
No-one took crix0r to task about it."
Maybe it's because I'm offensively tired as of late (as a side note, I've come to the conclusion that it might be easier to give a pound of flesh than to buy a house in Northern VA.), but where I'm from, to be 'taken to task' is normally a _bad_ thing.
Ex: "Jason claimed he could fly, John claimed he couldn't. John took Jason to task and proved that he could not, in fact, fly".. Judging by your paragraph above the part where you said no one took me to task, I don't think you meant it in a bad way, but I wanted to be sure.. Did you mean it in a good way or a bad way towards me?
Sorry if I misunderstood you
Thanks,
crix0r
P.S. Just in case it was read wrong, I don't recall ever claiming that I've studied anything for the last 7 years :P I did however ask David a slew of questions that were never directly addressed by David.. which is what I think Ian meant.. I'm just not sure why I would need to be 'taken to task', hence this post :P
(Message edited by crix0r on August 11, 2004)
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
Hi David,
Now about this summary thingy....
A major question in the summary is missing?
The EC is that JtR was a psychopath.
From the sound of it not just your normal run of the mill psychopath either.
The question is "What happened to Woolf Abrahams and Morris Lubnowski"
I can't believe someone with that ingenuity, ability, drive and need for control is just going to sit in his home being satisfied that, although he now is truly the center of attention, all his movements and actions are being watched and controlled by others.
Is he happy just to live out the rest of his life as a door-mat?
Did they all live happily ever after?
Cheerio,
ian - keeping one eye open and the other one closed
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
Norder,
In my post of August 09, 7:14 pm I asked you the following question:
In your July 31, 7:55 pm post you asked Radka: "Do you or do you not still say (as you did while trying to defend your Jack the Ripper theory) that it's impossible for a psychopath to be angry?" (Norder: 2004). You then asked me: "Mephisto: With the same info, was David correct when he said that it's impossible for psychopaths to be angry?" (ibid).
I want to read Radka's statement in context before I comment; could you please cite the post (time and day will do just fine) where Radka allegedly claims "that it's impossible for a psychopath to be angry" (ibid).
I'll ask you again Norder.....Are you able to cite the post where Radka claims that it's impossible for a psychopath to be angry?
You made the claim Norder, now back it up. Tell the Casebook readers where they can find the evidence that supports your claim. I argue that when you made this claim, you where being disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest. Can you prove me wrong?
The odds are, you will obfuscate, and bullschist your way around my argument.
Mephisto
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 1:44 pm: | |
Hello Ian,
In my Friday, June 25, 1:43 am post to JS Mullins, I gave the readers a brief account of who I am, and the events that have shaped my world-view.
Thanks for your curiosity.
Mephisto
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
