psychopathic clinic

anonymous asked:

How can you possibly look at that class photo of Eric taken on March 4, 1999, look into those eyes of his, that stare he is giving to the camera and say he is NOT a psychopath. He was clearly, by all accounts, a clinical textbook psychopath. Even his own parents have come to that conclusion. You are in utter denial. It's best NOT to over-analyze him or his motives. He doesn't deserve that. His victims are the ones who deserve attention not him.

Do you really mean to tell me that this one picture, frozen in time, is enough to convince some people that Eric was a big mean old psychopath? Wow. That just goes to show that if you put a little effort into looking the evil part, the rest of the world’s going to do your work for you and call you that for the rest of your days. Of course that picture is Eric at his most Reb-like, purposefully vicious and completely hellbent on making that picture a “fuck you, this is me being a neon warning sign you won’t see until it’s too late”-moment. Dylan, right next to him, is giving a pretty similar look into the camera. Funny how Dylan’s excluded from the psychopath narrative, despite them both looking like they could eat us alive. I guess that the whole “look into his eyes and tell me he’s not a psychopath”-thing only really counts when it comes to Eric, huh. Double standard much?

I also want to say that ‘clinical textbook psychopath’ is a more problematic descriptor than the standard account on Eric has any right to be. Psychopathy is still not an officially accepted clinical diagnosis, after all, and both the ICD-10 and the DSM-V do not recognise it as a standalone disorder. Psychopathy is recognised in the latter as a symptom of Antisocial Personality Disorder, but that inclusion took almost fifty years of research and debate about its validity. ASPD and DPD (dissocial personality disorder) are currently the clinically accepted measures that come closest to what we call 'psychopath’ in layman’s terms. I would strongly advise you to read up on the many criticisms on psychopathy, so that you will come to understand why this is still subject to debate and not yet recognised as an official disorder by the standard works in the psychiatric world today. Arguments countering psychopathy as a disorder include doubts about the neurological concepts of psychopathy, arguments that it could have a sociological stigmatisation effect, concern about its potential incompatibility with evolutionary models of empathy, and so on and so forth. It’s well worth your time to take a look at these critiques, because nothing about this potential diagnosis is currently 'textbook’ due to its still-evolving state.

While it is true that his parents gave off the impression of accepting the conclusion of psychopathy, it is also important to note that we only really know of two moments in which they spoke of Eric after the massacre. One of them is the talk with the Mauser family, in which they did seem to accept the standard view of their son, and another is an account in which Wayne Harris stated that he had two sons and that one of them died at Columbine. To me, that’s not enough to go on to definitively say that Eric’s parents have come to that conclusion you say they arrived at. It’s possible that they did accept it, of course, and it’s even more possible that they decided to not challenge the official narrative even if they personally have their doubts about it. When all the world tells you that your child was a certain way and leaves no room for doubt about that, it can really screw with your perceptions of who your child was and mess with the memories you have of time spent with your child. The Harris family has lived with people telling them their youngest son was a psychopath for close to eighteen years now. That’s as long as Eric was alive. That’s a long time in which to hold on to another view of him that may not fit the psychopath-narrative. It’s entirely possible that, in the privacy of their own home or even in the quiet space of their own mind, they might yet feel differently about their son than we currently think they do.

It’s not just about what Eric deserves. It’s not that simple. It never is. I would argue that we don’t analyse Eric’s personality or his motives for Eric’s benefit to begin with, as Eric is dead and gone and nothing we uncover right now has the power to help him. The reason why we want to get to know his motives is because there are other people out there with similar motives. The reason why we should take a very close look at his personality is because there are other people out there who recognise themselves in him and feel a kinship with him. We owe it to these people to uncover the truth about Eric and analyse what was going on with him, because that is the only way in which we will be able to provide these people with the help and support that they need. These people deserve our open minds and hearts. The last thing that they need is for us to conclude that Eric was a psychopath who couldn’t be saved by anybody. What kind of message do you think that sends? What do you think it tells those kids who feel the way Eric felt, who see themselves in him, who want to follow in Eric’s footsteps someday? What do you think happens to our hopes of helping these people when you say that Eric was less than human or not even human, as Dave Cullen did?

I personally chose to come to different conclusions about Eric over the past five years. And, let me tell you: that was not very hard to do. It’s not difficult to create a narrative for Eric that has a strong background in psychology and child development without straying into the psychopath-territory in the process. It’s possible to speak about Eric in the most basic, human terms you can conceive of and still have that make perfect logical sense without detracting in any way from the horrible things he did. The Eric I saw when I began my research was very angry, very hateful, and very aggressive. The Eric I see today is still all of those things. Were I to be in actual denial, I would not recognise the validity and presence of these things in him as much as I do. The only thing that has changed is how I choose to look at them. Are they all that Eric was, as the official narrative goes, or are they the symptoms of something far more complicated?

In my opinion, following the official narrative is what Eric would want us to do. He’d love it. He’d push for us to believe it every step of the way. Hell, I could even argue that he already played it up as much as he could while he was still alive. Do you really want to give Eric Harris the satisfaction of having his story be told exactly the way he wanted it to be? I personally feel he doesn’t deserve that courtesy. I think he deserves to have his narrative blown wide open, so we all get to see the insecurities, the self-loathing, the doubts, the loss, the fear, the anxiety, the rage, the isolation, the loneliness, the child behind those staring hateful eyes. He’d hate that. He never wanted us to see that and worked so very hard to avoid that we would be able to contemplate it as the truth about who he was.

It’s not overanalysing when it brings you closer to what’s true and helps other people feel heard in the process.

Sunday Respite - Home-Grown Cults For Your Campaign

When PCs get out of control and start going wild, what’s the perfect counter to their disorganised gang of mismatched and clinically insane psychopaths, roving through a city in pursuit of their own, independent goals? An organised gang of mismatched and clinically insane psychopaths, roving through a city in pursuit of their own, independent goals! They’re Cultists, the easiest way to justify violence within sentient beings since banditry and bounty-hunting were legalised in your fantasy setting! Here are 5 examples of cults to drop in a cultured city and let loose on unsuspecting PCs.

The Brass Spine

A highly regimented order of devout worshipers towards a forgotten God of constructs and mechanisms, who view this being as so far beyond flesh and bone that the only true worship is pursuit of that existence: To be beyond flesh and bone. They achieve this by ritualistically removing limbs and body parts and replacing the stumps and gaps with a selection of magical materials and components, making them stronger and more powerful at the cost of good looks and table etiquette. They use magical prosthetic limbs of steel and brass, severed and dismembered organs of powerful beasts and monsters, and, for the more financially strained worshiper, simple building materials like cow-leather straps, timber blocks, and metal chunks.

The Pieces

A relatively small and secluded group of selfless, humble servants to wider order and the sanctity of the world. They follow this lofty goal by each, individually, containing a fragment of a dismembered, powerful being, within their own form, each representing that scrap through their appearance and abilities. Once all are lain low and released from their duty the creature will reform, seeking to wreak revenge over all who imprisoned them through slaughter and terror.

Order of the Deep Dark

Star gazers who find hunger for the power and magic held within the pure light of the stars gather in open air to conduct rituals and sacrifices with selfish intent. Every constellation is treated like a generous lord and powerful tyrant, who, if pleased, will bestow their boons upon faithful mortals along with tainted whispers of corrupt plans and fearful prophecies. Those who wield the magic of the night sky hide from the daylight and crave the sight of the stars, often searching to eternally shroud the world in endless moonlight.

The Great Charity

These worshipers are open and proud within society, often speaking strongly of the devotion to their selflessness, wandering amongst the town in rags and dirt speaking of the fortune they seek from true humility. Their leader has told them that by shedding all their worldly wealth, disposing of their gold down the Grand Well into the watery void bellow, the scales of justice and fate tip in your favour and grant you your deepest wishes. In truth. at the base of the well is a bloated and fattened Dragon, resting on a pillow of solid Gold, leeching off of the hopeful and foolish nature of mortals.

The Merciless Tide

Striding along shores and river ways in cloaks and robes of deep blue, soaked with unclean water and covered in weeds and reeds from the beds below are these fanatical murderers. They worship a spirit of nature associated with the endless tides of water and death and view an end to life through drowning as the truest form of worship. They happily wander into fishing villages, kidnapping crabbers and sailors and dragging them to the water’s edge, holding them under the brine and filth whilst chanting guttural prayers before moving on.


Pixie x


ameliapll1  asked:

Could I please request a characterisation post for Mark Mardon?

I’m going to do this in the style of my character profiles which I did for each of the Legends (and shorter for some Flash characters). But note that Mark is outside my typical wheelhouse of analysis and also has had limited appearances so that makes it harder, and that I won’t mince words when it comes to his villainy and in-canon cruelty.

                                          Mark Mardon Profile

Driving force(s): revenge, power, family, the bottom line (goal attainment at all costs)

Traits: goal-oriented, cutthroat, mercenary, charming, confident and bold, likes people, violent

Tentative HP House: Slytherin Primary, Gryffindor Secondary

Originally posted by ronweasley

The night the particle accelerator exploded, Mark Mardon apparently broke (pretty much) every bone in his body. He pushed through that and survived. He pushed through losing his brother, probably while he was still in recovery. He pushed through trauma and pain. 

But he definitely didn’t come out the other side as a better person. It doesn’t seem like he was an especially good person to begin with. He was engaging in criminal activity when his plane was struck by lightning and being given power over the weather didn’t make him want to turn over a new leaf despite his extraordinary potential. Instead, it made him primarily seek revenge.

It’s interesting that in every episode we’ve seen him in so far, Mark isn’t worried about money or making away with the goods. He’s explicitly interested in getting back at those who have wronged him. First Joe West, for killing his brother, and later The Flash, for locking him up. He’s also willing to go to dizzying lengths to enact that revenge: he didn’t just want Joe to die, he wanted Joe to watch Iris dying, and he was willing to send a tsunami to the city that would kill hundreds (thousands?) of innocent people (families, children) in order to see that happen.

In fact, he almost deliberately planned it so that there would be maximum casualties, with the way he went about things. First killing the medical examiner, then heading to the CCPD so that he could go toe-to-toe with these people and flaunt his powers, then dragging Joe out to a boat so he could maximize his powers’ potential and take out not just Iris (which a single bolt of lightning could likely do, or his hail-snowball powers) but so many others with her.

What that says about him is that Mark goes for maximum impact in everything. He’s not “eye for an eye”, he’s “head for an eye” or more. You hit him, he hits you back 20x as hard. I imagine he has few enemies left alive and quite the reputation. 

This is all compounded in The Flash 2x09 where he and the Trickster set up a plan that involves bombs that directly target young children, for the record. Mark doesn’t appear to have much of a conscience, a fully-fledged clinical psychopath (not to stigmatize psychopaths; you can be one without taking it the route that Mark does. He’s evil irrespective of that, but it does seem to be part of his demonstrated personality).

That being said, Mark has some qualities that humanize him a lot more. For starters, his love for his brother. Clyde seems to have meant the world to Mark. And if you consider Chronicles of Cisco as canon (even extra-canonical), then this chapter shows Mark asking Cisco to leave a half-empty (half-full?) bottle of bourbon on his brother’s grave.

Mark is also charming. He has a clever sense of humor to go with his grand and dramatic entrances, and is flush with confidence most of the time. Again in that Chronicles of Cisco, we get the impression he is good-natured with Cisco and doesn’t mind negotiating a little. He’s often ready with a smirk, and it seems to me that he takes people as they are (including James Jesse) in a relatively non-judgmental way. You’re crazy? Cool. You’re boring? Alright whatever. You’re a nerd? Just don’t make me watch your crappy sci-fi films.

He seems to be pretty good at putting a plan together, but it’s hard to say if that’s him or the people he’s working with (like James Jesse), and if it’s really just that his powers are so strong that he doesn’t need much finesse to get the job done. He’s certainly quite bold, which is part of why I have Gryffindor as his secondary house: he rushes in, brash and brave and without fear holding him back. He lacks the “do the right thing” part that Gryffindors have, but he’s got the “fight me” attitude, even with Nimbus in a closed space, which is just asking for trouble. Or maybe he truly has just that bad of impulse control.

It should be noted that he knows when to retreat (as he does in 1x22 when the tides turn against him) and how to play nice. He seems happy enough to work with others and seems totally capable of getting along with them (again, confidence, charm, non-judgmental) and maybe even likes people, on the whole. Unlike Len who kills his crew when they step out of line, Mark appears to make more ‘friend’ type connections: he doesn’t want to kill or control people, he wants to work with them and have fun, so long as they aren’t someone he has to fight or avenge himself against.

Finally, Mark also pays his debts, as he did to Leonard by getting him out of Iron Heights, even if he was ready to throw down with Leonard at the first sign of a fight (not a friend, not quite an enemy, sort of a liminal space for Mark at that p point). And note that he didn’t mind being talked back from that. It seems like he does a lot better when he has someone acting as the voice of reason to keep him in check?

A note from Brother Cat:

There was a line in that last submission about “Clinical Psychopaths” that I initially edited the post to tag for but I’ve decided to just take it out entirely tbh. If I’d seen this submission before it was published (and I don’t know how I didn’t but It Happens) I probably wouldn’t have pushed it through, or censored it beforehand and Had Words with the submitter. I’m still going to have words, but being that the submitter was anonymous, I have to do it this way.

Don’t come to my house to complain about the demonisation of hypoempathy while simultaneously slinging slurs at and demonising other hypoempathetic disorders. Don’t do it. Do Not. Don’t play the “Lacking empathy doesn’t make me bad, but these people on the other hand” game.

“As I understand it, clinical psychopaths who learn about empathy are more likely to hurt people because they can fake empathy better.” (Paraphrasing here, I can’t remember the exact wording now)

Understand this: At least two of the mods here are “clinical psychopaths” who fake empathy in order to contribute in any meaningful way to the advice given on this blog. Don’t squander this kindness.This compassion. Don’t insult us or use us as your rhetorical devices. In fact, don’t talk about us at all. ‘Cause what you understand? Is nothing.

anonymous asked:

Would you be willing to openly debate with a clinically assessed psychopath. Your blog is an education tool, correct? Prove it. Allow followers to see both sides of the coin.

Psychopaths are pathological liars. You can’t have a debate with someone who twists your words and plays mind games. I’m not interested in wasting the energy or providing you the entertainment.