3 ms·

What you said is true of psychopaths and sociopaths, but rarer in the general population. Generally speaking, PTSD is an extremely well-documented consequence

What you said is true of psychopaths and sociopaths, but rarer in the general population. Generally speaking, PTSD is an extremely well-documented consequence of killing. "killing or seriously injuring someone in the line of duty was significantly associated with PTSD symptoms (p< .01) and marginally associated with depression symptoms (p < .06). These results highlight the potential mental health impact of killing or seriously injuring someone in the line of duty." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3974970/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3974970/ "Killing in War Leaves Veterans with Lasting Psychological Scars, Study Finds" https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/12/405231/killing-war-leaves-veterans-lasting-psychological-scars-study-finds https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/12/405231/killing-war-leaves-... lots more evidence out there.

mint2 5y ago
If it caused 10% of individuals to have symptoms then they’d detect a p value like those, the other 90% could be pleased as pudding for all the p value would care. I doubt it’s that high, my comment is just that the quoted p value and association does not actually provide any support for the statement And the first of your sources does say that 7-19% of officers get ptsd but also that 25% kill or seriously injured someone, which is a larger number than get ptsd. so that suggests 6-18% officers kill or seriously injure someone and don’t get ptsd. Assuming the ones that get ptsd are the same as the ones doing bodily harm, unrealistic but conservative, that means half of officers who do that could easily be just dandy.
- tessierashpool 5y ago
  yeah, 25% killing, 19% getting PTSD, and 6% getting PTSD but denying it.
  - mint2 5y ago
    While under reporting is possible, please stick to the actual data. That data was in the intro. The study itself had a drop out rate that surprised me, about half the participants. Conclusion, better studies needed. Also conclusion, did not support the original point.

mint2 5y ago

If it caused 10% of individuals to have symptoms then they’d detect a p value like those, the other 90% could be pleased as pudding for all the p value would care. I doubt it’s that high, my comment is just that the quoted p value and association does not actually provide any support for the statement And the first of your sources does say that 7-19% of officers get ptsd but also that 25% kill or seriously injured someone, which is a larger number than get ptsd. so that suggests 6-18% officers kill or seriously injure someone and don’t get ptsd. Assuming the ones that get ptsd are the same as the ones doing bodily harm, unrealistic but conservative, that means half of officers who do that could easily be just dandy.

tessierashpool 5y ago
yeah, 25% killing, 19% getting PTSD, and 6% getting PTSD but denying it.
- mint2 5y ago
  While under reporting is possible, please stick to the actual data. That data was in the intro. The study itself had a drop out rate that surprised me, about half the participants. Conclusion, better studies needed. Also conclusion, did not support the original point.