NO link between ASD's and Planned Violence, and Why.

Post Reply New Topic

Link to full post:http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5115463.html#5115463

In summary the research as it exists suggests that Autism, Schizophrenia, and/or Psychosis as diagnoses, are not guarantees of severe difficulties with aggression, violence, planned violence, violent crimes or rampage killings for those diagnosed as such.

But, to date, aggression is a solid associated feature in the DSMIV-TR for Autistic Disorder, and psychosis is a solid associated feature specific to some young adults with Asperger's in the ICD10.

There are some people that do not acknowledge either of the last two issues, nor the other clearly defined difficulties associated with empathy in the fuller DSMIV-TR diagnostic features text for some individuals diagnosed with Autistic Disorder and Asperger's syndrome.

An assumption that the difficulties assessed that do exist, don't exist, can potentially be as harmful to some individuals on the spectrum as an assumption that there is a difficulty that is not assessed, like an assumption that most autistics and/or schizophrenics are more likely to commit a planned act of violence and/or rampage killing, than the general population.

Hope the shorter paragraphs helped.. Even if there were 18 of them.

• There are studies showing a clear link between people diagnosed with ASD's and elevated instances of aggressive behaviors.
• Diagnosis of Autism does not guarantee one would have severe issues with aggression or related crimes arising from agression.
• DSM IV TR and ICD10 both indicate aggression as an associated feature of ASD's.
• Some people do not acknowledge the existence of aggression as associated with autism per DSM and ICD.
• Assuming aggression does not exist as a problem presents dangers to both people with ASD's and their caregivers.
• Assuming that because aggression does exist as a problem, and extrapolating from that alone that autistics are more likely to commit violent crimes such as murder is equally dangerous.

I just noticed the thread title says planned violence. Was that always there or was it edited? I noticed it says at the bottom of the OP it has been edited two times.

Hello

I've recently been researching this for an article I am writing called Perceptual Warfare, which I am posting in installments at my blog. I haven't been following this thread and only just found it today, so apologies if I end up repeating any points already raised.

The first thing I want to question is how the stereotype of the "school shooter," even before it was linked to Asperger's, already had some characteristics in common with your "average" Aspie.

The characteristics of the stereotypical “school shooter,” besides being male, white, and teenage, include alienation, introversion, lack of verbal expression, hostility to parents and to general social values, underachievement (“slacker”), weird, often “Gothic” style clothing, high intelligence, and possibly sexual ambivalence, ambiguity, or dysfunction. These guys aren’t “jocks,” A-students, or party-goers.

The above characteristics overlap with those of autists, Aspergerians, geeks, high school drop-outs, artistic-types, and generally sensitive (“psychic”) individuals: in others words, probably the lowest demographic for homicidal behaviors. This raises the question of where such a stereotype comes from, if not from actual statistics.

Neither news reports nor movies faithfully represent the facts but instead keep to the accepted stereotypical narrative, deliberately or unwittingly omitting details that could open up the “meme” to reevaluation: such as, for example, how much proscribed medication might have to do with a teenager going ballistic.

The majority of intelligent people in today’s society, based on my experience at least, are not questioning this stereotypical narrative, particularly when the “psychology” is superficially well-presented, as in a film like We Need to Talk About Kevin. Instead, they tend to lay blame at the door of “mental illness” - or lately autism, which the average person still regards as a mental illness - combined with childhood bullying and/or parental neglect (and does “mental illness” explain anything?). What few people are talking about is faulty press coverage, fact distortion, irresponsible journalism, perception management, “psy-ops,” social-engineering, and mind control, subjects which at the very least ought to be allowed on the table when it comes to discussing such a “hot” topic.

(full post: A Brief (US) History of Violence)

The idea of a connection between autism and random acts of violence and mayhem is one that has been growing over the past several years. But has it been growing because there is any actual truth to it, or because it has been made to grow through mis- and disinformation? Although I personally believe there is a deliberate effort to create this association in people’s minds, I won’t attempt to argue the point because, either way, the end result is the same.

In each of the cases of irresponsible journalism/deliberate disinformation linking autism to planned violence,“autism advocates” have spoken up in one form or another. But how much is it helping? Hearing such refutations may only be reinforcing the very idea that they are meant to banish. If ill-informed, frightened and angry people are already feeling distrust towards autistic people, they may be disinclined to take the word of other autists. And since many parents of autistic children, or of autistic adults, already feel exasperated, confounded, even hostile towards their children, they may choose to join the misinformation campaign as a way to get their children more “support,” i.e., intervention (or to have them committed).

So is the plethora of misinformation over the last five years (from Seung-Hui Cho to Lanza) a simple case of lazy “yellow” journalism? Is it the result of runaway “concern” for autism “sufferers” (or more precisely, their long-suffering kin)? Or is something more questionable, even sinister, afoot? Certainly the pattern revealed by the various reports — and the steady progression over the past five years towards a conclusive narrative—would suggest an agenda. In terms of how effective that agenda is proving to be, I don’t think it matters a great deal if much or all of the reportage linking autism to random violence turns out to be unfounded; the important thing is that it gets out there. Because once it does, the damage is done. It’s a whole lot harder to undo an association in people’s minds than it is to create one.

In a short book called Lying, Sam Harris mentions “a psychological trap which many people often inadvertently fall into. Most of us tend to remember the statements we first hear on any given topic, even if those statements are subsequently shown to be untrue. A really astonishing aspect of this predisposition is that a majority of people will remember ‘facts’ as true, even when they first hear about them in the context of their debunking.” (Source article) In the case of random shooters, it’s clear that public perception has very little to do with actual facts—much less direct experience—and that it is being shaped by presumption, speculation, and misinformation. As some of the above examples show, conclusions are now being jumped to so rapidly that the facts, as such, no longer even matter. Like Joe Scarborough, people are content to make up their minds before the facts even arrive. That way they can stick to their own “stories.”

(full article: A Brief History of Misinformation)

I'm surprised that no media outlet has latched onto the amount of disorders that cause isolation amongst rampage killers (AS and Schizophrenia being common as of late). They talk about the social isolation and odd social behavior (with a passing note on a disorder if it's mentioned), but they don't seem to connect the various disorders with the big named individuals.

The pattern is there.

(I don't know what it means. I just have noted it.)