Anti-Personality Society Disorder

[ramin]

Anyone hear the term "Anti-Social Personality Disorder"? Well, why didn't anyone ever come up with the idea that this is really Anti-Personality Society Disorder? Why couldn't it be that Society is abusive towards some inhabitants, and this turns into mental problems for them, such as anger?

 

To resolve this issue we can ask: as "Anti-Social Personality" is shown and known to be influenced by an environmental variable, what is this variable?

[Krul]

Anti-social personality Disorder is "practically" what is simply said "psychopathy".

 

I am sorry to say this so harshly Ramin, but you apparently know nothing of basic psychology.

 

Psychopathy is most often NOT caused by society, it is a anatomic/fysiological difference in the brains compared to the "normal person". Basically it means that the emotional part of the brain is cut off from the logical part of the brain and that the actions of those people are not influenced by any "human" emotions. No love, remorse, pity, not even real anger or real hate.

 

Psychopaths just do not have a "conscience" which works so they will always just do what is the best for themselves. Most psychopaths are not real criminals, there is no need to commit crimes if you can have "fun" without committing crimes.

 

 

 

Abuse CAN lead to problems, even problems with anger, but that has nothing to do with APD, or psychopathy. And it is rarely society which causes anger problems, it are individuals who cause psychological damage.

[Coral Rhedd]

Anti-social personality Disorder is "practically" what is simply said "psychopathy".

 

I am sorry to say this so harshly Ramin' date=' but you apparently know nothing of basic psychology.

 

Psychopathy is most often NOT caused by society, it is a anatomic/fysiological difference in the brains compared to the "normal person". Basically it means that the emotional part of the brain is cut off from the logical part of the brain and that the actions of those people are not influenced by any "human" emotions. No love, remorse, pity, not even real anger or real hate.

 

[/quote']

 

Are you saying unequivocally that Antisocial Personality Disorder is wholly genetic?

[ramin]

Are you saying unequivocally that Antisocial Personality Disorder is wholly genetic[/b']?

 

 

Coral, do such posts as these where people fully dismiss the importance of the environment not prove my point of the illogical emergence of genetic determinism in current psychology? I mean, look at the proposterous tone of the above post, all justified with reference to "psychology."

[Coral Rhedd]

Coral, do such posts as these where people fully dismiss the importance of the environment not prove my point of the illogical emergence of genetic determinism in current psychology? I mean, look at the proposterous tone of the above post, all justified with reference to "psychology."

 

Let's allow Krul time to respond.

[ramin]

Anti-social personality Disorder is "practically" what is simply said "psychopathy".

 

I am sorry to say this so harshly Ramin' date=' but you apparently know nothing of basic psychology.

 

Psychopathy is most often NOT caused by society, it is a anatomic/fysiological difference in the brains compared to the "normal person". Basically it means that the emotional part of the brain is cut off from the logical part of the brain and that the actions of those people are not influenced by any "human" emotions. No love, remorse, pity, not even real anger or real hate.

 

Psychopaths just do not have a "conscience" which works so they will always just do what is the best for themselves. Most psychopaths are not real criminals, there is no need to commit crimes if you can have "fun" without committing crimes.

 

 

 

Abuse CAN lead to problems, even problems with anger, but that has nothing to do with APD, or psychopathy. And it is rarely society which causes anger problems, it are individuals who cause psychological damage.[/quote']

 

Krul, I admit you know contemporary psychology very well. But I'm afraid the principles you've been taught have not much to do with the real world. As you know, psychology is in the phase of genetic discovery and is a young science. You should not dismiss ideas simply because they are ahead of time.

 

However, it is rather an overstatement to say you know much about even contemporary psychology. A genetic behaviorist would say that you have misinterpreted their data.

 

Do you want me to find you literature that shows people who were prone to develop APD did not develop it in normal families?

 

Your defense of society implies that you are patriotic without being critical.

 

Is this true?

 

 

Furthermore, it is great that you bring physiological evidence for your idea. However, wouldn't you say that the pathway psycho-physiology takes depends on the pathway supported in the environment?

 

So I may be prone to a disorder given that I am abused or isolated.

 

This would imply the importance of the environment, rather than genetics, because the genetics are manifest given a bad environment. And bad environments are easily changable.

 

Now do you get the logic, or is it not true solely because you are rude enough to outrightly dismiss differing views?

 

Difference, is not the same as disorder, as your analysis of emotional differences would entail.

[ramin]

Let's allow Krul time to respond.

 

Whether he responds or not does not change the fact that he flat-out dismissed me and accused me of knowing nothing about psychology.

 

That's political determinism for ya (trust me Coral, it exists, and strongly).

[Krul]

If you take the time to read carefully you can see that I do NOT say that APD is genetically determined. What I say is that psychopathy is caused by a variety of factors in which the anatomy and fysiology ( which are NOT genetic necessary ) are the most important.

 

 

There has been found no single genome or combination of genomes at this time which causes APD, so you will not hear me say so.

 

All recent research not financed by religious or other extremist factions has indicated that the vast majority of psychopaths do not have a childhood history of abuse, they have been not neglected, not been beaten, nor have they witnessed traumatic events.

 

 

What I think you are doing is take the Hollywood myth of the psychopath instead of the real thing. Although most serial killers are psychopath's only a small percentage of psychopaths are serial killers. One of the theories which is strongly supported by logic and facts is that serial killers are insane psychopaths and that their insanity is most often caused by serious mental trauma from their childhood.

 

So serial killers ARE probably "created" by psychological neglect/abuse in their childhood.

 

However psychopathy is NOT caused by psychological neglect/abuse in any way. Your brain structure does not suddenly change because you ar ebeing yelled at..........

 

 

 

As you mention Ramin, environmental factors are certainly important and might be decisive in the "creation" of a psychopath, but those environmental factors are nutrients, radiowaves, pollution etc etc. YOU name the most important factor in your first post and your theory as ABUSE from society. And that is incorrect because there are psychopaths which have not been abused.

 

 

If abuse were the most important factor all/most psychopaths would show a history of abuse, this is not true, so your theory is either incorrect or incomplete.

 

 

 

What I think you have done is make a conclusion too fast, just like what you have apparently done about my first post in this thread. I say that is it not caused by psychological problems and you assume that;

A. I think it is genetic ( wrong )

B. That I am a patriot ( wrong, I am not an american nor a patriot )

C. That I am political driven ( I support no party )

 

 

You just do no take the time to consider all possible factors it appears to me.

[reverse]

Ahh the good old “nature versus nurture” debate again.

I never get tired of it, no matter how many disguises it presents itself in.

 

How about this:

 

latent physical dispositions may express themselves given the right environmental triggers, and overt physical dispositions will exert themselves no matter what.

 

Huh?

[Auburngirl05]

 

latent physical dispositions may express themselves given the right environmental triggers

Kind of a "genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger" scenario? That's the way I've always viewed the nature versus nurture issue in general,(although I believe some things are more influenced by one or the other).

[ramin]

If you take the time to read carefully you can see that I do NOT say that APD is genetically determined. What I say is that psychopathy is caused by a variety of factors in which the anatomy and fysiology ( which are NOT genetic necessary ) are the most important.

 

Ok, let's see if you have any proof of nature being more important than nurture in this case...

 

 

All recent research not financed by religious or other extremist factions has indicated that the vast majority of psychopaths do not have a childhood history of abuse, they have been not neglected, not been beaten, nor have they witnessed traumatic events.

 

Be careful what you claim on here, furthermore watch out for playing semantic games with me, because this is a science forum where people have empirical evidence sometimes very handy, and I'm good at finding out when someone is playing semantic games. I explicitly stated that SOCIETY IS ABUSIVE NECESSARILY for the disorder, which can include isolation of the whole family, arbitrary conditions for dignity, lack of communication, influencing a lack of good parental motivation, labeling, and does not mean only parental abuse.

 

Yet, you attempted to redefine abuse to be limited to childhood physical abuse or the witnessing of abuse. Second, your claim that parenting has nothing to do with the majority of cases is unfounded (without evidence) and false:

 

1- Research has shown that ASP disorder does not develop in caring families, and I will be able to give you references if you don't believe me

 

2- Here's a reference for increased risk of ASP disorder based on physical abuse and childhood neglect:

 

Johnson, J.G., et. al (1999). Childhood maltreatment increases risk for personality disorders during early adulthood. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 600-606.

 

3- Psychological conclusions can not be based solely on empirical evidence, and you have to be able to argue your position well, which you have not done

 

4- Many cultures do not have the ASP problem

 

5- Psychology is a young science and there are many things it has not researched in order to rule out various explanation

 

 

Watch your deterministic overconfidence, and your claims. Perhaps inquire and argue instead.

 

 

What I think you are doing is take the Hollywood myth of the psychopath instead of the real thing.

 

I don't watch Hollywood shows, sorry.

 

Although most serial killers are psychopath's only a small percentage of psychopaths are serial killers. One of the theories which is strongly supported by logic and facts is that serial killers are insane psychopaths and that their insanity is most often caused by serious mental trauma from their childhood.

 

So serial killers ARE probably "created" by psychological neglect/abuse in their childhood.

 

 

Good, I see you making a distinction. I know about the various manifestations of ASP (or, better, APS). "Trauma" is, as you say, seen to be clearly involved in highly immoral behavior. However, social factors still clearly instigate immoral behavior.

 

However psychopathy is NOT caused by psychological neglect/abuse in any way. Your brain structure does not suddenly change because you ar ebeing yelled at..........

 

Yelled at? Who said anything about being yelled at as being a cause? Various social factors.

 

 

As you mention Ramin, environmental factors are certainly important and might be decisive in the "creation" of a psychopath, but those environmental factors are nutrients, radiowaves, pollution etc etc. YOU name the most important factor in your first post and your theory as ABUSE from society.

 

They're both highly important.

 

And that is incorrect because there are psychopaths which have not been abused.

 

What do you mean abused? You can't always see abuse, and abuse can take on various forms.

 

For example, I can be tortured by a parent;

 

or, I may be raised to believe in certain rights, and those things might be taken from me when I'm older and thus I'd go through the same psychological steps incrementally, and via different information pathways.

 

A. I think it is genetic ( wrong )

 

Good, so you admit it there is a necessary social component?

 

B. That I am a patriot ( wrong, I am not an american nor a patriot )

C. That I am political driven ( I support no party )

 

Then why defend deficient society so much?

[ramin]

Kind of a "genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger" scenario? That's the way I've always viewed the nature versus nurture issue in general,(although I believe some things are more influenced by one or the other).

 

You don't have to accept them, but there are other perspectives out there. The new science, cogntive science, which arbuably has more research and inference flexibility, claims "situated cognition," that the situation is far more important for cognitive processes (therefore also cognitive disorders) than it has been claimed by psychology.

 

Also, we can't say genetics and environment are always equally important. Take this thought experiment:

 

A society has a very low prevalence of mental disorder. However, this leader takes over and starts torturing its citizens physically and emotionally, as well as withholding healthy foods despite their abundance.

After this, one third of the citizens become mentally ill while two thirds don't. Sure, their genes are "better." But first of all they are better given those particular situations, and how much does it matter anyway when what's triggered the illnesses is a ruthless madman?

[ramin]

Ahh the good old “nature versus nurture” debate again.

I never get tired of it' date=' no matter how many disguises it presents itself in.

 

How about this:

 

latent physical dispositions may express themselves given the right environmental triggers, and overt physical dispositions will exert themselves no matter what.

 

Huh?[/quote']

 

Despite the "simplistic beauty" of what you are attempting to say, it has numerous rebuttals. See the response to Auburngirl05 for an example.

[Krul]

Victims of documented childhood abuse or neglect were more than four times as likely as those who were not abused or neglected to be diagnosed with personality disorders during early adulthood, after age, parental education and parental psychopathology were controlled statistically. Different types of childhood maltreatment were associated with symptoms of specific personality disorders during early adulthood.

 

These findings support other evidence indicating that childhood abuse and neglect may contribute to the onset of some personality disorders.

 

That is the conclusion of Johnson's research. As you can see he talks about personality disorders in GENERAL, not about 1 specific disorder like APD. So any numbers he gives are pointless because they are not based upon APD, which we are talking about.......

 

Further like most researches his forgets the cause-causality theory. Imagine a very very violent child who destroys everything in the house. Now later it turns out he was abused by his parents, did they start abusing him ( beating him e.g. ) BECAUSE he was so violent or did he become violent because they beat him? The conclusions about the cause of his violent behaviour would be as different as day and night.........

 

 

I explicitly stated that SOCIETY IS ABUSIVE NECESSARILY for the disorder, which can include isolation of the whole family, arbitrary conditions for dignity, lack of communication, influencing a lack of good parental motivation, labeling, and does not mean only parental absuse.

 

Grandiose sense of self-worth

Callous/lack of empathy

Lack of remorse or guilt

Irresponsibility

Pathological lying

 

That are some of the traits of psychopaths as described on the PCL-R of DSMIV. Psychopaths can NOT be labelled by society, first because they couldn't give a **** and second because nobody knows who is a psychopath and who isn't.

Isolation of the family they don't care about, they know no real empathy.

They have a grandious self-esteem, so no dignity problems there.

Parental motivation? They are pathological liars, who care only for themselves.

 

If you have more examples please state them.

 

 

 

1- Research has shown that ASP disorder does not develop in caring families, and I will be able to give you references if you don't believe me

 

Please give me those references, according to O'Hare's research into psychopathic behaviour APD DOES develop in "normal" families. And he is considered the foremost expert of the subject.

 

 

 

About that many cultures do not have APD.......this appears to be the case and I believe that it might indeed be true ( pending further research ). But this says nothing about whether the causes are genetically, sociologically or whatever based.......

 

If it would be genetical then you could say that that gen combination if mostly found in white males, so it could be an "error" on the Y chromosome.

 

If it was sociologically then you could say, "it doesn"t happen there so it must be society.

 

 

Since APD is far more common among white males then any other population group this strongly supports the theory that genetical factors are quite important. White males are the group less subjected to racism/discrimination for society, further they are not exposed to more abuse of any type then any other racial group. So if the main cause of APD is society, then other ethnic groups should show far more APD not?

[ramin]

That is the conclusion of Johnson's research. As you can see he talks about personality disorders in GENERAL, not about 1 specific disorder like APD. So any numbers he gives are pointless because they are not based upon APD, which we are talking about.......

 

Actually they are.

 

Further like most researches his forgets the cause-causality theory. Imagine a very very violent child who destroys everything in the house. Now later it turns out he was abused by his parents, did they start abusing him ( beating him e.g. ) BECAUSE he was so violent or did he become violent because they beat him? The conclusions about the cause of his violent behaviour would be as different as day and night.........

 

Parental environments that even have a threshhold for abusing their child are deficient, whether the child is "highly difficult" or not. Social norms and labels cause parents not to understand their children.

 

 

Here are some alternative explanations that you have not ruled out, and that substantiate my claim:

 

1. Picture this:

 

One child is very "difficult" and "causes" a negative reaction from parents. Indeed, it seems that the child has caused the parental reaction, as a more easy-going child illicits very receptive and warm reactions from the same parent.

 

However, now picture parents #2 who treat their children the same, as a pre-planned arrangement. To be specific, they do not react to the child according to the child him/herself, but they act according to principles that apply to children universally, such as that they are the subject of experiences and behave rationally. Regardless of the behavior of the child, the parent is able to communicate with him/her.

 

The environment of the two above scenarios are clearly different. Yet, you say that it is the child that illicits a reaction. Clearly, the reaction is dependent on the parents' beliefs.

 

Grandiose sense of self-worth

Callous/lack of empathy

Lack of remorse or guilt

Irresponsibility

Pathological lying

 

That are some of the traits of psychopaths as described on the PCL-R of DSMIV. Psychopaths can NOT be labelled by society, first because they couldn't give a **** and second because nobody knows who is a psychopath and who isn't.

Isolation of the family they don't care about, they know no real empathy.

They have a grandious self-esteem, so no dignity problems there.

Parental motivation? They are pathological liars, who care only for themselves.

 

If you have more examples please state them.

 

 

2. a) Regarding labelling, how much do you know about linguistics and the effects of categories in North American culture? These are new perspectives you are not aware of. North American culture is linguitically and socially highly category driven. Things are too often seen in dichotomies. Parents of children will right away label their child as "good" or "bad" and "beautiful" and "not beautiful," in accordance with superficial norms that exist in society. These can easily become self-fullfilling prophecies.

 

2. b) Labels are implicit when someone is kicked out of school or grouped as a delinquent based on their personality. This will have a snowballing effect and make the current personality much more rigid. Go look this up, it pertains to ASP and is even considered a causal pathway to its persistence in adulthood.

 

3. Isolation can be in various ways, such as through socio-economic status, being not taught skills and cared for, improper nutrition, and a very important one, inadequate communication. These all arguably set a habitual delinquent path for kids, and even set their role in society, which can make them very angry inside for the rest of their lives.

 

4. Grandoise self-esteem? Grandiosity comes from insecurity, and insecurity from how people in the social world have treated you in the past.

 

5. a)Parental Motivation. Society can put a label on a family and give it a "status." If this status is that the family is "low-class" in some way, they will not be motivated to treat their child as a worthy person.

 

b) Parents are indoctrinated that "children are bad," or that "for a child to be acceptable, they have to have trait X." Thus, any deviation from the norm will either illicit disappointment, and/or a lack of motivation to spend time and energy on their child.

 

Please give me those references, according to O'Hare's research into psychopathic behaviour APD DOES develop in "normal" families. And he is considered the foremost expert of the subject.

 

Integration in psychology has seldom taken place. Experts are usually experts on a certain angle, furthermore we can not rule out the idea that many researchers, and even the whole academic set up of the West on the whole, does not interpret data to its own benefit, and with its own perspective. In fact, this is shown to be true if you've read sociology.

 

It is up to us to make the data complete and fully sensible.

 

I'll keep my eye out for the reference. Essentially, the research showed that good families (as opposed to your contention of "normal" ones) prevent anti-social personality from developing. Kids at high risk in caring families did NOT develop the disorder.

 

About that many cultures do not have APD.......this appears to be the case and I believe that it might indeed be true ( pending further research ). But this says nothing about whether the causes are genetically, sociologically or whatever based.......

 

If it would be genetical then you could say that that gen combination if mostly found in white males, so it could be an "error" on the Y chromosome.

 

If it was sociologically then you could say, "it doesn"t happen there so it must be society.

 

 

Since APD is far more common among white males then any other population group this strongly supports the theory that genetical factors are quite important. White males are the group less subjected to racism/discrimination for society, further they are not exposed to more abuse of any type then any other racial group. So if the main cause of APD is society, then other ethnic groups should show far more APD not?

 

Here's a different explanation: APD is more prevalent in Caucasian culture in comparison with some other cultures due to the power, moral "high-ground", etc socialized to the race via over-arrogant political institutions and ideologies. These associative powers allow the disorder to develop if parents don't care and control for their kids. This trend will be seen for other societies as long as they are indoctrinated to be superior than others.

 

 

 

If you want your claims to work, you will ofcourse need to be able to respond to social explanations of the same data. Above, you also minimize the dynamic complexity of society.

 

Also, see if this makes sense:

 

Genetic studies do not prove the importance of genetics, only that genes are the cause of the disorder in a particular environment. For example, in an environment where bread is withheld, one will develop ALS depending on their genes. ALS is not a genetic disorder, but is environmental, since the bread is withheld. You are clearly misinterpreting the data.

[Void]

You don't have to accept them' date=' but there are other perspectives out there. The new science, cogntive science, which arbuably has more research and inference flexibility, claims "situated cognition," that the situation is far more important for cognitive processes (therefore also cognitive disorders) than it has been claimed by psychology.

 

Also, we can't say genetics and environment are always equally important. Take this thought experiment:

 

A society has a very low prevalence of mental disorder. However, this leader takes over and starts torturing its citizens physically and emotionally, as well as withholding healthy foods despite their abundance.

After this, one third of the citizens become mentally ill while two thirds don't. Sure, their genes are "better." But first of all they are better given those particular situations, and how much does it matter anyway when what's triggered the illnesses is a ruthless madman?[/quote']

 

All this situated cognition stuff...Ramin, do you think personality exists?

[Void]

Actually they are.

 

 

 

Parental environments that even have a threshhold for abusing their child are deficient' date=' whether the child is "highly difficult" or not. Social norms and labels cause parents not to understand their children.

 

 

Here are some alternative explanations that you have not ruled out, and that substantiate my claim:

 

1. Picture this:

 

One child is very "difficult" and "causes" a negative reaction from parents. Indeed, it seems that the child has caused the parental reaction, as a more easy-going child illicits very receptive and warm reactions from the same parent.

 

However, now picture parents #2 who treat their children the same, as a pre-planned arrangement. To be specific, they do not react to the child according to the child him/herself, but they act according to principles that apply to children universally, such as that they are the subject of experiences and behave rationally. Regardless of the behavior of the child, the parent is able to [i']communicate[/i] with him/her.

 

The environment of the two above scenarios are clearly different. Yet, you say that it is the child that illicits a reaction. Clearly, the reaction is dependent on the parents' beliefs.

 

 

 

 

2. a) Regarding labelling, how much do you know about linguistics and the effects of categories in North American culture? These are new perspectives you are not aware of. North American culture is linguitically and socially highly category driven. Things are too often seen in dichotomies. Parents of children will right away label their child as "good" or "bad" and "beautiful" and "not beautiful," in accordance with superficial norms that exist in society. These can easily become self-fullfilling prophecies.

 

2. b) Labels are implicit when someone is kicked out of school or grouped as a delinquent based on their personality. This will have a snowballing effect and make the current personality much more rigid. Go look this up, it pertains to ASP and is even considered a causal pathway to its persistence in adulthood.

 

3. Isolation can be in various ways, such as through socio-economic status, being not taught skills and cared for, improper nutrition, and a very important one, inadequate communication. These all arguably set a habitual delinquent path for kids, and even set their role in society, which can make them very angry inside for the rest of their lives.

 

4. Grandoise self-esteem? Grandiosity comes from insecurity, and insecurity from how people in the social world have treated you in the past.

 

5. a)Parental Motivation. Society can put a label on a family and give it a "status." If this status is that the family is "low-class" in some way, they will not be motivated to treat their child as a worthy person.

 

b) Parents are indoctrinated that "children are bad," or that "for a child to be acceptable, they have to have trait X." Thus, any deviation from the norm will either illicit disappointment, and/or a lack of motivation to spend time and energy on their child.

 

 

 

Integration in psychology has seldom taken place. Experts are usually experts on a certain angle, furthermore we can not rule out the idea that many researchers, and even the whole academic set up of the West on the whole, does not interpret data to its own benefit, and with its own perspective. In fact, this is shown to be true if you've read sociology.

 

It is up to us to make the data complete and fully sensible.

 

I'll keep my eye out for the reference. Essentially, the research showed that good families (as opposed to your contention of "normal" ones) prevent anti-social personality from developing. Kids at high risk in caring families did NOT develop the disorder.

 

 

 

Here's a different explanation: APD is more prevalent in Caucasian culture in comparison with some other cultures due to the power, moral "high-ground", etc socialized to the race via over-arrogant political institutions and ideologies. These associative powers allow the disorder to develop if parents don't care and control for their kids. This trend will be seen for other societies as long as they are indoctrinated to be superior than others.

 

 

 

If you want your claims to work, you will ofcourse need to be able to respond to social explanations of the same data. Above, you also minimize the dynamic complexity of society.

 

Also, see if this makes sense:

 

Genetic studies do not prove the importance of genetics, only that genes are the cause of the disorder in a particular environment. For example, in an environment where bread is withheld, one will develop ALS depending on their genes. ALS is not a genetic disorder, but is environmental, since the bread is withheld. You are clearly misinterpreting the data.

 

Hold on, Hold on, Are you saying that in particular environments, i.e. ones without bread, genes will determine ALS development?

 

So which came first Ramin, the genes or the Environment? hahaha...

 

You trying to ascribe first cause to the envirionment...sounds a little chicken an egg to me.

[ramin]

All this situated cognition stuff...Ramin, do you think personality exists?

 

 

No, I believe in the self as opposed to personality, and I think it can be established empirically through situated cognition=current definitions of personality. It's an interesting question though. What do you think? Do you think self is not the real personality?

[ramin]

Hold on' date=' Hold on, Are you saying that in particular environments, i.e. ones without bread, genes will determine ALS development?

 

So which came first Ramin, the genes or the Environment? hahaha...

 

You trying to ascribe first cause to the envirionment...sounds a little chicken an egg to me.[/quote']

 

Well that's why psychology can't be a science fully. We can't look at everything scientifically or psychology will be doomed. Scientifically, MAYBE, it is a chicken and egg question. However, even common sense says that if someone is torturing two people and only one of them develops a mental disease, that the environment is more important.

[atinymonkey]

However, even common sense says that if someone is torturing two people and only one of them develops a mental disease, that the environment is more important.

 

However, even common sense says that if someone is torturing two people and none of them develops a mental disease, that the environment is not more important.

 

Mind you, even common sense says that if someone is cooking a pie for two people and only one of them develops a mental disease, that the pie is more important.

 

Although, even common sense says that if someone is talking to two people and only one of them is Superman, then Krypton is more important.

 

But, even common sense says that if someone is two people and only one of them is superman, then the pie is evil.

 

I see your logic. You are right, it is Anti-Piesonality Society Disorder. Cripes

[j_p]

... Since APD is far more common among white males then any other population group this strongly supports the theory that genetical factors are quite important. ...

Well' date=' no, it doesn't. If, as you say, white males experience a different social environment [and I would agree'], the importance of genetic factors is not supported.

 

[i refer to: "White males are the group less subjected to racism/discrimination for society, further they are not exposed to more abuse of any type then any other racial group."]

 

So if the main cause of APD is society, then other ethnic groups should show far more APD not?

Your post ignores that White Males are subject to differ stressors; I refer to the heavy social pressure to succeed. If a woman does not get a promotion, she can comfort herself with assumptions of sexism and a pint of Ben & Jerry's; a white man will not always have external social reasons for a failure.

 

So one could argue that white men in eurocentric societies are more vunerable to APD because of environmental stressors.

 

And don't forget about experimental bias; if most of the group studied is of one group [i.e. white males], the profile developed will reflect the behavior and personality characteristics of that group.

 

Given that males and females are socialized very differently from birth in my society, and how they are socialized, it is only to be expected that fewer females openly demonstrate the traits associated with APD.

[ramin]

However' date=' even common sense says that if someone is torturing two people and none of them develops a mental disease, that the environment is not more important.

 

Mind you, even common sense says that if someone is cooking a pie for two people and only one of them develops a mental disease, that the pie is more important.

 

Although, even common sense says that if someone is talking to two people and only one of them is Superman, then Krypton is more important.

 

But, even common sense says that if someone is two people and only one of them is superman, then the pie is evil.

 

I see your logic. You are right, it [b']is[/b] Anti-Piesonality Society Disorder. Cripes

 

What gives YOU the right to post such a ridiculous post?

 

If you don't have any argument against my common sense argument, don't take me down with you.

[atinymonkey]

What gives YOU the right to post such a ridiculous post?

The same thing that gives any and all forum members to post ridiculous posts, from the fatally flawed theory's to the posts with comic intent. You see you are confusing this forum as your own personal platform, and we would all be the worse for it if it were. The community exists to create a free exchange, a debate or a community.

 

If you don't have any argument against my common sense argument, don't take me down with you.

I do indeed have a problem with you basing your theory on flawed logic. As I think I've demonstrated, your presented evidence does not hold water. Even common sense would dictate that any number of causes lead to sociopathic behavior. However science does not deal with common sense, it deals in logic.

 

Logic can be demonstrated quite simply: -

 

There are three men on a train traveling to Scotland. The first man is an ecologist, the second man is a logician, the third man is a mathematician. They all see a brown cow on the side of the tracks parallel to the train. The ecologist says, "Look! The cows in Scotland are brown". The logician says, "No no, all we can say is there is at least one brown cow in Scotland". The mathematician says, "You're both wrong. There is at least one cow in Scotland of which one side appears to be brown."

 

This shows us Ecologists aren't really scientists, Logicians don't look at the whole picture, so Mathematicians are the smartest.

 

You see how humor helps you learn? Your theory is flawed because of the method used to create it. That's something thats been pointed out to you before, but you use handwaving to move past it. I'm using humor to bring it back to the fore.

[Void]

Thats one cool monkey.

[Sayonara]

This shows us Ecologists aren't really scientists.

It shows that the originator doesn't know anything about ecology.

 

Not that that detracts from the overall point, of course. The role of the ecologist is easily replaced.