We want it to be the case that there are stark differences between suicide bombers, rampage killers, self-destructive terrorists, and the rest of us. In The Myth of Martyrdom, Lankford supports this reasonable desire by arguing that most suicide bombers and the like deliberately seek death as a way of escaping or managing desperate unhappiness (Lankford Reference Lankford2013c). However, he significantly weakens his own case by defining some suicidal behavior as escapist or implicit. Despite Lankford's descriptions of those who commit escapist suicides as being “psychologically compromised” (see Précis target article, sects. 5 & 7), there is nothing in his narrative that would suggest that those who do so as a way of avoiding imprisonment, torture, or public humiliation are being anything other than completely normal and rational, based on the current knowledge and values of the persons electing death. Lankford claims that because “others would fight to survive” under the same circumstances, those who choose death over some other consequence must be “fundamentally” suicidal (p. 138 in the book).
We can compare these cases with those who commit assisted suicide, sign Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders, or refuse continued medical treatment – all rather mundane medical choices. There is no evidence in any of these types of choices that those who choose death would still do so if it were not for their current ill health or suffering. Not everyone in the same circumstances makes the same decision, and the actual reasons for deciding not to “fight to survive” vary tremendously (though, despite popular press, the level of physical pain one is enduring has little effect on this decision) (Rosenfeld Reference Rosenfeld2000). Indeed, being able to choose the manner and time of death is often more important to those facing the decision than being able to spend more time being alive (Hardcastle & Stewart Reference Hardcastle and Stewart2002). It is a gross simplification, to the point of falsehood, to claim that escapist suicides choose death as a function of “suicidal tendencies” (Lankford Reference Lankford2013c, p. 139), for the range of responses we find in the general population to threats of death, suffering, or loss of autonomy is both wide and complex.
Similarly, those who are allegedly indirectly suicidal do not appear to be fundamentally different from others who engage in risky behaviors but are not suicidal. Lankford cannot argue that those who pick out “riskier” targets are thereby more suicidal than those who do not, without circularity, unless one has some additional data that would suggest actual suicidal ideation. But Lankford's notion of indirect suicidality belies any sort of suicidal thoughts, since being indirectly suicidal means that you hide your suicidal impulses from yourself.
Despite what Lankford claims, recent research shows that neither those who attempt suicide nor those who think about committing suicide exhibit high sensation- seeking traits, even though both groups tend to act impulsively when having negative emotions, and attempters also show poor premeditation skills (Klonsky & May Reference Klonsky and May2010). It is in fact hard to correlate general impulsivity and suicidality, largely because both terms are so poorly defined and other psychological factors confound the studies (Dear Reference Dear2000; Gvion & Apter Reference Gvion and Apter2011). Moreover, being impulsive flies in the face of the careful planning that suicide terrorists typically undertake. Most important, however, in studies that do examine which aspects of indirect self-destructiveness lead to suicide attempts, engaging in high-risk activities for momentary pleasures is not one of the traits (Stanton et al. Reference Stanton, Spirito, Donaldson and Beorgers2003); instead, (perhaps not surprisingly) passivity and helplessness in the face of problems were most directly tied to suicide attempts (Tsirigotis et al. Reference Tsirigotis, Gruszczynski and Lewik-Tsirigotis2013).
In sum: I do believe that Lankford is correct in arguing against the dominant view that suicide attackers are radical idealists who are otherwise psychologically whole, but he overstates the suicidal impulses that these attackers may feel, at least in some categories of assailant. Some are suicidal, to be sure, but just as with rampage shooters, others likely have different psychological disorders. And still others probably fall within the bell curve of “normal,” psychologically speaking. (Though it is still too early to tell, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev might be an example of this.) The social and psychological differences between those who engage in suicidal attacks and those who do not are less than most of us would prefer. Just as with the peaceful population, suicide terrorists likely suffer from a range of psychiatric difficulties and psychological challenges. Sadly, social isolation or alienation, depression, axis-B disorders, childhood abuse, a violent past, a history of addiction, and acute trauma are all common traits, and they do not really serve to differentiate suicide terrorists, rampage killers, and other self-destructive terrorists from the rest of us.
You have
Access
We want it to be the case that there are stark differences between suicide bombers, rampage killers, self-destructive terrorists, and the rest of us. In The Myth of Martyrdom, Lankford supports this reasonable desire by arguing that most suicide bombers and the like deliberately seek death as a way of escaping or managing desperate unhappiness (Lankford Reference Lankford2013c). However, he significantly weakens his own case by defining some suicidal behavior as escapist or implicit. Despite Lankford's descriptions of those who commit escapist suicides as being “psychologically compromised” (see Précis target article, sects. 5 & 7), there is nothing in his narrative that would suggest that those who do so as a way of avoiding imprisonment, torture, or public humiliation are being anything other than completely normal and rational, based on the current knowledge and values of the persons electing death. Lankford claims that because “others would fight to survive” under the same circumstances, those who choose death over some other consequence must be “fundamentally” suicidal (p. 138 in the book).
We can compare these cases with those who commit assisted suicide, sign Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders, or refuse continued medical treatment – all rather mundane medical choices. There is no evidence in any of these types of choices that those who choose death would still do so if it were not for their current ill health or suffering. Not everyone in the same circumstances makes the same decision, and the actual reasons for deciding not to “fight to survive” vary tremendously (though, despite popular press, the level of physical pain one is enduring has little effect on this decision) (Rosenfeld Reference Rosenfeld2000). Indeed, being able to choose the manner and time of death is often more important to those facing the decision than being able to spend more time being alive (Hardcastle & Stewart Reference Hardcastle and Stewart2002). It is a gross simplification, to the point of falsehood, to claim that escapist suicides choose death as a function of “suicidal tendencies” (Lankford Reference Lankford2013c, p. 139), for the range of responses we find in the general population to threats of death, suffering, or loss of autonomy is both wide and complex.
Similarly, those who are allegedly indirectly suicidal do not appear to be fundamentally different from others who engage in risky behaviors but are not suicidal. Lankford cannot argue that those who pick out “riskier” targets are thereby more suicidal than those who do not, without circularity, unless one has some additional data that would suggest actual suicidal ideation. But Lankford's notion of indirect suicidality belies any sort of suicidal thoughts, since being indirectly suicidal means that you hide your suicidal impulses from yourself.
Despite what Lankford claims, recent research shows that neither those who attempt suicide nor those who think about committing suicide exhibit high sensation- seeking traits, even though both groups tend to act impulsively when having negative emotions, and attempters also show poor premeditation skills (Klonsky & May Reference Klonsky and May2010). It is in fact hard to correlate general impulsivity and suicidality, largely because both terms are so poorly defined and other psychological factors confound the studies (Dear Reference Dear2000; Gvion & Apter Reference Gvion and Apter2011). Moreover, being impulsive flies in the face of the careful planning that suicide terrorists typically undertake. Most important, however, in studies that do examine which aspects of indirect self-destructiveness lead to suicide attempts, engaging in high-risk activities for momentary pleasures is not one of the traits (Stanton et al. Reference Stanton, Spirito, Donaldson and Beorgers2003); instead, (perhaps not surprisingly) passivity and helplessness in the face of problems were most directly tied to suicide attempts (Tsirigotis et al. Reference Tsirigotis, Gruszczynski and Lewik-Tsirigotis2013).
In sum: I do believe that Lankford is correct in arguing against the dominant view that suicide attackers are radical idealists who are otherwise psychologically whole, but he overstates the suicidal impulses that these attackers may feel, at least in some categories of assailant. Some are suicidal, to be sure, but just as with rampage shooters, others likely have different psychological disorders. And still others probably fall within the bell curve of “normal,” psychologically speaking. (Though it is still too early to tell, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev might be an example of this.) The social and psychological differences between those who engage in suicidal attacks and those who do not are less than most of us would prefer. Just as with the peaceful population, suicide terrorists likely suffer from a range of psychiatric difficulties and psychological challenges. Sadly, social isolation or alienation, depression, axis-B disorders, childhood abuse, a violent past, a history of addiction, and acute trauma are all common traits, and they do not really serve to differentiate suicide terrorists, rampage killers, and other self-destructive terrorists from the rest of us.