Im coming to an end with the whole Columbine shooting.

There, I said it. And for a number of reasons.

1: We will probably never fully understand the context of what happened there other than what there allready is to know.

2: Im a sceptic. I like to research and question things, but I also like to deal with facts and not speculation. There are things we may not fully know because they are both dead.

3: I did not set to research it in order to defy the experts. You should respect that the experts have a certain amount of authority to answer difficult questions.

Yet, how many of the sociologists etc havent painfully bought into the idea of 'Dylan and Eric shooting the jocks' or 'Eric and Dylan planned the 20th for Hitlers birthday' and the list goes on? Too bad, some of them do that, too.

Norwegian wrote:

I did not set to research it in order to defy the experts. You should respect that the experts have a certain amount of authority to answer difficult questions.

It's generally unwise to trust the experts on everything, especially in a highly speculative and uncertain field like psychology. It's very much not an exact science, and with the exception of the most obvious and blatant conditions you should always take a mental health diagnosis with a grain of salt. The sheer number of people who are misdiagnosed with mental illness or the wrong disorder suggests cause for alarm and pause.

You appeal to authority without researching whether or not they're able to diagnose people without physically seeing them.

As has been explained to you a dozen times it's an unwritten rule that psychiatrists need to examine someone in person for a correct diagnosis.

QuestionMark wrote:

It's generally unwise to trust the experts on everything, especially in a highly speculative and uncertain field like psychology.

I don't see how anyone could have lived through the past few months without coming to the conclusion that experts aren't the omniscient demi-gods that the media makes them out to be. When even epidemiologists are now admitting their models all turned out to be wrong, it puts largely subjective fields like psychology into even further question.

Moved.

Ivan wrote:

You appeal to authority without researching whether or not they're able to diagnose people without physically seeing them.

As has been explained to you a dozen times it's an unwritten rule that psychiatrists need to examine someone in person for a correct diagnosis.

And even then, many times they're wrong. Sadly

I really don't understand this position at all. Would you believe the doctor who, for example, diagnosed you after one phone call? Without seeing you, without making tests, etc? Maybe he's the best, most respected doctor in history of humankind, but his opinion isn't worth shit because he didnt have proper methods and proper conditions for correct diagnosis.

N/A

Ligeya wrote:

I really don't understand this position at all. Would you believe the doctor who, for example, diagnosed you after one phone call? Without seeing you, without making tests, etc? Maybe he's the best, most respected doctor in history of humankind, but his opinion isn't worth shit because he didnt have proper methods and proper conditions for correct diagnosis.

And even this is a generous analogy because at least in this scenario the doctor spoke to the actual patient. These "experts" are diagnosing Eric and never even interviewed him personally.

It makes sense to me when most experts agree that he was either a psychopath or severely narrasistic. You kind off think there would be a major academic debate, otherwise. It seems to me like the majority of experts agree that Eric was deeply emotionally disturbed. But there are always some people that are in a deep state of denial, and I think that with the True Crime Community, as we are, some people seek out a sense of connection over the stories of bullying or alienation, more or less.

Now, Im not going to dispute that they were bullied(I have no reason to dispute this so far. Much like thelmar, I hold the view that one should always research asoects from different points of view, abs so far, I find much of the reports conflicting). My main point is that there was a lot of factors contributing to this. And psychopathy or narssissism very likely is one out of many factors. Yet, the bullied into retaliation--narrative is easier. I believe that its harder to a kmowledge that some people do what they do because they are cold and calculsting.

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

I did not set to research it in order to defy the experts. You should respect that the experts have a certain amount of authority to answer difficult questions.

It's generally unwise to trust the experts on everything, especially in a highly speculative and uncertain field like psychology. It's very much not an exact science, and with the exception of the most obvious and blatant conditions you should always take a mental health diagnosis with a grain of salt. The sheer number of people who are misdiagnosed with mental illness or the wrong disorder suggests cause for alarm and pause.

Its genuinely unwise not to. Even if people are wrongly diagnosed that doesnt mean its unwise. You kind off expect these people to know more than most people wo the proper education. Besides, even Doctors can put a diagnosis on people and those people arent professionals in the field. One always should take into account an expert opinion. That doesnt mean you take everything that they say at face value, but you expect them to have a sense of better hinsight into what they have to say. And now, Come on, wouldnt we actually see a lot of doubts from other forensics if there were truly any doubts that Eric possessed these traits? There isnt much disagreement that people can be wrongly diagnosed. Yet at the same time, there seems to be a genuine consensus typically all over the border from Robert Hare, himself to all over the board that Eric was either a psychopath or a narssisist. I have yet to see any professional try to put this apart. The only disagreement Ive seen by a professional is that he was more likely a narssist than a psychopath. And those two are not very different

thelmar wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

I really don't understand this position at all. Would you believe the doctor who, for example, diagnosed you after one phone call? Without seeing you, without making tests, etc? Maybe he's the best, most respected doctor in history of humankind, but his opinion isn't worth shit because he didnt have proper methods and proper conditions for correct diagnosis.

And even this is a generous analogy because at least in this scenario the doctor spoke to the actual patient. These "experts" are diagnosing Eric and never even interviewed him personally.

No, but a few of the people that worked with the Jefferson county sheriffs office did,if I remember correctly. Cause they had interacted with them over the divison programme.

Norwegian wrote:

thelmar wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

I really don't understand this position at all. Would you believe the doctor who, for example, diagnosed you after one phone call? Without seeing you, without making tests, etc? Maybe he's the best, most respected doctor in history of humankind, but his opinion isn't worth shit because he didnt have proper methods and proper conditions for correct diagnosis.

And even this is a generous analogy because at least in this scenario the doctor spoke to the actual patient. These "experts" are diagnosing Eric and never even interviewed him personally.

No, but a few of the people that worked with the Jefferson county sheriffs office did,if I remember correctly. Cause they had interacted with them over the divison programme.

And those people you mentioned diagnosed him as psychopath? First time i hear about it.
People you refer to all the time (Langman, Fuselier, Ochberg, whatever) never talked to him and never diagnosed him properly.

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

thelmar wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

I really don't understand this position at all. Would you believe the doctor who, for example, diagnosed you after one phone call? Without seeing you, without making tests, etc? Maybe he's the best, most respected doctor in history of humankind, but his opinion isn't worth shit because he didnt have proper methods and proper conditions for correct diagnosis.

And even this is a generous analogy because at least in this scenario the doctor spoke to the actual patient. These "experts" are diagnosing Eric and never even interviewed him personally.

No, but a few of the people that worked with the Jefferson county sheriffs office did,if I remember correctly. Cause they had interacted with them over the divison programme.

And those people you mentioned diagnosed him as psychopath? First time i hear about it.
People you refer to all the time (Langman, Fuselier, Ochberg, whatever) never talked to him and never diagnosed him properly.

I dont think Langmann diagnosed them. He offers more of a description of what he sees in Harris. Remember, even though he actually never met them in person, he has worked exstensively with Kids that causes a risk. I think people that critise them for being wrong, do so because they dont want to accept the facts. I havent seen any evidence to suggest that I should doubt this or any professional trying to put this into doubt.

Bullying is a bit more complex, However, as there are sources that deny it and there are sources that confirm it.

So is the 'leader- follower', as far as I can see, because some experts argue that there wasnt as much of a leader- follower- narrative, yet, others have argued the opposite.

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

thelmar wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

I really don't understand this position at all. Would you believe the doctor who, for example, diagnosed you after one phone call? Without seeing you, without making tests, etc? Maybe he's the best, most respected doctor in history of humankind, but his opinion isn't worth shit because he didnt have proper methods and proper conditions for correct diagnosis.

And even this is a generous analogy because at least in this scenario the doctor spoke to the actual patient. These "experts" are diagnosing Eric and never even interviewed him personally.

No, but a few of the people that worked with the Jefferson county sheriffs office did,if I remember correctly. Cause they had interacted with them over the divison programme.

And those people you mentioned diagnosed him as psychopath? First time i hear about it.
People you refer to all the time (Langman, Fuselier, Ochberg, whatever) never talked to him and never diagnosed him properly.

I dont think Langmann diagnosed them. He offers more of a description of what he sees in Harris. Remember, even though he actually never met them in person, he has worked exstensively with Kids that causes a risk. I think people that critise them for being wrong, do so because they dont want to accept the facts. I havent seen any evidence to suggest that I should doubt this or any professional trying to put this into doubt.

Bullying is a bit more complex, However, as there are sources that deny it and there are sources that confirm it.

Sorry, but i think people gave you actual valid reasons why they doubt this diagnosis. Diagnosis of a teenager with psychopathy, diagnosis post mortem, diagnosis without personal meeting - the most important rules of diagnosing mental issues were broken. And you say - Oh, you all just don't want to accept the facts.

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

thelmar wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

I really don't understand this position at all. Would you believe the doctor who, for example, diagnosed you after one phone call? Without seeing you, without making tests, etc? Maybe he's the best, most respected doctor in history of humankind, but his opinion isn't worth shit because he didnt have proper methods and proper conditions for correct diagnosis.

And even this is a generous analogy because at least in this scenario the doctor spoke to the actual patient. These "experts" are diagnosing Eric and never even interviewed him personally.

No, but a few of the people that worked with the Jefferson county sheriffs office did,if I remember correctly. Cause they had interacted with them over the divison programme.

And those people you mentioned diagnosed him as psychopath? First time i hear about it.
People you refer to all the time (Langman, Fuselier, Ochberg, whatever) never talked to him and never diagnosed him properly.

I dont think Langmann diagnosed them. He offers more of a description of what he sees in Harris. Remember, even though he actually never met them in person, he has worked exstensively with Kids that causes a risk. I think people that critise them for being wrong, do so because they dont want to accept the facts. I havent seen any evidence to suggest that I should doubt this or any professional trying to put this into doubt.

Bullying is a bit more complex, However, as there are sources that deny it and there are sources that confirm it.

Sorry, but i think people gave you actual valid reasons why they doubt this diagnosis. Diagnosis of a teenager with psychopathy, diagnosis post mortem, diagnosis without personal meeting - the most important rules of diagnosing mental issues were broken. And you say - Oh, you all just don't want to accept the facts.

Well, if the vast majority of experts suggests that vaccines actually save lives and some people srill believe that it doesnt who do you trust? Ive yet to see any psychiatrist Come forward and dismiss or deny that Eric Harris had anti-social tendencies. The only people Ive seen arguing that you should meet someone in person to diagnose them are, in fact, people online making this claim that Harris Couldnt have been a psychopath. Do we have any sources which suggests that you have to meet and talk to a person in order to provided a diagnosis!

Are there any professionals that have gone on record and stated that Harris wasnt a psychopath? Yes Immelmann. But he also puts Harris into the category of extremely narssisstic. Even Robert Hare that invented the term psychopath agrees that Harris was a psychopath.i think the evidence is clear. Doesnt this suggest that you have to know the field before getting into it and before validating someone?
I know very little about diagnostic criteria, but I know that to diagnose someone properly that takes a whole lot of profession, work and hindsight. And this is why it goes wrong, in fact. Because its not always carried out by the professionals, but by doctors and others that may have less of an expertise in this kind of field. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

thelmar wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

I really don't understand this position at all. Would you believe the doctor who, for example, diagnosed you after one phone call? Without seeing you, without making tests, etc? Maybe he's the best, most respected doctor in history of humankind, but his opinion isn't worth shit because he didnt have proper methods and proper conditions for correct diagnosis.

And even this is a generous analogy because at least in this scenario the doctor spoke to the actual patient. These "experts" are diagnosing Eric and never even interviewed him personally.

No, but a few of the people that worked with the Jefferson county sheriffs office did,if I remember correctly. Cause they had interacted with them over the divison programme.

And those people you mentioned diagnosed him as psychopath? First time i hear about it.
People you refer to all the time (Langman, Fuselier, Ochberg, whatever) never talked to him and never diagnosed him properly.

I dont think Langmann diagnosed them. He offers more of a description of what he sees in Harris. Remember, even though he actually never met them in person, he has worked exstensively with Kids that causes a risk. I think people that critise them for being wrong, do so because they dont want to accept the facts. I havent seen any evidence to suggest that I should doubt this or any professional trying to put this into doubt.

Bullying is a bit more complex, However, as there are sources that deny it and there are sources that confirm it.

Sorry, but i think people gave you actual valid reasons why they doubt this diagnosis. Diagnosis of a teenager with psychopathy, diagnosis post mortem, diagnosis without personal meeting - the most important rules of diagnosing mental issues were broken. And you say - Oh, you all just don't want to accept the facts.

Well, if the vast majority of experts suggests that vaccines actually save lives and some people srill believe that it doesnt who do you trust? Ive yet to see any psychiatrist Come forward and dismiss or deny that Eric Harris had anti-social tendencies. The only people Ive seen arguing that you should meet someone in person to diagnose them are, in fact, people online making this claim that Harris Couldnt have been a psychopath. Do we have any sources which suggests that you have to meet and talk to a person in order to provided a diagnosis!

You can't be serious with that.

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

thelmar wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

I really don't understand this position at all. Would you believe the doctor who, for example, diagnosed you after one phone call? Without seeing you, without making tests, etc? Maybe he's the best, most respected doctor in history of humankind, but his opinion isn't worth shit because he didnt have proper methods and proper conditions for correct diagnosis.

And even this is a generous analogy because at least in this scenario the doctor spoke to the actual patient. These "experts" are diagnosing Eric and never even interviewed him personally.

No, but a few of the people that worked with the Jefferson county sheriffs office did,if I remember correctly. Cause they had interacted with them over the divison programme.

And those people you mentioned diagnosed him as psychopath? First time i hear about it.
People you refer to all the time (Langman, Fuselier, Ochberg, whatever) never talked to him and never diagnosed him properly.

I dont think Langmann diagnosed them. He offers more of a description of what he sees in Harris. Remember, even though he actually never met them in person, he has worked exstensively with Kids that causes a risk. I think people that critise them for being wrong, do so because they dont want to accept the facts. I havent seen any evidence to suggest that I should doubt this or any professional trying to put this into doubt.

Bullying is a bit more complex, However, as there are sources that deny it and there are sources that confirm it.

Sorry, but i think people gave you actual valid reasons why they doubt this diagnosis. Diagnosis of a teenager with psychopathy, diagnosis post mortem, diagnosis without personal meeting - the most important rules of diagnosing mental issues were broken. And you say - Oh, you all just don't want to accept the facts.

Well, if the vast majority of experts suggests that vaccines actually save lives and some people srill believe that it doesnt who do you trust? Ive yet to see any psychiatrist Come forward and dismiss or deny that Eric Harris had anti-social tendencies. The only people Ive seen arguing that you should meet someone in person to diagnose them are, in fact, people online making this claim that Harris Couldnt have been a psychopath. Do we have any sources which suggests that you have to meet and talk to a person in order to provided a diagnosis!

You can't be serious with that.

I am. Do you have an sources to suggest that you have to meet the person? I think thats a valid question, because everyone from Robert Hare, that invented the term, to the plenty of professionals out there agrees that Harris was a psychopath. So theres probably a lot of reasons why mental health professionals can diagnose someone the wrong way. For probably plenty of reasons. But I also assume that unless we cant dispute what such a vast body of experts are saying than one has to go with what is allready out there. Thats my take on it.

Ivan wrote:

You appeal to authority without researching whether or not they're able to diagnose people without physically seeing them.

As has been explained to you a dozen times it's an unwritten rule that psychiatrists need to examine someone in person for a correct diagnosis.

Is it? Do you have any sources for that claim?

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

You appeal to authority without researching whether or not they're able to diagnose people without physically seeing them.

As has been explained to you a dozen times it's an unwritten rule that psychiatrists need to examine someone in person for a correct diagnosis.

Is it? Do you have any sources for that claim?

How do you think diagnoses are made?
Also you claim Robert Hare diagnosed Eric. I googled it and couldn't find anything about it. Hare is adamant that it's impossible to diagnose person without personal contact in highly controlled environment. So i am interested whether he really broke his rules.

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

You appeal to authority without researching whether or not they're able to diagnose people without physically seeing them.

As has been explained to you a dozen times it's an unwritten rule that psychiatrists need to examine someone in person for a correct diagnosis.

Is it? Do you have any sources for that  claim?

How do you think diagnoses are made?
Also you claim Robert Hare diagnosed Eric. I googled it and couldn't find anything about it. Hare is adamant that it's impossible to diagnose person without personal contact in highly controlled environment. So i am interested whether he really broke his rules.

I never said that he diagnosed Eric. I suggested that he agreed with it.

So you ask the question how I think diagnosis are made. I cant tell you that with certainty, but if you are convinced that someone has to be B zbbb

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

You appeal to authority without researching whether or not they're able to diagnose people without physically seeing them.

As has been explained to you a dozen times it's an unwritten rule that psychiatrists need to examine someone in person for a correct diagnosis.

Is it? Do you have any sources for that  claim?

How do you think diagnoses are made?
Also you claim Robert Hare diagnosed Eric. I googled it and couldn't find anything about it. Hare is adamant that it's impossible to diagnose person without personal contact in highly controlled environment. So i am interested whether he really broke his rules.

Hare didnt diagnose Eric Harris; he agreed with the diagnosis on Eric Harris.

You asked me wether its possible to not be physically present in order to be diagnosed. IDK about that answer, but if you think its impossible to diagnose someone wo them being present shouldnt you also have evidence to support your claim?

Only sources I found where Robert Hare talks about Eric Harris was in a Norwegian newspaper. It does suggest that he claims Harris was a psychopath

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

But I believe Ive seen it somewhere else, too. The Internet is lousy, sometimes. He wrote a book about psychopaths, though. Not sur

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

You appeal to authority without researching whether or not they're able to diagnose people without physically seeing them.

As has been explained to you a dozen times it's an unwritten rule that psychiatrists need to examine someone in person for a correct diagnosis.

Is it? Do you have any sources for that  claim?

How do you think diagnoses are made?
Also you claim Robert Hare diagnosed Eric. I googled it and couldn't find anything about it. Hare is adamant that it's impossible to diagnose person without personal contact in highly controlled environment. So i am interested whether he really broke his rules.

He did, it was in Cullen's book.

QuestionMark wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

You appeal to authority without researching whether or not they're able to diagnose people without physically seeing them.

As has been explained to you a dozen times it's an unwritten rule that psychiatrists need to examine someone in person for a correct diagnosis.

Is it? Do you have any sources for that  claim?

How do you think diagnoses are made?
Also you claim Robert Hare diagnosed Eric. I googled it and couldn't find anything about it. Hare is adamant that it's impossible to diagnose person without personal contact in highly controlled environment. So i am interested whether he really broke his rules.

He did, it was in Cullen's book.

He only elaborated on what was further established by the Psychiatrists, basically

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

QuestionMark wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

You appeal to authority without researching whether or not they're able to diagnose people without physically seeing them.

As has been explained to you a dozen times it's an unwritten rule that psychiatrists need to examine someone in person for a correct diagnosis.

Is it? Do you have any sources for that  claim?

How do you think diagnoses are made?
Also you claim Robert Hare diagnosed Eric. I googled it and couldn't find anything about it. Hare is adamant that it's impossible to diagnose person without personal contact in highly controlled environment. So i am interested whether he really broke his rules.

He did, it was in Cullen's book.

He was just quoted in the book and in the article. His definition of psychopathy.

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

You appeal to authority without researching whether or not they're able to diagnose people without physically seeing them.

As has been explained to you a dozen times it's an unwritten rule that psychiatrists need to examine someone in person for a correct diagnosis.

Is it? Do you have any sources for that  claim?

How do you think diagnoses are made?
Also you claim Robert Hare diagnosed Eric. I googled it and couldn't find anything about it. Hare is adamant that it's impossible to diagnose person without personal contact in highly controlled environment. So i am interested whether he really broke his rules.

Hare didnt diagnose Eric Harris; he agreed with the diagnosis on Eric Harris.

You asked me wether its possible to not be physically present in order to be diagnosed. IDK about that answer, but if you think its impossible to diagnose someone wo them being present shouldnt you also have evidence to support your claim?

Only sources I found where Robert Hare talks about Eric Harris was in a Norwegian newspaper. It does suggest that he claims Harris was a psychopath

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

But I believe Ive seen it somewhere else, too. The Internet is lousy, sometimes. He wrote a book about psychopaths, though. Not sur

I really don't see any evidences that Hare diagnosed him or agreed with the diagnosis. He was referred to, of course, because he's basically the author of the term "psychopathy".

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

You appeal to authority without researching whether or not they're able to diagnose people without physically seeing them.

As has been explained to you a dozen times it's an unwritten rule that psychiatrists need to examine someone in person for a correct diagnosis.

Is it? Do you have any sources for that  claim?

How do you think diagnoses are made?
Also you claim Robert Hare diagnosed Eric. I googled it and couldn't find anything about it. Hare is adamant that it's impossible to diagnose person without personal contact in highly controlled environment. So i am interested whether he really broke his rules.

Hare didnt diagnose Eric Harris; he agreed with the diagnosis on Eric Harris.

You asked me wether its possible to not be physically present in order to be diagnosed. IDK about that answer, but if you think its impossible to diagnose someone wo them being present shouldnt you also have evidence to support your claim?

Only sources I found where Robert Hare talks about Eric Harris was in a Norwegian newspaper. It does suggest that he claims Harris was a psychopath

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

But I believe Ive seen it somewhere else, too. The Internet is lousy, sometimes. He wrote a book about psychopaths, though. Not sur

I really don't see any evidences that Hare diagnosed him or agreed with the diagnosis. He was referred to, of course, because he's basically the author of the term "psychopathy".

He specifically says that contempt motivated Harris, not anger or hatred. I guess I should research this more in debth, as I thought I heard he agreed with the term being used on Harris.

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

You appeal to authority without researching whether or not they're able to diagnose people without physically seeing them.

As has been explained to you a dozen times it's an unwritten rule that psychiatrists need to examine someone in person for a correct diagnosis.

Is it? Do you have any sources for that  claim?

You and I have been through this already. It is, in fact, vehemently stated by the the American Psychiatric Association that it is UNACCEPTABLE and UNETHICAL to profer a diagnosis without having examined the patient IN PERSON. Not through writings, not through videos, not through interviews with their friends and family. IN PERSON. It is UNETHICAL. If you didn't read it last time, here is the article again
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

thelmar wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

You appeal to authority without researching whether or not they're able to diagnose people without physically seeing them.

As has been explained to you a dozen times it's an unwritten rule that psychiatrists need to examine someone in person for a correct diagnosis.

Is it? Do you have any sources for that  claim?

You and I have been through this already. It is, in fact, vehemently stated by the the American Psychiatric Association that it is UNACCEPTABLE and UNETHICAL to profer a diagnosis without having examined the patient IN PERSON. Not through writings, not through videos, not through interviews with their friends and family. IN PERSON. It is UNETHICAL. If you didn't read it last time, here is the article again
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Only reference I could find that specically talks about non- human interaction is this:
A proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments. Psychiatrists are medical doctors; evaluating mental illness is no less thorough than diagnosing diabetes or heart disease. The standards in our profession require review of medical and psychiatric history and records and a complete examination of mental status. Often collateral information from family members or individuals who know the person well is included, with permission from the patient'.

So, than that bugs the question: Can a persons mental state be examined wo them being physically present? Did they actually diagnose Eric and Dylan or was that an evaluation they came up with? IDK the answer to this, honestly. But Im aware that thats the conclusion they came up with after examining their journals. At the same time I thought it was impossible to diagnose someone as a psychopath?

Just found this through the article I googled, though, that briefly mentions Robert Hare

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

According to Cullen, here, it does suggests that they were diagnosing Eric, allthough, I pretty much suspected that you cant diagnose someone as a psychopath.

Norwegian wrote:

Just found this through the article I googled, though, that briefly mentions Robert Hare

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

According to Cullen, here, it does suggests that they were diagnosing Eric, allthough, I pretty much suspected that you cant diagnose someone as a psychopath.

Yes, as i said, Cullen mentions Hare because he is the author of the term. He also says that FBI contacted Hare for consultation about Columbine case, but doesn't says anything about Hare's conclusions about the case. Possibly because Hare is actually responsible and ethical psychologist who doesnt diagnose dead teenagers he never met.

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Just found this through the article I googled, though, that briefly mentions Robert Hare

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

According to Cullen, here, it does suggests that they were diagnosing Eric, allthough, I pretty much suspected that you cant diagnose someone as a psychopath.

Yes, as i said, Cullen mentions Hare because he is the author of the term. He also says that FBI contacted Hare for consultation about Columbine case, but doesn't says anything about Hare's conclusions about the case. Possibly because Hare is actually responsible and ethical psychologist who doesnt diagnose dead teenagers he never met.

.

What it does suggest(I Couldnt copy the actual text for whatever reason, but we need to be specific here) is that Robert Hare was consulted by the FBI and about Columbine. And also Slate for the story.

And do you have any sources which suggests that Robert Hare never diagnosed anyone thats dead?

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Just found this through the article I googled, though, that briefly mentions Robert Hare

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

According to Cullen, here, it does suggests that they were diagnosing Eric, allthough, I pretty much suspected that you cant diagnose someone as a psychopath.

Yes, as i said, Cullen mentions Hare because he is the author of the term. He also says that FBI contacted Hare for consultation about Columbine case, but doesn't says anything about Hare's conclusions about the case. Possibly because Hare is actually responsible and ethical psychologist who doesnt diagnose dead teenagers he never met.

.

What it does suggest(I Couldnt copy the actual text for whatever reason, but we need to be specific here) is that Robert Hare was consulted by the FBI and about Columbine. And also Slate for the story.

And do you have any sources which suggests that Robert Hare never diagnosed anyone thats dead?

Yes. I wrote it in my post.
It's really easy to Google "Robert Hare diagnosis", and you'll get thousands of links to articles and essays about Hare Psychopathy Checklist. Considering that semi-structured interview is a crucial part of the process, i find it hard to believe that it was ever used to diagnose dead individual. Of course there is a possibility of Ouija board...

I'm an LCSW who works with at risk kids. I'm not a psychiatrist or even an NP who can prescribe psych meds but I work closely with many. The other thing about diagnosing adolescents is that you can't diagnose most psychopathologies until the patient is older than 18. Eric had just turned 18 literally and being a high schooler still puts him in the adolescent category. A lot of "normal" teenage behaviors, like defying authority, nessed up sleeping cycles, highly emotional over relatively mundane things, etc. are symptoms/requirements for diagnosing various psychological disorders. If you diagnosed all teenagers with the same method, the vast majority would have a variety of severe psychopathies but go on to be fully functional adults with no disorders.

Just throwing that out there too.

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Just found this through the article I googled, though, that briefly mentions Robert Hare

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

According to Cullen, here, it does suggests that they were diagnosing Eric, allthough, I pretty much suspected that you cant diagnose someone as a psychopath.

Yes, as i said, Cullen mentions Hare because he is the author of the term. He also says that FBI contacted Hare for consultation about Columbine case, but doesn't says anything about Hare's conclusions about the case. Possibly because Hare is actually responsible and ethical psychologist who doesnt diagnose dead teenagers he never met.

.

What it does suggest(I Couldnt copy the actual text for whatever reason, but we need to be specific here) is that Robert Hare was consulted by the FBI and about  Columbine. And also Slate for the story.

And do you have any sources which suggests that Robert Hare never diagnosed anyone thats dead?

Yes. I wrote it in my post.
It's really easy to Google "Robert Hare diagnosis", and you'll get thousands of links to articles and essays about Hare Psychopathy Checklist. Considering that semi-structured interview is a crucial part of the process, i find it hard to believe that it was ever used to diagnose dead individual. Of course there is a possibility of Ouija board...

Its not the checklist that counts. Its the actual possibility that you can diagnose people that are dead. And, as a previous source here suggested, you absolutely can. A bellittling attitude wont work, cause that suggests your affraid of loosing a debate. So I think we can we safely suggest that its possible. Which it is
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Is ethical? Thats a completely different question. But you absolutely can. So, unless someone else has Come forward and cast doubt over Eric and Dylan evaluation Im going to trust that what Fuselier and Ochberg says is correct. Or not have too many opinions of it. Im not a psychiatrist or any of that. And therefore it would be completely wrong, imo, because I think that in order to evaluate someone you also have to know and understand the field up close. Hence, appeal to authority. Because I hold the view that thats what one should do.

[quote="milennialrebelette"]I'm an LCSW who works with at risk kids. I'm not a psychiatrist or even an NP who can prescribe psych meds but I work closely with many. The other thing about diagnosing adolescents is that you can't diagnose most psychopathologies until the patient is older than 18. Eric had just turned 18 literally and being a high schooler still puts him in the adolescent category. A lot of "normal" teenage behaviors, like defying authority, nessed up sleeping cycles, highly emotional over relatively mundane things, etc. are symptoms/requirements for diagnosing various psychological disorders. If you diagnosed all teenagers with the same method, the vast majority would have a variety of severe psychopathies but go on to be fully functional adults with no disorders.

Just throwing that out there too.[/quote

Probably correct, but I think they found out that he possessed several of those personality traits throughout much of hes journal and other writing. School shooters are not 'normal' Kids. Most of them lack something inherently basic. They arent the average Kids being bullied at school up to a breaking point. They arent your average Kids playing too many video games. And so on. They are people with a certain amount of psychological problems.

I think most of them have examined Harris based on hes writings and hes journal, but there was also that history he had with other students of being extremely manipulative and all the criminal behaviour that he engaged in up to that point. Theres so much information out there about the Columbine shooting that we know quite a lot about these two. We know how they laid their plans, their everyday struggles, that Dylan had crushes and so on.

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Just found this through the article I googled, though, that briefly mentions Robert Hare

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

According to Cullen, here, it does suggests that they were diagnosing Eric, allthough, I pretty much suspected that you cant diagnose someone as a psychopath.

Yes, as i said, Cullen mentions Hare because he is the author of the term. He also says that FBI contacted Hare for consultation about Columbine case, but doesn't says anything about Hare's conclusions about the case. Possibly because Hare is actually responsible and ethical psychologist who doesnt diagnose dead teenagers he never met.

.

What it does suggest(I Couldnt copy the actual text for whatever reason, but we need to be specific here) is that Robert Hare was consulted by the FBI and about  Columbine. And also Slate for the story.

And do you have any sources which suggests that Robert Hare never diagnosed anyone thats dead?

Yes. I wrote it in my post.
It's really easy to Google "Robert Hare diagnosis", and you'll get thousands of links to articles and essays about Hare Psychopathy Checklist. Considering that semi-structured interview is a crucial part of the process, i find it hard to believe that it was ever used to diagnose dead individual. Of course there is a possibility of Ouija board...

Its not the checklist that counts. Its the actual possibility that you can diagnose people that are dead. And, as a previous source here suggested, you absolutely can. A bellittling attitude wont work, cause that suggests your affraid of loosing a debate. So I think we can we safely suggest that its possible. Which it is
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Is ethical? Thats a completely different question. But you absolutely can. So, unless someone else has Come forward and cast doubt over Eric and Dylan evaluation Im going to trust that what Fuselier and Ochberg says is correct. Or not have too many opinions of it. Im not a psychiatrist or any of that. And therefore it would be completely wrong, imo, because I think that in order to evaluate someone you also have to know and understand the field up close. Hence, appeal to authority. Because I hold the view that thats what one should do.

I assure you, i am not afraid of losing that argument lol.
Checklist is a diagnosing tool. Rating patients according to the checklist is a method of diagnosing psychopathy. And it's impossible to do it without personal interview. Hence it's impossible to diagnose dead person you never met with psychopathy. Of course it's simplified, but the main point still stands.
Of course you can diagnose dead person with psychopathy. You can diagnose anybody with anything. Doesn't mean it's going to be correct or respected diagnosis.

Norwegian wrote:

Its not the checklist that counts. Its the actual possibility that you can diagnose people that are dead. . Which it is
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Is ethical? Thats a completely different question. But you absolutely can.

Yes, let's trust the opinions of unethical psychiatrists. That sounds like a good idea. You're going for semantics here now. If this is the hill you'd like to die on, it is your choice but of all the things that you have said that I disagree with, this one probably tops the list. Relying on people who willfully practice their profession unethically despite being repeatedly cautioned by their colleagues and governing body is not a choice I would make.

thelmar wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Its not the checklist that counts. Its the actual possibility that you can diagnose people that are dead. . Which it is
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Is ethical? Thats a completely different question. But you absolutely can.

Yes, let's trust the opinions of unethical psychiatrists. That sounds like a good idea. You're going for semantics here now. If this is the hill you'd like to die on, it is your choice but of all the things that you have said that I disagree with, this one probably tops the list. Relying on people who willfully practice their profession unethically despite being repeatedly cautioned by their colleagues and governing body is not a choice I would make.

I found that there are actually differences of opinion in regards to this.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Unethical or not. I think the main point still stands. Which is that they have evaluated Eric Harris based on hes journals and writings. Unless anyone else has Come forward and cast serious doubts about their evaluation of Harris I will go with what Fuselier, Langmann and Ochberg has stated. Ochberg, as far as Im aware, is also a well known psychiatrist that have had worked over long periods of time with trauma. He even invented the term PTSD, from what it says. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Norwegian wrote:

Unethical or not. I think the main point still stands.

It's not "unethical or not," the APA has very explicitly stated that it IS unethical. To me, the "main point" is that you choose to trust in experts who are willfully practicing their profession unethically. And you can couch that in any terms or semantics you want but that is exactly what you are doing.

milennialrebelette wrote:

I'm an LCSW who works with at risk kids. I'm not a psychiatrist or even an NP who can prescribe psych meds but I work closely with many. The other thing about diagnosing adolescents is that you can't diagnose most psychopathologies until the patient is older than 18. Eric had just turned 18 literally and being a high schooler still puts him in the adolescent category. A lot of "normal" teenage behaviors, like defying authority, nessed up sleeping cycles, highly emotional over relatively mundane things, etc. are symptoms/requirements for diagnosing various psychological disorders. If you diagnosed all teenagers with the same method, the vast majority would have a variety of severe psychopathies but go on to be fully functional adults with no disorders.

Just throwing that out there too.

Neuropsychological researcher with emphasis on development here: In addition to your excellent post, I also want to reiterate that the adolescence brain does not stop development until they are in their 20s with significant sexual dimorphic differences. On top of that, depression and childhood trauma have been found to delay brain development, especially with regards to decision making, reward circuitry, and the neuronal circuitry involved in understanding social cues and intentions. With time and maybe some therapy, though, such adolescents can develop into normal functioning adults. Personally, the psychopath theory has never been satisfactory, as best articulated by the paper "Paranoid thinking in mass shooters" by Dutton et al., 2013.

thelmar wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Unethical or not. I think the main point still stands.

It's not "unethical or not," the APA has very explicitly stated that it IS unethical. To me, the "main point" is that you choose to trust in experts who are willfully practicing their profession unethically. And you can couch that in any terms or semantics you want but that is exactly what you are doing.

My point is that we can debate back and forth wether its, Unethical. Which it may or May not be. But does this suggest that Erics diagnosis is correct? Does it have any valid point in regards to wether or not the criteria is inaccurate? Does it help in refuting the argument?

qwertyu wrote:

milennialrebelette wrote:

I'm an LCSW who works with at risk kids. I'm not a psychiatrist or even an NP who can prescribe psych meds but I work closely with many. The other thing about diagnosing adolescents is that you can't diagnose most psychopathologies until the patient is older than 18. Eric had just turned 18 literally and being a high schooler still puts him in the adolescent category. A lot of "normal" teenage behaviors, like defying authority, nessed up sleeping cycles, highly emotional over relatively mundane things, etc. are symptoms/requirements for diagnosing various psychological disorders. If you diagnosed all teenagers with the same method, the vast majority would have a variety of severe psychopathies but go on to be fully functional adults with no disorders.

Just throwing that out there too.

Neuropsychological researcher with emphasis on development here: In addition to your excellent post, I also want to reiterate that the adolescence brain does not stop development until they are in their 20s with significant sexual dimorphic differences. On top of that, depression and childhood trauma have been found to delay brain development, especially with regards to decision making, reward circuitry, and the neuronal circuitry involved in understanding social cues and intentions. With time and maybe some therapy, though, such adolescents can develop into normal functioning adults. Personally, the psychopath theory has never been satisfactory, as best articulated by the paper "Paranoid thinking in mass shooters" by Dutton et al., 2013.

Its well established by numerous experts as far as I know.
'Most clinicians now agree that Eric Harris was a ruthless, cold blooded, psychopath (considered to be a personality disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, DSM-V). Like so many others afflicted with psychopathy, he felt a complete air of superiority and entitlement over everyone'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

At least, I think we can stress that he was well into hes way of be coming one, by all accounts.

Norwegian wrote:

qwertyu wrote:

milennialrebelette wrote:

I'm an LCSW who works with at risk kids. I'm not a psychiatrist or even an NP who can prescribe psych meds but I work closely with many. The other thing about diagnosing adolescents is that you can't diagnose most psychopathologies until the patient is older than 18. Eric had just turned 18 literally and being a high schooler still puts him in the adolescent category. A lot of "normal" teenage behaviors, like defying authority, nessed up sleeping cycles, highly emotional over relatively mundane things, etc. are symptoms/requirements for diagnosing various psychological disorders. If you diagnosed all teenagers with the same method, the vast majority would have a variety of severe psychopathies but go on to be fully functional adults with no disorders.

Just throwing that out there too.

Neuropsychological researcher with emphasis on development here: In addition to your excellent post, I also want to reiterate that the adolescence brain does not stop development until they are in their 20s with significant sexual dimorphic differences. On top of that, depression and childhood trauma have been found to delay brain development, especially with regards to decision making, reward circuitry, and the neuronal circuitry involved in understanding social cues and intentions. With time and maybe some therapy, though, such adolescents can develop into normal functioning adults. Personally, the psychopath theory has never been satisfactory, as best articulated by the paper "Paranoid thinking in mass shooters" by Dutton et al., 2013.

Its well established by numerous experts as far as I know.
'Most clinicians now agree that Eric Harris was a ruthless, cold blooded, psychopath (considered to be a personality disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, DSM-V). Like so many others afflicted with psychopathy, he felt a complete air of superiority and entitlement over everyone'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If they have diagnosed an adolescent without ever having once met him, I question their credibility as experts. No true psychiatrist would diagnose someone under those conditions. One of the basic mantras of the field is you cannot diagnose someone you've never met.

milennialrebelette wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

qwertyu wrote:

milennialrebelette wrote:

I'm an LCSW who works with at risk kids. I'm not a psychiatrist or even an NP who can prescribe psych meds but I work closely with many. The other thing about diagnosing adolescents is that you can't diagnose most psychopathologies until the patient is older than 18. Eric had just turned 18 literally and being a high schooler still puts him in the adolescent category. A lot of "normal" teenage behaviors, like defying authority, nessed up sleeping cycles, highly emotional over relatively mundane things, etc. are symptoms/requirements for diagnosing various psychological disorders. If you diagnosed all teenagers with the same method, the vast majority would have a variety of severe psychopathies but go on to be fully functional adults with no disorders.

Just throwing that out there too.

Neuropsychological researcher with emphasis on development here: In addition to your excellent post, I also want to reiterate that the adolescence brain does not stop development until they are in their 20s with significant sexual dimorphic differences. On top of that, depression and childhood trauma have been found to delay brain development, especially with regards to decision making, reward circuitry, and the neuronal circuitry involved in understanding social cues and intentions. With time and maybe some therapy, though, such adolescents can develop into normal functioning adults. Personally, the psychopath theory has never been satisfactory, as best articulated by the paper "Paranoid thinking in mass shooters" by Dutton et al., 2013.

Its well established by numerous experts as far as I know.
'Most clinicians now agree that Eric Harris was a ruthless, cold blooded, psychopath (considered to be a personality disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, DSM-V). Like so many others afflicted with psychopathy, he felt a complete air of superiority and entitlement over everyone'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If they have diagnosed an adolescent without ever having once met him, I question their credibility as experts. No true psychiatrist would diagnose someone under those conditions. One of the basic mantras of the field is you cannot diagnose someone you've never met.

You can, but its not ethical, like I provided information on above here. Thats two different things. We can only speculate back and forth on this. Most Columbine experts agree that Eric was a psychopath or an aspiring to be psychopath.

I also like to stress that there are some valid reasons why I have very little reason to doubt the credibility of the people involved. Mainly, that Frank Ochberg is a long standing professional psychiatrist. He actually doesnt say that Eric Harris was a psychopath. He says that he was aspiring to be a psychopath.
And at this stage we know that psychopathy can develop from quite an early age and that much of it is wired, mentally from birth.


I gather I must probably research this more, though. But for the record I can say that Ive gone through diagnostization, and theres a huge difference between being evaluated by doctors and people that have long term experiences in the medical field. Huge. I think its important to back and ask the question why did they examine Harris and Klebold in spite of the fact that they were dead and in spite of the fact that you usually should do it with a person present? And what are other experts saying about this? Are there exceptions to the rule? Such as the Columbine shooting Where there is such a vast body of information available.


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

milennialrebelette wrote:

If they have diagnosed an adolescent without ever having once met him, I question their credibility as experts.

Norwegian wrote:

You can, but its not ethical, like I provided information on above here. Thats two different things. We can only speculate back and forth on this. Most Columbine experts agree that Eric was a psychopath or an aspiring to be psychopath.
I also like to stress that there are some valid reasons why I have very little reason to doubt the credibility of the people involved.

The articles that you cited do not support that the mental health professionals that diagnosed Eric with psychopathy (or any of the other conditions he has been "diagnosed" with) were not acting unethically.
The first was the opinion of a licensed clinical mental health counselor with a master's degree (not a doctor) and he specifically mentioned the examples of public figures, one of which Eric became after this event. And he said that diagnosing a public figure is difficult because

Quote :

Part of the problem is that a person’s public image when they know they are in the spotlight may not accurately reflect their true psychological state.

It's been argued for years regarding how much of Eric's journal represent his true feelings and how much was because he knew that others would be reading his words. He addresses those people several times throughout. Yet, Dwayne Fuselier specifically said that he was just a few pages into Eric's journal when he KNEW he was a psychopath! That's all it took for him, and then he went about trying to cram everything else about Eric into the diagnosis he had made, leaving out the stuff that didn't fit or explaining away that which was diametrically opposed to the diagnosis.
The opinion also states the example of the parents who are concerned about their child so they call to speak to the doctor. Based on the conversation, the doctor thinks the child could have ADHD and advises AN IN PERSON appointment because

It could turn out to be or it could turn out not to be. wrote:

Your second article refers to a group of psychiatrists and mental health professionals who wrote an article about Trump's mental state being a danger to the country. They cited the "duty to warn" as their reason that what they were doing was not unethical (because they knew diagnosing someone you haven't personally examined IS considered unethical). The article cites that even when diagnosis without in person exam might be viewed as necessary (such as a politician getting an opinion on a dangerous political leader like Hitler, or a judge asking for a psychiatrists opinion in a trial) that

Quote :

the limitations of the evaluations are understood

meaning, as the guy in your first piece said, "it could turn out to be or it could turn out not to be."

Diagnosis of Eric does not fit into either of these categories. And, most importantly, when these so-called experts profer their opinions on Eric, they do not mention any "understood limitations" of their diagnosis. They don't explain, "hey, I could be totally wrong because I never examined this kid but this is what I think is wrong with him." I don't think even this is permitted by the American Psychiatric Association but, personally, if they made those kinds of qualifiers on their opinions, I'd have no issue with it. It's when they say, "Eric Harris was a psychopath/ narcissist, etc." without qualifying their opinion that they lose all credibility in my eyes because they are marketing their opinion to impressionable people who don't know that what they are doing is considered unethical by the governing body of their profession. A layman hears an "expert" way in and think, "well, than that must be what he was." They don't understand the vital importance of the in-person exam or the limitations of making a diagnosis without one.

credibiity
n.
The capability or condition of being credited or believed; that quality in a person or thing which renders him or it worthy of credence; credibleness; just claim to credit: as, the credibility of a witness; the credibility of a statement or a narrative.

What you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that all of us are telling you that if the body that governs your profession says that a certain activity is unethical, it is, without argument, unethical. And if a person is knowingly doing something unethical, that person is no longer worthy of being believed or respected. Therefore, whatever comes from their unethical actions, are not credible.

thelmar wrote:

milennialrebelette wrote:

If they have diagnosed an adolescent without ever having once met him, I question their credibility as experts.

Norwegian wrote:

You can, but its not ethical, like I provided information on above here. Thats two different things. We can only speculate back and forth on this. Most Columbine experts agree that Eric was a psychopath or an aspiring to be psychopath.
I also like to stress that there are some valid reasons why I have very little reason to doubt the credibility of the people involved.

The articles that you cited do not support that the mental health professionals that diagnosed Eric with psychopathy (or any of the other conditions he has been "diagnosed" with) were not acting unethically.
The first was the opinion of a licensed clinical mental health counselor with a master's degree (not a doctor) and he specifically mentioned the examples of public figures, one of which Eric became after this event. And he said that diagnosing a public figure is difficult because

Quote :

Part of the problem is that a person’s public image when they know they are in the spotlight may not accurately reflect their true psychological state.

It's been argued for years regarding how much of Eric's journal represent his true feelings and how much was because he knew that others would be reading his words. He addresses those people several times throughout. Yet, Dwayne Fuselier specifically said that he was just a few pages into Eric's journal when he KNEW he was a psychopath! That's all it took for him, and then he went about trying to cram everything else about Eric into the diagnosis he had made, leaving out the stuff that didn't fit or explaining away that which was diametrically opposed to the diagnosis.
The opinion also states the example of the parents who are concerned about their child so they call to speak to the doctor. Based on the conversation, the doctor thinks the child could have ADHD and advises AN IN PERSON appointment because


Your second article refers to a group of psychiatrists and mental health professionals who wrote an article about Trump's mental state being a danger to the country. They cited the "duty to warn" as their reason that what they were doing was not unethical (because they knew diagnosing someone you haven't personally examined IS considered unethical). The article cites that even when diagnosis without in person exam might be viewed as necessary (such as a politician getting an opinion on a dangerous political leader like Hitler, or a judge asking for a psychiatrists opinion in a trial) that

Quote :

the limitations of the evaluations are understood

meaning, as the guy in your first piece said, "it could turn out to be or it could turn out not to be."

Diagnosis of Eric does not fit into either of these categories. And, most importantly, when these so-called experts profer their opinions on Eric, they do not mention any "understood limitations" of their diagnosis. They don't explain, "hey, I could be totally wrong because I never examined this kid but this is what I think is wrong with him." I don't think even this is permitted by the American Psychiatric Association but, personally, if they made those kinds of qualifiers on their opinions, I'd have no issue with it. It's when they say, "Eric Harris was a psychopath/ narcissist, etc." without qualifying their opinion that they lose all credibility in my eyes because they are marketing their opinion to impressionable people who don't know that what they are doing is considered unethical by the governing body of their profession. A layman hears an "expert" way in and think, "well, than that must be what he was." They don't understand the vital importance of the in-person exam or the limitations of making a diagnosis without one.

credibiity
   n.
   The capability or condition of being credited or believed; that quality in a person or thing which renders him or it worthy of credence; credibleness; just claim to credit: as, the credibility of a witness; the credibility of a statement or a narrative.

What you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that all of us are telling you that if the body that governs your profession says that a certain activity is unethical, it is, without argument, unethical. And if a person is knowingly doing something unethical, that person is no longer worthy of being believed or respected. Therefore, whatever comes from their unethical actions, are not credible.  

Because its besides the point. My effort wasnt to provide evidence that its ethical. My effort was to provide information on who holds the view and support the view that he was a psychopath. But I agree that that the article should have been more specific. A better resource would be NPRs ingerview w Reid Meloy and Frank Ochberg
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I also aknowlegded that you seem to mention the previous article that I provided. So lets take a look at the argument you Just mentioned.

'While there are ethical rules that prohibit diagnosing someone that a clinician has not met and examined, developed largely because of clinicians “diagnosing” popular figures that they have not met, I would argue that there are still occasions where some level of diagnostic impression can happen with someone who is not someone’s patient, namely:

A clinician-patient relationship has not been established but the clinician has had the opportunity to interact with the non-patient in ways that gives the history and exam, and has utilized these. While this opens up this “can”, it also opens up a “may” problem of treating someone that is not their patient.
A clinician is able to obtain the information necessary from credible sources, allowing the history and symptoms to be clearly identified and evaluated. In the case of geographic remote issues, this may involve the use of specially trained paraprofessionals or general medical personnel when full clinicians cannot be available. Some would argue that with the advent of telehealth, this is a form of “seeing” the patient.
There may be times when it is not possible to see the non-patient but where it is still desirable to come up with a provisional diagnosis or a rule out diagnosis. This is especially the case when this impression is helpful information and not about treatment. There may be records that provide a strong idea of what was going on but where a diagnosis was not formed. This is especially the case when looking at people in someone’s family history as the descriptiveness around serious mental illness was less in history and the stigma was stronger. However, in serious mental illnesses with a believed possible genetic component, understanding these familial patterns can be important for today’s patient and for research.
The area of controversy - public figures. Part of the problem is that a person’s public image when they know they are in the spotlight may not accurately reflect their true psychological state. People’s shock of Robin William’s suicide is a good example of that. Observer’s bias around politicians is another good example and actually prompted the Goldman Rule around this. It is also possible for a public figure to refuse to have a proper evaluation within a clinician-patient relationship or only to do so where they knew they could control the outcome. While the rule prohibits a clinician from ethically providing a diagnosis for a public figure (with reason), it does not prohibit a clinician from stating that certain behaviors are consistent with or not consistent with certain diagnoses, in other words some things can be commented on as traits of certain diagnoses without saying whether the diagnosis is actually the diagnosis. This is similar to when a parent describes the child’s behavior and the clinician says that those things would be consistent with ADHD and that the parent should bring the child in to be examined to see if that would be the diagnosis. It could turn out to be or it could turn out not to be'


As for Erics journal we can only add to it what we want to see or we can trie to understand them from an objective point of view. I would rather ask the question: Who makes the argument? As someone that constantly have to do a fair share of source criticism, the question is always 'who makes the claim?' and 'is this claim coming from a reliable source?'. Even 'should I take the authors words at face value' and 'am I biased?' On top of it 'is it relevant to the case that Im researching?' In any given case, if I want to research something I never do it without looking into an expert opion. I may not like the answer they provide, but facts and information arent there to be liked. They Just exists. Now; I always agree that one should be critical and able to ask questions. That also ends up with the outcome that you may not like the answer. For the most osert between an un professional and someone thats highly skilled in their research are more likely to be right than someone thats not. Thats Just a fact.

Its not that I dont like it that people diagnose someone thats dead or not present. I find it puzzling to be exact. But I assume that they have their qualified reasons even if its not usually the way that it should have been done. Frank Ochberg, that helped participate in this case, had over 30 years of experience before  this. On top of this he wrote an assessment of school shooters.

In regards to the article I provided about Trump, the point wasnt that its unethical. My point was that its definately possible. Even if its not ethical(which seems to be disputed), its fully possible. The writer of the actual article thinks it is unethical, and I have nothing against that, either. But the point was to argue many of the well known mantras in our Community that is false and repeated by many. The point isnt the ethics of doing so. The point is wether thats possible. Which it is. Ethical or not is a complete different discussion.

Norwegian wrote:

Its not that I dont like it that people diagnose someone thats dead or not present. I find it puzzling to be exact. But I assume that they have their qualified reasons even if its not usually the way that it should have been done.

The point isnt the ethics of doing so. The point is wether thats possible. Which it is. Ethical or not is a complete different discussion.

When judging whether or not someone's opinion is credible and worthy of listening to, you must not look only at their schooling/qualifications but their motives, past actions, and their character. A reverend with a PhD in Religious Studies who gets caught bad mouthing a person because of their race is not someone you want teaching your child about morals. A lawyer and graduate of Harvard Law School, who knows it is unethical to have an affair with a jurist on a trial he is prosecuting, even if they do not discuss the case together, but does so anyway, is not someone I would hire as my District Attorney. A best-selling author who skates the boundaries of what is plagiarism of others works without full-on plagiarizing is not someone I would want teaching me about how to write a book. And, as an extreme example, Josef Mengele earned a medical degree at the University of Frankfort but he performed horrific experiments on live human beings. I wouldn't be taking medical advice from him.

You are putting trust and value on the opinions of people who are violating the ethics of their profession. If they are willing to violate the ethics of their profession (and in this instance, as far as evaluation of Eric Harris is concerned, this is not debatable, especially if they don't qualify that they could be wrong in their opinions), why would I trust them? If I know someone is doing something that they have been warned not to do, I have to ask myself what are their motives? What do they gain from it? If they are committing this wrong action, why should I trust them?

I want you to know that I appreciate you. Despite our differences of opinion, you are always very respectful and you do not slip into personal attacks or snide remarks nor accuse people of saying things they are not. That said, our opinions on this subject (and that of whether there is definitive proof that Eric and Dylan were bullied ) are completely at odds and after much back and forth discussion I see no way that we would bridge the chasm enough for the discussions to be rewarding or a learning process for either of us. As such, I'm bowing out of this discussion but I look forward to participating in others with you which might help both of us advance our understanding of what happened at Columbine.