What’s Wrong with the World

One of the powerful aspects to this is the clearly authentic depiction of the thought processes of this sociopath, the clearly real and unvarnished truth. He doesn't pretty it up to protect his later image - like St. Paul, he is ready to admit the utter depths of his depravity without blanching. And that willingness to face up to the truth is, also, another mark of the new heart, evidentiary support for something more than the merely natural.

I know. It's so authentic that it's positively creepy. Which, as you say, makes the conversion all the more powerful.

I also like how it imperceptibly washes out color around the time he goes down the next level to get on the train, and then you suddenly notice the colors again when he emerges into the light and they all come back.

I noticed that, too. I'm no city lover, but boy the streets and blue sky of New York in color look good after being Down Below.

I'm stunned.

Absolutely gripping and powerful stuff -- I will admit to tears in the eyes.

One strange note on the scenery (the production was remarkable): I think the station he arrives at (the one with the bricks) has some Mother Goose nursery rhymes etched in the wall and they were slightly distracting at that moment. Otherwise, I couldn't find another fault and was immediately drawn in and compelled to watch until I was done.

"It looks (to my unpracticed eye) as thought it may all have been done in one take."

That's what I noticed too! I have to admit that I was wondering whether that was a professional actor, but there's no way that an actor could be *so* convincing. Then my crazy brain was thinking that this fellow could audition and win the role of a crazy complex serial killer sociopath in some Hollywood movie. He'd be so believable.

This video, which I was only going to give 3 minutes or so when I learned that it was 34 minutes, had me hooked after 3 minutes. The guy freaked me out. He was so twisted, I was thinking that I was watching a Hannibal Lecter, or the real-life thought processes of a Columbine High Killer. I actually think he's kind of brilliant, wired in a ice-cold way when it comes to bloody murder.

Also, I was quite delighted with his jail friend Randy. Who *argued* with him. And questioned him. And perhaps even mocked and ridiculed him for his inconsistency. Or shall I say hypocrisy? I'd like point that out in addition to the "evidential" nature of apologetics. I think there's value in satire, ridicule, and mockery when clashing with belligerent, militant unbelievers. If you're going to cast pearls before swine, wrap the pearls in satire and ridicule.

Lydia, that video is indelibly marked on me. Thank you for alerting this blog's readers and lurkers.

Jeff, I agree that the lines from the nursery rhymes (which I guess are a deliberate feature of that wall of the subway) were a little distracting. One could say that they add to the picture of the human world that he was finding his way back to, but that would be a little strained. I'm pretty sure he wanted the wall for the bricks, because he was going to mention a brick wall. But I wasn't distracted too much by it.

Anyway, yes, stunning overall.

TUAD, I can say for sure that it definitely isn't just an actor, because I've had contact with David Wood on the Internet and watched videos of him in connection with Islam, debating with Muslims, getting arrested for witnessing to Muslims, etc., for approx. four years now. A completely different context. That's definitely David Wood--a real person with a history that, at first blush, seems astonishing in light of this backstory.

Many serial killers have shared Wood's chilling atheist philosophies (and delusions). I can't help wonder why he came to his senses--and God--but many of them found neither.

A truly disturbing account--but it offers an understanding of, and hope for, the sociopathic mind.

I can't help wonder why he came to his senses--and God--but many of them found neither.

Because for David Wood Randy was in the right place at the right time. And because David chose to listen and think it through. That, at least, is part of the answer.

I've often thought that to many people the idea that men like this could be saved from damnation while "ordinary, decent people" sent to Hell for refusing to bend the knee is one of the hardest things to accept about Christianity. It also shows, though, that anyone can be saved and made right.

"I've often thought that to many people the idea that men like this could be saved from damnation while "ordinary, decent people" sent to Hell for refusing to bend the knee is one of the hardest things to accept about Christianity."

Yes. I think I've heard variants of this objection. "Do you mean to tell me that if Hitler genuinely repented of his sins and turned to Jesus before He died that he would be forgiven and go to Heaven, while if I refused to acknowledge that there is a God and that I sinned against that God, and yet I never even did a miniscule fraction of what Hitler did and I lived a good life, that I would go to Hell??? Is that what you're saying? Is it? If so, then I don't want any part of a God who would do something like that? Forgive repentant serial murderers while condemning regular folks like me to Hell? Are you kidding me? My grandma was the sweetest person ever and she didn't believe in God or go to church. Are you telling me she's in Hell, right now? Huh, pal. P-tooey on your Christianity and your God!"

And then if you want to be sadistic, you point out to them that the extraordinary evil of Hitler was made possible by millions of "ordinary and decent Germans" who voted for him, ran his government bureaucracy, did not resist the more extreme elements and turned a blind eye to the myriad signs that they were participating in extremely grave evil. There's a good reason why the main book on Eichmann's trial is subtitled "the Banality of Evil."

Mike T, you really know how to rub it in, lol. :-)

What's the difference between Hitler and a homeless man howling on a street corner about how the Jooz want to dunk their unleavened bread in a broth made of his precious bodily fluids? A few tens of millions of ordinary Germans.

Mike T,

You're getting me going. One of the things that I have engaged in polemics is "Radical Two Kingdom" theology of which the Lutheran doctrine of Two Kingdoms is related to. The practical outworking of such self-serving sophistry is to provide a mask and a disguise for pulpit cowardice and evil-enabling passivity.

I have tangled with Lutherans about their cowardice prior to and during WW2 Germany. And I have tangled with some Reform people about their R2K sophistry.

All this to say that your joke brings up memories of cowardly, passive, and apathetic Christians who mouth the claim that there concentration is on the Gospel. As if you do anything else besides that, then you're compromising the Gospel. Which is false antithesis. And hence why I argue that Christians can do and should do a "Both/And."

I definitely agree that there is no sin so bad that God cannot forgive it. Which doesn't mean all sins are equally bad. But Jesus meant something when he said that he called not the righteous but sinners to repentance and that those who are healthy do not need a physician. Of course, the irony was that those who _think_ themselves healthy, and hence do not seek forgiveness, need a doctor far more than they realize. But there is nothing He can do for them if they don't admit their need of a Savior. David Wood had to be brought, kicking and screaming, to the realization of his own need of God. At that point, God can and does save.

Well, I think he was brought *kicked* and screaming, but it comes to the same thing.

I wonder how many atheists could watch this thing all the way through and not get a horrible chill. Something sort of like "there, but for the grace....oh shoot." If there is nothing there that stands between their position and this abject sociopathy, then they should be scared. Very scared.

I've seen some atheists react to this on Facebook. They're angry. They see exactly that message in it, Tony, and consider it insulting. But I think one can press the point: Okay, so fine, you don't happen to _feel_ like bashing in your father's head with a hammer or torturing your old kindergarten teacher. That isn't what floats your boat, and you're not a danger to society. Well and good. But what if you did? What if you were a sociopath? What if you felt like doing those things? Why shouldn't you do so, given your worldview?

You know, I can evolve an ethical atheism, but it would be Platonic. (And I suppose some people would say Platonism isn't true atheism.) Man has a soul. The soul is oriented toward the Good, which exists objectively outside of man himself. Man must strive to make his actions conform to the Good.

But contemporary atheism isn't like that at all. The atheism David Wood believed was welded at the hip to reductionistic naturalism. Man is just a physical being. We are but atoms in the void. Now _that_ sort of atheism has _no_ basis for morality. Indeed, it cannot even give any meaning to the very concept of morality. For that matter, it can't give any meaning to the concept of concepts, or to thought, or to rationality, or to much of anything.

Given _that_ sort of atheism, a violent sociopath has no reason not to act on his destructive impulses. And David Wood knew that.

There is an element of fear here in that if they examine their beliefs, their world view will collapse into belief in God or something resembling the terrifying, cold, alien reality of HP Lovecraft's stories.

That's what I noticed too! I have to admit that I was wondering whether that was a professional actor, but there's no way that an actor could be *so* convincing.

I imagine he's given his testimony many many times and is simply comfortable with doing it off the cuff and walking at the same time.

Thanks for the video.

My observation is that atheists pretty much always react to that argument with fierce indignation; Hitchens certainly did, and his internet acolytes have learned from him that specially British mode of argumentation at which he excelled, that special vituperation we might call the "point and sputter method." The reason it worked so well for him is that he was a master of the theatrical use of language, which served so well to hide the fact that he really was just sputtering.

What you won't see them do is get around to explaining which scientific discovery established a material basis for morality, nor just how a materialist-atheist describes, in terms that are acceptably "scientific" in character and in content, the moral difference between one arrangement of material objects and the next. They will expend tremendous rhetorical energy in angrily insisting upon the possibility of such a system, but never get around to producing it, because it's impossible. And deep down, they must know it to be impossible. Hence the squealing.

I've seen some atheists react to this on Facebook. They're angry. They see exactly that message in it, Tony, and consider it insulting. But I think one can press the point: Okay, so fine, you don't happen to _feel_ like bashing in your father's head with a hammer or torturing your old kindergarten teacher. That isn't what floats your boat, and you're not a danger to society.

This is very similar to the reactions to this video: http://youtu.be/MuDG2k6uAZs about a man who descended into homosexual pornography and was saved. Like the David Wood testimony, the content is very disturbing and not for children, but there is the same indignant yet anemic reactions of the "well not all homosexuals end up making pornography!" kind.

What you won't see them do is get around to explaining which scientific discovery established a material basis for morality

That's due to the fact that the smarter ones among them know that the laws of material reality are concerned only with the interaction of material things. Some agnostics and atheists get this. I did as an agnostic (though not as a violent sociopath); Wood did as an atheist. You think it pisses of atheists to hear it from Christians? Imagine getting the tongue lashing from an agnostic saying the same thing.

Lydia: "But I think one can press the point"

Here's what I've frequently observed:

Secular Liberal or even Theological Liberal: Some silly claim.

Biblical Christian: Makes a Point counteracting or refuting silly claim.

Secular/Theological Liberal: Anger and outrage that someone dared question their orthodoxy.

Biblical Christian: Withstands anger and still presses the point.

Secular/Theological Liberal: Denounces Biblical Christian with all sorts of false accusations. Wins and influences shallow thinking bystanders and witnesses with lies.

MikeT, when I said "them" I meant materialist-atheists, who have no basis for describing anything at all in non-materialist terms. All reality, for them, just is material reality; and all knowledge, therefore, just is knowledge about the arrangement of material things. Agnostics and non-materialist atheists aren't in that box, as you say.

Looks like a video selfie. Wood went from egotist to joining his ego to a mass movement. Has he read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer? Now he is filming himself talking out loud about making pipe bombs while in a crowded subway station? He still believes he is the best and most important person in the world. Christianity really does bring out the talkative sociopathic alpha male. Now he can rest in his belief that God tosses people into a lake of fire unless they join "his side." His polite invitation to the non-religious to kill each other unless they accept his particular religion is noted.

Hey, has he read Once-Born, Twice-Born Zen by Conrad Hyers? Has he read "The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience" free online by myself, which questions Christianity's uniqueness?

He still believes he is the best and most important person in the world. Christianity really does bring out the talkative sociopathic alpha male.

So says the gamma male.

Must be Advent.

He still believes he is the best and most important person in the world.

Please, teach me your secrets oh mind reader.

Looks like a video selfie.

Plainly it's not a selfie -- unless he's using a drone of the very highest quality. But clearly Wood has a cameraman at least, and probably a producer next to him, helping to avoid collisions, maybe even assisting with cue cards or something.

It's funny that eddiebabs can't even begin with a factual statement.

I'm sure that if David Wood happens not to have read any of the books mentioned, and if he reads them, he will be instantly blown away by the cogency of their arguments and abandon Christianity.

And, no, definitely not a video selfie.

Not to sound melodramatic, Lydia, but this post answered a prayer of mine from years ago. I was talking with a priest about sociopaths, psychopaths, etc. and those committed to institutions for various reasons, asking if and why God would "set up" some of us with such mental pathologies. The priest didn't flinch. "Our job," he told me, "is to pray for them, and often. God will take care of the rest."

He certainly took care of David Wood. Thanks, again.

Hey, has he read Once-Born, Twice-Born Zen by Conrad Hyers? Has he read "The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience" free online by myself, which questions Christianity's uniqueness?

Have you read the Summa Theologica by Thomas d'Aquino? The City of God by Augustine of Hippo? The Letter of St. James?

Christianity isn't unique? Heck, you mean there are OTHER religions out there that teach that the second person of the Blessed Trinity took on human nature and became man in Jesus Christ and died for our sins? That is so cool. Which ones?

Lauran, that is excellent. I'm so glad that it was of help.

I related this to a novel, actually. In _Gilead_, by Marilynne Robinson, and also in _Home_ by Robinson, there is an alcoholic character named Jack Boughton who half believes that he is predestined to go to hell. He also is inclined not to believe in God at all, but human beings aren't entirely consistent. Anyway, he goes around asking various people what they think about him--if he's just been damned from childhood, if he can ever change, what hope there is for him. It's painful to see how people have nothing to tell him. And by "people" I mean ministers of the Gospel, allegedly Christian people! Nobody just gives him the Gospel. Just one woman, at one point in the book, quietly speaks up and says, "You can change. Everything can change." And that's the only hope anybody gives him.

Now, I'm thinking: Jack Boughton needed to talk to David Wood.

For when we were yet without strength, in due time, Christ died for the ungodly. (Romans 5:6)

"....There is an element of fear here in that if they examine their beliefs, their world view will collapse into belief in God or something resembling the terrifying, cold, alien reality of HP Lovecraft's stories."

Mike,

That comment reminded me of the following letter that was written in response to a blog post by Warner Wallace who has the Cold Case Christianity" website. It's also chilling, but I think it does represent the logical conclusion, at least for many followers, of a purely naturalist worldview.....

“[To] all my Atheist friends.
Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this. However in your efforts to “play nice” and “be civil” you actually do them a great disservice.
We are Atheists. We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not. Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they’ve allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time. But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That’s it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible.
We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc. Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me. Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population. They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.
I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say.”

There's a real sense that when you're in a rhetorical disputation with someone who admits he's a villain, the last thing you want to do is interrupt him.

The arrogance seems more comical than chilling to me. It's not often that a man who wants to be admired and emulated admits that only fear of incarceration prevents his treachery and rapine.

A truly disturbing mindset. I am reminded of the closing words to Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own:

They say of God, “Names name thee not.” That holds good of me: no concept expresses me, nothing that is designated as my essence exhausts me; they are only names. Likewise they say of God that he is perfect and has no calling to strive after perfection. That too holds good of me alone.

I am owner of my might, and I am so when I know myself as unique. In the unique one the owner himself returns into his creative nothing, of which he is born. Every higher essence above me, be it God, be it man, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and pales only before the sun of this consciousness. If I concern myself for myself,the unique one, then my concern rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say:

All things are nothing to me.

Psychopathy is self-idolatry.

I’ve been thinking a lot about Wood’s testimony, largely, because I find it very hard to objective. I once had the great misfortune to be in a church that was led by a narcissistic sociopath. When I learned the painful truth about this former leader’s mental pathology, it was chilling, for I realized that he would stop at nothing to get the power he craved. He’s in jail, by the way, for some heinous acts. Sadly, he is completely unrepentant. I initially felt the same chill when viewing Wood’s testimony.

Perhaps my struggle to be objective illustrates a very important point about Wood’s testimony, though. Namely, that feelings alone can’t always be good and reliable guides. We need reason, too. When our feelings are broken, or nonexistent as in the case of Wood, God can still reach us through other faculties, like our reason.

Isn’t the key to his testimony the complete and utter failure of reductionist naturalism to provide someone like him, who feels no empathy for others, reasons NOT to hurt people? Naturalism could not reach him through the faculty of reason. Only the Christian worldview could. Do you think this is what is getting so may atheists riled up? I’ve noticed a trend to doubt his testimony and claim that he is still a psychopath. Even if he came to his understanding of morality through the faculty of reason alone, he is still a psychopath and not to be trusted.

This is very telling, isn’t it? In their world view, there is no redemption for people like Wood (or my former pastor). Do you think they’d admit that we should just lock these people up for life (or even execute them)? I doubt it. Inconsistency and weakness abounds in their world view and it seems like to me that Wood’s testimony shines light on this .. and a very bright light, indeed!

I hope for the best for that brother in Christ.

You never know. Maybe some of them _would_ advocate killing people on the basis not of what they do but on the basis of what they are like internally. Naturalists can be extremely pragmatic sometimes.

From what I have seen, yes, the use of the moral argument here is very much getting the atheists riled up. It's possible to misrepresent what Wood is claiming and what other Christians are claiming as, "Atheists are all incipient psychopaths." That's not, of course, what we are claiming at all, but rather, as you stated it: If one does happen to be a psychopath, what reasons does naturalistic atheism offer for not acting on those impulses? One could attempt a self-interest argument, but there are always answers to this from the psychopath's perspective--e.g., he may think he is too smart to get caught.

I think it makes them mad that their world view failed Wood. For someone like him, who is left with reason alone to guide his morality, there is no hope in atheistic naturalism. They like to be the gatekeepers of evidence and reason, yet, when reasoning is needed most, as in making the case for morality for a psychopath who can't empathize, they can only retreat to subjective feelings. Christianity alone, with a God that IS the good and Who judges, can handle the task of first restraining the psychopath and then transforming him. I'd be pretty ticked off, too, if I were an atheist. The only recourse I'd have is to doubt the evidence of his transformation. That's what I see them doing and it makes me sad. May God bless, Wood, for putting himself out there with this testimony. That alone makes me strongly suspect he is the real deal. I hope it makes atheists think. It's a shocking testimony, but sometimes we may need to be shocked out of faulty reasoning.

It's a shocking testimony, but sometimes we may need to be shocked out of faulty reasoning.

Very good point, Rebekah. With a sociopath like that, or even a committed atheist who can't reason a way OUT of being such a sociopath, nothing but some extraordinary cause can overcome their determination away from Truth. For them it is not the intellect that is incapable of seeing, it is in the will refusing to allow the intellect to receive the natural light of the truth. No power of the intellect can overcome that. It takes God's movement impinging on the soul: grace and faith.

As a Christian who does believe it is possible for anyone to be given a new heart and a renewed mind I do not say any of this to antagonize, but I do not find this alleged testimony by itself at all persuasive. I am married to a sociopath and maybe you have to have that kind of experience to fully realize how pathologically they lie and manipulate and how much they love the admiration that comes with a false trophy conversion story and how gleefully they would take inner pride in being able to easily deceive a bunch of Christians to whom they feel superior. I am not saying that his conversion is definitely not sincere but I notice that he recounts the attempted murder of his father in cold blood without an ounce of emotion and at no point demonstrates any remorse. He doesn't at any point describe any part of his conversion that sounds remotely like receiving a heart of flesh in place of a heart of stone or having an awakened conscience. Even if every word he says is true, he only describes an intellectual change of position. Is there other testimony from him elsewhere or any other evidence to support and actual regeneration and rebirth? This testimony at the very best portrays a continuing sociopath who gives mental assent to Christianity. I found this video because I amiss always looking for a hopeful Christian perspective on psychopathy/sociopathy and I had high hopes before I watched this. I would be delighted to find more persuasive content from Wood, but please don't be taken in by the words of an admitted sociopath. These people lie with great skill and no regret.

He doesn't at any point describe any part of his conversion that sounds remotely like receiving a heart of flesh in place of a heart of stone or having an awakened conscience.

If you listen all the way to the end carefully you will see that there is. After he kneels donw in the jail and calls out to God, he says that for the first time he didn't feel like hurting anyone. I think that he has deliberately described his desires to hurt people (and actually attacking his father) in the earlier part of the testimony to show later that this statement is all the more dramatic. For him suddenly, as an apparent result of a prayer, not to feel any longer like hurting anyone was a really big deal.

There is in fact also independent evidence of the genuineness of Wood's conversion. What he is best known for, and what I knew about him long before seeing this testimony, was his missions work to Muslims. He runs Acts 17 apologetics ministry, for which he receives constant death threats from Muslims. He was arrested in Dearborn, MI, for talking about the deity of Christ with some Muslims on the street. So that's his life's work.

If you follow his Twitter account (I think it is), you will also see that he has a wife and children, including a disabled child, whom he clearly loves.

I did watch carefully to the end. Who would be more motivated to do so than I? Who would hope more than I to be convinced? Unfortunately those of us who are unfortunate enough to know a sociopath intimately know that giving verbal assent to something is very different than feeling it and that there is a huge chasm between saying "I don't want to hurt people anymore" delivered without emotion and an actual expression of empathy or the kind of deep gut wrenching pain one might expect from someone who has committed these kinds of crimes. There are other possible explanations for this apparent lack of emotion. Maybe it just comes from telling it many times. I don't know. But saying some of the right words definitely does not serve as evidence of regeneration and neither does expressions of apparent love for family members in a public social networking environment or service in a ministry capacity which is actually a narcissistic heaven for sociopaths, especially if there is some real or apparent persecution involved. For the vast majority of our marriage everyone who knew my husband would have said he "clearly loved" myself and out children which I assure you he does not. Many people who know only his carefully cultivated persona and do not have access to the truth still are convinced of this. He loves to talk about how great his children are and how much he adores them to coworkers and misstresses. In fact he uses it to gain trust and sympathy. They have no idea of how cold and abusive he actually is to them and wwouldn't believe it if they were told. I have asked David some questions in the comments to the original post of the video. Hopefully his answers will be more illuminating. I do hope his account is true and that he is a new creation. If so I am certain he would be the first to agree with me that one should never ever take the word or public facade of a sociopath uncritically. I wish I could sit and have a cup of coffee with his wife. That would answer a lit of my questions. I hope and pray that this testimony is real, but I would warn against accepting on the basis of any of the evidence provided so far.

I think we need to make some distinctions here. I can certainly understand your hoping that regeneration for a sociopath includes the development and possession of something more like the normal range of normal human emotions, but I would argue that regeneration can be real and conversion can be genuine even without that. For example, consider people with autism or Aspberger's. They are never going to have the normal range of human emotions, but that does not mean that they cannot accept Jesus as personal Savior, be regenerated in Christ, and so forth. I'm guessing that in heaven they will learn what normal emotions are like when they are fully healed. So having a genuine conversion, not being a liar, and even being *significantly* changed does not necessarily mean having normal human emotions.

My understanding (and I don't want to say too much here) from other contact with both David Wood and his wife (she is my Facebook "friend") is that his current state is somewhat like that of a person with Aspberger's in that he does not fully experience the normal range of normal human emotions. He therefore relies on _duty_--to Christ, to other people, to the Good--to do what is right in various places where you and I would be able to be motivated more directly by our emotions. Again, this reminds me a good bit of what Oliver Sacks talks about concerning people with autism. It's rather like being color blind. If you want to interact rightly in the world (in this case, morally rightly) you have to learn how to compensate for your lack of normal, intuitive human insight and experience.

Now, if one comes to accept that David Wood is telling the truth just as far as what he says in the video, then one will believe that he really did quite suddenly not want to hurt people anymore, and one should rightly consider that *all by itself* to be a big change--a kind of receipt of a new heart.