• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Ted Bundy

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I have no idea what you are talking about regarding your last paragraph.


I think most psychologists have discounted the whole memory implantation thing as bogus. If someone remembers something from childhood, no matter how tenuous or ephemeral or unreal, it is generally thought (the default, if you will) is that they need to be believed.

Not really following you otherwise...

Of course not. And that's why I consider some therapists to be evil.
 

Nuttou

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
17
Believe it, Friend. I know it fervently and solidly. It's probably the thing I *know* the best. Why would someone be born to do evil?
Why does evil exist at all? Why isn’t everyone born immune to corruption? Why are some people born with mental or physical illness? Why is everything in the world not beautiful or perfect? People are just born the way they are, there is no hidden motive or great plan behind it all. A natural phenomenon has a cause but no reason unless humans have a say in the matter.

Your reasoning seems to be:
--> People can’t be born without empathy, so
--> Psychopaths are always made by childhood abuse, so
--> If we find no proof of abuse in a psychopath’s childhood, it is either because it is hidden from us or because we didn’t look deeply enough
See the problem in your reasoning? You always start with the premise that psychopathy can’t possibly be genetic, without argument. And then try to make everything else fit this assumption. Saying you *know* something to be true isn't enough to convince people (or make it so).
I say we know the brain can be born unhealthy (see autism, schizophrenia, etc…), that empathy is controlled by some area of the brain, and we know of no reason why that area of the brain would be magically protected from malformation or simply from being underdeveloped. So we should at least consider the possibility that babies can be born psychopaths unless proven otherwise.

Have you read that article I posted? If you have, what do you think of Michael?

Have you ever been around babies and children who have been raised in a healthy environment? If you had, you would know there is no way those children could grow up to be antisocial.
Just because I know children in healthy environment that are not antisocial doesn't mean antisocial children in healthy environment can't exist.

But yeah, I know the idea that some kids are born incapable of feeling love or compassion isn't pretty.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I should mention that Bundy was not psychotic or sociopathic. He had antisocial personality disorder.
 

Nuttou

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
17
Wikipedia isn't god. His mother moved away with him when he was four, marrying his step-dad when he was about 4 or 5. Anyway, he already had a fascination with knives at age three, and I'll read your post; however, the reason I believe him to be an ENFJ is because I think he had tertiary Se that he was in touch with at a young age, and it wasn't just something that came out in rage that was generally repressed like INxJs tend to be for the most part, Ted's Se seemed pretty active to me even before he snapped.
It's weird to me that you focus on Ni-Fe-Se so much (like an ENFJ) but then at the end say Ti probably wasn't his inferior. His early fixation with not only pornography, but being brazen enough to be a peeping tom, and getting arrested twice for burglary in high school makes me think Se was his relief function. I also think he was able to form such a slick facade - even in high school when he said he didn't connect well to other children - and then later when he put on a show that people bought, that he was probably an Fe dom.

I won't argue to the death over Ted Bundy but I do believe he was a socially maladjusted ENFJ.
I focus a lot on the Ni-Fe-Se combination and how it applies to him, but this doesn't mean his Ti is the weakest. Ni-Fe and Ni-Se simply seems to have more "connections" between each other (perhaps due to the fact that Ni is a synthetizing function). Ti seems to work more often more independently, in order to verify logical consistency, find flaws in a plan, think through ideas and moderate Fe with logical reasoning, etc... Ti is simply more difficult to spot in a biography than any of the other function, particularly since it is introverted and tertiary.
Anyway, watching that youtube video of Bundy, I really found that he used Ti way too easily for it to be his weak point.

I think in many cases, the tertiary function is the less flagrant one in the personality, though not necessarily the weakest (think of the Robot-INTJ stereotype with tertiary Fi, or Si in INTP). The inferior, as a counter-weigh to the dominant, can have a great impact on the psyche. It often manifests in an all-or-nothing way, and can play a major role when making decisions because it has its own hungry needs that demand satisfaction: for Se it would be desire for riches and sophisticated goods, yearning for sensations, etc…
I believe Bundy’s relation to his inferior was of this sort. It wasn’t controlled or healthy, more of a vice really (burglary, rape). Shadow-Se in unhealthy or stressed INJs can lead them down into a dark place full of drugs, sex, alcohol and pornography. Such bad SP slips would be damning in an individual as unstable as Bundy was.

And I think I explained the way he used Ni-Fe-Se to charm everyone well enough in my other post, as an Ni-dom (project an image of self Ni-Fe, figure people out Ni-Se, manipulate them Fe). Do you disagree? Being good with people in that quiet, discreet way is characteristic of most INFJs (ENFJs are more flamboyant).

(I won’t argue to the death over this either, but I find him fascinating and I like to study his behaviour! :))
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Yet another logical fallacy. That one is called begging the question.

Someone would be born to do evil because of innate problem areas in the brain related to a lack of inhibitory mechanisms and no innate predisposition toward emotional empathy.

We are all born with the capability of doing evil. It's whether that gets turned on or not in certain individuals.

It's like a person has a certain amount of natural armor (biology/genes), and then you have your environment either building that up (with nurturing), or tearing that down (with ANA); then you have the Devil and the evil of the world (other emotionally ill humans) actively finding weaknesses in the armor than can be destroyed, leaving one especially vulnerable.

Now you will ask me to prove that abuse didn't exist in cases like Bundy's, or of Michael in the other story. But that is once again the argument from ignorance because it puts the burden on those claiming a negative. And since I can't prove that abuse didn't happen, somehow your theory is proved by arbitrary fiat.

But all your years of counselling experience can't prove that abuse always existed in your patients or clients, especially when the possibility of planting false memories has been proven to exist. That one doubt is all it takes to disprove your theory.

To prove there was no abuse is nearly impossible though. The only way to really get to the bottom of it is to either do IN DEPTH analysis with trained therapists specifically focused on assessing the presence or absence of child abuse, and in what forms; or doing prospective studies correlating mental well-being and environment. This is not fallacious thinking, Mal. Random folks who have no real understanding of child development (or abuse themselves!) saying that so-and-so ax murderer wasn't abused is just completely ridiculous, when I know otherwise from observing, studying, and experiencing normal human development.

Why does evil exist at all?

Because humans have free will. They can choose to harm each other, help each other, or do nothing.

Why isn’t everyone born immune to corruption? Why are some people born with mental or physical illness?

No one is born immune to corruption. See above. It's about quality and quantity of armor we each have.

Genes. This is organic brain chemical [dis]orders I'm referring to. Schizophrenia (which is completely organic, which I'm still not convinced about personally, due to lack of knowledge of this specific disorder), and autism, etc., just color an individual differently, and make our interaction with them different than 'normal' people. Kind of like how Down's Syndrome children have a disorder, but still have a good purpose to serve in life and society.

Organic disorders are much rarer than behavioral disorders. DSM lumps them together, erring on the side of saying behavioral disorders are organic. This is utter nonsense, and illustrative of just how ignorant we as a people are regarding the causation of mental illness.

Why is everything in the world not beautiful

? Relative.

or perfect?

Because evil exists. And man has free will.

People are just born the way they are,

Which is inherently good. And prone to survival. And to desire the strongest emotion we can feel: Love.

there is no hidden motive or great plan behind it all.

Well, I believe in God. So I believe in Divine Determinism. And it's in line 100% with what I'm purporting here (I've seen nothing in 'real life' to dissuade me from believing man is inherently good, and made in God's image.

A natural phenomenon has a cause but no reason unless humans have a say in the matter.

Primitive brains (which is all babies have when they are born) seek only one thing: To be nurtured and taken care of in their own best interests. A mother's interests don't matter! A father's interests don't matter! Parents naturally should not only sacrifice for their babies, and children (until they are independent), but they are programmed to love them. Ask any mother or father carrying a baby (who isn't mentally ill) and she will tell you she loves her baby with her whole heart. That becomes even stronger at birth, and as the baby grows. That love is rather irrational if you think about it. It's all to grow a healthy new person. If that happens, that new person will not want to behave in antisocial ways, because it won't feel good. What feels good is to love and be loved.

That is the natural process. If that is the natural process, then that means we are inherently about love and therefore, Good. If we are about Good, there can be no room for any inherent evil theory that you are proposing.

Your reasoning seems to be:
--> People can’t be born without empathy,

True. Empathy or lack thereof is usually learned.

so
--> Psychopaths are always made by childhood abuse,

Yes.

so
--> If we find no proof of abuse in a psychopath’s childhood, it is either because it is hidden from us or because we didn’t look deeply enough

Yes.

See the problem in your reasoning?

No. I think it is very logical.

You always start with the premise that psychopathy can’t possibly be genetic, without argument.

When, how, or who would be an example then?

I say we know the brain can be born unhealthy (see autism, schizophrenia, etc…),

Yes. Organic conditions. Not necessarily unhealthy. Just different! Unhealthy, for the purposes of our discussion, would be a bending of that behavior to hurt another individual, and society at large. You are still equating organic brain disorders with antisocial disorders. Someone with an organic brain disorder might lack traditional empathy (autism), but they are not any more likely to become a sociopath--and maybe even less likely--than anyone else. Becoming a sociopath depends on their environment, just like everyone else.

that empathy is controlled by some area of the brain,

Empathy is inherent in us as humans, I agree. How much that is turned on or off is a product of our personalities and genes. Beyond that, behavior learned via environment.

and we know of no reason why that area of the brain would be magically protected from malformation

It might not be, especially illustrated by autism.

So we should at least consider the possibility that babies can be born psychopaths unless proven otherwise.

You are making too big a leap. Lacking empathy or not being strongly empathic is not what makes a psychopath. Psychopaths lack empathy, yes, but something else causes them to lack empathy. It is a fallacy to assume that lacking empathy makes a psychopath, just because psychopaths lack empathy. And that 'something else' that causes their lack of empathy, also causes them to become antisocial at high rates. Antisocial is not just lacking empathy, it's wanting to inflict harm, and lacking conscience for doing so.

Have you read that article I posted? If you have, what do you think of Michael?

Sorry, no. Can you relink? :cheese:

Just because I know children in healthy environment that are not antisocial doesn't mean antisocial children in healthy environment can't exist.

I'd have to see it and have an awesome source, looking specifically for the presence or absence of abuse, to believe it.

But yeah, I know the idea that some kids are born incapable of feeling love or compassion isn't pretty.

If someone is born lacking this organically, then that is sad. Just like any genetic disorder is sad.

But what is even sadder is when normal kids are exploited and lose their God given right to easily feel love and compassion.



Armor can be rebuilt. Which is a testament to God's genius in how he made our psyches. All it takes to rebuild a healthy armor is love, healthy relationship (s), and consciousness that God can heal you. I doubt it's easy, which is unfortunately a huge part of the perpetuation of the problem, as humans are also inclined to economic efficiency, which doesn't necessarily lend itself to quality of life issues, especially those you have to work at.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
We are all born with the capability of doing evil. It's whether that gets turned on or not in certain individuals.

It's like a person has a certain amount of natural armor (biology/genes), and then you have your environment either building that up (with nurturing), or tearing that down (with ANA); then you have the Devil and the evil of the world (other emotionally ill humans) actively finding weaknesses in the armor than can be destroyed, leaving one especially vulnerable.
To prove there was no abuse is nearly impossible though. The only way to really get to the bottom of it is to either do IN DEPTH analysis with trained therapists specifically focused on assessing the presence or absence of child abuse, and in what forms; or doing prospective studies correlating mental well-being and environment. This is not fallacious thinking, Mal. Random folks who have no real understanding of child development (or abuse themselves!) saying that so-and-so ax murderer wasn't abused is just completely ridiculous, when I know otherwise from observing, studying, and experiencing normal human development.

I'm not saying that it's all biological, although it may be. I'm saying that there are born psychopaths. Perhaps if you can identify one early on, and if there are techniques for creating empathy when the brain has no innate facility for creating that kind of response, then I agree with you. But the ability to even identify such cases early on is still in its infancy. Psychologists have to work past the belief that it can't happen to children.

So this random person is asking that you prove that such and such ax murderer was abused as a child. Pulling rank on me (a fallacy called "appeal to authority") won't help your case, although I'm sure you are surrounded by people at work who hold to the very same credo as you and also have years of experience in the therapy field. I would like to ask you to count the number of therapists (not random folk) who you know believe, and then ask yourself if it's logical to extrapolate from that small number to the thousands of trained and experienced therapists out there while you act as if agreement on this point is almost unanimous (a fallacy known as "ad populorum").
 

ZPowers

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
1,488
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
I should mention that Bundy was not psychotic or sociopathic. He had antisocial personality disorder.

I'm having trouble finding a definitive difference. The only half guesses I've found after looking around a bit are sociopaths/psychopaths have more a slightly intense cases of ASPD (I think Bundy would qualify here) and sociopaths/psychopaths are more prone toward criminal impulses (again, Bundy qualifies) and something about how ASPD can sometimes be learned from being with a bad group while socioathy/psychopathy is developed within one individual (Bundy acted alone, so he'd probably qualify for both labels by that measure).

None of these differences seemed very heavily agreed upon. What, in your estimation, is the difference between antisocial and sociopath?
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm having trouble finding a definitive difference. The only half guesses I've found after looking around a bit are sociopaths/psychopaths have more a slightly intense cases of ASPD (I think Bundy would qualify here) and sociopaths/psychopaths are more prone toward criminal impulses (again, Bundy qualifies) and something about how ASPD can sometimes be learned from being with a bad group while socioathy/psychopathy is developed within one individual (Bundy acted alone, so he'd probably qualify for both labels by that measure).

None of these differences seemed very heavily agreed upon. What, in your estimation, is the difference between antisocial and sociopath?

I'm sure someone will correct me on this, but the main distinction is the age of onset of the respective disorders.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm not saying that it's all biological, although it may be. I'm saying that there are born psychopaths. Perhaps if you can identify one early on, and if there are techniques for creating empathy when the brain has no innate facility for creating that kind of response, then I agree with you. But the ability to even identify such cases early on is still in its infancy. Psychologists have to work past the belief that it can't happen to children.

So this random person is asking that you prove that such and such ax murderer was abused as a child. Pulling rank on me (a fallacy called "appeal to authority") won't help your case, although I'm sure you are surrounded by people at work who hold to the very same credo as you and also have years of experience in the therapy field. I would like to ask you to count the number of therapists (not random folk) who you know believe, and then ask yourself if it's logical to extrapolate from that small number to the thousands of trained and experienced therapists out there while you act as if agreement on this point is almost unanimous (a fallacy known as "ad populorum").

Children are not born psychopaths.

Not sure if you read all my post, because you only quoted a tiny amount of it, but I think I made a pretty good argument for that which your response here fails to address. If you care to carry on this conversation with me, I need you to address all my points in my last post.

I don't really want to get carried away in a fallacy exegesis here. I can look up fallacies on wiki just like you can. ;) I think you are using a straw man fallacy to deter from the validity of my argument. So there. :tongue10:
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Children are not born psychopaths.

Not sure if you read all my post, because you only quoted a tiny amount of it, but I think I made a pretty good argument for that which your response here fails to address. If you care to carry on this conversation with me, I need you to address all my points in my last post.

I don't really want to get carried away in a fallacy exegesis here. I can look up fallacies on wiki just like you can. ;) I think you are using a straw man fallacy to deter from the validity of my argument. So there. :tongue10:

I didn't read the part not addressed to me. You'll just have to ask Michael if he was born a psychopath. Wait, that case doesn't count because something MUST have happened to him at an early age, correct? Correct.

I'll admit that some fallacies I listed aren't formal fallacies, therefore they don't prove you wrong. So I'll list one on that is a formal fallacy - circular reasoning. I also sense evasion - the fact that you don't want to count the exact number of therapists who you know believe what you believe and report the number here, and then bowing out of the convo because - as I almost always do - I only quoted what I wanted to address. I thought I quoted the entire part addressed to me and not that other guy. Why should I respond to something that wasn't a response to me?

"(or abuse themselves!) saying that so-and-so ax murderer wasn't abused is just completely ridiculous, when I know otherwise from observing, studying, and experiencing normal human development."

"...just completely ridiculous" is not an argument, although it could be considered an attempt to bully someone into agreeing with you. And observing normal human development is not the topic here. Abnormal human development is the topic here.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Looking back in the thread I see that I did quote the part addressed to me. And I had also read the part about freewill. If freewill has biological basis, then it too is prone to the same issue of its existence being dependent upon brain structures.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I didn't read the part not addressed to me. You'll just have to ask Michael if he was born a psychopath. Wait, that case doesn't count because something MUST have happened to him at an early age, correct? Correct.

Well, we'd have to delve for years. Michael probably has a whole host of disorders, including pathological lying.

I'll admit that some fallacies I listed aren't formal fallacies, therefore they don't prove you wrong. So I'll list one on that is a formal fallacy - circular reasoning. I also sense evasion - the fact that you don't want to count the exact number of therapists who you know believe what you believe and report the number here, and then bowing out of the convo because - as I almost always do - I only quoted what I wanted to address. I thought I quoted the entire part addressed to me and not that other guy. Why should I respond to something that wasn't a response to me?

My reasoning regarding our innate good was not circular logic. It was quite solid, which is likely why you don't refer to it. :dry:

"...just completely ridiculous" is not an argument, although it could be considered an attempt to bully someone into agreeing with you. And observing normal human development is not the topic here. Abnormal human development is the topic here.

I'm embellishing and adding emphasis. There is nothing wrong with that. That was just an aside, it wasn't part of my argument. lol.

I am not a therapist and I don't have much experience with abnormal human development, though I wish someone would enlighten me. ;)

But I DO KNOW normal development and I can deduce from that correlaries regarding abnormal development and its sequelea.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, we'd have to delve for years. Michael probably has a whole host of disorders, including pathological lying.

My reasoning regarding our innate good was not circular logic. It was quite solid, which is likely why you don't refer to it. :dry:

It's paranoid to suggest that I'm ignoring something you wrote based on the fact that I didn't refer to it. I only just read it (while I'm busy handing out damn payroll checks), as I was expecting noutou to respond to his own without me jumping in the middle. That's likely why I didn't refer to it. :dry:

I see you also mention ideas such as your belief in God and Divine Determinism, a theory that makes all human effort fruitless. And you say it has something to do with your behavioral theory of child development, and free-will. But DD and free-will are thoroughly incompatible.

I'm embellishing and adding emphasis. There is nothing wrong with that. That was just an aside, it wasn't part of my argument. lol.

I did say it wasn't an argument. But if it doesn't add to the discussion, then what is it for?

I am not a therapist and I don't have much experience with abnormal human development, though I wish someone would enlighten me. ;)

But I DO KNOW normal development and I can deduce from that correlaries regarding abnormal development and its sequelea.

You do know technical terms such as "sequelea" [sic] which I normally only hear when I'm working around doctors. But I don't see what good theory could possibly come from A. ignoring case studies, and B. extrapolating from normal development which you have experience with, to abnormal development which you don't have much experience with.
 

Nuttou

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
17
Because humans have free will. They can choose to harm each other, help each other, or do nothing.
No one is born immune to corruption. See above. It's about quality and quantity of armor we each have.
But why do they have the temptation to do evil in the first place? Why don’t they all choose to be good? Why do we even need that “natural armor” to keep us from evil?

This debate can go on for very long, since it seems to have turned theological. I just don’t believe people are born for a reason. Life happens because it can. To me, that’s the beauty of nature: its complete chaos and unpredictability. It has no plan or motive, it just is, and we can only study what is the cause behind a natural phenomenon.
But I certainly can’t disprove Divine Determinism, and won’t try, so as we are stuck, I propose we move on here, if it’s ok with you? :)

Genes. This is organic brain chemical [dis]orders I'm referring to. Schizophrenia (which is completely organic, which I'm still not convinced about personally, due to lack of knowledge of this specific disorder), and autism, etc., just color an individual differently, and make our interaction with them different than 'normal' people. Kind of like how Down's Syndrome children have a disorder, but still have a good purpose to serve in life and society.

Organic disorders are much rarer than behavioral disorders. DSM lumps them together, erring on the side of saying behavioral disorders are organic. This is utter nonsense, and illustrative of just how ignorant we as a people are regarding the causation of mental illness.
Again, you say “this is utter nonsense” without justification. Why can’t psychopathy be organic, if schizophrenia and autism are? It all about how much empathy an individual can feel, and the empathy center is situated in the brain.

Primitive brains (which is all babies have when they are born) seek only one thing: To be nurtured and taken care of in their own best interests. A mother's interests don't matter! A father's interests don't matter! Parents naturally should not only sacrifice for their babies, and children (until they are independent), but they are programmed to love them. Ask any mother or father carrying a baby (who isn't mentally ill) and she will tell you she loves her baby with her whole heart. That becomes even stronger at birth, and as the baby grows. That love is rather irrational if you think about it. It's all to grow a healthy new person. If that happens, that new person will not want to behave in antisocial ways, because it won't feel good. What feels good is to love and be loved.

That is the natural process. If that is the natural process, then that means we are inherently about love and therefore, Good. If we are about Good, there can be no room for any inherent evil theory that you are proposing.
Actually not all mothers (and fathers) fall in love with their babies at first sight, even though most of them do. These women aren’t necessarily diagnosticated with mental illness. But I suppose you’ll answer they must be ill anyway.
Whatever, here again you say all babies are born programmed to love and be loved, and would never turn bad if that need is nurtured, but this is the whole point of our discussion. I think it is possible that some people are not that way.
This is the natural process, you say, but nature is imperfect, so there is room for “my inherent evil theory”. Though I must note that I’m not entirely comfortable with using the word “evil” here, which has connotations I don’t like very much, but if you insist I suppose it doesn’t really matter in the end.

True. Empathy or lack thereof is usually learned.
Ah. So everyone is born without empathy, but motherly love teaches it to us, and so neglected children never know it? Is that it?
Anyway, here again you make a statement without justifying it. I see no reason why empathy can’t be something inherent to the personality (by which I mean people are either born with it or born without it). Actually, there *must* be something about it that is inherent, making it more or less receptive to the environment.
And don’t forget, I’m not arguing environment doesn’t have an impact on the child’s mental health, I am merely questioning your assumption that people can’t be born psychopaths (lacking that thing which permits us to feel empathy toward others).

The problem with your reasoning that I’m trying to point out is that you seem stuck in a circle. You start with a premise that isn’t a universal truth, and then build your whole argument upon it, stating the same thing again and again, getting to a conclusion, and then using that conclusion to justify your premise. This is getting us nowhere.
Fact is, it is very difficult to *prove* there has been no abuse or neglect in an antisocial person’s early years. We can just point out to cases where there is absolutely no reason to think otherwise, and these won’t satisfy you.
But you can’t prove such abuse has occurred in every such case either. So I think the possibility that these people are simply born without empathy exists and must be considered.
Generally, I think it would be dangerous to just assume abuse has occurred each time a psychopath is found, without proof, because it puts his/her family (the parents above all) in such a damning position.

This is the link I posted earlier: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/m...ear-old-a-psychopath.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
It is about a young psychopathic boy, Michael, raised in what seems to be a very healthy environment.

Lacking empathy or not being strongly empathic is not what makes a psychopath. Psychopaths lack empathy, yes, but something else causes them to lack empathy. It is a fallacy to assume that lacking empathy makes a psychopath, just because psychopaths lack empathy. And that 'something else' that causes their lack of empathy, also causes them to become antisocial at high rates. Antisocial is not just lacking empathy, it's wanting to inflict harm, and lacking conscience for doing so.
So you concede it is a possibility that some people are born without the possibility to be empathetic, but you still think this isn’t the case with psychopath because something else causes their lack of empathy? Why?
1) Psychopaths are not all violent. Actually if you believe some statistics, we all should have a psychopath amongst our general acquaintances. It could even be your boyfriend, only you won’t know it because they spend their whole life learning how to hide it from society.
2) It hasn’t been proven that psychopaths that turn out violent necessarily come from unhealthy environments. Again, why should we justify their terrible acts with a bad childhood even without proof? It may be so, perhaps they have all been awfully abused and we just don’t know it. But then it may be not, perhaps it was just the way they are. If they lack empathy for their victim, they won’t feel guilty about what they are doing to them, so this isn’t going to hold them back. Didn’t Ted Bundy say something about liking the sensation of power it gave him? I remember him saying in a quote that he was feeling like God in those moments when he was looking at his victim’s eyes and could see the fear there, and then watch as life leave them. Something like that.
3) “Antisocial” isn’t necessarily “wanting to inflict harm”.
4) “It is a fallacy to assume that lacking empathy makes a psychopath, just because psychopaths lack empathy” Even if lacking empathy isn’t enough to make a psychopath, those other traits can also be inherent, which is the whole point.

So yeah, I think it is possible that some people are born without natural empathy and without ways of growing out some. These people would be psychopathic (depending on your definition), though not necessarily violent ones.

If someone is born lacking this organically, then that is sad. Just like any genetic disorder is sad.

But what is even sadder is when normal kids are exploited and lose their God given right to easily feel love and compassion.
Both idea are depressing, there is really no point in finding out which is saddest.
 

Nuttou

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
17
It's paranoid to suggest that I'm ignoring something you wrote based on the fact that I didn't refer to it. I only just read it (while I'm busy handing out damn payroll checks), as I was expecting noutou to respond to his own without me jumping in the middle. That's likely why I didn't refer to it. :dry:
I was busy :). And I'm a girl!
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Yet another logical fallacy. That one is called begging the question.

Someone would be born to do evil because of innate problem areas in the brain related to a lack of inhibitory mechanisms and no innate predisposition toward emotional empathy.

Now you will ask me to prove that abuse didn't exist in cases like Bundy's, or of Michael in the other story. But that is once again the argument from ignorance because it puts the burden on those claiming a negative. And since I can't prove that abuse didn't happen, somehow your theory is proved by arbitrary fiat.

But all your years of counselling experience can't prove that abuse always existed in your patients or clients, especially when the possibility of planting false memories has been proven to exist. That one doubt is all it takes to disprove your theory.

Why does evil exist at all? Why isn’t everyone born immune to corruption? Why are some people born with mental or physical illness? Why is everything in the world not beautiful or perfect? People are just born the way they are, there is no hidden motive or great plan behind it all. A natural phenomenon has a cause but no reason unless humans have a say in the matter.

Your reasoning seems to be:
--> People can’t be born without empathy, so
--> Psychopaths are always made by childhood abuse, so
--> If we find no proof of abuse in a psychopath’s childhood, it is either because it is hidden from us or because we didn’t look deeply enough
See the problem in your reasoning? You always start with the premise that psychopathy can’t possibly be genetic, without argument. And then try to make everything else fit this assumption. Saying you *know* something to be true isn't enough to convince people (or make it so).
I say we know the brain can be born unhealthy (see autism, schizophrenia, etc…), that empathy is controlled by some area of the brain, and we know of no reason why that area of the brain would be magically protected from malformation or simply from being underdeveloped. So we should at least consider the possibility that babies can be born psychopaths unless proven otherwise.

Have you read that article I posted? If you have, what do you think of Michael?


Just because I know children in healthy environment that are not antisocial doesn't mean antisocial children in healthy environment can't exist.

But yeah, I know the idea that some kids are born incapable of feeling love or compassion isn't pretty.

But why do they have the temptation to do evil in the first place? Why don’t they all choose to be good? Why do we even need that “natural armor” to keep us from evil?

This debate can go on for very long, since it seems to have turned theological. I just don’t believe people are born for a reason. Life happens because it can. To me, that’s the beauty of nature: its complete chaos and unpredictability. It has no plan or motive, it just is, and we can only study what is the cause behind a natural phenomenon.
But I certainly can’t disprove Divine Determinism, and won’t try, so as we are stuck, I propose we move on here, if it’s ok with you? :)


Again, you say “this is utter nonsense” without justification. Why can’t psychopathy be organic, if schizophrenia and autism are? It all about how much empathy an individual can feel, and the empathy center is situated in the brain.


Actually not all mothers (and fathers) fall in love with their babies at first sight, even though most of them do. These women aren’t necessarily diagnosticated with mental illness. But I suppose you’ll answer they must be ill anyway.
Whatever, here again you say all babies are born programmed to love and be loved, and would never turn bad if that need is nurtured, but this is the whole point of our discussion. I think it is possible that some people are not that way.
This is the natural process, you say, but nature is imperfect, so there is room for “my inherent evil theory”. Though I must note that I’m not entirely comfortable with using the word “evil” here, which has connotations I don’t like very much, but if you insist I suppose it doesn’t really matter in the end.


Ah. So everyone is born without empathy, but motherly love teaches it to us, and so neglected children never know it? Is that it?
Anyway, here again you make a statement without justifying it. I see no reason why empathy can’t be something inherent to the personality (by which I mean people are either born with it or born without it). Actually, there *must* be something about it that is inherent, making it more or less receptive to the environment.
And don’t forget, I’m not arguing environment doesn’t have an impact on the child’s mental health, I am merely questioning your assumption that people can’t be born psychopaths (lacking that thing which permits us to feel empathy toward others).

The problem with your reasoning that I’m trying to point out is that you seem stuck in a circle. You start with a premise that isn’t a universal truth, and then build your whole argument upon it, stating the same thing again and again, getting to a conclusion, and then using that conclusion to justify your premise. This is getting us nowhere.
Fact is, it is very difficult to *prove* there has been no abuse or neglect in an antisocial person’s early years. We can just point out to cases where there is absolutely no reason to think otherwise, and these won’t satisfy you.
But you can’t prove such abuse has occurred in every such case either. So I think the possibility that these people are simply born without empathy exists and must be considered.
Generally, I think it would be dangerous to just assume abuse has occurred each time a psychopath is found, without proof, because it puts his/her family (the parents above all) in such a damning position.

This is the link I posted earlier: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/m...ear-old-a-psychopath.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
It is about a young psychopathic boy, Michael, raised in what seems to be a very healthy environment.


So you concede it is a possibility that some people are born without the possibility to be empathetic, but you still think this isn’t the case with psychopath because something else causes their lack of empathy? Why?
1) Psychopaths are not all violent. Actually if you believe some statistics, we all should have a psychopath amongst our general acquaintances. It could even be your boyfriend, only you won’t know it because they spend their whole life learning how to hide it from society.
2) It hasn’t been proven that psychopaths that turn out violent necessarily come from unhealthy environments. Again, why should we justify their terrible acts with a bad childhood even without proof? It may be so, perhaps they have all been awfully abused and we just don’t know it. But then it may be not, perhaps it was just the way they are. If they lack empathy for their victim, they won’t feel guilty about what they are doing to them, so this isn’t going to hold them back. Didn’t Ted Bundy say something about liking the sensation of power it gave him? I remember him saying in a quote that he was feeling like God in those moments when he was looking at his victim’s eyes and could see the fear there, and then watch as life leave them. Something like that.
3) “Antisocial” isn’t necessarily “wanting to inflict harm”.
4) “It is a fallacy to assume that lacking empathy makes a psychopath, just because psychopaths lack empathy” Even if lacking empathy isn’t enough to make a psychopath, those other traits can also be inherent, which is the whole point.

So yeah, I think it is possible that some people are born without natural empathy and without ways of growing out some. These people would be psychopathic (depending on your definition), though not necessarily violent ones.


Both idea are depressing, there is really no point in finding out which is saddest.

You just sound like you are trying to intellectualize this, enslaved to some ego fixation you have about needing to believe that someone can be born bad.

I have stated my strong beliefs about it. I really haven't the heart to argue about it any further right now. To me, it's extremely obvious. People are inherently good. They LEARN to BE bad. It's that simple.

:hug: I don't mean to be cranky. I just don't like going in circles. Especially online. It just seems like a waste of time. Doesn't it?
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You just sound like you are trying to intellectualize this, enslaved to some ego fixation you have about needing to believe that someone can be born bad.

I have stated my strong beliefs about it. I really haven't the heart to argue about it any further right now. To me, it's extremely obvious. People are inherently good. They LEARN to BE bad. It's that simple.

:hug: I don't mean to be cranky. I just don't like going in circles. Especially online. It just seems like a waste of time. Doesn't it?

I LEARNED that someone can be born bad. But if you truly believe that it's all in the nurturing, then people aren't born good or bad, they are neutral until their environment influences them one way or the other.
 
Top