28% of murderers thought to have suffered from ASD

Post Reply New Topic

FALSE
The "method" of the study consisted of searching for papers and news stories that included word pairs including "autis* AND "killer" and "Violent Crime" AND "aspergers" The study was quite explicitly about autism and head injury.





The authors admit that the data are shaky and don't really support anything more than the possibility of the conclusion and then proceed to talk about their "work" as if it had meaning. They should not have published this rubbish.

FALSE.
Emily Walsingham has done a rather good job of refuting this "fact:"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillin ... r-example/

If you define "possible ASD" vaguely enough, you can include 100% of serial killers, but what would be the point?

This is reckless, shoddy work that should not have been published by Elsevier.


This almost meaningless conclusion is what lead to the headline that started this thread.
It's reckless and it's bull. It makes the University of Glasgow look like a joke.

Last edited by Adamantium on 22 May 2014, 6:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I disagree. There are two main problems. One is that, even though the paper is about serial killers, it is also about ASD. The other problem is that it stinks of confirmation bias. The authors went out of their way to find links between ASD and serial killing, and then found it largely on the basis of some hack discovering that the serial killer was a bit of a loner, and therefore was autistic. This is as bad as those who blame ASD for social infraction, regardless of diagnosis. As a literature review it's pretty poor (like should not have passed peer review poor). It's also very damaging. I'd have less of an issue with it if it had been well conducted, even though we might then have a case to answer, but only a fraction of the references are to the peer-reviewed literature, and fewer actually have a bearing on supporting evidence of a link between ASD and serial killing - several say the opposite.

I didn't realize anyone was being outraged.

Weird.

Someone else already mentioned this and I agree with him/her (CyclopsSummer), you are right about the numbers. But considering no one is 100% autistic nor 100% neurotypical, how would they know which "side" of their personality pushed them to murder? Having some traits typical of Aspergers (or Autism in general) doesn't mean that they would have actually been diagnosed with autism (I assume the 1% refers to people who have been diagnosed?), nor that becoming a murderer had anything to do with the autistic "side" of their personality.





Of course not. Its pretty obvious that being labeled "potential murderer" is slightly more upsetting than being labeled "potential genius", and the reaction of people who would believe these labels would also be different depending whether they think you are a potential murderer or a potential genius.





It is very different. I am expressing my opinion about a murderer's possible conditions, I don't pretend that it is a proven fact, nor that I have actually diagnosed him. Expressing an opinion on a forum is not the same as presenting a so-called study to the world as if it was an actual fact. I do tend to believe anyone who coldly plan a mass murder (or serial murders separately like Ted Bundy did), and then coldly murder a bunch of innocent kids who have done nothing to him is possibly a psychopath and/or sociopath, which doesn't mean that he was, I am obviously not certain of this, nor can anyone actually diagnose a person they don't even know.

What bothers me about this so-called study, is that there is already many misconceptions about Aspergers and Autism in general, and this is the kind of things that adds to the misconceptions (the misconception carried on with this study would be something like "people who have ASD are more likely to become murderers"). Just try to mention "oh this person has neurotypical traits" (on a forum somewhere, anywhere), and then try "oh this person has Aspergers (or Autism) traits", see how people react to your comments. Recently I made the mistake of mentioning that I thought a certain person had a few traits typical of Aspergers (and I meant this in a good way, not as if it was something bad) and some people jumped on me for it, the majority of people who understood and were not upset were the ones who have kids who have Aspergers and they knew what I meant, and that it was not meant as something bad or negative. I also remember my friends and family's reactions, and often it is a negative reaction, as if it was something to be ashamed of. The problem is not people who are informed and/or are familiar with AS, it is the stigma caused by people who don't know much about Autism, and unfortunately there is many of them.

Obviously, but both at this moment are equally wrong. Unless of course later studies prove or disprove one of these claims.

It's just people don't mind inaccuracy if it's flattering.

The rest I agree with...

---

There are some common spectrum behaviors that may creep some people out. Like not looking people in the eye in "normal" range. Like obsessing (special interests), and meltdowns. Some people, especially these days, when people are watching out for pedophiles, and kidnapers, and terrorists, just can't manage people who don't move sorta like them. It's like an entire rhythm of body language... metaphors, and eyes, face muscles, and tone of voice... and if you don't dance the dance, well already you aren't going to be invited over for dinner any time soon.

I mind inaccuracy if it's flattering. It does no good to spread inaccuracies.

And this thread is full of people rationalizing why the stories about the study must be right, even though the study itself does not support the 28% statistic. A couple have gone so far as to suggest confirmation bias or outrage in response to the completely reasonable objections to the conclusions drawn from this study.

Based on the kinds of "diagnostic" practices described in the paper, I think that the entire population of my school has ASD, but I am not sure what percentage of them are murderers.

btbnnyr, exactly my thoughts.

Does anyone else think the diagnostic criteria for ASD is getting interpreted a little weak, I think that's really the question that would make or break these findings. Almost anyone can have traits of ASD, I imagine only about 1 or 2% would meet the DSM criteria. I find it interesting how the general populations rate of introversion as I recall is close to this study's rate of ASD in murderers, maybe there is a reason?

Right.

Distinguishing an ASD from random brain damage appears to be philosophical, since brain damage can result in ASD traits. So, no one should be surprised if people with malfunctioning brains get put in the ASD category.

My comment on confirmation bias related to the methodology used in the paper. The authors assumed that serial killers might have an ASD and then went actively looking for evidence to support that. This is just bad methodology. The evidence they came up with was just as strong (i.e. not) as that used by those why try to excuse (often misogynist) social misdeeds on the basis of suspected Asperger syndrome. Sometimes the person involved is a socially inept Aspie; sometimes it's a neurotypical a***hole trying to use AS as a cover, which is behaviour which does nobody any favours, least of all autistics.

The 28% figure is an extreme estimate, and may be considerably lower. Of those the authors have identified, they have one (Reilly) who has a firm, unconfounded (as far as we know) diagnosis of ASD, and another (Stayner) who was mildly autistic. The rest either had traits, to one degree or another (I suspect everyone has a few traits), or confounding factors such as paranoid schizophrenia (Napper), or at the very least reasonable doubts as to the diagnosis (Bryant).

The data do not support any conclusion beyond "more research into the factors involved is needed", which is practically a truism in all fields of psychology.

"A little weak?" No, I don't. I think it's unacceptably weak. It's the kind of level used to attempt to excuse social infraction based on suspected ASD, and often used as a cover by misogynist a***holes to explain social boundary violations, an activity which I regard as extremely damaging to the autistic community and used to place other vulnerable people (especially some women) in dangerous situations. I think it's scientifically bankrupt and socially irresponsible for a reputable journal to be publishing based on these criteria.

The study was dodgy even if the authors noted it was dodgy. The Daily Mail article was worse.

I am more worried about what or if any backlash against us actually occurs. The backlash against Autistics after Sandy Hook an event massively covered was much less then feared so I do not think this which will get at most minor coverage for a few days will be a problem. If there are there are several more horrific incidence by people described as Autistic then we got a big problem from the outside world.

The biggest problem with this report in my view is the morale inside the community. It has been constant barrage of bad news big and small and the daily ableism we face every day that is the problem. And of course the absolute inability to do anything about Autism Speaks. What we need is to "win" something.

Thank you for clarifying. And I apologize for my misunderstanding.

I was under the impression some of them would have had that diagnoses for the article to be speculating that 28% where on the spectrum, so yeah if they weren't even diagnosed makes it kind of an irrelevent study....even so I don't see any indication in the article that anyone is saying most murderers have autism or that most people with autism are likely to murder anyone, but people seem to be taking the article as though it does say that.

Well not sure that is the only definition of snapping....one could get to the point they've had too much crap and want to take revenge on everyone who's caused them pain. Not saying that is always what leads to shootings and what not, but I can certainly see how it could be a factor in some cases. I mean I would say when I decided to attempt suicide at age 15 I did sort of snap as I had enough...but it actually did take me a while to plan it and actually attempt. Losing impulse control would be something that happens right than and there.