Advocacy & Safety - Are cars making people into sociopaths?

Via TreeHugger.com:
The Anti-Social Bastards in our Midst (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/20/the-anti-social-bastards-in-our-midst/)

George Monbiot of the Guardian [...] suggests that ".the extreme libertarianism now beginning to take hold here begins on the road. When you drive, society becomes an obstacle. Pedestrians, bicycles, traffic calming, speed limits, the law: all become a nuisance to be wished away. The more you drive, the more bloody-minded and individualistic you become.

Shouldn't this be in the car-free forum?

Shouldn't this be in the car-free forum?
As well as the rest of posts consisting of self -righteous OT cager bashing and moralizing about corrupt car culture.

At least take this OT moralizing and preaching about the evils of everybody else's bad habits to more appropriate forums such as:

Foo - for Off-Topic chit chat with no general subject.

Politics & Religion - Discussion of two very hot topics, politics and religion.

Jokes & Humor - Life sucks without humor. Post your best (and worst) jokes here.

Shouldn't this be in the car-free forum?

Maybe. I only hang out in Commuting and Advocacy. I thought this was interesting, though I don't agree with him. Mods of course will move it if appropriate.

The tirades against "neo-libertarianism", etc. were hot air. OTH, the quotes from Jeremy Clarkson and reports of vandalism to speed cameras were cautionary. I think it worth following up, and wouldn't have noticed if the post had been under Politics.

I wouldn't call it libertarianism, with regard to bicycles, its unbridled arrogance, vanity, selfishness and class war.

Car drivers are the epitome of its "all mine and I want it now". They have to have the biggest, fastest car, to impress everyone about how they've made it big, reluctance to share the road with anyone, especially cyclists since, of course, they are the coolest, most important people in the world, and its a class thing because they percieve cyclists as street people or losers who can't afford a car.

Well, I guess its just a microcosm of the way we treat the rest of the world. Our foriegn policy is driven by arrogance, vanity, selfishness and class war. We have learned well from our leaders.

The original quote does seem to hit a large number of nails square on the head!

To be clear, I don't believe at least half of what this guy says, but I do think he has some good points. Something scary DOES happen to many people when they get into a car. People who would be very courteous in line at the supermarket can become practically (or actually) homicidal. I think it's worth thinking about why, and keeping the phenomenon in mind when thinking about advocating cycling rights, and when confronting drivers.

Car drivers are the epitome of its "all mine and I want it now". They have to have the biggest, fastest car, to impress everyone about how they've made it big, reluctance to share the road with anyone, especially cyclists since, of course, they are the coolest, most important people in the world, and its a class thing because they percieve cyclists as street people or losers who can't afford a car.



Does this obvious overly generalized tirade apply equally to drivers of Priuses by Toyota, or Mini Coopers by BMW or the Chrysler PT Cruiser? Also, I might ask, does your generalization apply also to cyclists when they get behind the steering wheel of a car? Or, as so often happens with fanatics, are you exaggerating a bit? :mad:

I (a big anti-car fanatic) don't believe that cars make people into socioaths. I believe that a few people express their psychopathology through automobiles. Others choose guns, religion, politics and, yes, bicycles.

Well last week the Department for Transport published the results of the study it had commissioned into the efficacy of its speed cameras(3). It found that the number of drivers speeding down the roads where fixed cameras had been installed fell by 70%, and the number exceeding the speed limit by more than 15mph dropped by 91%. As a result, 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured in those places than were killed or injured on the same stretches before the cameras were erected.
Another reason to get a helmet cam?

Interesting "Troll Bait." Certain topics can bring out the best - and the worst - in otherwise gentle people. I see trolling and "rude car culture" as being structually related through a sense of anonimity offered by seclusion. Whether it be seclusion in the car or seclusion on the web, similar outcomes are observed.

I am beginning to undertake psychological research on "Internet Trolling." My goal is to publish an academic paper. I would appreciate hearing accounts from individuals concerning this topic. If willing to help, please email me off list. Copies of the final paper will be emailed to those who contribute.

Thanks

Charles

Does this obvious overly generalized tirade apply equally to drivers of Priuses by Toyota, or Mini Coopers by BMW or the Chrysler PT Cruiser? Also, I might ask, does your generalization apply also to cyclists when they get behind the steering wheel of a car? Or, as so often happens with fanatics, are you exaggerating a bit? :mad:

Apologies. I took for granted that most on this board were sophisticated enough to appreciate the concept of rhetorical hyperbole, but apparently not. So, in order not to offend you or others, let me be more precise. Everywhere in my post where I wrote car driver, or driver, substitute "aggressive, law breaking automobile drivers with no regard for the safety of themselves and others".

Interesting "Troll Bait." Certain topics can bring out the best - and the worst - in otherwise gentle people. I see trolling and "rude car culture" as being structually related through a sense of anonimity offered by seclusion. Whether it be seclusion in the car or seclusion on the web, similar outcomes are observed.

I am beginning to undertake psychological research on "Internet Trolling." My goal is to publish an academic paper. I would appreciate hearing accounts from individuals concerning this topic. If willing to help, please email me off list. Copies of the final paper will be emailed to those who contribute.

Thanks

Charles

What? Anybody got a BS translator handy?

I really wasn't trying to troll with this posting. I genuinely think it's interesting to think about. However, it appears that some people are unfamiliar with the concept of discussing different points of view without resorting to yelling and hyperbole.

+10 :) Exactly.


I wouldn't call it libertarianism, with regard to bicycles, its unbridled arrogance, vanity, selfishness and class war.

Car drivers are the epitome of its "all mine and I want it now". They have to have the biggest, fastest car, to impress everyone about how they've made it big, reluctance to share the road with anyone, especially cyclists since, of course, they are the coolest, most important people in the world, and its a class thing because they percieve cyclists as street people or losers who can't afford a car.

Well, I guess its just a microcosm of the way we treat the rest of the world. Our foriegn policy is driven by arrogance, vanity, selfishness and class war. We have learned well from our leaders.

If it was posted on a car interest board it would be trolling.

But here, on a cycling advocacy board, it is an opening for good dialoge, as dangerous drivers are about the #1 concern of me and many other cyclists and would be cyclists.


Interesting "Troll Bait." Certain topics can bring out the best - and the worst - in otherwise gentle people. I see trolling and "rude car culture" as being structually related through a sense of anonimity offered by seclusion. Whether it be seclusion in the car or seclusion on the web, similar outcomes are observed.

I am beginning to undertake psychological research on "Internet Trolling." My goal is to publish an academic paper. I would appreciate hearing accounts from individuals concerning this topic. If willing to help, please email me off list. Copies of the final paper will be emailed to those who contribute.

Thanks

Charles

Shouldn't this be in the car-free forum?


This has been a topic in the car free forum. For my lengthy wordy response to this topic go to this link:

Please explain the contempt (thread)... (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=1874109&highlight=contempt#post1874109)

Interesting "Troll Bait." Certain topics can bring out the best - and the worst - in otherwise gentle people. I see trolling and "rude car culture" as being structually related through a sense of anonimity offered by seclusion. Whether it be seclusion in the car or seclusion on the web, similar outcomes are observed.

I am beginning to undertake psychological research on "Internet Trolling." My goal is to publish an academic paper. I would appreciate hearing accounts from individuals concerning this topic. If willing to help, please email me off list. Copies of the final paper will be emailed to those who contribute.

Thanks

Charles

I agree with your comparison. The anonymity of the net lets us say things that we would probably not say to someone face to face (although, when I post, before I press "submit" I try to step back and ask myself, would I say this directly to a person?).

Unfortunately, the anonymity of driving a car allows us physically assualt and endanger others in ways that we would never do (I hope) outside of a car. The latter is much more dangerous.

This has been a topic in the car free forum. For my lengthy wordy response to this topic go to this link:

Please explain the contempt (thread)... (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=1874109&highlight=contempt#post1874109)
Your "lengthy wordy response" was beautiful.

I (a big anti-car fanatic) don't believe that cars make people into socioaths. I believe that a few people express their psychopathology through automobiles. Others choose guns, religion, politics and, yes, bicycles.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish by bringing common sense into this argument? ;)

What? Anybody got a BS translator handy?

Yea, but all it ever spits out is gibberish. :D

Actually, I see his point. How much have everyone here said in anoymity which they would not have said to someone's face? Same goes with the anoymity stemming from driving. When people cannot interact with another person (or animal, for that matter) they can lose the distinction between "person" and "thing." This allows for abuse (either physical or verbal) which would not be proper between two people to occur as if the subject was an inanimate object. Sounds like a worthy sociology paper to me.

Yea, but all it ever spits out is gibberish. :D

Actually, I see his point. How much have everyone here said in anoymity which they would not have said to someone's face? Same goes with the anoymity stemming from driving. When people cannot interact with another person (or animal, for that matter) they can lose the distinction between "person" and "thing." This allows for abuse (either physical or verbal) which would not be proper between two people to occur as if the subject was an inanimate object. Sounds like a worthy sociology paper to me.

LOL, Chipcom kinda makes my point. Seriously, I am not trying to put out troll bait myself. I am interested in writing a paper and I am looking for people's felt impressions. This is more a psych paper than sociology. I am looking for input on all sorts of fora, all over the net, not just this one.

Thx

Charles

It's not the cars, it the "rat race". Rush rush ! Nobody has any patience anymore.

jw

No, a certain number of people are already Sociopaths and some of these people drive, more people on the road, more sociopaths driving, not more people being turned into sociopaths. Trust me if everyone had to ride you'd notice all of the cycling sociopaths too. There just currently aren't enough of them on the road yet for us to notice.

If it was posted on a car interest board it would be trolling.

But here, on a cycling advocacy board, it is an opening for good dialoge, as dangerous drivers are about the #1 concern of me and many other cyclists and would be cyclists.

Well, sure it would be. One of the things I am looking for are postings that contain incendiary language. Keep in mind that what is incendiary to one is not necessarily incendiary to all. The use of the term "sociopath" is interesting. Psychologists don't want responsibility for the (former) psychopaths because they don't fit neatly into existing theories. They have handed them off to the sociologists. However, the sociologists are equally uninterested as they do not deal with individuals' behaviour. The term could be understood to be ill-defined within social science.

However, it has a great deal of face validity "out there" in the real world. Ask ten people to define "sociopath" and you'll get ten definitions. The one point upon mostly everyone can agree is that the "sociopaths" are mean and nasty folks. (This actually flies in the face of the fact that many top leaders of government and industry fit the (admittedly poor) definition of the term.)

So, when I see the use of "sociopath" in the topic line of a thread, my radar goes off. I immediately ask, "what does this mean?" Any technical term, if not well defined, results in, well, ~ nothing. The question that arises is, then, what is the OP's intent. Is the question genuine, or is there an attempt (possibly unconscious) to raise the readers' level of discomfort? If so, does that meet the test of a "troll?"

Part of my work will be to provide operational definitions of trolling, among other things. I do not want to hijack this thread, I am merely seeking assistance.

Cheers

Charles

George Monbiot of the Guardian [...]The more you drive, the more bloody-minded and individualistic you become.

Interesting rant.. uh article, but I don't buy the cause-effect link. I don't think cars/driving are the cause, I think cars just become an enabler. Much like the Internet, cars isolate individuals from other individuals, and this allow more extreme and uncensored reactions. The guy who yells profanity to ever other driver on the road may be perfectly civil (or at least quietly disapproving) in the supermarket lineup.

Humans are pack animals, and like other pack animals we need cues to establish empathy with others. In the absence of those cues - e.g. isolated in a car or at a keyboard - other people become non-persons, just TV characters observed through the windshield.

Jeremy Clarkson

"But that's not the point, supercars are supposed to run over Arthur Scarville and then run over him again for good measure. They are designed to melt ice caps, kill the poor, poison the water table, destroy the ozone layer, decimate indigenous wildlife, recapture the Fulcan Islands and turn the entire Third World into a huge uninhabitable desert. But only after they have nicked all of the oil..."

Well, sure it would be. One of the things I am looking for are postings that contain incendiary language. Keep in mind that what is incendiary to one is not necessarily incendiary to all. The use of the term "sociopath" is interesting. Psychologists don't want responsibility for the (former) psychopaths because they don't fit neatly into existing theories. They have handed them off to the sociologists. However, the sociologists are equally uninterested as they do not deal with individuals' behaviour. The term could be understood to be ill-defined within social science.

However, it has a great deal of face validity "out there" in the real world. Ask ten people to define "sociopath" and you'll get ten definitions. The one point upon mostly everyone can agree is that the "sociopaths" are mean and nasty folks. (This actually flies in the face of the fact that many top leaders of government and industry fit the (admittedly poor) definition of the term.)

So, when I see the use of "sociopath" in the topic line of a thread, my radar goes off. I immediately ask, "what does this mean?" Any technical term, if not well defined, results in, well, ~ nothing. The question that arises is, then, what is the OP's intent. Is the question genuine, or is there an attempt (possibly unconscious) to raise the readers' level of discomfort? If so, does that meet the test of a "troll?"

Part of my work will be to provide operational definitions of trolling, among other things. I do not want to hijack this thread, I am merely seeking assistance.

Cheers

Charles
You crack me up little perfessor! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tell me one thing. Do you even own a bicycle?

BTW, if you're planning on looking up articles in pshchology and psychiatry journals, it would help if you knew the right term for the phemomenon you're "studying." The terms psychopathy and sociopathy were replaced many years ago. Now they call it antisocial personality disorder. And psychiatrists and psychologists don't ignore it. They study it and treat it.

The terms psychopathy and sociopathy were replaced many years ago. Now they call it antisocial personality disorder. And psychiatrists and psychologists don't ignore it. They study it and treat it.


That's exactly my point. Anyway, the terminology is broader than you think. We now refer to such conditions as "ODD" (Oppositional Defiant Disorder) and CD (Conduct Disorder). I am not a "little professor" or a professor of any description. I leave that up to the wife. I am a counsellor in private practice. BTW, the term in use, "sociopath" was not mine. It was posed by the OP.

Cheers

Charles

ps I own five bikes and ride all of them (but not at the same time! :)

Interesting rant.. uh article, but I don't buy the cause-effect link. I don't think cars/driving are the cause, I think cars just become an enabler. Much like the Internet, cars isolate individuals from other individuals, and this allow more extreme and uncensored reactions. The guy who yells profanity to ever other driver on the road may be perfectly civil (or at least quietly disapproving) in the supermarket lineup.

Yes. I saw a thread over in car-free yesterday that cars are like powered armor - making a person into a veritable superman. Most people can't handle being superman, they become huge a$$****s, pushing everyone out of their way and hurting people at a whim, perhaps just to gain 3 seconds or for no reason at all, perhaps without even thinking of the consequences.

In a car, people are:
1) Invulnerable (or think they are - and to some extent they are, on a human scale)
2) powerful
3) insulated from human contact
4) somewhat anonymous

That combination is hard for many people to handle without turning into jerks.

I agree that cars probably do not turn people in to a$$****s, they're just a$$**** amplifiers. Any little antisocial tendency you might have will probably be amplified when you're in your car.

Yea, but all it ever spits out is gibberish. :D

Actually, I see his point. How much have everyone here said in anoymity which they would not have said to someone's face? Same goes with the anoymity stemming from driving. When people cannot interact with another person (or animal, for that matter) they can lose the distinction between "person" and "thing." This allows for abuse (either physical or verbal) which would not be proper between two people to occur as if the subject was an inanimate object. Sounds like a worthy sociology paper to me.

I just wonder if he knows what a troll is... :rolleyes:

The article attributes several inflamatory quotes to Jeremy Clarkson, such as "... you will be crushed under my wheels ..." When I search the web, I find lots of references to such quotes, but I can't find the actual articles. Am I inept at searching, or did Clarkson and the Sun cover their tracks to avoid controversy (yeah, sure), or is Mr. Monbiot participating an urban legend? I'm not trying to defend Clarkson. I just want to make sure something is real before I get angry at it.

I just wonder if he knows what a troll is... :rolleyes:

I can assure you that I have a pretty good idea of what trolls are - and I don't mean ugly guys who hide out under bridges in anticipation of the arrival of Billy Goats Gruff! :) I mean there were never, never trolls like the ones that hung out on the Jung net in the mid-nineteen nineties! If you want to see some excellent contemporary trolling, go to www.eham.net.

Seriously, in any sort of social science, one needs to operationalize one's definitions. I am in the process of doing just that as we speak.

Cheers

Charles

I can assure you that I have a pretty good idea of what trolls are - and I don't mean ugly guys who hide out under bridges in anticipation of the arrival of Billy Goats Gruff! :) I mean there were never, never trolls like the ones that hung out on the Jung net in the mid-nineteen nineties! If you want to see some excellent contemporary trolling, go to www.eham.net.

Seriously, in any sort of social science, one needs to operationalize one's definitions. I am in the process of doing just that as we speak.

Cheers

Charles

I still wonder...a troll isn't a person, per se, it's actually more related to a post to a newsgroup or forum. Thus I am not a troll, but something I post could be. Perfect example would be if I came in to a bicycle racing thread and posted that "Lance Armstrong is a wimpy momma's boy who takes drugs and cheats like most Texicans do". That is actually the classic multiple troll because I not only infuriated Lance Armstrong fans, but also Texans. The whole point of a troll is to make some outlandish, inflammatory or incorrect statement that will elicit a (hopefully) heated response. The very best trolls are those that rekindle an epic debate about a controversial subject...such as the great helmet debate, because those threads can last longer than the energizer bunny on viagra.

So I guess your term 'troll bait' made me wonder...since one does not bait a troll...the troll does the baiting.

Edit: So a good troll is also a master baiter :)

I couldn't possibly answer the thread title question, but I will say that empirically, I've noticed more aggressive driving and yelling and loudness and things being tossed out of windows at pedestrians now than 30 years ago.

I still wonder...a troll isn't a person, per se, it's actually more related to a post to a newsgroup or forum. Thus I am not a troll, but something I post could be. Perfect example would be if I came in to a bicycle racing thread and posted that "Lance Armstrong is a wimpy momma's boy who takes drugs and cheats like most Texicans do". That is actually the classic multiple troll because I not only infuriated Lance Armstrong fans, but also Texans. The whole point of a troll is to make some outlandish, inflammatory or incorrect statement that will elicit a (hopefully) heated response. The very best trolls are those that rekindle an epic debate about a controversial subject...such as the great helmet debate, because those threads can last longer than the energizer bunny on viagra.

So I guess your term 'troll bait' made me wonder...since one does not bait a troll...the troll does the baiting.

Edit: So a good troll is also a master baiter :)

LOL... Good one. And, thank you for the input. Troll, troller, trolling. All of these terms need precise definition. However, at this point I would consider the term "troll" to refer to both the troller and the content of the post/thread. I think I have heard that the origin of the term is derived from fishing, ie: out trolling for suckers. The fisherman puts out the bait: the troll puts out the troll bait.

Cheers

Charles

That's exactly my point. Anyway, the terminology is broader than you think. We now refer to such conditions as "ODD" (Oppositional Defiant Disorder) and CD (Conduct Disorder). I am not a "little professor" or a professor of any description. I leave that up to the wife. I am a counsellor in private practice. BTW, the term in use, "sociopath" was not mine. It was posed by the OP.

Cheers

Charles

ps I own five bikes and ride all of them (but not at the same time! :)

Wrong again the terms Oppositional-Defian Disorder and Conduct Disorder are only used in the classification of children.

If you're not a little professor you might be a little phony.