[eivarv]

I'm surprised so many people during the last days have said stuff like this here on HN, i.e. that these things have something to do with mental illness.

Do people really know this little about what mental illness (in this case psychopathy or schizophrenia) actually is?

I also thought it was widely known that very little is needed for people to be able to act abhorrently towards someone they identify as somehow other than themselves (e.g. sociological out-group, "otherization").

[colund]

Come on. I am aware that most people have a "psychological dark side" so to speak and that normal people can go to war. My point was that the ruthlessness of the terrorists show a sever lack of empathy of innocent people, and that it seems hard to reason with their obsessive minds. I'm not saying that all terrorists are psychopaths. Probably their manipulative leaders are, though!

I'm sure that you can debate whether they are sane or not.

A psychologist supports the view that terrorists may be psychopaths when she writes "As we turn now to Islamofascist terrorists, we can begin to see that they meet almost all the criteria listed above for psychopathic traits. They even use the same excuses for their unwillingness to accept any responsibility for their own actions." http://drsanity.blogspot.se/2004/10/psychopathology-of-terro...

Another article supports the idea that terrorists are not mentally ill and furthermore discusses whether terrorists may be depressed: http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2015/06/29/mental-i...

[eivarv]

I totally understand what your point is, I just don't think that it makes much sense. I would even hesitate to call it a "dark" side, as many of the same patterns of thought are used (to an extent) by most people.

You might be able to establish some sort of link between ruthlessness and "psychopathy". I'd love to hear where schizophrenia enters the picture, though.

While your first link is only a personal blog post, it does present some coherent thought - but even the author states that "terrorists, by and large, do not suffer from psychosis".

There is also the fact that what we think of as psychopathic actions (or stereotypes thereof) are primarily driven by the ego of the perpetrator, as opposed to the alleged ideological motivations of (e.g. islamic) terrorists.

Note that the first article focuses on the common superficialities (their behaviors appears somewhat similar), but says nothing of the cognitive processes at play in practice - the piece is mostly speculation.

By the way, the statements that "the Palestinians have perfected victimhood as a science" (near the end of the article) leads me to take this source with a grain of salt.

The second article is an argument based on a hell of a lot of assumptions (it even admits this), and basically assumes that since the causes of mental illness and terrorism resemble each other they must be connected (or even the same).

My gripe with your initial post is that the assertion is dubious (at best, and not really theoretically supported), and that it:

- Gives a psychologically satisfying explanation as to how "they" can do things like this, that makes it easier for us to see them as something other than us.

- Ends up perpetuating mental health stigma.

- Politicizes psychopathology.

I suggest taking a look at what a professional authority, e.g. APA [0] says about the matter.

[0]: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/11/terrorism.aspx