Should Your Social Media Habits Be Judged in Real Life?

A huge number of the world’s population has access to the internet and either is aware of or actively participates in some form of social media. Unfortunately, Facebook and Twitter follow you everywhere, even if you don’t have an account and records your browsing history and habits. Social media is the big brother we’ve feared all along. Conspiracy theories aside, it’s becoming a trend for a permanent record of you to be held on the internet for the entire world to see and all of your actions, posts and browsing history is available for potential employers and other figures of authority to judge.

People are losing jobs and job opportunities because of their habits on social networking sites. Sometimes these are good precautions that companies are making and sometimes it seems like an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
I read a post on Reddit recently where a guy’s application to adopt a dog from his local animal shelter because he made a comment on Facebook two years ago about how he thinks places like animal shelters shouldn’t be looking into your internet habits to make judgement calls about adopting dogs. I have no way of confirming if this is true, but the thought of it is sickeningly stupid. First and foremost, social media is not the same thing as a background check. If the guy was a sex offender against animals, had a criminal record of abusing dogs or had judicial action taken against him because he neglected or hoarded animals then I could understand the shelter denying him. However, you can’t find this sort of information out on Facebook and Facebook is not a reputable source of information anyway. I’m “friends” with someone who claims he was born in 1986 and is actually 17.

I’ve heard of a case where a woman was on some sort of medical leave of absence for depression and was later fired when her boss discovered pictures of her “having fun” on a vacation on Facebook. Who knows if the pictures were recent but how does that show evidence of fraud? Would the woman be fired if she took all those pictures and looked miserable? Apparently, employers will also do a search for you when considering to hire you and make a decision based on what you do and say on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Even if you aren’t doing anything illegal such as drinking underage, doing drugs or beating dogs in your profile pictures, an employer will make a decision to hire you or not based on your political views, religion, attitude, interests and hobbies. Mind you, two of these things are illegal to discriminate against.

Employers and pet shelters are taking the “public knowledge” thing too far. Yes, everything you do on the internet has a trace and you should not expect things you purposefully share with the world to be private. However, there is a distinct difference between the guy trying to get the job and the guy at home and companies should not be allowed to make a decision to employ someone based on their “off-duty” habits, especially if the person is more than qualified to work for them. There’s absolutely no reason for this sort of thing to exist.

We live in a society where we are not only attached to our social media but we’re also terribly paranoid. People want to do the whole “Minority Report” thing and try to predict whether or not they will have issue with someone based on their habits, regular people are guilty of this too and this is very prevalent in the online dating community. People will look up and “stalk” potential dates on Facebook to see what sort of person they are. I can see how this is a good idea, people often lie no their dating profiles and are less inclined to do so on Facebook. However, you’re not going to find out if your date is a serial killer this way.

The fear of being rebuked for a job or fired at the one you’re currently at leaves people feeling as though they have to censor themselves. There is common sense that implies if you’re a racist are battling sexual urges with children, you probably shouldn’t mention that on Facebook. However, if you have an opinion that does not hurt anyone else you shouldn’t be forced to only post about the stuff that’s agreeable across the board. We have a right to free speech in this country and your social media identity should not be tied to the rest of your activities and responsibilities.


Giving Your Community a Bad Name: Kim Davis

Everyone in the US is familiar with the case involving a County Clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, despite the federal court deeming that the ban on gay marriage is considered unconstitutional. The issue of her standing up for the “authority of God” and going to jail for contempt is divided. You’ve got the heavy handed Christians saying that her failure to do her job despite legal standings is some sort of religious martyrdom and then you’ve got the gay community who feel like they’re still facing persecution for their sexual orientation. Both sides are trying to ride the same fence and neither want to share.

Here’s the thing; regardless of what you believe, if your job requires you to do something you feel that strongly against LEAVE YOUR JOB. It’s that simple. Punishing other people in order to get media attention is not only childish it’s flat out unnecessary and the sad thing is if this was taking place with another religion in another situation no one would be on that person’s side.
Say for example a Muslim was working at the DMV and refused to issue drivers licenses to women because according to his God and his beliefs women should not be able to drive. That guy would be strung up in minutes and the media would have a completely different take on the situation. He’d get backlash from not only the proud Americans who still believe anyone who isn’t a Christian is the Devil, but feminists too. No one would be on his side, no one.

I’ve said already in a previous post that no one is bound to their job, no one in this country is held under strict do or die circumstances when it comes to their employment. Since the law was passed in June, Kim Davis had the last two months at least to get her shit together and leave her job if she did not agree with what her job required her to do now. Instead, she tried to do what a lot of stupid people do and make themselves out to be some sort of icon for their community and in this case, Christian’s love martyrs.

People leave their jobs every day for less serious and attention grabbing reasons. People leave because they’re not being paid what they believe they should be, they don’t like their coworkers, they hate their boss and even something as simple as they really just don’t like doing their job anymore. The working class always makes it work and they don’t turn it into a scandal. Granted, if I were to refuse to take women’s pants at my dry cleaner where I work because I believe women should be wearing dresses or skirts because of my religious beliefs; I’d probably be fired, not to mention the same problem with the feminists. I expect that sort of knee-jerk reaction to me being petty instead of finding a new job because that’s how common sense works. It’s the simple, plain truth that if at any point you’re working with the public, your opinion does not matter and you can’t force your opinion on other people and make decisions for them. It’s neither your place nor part of your job to do that.

We have to stop making everyone’s personal problems a whole community’s problem. If one person wants to be a dick you can’t turn it into a religious or race war. It’s fine to stand up for what you believe in and support those who believe the same way as you, but going against the law is making yourself out to look ignorant. It’s also common sense to know when to leave something alone and know when to get the pitch forks out. If it’s not causing any harm to anyone physically or emotionally, why get upset about it? More importantly, why make it everyone else’s problem? If you don’t agree that gay people should get married or exist for that matter because of your religious beliefs, then don’t be around them. You’re free to believe whatever you want but when you take it out on other people you’re creating senseless conflict. I believe based on my upbringing and personal tragedy that child molesters and pedophiles are terrible fucking people, it enrages me to know that they are out there hurting little kids. If I find one, however, I’m not going to murder them. I don’t want to go to jail. If I end up working for someone who wants me to give special treatment to open pedophiles, I’ll quit that job because guess what? I can!

Double Standards, People Love Them

If there is one debate that has never and probably will never be resolved in modern society is the topic of abortion. People are either “pro life” or “pro choice” and will contend for eternity who is right or wrong. Unfortunately, that topic and the moral ground on which it stands on is not typically decided by those whom have experienced the other side. People choose a side based on beliefs they are handed down from other people. On a rare occasion people will choose a side based on first hand experience, but their opinions are often one sided.

dd09e2080522a9bd1a5e955222c5b545One of my friends posted a meme style image of some 20 something woman with blue hair and a quote that contradicted itself. There is a message here that makes some amount of sense but they way in which it’s given doesn’t and here’s why:

First of all, if you “FULLY” believe in choice than you “FULLY” believe that abortion is a choice, that’s the end of the argument. If you want to add stipulations to what you believe in you have to use words like “almost entirely” or “mostly” so that we understand there is a clause coming to your statement. By starting your quote with “I fully believe in choice” you aren’t allowed to make any other contradicting points beyond that and not look like a fucking moron.

Second, people often cite that when they get an abortion they are making a decision about their own body, which is true. They are deciding whether or not their body will be carrying a fetus to full term. However this quote is saying that it’s not your body you are making the decision to terminate, which is also true. But here’s where it gets stupid: If you’re saying that you believe in choice and you have control over your body and then follow it up with aborting yourself then you are sending a mixed message. You’re saying you’re pro life only for the unborn fetus and pro choice for a woman or girl killing herself instead. If a woman makes the decision, because she has full control over her body, to end her own life than that’s ok. Life only counts for the unborn. So the question then becomes, if a pregnant woman kills herself is it still wrong? She’s aborting herself, she technically didn’t kill the baby, it died as a result of organ shut down and lack of nutrients and blood flow from the mother. Technically that’s a miscarriage, right?

One really ignorant argument I see on a lot of bumper stickers is “Your mother didn’t abort you” and that makes me really wonder if people who choose to use that statement realize no one actually asked to be here. Our parents made the decision to have children and we’re a result of that. I response to “Your mother didn’t abort you” is “Ok, what would that matter now if she did?” We obviously wouldn’t be having this conversation and on top of that, what if we would have preferred it for our mother to have got an abortion instead? LIfe is pretty fucking terrible sometimes. I for one wouldn’t have been born into an abusive household. My father wouldn’t have tried to rape me when I was 3. I wouldn’t have had to watch my parents choose drugs and alcohol over food and paying the bills and I wouldn’t struggle with depression and anxiety today.

The problem is people seem to think that women are out there getting an abortion every month instead of using contraceptives. There might be someone out there that does that, but abortion is not a fashion statement or a fun activity or hobby to get into. It’s a difficult decision accompanied by a very expensive procedure followed by a month of antibiotics to make sure they didn’t somehow miss any part of the placenta and you get an infection and die. The procedure is actually pretty painful and you run the risk of serious infection and illness afterwards. No one likes going through it.

Why Climate Change Looks Like a Religion, Not a Problem

Since roughly the 1990’s we’ve had this thing called “global warming” hanging over our heads. A planet wide temperature change that is going to and has been effecting the environment on multiple levels. There are several hard facts showing evidence of how the temperatures are rising and the ecosystem is suffering because of it. It’s only been recently however that we have settled on the reason behind it; CO2 emissions. This gas is created a barrier in which the radiation from the Sun is being trapped underneath our atmosphere and creating a pocket of inescapable heat. The majority of the scientific world can agree that this is the problem, but scientists have a hard time getting the masses to agree. Why?

Since the time of Al Gore this problem has been presented to the people as a guilt trip. The blame is set before the problem and the solution has been extremely vague, misdirected and at times incorrect. Which is very confusing and really puts people off. Even though this is a very serious problem, those that present the problem do so in a way that makes each and every individual feel as though they are personally responsible for this global devistation. The life choices they make, the products, energy and fuel they consume alone has caused the climate to change and the temperatures to rise. Pretty clear examples of why and how regular consumption leads to these changes has been shown, but there never has been a proper solution. It just comes across as “sinful”. Wasting energy, the current state of supply versus demand and the depletion of natural resources is put on every person’s shoulders like they are sinners.

I use this term because it reminds me of the early days of Christianity when the church attempted to gain control of the majority and did so by claiming every day, mundane behaviors were going to ruin a person’s immortal soul. No alternatives are given, no solution to the problem–it was just flat out bad. Climate change is treated the exact same way.

I saw an article on my Facebook feed from Discovery, saying that we’ve already used our fair share of natural resources for the year. This post reminded me of how climate change is usually explained on news articles, websites and videos that use the “shock value” to get people’s attention. We as individuals are not given a number of which we can see and adhere to in regards to our resource consumption, which I believe is hurting the progression of solving this problem. I know if I were told I could only use x amount of natural gas, electricity, plastic products, etc. I would abide by it, especially if there was fines involved. I’m sure the majority of the population would feel the same way. But there’s no rhyme or reason to it. We’re told that unless we live off of the land entirely, we’re hurting the Earth. We’re directly causing it’s demise.

When we’re only told “no, stop that” and not given an explanation or even told what to stop doing, naturally we’re going to keep doing it. Especially when we’ve been lied to before. Sadly, some of the people who are really passionate about this situation don’t help it either. I had an Astronomy Professor in college who took this captive audience as an excuse to go on a “Climate Change Deniers” rant every day for about two hours. He was one of those people who would give vague solutions, make each of us feel guilty about our lives and ultimately tell you you’re an idiot if you question the validity of climate change. It became a case of “shun the nonbeliever”. He would turn the class against someone who didn’t agree with his opinion, which is dangerous and very similar to what religions do.

All and all I think we need to take a second look at how we’re approaching this problem. Trying to scare people into taking your side isn’t helping. It’s no better than the people who picket outside of abortion clinics with pictures of dead fetuses. Not working on how and when we should create limits doesn’t help either.

Antisocial Personality Disorder: Portrait of the Psychopath in TV and Movie Part 3

Mental illness is a tragic, unseen problem that effects millions in the US alone. Unlike other diseases, mental illness does not always have any outward signs to give away that there is something wrong on the inside and unfortunately when there is a sign, people tend to shy away because we are not prepared to deal with sudden outbursts of pent up emotion that is choked beneath the illness. Sadly, even the most common mental illness, depression, doesn’t get the much needed understanding and attention it deserves, let alone more severe illnesses like schizophrenia. But when it comes to something buried so deep into one’s mind like Antisocial Personality Disorder, how does someone cope with it and how do we cope on the outside?

If you do a Google search for “dealing with antisocial personality disorder” you get pages of blog posts from pseudo-professionals who jump the gun and use the word “sociopath” and immediately put blame and guilt on the illness. The only perspective given is one of disgust and hatred as if the only type of ASPD sufferer is the “serial bully”. There is almost no testimony given from a person with the illness. When you do find that one statement, you’ll see a contradictory point of view than what is given elsewhere.

People with ASPD do feel emotion, though it is often less intense and hard to grasp hold of in an appropriate situation. They are almost forced to maintain false emotions in order to integrate into normal society. Empathy of course is very difficult. Comforting a friend or loved one when they experience something difficult or tragic is a painfully confusing situation to handle. Unfortunately, those with ASPD often fall victim to very long, very hard to defuse bouts of anger. Because there is a need to put on the facade of normal day in and day out and more or less mimic the emotions of others, people with ASPD get worn out easily. People get freaked out when others don’t share their emotions and mirror them back at them, which is why jobs like customer service is so exhausting and difficult for the normal public. When someone with ASPD gets worn out depression is quick to follow which sadly magnifies the feelings of anger. When the anger gets out of control and psychosis sets in when the depression has gone on far too long, that’s when you get someone who is capable of killing.

Having ASPD and dealing with other people is a lot like playing Simon–the old 90’s toy that flashes colors and tones and you’re supposed to quickly memorize the pattern and play it back. Eventually you get good enough to recognize the pattern in other people and become quicker to respond and sometimes you falsely recognize a pattern and really piss someone off. You keep a mental notebook of people in your lives and how to deal with them on various emotional levels and situations, creating your own manual to survive in a world you are alien in.

As far as dealing with someone with ASPD, unless you live with them and have an intimate relationship with them, you probably will never know they have it. The first thing you can do, however, is never throw around the world psychopath or sociopath. There are a lot of selfish, impulsive people out there and people with ASPD are not always one of them. Not only are you using the wrong terminology but you’re taking it a step too far. Imagine if someone called you an alcoholic because you had a single glass of wine with dinner? Hurts, doesn’t it? Inappropriate, isn’t it? Chances are the person with ASPD that you’re talking to has never and will never hurt someone else on purpose, especially not in a violent way.
Will Graham put it quite easily, “My horse is hitched to a post that is closer to the spectrum of aspergers and autistics than narcissists and sociopaths.”
Unless you’re willing to do the actual research, not read articles written by someone whom has never set foot in a higher education classroom, don’t pretend like you know what the illness is. Don’t give it nicknames you don’t understand, don’t compare them to Ted Bundy and especially don’t use the name of the illness to describe everyone that comes across as selfish or commits a crime. The biggest mistake a person can do is make assumptions that aren’t based in reality or fact about another person. One very ignorant thing people love to do is assume anyone diagnosed with ASPD is a lost cause or a monster, that there is absolutely no way to reason with them or put trust in them because they are prone to lie.

It’s sad but true, pretty much the entire life of someone with ASPD is based on lies. Occasionally being constantly required to “lie” to make someone else happy and not get yourself alienated further will wear so heavily on someone with ASPD that they will sometimes become a little too good at the “favors game” and manipulate people.

Antisocial Personality Disorder: Portrait of the Psychopath in TV and Movie Part 2

In movies like Psycho, ASPD is portrayed as a step into the abyss of madness. Norman Bates carries the charm and manipulative properties of someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder, but the depth of his character does not go beyond the fact that he dresses up as his mother and kills women. Speculation is given as to the reasoning behind his acts but it’s left at him just being a deranged killer. Unfortunately, so very little was known about ASPD back then and what was known made an unsuccessful attempt at categorizing the different types, labeling them as “psychopath” or “sociopath”. Both of these terms are outdated and incorrect, but they were on the right track. One was used to describe the social manipulator and the other described the cold, dead-eyed monster. Sadly, these terms are still thrown around fairly loosely these days, usually be the older generation that hasn’t caught up to modern psychology. As I mentioned in Part 1, there is a spectrum of ASPD, it’s not so black and white as to say you’re either a con-artist or a monster even though that is how it is played out in movies and TV.

In the words of Will Graham, “Insane isn’t really black or white. We’re all pathological in our own ways”. Looking at the list in Part 1, five out of six of the people mentioned were murderers (sort of, it’s still debatable whether or not Patrick Bateman actually killed anyone). Although a reason is not given in every character’s background for their behavior and heinous misconduct, it is general agreed upon that people don’t start out as murderers, something tragic has to happen for that switch to be flipped.

Back when terms like “psychopath” was used, it was believed that people were born with this mental dysfunction–essentially born evil. Very little was known or considered about how children and adolescents are effected by their environment. As the study of human psychology advanced we came to realize that traumatic events stay with a person for a life time.
One of the theories behind personality disorders is that it is a learned disorder. Unlike some mental illnesses that are directly connected to problems in brain chemistry or biology, personality disorders are carried on from generation to generation because of how we as humans mimic those around us. ASPD can be a learned disorder when we consider how many real life serial killers described growing up witnessing the acts of violence they would later commit, but not all serial killers grew up in such a way. Genetics and even an unstable, emotionally vacant environment can trigger this disorder as well.

Proven throughout several tests done with both humans and animals, the mind can only handle so much stress and fear before it breaks. Survival is possible beyond that breaking point, but quality of life and thinking patterns change, sometimes for the worst. Norman Bates’ character barely skimmed the surface of how an inconsistent up bringing can damage a child, but it wasn’t until much later on that we came into what I like to call the “misunderstood villain” era.

Villains are given a broader background with logical–albeit twisted–reasoning behind why they went bad and we tend to sympathize with them. We’ve all had our moments of behind beaten down with no sense of hope in humanity anymore and these villains have turned a few bad days on everyone else. In a way, we all want to have that moment of revenge.

The main difference between TV and movie killers and real life killers is that a mental illness is almost always associated with the fictional murderer. Homicides can happen daily across the world and it’s not always the fault of an ill mind.

Serial killings have a special place amongst the gore and true crime of our society because they appear to be committed by people who play on a different field than the rest of us. It’s stated in the DSM-5 that ASPD comes with the distinct lack of empathy and concern for others and that appears to be why a person can go on killing so many strangers in such a horrifying way. No sane, rational person could do such a thing, right?

The truth of the matter is not all those diagnosed with ASPD become serial killers, in fact a good majority of them never commit murder or spend a night in jail. That is not to say that they don’t want to push their limits and have not done something illegal.

Antisocial Personality Disorder: Portrait of the Psychopath in TV and Movie Part 1

Personality disorders are one of the most fickle mental illnesses to diagnose and still some of the most debated because they seem to be the catch-all of problems that modern psychology can’t diagnose as anything else. However, it seems to be that all serial killers fall into a particular personality disorder called Antisocial.

Antisocial Personality Disorder (hereon referred to as ASPD) goes hand in hand with narcissism because both share the trait of caring very, very little about others and sometimes highly of themselves. The trademark example of someone with ASPD is a person who has no actual empathy and is often cold and callous toward the feelings and suffering of others. Not unlike someone with Aspergers, ASPD shows very little outward emotion almost as if emotions in general confuse and upset them. This obviously makes being a serial killer fairly easy because they can detach themselves from the situation and the pain of the person they are attacking naturally.

Often people with ASPD are not diagnosed until after something major or catastrophic has happened and they are court ordered to visit a mental health professional. The common signs that a person has ASPD are:

  • Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
  • Deceitfulness as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
  • Impulsivity or failure to play ahead.
  • Irritability and aggressiveness as indicated by repeated psychical fights or assaults.
  • Reckless disregard for safety of others or self.
  • Consistent irresponsibility as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
  • Lack of remorse as indicated by being indifferent or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated or stolen from another.

All of these symptoms are the current guide to diagnosis of ASPD according to the DSM-5, however there are a multitude of other examples that do not fit into these signs that can still be seen in someone with ASPD. To better understand this, let’s take a look at the Myers-Briggs personality type INTJ.

Nicknamed “The Scientist” a person who falls into the personality category of Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging or Introverted Intuition with Extraverted Thinking often leads a very internal life. Everything needs strategic planning, logic and to be rational (according to the individual). They come across as aloof, reserved, picky, not entirely capable of demonstrating affection or praise or support of others’ needs and desires. I will spare you the length of the entire breakdown, but much of the traits of an INTJ are not only shared with ASPD, but the INTJ personality type gives more depth into the thinking mind of ASPD.

The INTJ is seen more as the misunderstood introvert where as ASPD is seen as the cold blooded killer or con-artist, yet in reality they are one in the same. One thing to keep in mind: not every INTJ is a scientist or engineer and not every ASPD is serial killer, sometimes they can go either way.

Due to the lack of research done on this particular personality disorder, we know so little about the once named Psychopath, despite them being all around us. We want to latch onto the idea that they are all blood-thirsty maniacs that go around hunting their next victim at night. Even if they are not murderers, we expect them to at least be suave con-artists or at least have some sort of criminal past. When we don’t see any of that behavior, we want to associate Aspergers or another part of the Autistic spectrum to a person with ASPD. All people with ASPD are different and ASPD has it’s own spectrum. The signs and symptoms they experience and exhibit are individual.

The term “antisocial” conjures an image of someone whom often will shy away from social activities and interactions with other people but in the case of ASPD is actually refers to the lack of connection with other people. Which makes a scale of ASPD so interesting. Take these characters portrayed in movies and TV as examples of the wide range of sociability.

Hannibal Lecter
1418921094991Seen as very charming, well spoken, intelligent, elegant and in a way beautiful, Hannibal is the most social of the ASPD spectrum. He seeks to be social, to be the center of attention although his ability to quickly turn cold and aloof can disrupt that. However, he does not break character. He has perfected his ability to maintain that facade and that makes manipulating others very, very easy for him. Hannibal–like every ASPD–has high expectations of people, perhaps even too high. When someone is seen as rude, his charm is instantly turned off.

Earl Brooks
brooks1His business, his ability to handle family problems and the public makes Earl appear like the an excellent socialite. However, you can see how thin the mask he wears truly is. Not considering his alter ego Marshall whispering in his ear, you can see how Earl does not go out of his way to compliment or enthuse others. He does the minimum to get by which is why he scores lower than Hannibal.

Louis Bloom
Jake-Gyllenhaal-Louis-Bloom-Nightcrawler-jacket-600x800Something is odd about Louis. He comes across at first impression as very bizarre, like the person you suspect that keeps dead bodies in their basement, but once he opens his mouth and begins to speak you hear eloquence though it seems forced and practiced. He does not make eye contact often, does not wear his mask well or for very long and does not keep a background appearance to go with the character he tries to portray. Unlike Earl and Hannibal, Louis is not rich, successful and does not appear to have family or friends which make him untrustworthy.

Dexter Morgan
997586-dexter_morganAlthough it’s not part of his job to be friendly and social, Dexter is forced to because he has so many personal connections. Despite this, he genuinely hates people and does an unfortunately bad job trying to be social, trustworthy and graceful. Many of his friends, family and colleagues see through the thin veneer of his attempts and constantly question his motives. His ability to manipulate others is not as refined as Louis however.

Patrick Bateman
American PsychoThe friends and colleagues Patrick keeps are entirely there for appearances. He “wants to be normal” and uses his connections to make that climb up the social and corporate ladder like rungs. Patrick is almost entirely isolated in his own mind and spends very little time trying to impress and manipulate others, in fact he’s actually quite terrible at it. Like the others on this list, Patrick uses routine to stay in control and although part of his routine is making himself appear perfect on the outside, there is no effort to present anything from his personality.

Will Graham

HANNIBAL: SEASON ONE (Photo: Robert Trachtenberg/Sony Pictures Television/NBC)

Out of everyone on this list, Will is the least likely to have friends or be seen out in public if he can help it. He does not value interacting with people, in fact he does most anything he can to avoid others. This makes his ability to manipulate others difficult but still possible. He can put on a very short lived and minimalist act to appease others, using dark humor and self-depreciating jokes to make himself seem more likable. His style of manipulation is by far the strongest however, because he can appear to be that tough nut to crack with a soft, sensitive interior. He comes across at that level as genuine and innocent which to an extent fools even Hannibal, though he can see that there is more to Will than that.

For Part 2 I will discuss more of how ASPD is presented and has changed in TV and movies and how that compares to real life cases.