The impression I get from your posts is that you're angry at the media for making too much of this story, and therefore you're going to deride anyone in the media who enters the conversation--whether psychiatrist or journalist or whatever--as profiteers.

It is natural for laypeople to want to understand something like this for various reasons ranging from self protection to plain old gawking. What seems to be the typical result of satisfying the public's thirst for a sensational murder is to stereotype.

It is fine by me for knowledgeable experts to study and learn about human behavior in all its wondrous varieties. To think that something like this could have been prevented through examining other cases like this seems doubtful to me. Human behavior is unpredictable whether done by someone considered aberrant or someone considered normal.

The idea of preempting unpredictable behavior in the name of the greater good would certainly cause more harm than good. Someone close to solving the world's energy problems could get swept up because they are acting weird or eccentric and when questioned act even weirder. Don't get me wrong, people that are having social or mental problems deserve to get the best help that they need. But intervening where help is neither  wanted nor needed can only be counter productive.

So back to the parents. I believe that they should be left alone if that is what they want. I cannot see how they can contribute to preventing the next mass murderer from killing. There are plenty of weird people out there whose parents would love to talk about their children. Just because they are not made famous by a gruesome killing shouldn't make them less desirable by those truly seeking knowledge.

if only the experts and the interested folks would begin asking the following - exactly how people respond to this human being over a lifetime?

that is where the potential for constructive learning truly will be found.

in many ways and situations, behavior IS predictable.  much learning could come if we knew more - but rather than about Seung per se, about how he was (mis)treated, (mis)understood, and shamed by the systems in which he participated (family, school, etc...).

based on deviant or poorly understood behavior, if someone - a child or adult - is othered, misinterpreted, and treated as the problem in a family system or community where their deviance is a symptom of family or community unhealth, then such angry behavior might be absolutely predictable.

so far, in hearing reports directly of how members of his family and communities responded to him on many occasions, I have found little compassion for him evident in the choices folks made at the time and much judgment in how people responded to him when they felt offended by him.

their responses to him would have made me angry were they directed at me.

clearly he, and of course our society, requires much more compassion - acknowledgment of the humanness in even those who offend us or those who carry angry.

so interesting that some singled him out b/c they were offended or concerned by his anger but by virtue of their fear could not give him complete compassion and kindness in return.

if only Seung had trusted someone enough to connect or let his guard down.  to share how hurt he felt.  that trust was likely precluded when anyone responded to him with shoulds, disappointment, or disapproval.

what must be learned here is as much as possible about how family, teachers, and community responded to this individual over a lifetime and then how to respond differently to others in the future.  for this Seung's parents would be a good source.

then we must learn a different response, as human behavior and emotion is usually predictable when an individual is othered or disrespected over a lifetime.

even naming Seung's quiet as a child as a problem he had, is to blatantly other, label, and ignore that usually a child's symptom in a family or community system is evidence of something that in that system or environment to which this is a response.

you bet that Seung as a child knew he was being named as a problem when he may have been responding adaptively or even most aptly to his circumstance.

we must start looking at ourselves and how we as fellow humans responded to Seung and how we can respond differently to those who seem other or whose behavior we do not understand so that they remain connected to others and find trust rather than disconnect and distrust.

if Seung found most people responded to him with distrust rather than compassion when he did communicate or speak (i.e. through writing or deviant action) - as most people were afraid of his anger that he communicated - then speaking was not helpful for him and acting out was the way he felt 'heard'.