Is it true some aspies are homicidal?
Hmmm... I don't know about that. A significantly greater percentage of aspies are continuously bullied than NTs, so I'd imagine that'd push the homicidal rate up higher.
Sources? ...And... Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech killer, was introverted. In fact, the introverted creepy killer type is such a well-known archetype, like with those Columbine killers.
Click on the link, scroll down to the quote and click on the links to the studies:
Autism and Murder
So, in each subgroup of PDD the authors looked at, the rate of criminal conviction was lower than controls. For the type of autism that Doherty and AoA are talking about less than 1% had a conviction compared to 18.9%. I think its clear that if this paper is accurate then we’re hardly going to be overrun with autistic killers.
Oh, and the "creepy introverted killer" stereotype? Is a stereotype with no basis in reality. Killers tend to be extroverts about 75% of the time, just like the general population.
_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com
Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com
Yeah, that is what I thought--glad you have some real knowledge from school to back it up with, as mine was just a, what I thought to be logical, guess.
Yeah, and I really hate that stereotype. The media just likes to sensationalize things, and they have done quite a lot to encourage the introverts-are-freaks mindset.
swbluto
Veteran
Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization
I wonder if that introverts-are-freaks mindset in the general media has anything to do with extroverts outnumbering introverts in the general population and, especially, in media companies?
Last edited by swbluto on 23 May 2011, 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There has been so much research and speculation into why people kill. They cannot pin it on a single mental instability. More frequently, it is childhood abuse or neglect implicated in causing homicidal impulses. Completely normal people with intact empathy also commit murder not attributable to temporary insanity.
Are you sure you didn't just want a sneaky way to bring up Hitler again?
swbluto
Veteran
Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization
What?! You thought my "Did Hitler have aspergers?" thread was just a sneaky way of bringing up Hitler? Pssssshhhh...(Are you sure you're aspie? I'm asking because you seem to read my intentions fairly well. I joke, I joke. That Hitler thread was inspired by someone else who claimed that hitler was aspergers, so I thought I would try to highlight the ludicrousness of the claim through a speech, facial expression and tonality analysis although apparently monotone aspergers males can be as fluidly dramatic and charismatic as Hitler with enough practice, according to the other posters. )
No, honestly, in this thread, I was only stretching for as much as evidence as I could find to support the implied claim behind the originating question. However, I do have to admit comparing Hitler to people with aspergers did add a little dramatic flair that I'm sure helped boost the response rate, though that was unintentional.
swbluto
Veteran
Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization
Yep, a given simple outcome can (usually) have multiple possible causes.
Usually it's because they're really angry, right?
I wonder if a person could seem be completely normal in everyday life, but kill without feeling anything. I wonder if such individuals might be considered insane? Although, if no one knew that they killed anybody, then they would just be sane to everyone else. I suppose that describes psychopaths.
Last edited by swbluto on 23 May 2011, 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sure they are. But that same statement could be true for anyone. Every single person on earth gets stressed out and feels a certain amount of emotional pressure in their lives. Most of them never snap. Some of them do. The people that do come from all groups. There is no reason to single out any particular group.
I have no problem with the statement "There is a finite probability any given person could snap and kill someone." And "any given person" could, obviously, include someone with an ASD. What is inaccurate and prejudiced is to suggest anyone with an ASD is more likely to snap and kill someone than a member of any other group. There is simply no evidence for that. Autism spectrum disorders neither make it impossible for us to kill, nor do they make us more likely to kill. That aspect of personality does not appear to have any obvious link with ASDs.
_________________
AQ Test = 44 Aspie Quiz = 169 Aspie 33 NT EQ / SQ-R = Extreme Systematising
===================
Not all those who wander are lost.
===================
In the country of the blind, the one eyed man - would be diagnosed with a psychological disorder
Yep, a given simple outcome can (usually) have multiple possible causes.
Usually it's because they're really angry, right?
I wonder if a person could seem be completely normal in everyday life, but kill without feeling anything. I wonder if such individuals might be considered insane? Although, if no one knew that they killed anybody, then they would just be sane to everyone else. I suppose that describes psychopaths.
Some killers just rationalize;
the gang leader down the street is ruining my neighborhood - BANG
Unclean prostitutes are satan's brides and need to be eliminated - STRANGLE
I'm sure each and every human emotion has been the catalyst for murder at some point. I don't put much faith in 'studies' or assumptions that each and every mental health dx is responsible for serial killers or murderers. Too many 'regular people' have sunk to that depth as well. People just seem to lose faith if they blame depravity on something they recognize in themselves.
"Nature" vs. "nurture" is in itself a wide generalization of human behavior, and it carries vast assumptions. Predominance, popularity, or duration of a behavior does not equal hard-wiring, because it is also symptomatic of how our thinking works - violence is a product of certain ways of thinking, cultivated along relatively arbitrary paths that human minds and culture need not take, nor consent to. We know humans are violent, yes, but the more important issue is not that violence is happening, or has happened historically, but what has produced it within/between cultures, and within the psyche. Only by looking at how violence unfolds out of human thought can we begin to sort out what is "nature" and what is not necessarily so.
As such, I have always considered the "it's human nature" argument not a bit of a obvious topical response, as it does not account for for the majority behavior, nor the root of human violence. It's not really an explanation, it's a lump designation. There is a violent tendency in humans yes, but this seems trivial compared to all the other factors. We don't know the parameters of how much "nature" and how much "nurture" is involved - we tend to go with whichever one suits our point, rather than understanding them each in their proper domains. "Nature" in itself is best described as proclivity, as it doesn't directly account for, nor explain the the behavior. There are plenty of mutable, relative, ideological, provincial memes that produce division and violence. Since this is the unintended result of cultural momentum, or cultivated cultures, it is not necessarily accurate to consider this violence natural, hard-wired, immutable - and there is a lot of it, too.
Regarding human violence - it's a matter of sorting out what we can change (provincial, mutable, relative) versus nature (hard-wired proclivities that suggest violence to us).
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Its a possibility......just like its a possibility that some NTs are homicidal. As far as Hitler goes speculation as to if he had some sort of mental condition can be entertaining but not really accurate in any way since he is dead and was not psychologically analized while living. Because of these stupid generalizations people try to make there are people who treat anyone who is different as a homicide/school shooting/or whatever other horrid violent thing someone could do waiting to happen
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Bingo.
I know I have only taken one psychology course in college so far, but I can still already see how competing over whether nature or nurture is more significant would slow down the progress of psychology....as its like both sides are trying to undermine each other when maybe they should be studying how both factors influence specific individuals.....rather then trying to figure out what is more at fault.
I wonder if that introverts-are-freaks mindset in the general media has anything to do with extroverts outnumbering introverts in the general population and, especially, in media companies?
But because people who are very extroverted do not know what he is thinking, it frightens them more when an introvert turns out to be homicidal than when an extrovert turns out to be homicidal. After all, if an extrovert kills someone, it is far more likely to be something that people could see coming--he'll display his anger, hostility, and general disdain for life rather openly, and people won't be surprised if they find he's knifed someone in a bar fight. Whereas, if the introvert kills someone, only that close circle of friends that he opens up to will have known something was wrong, and that makes it seem a lot more threatening, especially to the extreme extroverts that make up much of the journalism field.
Introversion/extroversion does not correlate with murder (though extroversion does correlate mildly with simple assault--again, these people spend more time with other people, and so would be more likely to have a person within reach to punch when they are angry, while an introvert would put a hole in a wall--I doubt this has anything to do with intrinsic morality; more to do with the fact that the extrovert spends more time with people and tends to express his emotions more freely, making him more likely to haul off and slug someone, but not more likely to kill them. What I read didn't look into this angle, but I am pretty sure that you would also find that introverts are more prone to crime which does not involve other people, such as arson, theft, etc., because they spend more time alone--it's all about the opportunity, really).
_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com
Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
What Is The True Color Of Jupiter's Great Blue Spot? |
10 Mar 2024, 5:07 pm |
Finding other Aspies at college? |
11 Mar 2024, 2:30 pm |
Accommodations for Aspies in Court Litigation |
11 Apr 2024, 3:32 pm |