My professor is mad lol

[hissi]

I take issue with her phrasing. She wants to be politically correct, then goes and uses the term "crazy" :T

and the fact that's she's implying that mentally ill people are prone to violence, when in actuality the majority is more prone to face violence from others and/or harm themselves than hurt other people. the "crazy killer" stereotype is a hollywood creation and rarely happens in actuality (and is often highly publicized when it does because "crazy" sells, unfortunately).

[I_royalty_I]

As a side note - when you think of an empirical based level of understanding, what do you think she means?
I feel like empirical would mean more along the lines of understanding something through your own experiences with the subject matter?

I know Wikipedia isn't always the best source but it was the first one that popped up. It defined empirical evidence as " a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation." So if I'm to have an empirical based level of understanding, am I supposed to base my answers off of my own prior experiences with each topic? I feel like that's not what she meant to say, but that's what her words mean.

---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 PM ----------

and the fact that's she's implying that mentally ill people are prone to violence, when in actuality the majority is more prone to face violence from others and/or harm themselves than hurt other people. the "crazy killer" stereotype is a hollywood creation and rarely happens in actuality (and is often highly publicized when it does because "crazy" sells, unfortunately).

That was another point that was brought up by somebody else. Individuals who are suffering from mental illness are more likely to turn inwards and commit suicide rather than homicide. However, the news only makes a big deal out of homicide in order to push the gun control agenda that is going on. I thought that was an interesting way of looking at things. Everyone knows the mainstream media outlets play this little game though.

[Vis]

As a side note - when you think of an empirical based level of understanding, what do you think she means?
I feel like empirical would mean more along the lines of understanding something through your own experiences with the subject matter?

I know Wikipedia isn't always the best source but it was the first one that popped up. It defined empirical evidence as " a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation." So if I'm to have an empirical based level of understanding, am I supposed to base my answers off of my own prior experiences with each topic? I feel like that's not what she meant to say, but that's what her words mean.

From a psych student: empirical is not anecdotal evidence - the emphasis of the wiki definition should be on observation and experimentation.

Empirical evidence would be valid conclusions drawn from data that have been gathered using a method carefully designed to adhere to stringent criteria (such as construct validity, etc) and undertaken in a way that makes sure that only the relevant factors are manipulated & measured and all others are excluded.

.... my definition sounds convoluted, but the main point is that empirical is scientific as opposed to anecdotal. Anecdotal data can be considered empirical if it has been collected in a quantitative experiment specifically designed for quant data.

edit: as for what she actually means, she probably wants you to cite papers from social science journals

[Sci_Girl]

As a side note - when you think of an empirical based level of understanding, what do you think she means?
I feel like empirical would mean more along the lines of understanding something through your own experiences with the subject matter?

I know Wikipedia isn't always the best source but it was the first one that popped up. It defined empirical evidence as " a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation." So if I'm to have an empirical based level of understanding, am I supposed to base my answers off of my own prior experiences with each topic? I feel like that's not what she meant to say, but that's what her words mean.

No. Empirical data is not based on personal experience or anecdotes. Empirical by definition means based on observation or experimention. So like a scientist is examining the effects of I don't know cigarette smoking and addiction to nicotine. The researchers would come up with an experiment that dealt with smokers, nicotine levels in their body, frequency of smoking, how much is smoked, how stoppage of smoking affects them etc. An experiment would be set up to look for addiction to smoking, then the results of whatever they wanted to record would be analyzed and tallied. That result is empirical data. It is results developed through observation or experimentation. You personally do not need to have any association or personal experience with the subject matter, it is entirely based on observation and experimentation and the resulting results are the empirical part


With this subject the empirical evidence emphisizes on qualitative data. It is observable with the senses. One can observe the qualities and behaviors that mass shooters have. In general they are males who are likey to be angry. She is wanting you to look at those sociology studies and varying research that deals with the qualities that mass shooters have. Because this is a social justice/arts subject they want more observation data than say a chemistry experiment that wants numbers as their sole form of data.

You will need to search "empirical data on mass shooters" and get lost in the papers. I hate sociology so much so I can only advise that you go to the American Journal of Sociology to find papers.

[Mindfang]

I wouldn't say she's wrong about the toxic masculinity leading [white] men to commit violent acts of terrorism, but her implication that violence is a mental illness thing and not something caused by society and shit like that. As a Mentally Ill™ Person I can safely s

Actually I don't care enough to get into any of this bullshit at 5am just tell her a mental cunt online told her to shove her gotdam ableism up her grey asshole

[Mophead]

The fact that your professor is trying to use both male privilege, and white privilege as a topic of debate in that prompt is just trivial to me.

Does anyone really think Adam Lanza, or Eric Harris decided to go shoot up a school because their privileges were being threatened?
Like a lot of people already mentioned, mental illnesses don't lead homicide. In some instances though, the mental illnesses are what lead to the massacres.

Regardless. Mass shootings aren't an act to prove masculinity or to assert their privileges.

Not gonna get too into the debate for the simple fact that whatever I wanna say could invoke a shit storm of arguments to follow.

[Atlas]

I totally agree with you @(you need an account to see links) , perhaps you could talk about mass murders being a result of hate crimes and mental illnesses, but then delve into why are racist/mentally ill men are more likely to engage in such extreme violent behaviors than racist/mentally ill women. Good luck on your paper and I hope your professor will be more understanding upon reading.