ILJ Forum Thunderdome / Slapfighting Hall of Shame - Take useless infighting here and keep regular threads clean

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
There is no consensus on whether sociopathy is nature or nurture. A lot of evidence points to nature, so I don't know how much childhood plays a part. Even if she was diddled, which there is absolutely no evidence of.
Via older definitions, and not current ones (where sociopathy and psychopathy are considered similar and not a true diagnosis of DMS-5).:

Sociopath by definition is mostly "nurture".

Psychopath definition is mostly "nature".

We don't know whether Isabella is a psychopath or sociopath, so we don't know if its nature or nurture.

As in most instances, it's usually a ratio of nature and nurture.

The question isn't if its nature or nurture, its what the ratio of nature to nurture it is.

I would suspect 75% nature, 25% nurture for now. But that's just a fun guess.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Both psychopathy and sociopathy have similar diagnoses associated with them, such as antisocial personality disorder, but are still considered different. Literature is still in debate on the exact definition of each one, but psychopathy has historically relied on biological traits (nature), and sociopathy has relied upon more environment (nurture).
No, they aren't. They merged them like 3 years ago.

They used to be considered separate but concluded recently (in the last 5 years for sure) they aren't and are not treated separately anymore.
 
"The common features of a psychopath and sociopath lie in their shared diagnosis: antisocial personality disorder."

They aren't treated as different anymore because it got too hard to tell them apart. They now are just covered by the single diagnosis. Any difference is just mental masturbation from a clinical perspective.
Psychopathy and Sociopath have different definitions, but are both denoted as Antisocial personality disorder for simplicity. This doesn't mean they don't exist. Many articles to prove this, including those by the medical association.

 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Colloquially maybe, or perhaps in countries outside the USA - but as far as I recall, the DSM-V has no distinct listing for either and they are grouped under ASPD.
Correct.

Absolutely 100% correct.

My point is that they are two different words with different meanings, not that the DSM-V views them as a diagnosis.
 
Correct.

Absolutely 100% correct.

My point is that they are two different words with different meanings, not that the DSM-V views them as a diagnosis.
The problem is that the DSM-V is "authority" on psychiatric disorders. If from a clinical perspective by people who study this shit they are the same, I'm not sure why we should be treating it different. They did used to be different, but after consideration doctors merged it for a reason.

On topic: Bella needs to be de-fungused.
 
The problem is that the DSM-V is "authority" on psychiatric disorders. If from a clinical perspective by people who study this shit they are the same, I'm not sure why we should be treating it different.

On topic: Bella needs to be de-fungused.
Yes, DSM-5 is the handbook for diagnosing.

Dictionary is the handbook for definitions.
 
Yes, DSM-5 is the handbook for diagnosing.

Dictionary is the handbook for definitions.
When you're talking about psychological conditions the dictionary isn't specific enough for the jargon used by professionals. There's a lot of words defined in the dictionary that don't work the same in other contexts, such as insane for general use vs the legal system.

Especially since this started because you asserted one was nature more than nurture when doctors can't agree there.
 
When you're talking about psychological conditions the dictionary isn't specific enough for the jargon used by professionals. There's a lot of words defined in the dictionary that don't work the same in other contexts, such as insane for general use vs the legal system.
To my knowledge, dictionary definitions are accurate either way.

In any professional field, the dictionary term is accurate, albeit maybe not paragraphs long to abide by its specificity. However, dictionary terms are accurate and to say otherwise is ludicrous.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
To my knowledge, dictionary definitions are accurate either way.

Not a single one explains what would need to be met for legal insanity, because thats not what the dictionary is for. When you are talking about psychological conditions you need to rely on DSM-V, at least when in its in this context and not a general one.

The one for "law" doesn't define what that would mean, insanity does yes but that doesn't help for that specific term. Similar other psych disorders are summed up in the dictionary and it doesn't delete terms that are considered outdated.

There are terms we no longer use in psych care that still are in the dictionary because it doesn't delete shit that is no longer used or disproven.
 

Not a single one explains what would need to be met for legal insanity, because thats not what the dictionary is for. When you are talking about psychological conditions you need to rely on DSM-V, at least when in its in this context and not a general one.
"Legal insanity" isnt a word, its a phrase. That would be why there is no dictionary definition of it.

The legal system for insanity is very different from a medical one, yes.

EDIT: Even though under the word "insanity" in the dictionary, it does include a law one by the way.

 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Wstecz
Top Na dole