As with most mental health diagnoses, the critical issue is not whether the misbehaviors in question represent serious problems. Clearly they do. Rather, the issue is whether or not they should be conceptualized as mental disorders. Former generations would have used more conventional terms, such as delinquency, villainy, vandalism, crime, brutality, etc., to describe these kinds of activities, and as with ADHD, would for the most part have identified lax or inconsistent parental discipline as the proximate cause. By calling these misbehaviors a mental disorder, the APA is promoting an entirely different way of conceptualizing these problems, and in particular is promoting the notion that these kinds of problems need to be treated by psychiatrists and other mental health workers. The assignment of the diagnosis also implies that the problem is something inherent to the child, and downplays the role of the parents, or indeed of other factors.- Behaviorismandmentalhealth.com
From the bedroom, Michael called out: “He knows the consequences, so I don’t know why he does it. I will hurt him.”So something makes me uneasy about this. As someone who was (supposedly) a "crazy" kid, but who has been able to break the cycle of abuse and violence and manipulation when removed from the situation.
From the bedroom, Michael called out: “He knows the consequences, so I don’t know why he does it. I will hurt him.”Yeah that's the thing about the supposed scientific basis (which, as I said, I am skeptical about) The whole idea is that they don't feel fear, even if something 'bad' is immanent. So if you don't have a biological response to something that a normal person would be scared of, like an electrical shock, you won't have the biological fear response to punishment either. So punishment might not have much of a deterrent effect.
The only thing I can speak to is my own situation, and people who were raised similarly to me. It took me a really long time to accept that my parents had no idea what they were doing, and that it was their fault, not mine, for many of the things I was punished for. All these ideas they got from their books and bibles and prayer meetings; none of them were useful.If psychopathy is biological, though then you can no more blame the parents for it then you could for autism, or being gay. Both of which were blamed on parents, at various points in time.
Not so sure of this. Sociopaths are all about the manipulation, aren't they?"sociopath" and "psychopath" are basically synonyms, as far as psychology is concerned. From Wikipedia
There is no consensus about the symptom criteria for psychopathy, and no psychiatric or psychological organization has sanctioned a diagnosis of "psychopathy" itself.'[5]And they are listed as subtypes of Antisocial personality disorder
Delmoi, my understanding is that what you've said about the amygdala is a bit of an oversimplification and a more boldly-stated thesis than we really have evidence for. The causal links are much more ambiguous than thatSure, I was trying to make it clear that I didn't know for sure, and that it wasn't really that well understood. But the electroshock thing was done by Hare , who was the main guy driving the whole psychopath/sociopath thing, from what I can tell. I'm not an expert or anything But it would show why, if true, it wouldn't have much to do with parenting and would probably show up in early childhood.
Exactly. Here's a situation: take any adult involved in this story as a parent, journalist, editor, reader, super-smart internet commenter... and put them in the custody of a randomly chosen newly married American couple ... Leave for a year or two and come back, and see how that adult is behaving. The assumption is, "respect mah authoritah" or else you have some sort of hard-wired mental disorder. Please.Yeah, here's the thing though: how many of us would be cutting the tail off a cat?
I swear I feel like I read a different article from most of you. I found it chilling and felt nothing but sympathy for the parents. I just can't see how anyone could read that article and think the parents are doing something wrong.I've written out partial comments to this thread and deleted them twice now. We'll see if three's the charm.
“These kids, they take offense easily and react disproportionately. The same is true for grudges. If one of the kids scored a goal on him” — the smolderer — “he would be furious. He would be angry at that kid for days.”And yet, these kids are described as "unemotional." The article goes on to explain how psychopaths lack the ability to feel discomfort, which is why negative feedback is not effective. What is Michael experiencing that causes him to fly off into a rage? Is that really his best calculated move? And if these kids are so immune to negative feedback, what is it that fuels that smoldering need for revenge after losing a point in a game?
When I asked Anne if she worried about Michael’s behavior taking a psychological toll on his brothers — Allan, in particular, seemed to worship Michael — she seemed surprised by the idea. Then she told me that the previous week, Allan had “run away” to a friend’s house, located more than a mile from home. “Of course we were worried sick,” she added hastily. “But Allan is confident that way.”Far from being a child who has been terrorized by a psychopathic older brother, Allan is actually much more confident and sure of himself than average. Here is the ending of the most problematic interaction between Michael and Allan:
“What you saw, that was the old Michael,” he continued. “He was like that all day long. Kicking and hitting, slamming the toilet seat.” But he also noted that Allan had provoked Michael, at one point taunting him for crying. “He loves to poke at him when he can,” Miguel said.In answer to “He knows the consequences, so I don’t know why he does it. I will hurt him” I might have laughed (it is funny) and said something like 'Allan thinks that's how you express your love for him' which I believe is pretty close to the truth. Not the healthiest form love can take, to be sure, but there it is, the thing itself.
From the bedroom, Michael called out: “He knows the consequences, so I don’t know why he does it. I will hurt him.”
Miguel: “No you won’t.”
Michael: “I’m coming for you, Allan.”
But I don't think it's so lopsided that there are not appreciable number of such independently disturbed children. And those children need and deserve help. They're not going to get it if we insist that it's their parents' fault.I don't really think that's happening here?
Joyless? Yeah, that'd be a pretty joyless way to spend your days.How much worse than "joyless" might be the way that Michael is spending his days?
Thompson, known as Child A during his and Venables' 1993 trial, was one of seven children from what reportedly was a dysfunctional family suffering from abuse, alcohol, unemployment and an absent father.
Venables, known as Child B during the trial, was described as a weak, if willing, follower. One of three children, his mother and father were separated but were described as caring and involved parents.And that's just what CNN knew. Apparently the investigators thought some sort of sexual stuff had happened to the toddler, and then later one of the killers gets picked up for child pornography - you don't think maybe that kid was a victim himself? Maybe he wasn't, sure, but it seems distinctly possible to me that he was.
Archimedes Pozo: Someone is trying to identify something new, that's all. With a new diagnosis, comes the possibility of treatment. That treatment will start as archaic, and providing more success than failure, might help some people. Or it might not.And from the same source, something else that should probably have gotten noticed a lot more:
You have one article, which is being carefully manipulated to present a certain point. How can you be so presumptuous as to assert that those people are bad parents? Because the article says they might not be? That's not contextual analysis, that's oppositional.posted by lodurr at 12:06 PM on May 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
With respect, this is not the issue. I don't see many people in this thread denying that psychopathy is real. The question is whether psychopathy is real in childrenEh, I question it. I mean, I don't question that there are some people who act out violently and don't seem to understand why it's a problem. And Obviously there are people who lack empathy or whatever - but am not at all sure that they are all caused by the same biological condition. Stuff like the statement that 10% of wallstreet bankers are 'clinical' psychopaths. These guys aren't out there axe murdering people, yet calling people "psychopaths" makes no distinction between a typical serial killer and a typical CEO.
Just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying that you think that:There may be some with one or the other, or both. I do think there are certainly people who lack empathy but aren't violent for whatever reason, perhaps because they realize it wouldn't do them any good, or because they have no interest in it in the first place.
1) There are people who act out violently and don't understand why that's a problem;
2) there are people who lack empathy;
Is your claim that 1 and 2 aren't observed in the same individuals, or that when they are, they aren't caused by the same underlying condition?
If your claim is the latter, would you speculate about what the results of lacking empathy would be, and give some examples to illustrate?Here's the thing: I could speculate all day, but that's not how science works. Earlier in the thread I did speculate that it might have something to do with the amygdala, since people who tend to be nervous and scared a lot tend to have 'thinner' walls, sociopaths or people who lack fear/empathy.
Mental illnesses are medical conditions that disrupt a person's thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others and daily functioning....Mental illnesses are medical conditions that often result in a diminished capacity for coping with the ordinary demands of life.If you could prefer, we could call them "mental disorders" instead of "mental illnesses." But there's nothing much to be gained by playing the word game. "Mental illness" includes everything that falls outside the category of "mental health."
Another psychopath in our research said that he did not really understand what others meant by “fear”. However, “When I rob a bank,” he said, “I notice that the teller shakes or becomes tongue tied. One barfed all over the money. She must have been pretty messed up inside, but I don’t know why. If someone pointed a gun at me I guess I’d be afraid, but I wouldn’t throw up.” When asked to describe how he would feel in such a situation, his reply contained no reference to bodily sensations. He said things such as, “I’d give you the money”; “I’d think of ways to get the drop on you”; “I’d try and get my ass out of there.” When asked how he would feel, not what he would think or do, he seemed perplexed. Asked if he ever felt his heart pound or his stomach churn, he replied, “Of course! I’m not a robot. I really get pumped up when I have sex or when I get into a fight”posted by localroger at 7:55 AM on May 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
We have no specific comments on these disorders, other than to say that, in our opinion, the use of diagnostic labels has greater validity, both on theoretical and empirical grounds in these areas.That sentence makes it more clear that they're not making a statement about whether personality disorders are mental illnesses, they're commenting on how personality disorders are identified and defined.
« Older Russell Brand testifies to UK Parliament's Home Af... | The most recent cover of Time ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by XMLicious at 3:26 PM on May 12, 2012 [4 favorites]