Professor Amy Bishop

[Genecks]

This story has supposedly has been on the news in the past couple of weeks:

http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/university_diaries/amy_bishop

 

I wasn't aware until this week on Tuesday, I think. Or maybe it was last week Tuesday. Either way, interesting story.

 

So far, I've read the general beliefs from people that she is crazy, etc.. etc..

 

I rarely believe anyone is crazy. I've studied into psychology, and few people are actually so schizophrenic that they kill people in a completely delusional state: and they live a schizophrenic live almost everyday. Those people need medication and to be brought off the streets asap. I've also been friends with some schizophrenics. It's often weird to see someone go out of their mind.

 

But this obviously wasn't the case.

 

I've read that she was supposedly a fraud. I'm not an expert in neuroscience yet, but I'm seeing a lot of the arguments this person makes: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/203288-Is-an-accused-murderer-Dr-Amy-Bishop-an-academic-fraud-delusional-or-both-

 

alternative link: http://afamilyofshepherds.blogspot.com/2010/02/is-accused-murderer-dr-amy-bishop.html

 

I've looked at her university profile (here), and it seems like she was doing research. However, much of it was misleading. If anything, she was not making a great deal of progress. I read into that Neuristor thing, and seems like it's been lurking around the past few decades.

 

Nonetheless, it seems like she created another technology called the InQ, which I'm not sure how it completey works; but it seems more promising than whatever she planned with the Neuristor. The InQ is supposed to be a better way of keeping cell cultures alive for long durations; it emphasized using computer technology to control the living conditions of the culture.

 

InQ: http://www.scribd.com/doc/27014308/Amy-Bishop-on-the-cover-of-the-R-D-Report

 

If she could make such a technology, then I suspect she would have advanced the Neuristor technology. The InQ seems to be working off a dynamic relationship with computer technology. If she could sustain the neurons with the InQ and then interface them with Neuristor, she'd definitely have a working technology. However, it does not seem like she got that far.

 

It also seems like the InQ is wrapped up with the university's agenda, thus making me think that the university possibly stole her idea yet she was quiet about it. Maybe she was quiet, because she figured she still had a job and could be part of the project. My guess is that when she was denied tenure once and for all (thus being cut from an invention she made: As such, if she was cut from all ties to the project, she could not claim to be part of it), she decided to fly off and kill people.

 

Female serial killers are rare. Often murder by a female is an issue of care ethic; but this seems to have been something else. I think a lot of people argue that murder from women deals with money. However, I think many modern females whom show violence are involved with some type of competition and care ethic.

 

If it were care ethic, I would think the murdering of those people was to prevent them from committing certain actions again. Perhaps this was preventing them from wasting another person's time with attempting a tenure position, stealing an invention, or preventing the murdered people from doing something more... Her actions somewhat reminds me of the movie Dogma, to say the least.

 

As a final note, I would just like to say that I find it unfortunate that this person committed such a crime. Society is forced to take away someone who could have contributed a great deal if not to science then to empowering other scientists with knowledge. It's unfortunate that she decided to put herself into that situation.

 

What do some of you think about this ordeal?

Edited February 28, 2010 by Genecks

[Pangloss]

I don't see the relevancy of her academic work. Smart people have psychotic breaks too.

 

Stopping campus killings is certainly a laudable goal and worthy of discussion. Seems to be a panic point for concerned parents, at any rate. And of course faculty and staff are charged with a hefty responsibility in this area so it can't be taken lightly. (The rate of undergrads flocking to online schools is bad enough as it is. Just kidding. Sort-of.)

 

We've had incidents, including bomb threats and students who seem unbalanced to other students, who then worry about their own safety. From talking to administrators (following a couple of cases I had to deal with) it seems like there's a whole body of work on this that administrators are receiving training on as they come up through the ranks. Stuff like when to involve an outside counselor, what kind of progress to look for over time, what kind of warning signs require what kind of response, and so forth. It's not an academic area that I'm personally interested in, but it's somewhat heartening to know that there is active study in this area.

 

Because, of course, my you-know-what is right out there, right alongside the students. I think about it every time I mark down an "F", or document a response to a bad/erroneous grade appeal, or just tell a student "no" for any reason. How could I not?

[Genecks]

I really think the issue is inspired competition in academia. I went from a community college to the university I'm at now. We didn't compete for grades. I like that system. If I failed, I failed because of not putting in my effort.

 

Supposedly that system goes away in graduate school. Matter of fact, I'm living in dorms that have graduate students living in it. The cafeteria is better, the facilities are cleaner, etc.. It's as if there are considered the university's prized possession. Silly bouts of discrimination.

 

Not only is there class discrimination, but I would say the exams that inquire into knowledge are not fully knowledge based: they seem to test reading comprehension. It's the opposite of trying to teach a child a complex concept.

 

The exams are ridiculously riddled with extremely ambiguous questions, as if they were only created to throw off non-English speakers. I'm not talking about the "take a hard look at what the question is asking" kind of deal.

 

That's from my recent microbiology exam (I'm taking it again at a uni, because I figured it'd be a breeze at a uni since I took it at a community.). It would appear that professors at this university rely on sophistry and trickery in order to make sure their students fit to a bell curve. It's not about testing knowledge; it's about seeing who can hopefully best assume what the heck the shady, ambiguous, tricky, undeterminable question is trying to ask.

 

As if the competition were not bad enough, I have to deal with people who want to test my reading comprehension rather than my knowledge of the material. Yeah, I don't agree with that. I would have taken an English class if I wanted someone to test my reading comprehension.

 

Silly.

 

Modern American education is seriously slanted toward screwing with people. I can't tell if it's economy based or if educators can't help prime people to do well. I know I reach into an either-or fallacy; but things seem that way.

 

I'm not sure what the higher-ups do with their own staff if they are willing to mess with their undergraduates this way. It makes me wonder if people seriously do not know how to teach or if there is some sadistic part of them that wants everyone to suffer. I've often considered that professors want people to suffer, because they need to make sure people fail.

 

So, I compare the act of professors taking up positions to make others suffer very similar to a sociopath hurting small animals. Unless the professor makes a sincere effort to prime people to do their best, it would appear that person needs people to suffer.

 

It really looks like this Amy Bishop was a factor of modern academia and the economy. She wanted to succeed and was driven to do whatever it took. Of course, it was probably the higher ups whom forced her to take such a persona. There are always the higher ups expecting more and more from people.

 

She seemed to have been a driven person, as can be seen with her going to Harvard and continuing an intellectual career in neuroscience. And if I were to claim her murders as care ethic, I would see them as her attempt to stop the cycle of suffering not just for herself but for others. She is smart; she knew that she was going to be caught after doing what she did.

 

I sincerely believe that a communistic world would sort all of this out. Murder is definitely not the best answer. It has been used throughout history and worked; but I would hope there be something more society can do. Inspiring competition and effort based on competition is ugly and should be stopped.

 

Her actions really make me wonder why she didn't just walk away.

She has a Ph.D from Harvard.

She has/had great ideas.

 

Sure, she may not have had further opportunities to build upon her ideas were she fired, but she could have led many more people to partake of the activities she wanted to undertake. If she disliked something about society or modern education, she could have stuck around to change it. I think that's covered in Plato's Republic? If we are going to have people in high positions, may we hope they want the best for those whom they rule over.

 

It would appear this was more of an inside issue rather than student vs. student.

 

I've studied the NIU and Vtech murders to a degree.

 

From my best analysis, the NIU one was by a sociologist whom seems to have wanted to free people from suffering: I suspect he theorized that the system of academia and modern society does not allow for love, as such life is not worth living. Or perhaps in a summary, "love is a battlefield."

 

The Vtech murder was some weird mystical stuff. It's as if he was speaking against "the system." His package was the most interesting, especially with labeling it to a person named "A. Ishmael." He speaks of Jesus and whatnot. It's as if he's trying to notify society of something like some rising of an anti-christ. This guy was definitely off his rocker more than other people. I think the first person he killed was a student pursuing the study of neuroscience.

 

It's interesting, though.

 

Vtech was an undergraduate.

NIU was a graduate student.

Alabama was a Ph.D holder.

 

This surely says there is a problem on every level.

 

I'm not sure that education was like this hundreds of years ago. It would appear there was much more community.

Maybe there is some generational issue around and perhaps professors are somewhat sociopathic.

Some people say the as people age, they enact how they were treated growing up.

 

With the fact there were many mentally and physically abusive school systems in the past, it could be of the few ways the current educating generation has a mentality for. In other words, since the past generation dealt with mental cruelty and a lack of emotion and care from educators when growing up, then they eventually became educators with the same persona. It's somewhat like how people say that children whom have abusive fathers will grow up to be abusive fathers themselves. One could hope to use enough free will to not become like that. And then there is still the vietnam-era generation lingering around. A good amount of them dislike anything that has to do with communist thought. I suspect a good amount of them are reaching retirement age, though.

 

I suspect it will take about another 30 years until some of the mentality of how education is handled will pan out.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Genecks

[Pangloss]

Vtech was an undergraduate.

NIU was a graduate student.

Alabama was a Ph.D holder.

 

This surely says there is a problem on every level.

 

You're using this data to draw the conclusion that academic stress is causing homicides?

 

Sort of an obvious sampling error, don't you think?

[swansont]

 

Vtech was an undergraduate.

NIU was a graduate student.

Alabama was a Ph.D holder.

 

It says that being an academic does not shield you from whatever triggers someone to go on a shooting rampage. VaTech was 2007. NIU was 2008. The other big ones, U Texas and Cal State-Fullerton, were in the 60's and 70's, respectively. There are over 4000 college campuses in the US; enrollment was over 17 million in 2005.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908742.html

 

Compare that with all of the mass killings

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/a_glance_at_us_mass_shootings.html

 

A dozen or so people dying in one incident. But 2.4 million people die in the US each year. 6500 a day.

 

 

These events are rare, which is why we hear about them when they happen.