John Grohol took exception to my analysis of Matthew Murray’s online postings. Just for the record, my formal education is in psychology, though I opted for an entirely different career after a post-Vietnam internship at a local VA hospital.
Grohol writes:
So for everyone who’s ever written more and more “dark” things on a community, Karoli believes you’re a likely danger to yourself or others.
People’s moods are not these static, unchanging things. They fluctuate. They go up, they go down. Sometimes in the course of a day, a week, or even a year. And just because someone is on the downward slope doesn’t mean that when they reach rock-bottom, they’ll do something violent (even if they write violently — there is absolutely zero research connecting violent writings with actual violence).
My response:
Read the links I put into my post carefully and then tell me again there were no indicators or reasons for concern. I’d say quoting the Columbine shooters indicated something more than a mood change.
But hey, I’m not the professional, that’s true enough. And silly me for trying to figure out how to cross the barriers in online interactions to maybe prevent this from happening in the future. Wouldn’t want to overstep my boundaries, after all.
If you’d actually read the links, you’d also have known that the remark about money and therapists was Murray’s, not mine. But then, since you’re the professional, I guess you don’t actually have to read or anything like that. Easier just to slam someone who did.
Technorati Tags: psychology, Matthew Murray, counterpoint
