The Impacts of Surroundings on Our Mental Wellbeing
What shapes us into the people we become? Childhood and early adolescence are the most formative periods of our lives– and they are responsible for forming the people that we become. They primarily boil down to two things: the people that raise us, the people we choose to surround ourselves with. Our parents form our earliest beliefs, and as we enter adolescence, our peers will shape who we grow up to be. School shooters, for example, often have their surroundings questioned in the aftermath of their crimes. Their family lives and the people they were surrounded by are called into question, and results often indicate that their surroundings contributed in at least one way. However, the argument is made that regardless of how they grew up has no impact, and they were always going to turn out the way that they did. In contrast, the suggestion is made that mental illnesses are the root, not their surroundings.
In research conducted by the Lee Salk Center, they indicate that there are three main types of school shooters: traumatized, psychotic, and psychopathic. Out of the three categories, only one of them indicated any impact from their surrounding environment; traumatized. The other two are based solely on the shooter themself, and the psychological abnormalities that they presented. For example, the psychotic shooters “exhibited symptoms of either schizophrenia or schizotypal personality disorder, including paranoid delusions, delusions of grandeur, and auditory hallucinations,” and the psychopathic shooters “demonstrated narcissism, a lack of empathy, a lack of conscience, and sadistic behavior.” In the literature presented by the Lee Salk Center, the research identified only three out of the ten shooters that were studied as having come from troubled home environments; the majority were either psychotic or psychopathic. Therefore, based on this research, home life has little impact on how an individual is shaped.
While there is substance to the provided categories, I believe they fail to consider social inadequacy and loneliness as factors for school shooters to act on violent crimes. Two out of the three categories revolve around neurodivergence, and the idea that their mental illnesses caused them to act out. The idea that the majority of school shooters were dealing with mental illnesses is not outlandish to consider; most mentally stable individuals would not commit such a heinous crime against their peers. However, most mentally ill people do not commit school shootings, either; but the ones that do, often lacked friends and peers, and felt lonely.
For example, of the ten school shooters that were observed for the study, one of them was seventeen year old Dylan Klebold. Of the three categories, he was identified as being psychotic, and having exhibited odd behaviors. In published pages of Klebold’s personal journal from prior to his shooting, “He wrote about his social difficulties: ‘nobody accepting me even though I want to be accepted, me doing badly and being intimidated in any and all sports, me looking weird and acting shy—BIG problem’.” The research presented does not indicate potential loneliness or lack of social integration to be a cause for the school shooting, but rather, himself. Despite him clearly displaying signs of lacking traditional socialization, and yearning for acceptance from his peers, his mental illness is cited as the primary reason for his actions.
In contrast, in a Case Study of Ethan Crumbley’s shooting published by the Journal of Education, Health, and Social Sciences, the primary factors that caused him to commit his shooting are his home life and socialization. The research revealed that Crumbley had a tragic home life, which had likely shaped his personality. In the weeks immediately preceding the shooting, “Ethan’s best friend moved away and his family dog died, which caused him to become depressed.” It is no mere coincidence that the simultaneous occurrence of these events had no impact on Ethan’s decision and actions. He lost his closest friend, which lessened his social interactions, and led to depression. This factor, coupled with his rough home life, influenced his mood, feelings, and, inevitably, actions. Typically, one’s socialization with their peers will also impact how one grows up– but inadequate socialization can cause mental disturbances on a person’s psyche. In losing his best friend, Crumbley had lost his primary social outlet. Though he had already shown signs of mental instability and potential violence, those actions were only acted on following the loss of his peer. Evidently, his loneliness was the catalyst for his violent actions.
It is unreasonable to make a one to one comparison of school shooters, as no two people are exactly alike, and will have their own unique reasons for committing the crimes that they did. However, it is also unreasonable to cite mental illnesses as the major reason. There is an abundant social ostracization that follows mental illnesses and neurodivergence. Michael Cerneal, for example, “was socially awkward and struggled to find a peer group. He engaged in odd behavior, perhaps in an effort to be funny or to impress his peers, or perhaps because of an early onset of schizophrenia.” The odd behaviors he exhibited are potentially attributed to his schizophrenia, and are also a reason that he struggled to find a peer group. As teenagers, we often, even intentionally, exclude people that do not fit with the preconceived idea of normal. Neurodivergent teens will often have a harder time finding a social group, because of judgment from teenage peers. As a result, they are lonelier than their neurotypical counterparts.
References
Langman, P. (2008). Rampage school shooters: A typology. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.10.003
Contributors to Antisocial Behavior in Adolescence from the Perspective of Developmental Psychology: A Case Study on a School Mass Shooting Leng & Song
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
I’m glad to see that if you’re going to use a banned Rhetorical Question, you had the excellent taste to answer it immediately. Never give your readers a chance to answer for themselves.
You answer the question twice, though, which is confusing. You say it’s TWO PERIODS of time: childhood and adolescence. Then you say it’s TWO GROUPS of people.
It’s been so long since you asked your question (and twice answered it) that, when you raise the question again, we don’t remember that you’re still working on it. School shooters as an EXAMPLE OF WHAT? I asked myself.
Then you settle on one of your two answers. It’s the people, not the period of time, that shaped them, says SOMEONE.
Then you retract that claim. Not YOUR claim, but someone’s. And suggest another.
And then suggest another.
And still we don’t know what is YOUR position.
Apparently, those suggestions about early life and close relationships were just teases meant to lay out some possibilities to neglect as actual explanations.
Shooters are NOT MADE by their environment. They simply ARE shooters.
—There is no such word as themself. Here you solve the singular/plural disagreement with plurals: the shooters themselves.
As for the argument, it seems impossible to avoid the objection that psychotics and schizophrenics were FORMED by their early lives. Perhaps also their genetics or a congenital defect. But the claim that their psychological abnormalities simply ARE rather than DEVELOPED is hard to sustain.
I like the impulse to shape the quote as needed. But, did the Salk Center mean that psychopaths were never traumatized? or that schizophrenia is innate and not acquired? This reader still needs convincing.
Ummmm. Maybe you’re citing (without quoting) something ELSE they said? If this is another paraphrase of the language you’ve already quoted, it’s hard to defend your characterization that they apparently DENIED early experience as a contributor to later-life psychosis or violence.
I keep having the problem of not knowing where you put yourself in these paragraphs, LOCAM. Let me highlight places where we learn what OTHERS believe.
Beliefs and interpretations of evidence are attributed to others throughout without judgment. Rebuttal arguments thrive on demonstrating the DIFFERENCES between positions of YOURS and THOSE who disagree with you.
Maybe it’s just the one really jarring sentence that makes this paragraph so hard to fathom. I’ve made it bold.
Are you trying to distinguish between FOUNDATIONAL personality disorders and RECENT TRAUMATIC EVENTS? Because the rest of the paragraph seems to indicate his responsiveness to his environment was VERY motivational.
—the primary factors that caused him to commit his shooting are his home life and socialization
—Crumbley had a tragic home life, which had likely shaped his personality
—Ethan’s best friend moved away and his family dog died, which caused him to become depressed.
Got it. But then:
It is no mere coincidence that the simultaneous occurrence of these events had no impact on Ethan’s decision and actions.
What?
—He lost his closest friend, which lessened his social interactions, and led to depression
—This factor, coupled with his rough home life, influenced his mood, feelings, and, inevitably, actions
—inadequate socialization can cause mental disturbances
—Crumbley lost his primary social outlet
—Evidently, his loneliness was the catalyst for his violent actions.
That’s what I thought you were saying, but what’s up with that bold sentence in the middle?
I have to move on to other students now, LOCAM. I think I’ve done enough mischief here. I hope it isn’t all aggravation and that the questions I have will help you understand how readers are reacting to your work.
Be clear in your claims (which means being clear in your sentences).
Graded. Always re-gradable.