Note that I'm intending to clarify your position only in this post, not trying to argue that it is right or wrong.
May I ask what you think about sociopaths who are non-violent? It's well documented that there are people who display virtually no empathy for fellow human beings without actually behaving (outwardly or physically) violently the way Ted Bundy did. Psychologists estimates for the number of people whom are sociopaths range from about 1 to 3% of the total population. Most of these people don't murder or rape, but also wouldn't feel remorse if they did. Do you feel they are all victims of trauma, or only excessively violent types like Bundy?
I'd say that the numbers of children who suffer abuse/neglect/abandonment [hereafter referred to as ANA by me
] is much higher than 1-3%. I'd say that I could see 1-3% being severe ANA, including incest and multiple forms of abuse, or perhaps chronic, daily trauma, versus occasional severe trauma. Yes, I feel like all sociopaths, psychopaths, antisocials, BPD, addictions, etc., are victims of trauma in some way, shape, or form; with the more atrocious sociopaths (serial killers) probably sustaining daily intense trauma, with a linearly proportionate relationship between their crimes and their history of trauma.
Do you think it's at least partially genetic? There are many children who are raised with heavy abuse or in terrible homes who do grow up to be great or at least decent people. There must be some innate difference between people like Billie Holiday, Oprah Winfrey and Bill Clinton (or the millions of good people in the world who had dark times in childhood, as dark or darker than many killer's) and people like Ted Bundy, mustn't there?
I said genes might be a predisposing factor, yes. Just as genes can predispose one to physical ailments. Genes can be combined in such a way that more are perhaps "clicked on" for some in the presence of ANA, as it's experienced in varying amounts, versus another individual without the presence of predisposing genes. I do not believe that if you have predisposing genes and ANA you necessarily become antisocial. Yet all those who are antisocial have had ANA in some degree, with or without predisposing genes. At what rate do some escape the most antisocial behaviors? I don't know. Perhaps we could look at the rates of childhood ANA and your sociopathic rate of 1-3% and realize that MOST do not, thankfully, become the worst villains in society. That does not mean they don't leave serious problems in their wake, but it's just not necessarily headline worthy.
Do you believe other types of mental disorder can be totally genetic? Depression, schizophrenia, bipolar illness, narcissism, extreme social anxiety, etc...
Anything that involves mostly brain chemistry/organic basis versus behavior/empathy might be a combination of genes and lifestyle, and not so much an effect of ANA. But those individuals would also not be antisocial.
The antisocial spectrum = ANA in some form and to some degree in childhood.
If you do think those can be totally genetic, is there any specific reason you feel the section of the brain that controls empathy is immune from the same kind of malfunctions that affects the areas that control happiness, stress or even a basic perception of reality?
Response to stress might be somewhat genetic, but, again, you can learn how to respond to stress>it's largely dependent on what is modeled for you, and what behaviors you implement yourself. I think the ability to feel empathy is a function of normal development, and that all our brains have that ability from birth (unless there is some organic malfunction [autism] or retardation, etc.), along with feeling emotions. That is our ego manifestation and it stems from our id and superego development>If our id (earliest sense of self) and superego development (sense of right and wrong) is harmed, then it follows that our ego will not develop normally. This is a different function of our brain than our cognitive functions and primitive drives, yes. The brain is still the most complex mechanism known to man. The brain can turn on and turn off an infinite number of synapses, making a highly individualized and intricate web of expression. Overall, it helps us to
survive. When we learn that others hurt us, especially those closest to us who are supposed to protect us, the brain internalizes this and become antisocial simply in order to survive. No one can be trusted!
I will admit I'm not signed onto your belief here, but part of me I wishes I were. It's a reassuring thing to believe that, at their core, every person, no matter how depraved, is still basically good and only corrupted by the chaos of the world around them (still, I think MOST people are good at their core, even a few that did terrible things).
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? Sure, we are born imperfect, but imperfect is a far cry from doing evil and harming your fellow humans. 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.
Furthermore, once you understand that humans are innately good, but just suffer from the hand of other humans--once you have that consciousness--you can begin to reclaim your buried soul. But this usually takes loving friends, and faith in God as well.
Thanks for talking with me.
