Prize for screening out mass killers

Legal weapons were used at Jokela and Kauhajoki school shootings and Oslo attack. The shooters had to get gun license first. The permitting process provides a checkpoint for screening out potential mass killers. Currently no effective screening exists to separate mass killers from the responsible and sane; therefore a prize is neeeded to give psychologists, criminologists and medical professionals incentives to create a test to screen out mass killers.

The prize would be based on pessimistic assumptions:

• There are going to be more mass killings. Ways to prevent mass killings are not known.
• Special brain function is needed for the monstrous lack of empathy which enables mass killings without war trauma, or delusionality where the murderer thinks he is an action hero tasked with saving the world by killing masses of nameless goons.
• This brain damage may show up in hormone levels, genes regulating brain function, etc.
• Shooting back is an effective way to stop an ongoing mass killing, for example Hyvinkää shooting stopped after the police returned fire. Effective screening paves the way for responsible and sane armed population. Should mass killers move to illegal guns (most regular gun kills are already done with illegal guns in Finland) then damage control through concealed carry permits is the only effective measure.

Genetic information already improves estimates about propensity to violence. The Finnish permitting process already screens out 2/3 of the criminals who would kill.

Update: The author of the linked article got his statistics wrong. He compares people with gun license killing with guns they own against kills by people without gun license using all methods. Gun kills are just a fraction of all kills, so it is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Rules for the screening tests:

• The tests can be based on any set of physiological measures like blood sample, genetic profile, saliva, urine, body height, etc.
• The tests consist of a scoring algorithm for calculating pass/fail and a list of physiological measurements.
• The tests can announce false positive for at most 10% of the population.

How prize money would be distributed:

• After a mass killer is caught alive or dead, available physiological measures are taken. This enourages tests, which can be performed on the dead like blood samples, genetic profiles etc.
• After each killing incident, 20% of the prize money is given for the tests which were positive for the killer. 80% remains in the fund for future killings.
• The number of false positives is inversely proportional to the prize money. For example, a test flagging 0.01% of the population earns 100 times more than a test flagging 1% of the population.
• Because of moral hazard, any research team with any links to the killer can't get prize money.

Here is an example of prize money division. Suppose that after a mass killing incident, two tests flag the killer. One of them flags 1% of the whole population, while another flags 0.01%. The price pot is 100000€, so 20000€ is awarded. The test flagging 0.01% of population earns 19802€, while the test flagging 1% of population earns 198€.

The institute administering the test would have to be international to get adequate sample size. It would also publish all physiological measures about the mass killers, and preferably also from other violent criminals and some voluntary controls without criminal record.

Without trying arrangements like this prize, we'll never know if modern psychology can screen out potential mass killers. What can be lost by trying?

About The Book

Summary: Breivik's book contains several fabricated statistics. This casts doubt on the truthfulness of his autobiographical claims.

ABB did not just reach wrong conclusion - namely, that political terror works. It doesn't. Even the Soviet communists who fought a civil war to gain power found terror strikes counterproductive.

His book is also worthless as a reference on the state of Islam and moral decay in Europe, as it is full of fabrications and factual errors. This is a pity as I'd very much like to see a well-researched "big picture" overview without liberal "don't worry, everything is ok" head-patting. I cross-checked some statistical claims about Finland.

The first claim which caught my doubt was the claim in p. 1173 that 35% of Finns get a sexually transmitted disease in their lifetime. Turns out that 15% of Finns had contracted an STD in their lifetime in 1992. Chlamydia was just as high in 1987 as in 2003, gonorrhea almost vanished and others are too small to meter, casting doubt on that 35% figure.

At p. 564, a table lists the Muslim share of the population for various European states. It claims that in 2009, 2% - 3% of people in Finland were Muslims. Wikipedia puts the estimate at 0.8% in 2006. This is a horrible mistake, as the whole book is about the Islamization of Europe

At p. 719, there is a discussion of social capital and trust, and claim that Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland top the list. This claim is true.

At p. 735, there is a table quantifying the levels of multicultural indoctrination in each country. The chapter doesn't tell how the numbers were calculated nor cite references. Conclusion: fabricated.

In p. 923, they put the level of Muslims in Finland at 2% - 4% of the population rather than 0.8%.

In p. 972, there is oil production amounts in different countries. The figure
is in line with an online source. Also other figures in this chapter seem factual.

At p. 1190, he claims that the "historic concentration of the Nordic genotype" in Finland was 85% at 1900, 75% at 1950, and 55% at 2010. Again there are no references or description of what is "nordic genotype". I seriously doubt if the genetic makeup of Finns has changed by 30% in 100 years. We haven't had that much immigration.

At p. 1223, there is a table listing countries in order of GNP. While the list seems genuine, it is interpreted wrong. He says "The International Monetary Fund ranking of the countries with highest GNP shows that the top 10 list is dominated by countries with an exceptional degree of social cohesion." The real conclusion from the table is that there are many ways to get high GNP per capita. 3 couuntries have oil. 3 countries have high social cohesion. Good capitalist economy has brough US and Singapore to the list. US is the antithesis of social cohesion and still on the list.

Conclusion: 2 figures don't match with official ones, 2 figures seem outright fabricated as there is no methodology mentioned, 1 is true but sloppily interpreted.

Social proof

What about his autobiographical claims? In his communication tips, he emphasizes the need for social proof and looking good: "...it should be a priority to appeal to a broadest selection of European males. Resistance leaders/cell commanders or individual cell operatives must prioritise to arrange and book a professional photo session prior to operation for one or all involved. Resistance leaders of larger networks should also arrange photo sessions with female patriotic models to use in online marketing/recruitment campaigns."

And he sure looks good himself! It reads like straight from Mystery Method. He was a leader of men, running a software company in early 2000s and a distinguished WoW raiding guild in 2005. But the guild he named was actually established only in 2007.

His tribe was also preselected by women: "Although I have had a change of mentality a majority of my friends have not. My stepfather Tore, one of my best friends Marius and my more distant friends Kristoffer, Sturla and Ronny are all living manifestations of the complete breakdown of sexual moral. All five have had more than 300 sexual partners (two of them more than 700)."

Finally, he's protecting us, his loved ones, from the threat of Islam.

Work and idleness 2/4: Conservative take

Someone needs to keep the wheels of modern society running. In conservative ideology, work is a burden and everyone has a duty to carry their fair share. This is achieved by (1) stigmatizing free riders and social bums, (2) exalting work and and by (3) making work tolerable and pleasant with institutions (for example work regulations enforcable in court) and social norms (for example 40-hour work week).

Warning Against Idleness in Saint Paul's 2nd letter to Thessalonians illustrates (1) and (2) perfectly:

... keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us. ... we were not idle when we were with you, and we did not eat anyone's bread without paying for it; but with toil and labor we worked night and day, so that we might not burden any of you. This was not because we do not have that right, but in order to give you an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat. For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. ... Take note of those who do not obey what we say in this letter; have nothing to do with them, so that they may be ashamed. Do not regard them as enemies, but warn them as believers.

The problem with the conservative position is that it no longer matches reality. The Finnish employment rate - the percentage of people aged 16 - 64 who work - was 69% in 2010. Let's assume that nobody under 16 or over 64 works, and that all age brackets contain just as many people, and that the average lifespan is 80 years.

We get that [ 16 * 0% + (64 - 16) * 69% + (80 - 64) * 0% ] / 80 = 41% of Finns work.

It is bullshit to claim that 59% of Finns can't work. My sister was getting paid for watching children as a young teen. I got my first IT summer which included some programming at age 18. But if you ask the credentialists, both work tasks absolutely require a college degree. Also in the countries where pensions are low, old people sure find stamina to work for some supplementary income.

People have made a collective decision to work less as most people get a nice standard of living anyway.

Work and idleness 1/4: The story of AZ

In Soininvaara's blog, alias "AZ" poked a beehive by admitting that he bums on last resort income out of his own choice, without any sickness or attempt to become employed. When reading this, my first reaction was "why in the hell am I slaving away at the company for 40 hours a week, when he gets for free 960e a month, which is less than I sometimes spent in the most busy months!? What's in it for me in being employed?"

In June, the housing benefit + last resort income was 959,11 euros. The rent 540. For spending 419,11 euros remain. The electricity bill is fully paid by social service agency. Water is included in rent. There are no medical costs, but they would naturally be fully compensated.

With 119 euros you can eat well foodstuffs like porridge, rye bread, carrots, pea soup, soy sauce, pasta etc. If I want to save for something, only those are necessary. It only costs a few euros to buy soap or bags for the vacuum cleaner. What could possibly be necessary expense for those extra hundreds of euros? What's so superhuman in saving them? In my opinion it would be alarming, if a healthy person couldn't live like that for a few months. I'm not addicted to cigarettes. In two months I saved 600 euros. That's a royal sum for example for wandering in Lapland, as I already have equipment from the previous trips.

I have so much experience on what it means to live on the above mentioned benefits and even with reduced benefits down to 250 euros a month that without some specific health issue which the state refuses to refund I simply cannot sign the claim about extreme material poverty of those who live on benefits. It simply isn't true.

The last resort income requires that you don't have significant property, for example a house; however, you can own a house. This is a possible lifestyle choice for someone who has paid his house already, and wants to drop out and commit hikikomori, expecting that life won't offer many opportunities anymore, for example for me if I fail to up my seduction skills by age 40.

Az says he has Asberger's syndrome and his explanations about philosophical research task reek mild crazines; this tunnel vision phenomena is familiar to me from the days of Finnish Annotator. Watch carefuly for it's cunning, devious bite if you ever become idle for extended periods.

Simo the unemployed

The writing was on the wall since Elop's announcement. Back then, the number of projects had already decreased. I had plenty of time to sketch scenarios. The only surprise was timing: the customer was still paying my salary when I got laid off last week.

Plan A: Get a Java programming job from Helsinki

Why Helsinki? My brother and sister moved there within a year. There are 10 times more open programming positions in Helsinki than in Tampere.

Why Java? It was already going strong in 2007 when I was searching the previos job. It is likely to stay relevant also to 2015. Even if Java becomes obsolete, the whole web stack from SQL servers to browsers won't change in one punch. Java is my second strongest language after POSIX C / Symbian C++. The wanted skills in the job ads are suprisingly similar as in 2007 - SQL, Hibernate, Spring, JSP, JSF and various application servers are still going strong - and only Liferay and jQuery are completely new.

Actions taken: Sent job applications, got some books on jQuery and J2EE.

Plan B: Play time by starting a company

The basic idea is to warm up some leftovers from the website I developed in 2005-2006, but with much clearer goals and much better focus on what I am going to sell and to whom. The software would be distributed as an applet which runs in browsers.

The first phase is to develop a free prototype with limited content, to put it online and advertise it a bit. This way, I would find out the number of users a month. With reasonable assumptions about the conversion rate (how many visitors would buy the full version) this gives an estimate of market size and income potential. Is there enough demand for me to make a living out of it?

If there is no demand, then I would get a real job. If there is mediocre demand or the data is ambigous (most probable scenario) then I could spend 6 - 12 months developing the full version. The upfront initial investment would be paid back over many years as a trickle of side income. This way, I could play time until the Finnish IT job market clears out after 1500 laid-off Symbian engineers from Nokia and comparable amount from subcontractors.

Because of Plan B, I have almost no incentive to get a new job quickly. The only thing I want but can't do on income-based unemployment benefit is to buy a house in Helsinki.

Actions taken: I've been unemployed for 4 days and have been developing the prototype in 3 of them.

Important announcement

I have nothing to say, and I'm drunk saying it.

I am also self-centered as I write mainly about things concerning my own life and myself, probably a mild narcissist or a mild psychopath.