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

Post Reply New Topic

Please keep a couple of things in mind. First, I believe I made it quite clear in my previous post that I do not think all of the apparent misunderstanding regarding these things is actually misunderstanding. In a number of cases I believe that the type of muddled rhetoric I described is not the result of inferior intelligence, understanding, etc. but of attempts made by individuals who are just as intelligent and informed as myself to advance a contrary agenda, even though they probably realize on some level that the ideas I've put forth here have more than a little truth to them.

Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think I have greater emotional intelligence than the vast majority of users on this site. I have the emotional intelligence of a six year old and have never claimed otherwise.

Also, as far as the "emancipator" stuff goes, it's unfortunately rather appropriate at this point as I am, as far as I can tell (and I'd be happy to be shown otherwise) the only member of this forum who's taken it upon themselves to put forth a detailed defense of the idea that this shooting really did have everything to do with the shooter's autism (which includes a similarly detailed explanation of why the rationalizations offered up by the majority on this are ill-conceived and at times even meaningless).

Finally, you may want to reconsider this "paint Poke as an arrogant pile of hubris" angle you're taking here as you may well end up hoisted by your own petard.



The difficulties that are involved in studying and publishing papers on autism (namely, that without a full understanding of the author's ideas about severity cutoffs, etc. we are unable to know exactly who the research is supposed to apply to) are, quite frankly, not my problem.



Not necessarily. Once again, I do not think that "70 and under" thinking is always representative of a motive, agenda, etc. I'm sure that, in many cases, even among "professionals", this type of thinking is a relatively innocent misunderstanding. Have you known (personally) many psychiatrists, clinicians, etc.? Suffice it to say, you don't have to be a deeply enlightened genius to earn a Ph.D.



No. Once again, you are ignoring the "agenda pushing" side of the coin I've described. I think that the spectral nature of autism, etc. is more than obvious and I think that most intelligent people (including those that inhabit this forum) probably have at least a decent grasp of the ramifications. I sincerely doubt that I've expressed any thoughts in this thread that haven't already occurred to a number of other Wrong Planet members.



Person A has clearly given this topic a lot of reflection and has taken great care to show how the ideas they've presented reflect a coherent and plausible (if unpopular) point of view. Person B has done little more than defer to authority, consensus, etc. even though person A has already described how doing so is, in this particular situation, an inadequate means of getting to the truth of the matter.

Now, which of those people best deserves to be charged with presenting "preconceived ideas"?



Well, this is easily remedied, as, once again, I find it utterly ludicrous to think that the conclusions I've drawn haven't already been drawn by a number of other people on this forum. I apologize if I didn't make this clear in my previous post. The good news here is that what you found so offensive about my post(s) is largely a misunderstanding. Admittedly, the first couple of posts I made on this subject were not especially tactful. I apologize. I was frustrated. Such is the life of the unlucky few who prefer unpleasant truth to comforting lies.



I merely meant that I am a person whose behavior can (rightfully) be interpreted in terms of both autism AND personality disorder/other "bad" labels. Unless all of the observations that have been made regarding this kid and his life are completely made up (flirting with "massive coincidence" territory again here), I don't see how I shouldn't be able to draw the same conclusion about the shooter. Whenever someone comes forth with information that contradicts that conclusion, I'll be listening.

In closing, I'd like to point out the fact that, in this post, you did little more than reject my ideas on the grounds that you didn't like the way I arrived at (and expressed) them. Not once did you actually address the issues I raised. In fact, you barely acknowledged them. I think that speaks volumes. The proverbial lady (or fella) doth protest too much, methinks.

If you would like to continue this exchange, might I suggest doing so by reviewing my prior post and actually...you know...responding to it? Forget deferring to consensus, rejecting it on some vaguely ad hominem technicality, etc. and think for yourself. Explain, in your own words, how this is really just a gigantic, interconnected set of coincidences.

Interesting two paragraphs. I have done some research into conspiracy lore and myths old and new; my view of myths is that they are not only less than true but also more than true, since they pertain to psychic reality which is deeper and older and more far-reaching in its effects than physical reality. Whether there are actual, nuts-and-bolts conspiracies going on, my view is that it's largely irrelevant because either way, the results are the same.

The idea of a public psyche to me implies a kind of conspiracy, like the conspiracy a dreamer finds him or herself caught up in every night when s/he dreams. It's the conspiracy of our own unconscious to wake us up to its existence. No one is in charge, because the ego can't control or direct the unconscious but only suppress and deny it. But isn't the same true of us as individuals? Are any of us in charge of our actions? Or do we only think we are?

Shooters, whether spontaneously arising or contrived by covert ops, or both, are expressions of the group mind (public psyche) and so they might be seen as symptoms of the contagion you mention. That would make them both warning signs (harbingers) and carriers of the "virus." If so, like all symptoms, they can be seen as a social sickness or as a sick society's attempt at curing itself.

Either way, the only "solution" is observation and awareness of the forces which brought them to the surface (ie, the social body).

I think overall, people in developed countries are more dependent on an exoskeleton of culture than ever before. Fire-arms are an exoskeleton of sorts as they can extend the power of one's arms for predation, protection, or self annihilation.

The whole of modern culture provides an incredible exoskeleton and accompanying illusion of greater control than ever before for those that are successful in adapting to it. The illusion of control, order, and being in charge of one's life is relative to the individual and their circumstances, I think. But, there is always the potential it can be taken away for almost anyone with a natural disaster or other man-made disaster.

I think the bar graph linked below for serial killing, and most others graphs of declining crime, might provide a clue, that the thrill of predation and crime for financial or intrinsic reward, has been replaced with something else in the exoskeleton of culture, whether it is stricter enforcement of law and sky rocketing incarceration rates or the alternate new variety of deviant excitement that can be found for cheap in a new virtual reality.

I think in general there are more non-substance opiates for the masses than ever before, and the increased demographic of these new young adult rampage killers, are one demographic of crime and individual that appear to be more negatively impacted by the new exoskeleton of culture.

From an objective point of view the semi-automatic legally purchased weapons are definitely impacting the kill count, as well as the notoriety of the events per the gun control controversies, increasingly as time goes by.

That's not a good mix, and there seems to be no answer to it anywhere evidenced, except for what Australia did in 1996, that is not currently close to possible in the US.

New restrictions and enhanced enforcement of existing laws in registration of guns is a good result to potentially decrease crime rate overall, but it's not likely enough to offset the additional interest these events effect in purchasing guns legally, or the availability and access to them, for any significant reduction of rampage killing. It appears to be something people are going to have to get use to, as far as I can see.

Kill counts of rampage killings feed off of the accessibility and availability of legally purchased more efficient killing machines, and increases in legal purchase of guns feed off of every rampage killing increasingly with the notoriety of the event.

Since a decrease in the legal purchase of more efficient killing machines does not appear possible, there is a harbinger for the future from this exoskeleton of culture, that appears to be an overall increase of more efficient killing machines and continued high kill counts in the rampage killings crimes that occur. No one has control over this but the exoskeleton of culture, and it appears that no one effectively has control over the exoskeleton of culture. Seems to be a "catch 22" situation at this point.

The most serious harbingers of concern remain as other factors associated with this new exoskeleton of culture, like a third of children close to having type two diabetes. Those are where the real future variable of suffering is for tens of millions of people incrementally over decades, that most are not motivated to talk about per social contagion and the public psyche, because the suffering won't happen suddenly as a result of a horrifying big bang.

But, at least serial killings and most other areas of crime remain close to recent historical lows. All things considered that is no small accomplishment by the new exoskeleton of culture, at least in that area of life.

If a substantial number of bones break in the exoskeleton at one time, for any reason, most everyone is in real trouble per interdependence, illusion of control and order in life. The fact that it has worked as well as it has in the last century, with the number of humans that exist that were evolved for most of their ancestry to live in fairly small groups, is an amazing accomplishment of collective human intelligence and will to survive. A little slice of heaven for some, that no other creature may have ever experienced in magnitude of existence in a tiny slice of time, but unfortunately not the same for most that come to exist.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _loss.html

I find that an interesting phrase, "exoskeleton of culture." But I have to question your association of culture with a positive force and something that needs to be maintained.

Not that I am confident in offering an an alternative to it, only that it seems to be at the root of the problem, not a solution to it.

http://auticulture.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... fare-pt-6/

By exoskeleton of culture, I am referring to all tools humans have created to assist in survival. Everything from public sanitation to toilet paper to nuclear weapons. Toilet paper provides a little slice of heaven and nuclear weapons provide a much larger slice of death for some and avoidance of war on common soil for others. I think whether or not the exoskeleton that exists is beneficial or destructive is dependent on one's inherent biology, geography and their perception of their life and others.

However, after living through a very destructive Hurricane, that took much of the infrastructure away in a matter of hours, I know at least in my area that people are almost completely reliant for survival on that exoskeleton of culture. Without the knights in shining FEMA and National Guard armor, anarchy would have likely been the result in my area, not unlike what was seen in New Orleans.

It's pretty easy to me to see when looking at Lanza's picture as a child and young teenager, that his fate was not sealed by his inherent biology, nor do I think that is true for most people with or without labels of disorders. With the exoskeleton of culture in the 50's it is unlikely that the end result of rampage killing would have been his reality, at least from statistics that exist per the lull in that described violent crime for close to 15 years. But determining just what the variables are that might have made the difference in the two eras for him are close to impossible to determine because that exoskeleton of culture changes every second of everyday. But, it was a good 15 years to avoid rampage killings, if one was concerned about that issue.

All social animals have a level of culture, even without a complex exoskeleton of tools. Culture is at the root of survival for social animals. It is something that all social creatures are born into, and not something easy to escape whether it is the exoskeleton of a "natural cultural environment" or an extreme creature made exoskeleton of culture from ant hills to bee hives to the modern human global exoskeleton of culture.

There is only one alternative; the same one that has existed for creature life since the beginning of it; one of adaptation to what is, when a creatures comes into existence. There is still no guarantee for any creature that an adaptation will be of positive long term effect or negative long term effect, as nature is only willing to participate not direct.

Fixing rampage killings at this point, is likely going to be as successful as preventing lightening strikes in the US, at this point in time. For all practical intents and purposes in the US, it has become part of nature, whether of natural or man made origin of exoskeleton of culture. The fifties and early sixties cannot be regained, per that variable of effect. But if it was possible that would be the most obvious solution to this one described crime of violence. As far as the Asperger's new tiny apparent correlation, that correlation is one of label not human being of specific type and/or association with exoskeleton of culture. There is only one Adam Lanza and one environment of full exoskeleton of culture that only he lived in and adapted to in his one and only unique way.

Without 1994 and the DSMIV and earlier ICD10 effort and approval of the label, the label would be no focus at all per this crime of rampage killing. It is only a diagnostic label not a person. A diagnostic label has no will to kill anymore than a gun without a shooter.

I took the initiative and registered several domain names, including aspergerviolence.com, aspergersviolence.com, and autismviolence.com, before someone less than benevolent got them to create drama and profit.

We need to create our own PR, IMO. Can anyone here do web design and SEO? Research the relevant statistics? Maybe we can all work together and get some positive things out there on Google.

Let's do this, please! Everyone, please take the ball and run with it.

Where's that study by the British NHS where they evaluated all the criminally insane in the hospitals there for ASDs and then compared the results against the rest of the hospital population? I've seen it on this site before.

It's cited in this study below from 2006 and the other study where there is only an abstract available without a fee that I quoted and linked earlier in the thread from 2009 describing substance abuse as the factor that is associated with psychosis and Asperger's syndrome, similar to what the variable of substance abuse is measured at associated with schizophrenia and the general population as a violent crime commonly associated variable that I also linked from another study in 2009, earlier in the thread.

The study below from 2006 indicated that more research was necessary to support the findings that there was a disparate percentage of individuals in the mental hospital population convicted of violent crimes, with Asperger's Syndrome and co-morbid psychiatric illness. The study from 2009 was part of that effort for further research, identifying specific associated variables with psychiatric illnesses, Asperger's and violent crime, as noted above with substance abuse.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/34/3/374.full#T1

This Op-Ed linked below from the Huffington Post, provides a pretty good explanation why the focus on mental health in general is important, but not an effective way to reduce overall violent crime. It is part of a series that effectively counters the other perspective of the popular Op-Ed for gun advocacy by the author of the Monster Hunter Nation novels, where that author provided incorrect information that he recently saw that about "80%" of mass murderers were taking psychotropic drugs while at the same time suggesting he wasn't qualified to give opinions on mental illness and mass murders.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-a ... 86295.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-a ... _hp_ref=tw

The author in these links also provides pretty good evidence of why even the current AWB bill proposed by Feinstein, would not be an effective means to prevent rampage killings. And, it would take a similar measure like what was done in Australia in 1996, to have a significant impact, but agrees that possibility is "faint" in the United States.

The answer seems simple and that is that there is not a potential for an effective answer in the US at this time, so there will likely be more rampage killings and more people dead from rampage killings, no matter what congress comes up with in the next several months. Unless it becomes no longer a rare violent crime of choice by the actual killers, like the crime of Serial Killings that seems to have dropped off with other violent crimes in the US in the last couple of decades.

But, never the less, Congress is not likely going to get off by doing nothing this time, in response to public opinion for expanded gun registration rules. The author of the Op Ed also seems to provide pretty good evidence of why an ammunition clip capacity ban won't be an effective solution either.

I learned something new about guns, mental illness and this issue that I haven't heard anywhere else by reading his Op Eds, linked above, where the gun manufacturers can come with modifications to please customers, regardless of what guns might possibly be banned, per the last AWB, in 1994.

I could've sworn I already made a post to this effect, but I can't find it now, so...I'm going to assume that MrXxx won't be replying to me again. I think this is really disappointing. I put a lot of time and effort into making my feelings and ideas understood/understandable and MrXxx never even really responded to them, except for making a very general reference to the (apparent) fact that he has thought about the spectral nature of autism before. The rest of his post is just "You are arrogant", "No papers = no truth" etc. I would've liked for MrXxx to have expanded a little on his spectral musings and perhaps to have DISCUSSED the ideas I described.

In MrXxx's absence, I would like for someone else to take up that challenge. I don't care whether you think I'm right or not...I just feel that I am owed a response that actually addresses what I have said.

an answer to what question.i am a bit confused.explain and i will try to help

i will be to the point.

99% of crime is drug dealers killing other drug dealers.period.autistic are not dangerous period end of storie.
not far from newtown is the real killing field,bridgeport,new haven and hartford connecticut.three of the most violent cities per capita in the nation.

go do one of your wikipedia studies on inner city connecticut crime

Basically I'm looking for a thoughtful response to my long post on page 5 (and, by extension, my response to MrXxx on page 6).

i did a brief read through.i have to go to work soon.when i gert home i will try to give you a more in depth response.

as far as the part about higher standards for qualifications of doctors used for information on this site i would agree with mrx about that.most people on this forum are pretty credible

Maybe worth thinking about:

Read the full post(s) here

Humans are naturally averse to killing each other in the same perceived shared group/culture; most humans, but not all. Culture is becoming increasingly harder to define for the individual inside the culture, it is no longer shared among the masses the way it once was moving from small groups to larger groups to large societies, now bound by electronic media more so for some than flesh and blood interaction.

Copy cat violence is no longer limited to our internal borders; there is no measure of distance on the internet. Those that participate in copy cat violence can attach themselves to a tiny but powerful subculture of revenge.

Killing children in the perceived shared group/culture is among the most taboo types of killing. It is an instinctual threat to the survival of the group as a whole.

There is no measure of distance in media sources to share this instinctual threat for those in the larger expanse of perceived shared culture. The instinctual threat must be resolved whether a solution is found, or time passes and the event is perceived as an anomaly. The culture at large has determined that Asperger's is not the scapegoat, although there are pockets of "expertise" that are still questioning a rare association. The much larger scapegoat in culture is mental illness and guns.

However, the one scapegoat that can only be controlled by censorship is access to the social contagion of copycat violence that is increasingly enhanced by global access to information.

My understanding at this point is that the rumors that first had surfaced that Lanza's mother was attached to the school, have now been refuted. There was some question of a motive for the killing for jealousy of the mother's attention with the school children at first.

While there is no question that many of these events are planned, and are not entirely impulsive action, there is also no question that copy cat violence is a triggering mechanism for some of these mass murders.

Some of the long term potential triggers are discussed below from this extremely rare and most horrifying type of rampage killings against children in China, that is even more disconcerting as they are done with knives further removing the distance that would normally increase the instinctual aversion to kill children. It is likely there would be many more deaths in China if more efficient killing machines were available that allowed that extra distance to decrease the instinctual aversion.

These events in China are recent, starting in 2010. It's easier to support a suggestion that the killing in China was a copy cat crime, but the potential share of information in the US from these events in China in the past per example of the global "cannibal" cluster of events, are potentially at least in part, a contributor to a "global copy-cat violence effect".

The severity of the social conditions in China can't reasonably be compared to the US, but the potential severe effects of that social turmoil can still be spread through a social contagion of copy cat violence on a global basis, through shared information among those that may be looking to share some type of culture, even if it is a horrifying negative one of revenge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_att ... %932012%29

Autism spectrum disorders are constructs of language that describe and classify a group of behavioral impairments in humans, determined by the APA through work-groups of specialists in the field of psychology/neurology/psychiatry.

The definitions and descriptions of the disorders are moving targets through time.

People tend to anthropomorphize all types of things in life. Part of the reason a budget was so difficult to pass in the US, was that people identified a tax increase on the person making 250K, instead of the 4 cents on every dollar above 250K.

Not surprising at all that people could anthropomorphize a psychological label, or a name on a birth certificate.

For me it's easier to understand the 4 cents on every dollar above 250K, and the studies that suggest that autistic traits move on out to close to 30% of the population. A broader autism phenotype of 10 to 15% of the population provides another gradation of a spectrum of observed behavioral traits in human beings.

Currently it is not a requirement in the DSMIV to be diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder with a substantial difficulty in emotional intelligence, as issues of difficulties with emotional or social reciprocity are currently not mandatory requirements for a diagnosis. While it has been observed that close to 85% of individuals on the spectrum have difficulties with Alexithymia, which is directly associated with emotional intelligence, that still leaves 15% that don't have that difficulty.

Individuals that communicate online identifying either diagnosed or self-diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, do not reflect the demographic of the general population assessed as having autism spectrum disorders. So, it's not unusual that their perspective on what autism is, might be much different from personal experience per their unique world views.

One recent thread showed a mean of 130 for IQ of people responding identifying with Asperger's syndrome. This is the polar opposite of the concern that IQ tests don't accurately measure the intelligence of those individuals with substantial verbal language impairments on the spectrum.

This is reflected in Michelle Dawson's recent research on intelligence as the two spectrum disorders on average measure opposite per standard measures of verbal strengths on average for Asperger's as opposed to performance IQ strengths and Raven's progressive matrices strengths of non-verbal testing of fluid intelligence for among those diagnosed with Autistic Disorder.

Not only that but there is a correlation of strength of social theory of mind among those with Asperger's disorder with higher levels of measured IQ, as opposed to those with Autistic Disorder with lower levels of measured IQ.

However as a whole, individuals with Asperger's syndrome in large samples in peer reviewed studies, score on average close to what individuals in the general population score on standard measures of intelligence. Often with verbal scores that exceed performance scores within groups of individuals with Asperger's syndrome.

If Lanza is determined as officially diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, it does not appear that he reflects the general population of those with Asperger's syndrome anymore than the general population of those without Asperger's syndrome, per measures of intelligence, as it appears that he was among those off the charts folks, per reports of his academic history.

It stands to reason that the "off the charts" folks would dominate the academic online discussion with what is or what is not autism, particularly if they fit the part of the DSMIV classification of those having a difficult time with emotional and social reciprocity, and finding others responses interesting enough to respond.

Some of the newest research indicates that humans cannot equally process empathetic and analytic concerns at the same time.

Historically there have been warnings of this posted in engineering and computer science fields, in college halls, to not forget that one is human; get out and interact with people. I'm not sure those warnings are posted anymore; it only makes sense that these cultural environmental factors that increase or decrease what is described as emotional intelligence are more prevalent than ever in culture and continually impact the process of neuroplasticity.

So much of this information about the complexity of the spectrum is floating around one would think that people would not make generalizations, however they do, even at the highest, expert levels, per the "expert" in Sweden that suggested a fixation on weapons can lead to violence.

Maybe in some rare cases it could, but if she took the time to study those individuals that were fixated on guns in the larger population, she might also find that they are also fixated on gun safety, hunting, and the shooting range, not violence, similar to the other much larger percentage of the population that have an obsession with guns.

The first thought that came to my mind is how could the expert miss this, perhaps she has narrowed in her interest to diagnostic features and crime rather than the fuller demographic of those diagnosed with the label that led her to her statement. Many "experts" could be considered as having a fairly narrow and restricted interest specific subjects of interest in life. However, as long this doesn't interfere with how they make a living or their relationships, it's not usually considered an impairment.

Limited interest in any "mechanical" field of knowledge, likely impacts difficulties in the social cognition required to take the perspectives of others into consideration and the mechanical cognition associated with other mechanical fields of knowledge.

In an evolutionary sense both types of cognition are essential to the survival of a social animal, however culture provides humans and some of their domesticated animals an unusual opportunity to have an imbalance of one or the other types of cognition.

IQ in standard measures of it, is based mostly on a "mechanical" type of intelligence generated by culture; a requirement of measuring skills in social cognition is partially required in the language parts of the test but they are not required nearly as much in the performance area, and almost not at all in Raven Matrices tests of intelligence.

It's pretty obvious that those that find reward in academic success as opposed to those that find greater reward in social interaction with others, are going to end up with substantially different brains through the process of neuroplasticity, as generally speaking both types of human beings usually start of with an innate ability to develop language and experience emotional contagion with other human beings, under the age of 2 years old.

It appears that some forms of autism are greater generated by innate issues and others are more highly determined by cultural factors. It's impossible to draw any distinct lines on what combinations and environments will result in what type of human being, but it appears that those drawn for those that are impacted greater by culture are drawn later in life.

All the constructs of psychological definitions, descriptions, and labels of disorders only measure what results as a product of nature and nurture, as they are observed at one point in time at a time. The attempt at the discrete parts are what is written in a report that comes as result of observing humans, and the labels constructed and used to define the observations in the report. The humans remain the unique parts.

I wish I could explain it as simply as you did with the emotional intelligence analogy of 71 and 70, but my literal and "weedy" type thinking mind assesses that as not a substantial enough difference to make a point. I didn't see you as insulting anyone's scored IQ's, but in general I attempt to make it as impersonal as possible to avoid insulting the emotional aspects of intelligence, as that often shuts the effective communication down, but I can't stop people from perceiving my communication differently than intended, all I can do is to hope to clarify.

I have been reminded of my inadequacies in emotional communication at every birthday and Christmas of loved ones after my spouse so eloquently expresses love and kindness, and all I can do is sign my name with the appropriate emotion that should be expressed in one word, love.

I would like to have a little more of that thing my spouse has that I am obviously missing and usually only become self-consciously aware of during empirical failures that I can observe in myself when the words will not come, that do in my opinion come from a place in the brain my spouse visits that appears to exist much differently in my brain, particularly when I am involved in absorbed in mechanical cognition.

This newest research in the different neural pathways of the brain for social and mechanical cognition are very interesting as it appears that they are not static and can become more balanced depending on the environment and focus where one's attention is. But it is much more difficult without the human or animal flesh and blood element, if that is the type of cognition one is trying to improve.