Eric: "I have to turn off my feelings"

Eric Harris wrote:

someones bound to say "what were they thinking?" when we go NBK or when we were planning it, so this what I am thinking. "I have a goal to destroy as much as possible so I must not be sidetracked by my feelings of sympathy, mercy, or any of that, so I will force myself to believe that everyone is just another monster from Doom like FH or FS or demons, so It's either me or them. I have to turn off my feelings."

If Eric had been a psychopath, then he wouldn't have had any feelings to turn off, now, would he?

Lol. It is quite evident from all of the evidence, all of his journal entries and writings, and all the videos of them both that Eric was not a psychopath or sociopath. The crime itself is not the sort of crime you would see a psychopath commit. Eric had passion about NBK, had revenge on his mind for all the bad things in his life. Had he felt no emotion and had he actually been a psychopath, he would not have been troubled by his life and would probably end up being a serial killer instead.

The only reason anyone thinks he is, is because they've had a bit of good old fashioned Cullen brainwashing.

Yeah I always found that entry interesting, it's not the only instance where he doesn't sound like you're typical run of the mill psycho.

Cullen is not the one who came up with the diagnoses of psychopath, he got all his information from a criminal psychologist. And every other professional who's analyzed Eric has said he was a psychopath.

But they also seem to be going strictly by his journal entry's and they also say they really can't diagnose someone after death.

I can't remember right now if they've ever analyzed this particular statement of his? Wonder what they'd say about it?

I'm pretty undecided about this right now.

The journal was made for public and I do not take those thing which are there word for word however I'm amongst those who believe that Eric wasn't a psychopath.

MysteryMan wrote:

The journal was made for public and I do not take those thing which are there word for word however I'm amongst those who believe that Eric wasn't a psychopath.

You are right. He was not a psychopath. His journal is just a guy blowing off steam. If Andy Rooney wrote down his thoughts he'd sound just as OCD and angry as Eric. Plus let's keep in mind Eric was teenage boy. Most teenage boys have violent, homicidal fantasies and many of them never grow out of them. That is why there are so many violent video games. Who do people assume are paying the billions of dollars to buy them year after year -- grandmas?

It's not just his journal -- it's his interactions w/ friends, his creative writing, and the transcripts of the BT, not to mention his online chats that show Eric Harris was not a psychopath.

Here's the part that is even more funny: Cullen bases almost his entire "psychopath" argument on the work of Hare, using the "Psychopath checklist" as the fulcrum of his argument.

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

Hare's framework was never meant to be used as a tool for laymen and it is not an appropriate tool for administering diagnoses by untrained personnel. It was meant as a guide for his own experiments and research, period.

"An individual's score may have important consequences for his or her future, and because the potential for harm if the test is used or administered incorrectly is considerable, Hare argues that the test should be considered valid only if administered by a suitably qualified and experienced clinician under scientifically controlled and licensed, standardized conditions"

Eric Harris was evaluated by mental health professionals but they did not diagnose him as being a psychopath.

Cullen has ZERO validity as an expert on mental health. I could take Hare's index, pull it out of context and prove that ANYONE is a psychopath. The idea that Eric Harris was a psychopath is an empty assertion and there is absolutely no validity to this specious meme.

Hare's work is important but its popular iteration is nothing more than a buzzword that carries no actual meaning. It is an easy way to stop thinking about Columbine. It is a dangerous myth, almost like a drug that gives people the peace and happiness of denial.

LPorter101 wrote:

Eric Harris wrote:

someones bound to say "what were they thinking?" when we go NBK or when we were planning it, so this what I am thinking. "I have a goal to destroy as much as possible so I must not be sidetracked by my feelings of sympathy, mercy, or any of that, so I will force myself to believe that everyone is just another monster from Doom like FH or FS or demons, so It's either me or them. I have to turn off my feelings."

If Eric had been a psychopath, then he wouldn't have had any feelings to turn off, now, would he?

Frankly him saying he's planning to turn off his feelings sounds pretty psychopathic in itself.

The whole: Psychopaths have no emotions is pop culture stuff that is not verified by clinical psychiatrists. Its a grain of trusth coved in a big ball of BS.

Facts:

- Some psychopaths have flat affect,
- Some have shallow emotions
- Almost all have little empathy (empathy, not low social skills or trouble recognizing other people's emotions).

Having said that, psychopathy is more of a spectrym/personality type than a simple "all or nothing" disorder. Not all psychopaths are equally psychopathic and not all have every trait at the same level.

Sabratha wrote:

Facts:

- Some psychopaths have flat affect,
- Some have shallow emotions
- Almost all have little empathy (empathy, not low social skills or trouble recognizing other people's emotions).

Having said that, psychopathy is more of a spectrym/personality type than a simple "all or nothing" disorder. Not all psychopaths are equally psychopathic and not all have every trait at the same level.

Sabratha, with all due respect: where are getting your information? You are citing "facts" and you are not providing any sources. I assume that you are not a clinical psychologist? Your understanding of psychopathy strikes me, an admitted layman, as being very superficial. Please provide some evidence for your assertions. The pathology associated with mental illness is not at all as cut and dried as you are suggesting. This is even more true in regard to the diagnosing of psychopathy.  

If you are referring to Hare's index, please see my upstream post. There is no value in using it in an anecdotal fashion. it is only relevant under the most rigorous clinical condition and even then it is merely a guide.

Try RobertD. Hare's books, Randall T. Salekin's papers and  as sources.

I did in fact study psychology, Warsaw University.

Sabratha wrote:

Try RobertD. Hare's books, Randall T. Salekin's papers and  as sources.

I did in fact study psychology, Warsaw University.

If you had studied at all diligently you would know that Hare's psychopathy index is of no use in the kind of context that has been used to retroactively designate Eric Harris as a psychopath.

You would also know that a meaningful psychological diagnosis is impossible to make without a direct evaluation of the subject. You should also be aware of the fact that Eric Harris displayed much more tendencies associated with PTSD or borderline personality than with psychopathy.

Seeing as how you have some scholarly background, you ought to be able to provide some evidence for your assertions. Please do so.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

If you had studied at all diligently you would know that Hare's psychopathy index is of no use in the kind of context that has been used to retroactively designate Eric Harris as a psychopath.

I have stated that his model of describing psychopathy seems the best to me, in comparison with other models. I have never stated we can make a professional diagnosis of Eric or Dylan based on this, as a diagnosis is not possible if the subject is deceased and cannot be observed.

I do think we can make an educated guess based on the wrritings and themes the killers use. But that's all.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

You would also know that a meaningful psychological diagnosis is impossible to make without a direct evaluation of the subject.

Oh yes, I have stated this many times, possibly even on this forum. People who remember my threads about psychological disorders on the old forums can verify, I assume LPorter and KitKat recall these.

Proof? Here is someone in 2014 quoting my older post (original post circa 2008) :
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
also contains my posts from april 2015, where I say: "We can never accurately diagnose a deceased person if he was not through a directed psychological evaluation during his lifetime."

So yes, straw man on your side Gusto. Sorry to point this out.

As for sources, try anything by Hare for starters. "Without Conscience". Its the most accessible stuff he wrote on the topic, but the doctrinal foundations are the same as for his psychological articles regarding PCL-R

If you have any scientific subscription to US academic sources, try articles by Stephen D.Hart. I mention thse in passing, as the last time I checked these are not publically available and you'd need to pay to see them or get a subscription.

EDIT: Sadly the same rings true for the basic csource of all: PCL-R manual itself.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sabratha wrote:

Gustopoet2 wrote:

If you had studied at all diligently you would know that Hare's psychopathy index is of no use in the kind of context that has been used to retroactively designate Eric Harris as a psychopath.

I have stated that his model of describing psychopathy seems the best to me, in comparison with other models. I have never stated we can make a professional diagnosis of Eric or Dylan based on this, as a diagnosis is not possible if the subject is deceased and cannot be observed.

I do think we can make an educated guess based on the wrritings and themes the killers use. But that's all.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

You would also know that a meaningful psychological diagnosis is impossible to make without a direct evaluation of the subject.

Oh yes, I have stated this many times, possibly even on this forum. People who remember my threads about psychological disorders on the old forums can verify, I assume LPorter and KitKat recall these.

Proof? Here is someone in 2014 quoting my older post (original post circa 2008) :
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
also contains my posts from april 2015, where I say: "We can never accurately diagnose a deceased person if he was not through a directed psychological evaluation during his lifetime."

So yes, straw man on your side Gusto. Sorry to point this out.

As for sources, try anything by Hare for starters. "Without Conscience". Its the most accessible stuff he wrote on the topic, but the doctrinal foundations are the same as for his psychological articles regarding PCL-R

If you ahve any scientific subscription to US academic sources, try articles by Stephen D.Hart. I mention thse in passing, as the last time I checked these are not publically available and you'd need to pay to see them or get a subscription.

There was no "straw man" argument involved here. You cited Hare and I am claiming that Hare's psychopathy index has no validity in regard to making a psycho-historical interpretation of NBK or -- more specifically -- Eric Harris.

Let me restate that for empahsis: I am not saying that it is HARDER to use Hare's index as a tool for psycho-history; I am saying it is impossible to do so. Any claims made on this basis are specious. They are pseudoscientific.

I am not familiar with Stephen D. Hart. I work for EBSCO publishing and I have access to a pretty good sized academic database of sources.  But providing me with someone's name is a far cry from providing evidence for your assertions about the nature of psychopathy.

I suspect your reluctance to do so is because you are relying so heavily on the "pop" psychological interpretation of Hare's work. Unfortunately for you, Hare himself has provided the counterargument to your claims.

If you can muster up the energy to do so I would greatly appreciate your making any kind of substantiation for the "facts" you cited upstream. I would be even more grateful if you could meaningfully connect those 'facts" to Eric Harris in any way.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

There was no "straw man" argument involved here. You cited Hare and I am claiming that Hare's psychopathy index has no validity in regard to making a psycho-historical interpretation of NBK or -- more specifically -- Eric Harris.

It needs to be stressed that you are in fact making a straw man argument. Here is my own statement from april this year, I stand by this and I have repeated this and variants of this statement all over since my 2007 activity on the old boards:

"We can never accurately diagnose a deceased person if he was not through a directed psychological evaluation during his lifetime."

There, go argue with this statement please.

Sabratha wrote:

Gustopoet2 wrote:

There was no "straw man" argument involved here. You cited Hare and I am claiming that Hare's psychopathy index has no validity in regard to making a psycho-historical interpretation of NBK or -- more specifically -- Eric Harris.

It needs to be stressed that you are in fact making a straw man argument. Here is my own statement from april this year, I stand by this and I have repeated this and variants of this statement all over since my 2007 activity on the old boards:

"We can never accurately diagnose a deceased person if he was not through a directed psychological evaluation during his lifetime."

There, go argue with this statement please.

As with every debate we have you just keep repeating the same points and seldom if ever answer any of my questions.

There is no straw man. You, like Cullen, are using Hare's index of psychopathy as a basis for saying Eric Harris was a psychopath. That is an erroneous suggestion. It is scientifically unsound.

Please provide a shred of evidence that indicates that Eric Harris was a psychopath that in no way refers to Hare's index.

Please provide a clinical definition for "psychopath" that does not make reference to Hare's index.

Please demonstrate that you know the difference between psychological theory and psychological diagnosis.

Please show that you understand that psychohistory is part of the humanities; not a science.

Please support your upstream "facts" with ... anything. Scientific data and peer-reviewed sources would be best. But I'd be happy for a good newspaper article at this point.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Please provide a shred of evidence that indicates that Eric Harris was a psychopath that in no way refers to Hare's index.

This is ambiguous.

My belief is that Eric likely was a psychopath. This is not me making a professional diagnosis, as such a diagnosis cannot be made without Eric being alive.

Quote :

As with every debate we have you just keep repeating the same points and seldom if ever answer any of my questions.

A diagnosis is not possible. I have stated this before. I will keep repeating this as long as you make hints or suggestions that I am making or trying to make a formal diagnosis.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Please provide a (...)

Why? I do not like the confrontational altitude you are adopting. Please convince me that I should reply to these, as so far you have not done so.

Sabratha wrote:

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Please provide a shred of evidence that indicates that Eric Harris was a psychopath that in no way refers to Hare's index.

This is ambiguous.

My belief is that Eric likely was a psychopath. This is not me making a professional diagnosis, as such a diagnosis cannot be made without Eric being alive.

Quote :

As with every debate we have you just keep repeating the same points and seldom if ever answer any of my questions.

A diagnosis is not possible. I have stated this before. I will keep repeating this as long as you make hints or suggestions that I am making or trying to make a formal diagnosis.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Please provide a (...)

Why? I do not like the confrontational altitude you are adopting. Please convince me that I should reply to these, as so far you have not done so.

It's not confrontational. I want to know where you derive your "facts" about psychopathy. You don't have to reply to my questions if you don't feel like doing so. I'm interested in the psychopathy issue and I am not at all convinced that it is a valid interpretation of Eric Harris. If you had some basis for characterizing Eric Harris as a psychopath that has clinical validity I'd sure like to see it. You claimed to have a scholarly background in psychopathy. I'm interested in having a robust debate on the issue.

If you don't have that data, I think it is dangerous to make that characterization of Eric because it makes it easy to sweep NBK under the rug.

As such I will continue to argue against this point of view when possible because I think it is important.

But I am not trying to insult you personally or be confrontational at all. This issue obviously is one that gets me a bit revved up.

Eric is dead, thus no clinical diagnosis can be made.

If this is what you mean by "clinical validity" then there is no basis whatsoever for calling Eric normal (free of mental disorders). There is no "clinical validity" for claling him disordered either. Neither case can be made as a diagnosis, becuas ethe subject cnanot be studied as he's dead.

We can only make what I'll term here as an "educated guess" based on their life history, their behavior as reported by other and writings.


So, what do you mean by "clinical validity"?

Sabratha wrote:

Eric is dead, thus no clinical diagnosis can be made.

If this is what you mean by "clinical validity" then there is no basis whatsoever for calling Eric normal (free of mental disorders). There is no "clinical validity" for claling him disordered either. Neither case can be made as a diagnosis, becuas ethe subject cnanot be studied as he's dead.

We can only make what I'll term here as an "educated guess" based on their life history, their behavior as reported by other and writings.


So, what do you mean by "clinical validity"?

I would like you (or anyone else) to provide a clinical definition of psychopathy that is not based on Hare's index. I would then like to see you (or anyone) make a psychohistorical argument based on this definition and on the evidence we have that Eric was a psychopath.

I can do this in regard to Eric having PTSD. I can do it to establish that he suffered from a dissociative personality disorder; I can do it to show that he may have been a borderline personality. I can do this to demonstrate that Dylan was clinically depressed. I can do it to show that Dylan was clinically suicidal.

What I can't do is use a clinical definition of psychopathy and the existing evidence to show the Eric Harris was a psychopath. And neither can you, Cullen, or anyone else.

I'll buy making guesses as psychohistory but I still think the best guesses should be backed by the existing psychological models we have on hand. That means: using clinical definitions from accepted, peer-reviewed sources. Not saying "Psychopaths do this; psychopaths do that." You have stated that there are "facts" about psychopathy. These "facts" seem to have originated, imho, with your layperson's understanding of Hare's work.

Problem is, Hare's index is not a viable, clinical approach to psychohistory. It does not have merit outside of being a tool for analysis on a real-world basis. Hare's index can't be used psychohistorically is what I am saying and without it, the "Eric was a psycho" crowd has no basis of evidence whatsoever. They don't even know how to define "psychopath" outside of Hare's work. Most of them probably don't even know they are keying off of Hare; they are just blindly repeating psychobabble.

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

This is one of the quotes that I feel speaks to how I see Eric.

I would like to hear from some psychologists who don't believe Eric was a psychopath.
I know they are out there because I saw an article by one once but can't find it anymore.
Perhaps more are afraid to speak up because of peer pressure within their professional communities.

PaintItBlack wrote:

Perhaps more are afraid to speak up because of peer pressure within their professional communities.

I'll bet you're right.

The psychopath thing never even started until Cullen got it rolling. He's not even a psychologist. His understanding of the available lit leaves a lot to be desired.

I really hate that the belief that Eric was a psychopath is still considered by some people. Psychopaths/sociopaths don't have to turn off their feelings because they don't feel guilt. Eric wanted to be a psychopath and so he tried his hardest to manipulate his own mind to fit that image. The kid was a very good liar as psychopaths tend to be, but then again it could be argued that Dylan was an even better one. Eric did everything he could to come across to everyone as tough and the faked cold attitude was part of that.

In his journal he states that NBK could be stopped if people would simply give him more compliments. A psychopath doesnt need others to compliment him because they whole heartedly believe themselves to be superior. His self esteem was wrecked and he didnt feel respected. The hardass soldier attitude was a mask and the act of NBK itself was a twisted form of self therapy. If others wouldn't validate his ego in the manner he wanted then he would prove to everyone including himself that he was an "alpha" male. In the end though he couldn't escape his low self esteem and he took his life in an extremely violent manner. One truly has to hate them self to blow their head apart with a shotgun.

I understand how easy it is for people to read his rants and think "he's a psychopath" but Eric's psychological state was so much deeper than that. He was more than capable of being a sweet and caring person. His high intellect combined with the constant moving around, his lack of friends and girlfriends, and the general atmosphere of Littleton and Columbine created a depression in his mind that was too much for him to handle. The doctors who were treating him only made it worse by giving him Luvox which is known to make mental illness worse for some teenagers. Its my belief that Eric was a psychotic misdiagnosed as a simple depressive. I was best friends with a diagnosed sociopath for 3 years and I've met a few others in counseling groups. Once you deal with one long enough you come to learn they're all basically identical. I dont get the sociopathic vibe from Eric. His personality was just too "deep" for him to simply be a psychopath.

Sometimes I think some of you get a little too deep for your own good. I can't blame many of you because it's the environment we created, labeling everything and trying to come up with an answer for every little thing but I wouldn't get it twisted, the evidence Eric left behind and the way he went about his life far outweighs the stance he was a psychopath than not.

You can make the argument he had other disorders as well but psychopathic was definitely one of them.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

I would like you (or anyone else) to provide a clinical definition of psychopathy that is not based on Hare's index.

By clinical definition, what do you mean exactly? Do you mean a definition made by a practicing clinical psychologist? A psychiatrist? One found in a psychodynamic diagnostic manual?

I perfonally prefer Hare, as he is the most precise and probably the most psychometrically sound approach taht's seen both practical usse as far as inmates go, but also wide research use showing some statistical validity.

But there's of course other psychologists who create dtheir own models when it comes to psychopathy. Theodore Millon would be a good example, I can get you some info about his model (though I'm currently away from my home for a few days, limited net access so expect this on Monday no sooner).

APA does not recigize psychopathy and isntead offered a smiliar disorder defnition called "Antisocial PD". Antisocial PD however mind you is a murky concept, most research shows it being pretty much synonymous with criminal behavior, huge number sof inmates (over 50%, often as much as 90%) fit the criteria, becaus ethe criteria are so wide and murky. I'd advise against using Antisocial PD in research, as pretty much its just a poor theorethical construct, mostly a sort of compromise definition made by APA.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

I would then like to see you (or anyone) make a psychohistorical argument based on this definition and on the evidence we have that Eric was a psychopath.

If you mean a diagnosis, then I repeat its not possible. If you mean "educated guess", then I already did this in the past and you probably read my posts on the matter so I won't be able to offer much in the way of further info.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

I can do this in regard to Eric having PTSD. I can do it to establish that he suffered from a dissociative personality disorder; I can do it to show that he may have been a borderline personality. I can do this to demonstrate that Dylan was clinically depressed. I can do it to show that Dylan was clinically suicidal.

If we want to speak precise psychological terms, let's do so. What do you exactly mean by "establish" and "demonstrate"?

Gustopoet2 wrote:

What I can't do is use a clinical definition of psychopathy and the existing evidence to show the Eric Harris was a psychopath. And neither can you, Cullen, or anyone else.

Same case. What do you exactly mean by "show"?

Gustopoet2 wrote:

I'll buy making guesses as psychohistory but I still think the best guesses should be backed by the existing psychological models we have on hand. That means: using clinical definitions from accepted, peer-reviewed sources.

There's lots of competing models, some more widely accepted than others. Hare produced what are probably the most widely accepted model, definition and diagnostic tool for psychopathy. If you don't like his model, fair enough.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Not saying "Psychopaths do this; psychopaths do that." You have stated that there are "facts" about psychopathy. These "facts" seem to have originated, imho, with your layperson's understanding of Hare's work.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not gonna present any ifnormation atht could help people identify me in RL (I like my privacy thank you), so you can either trust me on my studies in Warsaw University, or dhoose to believe taht I'm making false claims. Your choice.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Problem is, Hare's index is not a viable, clinical approach to psychohistory. It does not have merit outside of being a tool for analysis on a real-world basis. Hare's index can't be used psychohistorically is what I am saying

What makes you believe that? Hare's model and PCL-R is as good as any other model out there when it comes to speculation about deceased people (and equally bad when it coems to diagnosing them). In fact, I'd say its somewhat better, as it includes some factors that can be assessed by looking at the person's past actions and criminal history. 

Sabratha wrote:

I perfonally prefer Hare, as he is the most precise and probably the most psychometrically sound approach taht's seen both practical usse as far as inmates go, but also wide research use showing some statistical validity.

But there's of course other psychologists who create dtheir own models when it comes to psychopathy. Theodore Millon would be a good example, I can get you some info about his model (though I'm currently away from my home for a few days, limited net access so expect this on Monday no sooner).

Sabratha -- Your studies do not seem to have informed you about the nature of psychological theory, diagnosis, or the use of clinical models to present a psycho-historical interpretation of individual people or events.

I'd appreciate any info you have on Millon or anyone else, thanks.    Meanwhile here are a few points:

1. Hare's model for psychopathy is not an applicable tool for psycho-history.

2. Even it were, you cannot make predictions about behavior based on a psychological diagnosis.

This means that even if you could use Hare's index in a meaningful way to do a postmortem analysis of Eric Harris (which you can't) it would be of little use in providing any meaningful insight into Eric's behavior or the "reasons" for NBK. A colloquial way of putting this would be "Not all psychopaths become murderers."

Therefore you are in a triple-fallacy here. First, you are using Hare's model to analyze Eric Harris when Hare himself insists with fervor that the psychopathy index is to be used ONLY under clinical conditions by experts and it is NOT applicable for a layman's use in any way. It is a clinical tool. It is NOT a predictive tool. You are using it as a source for psycho-history and it is NOT applicable. Just like a hammer can't sew a pair of pants.

Second, even if you could use Hare's model, it means little or nothing  because a clinical diagnosis of a personality disorder does NOT predict behavior, nor does it "explain" behaviors.

Thirdly, even if Hare's model could be used in any meaningful way, and there was an iota of a chance that the index could predict behavior (which it CAN'T) Eric Harris still does NOT fulfill the criteria of being a psychopath.

What you are engaged in is psychobabble.

Sabratha wrote:

In fact, I'd say its somewhat better, as it includes some factors that can be assessed by looking at the person's past actions and criminal history. 

Like what?  What factors?  Keep in mind this quote before you respond: "An individual's score may have important consequences for his or her future, and because the potential for harm if the test is used or administered incorrectly is considerable, Hare argues that the test should be considered valid only if administered by a suitably qualified and experienced clinician under scientifically controlled and licensed, standardized conditions."


Again, you cannot use Hare's psychopathy index for psycho-history. Is that so hard to understand, really?

Sabratha wrote:

APA does not recigize psychopathy and isntead offered a smiliar disorder defnition called "Antisocial PD". Antisocial PD however mind you is a murky concept, most research shows it being pretty much synonymous with criminal behavior, huge number sof inmates (over 50%, often as much as 90%) fit the criteria, becaus ethe criteria are so wide and murky. I'd advise against using Antisocial PD in research, as pretty much its just a poor theorethical construct, mostly a sort of compromise definition made by APA. APA does not recigize psychopathy and isntead offered a smiliar disorder defnition called "Antisocial PD". Antisocial PD however mind you is a murky concept, most research shows it being pretty much synonymous with criminal behavior, huge number sof inmates (over 50%, often as much as 90%) fit the criteria, becaus ethe criteria are so wide and murky. I'd advise against using Antisocial PD in research, as pretty much its just a poor theorethical construct, mostly a sort of compromise definition made by APA.  

Yep. So why even bother trying to shoehorn Hare's work into your psycho-historical diagnosis? Answer: because it is more conducive to psychobabble.  Throwing around empty psychological terms is way to make your argument sound studied and important when it really boils down to "Psycho and Emo did it."

I think that quote from Eric proves he was a psychopath. Hare says that "genuine emotion is short-lived and ego-centric" in psychopaths, which is exactly what Eric displays in that quote.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

1. Hare's model for psychopathy is not an applicable tool for psycho-history.

Do you realize that Dr. Robert Hare himself has applied it to dozens of dead people, and endorsed its application to Harris on his own website?

Do you realize that hundreds of doctors apply it all the time to dead people in consultation with the FBI?

And that several, including Dr. Frank Ochberg and Dr. Peter Langman, have profiled Eric as a psychopath with Hare's blessing?

Disagree if you want, but don't say it is not an applicable tool for psycho-history, because doctors do it all the time.

lasttrain wrote:

Gustopoet2 wrote:

1. Hare's model for psychopathy is not an applicable tool for psycho-history.

Do you realize that Dr. Robert Hare himself has applied it to dozens of dead people, and endorsed its application to Harris on his own website?

Do you realize that hundreds of doctors apply it all the time to dead people in consultation with the FBI?

And that several, including Dr. Frank Ochberg and Dr. Peter Langman, have profiled Eric as a psychopath with Hare's blessing?

Disagree if you want, but don't say it is not an applicable tool for psycho-history, because doctors do it all the time.

I appreciate your referencing Ochberg and Langman, but I still feel that using Hare's psychopathy index as a tool for psycho-history is dubious at best.

Here is a quote from Hare's website: "assessments require the integration of information from interview, file, and collateral sources. Information from these various sources is rarely available unless someone is already in the mental health or criminal justice systems."

Please note that this latter stipulation pretty much eliminates the psychopathy test from being used in any meaningful way on someone who is not directly audited. Please note that the mental health professional who audited Eric cited OCD as a diagnosis and they acted on this diagnosis by prescribing him Luvox. So that's it for a clinical diagnosis of Eric Harris. Period.

That is the only clinical diagnosis we will ever have about Eric Harris.

Psycho-history is distinct from clinical psychology. One is based in the humanities; the other is based in science. Even if the psychohistorical profiles you cite above claim that Eric Harris was a psychopath that still doesn't give you,me, or anyone else any meaningful information about Eric or NBK. This is because even a clinical diagnosis of mental illness is incapable of predicting behavior. Furthermore, psycho-history is distinct from a clinical diagnosis. In fact, the APA does not even accept psychopathy as a clinical disorder. You can use the Hare checklist for psycho-history as a diversion, just like you can kick a can down the road, but you're not any more likely to get any meaningful information out of it than you are to get some beer out of a dusty can.

For the record, you're right, I shouldn't say that the Hare checklist can't be used for psycho-history; I should say it can't be used in any meaningful way. So I'll stand by that. It's not applicable. You can't get a clinical diagnosis out of it because it isn't even recognized by the APA and you can't apply it to someone who is not under direct auditing of a mental health expert on psychopathy and Hare's checklist -- so yeah, that pretty much renders it useless, particularity for the layman. It devolves almost instantly to psychobabble.

lasttrain wrote:

Gustopoet2 wrote:

1. Hare's model for psychopathy is not an applicable tool for psycho-history.

Do you realize that Dr. Robert Hare himself has applied it to dozens of dead people, and endorsed its application to Harris on his own website?

Do you realize that hundreds of doctors apply it all the time to dead people in consultation with the FBI?

And that several, including Dr. Frank Ochberg and Dr. Peter Langman, have profiled Eric as a psychopath with Hare's blessing?

Disagree if you want, but don't say it is not an applicable tool for psycho-history, because doctors do it all the time.

I think it is horribly wrong for a mental health professional to definitively diagnose any deceased person, especially a deceased person they never ever spoke to, much less treated. I am almost positive that goes against professional ethics.
IMO if it doesn't, it should.

I wonder if that practice has become more acceptable in today's media saturated environment.

Dr. Hare and hundreds of other psychiatrists apply it to dead people all the time.  And I tend to side with doctors and their informed opinion over a layman's opinion.  Sorry.

The FBI obviously thinks they get "useful" information out of it because they have spent millions on it. I guess you know better than doctors and the FBI on how to do their jobs.

Nirvana92 wrote:

I really hate that the belief that Eric was a psychopath is still considered by some people. Psychopaths/sociopaths don't have to turn off their feelings because they don't feel guilt. Eric wanted to be a psychopath and so he tried his hardest to manipulate his own mind to fit that image. The kid was a very good liar as psychopaths tend to be, but then again it could be argued that Dylan was an even better one. Eric did everything he could to come across to everyone as tough and the faked cold attitude was part of that.

In his journal he states that NBK could be stopped if people would simply give him more compliments. A psychopath doesnt need others to compliment him because they whole heartedly believe themselves to be superior. His self esteem was wrecked and he didnt feel respected. The hardass soldier attitude was a mask and the act of NBK itself was a twisted form of self therapy. If others wouldn't validate his ego in the manner he wanted then he would prove to everyone including himself that he was an "alpha" male. In the end though he couldn't escape his low self esteem and he took his life in an extremely violent manner. One truly has to hate them self to blow their head apart with a shotgun.

I understand how easy it is for people to read his rants and think "he's a psychopath" but Eric's psychological state was so much deeper than that. He was more than capable of being a sweet and caring person. His high intellect combined with the constant moving around, his lack of friends and girlfriends, and the general atmosphere of Littleton and Columbine created a depression in his mind that was too much for him to handle. The doctors who were treating him only made it worse by giving him Luvox which is known to make mental illness worse for some teenagers. Its my belief that Eric was a psychotic misdiagnosed as a simple depressive. I was best friends with a diagnosed sociopath for 3 years and I've met a few others in counseling groups. Once you deal with one long enough you come to learn they're all basically identical. I dont get the sociopathic vibe from Eric. His personality was just too "deep" for him to simply be a psychopath.

I don't know if I can agree that Eric was always psychotic, although I think its possible that he and maybe even Dylan slipped into a psychotic type state towards the very end , because what they were going to do was so surreal.
I heartily agree with the rest of your post however and feel that its terrific.
Very well written, detailed and truthful.

I would like to ask you about your former friend and the other psychopaths you knew? What were they like? What was it like to be around them? How did they treat you?
I assume that you had to eventually stop being friends with your close friend because of this condition?
[/quote]

Gustopoet2 wrote:

1. Hare's model for psychopathy is not an applicable tool for psycho-history.

What do you mean exactly by psycho-history? If you mean this: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Then please rest assured that Psychology as a science does not recognize the validity of psychohistory, denies any scientific value to it and states that deceased people cannot be diagnozed, unless evaluated by a qualified psychologist during their lifetime. This is my stance as well.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

2. Even it were, you cannot make predictions about behavior based on a psychological diagnosis.

As explaiend before, we cannot even attempt to make a diagnosis of Eric. So your point is moot.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

This means that even if you could use Hare's index in a meaningful way to do a postmortem analysis of Eric Harris (which you can't) it would be of little use in providing any meaningful insight into Eric's behavior or the "reasons" for NBK. A colloquial way of putting this would be "Not all psychopaths become murderers."

If my gues sthat Eric was in fact a Psychopath is true, then it could in fact help to explain several of his actions and shed some additional light on some statements he is making in his journal (the "people who wronged me" type of statements for example which start to make a lot of sense if you look at them as expressions of psychopathic grandiosity or narcissistim).

Gustopoet2 wrote:

First, you are using Hare's model to analyze Eric Harris when Hare himself insists with fervor that the psychopathy index is to be used ONLY under clinical conditions by experts and it is NOT applicable for a layman's use in any way. It is a clinical tool. It is NOT a predictive tool. You are using it as a source for psycho-history and it is NOT applicable. Just like a hammer can't sew a pair of pants.

You are again confusing a diagnosis with what I termed as nothing more than an educated guess. Moreover, you are confusing PCL-R (diagnostic tool) with Hare's model of psychopathy in general.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Second, even if you could use Hare's model, it means little or nothing  because a clinical diagnosis of a personality disorder does NOT predict behavior, nor does it "explain" behaviors.

Same case - you are confusing a diagnosis with a lose assessment based on Eric's behavior and writing. We cannot attempt to make a diagnosis of Eric, thus this point is also moot.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

This is because even a clinical diagnosis of mental illness is incapable of predicting behavior.

Actually a diagnosis often has some predictive value, this of course depends on the behavior in question, the disorder, the validity of the tools used etc.

However, in the case of CHS we are nor making a diagnosis. Moreover we are not using a model to predict behavior anyways. We are using it to interpret past statements and behavior that had already taken place. Thus your point here is also moot.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Again, you cannot use Hare's psychopathy index for psycho-history. Is that so hard to understand, really?

As explained above, I do not consider psychohistory to be a valid branch of science at all and it should not be treated as such.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Yep. So why even bother trying to shoehorn Hare's work into your psycho-historical diagnosis? Answer: because it is more conducive to psychobabble.  Throwing around empty psychological terms is way to make your argument sound studied and important when it really boils down to "Psycho and Emo did it."

Can you prove this?

lasttrain wrote:

Gustopoet2 wrote:

1. Hare's model for psychopathy is not an applicable tool for psycho-history.

Do you realize that Dr. Robert Hare himself has applied it to dozens of dead people, and endorsed its application to Harris on his own website?

Do you realize that hundreds of doctors apply it all the time to dead people in consultation with the FBI?

And that several, including Dr. Frank Ochberg and Dr. Peter Langman, have profiled Eric as a psychopath with Hare's blessing?

Disagree if you want, but don't say it is not an applicable tool for psycho-history, because doctors do it all the time.

Yep. That's the key difference between a formal diagnosis of a living person (with all the legal ramifications) and a loose assessment of a deceased person (which I prefer to call an "educated guess" instea dof beating around the bush).

There's a lot of confusion amongst lay people in particular about what is a diagnosis and what is not. I admittedly migth have contributed to said confusion on the forums back in the day, due to the naming of a thread "Diagnosis Dylan Klebold" (even though in the content of my posts in said thread, I clearly indicated that its not a formal diagnosis by any means).

PaintItBlack wrote:

I think it is horribly wrong for a mental health professional to definitively diagnose any deceased person, especially a deceased person they never ever spoke to, much less treated.

Words of wisdom if I ever seen any. That's why I stress again: I'm not making a diagnosis at all. I'm making nothing more than an educated guess and I've always been open about this. If I had been ambiguous at times by using imprecise terms (such as assessment) than it is obviously my fault and I apologize for any confusion this might have caused.

PaintItBlack wrote:

]
I don't know if I can agree that Eric was always psychotic, although I think its possible that he and maybe even Dylan slipped into a psychotic type state towards the very end , because what they were going to do was so surreal.

You mean psychotic or psychopathic? Becuase these are two very different things. Psychotic in short and simple terms means stuff like delusions, hallucinations, seeing things which aren't there, hearing voices taht are not there etc.

Nirvana92 wrote:

In his journal he states that NBK could be stopped if people would simply give him more compliments. A psychopath doesnt need others to compliment him because they whole heartedly believe themselves to be superior.

I belive Langman adressed this part in his book and interpreted it as Eric being very narcissistic (even for a psychopath) and I would tend to agree.

Having said that, Eric's psychopathy (or lack of such) is certialy up for debate and we can't relaly "prove" one or the other. I believe that interpreting eric as a psychopath sheds some light on soem of his more obscure and controversial statements, fits in with the behavior he displayed during the shooting. But that's it - the fact taht it helps us explain some of his behavior or writings doesn't mean it is necessarily true. And it certainly does not in any way "justify" NBK as an act of a mentally ill person mind you.

This is one of my gripes with some of the interpretations of NBK. Those that are constructed in order to justify NBK and shift the blame onto the victims, school, parents, jocks, drugs, music, videogames etc rather than explain the minds and motives of Eric and Dylan.
Sure, school, joks, parents, movies and so on might have influenced the way Eric and Dylan thought and behaved. But the fact is taht virtually all of CHS students were exposed to these factors and only E&D chose to go on a rampage. Thus an explanation taht does not start from the analysis of the personalities and beliefs of the killers is imho a wrong one.

Sabratha, if you do not accept psycho-history as clinical science and you agree that an "educated guess" is all that can be done with Hare's index, then why mention Hare at all?

Please see the definition of psychobabble:

"a form of speech or writing that uses psychological jargon, buzzwords, and esoteric language to create an impression of truth or plausibility. The term implies that the speaker or writer lacks the experience and understanding necessary for the proper use of psychological terms. Additionally, it may imply that the content of speech deviates markedly from common sense and good judgement.

Frequent use of psychobabble can associate a clinical, psychological word with meaningless, or less meaningful, buzzword definitions. Laypersons often use such words when they describe life problems as clinical maladies even though the clinical terms are not meaningful or appropriate."

So, "psychopathy" is not recognized by the APA; psycho-history is not science, and Hare himself claims that the index shouldn't be used by laypersons even to make educated guesses.

So all reference to Eric Harris being a psychopath (or having psychopathic tendencies) by laypersons that is based on Hare's clinical (but not APA accepted) approach is by definition psychobabble. Period.

You may take a baroque, seemingly studied approach to psychobabble but it still has no clinical validity whatsoever. And is therefore absolutely meaningless in terms of gaining any insight into Columbine.

Also, I feel that are not reading my posts very closely as I have already mentioned the distinction between psycho-history and clinical psychology many, many times upstream, along with placing Hare's model in context, many times.

You or anyone else who wants to assert or imply that Eric Harris was a psychopath has to contend with two main issues: 1) you have no CLINICAL basis for making this assertion 2) You are engaging in dubious psycho-history.

It is all well and good for you to say you understand the difference between psycho-history and clinical diagnosis, but in your assertions (and others') claims about Eric Harris, this distinction is never present. It is "Eric Harris was a psychopath. Hare's model proves it."

Cullen even hawks his book as "We finally know why the killers did it!"

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Psychopathy is not an accepted designation of mental illness by the APA; psycho-history is not a science, Hare's model is ill-equipped to be used as  tool for psycho-history; therefore, the entire argument that Eric Harris was a psychopath is nothing more than a bunch of unsubstantiated drivel, perpetuated by people who would really just like to sweep NBK under the rug and spout  pseudoscience to make themselves seem important and knowledgeable.

Quote :

It is all well and good for you to say you understand the difference between psycho-history and clinical diagnosis, but in your assertions (and others') clams about Eric Harris, this distinction is never present. It is "Eric Harris was a psychopath. Hare's model proves it."

Feel free to quote me on that. In every longer and more detailed thread I wrote about this topic I have stressed that I'm not making a formal diagnosis. If in some other post I have abbreviated it to and oversimplified it as "Hare's model proves it", then I'm sorry for the confusion, however I do not recall any post where I have said this.

I mention Hare because I believe an educated guess is the best we will get either way (and Hare is at least a widely accepted and thoroughly tested model using reliable diagnostic tools). Every psychological professional will tell you the same - you can't really diagnose Eric as normal and non-disordered, not by using Hare's model, not by using any other psychological model, not by using any sociological, medical or anthropological model either. Because he's dead and cannot be properly evaluated.

I don't feel like continuig on about this, as I feel we'l just be goign round in circles.  

I don't feel strongly enough about Eric's psychopathy to care all that much. Eric is dead, he'll never be properly diagnosed hence saying that he was normal or not is just guesswork anyways.

With all I know about Eric, I believe he likely was psychopathic to some degree, given his actions and how these might tie in with psychopathic behavior. But we will never be sure and everyone is free to make their own conclusion.

Sabratha wrote:

Quote :

It is all well and good for you to say you understand the difference between psycho-history and clinical diagnosis, but in your assertions (and others') clams about Eric Harris, this distinction is never present. It is "Eric Harris was a psychopath. Hare's model proves it."

Feel free to quote me on that. In every longer and more detailed thread I wrote about this topic I have stressed that I'm not making a formal diagnosis. If in some other post I have abbreviated it to and oversimplified it as "Hare's model proves it", then I'm sorry for the confusion, however I do not recall any post where I have said this.

If you are not making a formal diagnosis, then there is no validity to using the term "psychopath." It is a clinical term. Using a clinical term to describe an informal diagnosis is by definition psychobabble. I have no problem with people playing armchair psychologist; I am happy to do so myself. There is a very fine line between psycho-history and psychobabble. The line is blurred so far as to be meaningless when you use Hare's psychological checklist for psychopathy because of Hare's own admonition that is not applicable for use by a layperson under any circumstances.

Sabratha wrote:

I mention Hare because I believe an educated guess is the best we will get either way (and Hare is at least a widely accepted and thoroughly tested model using reliable diagnostic tools). Every psychological professional will tell you the same - you can't really diagnose Eric as normal and non-disordered, not by using Hare's model, not by using any other psychological model, not by using any sociological, medical or anthropological model either. Because he's dead and cannot be properly evaluated.

Right. What you are not acknowledging is that the "educated guess" is basically worthless form anything other than an anecdotal point of view.

Sabratha wrote:

I don't feel like continuig on about this, as I feel we'l just be goign round in circles.  

I don't feel strongly enough about Eric's psychopathy to care all that much. Eric is dead, he'll never be properly diagnosed hence saying that he was normal or not is just guesswork anyways.

With all I know about Eric, I believe he likely was psychopathic to some degree, given his actions and how these might tie in with psychopathic behavior. But we will never be sure and everyone is free to make their own conclusion.

Fair enough. If someone can provide an actual clinical basis to support the idea that Eric was a psychopath I'd love to hear it. The psycho-historical basis seems to me to be pretty flimsy.

Doctors do postmortem diagnoses all the time.  Every one that's looked at the massacre said Eric's a psychopath.  Hare even linked it on his site.

If you want to say you don't believe it, that's fine.  Just don't say there's no clinical basis for it.  There is. It's Dr. Ochberg, Dr. Langman, and Dr. Hare all saying it.  

They are all psychiatrists and they know a lot better than you what they can and can't do.

Eric as if justified by saying that he has a goal, which motivates him to do these horrible things. He never apologizes to the victims, but constantly justifies its actions. Something that actually I'm not a monster, but you're all going to die anyway, because I decided so.

lasttrain wrote:

Doctors do postmortem diagnoses all the time.  Every one that's looked at the massacre said Eric's a psychopath.  Hare even linked it on his site.

If you want to say you don't believe it, that's fine.  Just don't say there's no clinical basis for it.  There is. It's Dr. Ochberg, Dr. Langman, and Dr. Hare all saying it.  

They are all psychiatrists and they know a lot better than you what they can and can't do.

Can you link Hare's endorsement of Eric's psychopath diagnosis? I remembered you saying this several times and I tried to locate it but I could only find a link to Cullen's article in a section with a disclaimer that this was media coverage on the topic of psychopathy posted "strictly for interest sake" with a special note for this particular article saying

hare.org wrote:

An article by Dave Cullen, April 20, 2004. *NOTE: Some of Dr. Hare's work was used by the investigators and the writer but Dr. Hare was not directly involved in the psychological assessments.

It doesn't sound like he has endorsed the diagnosis personally and none of his quotes in the article appear to be specifically about Columbine and are, instead, general comments on psychopathy.

Well I'll say this, if Eric was a psychopath for killing innocent people, then I suppose we could also say Jesus is a complete psychopath, because his theory is "worship me or else, I'll kill you or you'll die and go to hell." If that's not psychopath behavior, I don't know what is.

"Oh Jesus wasn't a psychopath."

Well so if Jesus wasn't a psychopath, neither was Eric. Eric was hurting and the only way he felt he could stop the hurt was by killing those who were making him hurt.

Miss_Reynolds wrote:

Well I'll say this, if Eric was a psychopath for killing innocent people, then I suppose we could also say Jesus is a complete psychopath, because his theory is "worship me or else, I'll kill you or you'll die and go to hell." If that's not psychopath behavior, I don't know what is.

"Oh Jesus wasn't a psychopath."

Well so if Jesus wasn't a psychopath, neither was Eric. Eric was hurting and the only way he felt he could stop the hurt was by killing those who were making him hurt.

He didn't kill the people who made him hurt. Did he shoot the kid who punched him in the face over Kristi Epling? Were Steven Curnow, Rachel Scott and Kyle Velasquez throwing ketchup covered tampons at him? If the school "in general" was making him hurt, well, that just doesn't make a lot of sense. And we're right back at Cullen, with Eric hating "everybody."

Whether Eric was a true psychopath or not will be debated until the end of time. Truth is no one truly knows or will ever know for a fact if he was or not.

His diagnosis was based on his writings and his perceived behavior at the time. It is all speculation, assumptions, and educated guesses.

I do think Eric was somewhere on the psychopathic spectrum. He was angry on the outside, but seemed deeply hurt on the inside. As for him being a total unfeeling, uncaring, completely evil person? No, I just don't believe that.

Either way he decided to turn that anger and hurt loose and the result was 15 people lost their lives, many were injured, and countless others traumatized and mentally scarred for life. In my opinion he may not have been a true psychopath but he did end up acting the part.

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Whether Eric was a true psychopath or not will be debated until the end of time. Truth is no one truly knows or will ever know for a fact if he was or not.

His diagnosis was based on his writings and his perceived behavior at the time. It is all speculation, assumptions, and educated guesses.

I do think Eric was somewhere on the psychopathic spectrum. He was angry on the outside, but seemed deeply hurt on the inside. As for him being a total unfeeling, uncaring, completely evil person? No, I just don't believe that.

Either way he decided to turn that anger and hurt loose and the result was 15 people lost their lives, many were injured, and countless others traumatized and mentally scarred for life. In my opinion he may not have been a true psychopath but he did end up acting the part.

Um, yes Jesus does. If you don't worship him and believe in him, Jesus is hurt by it, but just like Eric, Jesus doesn't show that hurt through hurt, he shows it through WRATH (sound familiar?) and sends plagues and Earthquakes and diseases to kill those who have hurt them and then when they die, it's stated that he sends them to a place of torment called hell....all because he was hurt but he hid his hurt behind anger.


Yeah - sounds like a psycho to me. Furthermore, despite what Eric and Dylan did - and it was horrendous, that doesn't mean they were psychopaths. They were pushed to do what they did. It was wrong but they were pushed - and if you don't know how they were pushed....Well then with all due respect, there's no need of me talking further because you don't get school bullying and being pushed to the breaking point - at all.

Miss_Reynolds wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Whether Eric was a true psychopath or not will be debated until the end of time. Truth is no one truly knows or will ever know for a fact if he was or not.

His diagnosis was based on his writings and his perceived behavior at the time. It is all speculation, assumptions, and educated guesses.

I do think Eric was somewhere on the psychopathic spectrum. He was angry on the outside, but seemed deeply hurt on the inside. As for him being a total unfeeling, uncaring, completely evil person? No, I just don't believe that.

Either way he decided to turn that anger and hurt loose and the result was 15 people lost their lives, many were injured, and countless others traumatized and mentally scarred for life. In my opinion he may not have been a true psychopath but he did end up acting the part.

Um, yes Jesus does. If you don't worship him and believe in him, Jesus is hurt by it, but just like Eric, Jesus doesn't show that hurt through hurt, he shows it through WRATH (sound familiar?) and sends plagues and Earthquakes and diseases to kill those who have hurt them and then when they die, it's stated that he sends them to a place of torment called hell....all because he was hurt but he hid his hurt behind anger.


Yeah - sounds like a psycho to me. Furthermore, despite what Eric and Dylan did - and it was horrendous, that doesn't mean they were psychopaths. They were pushed to do what they did. It was wrong but they were pushed - and if you don't know how they were pushed....Well then with all due respect, there's no need of me talking further because you don't get school bullying and being pushed to the breaking point - at all.

I think you meant to quote and respond to LunkHead McGrath, as you and he/she were the ones talking about Jesus.

Eric Harris wrote:

"I have a goal to destroy as much as possible so I must not be sidetracked by my feelings of sympathy, mercy, or any of that, so I will force myself to believe that everyone is just another monster from Doom like FH or FS or demons, so It's either me or them. I have to turn off my feelings."

Why does Eric sound like me on my period? RIP.

RebAndVoDKa wrote:

Eric Harris wrote:

"I have a goal to destroy as much as possible so I must not be sidetracked by my feelings of sympathy, mercy, or any of that, so I will force myself to believe that everyone is just another monster from Doom like FH or FS or demons, so It's either me or them. I have to turn off my feelings."

Why does Eric sound like me on my period? RIP.

I think most females can relate during certain times of the month!

I'm an atheist so correct me if I'm being unfair about the Jesus analogy, but how does comparing Eric's actions to bible stories allow you to say he is not a psychopath?

It's impossible to diagnose someone postmortem, and most people on this thread acknowledge that. But that also means you can't really rule anything out either. We can only speculate.

Eric didn't kill his bullies. He killed whatever kids happened to be in his way that day, and whoever was unfortunate enough to be hiding in the library. Bullying was not the sole cause of Columbine. If bullying was the only thing that it took to cause a school shooting, there would be thousands more cases around the world.

To put it simply, there is no ONE reason that can be attributed to causing Columbine. And as far as E&D's mental health, all we can do is speculate. But I personally don't believe anyone on this forum should be telling others that they know for sure what they did or did not have wrong with them.

ETA: I am also not saying I believe Eric was a psychopath. I really have no idea, and we haven't seen his diagnosis from his doctor so we will never know what Dr. Albert thought either.

Littlelo wrote:

we haven't seen his diagnosis from his doctor so we will never know what Dr. Albert thought either.

Dr. Albert sounded like he was a shitty doc though. I don't think I would trust whatever conclusions he came to.

QuestionMark wrote:

Littlelo wrote:

we haven't seen his diagnosis from his doctor so we will never know what Dr. Albert thought either.

Dr. Albert sounds like he was a shitty doc though. I don't think I would trust whatever conclusions he came to.

I don't know much about him other than he didn't pick up on any warning signs Eric may have been showing enough to notify the right people. Unless Eric didn't set off any red flags during their sessions.

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Miss_Reynolds wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Whether Eric was a true psychopath or not will be debated until the end of time. Truth is no one truly knows or will ever know for a fact if he was or not.

His diagnosis was based on his writings and his perceived behavior at the time. It is all speculation, assumptions, and educated guesses.

I do think Eric was somewhere on the psychopathic spectrum. He was angry on the outside, but seemed deeply hurt on the inside. As for him being a total unfeeling, uncaring, completely evil person? No, I just don't believe that.

Either way he decided to turn that anger and hurt loose and the result was 15 people lost their lives, many were injured, and countless others traumatized and mentally scarred for life. In my opinion he may not have been a true psychopath but he did end up acting the part.

Um, yes Jesus does. If you don't worship him and believe in him, Jesus is hurt by it, but just like Eric, Jesus doesn't show that hurt through hurt, he shows it through WRATH (sound familiar?) and sends plagues and Earthquakes and diseases to kill those who have hurt them and then when they die, it's stated that he sends them to a place of torment called hell....all because he was hurt but he hid his hurt behind anger.


Yeah - sounds like a psycho to me. Furthermore, despite what Eric and Dylan did - and it was horrendous, that doesn't mean they were psychopaths. They were pushed to do what they did. It was wrong but they were pushed - and if you don't know how they were pushed....Well then with all due respect, there's no need of me talking further because you don't get school bullying and being pushed to the breaking point - at all.

I think you meant to quote and respond to LunkHead McGrath, as you and he/she were the ones talking about Jesus.

Oh, sorry ShadowedGoddess , I'm new to this forum, so I'm trying to get accustomed to replying to others and the sort.

Littlelo wrote:

I'm an atheist so correct me if I'm being unfair about the Jesus analogy, but how does comparing Eric's actions to bible stories allow you to say he is not a psychopath?

It's impossible to diagnose someone postmortem, and most people on this thread acknowledge that. But that also means you can't really rule anything out either. We can only speculate.

Eric didn't kill his bullies. He killed whatever kids happened to be in his way that day, and whoever was unfortunate enough to be hiding in the library. Bullying was not the sole cause of Columbine. If bullying was the only thing that it took to cause a school shooting, there would be thousands more cases around the world.

To put it simply, there is no ONE reason that can be attributed to causing Columbine. And as far as E&D's mental health, all we can do is speculate. But I personally don't believe anyone on this forum should be telling others that they know for sure what they did or did not have wrong with them.

ETA: I am also not saying I believe Eric was a psychopath. I really have no idea, and we haven't seen his diagnosis from his doctor so we will never know what Dr. Albert thought either.

No you don't have thousands of cases of people killing their fellow students because of bullying, but you DO have thousands of kids killing THEMSELVES because of bullying, Eric and Dylan decided to kill themselves too but they also decided to take others to death with them as they go. Like I said, I am NOT excusing their actions. It was indeed WRONG but I can understand the anger and hurt behind what they did. You can't keep pushing people and pushing people and pushing people and think they won't strike back. Some people strike back by killing themselves, others go even further and strike back by killing anyone and everyone in their way, everyone reacts differently to the bullying abuse that they go through.

However yeah, if you were to bring Eric and Dylan BACK from the dead and ask them - "Eric, Dylan, why did you decide to go kill off kids at Columbine?" I put my entire life on the line on the fact that they will say, "we were being bullied and we were being bullied every day and we got tired of it, we wanted to send a message to the world that we were furious at what we were going through at Columbine."

Because also, didn't another poster on this forum once say that Eric stated in his journal that NBK could have been stopped if people just accepted him and liked him. So there ya go! Lol, there's your motive right there! No one liked him nor did anyone accept him and with jocks, if jocks don't like or accept you, they're going to bully you, so there ya go.

I mean because if bullying wasn't why Eric and Dylan did what they did, then why didn't they kill kids when they both went to Ken Caryl Middle school? If they just wanted to murder for the sake of murdering, why didn't they kill their parents and brothers? The guy or girl who probably looked at them wrong or talked smart to them at their local store, why didn't Eric and Dylan just go back to that store one day and kill them? No they thought up the idea to kill kids at COLUMBINE, and in their JUNIOR year, so what happened in their junior year for them to think that up? Furthermore, what happened for them to turn from good kids at  Ken Caryl and even before Ken Caryl, and then they get to Columbine and in their JUNIOR year, they change?? Oh yeah, I know! Bullying! People want to put labels on others "oh they're mentally ill" or "oh they have psychological problems". What makes people think they're mentally ill?? Was the kid who killed herself this week - was she mentally ill too? Huh? Cause she killed herself after being BULLIED. Was she mentally ill too? Hmm? Please, no....

And I'm not telling anyone that "hey, this is what absolutely was wrong with Eric and Dylan" because like I said in another post I made, NO ONE can do that without having them here and present and doing a mental evaluation - BUT I 500% believe had they not been bullied and had Dylan been accepted and liked, they would not have done NBK. NO ONE accepted these two. Some of the kids at Columbine said it! Some of them said "Eric and Dylan thought by them dressing the way they did and acting they way they did, that they were rebels, but really they came off looking like losers." This is what they said! I mean - hello? lol And Evan Todd, I believe his name was, he said, "when you want to get rid of someone, you bully them."

You know, I'd like for those who are saying, "oh no, bullying can't make people snap and it can't be the sole reason Eric and Dylan snapped", I wish they would go to a school like Columbine and dress and act the way Eric and Dylan dressed and acted and experience first-hand the severe bullying that they went through. That can truly screw up your mind. I know, because I was a victim of bullying for five, long years and it affected me so bad that even today, I have mental flashbacks and emotional setbacks from it. It's why my self esteem today is 95% of the time at a level of zero and others who have been severely bullied have said that even though their bullying happened years back, it still affects them today too.

So if it can affect them and myself in such a way, imagine what it did to like Eric and Dylan. Plain and simple, people want to take the problem away from bullying and put it on mental illness, video games, music, GUNS, when the problem is that bullying is SOMETHING ELSE. It can screw the hell out of a kid's mind and emotional mindset and until people deal with the problem of school bullying, no we won't have kids killing other kids, but we'll have kids killing themselves and it's because of school bullying.

No one is discounting bullying as one of the factors leading up to what happened at Columbine.

I think there are many other things that went into it that may not necessarily fall under "bullying". Both were frustrated with their lives, failing to form long term romantic relationships, falling out with friends or failing to make friends, scared of their future after high school, and at the same time that all of these things are going on, they get arrested together and start planning their revenge on not just the school, but authority figures. They want to shoot police. They are angry and sad and by that point, had entered into a very dangerous and toxic friendship. Their other friends had girlfriends and weren't as close to them anymore.

So many pieces to the puzzle.

Littlelo wrote:

No one is discounting bullying as one of the factors leading up to what happened at Columbine.

I think there are many other things that went into it that may not necessarily fall under "bullying". Both were frustrated with their lives, failing to form long term romantic relationships.

Right, Dylan failed to form long term relationships and therefore he became severely depressed - all because he was at the wrong school. So the solution:

Get him the heck out of Columbine High and put him at a school where the kids (guys and girls) are like him

Eric failed to form long term relationships because no girls at his school really liked him, because he was different. Some kids don't understand different.

Littlelo wrote:

falling out with friends or failing to make friends

Um Eric really didn't have any real friends. Dylan did, Eric - not so much, because no one really liked him.

Littlelo wrote:

scared of their future after high school

Eric scared of his future? Dylan scared of his future? No I don't think so....Why would they be when they were smart? And nothing in their journals indicated that they were scared of their future.


Like I said, people want to shy away from bullying (which is the reason why bullying is still going on today without any serious penalties against because school bullying is the elephant in the room that no one really wants to address or discuss truthfully) but you are right, there is more to what Eric and Dylan did than bullying, because alongside bullying, it was also that damn school they went to. It would have been better had neither of them went to that school, because from everything that I have found, from the moment they started at Columbine, their problems began. It seems to me like besides bullying, Columbine High was the problem, but whatever, what do I know?