Two of the books that I read were good, and I
enjoyed them, but since then I have read books that I found more helpful.
The original two were numbers 16 and 17 on the Long
Reading List:
Columbine, by Dave Cullen (2009)
The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through
The Madness Industry, by Jon Ronson (2011)
More recently I have read these two:
The Psychopath Inside: A
Neuroscientist's Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain, by James Fallon (2013)
Rampage: The Social Roots of School
Shootings, by Katherine S. Newman, Cybelle Fox, David
Harding, Jal Mehta, and Wendy Roth (2005)
I believe I found out about Rampage through
the notes in Columbine; the books are not competing with each other. If
they were, I gave both of the previous books higher ratings on Goodreads. I
don't think I have become meaner in my ratings, but for readability, the less
enlightening books were more gripping.
I also can't rule out that at least part of the
helpfulness of the later books came from the foundation laid by reading the
earlier works. There are things that I understand better and get faster when
they are in areas where I have spent more time. That's one reason I never
consider any reading wasted. (Well, unless it's a really terrible book, but
none of these were.)
So that was just something that was interesting for
me. Some sources of knowledge are more helpful than others, but you may not
know about them. If it's still moving forward, that's worth something. That can
be true of books, and courses you take, and assignments you give yourself, and
the people you spend time with. They say when the student is ready the teacher
will appear, but I think there are teachers everywhere if we are open to them.
As fascinating as all of that is, it would feel
unfair to not explain the differences between the books.
Columbine told the story of one shooting, and it had some basic elements of school
shootings, but was very specific to the situation there. In significant ways it
ended up being more about law enforcement, media, and their failings in this
situation. Rampage compared two shootings for a government commission
where they were trying to get to the roots. They did a lot more statistical
analysis. I suspect these factors explain why the one that answered the most
questions and the one that read better were not the same, but they both have
important information.
The Psychopath Test started with a mysterious book arriving anonymously and tracking down
the puzzle, which seemed to be the work of someone who was mentally off. That
led to questions about the nature of sanity, and the book is kind of a romp as
it explores that topic, and what it means to be a psychopath. It is very
interesting, and it does talk about the test, but it is much fluffier than The
Psychopath Inside.
There a neuroscientist accidentally discovers that scans
of his own brain are remarkably similar to the brain scans of diagnosed
psychopaths. He doesn't always do a great job of making the more scientific
parts comprehensible, and he often comes off as kind of a jerk (which makes
sense in light of the brain scan), but it is fascinating. There is a much deeper
understanding of how the brain works, how different areas associated with
psychopathy work together, and - although he does not realize it - he really
helped my understanding of what's wrong with libertarianism.
One thing that I am seeing a lot of through other
sources is how psychopathic behavior is learned, which is not so present in
these books. I believe Ronson addressed that some psychopaths do seem to grow
out of it (at least they decide there is a value in ending their antisocial
behavior and are able to go with it), but from these books alone it is easy to
imagine that with the wrong combination of nature and nurture there is no hope.
I suspect that is not true, and that society can do better.
Perhaps that is one of the books I will find this
year.
Related links:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment