Poll for the Armchair Psychologists

[SMK]

Part of the flaw in thinking that children who are abused or not raised under ideal standards may grow up to be personality disordered is this:

Let's say JA is BPD. Her viewpoint about who is supportive of her and who is "abusive" changes from day to day.......and this could have started from when she was very young. JA may have perceived the smallest of slights as things so large they were earth-shattering.

Case in point, JA talked about getting a swat once in a while with her Mom's spoon. To claim that as being a pattern of physical abuse is quite a stretch and yet, to JA it is that intense of an issue.

Parents are not the sole cause for how a child turns out. Genetics are not the sole cause either. There's a lot at play.

But to those who get into a quandry about the genetic aspect and how it is not "fair" and who falsely assume that some posters suggest we should genocide those with disorders is just a ridiculous leap. No one is suggesting that here that I've seen.

Understood. In the case upthread that someone posted, about a little boy who was NOT abused but who set the house on fire to kill his mother, sister, grandmother: IF this is a result of faulty wiring, then it would lead to many people thinking there should be a screening and the fetuses should be aborted. If true, it sounds like the classic "bad seed". (a theory I thought had died in the 1950s)

 

[Linda7NJ]

Understood. In the case upthread that someone posted, about a little boy who was NOT abused but who set the house on fire to kill his mother, sister, grandmother: IF this is a result of faulty wiring, then it would lead to many people thinking there should be a screening and the fetuses should be aborted. If true, it sounds like the classic "bad seed". (a theory I thought had died in the 1950s)

That boy believed he was abused. His mother said they could not get a dog because his sister was allergic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Understood. In the case upthread that someone posted, about a little boy who was NOT abused but who set the house on fire to kill his mother, sister, grandmother: IF this is a result of faulty wiring, then it would lead to many people thinking there should be a screening and the fetuses should be aborted. If true, it sounds like the classic "bad seed". (a theory I thought had died in the 1950s)

BBM: I think your jump to many people thinking genocide is the solution is flawed. People don't think that way. There are many other genetic issues that people could be aborting fetuses for and yet we don't see it as a society in any sort of grand-scale effort.

Additionally, many people do seek help and improvement made for mental health issues.

 

[Emmi]

Nope.

JA is EVIL. Plain and simple.

No mental illness there.

EVIL

That's profound.

Thank you.

 

[Tulessa]

That boy believed he was abused. His mother said they could not get a dog because his sister was allergic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Caring about one siblings health constitutes abuse? Whatttttt??

 

[Gecko100]

That's profound.

Thank you.

Perception is everything when it becomes subjective experience, particularly a child's subjective experience.

It's less so when applying objective principles.

There is a desperate need for both. To rely on subjective thought from one website alone is really not objective, so I don't.

It doesn't make me bad or mad or sad, just more objectively principled, despite suffering from a mental illness.

 

[Gecko100]

Ugh the arguing on this thread is getting really painful to read.

We can't we all be here to SHARE theories instread of IMPOSE theories.


Take care guys. Xo

Not sure what that actually means.
Nobody is imposing anything, or we wouldn't be holding such different beliefs would we? You don't feel swayed and I don't feel swayed, so how can either be argued to be an 'imposition'?
Nobody is 'arguing' that I can see, we are simply stating our positions like you do and every single other person does.
It's not even remotely personal, it's an anonymous forum in cyberspace to debate merits or otherwise of public news.
I also believe I am very generous with theories as well. I have mentioned Maslow, Kholberg, Jung, Piaget, Systems theory, family theory, philosophy, positivism, phenomenology, child abuse theory, Alice Miller, Bowlby, Erikson, individuation processes, internal dialogue processes, Freud, theories of narcissism and the wounded child, symbolic meaning, how self-reflexivity works, world views, psychological types and recognition, explanations of the dialectic implicit in theory, social theories and critique, even the very newest world views of meta-modernism and the Platonic Metaxy, and how this factors into current meta theories, and Pablo Castells the most current progressive sociologist. Just off the top of my head.
I could go way further than that, because I have a coherent self-reflexive framework to operate from which guarantees authenticity and 'at my fingertips' self explanation.

All I hear back is Cleckly, Hare, when there is not a scrap of evidence pointing to ASPD by three witnesses one of them for the State.

Other people have contributed highly thought posts and points that warrant our attention from many different perspectives, teachers, writers, journalists, social workers, people with specialities in philosophy (yes, here) etc. A polyocular view is very beneficial one to psychology if it remains open to it. I have heard mentions of post-modern thought, Foucault, phenomenology, systems family theory symbolism, Jung, myth deep psychology etc from them, so I know my thinking is sound, I also receive plenty of messages of thanks.

Except for one.

I have shared my own pain and grief at being an abused child, and 30 years of knowledge in the child protection industry which shaped my highly empathic personality despite being it being opposite to my natural nature, that requires enormous self-awareness and a desire to actually impose nothing, but to speak for battered tortured abused little children, who cannot speak for themselves. Especially when it is very evident that it occurred.
If the majority of people find that abhorrent, then I am clearly in the wrong place and will be delighted to move on, instead of battling my brains out for people to take notice of desperate children. Why would I even bother?

 

[MeeBee]

Not sure what that actually means.
Nobody is imposing anything, or we wouldn't be holding such different beliefs would we? You don't feel swayed and I don't feel swayed, so how can either be argued to be an 'imposition'?
Nobody is 'arguing' that I can see, we are simply stating our positions like you do and every single other person does.
It's not even remotely personal, it's an anonymous forum in cyberspace to debate merits or otherwise of public news.
I also believe I am very generous with theories as well. I have mentioned Maslow, Kholberg, Jung, Piaget, Systems theory, family theory, philosophy, positivism, phenomenology, child abuse theory, Alice Miller, Bowlby, Erikson, individuation processes, internal dialogue processes, Freud, theories of narcissism and the wounded child, symbolic meaning, how self-reflexivity works, world views, psychological types and recognition, explanations of the dialectic implicit in theory, social theories and critique, even the very newest world views of meta-modernism and the Platonic Metaxy, and how this factors into current meta theories, and Pablo Castells the most current progressive sociologist. Just off the top of my head.
I could go way further than that, because I have a coherent self-reflexive framework to operate from which guarantees authenticity and 'at my fingertips' self explanation.

All I hear back is Cleckly, Hare, when there is not a scrap of evidence pointing to ASPD by three witnesses one of them for the State.

Other people have contributed highly thought posts and points that warrant our attention from many different perspectives, teachers, writers, journalists, social workers, people with specialities in philosophy (yes, here) etc. A polyocular view is very beneficial one to psychology if it remains open to it. I have heard mentions of post-modern thought, Foucault, phenomenology, systems family theory symbolism, Jung, myth deep psychology etc from them, so I know my thinking is sound, I also receive plenty of messages of thanks.

Except for one.

I have shared my own pain and grief at being an abused child, and 30 years of knowledge in the child protection industry which shaped my highly empathic personality despite being it being opposite to my natural nature, that requires enormous self-awareness and a desire to actually impose nothing, but to speak for battered tortured abused little children, who cannot speak for themselves. Especially when it is very evident that it occurred.
If the majority of people find that abhorrent, then I am clearly in the wrong place and will be delighted to move on, instead of battling my brains out for people to take notice of desperate children. Why would I even bother?

For me, a reason that I stay away from this thread is there's some condescension and sarcasm in response to certain opinions and theories, on all sides. Some seem incapable of having a discussion or arguing their points without resorting to rudeness and dismissiveness. It's tiresome.

Also, for a long time, this was a victim bashing thread. Some even gave credence to the pedophile LIE. That's sickening. It's been calmed down a bit, but this isn't the place for that either.

And, not to sound nitpicky, but your own post seems to state that anyone here who believes certain things and have certain theories (namely that Jodi is ASPD and narcissistic, for which I believe there is ample evidence) doesn't have the experience and is, basically, just spouting nonsense. Are you really open to the idea that Jodi may actually be ASPD? I mean, I guess that's ok, since I'm not open to the idea that Jodi ISN'T ASPD, at least not anymore. I am 110% certain of it. Do you really take any stock in someone's opinion if they don't know who Jung or Castells are? We may not all have the degrees, but I feel most of us have something to contribute, either way. I believe the theory that Jodi has ASPD is sound. I believe we've seen enough of her to make that determination. I believe if Demarte had spent more time with her and dug deeper she would have found ASPD herself. She already found BPD, and that was just the tip of the iceberg. I don't think the last Dr.'s opinion should have any weight since he didn't even evaluate Jodi. Samuels diagnosed her with a PD NOS. Is it really such a stretch?

This is the armchair psyche thread. We are here to discuss our ideas about Jodi's psyche and what makes her tick. It doesn't necessarily have to be accurate. But if you don't believe that someone has it right, and don't feel you can respond with anything but negativity and rudeness and absolute condescension (not you necessarily) then skip the post.

And finally, that I and maybe some others dismiss that Jodi was abused or that it was the cause of her to be the way she is, at least there's more to the story, doesn't mean I don't realize how awful childhood abuse and neglect can be for someone. I know my issues are deep seated and I know many of them stem from my parents and how I was treated as a child. I was definitely emotionally and mentally abused and it's really hard to get over it. It's imprinted on me. Maybe I have a PD myself. I feel like a a part of me died a long time ago and it's ruined me. It's caused me to want to be the best, most loving mother I can possibly be to me 3 year old girl so that she never has to go through what I've been through or feel any pain. Sometimes I might try too hard but I just want her to be happy. I realize the important role the parents play in a child's development. But Jodi made her own decisions. I feel no sympathy for her for what's she's done since she murdered Travis. She has absolutely no remorse and is dead set on destroying his memory just because he didn't want her and said some mean things to her once. That is a choice she made and continues to make. Nothing has slowed her down. Nothing ever will. She feels nothing. No shame, no guilt. Just vengeance.

Just because I feel that way doesn't mean I have a witch hunt mentality or that I'm saying Jodi is the devil. It's just how I feel. She disgusts and angers me. No she didn't kill as many people as Bundy and no she's not a man like Scott Peterson, so it's easier for people to argue for her. She's just damaged and needs to be understood. Why doesn't Scott Peterson get that level of understanding? Why does Jodi get a pass? Why is Travis' death diminished because he wasn't one of many? How would those here saying that feel if their loved one was the only murder victim of someone, and you know their death was hard and very painful? How would those saying that feel if that person's memory was then destroyed by the murderer just because they didn't get their way? It's not that Jodi doesn't understand what's she's doing, she just doesn't care.

And if you or anyone disagrees that's fine, but at least do it respectfully.

 

[SMK]

BBM: I think your jump to many people thinking genocide is the solution is flawed. People don't think that way. There are many other genetic issues that people could be aborting fetuses for and yet we don't see it as a society in any sort of grand-scale effort.

Additionally, many people do seek help and improvement made for mental health issues.

But these other disabilities do not include murdering one's family.

 

[MeeBee]

But these other disabilities do not include murdering one's family.

Neither does sociopathy. That's not a symptom of anything. It's a choice someone makes.

Not all ASPDs are murderers. And not all murderers are ASPDs.

I think you're taking quite a leap. How did we get from sociopathy to abortion? That's a straw man.

These people are real. Can we not talk about them?

 

[Gecko100]

For me, a reason that I stay away from this thread is there's some condescension and sarcasm in response to certain opinions and theories, on all sides. Some seem incapable of having a discussion or arguing their points without resorting to rudeness and dismissiveness. It's tiresome.

Also, for a long time, this was a victim bashing thread. Some even gave credence to the pedophile LIE. That's sickening. It's been calmed down a bit, but this isn't the place for that either.

And, not to sound nitpicky, but your own post seems to state that anyone here who believes certain things and have certain theories (namely that Jodi is ASPD and narcissistic, for which I believe there is ample evidence) doesn't have the experience and is, basically, just spouting nonsense. Are you really open to the idea that Jodi may actually be ASPD? I mean, I guess that's ok, since I'm not open to the idea that Jodi ISN'T ASPD, at least not anymore. I am 110% certain of it.

This is the armchair psyche thread. We are here to discuss our ideas about Jodi's psyche and what makes her tick. It doesn't necessarily have to be accurate. But if you don't believe that someone has it right, and don't feel you can respond with anything but negtivity and rudeness and absolute condescension (not you necessarily) then skip the post.

Why is any of this even my issue?
Not to sound nitpicky, but am I being rude negative or condescending or even insensitive to mental illness or to anyone?
I don't think so, I have nous and credibility amongst many of the posters here, who would entirely disagree with you.
People whom I also respect for their knowledge and credibility.
I am terse and knowledgeable, should I pretend not to be, is it fair not to share my knowledge? It's free, but you don't have to take it on that's your business not mine.
I simply responded to a poster who said we did/didn't share theories. I was pointing out that I certainly did.
I thought, along with others, we were sharing our ideas about what makes her tick...
My post says nothing about being able to have one sided debate that's a little offensive, so is highly obvious rudeness, and absolute condescension (not yours necessarily).
I do not do ad hominum. If it's a little too much, skip the post.

 

[MeeBee]

Why is any of this even my issue?
Not to sound nitpicky, but am I being rude negative or condescending or even insensitive to mental illness or to anyone?
I don't think so, I have nous and credibility amongst many of the posters here, who would entirely disagree with you.
People whom I also respect for their knowledge and credibility.
I am terse and knowledgeable, should I pretend not to be, is it fair not to share my knowledge? It's free, but you don't have to take it on that's your business not mine.
I simply responded to a poster who said we did/didn't share theories. I was pointing out that I certainly did.
I thought, along with others, we were sharing our ideas about what makes her tick...
My post says nothing about being able to have one sided debate that's a little offensive, so is highly obvious rudeness, and absolute condescension (not yours necessarily).
I do not do ad hominum. If it's a little too much, skip the post.

When did I say any of that?

I never said that you were rude or condescending and don't believe that you have been in any way. I am responding to why some probably feel like it's hostile here. You took on the issue and I responded.

I never said you were being rude, condescending, or insensitive. I haven't even read enough of you here.

You just seem dismissive of certain ideas if they don't come with a long list of credentials, based on your post. Do you only respect those who agree with you or accept your ideas? I have a journalism degree and I'm a full time mother. I took a couple of psychology classes. What exactly gives one person's opinion more weight than another's? There are many mental health professionals who do agree with those of us who think Jodi has ASPD.

 

[Gecko100]

When did I say any of that?

I never said that you were rude or condescending and don't believe that you have been in any way. I am responding to why some probably feel like it's hostile here. You took on the issue and I responded.

I never said you were being rude, condescending, or insensitive. I haven't even read enough of you here.

You just seem dismissive of certain ideas if they don't come with a long list of credentials, based on your post. Do you only respect those who agree with you or accept your ideas? I have a journalism degree and I'm a full time mother. I took a couple of psychology classes. What exactly gives one person's opinion more weight than another's? There are many mental health professionals who do agree with those of us who think Jodi has ASPD.

No worries. If I dismissed alternate theories I wouldn't be here, and I think I made it fairly clear that ALL eyes are important when de-constructing fact.
Nobody's opinion weighs more than another, but I might want to debate it from my own experiences which might not link in with others.
I have been really clear about my perspective, because of my experience. I have no experience in journalism or as a psychologist. So I have nowhere else to argue it from, except as a social worker.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Caring about one siblings health constitutes abuse? Whatttttt??

To a psychopath, yes. People have no intrinsic value except what they can provide the psychopath. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MeeBee]

No worries. If I dismissed alternate theories I wouldn't be here, and I think I made it fairly clear that ALL eyes are important when de-constructing fact.
Nobody's opinion weighs more than another, but I might want to debate it from my own experiences which might not link in with others.
I have been really clear about my perspective, because of my experience. I have no experience in journalism or as a psychologist. So I have nowhere else to argue it from, except as a social worker.

Then I apologize. I guess I jumped to a conclusion. It probably wasn't fair.

I have enjoyed and respected your posts even if I don't always agree with them. You have a good heart, I think that shows through.

It's just the posters that always seem to resort to sarcasm and rudeness in response to an opposing opinion. That make it not so fun to post here. And it goes both ways. That's all I was saying and for some reason I got off on a tangent.

 

[Linda7NJ]

<modsnip>

1. If a poster wants to post as an expert and wants more weight given to their opinions based on their profession, Websleuths has a process for that. Posting as a professional without verification is not allowed.

Posting personal opinions must be stated a such.

Posting "facts" requires a link.

Posting personal experiences are perfectly acceptable.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SMK]

Neither does sociopathy. That's not a symptom of anything. It's a choice someone makes.

Not all ASPDs are murderers. And not all murderers are ASPDs.

I think you're taking quite a leap. How did we get from sociopathy to abortion? That's a straw man.

These people are real. Can we not talk about them?

I don't believe a child has the capacity to choose murder.

Yes, they are real, and hence ought to be talked about, but probably not here.

 

[MeeBee]

I don't believe a child has the capacity to choose murder. Yes, they are real, and hence ought to be talked about, but probably not here.

IDK. There have been cases and stories recently and throughout history that suggest otherwise. I believe such a child is most likely disordered. But, still, that's a stretch to fetus-cide...

 

[shelley921]

I think some children DO murder. I remember this case- a toddler was murdered by 2 10 year olds. In the UK back in 1993.
......................

James Patrick Bulger (16 March 1990[1] &#8211; 12 February 1993) was a boy from Kirkby, England, who was murdered on 12 February 1993, when aged two. He was abducted, tortured and murdered by two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables (born 13 August 1982).[2][3] Bulger disappeared from the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle, near Liverpool, while accompanying his mother. His mutilated body was found on a railway line two-and-a-half miles (4 km) away in Walton, two days after his murder. Thompson and Venables were charged on 20 February 1993 with Bulger's abduction and murder.
The pair were found guilty on 24 November 1993, making them the youngest convicted murderers in modern English history. They were sentenced to custody until they reached adulthood, initially until the age of 18, and were released on a lifelong licence in June 2001. In 2010, Venables was returned to prison for violating the terms of his licence of release.
The case has prompted widespread debate on the issue of how to handle young offenders when they are sentenced or released from custody.[4][5]

 

[SMK]

IDK. There have been cases and stories recently and throughout history that suggest otherwise. I believe such a child is most likely disordered. But, still, that's a stretch to fetus-cide...

It would not be a stretch for many people. That's just a fact. If they found out they were carrying a fetus with such proclivites, they would view it as a medical emergency such spina bifida.