What does "socialisation" mean here?

Acceptance in a social context. Increasing tolerance of a certain behaviour, so that it becomes acceptable in certain circumstances.

Thanks.
I've got a clearer picture.

Whose acceptance? That of the society in the whole?

Of society in general, yes, I believe so. But I still think the original text is crap.

Grammatically crap or logistically crap?
The author has offered us, however, a new angle to look into the depth of the hearts of Hitlers and serial killers.

You meant logically, not logistically.

I think it's grammatically and scientifically crap.

Yeah. The Chinese-English dictionary has sometimes helped to make such mistake:
logistically adv. 逻辑地，运筹地；在后勤方面


You've drawn your conclusion after reading the whole article: The Pat h to Ext reme Violence: Nazism and Serial Killers Phil ippe Co tter , Phd?

I think this is "grammatically crap".

You can say that a child is socialized to accept violence. This means that the actions of people around the child him teach him to accept violence.

In the text the subject of the socialization (i.e. what is being socialized) is unclear.

I think this passage is poorly written in terms of grammar.

I think this is "grammatically crap".

You can say that a child is socialized to accept violence. This means that the actions of people around the child him teach him to accept violence.

In the text the subject of the socialization (i.e. what is being socialized) is unclear.

I think this passage is poorly written in terms of grammar.

I don't see anything grammatically untoward.

If so, in " is merely indicative of the socialisation of the violence used ( Cotter, 2006)", "the violence used" clearly refers to "the violence used by other people of the society (not the serial killer)"?

Consequently, I put forward the hypothesis that the intensity of the mental health disturbances of any individual resorting to extreme violence is merely indicative of the socialisation of the violence used ( Cotter, 2006). In this model, political crime, as represented by Hitler and other Nazi leaders, is associated with low intensity psychological problems (Browning, 1992 ). Suffering from mild symptoms, Nazi extremists were able to rationalise extreme violence and construct an ideology, disseminated amongst members of targeted groups.

On the other hand, in contact crime (where there is physical contact between aggressor and victim, e.g. serial killers), individuals are affected by psychological disorders so severe that they are incapable of building a complex Weltanschauung (a theory of the world) ( Jäckel, 1972) to vindicate their use of violence.


While I don't profess to completely understand this theory, presented as it is here, in a very limited sense, I have to say again, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with it grammatically.

Unless I have missed something.

Writing can be unclear for a number of reasons, but ungrammatical leaps out at native speakers. Sometimes there is something that is marginally ungrammatical. This too, leaps out.

I read it twice, for grammar, before I posted my opinion that it was fine in a grammatical sense. I really hadn't bothered to read it for meaning until now.

I'd say that this [socialization] makes a comparison between the mental states of people and this is dependent upon how widespread the 'socialization' is, ie. how many people are included in any action that is extremely violent.

Hitler's violence was widely 'socialized', spread out among many people. So according to this theory, "the intensity of the mental health disturbances" were relatively low for Hitler and other Nazis.

In a serial killer situation, the 'socialization' is not at all widespread. It is limited to one, or at most a few individuals. The theory [in my understanding] says that it then becomes much more difficult for "individuals [who] are affected by psychological disorders so severe that they are incapable of building a complex Weltanschauung (a theory of the world) ( Jäckel, 1972) to vindicate their use of violence".

Violence spread out among many is violence that is not so personally debilitating. The "responsibility", being shared by many, weighs much less per individual. With much of the burden gone in an individual sense, the violence can even come to be seen as a positive.

Consider just how easy it is for Americans to "build a complex Weltanschauung (a theory of the world) ( Jäckel, 1972) to vindicate their use of violence".

America is a shining beacon. // The US is the savior of the oppressed. // The US represents all that is good in the world. // ... .

Informative and inspiring, JTT.

Tha article has some good points as well, for example:

Conclusion: Early Prevention
Early warning signs, in the long process leading to atrocities, are a feature of collective as well as individual violence. If heeded, they could be used for preventative action before dysfunctional emotional patterns and resentment have had a chance to turn into authoritarian traits (Jaffé, 2008). Early prevention consists in swift intervention that will give humiliation-ridden individuals or groups the tools to develop resilience, and thus avoid negative alternatives ( Gilligan, 2001).

Its references are worth reading in some ways.

Violence is a interesting but difficult topic to discuss on one chat room thread.
Most cultures have engaged in violence throughout history, and the level of violence and extermination of other humans are complex issues of human psychology.

There were research done at Stanford and Yale Universities on torture. They had to stop the experiment, because "normal, above average intelligent students" were willing to cause pain to other students during the experiments.

Mao caused the death of millions of his own people. Slaughters in Darfur, Bosnia, Cambodia, and the Armenian genocide are but contemporary atrocities, and human history is full of them.

I think the real message is that under the correct time and circumstances, almost anyone can become a murder.

Religion is no shield.

These students were immediately grabbed up by the CIA and they went on to long, illustrious careers torturing poor innocents around the world. And retired with cushy pensions and/or jobs on police forces.