This. Also, understand that not everyone is alike. For instance, there are psychopaths and sociopaths out there who process things differently than most of us, emotionally. Also, people can be conditioned to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. I think a blanket statement that "one cannot emotionally train for war" is somewhat closed-minded and shows a lack of knowledge of brain chemistry.
I didn't say that, at all. I just said that Video games do not emotionally train you for killing, unless you're already fucked up.
This. Also, understand that not everyone is alike. For instance, there are psychopaths and sociopaths out there who process things differently than most of us, emotionally. Also, people can be conditioned to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. I think a blanket statement that "one cannot emotionally train for war" is somewhat closed-minded and shows a lack of knowledge of brain chemistry.
I didn't say that, at all. I just said that Video games do not emotionally train you for killing, unless you're already fucked up.
I was responding mostly to Shadoworc's post, where he did say that.
Until you know that the characters on the screen can kill you as easily as you can kill them, no video game can train you for war.
We can do that. We have the technology.
More seriously, I think part of it is seeing your allies go down as well. Working with a team where teammates drop dead would be a very good simulation of typical war conditions. Kind of a waste of life for simulation though. The military has equations to determine that quantitatively, so they know if its wasteful.
I think the lone gunman experience is very different from soldier in the battlefield. Most lone gunman end up shooting themselves in the end, whereas soldiers don't do this as frequently. It might be a case of poor sample size though.
In the safest, most boring country, the worst lone gunman shooting happens. The worst in the world, in history. But it will not make our country worse. The safe, boring democracy will supply him with a defense lawyer as is his right. He will not get more than 21 years in prison as is the maximum extent of the law. Our democracy does not allow for enough punishment to satisfy my need for revenge, as is its intention. We will not become worse, we will be better. We lived in a land where this is possible, even easy. And we will keep living in a land where this is possible, even easy. We are open, we are free and we are together. We are vulnerable by choice. And we will keep on like that, that's how we want to live. We will not be worse because of the worst. We must be good because of the best.
Until you know that the characters on the screen can kill you as easily as you can kill them, no video game can train you for war.
We can do that. We have the technology.
More seriously, I think part of it is seeing your allies go down as well. Working with a team where teammates drop dead would be a very good simulation of typical war conditions. Kind of a waste of life for simulation though. The military has equations to determine that quantitatively, so they know if its wasteful.
We do have a game where enemies can kill you as easily as you can kill them: Counter-Strike. Everyone is still far more durable than they would in an actual battle. The allies in the game would still be NPCs, so unless the person being trained is a psychopath -- for whom the world might as well be NPCs -- it won't adequately train them. As an aside, did you know that 1 in 10 people are psychopaths?
Until you know that the characters on the screen can kill you as easily as you can kill them, no video game can train you for war.
We can do that. We have the technology.
More seriously, I think part of it is seeing your allies go down as well. Working with a team where teammates drop dead would be a very good simulation of typical war conditions. Kind of a waste of life for simulation though. The military has equations to determine that quantitatively, so they know if its wasteful.
We do have a game where enemies can kill you as easily as you can kill them: Counter-Strike. Everyone is still far more durable than they would in an actual battle. The allies in the game would still be NPCs, so unless the person being trained is a psychopath -- for whom the world might as well be NPCs -- it won't adequately train them. As an aside, did you know that 1 in 10 people are psychopaths?
So, the only legitimate comment I was making in this quote is "I think part of it is seeing you allies go down." I meant, actually seeing your allies die. Really die. Not some canned animation of a model falling down. In that context, the rest of that paragraph I wrote could be considered offensive and is perhaps not appropriate in a thread like this in hindsight.
For unconnected reasons I was copying some stuff from a Wikileaks thread, and found this by Scott:
"I think the one thing people forget is that terrorists are MORONS. Even if you take away all the Wikileaks information, there was already enough information available to do huge damage with the greatest of ease. The fact that terrorists don't succeed more often shows that they are stupid. Therefore, putting more information out there, even if it's something straightforward like "Blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in 20 easy steps" will not put us in any more danger. Anyone who is smart enough to read it and succeed at executing it without being found out by intelligence and law enforcement agencies is smart enough to get a really good job. There is almost no crossover between smart people and evil/criminally insane people. That is what keeps us safe."
Norway had a bad case of an evil and criminally insane smart person. Sucks!
Thankfully this only strengthens my view of the rest of humanity, that anyone capable of the largest killing spree in history hadn't done so until now. Protective stupidity and the compassion of intelligence is a great combination for us all.
Even when it's pointed out that a lot of terrorists are engineers, it's equally pointed out that not all engineers are equal. You need both smart (in this case, the sort of math/technical ability) and drive to work in technical fields. A person without the smart or the drive doesn't go into engineering at all. A person with smart and drive is a successful engineer. A person with the smart, but not the drive, becomes a basement nerd and talks about how much better they could do it if they bothered. But there are a lot of people who have the drive but not the smart, who get through engineering courses on sheer determination but fail to actually be good engineers in the real world. I'm willing to bet it's those sorts from whom terrorist engineer types are recruited; they already have the determination to go through with it, they have a dead-end career, and they remember just enough about explosives to not just accidently bhrow themselves immediately. (His name HANABI! HE GONNA BHROW UP!)
A person with the smart, but not the drive, becomes a basement nerd and talks about how much better they could do it if they bothered.
Actually, where I used to work, many of us spent a lot of time thinking about the worst case situations that bad people could get us into (whatever the motivation). It was a common to state: "It's a good thing we're not terrorists" or "It's a good thing we're not the bad guys", etc. The good thing is that there are plenty more engineers thinking like the bad people to come up with defenses than there are smart, bad people.
I agree that the crazy factor required to do horrendous things usually does not permit the focus and drive required to actually understand reality enough to manipulate it. There are exceptions. People like the Unabomber are more likely to be the source of terrorism for most countries than foreign sources. Very smart people who are not socially well-adapted can pose an extreme threat to those around them.
The bad thing, of course, is that the level of crazy combined with smarts usually puts these bad people in a very different mental framework than the good people working to prevent or respond to such bad things.
Norway had a bad case of an evil and criminally insane smart person. Sucks!
Yes, it is sad and rare that Norway had a relatively smart nutjob who was able to do extreme damage. However, even though this guy was relatively smart compared to terrorists we have seen recently, the extent of his damage was actually minimal compared to what was possible. If he had any demolitions expertise, his bombs could have done significantly more damage completely imploding multiple buildings and killing nearly everyone in them.
Also, props to Norway and that poster above for not being deplorable bloodthirsty revenge-seekers.
However, even though this guy was relatively smart compared to terrorists we have seen recently, the extent of his damage was actually minimal compared to what was possible
You do realize that the explosive's purpose was not to incur casualties but rather function as a diversion for his other attack, right?
However, even though this guy was relatively smart compared to terrorists we have seen recently, the extent of his damage was actually minimal compared to what was possible
You do realize that the explosive's purpose was not to incur casualties but rather function as a diversion for his other attack, right?
That doesn't mean his diversion couldn't have been bigger. That's another thing I've noticed is that it seems that regardless of the degree of smartness or evil, terrorists rarely have the goal of maximizing destruction. Otherwise, end of Fight Club.
That's another thing I've noticed is that it seems that regardless of the degree of smartness or evil, terrorists rarely have the goal of maximizing destruction.
The media really makes it sound like these people have no rationalization at all, and thus maximizing death can be the only possible goal. However, I think you are right that terrorists really are not trying to maximize death/destruction.
I was just reading about various domestic terrorists in the US (after linking the Unabomber), and this seems to make sense for the ones I was reading about. Each one was trying to make a point, using death to attract attention and demonstrate the individual's perceived gravity of the situation. Even Al Queda, a foreign terrorist, seemed to be trying to make a point to every country it attacked. If the point really was to kill everybody, the letters and video tapes giving the people being attacked some sort of manifesto, wouldn't be necessary. Why communicate your morals to people you plan to kill anyway? It really does imply that a conversion process is being attempted rather than, say, genocide.
That's another thing I've noticed is that it seems that regardless of the degree of smartness or evil, terrorists rarely have the goal of maximizing destruction.
The media really makes it sound like these people have no rationalization at all, and thus maximizing death can be the only possible goal. However, I think you are right that terrorists really are not trying to maximize death/destruction.
I was just reading about various domestic terrorists in the US (after linking the Unabomber), and this seems to make sense for the ones I was reading about. Each one was trying to make a point, using death to attract attention and demonstrate the individual's perceived gravity of the situation. Even Al Queda, a foreign terrorist, seemed to be trying to make a point to every country it attacked. If the point really was to kill everybody, the letters and video tapes giving the people being attacked some sort of manifesto, wouldn't be necessary. Why communicate your morals to people you plan to kill anyway? It really does imply that a conversion process is being attempted rather than, say, genocide.
Yes, the terrorists do seem to all have some reason they are doing something. What I find really interesting is that terrorists are so successful at making people scared, but incredibly unsuccessful at getting their point across. Bin Laden said that bringing the twin towers down was revenge for the towers that fell in Lebanon. Meanwhile, most Americans probably think Lebanon is some kind of food. If they know it's a country, they probably couldn't find it on a map. Fewer still could tell you anything about the country or its history.
You would hope that since terrorism has been shown to be a really bad way to spread a message that people would stop doing it, but that doesn't seem to have happened. I mean, they're already crazy to begin with. I think this might be because even though the victims don't get the message the other terrorists get it. If I go and do some terrorism in the name geekery, the victims won't know that I got them because they were anti net-neutrality or whatever. However, the other geeks who already know the issue will see it, and copycats will be likely.
What I also find interesting is that if you think about crime in general, almost every criminal has a reason, valid or not, for what they do. There's at least some motivation that non-crazy people can comprehend. Stealing because you are poor. Killing because you are mad. Only serial killers are different. They do usually act in a pattern, but they lack a reason for their crimes in the conventional sense. I'm glad there aren't serial terrorists.
If I go and do some terrorism in the name geekery, the victims won't know that I got them because they were anti net-neutrality or whatever. However, the other geeks who already know the issue will see it, and copycats will be likely.
I think this is the difference between lone gunmen and cells. Like hacktivist cells, you have to admit that followers of Al Queda's principles do know the issue, see it, and copycat it just as geeks see what hacktivists are doing.
I think you kinda nailed an interesting difference between lone gunmen and sects versus cells.
Only serial killers are different. They do usually act in a pattern, but they lack a reason for their crimes in the conventional sense. I'm glad there aren't serial terrorists.
Well, serial killers do tend to spread fear, and thus would get labeled as terrorists in the current climate. My mom was going to some college where a serial killer was killing women. As an RA of women, she had to take headcounts of her students each night to make sure nobody was lost (read: killed). That creates quite the aura of fear.
Well, serial killers do tend to spread fear, and thus would get labeled as terrorists in the current climate. My mom was going to some college where a serial killer was killing women. As an RA of women, she had to take headcounts of her students each night to make sure nobody was lost (read: killed). That creates quite the aura of fear.
Well, even a burglar creates fear. You need a somewhat political or social motivation to be a terrorist.
I hope that never changes, although that could be asking too much.
It's highly unlikely. Can anyone think of any instance of it in all of history? I can't, but I do not have the vast historical knowledge. Given enough time I'm sure it will happen at least once. I will be shocked if it happens during my relatively short life.
I hope that never changes, although that could be asking too much.
It's highly unlikely. Can anyone think of any instance of it in all of history? I can't, but I do not have the vast historical knowledge. Given enough time I'm sure it will happen at least once. I will be shocked if it happens during my relatively short life.
Aleph counts. They're pushing a "religious" goal, but hold similar beliefs to certain serial killers about the nature of the world.
I daresay Ted Kaczynski counts as well. He had a Luddite agenda, but chose targets according to erratic patterns of thought. The evidence building up that he made have been responsible for the Tylenol murders in Chicago adds to this.
Of the examples given so far I would consider none to be serial terrorists. If we are going to base it similar to a serial killer then their actions would have to be done for nothing more than personal gratification.
Each of the examples given have some motive from one want to kill his ex-wife (depending one which motive is true) or religious motives. If we are going to use those motives we could bring in a ton of people or even entire nations who were serving the "one true religion".
Comments
EDIT: just to make it clear, this is not sarcasm. I quite mean it.
More seriously, I think part of it is seeing your allies go down as well. Working with a team where teammates drop dead would be a very good simulation of typical war conditions. Kind of a waste of life for simulation though. The military has equations to determine that quantitatively, so they know if its wasteful.
I think the lone gunman experience is very different from soldier in the battlefield. Most lone gunman end up shooting themselves in the end, whereas soldiers don't do this as frequently. It might be a case of poor sample size though.
Norwegian prime minister and the leader of the youth group attacked.
"I think the one thing people forget is that terrorists are MORONS. Even if you take away all the Wikileaks information, there was already enough information available to do huge damage with the greatest of ease. The fact that terrorists don't succeed more often shows that they are stupid. Therefore, putting more information out there, even if it's something straightforward like "Blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in 20 easy steps" will not put us in any more danger. Anyone who is smart enough to read it and succeed at executing it without being found out by intelligence and law enforcement agencies is smart enough to get a really good job. There is almost no crossover between smart people and evil/criminally insane people. That is what keeps us safe."
Norway had a bad case of an evil and criminally insane smart person. Sucks!
Thankfully this only strengthens my view of the rest of humanity, that anyone capable of the largest killing spree in history hadn't done so until now. Protective stupidity and the compassion of intelligence is a great combination for us all.
I agree that the crazy factor required to do horrendous things usually does not permit the focus and drive required to actually understand reality enough to manipulate it. There are exceptions. People like the Unabomber are more likely to be the source of terrorism for most countries than foreign sources. Very smart people who are not socially well-adapted can pose an extreme threat to those around them.
The bad thing, of course, is that the level of crazy combined with smarts usually puts these bad people in a very different mental framework than the good people working to prevent or respond to such bad things.
Also, props to Norway and that poster above for not being deplorable bloodthirsty revenge-seekers.
I was just reading about various domestic terrorists in the US (after linking the Unabomber), and this seems to make sense for the ones I was reading about. Each one was trying to make a point, using death to attract attention and demonstrate the individual's perceived gravity of the situation. Even Al Queda, a foreign terrorist, seemed to be trying to make a point to every country it attacked. If the point really was to kill everybody, the letters and video tapes giving the people being attacked some sort of manifesto, wouldn't be necessary. Why communicate your morals to people you plan to kill anyway? It really does imply that a conversion process is being attempted rather than, say, genocide.
You would hope that since terrorism has been shown to be a really bad way to spread a message that people would stop doing it, but that doesn't seem to have happened. I mean, they're already crazy to begin with. I think this might be because even though the victims don't get the message the other terrorists get it. If I go and do some terrorism in the name geekery, the victims won't know that I got them because they were anti net-neutrality or whatever. However, the other geeks who already know the issue will see it, and copycats will be likely.
What I also find interesting is that if you think about crime in general, almost every criminal has a reason, valid or not, for what they do. There's at least some motivation that non-crazy people can comprehend. Stealing because you are poor. Killing because you are mad. Only serial killers are different. They do usually act in a pattern, but they lack a reason for their crimes in the conventional sense. I'm glad there aren't serial terrorists.
I think you kinda nailed an interesting difference between lone gunmen and sects versus cells. Well, serial killers do tend to spread fear, and thus would get labeled as terrorists in the current climate. My mom was going to some college where a serial killer was killing women. As an RA of women, she had to take headcounts of her students each night to make sure nobody was lost (read: killed). That creates quite the aura of fear.
I daresay Ted Kaczynski counts as well. He had a Luddite agenda, but chose targets according to erratic patterns of thought. The evidence building up that he made have been responsible for the Tylenol murders in Chicago adds to this.
Each of the examples given have some motive from one want to kill his ex-wife (depending one which motive is true) or religious motives. If we are going to use those motives we could bring in a ton of people or even entire nations who were serving the "one true religion".