
Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015) - tysonzni
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117259
======
ourmandave
_While our analysis was initially inspired by the hypothesis that mass media
attention given to sensational violent events may promote ideation in
vulnerable individuals, in practice what our analysis tests is whether or not
temporal patterns in the data indicate evidence for contagion, by whatever
means.

In truth, and especially because so many perpetrators of these acts commit
suicide, we likely may never know on a case-by-case basis who was inspired by
similar prior acts, particularly since the ideation may have been
subconscious._

But they do tend to leave behind a manifesto or social media history that can
point to their thinking and influencing factors.

------
JordanFarmer
This is a sad effect of national media attention (Click bait and headline
bait). I watch the news sometimes and wonder if we'd all be better off if it
didn't exist...

Obligatory mention that There were more murders in Chicago this week and it
gets no media headlines.

~~~
amelius
Ultimately it's all because of ads. If we all had to pay for our news, then
we'd be more cautious and reluctant about clickbait headlines. And media would
not be in a race to the bottom, affecting news quality.

~~~
Ygg2
I doubt this. Reason clickbait works is because it's more attention grabbing.
It's more attention grabbing because it appeals to human innate fears.

And even if clickbait is banned and subscription mandatory, media would be in
a race to the bottom. Just a slightly different one.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Reason clickbait works is because it is needed to drive page views. In a
subscription model, media sites would have an incentive to put out stories
that are _interesting_ beyond the first page view.

~~~
Ygg2
Ok. But if you can't view more than a paragraph, why not just judge the
article by the headline.

------
Udik
"Several past studies have found that media reports of suicides and homicides
appear to subsequently increase the incidence of similar events in the
community, apparently due to the coverage planting the seeds of ideation in
at-risk individuals to commit similar acts"

I've suggested before on HN that active shooter drills- which are apparently
widespread now in US schools- might be themselves a source of contagion.
Because they provide exactly those "seeds of ideation", both by simulating the
events and by implicitly suggesting that these kind of occurrences are in the
realm of possibilities and somehow expected.

~~~
mathgeek
This is a fine line to tread, without a doubt. It’s the same “if we don’t give
them the idea, maybe some of them won’t think of it otherwise” thinking that
has been a theme throughout the history of education. Similar thought process
to sex education, leaving out certain anti-government parts of history, etc.
(and those are just examples in the US, let alone stricter education systems).

~~~
ComputerGuru
You’re making it seem like it’s a super risky and tenuous approach, but it’s
long been understood that discussing “why suicide is a bad idea” with certain
populations increases the odds of suicide in the group.

~~~
beatgammit
Right, but it still needs to be discussed.

Framing suicide as a bad solution to a problem reaffirms that it is still a
solution, and gives room for the individual to justify away the taboo aspects
(my situation is different because...). I don't know the right, ethical
approach and I'd prefer to leave that discussion to psychologists, but we
absolutely need to address it so people know what to look for in loved ones
who may be at risk.

Personally, I think some people who may consider suicide are terrified of
death in other situations. For some reason, suicide is different than dying in
some other manner. Maybe it's about control, maybe it's a cognitive
disconnect, IDK. What I _do_ know is that it's a problem that we need to
address through eduction, I'm just not sure on the best way to do it. Ignoring
the problem seems to just push it online where the information can't really be
controlled, so I think parents need to learn how to broach the subject.

------
hjorthjort
AFAICT the model seems fitted to historical data, and fit well. I'd be curious
to see if they or anyone else kept tracing events using the model to check its
predictive ability.

------
platz
> on average, mass killings involving firearms occur approximately every two
> weeks in the US

This seems significantly higher than what I'd think. Do most mass killings not
make the news? How is this defined?

~~~
anigbrowl
You could check a popular reference source to become familiar with the factual
background.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019)

~~~
platz
Right, so the majority of these incidents are gang-related activity.

Not saying it's not a "mass shooting", but the thesis in the OP article needs
to be understood in such a context.

Gang violence/vengeance isn't going to be influenced by media or copycat
effects one iota.

~~~
anigbrowl
_Right, so_

I'm not endorsing you, I'm suggesting you consult available reference material
before you start asking rhetorical questions. A Socratic/tendentious style of
argument where you solicit participation from your interlocutors doesn't play
well here. If you have a point it's better to just make it and back it up with
reference material as many participants have busy lives of their own.

------
newshorts
Is this only happening in the United States?

How frequently is this happening in other countries?

~~~
kcmastrpc
The US isn't even in the top 100 when it comes to homicides. I haven't been
able to find statistics on "mass murders" which include firearm, arson, bombs,
knife, etc attacks. All the media and sensationalist headlines have drowned
out any hope I had of quickly researching this issue.

Here's what I've found so far:

[https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-27/map-here-are-
countrie...](https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-27/map-here-are-countries-
worlds-highest-murder-rates)

~~~
Juliate
Right.

So, indeed, compare USA's violence score with: * those of the countries where
the USA have put their own violent influence to steer benefits back to them
(Central & South America). * or those where another white supremacist ideology
has been prevalent and is being actively fought against (South Africa).

But, surely, don't compare with countries that would be good reference to
compare against (aka, friends with which you ought to have shared some common
history, like, Europe).

~~~
tomatotomato37
This is a false equivalence; The foreign policy of the state has nothing to do
with the levels of violence between its citizens.

~~~
Juliate
The point was not comparing foreign policy, but in-society violence. Foreign
policy here is what triggered instability and in-society violence.

------
romaaeterna
Things that we can do about this:

1) Firearm control - complicated political issue, with reasonable people on
both sides of the issue. And even if there were federal (executive,
legislative, and judicial) political unanimity on action (there is not and
can't be for decades), it remains a larger practical problem than in any
country that has so far banned guns. State and city-level action has not
proven very effective.

2) Political control and censorship - only a fraction of these killers seem to
be radicalized, and they generally seem to be lone-wolves. It seems a course
ripe for abuse.

3) Drug enforcement - it has been pointed out that almost all of these killers
have addiction problems of some kind. Anti-depressants may also play a role.
But drug use seems too tenuous a connection, and these substances are used by
such a broad swath of the population without this effect, that it would be
hard to fix this with drug enforcement alone.

4) Psychological intervention - could the right sort of intervention at the
right time avert these killings? It's hard to believe not, but since we can't
predict the killings, we can't do much here. But if we had better knowledge,
it's possible to imagine something as simple as voluntary social media
guidelines (for 24-hour news, Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc.), that might
alleviate the problem. Or something far more heavy handed and open to abuse or
misuse, including high school psychological testing and reporting, mandatory
social services checkups, etc.

If I were an engineer tasked with solving this problem, I would try the full-
court press solution on all of these, rather than fixating on any one
component.

Solution "4" is the most interesting to me, because it seems the least
explored, and the place where increased knowledge and new techniques could
possibly have the greatest effect. I think that we should be especially
interested in how exactly people become killers, whether there are multiple
types (there certainly are), and what are the necessary stages in the process.
Studies like this are especially vital and interesting to me, and we need to
spend far more effort on this type of research.

The biggest danger that I can see is that political and emotional energy on
the impossible solutions prevent useful action anywhere.

EDIT: More on this study. The nice data fit on their contagion equation is
very interesting because it begs to be expanded. The "contagion" is mediated
by the media somehow. Is it as simple as reading stories about other shootings
leading to more? Or is there a media climate effect? What other types of media
can lead to shootings, etc. It would be tremendously helpful to learn enough
to be psychologically precise about all of this.

~~~
nabla9
5) Media policy.

Terrorism and lone wolf massacres feed trough 24/7 catastropheporn in the
news.

Let's face it. Our society is entertained by news reporting. Discussing it
with others is fun. May be a taboo to say it aloud.

~~~
romaaeterna
That was actually point 4, if you were to read the post.

~~~
nabla9
You frame it as psychological intervention to stop killers.

But media and audience live in symbiotic relationship with killers. Everyone
gets value from the killings.

How do you break the profitable and addictive value chain?

~~~
romaaeterna
There really isn't that much profit involved in this coverage. It seems much
more likely that it's being driven by accident rather than by any
nefariousness on the part of our evil media overlords.

~~~
nabla9
I did not assume neferiousness, but profit and value is there. TV-networks get
more voewers and money.

------
MobileVet
It is very telling that supporters of the 2nd think it should be upheld
without ANY limits or backstops.

Freedom of speech is not absolute, why in the world should owning a device
intended to kill be unlimited?

~~~
xienze
> It is very telling that supporters of the 2nd think it should be upheld
> without ANY limits or backstops.

Any additional limits. There are already plenty of laws on the books around
gun control, it’s disingenuous to pretend as though none exist.

~~~
cheez
This is the main consideration I give to gun ownership.

When there is a tyrannical government in power who is violently oppressing the
people, would any new laws eventually prevent me from walking up to an agent
of the tyrannical state and shoot them in the head? i.e., would it be possible
to have localized insurrections against government? Make no mistake, it is
this fear that prevents most governments from overreaching.

If the answer is no, then the rule is not allowed. Licensing would be a
slippery slope into complete gun control and consolidating power over the
people.

If you want further proof, look at what is happening in the socialist
countries in South America. The government is murdering their own people who
are defenseless.

If you want further proof that an armed populace is a good check against (real
or perceived) tyranny, look at Afghanistan, Iraq, and of course USA (hello
UK!)

~~~
throwaway082729
The right wing people seem to be ok with a dictatorship if it gets them what
they want. Left wingers are less likely to open guns so this point is moot.
Also what chance do these guns have against the army's artillery.

~~~
MobileVet
‘You are bringing a musket to a drone fight’ - Jim Jeffries

~~~
cheez
He's a brilliant comedian, but he doesn't understand that people have
successfully fought off the might of the US army in recent decades. That's why
China colonizes economically.

