It is my belief that psychopaths are born. Additional malignant traits can be caused by experiences, but so far I am not convinced that, for instance, a sociopath exists. A sociopath is someone who is thought to have been molded by outside factors and society.
can a psychopath change?
- Thread starter adeptofthelyricalarts
- Start date
chaps23
Jedi Master
Monoaurea said:
Hi Monoaurea,
So your saying that you think the difference between a psycopath a sociopath is one's genetic and one is external factors? is there any particular reasoning you have behind this? Can you actually explain the difference between the two for me?
I personally think its a far to greyer of an area to make a simple decision about this as the human brain is so complicated!
chaps23 said:
No, I have no reasoning behind it. That is simply the definition of psychopath. Psychopaths, at the base, are born, and it is a genetic neurological thing. Sociopaths= outside factors and society by definition. Many psychologists do not believe that psychopaths can be "made" although there are movies that say so... but movies are only fiction. And this means, that they do not believe sociopaths exist. From what I've read on the subject, I would agree. A psychopath is born unable to feel empathy (as well as other things of course but that's one thing everyone can say off the top of their head), they have decreased fear, et cetera. It seems pretty unlikely that someone coincidentally goes into the same state from abuse or trauma... they have literal brain differences that they are born with. There is a way to FOR SURE know that someone is a psychopathy- some type of brain testing or scanning.
Now, perhaps something like decreased empathy, being torn up inside, not caring anymore, et cetera, THAT... but that is not a psychopath. They have a complete inability to feel empathy in the first place. It's just the truth. Someone who wasn't born with psychopathy would know what empathy is, know exactly what people by right and wrong, etc. Mary Bell could be an example of someone torn up inside who appeared to be a psychopath, but later after the institution she was fine and is raising her children (Mary Bell was a child killer, meaning she killed people when she was a young child)
D
Deleted member 8431
Guest
Monoaurea said:
If indeed it's a genetic/neurological 'thing', then don't you think it could be possible to alter one's genetic/neurological profile to completely prevent him/her from feeling empathy? I'm just throwing out an open hypothesis here.
Also you should know that one's beleif(s) dosen't necessarily equal reality. Just because we beleive something is impossible dosen't mean it is unless it can be proven objectively and out of any doubt(s). Just like a movie dosen't necessarily only contain 'fictive material'.
Why? Simply because it is considered to be the result of external factors? I don't get what you say. Dosen't make sense at all to me although it could simply be a lack of knowledge from my behalf. Perhaps others can comment on this.
If psychopathy = lack of empathy, then why would a psychopath only be one born like so? Unless you imply that one's genetic/neurological profile can't be changed to match the one of someone born like so.
It's kind of like if I said, ''schizophrenic people don't exist unless they are born like so''.
OSIT
Anyhow, I think there might very well be a diffrence between a born psychopath and a non-born one (if they ever exist) but before getting more data, I wouldn't put everything only either black or white.
Peace.
chaps23
Jedi Master
Monoaurea said:
I think I know where you are coming from. Monoaurea, would you agree with me that our whole lives we are learning and slowly adding new data to our belief systems and we are also forever changing our understanding of certain topics?
It seems to me you are saying that you have already difinitivley made your decision regarding this topic when there is so much we dont know. How can we say the Earth is flat when you havn't tried to travel around it? Get my drift? (my apologies but analogies are not my strong point) I basically think that what you are explaining to us simply is just not enough proof to be in a position to make such a decision. I would suggest that you attempt to keep an open mind when exploring this forum and you never know you might learn something. No matter how much we think we all know we are learning every day.
It seems to me that this thread is devolving into self-referencing. It would perhaps be best to refer to outside sources rather than wind down into a "I don't get it, oh well it's all so confusing" attitude. Laura's amazing article "A Structural Theory of Narcissism and Psychopathy" is a great start :) OSIT
