"The man was a loner."

[Admiral Valdemar]

I've just noticed on my Google Sidebar newsfeed that the murder of a 12-year-old girl this weekend in Manchester, may have been linked to a man getting upset over football results. Okay, that's pretty fucked up, but what caught my eye on this report was, yet again, another mention of the social status of this person, that is, he was apparently one who kept himself to himself. Link.

Now, this isn't an isolated thing. It seems that, because human society is heavily inclined towards extraversion than introversion, any such factoid relating to a murder, for instance, is automatically brought to light as some sort of indicator that the person couldn't be trusted because, hell, they didn't mingle with others. And clearly anyone who isn't an out and out party animal with a hundred and one friends and a bubbly personality is destined to be a sociopath. Right?

Are there any other trends like this people have noticed? Like, perhaps, the off-hand mention of race for a perpetrator? I know that last year, there was a murder in Nottingham where a link was found between the murderer and the victim. They both played a game which they also participated on forums online, exchanging game details and stories. And what horribly violent game did the media bring up as being possibly relevant to the murder case? Advance Wars. Admittedly, the last one in the series on the DS, which had a darker tone and no cutesy graphics like the previous titles, but the way the media presented it, you would be forgiven for thinking these people also sacrificed goats and drew pentagrams on their foreheads. But I guess Paganism is another alternative lifestyle that gets picked up on as being a contributing factor in some cases.

[Stark]

It's also because it allows people to disregard the action; it was a single, isolated person, with no organisation, beliefs or other challenging or threatening characteristics. It was just one guy who was not like us, so there's no need to look at our society for the root causes of these tradegies.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It certainly reeks of cognitive dissonance and some herd mentality, like the idea that someone could murder someone else over a trivial matter is harder to grasp than the idea that they were simply not seen clubbing it, or felt computer games were more fun than going to sporting events etc. Even if a clear cause is found, like the guy above was found to be mentally unstable for whatever reason (and that seems highly possible), there'll likely still be those out there perpetuating the notion that the transgression was down to a lifestyle choice, not some underlying condition or spontaneous act.

At the end of the day, this kind of manure spreading is no different to insisting it's because of race or sex or any other factor that couldn't possibly be held up as a single reason for a person's actions. As someone who is definitely an introvert at heart, I get weary of seeing how the concept is seen as related to the kids that torture puppies and become bunny boilers, just like the Columbine killers. The irony is, myself and those others I know like me would be far more likely to cause harm to ourselves than anyone else, and usually we're more well adjusted people. One could easily point to the average Jack the lad who goes out with the mates on the piss-up, enjoys a footie game and routinely goes to parties, and then say "Look, that guy is full of himself. Clearly he's more likely to shit on other people to get ahead. Just look how emotional he gets over sports!". But no, because that would cover a LOT more people who would openly object as well.

EDIT: And here's another better article, again, saying the same thing. You'd expect The Indie to maybe see past this, but no.

On an unrelated note, commemorative Facebook pages just seem creepy.

[Setesh]

Strangely enough yes I have seen this trend, in fact a victim of it sits not 2 meters away me. My roommate James is from a town in Iowa. During his highschool years the guidance councilor basically decided James was suicidally depressed because he had no interest in being popular. A bit of job related blackmail to the school psychiatrist and he was banned from coming to school unless he was on anti-depressants he didn't need. The fact that he was a computer nerd with a stutter, and an above average IQ who found the 'popular' crowd boring as a conversation with a handcuffed monk under a vow of silence, didn't seem to cross their minds. Of his many faults James is a 'don't rock the boat' type of person who would likely apologize to you if you spilled coffee on him, so take to pointless meds he did, and now has some irreparable brain damage.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I feel like this discussion thread is going to turn into an Net-dwellers' self-indulgent back-slapping fest. Give me a fucking break, an inability to make functional social relationships is a defining criteria for most severe psychological problems, and while it may be stretching, its hardly some vulgar media-simpleton rabble collusion to discriminate against homebodies to suggest it might relate to someone's massive psychological problems. It follows perfectly: generally one normally capable of working out their problems sufficiently to get along with others and have a rich and rewarding social life will not be so fragile and metastable that they will flip out and murder on mundane circumstances.

[Formless]

Inability to make friends =! disinterest in making friends.

People are talking about the latter, not the former.

[Shroom Man 777]

Of course the person's going to be a loner. If his brain's malfunctioning enough to allow him to kill the crap out of another human being, dontcha think there'd be other manifestations that'd make him "different" from other normally-functioning human beings, thus causing them to shun the guy or the guy to shun them?

This doesn't mean that loners are murderers. Loner =/= murderes. But SOME murderers, some kinds of murderers, ARE loners. Just like how lots of mentally sick people are loners, not just psycho-killers but also those crazy people who like eating their own shit or something.

That doesn't mean all murderers are loners. LOTS of murderers are NOT loners. Gangsters, soldiers, whatever. If killing people is institutionalized in some kind of abnormal dysfunctional society, then people who get along fine and other non-loners will end up killing the crap out of people too. Because it's no longer their malfunctioning brains that ostracize them from normal-functioning people who belong to normal-functioning society. Their brains can be functioning normally and there can be no ostracization from society at all... but their society is totally NOT normal-functioning since it's the one that's abnormal and sick and murderous.

Just like Nazis!

[Admiral Valdemar]

I feel like this discussion thread is going to turn into an Net-dwellers' self-indulgent back-slapping fest. Give me a fucking break, an inability to make functional social relationships is a defining criteria for most severe psychological problems, and while it may be stretching, its hardly some vulgar media-simpleton rabble collusion to discriminate against homebodies to suggest it might relate to someone's massive psychological problems. It follows perfectly: generally one normally capable of working out their problems sufficiently to get along with others and have a rich and rewarding social life will not be so fragile and metastable that they will flip out and murder on mundane circumstances.

Apart from the fact that you clearly don't even know what introversion is and are just as ignorant as the media we're having our "back-slapping fest" on, do you have anything worthwhile to add, or are you going to epitomise the exact problem I'm talking about for the sake of proving irony still exists?

[Darth Wong]

Now, this isn't an isolated thing. It seems that, because human society is heavily inclined towards extraversion than introversion, any such factoid relating to a murder, for instance, is automatically brought to light as some sort of indicator that the person couldn't be trusted because, hell, they didn't mingle with others. And clearly anyone who isn't an out and out party animal with a hundred and one friends and a bubbly personality is destined to be a sociopath. Right?

Sounds like someone is just being thin-skinned. When a killer is a loner, they point it out. That is true. But when a killer is a highly respected member of the community, they also point that out. So what exactly is your point? If you're trying to come up with evidence of some grand and unfair conspiracy against loners, you'll have to do better than pointing out that reporters fail to suppress this information.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Sounds like someone is just being thin-skinned. When a killer is a loner, they point it out. That is true. But when a killer is a highly respected member of the community, they also point that out. So what exactly is your point? If you're trying to come up with evidence of some grand and unfair conspiracy against loners, you'll have to do better than pointing out that reporters fail to suppress this information.

It's not even so much a point regarding murder, I only used the above as an example to hand now. It's the way anything different to the norm, be it a social worldview or a hobby, is often picked up and, in many instances, either misrepresented or outright attacked. I've seen the same thing happen to those who role-play, or the furry community, or even the bondage community. We've had the biggest recent misrepresentation regarding gamers, for instance, who have never had a good rap in the media from the days of Pac Man, where, in the other example I mentioned, a game that couldn't be further from the "Violent games cause violence" meme is explicitly brought up, despite the link to the actual murder being tenuous at best.

But then this is really just a grudge I have in general against the MSM. They appeal to the masses, obviously, and over simplify or throw around hyperbole or just plain lies on many matters. And while they may also mention that a murderer was well respected in the community, that doesn't really address that there is rarely, if ever, any positive portrayal of those who don't share the same level of extraversion that is by far the norm out there. I have seen plenty to the contrary, however. It's not unlike how the media in America will make a point of highlighting a Christian's good works, but happily overlook someone who is a vocal atheist (there was an incident not long ago, but the details escape me, which demonstrated this bias).

[Darth Wong]

So you are upset not about "loners" in particular but about how the MSM coddles the prejudices of its main advertising demographic? Sweet mother of fuck, you can't tell me that any of this surprises you, or that you don't know why it's happening.

PS. As for the loner issue, there seems to be a good evolutionary reason for loners to be angry: specifically, the fact that they are unable to reproduce, due to lack of a mate. I don't see how you can dismiss the "angry loner" phenomenon as a pure media fiction so easily.

[Admiral Valdemar]

So you are upset not about "loners" in particular but about how the MSM coddles the prejudices of its main advertising demographic? Sweet mother of fuck, you can't tell me that any of this surprises you, or that you don't know why it's happening.

No, it's nothing new, though I was curious how others would react to my bringing up the case that sparked this thread. I had intended to post the same OP elsewhere to gauge reactions, but I got side-tracked; especially with thinking about other areas where the MSM are just generally ignorant. It's more an observation than a general rant on a matter I've never noticed before.

PS. As for the loner issue, there seems to be a good evolutionary reason for loners to be angry: specifically, the fact that they are unable to reproduce, due to lack of a mate. I don't see how you can dismiss the "angry loner" phenomenon as a pure media fiction so easily.

Well, yes and no. "Loners" is a rather more loaded term than introvert, and really applies to a specific kind of person. You get varying kinds of extroverts too, but you can tell the arrogant, mouthy kind are the ones who often cause trouble, as opposed to someone who just derives most of their energy and enjoyment from being around others. I know plenty of introverts and they all have, or have had, partners and plenty of good friendships. I suppose that's another point of contention, that many confound "loner", the social misfit who likely does have real psychological problems, with "introvert", which is just a person who doesn't actively go out and socialise as much as an extrovert. There is a subtle distinction, and I'd venture to guess that those who cause harm tend to be the "angry longer" kind who have never had any real successful interactions with other people. Over here, at least, the media doesn't make this distinction, and so anyone who isn't a well rounded social animal may be described as a loner, even if they have a girlfriend and no problem with making friends if they have to.

[Darth Wong]

You and I obviously have very different notions of the word "loner", if you think a loner might have a girlfriend.

[Formless]

I think that's his point, Wong. He's saying that that seems to him to be the media's notion of what a loner is, even though its obviously BS. So you two don't actually disagree.

[Darth Wong]

Wrong. If it's just a disagreement about the definition of a particular word, then all of his talk about social conformism is completely irrelevant. And don't address me like a goddamned drill sergeant would, asshole.

If we're conflating "guy who has friends and a wife but doesn't get out much" and "creepy guy who keeps to himself and doesn't socialize with anyone", then we can't have a clear discussion about a single concept, can we?

[Admiral Valdemar]

You and I obviously have very different notions of the word "loner", if you think a loner might have a girlfriend.

Ah, that's my issue there. As Formless states, when the term "loner" is used, it typically is a person who is not good with people at all, and more than likely ostracised from the community for, well, whatever. They may be blatant sociopaths, even. The problem is this term, with its connotations, being used in the past to describe people who are just introverted. And introversion is no more likely to breed a raging murderer than extraversion is.

Like you say, we shouldn't be surprised that the media glosses over these things. All gamers are violent GTA fans, all Pagans believe in sacrificial rites etc.

[Darth Wong]

You and I obviously have very different notions of the word "loner", if you think a loner might have a girlfriend.

Ah, that's my issue there. As Formless states, when the term "loner" is used, it typically is a person who is not good with people at all, and more than likely ostracised from the community for, well, whatever. They may be blatant sociopaths, even. The problem is this term, with its connotations, being used in the past to describe people who are just introverted. And introversion is no more likely to breed a raging murderer than extraversion is.

Like you say, we shouldn't be surprised that the media glosses over these things. All gamers are violent GTA fans, all Pagans believe in sacrificial rites etc.

And FOXNews tells us that everyone who supports universal health care is a communist. We should not try to rehabilitate words just because the media tends to slap them onto people for whom they do not really apply.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm happy for loner to be kept as a term used for those who potentially could be a threat to society, just like "gun nut". I simply don't want the term used interchangeably, as in the past I noticed, with introversion, like it's some sort of mental disease. Depending on the extra details on this case, at least, it may prove to be a correct use or may not.

To be honest, I don't think loner has ever been seen as a good descriptor for someone in general, so at least isn't as bad as FAUX News abusing communist.

[Temujin]

As an introvert (I score 100% on Myers-Briggs) I've gotten a disproportional amount of shit over the years for being a "loner". Hell, I've even learned generally not to mention that I'm an introvert because I've had enough people look at me like I could cut out and eat their liver at a moments notice. But then most people are just ignorant that way.

However, shit like this doesn't bother me. Humans are very tribalistic in their biases. Anything that gives and perpetuates the perception that someone they dislike and don't want to associate with is radically different from them helps them to sleep better at night.

The ironic thing is that while loners might be labeled as sociopaths by the media and society, most sociopaths generally are very outwardly sociable, and often very charming and well liked. In fact I believe its been stated that in the corporate business world, there are three times as many sociopaths as in the rest of the workplace.

[Dragon Angel]

Does being "quiet" count as being introverted? Because, as far back as I can remember, I've always been on the quiet side of the conversational spectrum (I still am even now, although less so as compared to my past). I wasn't really asocial, but if I didn't have anything to say in my mind...I just didn't say a word. I was never one for lots and lots of small talk, however if there was an actual conversation going on which I was interested in, I could definitely hold my own (barring any social anxiety attacks...).

Of course, I was given a lot of bullshit about it throughout my life too, but I never felt anywhere near homicidal. I suppose the connection between "quiet people" and "gun-toting crazy school shooters", or some such, still exists in our society?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Does being "quiet" count as being introverted? Because, as far back as I can remember, I've always been on the quiet side of the conversational spectrum (I still am even now, although less so as compared to my past). I wasn't really asocial, but if I didn't have anything to say in my mind...I just didn't say a word. I was never one for lots and lots of small talk, however if there was an actual conversation going on which I was interested in, I could definitely hold my own (barring any social anxiety attacks...).

Of course, I was given a lot of bullshit about it throughout my life too, but I never felt anywhere near homicidal. I suppose the connection between "quiet people" and "gun-toting crazy school shooters", or some such, still exists in our society?

It can be, but to be honest, when I'm among friends at work, you can't shut me up unless I'm feeling down. I think general lifestyle is needed to account for whether you're one or the other, since I've met plenty of extroverts who are quiet, relatively, compared to some of the more open ones.

[Temujin]

Does being "quiet" count as being introverted? Because, as far back as I can remember, I've always been on the quiet side of the conversational spectrum (I still am even now, although less so as compared to my past). I wasn't really asocial, but if I didn't have anything to say in my mind...I just didn't say a word. I was never one for lots and lots of small talk, however if there was an actual conversation going on which I was interested in, I could definitely hold my own (barring any social anxiety attacks...).

Of course, I was given a lot of bullshit about it throughout my life too, but I never felt anywhere near homicidal. I suppose the connection between "quiet people" and "gun-toting crazy school shooters", or some such, still exists in our society?

It can be, but to be honest, when I'm among friends at work, you can't shut me up unless I'm feeling down. I think general lifestyle is needed to account for whether you're one or the other, since I've met plenty of extroverts who are quiet, relatively, compared to some of the more open ones.

I'll second this. A lot of the flak that I've received for being a "loner" was directly tied to my being quiet, reserved, stoic, etc.; yet a lot of that had to do with the situation I was in and the people I was around, i.e., usually in the workplace.

Much like my current place in hell of employment, at many places I've worked I've unfortunately found myself working closely with people who at best I have little or nothing in common with, and at worst outfight despise.* When I do find people I have something in common with, they're usually working somewhere else in the organization and I hardly ever get a chance to interact with them.

What my coworkers usually don't realize is that I also can be quite the chatterbox when I'm with people I get along well with, have stuff in common with, and/or who actually want to have an intellectual conversation rather than just make superficial smalltalk. Not that smalltalk is inherently bad, but some of the people I've met have made an art form out of carrying on extensive conversations about the most pointless and mindless drivel on an almost daily basis.


*Like my current job where I work with a bunch ultra conservative libertarian avid Fox/Limbaugh worshipers, not to mention having to deal with an abusive patronizing bully of a boss.

[Night_stalker]

Hey, I'm a loner and I'm kinda proud of it. Most loners aren't bad, we just don't like being around people.

[Kanastrous]

Are there any other trends like this people have noticed?

It's a one-off rather than a trend (so far as I know, anyway) but it stood out to me that when a friend of mine was arrested for murder, the local news report made a big point of mentioning (and illustrating) that he had a house lined with bookcases full of science-fiction novels - and no television.

Really, it's tough to convey the emphasis laid on this: (a) if you read science-fiction books (probably books of any kind, if you read a lot of them) and if you don't watch tv, well, you're obviously trouble waiting to happen...

[PaperJack]

I think the problem resides in the fact that most reporters don't really research into what they're talking about.
For example, look at the infamous Fox News reportage about Anonymous.