Do you think that virginia Tech killer Cho Seu was an Aspie?

Post Reply New Topic

This is incorrect. Psychopathy is very much a current term in forensic psychology (see Wikipedia - Psychopathy); the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL–R) and related psychological instruments are used to diagnose it. Psychopathy is not in the DSM-IV-TR or the ICD-10 diagnostic manuals; in these, antisocial/dissocial personality disorder comes closest to psychopathy. The term sociopathy is not used in any current diagnostic instrument or manual.

Some experts and theorists do, however, make a distinction between psychopathy and sociopathy. To David Lykken, a psychopath is someone born with a temperamental predisposition towards socially abrasive behavior (through fearlessness, impulsivity, and unemotionality). To Lykken, sociopaths learn antisocial behavior and attitudes from their environment. A psychopath doesn't feel guilt or remorse because they are physiologically almost incapable of such a feeling; a sociopath, however, was just never taught some things are wrong or was taught that doing bad things is good.

Another expert, Robert Hare, the creator of the PCL–R, defines psychopaths according to his checklist. To him, sociopaths don't necessarily have personality traits like guiltlessness or callousness but commit crimes with great regularity because they've joined a gang, the mob, or some other group that encourages antisocial behavior. To him, sociopaths can be loving towards, for example, family.

Other experts contend that psychopathy and sociopathy are exact synonyms. Meh.

Agree with you there.

Which one of you planeteers would seriously want to make yourself centre of attention like Cho?

Why is it anytime anyone makjes the news, someone asks do you think s/he is aspie

My dog is more aspie (see other topic for details).

of course im right, not that i want to be or anything, only god could be

Bombs take a lot more doing than buying guns.

But they kill a whole lot more people, assuming you plan it carefully. I'd have thought that they'd make more sense, whatever your reasoning - whether you wanted to make a point, or just kill a whole lot of people.

Sociopaths are usually characterized as charasmatic and easily play the game. Think Ted Bundy. He'd likely be Schizophrenic or Psychotic before that. It's hard to say. He was described as expressionless, but many Asians appear this way to Americans because they don't lay all of their emotions out there like American NTs do. So he didn't speak. For all we knew or they knew he had a speech impediment and didn't want to speak. Maybe he stuttered horribly. There could be many reasons for that. Maybe he had a heavy accent and kids were always saying What? I can't understand you. Too many things that could have been.

Now as to the writing, you can't go by that either. There are Aspie writers. I have two creative writing degrees and I do write dialogue and typically most of my writing takes place in the mind. I guess they would be what you would term Psychological dramas. They read one of this guy's plays on the radio this morning and the disk jockeys and the public didn't think it was all that twisted. I didn't either to be honest. I think his behavior concerned them in addition to what he wrote.

As to what people write, Steven King wrote macabre novels and so did Anne Rice. People love those books. Look at books like Silence of the Lambs. There are plenty of books that are disturbing which don't say much about whether the writer would go off and kill people. That's a ridiculous assumption on the part of the press or anyone really. There are too many instances to the contrary. I often kill off characters in bizarre ways, but I know they are characters. I don't think of them as real people. I don't associate them with any real people. If it fits the story, it happens and if not, it doesn't. It's that simple. I liked Poe, King and even some of Rice. I also like Shakespeare and he wrote some pretty horrific scenes. You can't get much worse than feeding a guy his own children. No one thinks old Will was a mass murderer. I also like Faulkner, but I didn't assume he had an incestuous relationship with his sister. The center does not hold on this one.

I think the press will do to this what they did to OJ and everything else. They'll beat it to death until the police can't even do a legitimate investigation. We'll probably never know the real truth. The kid was disturbed in some way. That's about all we know.

They want to do anything that it takes to blame it on the shooter instead of the people who changed the shooter into what he became.

Where in the US do you live? I would bet what you said is not in rural Virginia or any other traditional southern US states. Relatively few Asian males have successes in dating outside of their race in the US -- statistics proves it. Statistically, Korean males are the least likely among all Asian to be married to people outside of their race, whereas Korean women are among the most likely. Among dozens of Asian young male adults I know, every one of them is at least *interested* in dating girls from other races (In fact, I believe that's a universal male trait). Therefore I would argue that interacial dating is somewhat difficult for these young asian males living in certain parts of the US.

With that said, I think the case with Cho was so extreme that no generalization is very useful.

Last edited by eDad on 18 Apr 2007, 9:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.

guess what guys he was asian and an aspie.

Agreed.

I am guessing he is not aspie though -- the fact he had imaginary enemies suggests he's more likely to be a schizophrenia.

I can empathize with his anger though -- I know it's a terrible thing to say about a killer. But looking from his socially isolated point of view, he was repeatedly rejected by women, so much so that they humiliated him to have reported him to the police, kicked out of *his* class because *others* hated him -- can you see how the humiliation boiled over in his head?

actually i was just saing that. this is my point exactly people care to much about people they do not know

The thing about psychopaths and bullies is that they don't have a need to go on shooting sprees. They are already getting their kicks by screwing people around and bullying them. They can also arrange legal mass killings that are called pogroms and wars.

What do you THINK people are doing to their children? I was used as a receptacle for people's excess emotional negativity, and crude metaphors for this actually say it much better. Because they could they used me as an emotional toilet, loo, commode, latrine, whatever you want to call it.

There are people who are perpetrators who want to cling as long as possible to the idea that these shooters are something unique and without any kind of cause. They do not want the world to be forced to acknowledge just how common it is that bullies and abusers give a person a reason to die or to kill. When they say that there is "no justification" they mean that even when there is a justification, they are going to say that there isn't.

A strictly logical assessment by many persons who are in such situations is that they are placed under threats of death on a daily basis, often several times a day. The exact same threats that give them a motive to kill are also used to force them to do absolutely nothing about it. Even more twisted are other tricks, like using the idea of a future reward to lead this person along a primrose path. He is tricked into feeling that if he is just patient, he will be rewarded. Even worse again, he might be taught that this will just come to him as a reward and very important to this kind of game, it is not possible for him to gain this reward by merit or anything that he does except to satisfy an unknown set of criteria that his abuser promises to judge him by at some future date, and when he is "ready" he will have a life. Those criteria don't actually exist. They are simply tricks to be used to lead the victim along.

The abusers don't just prevent that person from shooting them, which would be redundant in most cases anyway because they choose people who are least likely to use violence to solve problems. The point is to keep their victim from breaking up or escaping the game that they play. To them their punching bags are their source of vitality. They can't lead their lives without someone to suck life force from and otherwise screw around and destroy.

omg

Part of the game that they are playing, one individual played against me. He had a trick for turning every encounter with him around so that the teacher could make believe that I was the one who was attacking him. Similarly, they are going to pick a class of individuals who have a "propensity for violence" and damn them with that label. In fact, the class of individuals that they pick are the least likely to use violence. This is exactly like the way that I was routinely victimized by violent people and then accused of being the violent one. The people who judged me were bullies who deliberately set me up.