Question About WHY Anyone Would Want To Be "Bad?" (teenage, out of control)
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.
The point is no one has to teach a cat how to be a "good" cat . . . creatures have innate intelligence and depending upon your philosophy, could come with learnings from previous lives . . .they are not a tabula rosa that you program to be robotic replicas of yourself or your desired Stepford child.
The point is no one has to teach a cat how to be a "good" cat . . . creatures have innate intelligence and depending upon your philosophy, could come with learnings from previous lives . . .they are not a tabula rosa that you program to be robotic replicas of yourself or your desired Stepford child.
Ha! I believe there is a difference between being hard-wired for survival behaviors and (to the best of my knowledge) learning socially constructed behaviors. There is no evidence of tabula rasa, that's true, but there are a number of shades of gray between tabula rasa and letting one's child be raised by wolves so to speak. As with most things in human behavior, there's very little that is all or none, right?
I don't think people give "children" enough credit, and conversely, give parents too much credit. "Children" are simply young human beings, not an inferior species . . .they don't need to be "taught how to think," that is a hard-wired function . . .
Which is why I said that it's 'just the way some people are'. I have met children who come from giving, loving homes, whose children sociopaths and amazing, giving, loving children who were raised with the "dregs of society"...drug dealing, drunken, thieving parents. Essentially, you grow up being who YOU choose to be.
How do all other life forms become the adults of their species? They all do not have hands-on guidance.
You obviously have not spent time working with animals. Your every day livestock species, such as horses both living in captive and in wild, teach their youngsters by example, consequences and corporal punishment.
The seeking out wild things that may be considered "bad" and risk taking is very much a part of personality traits, such as sensation seeking, openness to new experience, and however one's brain is wired for risk and reward. For some, the reward centers of the brain light up like a holiday tree when taking risks and "being bad," which leads to wanting to seek out stimuli that produce that feeling more and more often. With problematic behaviors (e.g., problem drinking, problem gambling), the intensity of the stimulus needs to increase over time to produce the same feeling. I can easily see how a thrill-seeker could get themselves into dangerous situations this way.
And to the poster who said personality is set by age 3 - nice try, but no cigar. While temperament is in evidence beginning in infancy, humans inherit range of traits that drive behaviors that are either reinforced or not. Two people with the same exact temperament exposed to different life experiences are likely to exhibit very different "personalities." Current personality theory research does not support the idea that personality is immutable and fixed. You inherit a range of traits and what you do with them behaviorally is up to you.
I think you quoted the wrong person.
Anyways.
I think people are born who they are going to be, I think that stuff does lie in the brain and I think that environment and upbrining can affect all that as well but environment has proven to only go so far, like even the richest of people in the best environments can get into bad things and live a corrupt life, people can become completely different from the enviroment they were raised in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beachmel
In a nutshell, some PEOPLE are just bad. I don't see this as any different than adults who choose to be bad. Some people just ARE. Some do it for attention, some are just flat out evil. Many of them don't even respond to "disciplinary actions"....they're just made that way.
To me, there's no more concrete an answer to this question than there is to the question of, "Why are some people so good, so kind, so thoughtful?" Some people just ARE. It is their very nature to be so. Some people can't even IMAGINE doing something to purposely hurt someone else, couldn't imagine why you'd steal, purposely break a rule/law. Some people have no sense of empathy and do whatever they want, to whomever they want to do it to. Frankly, "feelings" don't even enter the picture for some folks. They are who they are.
I don't think in this equation bad = evil.
Someone can enjoy to thrill seek like skinny dipping, partying and doing shots, being promiscious but still be a good, decent, hardworking, caring person who just goes a bit wild in their free time.
I think what the OP was talking about was not evil type bad but like bad girl/guy type bad. Not the essentially harmful kind of "bad" but the edgy, cool kids type of bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn
When the book "Columbine" came out I did some reading on psychopaths. (The book's premise was that Eric Harris was a psychopath.) More than one article I read said lack of empathy can be seen in children as young as age two. Psychopathic behavior can be seen as young as age four.
(No expert. Just reporting what I've read.)
To get back to the original question I think some people want to be bad because it can be equated with being "cool".
And I've seen more than one "good" kid who changes after he becomes friends with the "bad" kids and wants their approval and attention. Plus a lot of kids become bad just to tick off their parents. Or they think being bad makes them, somehow, more grown-up. The old "grown-ups smoke and drink and party so that's what I'll do."
And those kids don't change because they became friends with those kids.
Those kids sought out those kids to be friends with because something inside them WANTED to be friends with those kids. Deep down that is how they TRULY were, it's all about oppurtunity.
I was a good kid, I never had oppurtunity to be wild and party when I was younger but as soon as I DID get the oppurtunities I took them. Deep down I am not this goody-goody, innocent person, nor do I want to be, I like to have fun and get my adrenaline pumping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
Well, do you want to discuss social learning and morality in chipmunks or in humans?
Singing chipmunks or the regular kind?
Because you might have more morality issues with the ones with singing careers.
Anyone going to see the third movie? I AM!
And those kids don't change because they became friends with those kids. Those kids sought out those kids to be friends with because something inside them WANTED to be friends with those kids. Deep down that is how they TRULY were, it's all about oppurtunity.
I think it's sometimes one explanation, sometimes the other. Kids don't meticulously select who to hang out with, and it doesn't take much commonality between two kids when it comes to values for them to become friends. And of course, we are ALL influenced by those we spend time with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txtqueen
I was a good kid, I never had oppurtunity to be wild and party when I was younger but as soon as I DID get the oppurtunities I took them. Deep down I am not this goody-goody, innocent person, nor do I want to be, I like to have fun and get my adrenaline pumping.
What do you mean, then, by "I was a good kid"? Seems to me, you were a "bad" kid all along, you just didn't have the chance to act on it the way you wanted. Kids with proper values are not "good" for lack of opportunity to be bad. They're "good" because they want to be. They prefer sports over possibly destructive habits to get their adrenaline pumping, and I believe it's partially because they were brought up that way.
One point you do make is that it isn't enough for a parent to say "No, you can't do that". A good parent knows they have to do more.
I don't think people give "children" enough credit, and conversely, give parents too much credit. "Children" are simply young human beings, not an inferior species . . .they don't need to be "taught how to think," that is a hard-wired function . . .
Do you have some evidence to support that?
Creatures are born with natural abilities. Living successfully in a complex society requires more than natural instinct.
"Children" are simply young human beings, not an inferior species . . .they don't need to be "taught how to think," that is a hard-wired function . . .
Wow! You sure took "taught how to think" literally! Oh, the irony! Thank you for providing a perfect example of what I was describing! LOL
How do all other life forms become the adults of their species? They all do not have hands-on guidance.
Well first not all do so without hands on guidance. Depending on the complexity of their social order, they are merely trying to survive and reproduce. Instinct can take care of that. Many creatures have no concept of right or wrong beyond survive, eat, reproduce. Some of us have greater societal structure and require more.
The point is no one has to teach a cat how to be a "good" cat . . .
Cats no concept of being a good cat. Cats require only to be alive cats.
Quote:
creatures have innate intelligence and depending upon your
philosophy, could come with learnings from previous lives . . .they are not a tabula rosa that you program to be robotic replicas of yourself or your desired Stepford child.
I don;'t think anyone suggests that they are tabula rosa. Genes are real. Science says so.
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.