Taking gunner to the next level? (Stanford poisoning)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
This doesn't sound like something a mentally competent person would do. The witch hunt isn't necessary; the person needs help and will hopefully get it
 
It was apparently a graduate student, not a medical student. Still that article is very weak for not releasing the name of the perpetrator.
 
If you need to compete with others in med school, you must truly suck, are that pathetic or can't do med school the normal way, lol.
 
If you need to compete with others in med school, you must truly suck, are that pathetic or can't do med school the normal way, lol.


Plenty of people compete in medical school, and beyond. They aren't pathetic, do not suck, and what is "normal", anyways?
 
Plenty of people compete in medical school, and beyond. They aren't pathetic, do not suck, and what is "normal", anyways?

Not really, at least I roll my eyes at them. They "compete" with themselves, but the people who are cuttthroat and think it's a big competition and the people who are extreme for no reason. It's just med school(which I know you don't overly compete against others, but saying as a general statement) As you know, there is NO WAY you have to compete with others, unless that person is paranoid. Thankfully, those people are rare in med school. Also, they suck because if they were smart or did well, they don't have to worry about competing, which is what the "gunners" always worried about. Just work hard and be normal. 😀
 
She was a graduate student from Singapore, originally from Mainland China. Her identity is published at other news outlets.
 
Not really, at least I roll my eyes at them. They "compete" with themselves, but the people who are cuttthroat and think it's a big competition and the people who are extreme for no reason. It's just med school(which I know you don't overly compete against others, but saying as a general statement) As you know, there is NO WAY you have to compete with others, unless that person is paranoid. Thankfully, those people are rare in med school. Also, they suck because if they were smart or did well, they don't have to worry about competing, which is what the "gunners" always worried about. Just work hard and be normal. 😀


Yes, extremes may be rare, such as the article above, but competition itself is nature. Plenty of students do secretly compete with one another, regardless of what we believe. Why do you think P/F is nice, as is not being graded relative to classmates? A big part is because we naturally compare ourselves to others. In our profession, suicide and depression are high, and are often contributed to individuals feeling incompetent/imposters relative to others. This is actually a major issue. Students may not take it to the extreme on the outside, but even amongst friends, scores in school are often the most common way for young individuals to define themselves, and therefore, lower scores relative to peers often have psychological side effects. As you get older and more into training, sure, you learn to let go. But keep in mind that many students are fresh out of college, where they just spent years avoiding being weeded out, or being beaten by the curve.

Of course, there are always external factors to take into consideration, but competition among students is not a "rare" thing. You may be collegial with your classmates, even the best of friends. But as I originally said, there are plenty of students with insecurities, imposter/inferiority syndromes and complexes, who are historically used to competing and defining themselves by their achievements. Regardless of how they come across on the outside.

Also, you cannot say that "they suck because if they were smart or did well, they don't have to worry about competing". In fact, very intelligent people are often the most likely to compete, because they are consistently aware of how much they do not know. They think up intricate problems and situations for which they don't know the answers, and freak out. They remember minute details and problems that others won't even think of, and they worry that everybody around them knows the answers, are they are the only ones left in the dark. They tend to be deep thinkers, who often understand, process, and apply information very well. They're just too neurotic.

Roll your eyes, call them paranoid, it's all the same. It doesn't change the fact that many humans compare themselves to others, worry about not achieving certain standards, have a deep-rooted fear of failure and inadequacy/insecurity, and often show no obvious external indicators. Not everybody that competes is a gunner. Competition is normal. I would disagree with you to say that there is no competition, or, that there's no way we have to compete with others. Sometimes we do; just not necessarily in the ways we expect people to, such as poisoning or screwing people over in other ways.
 
Yes, extremes may be rare, such as the article above, but competition itself is nature. Plenty of students do secretly compete with one another, regardless of what we believe. Why do you think P/F is nice, as is not being graded relative to classmates? A big part is because we naturally compare ourselves to others. In our profession, suicide and depression are high, and are often contributed to individuals feeling incompetent/imposters relative to others. This is actually a major issue. Students may not take it to the extreme on the outside, but even amongst friends, scores in school are often the most common way for young individuals to define themselves, and therefore, lower scores relative to peers often have psychological side effects. As you get older and more into training, sure, you learn to let go. But keep in mind that many students are fresh out of college, where they just spent years avoiding being weeded out, or being beaten by the curve.

Of course, there are always external factors to take into consideration, but competition among students is not a "rare" thing. You may be collegial with your classmates, even the best of friends. But as I originally said, there are plenty of students with insecurities, imposter/inferiority syndromes and complexes, who are historically used to competing and defining themselves by their achievements. Regardless of how they come across on the outside.

Also, you cannot say that "they suck because if they were smart or did well, they don't have to worry about competing". In fact, very intelligent people are often the most likely to compete, because they are consistently aware of how much they do not know. They think up intricate problems and situations for which they don't know the answers, and freak out. They remember minute details and problems that others won't even think of, and they worry that everybody around them knows the answers, are they are the only ones left in the dark. They tend to be deep thinkers, who often understand, process, and apply information very well. They're just too neurotic.

Roll your eyes, call them paranoid, it's all the same. It doesn't change the fact that many humans compare themselves to others, worry about not achieving certain standards, have a deep-rooted fear of failure and inadequacy/insecurity, and often show no obvious external indicators. Not everybody that competes is a gunner. Competition is normal. I would disagree with you to say that there is no competition, or, that there's no way we have to compete with others. Sometimes we do; just not necessarily in the ways we expect people to, such as poisoning or screwing people over in other ways.
So, an intelligent person is going to compete with others because of how much information they do not know? Sounds like a classic case of insecurity.
 
Wow. That's a cool forensic psych case.

There's no way to know from the evidence presented or without interviewing the patient at length over time, whether this is criminal or psychotic behavior.

But yeah...reaching out for help?!...that's a creepy statement.
 
Wow. That's a cool forensic psych case.

There's no way to know from the evidence presented or without interviewing the patient at length over time, whether this is criminal or psychotic behavior.

But yeah...reaching out for help?!...that's a creepy statement.

it's not creepy, it's just them playing to sympathy trying to get out of punishment...
 
So, an intelligent person is going to compete with others because of how much information they do not know? Sounds like a classic case of insecurity.


So, because you don't feel the same way they do, you're going to call people with insecurities "douches"?

People can be competitive without cutting you down or rubbing it your face. It can be a quiet, personal taking of theirs.

Also, please reread what I wrote. I never said intelligent people all do this. The previous poster said that people who compete are dumb, and I was making the point that he's not necessarily correct. Many people who are so insecure are actually very intelligent. It's sort of like when "dumb" people think they know everything. A smart individual understands is aware that they only know little of the information out there, and they constantly think about that, and it can lead to insecurities.

My point is that being competitive is not "rare", and it does not make somebody a douchebag. Are you going to refer to some of your psych patients as douchebags? According to my point, you might, because judgement is normal, but you should also be aware of those judgements and work to understand.
 
So, because you don't feel the same way they do, you're going to call people with insecurities "douches"?

People can be competitive without cutting you down or rubbing it your face. It can be a quiet, personal taking of theirs.

Also, please reread what I wrote. I never said intelligent people all do this. The previous poster said that people who compete are dumb, and I was making the point that he's not necessarily correct. Many people who are so insecure are actually very intelligent. It's sort of like when "dumb" people think they know everything. A smart individual understands is aware that they only know little of the information out there, and they constantly think about that, and it can lead to insecurities.

My point is that being competitive is not "rare", and it does not make somebody a douchebag. Are you going to refer to some of your psych patients as douchebags? According to my point, you might, because judgement is normal, but you should also be aware of those judgements and work to understand.

You probably wouldn't refer to a psych patient as douchey to his face, just like this graduate student didn't put PFA in a person's drink when that person was looking at the drink.
 
it's not creepy, it's just them playing to sympathy trying to get out of punishment...

Which is creepy because it's a sociopathic response. I said creepy because it's unethical to clinicalize things that are not the purvey of a clinical encounter. But maybe you think it's reasonable and logical.

Personally, I find somebody who poisons other people and then tries to feign psychiatric illness (pure speculation) creepy.
 
It's super creepy, a la Debora Green. The person labmates should also receive justice though.
 
You probably wouldn't refer to a psych patient as douchey to his face, just like this graduate student didn't put PFA in a person's drink when that person was looking at the drink.


That is correct. My point was in response to a previous poster saying that people who compete in medical school are dumb, pathetic, and that it's rare, and another person referring to a competitive person in medical school as a douche.

Of course, a person may be these things. I suppose we're arguing different ideas. But yes, I agree that any competition that actually has an effect on others (effect to sabotage them), is certainly wrong.
 
I compete with myself, not other people. You know, because I'm not a douche.
Medical school isn't close to law school in terms of competition/class rank but it's still on the same spectrum. Just much further down. I guess it just matters how you define competing. If someone would rather get a B and be 1 SD above the median than get an A and be at it, is that competing?
 
I compete with myself, not other people. You know, because I'm not a douche.

I compete with my study group all the time. We help each other study and push ourselves to know more than each other on our own. Then when we review with each other we pool our knowledge and quiz each other/teach each other. At the end of the day, I don't care if they score higher or lower than me, as long as we all pass and at least get close to the grades we wanted. We don't compete because we're insecure, we compete because there's a lot of info and factoids we study that I personally don't give s*** about and probably wouldn't learn as well unless I was trying to beat someone.

Plus it's tough to be intrinsically motivated at everything. If it's a subject I'm interested in, like musculoskeletal or cardiopulm, then it's easy. If it's something I don't care about and will never see in my medical career (like understanding how A11 cells are involved with rods in the visual pathway or just neuro in general) it's easier to learn if I can give myself some other kind of goal. In my case, I'm not explicitly competing to beat my classmates or friends, I'm competing to motivate myself to learn something I otherwise feel apathetic about. I really don't see anything douchey about that, especially if it makes all of us better physicians in the end.
 
I compete with my study group all the time. We help each other study and push ourselves to know more than each other on our own. Then when we review with each other we pool our knowledge and quiz each other/teach each other. At the end of the day, I don't care if they score higher or lower than me, as long as we all pass and at least get close to the grades we wanted. We don't compete because we're insecure, we compete because there's a lot of info and factoids we study that I personally don't give s*** about and probably wouldn't learn as well unless I was trying to beat someone.

Plus it's tough to be intrinsically motivated at everything. If it's a subject I'm interested in, like musculoskeletal or cardiopulm, then it's easy. If it's something I don't care about and will never see in my medical career (like understanding how A11 cells are involved with rods in the visual pathway or just neuro in general) it's easier to learn if I can give myself some other kind of goal. In my case, I'm not explicitly competing to beat my classmates or friends, I'm competing to motivate myself to learn something I otherwise feel apathetic about. I really don't see anything douchey about that, especially if it makes all of us better physicians in the end.
So I should be understanding of people who are actively comparing themselves to others so they can be competent physicians? If cooperativity was involved, I might be more willing, but at the end of the day I don't see this as the case. I might be crazy, but when I'm in groups and someone doesn't know the information I don't feel good about myself. I'd rather them know it just as well, because at the end of the day it's to take care of people.
 
That is correct. My point was in response to a previous poster saying that people who compete in medical school are dumb, pathetic, and that it's rare, and another person referring to a competitive person in medical school as a douche.

Of course, a person may be these things. I suppose we're arguing different ideas. But yes, I agree that any competition that actually has an effect on others (effect to sabotage them), is certainly wrong.
The competitive people in my class are by far the most obnoxious and they add a sense of stress that simply does not need to be there. You don't have people saying the things you are saying out loud. If it was a widely accepted modality, then we'd talk about it more openly, and not have people calling them "gunners" because they can't find a better word to call their behavior.
 
Last edited:
So I should be understanding of people who are actively comparing themselves to others so they can be competent physicians? If cooperativity was involved, I might be more willing, but at the end of the day I don't see this as the case.

Yes. There's a difference between being competitive and non-cooperative. Most people I know at my school are at least a little competitive, but that doesn't stop us from helping each other out and collaborating. If someone refuses to help their colleagues or wants to be a gunner and actively sabotage them, then I see no need to show them much understanding, if any. If someone is just being competitive and pushing him/herself (along with possibly you) to be a better physician, I see no reason to not be understanding.
 
Yes. There's a difference between being competitive and non-cooperative. Most people I know at my school are at least a little competitive, but that doesn't stop us from helping each other out and collaborating. If someone refuses to help their colleagues or wants to be a gunner and actively sabotage them, then I see no need to show them much understanding, if any. If someone is just being competitive and pushing him/herself (along with possibly you) to be a better physician, I see no reason to not be understanding.
Motivating yourself by being better than others and cooperativity are not mutually exclusive but they are certainly at odds with each other. If what is fueling you is the failure of others, than why would help someone succeed?
 
I like to compete with others sometimes, but I also know I'm being douchey while I'm doing it. I also like to help other people sometimes, and I know I am being an angel while I'm doing that. When other people help me, I try to be grateful.
 
gore-vidal-novelist-quote-its-not-enough-to-succeed-others-must.jpg
 
The competitive people in my class are by far the most obnoxious and they add a sense of stress that simply does not need to be there. You don't have people saying the things you are saying out loud. If it was a widely accepted modality, then we'd talk about it more openly, and not have people calling them "gunners" because they can't find a better word to call their behavior.

I never said they can't be obnoxious. I'm not even discussing how they carry themselves. I'm saying that competition is not uncommon in medical school.

And please clarify, "You don't have people saying the things you are saying out loud. If it was a widely accepted modality, then we'd talk about it more openly..". I just want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting what you're saying.
 
Motivating yourself by being better than others and cooperativity are not mutually exclusive but they are certainly at odds with each other. If what is fueling you is the failure of others, than why would help someone succeed?

Wanting to be top, however, can be mutually exclusive with wanting others to fail. Some people very much respect the achievements of others, and therefore, by doing even better, they feel better. You can wish the best for your classmates, but also feel like complete crap if you are not at least on par, or maybe even better than them. Even if you have different career goals. Yes, call it insecurity, whatever. The point is that you don't pull others down to do better; that is called gunning. You push yourself to be higher than them.

Also, the school you go to can have an influence on this. Some schools attract certain personality types, so that may be the cause of the discrepancy we are seeing between our view points. However, it important to understand that, regardless of what you see on the outside, being competitive is not uncommon on the inside.

You stated earlier that it's not widely accepted, because we don't openly discuss it. Perhaps we don't talk about it because many people feel insecure and/or they compete, and are afraid of being called "douches".
 
Last edited:
Wanting to be top, however, can be mutually exclusive with wanting others to fail. Some people very much respect the achievements of others, and therefore, by doing even better, they feel better. You can wish the best for your classmates, but also feel like complete crap if you are not at least on par, or maybe even better than them. Even if you have different career goals. Yes, call it insecurity, whatever. The point is that you don't pull others down to do better; that is called gunning. You push yourself to be higher than them.

Also, the school you go to can have an influence on this. Some schools attract certain personality types, so that may be the cause of the discrepancy we are seeing between our view points. However, it important to understand that, regardless of what you see on the outside, being competitive is not uncommon on the inside.

You stated earlier that it's not widely accepted, because we don't openly discuss it. Perhaps we don't talk about it because many people feel insecure and/or they compete, and are afraid of being called "douches".

People should not be afraid of being called a douche, they should be afraid of being a douche. However, in my experience, usually the two circumstances overlap. If people are calling you a douche, you are probably being a douche.
 
If you push yourself to the highest douchiness of anyone around, then you will have won the competition.
 
Motivating yourself by being better than others and cooperativity are not mutually exclusive but they are certainly at odds with each other. If what is fueling you is the failure of others, than why would help someone succeed?

The failure of others doesn't fuel me at all, in fact it's quite the opposite. However, doing better than others/being the best does. If the only way for me to succeed is for them to fail in their classes, then I'd redefine my vision of success. I'd like everyone in my class to get 99% on everything and me to get 100%. If 99% was failing, then I'd rather all of us just get 100s. If others need to fail their classes for someone to be better than them, I'd say they have good reason to be insecure about their grades.

That being said, failure in terms of residency placement is inevitable for some people. Some people won't match to their top choice, that's just the reality of being in a system with limited spots per field. If you say you'd rather have someone else get their top spot than you, then I'd say you're not care enough about that position to deserve it.
 
People should not be afraid of being called a douche, they should be afraid of being a douche. However, in my experience, usually the two circumstances overlap. If people are calling you a douche, you are probably being a douche.

Why shouldn't people be afraid of being called a douche? People are afraid of being socially ostracized, and that makes sense. Everyone is afraid of developing a bad reputation among others. It certainly has repercussions.

And have you never seriously heard of a group mentality? People that associate with one another will often tend to have similar views about a single person. In this case, it's people that are calling other competitive people douches. Yes, sometimes that person is a douche.


But is the single person being called out actually a douche, or is it the people that are so concerned with labeling others as douches, that are douches themselves?
 
Why shouldn't people be afraid of being called a douche? People are afraid of being socially ostracized, and that makes sense. Everyone is afraid of developing a bad reputation among others. It certainly has repercussions.

And have you never seriously heard of a group mentality? People that associate with one another will often tend to have similar views about a single person. In this case, it's people that are calling other competitive people douches. Is the single person being called out actually a douche, or is it the people that are so concerned with labeling others as douches, that are douches themselves?

"The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience." -Harper Lee
 
Usually when someone is less concerned with what other people are saying about them and more concerned with being the best version of themselves they can be, people think that person is cool
 
I've always been a competitive person by nature, but enjoy seeing others succeed as well.

I was always happy to try to help my classmates strive for #2 in the class.
The best way to get people to look up to you, is to be looking down on them.
 
Reaching out for help = not creepy. Poisoning people = creepy.

If you're not in the psych game and don't have experience with antisocial spectrum problems and disingenuous psychiatric complaints then I don't blame you for thinking that reaching out for help means the same thing in all cases.
 
Usually when someone is less concerned with what other people are saying about them and more concerned with being the best version of themselves they can be, people think that person is cool

They only find that person cool if that person acts in ways that make that person seem "cool". Having social anxiety is not something experienced only by those who are seen as "not cool". People can be extremely socially anxious, care what others say, have competitive tendencies, but genuinely be a wonderful person to be around. They can be caring, they can be compassionate, they can be understanding, but sometimes have personal feelings that can cloud them. Feelings, although they may influence actions, are not synonymous with our external actions. And this is because being insecure and competitive does not automatically make somebody a douche. It makes them feel awful about themselves. How they express those feelings is another thing entirely, just as many so-called "secure people" can be dinguses, because they only care about the bottom line.

People know better. People may know better than to bad-talk somebody just because they are jealous. People may know better than to be jerks to others, to cheat from others, to screw others over, just because they are insecure. People aren't always obviously insecure. Many are, but then again, we may only be projecting or misinterpreting them to be so. Being a douche is about how you act, because we are so much more than simply our thoughts. Have you ever had bad thoughts or made awful thoughts, yet never acted on them? You may have come across as wonderful on the outside, but if I were to judge you based on your thoughts, which may have come from insecurity and competitiveness, then that wouldn't be fair, since you know better than to act like a douche anyways. As you said, it's about being a douche. But my entire conversation was about competitiveness in medical school.

And as a followup to your quote of Harper Lee ( "The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience.") : Yet, you still talk about how people see them as cool. Shouldn't people just not worry about labeling others as douches, and bad-talking a person's tendencies if that person doesn't act in ways that effects others? And just because you believe they are a douche, does not mean you are correct. In the end, while people may know what's "right", even in group settings, it doesn't change the fact that they may act and propagate the fact that someone is a "douche". Why? because in the end, our actions matter. Consciences is only thoughts. I'm sure many Nazi's understood that what they were doing was "wrong".

Edit: Just reread your first post to me, where you said that "people should worry about being a douche". If you meant being as outward actions that effect others, rather than simply being competitive, then I apologize for misunderstanding what you said.
 
Last edited:
If you're not in the psych game and don't have experience with antisocial spectrum problems and disingenuous psychiatric complaints then I don't blame you for thinking that reaching out for help means the same thing in all cases.

I think there are a variety of ways of reaching out for help. I also believe that the graduate student mentioned in the article might have wanted to reach out for help but didn't know how or whom to talk to (an understanding person in the psych game like yourself would been a great choice) before committing the crime. However, instead of reaching out for help, the person hurt innocent individuals at random. This behavior cannot be tolerated.
 
A few details...if true..are that a person sabotaged another persons experiment. Then poisoned or attempted to poison a bunch of people. That's not a minor character flaw, that's highly suspicious for pervasive axis 2 pathology. Which if true are not the sort that reach out for help, so much as break the law and get caught. And then try something like pleading insanity. Again if true, and highly speculatively. But dick is not accurate enough. And reaching out for help is laughable. If what is implied with a few sketched data points is true.
 
A few details...if true..are that a person sabotaged another persons experiment. Then poisoned or attempted to poison a bunch of people. That's not a minor character flaw, that's highly suspicious for pervasive axis 2 pathology. Which if true are not the sort that reach out for help, so much as break the law and get caught. And then try something like pleading insanity. Again if true, and highly speculatively. But dick is not accurate enough. And reaching out for help is laughable. If what is implied with a few sketched data points is true.
What does psych do with patients like this? And any other that fall under axis 2 that are less than pleasant to be around? What if they actually do need help? And recognize they are manipulative and destructive?
 
I am NEVER competitive, ever. There is no instance in my life that I need to be, in the past, present and future, where I would have to do an ounce of competition. I can't come up with an example in my entire life where I had to compete, and can't come up with an example in the future. So, honestly, I can't relate to the people who are competitive, I can understand, but I will NEVER be in their shoes in my entire life. I think it's just the culture of undergrad, and certain people. I am the furthest from Type A you can be, so maybe that explains it.
 
Top