|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 738
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 3:55 am: |       |
Jason,
Ian was just pointing out that I had a go at Joe because he kept going on about people's education, but you had asked David about his education and I hadn't had a go at you.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 296
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
I find it interesting how inactive this thread is when unregistered posts are not pushed through..
I do not envy spry the headache he will have sorting though all the stuff that is back logged upon his return 
Jennifer -
Ahh, well I will await Ian's response before I make any further judgement.. thanks for the tip though.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 768
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
Jason,
thats ok. I think you'll find it was me and not you that Ian was having a go at though!
I agree i don't envy Spry either. I guess there are probably a few posts by unregistered users lining up!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Donato Fasolini
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 9:35 am: | |
Sorry Off Topic
Radka hadyou see my e-mail?
Can I have some informations about your Master Thesis (see my post at General Discussion\This site need....)
Thank
Sorry for the intrusion
Donato Fasolini |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:17 pm: | |
1. Ms Severn wrote: “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?”
>>Nothing is wrong with it; I never said there was. I make an entirely RELATIVISTIC cultural comparison of the British to the American people with respect to how each is no good when each is no good. I made no comment as to the net amount of good in either people as compared to the other, nor did I generalize with respect to either. Certainly not everyone represents all the aspects of either culture. As anyone who has read my thousands of posts to this web site since 1996 is aware, my view of the British people is a favorable and complimentary one. Please do not allow others to paint me up as making an absolute statement when I am making a RELATIVE one; the result is your own confusion. If you want to know my take on a particular issue, ask me—I’m happy to respond.
2. “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.”
>>The BBC clearly has an anti-American bias today. If there are 236 possible interviews out there to represent American public opinion, the BBC will usually post the one that is the most laughably regionalist and uncomplimentary. I recently heard on the BBC’s web site an interview with a representative from the Democratic National Convention that seemed to me straight out of 1930s southern huckabilly bigotry. They must have really worked to find this rustic primed to spew his jaundiced and unrepresentative opinions. I vote for Democrats usually, and I am as far away from that man in my political and social views as can be. Before that, everyone the BBC interviewed concerning the war in Iraq seemed to be the mother of an American serviceman stationed there who just couldn’t believe any justification for putting her baby in harm’s way. Generally speaking, the United States is diverse beyond the usual imagination of foreigners, and its perspectives differ RELATIVISTICALLY by region.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 6:17 pm: | |
Quick look-in post, out of order:
Mr. Omlor wrote:
1.""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."
>>I have not used the term "emotional coldness" "to describe an entire history of a nation's many diverse people" anywhere at any time. It is a dishonorable lie to say that I have. My overall view of the British people is a complimentary one, and I view the differences between the British and American peoples as a positive thing, as anyone who has read my posts to this web site beginning in 1996 is aware.
2."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."
>>I have made no "pretentious claims about the philosophical elements of my work" anywhere. To say that I have is a dishonorable, self-serving lie on the part of Mr. Omlor. Please copy-quote me directly from anywhere where I have done so.
David Radka |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Quick look-in post, out of order:
Simon Owen wrote: "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 ?"
Hi Simon,
It is great to see you back on the boards after so long. It was always a pleasure to discuss the case with you. I will get to your specific question in rotation. Great to have you back!
David
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 11:48 pm: | |
Reply to Norder's harebrained August 10, 2.55 am post.
On August 10, 2004 - 2.55 am, you wrote: "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" (Norder: 2004).
How pathetic. Norder has turned to fabricating university curricula to support his lies. How does he know what courses are available to 3rd year psych. majors in the US, or Canada, or Europe? How does he know what psychology professors are saying in their lectures? How does he know "psych. majors aren't pursuing clinical psychology" (ibid)? How does he know that "the PCL-R is not considered as important in classes as the DSM" (ibid)? Why would a psychology professor put more time in a DSM-IV manual that Dr. Hare said contained unreliable information (Hare, et. al. 1991: Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol. 100 (1) 391-398)? Even Norder has said it's bogus. How does he know "where the majority of the time would go in the classes" (Norder: August 10, 2004 - 2.55 am)? Norder doesn't know, Casebook readers, because he doesn't have any proof? He failed to use citations to support his claims again. I wonder if he plagiarized this information.
Norder wrote: "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.]" (ibid, my emphasis)?
Norder, has finally turned into a babbling idiot:
"Of course he skips over the point that know that he knows how it is really scored". Poor guy, he's taken to standing on street corners and shrieking at passing cars: Tell me Mephisto, is it true? Did I say "that any characteristic of a psychopath must be in ALL psychopaths". Where can I find these words in the Book of Akdar? I'm sure I read it somewhere my leader. Is it "unrelated to the debate" Mephisto, or am I the king of Spain? "You don't understand my leader "I'm desperate; I have to claim something, even if "I know it doesn't exist" (ibid)?. It must be time to increase his medication.
Can we believe anything Norder says? So far, he hasn't demonstrated that he knows how the PCL-R works. In fact, I don't think he has a copy. When he claimed that Radka's description of his suspect's psychopathy was wrong, he tried to use some lame-o shopping list method to prove his point. How he fits into the methodology is a total mystery to him. Apparently, he doesn't realize that trying to evaluate Radka's description makes him an interviewer/rater, and interviewer/raters make judgments, therefore, Norder is making a judgment about Radka's suspect's mental state.
Norder wrote: "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" (Norder: August 10, 2004 - 2.55 am) Yes we are, loser. We are talking about Radka's description of his suspect's psychopathy. His suspect is a human being, you remember, we were talking about the Whitechapel murderer, and you said Radka was wrong.
On May 15, 2004 Norder wrote: "You still are avoiding the point that some of the supposed symptoms of psychopathy you base your theory on (lack of all emotion, disordered thinking, poor communication ability).....These two references are used by the professionals in this field. If you make a claim about psychopaths that is not supported in these two references, then your claim is wrong" (Norder: 2004, my emphasis). When Norder says "We aren't talking about judgments", he's being intellectually dishonest (ibid). He knows exactly what the topic of debate is, but as you can see for yourselves, he's changed his tactics, i.e., he is now trying to distort his arguments. Why? Because he wants to avoid having to account for the fact that he made a judgment using bogus methodology, which proves his assessment of Radka's description is bogus, and his "superior qualifications" are bogus. Norder, you made a value judgment about psychopathy. You don't have the education or the necessary training to make that kind of judgment. (BTW-Has anyone noticed the contradiction in Norder's May 15 quote?)
On August 11, 5:11 am, Norder wrote: "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" (Norder: 2004). Again, he wants to avoid having to account for the fact that he made a judgment using bogus methodology. On August 08, 7:57 am, I wrote: "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". Norder's August 04, 3:28 am post confirms that this is correct. "it rates...them on a sliding scale (0 for not at all, 1 for somewhat, 2 for definitely), and total scores over a certain level (30 is standard, some people use 25) indicate psychopathy" (Norder: 2004). The next part of my quote he doesn't comment on, because he does not have a copy of the PCL-R checklist to use for reference. In fact, he's never seen the checklist. "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" (Mephisto: 2004, my emphasis;Cooke et. al.: 1991). (Did anyone notice another contradiction in Norder's Aug. 11 quote?)
Let me repeat that for you Norder: "The same type of manual, i.e., the PCL-R is used to evaluate file reviews, and collateral information (ibid). The following information proves that Norder is WRONG.
The PCL-R is used to evaluate psychopathology, period. File reviews, and collateral interviews are used to evaluate psychopathology if a subject is unavailable for interview. In March, 1999, Cooke et. al. published the findings from their research in the APA, peer reviewed journal, Psychological Assessment. The article explains the capability of Dr. Hare's PCL-SV test to accurately evaluate psychopathology, relative to PCL-R standards. Cooke et. al. wrote: "More recently, the PCL–R has received considerable attention from forensic researchers because of its predictive validity with respect to criminal behavior, and in particular violent crime" (Evaluating the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-SV): An Item Response Theory, was in the APA, peer reviewed journal, Psychological Assessment. Vol. 11 (1) 3-13). Norder doesn't get it, forensic psychopathy can be predicted using case files, and collateral evidence without interviewing a subject. Readers, do you think this was "mentioned by name briefly" in the Wal-Mart Community College, intro. to psych. class that Norder took in the 90's(Norder: August 10, 2004 - 2.55 am)? Do you think the TA who taught the class might have mentioned the term dependent variable to him? Well, that might be a stretch; let's see if he remembers what a dependent variable is.
In my statement (quoted above), I argue that, "the same type of manual is used to evaluate file reviews, and collateral information}. The collected information is the subject's dependent variables" (Mephisto: August 08, 7:57 am, my emphasis). Do we have any dependent variables in Radka's summary that we could analyze Norder? Do you remember what they are? Well, duh. They're all those things you said are "David's description of a psychopath" (Norder: August 10, 2004 - 2.55 am). The collateral information is the context that Radka uses to narrate his suspect's thinking and movements. Are they legitimate descriptions of psychopathology? According to Cooke et. al.,
(inter alia) they are.
Let me tell you how this works there Norder: You take the characteristics that Radka uses to describe a psychopath, and you evaluate them, then you mark your assessment on the Guttman scale. Are you getting this, or should I start again so you can take notes? Like I said folks, Norder's main problem is, he doesn't have the education or the training to make that kind of judgment; he even said so himself.
In my July 31, 4:23 am post to Mr. Andersson, I wrote: "If you [Norder] read both the DSM-VI and the PCL-R, then you must be aware that the characteristics of psychopathy only become evident, after an individual has been properly evaluated (Mephisto: 2004, my emphasis).
Norder replied to this argument on August 10, 2.55 am,: "I've also already explained...that I have no professional experience in psychology, but then you need a graduate level degree for that", i.e., to properly evaluate psychopathy (Norder: 2004). If Norder doesn't have "professional experience in psychology", then why should we accept his evaluation of Radka's descriptions? Readers, have you noticed how the truths of all his arguments depend on his testimony? Sounds like circular logic to me. What do you think?
Since April, all he's been saying is: I can make accurate judgments about Radka's description, because I clearly, and undeniably have "superior qualifications" (Norder: Spring and Summer of 2004). But wait, didn't he just say he couldn't make accurate judgments, because he's not qualified. If he does not have a college degree, then he does not have "a graduate level degree". If he "[has] no professional experience in psychology", then he cannot make accurate judgments of Radka's desciptions (Norder: August 10, 2004 - 2.55 am). Round and round he goes, he's the only person on the planet who can have a contradictory, circular argument with himself, using his butt cheeks and his mouth at the same time. Maybe that's what he means by "superior qualifications".
His vague references, and uncertain grasp of long standing analytic methods, have validated my arguments. Ask yourself casebook readers.....Are his arguments full of details to support his claims or are they full of holes? Do his arguments contain the kind of compelling evidence that you would expect from a man with "superior qualifications", or are they the crude tactics of someone who's trying to conceal his mundane intellect with misrepresentations and distortion? Do his posts serve the interests of Ripperology, or are they self-serving?
YOU BE THE JUDGE.
Mephisto
Readers' I have two questions that I know Norder won't answer:
1)--Can he tell us the date and time of the post where Radka claims that "all psychopaths...[are] people completely opposite of the criteria specified by the clinical sources" (ibid)?
2)--Can he tell us where we can find the post where Radka claims all psychopaths are incapable of anger?
This is the third time I'm asking Norder the second question. Stay tuned.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 9:32 pm: | |
Ally wrote:
1. “This is asinine. Psychopaths are capable of getting angry. Everyone (even those who would pretend not to know this for whatever personal motivation they might have...stubbornness, theory falling apart, pride, whatever...)knows this. Psychopaths can get angry. Period, the end.”
>>I do not and never have had a position that psychopaths are incapable of any kind of anger. I have never stated that I had such a position anywhere. My position is that psychopaths have shallow emotions, not no emotions, and it has been clearly expressed here by me from day one. When we see a psychopath behaving as if angry, that person is not experiencing the same emotion as we do under the same circumstances. They are experiencing petty irksomeness and transient vexation only, not what we know as anger. Serious study of psychiatric books about this subject is required to establish a reasonable perspective.
2. “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?”
>>I do not and never have had a position that the British people are irrational. I have merely stated a fact that has been known and discussed for hundreds of years, namely that the British traditionally prefer empiricism to continental rationalism as a matter of philosophical perspective. The terms “irrational” and “rationalism” are unrelated. The reason people on this web site incorrectly think that I have claimed the British people are irrational is because they believe Mr. Norder’s lie telling them I have so claimed, posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 – 11:53 pm as follows:
(Mr. Norder wrote): “Regarding David calling Brits irrational and emotionally cold: Gee, wouldn't that in his sloppy understanding of psychology make them all psychopaths?…”
Please do not accept your information about what I believe from anyone but me.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 2:00 pm: | |
1. Mr. Radka wrote: "It is my job to explain what happened by determining why it happened, nothing more and nothing less. What Levy actually does is tell Harris that he doesn’t like the looks of the couple standing at the head of Church Passage despite their being simply just another John and Mary couple and their doing nothing untoward, an absurdity of expression on his part." --D.R. >>Mr. Palmer wrote: The intellectual error you are making here, Mr. Radka, is that you are imposing on Levy your own opinions and feelings. You find it "absurd" that Levy would feel alarmed or disgusted by a whore & her client at 1:30 a.m. in the morning. You evidently don't find the situation the least bit "untoward." What you fail to state, however, is the fact that Levy himself attempted to explain why he behaved the way he did.”
>>Sure, lying through his teeth all the while, as he felt he had to. Why grant Levy credibility just because he explains? A liar can explain just as a truth-teller can, you know. I go straight by the evidence, as well. Levy’s statements to Harris at the time, and to the reporter, and at the inquest, are fully documented; you are wrong to assert that I am “imposing my own opinions and feelings” as you do. Frankly in all of this business about Levy, you are essentially being used as a cardboard cut out for Evans to do his dirty work; you promote his unsupported positions for him, so that he doesn’t need to face me either as “G. Longman” or himself.
2. “At the inquest he explicitly stated that he never went out late at night-- he was always home by 11 or 11:30 p.m. at the latest. He was evidently a simple man, a home body.”
>>What a nice, home-loving man, seeing no evil! Sorry Mr. P, Levy was a middle-aged man with very extensive experience walking in Whitechapel, especially in the Imperial Club/Mitre Square area. He was well acquainted with the actions of prostitutes there, day and night. Anybody walking in that area would see meetings, intercourse, fellatio and other suspicious behaviors. Thousands of poor women had no other place to ply their trade. As soon as you hear Levy talking like a choirboy, you have to raise an eyebrow.
3. “Anyone who has lived in a big city (like London, New York, etc.) knows that places that are safe in the daytime & early evening can be very much altered at night. On the night in question, Levy overstayed his self-imposed curfew at the Imperial Club. One might speculate that a few glasses of wine were passed around. Whatever the case, it rained, and his departure--like that of the others--was delayed (Eddowe's inquest papers). And so Jospeh Levy, a simple man, against his normal customs and experience (a point in evidence)…”
>>…a sheer baloney point placed into evidence, acceptable only to fools..
4. “…now finds himself walking up a dark East End street at 1:30 in the morning, and he is disgusted and repulsed by what he sees, a woman obviously plying her trade with what was probably a sailor.”
>>No, no Mr. Palmer. You are living in a surreal world. Ten year-old girls knew what was going on in situations like those, and would take little notice of it. Your position is desperate here, and completely unbelievable.
5. “The explanation is simple and credible. What we see in the extant tid-bits of the inquest transcripts is the coroner having a bit of fun at Mr. Levy's expense. Indeed, I think it was the Daily Telegraph that reported that those present laughed out loud at the fastidiousness of this simple, honest man.”
>>Absolutely no evidence exists to support this baloney story of yours concerning Levy’s alleged naiveté. There is no reason whatever to believe in it. You are making it up out of whole cloth, and in so doing ruining the empirical basis for the case we all must use.
6. “Mr. Radka wrote: Levy then tells Harris “the court should be watched,” meaning Mitre Square, presaging the crime that in fact soon after took place there. Levy then clams up and says nothing further. What am I as an interpreter to make of this? Apparently, Levy is appalled at seeing someone he knows with a hooker in an obviously compromising situation and blurts, but he thereupon recovers and gets out of the conversational faux pas without revealing anything further, e.g., that he knows the man, what the man’s name is, who he is related to, etc.' >>Mr. Palmer wrote: This is your interpretation and you are welcome to it; it is certainly an interesting speculation shared by Paul Begg & (I think) Scott Nelson. On the otherhand, you have no way of knowing this, and have rather flimsy reasons for initiating such speculation to begin with. By your own admission, you reject Martin Kosminski as not being part of the empirical evidence. The term "blurted out" is not in the records, it's your addition in an attempt to characterize what might be candid statements by Levi as unbalanced and deceptive.”
>>Mr. Palmer, honestly, for your own good please grow a brain for the first time in your life! The evidence for blurting is right in front of your nose. No middle-aged man ordinarily remarks about a John and Mary couple in those circumstances. It is like walking past a flock of pigeons—you just don’t remark on it, because it is too common an occurrence. You don’t say “Oh! Pigeons!” You just walk on. If Levy bristles and remarks, this is evidence that something may be contrary to normal expectation in the context of the situation.
7. “I submit that the "original sin" in the case evidence is Anderson's 1910 statement. By assuming it is based in fact, you allow the assumption that the man seen by Levy was a Jew; the contemporary (1888) evidence would not allow you to draw this conclusion.”
>>What “statement” are you talking about? Anderson made several various statements about the case. You are flopping around and tergiversating yourself at this point, not making any sense. No one can evaluate what you may be saying here, except that by smearing Anderson with the label of “original sin” you are prejudicing balanced evaluation of his part in the case evidence.
8. Mr. Radka wrote: "If you were Levy and I were Harris, Mr. Palmer, and you told me you knew that John, and/or what his name was, I’d hold you in contempt for the rest of my life for being an indiscrete man. I’d never trust you with any privileged information about myself, fearing you’d give it away the first chance you had, and I’d basically try to avoid you thereafter. This social risk factor would be abundantly clear to a man of Levy’s age and experience, and is probably the main reason why he recovered and shut up.' Mr. Palmer answered: >>An eccentric position. If you held me in contempt for exposing a dangerous man, then I'd just as soon not associate with you.”
>>Exposing to whom, and under what circumstances? If Levy were to consider the immediate situation of the prostitute so dangerous in the company of that man that he would have interceded between them, then fine, he’s exposed a dangerous man honorably. But that’s not what he did, did he Mr. P? He just walked on by with Harris and Lawende, didn’t he, leaving Eddowes to her fate. And if he does only that while exposing the man to Harris, indeed we would hold in contempt.
9. “Why does every human being you come across in the history of these murders, inhabit a disgusting world only motivated by self-interest? What about honor, decency, and respect? (Have you been reading too much Cleckley??) Think what you are accusing Levy of doing! At the time of Anderson's memoirs, The Jewish Chronicle wrote passionately about the fear the Ripper created among the Jewish women in the East End. Yet, you would have us believe that Levy would lie to his companions, the police, and the inquest (thus leaving his own community exposed to the whims of a murderer) merely in order not to "lose his social positon." A remarkable belief; more extreme and cynical than the view of Dr. Anderson when he was lambasted by Major Smith.”
>>The reason why the murderer STOPPED killing women was because Levy got himself involved and sandbagged him after Miller’s Court, don’t you remember, Mr. P? So much for Levy not concerning himself with the fate of the Jewish community of Whitechapel. And insofar as he stuck his head in the sand following Duke Street, his reaction is typical and ordinary of a man in that immediate position. He wanted the cup to pass from him somehow—he was afraid of getting too involved with matters far bigger than he, especially if he didn’t have to, and at that point he didn’t think he necessarily had to.
10. Mr. Radka wrote: "...not wanting to get involved with a criminal matter involving near relations.' Mr. Palmer answered: “Relations? What relations? Are you, or are you not, summoning the ghost of Martin Kosminski?? My suggestion here is that this is a very dubious explanation for those who have read about the actual social gulf that existed between the different classes of East End jews. (See 'Point of Arrival' or other books on the subject). It is unlikely that a native-born & affluent businessman like Levy would feel any kinship towards the Lubnowski family.”
>>As I’ve said many times on this web site, Mr. P, take Martin Kosminski’s naturalization certificate and throw it in the trash. I have no need of it in my work, and you have no right to throw it in my face considering that I don’t. *** With respect to the Jewish community, every single Jew in Whitechapel was acutely aware of the dire situation of the current pogroms in Russia, and of the dire situation of impoverishment and potential anti-Semitism against Jews in Whitechapel as a result. To imply that Levy would feel no kinship in this regard is ridiculous on your part. Every single Jew in Whitechapel feared a possible pogrom arising from the Ripper scare, for himself and on behalf of the whole Jewish community, regardless of his point of origin.
11. Mr. Radka wrote: "I “explain myself” as follows: If I were Levy and I wanted to escape the situation without losing my social position to retaliation from the Jewish community, I’d make sure to fully cooperate with the authorities to throw off all suspicion.' Mr. Palmer responded: >> It's seems remarkable to me that after 115 years you can readily see the duplicity in Mr. Levy's actions, whereas his contemporaries, other than a nameless reporter from the Evening News -- flustered that Levy wouldn't give him a story--- detected none. If the police had suspected evasion on Mr. Levy's part they would have raked him over the coals. Yet Robert Anderson, writing to the Home Office shortly after the Eddowes inquest, commended the cooperation of those the East End.”
>>You are full of baloney up to your eyeballs. The reporter DID see the duplicity, and DID mention it! The Coroner questioned Levy on the matter; he did pass it off successfully at the time insofar as official testimony went. As I’ve said many times, nobody knows what anybody sees. Nobody could prove what Levy did or didn’t see in Duke Street.
12. Mr. Radka: "He takes the easiest and safest way out of a potentially disastrous situation, the same as almost everyone but the Pope (or the Chief Rabbi)." Mr Palmer answered: I hope that you really don't believe that only the Pope or the Chief Rabbi would have the moral fibre to do the right thing.”
>>Once the news got out Sunday morning of the murder in Mitre Square, in my view the right thing for Levy would to have been to go to the police and tell them the name of the man he saw with Eddowes. But for me to stand in his shoes in that awesome situation in which he involuntarily found himself is still presumptuous. Maybe I would have had the courage, maybe not. I’d really have to think that one over…
13. Mr. Radka wrote: "The following posted above is offensive to me as a Christian: "A pacifist would have been a psychopath in Ancient Rome. (Indeed, he was). It covertly states that Jesus Christ was a psychopath." Mr. Palmer responded: It does nothing of the sort. This is a transparent and cartoonish attempt at character assassination, Mr. Radka. It is a tactic that is beneath contempt. I was clearly indicting the Roman society, not Christ.”
>>Baloney, Mr. P. To who does your term “he” refer? Roman society is an “it,” not a “he.” What famous pacifist is associated with ancient Rome other than Jesus? Marcus Aurelius? Cato the Censor? Julius Caesar, the Roman Feezer? Hardly a cheek turner here. The only remotely pacifistic one might be Marcus Augustinius, although I wouldn’t necessarily associate him with pacifism but with moral innovation and rhetoric. You meant Jesus, and I hope for your sake you are able to ask His forgiveness. As far as I am personally concerned you are forgiven for the remark, as I said before.
14. “And, of course, you knew this, as you later acknowledged my point about the "labelling of psychopaths" in your post of August 3rd, 2:39 p.m. If you are going to stoop to such tactics, let me withdraw from the discussion.”
>>I’ve returned to the post you cite, and find nothing of what you are talking about there. I have no idea what alleged “acknowledgement” on my part you are talking about. If you are going to cite like this, you must be totally specific, and copy my words right out of my quote for me to analyze. Otherwise, all you do is present yourself as if desperately trying to put me in your pocket.
15. Mr. Radka wrote: "Is psychopathy a moral question, really? If you have no conscience, meaning you are incapable of feeling bad about literally anything you’ve ever done or might do, how can it be said that you are morally responsible for the evil things you do?" Mr. Palmer answered: Think it through, Mr. Radka, and perhaps it will come to you. Is it possible that you and Dr. Cleckley are really in the devil's camp without knowing it? Perhaps you might wish to explore the following theological question. How is your acceptance of the existance of these innate & incurable moral reprobates compatible with the idea of free will that is necessarily element of the Christian system? Would you have me believe that God created moral monsters (2 or 3 % of the population, I think you stated) who were singularly unable to choose between good & evil? It's seems like a difficult position to take, theologically.”
>>Whatever they are, God created them. And if they pray, follow the
Gospels, and ask forgiveness of God, then they partake of the same covenant with Him that you and I do, and are equally capable of being saved by him, based on His sovereign decision. I don’t know that they do this, but IF they do, then we may find Lubnowski himself, as you refer to him, in heaven when we get there.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 10:24 pm: | |
AIP wrote:
1. “In response to a comment "...lust murderers--a term Radka refuses to acknowledge,..”
>>THIS IS FALSE. I ATTRIBUTE THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS IN PART TO LUST MURDERING IN THE SUMMARY, ITEM 40 AS CLEAR AS A BELL, BUY A BRAIN FOR YOURSELF AT THE BARGAIN TABLE, AIP.
2. “…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.", Mr. Radka replied (Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 9:09 pm): "...Rubbish. The police at the time knew no such thing - it was 1888 for God's sake, before any notion of sexual serial murderers. JtR was the first perpetrator of his type, and nobody had anyone to compare him with..." This statement is incorrect. First, the Whitechapel murders were recognized as a series…”
>>Of course they were recognized as a series at the time, by the most obvious of signs. This certainly was not my point.
3. “…and, secondly, the motive was suggested as being sexual mania at the time. There is no need to look further than Dr. Bond's report to Scotland Yard dated 10 November 1888 (the day after the Kelly murder) to see that this was the very motive recommended to the police: "He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis."
>>You are taking me out of context in a very foolish way, AIP. When we speak on this web site about “lust murder” we refer to the modern concept. Dr. Bond back in 1888 had no concept of “lust murder” as we do, nor of “sexual serial murder.” His terms “erotic mania” and “satyriasis“ are quaint old-fashioned errors having nothing to do with the Whitechapel murders.
4. “Mr. Radka is rather clever. He makes the claim that he has posted only a summary of his 'solution' and that various objections being raised by posters will be addressed in the full version when published. This allows him to see what attacks and criticisms his ideas may be subjected to, and also reveals his weaknesses and errors. All this in advance of the full 'solution', despite the fact that he has already written an almost book-length treatment on these boards.
I rather suspect that his 'full solution' is an ever-changing entity that is constantly being amended and added to. And we are all his dupes.”
>>Well, you certainly are pretty dupey yourself, based on what you write above. I’d be delighted to respond to whatever “weaknesses and errors” you may find in my work, AIP.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 7:11 pm: | |
Sarah wrote: 1. “David, psychopaths are incapable of any deep emotions. So are you also saying that psychopaths are incapable of love because I also know that this person I know was very much in love, so much so that she stayed with a man who abused her violently rather than leave him. She said she loved him all the time. If she didn't, surely she would have left him earlier.”
>>Sarah, I don’t know the woman personally, but if she is a psychopath as you say she is, then she is not the victim in the relationship with her boyfriend despite his beating her. The psychopath is not the victim in a relationship, the opposite is the case. And no, she does not have any deep feelings of any kind for her boyfriend, she is merely taking advantage of him in some way we don’t see, despite the beatings. Psychopaths are sometimes beaten because they will not stop doing terrible things. Often a psychopath in prison, for example, will point out that he was beaten by his mother when a child, and maintain that this accounts for his later criminal conduct. However, if he were a psychopath in youth, the likelihood was that his mother was desperately trying to put the fear of God into him so he’d have a chance to grow up straight.
2. “I also don't accept that you say she doesn't get angry. As I've explained, she gets very angry. If you don't call that angry, then please explain to us what you call "anger"?
>>As I’ve said many times here, psychopaths are incapable of any deep feelings. They are barred from any real affective relationship with another human being, except on the level of very temporary pique or postured affectation. They have an excellent ability to imitate, mimic or memorize emotions, which they use to get what they want from others. This I believe is what you misperceive in your friend as genuine emotions. If this woman is a psychopath as you say she is, then I’d be quite wary of her if I were you, lest she take advantage of you in the same vein as she does her boyfriend.
David |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
Ian wrote:
1. “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.”
>>Certainly not. Apparently, you have not read the Summary attentively. See item 40. The Whitechapel murderer was personally inconsistent with respect to motivation for his crimes. At certain points and in certain ways the lust murder motive was present.
2. “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.”
>>It is not a matter of my logic being diffuse, but your attention span. See # 38: “With respect to uteri, his motivation was to overpower, wreck, triumph over and be subjected to, possess and publicly correct what he considered impure maternal authority. Hysterectomy and theft of the uterus were affected whenever the victim had a maternal appearance and he had enough time.” Essentially the theft of the uterus represents the murderer’s archetypical beef with his significant other for exercising her maternal authority in his household by requiring him to accept provisions she has made there for Aaron. Your statement that I wrote the Summary in a diffuse manner, and that there are no “sensible/clear and concise answers” in it is rubbish. You are attempting to pride yourself on beating a man better than you, but then you don’t beat him.
3. “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?”
>>There’s no reason whatever for why he couldn’t have sent a longitudinally divided uterus to Lusk. He well might have. But he didn’t, did he? So why then do you require me to explain why he didn’t? The evidence is the evidence.
4. “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.”
>>As the Summary clearly says, he wanted two witnesses at two different crime scenes the same night in order to lock in the reward money. Once he has got Stride dead and his signature M.O. in place on her body, why does he need to mutilate her? He’s going after another one in only a few moments. He can do his “corrective surgery” there. This strong logical argument washes fine, just the way it is.
5. “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?”
>>He removed Kelly’s heart for some reason or purpose important to him at the time. There is insufficient evidence, as far as I can see, to determine the nature of the matter beyond that.
6. “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"?”
>>Psychopaths have the same intelligence as anyone else. *** As the Summary clearly says at item # 38, possession of the uterus was part of the experience he wanted to have; it goes along with wrecking, overpowering, correcting, and so on.
7. “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.”
>>Without a doubt he was both these things, albeit both inconsistently and only to some extent, see the Summary # 40.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 2:24 pm: | |
Hi Jason/crix0r
Whoops I'll try and write that clearer.
"The same type of questions were asked of David by crix0r for example.
In response we were told David has "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."
I can see why you were confused. Sorry for my _very_ sloppy posting (I'm not sure it was even ambiguous, just sloppy). Hope it scans OK now.
Maybe it wasn't you who asked David for his qualifications and experience, and if so sorry for that also (I'll rewrite it all agin if you like ;-))
The point I was trying to make was one of if David can be asked such questions by others, then Mephisto has the right also (since it does have bearing in the recent debate/argument on psychopathy).
You shouldn't be taken to task for asking the questions but then neither should Mephisto or Dan to also ask the same of Mephisto.
Cheerio,
ian - Keeping one eye open and the other one closed.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
Mr. Andersson wrote:
”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.”
>>Herein is where you finally state your essential problem. You just can’t imagine any reasonable work on the case being done outside of a detective force. You are not concerned with the Whitechapel murders; you are concerned with detectives. You want to do what they do, go where they go, eat what they eat, be like them, and so forth. Your attachment to them is obsessive. For you, when any case is analyzed, a little toy detective wearing a little gray detective suit has to walk out of his little detective box and climb up on the case evidence.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 10:31 pm: | |
Casebook readers, the following is a summary of the Norder–Mephisto discussion as of August 15, 2004.
Introduction
As the new editor of Ripper Notes magazine, Dan Norder is in a position to influence public opinion. Norder claims that David Radka's description of his suspect's psychopathy, is inconsistent with the terms and definitions contained in two professional diagnostic instruments. He attempted to give his allegations the force of knowledge by claiming he has "superior qualifications" in psychology that enable him to judge Radka's descriptions with authority.
I argue that Norder's public declaration of "superior qualifications" is reckless and immature. His enthusiastic involvement in a personality clash with Radka, demonstrates that he is unaware that objectivity is an essential part of his editorial responsibilities. Furthermore, his deliberate campaign to trash Radka's summary is unethical, and without good cause. His inability to describe his support criteria in detail, and to adequately explain how he used those instruments to develop the foundation of his arguments, makes it clear that his claim of "superior qualifications" is an empty boast.
I argue that purposely distorting my arguments as a private joke on a global forum, is not only moronic, it's shortsighted and naive. To those readers who are not part of the fun, Norder's claims are viewed as intellectually dishonest. He does not seem to understand that he cannot regain his reputation in a chat room, or by sending a few e-mails to his friends. This kind of infantile behavior not only damages his credibility as an objective observer, it also harms the credibility of the Casebook as a reliable source of objective information.
Summary
Norder, claimed that Radka's description of his suspects psychopathy is incongruous with the information contained in the DSM-IV manual, and Dr. Robert Hare's PCL-R checklist. He supported this claim by stating that a few graduate level courses he took in college, have somehow given him a higher level of understanding of how these instruments are used to diagnose psychopathy. He insisted that his self-proclaimed higher understanding, elevated his allegations beyond refute, and therefore, Radka's description of his suspect's psychopathy is undeniably incorrect.
I argued that an overwhelming majority of practicing psychologists and clinicians agreed that the DSM-IV manual is an unreliable source of criteria for diagnosing psychopathy. In fact, psychopathy is not listed in the DSM-IV manual (Hare: 1993). I argued that Norder's use of the PCL-R checklist to analyze Radka's descriptions of psychopathy, is incompatible with standard APA methodology. I supported all of my arguments with evidence from relevant APA, peer reviewed journals and books, the DSM-IV manual, the PCL-R checklist, and information from Dr. Hare's many publications. Therefore, if the DSM-IV manual is unreliable, and Norder's use of the PCL-R checklist is incompatible with standard APA methodology, then his insights are bogus. It follows that if his insights are bogus, then his claims against Radka's descriptions are also bogus.
During the discussion, I argued a series of legitimate points. Norder's answers enabled me to evaluate the following criteria, which he claimed supported his allegations:
1)--His education.
2)--The DSM-IV manual.
3)--The PCL-R checklist.
4)--His methodology.
After I challenged the reliability of the DSM-IV manual, Norder abruptly shifted the focus of the discussion away from the DSM-IV as his main support criteria, to the PCL-R checklist. Accordingly, I asked him to explain how he used the PCL-R to analyze the elements of Radka's description of his suspect's psychopathy, and he replied with vague generalizations, and blatant intellectual dishonesty.
On July 31, at 7:28 pm, Norder posted conclusive evidence that his understanding of the PCL-R is negligible, and his use of the instrument is incompatible with the standard methodology of the APA. He claimed that he proved Radka wrong, by simply matching his (Radka's) descriptions of psychopathy, against a list of terms he found in the PCL-R.
In a July 31, 4:23 am post, I asked Mr. Andersson specific questions regarding the PCL-R methodology he used to form his opinion regarding the validity of Radka's descriptions. On August 4, at 3:28 am, Norder posted a message that vaguely addressed the particular areas of PCL-R application that I had asked Mr. Andersson to comment on. The information Norder provided in that post, clearly contradicted his July 31, 7:28 pm claims. On July 31, he claimed that matching Radka's descriptions to a list of symptoms is a legitimate use of the PCL-R. In his August 4, 3:28 am post, Norder apparently realized the incongruity of his July 31, 7:28 pm claim, and changed his position. He was now claiming that an individual psychological characteristic is considered psychopathic if it reaches or surpasses a threshold of .25 or .30. His new position shows that at some point, it dawned on him that evaluating Radka's description of psychopathy would not be as simple as he first thought. But recognizing a process, and being able to follow its format, is not one and the same thing. Norder insisted that his claim against Radka was not affected by the analytic methods that accompany his new position. I asked him to explain standard PCL-R methodology, and he replied with vague generalities and obvious distortions.
On August 08, I posted a two part message, the first at 7:57 am, the second at 7:14 pm, which described the following key elements of my argument: the PCL-R format, basic APA analytic methodology, and the foremost threat to validity, i.e., the influences that invalidate or skew a subject's PCL-R intake data. These elements are all relevant to Norder's claims, and my counter-arguments.
I asked Norder if he recognized these features. Again, he replied with vague generalities and deliberate distortions. I also asked him if he had followed standard APA statistical analysis methodology. On August 11, at 5:11 am, he replied "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" (Norder: 2004). This reply clearly shows that, although Norder realized that the comparative shopping method he espoused in his July 31, 7:28 pm post was unable to substantiate his claim, he did not follow standard APA statistical analysis methodology to corroborate his new position. It also shows that Norder is unfamiliar with the long-standing practice of using the PCL-R to collect data and assess the existence and extent of a subject's psychopathy, without knowing the subject's name, or scoring his interview responses.
In my most recent post (not posted as of August 15, 9:30 pm), I used information from a peer-reviewed article, which explained that non-interview data collection and analysis, has always been a part of the diagnosis of psychopathy. The article, co-authored by Dr. Hare and three of his collogues, categorically rejects Norder's claim, and instead, supports my arguments. If Norder truly understood the PCL-R, he would have realized that he could analyze Radka's data using Dr. Hare's non-clinical P-Scan diagnostic instrument.
Dr. Hare designed the P-Scan for the layperson, i.e., social workers, law enforcement personnel, parole officers, sociologists, anthropologists etc. The P-Scan provides researchers with a non-clinical checklist that facilitates the development of an accurate determination of the occurrence and/or extent of a particular person's psychopathy (The Crime Library: electronic document; MHS Data Collection Projects: electronic document).
Conclusion
The following reasons demonstrate that Norder has failed to sustain his allegation: Radka's description of his suspects psychopathy is incongruous with the DSM-IV manual or Dr. Hare's PCL-R diagnostic checklist, i.e., they are wrong:
1)--He made his education the foundation of his argument, by claiming that he took graduate level classes in psychology.
Comment: It is unreasonable for Norder to demand that we accept his arguments on good faith, or the implied condition that his claims are validated by his "superior qualifications", i.e., his education.
2)--He is unwilling to clearly expose the extent of his alleged "superior qualifications" to public scrutiny.
Comment: Near the end of April, Norder claimed that Radka's descriptions of psychopathy were inconsistent with the DSM-IV manual, and the PCL-R checklist. I noticed that be backed his claims with fuzzy references, and vague generalities, but never anything specific or concrete. He claimed to have "superior qualifications", which he attributed to three grad. level psych. courses he took in college. I was amused. Why would anyone base their credibility on a foundation of nine measly credits in psychology? Well, I thought, maybe he has a degree in some other field of social science? I decided to find out. I'm thinking.....If he was willing to use his education to bolster his credibility, then he should be willing to present his academic credentials to anyone who asks. Wrong! He hemmed and hawed, and repeatedly sidestepped the issue. Why was he being so evasive? I don't think it was unreasonable to ask Norder to present his academic credentials so I could judge for myself the worth of his knowledge of psychology, in the context of his learning achievements as a whole. Why is that valuable? Because claiming to have gained knowledge of psychology on a higher level, does not necessarily mean that the sum of his education gave him the wisdom to use it.
3)--His arguments are an exercise in circular reasoning.
Comment: I don't depend on my own testimony to validate my arguments. Norder claims that the validity of his arguments is guaranteed, because his education permits him to make valid arguments. I supported my arguments with empirical research findings, published in peer-reviewed journals by professional psychologists. Norder's arguments are supported by his alleged "superior qualifications".
4)--He is unwilling to reason; he is unfamiliar with his support criteria, he is intellectually dishonest.
Comment: He slandered my sources without cause, he distorted my arguments, he directed my arguments to people and organizations I was not referring to, and he made counter-claims without offering substantial proof to support his accusations. He is more concerned with impressing his friends, than he is in honest discourse. Apparently, he is unaware that his infantile repartee is damaging his credibility as an objective observer.
5)--He failed to use standard APA methodology to collect and analyze the data contained in Radka's description of his suspect's psychopathology.
Comment: He is either unable, or unwilling to identify the apparent dependent variables of psychopathy in Radka's summary. To claim that "David's statements about psychopaths in general are clearly wrong" without identifying the data set, clearly demonstrates that he never attempted to properly analyze them in the first place; he just dismissed them out of hand (Norder: 2004). Norder never cited any representative samples; he never specifically explained why they're wrong, and he never used anything other then circular reasoning, and vague generalizations to support his opinions.
6)--He claimed contradictory positions regarding his method of analysis.
Comment: On July 31, he was comparing Radka's descriptions of psychopathy with a list of generalized terms, as if he were comparison-shopping for laundry detergent. On August 4, he acknowledged the fact that standard APA statistical analysis is the appropriate methodology for collecting and analyzing psychopathological data, and began name-dropping PCL-R terminology: requirements, scales, percentages, and thresholds. He could not, however, explain how those parts fit together as a system, nor could he explain the crucial role that internal validity plays in the analytic process. He was unable to recognize how interviewer/rater reliability could affect his judgment. In fact, he contradicted his previous acknowledgment of APA standard methodology, by refusing to acknowledge that he had made any judgments at all; he had instead, resumed comparison-shopping for psychopathy. Evidently, it is much easier to debunk a theory if you can flip-flop your position whenever your argument is threatened.
7)--He claims, without equivocation, that it is impossible to use standard APA statistical analysis methodology to determine if anonymous, or deceased individuals are psychopaths (see Norder: 11, 5:11 am).
Comment: He is unaware that proper use of the PCL-R includes file review and collateral data analysis. He is also unaware that a PCL-R based, non-clinical diagnostic instrument, is available to accurately analyze Radka's data, without an interview. Simply asserting that he read the PCL-R, or that I'm stubborn and ignorant, or that my background in psychology is inferior to his own, does not prove that he knows what he's talking about.
8)--He does not now, nor has he ever owned a copy of Dr. Hare's PCL-R checklist.
Comment: The poverty of detail in his arguments, make it obvious that he was unable to spontaneously refer to and cite information from the PCL-R booklet.
9)--He has a token understanding of PCL-R and APA methodology.
Comment: He is unable to provide reliable, professional research documentation to support his claims, therefore, his arguments are invalid because his ego prevented him from making valid arguments.
Fellow Casebook readers, I believe that my summary of the Norder–Mephisto discussion clearly demonstrates that on this website, valid critical review is not a matter of "superior qualifications". Instead, it is a process of reasoning with: how well the piece is structured; the author's research question; the theoretical philosophy that guided his or her research; how well he or she answered the research question, within their theoretical framework; his or her ability to describe the correlations between cause and effect; the type of reasoning each argument presents, i.e., inductive or deductive, etc. etc.
Radka claims that his description of his suspect's psychopathy was generated by his theoretical approach; it is the central theme of his summary, and it remains open to legitimate empirical review. We will never know, with any degree of certainty, if his unique approach has indeed broken new ground, if we allow contentious arguments, and personal conflicts to replace objective criticism. There is always plenty of room for subjective personal opinions at Pub Talk.
The Casebook is home to our mutual interest. It is open to the ideas of people from all walks of life, including David Radka, Dan Norder, and hopefully, myself. The diversity of insights amongst the Casebook Jacks is a valuable asset, let's find a way to profit from it.
Let there be peace.
Sincerely,
};-)}
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 3:25 pm: | |
Ian wrote:
1. “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?”
>>Resolution of this matter has nothing to do with what Cleckley, Hare, etc. say. The A?R theory attempts to solve the case by subsuming the empirical case evidence under an epistemological center as a whole. This generates a cause and effect explanation of the evidence in light of that center. We become able to explain what the murderer did in terms of why he did it and what his real motivations in taking various actions were. When we do this, we see that the Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky missives are not a part of his planning and actions. Therefore, he didn’t send them. I am absolutely clear on this point in the Summary.
2. “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 A?R theory is the forming up of the empirical case evidence according to a logical principle. That is what A?R is, and that is all it is. If you think of the Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky missives, then you think outside the A?R theory. That’s it.
3. “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”
>>Why should they assume this if I explain to them otherwise? I see no “big danger” here. They are reading a theory explaining the Whitechapel murders. That theory has certain elements. They reason through the elements, and that’s that. What’s the problem? Does a Druittist theorist have to explain why Kosminski didn’t do it?
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 635
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:54 am: | |
Oh, oh, oh...
Me first!
The Radkaman writes to me:
>>I have not used the term "emotional coldness" "to describe an entire history of a nation's many diverse people" anywhere at any time. It is a dishonorable lie to say that I have.
So then, here are David Radka's own words, from his post on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 10:36 pm:
"It is difficult to convince me that the British do not have some kind of emotional coldness in them at work"
So, whose lying now, buster? 
Then he actually says, without a hint of shame or self-consciousness:
>>I have made no "pretentious claims about the philosophical elements of my work" anywhere.
This from the same man who described his own work here as, "part Plotinus (the center), part Plato (asking questions, opening doors), part Kant (a priori, a posteriori), and part Hegel (logical opposition as the underlying principle of the universe.)"
No, no pretentious claims there. Not at all. That's just David, right there with Plotinus, Plato, Kant, and Hegel, solving the Ripper case. 
Just loving this more than I can say,
--John (whose work here is part Groucho (the sarcastic wisecracks), part Chico (the attention to language), part Harpo (the rude noises), and part Zeppo (the dashing good looks)
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2032
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:46 am: | |
Radka wrote:
"Herein is where you finally state your essential problem. You just can’t imagine any reasonable work on the case being done outside of a detective force. You are not concerned with the Whitechapel murders; you are concerned with detectives."
>> What a load of crap. Since when is it a problem to look at a murder mystery from a detective's point of view? Whose point of view should we otherwise turn to in a criminal case? A glassblower's?
"For you, when any case is analyzed, a little toy detective wearing a little gray detective suit has to walk out of his little detective box and climb up on the case evidence."
>> I'd prefer that any day, compared to an over-theoretical, reality-lacking philosopher/accountant-in-a-box.
You stick to philosophy and guess-making, Mr Radka, I stick to police work, as should be done in a criminal case.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:51 am: | |
Mephisto,
In a nutshell: Boo hoo. Regardless of Norder's comments, regardless of whether his claims are legit, regardless of his qualifications, this is a message board. Why post a theory on a message board? Why not publish it in a scolarly forum? This message board has scholars on it, and it also has laymen, and it also has weirdos who pop in and say "poop". Them's the breaks I say, colloquially. You know what you're getting into when you post here. Radka posts, others critique, others critique the critique. Suggesting that anything broadly unethical is going on is just plain silly. Silly! I don't know what you're so het up about. Let it go, man.
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:52 am: | |
Crap. Typoed "scholarly". Guess I'm het up, too.
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2033
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 11:09 am: | |
Radka wrote:
"“In response to a comment "...lust murderers--a term Radka refuses to acknowledge,..”
>>THIS IS FALSE. I ATTRIBUTE THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS IN PART TO LUST MURDERING IN THE SUMMARY, ITEM 40 AS CLEAR AS A BELL, BUY A BRAIN FOR YOURSELF AT THE BARGAIN TABLE, AIP."
>>Then why don't your suspect character act like one, Radka? Because he sure doesen't.
There is nothing in your summary that really indicates him being alust murderer. Your killer has rational motives for his actions, although he sometimes acts irrational. But he doesen't show the traits of a lust murderer.
Radka again:
"When we speak on this web site about “lust murder” we refer to the modern concept. Dr. Bond back in 1888 had no concept of “lust murder” as we do, nor of “sexual serial murder.” His terms “erotic mania” and “satyriasis“ are quaint old-fashioned errors having nothing to do with the Whitechapel murders."
This is clearly confused rubbish. It is quite clear what Dr Bond means in his statements regarding this. He refers to a killer who makes serial murder out of an urge and sexual gratification. You are making things up here, as usual.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 306
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
Ok.. It's official.
This thread has gotten completely OUT OF HAND. We've gone from civilized conversation to just out right lying. At what point does someone step in and call a spade a spade? I think I'll give it a shot 
I was reading through the old boards yesterday and when it hit me. Everyone here used to play in the same sandbox with out serious (there are always exceptions) head butting. No longer. Now we're all far to busy tearing one another down to get any serious research done.
David: Bottom line, you know that your theory has some... issues that you must overcome if it is to be taken seriously, or at the very least, make you any money (you'll remember that 'getting rich' was one of your reasons that you gave me for coming up with this theory). I am puzzled at why you continue to post things like this:
"2. “I also don't accept that you say she doesn't get angry. As I've explained, she gets very angry. If you don't call that angry, then please explain to us what you call "anger"?
>>As I’ve said many times here, psychopaths are incapable of any deep feelings. They are barred from any real affective relationship with another human being, except on the level of very temporary pique or postured affectation. They have an excellent ability to imitate, mimic or memorize emotions, which they use to get what they want from others. This I believe is what you misperceive in your friend as genuine emotions. If this woman is a psychopath as you say she is, then I’d be quite wary of her if I were you, lest she take advantage of you in the same vein as she does her boyfriend."
Not only is the statement "As I’ve said many times here, psychopaths are incapable of any deep feelings" probably NOT true, it kinda makes you look like an a**. Look man, if something is your opinion then state it as YOUR OPINION. You are not a medial doctor nor have you ever treated anyone for any mental condition. Thus, anything you say on the subject is COMPLETELY your opinion. Just like I know nothing of space travel, so anything I might have to say on the subject is my OPINION. Do not try to come off as if you are a doctor who can hope to diagnose someone over the internet with a very, very, small glimpse at what this persons psychological make up is. I understand in this particular case you prefaced what you typed above with "this, I believe". However, normally, you do not.
Here's something that you recently stated to Alegria:
">>I do not and never have had a position that psychopaths are incapable of any kind of anger. I have never stated that I had such a position anywhere. My position is that psychopaths have shallow emotions, not no emotions, and it has been clearly expressed here by me from day one. When we see a psychopath behaving as if angry, that person is not experiencing the same emotion as we do under the same circumstances. They are experiencing petty irksomeness and transient vexation only, not what we know as anger. Serious study of psychiatric books about this subject is required to establish a reasonable perspective."
I'll not waste time defending Ally, everyone knows she can do that for herself (hehe). I will simply say that every time she has had a thoughtful question, your response tends to be that she needs to read more. While that may be the case (I do not know her reading habits) you have no real way of knowing what she has and has not read. For all you know, she could be a professor of psychology at NOVA. Which brings me to another point. Stop acting as if everyone who dares respond to you or ask you a question is as dumb as a box of rocks. We all come form a wide variety of backgrounds and schooling. Like I asked you many moons ago, in all your planning did you not realize that someone was going to call you out on a few of your.. ahem.. ideas?
Like Kelly just typed.. this is an internet message board. Things like that happen. It spans across the entire internet.. this isn't some small pizza shop in CT where all you have to do is convince a few patrons. If you are to be taken seriously, I would think you wouldn't be wasting time trying to educate your audience through insults.. Not to mention spending oodles of cycles trying to cut them down when they do not agree with you.
Also, I'm a little confused on your stance in reference to psychopaths and their emotional feelings. You've posted contradictory statements and I believe clarification is required. In a previous post you state: "psychopaths are incapable of any deep feelings", yet in the above quoted response to Ally you state: "I do not and never have had a position that psychopaths are incapable of any kind of anger. I have never stated that I had such a position anywhere. My position is that psychopaths have shallow emotions, not no emotions"
So which is it? Correct me if I am wrong, but I am quite sure that anger is one of the deepest emotions available to us as human beings. I've never heard anyone refer to anger as a 'shallow' emotion. Knowing that you can't really have it both ways, I'd love some clarification on this. Either they can feel shallow emotions (thus anger would probably fall OUT of this category) or they can experience no emotions and only mimic what they think the emotions would be like. Since you've made statements on both sides of the virtual fence, please tell me which it is you feel is more correct.
Oh, and here is what I do not want to see when it comes to your response: "Jason, my dear boy.. if you would just READ up on the subject you would know exactly what I am talking about". I am well versed on sociopathic behavior (or psychopathic, pick your poison) from first hand experience. I have "The Mask of Sanity" in PDF and paper form. I've read it twice and flipped through it a number of times. Bear that in mind when typing your response.
Oh and keep your Christian beliefs to yourself please. I do not feel that I am alone in stating that your GOD does not belong on this thread.
Mephisto and Dan:
Ok guys, the gig is up. Game Over. I declare no clear winner because I have friends on both sides. Might I whole heartily suggest a truce, even if it is an uneasy one. Please, make friends so that we, as a group, can move forward.
Here's an interesting thought: If all of us spent half as much time researching other avenues of research as we did attempting to lay the virtual smack down® upon one another, we'd probably be a lot closer to the killer. All of us have our strengths. Imagine if we teamed up? Seriously..
David could keep us enlightened with a little philosophy, Mephisto could keep is on the right path with viable references and books, I could get it all in a database and Dan could get it published... All of us have experience that would be useful.
What the hell are we waiting for?
Then again.. who the hell am I? I could be so far off base that I'm not even in the ball park anymore... What do you guys think? Should I just keep my big mouth (or is that fingers in this case) shut?
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 777
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
Hi everyone,
just to let you know David, I'm still waiting for my apology. If you don't want to apologies in public you can always email me!
Jennifer
ps after reading this thread I will now i will go and lie in a darkend room!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 444
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
Don't be so freakin' dense, Radka.
"It is a tactic that is beneath contempt. I was clearly indicting the Roman society, not Christ.”
>>Baloney, Mr. P. To who does your term “he” refer? Roman society is an “it,” not a “he.” What famous pacifist is associated with ancient Rome other than Jesus?"
Of course I was referring to Jesus Christ!!! The original point (now lost) referred to the inadequacy of defining a psychopath as someone who doesn't conform to the rules of society. (It was not even your statement, but a component of the list posted by Glenn). Christ didn't conform to the rules of Roman society. The comment was ironic. Reading & thinking rather than giving knee-jerk reactions will serve you better in the long run, my friend. I was under the mistaken impression that even a moron would have understood the comment. I do apologize for that mistake.
"To imply that Levy would feel no kinship in this regard is ridiculous on your part."
To repeat, read "Point of Arrival" and other books written by Jewish inhabitants in the East End. You have created a cartoonish model of London's Jewish population. It prevents you from solving the case,
"The reporter DID see the duplicity, and DID mention it!"
Bullpucky. He stated that Levy wouldn't speak to him which he interpretted as duplicity. As you do. When the reporter had approached him, the inquest hadn't been held yet--Levy was being responsible. The same paper (The Evening News) was outraged that Matthew Packer wasn't allowed to address the Stride inquest after constantly blabbinging to the press and evolving his story as he went along. The police specifically stated they didn't think it appropriate that Packer should testify--he blabbed and changed his story. Of course the "Evening News" would make Packer their darling, and Levy their goat! They were in the business of selling newspapers. And you can't print a paper without an interview. The Levys of the world are their bane. (Harris spoke to the papers, and wasn't called to the inquest). 2+2+2=6, Mr. Radka.
(Concerning Levy, Radka writes: "You are making it up out of whole cloth, and in so doing ruining the empirical basis for the case we all must use. "
Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer! Try again. My interpretation for Levy is entirely in the accordance with the Empirical evidence. (Mephisto even agreed with this). You're merely presenting your own interpretation of the events, arguing that they are beyond dispute. That's fine. But it's not fine to state that my interpretation is changing or manipulating the evidence when it isn't.
By the way, I give you Dr. Anderson:
"But on the other hand the public generally and especially the inhabitants of the East End have shown a marked desire to assist in every way, even at some sacrifice to themselves..." -- Anderson, 23 October, 1888.
This an memo to the Home Office written twelve days after the closing of the Eddowes inquest. As I said, at the time it all went down, the police had no inkling that Levy was deceiving them---if they had, they would have been on him like flies on dung. Yet, 116 years after-the-fact it's allegedly so bloody obvious that only a "fool" "full of baloney" could believe otherwise. I call this tactic of yours "scholarship through intimidation." Insult them enough, and perhaps they'll become afraid to disagree. A dangerous species of the historical method you're breeding.
"Frankly in all of this business about Levy, you are essentially being used as a cardboard cut out for Evans to do his dirty work; you promote his unsupported positions for him, so that he doesn’t need to face me either as “G. Longman” or himself. '
Huh? What? Take a month off and hike in the woods, Radka. Breath in the fresh, healing air. Even for you, this is a surprisingly unbalanced comment. I post only for myself, posting my own views. I have never discussed your theory with Longman, Evans, or the Man in the Moon. I would humbly suggest you stop with these paranoid speculations before you end up like Kinky Kosminski. What get's your goat here is that I know the "case evidence" as well as you do, and evidently wish I would conveniently shut up.
* * *
That bit of bile off my chest, I do think the criticisms of Radka's theory have become a little extreme. No doubt he's largely responding from the perception that people have unfairly attacked him, without giving his ideas a fair shake.
I certainly wouldn't say that Radka is all bad. I lump him with the serious theorists. Having actually read Cleckley, I don't see where the man he's attempting to describe wouldn't fall within the general type. (On the otherhand, in the world of Dr. Cleckley, James Joyce, Swinburne, and Oscar Wilde were insane, too).
I would more or less agree with Radka's general perceptions about what must be the 'center' of the case, which is why I do find his ideas worth discussing, although I tend to violently disagree with many of his conclusions. But that's just bees & pollen, as he says. Any field becomes stagnant when those who don't immediately fall in line get cut-off at the roots, and this has become the atmosphere of what some like to call "Ripperology." |
Donato Fasolini
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 1:25 pm: | |
Mr. Radka,
please, can I have a answer?
Donato Fasolini |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 242
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 8:53 pm: | |
Mephisto wrote:
"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? [...] I argue that when you made this claim, you where being disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest. Can you prove me wrong?"
Is this unambiguous enough for you:
"Psychopaths are incapable of real anger--it is too deep and complex an emotion for them."
D. Radka, May 2, 5:39 pm
He also has a more recent statement (one you should be familiar with, as it was a direct response to my posing the question to you and him, but then you apparently weren't paying any attention) that psychopaths don't experience actual anger and the most they are capable of is the same discomfort as having stubbed one's toe.
Now since you yourself say, backed up by a study you referenced...
"You're right. Psychopaths can get angry."
Mephisto, Aug. 3, 11:43 am
...your statement explicitly proves David wrong.
So your big long rants -- about how the DSM is supposedly unreliable, or how I supposedly don't know how the PCL-R works, or how my "only" nine credits in psychology (that's of graduate classes, by the way, you have to get tons more credits in undergraduate psych classes to even get into those courses in the first place, as you should be aware of since you claim you went to college) aren't good enough to rate against the zero credits you and David have put together -- are all pointless. Those were all attacks on me to try to discredit my conclusion that David is wrong on what he says about psychopaths, and you yourself say psychopaths can be angry and David says it's impossible.
All that teeth-gnashing and mouth-foaming of yours got you nowhere, because, oops, you agreed with me the whole time.
Funny that.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 243
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:21 pm: | |
And, of course, his other major question that he dared me to respond to...
"Can he tell us the date and time of the post where Radka claims that "all psychopaths...[are] people completely opposite of the criteria specified by the clinical sources" "
... is stupid because nobody ever claimed that David said that. I said that actual psychopaths on many major points are completely opposite of how David describes them, anger being the obvious one I've brought up, but then there's rational thinking (David's supposed description of "psychopath" has delusional thinking akin to schizophrenia) and others too. Of course David didn't say that he himself contradicted the clinical sources, he oddly claims to follow them, even though they don't match up at all.
And I note on several other places in his recent posts Mephisto makes similar misleading statements that he claims I said. For instance, he chops one of my sentences off in the middle and attacks me for the first part without admitting that the last part of what I said clears up any confusion about the statement. I'm not sure whether to chalk that up to poor reading ability or a rather pathetic attempt to mislead other people about what I said.
What do the rest of you think... Is it worth the trouble to bother responding to other parts in his recent posts more completely, or is it pretty clear how desperately off topic his attacks have become?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:37 pm: | |
Hello Ms. Robinson,
On August 20, 10:51 am you wrote: "Regardless of Norder's comments, regardless of whether his claims are legit, regardless of his qualifications, this is a message board. Why post a theory on a message board?". "This message board has scholars on it, and it also has laymen.....". You claim that the Casebook is just a message board, i.e., it has a certain amount of serious discussions, and like other message boards, it has a certain amount of frivolous traffic. According to your value system, "them's the breaks". Ms. Kelly, legitimate discussions are not valued according to the venue where they take place, rather, it is the value of the discussions that give the venue its legitimacy. Your argument ignores the fact that serious discussion is encouraged on this message board (see Read this first). You'll notice that the overwhelming majority of the threads here are serious discussions. Less serious, and/or non-topical issues, are addressed on the appropriate threads. David Radka's summary was presented for serious discussion.
It has been a long-standing, un-written rule among the scholars and laymen (sic) on this message board, that arguments which contain supporting evidence, will be taken seriously. Arguments that lack support are either identified as speculation by their author, or by other posters. Why is that valuable? For the simple reason that evidence lends the discussion credibility; nothing is gained by debating conjecture. Likewise, there is little value in a discussion if one party, or point of view is serious, while the other is comedic, frivolous, or contentious. If the un-written rule demands that evidence must support a claim, then it is not unreasonable to demand that evidence must support a counter claim.
I argued that Mr. Norder's counter claim was bogus, i.e., he did not provide valid evidence to support his allegation that Radka's description of his suspect's psychopathy was incompatible with the modern understanding of that condition. Mr. Norder used his education, and two diagnostic instruments as the core of his supporting evidence. He made these issues germane to his argument, and therefore, legitimate topics of discussion. Accordingly, I demanded that he explain how he applied his education to the two diagnostic instruments to support his counter claim, i.e., that Radka's description of psychopathy is wrong.
I appreciate your concern over the intensity of the disagreement, however, I don't believe the central issues of my argument are without merit. Furthermore, I didn't set the tone of this debate. If you truly want to understand the underlying reasons that initiated the harsh dialog (I'm not sure if this is what you mean by "het up"), then read my June 21, 9:38 am post, and Norder's June 23, 8:49 pm reply. Try to imagine him calling you a liar. How would you react to this accusation, or his self-righteous, egotistical tone? Did my rather mild reference to the validity of an inanimate object warrant a vicious personal attack? Do you think Norder could have responded differently? If you can answer these questions objectively, then I'm sure you'll agree that your concern is misplaced.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
};-)}
Hello Mr. Mullins,
On August 20, 11:33 am you wrote: "Here's an interesting thought: If all of us spent half as much time researching other avenues of research as we did attempting to lay the virtual smack down® upon one another, we'd probably be a lot closer to the killer. All of us have our strengths. Imagine if we teamed up? Seriously.. Then again.. who the hell am I? I could be so far off base that I'm not even in the ball park anymore..." "What do you guys think? Should I just keep my big mouth (or is that fingers in this case) shut?".
Without question, you are entitled to make the above observations. They are a legitimate and serious attempt to redirect the energy of the conflict "to other avenues of research". As I said in my August 20, 10:31 pm post, "Let there be peace".
In an earlier post, I suggested that all 44 of Radka's propositions be subjected to serious critical review in order to determine their truth-value. In my August 20, 10:31 pm post, I suggested a few of the questions that a good critical review should address, e.g., how the piece is structured; the author's research question; the theoretical approach that guided his or her research; how well he or she answered the research question within the framework of that theoretical approach; how well he or she described the correlations between cause and effect; the type of reasoning each argument presents, i.e., are they inductive or deductive arguments (Mephisto: 2004). These are just a sample of the important issues that must be decided on before we could proceed with a three party research project.
Speaking for myself, I think your proposal has a number of potential benefits. If the work-load is evenly distributed, and all three parties are committed to doing their part, then it's worth exploring, but at this point in time, the question that you and I need to ask ourselves is: Are both antagonists willing to put aside their differences and work with a neutral third party toward a common goal? The answer to that question lies with Mr. Norder.
In any event, I appreciate your effort to broker a solution to the dispute. Thank you for your time Mr. Mullins.
Sincerely,
};-)}
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 9:38 am: | |
Hi David,
>>Ian wrote:
[snip]The EC is that JtR was a psychopath not a lust murderer.”
>>Certainly not. Apparently, you have not read the Summary attentively. See item 40. The Whitechapel murderer was personally inconsistent with respect to motivation for his crimes. At certain points and in certain ways the lust murder motive was present. <<
As the author, YOU should also be MORE attentive to YOUR own summary.
I refer you to item #1. and to quote
"What is the EC of the case?...(1)[snip]...the Whitechapel murderer was a psychopath". (period, no later snippage, that's all YOU wrote)
Please re-answer once you've read your own summary.
Note: please also reread YOUR item #40 as well and then try and work out why anyone else would be confused to see item #40 inserted almost as an aside.
Please reread YOUR item #23 where you explain the extensive mutilations without even mentioning the word lust once!!!
See also item #11, again no lust motive is introduced or even mentioned.
Is it any wonder item #40 rather knocked me off balance and seemed to be a catch-all logical "excuse" by saying, well he was a part time lust murderer of sorts.
I did you the favor of reading your summary, please do me the respect of also reading it before you reply.
Re: other communications NOT GENUINE.
>>They are reading a theory explaining the Whitechapel murders. That theory has certain elements. They reason through the elements, and that’s that. What’s the problem? Does a Druittist theorist have to explain why Kosminski didn’t do it?<<
Why assume I'd think that last point? please read my post with your brain switched on if that's possible.
YOU mentioned it in YOUR summary for some inexplicable reason.
Pick a number betweem 1-44 and count the words in that item in the summary.
Pick another number and count the words.
Try another.
Then count the words in item #22 (hint: word count = two for item #22)
Notice something odd? YOU felt a need to tell YOUR audience this nugget of non-information, not me.
It only jarred with me when I printed out the summary. No reason as to why you felt compelled to include it and no reason why you or I should logically discount the other communications.
Why not enumerate all the case evidence which in your reading of the case is not genuine or not relevant? Somethings afoot on item #22 but I can't solve it or explain it for you David; only you can tell us why you included it.
To quote (almost) your own words at YOUR summary:
Does a Druittist theorist have to explain why Kosminski was NOT GENUINE?
I'd think not, but you obviously do.
Please reanswer after reviewing your summary.
To close, and I won't reply to every other response, one sentence grabbed my attention:
>>If you think of the Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky missives, then you think outside the A?R theory. That’s it.<<
May I refer YOU to item #1 of YOUR summary and "...examinataion of the evidence is undertaken in a questioning, responsively open and playfull mode..."
Questioning/responsively open/playfull? yet if you even think of Dear Boss then you're outside A?R. I think the contradiction is obvious even to a 2 year old. Alternative? shmalternative and another example of intellectual and logical thuggery.
To quote the famous philosopher (guess who ;-)):
"You are attempting to pride yourself on beating a man better than you, but then you don’t beat him."
Cheerio,
ian -- keeping one eye open and the other one closed.
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
Mr Mullins,
Mr Radka in my opinion has always been in this for the money.
Why do you think he copywrites his posts?
I realised this the moment I read the last word of his Summary, and said as much at the time, many moons ago on this thread.
Does he really believe what he writes?
Of course not.
He is also in my opinion building up his noteriety on this web site.
It seems he is also testing out his theory's believibility on the good people who contribute to this site.
It has not had a very good response to date.
Although having said that ( going on past publications on the subject of JTR ) it should make a fortune.
That's without magazine articles, chat show appearences(we might get to see what he looks like) and little plastic figures of Plato, of course.
The sky's the limit, there's a sucker(for a hair brained theory) born every minute.
Regards Cludgy.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 7:43 pm: | |
quick look-in post, out of order.
Mr. Fasolini,
I haven't got the faintest clue of what you are talking about. You seem to ask me to gratify you. How may I?
David
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 823
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 5:04 am: | |
Me!!! ME!!!!
David,
listen its simple Donato has sent you an email about something you once said on the old casebook that he has seen on the CD Rom, after I explained to him how to get hold of your email address via your posts. try looking for his email in your inbox of that account. I assume you don't mind him emailing you as you provide the address.
Hope this helps.
Now I've helped you out, how about that apology?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 824
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 5:17 am: | |
JOE, JOE,
Dan provided you with supporting evidence which YOU chose to discount.
Dan did not use his education in the way you describe he only mentioned it to point how how he knew the other stuff, and anyway you tried to state he was lying then to back yourself up only it turned out he WASN'T?
I love your portrait of Dan as the bad guy - its so backwards! You are underestimating the memories of readers of this board with your constant distortion of FACT!
Frankly after your attitude towards him i would be surprised if Dan would want to work towards such a goal as Jason suggested with yourself.
Chow
Jenni
ps the only way to not get called a liar is to tell the truth (try it sometime!)
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:19 am: | |
Mephisto,
At the core I agree with you, and my distaste for the tone of the arguments here caused me to voice my opinions in a manner which I usually refrain from . I agree that discussions here should be serious, and I understand how difficult it would be to be called a liar, or anything else, in a public forum. If I were involved, though, I would try to take it out of the public venue and deal with it personally, for the sake of others on the board, but I realize that this is a message board, and how anyone chooses to respond is their business. I should've taken my own advice. I appreciate that you addressed me directly and politely.
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1258
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:47 am: | |
David,
Firstly, I am outraged by this point you made:-
Psychopaths are sometimes beaten because they will not stop doing terrible things. I can't believe that you even wrote that. I won't even go into what is wrong with this statement as it should be blatently obvious.
Also, I still disagree with you that you say psychopaths get angry. It is one of their main qualities (I think there's a better word for that but can't think of it). This woman I know is gets very angry and if you saw what I've seen then you would know what I'm talking about.
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: 262
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 12:07 am: | |
Let me get this straight... Mephisto Joe outright accused me of lying for months, misrepresented what I and other people said, attacked several different people here with personal insults on almost every post... and now he's trying to play the victim? That's chutzpah.
Yes, please, go check the two month old posts he referred to. He tried to claim that the entire American Psychiatric Association is clueless and thus David's bizarre understanding of psychopaths should be taken more seriously than what the professional APA reference manuals say. I asked him if he really expected us to believe that. I stand behind my response and actually wish I'd been more clear in pointing out that that's the most ridiculous strategy in a debate that I've ever seen. Is that harsh? Well, yeah, it's meant to be harsh. But if you don't want someone pointing out your stupidity, don't try to claim that the world's foremost experts on a topic know less than some guy off the street, especially when the tactic doesn't even help prove what you want it to prove (because of the other experts already identified and quoted saying the same thing as the APA on the points under discussion).
If he really was only concerned about sticking to the topic and interacting politely with others, that's what he would have been doing. It seems mighty convenient that he'd just now decide that people should play nice (while pointing an accusing finger at someone other than himself, of course) when sticking to the topic would mean he'd have to admit he was wrong.
But, hey, yeah, if he wants a truce, he can have one. He just needs to admit that he was wrong for accusing me of lying about what David said, and to admit what's obvious to everyone else: that David's statements about psychopaths conflict with what the experts say. If he's willing to do that, fine, we can move on and rationally discuss the other parts of the theory. Otherwise there's really nothing to talk about, as he's just avoiding the topic and pretending he wants to be the voice of reason and fair play when he has no intention of actually doing so.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 5:32 pm: | |
In light of Mephisto’s recent excellent posts on the topic (August 15, 2004, 10:31 PM and August 20, 2004, 9:37 PM,) I’d like to address some issues toward the general improvement of ethical standards observed on this thread. I hope the following clears up matters in people’s minds.
The following ideas are bandied about as if they were a part of my various positions on the case or on matters in general. All are faulty reports with respect to my positions, some are exaggerations, others mere gossip. Essentially, crowd reactions have prevailed and been manipulated on these issues.
1. THE IDEA THAT I HAVE PUBLISHED MY DESCRIPTION OF PSYCHOPATHY, AND THAT IT IS FAULTY IN VARIOUS RESPECTS. To date, I have not published, either in the Summary or on this thread, a description of psychopathy. All I did in the Summary, in item #1, was state that the center of the case is psychopathy. This doesn’t mean I don’t HAVE a description—I do—it only means I haven’t published it yet. In publishing the Summary I presume that anyone interested in the theory will in ethical good faith read my sources given there (Cleckley, Hare and Lykken) to learn about this complex and baffling condition for themselves. Instead, what happened was some people (Norder, Hamm, Andersson) immediately attacked me as if I had made my full description of the condition, and that it was wrong. I then posted a few small points from my description that seemed to be in dispute to defend my position that the murderer was a psychopath. Although these accumulated would perhaps be 2% of my overall position on the condition, it seems that many people think it is 100%. The Thesis is intended to have 75-100 pages of cogent analysis of the psychopathic syndrome, cited from a variety of psychiatric texts. Once you read that, then you will know what I think psychopathy is. Since I have not yet made my description, it cannot be gainsaid that I have a wrong description.
2. THE IDEA THAT “A?R” PRINCIPALLY RELIES ON THE THINKING OF HERVEY M. CLECKLEY. My conception of psychopathy principally relies on my own original thinking with regard to factual case histories of the disorder published by a variety of psychiatrists, and to a lesser extent on published psychiatric theories concerning it. In the Thesis I develop my own conception of the disorder based on detailed studies of people who have it that I’ve read. It is a creative concept on my part, working from the basic data up. I don’t entirely agree with any psychiatrist’s thinking concerning theory, and I disagree with Cleckley’s basic interpretive idea of masked psychosis.
3. THE IDEA THAT MY POSITION ON PSYCHOPATHY IS OUTMODED. Soon after the Summary appeared someone noticed that a reference to one source—Cleckley--was dated 1988 (with some of the original research performed well before then,) and this was enough for Mr. Norder to cry that my entire concept of the disorder was made obsolete by post-Cleckley research and DSM. Many people thought this was fine, dandy, and correct on his part. It was as if he’d cued a herd of buffalo to stampede—and they obligingly did. But the problem with this position is that in the Thesis I do not present Cleckley’s views of the condition as the center of my theory—I present my own—and I use many different sources including recent ones.
4. THE IDEA THAT I HAVE CLAIMED THAT PSYCHOPATHS ARE INCAPABLE OF EMOTION. This is an incompetent distortion, originated and repeated over and over, perhaps twenty times, by Mr. Norder. Let’s challenge him now to account for how my posts amount to this bizarre position by copying and pasting responsibly in context from the archives. I DO NOT believe that psychopaths are incapable of emotion, and never have. My position is that (1) because they lack fear (not other emotions) in early childhood (2) they fail to develop adequate inhibitions and behavioral controls, and therefore (3) they concomitantly fail to develop adequate emotional responses, positive or negative, and depth. This is a relatively simple idea, and you will find it in every psychiatric text on the syndrome from the 1950s to date.
5. THE IDEA THAT I HAVE CLAIMED THAT PSYCHOPATHS ARE INCAPABLE OF BEING ANGRY. This is also an incompetent distortion, originated and perpetuated ad nauseam by Mr. Norder. It is not, and never has been, a part of my position concerning psychopathy. Again, let’s ask him to justify his position out of the common tenor of my many posts on this topic, accounting for all I’ve said. I have discussed the differences between psychopaths and normals on this point. Psychopaths do not experience real anger—the complex emotion normal people do—but a simplistic, degraded, wan and effete version typical of their condition. Psychopaths are not angry people in the sense a normal person could reasonably be so considered; they are instead pettily irk-able, easily insult-able, narcissistic people. Their “anger” is a disordered and “shallowed” version of ours; it amounts to a qualitatively dissimilar and pathological reaction-set. When merely gently vexed, they are often capable of gross antisocial misbehaviors (including axe or mass murder) that in turn almost every normal person on the planet would immediately misinterpret as having been motivated by deep-seated boiling rage in the sense of a normal personality. For example, as I clearly state in the Summary (item #7), the Whitechapel murderer perpetrated his crimes in mere transient states of mild petty irksomeness. He basically had a little meaningless tiff with his wife over Aaron, then he got slightly ticked off that John Pizer stole his show, and then much the same thing again when Levy didn’t bow down and beg him for indulgence following Duke Street. These little squirty diss-offs constitute the real motivations for his various antisocial actions in sequence. When Mr. Norder attempts to counter my research and logical arguments by saying, for example, “Heck, psychopaths are some of the most angry people out there” he exhibits both considerable ignorance with respect to the syndrome and a callous indifference to his readership, who may not be in a position to realize their Editor’s irresponsibleness. “Angry people” under psychiatric definition suffer from various complexes or unconscious refinements that function to prevent them from realizing or accepting their true feelings, for example, an Oedipal complex. But the psychopathic character has been repeatedly shown too defective and simple to support a complicated unconscious psychiatric problem, either psychotic or neurotic. The real problem of the psychopath thus is that he doesn’t have an adequate internal problem that his overcoming of which would enable him to be free, and therefore that he is compelled to live his entire life doing farcical battle with inconsequential external distractions, often in a mildly irritated and highly antisocial context. The notion of the degradation of the common idea of hot anger to that of cold petty irksomeness is apparently one of the more challenging aspects of psychopathy, and one needs to spend a good deal of time with a psychiatric text in hand.
6. THE IDEA THAT MY DESCRIPTION OF THE MURDERER’S ATTEMPTED COMMUNICATIONS ON THE NIGHT OF THE DOUBLE EVENT CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN PSYCHOSIS ON HIS PART, AND THEREFORE THAT I DESCRIBE HIM AS BEING SOMEHOW OTHER THAN PSYCHOPATHIC. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of psychopathy, and a part of Mr. Norder’s bedrock position on “A?R” from Day 1. Voluminous studies of the lives of psychopaths indicate a history of behaviors beyond ken, universally misinterpreted as outright madness by the unschooled when they encounter them, just as Norder, Hamm and Andersson have done here. They have stated that the use of symbols on Eddowes’ face and the graffitus to communicate to Levy that he would be in trouble with the Jewish community if he were to reveal the murderer’s identity to the police are so far-fetched as to be beyond sanity, and thus to indicate psychosis, not psychopathy. But as Cleckley writes: “Though (psychopaths are) certified automatically as sane by the verbal definitions of law and of medicine, their behavior demonstrates an irrationality and incompetence that are gross and obvious.” (Cleckley, “The Mask of Sanity” page 3.) Once we understand that the basic nature of the psychopath’s personality is “gross and obvious irrationality,” a much wider area opens, in fact almost anything if reasonably connected to the syndrome is possible with respect to attributing and interpreting their behaviors, including those behaviors of the kind usually attributed to psychotics. A few citations to back up this claim are in order. The following are accounts of the thoroughly incapacitated misbehaviors of diagnosed psychopaths. All were found free of psychosis and neurosis. The more carefully you read these passages, the better your ability to understand my position on the case:
“Those (psychopaths) that commit serious crimes have a history that any clever lawyer can exploit in such a way as to make his client appear to the average jury the victim of such madness as would make Bedlam itself tame by comparison. Under such circumstances they often escape the legal consequences of their acts, are sent to mental hospitals where they prove to be “sane,” and are released. On the other hand, when their relatives and their neighbors seek relief or protection from them and take action to have them committed to psychiatric hospitals, they (the psychopaths,) not wanting to be restricted, are able to convince the courts that they are as competent as any man.” (Cleckley, “The Mask of Sanity,” page 14.)
“(By his behavior,)...regularly reversing the most axiomatic human orientations...” (Cleckley, page 303.)
“...Hits upon conduct and creates situations so bizarre, so untimely, and so preposterous that their motivation appears inscrutable, ...his exploits seem directly calculated to place him in a disgraceful or ignominious position,...often chooses pranks and seeks out situations that would have no appeal for the ordinary person, whether the ordinary person be drunk or sober,...consistently (brings off) scenes not only uncongenial but even unimaginable to the average man.” (Cleckley, page 357.)
“Entanglements which go out of their way to mock ordinary human sensibility...are prevalent...Such opportunities, when available, seem not to repel but to specifically attract the psychopath...” (Cleckley, page 363.)
“...Notable tendencies to hit upon unsatisfactory conduct in all fields and...apparent inability to take seriously what would be to others repugnant and regrettable.” (Cleckley, page 360.)
“(The psychopath) has absolutely no capacity to see himself as others see him....(He) has no ability to know how others feel when they see him or to experience subjectively anything comparable about the situation.” (Cleckley, page 350.)
“One of the most striking features of (his)...personality is his grandiosity; entries scattered throughout his (psychiatric) files make reference to his dramatic, inflated, and pompous way of communicating.” (Hare, “Without Conscience,” page 100.)
“The unrealistic level of aspiration shown by the psychopaths is consistent with the clinical impression that they are characterized by an inflated ego and an unrealistic conception of their own abilities.” (Hare, “Psychopathy: Theory and Research,” page 26.)
“…Unaccountable conduct and…(a) verbally and logically perfect front…” (Cleckley, page 92.)
“(Reflecting on hundreds of cases of psychopathy personally observed by a psychiatrist)...all of these people, when their records over the years are considered, strike one as remarkably similar...(Their) personality disorder shapes and hardens into the outlines of a very definite clinical entity or reaction type...Many of (these patients)...are plainly unsuited for life in any community; some are as thoroughly incapacitated...as most patients with unmistakable schizophrenic psychosis.” (Cleckley, page 188.)
“...Not one of the myriad doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, treatment counselors, and social workers (hired by her parents) who had seen Alice over the years had come up with an explanation or an antidote for her problem. Nobody was even sure whether she was mentally ill. (On her thirtieth birthday, her parents) looked across the table and asked sadly, ‘Is she crazy? Or just plain bad?’” (Hare, “Without Conscience,” page 20.)
“...He had never shown any sign technically regarded as indicating a psychosis...He was always entirely rational in conversation, alert, above average in intelligence by psychometric tests, free from delusions and hallucinations, and completely lacking in the slightest evidence of ‘deterioration.’ Nor had he ever shown retardation, a true depression of the cyclothymic type, increased psychomotor activity, flight of ideas, or any other condition which it is permissible to class as psychosis. He had been free also from any symptom characteristic of psychoneurosis...(However, no means succeeded in) finding some way to exist without supervision as incessant as that required by a traditional madman. (Cleckley, page 57.)
“On a cold February day he rushed, fully clothed, down to the creek and sprang in. After thrashing about, yelling and cursing to no purpose and creating a senseless commotion, he swam back to land without difficulty. One fine spring evening he is said to have run entirely naked through the streets of the town. He once sat up all night under the house striking matches aimlessly.” (Cleckley, page 72.)
“(The subject explained that he beat his wife frequently and severely only because he) ‘...just couldn’t stand her screaming and bawling.’ This habit of hers, he said, made him lose his temper. When it was emphasized to him that her weeping and outcries did not precede the beatings but occurred only after the beatings began, he showed very little response. Apparently he felt that this crucial point was not sufficiently important to argue about and seemed to dismiss it without further thought as something virtually irrelevant, or at most a trifle.” (Cleckley, pages 176-7.)
7. THE IDEA THAT MY THINKING CONCERNING PSYCHOPATHY SOMEHOW DISAGREES WITH THE DSMs OR THE PCL-R, OR THAT HERVEY M. CLECKLEY’S DOES, OR THAT I AM ATTEMPTING TO DENIGRATE THE DSMs OR THE PCL-R SO THAT I CAN MAKE CLAIMS CONTRARY TO THEIR PROVISIONS. Some people indicated this in their questions to me. They asked me to choose between Cleckley and the current DSM, for example, or to justify one over the other. My response to this is: All the apparent differences among various psychopathic texts, theories, and changes to checklists over time begin to disappear when you acquire an in-depth understanding of the syndrome from the ground up, using ACTUAL CASE HISTORIES as your pedagogical device. You begin to understand why there are DSMs and why many psychiatrists take them with a grain of salt, you can see why Cleckley said the condition was due to a masked psychosis and Lykken said it was due to bulldog stubbornness in early youth, etc. Everything that people do makes sense with perspective. And on this thread certain people have done everything they could to tear my remarks as far out of context as possible to destroy the perspective. But the Thesis is MY paper. In there, I make my full case unfettered by detractors. In the end, a psychopath by any other name is the still the same personality type that all the psychiatrists specializing in this field have personally known and studied.
8. THE IDEA THAT ANYONE WHO PROPOSES TO TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT PSYCHOPATHY MUST HAVE PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS OR A FULL-SCALE EDUCATION IN PSYCHOLOGY. Essentially a meaningless point debated endlessly here. Scads of authors write about scads of different subjects without full-scale professional credentials. Non-accountants write articles about accounting principles in “The Journal of Accountancy,” for example. They know more about what they are talking about, due to their specific business experience, than most CPAs would. As long as a position is well researched, logical, insightful and on target, why should a specialized education always be required? All difficult subjects need the suggestion of alternatives and new blood; without them, a field becomes incestuous, with a monolithic method predominating.
9. THE IDEA THAT THE DSM AND PCL-R REPRESENT FULL-SCALE PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENTS OF PSYCHOPATHY; IN OTHER WORDS, “IF IT’S NOT IN THE DSM OR THE PCL-R, IT’S NOT IN PSYCHOPATHY.” A gross distortion championed by Mr. Norder in a great number of posts, in violation of psychiatric practice. Checklists are (1) Cogent but brief presenting factors of the syndrome, and (2) Designed to be used by psychiatrists. If you haven’t studied the syndrome in depth first, the psychopathy checklists are bound to profoundly mislead you as to what you are dealing with. The checklists do not tell you how psychopaths live their lives, they don’t tell you what these people actually do and why; only the case histories do. Please understand that very few people have anything like a good understanding of what psychopathy is. Compare this to the fact that DSMs are posted all over the internet for various quick and dirty purposes, and you understand exactly where Mr. Norder is coming from. For example, every psychiatrist is well aware that psychopaths do not become angry in the same sense that normal people do. They know that when they read the words “anger,” “outburst,” “explosion” and similar terms in the literature, what is being referred to is certainly not what Shakespeare wrote about, but instead simplistic diss-offs, petty piques and often utterly unaccountable and dissolute forms of small-mindedness or emotional immaturity. All of the checklist items concerning psychopaths are like this, as all psychiatrists are aware. If you want to understand this disorder, start with case histories, not checklists. Better yet, read my Thesis.
10. THE IDEA THAT THE DISCIPLINE OF ETHICS DOESN’T APPLY TO THE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS THREAD. This recent post is quite telling concerning present conditions:
“…this is a message board. Why post a theory on a message board? Why not publish it in a scolarly forum? This message board has scholars on it, and it also has laymen, and it also has weirdos who pop in and say "poop". Them's the breaks I say, colloquially. You know what you're getting into when you post here. Radka posts, others critique, others critique the critique. Suggesting that anything broadly unethical is going on is just plain silly. Silly! I don't know what you're so het up about. Let it go, man.”
The absence of ethics is incivility. Anyone who says ethics is not required opens the door to incivility. It doesn’t matter who posts here, all who do are required to be ethical and civil, if only to keep straight in their own minds the meaning of what is said. In order to understand posts, one has to be fair enough to be able to credit a poster with what he or she does and doesn’t say. The chaotic scenes we often witness arise because BOTH: (1) Some people don’t read ethically enough and fool themselves concerning the positions of various posters, and (2) Some people post unethically for the purpose of confusing or falsifying others’ positions. It is a two-way street. If you do not practice an ethical lifestyle, then you gradually lose your ability to be on your own, think for yourself, and take care of yourself. When I was in my twenties I never believed I’d someday be living in a world in which people would be so foolish as to come out and make the above sort of statement. It is society dooming, culture dooming, and self-dooming.
|
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:46 am: | |
Hi all,
A silly question is bugging me for some weeks. What exactly means the acronym A?R in the A?R theory?
Thank you for your answer.
Olivier |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:54 am: | |
Quick look-in post, out of order:
"...Donato has sent you an email about something you once said on the old casebook that he has seen on the CD Rom, after I explained to him how to get hold of your email address via your posts. try looking for his email in your inbox of that account."
Jennifer,
I have not read any email from Mr. Fasolini. However, because I post my email address to this forum and I in turn receive about 75 junk emails per day (penis enlargement, sex with dogs, etc.) I may have block-deleted it accidentally. Please tell him to retransmit to me from his "sent mail" folder, and I will make sure to watch out for it. Thank you.
David
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 886
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
David,
I will tell Donato, no worries!
Quick look in out of topic,
still no apology I see?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 887
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:29 am: | |
Oliver,
it means 'alternative ripperology'
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 888
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
This thread used to be annoying but now its just old. David we must have gone over your views on psychopathy a hundred times by now. This idea that other people are somehow deliberately distorting the truth/what you say is a nonsense, perhaps they misunderstand you but that is a far as it goes.
You talk about being ethical the person who on this thread stated Psychopaths are sometimes beaten because they will not stop doing terrible things
Honestly!
David you say Some people post unethically for the purpose of confusing or falsifying others’ positions there is only one person i can think of on this thread who has done such a thing (and no it isn't you but guess who it is!)
David I don't believe you have the answer but your theory is not amongst the worse. Its just after so many months its starting to get a little tiresome.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 269
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 1:40 am: | |
David, let's quick go through your complaints:
1) Nobody claimed you gave a complete description of psychopathy. The small parts you have chosen to discuss have been sufficiently incorrect to show that your understanding is flawed.
2) Your "own original thinking" on psychopathy is what got you into trouble in the first place.
3) Your position on psychopathy isn't outmoded, as there has never been a time when what you describe your theoretical killer doing could have been labeled as psychopathic.
4) You've claimed they are not capable of "real" emotion.
5) Dear lord David, you've said several times that psychopaths can't be angry. You claim the most they can get is perturbed, like having stubbed their toe. This is dead wrong.
6) Your theory is riddled with the killer making all sorts of decisions that only someone severely delusional could think makes any sense, so your "psychopath" acts "psychotic."
7) The DSM and PCL-R clearly disagree with your position on psychopathy. The only way you can reconcile your beliefs with what they say is to claim that when they talk about anger they really mean "pretending to be angry because they can't experience real anger." You've clearly said people should ignore the DSM and just take your word for it, and you jumped on the bandwagon when Mephisto Joe attacked the DSM and claimed nobody followed it.
8) Funny, when you say something, you don't need professional credentials, but when someone disagrees with you (even if they have more education on the topic), you and Mephisto Joe start demanding *they* need professional experience.
9) This isn't a question of full professional scale or not. The scale that's there and ready for everyone to see totally contradicts your claims on several points. I'm not saying that if it isn't there, it's not in psychopathy, I'm saying that if you claim one thing and they say the *opposite* then you are wrong.
10) Ethics should apply here, but for you to complain about other people's actions is pure hypocrisy. Heck, the same post in which you were complaining about the ethics of others you were tossing out the insults left and right, and you (and especially Mephisto Joe) have had prior posts that were shocking in how far you were willing to go to try to disparage other people (and whole nationalities) instead of trying to make rational arguments.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 5:30 pm: | |
Hi,
I think there is no salvation for this thread, bring on John O's figment.
I admit David's posts of late seem to have been toned down (when I saw his comment on civility I checked back on just this page and I couldn't really see an example of his extreme mud slinging insults; perhaps there never were any and it was my imagination).
That might be a sign the thread can move forward.
As to the detailed psycopathy nonsense perhaps that should be moved to a separate thread?
I say nonsense because PCL in my opinion doesn't apply here.
Even considering Mephisto's/Dan's arguments that the PCL _does_ allow a retrospective analysis based on historical documents and files, where are those documents and files?
Ripperology can only even guess how many victims there were and that ranges from 3 to as many as you care to mention. (Tabram, Stride and Kelly are not unanimously agreed to be JtR victims as far as I can see).
If we interpret/select the evidence (as we must) then any PCL diagnosis becomes open to debate (OK now I have both Dan and Mephisto flaming me!)
I'm happy to go with one of David's last posts that a general reading of case histories be used; it will never be a copper bottomed diagnosis but I'd be sceptical of anyone who could diagnose 100% a person who we don't know and don't know what they did (despite David's assertions that we know who he is and know what he did).
Some of the problems with this thread is that there is only one thread on A?R, it's flippin enormous, many of the individual posts are enormous, the key player (and a lot of contributors) is not registered and so there is a delay in posting of replies, no-one is really addressing the summary, we only have the summary and no thesis available as of yet.
And... Far be it from me to support David, but he _has_ been consistent in his explanation about anger. In a reply to someone (possibly me) very early on in the thread, he explained it and has been consistent ever since.
His original explanation which confused me was that psychopaths have no emotions which is easily misinterpreted, as I did, to think he was saying they don't have anger or fear.
I won't go find his words but he explained in the reply he meant no deep emotions; they can blow up and let off steam at their frustrations and 2 minutes later they're your best buddy.
I can understand the point and difference.
Using the term anger at describing their reaction leads to the conclusion it's anger they're showing and anger is deep seated emotion but in reality they are mimiking anger and just blowing off steam.
Dan has been consistently telling us David says psychopaths don't get angry, in a sense he's right and in a sense he's wrong.
I assume David would say they can exhibit behaviour which looks like anger, feels like anger and tastes like anger but isn't anger as you or I experience anger - in fact he just did a few posts back ;-)
That has always been David's position as far as I know.
Maybe since David's EC is that JtR was a psychopath, then it is the obvious place we should place our attention, but isn't it time to move onto other aspects of the summary?
Anyhoo..
It used to be an "interesting" and occasionally funny thread but my interest is waning rapidly - as Jennifer says it's geting old and tiresome now.
I'm off to lay down in that darkened room you use Jennifer ;-)
Cheerio,
ian -- Keeping one eye shut and the other one shut
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 271
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 1:21 am: | |
Hi hemustadoneit,
You wrote:
"Even considering Mephisto's/Dan's arguments that the PCL _does_ allow a retrospective analysis based on historical documents and files, where are those documents and files? "
Actually, that was one of my points against Mephisto Joe's silly argument that i needed to be a professional in order to say David was wrong because only a professional could fully use the PCL-R test to it's full extent in making an exact diagnosis (all while claiming that he could say he was right without any training whatsoever and that the professionals were wrong).
I wasn't bringing up the PCL-R to discuss whether Jack the Ripper was a psychopath or not, I was using it to show that David's ideas of how a psychopath acts (which is what he bases his entire theory on) do not fit the expert's descriptions of the disorder, whether it be the APA's DSM-IV, Dr. Hare's PCL-R, or any of the others. Basically all David has done is pick over quotes from some books while ignoring the major aspects of psychopathology and cooked up a highly implausible story based upon his misunderstanding of what he read.
"Using the term anger at describing their reaction leads to the conclusion it's anger they're showing and anger is deep seated emotion but in reality they are mimiking anger and just blowing off steam. "
That's what David says, that's not what the experts say. I've already quoted several sources that prove him wrong on this.
"isn't it time to move onto other aspects of the summary?"
We've dealt with the other major aspects of the summary months back already. There's not much to say about mysterious "tailors mark" that aren't really tailor marks (he admits he just made them up), whistling pots that can't whistle, graffiti mentioning a word that wouldn't be invented for another 60+ years, a killer who purposefully tried to be spotted by witnesses, a policeman who knowingly locked the wrong person away, and so forth and so on...
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 911
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 5:47 am: | |
Ian,
are you having a laugh?
more aarr?? threads have you been to diary world recently?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1273
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 6:01 am: | |
Ian,
His original explanation which confused me was that psychopaths have no emotions which is easily misinterpreted, as I did, to think he was saying they don't have anger or fear.
I won't go find his words but he explained in the reply he meant no deep emotions
Sorry, but anger is a deep emotion. If he said that psychopaths have no emotions (as you said above) then there is nothing to misinterpret as it says it all. That would be a mistake on his part because "no emotions" and "no deep emotions" are two different things. Also, I I explained anger is a deep emotion.
they can blow up and let off steam at their frustrations and 2 minutes later they're your best buddy.
Ok, I know first hand that this isn't true. The same person I mentioned in above posts who is psyhopathic can get VERY angry and can go on and on for hours at a time.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 5:35 pm: | |
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. “David, let's quick go through your complaints:”
>>Always beware of this long-observed habit of Mr. Norder’s, lavishly documented throughout the A?R archives. Quick banter and fast talk are the stock in trade of the deceptiveness, shallow hustling and fast shuffle he shows toward his readers. Don’t let him run anything by you quickly. Insist on patient and reasonable analysis of what he writes, of adequate length considering the issues addressed.
2. “Nobody claimed you gave a complete description of psychopathy. The small parts you have chosen to discuss have been sufficiently incorrect to show that your understanding is flawed.”
>>Certainly it would be fallacious to conclude on the shape of any whole based only on a small sampling of its parts. This is known in logic as the “fallacy of the small cause,” or “petitio principii.” Mr. Norder needs to think his readers are very gullible indeed to accept a fallacy of this dimension. I have discussed here about 2% of my views on psychopathy, a very challenging subject. There is no way to conclude on the whole of what I think of it based on that tiny a portion. As I’ve stressed many times, please, please get yourselves copies of the books I recommend in the Summary (written by Lykken, Hare and Cleckley) and learn for yourselves about the condition. Don’t let Mr. Norder mislead you about what the psychiatrists say, read them for yourselves. Further, you will find that the 2% of my position I’ve posted in the thread is plain vanilla psychopathy, easily traceable to the sources I list, and entirely correct. It is not “flawed,” as Mr. Norder says, but straight from the textbooks. As Mr. Roger Palmer writes above:
“Having ACTUALLY READ CLECKLEY, I don't see where the man (Mr. Radka is) attempting to describe wouldn't fall within the general type (of the psychopath as described by Cleckley)…I would more or less agree with Radka's general perceptions about what must be the 'center' of the case (psychopathy), which is why I do find his ideas worth discussing, although I tend to violently disagree with many of his conclusions (concerning the case evidence, such as Joseph Hyam Levy lying to the Coroner, etc.) But that's just bees & pollen, as he says. Any field becomes stagnant when those who don't immediately fall in line get cut-off at the roots, and this has become the atmosphere of what some like to call "Ripperology."” (Parentheses and emphasis mine.)
What everyone here needs to do is what Mr. Palmer has done and what I have recommended since April, e.g., “ACTUALLY READ CLECKLEY (and other psychiatric texts),” and not accept reflexively as the unvarnished truth anything Mr. Norder says. Nobody should even comment on my view of psychopathy here that has not troubled himself or herself to study psychiatric writings on the condition thoroughly, becoming able to cite specific positions directly from the texts. Notice that I have included a great many quotations in my posts that support my position.
3. “Your "own original thinking" on psychopathy is what got you into trouble in the first place.”
>>Oh it has, has it? My “own original thinking” is what solved the case. Nobody solved the case in a century because nobody thought originally before me.
4. “Your position on psychopathy isn't outmoded, as there has never been a time when what you describe your theoretical killer doing could have been labeled as psychopathic.”
>>This is a huge flip-flop in position for Mr. Norder. He has spent the greater part of the last four months desperately trying to convince his readership that my position on psychopathy is OUTMODED because it substantively relies on Cleckley, who published several editions of “The Mask of Sanity” from the 1950s-1980s. It was Norder’s bedrock position for months that Cleckley was OUTMODED by subsequent DSMs—read it for yourselves in the archives. Notice how he casually palms off this massive head-over-heels cartwheel on his part on what he considers a gullible and unsuspecting audience. He doesn’t mention anything! He does not explain that he has made a change, or why he made it, or that I was right for four months and he wrong. He just tries to slip it by, thinking he won’t be countered on it by anyone. Mr. Norder discovered after troubling himself to turn an additional page or two in psychopathic texts a general unity among what psychiatrists have been saying about the disorder for the last 50 years, and realized that it would be difficult to maintain his position, so he just secretly dropped it, hoping no one would notice. Beware of whom you listen to, folks. In sharp contrast to Mr. Norder, I have not altered my position on psychopathy in the slightest. From the Summary to today, it remains exactly the same.
*** Regarding how there “never has been a time” when what I describe the killer doing would have been considered the acts of a psychopath: Here again, read the textbooks for yourselves, especially the case histories. Psychopaths have been behaving on precisely the caliber I describe for as long as psychopathy has been studied. Don’t reflexively accept what Mr. Norder says—read for yourself.
5. “You've claimed they are not capable of "real" emotion.”
>>I have simply repeated, straight out of every psychiatric text I’ve read, that psychopaths are incapable of emotional depth, that their emotions are transient, infantile, shallow, simplistic and inadequate to form the basis of an adult personality. This is nothing but pure, plain vanilla psychopathy as HUNDREDS of psychiatrists have discussed in THOUSANDS of books and articles for MANY DECADES! It is not a matter of contentious disagreement among psychiatrists, but is accepted among them universally, or nearly so. Anyone who reads half a jot in psychiatric texts will plainly see the justification of my position. Consider the following from Hare:
“...In a rambling book about hate, violence, and rationalizations for his behavior, (the psychopath) Jack Abbott made this revealing comment: ‘There are emotions--a whole spectrum of them--that I know only through words, through reading and in my immature imagination. I can imagine I feel these emotions (know, therefore, what they are), but I do not. At age thirty-seven I am barely a precocious child. My passions are those of a boy.” (Robert Hare, “Without Conscience,” page 53.)
Get a life, Mr. Norder.
6. “Dear lord David, you've said several times that psychopaths can't be angry. You claim the most they can get is perturbed, like having stubbed their toe. This is dead wrong.”
>>It is dead right, it comes straight out of HUNDREDS of psychiatric texts and journal articles, and you are full of baloney up to your eyeballs Mr. Norder. A psychopath is incapable of affectively estimating the depth of emotional impact of his supposedly “angry” antisocial actions on himself or others—this is at the heart of his disorder. Apparently what you are not able to understand, or what you think your readership is just too dumb to understand, is that a psychopath DOESN’T NEED boiling rage to jump out of his socks and stab someone 27 times, all he needs is a little tick-off, a hair up his nose, a perturbation that wouldn’t even show up as a blip on the average person’s emotional radar. Consider the following:
“(A man)...was walking peacefully by when our (psychopathic psychiatric) patient engaged him in a dispute about possession of the pavement...He found the other’s conciliatory attitude not to his taste, waxed more overbearing, and ended by felling his presumed adversary with a deft blow. He did not on this occasion seem to lose control of himself like a man in a genuine rage who might have struck blow after blow. His deed seemed prompted more by fractiousness and impulses to show off than by violent passion.” (Hervey M. Cleckley, “The Mask of Sanity,” page 74.)
“(To initiate an outburst of typically inexplicable and foolish behaviors) he does not, it seems, need any great anger. Moderate vexation usually suffices.” (Cleckley, page 341.)
“He never attacked others suddenly or incomprehensibly as might a psychotic person motivated by delusions or prompted by hallucinations...No signs of towering rage appeared or even of impulses too strong to be controlled by a very meager desire to refrain...The desire to show off appeared to be a strong motive behind many of his fights.” (Cleckley, page 32.)
“…The typical psychopath…(does not consistently seek) to inflict major disaster on anyone. More characteristic is …(his) pettiness and transiency of affect (both positive and negative) and his failure to follow a long-range plan, either for good or for evil. The emotional damage he may (and often does) inflict on others, mate, parents, children, is not, it seems, inflicted for any major voluntary purpose or from a well-focused motive but from what weighs in at little more than whim or caprice. He does not seem to intend much harm. In the disaster he brings about he cannot estimate the affective reactions of others which are the substance of the disaster. A race of men congenitally without pain sense would not find it easy to estimate the effects of physical torture on others. A man who had never understood visual experience would lack appreciation of what is sustained when the ordinary person loses his eyes. So, too, the real psychopath seems to lack understanding of the nature and quality of the hurt and sorrow he brings to others.” (Cleckley, page 322.)
Get a life, Mr. Norder.
7. “Your theory is riddled with the killer making all sorts of decisions that only someone severely delusional could think makes any sense, so your "psychopath" acts "psychotic."”
>>Psychopaths have an unrealistic and irrational confidence that they can attain whatever they want, and this characteristic on their part is every bit as profoundly disordered and disturbed as psychosis, despite that delusions are not present. This is a plain vanilla position, straight out of numerous texts. I’ve cited quotes documenting it on this thread many times.
8. “The DSM and PCL-R clearly disagree with your position on psychopathy. The only way you can reconcile your beliefs with what they say is to claim that when they talk about anger they really mean "pretending to be angry because they can't experience real anger." You've clearly said people should ignore the DSM and just take your word for it, and you jumped on the bandwagon when Mephisto Joe attacked the DSM and claimed nobody followed it.”
>>Psychopaths are not “pretending” when they show apparent signs of real anger. They are engaging in what is FOR THEM a natural, real and direct expression of their feelings. But what they feel is an entirely different and much shallower emotion than what we experience if we were to give the same outward signs. And we are thus incorrect in interpreting their exhibitions as reflective of the same depth of emotions we feel when we behave in a similar manner. To put the same thing another way: Psychopaths really experience petty diss-offs, they do not fake or pretend anything, and for them this is the same as the anger normal people experience. We normal people also tend to think it is the same as the anger we experience, knowing little or nothing about psychopaths. Nothing is pretended, nothing is faked, and everybody misinterprets everything. However, when psychiatrists write the DSM and the PCL-R, they write it FOR OTHER PSYCHIATRISTS and thus assume that the users of these documents ARE ALREADY FULLY AWARE of the shallowness of psychopathic “anger,” thus there is no misinterpretation here. Read the textbooks, folks, don’t let Mr. Norder fool you with his quick shuffle of the checklists! *** I do not say that “people should ignore the DSM and just take my word for it.” I have urged them to read the textbooks for themselves since April, and learn how to make proper interpretations of psychiatric materials for themselves! *** It is entirely incorrect to label me as having “jumped on a bandwagon” with Mephisto. He has his own ideas, I have mine. You are doing a juggling act with the truth for your own ends once again, Mr. Norder.
9. “Funny, when you say something, you don't need professional credentials, but when someone disagrees with you (even if they have more education on the topic), you and Mephisto Joe start demanding *they* need professional experience.”
>>I have no such position.
10. “This isn't a question of full professional scale or not. The scale that's there and ready for everyone to see totally contradicts your claims on several points. I'm not saying that if it isn't there, it's not in psychopathy, I'm saying that if you claim one thing and they say the *opposite* then you are wrong.”
>>If you really think the DSMs and the PCL-R “say the opposite” of my theory, Mr. Norder, then this is because you truly don’t know anything about psychopathy. I rather suspect that you don’t really think they say that, however, and that you are putting on a display merely to show off your combative prowess to your readership, with an eye to getting them to believe you are a dashing Editor and mail you a check for a subscription.
11. “Ethics should apply here, but for you to complain about other people's actions is pure hypocrisy. Heck, the same post in which you were complaining about the ethics of others you were tossing out the insults left and right, and you (and especially Mephisto Joe) have had prior posts that were shocking in how far you were willing to go to try to disparage other people (and whole nationalities) instead of trying to make rational arguments.”
>>I’ve got to complain about your actions, Mr. Norder, because you regularly post arrant and intentional distortions.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:13 am: | |
Hello Casebook readers,
Norder's August 27, 12:07 am post is a tour de force of his finest qualities: his egotism, his blatant distortions, his moronic exaggerations, and his intellectual dishonesty. I could not have given you better examples, if I wrote them myself.
Norder's second paragraph provides us with a clear example of his intellectual dishonesty. "He tried to claim that the entire American Psychiatric Association is clueless and thus David's bizarre understanding of psychopaths should be taken more seriously than what the professional APA reference manuals say" (Norder: August 27, 12:07 am). The crux of my argument has always been that Norder is clueless; he just likes to think he's the APA.
Norder regularly used distortion to divert your attention away from the fact that he was unable to confirm any of his accusations. I'm sure you will recall that all of my arguments in this discussion, were focused on Norder's inability to properly use his support criteria to prove his claim that Radka's description of psychopathy is wrong. Remember the time when Dano went shopping for psychopathy? He had his little checklist and he compared it with his distorted interpretations of Radka's descriptions. Norder was so happy when they didn't match his little checklist. Unfortunately, for him that is, after I read his story, I knew there was no-way he could back-up his ridiculous claims.
I used statistical analysis methods inter alia almost everyday, when I worked for the Department of Defense during the 1970's and 80's. I learned about standard APA statistical analysis while I was earning a degree in Social Psychology. It was clear to me that the main problem with Norder's story, was the contradiction between what he was claiming, and what he was doing. He claimed that he had taken some graduate level psych courses in abnormal behavior and counseling, but he wasn't using any of the methods and guidelines that are taught at all levels of an education in psychology. Norder subjectively interpreted Radka's suspect's behavior, and compared his interpretations against a list, without using any of the statistical analysis methods that normally attend a behavioral investigation. It was obvious to me that Norder didn't know the first thing about behavior, because he didn't have any idea how to use the two diagnostic instruments he kept referring to. It didn't take much effort from me to prove my point; I simply used his support criteria to prove him wrong. Now, Norder's mad at me because I embarrassed him.
Norder tried to divert your attention away from his inept use of his support criteria, by claiming that I thought, "the entire American Psychiatric Association is clueless" (Norder: 2004). His claim is an absurd attempt to protect his fragile ego. Why is it absurd? Because my arguments are archived in black and white. If you read a few of my posts from June, July, and August, you will see that in all of my arguments, I used the research findings of APA members, i.e., professional psychologists and clinicians, which were published in APA affiliated journals and books, and my knowledge of standard APA research methodology to discredit Norder's position. He claims that I am criticizing the APA, when in fact, I'm criticizing:
a)--His ignorance of standard APA Factor Analysis techniques.
b)--His ignorance of PCL-R operational protocol.
c)--His failure to prove his claims against Radka.
Norder failed to prove that my criticisms were unwarranted. He didn't have anything more than a cursory understanding of his support criteria, therefore, he was unable to use them properly to defend his claims. To sooth his wounded ego, he turned to exaggeration, distortion, and intellectual dishonesty, but even these deceptions couldn't save his miserable arguments. Norder lost this debate because:
1)--I proved that despite his claim of "superior qualifications", he did not demonstrate that he had any greater knowledge of psychopathy than Radka.
2)-- I proved that he had purposely obfuscated the criticism of the flaws in the Axis II section on "Anti-social Personality Disorders", in the DSM-IV manual by APA member psychologists and clinicians, most notably, Dr. Robert Hare.
3)-- I proved that he was unfamiliar with standard PCL-R protocol.
4)-- I proved that he was completely unfamiliar with standard APA Factor Analysis methodology.
In his post of August 10, 2.55 am, Norder finally admits that even with his nine credits worth of "superior qualifications", he has "no professional experience in psychology, but then you need a graduate level degree for that", [i.e., to properly evaluate psychopathy] (Norder: 2004). It follows that if Norder does not have any "professional experience in psychology", then he could not have had any practical experience with standard PCL-R protocols, or with standard APA Factor Analysis methodology, which is used in the DSM-IV. Norder demonstrates his ignorance of these methodologies in his August 11, at 5:11 am post. He wrote: "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" (Norder: 2004). But how can Norder possibly know, with any degree of certainty, that Radka's "statements about psychopaths in general are clearly wrong" if he has "no professional experience in psychology" (Norder: August 10, 2.55 am; August 27, 12:07 am). It follows that if Norder does not have any "professional experience in psychology", and thus, could not have had any practical experience with standard PCL-R protocol or with standard APA methodology, then his claim that "David's statements about psychopaths in general are clearly wrong" is nothing more than worthless conjecture (Norder: 2004). Therefore, Norder has failed to prove:
1)--That his knowledge of psychopathy is any greater than Radka's.
2)--That the DSM-IV contains accurate information about psychopathy, in opposition to Dr. Hare's assertion that it doesn't.
3)--That he correctly used the PCL-R to develop and support his claims.
4)--That he used standard APA analysis methodology to develop and support his claims. In other words, his entire argument is ego driven nonsense.
In my August 15, 10:31 pm summary of the Norder-Mephisto discussion, I pointed out that the PCL-R and the P-Scan are regularly used to determine the existence and extent of psychopathy in an individual without the need for an intake interview, or as Norder ineptly calls it " run through the test" (ibid). Norder's August 11, 5:11 am statement: "I have no professional experience in psychology, but then you need a graduate level degree for that", [i.e., to properly evaluate psychopathy], is his confession that he did not realize that he could have analyzed Radka's data using Dr. Hare's P-Scan diagnostic instrument. Dr. Hare designed the P-Scan so that even an incompetent know-it-all like Norder, could use it to accurately determine the existence and extent of psychopathy based on the type of information found in Radka's summary (The Crime Library: electronic document; MHS Data Collection Projects: electronic document) (Mephisto: 2004). If Norder's claim that "David's statements about psychopaths in general are clearly wrong" is worthless conjecture, then the next question must be: Was Norder's inability to properly use his support criteria to prove his allegations, a simple case of ignorance, or did he purposely try to mislead us by implying that he knew how to use his support criteria (Norder: 2004)?
The following are a synopsis of Norder's statements and attitudes during the discussion of Radka's Summary:
1)-- Norder demanded that we accept his arguments on good faith, or the implied condition that his claims are validated by his "superior qualifications", i.e., his education.
2)-- Norder made his education the core of his argument, but he was unwilling to clearly expose the extent of his alleged "superior qualifications" to public scrutiny.
3)-- Norder's arguments are an exercise in circular reasoning. He claims that the validity of his arguments is guaranteed, because his education permits him to make valid arguments.
4)-- Norder was unwilling to address my written arguments; he was unfamiliar with his support criteria, he was intellectually dishonest.
5)-- Norder failed to use standard APA methodology to collect and analyze the data in Radka's description of his suspect's psychopathology.
6)-- Norder made contradictory claims regarding his method of analysis.
7)-- Norder claimed that it is impossible to use standard APA statistical analysis methodology to determine if anonymous, or deceased individuals are psychopaths.
8)-- Norder does not own a copy of Dr. Hare's PCL-R checklist.
9)-- Norder has a superficial understanding of PCL-R and APA methodology.
10)-- Norder admitted that he does not have any experience with the DSM-IV or the PCL-R instruments he allegedly used to support his allegations.
The above synopsis clearly shows a pattern of deception, as Norder tried to pass off his conjecture as undeniable knowledge. He attempted to obscure the flaws in the DSM-IV manual, and conceal his ignorance of the PCL-R protocol in a veil of vague references, distortions, and intellectual dishonesty. A typical example of Norder's distortions, exaggerations, and outright lies, is found in the opening paragraph of his August 27, 12:07 am post. He wrote: "[Mephisto] attacked several different people here with personal insults on almost every post... and now he's trying to play the victim" (Norder: 2004). My first post on this thread is on Tuesday, June 08, at 4:34 am. Take notice of the vitriol in a few of the replies it gathered. For the record, I did not respond to the person who claimed that I ate Radka's excrement, or that I ate the excrement of Madagascar Coelacanths; I did not respond to the person who claimed that I had somehow managed to get my head stuck in my ass, or to the person who claimed that I wore a turd on my head. I did, however, respond to the June 12, 10:09 pm message of one person who insinuated that I was a child molester. How did I respond to that individual? Read the paragraph at the very bottom of my June 12, 11:28 pm post to R J Palmer, and judge for yourselves. Was it a vicious personal attack, or was it sarcastic humor?
Who attacked who readers? In my June 21, 9:38 am post, I challenged the value of the DSM-IV as support criteria in Norder's argument against Radka. Norder responded to my argument on June 23, at 8:49 pm, with a malicious personal attack. Folks, I'm nobody's doormat, therefore, I decided that I would respond to Norder's insults, in the same bellicose tone he used on me. Read these two posts and judge for yourselves. Did Norder initiate the use of personal insult? Read some of Norder's responses to me in July and August. Does he continue to use personal insults in every post he addresses to me? I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions. After reading Norder's June 23, 8:49 pm post, and my posts in the June 14 archive, plus a few of our July and August posts, how would you characterize Norder's claim that I "attacked several different people here with personal insults on almost every post" (Norder: August 27, 12:07 am)? Do you feel he: a) exaggerated what I wrote; b) completely distorted the tone and substance of my messages, or c) is his claim that I "attacked several different people here with personal insults on almost every post," an outright lie?
Norder wrote: "It seems mighty convenient that he'd just now decide that people should play nice" (ibid). My first six critical arguments are all posted in the June 14 archive. How would you characterize my attitude in those messages Casebook readers? I'd describe them as being very polite to three posters, and a bit of a smart-ass with Messrs. Souden, Palmer, and Mullins. I can't speak for these gentleman, but I think that Mr. Souden and Mr. Mullins, probably recognized that my sarcasm was harmless. R J immediately recognized me by my style, and probably knew what I was up to.
Compare the tone of my posts in the June 14 archive, and the exchange of ideas between R J Palmer and myself in the following archives, with Norder's tone in his first message addressed specifically to me on June 23, 8:49 pm– "Is that harsh?". Now checkout Norder's August 27, 12:07 am post, "Well, yeah, it's meant to be harsh", and so was every message he posted in between (Norder: 2004). Would you say that the majority of my posts to other people here were polite, with a little good-natured, smart-ass humor thrown in for laughs? Would you say there is a strong similarity between the vitriolic posts in the June 14 archive responses to my initial post, and the cumulative tone of Norder's posts that you've read so far? With these answers in mind, how would you characterize Norder's claim that "it seems mighty convenient that he'd just now decide that people should play nice"? (ibid). Is he: a) exaggerating the tone of my messages; b) distorting the tone of my messages, or c) being intellectually dishonest. Did you answer yes, or chose a letter to represent your feelings for any of the questions I've raised about Norder? Do you see the pattern of deception in Norder's posts during our debate? If you do, then you must ask yourselves: How credible could Norder's criticism of Radka's description of psychopathy be?
I always made it a point to cite articles from peer reviewed journals and books to support my arguments throughout this discussion. Norder, and now his inane groupie, are claiming that early in his diatribe against Radka, he initially cited an Internet website to support his conjecture. Did it surprise anyone that Mr. Magoo and his gullible sidekick failed to identify the post that contains the link? Do you think there is any collusion between these two intellectual giants? Do you think there should be? What would you get if you put Pegg's brain in Norder's body? An unintelligible liar. Anyway, if the website that they're referring to did in fact support Norder's claims, then why didn't he regularly cite it during the debate? It doesn't make any sense? Why would Norder neglect to refer to a source of information that might support his allegations? One reason might be, because it doesn't actually help his argument. The flip side of that, is that it harms his argument. Did any of you folks visit this enigmatic website? Did it give you any lasting impressions? Perhaps that's the reason why Norder only mentioned it in passing during our discussion, and Twiggy didn't mention it at all. It is consistent, however, with Norder's affinity for obfuscation. I think he's afraid we'll find it, and discover that it doesn't support his claims at all. I'll repeat that for you Twiggy; ob...fuss...kay...shun, ask the nine-credit genius to tell you what it means.
For the record, I began the discussion by clearly stating the reasons for my argument. As I mentioned earlier, I've always supported my arguments with verifiable citations. Norder, on the other hand, allegedly mentions a website, two diagnostic instruments he can't explain, and drops a couple of names he looked up on the Internet. He then accuses me of having the worst tactics he's ever seen in a debate (ibid). Makes you wonder who he's been debating.
In mid-August, I reviewed all of the posts written by Norder and myself during the debate. I concluded that I had said everything I needed to say to validate my arguments, and that Norder had distorted everything he needed to distort, which also validated my arguments, therefore, it would not serve any useful purpose to continue embarrassing the guy. On August 15, at 3:28 pm, I posted my summary of the Norder–Mephisto discussion. At the close of the summary I wrote, "Let there be peace", which signified that as far as I was concerned, the debate was over. At that point in time, the fed-back I was receiving from you folks, indicated that the information generated by the discussion, would enable you to judge the merit of our arguments, and draw your own conclusions. We could all go back to discussing Radka's Summary; Norder could go back to bitching about CMD, and Twiggy could go back to her successful practice of thinking about things, and not words.
In the second half of my August 20, 9:37 pm post to Ms. Robinson, I acknowledged Mr. Mullins' observation: "Might I whole heartily suggest a truce, even if it is an uneasy one. Please, make friends so that we, as a group, can move forward" (Mullins: August 20, 11:33 am). I replied that under certain conditions, his congenial offer to join us a three-way research project, contained a number of potential benefits. In essence, I agreed that burying the corpse of Norder's dead argument, would clear the thread of it stench.
I wasn't worried about working with Norder, during the course of my working career I dealt with some very persuasive liars, so dealing with a bumbling fool would be a piece of cake. But, I wasn't surprised when Norder proposed his ridiculous demands. Instead of taking advantage of Mr. Mullins' noble gesture, and cutting his losses, he's now trying to convince me to help him recover his credibility. If I fail to comply, he threatens to not like me anymore.
Norder has become so entangled in his web of deception, that he's beginning to believe his own distortions. He wrote: "But, hey, yeah, if he wants a truce, he can have one" (Norder: August 27, 12:07 am). Why would I ask this troll for a truce, after I kicked his ass in this debate? Norder insists that in order for me to gain a truce that I don't need and didn't ask for, I have to admit "that David's statements about psychopaths conflict with what the experts say". He is so wound up over this, that he's begun using Twiggy's graceful prose: He jus aah...hey!...aah retorted...'accusin'...yeah!...gotta daa-mit...he retorted. Bing (imaginary kick in the ass) ..."he just needs to admit that he was wrong for accusing me of lying about what David said" daah (Norder: August 27, 12:07 am). Norder just doesn't get it. (That Twiggy doesn't get it, is a gimme) It's over Moe. It is finished, and done with. You lost the debate because your argument sucked; you couldn't convince anyone that you knew how to use your support criteria, and you're just plain full-o-schist. And please, stop taking grammar lessons from the hat-rack.
Lastly, Norder wrote: "And now he's trying to play the victim" (Norder: August 27, 12:07 am). Readers, the only play actor here is Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes, and if you accept any of his arguments without checking his sources, then you have become his victim.
I'm going back to school in a couple of days, so I won't be able to stop-by for a few months. So, be well and don't take any crap.
I thank all of you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
};-)}
PS. One of you might want to ask Norder how he reconciles the apparent dichotomy between his claim of "superior qualifications", and his confession, "I have no professional experience in psychology, but then you need a graduate level degree for that", [i.e., to properly evaluate psychopathy] (August 10, 2.55 am).
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
