Page 4 of 14 [ 224 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 14  Next

DeepBlueLake
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 92
Location: North of England

23 Feb 2008, 2:19 am

Dare I suggest not giving psychopathy such a bad rap?

Remember that the psychopathic serial killer is such a rare event that psychologists believe they should be in a category by themselves. Most psychopaths never kill anyone. They just go through life getting into endless trouble because they can't think outside of the moment. Just as we often get into trouble because we can't think IN the moment.

I'd agree with Anbuend on a recent post she made saying that psychopathy is the opposite of autism. In fact, I'd say that the spectrum may be bigger than we imagine:

THEIR END

Psychopath

Drama queen/Player

Party animal

Extrovert

(Hypothetical utterly normal average human being)

Introvert

Bookish/Geeky

Asperger's

High-Functioning Autism

Low-Functioning Autism

OUR END


My pet theory is that Autism and Psychopathy are book-ends of a range of human brain-shapes and the personalities they create. Call me a romantic geek if you like, but I like to use the ancient Viking terms, Elf of Darkness and Elf of Light to describe the two extremes.

Autism and Psychopathy are medical terms that describe a sickness to be cured, and as we all know, that's not the whole truth.

A society will always need its warriors and its inventors. To that end, nature seems to have created mutant forms that encourage this. These mutants are not bound by the traditional limitations of normal people. Psychopaths have no fear of pain or death. The autistic have no fear of the unknown. Psychopaths have uncommonly good leadership skills. The autistic have an irresistible urge to bring order out of chaos.

In just about every civilisation since time began, these traits have been valued, respected and used. Only our current society, believing only in one form of human, the consumer, ignores this.



emoboxergeek
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 39
Location: Bradford (England)

23 Feb 2008, 7:01 am

I have only met one AS sociopath, if there are as psychopaths out there; I personally believe that it can't have anything to do with AS. I'm sure if you looked at the stats for dyslexia, dyspraxia or ADHD, you'd notice that they would have a handfull of serial killers; theres got to be. AS in my belief should not be used as an excuse in serial killings; they deserve no better treatment than their NT counterparts



anbuend
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2004
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,039

23 Feb 2008, 11:44 am

Pithlet wrote:
Um, you implied hypocracy in my personal quote, but if you look at all of my posts, I never once implied that I believe genius to be the product of Autism. Your sarcasm may have a point, but not to me. Don't assume I have a default belief just because it's common.


Additionally, even if you were a supposed "hypocrite", it wouldn't prove you wrong.

And I am putting hypocrite in quotes because the term is overused. Lots of people do things they know are wrong, and doing them doesn't make them any less aware that it's wrong or able to point out that it's wrong.

For instance, smokers often know they ought to quit smoking, and can safely say that smoking is bad for you and that you ought to quit or never start, even if they are still heavy smokers. In fact, they often know from experience just how bad it is, in a way that non-smokers won't necessarily appreciate unless they've been close to a smoker. So despite doing the very thing that they're saying people ought not to do, they're actually better positioned to know exactly why not to do it.

Additionally, lots of people change their minds at some point. It's possible to do something, realize that it's wrong, stop doing it, and start pointing out how wrong it is. And that's not being a hypocrite either, but a lot of people are very eager to act like it is, and point out that someone used to say something that they now don't believe.

Also, there is a chance that describing famous serial killers as autistic and describing famous geniuses as autistic are two separate processes done in two separate ways, or at least can be done in two separate ways. Which would mean that they are not always the same thing and can't always be compared so glibly.

What they have in common is diagnosing someone from a necessarily limited amount of data. The problematic aspects of that won't go away. Either nobody or next to nobody here is anywhere near close enough to any of these people to know whether they're autistic or not.

There's one way they could be happening that would be nearly identical: If someone seeking to make autistic people look bad were to randomly start describing serial killers as autistic because of stereotypes about "lacking empathy", that would be similar as someone seeking to make autistic people look good randomly starting to describe famous geniuses as autistic because of stereotypes about savant skills and genius or absent-minded professors. And I do have a strong suspicion that this thread was started with the intent of making autistic people look bad by associating, even just bringing up the question in people's minds, whether assorted sociopaths are autistic.

But there are other possibilities for each one, that would be different than that.

For instance, let's say someone was studying someone's life and happened to see a lot of what they saw as autistic traits in it, and then got interested in whether other famous people had autistic traits. That would be different from setting out to prove that various famous people are autistic just to make them look good or something, and thus comparing it to the other stuff discussed above would be apples and oranges sorts of stuff.

At any rate, it's very easy to point out someone's real or purported hypocrisy, rather than to explain why you disagree with them. It's a personal attack intended to distract people from the issues.


_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams


anbuend
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2004
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,039

23 Feb 2008, 11:58 am

DeepBlueLake wrote:
Remember that the psychopathic serial killer is such a rare event that psychologists believe they should be in a category by themselves. Most psychopaths never kill anyone. They just go through life getting into endless trouble because they can't think outside of the moment. Just as we often get into trouble because we can't think IN the moment.

I'd agree with Anbuend on a recent post she made saying that psychopathy is the opposite of autism. In fact, I'd say that the spectrum may be bigger than we imagine:


Well...

What I mean is that most sociopaths have average to good standard social skills and lack caring, whereas most autistic people lack ability to see and/or respond to certain social things in certain ways but do not lack caring once they understand the situation (and in fact, like me, are often described as having a strong sense of justice from an early age, something a sociopath would totally lack). And this has been studied, I have the study somewhere in a huge pile of papers on my desk.

However, I'm describing the average ones. The average sociopath is not autistic, and therefore doesn't have some particular social problems that autistic people usually have. The average autistic person is not a sociopath, and therefore does not lack caring about right and wrong. However, it's possible, statistically, for the two to exist at once, at which point you'd have a person with no conscience and poor standard social skills. (I say "standard" because autistic people sometimes have some pretty good non-standard social skills in some areas.)

Also, I'd very much disagree about the living in the moment thing. There are a lot of autistic people who can't live in anything but the moment, and are not sociopaths. There are a lot of sociopaths who can plan and scheme way out of the moment, and are not any less sociopaths for that trait. I think the ones who are more impulsive are the ones who get caught more easily, in fact, and this skews the study of them because the ones who are less impulsive have more ability for self-preservation and evading the law. (I have known a few of those, and they are truly frightening people, because they know exactly how far they can go without being caught, and go exactly that far and no further, but manage to leave destruction in their wake everywhere they go nonetheless.)

I don't think they get a bad rap morally -- having no ethics is a real problem for other people, since ethics exist for the preservation of other people's lives, and you can't really get around the fact that this is the very definition of the words "wrong" and "bad". However, I have read that there are jobs that sociopaths are good at doing, and maybe ought to be allowed to do, but they would have to be watched all the time to make sure they were not doing anything bad. Those jobs would be ones where most people break down from the stress of being around pain and suffering, but where the person also doesn't have the power to cause more pain and suffering. I've heard that the military has a whole protocol for hiring sociopaths because they are less susceptible to PTSD (since the worst military PTSD comes from the strain of killing, since killing goes against some basic instincts in most human beings, and sociopaths don't care about killing) -- but I sure hope the military keeps an eye on those sociopaths when they employ them. I'd think that if a sociopath was hired, someone would have to be supervising them constantly on the job to make sure they were not up to anything evil. But I have heard there are jobs they do better at. I just wouldn't want to work near one.

So... no, I don't think sociopaths are the opposite of autism, I just think generally on social skills vs. ethics, they're sort of our inverse, unless the two are combined (which does happen).

Also, it's not known, among autistic people, who is more autistic. An autism researcher once pointed out to me that we don't know what intrinsically in an autistic person makes them autistic. Therefore, we don't know what "a lot of autism" vs. "a little autism" looks like, since we can't measure "amount of autism" yet. It might be (and I think she said she'd seen some evidence for this somewhere) that those of us who have more trouble functioning in non-autistic society are less autistic than autistic people who function well in non-autistic society. For all we know, the trait that causes autism causes more problems adjusting when it's milder, and less problems adjusting when it's more extreme and the abilities that it causes help people adapt. Additionally, functioning levels as currently diagnosed are notoriously unreliable for predicting anything about someone's abilities.


_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

23 Feb 2008, 12:29 pm

Speculatively, I think that "codependence" (not a DSM diagnosis), as it is usually defined, is also a more-or-less opposite of autism. Perhaps it would be difficult for an autistic to be have either codependence or antisocial personality disorder.

The Codependency Test:

http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testi ... 9366070282

Personality Disorder Test:

http://similarminds.com/personality_disorder.html


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


anbuend
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2004
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,039

23 Feb 2008, 12:34 pm

I don't think the opposite of autism is a social thing, because autism is clearly a perceptual difference, not a social-specific difference. So the opposite of autism would be the opposite of that perceptual difference, whatever it was. Not the opposite of the rather tangential effects the perceptual difference has on interactions with non-autistic people.


_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams


MusicMaker1
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 9 Dec 2007
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 154

23 Feb 2008, 12:45 pm

anbuend wrote:
And I do have a strong suspicion that this thread was started with the intent of making autistic people look bad by associating, even just bringing up the question in people's minds, whether assorted sociopaths are autistic.


I wondered that myself... Who would go into an autism support forum and post such a thing, complete with scary pictures of the killers' faces, etc?? Who would purposely go out of their way and try to antagonize an autistic person? and making fun of those who responded to the post... and try to minimize Einstein, a hero of the autistic community..

It was mentioned before in this thread that one of the signs of a serial killer was not only to torture animals, but may also be to torture autistic people...

Whoever this person is, they have an intense fascination with serial killers and some type of need to humiliate autistics..

OR... Maybe this person really is an autistic themselves and just wanted us to be aware of such studies going on and get our feedback??... BUT why post all the pictures AND make fun of almost all of the responses to his thread?? He made fun of my post and several others here.. I suspect this person is not an autistic, but the type of bullying sort that probably would be more prone to being a serial killer than anyone else here... Ha! weird, huh?



Last edited by MusicMaker1 on 24 Feb 2008, 2:11 am, edited 3 times in total.

NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

23 Feb 2008, 1:24 pm

DeepBlueLake wrote:
A society will always need its warriors and its inventors. To that end, nature seems to have created mutant forms that encourage this. These mutants are not bound by the traditional limitations of normal people. Psychopaths have no fear of pain or death. The autistic have no fear of the unknown. Psychopaths have uncommonly good leadership skills. The autistic have an irresistible urge to bring order out of chaos.

Are you sure about this? In general, people with autism favor routines and obsessional interests because the unknown is too discomforting for them. Many psychopaths are described as having a superficial charm about them, but this is not the same as leadership ability or even charisma; their brand of charm is suited more for short-term fraud and exploitation than corralling the masses.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

23 Feb 2008, 1:57 pm

anbuend wrote:
I don't think the opposite of autism is a social thing, because autism is clearly a perceptual difference, not a social-specific difference. So the opposite of autism would be the opposite of that perceptual difference, whatever it was. Not the opposite of the rather tangential effects the perceptual difference has on interactions with non-autistic people.


However, both the autisms and codependence (often defined as control and enablement) have social implications or "symptoms."


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


gwenevyn
l'esprit de l'escalier
l'esprit de l'escalier

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,443

23 Feb 2008, 2:09 pm

frields wrote:
gwenevyn wrote:
I don't think that anybody here actually believes that nobody with AS commits crimes. Nor does anybody believe that all people with high IQs have autism.


I was addressing the posts (nearly all) in reply to my thread-start. Your statement doesn't cover people's replies to my thread-start. You seem to be speaking of what others may believe who haven't posted.


I don't see that any of the participants on this thread have stated the things that you implied were being said--much less all of the participants. It is possible that you have misinterpreted their words.

frields wrote:
gwenevyn wrote:
There is a lot of variety on the spectrum, so you're going to find that not everybody with this diagnosis is as unhappy about it as you seem to be. I do wonder what your aim is, frields, since you claim to have AS but the common thread throughout your posts is the disbelief that any happy, successful, high functioning person could really be an aspie.


Incorrect and strange. Any evidence to support yourself or do ya like to make these repeated speculations out of your own mind. Like the first menitoned above, now this, and lets see below. And in your posts in the Alex thread where I commented, you missed my points, sorry.


Oh, I didn't miss your points there. I also didn't miss the reply you made in that thread and then quickly deleted. It's clear that you have an agenda on this site, but so far you haven't presented any solid evidence to back up your position--and that's quite a heavy burden of proof on you, since that position of yours is contrary to that of the vast majority of today's experts in the field. So it's not that people aren't understanding your points. There's just little reason to reply to unfounded allegations.

If you're asking for evidence regarding my thoughts on your aims on this site, all anybody needs to do is search your post history. You began by implying that the site owner is a fake aspie, and you've continued to say that anybody who can hold a conversation must not be a real autistic, then went on to make a thread on the link between autism and killers (which by the way contradicts your last point, as sociopaths are generally good conversationalists). I'm curious what your motivation is.

frields wrote:
gwenevyn wrote:
There's nothing wrong with having a bright outlook and striving to be an Einstein rather than a Kaczynski, so I am not sure why you want to attack those who feel that way. Indeed, it seems much healthier to have genius role models than to focus on one's similarities with sociopathic killers.


Sorry you missed my point. Well my thread-start is actually 100% neutral. Then in my follow up posts I made my point. No attacks, sorry you think this, strange. I don't comment on what is BEST or what people SHOULD do. YOU only believe I'm doing so, out of your reaching mind, you stray quite far off, discipline to stay withine the topic right.


Here's what happened:

People provided counterpoints and evidence against the position you presented in your opening post (which was not at all neutral). Rather than responding to those points, you responded by mocking your fellow posters and you used all-caps in parts, which is the internet equivalent of a voice raised in anger. If all you're trying to say is that you don't think there's any link at all between genius qualities and autism, then give us some evidence. You haven't yet.

Regarding staying on the topic of the thread: the majority of this thread has been firmly on-topic, but please be aware that brief off-topic discussion is part of the norm here on WP and is acceptable.


_________________
The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature but plunges him more deeply into them. -Antoine de Saint Exupéry


That_Other_Guy
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 41

23 Feb 2008, 4:34 pm

Inventor wrote:
J. Arturo Silva, MD Shrink, studied Forensic Psychiatry and the law, makes his as an Expert Witness, and sees High Functioning Autism as a defense.

Facing death, life without parole? Caught cold and red handed? Call J. Arturo Silva, who did the famous write up of the Leopold and Loeb killers, 1920, showing they were just poor misunderstood Autistics, so High functioning you would not notice.

If you have the bucks, J. Arturo will get you a comfy life in a mental institution, where someday you might be cured, and released.



Asperger-Silva Syndrome, or ASS for short.



Ihdreniel
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 2 Aug 2006
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 103
Location: The House of Crazy

23 Feb 2008, 4:58 pm

DeepBlueLake wrote:
Dare I suggest not giving psychopathy such a bad rap?

Remember that the psychopathic serial killer is such a rare event that psychologists believe they should be in a category by themselves. Most psychopaths never kill anyone. They just go through life getting into endless trouble because they can't think outside of the moment. Just as we often get into trouble because we can't think IN the moment.

I definitely agree with this. Many sociopaths are extremely unhappy with their lifestyles, and their extreme difficulties in forming meaningful relationships (gee, that sounds familiar...)- because, obviously, not many people are going to want to my friends/romantically involved with a person to whom lying, cheating, and isolating themselves are second nature. Not to mention the fairly common theory that sociopath = killing.


_________________
"eeeep!" says the insane chibling.
And then. . .

It attacks.

(P.S. Ze opéra ghost wants ?is paycheck.)


emoboxergeek
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 39
Location: Bradford (England)

23 Feb 2008, 5:27 pm

gwenevyn wrote:
SilverProteus wrote:

On a more serious note: Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't sociopaths have an excellent TOM?


I'm no expert, although I did do quite a bit of reading about Antisocial Personality Disorder or sociopathy after an encounter with someone who appears to fit the symptoms. I don't recall coming across anything about Theory of Mind, specifically. These people can predict the behavior of others, as they study it in order to exploit vulnerabilities... but I'm not sure that means they honestly understand people. They're described as charismatic, but this charisma is not a natural desire to please and be sociable but rather a tool to aid them in getting what they want. It is the result of deliberately trying to manipulate others and seeing through experience what works or doesn't work. My understanding is that sociopaths don't understand others and so treat them as objects of their own gratification, whereas autistics don't understand others but they still desire to behave ethically toward others. Sociopaths are antisocial and destructive; autistics tend toward being asocial or socially clumsy.


What you say for the most part is true, i have met one AS person though who is good at playing mind games and I believe is a sociopath. She uses other people very easily through pathologically lieing; this is not a trait I would have ever expected of any AS person until I actually saw it myself. She's a really good bully. Although, in no way do I point this down to this being at all an AS trait, theres alot more to consider, the other people she hangs out with, upbringing, other conditions she might have (she's dyspraxic as well) etc.



ixochiyo_yohuallan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 500
Location: vilnius (lithuania)

23 Feb 2008, 5:29 pm

nominalist wrote:
Speculatively, I think that "codependence" (not a DSM diagnosis), as it is usually defined, is also a more-or-less opposite of autism. Perhaps it would be difficult for an autistic to be have either codependence or antisocial personality disorder.


Frankly, I don't see why a person on the spectrum couldn't have learned dependency issues. Young people with ASDs often have difficulty starting to live on their own (many continue to live at home and have no jobs to support themselves), and thus remain dependent on their parents in some significant ways. And, if the parent happened to be controlling and would not only take care of the autistic adult, but would also try and manipulate him (her) into something, the autistic person could be unable to stand up for himself (herself). This could be especially true for those people with ASDs who are very passive and have trouble initiating action on their own accord, and/or are extremely sensitive and would simply be unable to handle the emotional overload that comes with not complying.

Besides, for those ASD people who share extremely close, if not symbiotic, relationships with their mothers (or at least with one of their parents), it would be very difficult to emotionally separate themselves from their mother in case she were abusive and controlling. This could result in profound guilt at not being able to live up to her expectations and "upsetting" her, attempts to act so as to please her, etc. As far as I know, all this qualifies as dependency issues.

(Actually, I think Donna Williams has mentioned somewhere that learned dependency seems to be a common problem for people on the spectrum for these precise reasons)

Regarding the serial killer thing: it sounds pretty odd to me that whenever someone with a certain label does something atrocious, everyone else seems to jump to conclusions and projects this upon all the people who share the same label. Even if someone with an ASD diagnosis is or was a serial killer, it by no means implies that this is something common to all people on the spectrum. People on the spectrum can be moral or immoral; people outside it can also be moral or immoral; it's as simple as that.



Last edited by ixochiyo_yohuallan on 23 Feb 2008, 6:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

preludeman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2007
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 562
Location: Florida

23 Feb 2008, 6:12 pm

Sounds to me like another misconception. A small minority is looked upon as the majority

of the rest. Most AS PT are not "Killers." You have to look at each case. Dahmer had alcohol

problems, and his mother has admited to drink while pregnant. The unibomber had to be

placed in isolation whae a small child ,for he was very sick.The Boston Strangler I cannot

explain except that he was angry with women.


_________________
Do what you can when you can. I'm also the "alien"they are looking for.


Liverbird
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,119
Location: My heart belongs to Anfield

23 Feb 2008, 6:32 pm

kattoo13 wrote:
Inventor wrote:
Dahmer was very social, he really liked people.




he liked eating them, too lol


The correct response to this was: Boy, he liked them so much, he had them for dinner on more than one occasion.

Sorry, just my own little brand of serial killer humour. I find the topic of serial killers fascinating, it's been one of my special interests for years. You'd think that would keep my ex a little more at bay, wouldn't you.

I don't think that AS or ASD's in general lend themselves to socio/psychopathic behaviour.

Some of the issues involved in actually killing people would be too much for most people on the spectrum to deal with. I.E. touching them, socialising enough with them to gain trust to get them close enough to touch, blood, cleaning up the blood....see, what I'm getting at? There are way too many sensory issues involved here.

Although, I can understand, how given our tendencies to be anti-social, etc, would lend a point to people trying to show that serial killers might be on the spectrum.


_________________
"All those things that you taught me to fear
I've got them in my garden now
And you're not welcome here" ---Poe