Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This article in the New York Times tells the story of a family who's eldest son has been diagnosed as being a psychopath.
This article raises several questions, firstly can a child be given a label which will stick with them the rest of their life, children having changing personalities etc. If this is the case then when would it be appropriate to give someone the label of psychopath 15, 18, 21 ?
Secondly, if psychopathy is a biological condition then by definition the people who have it have no more control of their condition than say a transgender person. It would be very unfair to out a transgeder person so why does the same logic not apply to psychopaths. Does the right of the public to protect themselves outweigh the right of the psychopath's to privacy. This brings out another question. If 1% of the population are psychopaths and 25% of the prison population are psychopaths then this would leave about 2.75 Million of them in the open population, many of these are quite successful in the business world without breaking the law. If this is the case than what exactly would we be warning people about ?
And finally if we can find a way to screen the whole population for psychopathic traits then what is to be done about it. Are they to be locked up, executed, brain surgery ? Is this not what the Holocaust was, Ridding society of undesirables ? Or does our right to not be afraid outweigh their right to privacy and would we feel the same way if the tables were turned ?
As the article says, we cannot ignore these children. Their cost to society is too high. They may never really truly develop the ability to feel empathy. They do have to learn to fake it.
I know a psychiatrist who tells adult sociopaths that they are wolves, but they live in a society of dogs. If they do not learn to pretend to be dogs, they will end up dead or in a cage.
The child psychiatrist quoted as saying do not even study it because nothing can be done is asinine. Until it is studied, there is no way to know whether intervention wil prevent the harm psychopaths can do.
There are varying degrees of psychopathology, and yes, you can often tell from early childhood. Many people sail through life with this disorder without doing too much harm or breaking laws. The term psychopath isn't automatically indicative of a serial axe murderer, so why would you want to lock them up or have them lobotomized? Some just act like major dicks and show no remorse, fear or guilt. You can't punish people for that.
I was unable to access the article from NY Times, too old I guess. Regarding giving a child a label of psychopath,it seems the DSM puts the disorder under conduct disorder in people under 18 and antisocial personality disorder in older adults. Conduct disorder is defined as a repetitive or persistent behavior that violates others rights. Conduct disorder also includes ADHD. I don't believe ADHD children are psychopaths necessarily.
If a child/teen is constantly showing signs of psychopath/conduct disorder with dangerous outcomes such as burning houses, fighting with weapons, cruelty to humans or animals, and this behavior has affected his home life, school attendance, ect. by all means they should be evaluated and diagnosed with treatment by self admission or legal detention. The problem lies with the under aged individual and their parents duty to seek help. However, I wonder how many parents choose to be in denial that their son/daughter is a danger to society. Also, there are many counselors who are not capable? to identify a psychopath and take necessary action to send a youngster to treatment.
Regardless of labeling a young person, it seems to me to be the best thing to do if they truly show signs of a psychopath.
I had a friend and her son was 5 years old. He used to choke their kitten and once she bought some Easter ducklings and he choked them too. He flunked kindergarten that year. It alarmed me very much. She was in a divorce situation and maybe the relationship with the kids dad had influence on his behavior. He grew out of that nonsense and became an average student by age 8. I don't believe he was a beginner psychopath. There are many things that make a child misbehave.
It is wrong to mislabel a child a psychopath.
It would be waste of money to screen the whole population, psychopaths lie and are very cunning people.l
This article in the New York Times tells the story of a family who's eldest son has been diagnosed as being a psychopath.
This article raises several questions, firstly can a child be given a label which will stick with them the rest of their life, children having changing personalities etc. If this is the case then when would it be appropriate to give someone the label of psychopath 15, 18, 21 ?
Secondly, if psychopathy is a biological condition then by definition the people who have it have no more control of their condition than say a transgender person. It would be very unfair to out a transgeder person so why does the same logic not apply to psychopaths. Does the right of the public to protect themselves outweigh the right of the psychopath's to privacy. This brings out another question. If 1% of the population are psychopaths and 25% of the prison population are psychopaths then this would leave about 2.75 Million of them in the open population, many of these are quite successful in the business world without breaking the law. If this is the case than what exactly would we be warning people about ?
And finally if we can find a way to screen the whole population for psychopathic traits then what is to be done about it. Are they to be locked up, executed, brain surgery ? Is this not what the Holocaust was, Ridding society of undesirables ? Or does our right to not be afraid outweigh their right to privacy and would we feel the same way if the tables were turned ?
What is your opinion ?
Oh boy..I have come across of some adult phychopaths that acted like children...
Anyway, the boy is clearly stressed about being ignored by his parents. Not everyone likes a responsibility of a 'big brother" or a "big sister". I personally hated it myself. I hated when mom would call me out in the middle of my game with friends to go and take care of my brother. At the point I had no social life and felt angry. But I think people grow out of it. I did, and the friend I had back then is still in touch with me now 20 years later.... So, even though my mom would ruin our play time whenever my brother was done napping, It did not affect me in the long run. There is also might be a problem with "sharing". Again, 9 y.o is too early calling someone a psycho. I would say by 25 y.o. you see a pretty clear picture as far as noticing any psychological disorders.
Oh boy..I have come across of some adult phychopaths that acted like children...
Anyway, the boy is clearly stressed about being ignored by his parents. Not everyone likes a responsibility of a 'big brother" or a "big sister". I personally hated it myself. I hated when mom would call me out in the middle of my game with friends to go and take care of my brother. At the point I had no social life and felt angry. But I think people grow out of it. I did, and the friend I had back then is still in touch with me now 20 years later.... So, even though my mom would ruin our play time whenever my brother was done napping, It did not affect me in the long run. There is also might be a problem with "sharing". Again, 9 y.o is too early calling someone a psycho. I would say by 25 y.o. you see a pretty clear picture as far as noticing any psychological disorders.
Adam Lanza was 20.
The Columbine shooters were 17 and 18.
Many shooters are teenagers.
Obviously (I think) isolating and stigmatizing kids on the basis of what is clearly an imprecise diagnostic model is not cool.
On the other hand, understanding and recognising problematic traits is important....but again I think that it can be problematic making decisions based on shaky science.
Such a touchy subject. But comparing them to transgendered folks isn't helpful. Being transgendered is not about harmful behaviors. Being a psychopath is, to varying degrees. I don't know enough to comment further, but this site was really educational for me.
Some just act like major dicks and show no remorse, fear or guilt. You can't punish people for that.
Why not ? Why can't we punish people for acting like "dicks", the actions of a few people on Wall Street caused this financial mess, millions out of work, business's closed. Are these actions less destructive than the man who travels along the interstate killing hitchhikers ?
(I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to start a philosophical discussion)
Just to complicate matters there are times like being in military combat when being a very effective psychotic is a survival skill useful to the individual and respected by his peers. I suppose we are talking about the killers that are born that way and not the people that are trained to be murderous. Sometimes they are called hero and other times war criminal. Returning these people to a society where those skills, including mindset, are useless is a major problem.
I do not know enough about human behavior to have very much more to say except children that have clearly psychopathic traits need to be treated differently than sane citizens. I suggest treating them as if they were a contagion and keeping them separate from the rest of us.
Just to complicate matters there are times like being in military combat when being a very effective psychotic is a survival skill useful to the individual and respected by his peers. I suppose we are talking about the killers that are born that way and not the people that are trained to be murderous. Sometimes they are called hero and other times war criminal. Returning these people to a society where those skills, including mindset, are useless is a major problem.
I do not know enough about human behavior to have very much more to say except children that have clearly psychopathic traits need to be treated differently than sane citizens. I suggest treating them as if they were a contagion and keeping them separate from the rest of us.
"Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality."
That is definitely not helpful in a military situation and different from the antisocial behavior of a psychpath. The military is certainly an option that some with antisocial personality will seek, though the military itself would rather not have them there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, even though my mom would ruin our play time whenever my brother was done napping, It did not affect me in the long run. There is also might be a problem with "sharing". Again, 9 y.o is too early calling someone a psycho. I would say by 25 y.o. you see a pretty clear picture as far as noticing any psychological disorders.
