The dark side of Aspergers: serial killers, sociopathy

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, his bombs improved drastically. By the time of his last bombs, they had become SO powerful that the investigators described the blast as being powerful enough to turn the victim into liquid. They had to remove his body in several body bags. The first ones were only strong enough to injure the arms of the victims with their blast.

They're Jekyll and Hydes. (sp?)

You never expect Hydes to have a Jekyll side to them.

Torturing animals to death in the back shed? The guy must be really messed up!

I've written on this at least once before:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp850205.html#850205

In summary, no.

Awesome post. I'm glad you linked to it.

I'll second that...

Serial killers often torture and then kill animals, delighting in the sadistic control and power over another living thing... In my opinion, what makes a serial killer is something that is more emotional, at a very deep level, as opposed to just a different neurological component... These people often were raised in very sick, disturbed environments and exposed to alot of cruelty and often repeated, violent, sexual abuse at a young age. (That doesn't mean that every individual that has experienced childhood sexual abuse will turn into a serial killer either -- I think it's a combination of a lot of factors). Lack of early intervention would be another reason -- they hold on to all that rage inside and secretly act it out first, by torturing and then killing animals and then, by turning the aggression against vulnerable people..

I just want to make this point too... I believe that a clear sign of someone that could become a serial killer is not only a person that tortures and then kills animals, but also someone who may actually torture an autistic person as well. Many bullies and violent-prone people will turn their aggression against an autistic person before other people, because they think it will be easier to get away with...

Experts have been finding that torturing animals is a frequent common denominator in many serial killer's pasts. Dahmer was one that tortured animals when he was younger and also had some type of need to be close to his victims and felt that by eating them, that he was somehow keeping that person within himself?? I remember reading something bazaar like that.... I think serial killers are formed by some type of severe, warped emotional pain that goes to a deep core-level of their psyche at a young age. Whatever the case, it is much different than your typical autistic or person that just happens to be on the autistic spectrum. imho

Last edited by MusicMaker1 on 23 Feb 2008, 1:22 am, edited 4 times in total.

I agree somewhat. I think that Aspies are more likely to stray from that because they have to be social, and avoid getting caught whilst killing.

If someone claims a relationship between being "empathy challenged" and being a mass or serial murderer, then, IMO, the burden of proof is on that individual. Hating and wishing ill of people is not a defined characteristic of the Asperger's category. Can an aspie hate and desire to inflict pain on others? Sure, but so can people who are not aspies. When writers make these kinds of claims, I always look for the empirical evidence. So far, I have not seen any evidence.

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.

So he picks high profile cases, and the message is, I could have helped them beat the rap.

Part of his deal is Autistics lack the ability to form intent, hence, not guilty by reason of deminished mental capasity.

He is from Southern Cal, and we do remember the Twinki Defense. If you are a murder with lots of money, and sitting in a cell, Silva will help you. He will give lessons in avoiding eye contact, and rocking.

So contrary to Autistics being profiled as criminals, criminals are using J. Arturo and AS when they have no defense. If he has his fee all killers will be AS.

So the money trail leads to his pocket. When the best lawyers can't beat the rap, see Silva.

So the whole story is an ad for someone out to beat the legal system, using Psychiatry and AS.

A Congressman in Arizona just got busted for stuffing his pockets, they got him cold, bet he comes down with AS and Silva. Stuffing his pockets is a stim.

The only thing he has to do with law enforcement is trying to defeat it.

A profile of Autistics shows they hardly ever leave home, ignore the world, avoid people, and unless you mess with their Legos, are no danger to anyone.

I did once let the parking meter expire, and drove away without putting in another coin, but I am not saying in what State.

The Dark side of Nuerotypicalism: Sociopaths and Serial Killers.

What people believe is not really important. It is whether their claims can be supported by peer-reviewed evidence.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.