Thread from 2005 about the "psychopath" "diagnosis

This is a thread from an inactive forum that discusses Eric's post-mortem, pseudo "diagnosis" of psychopathy.

"Detectable Transitions".

One astoundingly prophetic quote, from July 19, 2005:

"I fear for the release of Dave Cullen's book.

How many more people are going to poison minds???"


Cullen had written an article prior to his book called "The Depressive and the Psychopath". This was published in April of 2004, so this "theory" was already being pushed into the public's consciousness five years before his book was released.

I did not pay attention to this article back then (in 2004). I was, however, reading his columbine related articles from 1999 during that time, which did not contain such viewpoints, although they did report some other things erroneously. I actually read "The Depressive and the Psychopath" in 2008.

Someone got to him in some way. Someone with power of some sort. There really is not much of a question about that.

There is so much good info on the CRTF board. I have spent hours on there, although it's been a long time.

Interesting that the person who made the post you quoted was the oracleofgreatness.

Who exactly got to him, in your opinion? And for what purpose?

Wideawake wrote:

There is so much good info on the CRTF board. I have spent hours on there, although it's been a long time.

Interesting that the person who made the post you quoted was the oracleofgreatness.

Who exactly got to him, in your opinion? And for what purpose?

I wish I'd paid closer attention to it when it was actually thriving. I didn't look at/read it until a few years ago. And in my own researching "heyday" (end of 2004-mid 2008), I saw "CRTF" referenced numerous times in different areas of the internet, but I just didn't pay much attention. The primary reason being that my internet access was rather limited during that time period. But, still, I had access sometimes, and wish I'd read that forum back then.

I feel that Cullen was coerced in some fashion to go full steam ahead with this rigid, essentially unflinching "diagnosis" by people in power (JeffCo, attorneys that are involved in some way, etc.). When you look back on his old articles from 1999 and the early 2000s, he hadn't reached this conclusion, and didn't seem to be going in that direction. All of a sudden he comes out with that article, and then the book comes out, and many people have just blindly swallowed it whole.

I said elsewhere on this forum (I can't find the thread right now) that this story also sells because a large majority of the population are somehow soothed by it. It provides them with an easily digestible solution and reason. They don't have to think, and they don't have to look at themselves and deal with the fact that exclusionary and judgmental behavior (along with apathy) might indeed be catalysts in pushing some people over the edge.

When I think of it that way, I feel that he did this on his own to profit from it. Then I start realizing that there was a larger group of people in power that worked alongside him and "helped" him, and that it suits their interests quite perfectly to continue pushing this "reasoning" for what happened into the consciousness of the general public.

In their minds, I believe, pushing this story as the "official" story and diagnosis helps give them more of a reason to demand people to "understand" that there is nothing beneficial in releasing the tapes and other artifacts concerning the case that have been withheld. It removes any blame from JeffCo's incompetence, and it helps the narrow minded people who possibly should be reflecting on their behavior and mindsets from feeling the need to do so.

tfsa47090 wrote:

Wideawake wrote:

There is so much good info on the CRTF board. I have spent hours on there, although it's been a long time.

Interesting that the person who made the post you quoted was the oracleofgreatness.

Who exactly got to him, in your opinion? And for what purpose?

I wish I'd paid closer attention to it when it was actually thriving. I didn't look at/read it until a few years ago. And in my own researching "heyday" (end of 2004-mid 2008), I saw "CRTF" referenced numerous times in different areas of the internet, but I just didn't pay much attention. The primary reason being that my internet access was rather limited during that time period. But, still, I had access sometimes, and wish I'd read that forum back then.

I feel that Cullen was coerced in some fashion to go full steam ahead with this rigid, essentially unflinching "diagnosis" by people in power (JeffCo, attorneys that are involved in some way, etc.). When you look back on his old articles from 1999 and the early 2000s, he hadn't reached this conclusion, and didn't seem to be going in that direction. All of a sudden he comes out with that article, and then the book comes out, and many people have just blindly swallowed it whole.

I said elsewhere on this forum (I can't find the thread right now) that this story also sells because a large majority of the population are somehow soothed by it. It provides them with an easily digestible solution and reason. They don't have to think, and they don't have to look at themselves and deal with the fact that exclusionary and judgmental behavior (along with apathy) might indeed be catalysts in pushing some people over the edge.

When I think of it that way, I feel that he did this on his own to profit from it. Then I start realizing that there was a larger group of people in power that worked alongside him and "helped" him, and that it suits their interests quite perfectly to continue pushing this "reasoning" for what happened into the consciousness of the general public.

In their minds, I believe, pushing this story as the "official" story and diagnosis helps give them more of a reason to demand people to "understand" that there is nothing beneficial in releasing the tapes and other artifacts concerning the case that have been withheld. It removes any blame from JeffCo's incompetence, and it helps the narrow minded people who possibly should be reflecting on their behavior and mindsets from feeling the need to do so.

Unfortunately, CRTF was pretty much done by the time I got deeply interested in Columbine. But as I said, I have spent many hours on the archives reviewing information. There is quite a bit of good stuff there.

As far as Cullen: I don't know that I believe he was coerced, but I sincerely doubt that anyone discouraged him from the direction he went in. I have read somewhere (forgive me because I'm awful on sources) that he suffered from PTSD regarding the case and if that is true, then I wonder how much that influenced the direction that he eventually took with his writings. And yes, I imagine he profited far more from his fictional story, because that's truly what it is, rather than telling the truth.

I think you nailed it when you said that it provides all those readers with an excuse not to examine things more closely. If we operate under the assumption that Eric was a psychopath and Dylan was forced to go along with it, we can lay all the blame at Eric's feet. Nothing could have been done. Hell, we can blame the Harris's too, just for good measure. They're not from the community and they obviously were horrible parents so this is all the family's fault and everyone else is free and clear.

Yes, I can easily see the powers that be backing good ole Dave's story. As far as coercement, I don't know that I necessarily believe it but I wouldn't put it past JeffCo either. I have also seen discussion somewhere on the board about the Klebold family using their money and influence to push that story. While I don't know how much money or influence they have, if it were my child I wouldn't hesitate to try and make him look as good as possible under the circumstances, even if he were already dead. So who knows?

Wideawake wrote:

Unfortunately, CRTF was pretty much done by the time I got deeply interested in Columbine. But as I said, I have spent many hours on the archives reviewing information. There is quite a bit of good stuff there.

As far as Cullen: I don't know that I believe he was coerced, but I sincerely doubt that anyone discouraged him from the direction he went in. I have read somewhere (forgive me because I'm awful on sources) that he suffered from PTSD regarding the case and if that is true, then I wonder how much that influenced the direction that he eventually took with his writings. And yes, I imagine he profited far more from his fictional story, because that's truly what it is, rather than telling the truth.

I think you nailed it when you said that it provides all those readers with an excuse not to examine things more closely. If we operate under the assumption that Eric was a psychopath and Dylan was forced to go along with it, we can lay all the blame at Eric's feet. Nothing could have been done. Hell, we can blame the Harris's too, just for good measure. They're not from the community and they obviously were horrible parents so this is all the family's fault and everyone else is free and clear.

Yes, I can easily see the powers that be backing good ole Dave's story. As far as coercement, I don't know that I necessarily believe it but I wouldn't put it past JeffCo either. I have also seen discussion somewhere on the board about the Klebold family using their money and influence to push that story. While I don't know how much money or influence they have, if it were my child I wouldn't hesitate to try and make him look as good as possible under the circumstances, even if he were already dead. So who knows?

I see that the forum was founded in 2000. I have also read that there was something going on with ownership changes, and in the process, lots and lots of threads were deleted. So in my case, I missed TONS of things from there. I also read something about this being the reason for the Echoes of Columbine forum's existence; they wanted to preserve as much as they could due to various issues concerning ownership and other in-fighting.

Dwayne Fuselier is one of the people who came up with the "diagnosis" of psychopathy for Eric, and from there, Cullen ran with it. That is part of the reason why I feel he was pushed to focus on it and shove it down everyone's throats as the end all be all.

Your points are very valid, and he may have done all of this of his own volition. But, like you said, there is really NO doubt that these people in power were at least pleased and encouraged it wholeheartedly.

This ridiculous theory is perfect for the bulk of the general public, who don't like to think for themselves about anything, let alone take responsibility for anything, either. And the powers that be in JeffCo and any of their affiliates are looking for any reason at all to remove any shred of responsibility from themselves as well.

The point you made about the Klebolds is very interesting. I know which thread you are referring to, but I am not having much luck finding it right now. (Maybe after I've gotten some sleep, or perhaps someone else will find it and post it).

The thread was "basement tapes" in this section. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There was some interesting discussion about whether Sue's family would still be considered influential, and how wealthy the family really is. As far as Dwayne Fuselier, well, I'm not sure how he was allowed to remain on the case and how he justifies post-mortem diagnosis. His son went to that school, knew Eric and Dylan and was more than a passing acquaintance of theirs, and that to me puts him too close to objectively investigate. As well, we're all aware that you cannot diagnose someone with a psychiatric disorder without in person interviews, and that "psychopath" is no longer an official diagnosis according to the DSM IV or the more recent V. And those are both rants that have been covered in depth here, of course.

Every time I dig deeply into the case, I get pissed off at the number of screw ups and the attempts at covering things up and it makes me want to storm JeffCo in a totally nonviolent manner, take custody of every piece of evidence and show them how an investigation could be run properly by someone with no police or forensics background whatsoever.

Wideawake wrote:

The thread was "basement tapes" in this section. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There was some interesting discussion about whether Sue's family would still be considered influential, and how wealthy the family really is. As far as Dwayne Fuselier, well, I'm not sure how he was allowed to remain on the case and how he justifies post-mortem diagnosis. His son went to that school, knew Eric and Dylan and was more than a passing acquaintance of theirs, and that to me puts him too close to objectively investigate. As well, we're all aware that you cannot diagnose someone with a psychiatric disorder without in person interviews, and that "psychopath" is no longer an official diagnosis according to the DSM IV or the more recent V. And those are both rants that have been covered in depth here, of course.

Every time I dig deeply into the case, I get pissed off at the number of screw ups and the attempts at covering things up and it makes me want to storm JeffCo in a totally nonviolent manner, take custody of every piece of evidence and show them how an investigation could be run properly by someone with no police or forensics background whatsoever.

The reason psychopathy is not a diagnosis in DSM-IV and DSM-V is that it was merged with antisocial personality disorder when the former was published. It is now understood the two diagnosis are different. Yeah, illnesses and diagnosis come and go, change names and such. It's confusing.

Now, psychopathy is still a diagnosis but, it is based on the Hare Checklist, not on the DSM-IV and V. It's mostly used in correctional facilities to make sure offenders are identified and not let out.

It's also used and abused in the general population. Who hasn't met their own cuddly psychopath at least once? I know I hear about someone meeting a psychopath in my line of work every day or someone who think they are a psychopath. As if everybody who does something criminally bad and lies is a psychopath.

JayJay, I suppose it was a mistake on my part to assume that they used DSM-IV.   Thanks for the correction. And yes, I agree that the term psychopath is thrown around a little too much.

Hey, it's all right! It gets really confusing because the diagnosis always changes across generations. I'm by no means an expert on the subject.

There are a few reasons to criticize Dwayne Fusilier's diagnosis, but it's a good educated guess, given his limited knowledge of Eric's childhood or home life. First of all, there are a few tell-tale signs of psychopathy: early fire-setting, refusal to internalize punishment (e.g., when Eric stated he wasn't angry that his parents took his weapons away because they might hurt people, but that he had spent so much money on them) and rebellious behavior. However, there are a few clues that disprove psychopathy. One of those signs is fear and anxiety. He stated that as a child, he used to run and hide from loud noises. Psychopaths have reduced neural connections between the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala regions of the brain. This indicates that psychopaths are not startled or frightened by loud noises or overly anxious. When something unexpected happens, such as a person running up behind them, they are mysteriously calm. However, I would like to point out that this applies to primary psychopaths that are high on the checklist.

I dont get why people trie to discount this. Because this has to be done by professionals. I think that if anyone should q this, it has to be done by people that are themselves professionals. As for ASPD, there are many aspects that come into play.

tfsa47090 wrote:

Wideawake wrote:

There is so much good info on the CRTF board. I have spent hours on there, although it's been a long time.

Interesting that the person who made the post you quoted was the oracleofgreatness.

Who exactly got to him, in your opinion? And for what purpose?

I wish I'd paid closer attention to it when it was actually thriving. I didn't look at/read it until a few years ago. And in my own researching "heyday" (end of 2004-mid 2008), I saw "CRTF" referenced numerous times in different areas of the internet, but I just didn't pay much attention. The primary reason being that my internet access was rather limited during that time period. But, still, I had access sometimes, and wish I'd read that forum back then.

I feel that Cullen was coerced in some fashion to go full steam ahead with this rigid, essentially unflinching "diagnosis" by people in power (JeffCo, attorneys that are involved in some way, etc.). When you look back on his old articles from 1999 and the early 2000s, he hadn't reached this conclusion, and didn't seem to be going in that direction. All of a sudden he comes out with that article, and then the book comes out, and many people have just blindly swallowed it whole.

I said elsewhere on this forum (I can't find the thread right now) that this story also sells because a large majority of the population are somehow soothed by it. It provides them with an easily digestible solution and reason. They don't have to think, and they don't have to look at themselves and deal with the fact that exclusionary and judgmental behavior (along with apathy) might indeed be catalysts in pushing some people over the edge.

When I think of it that way, I feel that he did this on his own to profit from it. Then I start realizing that there was a larger group of people in power that worked alongside him and "helped" him, and that it suits their interests quite perfectly to continue pushing this "reasoning" for what happened into the consciousness of the general public.

In their minds, I believe, pushing this story as the "official" story and diagnosis helps give them more of a reason to demand people to "understand" that there is nothing beneficial in releasing the tapes and other artifacts concerning the case that have been withheld. It removes any blame from JeffCo's incompetence, and it helps the narrow minded people who possibly should be reflecting on their behavior and mindsets from feeling the need to do so.

If Cullen's book is wrongful and has a pernicious or loathsome, Cullen-glorifying reason behind its existence it's that Cullen is trying to prove that HE gets everything right, thus ending years and years of the media being wrong, and the media, he argues, got it wrong from the get-go. (He also works this same idea into his reason for arguing against blaming bullying for the massacre--he states in his afterword in the 2016 version of the book that he was bullied himself back in high school and that he supports anti-bullying measures taken since 1999, meaning that his reason for not blaming bullying is "I'm telling the truth, the story you've been hearing all these last 10 years was a big fat myth")

But coerced?....no. For one thing, I don't recall his book making Jeffco looking very good; he seemed to portray them as bumbling. He also did not provide a painful picture of Eric's parents; just that Wayne was a stern disciplinarian. Which he probably was, wasn't he? Cullen is guilty of rosy portraits of Frank DeAngelis, Dylan Klebold and the kids at the school, but not JeffCo or Wayne Harris.

I dont think it hurts with more source criticism. From what I know, most experts agree that he had some sort of anti- social personality disorder.

Im not really sure their stances regarding all the other stuff, though

Norwegian wrote:

I dont get why people trie to discount this. Because this has to be done by professionals. I think that if anyone should q this, it has to be done by people that are themselves professionals.  As for ASPD, there are many aspects that come into play.

People diagnosed with ASPD after the age of 15 already display signs of a conduct disorder in early childhood and adolescence. I am not seeing that in Eric's case, but that's because we don't know if he showed any of the tell-tale signs of early psychopathy in his childhood.

This is incredibly stupid to even speculate about.

Of course, most experts Ive read agree that he was something along those lines. To cherry pick with 'oh he loved hes dog'- no. That doesnt cut it. I dont really understand why its much of a conversation, either.

jada887 wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

I dont get why people trie to discount this. Because this has to be done by professionals. I think that if anyone should q this, it has to be done by people that are themselves professionals.  As for ASPD, there are many aspects that come into play.

People diagnosed with ASPD after the age of 15 already display signs of a conduct disorder in early childhood and adolescence. I am not seeing that in Eric's case, but that's because we don't know if he showed any of the tell-tale signs of early psychopathy in his childhood.

What would be "tell tale" signs of psychopathy for a child? There was discussion related to Eric's habit of mutilating toy army men in 8th grade. A user here suggested that this was normal behavior for young adolescents because their siblings did similar behavior.

jada887 wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

I dont get why people trie to discount this. Because this has to be done by professionals. I think that if anyone should q this, it has to be done by people that are themselves professionals.  As for ASPD, there are many aspects that come into play.

People diagnosed with ASPD after the age of 15 already display signs of a conduct disorder in early childhood and adolescence. I am not seeing that in Eric's case, but that's because we don't know if he showed any of the tell-tale signs of early psychopathy in his childhood.

He didnt. He started showing the traits in HS

Wideawake wrote:

Every time I dig deeply into the case, I get pissed off at the number of screw ups and the attempts at covering things up and it makes me want to storm JeffCo in a totally nonviolent manner, take custody of every piece of evidence and show them how an investigation could be run properly by someone with no police or forensics background whatsoever.

You guys think the whole Luvox thing had anything to do with the predominant narrative?

JayJay wrote:

Now, psychopathy is still a diagnosis but, it is based on the Hare Checklist, not on the DSM-IV and V. It's mostly used in correctional facilities to make sure offenders are identified and not let out.

I thought psychopathy can only be diagnosed with a brain scan.

jada887 wrote:

However, there are a few clues that disprove psychopathy. One of those signs is fear and anxiety. He stated that as a child, he used to run and hide from loud noises. Psychopaths have reduced neural connections between the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala regions of the brain. This indicates that psychopaths are not startled or frightened by loud noises or overly anxious. When something unexpected happens, such as a person running up behind them, they are mysteriously calm. However, I would like to point out that this applies to primary psychopaths that are high on the checklist.

Psychopaths also, by definition, don't have the capacity to get depressed, let alone suicidal. And they certainly don't have the capacity to hate themselves. Which is why the diagnosis makes no logical sense for any rampage killer that is depressed, self-loathing, and/or ends up killing themselves. Sociopaths have slightly more capacity to get depressed, but sociopaths are considered to be a product of an abusive environment (ie. not inherently born that way) and are considered to be more treatable.

jada887 wrote:

People diagnosed with ASPD after the age of 15 already display signs of a conduct disorder in early childhood and adolescence. I am not seeing that in Eric's case, but that's because we don't know if he showed any of the tell-tale signs of early psychopathy in his childhood.

People who knew him before high school said he didn't show anti-social behavior before then, and was a normal kid.

BTW, I have a hypothetical question. I'm not saying this happened, it's just a hypothetical. What would happen if new evidence came to light indicating that Eric had been abused as a child in some way (other than the bullying we know about?) Would that change the "expert analysis" diagnosis from psychopathy to something more like narcissistic personality disorder or complex PTSD? Is the psychopathy diagnosis just a catch-all for "well, we can't find anything that bad that happened to him, so, I guess he must have been a psychopath?"

QuestionMark wrote:

What would be "tell tale" signs of psychopathy for a child? There was discussion related to Eric's habit of mutilating toy army men in 8th grade. A user here suggested that this was normal behavior for young adolescents because their siblings did similar behavior.

Mutilating inanimate plastic toys, while strange for an 8th grader to do, is not a sign of conduct disorder. (Under that criteria, basically everyone would be psychopaths -- who among us didn't pull the head off a Barbie doll or kill off someone in The Sims, as a kid?)

Conduct disorder would be more along the lines of, starting fights regularly, terrorizing younger children, harming animals, sexual assaults, stealing, destruction of other peoples' property. Having encounters with the police at a very young age. Like those kids you hear of that are completely out of control and are just a terror to everyone they encounter.

downwardspiral wrote:

Wideawake wrote:

Every time I dig deeply into the case, I get pissed off at the number of screw ups and the attempts at covering things up and it makes me want to storm JeffCo in a totally nonviolent manner, take custody of every piece of evidence and show them how an investigation could be run properly by someone with no police or forensics background whatsoever.

You guys think the whole Luvox thing had anything to do with the predominant narrative?

Doubtful, though as I've pointed out in other threads the Luvox could've easily done more harm than good since it was plainly not the right medication Eric needed.

downwardspiral wrote:

BTW, I have a hypothetical question. I'm not saying this happened, it's just a hypothetical. What would happen if new evidence came to light indicating that Eric had been abused as a child in some way (other than the bullying we know about?) Would that change the "expert analysis" diagnosis from psychopathy to something more like narcissistic personality disorder or complex PTSD? Is the psychopathy diagnosis just a catch-all for "well, we can't find anything that bad that happened to him, so, I guess he must have been a psychopath?"

Well, Wayne Harris was said to be a strict father. It would not surprise me if traditional methods of discipline (spanking, etc.) were used on Eric and negatively effected him. And yeah, I've long thought that Eric's true problem might have been NPD rather than ASPD.

downwardspiral wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

What would be "tell tale" signs of psychopathy for a child? There was discussion related to Eric's habit of mutilating toy army men in 8th grade. A user here suggested that this was normal behavior for young adolescents because their siblings did similar behavior.

Mutilating inanimate plastic toys, while strange for an 8th grader to do, is not a sign of conduct disorder. (Under that criteria, basically everyone would be psychopaths -- who among us didn't pull the head off a Barbie doll or kill off someone in The Sims, as a kid?)

Conduct disorder would be more along the lines of, starting fights regularly, terrorizing younger children, harming animals, sexual assaults, stealing, destruction of other peoples' property. Having encounters with the police at a very young age. Like those kids you hear of that are completely out of control and are just a terror to everyone they encounter.

Exactly! You came right out and said what I was trying to convey through implication.

QuestionMark wrote:

Doubtful, though as I've pointed out in other threads the Luvox could've easily done more harm than good since it was plainly not the right medication Eric needed.

I don't think it's necessarily a coincidence that he only started openly writing about planning the attack within a few weeks of starting Luvox.

In fact, for all we know, considering Dylan wrote about it in 1997 and Eric was only his third choice of partner, maybe Dylan came up with the idea and Eric only joined in, or only got serious about it, after going on Luvox, which can cause suicidal and homicidal thoughts in adolescents (or worsening of existing suicidal and homicidal thoughts, in his case). It does fit with the evidence we have, after all.

Quote :

Well, Wayne Harris was said to be a strict father. It would not surprise me if traditional methods of discipline (spanking, etc.) were used on Eric and negatively effected him. And yeah, I've long thought that Eric's true problem might have been NPD rather than ASPD.

It doesn't even necessarily have to be abuse from his parents. For all we know, maybe he was sexually assaulted by a peer or teacher, or something.

I'm not saying it happened, of course. I'm just saying that I feel like psychopathy in this case was sort of a "fuck if I know!" diagnosis. The actual progression of mental illness, ie. manifesting only from about ninth grade onward, seems to point to some sort of trauma being the cause as opposed to being inborn. But since nobody could really identify for sure what that trauma was (besides bullying), that's how we end up with psychopathy, I guess.

Quote :

Exactly! You came right out and said what I was trying to convey through implication.

LOL that went right over my head

downwardspiral wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

Doubtful, though as I've pointed out in other threads the Luvox could've easily done more harm than good since it was plainly not the right medication Eric needed.

I don't think it's necessarily a coincidence that he only started openly writing about planning the attack within a few weeks of starting Luvox.

Did he? There were earlier drafts of the plan - more childish fantasies than realistic plotting admittedly - made before the van break-in and his Luvox prescription. Though I reiterate, Eric was very likely prescribed medication he didn't need, so the drugs could've easily fucked with him.

downwardspiral wrote:

Quote :

Well, Wayne Harris was said to be a strict father. It would not surprise me if traditional methods of discipline (spanking, etc.) were used on Eric and negatively effected him. And yeah, I've long thought that Eric's true problem might have been NPD rather than ASPD.

It doesn't even necessarily have to be abuse from his parents. For all we know, maybe he was sexually assaulted by a peer or teacher, or something.

I'm not saying it happened, of course. I'm just saying that I feel like psychopathy in this case was sort of a "fuck if I know!" diagnosis. The actual progression of mental illness, ie. manifesting only from about ninth grade onward, seems to point to some sort of trauma being the cause as opposed to being inborn. But since nobody could really identify for sure what that trauma was (besides bullying), that's how we end up with psychopathy, I guess.

Of course, I just used Wayne as an example because to me it seems that he would be most likely to have abused Eric if it had been anyone. Maybe the constant moving from place to place could be sufficient enough to be considered trauma (Eric himself blamed the constant moves for contributing to his anger).

QuestionMark wrote:

Did he? There were earlier drafts of the plan - more childish fantasies than realistic plotting admittedly - made before the van break-in and his Luvox prescription. Though I reiterate, Eric was very likely prescribed medication he didn't need, so the drugs could've easily fucked with him.

He definitely had homicidal thoughts since at least 1997, but the earliest reference Eric made to an actual solid plan to harm people in real life (ie. NBK) was within a few weeks of starting to take SSRIs:
When did Eric and Dylan start planning the massacre and when did they start writing about it?
SSRIs and Eric Harris

Quote :

Of course, I just used Wayne as an example because to me it seems that he would be most likely to have abused Eric if it had been anyone. Maybe the constant moving from place to place could be sufficient enough to be considered trauma (Eric himself blamed the constant moves for contributing to his anger).

I've read before that moving frequently can sometimes cause borderline personality disorder as it leads to a fragmenting of the sense of self, or something like that. Presumably, it also could cause someone to have an inability to form deep relationships and thereby care about others, as any attempt to do so would just end in having to leave that person behind.

downwardspiral wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

Did he? There were earlier drafts of the plan - more childish fantasies than realistic plotting admittedly - made before the van break-in and his Luvox prescription. Though I reiterate, Eric was very likely prescribed medication he didn't need, so the drugs could've easily fucked with him.

He definitely had homicidal thoughts since at least 1997, but the earliest reference Eric made to an actual solid plan to harm people in real life (ie. NBK) was within a few weeks of starting to take SSRIs:
When did Eric and Dylan start planning the massacre and when did they start writing about it?
SSRIs and Eric Harris

Interesting, though the timelines suggest Eric's homicidal ideation was evolving before being prescribed medication.
"The Brown's brought additional writings from Eric's website to police in mid- March 1998; they are not dated so it's unknown when he Eric wrote these. In this set of pages, Eric makes specific threats about killing Brooks and also talks about setting up explosives all over town and setting them off after he has mowed down a whole area of people."
"Eric Harris was prescribed the medication called Zoloft in April ‘98"

downwardspiral wrote:

Quote :

Of course, I just used Wayne as an example because to me it seems that he would be most likely to have abused Eric if it had been anyone. Maybe the constant moving from place to place could be sufficient enough to be considered trauma (Eric himself blamed the constant moves for contributing to his anger).

I've read before that moving frequently can sometimes cause borderline personality disorder as it leads to a fragmenting of the sense of self, or something like that. Presumably, it also could cause someone to have an inability to form deep relationships and thereby care about others, as any attempt to do so would just end in having to leave that person behind.

Makes sense.

I dont think it's true that Erics dad abused him. Where is this coming from?

QuestionMark wrote:

Interesting, though the timelines suggest Eric's homicidal ideation was evolving before being prescribed medication.
"The Brown's brought additional writings from Eric's website to police in mid- March 1998; they are not dated so it's unknown when he Eric wrote these. In this set of pages, Eric makes specific threats about killing Brooks and also talks about setting up explosives all over town and setting them off after he has mowed down a whole area of people."
"Eric Harris was prescribed the medication called Zoloft in April ‘98"

But he never followed through on those threats. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he never physically harmed Brooks at all, did he? The only plan that he actually followed through on -- and spent significant time planning -- was Columbine, and the earliest evidence of him planning it was immediately after going on SSRIs. My point is, considering the black-box warning on both drugs he took, perhaps this was the push from homicidal thoughts and threats to action.

Norwegian wrote:

I  dont think it's true that Erics dad abused him. Where is this coming from?

Nobody is saying he did. I'm just saying:
a) The fact that he didn't engage in concerning behavior until high school seems less indicative of psychopathy or some other inborn diagnosis, and more indicative of a personality disorder or some other diagnosis that is primarily caused by environmental trauma.
b) If it turned out Eric had been abused by someone (not necessarily anyone in his family), would this change his diagnosis from psychopathy to something else, like a personality disorder? Is the diagnosis made more due to lack of evidence, than to evidence?

downwardspiral wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

Interesting, though the timelines suggest Eric's homicidal ideation was evolving before being prescribed medication.
"The Brown's brought additional writings from Eric's website to police in mid- March 1998; they are not dated so it's unknown when he Eric wrote these. In this set of pages, Eric makes specific threats about killing Brooks and also talks about setting up explosives all over town and setting them off after he has mowed down a whole area of people."
"Eric Harris was prescribed the medication called Zoloft in April ‘98"

But he never followed through on those threats. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he never physically harmed Brooks at all, did he? The only plan that he actually followed through on -- and spent significant time planning -- was Columbine, and the earliest evidence of him planning it was immediately after going on SSRIs. My point is, considering the black-box warning on both drugs he took, perhaps this was the push from homicidal thoughts and threats to action.

That's fair. I'm just pointing out that from what I can tell it looked like Eric's homicidal ideation was beginning to grow without the medication. First was the "you know what I hate" rants, which appear more comedic than serious (though with maximum edge). Then later on come the threats against Brooks, the explicit desire to set up bombs around Denver and shoot random people. It seems escalatory.

QuestionMark wrote:

That's fair. I'm just pointing out that from what I can tell it looked like Eric's homicidal ideation was beginning to grow without the medication. First was the "you know what I hate" rants, which appear more comedic than serious (though with maximum edge). Then later on come the threats against Brooks, the explicit desire to set up bombs around Denver and shoot random people. It seems escalatory.

There is an escalation, but I guess it depends on how serious he was being about those early threats, which is probably something we will never know. But there seems to be no evidence of him actually making serious plans for an attack until spring 1998.

Norwegian wrote:

This is where the psychopath/ narssist conclusion comes from.

He wasnt just an ordinary ASPD. He had quite sadistic traits, combined with it, whereas Dylan Klebold was a major depressive, and, some would argue, schizoid.

But by that logic, one could say that anyone in a death metal band who writes lyrics about eating corpses and so on, is a psychopath with sadistic traits. There's no evidence that those early threats were anything but an edgelord trying to be tough, and that he made any plans to follow through on them at the time.

I just think it's an awfully big coincidence that the first evidence Eric was actually planning Columbine came within weeks of starting medications that are now known -- although it wasn't known at the time -- to increase the risk of suicide in people under age 24, and now have a black-box warning from the FDA about that. And specifically after switching medications too, which also can cause a worsening of mental problems.

The evidence from their journals indicates Columbine was probably Dylan's idea first, Eric was only his third choice of potential partner, and Eric didn't join onto the plan until spring 1998.

downwardspiral wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

That's fair. I'm just pointing out that from what I can tell it looked like Eric's homicidal ideation was beginning to grow without the medication. First was the "you know what I hate" rants, which appear more comedic than serious (though with maximum edge). Then later on come the threats against Brooks, the explicit desire to set up bombs around Denver and shoot random people. It seems escalatory.

There is an escalation, but I guess it depends on how serious he was being about those early threats, which is probably something we will never know. But there seems to be no evidence of him actually making serious plans for an attack until spring 1998.

Norwegian wrote:

This is where the psychopath/ narssist conclusion comes from.

He wasnt just an ordinary ASPD. He had quite sadistic traits, combined with it, whereas Dylan Klebold was a major depressive, and, some would argue, schizoid.

But by that logic, one could say that anyone in a death metal band who writes lyrics about eating corpses and so on, is a psychopath with sadistic traits. There's no evidence that those early threats were anything but an edgelord trying to be tough, and that he made any plans to follow through on them at the time.

I just think it's an awfully big coincidence that the first evidence Eric was actually planning Columbine came within weeks of starting medications that are now known -- although it wasn't known at the time -- to increase the risk of suicide in people under age 24, and now have a black-box warning from the FDA about that. And specifically after switching medications too, which also can cause a worsening of mental problems.

The evidence from their journals indicates Columbine was probably Dylan's idea first, Eric was only his third choice of potential partner, and Eric didn't join onto the plan until spring 1998.

Uhh... what? Thats not Even remotely comparable. Most of those bands never went on to committ a mass murder. They write about it, because its entertainment, more or less. Nothing more. Eric write what he does, not because its entertaibment, but because thats how he thinks. Its how he sees the world. For a death metal band, this might as well have to with art. Slayer etc talks about death because its art.

For the sake of argument, we can also say that the music business have psychopaths in them aswell. Yet, somehow, experts Ive looked at argue that Eric Harris wasnt just that. But a sadistic psychopath. Are all of these experts wrong? I dont think so. .
Ive read Why Kids kill by Peter Langmann. I trust the experts opinion on this, that when they say that this is true- that means its true. Also, isnt it true that most psychopaths never kill?

Also, it doesnt make any sense to compare death metal with Eric Harris. Most of these bands have never committed murder. For many of them it's about art and entertaibment.  Of course, its possible that you find psychopaths in the metal scene as well. Yet, I would assume very few of them become killers.

Other than that: What you said about luvox is probably a good point.


IDK who was the ring leader. I though it was pretty much debated back and forth by the experts themselves. The problem is that most school shooters act alone, so this buggs the question of what happens when there are two. Jonesboro and Columbine are the only ones I can think off, where the shooters have been successful in carrying them out.

Regardless: Even if Dylan mentions it once before Eric, I dont think this is going to dispute or verify much of anything. I think it's important to look at the whole picture, everything else we know about the two etc. Was Dylan suicidal? Yes. Is it possible that he may have relied on Eric in order to committ suicide? I dont dispute that. Is it likely that we are talking about murder- suicide? A lot of sources have argued this.

Understand school shooters and how they do what they do, imo is extremely difficult. Much more than I thought it would be.

Norwegian wrote:

Uhh... what? Thats not Even remotely comparable. Most of those bands never went on to committ a mass murder. They write about it, because its entertainment, more or less. Nothing more. Eric write what he does, not because its entertaibment, but because thats how he thinks. Its how he sees the world. For a death metal band, this might as well have to with art. Slayer etc talks about death because its art.

You're assuming that he always had the intention to commit mass murder though.

Quote :

For the sake of argument, we can also say that the music business have psychopaths in them aswell. Yet, somehow, experts Ive looked at argue that Eric Harris wasnt just that. But a sadistic psychopath. Are all of these experts wrong? I dont think so. .
Ive read Why Kids kill by Peter Langmann. I trust the experts opinion on this, that when they say that this is true- that means its true. Also, isnt it true that most psychopaths never kill?

Aren't most of them just parroting the opinion of that FBI agent whose kid survived Columbine?

I honestly don't think much of psychology as a discipline, either. I have an educational/work background in one of the hard sciences, and I feel like psychology is still stuck in levels of scientific rigor from 100 years ago. The definitions in psychology are changing all the time. The standards for evaluation really aren't nearly as rigorous as any of the other fields of science. They don't have hard evidence to back up most of their definitions and diagnoses (which is evidenced by the fact that most people who have to multiple therapists have gotten multiple, often conflicting diagnoses). They literally aren't even sure how most of the medications even work.

And the definitions of the diagnoses themselves, and what is considered to be a "mental illness" in the first place, seem to be strongly influenced by the politics and social norms of the time. Sometimes I wonder if the problem of why we can't figure out the mental health crisis is that the field itself is complete garbage with no standards.

Like, psychopathy, for example. It seems like the definition of psychopathy has changed over time, maybe even in the past 20 years. Psychopathy and sociopathy used to mean pretty much the same thing -- anti-social personality disorder -- and it was diagnosed by a long pattern of anti-social behavior. Now, psychopathy is considered to be inborn and can only be legitimately diagnosed with a brain scan, while sociopathy is considered to be the result of trauma and is considered to be somewhat reversible. But, then there are also "pro-social" psychopaths who don't actually harm anyone, and the theory is that environment strongly influences whether a psychopath turns out violent or not. So the question is, how much does having an inherently psychopathic brain actually matter in whether a person turns out to be violent, or does it come down mostly to environment in the end anyway?

But then, because of virtue signaling, there's also this push to say things like "depression doesn't cause people to be violent," or, "autism doesn't cause people to be violent," and accuse people of "stigmatizing mental illness" if they say otherwise, and basically claim that ONLY psychopathy/sociopathy make people violent. When that's not even what the evidence supports. Both of those diagnoses ARE linked with an increased risk of violence, according to the research. So again, the conclusions of the field, which are supposed to be scientific, are again strongly influenced by politics and social norms. It seems to be more about virtue signaling than actual science.

Also, isn't it considered in the psychology field to be a violation of professional ethics for a psychologist/psychiatrist to diagnose someone that they have never met or evaluated in person? So what is the basis for these "experts" writing all these books anyway?

Quote :

Understand school shooters and how they do what they do, imo is extremely difficult. Much more than I thought it would be.

Well, as I said, the field of psychology itself may be the problem here.

downwardspiral wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Uhh... what? Thats not Even remotely comparable. Most of those bands never went on to committ a mass murder. They write about it, because its entertainment, more or less. Nothing more. Eric write what he does, not because its entertaibment, but because thats how he thinks. Its how he sees the world. For a death metal band, this might as well have to with art. Slayer etc talks about death because its art.

You're assuming that he always had the intention to commit mass murder though.

Quote :

For the sake of argument, we can also say that the music business have psychopaths in them aswell. Yet, somehow, experts Ive looked at argue that Eric Harris wasnt just that. But a sadistic psychopath. Are all of these experts wrong? I dont think so. .
Ive read Why Kids kill by Peter Langmann. I trust the experts opinion on this, that when they say that this is true- that means its true. Also, isnt it true that most psychopaths never kill?

Aren't most of them just parroting the opinion of that FBI agent whose kid survived Columbine?

I honestly don't think much of psychology as a discipline, either. I have an educational/work background in one of the hard sciences, and I feel like psychology is still stuck in levels of scientific rigor from 100 years ago. The definitions in psychology are changing all the time. The standards for evaluation really aren't nearly as rigorous as any of the other fields of science. They don't have hard evidence to back up most of their definitions and diagnoses (which is evidenced by the fact that most people who have to multiple therapists have gotten multiple, often conflicting diagnoses). They literally aren't even sure how most of the medications even work.

And the definitions of the diagnoses themselves, and what is considered to be a "mental illness" in the first place, seem to be strongly influenced by the politics and social norms of the time. Sometimes I wonder if the problem of why we can't figure out the mental health crisis is that the field itself is complete garbage with no standards.

Like, psychopathy, for example. It seems like the definition of psychopathy has changed over time, maybe even in the past 20 years. Psychopathy and sociopathy used to mean pretty much the same thing -- anti-social personality disorder -- and it was diagnosed by a long pattern of anti-social behavior. Now, psychopathy is considered to be inborn and can only be legitimately diagnosed with a brain scan, while sociopathy is considered to be the result of trauma and is considered to be somewhat reversible. But, then there are also "pro-social" psychopaths who don't actually harm anyone, and the theory is that environment strongly influences whether a psychopath turns out violent or not. So the question is, how much does having an inherently psychopathic brain actually matter in whether a person turns out to be violent, or does it come down mostly to environment in the end anyway?

But then, because of virtue signaling, there's also this push to say things like "depression doesn't cause people to be violent," or, "autism doesn't cause people to be violent," and accuse people of "stigmatizing mental illness" if they say otherwise, and basically claim that ONLY psychopathy/sociopathy make people violent. When that's not even what the evidence supports. Both of those diagnoses ARE linked with an increased risk of violence, according to the research. So again, the conclusions of the field, which are supposed to be scientific, are again strongly influenced by politics and social norms. It seems to be more about virtue signaling than actual science.

Also, isn't it considered in the psychology field to be a violation of professional ethics for a psychologist/psychiatrist to diagnose someone that they have never met or evaluated in person? So what is the basis for these "experts" writing all these books anyway?

Quote :

Understand school shooters and how they do what they do, imo is extremely difficult. Much more than I thought it would be.

Well, as I said, the field of psychology itself may be the problem here.

Not necessarily. They have come up with their own conclusions. Besides, Fuselyer wasnt the only one participating in diagnosing Eric and Dylan. Lots of other forensics worked together to figure out the psychology of Eric and Dylan. Fuselyer is just one expert drawing on similar conclusions. But, yes, the environment might play a role, for what Im aware. It probably did for both Eric and Dylan. Like Langmann argues, psychopathy or ASPD isnt enough for the psychopathic school shooter. As with any school shooter, that is. I think he also argues that very few of them fall into the psychopath- 'category'. Yet, Eric Harris does. That wasnt the only factor, however. I would say that I believe these are the factors

- The van break in.

- He was unsuccessful with girls.

- He didnt get the attention that he felt he deserved.

Authority over powered him and therefore he wanted to show them whos God

Norwegian wrote:

Not necessarily. They have come up with their own conclusions. Besides, Fuselyer wasnt the only one participating in diagnosing Eric and Dylan. Lots of other forensics worked together to figure out the psychology of Eric and Dylan. Fuselyer is just one expert drawing on similar conclusions.

The fact that they allowed him to be on the investigation in the first place, despite an obvious conflict of interest, calls the entire investigation into question, in my opinion. It shows that they didn't care about objectivity and neutrality.

Quote :

But, yes, the environment might play a role, for what Im aware. It probably did for both Eric and Dylan. Like Langmann argues, psychopathy or ASPD isnt enough for the psychopathic school shooter. As with any school shooter, that is. I think he also argues that very few of them fall into the psychopath- 'category'. Yet, Eric Harris does. That wasnt the only factor, however. I would say that I believe these are the factors

- The van break in.

- He was unsuccessful with girls.

- He didnt get the attention that he felt he deserved.

Authority over powered him and therefore he wanted to show them whos God

Langmann himself seems to be confused over what the diagnosis is. In this article, he uses the term "disturbed personality with prominent antisocial, narcissistic, and sadistic traits." But then in his "classification" in his book, he says Eric was a psychopath. A personality disorder is not the same diagnosis as psychopathy, which is a neurological disorder. So which one is it?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Then in this article, it seems like the only reason why he feels more charitable towards Dylan is because he actually talked to Sue Klebold, which doesn't seem very objective to me at all. In fact this is a clear example of what I was talking about with how psychology seems to have questionable standards of scientific rigor.

He says that Dylan was delusional and "created a fantasy where he was a godlike being"...but Eric did the exact same thing, but it's psychopathic and narcissistic when he does it? He even makes claims against the evidence. He claims that Dylan was "willing to kill people to win Eric's approval," when Eric seemed more attached to Dylan than the other way around, and more importantly, Eric wasn't even Dylan's first or even second choice of who to commit a mass attack with.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Gotta say, I find your analysis pretty spot on. Couple things I'd like to add my own commentary to or otherwise make note of.

downwardspiral wrote:

They don't have hard evidence to back up most of their definitions and diagnoses (which is evidenced by the fact that most people who have to multiple therapists have gotten multiple, often conflicting diagnoses).

And many people in prison have received wildly differing diagnoses. A while ago I was looking at the Luka Magnotta case and was stunned that six different experts had come up with nearly as many different diagnoses, some co-morbid and others not. That more than anything changed how I view psychology.

downwardspiral wrote:

He says that Dylan was delusional and "created a fantasy where he was a godlike being"...but Eric did the exact same thing, but it's psychopathic and narcissistic when he does it?

Indeed. He also attempted to point out in his book (I believe), that rampage killers that attach global significance to their crimes (think Cho or Pekka) are operating under delusional thinking...while also admitting that Eric is the only "psychopathic" shooter to show the same pattern of thinking.

Norwegian wrote:

That wasnt the only factor, however. I would say that I believe these are the factors

- The van break in.

- He was unsuccessful with girls.

- He didnt get the attention that he felt he deserved.

Authority over powered him and therefore he wanted to show them whos God

So you're telling me that when Eric gets shoved into lockers, gets punched in the face by Dan Lab, has garbage thrown at him, is disrespected by underclassmen, and is called a faggot by his peers, this all has less to do with his actions than needing attention? I'll grant you the first two points because Eric himself talked about how emasculating it felt to get arrested for the van break in and admitted he felt he had no self-esteem when it came to women. But he also, blatantly, unambiguously complained about people picking on him, and for some reason you've decided that's not valid.

You've also forgot to add the experience of constantly moving, which Eric also unambiguously said contributed towards his anger.

QuestionMark wrote:

@downwardpiral Gotta say, I find your analysis pretty spot on. Couple things I'd like to add my own commentary to or otherwise make note of.

downwardspiral wrote:

They don't have hard evidence to back up most of their definitions and diagnoses (which is evidenced by the fact that most people who have to multiple therapists have gotten multiple, often conflicting diagnoses).

And many people in prison have received wildly differing diagnoses. A while ago I was looking at the Luka Magnotta case and was stunned that six different experts had come up with nearly as many different diagnoses, some co-morbid and others not. That more than anything changed how I view psychology.

downwardspiral wrote:

He says that Dylan was delusional and "created a fantasy where he was a godlike being"...but Eric did the exact same thing, but it's psychopathic and narcissistic when he does it?

Indeed. He also attempted to point out in his book (I believe), that rampage killers that attach global significance to their crimes (think Cho or Pekka) are operating under delusional thinking...while also admitting that Eric is the only "psychopathic" shooter to show the same pattern of thinking.

Norwegian wrote:

That wasnt the only factor, however. I would say that I believe these are the factors

- The van break in.

- He was unsuccessful with girls.

- He didnt get the attention that he felt he deserved.

Authority over powered him and therefore he wanted to show them whos God

So you're telling me that when Eric gets shoved into lockers, gets punched in the face by Dan Lab, has garbage thrown at him, is disrespected by underclassmen, and is called a faggot by his peers, this all has less to do with his actions than needing attention? I'll grant you the first two points because Eric himself talked about how emasculating it felt to get arrested for the van break in and admitted he felt he had no self-esteem when it came to women. But he also, blatantly, unambiguously complained about people picking on him, and for some reason you've decided that's not valid.

You've also forgot to add the experience of constantly moving, which Eric also unambiguously said contributed towards his anger.

Im saying that people have the tendency to not see things into context,. The fact is, not even the 11k documents are guaranteed to be 100% reliable. Thats just a fact. Theres the whole aspect of who said what and who they are actually referencing.

People like whatever confirms their view, for the most part. We have been accustomed to the view of the bullied school shooter, mainly through media and popular culture. Reality is, for the most part, much more complex

Norwegian wrote:

The fact is, not even the 11k documents are guaranteed to be 100% reliable.

I'm not going off the 11k. I'm going off things Eric said or wrote, and he said he was mad over people picking on him.

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

The fact is, not even the 11k documents are guaranteed to be 100% reliable.

I'm not going off the 11k. I'm going off things Eric said or wrote, and he said he was mad over people picking on him.

He rarely mentions being picked on. Probably once or twice. Most of hes anger is directed towards the human race as a whole

As for the Whole Dan Lab incident. Only thing I could find was an incident where he supposedly had punched Eric and no one really knows why. Both Eric and Dylan had a habit of getting into fights with people. It could be bullying, but, than again, they also had a tendency to be bullies or just get into fights with people.

I remember when I went to middle school and high school, the bullies tried to beat me up many times. Yet, there were also times where the victim became so poked around to the point when they snapped and retaliated by becoming extremely physical. One example was, I once out one of my bullies in a choke hole. As I was so pissed off. So one could represent this incident by saying I bullied him/ her. Yet, its the other way around. I remember this even in elementary, middle school and high school: Kids fight each other off for all kinds of reasons. Not all of this have to do with bullying

QuestionMark wrote:

And many people in prison have received wildly differing diagnoses. A while ago I was looking at the Luka Magnotta case and was stunned that six different experts had come up with nearly as many different diagnoses, some co-morbid and others not. That more than anything changed how I view psychology.

Yes, I've noticed that as well. Jeffrey Dahmer was another example of that. I've also noticed that a lot of times, they downplay or conveniently forget to mention reported delusional and psychotic symptoms in killers, because it's not politically expedient. Andrew Cunanan and Adam Lanza for example, were reported to have had those symptoms shortly before their attacks, by people who knew them. Yet you have to go digging to find that information, because it doesn't fit with the narrative that people want to advance. Even that mini-series about Andrew Cunanan didn't mention it.

There's also no physical evidence specifying many of the diagnoses. Like what does a personality disorder look like in the brain? What is the dividing line between having and not having a personality disorder? It's 2020 and yet they still can't answer that. It's all based on one person's personal opinion. There's probably some people who have been diagnosed with personality disorders just because their particular therapist didn't get along with them.

Research doesn't even indicate that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. Most people believe the science is settled on that because that's what they've been told. But the actual research indicates it's mostly a marketing tagline, with little evidence behind it. (Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Indeed. He also attempted to point out in his book (I believe), that rampage killers that attach global significance to their crimes (think Cho or Pekka) are operating under delusional thinking...while also admitting that Eric is the only "psychopathic" shooter to show the same pattern of thinking.

It really sounds to me like this guy is just making it up as he goes along. I'm not sure why the possibility of Eric being delusional gets consistently thrown out, when he had the same "godlike" talk as Dylan, and when so many mass killers turn out to be delusional. Especially when it is known that delusions can be shared between two people (folie a deux), and there have even been quite a few documented murders linked to that phenomenon.

Quote :

I'll grant you the first two points because Eric himself talked about how emasculating it felt to get arrested for the van break in and admitted he felt he had no self-esteem when it came to women.

Also, doesn't this indicate he wasn't a psychopath? Psychopaths, according to the definition as it stands, don't have low self-esteem and don't feel emasculated.

Norwegian wrote:

Im saying that people have the tendency to not see things into context,. The fact is, not even the 11k documents are guaranteed to be 100% reliable. Thats just a fact. Theres the whole aspect of who said what and who they are actually referencing.

But they do provide a probability distribution of the truth.

Quote :

People like whatever confirms their view, for the most part. We have been accustomed to the view of the bullied school shooter, mainly through media and popular culture. Reality is, for the most part, much more complex

Well, you're painting me with a universal brush here. I don't have an opinion on whether every school shooter was bullied, because my opinion is "what does the evidence say?" The evidence indicates that Eric and Dylan definitely were, and that their symptoms only developed after experiencing bullying, and that they were angry about being bullied.

It's also possible that some mass shooters were psychopaths. I just don't think Eric was, because his symptoms didn't show up until high school, as far as we know, and because many of his symptoms (self-loathing, depression, suicidality, etc.) were inconsistent with psychopathy, as it is defined. In general though, it seems like it's less likely for a mass shooter to be a psychopath, because there usually is a significant component of depression, suicidality, and self-loathing, which is antithetical to the neurological condition of psychopathy. Psychopaths are more likely to engage in methods of murder where they can evade detection. But it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If there was a mass shooter who was a psychopath though, they most likely wouldn't kill themselves at the end, even if they got arrested.

downwardspiral wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

And many people in prison have received wildly differing diagnoses. A while ago I was looking at the Luka Magnotta case and was stunned that six different experts had come up with nearly as many different diagnoses, some co-morbid and others not. That more than anything changed how I view psychology.

Yes, I've noticed that as well. Jeffrey Dahmer was another example of that. I've also noticed that a lot of times, they downplay or conveniently forget to mention reported delusional and psychotic symptoms in killers, because it's not politically expedient. Andrew Cunanan and Adam Lanza for example, were reported to have had those symptoms shortly before their attacks, by people who knew them. Yet you have to go digging to find that information, because it doesn't fit with the narrative that people want to advance. Even that mini-series about Andrew Cunanan didn't mention it.

There's also no physical evidence specifying many of the diagnoses. Like what does a personality disorder look like in the brain? What is the dividing line between having and not having a personality disorder? It's 2020 and yet they still can't answer that. It's all based on one person's personal opinion. There's probably some people who have been diagnosed with personality disorders just because their particular therapist didn't get along with them.

Research doesn't even indicate that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. Most people believe the science is settled on that because that's what they've been told. But the actual research indicates it's mostly a marketing tagline, with little evidence behind it. (Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Indeed. He also attempted to point out in his book (I believe), that rampage killers that attach global significance to their crimes (think Cho or Pekka) are operating under delusional thinking...while also admitting that Eric is the only "psychopathic" shooter to show the same pattern of thinking.

It really sounds to me like this guy is just making it up as he goes along. I'm not sure why the possibility of Eric being delusional gets consistently thrown out, when he had the same "godlike" talk as Dylan, and when so many mass killers turn out to be delusional. Especially when it is known that delusions can be shared between two people (folie a deux), and there have even been quite a few documented murders linked to that phenomenon.

Quote :

I'll grant you the first two points because Eric himself talked about how emasculating it felt to get arrested for the van break in and admitted he felt he had no self-esteem when it came to women.

Also, doesn't this indicate he wasn't a psychopath? Psychopaths, according to the definition as it stands, don't have low self-esteem and don't feel emasculated.

Norwegian wrote:

Im saying that people have the tendency to not see things into context,. The fact is, not even the 11k documents are guaranteed to be 100% reliable. Thats just a fact. Theres the whole aspect of who said what and who they are actually referencing.

But they do provide a probability distribution of the truth.

Quote :

People like whatever confirms their view, for the most part. We have been accustomed to the view of the bullied school shooter, mainly through media and popular culture. Reality is, for the most part, much more complex

Well, you're painting me with a universal brush here. I don't have an opinion on whether every school shooter was bullied, because my opinion is "what does the evidence say?" The evidence indicates that Eric and Dylan definitely were, and that their symptoms only developed after experiencing bullying, and that they were angry about being bullied.

It's also possible that some mass shooters were psychopaths. I just don't think Eric was, because his symptoms didn't show up until high school, as far as we know, and because many of his symptoms (self-loathing, depression, suicidality, etc.) were inconsistent with psychopathy, as it is defined. In general though, it seems like it's less likely for a mass shooter to be a psychopath, because there usually is a significant component of depression, suicidality, and self-loathing, which is antithetical to the neurological condition of psychopathy. Psychopaths are more likely to engage in methods of murder where they can evade detection. But it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If there was a mass shooter who was a psychopath though, they most likely wouldn't kill themselves at the end, even if they got arrested.

IDK that much about psychopaths and suicide, but it seems like they can committ suicide:

Externalizing psychopathology is associated with an increased risk for suicidal behavior. Within the externalizing domain, psychopathy may be an important construct for the understanding of which individuals are at particularly high risk. However, prior studies of psychopathy and suicidal behavior have not distinguished between suicide attempts and nonsuicidal self-injurious behavior (NSIB). The present study used data on 810 civil psychiatric patients from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Project to examine the relationships between scores on the four dimensions of the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL: SV) and suicide attempts and nonsuicidal self-injurious behavior (NSIB). Results indicate that only the antisocial dimension of psychopathy is associated with suicide attempts. With regard to NSIB, an interaction was found such that, among African-Americans, NSIB was more prevalent at higher levels of antisociality. Present findings refine previous results from studies using the two-factor PCL:SV model and have important implications for the assessment of suicide risk

Source:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But, no, Im not trying to Paint any person with a broad brush. Yet, a lot of people have come to believe that school shooters are bullied. Which is true. That is not to say that bullying causes school shootings. Its far more complicated than this, as the vast majority of bullied people dont to on to committ mass murder. Bullying is a problem all over the world, and a very serious one, too, which can have a deep emotional effect on peoples lives. Yet, the same cannot be said about school shootings.

My home country, Norway, for instance, have virtually never had a single problem with school shootings. Sweeden had a school massacre, a few years ago(not involving a firearm) allthough, none of that had anything to do with bullying to ny knowledge, but right wing extremism. The closest likely to find school shootings around here are Finland and Germany. Even in the US its extremely rare. Its interesting how virtually non- existant they, in fact, are. Yet, how commonplace bullying is in almost every part of the world. And this makes you think we cant narrow it down to bullying.

As for school shooters, I belive that the vast majority of them are depressed. But according to Langmann, theres also the tiny percentage which falls into the category of 'psychopath/antisocial'. Of course, thats not entirely an adequate explanation, either, because few psychopaths committ murder. Not an expert, but shouldnt we look for the traits that makes Harris fit into the category and the not the factors that do not?
Because most of the experts Ive looked into argues that Eric Harris was either a psychopath or a narssisst. I dont think details are really that important. Its the whole picture.

As for me, I dont think most school shooters are psychopaths, either. I believe that many of them experience a sense of hopelessness, mental illness, and/ or loss in one way or another. And that, yes, bullying tends to be a factor in cases like these. And that this is where Dylan Klebold comes in

Yet, I also believe that a significant few are psychopaths or lack a significant amount of understanding or regard for society around them. And that they are motivated by sadism. And that this is where Eric Harris comes in.

Norwegian wrote:

Not an expert, but shouldnt we look for the traits that makes Harris fit into the category and the not the factors that do not?

Absolutely not, because this is called cherry-picking.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Not an expert, but shouldnt we look for the traits that makes Harris fit into the category and the not the factors that do not?

Absolutely not, because this is called cherry-picking.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How come? I did a quick reseach on psychopaths and suicide, and it took me about under 1 minute to find that psychopaths, in fact, can be suicidal,according to research.  I didnt cherry pick it, I googled it and that was the answer I found.. Several articles and reseach papers actually.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Most of them argue in the opposite direction of the idea that psychopaths or people with ASPD cannot committ suicide or be suicidal. One source, however, argued that it's extremely rare. And maybe thats what people are confusing, IDK.

Lets rephrase it: How did you come to the conclusion that psychopaths cannot commit suicide?

Cause the only place Ive heard people make this argument are in topics where Columbine is discussed. That is, online forums. No experts that Ive read have seriously denied that Eric Harris was either a psychopath or an ASPD. They, in fact, argue the complete opposite. Not even Sue Klebold denies that Eric Harris was a psychopath.

Lets look at Robert Hare, expert that is said to have invented the term psychopath and hes take on it. From what I could find, Dwayne Fuselyer, in hes attempt at trying to diagnose Harris, he turned to Robert Hare:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Norwegian wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Not an expert, but shouldnt we look for the traits that makes Harris fit into the category and the not the factors that do not?

Absolutely not, because this is called cherry-picking.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How come? I did a quick reseach on psychopaths and suicide, and it took me about under 1 minute to find that psychopaths, in fact, can be suicidal,according to research.  I didnt cherry pick it, I googled it and that was the answer I found.. Several articles and reseach papers actually.

You misinterpreted the entirety of what I was trying to say. I offered no comment on whether psychopaths can commit suicide or not. I mean to say that only picking data points that depict Eric as psychopathic - which is what you advocated - is cherry picking. Stop and think before you post.

Also, could you please remove the first link you shared? Because it basically ruined the formatting of the site (for desktop users anyway).

[quote="QuestionMark"]

Norwegian wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Not an expert, but shouldnt we look for the traits that makes Harris fit into the category and the not the factors that do not?

Absolutely not, because this is called cherry-picking.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How come? I did a quick reseach on psychopaths and suicide, and it took me about under 1 minute to find that psychopaths, in fact, can be suicidal,according to research.  I didnt cherry pick it, I googled it and that was the answer I found.. Several articles and reseach papers actually.

You misinterpreted the entirety of what I was trying to say. I offered no comment on whether psychopaths can commit suicide or not. I mean to say that only picking data points that depict Eric as psychopathic - which is what you advocated - is cherry picking. Stop and think before you post.

Also, could you please remove the first link you shared? Because it basically ruined the formatting of the site (for desktop users anyway). [/quoe

My argument was a response to the argument that psychopaths cannot committ suicide, and therefore Eric couldnt have been a psychopath. I wasnt using this in order to argue that Eric was a psychopath. I, for the most part, trust most of the expert opinions Ive seen on this

But if we are going to say that Harris couldnt have been a psychopath because psychopaths dont kill themselves, or usually dont kill themselves, its important that we know this to be accurate. I can give you another example of what I found:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

'The narcissistic element of psychopathic behavior, however, is intriguing. On the one hand, it is hard to imagine someone who thinks so highly of themselves wanting to end their own life, but on the other hand if environmental and social constraints stem their self-serving desires, then perhaps life becomes not worth living. Ronningstam, Weinberg, and Maltsberger (2008) offer numerous reasons for why a narcissistic personality could be prone to suicide, but one that could be relevant here is the loss of the ideal self-state; the ideal self-state being, “[a conglomeration] of experiences that are desired and associated with a sense of pleasure or positive self-regard.” A departure from this state, then, would cause pain and discoThe narcissistic element of psychopathic behavior, however, is intriguing. On the one hand, it is hard to imagine someone who thinks so highly of themselves wanting to end their own life, but on the other hand if environmental and social constraints stem their self-serving desires, then perhaps life becomes not worth living. Ronningstam, Weinberg, and Maltsberger (2008) offer numerous reasons for why a narcissistic personality could be prone to suicide, but one that could be relevant here is the loss of the ideal self-state; the ideal self-state being, “[a conglomeration] of experiences that are desired and associated with a sense of pleasure or positive self-regard.” A departure from this state, then, would cause pain and discomfort'

Norwegian wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Not an expert, but shouldnt we look for the traits that makes Harris fit into the category and the not the factors that do not?

Absolutely not, because this is called cherry-picking.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How come? I did a quick reseach on psychopaths and suicide, and it took me about under 1 minute to find that psychopaths, in fact, can be suicidal,according to research.  I didnt cherry pick it, I googled it and that was the answer I found.. Several articles and reseach papers actually.

You misinterpreted the entirety of what I was trying to say. I offered no comment on whether psychopaths can commit suicide or not. I mean to say that only picking data points that depict Eric as psychopathic - which is what you advocated - is cherry picking. Stop and think before you post.

Also, could you please remove the first link you shared? Because it basically ruined the formatting of the site (for desktop users anyway).

My argument was a response to the argument that psychopaths cannot committ suicide, and therefore Eric couldnt have been a psychopath. I wasnt using this in order to argue that Eric was a psychopath. I, for the most part, trust most of the expert opinions Ive seen on this

But if we are going to say that Harris couldnt have been a psychopath because psychopaths dont kill themselves, or usually dont kill themselves, its important that we know this to be accurate. I can give you another example of what I found:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

'The narcissistic element of psychopathic behavior, however, is intriguing. On the one hand, it is hard to imagine someone who thinks so highly of themselves wanting to end their own life, but on the other hand if environmental and social constraints stem their self-serving desires, then perhaps life becomes not worth living. Ronningstam, Weinberg, and Maltsberger (2008) offer numerous reasons for why a narcissistic personality could be prone to suicide, but one that could be relevant here is the loss of the ideal self-state; the ideal self-state being, “[a conglomeration] of experiences that are desired and associated with a sense of pleasure or positive self-regard.” A departure from this state, then, would cause pain and discoThe narcissistic element of psychopathic behavior, however, is intriguing. On the one hand, it is hard to imagine someone who thinks so highly of themselves wanting to end their own life, but on the other hand if environmental and social constraints stem their self-serving desires, then perhaps life becomes not worth living. Ronningstam, Weinberg, and Maltsberger (2008) offer numerous reasons for why a narcissistic personality could be prone to suicide, but one that could be relevant here is the loss of the ideal self-state; the ideal self-state being, “[a conglomeration] of experiences that are desired and associated with a sense of pleasure or positive self-regard.” A departure from this state, then, would cause pain and discomfort'

This reply has nothing to do with what I said.

Maybe I can help. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], can you address this and only this. Not suicides, etc., just this statement:

Norwegian wrote:

As for school shooters, I belive that the vast majority of them are depressed. But according to Langmann, theres also the tiny percentage which falls into the category of 'psychopath/antisocial'. Of course, thats not entirely an adequate explanation, either, because few psychopaths committ murder. Not an expert, but shouldnt we look for the traits that makes Harris fit into the category and the not the factors that do not?

This is what [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] said is cherry-picking and I absolutely agree. The way your statement reads infers that we should only be looking at those traits which support Harris being a 'psychpoath/antisocial.'
Where is the rationale in that? That's choosing the hole and forcing the peg to fit into it rather than looking for the hole that best matches the peg.

Norwegian wrote:

IDK that much about psychopaths and suicide, but it seems like they can committ suicide:

Externalizing psychopathology is associated with an increased risk for suicidal behavior. Within the externalizing domain, psychopathy may be an important construct for the understanding of which individuals are at particularly high risk. However, prior studies of psychopathy and suicidal behavior have not distinguished between suicide attempts and nonsuicidal self-injurious behavior (NSIB). The present study used data on 810 civil psychiatric patients from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Project to examine the relationships between scores on the four dimensions of the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL: SV) and suicide attempts and nonsuicidal self-injurious behavior (NSIB). Results indicate that only the antisocial dimension of psychopathy is associated with suicide attempts. With regard to NSIB, an interaction was found such that, among African-Americans, NSIB was more prevalent at higher levels of antisociality. Present findings refine previous results from studies using the two-factor PCL:SV model and have important implications for the assessment of suicide risk

But they're evaluating the subjects based on antisocial behaviors, not on a diagnosis of psychopathy as a neurological disorder present from birth. The PCL-R evaluates behaviors, not their etiology. Antisocial behaviors can be caused by any number of diagnoses, and most of them are not psychopathy. Most people, including prison populations, who have antisocial behaviors, developed them as a result of trauma. This is exactly my point.

Norwegian wrote:

But, no, Im not trying to Paint any person with a broad brush. Yet, a lot of people have come to believe that school shooters are bullied. Which is true. That is not to say that bullying causes school shootings. Its far more complicated than this, as the vast majority of bullied people dont to on to committ mass murder. Bullying is a problem all over the world, and a very serious one, too, which can have a deep emotional effect on peoples lives. Yet, the same cannot be said about school shootings.

That's not really a good argument, though. It could be applied to any manifestation of previous trauma to discredit a linkage to its origins. For example, the vast majority of people who were abused as kids don't become super-morbidly obese. But some do. But are we going to say "child abuse can't cause super-morbid obesity, because not everyone who experienced child abuse becomes super-morbidly obese"? What you want to look for is a correlation that's the other way around. Sure, not everyone who was abused as a kid becomes super-morbidly obese...but almost everyone who is super-morbidly obese was abused as a kid.

But I have said this on this forum before, that I wish research would look more into why different forms of trauma manifest in different ways, instead of lumping everything together under the general umbrella of trauma.

Also, I never said bullying was the only reason why people commit mass shootings. It isn't. It's one potential factor that is present in many of them. But so is the shooter experiencing abuse or neglect in general, or having a severe mental illness.

Quote :

My home country, Norway, for instance, have virtually never had a single problem with school shootings.

You guys had one of the worst mass shootings of all time. And Breivik's history showed that social services failed to act and so he became the way he was because he was abused (although I'm sure he would score high on the PCL-R, I'm not sure he was born that way).

Quote :

As for school shooters, I belive that the vast majority of them are depressed. But according to Langmann, theres also the tiny percentage which falls into the category of 'psychopath/antisocial'. Of course, thats not entirely an adequate explanation, either, because few psychopaths committ murder. Not an expert, but shouldnt we look for the traits that makes Harris fit into the category and the not the factors that do not?
Because most of the experts Ive looked into argues that Eric Harris was either a psychopath or a narssisst. I dont think details are really that important. Its the whole picture.

No, we shouldn't just rule out anything that doesn't fit, because some so-called expert told us to, when that same expert changes their mind from article to article about whether he had a personality disorder or psychopathy. And I don't think that we can just throw away the fact that he didn't show antisocial behaviors until high school -- that's a big clue as to his diagnosis.

NPD is a diagnosis that is more believable to me, though. But I don't see it being discussed much.

Quote :

As for me, I dont think most school shooters are psychopaths, either. I believe that many of them experience a sense of hopelessness, mental illness, and/ or loss in one way or another. And that, yes, bullying tends to be a factor in cases like these. And that this is where Dylan Klebold comes in

Yet, I also believe that a significant few are psychopaths or lack a significant amount of understanding or regard for society around them. And that they are motivated by sadism. And that this is where Eric Harris comes in.

But the point is that both of them experienced a sense of hopelessness, mental illness, and/or loss. And both of them were sadistic, at least during and leading up to the attacks, but weren't known to be that way earlier in life (both started showing antisocial behaviors around the same time, and the behaviors escalated at similar rates).

So why does Dylan get one label, and Eric gets the other? The only difference I can see is Sue Klebold's openly speaking out vs. the Harrises' silence. And also, that Eric was more openly angry -- even though both of them were obviously angry. (And the "experts" took a lot of things out of context, for example the "you know what I hate?" list was obviously supposed to be a joke, yet they cited it as evidence of his "psychopathic rage," which I wonder whether that might come down to a generational difference in humor.)

downwardspiral wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

IDK that much about psychopaths and suicide, but it seems like they can committ suicide:

Externalizing psychopathology is associated with an increased risk for suicidal behavior. Within the externalizing domain, psychopathy may be an important construct for the understanding of which individuals are at particularly high risk. However, prior studies of psychopathy and suicidal behavior have not distinguished between suicide attempts and nonsuicidal self-injurious behavior (NSIB). The present study used data on 810 civil psychiatric patients from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Project to examine the relationships between scores on the four dimensions of the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL: SV) and suicide attempts and nonsuicidal self-injurious behavior (NSIB). Results indicate that only the antisocial dimension of psychopathy is associated with suicide attempts. With regard to NSIB, an interaction was found such that, among African-Americans, NSIB was more prevalent at higher levels of antisociality. Present findings refine previous results from studies using the two-factor PCL:SV model and have important implications for the assessment of suicide risk

But they're evaluating the subjects based on antisocial behaviors, not on a diagnosis of psychopathy as a neurological disorder present from birth. The PCL-R evaluates behaviors, not their etiology. Antisocial behaviors can be caused by any number of diagnoses, and most of them are not psychopathy. Most people, including prison populations, who have antisocial behaviors, developed them as a result of trauma. This is exactly my point.

Norwegian wrote:

But, no, Im not trying to Paint any person with a broad brush. Yet, a lot of people have come to believe that school shooters are bullied. Which is true. That is not to say that bullying causes school shootings. Its far more complicated than this, as the vast majority of bullied people dont to on to committ mass murder. Bullying is a problem all over the world, and a very serious one, too, which can have a deep emotional effect on peoples lives. Yet, the same cannot be said about school shootings.

That's not really a good argument, though. It could be applied to any manifestation of previous trauma to discredit a linkage to its origins. For example, the vast majority of people who were abused as kids don't become super-morbidly obese. But some do. But are we going to say "child abuse can't cause super-morbid obesity, because not everyone who experienced child abuse becomes super-morbidly obese"? What you want to look for is a correlation that's the other way around. Sure, not everyone who was abused as a kid becomes super-morbidly obese...but almost everyone who is super-morbidly obese was abused as a kid.

But I have said this on this forum before, that I wish research would look more into why different forms of trauma manifest in different ways, instead of lumping everything together under the general umbrella of trauma.

Also, I never said bullying was the only reason why people commit mass shootings. It isn't. It's one potential factor that is present in many of them. But so is the shooter experiencing abuse or neglect in general, or having a severe mental illness.

Quote :

My home country, Norway, for instance, have virtually never had a single problem with school shootings.

You guys had one of the worst mass shootings of all time. And Breivik's history showed that social services failed to act and so he became the way he was because he was abused (although I'm sure he would score high on the PCL-R, I'm not sure he was born that way).

Quote :

As for school shooters, I belive that the vast majority of them are depressed. But according to Langmann, theres also the tiny percentage which falls into the category of 'psychopath/antisocial'. Of course, thats not entirely an adequate explanation, either, because few psychopaths committ murder. Not an expert, but shouldnt we look for the traits that makes Harris fit into the category and the not the factors that do not?
Because most of the experts Ive looked into argues that Eric Harris was either a psychopath or a narssisst. I dont think details are really that important. Its the whole picture.

No, we shouldn't just rule out anything that doesn't fit, because some so-called expert told us to, when that same expert changes their mind from article to article about whether he had a personality disorder or psychopathy. And I don't think that we can just throw away the fact that he didn't show antisocial behaviors until high school -- that's a big clue as to his diagnosis.

NPD is a diagnosis that is more believable to me, though. But I don't see it being discussed much.

Quote :

As for me, I dont think most school shooters are psychopaths, either. I believe that many of them experience a sense of hopelessness, mental illness, and/ or loss in one way or another. And that, yes, bullying tends to be a factor in cases like these. And that this is where Dylan Klebold comes in

Yet, I also believe that a significant few are psychopaths or lack a significant amount of understanding or regard for society around them. And that they are motivated by sadism. And that this is where Eric Harris comes in.

But the point is that both of them experienced a sense of hopelessness, mental illness, and/or loss. And both of them were sadistic, at least during and leading up to the attacks, but weren't known to be that way earlier in life (both started showing antisocial behaviors around the same time, and the behaviors escalated at similar rates).

So why does Dylan get one label, and Eric gets the other? The only difference I can see is Sue Klebold's openly speaking out vs. the Harrises' silence. And also, that Eric was more openly angry -- even though both of them were obviously angry. (And the "experts" took a lot of things out of context, for example the "you know what I hate?" list was obviously supposed to be a joke, yet they cited it as evidence of his "psychopathic rage," which I wonder whether that might come down to a generational difference in humor.)

Most likely, because its true. Sue Klebold also mentions in her book that Frank Ochberg argues that Dylan didnt have the traits of a killer, much like Harris. As for the killing spree, its hard to argue against the notion that this is sadistic. What we are talking about is core personality traits. Dylan did not have the same personality traits that Eric did. Eric wanted to hurt other people. Wheras Dylan probably wanted to die and did not care who he hurt

Norwegian wrote:

Most likely, because its true. Sue Klebold also mentions in her book that Frank Ochberg argues that Dylan didnt have the traits of a killer, much like Harris. As for the killing spree, its hard to argue against the notion that this is sadistic. What we are talking about is core personality traits. Dylan did not have the same personality traits that Eric did. Eric wanted to hurt other people. Wheras Dylan probably wanted to die and did not care who he hurt

But Dylan did hurt other people, as much as Eric did. Not only during the attack, but in the years leading up to it (bullying other students, robbing the van, etc.) And he obviously did want to hurt other people during Columbine. In fact, he wanted to hurt a lot more people than he ended up hurting (the bombs). And he most likely came up with the plan first, according to his journals. He was obviously enjoying himself during the attack as well, yelling and cheering, etc. He wasn't just passively following Eric. To say only one of them wanted to hurt people and only one wanted to die just goes against all the facts.

Bottom line: I think Dylan and Eric were more similar than different in whatever was wrong with them. One was more "poetic," probably because he grew up in an "intellectual"/"literary" type of household, and the other was more "stoic," probably because he grew up in a military family. I think it really comes down to that. But ultimately, I think they had pretty much the same issues, however one wants to define it.

downwardspiral wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Most likely, because its true. Sue Klebold also mentions in her book that Frank Ochberg argues that Dylan didnt have the traits of a killer, much like Harris. As for the killing spree, its hard to argue against the notion that this is sadistic. What we are talking about is core personality traits. Dylan did not have the same personality traits that Eric did. Eric wanted to hurt other people. Wheras Dylan probably wanted to die and did not care who he hurt

But Dylan did hurt other people, as much as Eric did. Not only during the attack, but in the years leading up to it (bullying other students, robbing the van, etc.) And he obviously did want to hurt other people during Columbine. In fact, he wanted to hurt a lot more people than he ended up hurting (the bombs). And he most likely came up with the plan first, according to his journals. He was obviously enjoying himself during the attack as well, yelling and cheering, etc. He wasn't just passively following Eric. To say only one of them wanted to hurt people and only one wanted to die just goes against all the facts.

Bottom line: I think Dylan and Eric were more similar than different in whatever was wrong with them. One was more "poetic," probably because he grew up in an "intellectual"/"literary" type of household, and the other was more "stoic," probably because he grew up in a military family. I think it really comes down to that. But ultimately, I think they had pretty much the same issues, however one wants to define it.

Of course Dylan hurt other people. But that doesnt mean he did what he did for the same reason as Eric did. Which he didnt.
.
Langmann also elaborates this in hes book Killer Kids. That whereas bot all psychopaths are sadists, the psychopathic school shooters are. Sadism, here, he argues, is the intent to cause harm to other people out of pleassure. Both their journals and experts that study them tells us that Dylan had a vastly different personality trait than Eric