Is the FBI looking in the wrong place for active shooter precursors? – Part 2

Editor’s note: This article was originally published on LinkedIn and has been reprinted here with the permission of the author.

In my last article, I made the case that using mental health assessments or what the FBI refers to as “stressors” are not reliable precursors to identifying a future shooter. If you disagree with this statement on its face, I suggest you reread my first article in the series; otherwise, the following article will make little sense to you.

Current Paradigms: Are They Reliable?

The legendary American philosopher of science, Thomas Khun, wrote in his 1962 book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” about how “Normal Scientists” work within a “paradigm” that tells them how to answer questions, and what counts as legitimate regarding questions or answers. Asking a question or offering a solution outside of this “paradigm” can quickly be considered at best “without basis” and, at worst, unreliable. These “Normal Scientists” do not question their “paradigm.” They teach their students how to act according to it. To challenge this “paradigm” is considered a challenge to rationality itself and could be considered heresy. Rationality, Kuhn argues, exists only within the “paradigm,” and all other methods should be dismissed. Because the “paradigm” tells us what is real and how it works, to question it is to question the structure of the world itself. According to those within the “paradigm,” these questions and their answers lead to “nonsense” and potentially to heresy itself. Are you so committed to an existing security “paradigm” that you will not consider the existence of a new and different approach and/or methodology?

Do You Have “Sunk Cost Bias?”

I would like to ask: Are you afflicted with Sunk Cost Bias? This is an intellectual and emotional affliction caused by an intellectually closed mind. In other words, are you so committed intellectually and emotionally to one perspective (paradigm) you cannot, or will not, consider any other perspectives? If this is you, stop reading because this article will only cause you anguish! However, if you are willing to change your paradigm, I encourage you to continue reading.

There is No Absolute Prediction or Prevention of Violence

Let’s start with the obvious; there is no such thing as absolute (100%) prediction or prevention of violence. But, in between this statement and taking the approach that it is possible to identify the precursors to violence and thus prevent violence – we can hope to find a “reliable” answer. Reliability is a scientific term and you will hear this term used throughout this article, because frankly, “reliability” is the basis upon which we can build.

Finding the Path to Violence

Let’s start were we left off in the first article. We all know that the FBI has prevented active shootings in the past, but how reliable are the methods they use? In December 2013, Andre Simmons, the Chief of the FBI’s Behavioral Threat Assessment Center/Behavioral Analysis Unit stated that their ability to prevent violence is predicated on “identifying a person who is on a pathway to violence.” This perspective was based upon an earlier collaboration between the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Department of Education, and the National Institute of Justice, called the “Safe School Initiative Study.” It states that, “An inquiry should focus instead on the student’s behaviors and communication to determine if the student appears to be planning or preparing for an attack.” Here is the key, “The ultimate question to answer… is whether a student is on a path to a violent attack.” These statements are confirming that there are “reliable” sequential successive precursors to violence! In other words, it is not enough to identify that someone is showing signs of aggression, but we must identify that this individual is moving up these sequential successive precursors toward violence, i.e., on the path to violence. This demonstrates a critical flaw in our current systems–  the difference between using “probabilities” versus “predictabilities,” but this is a topic for a later article.

Imagine that there is a zero baseline (normal behavior) and nine levels or stages of aggressive behavior in ascending order, creating an “Aggression Continuum.” At the top of the Aggression Continuum, we have the perpetrator of murder/suicide, the most lethal of all aggressors.

Bullying, Abuse, Harassment, Conflict and Discrimination

At the fourth level or stage of the Aggression Continuum, we begin to see aggressive behavior (“maladaptive behavior”) called, “Bullying, Abuse, Harassment, Conflict, and Discrimination.” Bullying represents someone exhibiting bullying behavior; so we are reacting to bullying, not preventing it. The same goes for abuse, harassment, conflict, and discrimination. But here is the key: stages one, two, and three on this Aggression Continuum are the precursors to these maladaptive behaviors. By learning what these precursor behaviors look like and learning how to address these behaviors, for the first time we can “reliably” prevent these maladaptive behaviors.  

Wait just a minute! What about privacy regulations? What about HIPAA, FERPA and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Imagine if we assessed only “aggressive behavior,” judging it on its merits. Because, we do not use mental health assessments – they are notoriously inaccurate – we do not violate HIPPA regulations. We do not use culture, gender, age, education, or sexual orientation so we will not violate FERPA in our schools and elsewhere the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By using only human-based aggressive behavior, we can record, track, and address them over time, with virtual impunity. 

From Trust to Treachery

As humans, we tend to get transfixed with human-on-human violent attacks, but don’t miss that we can also prevent the aforementioned maladaptive behaviors. But let’s go even lower on our imagined Aggression Continuum to include “trust,” and the “loss of trust.” In cybersecurity, I am told the greatest threat comes from insider threats. Can we use the Aggression Continuum to identify when someone is moving from “worthy of trust,” to disgruntled, to treacherous, like an Edward Snowden or Bradley (Chelsea) Manning?  

We know that it is not instinctual for one human to attack another human; aggressors must disconnect, depersonalize and turn their victims into an object in order to attack them. We can identify the nuances of these disconnections and depersonalizations early on and thus identify someone moving from worthy-of-trust to treachery. Is this aggression continuum absolutely (100%) certain? Of course not, but we can be scientifically reliable in identifying someone moving from trust to treachery; we can identify the precursors to maladaptive behaviors like bullying, abuse, harassment, conflict, and discrimination and thus prevent these maladaptive behaviors; and finally, we can reliably predict and thus prevent violence by identifying someone on the path to violence.

About the Author:

Dr. John D. Byrnes is the Founder and CEO of the Center for Aggression Management, a published author and Navy Veteran (SSN Nautilus 571). He formed the Center for Aggression Management, Inc. in 1993. He authored the NaBITA Threat Assessment Tool, which is now used in over 177 college campuses.

Over the past 25 years he has consulted and conducted training for many Secondary School Districts, Institutions of Higher Education and Educational Associations, including: National School Board Association (NSBA); Texas Association of School Boards (TASB); Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA); New Jersey School Boards Association, Insurance Group; Mississippi Safe School Center; Central Dauphin School District, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Lenape Regional High School, New Jersey; Keansburg Board of Education, New Jersey; Lawrence Township Board of Education, New Jersey; and Trenton Board of Education, New Jersey, just to name a few.