Some time ago we had a discussion about whether some people are just born bad — the "bad seed" idea. Here's a lengthy article from The Atlantic dealing sympathetically but realistically with this issue. (You may be required to disable ad blocking on that page.)

Starting at age 6, Samantha began drawing pictures of murder weapons: a knife, a bow and arrow, chemicals for poisoning, a plastic bag for suffocating. She tells me that she pretended to kill her stuffed animals.

“You were practicing on your stuffed animals?,” I ask her.

She nods.

“How did you feel when you were doing that to your stuffed animals?”

“Happy.”

“Why did it make you feel happy?”

“Because I thought that someday I was going to end up doing it on somebody.”…

Samantha had just turned 6. Suddenly Jen heard screaming from the back seat, and when she looked in the mirror, she saw Samantha with her hands around the throat of her 2-year-old sister, who was trapped in her car seat. Jen separated them, and once they were home, she pulled Samantha aside.

“What were you doing?,” Jen asked.

“I was trying to choke her,” Samantha said.

“You realize that would have killed her? She would not have been able to breathe. She would have died.”

“I know.”

“What about the rest of us?”

“I want to kill all of you.”…

Four months later, Samantha tried to strangle her baby brother, who was just two months old….

Samantha was diagnosed with conduct disorder with callous and unemotional traits. She had all the characteristics of a budding psychopath…. Researchers shy away from calling children psychopaths; the term carries too much stigma, and too much determinism. They prefer to describe children like Samantha as having “callous and unemotional traits,” shorthand for a cluster of characteristics and behaviors, including a lack of empathy, remorse, or guilt; shallow emotions; aggression and even cruelty; and a seeming indifference to punishment. Callous and unemotional children have no trouble hurting others to get what they want. If they do seem caring or empathetic, they’re probably trying to manipulate you.

Researchers believe that nearly 1 percent of children exhibit these traits, about as many as have autism or bipolar disorder….

Researchers believe that two paths can lead to psychopathy: one dominated by nature, the other by nurture. For some children, their environment—growing up in poverty, living with abusive parents, fending for themselves in dangerous neighborhoods—can turn them violent and coldhearted. These kids aren’t born callous and unemotional; many experts suggest that if they’re given a reprieve from their environment, they can be pulled back from psychopathy’s edge.

But other children display callous and unemotional traits even though they are raised by loving parents in safe neighborhoods. Large studies in the United Kingdom and elsewhere have found that this early-onset condition is highly hereditary, hardwired in the brain—and especially difficult to treat. “We’d like to think a mother and father’s love can turn everything around,” Raine says. “But there are times where parents are doing the very best they can, but the kid—even from the get-go—is just a bad kid.”

Still, researchers stress that a callous child—even one who was born that way—is not automatically destined for psychopathy. By some estimates, four out of five children with these traits do not grow up to be psychopaths. The mystery—the one everyone is trying to solve—is why some of these children develop into normal adults while others end up on death row.

There's a lot more. Read the whole thing.

Posted in ,
  1. Juan Avatar
    Juan

    “People are still responsible for their actions even if they can’t help wanting what they want.”
    But are we responsible or all that is our fiction to coexist?
    “I really don’t think this has anything to do with materialism, pace both you and Eric on this point.”
    That is a materialistic consequence: there are no moral agents. Of course, other philosophical positions can have a same corollary.

  2. Roger Knights Avatar
    Roger Knights

    Matt wrote:
    If a person is a sadist and looking for opportunities to hurt others, then *on one level* I can have compassion for this poor being that can’t help but want to do evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that the being is evil and responsible for his actions.

    Here’s Agatha Christie:

    “I am willing to believe that [those who kill] are made that way, that they are born with a disability, for which, perhaps, one should pity them; but even then, I think, not spare them.”

  3. Matt Rouge Avatar
    Matt Rouge

    Roger Knights,
    Great quote… Yes we said the same thing!

  4. Leo MacDonald Avatar
    Leo MacDonald

    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/follow-up-on-bems-psi-research/. I am wondering what everyone’s response to this is. He’s saying that data mining or fishing for positive results for psi known as p-hacking shows that Parapsychologist’s such as Bem are not doing real science but pseudoscience.

  5. sbu Avatar
    sbu

    Leo, I’m not a great fan of Novella’s arrogance towards unconventional claims. On the other hand he does raise valid points regarding issues with replication in science. To quote him:
    Initial positive results are not definitive because there are just too many ways to bias the outcome (to p-hack). We start to get interested when there are rigorous replications, especially exact replications.
    Lack of replication is a major issue in especially medical science and probably also psychology. Generally I think there’s massive confirmation biases going on science due to a constant pressure of producing new scientific papers.
    On the other hand lack of replication does not disprove psi. In general it’s next to impossible to disprove anything. I personally believe the stronger cases comes from the so-called anecdotal claims.

  6. Julie Baxter Avatar
    Julie Baxter

    sbu writes: “On the other hand lack of replication does not disprove psi. In general it’s next to impossible to disprove anything. I personally believe the stronger cases comes from the so-called anecdotal claims.”
    Yes, so do I. I’m always on the lookout for descriptions of psychic experiences that match my own. That’s the best proof of all for me.

  7. Stephen D Echard Musgrave Avatar
    Stephen D Echard Musgrave

    I have studied practiced and taught Zen Buddhism for almost fifty years. I have received transmission form two Zen masters Soto and Rinzai. It is hard to speak of Buddhism as a uniform philosophy with all its adherents agreeing on much other than the eightfold path and the four noble truths.
    I know of no Sanskrit ,Pali or Chinese texts that claims much of anything about the origins of consciousness.(there is no word for that in Sanskrit) various words for mind about i six really.
    It is quite frankly irrelevant to Buddhism and Buddha refused to answer such metaphysical questions as being irrelevant. Buddhist tradition holds that the separation of subject and object individual and universal is primarily the result of Avidya ignorance.(avidya)
    IN Buddhist thought there are two truth or two levels of truth ,conventional and absolute. Conventional truth is incomplete fundamentally illusory and absolute truth can be attained but not expressed in words.
    Rebirth occurs moment by moment not just in between “lives”.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Michael Prescott's Blog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading