It's a sad world we live in where signs of independent thinking are interpreted to mean someone having a personality disorder.ODD (Opposition Defiant Disorder) is defined as a “a pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior without the more serious violations of the basic rights of others that are seen in conduct disorder”; and ODD symptoms include “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules” and “often argues with adults.”
Just note that signs of independent thinking aren't at all interpreted as someone having a personality disorder. The fact that those things might superficially sound similar is like lamenting the fact that fairly common and normal things, like having a small lump on the skin, is a "sign" of having terminal cancer. The point is that ODD is defined specifically by the disobedience and inability to follow instructions occurring at a greater frequency and intensity than the average person, that it significantly affects their ability to function in everyday life, and has occurred consistently since childhood. In other words, someone who questions authority is never going to be diagnosed with ODD. However, someone who pulls out a knife and threatens to chop the heads off his sisters because his dad asked him to pass the butter at breakfast most likely will.
And that would constitute the kind of "disobedience and inability to follow instructions" we might sensibly consider a part of "ODD"?However, someone who pulls out a knife and threatens to chop the heads off his sisters because his dad asked him to pass the butter at breakfast most likely will
Generally yeah. It can also include more broad cases of disobedience but the diagnosis requires some significant form of dysfunction, and usually this is violent outbursts and being incapable of following basic rules or instructions (which can obviously be a problem if you say, "Don't cross the road without looking both ways" and that causes them to cross the road without looking).
The symptoms seem like they'd match psychopathy too.
First of all, ASPD is the same thing as psychopathy, and it's not something that's "developed" (let alone through another disorder). It's something you're born with. It's genetic and hereditary. http://www.sociopathworld.com/p/portrait-of-sociopath.html But psychos sure wouldn't mind having yet another "cover" like "NPD", "BPD", "HPD" etc, which are all just flavours of psychopathy at best, if anything more than labels for whatever set of mind-fucking tactics a particular psychopath has decided to employ.In one study, over 80% of the variation in the callous-unemotional trait across the population was due to genetic differences. In contrast, the effect of a shared family environment was almost nil. Psychopathy seems to be a lifelong trait, or combination of traits, which are heavily influenced by genes and hardly at all by social upbringing.
Absolutely, that's why I brought up ASPD when you mentioned psychopathy. I wanted to use the formal terminology so that we can be clear about what we're talking about, as "psychopathy" has a number of connotations that might confuse the issue. The cause of ASPD is still up in the air with multiple possible theories (genetics being one), but you're right that it's a lifelong condition. However, ASPD is only diagnosed as an adult condition and does not exist in children by way of definition. Children with antisocial symptoms are diagnosed with ODD or Conduct Disorder, and if the symptoms persist past the age of 18 (and they meet the other requirements for ASPD) then they get a diagnosis of ASPD - that's what I mean by it being a pathway for the development of ASPD.First of all, ASPD is the same thing as psychopathy,
and it's not something that's "developed" (let alone through another disorder). It's something you're born with. It's genetic and hereditary.
Well, a psychopath child is a psychopath regardless of what label silly academics might want to slap on him.
He's just being a snarky, condescending prick. Apparently that's in line with Hubski's culture.
Part of Hubski's culture is that users are on the hook for the moderating of their experience. Handwaving isn't sufficient. Think someone never has anything worthwhile to say? Filter. Think someone is generally a dick but sometimes is interesting? Hush. Someone trolling your posts? Mute. Hush and filter are anonymous. They're easy to use. The intention is that they get used. They're not perfect, but making suggestions for the site is a popular past time here.Apparently that's in line with Hubski's culture.
Snarky pricks are free to snark, I'm free to call them out, and everyone else is free to ignore both.
Relax a little bit. Grendel is being a troll, I'm trolling him back a little bit. If he has a problem, he can call me out or pm me, and I'll gladly stop. If you take the time to look at his posts though, you'd see that he's being much more venemous than I am and his responses are often utterly inconducive to civil discourse. Me? I'm just being sarcastic and having a bit of fun.
Alright, I can see him looking a bit trollish with some messages. Mostly he seems to be doing good work though. We'll see.
It's actually a really great setup, especially for filtering out spam. The nice thing about it is that it's all of the moderation bits are reversable. That way if you just need a short break from someone, you can do so. Likewise, if someone does a 180 in behavior, you can change your settings to see them again.
If you look to Grendel's recent posting and commenting history, you will see that he trying to warn us of the ill intentions of both women and minorities. Reading this article with that subtext in mind, it becomes clear as day. We should all appreciate and praise Grendel for his brave attempts to show us the follies of our own conceited ways.