Shades of a Concept of Kosminski

[Errata]

When I went into my whole spiel, it was not with the intent of accusing anyone of being unjust, or saying that someone is a bad person for engaging in diagnostic related discussion. I myself have done it. It is true that every time a schizophrenic killer shows up life gets a lot harder for other schizophrenics, so I think a little sensitivity is in order, but I don't think anyone was being insensitive.

Shifting the discussion from diagnosis to symptoms is simply more accurate. People have an image in their head of what a schizophrenic is, generally fed through television and movies. And some schizophrenics absolutely typify that image. But many don't, so if one talks about a schizophrenic the image that the audience gets in their head may be very different from the reality. So if you are talking about a schizophrenic who has delusions related to religiosity, and your audience is picturing the guy rocking back and forth in a corner with tinfoil wrapped around his head so aliens don't steal his teeth, no one is served.

The characteristics that are common in schizophrenic serial killers (ritualism, cannibalism, etc.) are common of all delusional serial killers. Jeffrey Dahmer was absolutely delusional, but not schizophrenic. Had a profile come out stating that Dahmer was schizophrenic, he would not have fit the profile. His onset of delusion was quite late, he had no thought disorders, etc. Saying that he was delusional as opposed to schizophrenic, and it would have fit.

Basically what I am saying is that symptoms communicate what you mean in a far more precise manner that diagnosis. And in the spirit of full disclosure, as someone with a mental illness, I am sensitive to the possibility of an illness being blamed for monstrous acts as opposed to the person. I mean, you get used to people taking a step back when they find out that you are bipolar, but it still kinda sucks. On the whole, if the disease does not inform the crime, I'd rather it be set aside as an irrelevancy. But that's me. I am aware of my bias on the issue.

[John Wheat]

Errata
You make some good points. It is also worth noting that in the late 1800's people with conditions other than schizophrenia would have been labeled as schizophrenic's. I'm largely talking about people on the autistic spectrum.
John

[Errata]

Errata
You make some good points. It is also worth noting that in the late 1800's people with conditions other than schizophrenia would have been labeled as schizophrenic's. I'm largely talking about people on the autistic spectrum.
John

Well, with a copy of the DSM IV (and insomnia) one can easily pick out any number of conditions that would be labeled as schizophrenia by LVP diagnostic criteria. Even today people are misdiagnosed or prematurely diagnosed. But even inside delusions there are any number of factors that just depend on the individual. Delusions of persecution are not the same as erotomania. Both could cause someone to kill, but the way they kill and who they kill would be very different. If Jack the Ripper were delusional, erotomania would make much more sense that delusions of persecution. So if you think Jack the Ripper killed these women because he perceives that they rejected him after leading him on, saying that he was erotomanic would communicate the point much more clearly than simply saying he was delusional.

[John Wheat]

Errata
I used people on the autistic spectrum as an example because certainly in the late 1800's autistics would have been likely to have been labeled as either schizophrenic or plain mad. I personally think it unlikely that Jack was a schizophrenic. He may of course have been delusional and suffering from erotomania.
John

[The Good Michael]

Even today people are misdiagnosed or prematurely diagnosed.

People are misdiagnosed because it isn't an exact science. The human mind is too complex to be categorized into neat little files.

Mike

[Errata]

People are misdiagnosed because it isn't an exact science. The human mind is too complex to be categorized into neat little files.

Mike

One of the unique problems with any behavioral or biological science. Physics has any number of theoretical creations and rules solely put in place to make the math work. And we will likely never know if we are right or not. There is no reason for the speed of light to be the universal speed limit, and we've only ever seen what we perceive to be the effects of dark matter. But we need both to be true to quantify the universe. At some point both will be discarded and something else will take their place. And that's fine. But that means a hard science is really a pretty soft science. Behavioral sciences don't have that, and so just have to content themselves with being pretty fuzzy.