• Child Psychopath(s)
    82 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The groundbreaking HBO documentary "Child of Rage" years ago showed how horrific abuse and neglect could leave a child unable to bond with other people, turning them into children "without conscience, who can hurt or even kill without remorse." In other words: the child becomes a psychopath. But what about the kids who aren't abused? What about the ones who, for no discernible reason, do horrible things to other people? Related: Why do children lie, cheat, and steal? "I've always said that Michael will grow up to be either a Nobel Prize winner or a serial killer," his mother, Anne, tells Jennifer Kahn in a recent shocking New York Times Magazine article. At age 9, her son has an extreme temper, lashing out violently and deliberately and showing no empathy or remorse. He's intelligent, cold, calculating, and explosive. "It takes a toll," she says, explaining her comment. "There's not a lot of joy and happiness in raising Michael." Experts are divided about whether it's right to label a child as a psychopath. On the one hand, their brains are still developing; since psychopathy is largely considered untreatable, such a label would carry a heavy, life-altering stigma. On the other hand, identifying "callous-unemotional" children early could allow for successful treatment -- or at least a heads-up to society. But reaching such a diagnosis can be tricky. Certain tendencies, like narcissism and impulsiveness, that are obvious signs of a psychopath are also part and parcel of childhood. And callous-unemotional kids are often extremely intelligent; they're able to lie and manipulate without remorse, making it harder to understand what they're doing and why. "They don't care if someone is mad at them," Paul Frick, a psychologist at the University of New Orleans, told the New York Times. "They don't care if they hurt someone's feelings." "If they can get what they want without being cruel, that's often easier," adds Frick, who has spent 20 years studying risk factors for psychopathy in children. "But at the end of the day, they'll do whatever works best." The New York Times article mentions the case of 9-year-old Jeffrey Bailey Jr., who in 1986 pushed a 3-year-old into the deep end of a Florida swimming pool and then pulled up a chair to watch the child drown; after the toddler died, Bailey got up and went home. It's a disturbing crime -- and there are other equally disturbing cases of young kids committing cold-blooded murder. In 1993, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, both 10 years old, took 2-year-old James Bulger by the hand and led the trusting toddler out of a shopping mall in Liverpool, England. Once away from the mall, they spent hours torturing him before beating him to death, reports said. In 1998, Joshua Phillips' mother was cleaning his room when she discovered the dead body of their 8-year-old neighbor, Maddie Clifton, under his bed. The 14-year-old Phillips says he accidentally hit the girl in the eye with a baseball bat and then panicked when she screamed, so he took her to his room and beat and then stabbed her until she stopped. Alyssa Bustamente was 15 when she confessed to luring her 9-year-old neighbor Elizabeth Olten into a nearby forest and killing her in 2009. "I strangled them and slit their throat and stabbed them now they're dead," Bustamante wrote in her diary at the time. "It was ahmazing. As soon as you get over the 'ohmygawd I can't do this' feeling, it's pretty enjoyable. I'm kinda nervous and shaky though right now. Kay, I gotta go to church now...lol." In February, she was sentenced to life in prison. Eric Harris -- who, with his friend Dylan Klebold, killed 13 people and injured 24 others when they opened fire at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999 -- had several of the hallmarks of being a psychopath. As ABC News points out, he was described as "controlling, manipulative, and sadistic, but very much in touch with reality." "Psychopaths don't feel guilty because they are blind to guilt," Frank Ochberg, a former FBI psychiatrist who led the counseling team after Columbine, told ABC News. And, unlike with psychosis (when people are delusional or out-of-touch with reality), psychopaths know exactly what they're doing -- they just don't care how it affects others. It's not as if these kids simply lack a moral compass. In "Child of Rage," 6-year-old Beth opens her blue eyes wide and calmly tells her psychiatrist how she'd like to hurt, and even kill, her adoptive parents -- a Methodist preacher and his wife -- and her biological brother. She's calm and conversational as she describes how she has deliberately harmed and killed animals, how she drives pins into her brother and sexually molests him, how she repeatedly slammed his head into a cement floor and only stopped because someone caught her. Beth suffered extreme physical and sexual abuse and neglect by her biological parents, which experts say could explain her detached, calculating demeanor and her lack of "a sense of conscience." (She now claims that she was "healed" by the time she was 7 or 8, thanks to intensive therapy.) But Michael, in the New York Times Magazine article, seems to have grown up surrounded by love and affection. So if nurture (or a lack of it) isn't the only way a person becomes a psychopath, how much does nature have to do with it? Some experts say that psychopathy, like other mental illnesses, may have a genetic component; others think that it is a neurological condition all its own, like autism is, though it's not part of the autism spectrum. Though some psychologists believe one can start seeing psychopathic traits as early as age 5, there is not yet a definitive test for children that young. "You're not born a psychopath but the foundation is there," Robert Hare, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of British Columbia and author of "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us," told MSNBC. He has developed specialized checklists to determine whether people age 12 and older show psychopathic tendencies. "We're all born with temperaments that can be shaped by the environment." What do you think? Can a young, seemingly innocent child be a psychopath -- and are they just born that way? [/QUOTE] [url]http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/kid-psychopath-221400341.html[/url] The child of rage video : [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ME2wmFunCjU[/url] (It's pretty messed up) Yikes. The events took place a long time ago, but this article was just posted recently. Pretty freaky
There is a strong stigma surrounding children and how they're "innocent". They're clean slates, sure, but they're just as capable of horrors as they are anything else. [QUOTE]"I've always said that Michael will grow up to be either a Nobel Prize winner or a serial killer,"[/QUOTE] I remember my mother used to tell me this all the time :v:
Psychopathy is so fucked up
"psychopaths know exactly what they're doing -- they just don't care how it affects others" I hate when people say this sort of shit. They don't just "not care". They don't have the fucking ability to care. Their ability to feel empathy for other living creatures isn't even plugged in. It's like being mad at a blender for not working when it isn't getting any power. A psychopath doesn't make a genuine choice to hurt other people, they don't have the ability to understand that choice at all.
They shouldn't put these kids together in camps. They could organize and overthrow a small country
[quote]She's calm and conversational as she describes how she has deliberately harmed and killed animals, how she drives pins into her brother and sexually molests him, how she repeatedly slammed his head into a cement floor and only stopped because someone caught her.[/quote] This woman I used to know in Missouri was a social worker and came across a little girl who was doing the exact same thing to her brother. With the pins, molestation, and the animals. She also tried to kill him with a shovel. Stuff of nightmares. [editline]16th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=zingo;35973664]Psychopathy is so fucked up[/QUOTE] Isn't it also loosely related to sociopathy?
I always find the concept of children committing murder and torture to be just... horrifying.
I think people fail to realize that children are people, too. They are totally capable of doing just about anything anyone else can.
This article makes me feel like it's impossible for there to be anything wrong with me.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;35973728] Isn't it also loosely related to sociopathy?[/QUOTE] It isn't loosely related. It's pretty much the same personality disorder. Psychopaths and Sociopaths have Anti-Social Personality Disorder. The terms used to be used interchangeably, but nowadays some doctors like to refer a sociopath as a person who has ASPD because of trauma or abuse, while a Psychopath is simply born with ASPD. But really, they are different terms for the same thing, and there isn't any consensus on whether the terms should be used to denote specific conditions of ASPD. [editline]16th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=cheetahben;35973781]I think people fail to realize that children are people, too. They are totally capable of doing just about anything anyone else can.[/QUOTE] Totally, they just usually aren't as good at it, considering they are smaller and usually not as smart.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;35973835]The idea of psychopathic children is extremely disturbing to me.[/QUOTE] The killing and torturing was absolutely terrible, but I think what disturbed me most was the sexual offenses. In the video it said that Beth "masturbated at inappropriate times"-- I mean, she was six years old for christ's sake.
On a positive side, at least the advancements in the psychology will allow to detect these deviations in the children, early enough for appropriate actions to be taken.
[QUOTE=gufu;35973936]On a positive side, at least the advancements in the psychology will allow to detect these deviations in the children, early enough for appropriate actions to be taken.[/QUOTE] What is appropriate action? Most people with ASPD don't actually murder other people. There is also no cure for it. There is no effective therapy. The best you can do is put them on constant surveillance or put them in jail since they can't truly function in a civilized society, but that goes against our idea of due process.
[QUOTE=Azaer;35973599]I remember my mother used to tell me this all the time :v:[/QUOTE] I'm going to assume you're not a Nobel Prize winner.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35973952]What is appropriate action? Most people with ASPD don't actually murder other people. There is also no cure for it. There is no effective therapy. The best you can do is put them on constant surveillance or put them in jail since they can't truly function in a civilized society, but that goes against our idea of due process.[/QUOTE] Beth was allegedly cured-- she's a nurse now [QUOTE]Beth Thomas grew into a mentally healthy woman. She obtained a degree in nursing and has authored a book entitled “More Than a Thread of Hope.” She and her adoptive mother Nancy Thomas established a clinic for children with severe behaviour disturbances. Nancy Thomas wrote a book entitled Dandelion on my Pillow, Butcher Knife Beneath (Coping with Personal Problems). Nancy and Beth Thomas’ website is [url]www.attachment.org[/url] [/QUOTE] [url]http://jl10ll.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/children-of-rage/[/url]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35973791]It isn't loosely related. It's pretty much the same personality disorder. Psychopaths and Sociopaths have Anti-Social Personality Disorder. The terms used to be used interchangeably, but nowadays some doctors like to refer a sociopath as a person who has ASPD because of trauma or abuse, while a Psychopath is simply born with ASPD. But really, they are different terms for the same thing, and there isn't any consensus on whether the terms should be used to denote specific conditions of ASPD. [editline]16th May 2012[/editline] Totally, they just usually aren't as good at it, considering they are smaller and usually not as smart.[/QUOTE] Sociopathy typically refers to a general lack of empathy or compassion (while not necessarily implying a complete inability to feel guilt or shame, rather that those emotions are always self-centered), while psychopathy refers to a complete detachment from themselves, others, and human interaction in general. i.e. A sociopath can feel bad about doing something wrong if it inconveniences him, but likely won't feel all that bad if he benefits from it personally in some way. A psychopath just won't feel anything at all. In both cases, the individual is completely self-absorbed, with whatever passes for emotion being entirely the result of how a situation affects [I]him[/I], and not the others around him.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35974009]Sociopathy typically refers to a general lack of empathy or compassion (while not necessarily implying a complete inability to feel guilt or shame, rather that those emotions are always self-centered), while psychopathy refers to a complete detachment from themselves, others, and human interaction in general. i.e. A sociopath can feel bad about doing something wrong if it inconveniences him, but likely won't feel all that bad if he benefits from it personally in some way. A psychopath just won't feel anything at all.[/QUOTE] This is an arbitrary definition that has no consensus. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath#Psychopathy[/url] "The term sociopathy may be preferred by sociologists who consider social factors to be the cause, while the term psychopathy may be preferred by psychologists who consider psychological, biological and genetic factors to also play a role." "Psychopathy is normally seen as a subset of the antisocial personality disorder, but Blair believes that the antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy may be separate conditions altogether." "David T. Lykken proposed psychopathy and sociopathy are two distinct kinds of antisocial personality disorder. Lykken reasoned that the different temperaments of people mark how likely that one is to develop antisocial personality disorders; some people are placid and very easy to socialize that, even with moderately incompetent parents, their integration into society is almost automatic; some people are very difficult to integrate and are impulsive, aggressive, and fearless and only the settings of very skillful parents and the right environment, peers, and mentors can socialize the difficult; most people, Lykken said, are of average temperament, between those two extremes." I just use them interchangeably, and will until psychologists and sociologists can agree one a concise definition for the two terms.
[QUOTE=socks;35974003]Beth was allegedly cured-- she's a nurse now [url]http://jl10ll.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/children-of-rage/[/url][/QUOTE] While I'd sooner trust that she is truthful to some degree, the problem is that psychopaths aren't trustworthy. They tend to be extremely adaptable at deceiving others in order to benefit their own needs and desires. Someone who feels no remorse won't have an obvious tell to look for if they're lying, etc. etc. Just playing Devil's Advocate. [editline]15th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;35974045]This is an arbitrary definition that has no consensus. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath#Psychopathy[/url] "The term sociopathy may be preferred by sociologists who consider social factors to be the cause, while the term psychopathy may be preferred by psychologists who consider psychological, biological and genetic factors to also play a role." "Psychopathy is normally seen as a subset of the antisocial personality disorder, but Blair believes that the antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy may be separate conditions altogether." "David T. Lykken proposed psychopathy and sociopathy are two distinct kinds of antisocial personality disorder. Lykken reasoned that the different temperaments of people mark how likely that one is to develop antisocial personality disorders; some people are placid and very easy to socialize that, even with moderately incompetent parents, their integration into society is almost automatic; some people are very difficult to integrate and are impulsive, aggressive, and fearless and only the settings of very skillful parents and the right environment, peers, and mentors can socialize the difficult; most people, Lykken said, are of average temperament, between those two extremes." I just use them interchangeably, and will until psychologists and sociologists can agree one a concise definition for the two terms.[/QUOTE] I am just referring to the general parlance of when the two words are used, not really their absolute definitions.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;35973835]The idea of psychopathic children is extremely disturbing to me.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.impawards.com/1956/posters/bad_seed.jpg[/img] Reminds me of this movie.
[QUOTE]While I'd sooner trust that she is truthful to some degree, the problem is that psychopaths aren't trustworthy. They tend to be extremely adaptable at deceiving others in order to benefit their own needs and desires. Someone who feels no remorse won't have an obvious tell to look for if they're lying, etc. etc.[/QUOTE] I think that's a bit of a generalization
[QUOTE=socks;35974085]I think that's a bit of a generalization[/QUOTE] Of course it's a generalization, but generalizations are all you're going to have in a lot of these cases until we understand the conditions better. By their very nature, the mentally ill are unreliable sources, and they also happen to currently be the [I]only[/I] source for what specific state of mind they are in. Hence, therein lies the problem. You can't trust their words, but you can't know anything about what they're going through without trusting them. It's like trying to get the truth out of a politician. They're the only ones who know the answer, and they're the most untrustworthy person to ask the question.
[QUOTE=socks;35974085]I think that's a bit of a generalization[/QUOTE] No, it's really not. The whole disorder is defined as "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood." These people are generally self-preservationists, and incredibly adept at lying because they have no way of feeling remorse for lying. People with ASPD are impossible to trust, because they are experts at hiding their true motivations and feeling from other people.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35974097]No, it's really not. The whole disorder is defined as "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood." These people are generally self-preservationists, and incredibly adept at lying because they have no way of feeling remorse for lying. People with ASPD are impossible to trust, because they are experts at hiding their true motivations and feeling from other people.[/QUOTE] Shit, on a scientific level I'd be curious to know how the disorder fits in with the general evolution of the species alongside altruistic behavior and indirect fitness. In a completely natural setting a psychopath would dominate, which is a scary thought.
So would Beth technically be a sociopath?
[QUOTE=Lankist;35974124]Shit, on a scientific level I'd be curious to know how the disorder fits in with the general evolution of the species alongside altruistic behavior and indirect fitness. In a completely natural setting a psychopath would dominate, which is a scary thought.[/QUOTE] Not over a long period of time. There is a reason that we evolved with empathy and compassion, a society can't function over long periods of time with people who are emotionally disconnected in charge. A person who isn't looking out for the good of the whole community will end up leading the community off a metaphorical cliff at some point.
[QUOTE=socks;35974155]So would Beth technically be a sociopath?[/QUOTE] There is no technical distinction between the two at the moment, just semantic differences.
But you're right, these people would dominate, and I'm sure they have dominated before. It's just that these sorts of reigns don't usually last for a long time and aren't inherited by the next reign in any consistent fashion.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35974171]Not over a long period of time. There is a reason that we evolved with empathy and compassion, a society can't function over long periods of time with people who are emotionally disconnected in charge. A person who isn't looking out for the good of the whole community will end up leading the community off a metaphorical cliff at some point.[/QUOTE] Yes, but they would thrive long enough to propagate their condition. The individual would surely be routed, but the disease itself would persist and spread. Shit, that's basically what we did to the neandertals. They were smarter than us, more cooperative and they were the first hominids to actually have the physical structures enabling verbal speech. We were dumb and strong and we either out-hunted them, massacred them, or interbred with them until they ceased to exist. It makes one wonder how many sorts of genetic mental conditions just became the norm.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35974180]Yes, but they would thrive long enough to propagate their condition. The individual would surely be routed, but the disease itself would persist and spread.[/QUOTE] It isn't just the person who would be routed, the entire community could be wiped out or severely damaged by these types of people. That's why ASPD is fairly rare in the human population. They don't fit in with society that well.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35973715]"psychopaths know exactly what they're doing -- they just don't care how it affects others" I hate when people say this sort of shit. They don't just "not care". They don't have the fucking ability to care. Their ability to feel empathy for other living creatures isn't even plugged in. It's like being mad at a blender for not working when it isn't getting any power. A psychopath doesn't make a genuine choice to hurt other people, they don't have the ability to understand that choice at all.[/QUOTE] They're not like delusional schizophrenics who can't properly make rational judgements though. Psychopaths are perfect capable of understand the theory of things like empathy and a conscience, which they certainly use to their advantage. They might not feel guilt, but they are intellectually capable of understand right from wrong.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.