#I don’t know if it’s the autism or the psychopathy

[fandomly-obsessed]

I want to experience love like Odysseus and Penelope. I want to love someone enough to root our home to the place we first fell in love, knowing that the only way to move the bed we share is to carve a great tree from the ground by its roots; knowing that the only way to destroy our love is to destroy the memory of it. I want to love someone enough to fight countless battles and trudge through the darkest places. I want experience a love so strong that I could do the most horrible of things and still continue through violence and heartbreak for the simple hope to see the one I love once again. I want to love someone enough that I could stand alone for twenty years - while everyone has long moved on - and know from my heart - so deeply connected to theirs - that they will make it home. I want to love someone enough that I can bare my soul to them, bloody and broken and bruised, and know that they will love me just the same.

[these-wayward-stars]

So interesting comparing this with how Will has changed over the series - here, he is completely devoid of Hannibal's influence !

I second this comment. Will’s empathizing with killers clearly isn’t what Hannibal makes him think it is- a quiet sense of power, feels good killing bad people, or god must like it too- No matter how much you poetify, Dr. Lecter, you’re a manipulative, narcissistic psychopath. You’re not elegant or above us, you’re a hypocritical, disgusting little devil. Will is an innocent victim. He admittedly has autism, with a flavor of BPD which exhibits high empathy and susceptibility to strong negative emotions. In other words, he’s unstable, not antisocial.

But by fannibals’ logic, Hannibal is helping him Become: oh, Will empathizes with killers, he must be a natural killer, that’s his true self. If it weren’t for damn society, he never has to hide / suppress his true self from measly human who deserve to die, so let’s chuck morality and embrace our own dark urges! Anyone dare to call us out? IT’S FICTION!!!

These people are either psychopaths themselves, or have fallen victim to Hannibal’s lies, just as Will had.

The creators’ refusal to diagnose Hannibal or Will and their instance on poetifying acts of violence and cruelty as allegorical romance riddled with lofty symbolism reveals shame of their own psychopathy.

IT’S JUST FICTION!!!

Fine, nobody’s stopping you, but you know what you are. Also, don’t dismiss the overwhelming representation of trauma and abuse in the show. Don’t excuse Hannibal’s manipulation of Will as « help ». It makes you look shallow, ignorant, and callous.

[saintsenara]

Are you opposed to the idea that often floats around that the most hp characters need some sort of therapy? I don’t know how you define “needs it” but considering most of these characters are highly traumatized in some way (terrible childhood, awful events happening to them, deaths, and being apart of a war) would they qualify in your standard?

i'm certainly not opposed to the idea that exploring characters' health - including assigning them real-world diagnoses, both when it comes to psychiatric conditions and otherwise - is something which authors should have free rein to do in a fic.

i know this isn't an opinion which everyone would agree with - and i certainly think that it's important to balance the fact that we should have the freedom to do whatever we like in our writing with the need to make sure that we don't generalise [that is, make it seem like every single experience of x condition is universal], pathologise [that is, decide that a character who behaves in a way we don't like does this because there's something "wrong" with them], or infantilise [that is, insist that traits like cheerfulness, naivety, or kindness are - in and of themselves - "proof" that a character is, for example, neurodivergent] the conditions we wish to portray, and that we don't insist that our way of seeing characters is "canon" unless it's specifically stated in the source material - but i think it can be interesting and valuable as a premise for fic.

but this comes with the flip side that i don't think that we should approach the topic with the idea that any one character "needs" therapy - the idea is too black-and-white to apply to what fictional characters actually are, which is a springboard from which to examine a particular premise.

which is to say, it's absolutely possible to write a version of harry whose life experience has resulted in complex post-traumatic stress disorder and who would, accordingly, benefit from therapy. but it's also possible to write a version of harry who doesn't meet any of the diagnostic criteria for c-ptsd, who finds it reasonably easy to process and contextualise his experiences after the conclusion of the war, and who, therefore, is unlikely to regard therapy as something he'd like. and neither of these versions would require an author to change anything substantial about the harry we see on the canon page.

this is all the more important when the genre archetypes that specific characters are set up to fulfil are taken into account. it's very easy to write a version of voldemort who scores top marks on the hare psychopathy checklist, or who breezes through the diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder. it's just as easy to write a version of voldemort who meets the diagnostic criteria for conditions that are generally perceived more benignly, such as bipolar disorder, c-ptsd, autism, or adhd. and it's also just as easy to write him as a straightforward, "bad seed" villain archetype - particularly because this is what the text intends him to be, and which it uses his childhood experiences, in the way that a horror film might, to underline.

which means that any character in the series would benefit from therapy if an author intends that to happen. if you want to write a character having a particular trait or experience which is helped by therapy, go for it. if you don't - whether that's because you want to write your character as someone who would, within the confines of your story, benefit from therapy but refuses to engage with it, or because you don't want therapy to be part of the story at all - more power to you.

[sophieinwonderland]

if you agree with the statement "even if endogenic was a word used by ableist scientists in the 50s doesnt mean endogenic systems should stop calling themselves that because of ableist scientists in the 50s", then you agree that it is morally okay to use the term "Asperger's", correct? the nazi term used to separate "good" autistics from "bad" autistics to aid in the killing of "bad" autistics? the term that actively separates and harms the autistic community? because endogenic is the same thing. this is the exact same situation, a term created and used by harmful people that is for some reason, still being being used.

please try to actually read what I'm saying instead of blowing me off, thank you. its a common trend for you to badly misinterpret what someone else is saying and create your own meaning

this is the exact same situation

Is it? Is it really?

In truth, I'm not overly educated on the history of Asperger's and am reading some conflicting accounts of the history of Hans Asperger, so I'm just going to take the details you provided at face value.

Neither "endogenic" nor "endogenous" were made by bad people. These words already existed before Freud used them. He didn't coin them.

These are basic words with a Greek etymology. "Endo" means inside or within. "Genous" means originating.

In contrast, Asperger is a person's name. The name of a Nazi or Nazi aligned individual according to this account. Who was associated with the deaths of disabled people.

Aspurger's is a specific word that only applies to this one disorder. It doesn't have any existence or meaning outside of that.

Endogenic and endogenous have a long history with broad uses in a huge variety of contexts. Both within and outside of psychology and psychiatry.

Now, despite saying I was going to take this at face value because I am still learning. I will say that from what research I've done, it at least doesn't look Asperger's Syndrome was actually a "Nazi term." It wasn't coined until 1976 by Lorna Wing.

From what I've gathered... the term Hans Asperger actually used for his syndrome in the beginning... was autism. (Well, more specifically, it was "autistic psychopathy.")

And that would probably be a closer comparison. A word with a complex history including some ableist uses along the way. But one that most reasonable people wouldn't consider ableist.

Which brings me to the question... do you feel autism should be retired as well due to the fact that this is what Hans Asperger originally called his disorder?

I feel you should by your logic.

...

...

In any case, there's one last point I want to make on this.

You know Freud was of Jewish descent, right? And that many of his works were destroyed by Nazis who hated the field of psychoanalysis that he founded? (In fact, Hans Asperger himself was an opponent of psychoanalysis as well.)

There's something that really rubs me the wrong way when the comparison you're making is between a word that you claim was coined by Nazis who used it to kill disabled people, and one that's being associated with a man of Jewish heritage who was victimized and persecuted by the Nazi regime.

I don't think this is intentional. I don’t think you woke up this morning and decided "you know what? I'm going to equate a German Jew who suffered under Nazi rule to his Nazi-aligned opponent."

But I do wish you would strive for greater awareness before falling on Nazi comparisons in syscourse.

[sharpth1ng]

it’s actually not psychopathy either though it’s true they stopped saying the type that doesn’t have childhood trauma exists cause they all have trauma, it’s aspd and sometimes mixed with npd/bpd symptoms/traits. i know your writing here kinda depends on it but tbh ppl should just call stu a dickhead with low empathy and sadomasochistic tendencies(even though i love him too 💔) cause he shows no lack of emotion which also is needed to have aspd. since aspd already gets heavily stereotyped with serial killers/etc when really they’re as dangerous as you and me. generally saying a medical disability = murder is no bueno, as someone who’s been affected negatively by someone with a personality disorder i really hate people conflating their disorder with the things they did because it in a way says it was all the disorder that did it, not them. and it encourages people with these disorders to not get better and that all they’ll ever be is an abuser or a murderer. not mad/upset and i don’t think you single-handedly have caused all of the problems ppl with personality disorders face or am even blaming you, just something to think about, take from this what you will lol.

So I actually work in academic (Not clinical) psychology, psychopathy is still used (at least in my country) but it is primarily used in the prison system.

Psychopathy in my country is a completely distinct category from aspd/npd and other personality disorders, and involves completely different criteria, although you can be labeled with both. I actually specifically have made posts arguing that neither Billy nor Stu have personality disorders, where I went through all the criteria to justify my argument.

I am not at all trying to portray either of them as psychopaths or as having personality disorders as I think their behaviour is better explained with autism (Billy) and ADHD (Stu) in combination with sadomasochistic tendencies. So honeslty I’m a little confused as to where this is coming from, my writing really does not depend on them having aspd or being psychopaths at all and that’s intentional.

I absolutely agree, having a personality disorder is not the same as being a murderer or an abuser, and I’ve tried to go out of my way to be specific about the fact that I don’t think these two have personality disorders. I write them as neurodivergent people who also have trauma and are sadomasochistic. So again I’m a little confused as I’ve specifically said they aren’t these things and am drawing more from my own experience as an autistic person than anything else

[fierceawakening]

Oooh I definitely am gonna take a look at those links.

The psychopathy one from my research seems to be… not even understanding why immoral things would bother people. (Poss trig: one of my books included a rapist recounting that he couldn’t figure out why his victim was screaming so much. It made sense to him that she would dislike being forced, but not why she was quite *that* upset over it all. That was a lot of screaming.)

Where the autism one seems like “I like and value helping people but I don’t really know for sure what makes them feel good. So I donate to organizations that buy malaria nets, because I can quantify the usefulness of doing so, instead of doing more personal things for particular people or groups.”

[wahaydendotcom]

Hey tumblr, *content warning:talk about su!c!de*

new ‘song.’ first, it was performed (live recording from my phone;) then, it was shared on SoundCloud (with a better cover image I haven’t converted to Bandcamp’s 1400x1400 minimum size image req...;) [https://soundcloud.com/wahayden98/imaginary-friend;] then converted to a .flac from .mp3 to upload onto bc - shared there; now, telling you about it:) learning to do all [that] more professionally and erase the shame & guilt associated with [that.]

 was excited to make this and in the “not accomplished” stages of manifesting another work similar to but not derivative of this.

 sense of grief that I can’t really explain. music is/(can be) pain. no one tells you that.

This morning, I was watching YT (youtube) videos about diagnosising ADHD AND Autism. self-diagnosis has been the only tool I’ve had to explore my psychology* (*psychopathy) and at the end of the day, one can say that I’ve come this far in not k!ll!ing myself! after this morning, left with a sense of “that explains me!” felt this way before with many other things, conditions, symptoms, etc. and wish i could draw out my APA/DSM psychiatric profile into a visual like an astrology chart. INFJ-T is that tells you anything.

 can’t/don’t trust my thoughts but had some earlier about sharing my mental/psychiatric difference for real and this is honestly the furthest I’ve gotten to doing that in my life. 26.5 years old. my whole life, i’ve thought deeply about the ‘27 club.’ yolo you know?!?

Just wanted to share this song. not going to delete what I just wrote. cringey.

Yours,

-Will

Listen/purchase: imaginary friend / wall-heater by William Arthur Hayden

[aheeheemwhimper]

going through the personality disorder wikipedia page and collecting all the ones i could be misdiagnosed with like i’m adding ingredience to my chipotle bowl

[gywin97]

Why it’s Autism/ASD, not Asperger’s

Hey I know it’s almost the end of Autism Awareness / Acceptance month but I wanted to clarify something for all my non-autistic followers:

It’s Autism or ASD.

NOT Asperger’s, or Asperger’s Syndrome.

Why?

Well, dear readers, because the man who created/named the syndrome, this spiffy looking guy here:

He was Hans Asperger, and he was linked to the Nazi’s and their attempts to euthanize autistic children in Nazi Vienna.

His view on autistic kids was dehumanizing, to say the least. Asperger is quoted as describing one autistic child as “very difficult, psychopathic boy of a kind which is not frequent among small children.”

Asperger also refereed to the autistic kids as “Abnormal children,” who had “Autistic psychopathy.”

He shot through the ranks during the second world war, as more and more of his Jewish colleagues were removed from their positions, eventually becoming the national authority on autistic children. After the war he spruced up his image, claiming he had been ‘saving’ the children’ and expressing how ‘talented’ he thought autistic children could be.

He was basically taken at his word, and Hans Asperger was seen as a hero for decades.

And then H. Czech discovered government documents showing the true extent of his involvement with the Nazi party and ideology.

(Here’s the official academic paper he wrote: https://molecularautism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13229-018-0208-6)

Asperger’s work – how he viewed autism and his views of autistic children being ‘unbearable burdens’ to their families - is sadly still reflected today in anti-Autistic discourse. His quotes and ideas are still floating around on you’re Auntie’s Facebook feed, or being re-hashed by alt-right political twits.

I’ve heard some historians and doctors trying to defend him, saying he was never a ‘official’ member of the party (ie, a registered, card-carrying member) but that doesn’t actually mean much.

Think of this: how many people do you know who agree with or support a political party, but aren’t ‘officially’ registered as Republican or Democratic voters?

Exactly.

And in 2009, government records were found where the Nazi Party vouched for his loyalty, even though he was not a public member.

( I don’t care if he thought of himself as a Nazi. As a general rule of thumb, if the fuckin Nazi’s eugenics team gives you a official thumbs up, you should probably stop what your doing and re-evaluate several life choices )

So that debate’s gone kaput.

This is the official document from the 3rd Reich, stating their trust in Hans Asperger as someone “in tune with the project’s sensibilities.” (link below)

 Understandably, a lot of autistic people – myself included – don’t want to be named after him. We don’t want to associate ourselves with someone who had such a negative and lasting impact on our community.

Imagine if instead of calling Jewish people Jewish, we said they were ‘Adolfer’s,’ or they had ‘Adolf’s Syndrome.’

That would be insane, you say! Why would you name a entire group of people after someone who actively acted against them?!?! Who hated them, dehumanized them, and saw them as naturally inferior to the larger population?? Who was willing to send them to their deaths, one by one, because he so deeply believed they needed to be removed from society??!

And now you’re getting the idea of why some people are so upset by the term.

I know the term was accepted for a very long time. If your someone who grew up with the term ‘Aspie,’ it’s up to you to decide what you want to be called. I can’t tell you what to do, or how to label yourself.

I just want people to understand the history and baggage that comes with the term ‘Aspergers.’ Don’t forget the death and suffering that still clings to that term, and don’t let his crimes OR his victims be forgotten.

  For more reading, I suggest Asperger’s Children: The Origins of Autism in Nazi Vienna. It’s about $11.00 on Amazon Kindle.

Or free online links (and places I got the quotes from):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/19/hans-asperger-aided-and-supported-nazi-programme-study-says (Where the photo was taken from)

https://time.com/5255779/asperger-syndrome-nazi-germany-history/

https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/new-evidence-ties-hans-asperger-nazi-eugenics-program/

Thank you for sticking with this long-ass post, and happy autism acceptance month!

[liminalweirdo]

spoilers for super dark times and josh’s character/motivation behind the cut. seriously, it’s spoilertown. proceed with caution.

Hate those articles that say that Josh is a character that helps us “spot the warning signs” in Psychopathic Children tm “before it’s too late” and honestly first of all what the fuck????

second of all, bitch WHERE?!

Look at him, he’s DISTRAUGHT. He literally almost passes out after Zach pulls the sword out. His scenes alone after Daryl’s death are Josh fucked up with guilt. This isn’t a kid who sits and plays with coins on the hardwood for the entirety of a school day in his day-to-day life. Look at his bedroom. This is a kid who keeps himself busy. He shows multiple clear indicators of stress and guilt afterwards. Josh doesn’t have any psychopathic “warning signs”, he’s a kid, a literal kid, that made a fucking MISTAKE?! The trajectory of the film doesn’t make sense for this reason, this is my biggest problem with an otherwise pretty perfect movie.

Like, this kid made a very big mistake and then very rapidly lost a very small but crucial support network, and it overwhelmed him.

Also, not only are psychopathy and sociopathy real personality disorders that real people have, and thus shouldn’t be used as just a “movie villain quirk” or the entire reasoning/motivation behind why someone “acts evil” (which is just incredibly lazy character creation), but Josh just... isn’t a psychopath. Neurodivergent? yes, absolutely. (I realize there are other problems with this. To be 1000% clear, NO I do not think that it’s Josh’s neurodivergence that causes him to be violent either. It’s a tragic thing that happened and spiralled a collection of tragic events, and I don’t think any of them are related to his ND brain. Neurotypicals can be and often are perpetrators of violence.) Again, this is more of a film canon issue, but: Why was Josh so weird? Why is Josh so blunt and straightforward and why doesn’t he look anyone in the eye? Why doesn’t Josh want to change their safe bubble of Josh&Zach to Josh&Zach and OTHER PEOPLE? Why does Josh shut down under (immense) pressure? Why does Josh have persistent, canonical stims and tics? If you’ve met one autistic person, you’ve met one autistic person and Josh is not going to be like everyone on the spectrum, but as an autistic person, I spent the whole movie thinking “oh this kid is me, it’s me” and then?!!??! This kid is SURPRISE, a “psychopath” who murders people! I’M SORRY, LIKE WHAT?!

I’m not explaining this as coherently as I want to but I am percolating on it more so I can write more cohesively about it later. Basically, my overarching thought is: Josh is clearly ND and it SEEMS LIKE (i’m not saying this was the intent) but it SEEMS LIKE that neurodivergence just translates to “psychopathic murderer” as though that’s some kind of a) logical reasoning or b) a real and common thing (it’s not), and that is not great. That’s so not great, particularly because things involving violent teenagers and violent men involve the media FREQUENTLY pointing out that those people are autistic, often without any actual medical confirmation. This associates violence with autism. This is so incredibly rarely the case and is playing on such cause/correlation bullshit that it’s like saying “the killer was lactose intolerant.” And it sure does vilify autistics for no fucking reason.

I’m not a professional, but Josh is more clearly on the spectrum than he is exhibiting signs of psychopathy, even if they wanted to go the (bad) “psychopathic villain” route. This is one of the main reasons why the ending was so disturbing, but also confusing. The ending’s nonsensical “twist” is actually kind of just throwing people with real personality disorders like psychopathy or sociopathy under the bus, while somehow also saying “people who act autistic are going to become violent” and those things are both super not great. (new title? no, i’m kidding, i still adore this film)

I just... I don’t know. I guess I don’t know why this choice was made, in the film. I don’t even know if it was a choice. It’s extremely possible that I’m just reading into a character too much because my autistic brain relates strongly to Josh’s character. Until the murdering happens.

Even the scene where Zach comes to see Josh in his bedroom afterwards and Josh is just in shutdown mode is so similar to my autistic shutdowns that I have a hard time seeing that scene as anything else. Is he annoyed with Zach? YES, but not because he’s “a psychopath” now, it’s because he’s fucking done. He’s out of spoons. He cannot handle any more of this shit. Zach is outwardly expressive, he’s raised by a single mom who’s a good parent, he can voice his feelings. Josh doesn’t have that upbringing. Like, a lot of the time I think Josh has Zach and no one else and now he feels like he doesn’t even have Zach.

Also, hopefully we all know by now that autistic people are MORE LIKELY TO BE THE VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE than they are to be violent themselves. And psychopaths and sociopaths are also uh... not commonly or inherently violent, either.

If they wanted to make a film about a psychopath, I feel like they could have done it with more attention and tact (and also like... maybe not made him one that murders people), but as it stands Josh is not the main focal point of the film, adding to the confusion of the ending.

Anyway I would like to talk about this more.

Again, I’m not a professional and I am open and willing to hear other people’s criticisms of this theory (if you’re polite), and would love to talk about all this more in general. Like I said, my headcanon of Josh as autistic might just be me. I’m not saying it’s fact.

Disclaimer #875 I really do love this film. I’m not trying to call anyone out, I’m more just wanting to discuss this as the theory of the film itself because I really don’t think any harm was intended here by anyone, I think it was just more a case of unfortunate ignorance.

[manie-sans-delire-x]

My thoughts/analysis of We Need to talk about Kevin

From abnormal psych class paper:

The character I chose to analyze and diagnose is Kevin Khatchadourian from the 2011 film, We Need to Talk about Kevin. Brilliantly depicted by star Ezra Miller and various other child actors, Kevin is an angry, emotionally detached boy who struggles in his complex relationship with his mother. We see the unhealthy relationship develop between the two through-out the film as Kevin grows from a baby to a young man, ending in tragedy as Kevin achieves his ultimate revenge against his mother by massacring the rest of their family as well as several classmates in a school shooting.  

After carefully noting Kevin’s behavior and the way he and his mother Eva interact when he is a young child, I have decided to diagnose Kevin with reactive attachment disorder (RAD). The diagnostic criteria from the current Diagnostic and Statistical manual (DSM-5) for RAD reads as follows: 

A. A consistent pattern of inhibited, emotionally withdrawn behavior toward adult caregivers, manifested by both of the following: 

1. The child rarely or minimally seeks comfort when distressed. 

2. The child rarely or minimally responds to comfort when distressed. 

B. A persistent social or emotional disturbance characterized by at least two of the following: 

Minimal social and emotional responsiveness to others 

Limited positive affect 

Episodes of unexplained irritability, sadness, or fearfulness that are evident even during nonthreatening interactions with adult caregivers. 

C. The child has experienced a pattern of extremes of insufficient care as evidenced by at least one of the following: 

Social neglect or deprivation in the form of persistent lack of having basic emotional needs for comfort, stimulation, and affection met by caring adults 

Repeated changes of primary caregivers that limit opportunities to form stable attachments (e.g., frequent changes in foster care) 

Rearing in unusual settings that severely limit opportunities to form selective attachments (e.g., institutions with high child to caregiver ratios) 

D. The care in Criterion C is presumed to be responsible for the disturbed behavior in Criterion A (e.g., the disturbances in Criterion A began following the lack of adequate care in Criterion C). 

E. The criteria are not met for autism spectrum disorder. 

F. The disturbance is evident before age 5 years. 

G. The child has a developmental age of at least nine months. 

Specify if Persistent: The disorder has been present for more than 12 months. 

Specify current severity: Reactive Attachment Disorder is specified as severe when a child exhibits all symptoms of the disorder, with each symptom manifesting at relatively high levels. 

Kevin displays behavior that meets both criteria A and B. As a baby he cried constantly, reportedly even when held, showing an inability or unwillingness to be soothed. As a toddler he shows defiance, disinterest in social interaction, and a refusal to engage in play, such as when his mother is attempting to play with a ball with him and he refuses to roll the ball back or respond in any way, instead staring at her with a sullen expression. Kevin also refuses his mother’s pleas to say the word “Mommy”. As a slightly older child, Kevin continues to act defiantly and shows anger, ripping up the paper when his mother attempts to school him, immediately soiling his newly changed diapers on purpose, throwing food against the wall and onto tables, breaking his crayons, making nonsensical noises to irritate his mother, and destroying his mother’s artfully decorated room. When he is taken to the doctor to be examined, he shows no expression, does not speak, and stiffens his body. When his baby sister is born, he purposefully sprinkles water onto the newborn, causing her to cry. It should be noted however that in one instance Kevin seems to relax his cold exterior and accept comfort from his mother, shown by the scene in which he falls ill and cuddles with his mother while she reads him a story. He even apologizes for her having to clean up his throw-up. Unfortunately, as soon as he is feeling well again he is back to being rude and rejecting any attempt of hers to take care of him, refusing her help to change his clothes.  

As for criteria C, although Kevin has not experienced extreme abuse or neglect, I believe Kevin suffered from a traumatic birth as it was mentioned that his mother was resisting. His mother Eva did not desire a child, especially not one as difficult as Kevin, so she emotionally neglects him and is cold to him. Eva makes it very clear to him that he is unwanted, telling him straight to his face that she was happy before she gave birth to him and not correcting him when Kevin mentions that Eva does not like him. In one instance, she is accidentally too rough with him and breaks his arm, which Kevin later refers to as being the most honest thing she ever did. Kevin also meets the criteria of D through G, and his symptoms are persistent. I would say Kevin has moderate to severe symptoms as he does exhibit all listed symptoms quite regularly.  

I believe Kevin’s psychological problems may also have developed into conduct disorder (CD) as an adolescent and then antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) or psychopathy in adulthood, especially after taking into consideration the mutilation of his sister’s eye and the killing of his sister’s guinea pig, his father, his sister, and several classmates. He shows no guilt or empathy, appears to have shallow emotions besides anger, and shows no evidence of having affection or emotional bonds to anyone. He is also very manipulative; putting on a fake act of normalcy for his father, turning his parents against each other, and navigating the legal system to get his best outcome. However, I know that children with RAD can also be violent and if not treated, behave in a way very similar to conduct disorder in adolescence and ASPD or psychopathy in adulthood. The main reason I chose to focus on RAD over CD or ASPD is because I believe the root of Kevin’s problem is immense pain at being rejected and unloved as a child and that he harbors a deep desire to have that connection but is unable to accept affection.  He is so focused on and consumed by his anger towards his mother, while someone with true psychopathy may be more detached and indifferent. I also leaned more towards RAD given that he showed symptoms from such a young age and did not seem to have any problems outside of his issues with his mother, such as acting out in school or engaging in petty, impulsive crime. I do wish that the film showed more of his interaction with his peers. Lastly, I felt RAD was a more accurate choice because of the subtle signs of it that are associated more with RAD than CD, such as stiffening his body when others try to hug him, making nonsensical sounds, and not making eye contact as an infant, although that may not have been intentionally put in the film. Either way, his parents certainly needed to talk to professionals about Kevin when he was a child. Had they done so, perhaps they could have prevented the tragedy of both his life and the pain he inflicted on others.  

Response to tumblr ask:

I agree! I would have loved to see how he interacts at school, what he does when he’s alone and has spare time, and more of his childhood.

I think he had multiple reasons:

1- To make his mother suffer since he obviously has a lot of anger and resentment towards her

2- Because he doesn’t feel much positive emotion and gave up on ever feeling pleasure or enjoyment from regular life. Normal life is incredibly boring for him. He wanted to DO something- real, meaningful, make something happen. He wanted to Live. I very much relate.

3- He enjoys the attention he gets from it.

We talked about this in my forensic psych club- whether we should give interviews and all this attention to violent criminals. Our society is fascinated by them to the point where we make movies and books. People sell and collect memorabilia. They have fan-girls writing love letters and showing up to their court sessions, even fighting each other over them. It’s pretty crazy. But on the other hand, it’s important that we study them. Or is it? There’s a debate about everything.

4- His philosophy and world view. 

He is very nihilistic, he doesn’t believe life “means” anything and right/wrong doesn’t exist/is just a matter of opinion or viewpoint. His actions don’t really matter either, nothing does. I used to think exactly like he did when I was a teen, and I still do in a way.

As for your last question, it’s easy to forget one way of thinking when you’re in another. It’s hard to remember how one state was when you’re in a different one. Also, as shitty as outside life can be, life in prison is even shittier. Makes you appreciate the ability of choice and being able to do things, even just to walk around outside or buy an icecream cone. He was also only 15 at the time of the crime, and in the last scene he’s 18. A lot of chemical changes and neural development happens in that time. He matured- his way of thinking about himself, the world, and the others around him changed.

[longitudinalwaveme]

DC Comics’ Portrayal of Mental Illness

 As you can probably ascertain from the general contents of this blog, I am a huge fan of DC comics (and, more specifically, of the Flash). I am also a psychology major who is on the autism spectrum and has struggled with Social Anxiety Disorder and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. As such, I have a...complicated relationship with comic books that discuss mental illness. 

Of course, of all the comics that deal with mental illness, Batman is undoubtedly the most prominent, and, as such, is the easiest target for criticism. The more a comic book talks about mental illness, the more opportunities it has to get stuff wrong. Since there are literally thousands of Batman comics out there and I don’t have the time to research them all, I will be using a 2001 Batman guidebook to give you a few examples of the things that it gets wrong about mental health (and psychology in general). 

To start, let’s talk about Arkham Asylum. Not only is its name anachronistic (virtually no mental heath facilities are called asylums anymore), but its depiction usually is as well: even a psychiatric hospital that doubled as a penal facility probably would not be located in an old Gothic-looking building that looks like it came straight out of a horror movie. It’s also worth noting that Arkham Asylum didn’t exist in the Batman mythos prior to 1974, and that originally, Two-Face and the Joker were the only two villains who went there. Prior to that point, everyone, even the Joker, just went to prison when they were caught (which, as we shall see, is actually probably more accurate for everyone except maaaybe modern Two-Face and the Mad Hatter). My suspicion is that it was introduced to capitalize on the popularity of the 1962 novel (and, once it was released, the 1975 movie) One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, which was about a psychiatric institution, but there were probably other factors involved, such as the popularity of works by H.P. Lovecraft (which is where the name Arkham came from). Whatever the reason, though, Arkham Asylum is really only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the misrepresentation of mental illness and mental health in Batman fiction. 

The introduction of Arkham Asylum led, increasingly, to the idea that all Batman villains were mentally ill, which, in turn, led to some...um....very inaccurate portrayals and depictions of what mental illness is and how it works. 

For example, the 2001 guidebook I am using incorrectly describes the Joker as “certifiably psychotic”. He’s not. While there are individual exceptions (we are talking about comic books, after all), in most appearances, the Joker is not psychotic. He has no apparent hallucinations and does not seem to display signs of delusions, either. He is not out of touch with reality in any meaningful way, he’s just horrifically violent. Describing him as “certifiably psychopathic” would have been much more appropriate (although you can’t technically diagnose someone with psychopathy; the condition he would be diagnosed with would be Antisocial Personality Disorder). 

In the same book, Two-Face is described as “schizoid” and “schizophrenic”, both of which are not even remotely correct. What the modern Two-Face is supposed to suffer from is Dissociative Identity Disorder (what used to be called Multiple Personality Disorder), although it’s not always portrayed terribly accurately. Schizoid Personality Disorder is not DID, and it’s not Schizophrenia, either; it’s a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships-basically people who are extreme loners. Similarly, Schizophrenia is not DID. While it is hypothetically possible for the two conditions to be comorbid, they are not at all the same thing. Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder characterized by delusions and hallucinations, which Two-Face almost never displays in fiction. DID is a dissociative disorder. Most people with DID do not experience delusions or hallucinations; their condition is typified by the presence of more than one personality and is thought to usually only occur as a reaction to severe childhood trauma. (Credit where credit is due: modern Two-Face is correctly shown as having experienced trauma as a child.) The fact that the term schizophrenia literally translates into “split mind” is probably the source of some of this confusion, but with schizophrenia, the split is between the mind and reality, not between the mind and itself. 

Also from this guidebook, the Riddler is, confusingly, described as having “an obsessive-compulsive desire for attention”, which, from a psychological perspective, is pretty much nonsense. Desire for attention is one thing; obsessive-compulsive disorder is another. The “obsessions” in OCD refer to intrusive, recurring thoughts, not to something that a person strongly desires and spends a lot of time pursuing. Additionally, the Riddler is described as “pondering the unsolvable riddle of his own psychosis”, which is not accurate. The Riddler consistently displays signs of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and less consistently displays signs of OCD, but neither one of these conditions is a psychotic disorder, as neither involves hallucinations or delusions. When the Riddler says he’s not psychotic, and that he’s perfectly sane, he’s completely right on both counts. He’s never displayed any evidence of a break from reality, so he’s not psychotic, and he’s almost always aware that what he’s doing is a crime, so he’s not insane, either. In fact, with the possible exceptions of the Mad Hatter, Man-Bat, and Two-Face, none of the Batman villains are insane, since they are all aware that what they’re doing is illegal when they do it. 

What makes the earlier mistakes in this particular guidebook even more mystifying to me is the fact that their description of Scarecrow, and, more impressively yet, Scarecrow’s fear toxin, is pretty much accurate. They don’t call him psychotic or label him with conditions he doesn’t have and they accurately identify his on-again off-again phobia of bats (Chiropteraphobia). It also describes his fear gas thusly: “a toxic mix of adreno-cortical secretions and strong hallucinogens...it prompts neuromuscular spasms, cardiac arrhythmia, and panic attacks”. This is an astonishingly accurate description of what his fear toxin would need to be made of and what it does to his victims’ bodies. I don’t know who wrote this section, but they deserve some serious credit for doing their homework! (It makes no sense to put the Scarecrow in Arkham. Not only is he neither psychotic nor insane, but putting an evil ex-psychologist in a psychiatric institution is a REALLY bad idea, as he has the know-how to easily manipulate both the doctors and the patients.) 

Also from the 2001 Guidebook: The Ventriloquist is described as having multiple personalities, and is NOT described as schizophrenic or schizoid. While the term Multiple Personality Disorder is no longer used by psychologists for diagnosis, it is at least describing the same condition as DID. Modern Firefly is described as a pyromaniac; this is accurate from what I know of the character. Mr. Zsasz is described as a “sociopath”; again, this is mostly accurate. 

I also decided to use a few other DC guidebooks and see if there were any other egregious mistakes: 

2015 Guidebook:

 Haha, “Lenny Snart”. (That has nothing to do with mental illness, I just thought it was funny.) 

 Dr. Polaris is described as suffering from “a split personality disorder”; they mean DID. It’s also worth noting that most people with DID do not have a “good” alter and an “evil” alter; having DID does not make you Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. 

The Joker is described as “crazy” and “insane”; while the former is up for debate, I can say with confidence that the Joker meets no real-world definition of insanity that I know about. 

Riddler is not described as insane, yay!  

Two-Face is described as having Multiple Personality Disorder; this should be DID but is otherwise broadly correct. That being said, the idea that getting acid thrown in your face would cause you to develop a split personality, as this book seems to imply, is unlikely. DID doesn’t develop that suddenly. 

2016 Guidebook: 

While Doctor Polaris may very well have a personality disorder, the emergence of a second personality would indicate the development of DID, not  a personality disorder. An adult man couldn’t “develop’ a personality disorder anyway; they’re developed in childhood and are usually lifelong afflictions. 

Harley Quinn is a weird case; to call her psychotic isn’t completely inaccurate, as she has displayed signs of hallucinations and delusions in the past. That being said, the way her condition is depicted is inconsistent and confusing, and doesn’t seem to line up perfectly with any actual real-world condition. 

Modern Heat Wave is absolutely a pyromaniac; Johns in particular was surprisingly good at writing a realistic case of the condition. 

The Joker is not insane. Neither is the modern Joker’s daughter. Both understand what they’re doing is wrong. 

Lex Luthor is indeed a sociopath, as is the New 52 version of Mr. Freeze (BTAS Freeze is not). 

Two-Face’s condition should be described as DID, not MPD; otherwise things are about as accurate as one can expect from Two-Face. 

2008 Guidebook:

Calling Abra Kadabra narcissistic is accurate. 

The Black Manta autism thing is icky on multiple levels. Ewww.

The first Cheetah probably would not have suddenly developed a second personality as an adult. 

Dr. Polaris. You know the drill. Split personality should be DID. A “good” and “evil” alter are pretty unlikely. Usually DID would show up before adulthood. 

Firefly and Heat Wave do both seem to have pyromania. It’s also accurate to describe Heat Wave as cryophobic. 

The Joker cannot be “certifiably crazed”; crazed is not an official psychiatric term. And again, he isn’t insane, so he shouldn’t be in Arkham. 

Killer Croc has never displayed any noticeable signs of psychosis. 

Magenta having DID is actually more realistic than most of the other characters I’ve talked about; she’s got the necessary childhood trauma and her alters developed when she was still quite young. Furthermore, her more violent alter isn’t manically evil. 

Whoever wrote the Scarecrow piece in the 2001 Batman Guidebook must’ve also helped to write this one, since the shockingly-accurate fear gas description is the same. 

Professor Strange is not insane in the legal sense of the word. 

Arnold Wesker has DID; MPD is the condition’s original name but is no longer used by professional psychologists. 

Zoom (Hunter Zolomon, not Eobard)... I think there’s an argument to be made that Zolomon actually is psychotic. While he’s never displayed hallucinations, he is clearly delusional in the most literal sense and does seem to have lost touch with reality. As such, this book is not wholly inaccurate in calling him psychotic.

You get the idea....

Looking specifically at the Flash, things improve slightly simply because writers who don’t understand psychology aren’t constantly talking about it. That being said, that doesn’t mean it never gets brought up. 

Golden Glider was intended to receive a psychiatric evaluation in the late 1970s. It’s interesting that she actually protested this, pointing out that the male criminals never received psychological evaluations (and indeed, they always went to prison rather than to an institution). She was indeed motivated by something other than profit, and I can understand why they wanted to have her evaluated given her lack of earlier criminal activity, but I don’t know if she was actually mentally ill per se...and she definitely wasn’t insane. 

In the early 1980s during the twilight hours of Barry Allen’s first run on the Flash, it seemed that the writers were trying to take a page out of Batman’s book by arguing that Barry’s costumed criminals were insane (even though they usually didn’t display any behavior that would indicate this). As such, Barry stated to imply that his Rogues were mentally ill in some fashion despite the fact that their behavior really hadn’t changed appreciably since their earliest appearances. That being said, the Pied Piper did appear to suffer some sort of nervous breakdown during the “Trial of the Flash” arc; what exactly this was is difficult to explain, since we didn’t get to see a whole lot of him after this point, but he did go to an actual psychiatric hospital (that was referred to as such rather than being called an asylum) and he did recover, relapsed, then recovered again, making this one of the more accurate portrayals of how mental illness works despite the limited information we have about his actual condition. They even showed him slowly deteriorating over a period of time before the actual collapse!

Big Sir, who made his debut in the same storyline, was rather more poorly handled....but at least he was explicitly manipulated into villainy rather than becoming evil simply because of his condition. 

Wally West went to therapy early in his run; given the context I’d say it was reasonable that he was suffering from both anxiety and depression (his uncle had just died and he was really struggling to fill his shoes as the new Flash). Going to therapy did actually help him, which was nice to see, and his therapist did not become evil, which was also nice to see. (I’m not going to talk about Heroes in Crisis, as I prefer to pretend that that never happened.) Yay for protagonists discussing their mental health problems in productive ways! 

In the early-to-mid 1990s, Mark Waid wrote a story in which Lisa stated that she’d faked insanity in order to be sent to a psychiatric hospital rather than to prison, but the story seemed to be implying that she was actually insane. Not only is successfully being declared not guilty by reason of insanity incredibly difficult, but Lisa displayed no signs of not recognizing that her behavior was wrong, so she wasn’t insane. She was, however, displaying strong signs of paranoia, which could perhaps be attributed to a paranoid delusion of some sort. It’s especailly weird since this was never really a characteristic of hers before or since, and it just kind of came out of nowhere. 

The Trickster (specifically the first one, James Jesse) is often mistakenly believed to be mentally ill by casual fans. While he is indeed mentally ill, possibly even psychotic, in the DCAU,  and he’s a remorseless psychopath in both live-action Flash shows, in the comics themselves he displays no real signs of mental illness. That being said, I LOVE the interactions between DCAU Wally and DCAU Trickster. They’re made of adorable.

The Pied Piper went through a second bout of mental problems in the mid-to-late 2000s, being tricked into believing that he’d murdered his parents, going to prison, being beaten regularly by the warden, escaping from prison, going through the stress of fighting in the Rogue War, having his mind messed with by the Top, accidentally becoming involved in the murder of Bart Allen (another thing I like to pretend never happened), having to go on the run, watching the Trickster get shot in front of him, having to drag his corpse around a desert, almost dying, getting transported to Apocalypse, blowing it up with Queen music, and then being left basically all alone. He really went through a trauma conga line, so it’s not surprising that he was starting to display some odd behavior. Poor guy probably had PTSD. 

And then there’s the Top. Beyond the speculation of @gorogues that he’s on the autism spectrum (a  theory I find to be quite persuasive), I also think it’s likely that he suffers from another mental illness (most likely bipolar I disorder, also as suggested by @gorogues). He was clearly mentally ill for most of Geoff Johns’ run, and his behavior in his very first appearance was decidedly odd as well. Intense mania and depression can sometimes induce psychosis (as we seemed to see during Geoff Johns’ run), and his “threatening to blow up half the world to become its ruler while I’m somehow safe on the other side of the planet” plan from his first appearance, which he clearly expected to work perfectly, is so overconfident and over-the-top that it fits well as a particularly exaggerated manic episode. While it’s not conclusive by any means, I think it’s a distinct possibility.

[little-noko]

This whole business has brought up the fact that I'm currently trying to figure out what's wrong with me and, actually: Have struggled to differentiate between Psychopathy, Paranoia, and Autism- I have been trying for a few years to figure just MYSELF out and haven't been able to do it right, and considering THESE were the potential options I looked into most for what I felt was happening?? I think it's extremely bold to assume you can diagnose a fictional character you don't see every day.

Not only is it bold but self diagnosing is wrong too. Wondering what is wrong is the first steps in getting a diagnosis, but it’s why you need to seek a professional in order to do so. Diagnosing a fictional character is highly discouraged as it can spread miscommunication about said issue. It is fine to project on a character to feel less alone in your pain, but it is also a very personal experience so imposing it on others and making drama out of it is the issue.

On the other hand...with my experience and what I have been through, it took years of therapy and different therapist to notice a pattern in my way of thinking and realize that I was on the spectrum.

Surprisingly, diagnosis on woman when it comes to autism can be extremely hard to notice because we ‘hide it’ better. They are often referred as quiet and reserved girls who are little angels that keep to themselves. So people never really question it until adulthood start rushing in.

I spent years wondering what was wrong with me, why people always misunderstood me and what I wanted to say despite being “well spoken”.

Honestly having a label doesn’t change much, but it help to understand what’s going on and having tools to help you through what you struggle. I missed my opportunity to have actual help when I was a child, so I will say it here. If you feel distressed, or uncomfortable, don’t stay quiet, go seek help. PROFESSIONAL help. With people who actually studied and know what they are talking about. They will help you, it will take time, you won’t see the change right away, but you will feel better.

[dianaburnwood]

he's a clinical psychopath? genuinely didn't know that. :0 i would've guessed sociopath or antisocial disorder.

Psychopathy is a type of antisocial disorder, with either genetic or environmental causes. 

“It manifests as amoral and antisocial behaviour, shows a lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, expresses extreme egocentricity, and demonstrates a failure to learn from experience and other behaviours associated with the condition.”

However, although 47 certainly has these traits, he does not share all the traits of psychopathy:

“The psychopath is always able to differentiate between right and wrong and usually is well acquainted with the requirements of society and religion, but he is absolutely unwilling to be governed by these laws. In fact, he may say that they do not concern him.”

This is at odds with how IOI characterise 47, as stated by Michael Vogt, HITMAN Lead Writer: 

“So there are people who are clinically psychopaths, in the sense that they don’t have empathy. But at the same time, they are aware of this, and they know they have a handicap, and they actually want to do the right thing, but they know they aren’t able to tell the difference, so they latch onto other people whom they trust in doing the right thing. In this case, it’s Diana.”  

Of course, psychopathy is a complex subject that is still being studied and cannot be fully encapsulated nor understood from an article online :D As 47′s issues stem from the artificial deadening of his emotions, it makes sense that he shares some psychopathic traits, but not all. Also, interestingly, the symptoms of antisocial disorder and psychopathy have been shown to decrease with age (unlike autism, which is prevalent throughout life) so that may go some way towards explaining 47′s ability to grow emotionally throughout the series as he reaches his mid-50s.

[void-galaxy-shenanigans]

I have nowhere else to share this so...

(for those who can’t see the video:) [Video ID: @/rosiemusicc on TikTok; a person with long medium-brown hair, melanated skin, brown eyes, silver-coloured bands/rings on 3 fingers of their left hand holding a microphone, & headphones singing with tears in their eyes (/end ID)]

[Captions (for those who can’t see/watch/hear the video): I lost touch with all my friends, I’m in bed by 10pm; I have no social stamina. I cancel on all my plans, I commit then I don’t answer, I can’t keep up with anyone. Now I’m a desert island, I know; I push away until I’m alone. ¿When did I become someone no one loves? I’m a broken record, it shows: all I ever say is ‘no’. ¿When did I become someone I don’t love? Now I don’t know, I don’t know who I am. ¿How did I turn into a person who I can’t stand? ¿How did I let it get this bad? Now I can’t go back; now I’m all I have. And I don’t know, I don’t know who I am. (/end captions)]

((The video is captioned “I have no social stamina part 2🥺”))

We were listening & kind of vibing when “¿When did I become someone I don’t love?” suddenly hit hard.

& I stopped to think. ¿When did I become someone I don’t love? Legitimately. ¿When did that happen?

We were 13.

It was the point we stopped caring we were getting bullied. We had been trying to stop caring that people were bullying us, calling us diseased & annoying & too loud & whatever else they did that I can’t remember (we’re a system & I don’t remember all of it).

But what no one had taught us was you can’t stop caring without not caring at all.

You can’t Just Stop Caring™ about the bullies. You have to let yourself feel your feelings & move forward. If you don’t....

Well. You become emotionally unavailable.

You lose your ability to be happy, to love yourself, to love others, to grow, to feel real & alive. You can’t just repress the bad feelings about the abuse/trauma...you have to repress //everything you ever feel//.

You repress your connection to yourself, to reality, to other people. You detach—you dissociate yourself & reality from your body.

And yea. It hurts less.

But then you become a magnet for other emotionally unavailable people, especially those who prey on trauma victims that don’t realise they’re emotionally unavailable....like those with ASPD (sociopathy/psychopathy) & NPD (narcissists), but also like s-xual predators & abusive significant others & Friends™ who are just there to use you.

And now I’m realising the same point we Stopped Caring™ is the same point I stopped loving me.

You can’t love yourself without feeling pain. They go together, in some twisted & cruel decision of fate & reality. You have to feel pain to feel love. You feel ALL emotions, or absolutely none of them.

& that’s why people think those of us with ADHD, autism, childhood trauma....& while I hate to say this, especially fellow systems (it’s an inherent part of dissociation)....often get called Heartless™, Emotionally Unavailable™, etc.

(not an Always™ rule but for some of us)

This could also apply to those whose depression &/or possibly other mental illness stems from trauma.

The trauma was so intense we were forced to become emotionally unavailable. We were forced to repress our emotions to survive.

And as we unravel our trauma, as we begin to create our new self, our emotions are getting dislodged from wherever we buried them.

We’re feeling intense love for/towards our fiancé, intense anger at the abusers & at the people who chose to use us or not listen to our boundaries, intense sadness & grief...

& for the first time in my life I can honestly say I don’t hate myself. Because hate stems from disconnect.

The reality is I didn’t know myself anymore & I became incapable of loving myself when I became incapable of getting hurt by those around me.

& now that I can get hurt again (that’s terrifying), I can connect again.

I’ve reconnected with friends from high school, the only two to three who actually cared about me/us and respected our boundaries, & I’m able to feel that friendship & respect & feel loved in a way I never could.

I’m beginning to understand my emotions.

And with understanding comes acceptance.

So if you’re like me and you were taught to repress & hate yourself....it’s okay to let those feelings come back. It’s okay to find yourself & your self-love again.

It’s terrifying but it’s worth it.

And please let me remind you, because most people won’t: it is not inherently evil to be emotionally unavailable. You are not evil for protecting your child self. But you are responsible for the journey towards becoming emotionally available, when you’re ready to heal.

And while I may not be your friend directly (messages), I’ll be a friend & I’ll be here while you figure it all out. And maybe my little rambles can help you too.

Good luck, you are loved even if you can’t feel it right now, & I can’t wait to see who you grow yourself to become. (/genuine, gentle)

~Nicolás

[beatrice-otter]

I saw your post about SBC and how the Knight of Autism is kind of…bad. I have a book by Baron-Cohen in my library (Science of Evil—about psychopathy and not autism, but autism mentioned). I prefer to have a diverse collection (and not just books with bad opinions, especially if there’s no good opinions to counter) and I would like to include some books that are Better at Autism™️. Do you know any good ones with a science bent?

Alas, I cannot help you very much, I tend to follow autism news through following my fellow autistics on social media and reading abstracts of papers published about autism ... and I usually don't save bookmark the papers, so I can't even send you to the interesting ones.

Anybody got some recommendations?