Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • The State Of The Science

    The evidence exists, however, the causes are more obvious: 1) **the size of the underclasses. **and **2) neotonic(pedomorphic) evolution – meaning the retention of childhood features, **and 3)** transfer of female verbal acuity to males because of pedomorphic evolution.** Cold Climates, Agrarianism, Manorialism, and the raw Capital Costs of Tools (metals) needed to survive in those conditions, in addition to the aggressive hanging of the underclasses for more than a thousand years, allowed both upward redistribution of calories and reproduction, and the downward population of labor by the middle genetic classes. So by the time of the industrial revolution (if not the literacy revolution) europe (and west asia) had vast stores of underutilized human capital. However, both had to break free of the church and the bureaucracy which had made the vast majority of capital “dead” (static) and in support of rent seeking (church bureaucracy and chinese imperial bureaucracy). For the rest of the world, they have been unsuccessful at one or both of two factors: either (a) decimating the underclasses, and (b) developing deflationary grammars (methods) in the sequence math, logics, reason, empirical law (tort), and science. West europeans and east asians and ashkenazi were able to limit the size of their underclasses and to force upward redistribution of reproduction. East asians have the highest Neoteny, West Europeans, and then Ashkenazi. And less visible testosterone levels to equal more visible morphology(features). This is the primary difference between the races and subraces: Degree of neoteny, and distribution of male and female traits (brain structures) between the genders. Strangely enough, in the Ashkenazi they have nearly reversed it. Which is why they have such exceptional verbal (if not spatial) skills. So that’s the state of the science as I understand it. in other words, the greatest material differences are driven by the size of the underclasses, and therefore the median distribution in the gene pool, and therefore the language, norms, traditions, and institutions necessary or the persistence of such a gene pool with such a distribution. All of this is very simple. The marxist-postmodernist-feminist attempt at the second dark age – this time of pseudoscience – just made us lose a century and a half to their deceptions.

  • THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE The evidence exists, however, the causes are more obvio

    THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE

    The evidence exists, however, the causes are more obvious: 1) **the size of the underclasses. **and **2) neotonic(pedomorphic) evolution – meaning the retention of childhood features, **and 3)** transfer of female verbal acuity to males because of pedomorphic evolution.**

    Cold Climates, Agrarianism, Manorialism, and the raw Capital Costs of Tools (metals) needed to survive in those conditions, in addition to the aggressive hanging of the underclasses for more than a thousand years, allowed both upward redistribution of calories and reproduction, and the downward population of labor by the middle genetic classes.

    So by the time of the industrial revolution (if not the literacy revolution) europe (and west asia) had vast stores of underutilized human capital. However, both had to break free of the church and the bureaucracy which had made the vast majority of capital “dead” (static) and in support of rent seeking (church bureaucracy and chinese imperial bureaucracy).

    For the rest of the world, they have been unsuccessful at one or both of two factors: either (a) decimating the underclasses, and (b) developing deflationary grammars (methods) in the sequence math, logics, reason, empirical law (tort), and science.

    West europeans and east asians and ashkenazi were able to limit the size of their underclasses and to force upward redistribution of reproduction. East asians have the highest Neoteny, West Europeans, and then Ashkenazi. And less visible testosterone levels to equal more visible morphology(features).

    This is the primary difference between the races and subraces: Degree of neoteny, and distribution of male and female traits (brain structures) between the genders. Strangely enough, in the Ashkenazi they have nearly reversed it. Which is why they have such exceptional verbal (if not spatial) skills.

    So that’s the state of the science as I understand it.

    in other words, the greatest material differences are driven by the size of the underclasses, and therefore the median distribution in the gene pool, and therefore the language, norms, traditions, and institutions necessary or the persistence of such a gene pool with such a distribution.

    All of this is very simple. The marxist-postmodernist-feminist attempt at the second dark age – this time of pseudoscience – just made us lose a century and a half to their deceptions.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-18 11:55:00 UTC

  • What Type Of Abnormal Abilities Do You Have When You Have An Extremely High Iq?

    We process much more information. That’s the major difference. In general you want a big round head, a lot of neural density, and the lowest possible friction of transmission (white matter).

    In addition to processing more information we often identify increasingly subtle (more remote) patterns.

    And because of this we can work longer at learning – and some of us (I am certainly one of them) feel anxiety, depression, or pain if we are not learning. So not only can we learn more faster, but we can learn more because we can learn more hours per day.

    The more information we have, the more remote the patterns we see, the more we rely on that information and the less on intuition, norm, tradition, and the opinions and ideas of others.

    Additionally, some people have better short term memories and can hold larger static models. ( Hawking is a great example, but so are many others). I do not have this particular ability and I find that it is what differentiates me from the people who are above me.

    Additionally some people have superior verbal abilities and can describe what they think of more accessibly. (Noam Chomsky is smarter than I am, in both short term memory and verbal ability, and rarely loses his place no matter how convoluted the conversational route. )

    Some of us have more discipline, more conscientiousness, and skepticism and we’re possibly more autistic (which is the result of high neuronal density anyway), and we simply make fewer errors than others. This is very rare.

    We mature at different rates. Some of us have exceptional abilities in childhood and have nervous breakdowns when we reach young adulthood. (This is a subject I study now and then.) Others mature normally. Others of us mature more slowly.

    Normies are quite frustrating really. I had the great fortune to have a very old professor of contract law, who told me my sophomore year that “The world is not meant for us. It is meant for them. We are prisoners of their world. And the best we can do is help them through it.” And I found that advice to be profoundly useful in ending the the feeling that normies run the world, like children at a birthday party running with scissors. 😉

    https://www.quora.com/What-type-of-abnormal-abilities-do-you-have-when-you-have-an-extremely-high-IQ

  • How Will Iq Skeptics And Social Justice Advocates React If Genome Wide Association Studies Find Strong Genetic Correlations That Explain Much Of The Average Iq Variation Between Population Groups And Between Individuals?

    THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE

    The evidence exists, however, the causes are more obvious: 1) the size of the underclasses. and 2) neotonic(pedomorphic) evolution – meaning the retention of childhood features, and 3) transfer of female verbal acuity to males because of pedomorphic evolution.

    Cold Climates, Agrarianism, Manorialism, and the raw Capital Costs of Tools (metals) needed to survive in those conditions, in addition to the aggressive hanging of the underclasses for more than a thousand years, allowed both upward redistribution of calories and reproduction, and the downward population of labor by the middle genetic classes.

    So by the time of the industrial revolution (if not the literacy revolution) europe (and west asia) had vast stores of underutilized human capital. However, both had to break free of the church and the bureaucracy which had made the vast majority of capital “dead” (static) and in support of rent seeking (church bureaucracy and chinese imperial bureaucracy).

    For the rest of the world, they have been unsuccessful at one or both of two factors: either (a) decimating the underclasses, and (b) developing deflationary grammars (methods) in the sequence math, logics, reason, empirical law (tort), and science.

    West europeans and east asians and ashkenazi were able to limit the size of their underclasses and to force upward redistribution of reproduction. East asians have the highest Neoteny, West Europeans, and then Ashkenazi. And less visible testosterone levels to equal more visible morphology(features).

    This is the primary difference between the races and subraces: Degree of neoteny, and distribution of male and female traits (brain structures) between the genders. Strangely enough, in the Ashkenazi they have nearly reversed it. Which is why they have such exceptional verbal (if not spatial) skills.

    So that’s the state of the science as I understand it.

    in other words, the greatest material differences are driven by the size of the underclasses, and therefore the median distribution in the gene pool, and therefore the language, norms, traditions, and institutions necessary or the persistence of such a gene pool with such a distribution.

    All of this is very simple. The marxist-postmodernist-feminist attempt at the second dark age – this time of pseudoscience – just made us lose a century and a half to their deceptions.

    https://www.quora.com/How-will-IQ-skeptics-and-social-justice-advocates-react-if-genome-wide-association-studies-find-strong-genetic-correlations-that-explain-much-of-the-average-IQ-variation-between-population-groups-and-between

  • What Type Of Abnormal Abilities Do You Have When You Have An Extremely High Iq?

    We process much more information. That’s the major difference. In general you want a big round head, a lot of neural density, and the lowest possible friction of transmission (white matter).

    In addition to processing more information we often identify increasingly subtle (more remote) patterns.

    And because of this we can work longer at learning – and some of us (I am certainly one of them) feel anxiety, depression, or pain if we are not learning. So not only can we learn more faster, but we can learn more because we can learn more hours per day.

    The more information we have, the more remote the patterns we see, the more we rely on that information and the less on intuition, norm, tradition, and the opinions and ideas of others.

    Additionally, some people have better short term memories and can hold larger static models. ( Hawking is a great example, but so are many others). I do not have this particular ability and I find that it is what differentiates me from the people who are above me.

    Additionally some people have superior verbal abilities and can describe what they think of more accessibly. (Noam Chomsky is smarter than I am, in both short term memory and verbal ability, and rarely loses his place no matter how convoluted the conversational route. )

    Some of us have more discipline, more conscientiousness, and skepticism and we’re possibly more autistic (which is the result of high neuronal density anyway), and we simply make fewer errors than others. This is very rare.

    We mature at different rates. Some of us have exceptional abilities in childhood and have nervous breakdowns when we reach young adulthood. (This is a subject I study now and then.) Others mature normally. Others of us mature more slowly.

    Normies are quite frustrating really. I had the great fortune to have a very old professor of contract law, who told me my sophomore year that “The world is not meant for us. It is meant for them. We are prisoners of their world. And the best we can do is help them through it.” And I found that advice to be profoundly useful in ending the the feeling that normies run the world, like children at a birthday party running with scissors. 😉

    https://www.quora.com/What-type-of-abnormal-abilities-do-you-have-when-you-have-an-extremely-high-IQ

  • How Will Iq Skeptics And Social Justice Advocates React If Genome Wide Association Studies Find Strong Genetic Correlations That Explain Much Of The Average Iq Variation Between Population Groups And Between Individuals?

    THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE

    The evidence exists, however, the causes are more obvious: 1) the size of the underclasses. and 2) neotonic(pedomorphic) evolution – meaning the retention of childhood features, and 3) transfer of female verbal acuity to males because of pedomorphic evolution.

    Cold Climates, Agrarianism, Manorialism, and the raw Capital Costs of Tools (metals) needed to survive in those conditions, in addition to the aggressive hanging of the underclasses for more than a thousand years, allowed both upward redistribution of calories and reproduction, and the downward population of labor by the middle genetic classes.

    So by the time of the industrial revolution (if not the literacy revolution) europe (and west asia) had vast stores of underutilized human capital. However, both had to break free of the church and the bureaucracy which had made the vast majority of capital “dead” (static) and in support of rent seeking (church bureaucracy and chinese imperial bureaucracy).

    For the rest of the world, they have been unsuccessful at one or both of two factors: either (a) decimating the underclasses, and (b) developing deflationary grammars (methods) in the sequence math, logics, reason, empirical law (tort), and science.

    West europeans and east asians and ashkenazi were able to limit the size of their underclasses and to force upward redistribution of reproduction. East asians have the highest Neoteny, West Europeans, and then Ashkenazi. And less visible testosterone levels to equal more visible morphology(features).

    This is the primary difference between the races and subraces: Degree of neoteny, and distribution of male and female traits (brain structures) between the genders. Strangely enough, in the Ashkenazi they have nearly reversed it. Which is why they have such exceptional verbal (if not spatial) skills.

    So that’s the state of the science as I understand it.

    in other words, the greatest material differences are driven by the size of the underclasses, and therefore the median distribution in the gene pool, and therefore the language, norms, traditions, and institutions necessary or the persistence of such a gene pool with such a distribution.

    All of this is very simple. The marxist-postmodernist-feminist attempt at the second dark age – this time of pseudoscience – just made us lose a century and a half to their deceptions.

    https://www.quora.com/How-will-IQ-skeptics-and-social-justice-advocates-react-if-genome-wide-association-studies-find-strong-genetic-correlations-that-explain-much-of-the-average-IQ-variation-between-population-groups-and-between

  • The Suppression Of Eugenics: Self Directed Human Evolution

    by Daniel Gurpide Eugenics – meaning the applied science for the self-direction of human evolution – is nowadays the object of Freudian, hypocritical repression. Although one may say that eugenic concerns are an implicit constant in most post-Neolithic cultures, the essential question of eugenics flares up with the advent of the Darwinian revolution, and of Mendelian genetics—which has long been considered one and the same with eugenics. This arose in anticipation of a very real dysgenic risk in modern times that ‘traditional’ selective factors would break down. Galton, who coined the term, defined eugenics as ‘the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations.’ The philanthropic motives that encouraged him to develop the new science are beyond question: `Man is gifted with pity and other kindly feelings; he has also the power of preventing many kinds of suffering. I conceive it to fall well within his province to replace Natural Selection by other processes that are more merciful and not less effective.` The way of hunger, death, stupidity, delusion, chance, and bare survival—natural selection—is thus replaced by the way of life, will, aspiration, and achievement—conscious evolution—not merely on a temporary and local basis, as in ancient Sparta, but permanently and universally. Breeding may itself be considered an early aristocratic technique. Yet, it was impossible to return to earlier Western social forms based on a hereditary aristocracy that had achieved their position by means of the military accomplishments of their ancestors. Hence, in the early twentieth century, a current of thought headed in the direction of developing a natural aristocracy based on intelligence, moral probity, and meritocratic social mobility. This was the heyday of eugenics as a belief system common among European elites—both liberal and conservative. Ultimately, the eugenics movement was shattered; it was a victim of the outcome of the Second World War, although eugenics was not expunged from polite society until the 1960s as an outcome of an energetic campaign by Holocaust-haunted egalitarian intellectuals bent on striking a blow against their rivals (nevertheless, in Sweden the eugenics programme continued until 1975). However, before it was ‘cursed,’ eugenics had long been perceived—essentially until the 1930s—as a ‘progressivist’ theme, since it was linked to concerns about the evolution of society in general (and correlated with the latter ‘taking charge of itself ’), to the extent that even Soviet intellectuals and scientists promoted its study. In Germany, the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk—politically on the left—recently argued that, given the understanding existing in genetic science, the eugenic dream of ‘selection’ is now within reach. Sloterdijk’s use of the word ‘selection’ horrified, of course, his colleagues, for whom the word evokes the ramp at Auschwitz. What most worried critics, however, was Sloterdijk’s argument that this capability should be exploited to breed a new generation of human beings. Coming after Sloterdijk’s open letter in Die Zeit attacking Jürgen Habermas as the representative of an outdated humanism, suggestions were made that he was ‘flirting with fascism,’ which reveals the uncertainty and fear still evoked by the issue of ‘conscious evolution.’ The Sloterdijk controversy demonstrates the almost exclusively ideological nature of contemporary discussions of eugenics. This has been accentuated by the increasing erosion, because of technoscientific progress, of the subjective costs of eugenic practices. Such costs have plummeted ever since the exposure of newborns, and the strict parental or communal control of mating gave way to the chemical or surgical sterilisation of severely retarded individuals, as well as to birth control. These have been succeeded by prematrimonial anamnesis—replaced, in turn, by prenatal diagnosis and genetic screening. In turn, these will be supplanted by IVF with embryo and gamete selection; and, finally, by direct therapeutic manipulation of germlines. In fact, in respect of contemporary and upcoming procedures, the natural empathy for the individuals concerned operates in an entirely favourable sense—to the point of rendering unconditional rejection of eugenics an increasingly embarrassing and untenable position. The key issue regarding eugenics are which countries will develop it to its fullest extent. Francis Galton had already predicted in 1909 that ‘the nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth.’

  • The Suppression Of Eugenics: Self Directed Human Evolution

    by Daniel Gurpide Eugenics – meaning the applied science for the self-direction of human evolution – is nowadays the object of Freudian, hypocritical repression. Although one may say that eugenic concerns are an implicit constant in most post-Neolithic cultures, the essential question of eugenics flares up with the advent of the Darwinian revolution, and of Mendelian genetics—which has long been considered one and the same with eugenics. This arose in anticipation of a very real dysgenic risk in modern times that ‘traditional’ selective factors would break down. Galton, who coined the term, defined eugenics as ‘the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations.’ The philanthropic motives that encouraged him to develop the new science are beyond question: `Man is gifted with pity and other kindly feelings; he has also the power of preventing many kinds of suffering. I conceive it to fall well within his province to replace Natural Selection by other processes that are more merciful and not less effective.` The way of hunger, death, stupidity, delusion, chance, and bare survival—natural selection—is thus replaced by the way of life, will, aspiration, and achievement—conscious evolution—not merely on a temporary and local basis, as in ancient Sparta, but permanently and universally. Breeding may itself be considered an early aristocratic technique. Yet, it was impossible to return to earlier Western social forms based on a hereditary aristocracy that had achieved their position by means of the military accomplishments of their ancestors. Hence, in the early twentieth century, a current of thought headed in the direction of developing a natural aristocracy based on intelligence, moral probity, and meritocratic social mobility. This was the heyday of eugenics as a belief system common among European elites—both liberal and conservative. Ultimately, the eugenics movement was shattered; it was a victim of the outcome of the Second World War, although eugenics was not expunged from polite society until the 1960s as an outcome of an energetic campaign by Holocaust-haunted egalitarian intellectuals bent on striking a blow against their rivals (nevertheless, in Sweden the eugenics programme continued until 1975). However, before it was ‘cursed,’ eugenics had long been perceived—essentially until the 1930s—as a ‘progressivist’ theme, since it was linked to concerns about the evolution of society in general (and correlated with the latter ‘taking charge of itself ’), to the extent that even Soviet intellectuals and scientists promoted its study. In Germany, the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk—politically on the left—recently argued that, given the understanding existing in genetic science, the eugenic dream of ‘selection’ is now within reach. Sloterdijk’s use of the word ‘selection’ horrified, of course, his colleagues, for whom the word evokes the ramp at Auschwitz. What most worried critics, however, was Sloterdijk’s argument that this capability should be exploited to breed a new generation of human beings. Coming after Sloterdijk’s open letter in Die Zeit attacking Jürgen Habermas as the representative of an outdated humanism, suggestions were made that he was ‘flirting with fascism,’ which reveals the uncertainty and fear still evoked by the issue of ‘conscious evolution.’ The Sloterdijk controversy demonstrates the almost exclusively ideological nature of contemporary discussions of eugenics. This has been accentuated by the increasing erosion, because of technoscientific progress, of the subjective costs of eugenic practices. Such costs have plummeted ever since the exposure of newborns, and the strict parental or communal control of mating gave way to the chemical or surgical sterilisation of severely retarded individuals, as well as to birth control. These have been succeeded by prematrimonial anamnesis—replaced, in turn, by prenatal diagnosis and genetic screening. In turn, these will be supplanted by IVF with embryo and gamete selection; and, finally, by direct therapeutic manipulation of germlines. In fact, in respect of contemporary and upcoming procedures, the natural empathy for the individuals concerned operates in an entirely favourable sense—to the point of rendering unconditional rejection of eugenics an increasingly embarrassing and untenable position. The key issue regarding eugenics are which countries will develop it to its fullest extent. Francis Galton had already predicted in 1909 that ‘the nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth.’

  • THE SUPPRESSION OF EUGENICS: SELF DIRECTED HUMAN EVOLUTION by Daniel Gurpide Eug

    THE SUPPRESSION OF EUGENICS: SELF DIRECTED HUMAN EVOLUTION

    by Daniel Gurpide

    Eugenics – meaning the applied science for the self-direction of human evolution – is nowadays the object of Freudian, hypocritical repression.

    Although one may say that eugenic concerns are an implicit constant in most post-Neolithic cultures, the essential question of eugenics flares up with the advent of the Darwinian revolution, and of Mendelian genetics—which has long been considered one and the same with eugenics. This arose in anticipation of a very real dysgenic risk in modern times that ‘traditional’ selective factors would break down.

    Galton, who coined the term, defined eugenics as ‘the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations.’ The philanthropic motives that encouraged him to develop the new science are beyond question: `Man is gifted with pity and other kindly feelings; he has also the power of preventing many kinds of suffering. I conceive it to fall well within his province to replace Natural Selection by other processes that are more merciful and not less effective.` The way of hunger, death, stupidity, delusion, chance, and bare survival—natural selection—is thus replaced by the way of life, will, aspiration, and achievement—conscious evolution—not merely on a temporary and local basis, as in ancient Sparta, but permanently and universally.

    Breeding may itself be considered an early aristocratic technique. Yet, it was impossible to return to earlier Western social forms based on a hereditary aristocracy that had achieved their position by means of the military accomplishments of their ancestors. Hence, in the early twentieth century, a current of thought headed in the direction of developing a natural aristocracy based on intelligence, moral probity, and meritocratic social mobility. This was the heyday of eugenics as a belief system common among European elites—both liberal and conservative.

    Ultimately, the eugenics movement was shattered; it was a victim of the outcome of the Second World War, although eugenics was not expunged from polite society until the 1960s as an outcome of an energetic campaign by Holocaust-haunted egalitarian intellectuals bent on striking a blow against their rivals (nevertheless, in Sweden the eugenics programme continued until 1975).

    However, before it was ‘cursed,’ eugenics had long been perceived—essentially until the 1930s—as a ‘progressivist’ theme, since it was linked to concerns about the evolution of society in general (and correlated with the latter ‘taking charge of itself ’), to the extent that even Soviet intellectuals and scientists promoted its study.

    In Germany, the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk—politically on the left—recently argued that, given the understanding existing in genetic science, the eugenic dream of ‘selection’ is now within reach. Sloterdijk’s use of the word ‘selection’ horrified, of course, his colleagues, for whom the word evokes the ramp at Auschwitz. What most worried critics, however, was Sloterdijk’s argument that this capability should be exploited to breed a new generation of human beings. Coming after Sloterdijk’s open letter in Die Zeit attacking Jürgen Habermas as the representative of an outdated humanism, suggestions were made that he was ‘flirting with fascism,’ which reveals the uncertainty and fear still evoked by the issue of ‘conscious evolution.’ The Sloterdijk controversy demonstrates the almost exclusively ideological nature of contemporary discussions of eugenics. This has been accentuated by the increasing erosion, because of technoscientific progress, of the subjective costs of eugenic practices. Such costs have plummeted ever since the exposure of newborns, and the strict parental or communal control of mating gave way to the chemical or surgical sterilisation of severely retarded individuals, as well as to birth control. These have been succeeded by prematrimonial anamnesis—replaced, in turn, by prenatal diagnosis and genetic screening. In turn, these will be supplanted by IVF with embryo and gamete selection; and, finally, by direct therapeutic manipulation of germlines. In fact, in respect of contemporary and upcoming procedures, the natural empathy for the individuals concerned operates in an entirely favourable sense—to the point of rendering unconditional rejection of eugenics an increasingly embarrassing and untenable position.

    The key issue regarding eugenics are which countries will develop it to its fullest extent. Francis Galton had already predicted in 1909 that ‘the nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth.’

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-17 14:50:00 UTC

  • Fact: A disturbing number of perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass m

    Fact: A disturbing number of perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on – or just recently coming off of – psychiatric medications. A few of the most high-profile examples, out of many others, include: Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox – like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. Harris and fellow student Dylan Klebold went on a hellish school shooting rampage in 1999 during which they killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves. Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox – that’s one in 25 – developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion. Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, California, in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons” in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine. Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Oregon, and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin. In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Illinois, killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania. In Paducah, Kentucky, in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school’s lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin. In 2005, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota’s Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac. In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Kentucky, killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors. Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danysh’s description of own his mental-emotional state at the time of the murder is chilling: “I didn’t realize I did it until after it was done,” Danysh said. “This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun.” John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981. In the assassination attempt, Hinckley also wounded press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty. Andrea Yates, in one of the most heartrending crimes in modern history, drowned all five of her children – aged 7 years down to 6 months – in a bathtub. Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her children, she had become increasingly psychotic over the course of several years. At her 2006 murder re-trial (after a 2002 guilty verdict was overturned on appeal), Yates’ longtime friend Debbie Holmes testified: “She asked me if I thought Satan could read her mind and if I believed in demon possession.” And Dr. George Ringholz, after evaluating Yates for two days, recounted an experience she had after the birth of her first child: “What she described was feeling a presence … Satan … telling her to take a knife and stab her son Noah,” Ringholz said, adding that Yates’ delusion at the time of the bathtub murders was not only that she had to kill her children to save them, but that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan.Yates had been taking the antidepressant Effexor. In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children, Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added “homicidal ideation” to the drug’s list of “rare adverse events.” The Medical Accountability Network, a private nonprofit focused on medical ethics issues, publicly criticized Wyeth, saying Effexor’s “homicidal ideation” risk wasn’t well publicized and that Wyeth failed to send letters to doctors or issue warning labels announcing the change.And what exactly does “rare” mean in the phrase “rare adverse events”? The FDA defines it as occurring in less than one in 1,000 people. But since that same year 19.2 million prescriptions for Effexor were filled in the U.S., statistically that means thousands of Americans might experience “homicidal ideation” – murderous thoughts – as a result of taking just this one brand of antidepressant drug. Effexor is Wyeth’s best-selling drug, by the way, which in one recent year brought in over $3 billion in sales, accounting for almost a fifth of the company’s annual revenues. One more case is instructive, that of 12-year-old Christopher Pittman, who struggled in court to explain why he murdered his grandparents, who had provided the only love and stability he’d ever known in his turbulent life. “When I was lying in my bed that night,” he testified, “I couldn’t sleep because my voice in my head kept echoing through my mind telling me to kill them.” Christopher had been angry with his grandfather, who had disciplined him earlier that day for hurting another student during a fight on the school bus. So later that night, he shot both of his grandparents in the head with a .410 shotgun as they slept and then burned down their South Carolina home, where he had lived with them. “I got up, got the gun, and I went upstairs and I pulled the trigger,” he recalled. “Through the whole thing, it was like watching your favorite TV show. You know what is going to happen, but you can’t do anything to stop it.” Pittman’s lawyers would later argue that the boy had been a victim of “involuntary intoxication,” since his doctors had him taking the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft just prior to the murders. Paxil-TWPaxil’s known “adverse drug reactions” – according to the drug’s FDA-approved label – include “mania,” “insomnia,” “anxiety,” “agitation,” “confusion,” “amnesia,” “depression,” “paranoid reaction,” “psychosis,” “hostility,” “delirium,” “hallucinations,” “abnormal thinking,” “depersonalization” and “lack of emotion,” among others. The preceding examples are only a few of the best-known offenders who had been taking prescribed psychiatric drugs before committing their violent crimes – there are many others. Whether we like to admit it or not, it is undeniable that when certain people living on the edge of sanity take psychiatric medications, those drugs can – and occasionally do – push them over the edge into violent madness. Remember, every single SSRI antidepressant sold in the United States of America today, no matter what brand or manufacturer, bears a “black box” FDA warning label – the government’s most serious drug warning – of “increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24.” Common sense tells us that where there are suicidal thoughts – especially in a very, very angry person – homicidal thoughts may not be far behind. Indeed, the mass shooters we are describing often take their own lives when the police show up, having planned their suicide ahead of time. Never lost a lawsuit Pharmaceutical manufacturers are understandably nervous about publicity connecting their highly lucrative drugs to murderous violence, which may be why we rarely if ever hear any confirmation to those first-day reports from grief-stricken relatives who confide to journalists that the perpetrator was taking psychiatric drugs. After all, who are by far the biggest sponsors of TV news? Pharmaceutical companies, and they don’t want any free publicity of this sort. The truth is, to avoid costly settlements and public relations catastrophes – such as when GlaxoSmithKline was ordered to pay millions of dollars to the family of 60-year-old Donald Schell who murdered his wife, daughter and granddaughter in a fit of rage shortly after starting on Paxil – drug companies’ legal teams have quietly and skillfully settled hundreds of cases out-of-court, shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to plaintiffs. Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly fought scores of legal claims against Prozac in this way, settling for cash before the complaint could go to court while stipulating that the settlement remain secret – and then claiming it had never lost a Prozac lawsuit. Which brings us back to the key question: When are we going to get official confirmation as to whether Nikolas Cruz, like so many other mass shooters, had been taking psychiatric drugs?