Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
Superman
Pink Foamin' at the Mouth
Posts: 9690
Joined: 2002-12-16 12:29am
Location: Metropolis

Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Superman »

Just finished reading this and found it to be pretty interesting. The source is an online medical journal that requires a registered account, so a link probably won't do any good.

From Medscape.com
Psychiatry
From Medscape Medical News
Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Janis Kelly

May 8, 2009 — Children who are bullied are more likely to develop psychotic symptoms in early adolescence — and there is a dose effect, with repeated bullying associated with greater risk.

In the first prospective study to examine the relationship between childhood bullying and psychotic symptoms in early adolescence, investigators at the University of Warwick, in Coventry, the United Kingdom, found the risk for psychotic symptoms nearly doubled among children who were victims of bullying at age 8 or 10 years, independent of other psychiatric illness, family adversity, or the child's IQ, and increased nearly 4-fold when victimization was chronic or severe.

Study coauthor Dieter Wolke, PhD, told Medscape Psychiatry the findings have clear clinical implications.

"If children present with physical or mental health problems, also explore their peer relationships. Being victimized, in particular chronically or severely, can make you ill," Dr. Wolke, told Medscape Psychiatry.

The study is published in the May issue of Archives of General Psychiatry.

Significant Dose Effect

The researchers studied 6437 individuals in early adolescence (average age, 12.9 years) who were part of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Parents had completed regular mailed questionnaires about their child's health and development since birth, and the children underwent yearly physical and psychological assessments from the age of 7 years.

At each visit, trained interviewers rated the children on whether they had experienced psychotic symptoms, including hallucinations, delusions, or thought disorders, during the previous 6 months.

Children, parents, and teachers also reported on whether the child had experienced peer victimization, defined as negative actions by 1 of more other students with the intention to hurt.

The researchers categorized 46.2% of participants as victims and 53.8% as not victimized at either age 8 or 10 years. Dr. Wolke pointed out that this includes being victimized at any time in childhood, not just during the year in question.

At age 12.9, 13.7% of subjects had broad psychosislike symptoms with 1 or more symptoms suspected or definitely present; 11.5% had intermediate symptoms with 1 or more symptoms suspected or present at times other than going to sleep, waking from sleep, fever, or after substance use; and 5.6% had 1 or more symptoms definitely present.

The odds ratio for psychotic symptoms was 1.94 among victims of bullying at ages 8 and/or 10 years and jumped to 4.60 for repeated or severe victimization.

Victims Often Less Socially Skilled

Dr. Wolke said it is doubtful that being a target of peer victimization was the result rather than the cause of an underlying predisposition to psychotic symptoms.

"This is the issue of reverse causality," Dr. Wolke said. "We are fairly certain that this is not the case, as victimization reported by mothers from 4 years onward also related to psychotic symptoms. Also, it is not possible to measure psychotic symptoms before 8 years — believing in Santa Claus or fairies is not a delusion but part of appropriate development until that age."

"However," Dr. Wolke added, "we know victims show a reaction to bullying more often — by crying for example — are less socially skilled, and have no or few friends who can protect them. Thus, while the children may not have had psychotic symptoms, they may be socially awkward and were more likely to become targets. However, monozygotic twin studies that are discordant for bullying show that the victimized twin is more likely to develop depression and behavioral symptoms."

The researchers suggest further research is needed to sort out whether repeated victimization experiences alter cognitive and affective processing or reprogram stress response or whether psychotic symptoms are more likely due to genetic predisposition.

"Social victimization by peers is a severe stress. It may lead to reprogramming of the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis or a different cognitive style, both found in those with psychosis. It may be more severe in those with genetic susceptibility. However, these are speculations that require more research,” Dr. Wolke said.

"A major implication is that chronic or severe peer victimization has nontrivial, adverse, long-term consequences. Reduction of peer victimization and of the resulting stress caused to victims could be a worthwhile target for prevention and early intervention efforts for common mental health problems and psychosis," the authors conclude.

Cause and Effect Not Demonstrated

David Fassler, MD, from the University of Vermont College of Medicine, in Burlington, told Medscape Psychiatry that bullying is a common experience for many young people.

"Surveys indicate that over half of all children are bullied at some time during their school years, and at least 10% are bullied on a regular basis,” Dr. Fassler said.

According to Dr. Fassler, previous research suggests bullying may increase the risk of developing psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or depression later in life. In this regard, the results of the current study are consistent with previous reports and demonstrate that children who are bullied during childhood are more likely to show "psychoticlike" symptoms by early adolescence.

"Due to the design of the study, the authors can't actually prove that these symptoms are a direct result of the bullying. However, they do demonstrate a significant association," said Dr. Fassler. He warned that the results of this study should be interpreted with caution due to a number of methodological issues.

"For example, the authors experienced a significant dropout rate over the course of the study. They were ultimately able to follow less than half their original sample. In addition, they didn't have access to baseline data on 'psychoticlike' symptoms for the children. However, despite these limitations, the article represents a useful addition to the literature on bullying.

"Hopefully, subsequent studies will help us identify kids who are particularly vulnerable, so we can intervene as early as possible to minimize the risk of lasting emotional consequences," Dr. Fassler said.

The UK Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC. This study was funded by a grant from the Wellcome Trust. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009;66: 527-536. Abstract
I dunno, I guess this type of thing isn't very surprising. The relationship between various types of psychological trauma in childhood and later psychopathology is pretty well established at this point. Still interesting though, IMO.
Image
User avatar
Ariphaos
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 2005-10-21 02:48am
Location: Twin Cities, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Ariphaos »

I was discussing a compulsive liar at school with another guy. I was talking about how absurd he was, and the other guy responded: "I don't hate him, I hate the people that made him turn out that way." At some point, someone enabled him, convinced him that lying about everything and his mother (literally) was the best way to get through life.
Give fire to a man, and he will be warm for a day.
Set him on fire, and he will be warm for life.
User avatar
tim31
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3388
Joined: 2006-10-18 03:32am
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by tim31 »

Yeah, I have a friend that slips in and out of patches of compulsive lying, depending on how well his life is going. We(his close friends) used to prop it up and more or less apologise for his behaviour until we realised that this was entirely the wrong thing to do. I don't rub his nose in it when he lies, just correct him as if he made an oversight. It works for all of us.

The only kid who bullied me in primary school was very good at it; he got in at the ground floor anhd just kept it up. One day in the fourth grade I snapped and punched him in the face, and the bullying stopped. It was after he abdicated from his power over me that I realised he was a small, almost albino kid whose mother enforced a strict quasi-vegan diet on the family. But man, his ninja turtle collection was better than mine.
lol, opsec doesn't apply to fanfiction. -Aaron

PRFYNAFBTFC
CAPTAIN OF MFS SAMMY HAGAR
ImageImage
User avatar
Akkleptos
Jedi Knight
Posts: 643
Joined: 2008-12-17 02:14am
Location: Between grenades and H1N1.
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Akkleptos »

Article wrote:Children who are bullied are more likely to develop psychotic symptoms in early adolescence — and there is a dose effect, with repeated bullying associated with greater risk.
No shit, Sherlock!?

Bullies, Victims at Risk for Violence and Other Problem Behaviors
Not school bullies but still applies


The relationship among bullying, victimization... in elementary school children



Not exactly News of the World material...
Life in Commodore 64:
10 OPEN "EYES",1,1
20 GET UP$:IF UP$="" THEN 20
30 GOTO BATHROOM
...
GENERATION 29
Don't like what I'm saying?
Take it up with my representative:
User avatar
Xess
Jedi Knight
Posts: 921
Joined: 2005-05-07 07:11pm
Location: Near Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Xess »

Well severe bullying for years certainly contributed to depression. It's good to see more studies showing the relationship, even if it is rather obvious.
Image[
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Darth Wong »

Xeriar wrote:I was discussing a compulsive liar at school with another guy. I was talking about how absurd he was, and the other guy responded: "I don't hate him, I hate the people that made him turn out that way." At some point, someone enabled him, convinced him that lying about everything and his mother (literally) was the best way to get through life.
Why can't you hate both? Look, bullying increase the likelihood that someone will turn out to be an asshole, but that doesn't mean the person bears no responsibility for his own behaviour. Why can't he be one of the people in this group who don't turn out to be assholes? It's not as if it's a 100% correlation.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Ariphaos
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 2005-10-21 02:48am
Location: Twin Cities, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Ariphaos »

Darth Wong wrote:Why can't you hate both? Look, bullying increase the likelihood that someone will turn out to be an asshole, but that doesn't mean the person bears no responsibility for his own behaviour. Why can't he be one of the people in this group who don't turn out to be assholes? It's not as if it's a 100% correlation.
"Why can't the amputee run? It's not like there's a 100% correlation between losing a limb and being incapable of running."

I find it interesting that someone like you who presumably does not believe in a soul and thus would ascribe all behavior to electrochemical processes would then go and ask "Why can't this sequence of processes occur in this person?" as if the individual in question can fix himself by force of will alone rather than genuine external aid of some sort.

It's not as if you blame the physical machine when you face a software bug. A relevant example might be - if someone feeds a neural network bad training data, causing a problem, where does the fault lie?
1) The neural network's architect, who allowed a flaw to slip into the design that it could not correct for the improper training?
2) The individual who performed the improper training himself?
3) The neural network itself, which is physically incapable of correcting its own behavior while the flaw remains in place?

These lines are not clear cut - of course positive and negative reinforcement of behavior has a lot to do with human training mechanisms, but these can and do get broken - sociopaths, Asperger's, whathaveyou.

Some people get help, and can get their wiring fixed. Not everyone is so lucky. Certainly, there is no reason to force everyone around them to be a psychiatrist, or every institution they join a mental clinic. For myself, I am not qualified.

Not that I can't understand the frustration. Lately I've been telling people with serious issues on my communities to actually go see a shrink before they can come back. The responses, in order of popularity:

1) No. There is something wrong with me, but it can't be fixed.
2) No. I'm not broken, there's nothing wrong with me.
3) No. I can't afford it (about the only answer I can sympathize with).
4) No. If the military found out about my problem they would kick me out!
4) I already did, I was told there was nothing wrong with me (pathological liar #1)
4) I am currently seeing a psychologist to fix my issues (pathological liar #2)

Enough of that and I just can't hate any longer. It's getting to the point where I can't even pity. It's sad, but these people will happily eat up days of my time if I let them.

To answer your question, actively hating him, and people like him, saps my will and affects my attitude in ways I don't care for. Best just to do what needs to be done and move on. Hating the root cause is a lot easier to dehumanize.
Give fire to a man, and he will be warm for a day.
Set him on fire, and he will be warm for life.
User avatar
Kuroneko
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2469
Joined: 2003-03-13 03:10am
Location: Fréchet space
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Kuroneko »

Xeriar wrote:It's not as if you blame the physical machine when you face a software bug.
I'm not sure why you'd make such an analogy. If the experience with the software is odious enough, the typical response would be to hate both the software and its makers, but in your analogy, the person "is" the software.
Xeriar wrote:A relevant example might be - if someone feeds a neural network bad training data, causing a problem, where does the fault lie? ...
It would be begging the question to presuppose that there is just one place where the fault lies, and furthermore:
Xeriar wrote:3) The neural network itself, which is physically incapable of correcting its own behavior while the flaw remains in place?
If the flaw is at least partly the result of prior choices of the neural network itself, then sure. A person is not just a neural network running through a predetermined set of training data. How much constraint there is on one's choices and future circumstances is varies quite a bit on one's situation, sure, but to deny that a person has no part in his or her own upbringing is just silly.
Xeriar wrote:To answer your question, actively hating him, and people like him, saps my will and affects my attitude in ways I don't care for. ...
That's a more reasonable stance by far.
"The fool saith in his heart that there is no empty set. But if that were so, then the set of all such sets would be empty, and hence it would be the empty set." -- Wesley Salmon
Samuel
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4750
Joined: 2008-10-23 11:36am

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Samuel »

"Why can't the amputee run? It's not like there's a 100% correlation between losing a limb and being incapable of running."
Actually there is. People without limbs cannot run. They lack the part of the body they use to run. People who have been bullied have not suffered lobotomies that removes their ability to be decent people.
I find it interesting that someone like you who presumably does not believe in a soul and thus would ascribe all behavior to electrochemical processes would then go and ask "Why can't this sequence of processes occur in this person?" as if the individual in question can fix himself by force of will alone rather than genuine external aid of some sort.
You have activated individual A's pet peeve. Rant to follow.

Why do people think having a soul would change the equation when dealing with people? If it isn't affected by experience, than it doesn't learn and is entirely useless. If it is affected by experience than it is just lack being made up by matter. Giving something a fancy name and declaring it is non-physical does not exempt it from the rule of logic- having a soul does not mean a person is exempt from casulty and not having on does not mean individuals cannot alter their behavior. While their mind is an electrochemical process, even machines can reprogram themselves and frankly, individuals who cannot change their behavior when it is appropriate are acting wrong.
but these can and do get broken - sociopaths, Asperger's, whathaveyou.
That is nice. Of course, people on the autism spectrum can interact with others and deal with their problems, people who are sociopaths can learn that other people really don't like being treated badly and treat them like everyone else- in both cases, although the brain chemistry is abnormal, individuals can alter their behavior to be close to societal norms.
Hating the root cause is a lot easier to dehumanize.
And what if that person was abused? And their parent was abused? And... going to find route causes is an excercise in frustration.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Darth Wong »

Xeriar wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Why can't you hate both? Look, bullying increase the likelihood that someone will turn out to be an asshole, but that doesn't mean the person bears no responsibility for his own behaviour. Why can't he be one of the people in this group who don't turn out to be assholes? It's not as if it's a 100% correlation.
"Why can't the amputee run? It's not like there's a 100% correlation between losing a limb and being incapable of running."
Wrong, stupid asshole. There IS a 100% correlation between losing a leg and being incapable of running, at least without some kind of artificial assistance.
I find it interesting that someone like you who presumably does not believe in a soul and thus would ascribe all behavior to electrochemical processes would then go and ask "Why can't this sequence of processes occur in this person?" as if the individual in question can fix himself by force of will alone rather than genuine external aid of some sort.
The concept of a soul is totally irrelevant to social responsibility. The lingering after-effects of your religious cultural indoctrination have no bearing whatsoever on the argument that we should treat harmful individuals negatively.
It's not as if you blame the physical machine when you face a software bug. A relevant example might be - if someone feeds a neural network bad training data, causing a problem, where does the fault lie?
1) The neural network's architect, who allowed a flaw to slip into the design that it could not correct for the improper training?
2) The individual who performed the improper training himself?
3) The neural network itself, which is physically incapable of correcting its own behavior while the flaw remains in place?
Fine. I don't blame the organic tissues of an asshole for the fact that the overall person is an asshole. Happy now?
These lines are not clear cut - of course positive and negative reinforcement of behavior has a lot to do with human training mechanisms, but these can and do get broken - sociopaths, Asperger's, whathaveyou.
And you think it is wrong to hate sociopaths?
Some people get help, and can get their wiring fixed. Not everyone is so lucky. Certainly, there is no reason to force everyone around them to be a psychiatrist, or every institution they join a mental clinic. For myself, I am not qualified.

Not that I can't understand the frustration. Lately I've been telling people with serious issues on my communities to actually go see a shrink before they can come back. The responses, in order of popularity:

1) No. There is something wrong with me, but it can't be fixed.
2) No. I'm not broken, there's nothing wrong with me.
3) No. I can't afford it (about the only answer I can sympathize with).
4) No. If the military found out about my problem they would kick me out!
4) I already did, I was told there was nothing wrong with me (pathological liar #1)
4) I am currently seeing a psychologist to fix my issues (pathological liar #2)

Enough of that and I just can't hate any longer. It's getting to the point where I can't even pity. It's sad, but these people will happily eat up days of my time if I let them.
How is any of this rambling complaint even vaguely relevant to the issue under discussion?
To answer your question, actively hating him, and people like him, saps my will and affects my attitude in ways I don't care for. Best just to do what needs to be done and move on. Hating the root cause is a lot easier to dehumanize.
The claim that you cannot hate someone without mental exhaustion is your own handicap, and has no bearing on this discussion either. BTW, I don't buy it. I'm sure you are capable of hating Hitler or Kim Jong-Il without suffering some sort of mental exhaustion. Your problem is that you insist on personalizing the issue: you think that if you hate someone, you need to expend some kind of effort on it. You don't, and you have utterly failed to substantiate your bizarre position that a person can be judged separately from his personality.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Stark »

Maybe some people are just cowards; hating generalities (like 'lying' or 'bullying') is easy and safe, because nobody will ever call you on it. Hating a person means you might be confronted and have to deal with people who think otherwise - like those who think the actions of liars or bullies aren't 'really' their fault or responsibility. It also means you can't pretend to ignore similar flaws in others without looking like a hypocrite and again being called to articulate your position.
User avatar
Ariphaos
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 2005-10-21 02:48am
Location: Twin Cities, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Ariphaos »

Darth Wong wrote:
Xeriar wrote: "Why can't the amputee run? It's not like there's a 100% correlation between losing a limb and being incapable of running."
Wrong, stupid asshole. There IS a 100% correlation between losing a leg and being incapable of running, at least without some kind of artificial assistance.
I didn't choose my wording on accident. It's a lot harder to see the mental damage that someone has gone through than physical. Or even what they are equipped with - at least in terms of making moral judgments - in the first place.
The concept of a soul is totally irrelevant to social responsibility. The lingering after-effects of your religious cultural indoctrination have no bearing whatsoever on the argument that we should treat harmful individuals negatively.
If by negative treatment you mean restrict the choices they have available to them - or even euthanizing lost causes - I have no argument against. We do that sort of thing for physical problems, too. I was referring to you blaming the individual - declaring that they should be able to take responsibility.

Some people are not capable of fixing themselves. Blaming them directly for the issue does no help, they are going to be a problem for society no matter how much you shout it from the rooftops or sit in quiet resentment ignoring them.
Fine. I don't blame the organic tissues of an asshole for the fact that the overall person is an asshole. Happy now?
See above. To me it comes off as hating the bear for raiding your campsite. It's not like you cannot take precautions for yourself, your family, friends, and at least try to promote and encourage some level of awareness of the root causes.
And you think it is wrong to hate sociopaths?
I think it's wrong to declare that they should all be able to magically fix themselves. I certainly hate horseflies, but I don't point a finger at one, tell it to leave me alone and expect it to even internalize it, much less actually leave me alone. I kill it and move on.
How is any of this rambling complaint even vaguely relevant to the issue under discussion?
Sorry. More pithy to say - people like this almost universally refuse to find assistance, at least in my experience. The closest I ever got was two people lying to me about getting it.

To reiterate, my position is that not everyone is mentally or socially equipped to fix themselves. This:
Why can't he be one of the people in this group who don't turn out to be assholes?
Is what I disagreed with. Why can't he? Because he's broken, that's why. You can hate him, or not, but he's not going to fix himself any more than pointing at an amputee and telling him to grow a limb will work. Does not mean you have to let them on your football team, or whatever, any more than you have to let a certified mental retard design your house.
Stark wrote:Maybe some people are just cowards; hating generalities (like 'lying' or 'bullying') is easy and safe, because nobody will ever call you on it. Hating a person means you might be confronted and have to deal with people who think otherwise - like those who think the actions of liars or bullies aren't 'really' their fault or responsibility. It also means you can't pretend to ignore similar flaws in others without looking like a hypocrite and again being called to articulate your position.
I snipped a part of my reply to Wong, but to make a more vague answer, I am very grateful for the treatment I did receive. I really do feel like a hypocrite to hate some of these people. Strikes me as saying "I got a prosthetic, why didn't your parents get you one?"
Give fire to a man, and he will be warm for a day.
Set him on fire, and he will be warm for life.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Darth Wong »

Xeriar wrote:I didn't choose my wording on accident. It's a lot harder to see the mental damage that someone has gone through than physical. Or even what they are equipped with - at least in terms of making moral judgments - in the first place.
You still haven't shown why that bullshit was even relevant. The fact that you carefully worded it does not change this fact.
If by negative treatment you mean restrict the choices they have available to them - or even euthanizing lost causes - I have no argument against. We do that sort of thing for physical problems, too. I was referring to you blaming the individual - declaring that they should be able to take responsibility.
I don't give a shit whether the person is "able" to take responsibility for his own actions. We as a society should assign responsibility to him for his own actions. He should be held responsible whether he can handle it or not.
Some people are not capable of fixing themselves. Blaming them directly for the issue does no help, they are going to be a problem for society no matter how much you shout it from the rooftops or sit in quiet resentment ignoring them.
Irrelevant to my position. I don't care whether they can fix themselves.
See above. To me it comes off as hating the bear for raiding your campsite. It's not like you cannot take precautions for yourself, your family, friends, and at least try to promote and encourage some level of awareness of the root causes.
Irrelevant to my position. I don't care whether asshole behaviour comes naturally to him.
I think it's wrong to declare that they should all be able to magically fix themselves. I certainly hate horseflies, but I don't point a finger at one, tell it to leave me alone and expect it to even internalize it, much less actually leave me alone. I kill it and move on.
Irrelevant to my position. I don't care whether they can fix themselves.
Sorry. More pithy to say - people like this almost universally refuse to find assistance, at least in my experience. The closest I ever got was two people lying to me about getting it.
Irrelevant to my position. I don't care whether they want to fix themselves.
To reiterate, my position is that not everyone is mentally or socially equipped to fix themselves.
Irrelevant to my position. I don't care whether they can fix themselves.
This:
Why can't he be one of the people in this group who don't turn out to be assholes?
Is what I disagreed with.
Yes, apparently because you don't understand the whole damned point of saying that it's not a 100% correlation. It indicates that it's not a simplistic binary cause/effect scenario.
Why can't he? Because he's broken, that's why.
I know he's fucked up. That doesn't refute my position, and it's childish to argue that a person's brain is either working or "broken". It's obviously far more complex than that, and the fact is that this is not some ridiculous on/off binary situation, ie- not 100% of people who get bullied become psychopaths, and bullying does not "break" your brain. It may alter the way you think, but you are still capable of rational thought. You do not become a mindless automaton.
You can hate him, or not, but he's not going to fix himself any more than pointing at an amputee and telling him to grow a limb will work. Does not mean you have to let them on your football team, or whatever, any more than you have to let a certified mental retard design your house.
Why do you think my position has anything to do with his ability to "fix" himself? I don't give a damn why someone's an asshole; the point is that he is an asshole, and he should be socially punished for it.

You seem to think that responsibility flows from "free will" or some other existential nonsense, and that a person cannot bear responsibility for his actions if his behaviour is arguably a product of his environment.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Ariphaos
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 2005-10-21 02:48am
Location: Twin Cities, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Ariphaos »

Darth Wong wrote:I don't give a shit whether the person is "able" to take responsibility for his own actions. We as a society should assign responsibility to him for his own actions. He should be held responsible whether he can handle it or not.
Even if, as in this specific case - cases where bullying can inflame psychosis - it is possible for society to provide the means to correct these issues? I tend to fail at being appropriately specific in my answers an I apologize, but you asked two questions:

1) Why can't you hate both? - Because I was three years of treatment away from being far worse than that person.
2) Why can't he be one of the people in this group who don't turn out to be assholes? - Because he was not given the same opportunity that I myself received.

Does not mean I put up with him, but that does not change the fact that his current condition could have been largely prevented.
I know he's fucked up. That doesn't refute my position, and it's childish to argue that a person's brain is either working or "broken". It's obviously far more complex than that, and the fact is that this is not some ridiculous on/off binary situation, ie- not 100% of people who get bullied become psychopaths, and bullying does not "break" your brain. It may alter the way you think, but you are still capable of rational thought.
Look up formal thought disorder. Psychosis is in no small part about being incapable of having or expressing rational thought. The article that began this thread is about bullied students being more likely to have psychosis or that students with psychosis are bullied more often.

That the correlation is not 1:1 is irrelevant, that was never my argument.
Why do you think my position has anything to do with his ability to "fix" himself? I don't give a damn why someone's an asshole; the point is that he is an asshole, and he should be socially punished for it.
Yes, you've made it pretty clear that you don't care about mental issues. Rather than directing them towards treatment and shunning them until they do so, you advocate 'social punishment'. And then wonder why suicide or worse happens.
You seem to think that responsibility flows from "free will" or some other existential nonsense, and that a person cannot bear responsibility for his actions if his behaviour is arguably a product of his environment.
I don't believe in free will. I do believe that society shares a part of the burden - either fix the problem, or remove them. This pussyfooting about 'social punishment' just invites more trouble.
Give fire to a man, and he will be warm for a day.
Set him on fire, and he will be warm for life.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Darth Wong »

Xeriar wrote:Even if, as in this specific case - cases where bullying can inflame psychosis - it is possible for society to provide the means to correct these issues? I tend to fail at being appropriately specific in my answers an I apologize, but you asked two questions:

1) Why can't you hate both? - Because I was three years of treatment away from being far worse than that person.
2) Why can't he be one of the people in this group who don't turn out to be assholes? - Because he was not given the same opportunity that I myself received.
1) Irrelevant. "There but for the grace of God go I" is not a valid argument to free people from social responsibility.
2) Bullshit. You said it yourself: most of these people don't even want treatment. Moreover, this is yet another "there but for the grace of God go I" argument.
Does not mean I put up with him, but that does not change the fact that his current condition could have been largely prevented.
Yet again, a "there but for the grace of God go I" argument. If the punishment is fair for the crime, then it is fair regardless of whether you could have been that person.
Look up formal thought disorder. Psychosis is in no small part about being incapable of having or expressing rational thought. The article that began this thread is about bullied students being more likely to have psychosis or that students with psychosis are bullied more often.
What does this have to do with sociopaths? I never said I hate all kinds of mental disorder, Mr. Strawman. I said that I hate people who act like assholes.
That the correlation is not 1:1 is irrelevant, that was never my argument.
I know it was not your argument, asshole. It was my argument which you tried to refute by altering it.
Why do you think my position has anything to do with his ability to "fix" himself? I don't give a damn why someone's an asshole; the point is that he is an asshole, and he should be socially punished for it.
Yes, you've made it pretty clear that you don't care about mental issues. Rather than directing them towards treatment and shunning them until they do so, you advocate 'social punishment'. And then wonder why suicide or worse happens.
Oh yeah, of course, that's precisely what I said. Oh wait, I never actually said that, Mr. Strawman. I have no problem with the idea of punishing assholes for their crimes and getting them treatment, if that is deemed potentially useful. Nowhere did I say that I don't want these people treated. You're a dishonest little fuckwad, and it's pretty obvious that you're acting like this because you have a personal emotional stake in this debate, hence your inability to discuss it honestly or rationally.
You seem to think that responsibility flows from "free will" or some other existential nonsense, and that a person cannot bear responsibility for his actions if his behaviour is arguably a product of his environment.
I don't believe in free will. I do believe that society shares a part of the burden - either fix the problem, or remove them. This pussyfooting about 'social punishment' just invites more trouble.
How the fuck is it "pussyfooting" to say that people should be held responsible for their own crimes, asshole?
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28822
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Broomstick »

While the argument brewing here has the usual SD.net charm, my concern would be if psychosis becomes the expected reactions of a bullied child. As pointed out, not all victimized children become psychotic - treating all bully victims as incipient mental dysfunctions would only victimize them again.

We don't give chemo to people at risk of cancer, only those who actually have cancer. Those at higher than normal risk, however, are encouraged to be more frequently screened. Victims of bullies should be looked at for mental illness, but where it's not found society should not keeping looking for it continually, or make it a black mark against them as someone "risky".
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Akkleptos
Jedi Knight
Posts: 643
Joined: 2008-12-17 02:14am
Location: Between grenades and H1N1.
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Akkleptos »

Broomstick wrote:While the argument brewing here has the usual SD.net charm, my concern would be if psychosis becomes the expected reactions of a bullied child. As pointed out, not all victimized children become psychotic - treating all bully victims as incipient mental dysfunctions would only victimize them again.
This is by far the most constructive idea posted in this thread in a while. There are factors that come in play, such as the individual's resilience, that can help stave off many of the future negative consequences of repeated abuse.
[url=http://www.answers.com/topic/psychological-resilience] wrote:Wikipedia, through Answers.com[/url]]Resilience is defined as a dynamic process that individuals exhibit positive behavioral adaptation when they encounter significant adversity or trauma.[1] Resilience is a two-dimensional construct concerning the exposure of adversity and the positive adjustment outcomes of that adversity.[2] Adversity refers to any risks associated with negative life conditions that are statistically related to adjustment difficulties, such as poverty, children of schizophrenic mothers, or experiences of the 9/11 attacks. Positive adaptation, on the other hand, is considered in a demonstration of manifested behaviour on social competence or success at meeting any particular tasks at a specific life stage, such as the absence of psychiatric distress after the September 11th terrorism attacks on the United States.[3]
Resilience can allow some individuals grow up into functional adults despite even prolongued exposure to hardship.

Other factors that can prove helpful in preventing further psychological damage are therapy and counseling.

Cognitive-Behavioural Therapies and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Writing About Trauma Reduces Stress, Aids Immunity

Hardiness Helps People
Turn Stressful Circumstances into Opportunities



Also, to Lord Wong's point, once you're an adult and/or you've had the opportunity to understand what is wrong with you, you have the option to stop performing the actions and believing the mistaken notions that make your life an endless string of problems, be it on your own, through real therapy (not psychoanalysis!) or with counseling from a trusted person, a priest, parents, even a good friend.

But yes, once you understand you have a problem it's your responsibility to do something about it.
Life in Commodore 64:
10 OPEN "EYES",1,1
20 GET UP$:IF UP$="" THEN 20
30 GOTO BATHROOM
...
GENERATION 29
Don't like what I'm saying?
Take it up with my representative:
User avatar
Ariphaos
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 2005-10-21 02:48am
Location: Twin Cities, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Ariphaos »

Darth Wong wrote: 1) Irrelevant. "There but for the grace of God go I" is not a valid argument to free people from social responsibility.
2) Bullshit. You said it yourself: most of these people don't even want treatment. Moreover, this is yet another "there but for the grace of God go I" argument.
You asked what for me is a personal question, I gave a personal answer. I'm not sure even why I have to justify it.

That and I believe that treatment should be enforceable, especially at a young age. Psychotic disorders are progressive, they get worse the longer they are allowed to persist.
Yet again, a "there but for the grace of God go I" argument. If the punishment is fair for the crime, then it is fair regardless of whether you could have been that person.
You seem to think someone with a psychosis severe enough to deserve action is capable of understanding the proper reasoning behind their 'punishment'.
What does this have to do with sociopaths? I never said I hate all kinds of mental disorder, Mr. Strawman. I said that I hate people who act like assholes.
You were the one who brought sociopaths up, not me. Sociopaths have a completely different mental disorder separate from psychosis.

Psychosis alone is plenty enough to make people seem like assholes, because they hear you say 'hello' and think there is some hidden meaning behind it, not even parsing the word in proper context. Psychotics are the people who think they talk to God, or think they are gods, or think some elaborate scheme about the world, to change their lives for good (the annoying compulsive liar I mentioned in my first post in this thread) or ill (school shooting).
I know it was not your argument, asshole. It was my argument which you tried to refute by altering it.
Okay. Sociopaths typically have a logical capacity to understand punishment. Sociopaths are not the topic of this thread, or my original post, or even the majority of my posts, except as direct responses to you bringing up sociopaths.
Oh yeah, of course, that's precisely what I said. Oh wait, I never actually said that, Mr. Strawman. I have no problem with the idea of punishing assholes for their crimes and getting them treatment, if that is deemed potentially useful. Nowhere did I say that I don't want these people treated. You're a dishonest little fuckwad, and it's pretty obvious that you're acting like this because you have a personal emotional stake in this debate, hence your inability to discuss it honestly or rationally.
My impression is that you are mixing disorders that have no business being mixed. Sociopaths deserve punishment. Fine. As long as there are no other complications, I know personally that they can comprehend that. Nothing wrong with that.

Someone incapable of properly understanding punishment is not going to respond properly to punishment. Punishment, for the people who are the topic of this thread, can reinforce their behavior. It does not stop it, or mitigate it, it can make the situation worse.
How the fuck is it "pussyfooting" to say that people should be held responsible for their own crimes, asshole?
Because they've usually committed no legally actionable crimes, to start, it's entirely an issue of social awkwardness or persisting in a belief - creationism, conspiracy theories - beyond any rational limit, or not responding appropriately to behavior because they cannot understand something as basic as the concept of taking up another person's time. Since they have not (yet) caused any direct harm, they are not going to be arrested.

Instead you mock them and become part of the problem. Gleefully, even. As if it will have some sort of positive suppressive effect on their behavior. They see nothing wrong with their actions and all of the sudden you and your friends are being a dick to them for reasons they come to their own conclusions for.

They need to comprehend the idea of personal responsibility first. To understand that punishment is because of something that they did. Until then, they believe Satan is acting through you. Or mind control rays. Or simply that what they did to you was perfectly reasonable - assuming they even remember what they did to you ten seconds ago in the first place - and your response - perfectly valid to an outside observer - is just you being an asshole.

After they've been treated, sure. They may even offer up apologies for their prior behavior. Before then you are dealing with people who have one form of disconnect with reality or another, and anything you say or do to them goes through that filter first.
Give fire to a man, and he will be warm for a day.
Set him on fire, and he will be warm for life.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Darth Wong »

Xeriar wrote:You asked what for me is a personal question, I gave a personal answer. I'm not sure even why I have to justify it.
Bullshit. You gave an answer which you applied to me, saying I was being unreasonable. That is not a personal relative answer; that is an absolute answer.
You seem to think someone with a psychosis severe enough to deserve action is capable of understanding the proper reasoning behind their 'punishment'.
No I don't. I just don't care. Pragmatically, any legal system which gives too much weight to your mindset only opens up the door for any sufficiently dishonest prick and his lawyer to get him off any crime. This is not a hypothetical; we've seen it done.
You were the one who brought sociopaths up, not me. Sociopaths have a completely different mental disorder separate from psychosis.
Wrong, fucktard. You claimed that if someone has sufficient mental problems, their brain is necessarily "broken", and a person with a "broken" mind should not be blamed for his own actions. Why does that argument not apply to sociopaths? The fact that you didn't phrase your argument that way does not mean it does not lead that way.
Psychosis alone is plenty enough to make people seem like assholes, because they hear you say 'hello' and think there is some hidden meaning behind it, not even parsing the word in proper context. Psychotics are the people who think they talk to God, or think they are gods, or think some elaborate scheme about the world, to change their lives for good (the annoying compulsive liar I mentioned in my first post in this thread) or ill (school shooting).
If they know that what they are doing is illegal and carries consequences, then that's too damned bad, isn't it? The only time insanity should be viable as a criminal defense is when the delusional person actually thinks he was not doing something illegal. For example, if someone is so insane that he thinks he's killing a squirrel when he in fact is killing a person. However, it's quite a stretch for you to mutilate my argument from "assholes should not be able to use childhood bullying as an excuse for their behaviour" to "there is no such thing as severe psychosis", Mr. Strawman.
Okay. Sociopaths typically have a logical capacity to understand punishment. Sociopaths are not the topic of this thread, or my original post, or even the majority of my posts, except as direct responses to you bringing up sociopaths.
They're a perfectly valid response to your logic that anyone whose mind is "broken" should not be blamed for his actions, you lying little shit.
My impression is that you are mixing disorders that have no business being mixed.
That's rich, from a dishonest little fuckwad who took my original argument about "assholes" being held responsible for their own actions and declared that I was denying the existence of all mental disorders.
Instead you mock them and become part of the problem. Gleefully, even. As if it will have some sort of positive suppressive effect on their behavior.
Oh right, because there is no such thing as deterrent?
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Simon_Jester »

Samuel wrote:
"Why can't the amputee run? It's not like there's a 100% correlation between losing a limb and being incapable of running." They lack the part of the body they use to run.
Actually there is. People without limbs cannot run...
Nitpick: that's traditionally true, but then there's this guy...
People who have been bullied have not suffered lobotomies that removes their ability to be decent people.
I agree with your conclusion, though.

But then, I also think that mercy is a good idea as an ethical rule*, so it's hard for me to build up a really fiery righteous hate over things like this, except when it's taken to extremes. I don't like bullying behavior, I don't like bullies, and I tend to despise them unless they have a lot of other redeeming qualities. but it takes evidence of very heavy bullying to convince me to hate someone.

*I can back this up, but the explanation would be irrelevant to what I'm saying at the moment.
______
Stark wrote:Maybe some people are just cowards; hating generalities (like 'lying' or 'bullying') is easy and safe, because nobody will ever call you on it. Hating a person means you might be confronted and have to deal with people who think otherwise - like those who think the actions of liars or bullies aren't 'really' their fault or responsibility. It also means you can't pretend to ignore similar flaws in others without looking like a hypocrite and again being called to articulate your position.
And then there are the people who are just don't hate very easily; it happens.
______
Darth Wong wrote:If they know that what they are doing is illegal and carries consequences, then that's too damned bad, isn't it? The only time insanity should be viable as a criminal defense is when the delusional person actually thinks he was not doing something illegal. For example, if someone is so insane that he thinks he's killing a squirrel when he in fact is killing a person.
This is interesting.

I would argue that the insanity defense should also be viable if the accused is so crazed* that they are not capable of making a rational decision to follow the law, even if they know what it is. Examples include someone so mentally retarded that they have a five-year-old child's understanding of what a law is. Or someone with a phobia or compulsive behavior so strong that they cannot rationally override it- someone who is sufficiently afraid of heights might very well kill to get away from a high place, even though they know that "he took me somewhere high up" is not a legal defense for murder.

*Random P.S.: "Crazed" can also mean "fractured." I suspect that this is not a coincidence.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18670
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Rogue 9 »

Darth Wong wrote:
Xeriar wrote:Instead you mock them and become part of the problem. Gleefully, even. As if it will have some sort of positive suppressive effect on their behavior.
Oh right, because there is no such thing as deterrent?
If they truly don't comprehend the reason behind the punishment? No, there isn't. Deterrent depends on the ability to make a connection between action and consequence. For someone like Xeriar posits, who truly does not believe he did anything wrong, any ensuing punishment seems like it's coming out of the blue; it's like punishing a dog for chewing up the furniture hours after the fact. The entire point seems to be that the person is incapable of rational thought. Deterrence depends on rational thought on the part of the person to be deterred.

I have no interest in involving myself in the rest of the argument; it just seems to me that attempting to deter through punishment someone who by definition cannot make the connection between the action being punished and the punishment manifestly cannot work.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician
Samuel
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4750
Joined: 2008-10-23 11:36am

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Samuel »

That is specific deterance- general deterance is making an example of someone for everyone else. It doesn't require conprehension on the person who is being punished part.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Darth Wong »

Rogue 9 wrote:If they truly don't comprehend the reason behind the punishment? No, there isn't.
As Samuel points out, there is still a deterrent for others. Also ...
Deterrent depends on the ability to make a connection between action and consequence. For someone like Xeriar posits, who truly does not believe he did anything wrong, any ensuing punishment seems like it's coming out of the blue; it's like punishing a dog for chewing up the furniture hours after the fact. The entire point seems to be that the person is incapable of rational thought. Deterrence depends on rational thought on the part of the person to be deterred.
Since when are people with social disorders necessarily so fucked up that they can't even make cause and effect connections? Xeriar tries to go after me for smearing different disorders together, but it seems to me that HE (and you as well) are actually the ones doing that. Yes, there is a such thing as a mental disorder which makes you act like a complete prick. Yes, there is a such thing as a mental disorder which makes you completely incapable of functioning or thinking rationally. No, they are not necessarily the same disorder.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12461
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Edi »

Being bullied as a kid is no excuse. If it were, I guess I'd be entitled to be a massive prick to everyone, but for some reason I'm not. Maybe, let's take a guess, because I can actually relate to just how shitty it feels if you're being bullied.

Doesn't mean I can't be an asshole to someone who provokes me, but there's the part that somebody needs to start something first. I don't go out of my way to do it. I could have taken the woe-is-me route and blamed everything on the past regardless of whether it was justified or not, but I didn't. I don't like dishonesty, which is what that would have been.

Anecdotal as it is, one of the differences to what I have often read about people who have been bullied is that I did not feel powerless. Bad, shitty, yes, but not powerless. I had a very specific and direct response to bullying: Brutal, unapologetic violence. If someone made the mistake of getting physical, they needed treatment for bruises next. Escape from reality in the form of books was another response and I did have some friends as well.

Still, there are marks left, but they don't generally interfere. I don't let them.

Based on my own experiences as the target of bullying, I'd say Xeriar is full of shit. The kind of psychosis where the person is totally disconnected from reality are a rare few among thousands, but the ones who just act like assholes and blame it all on how they were bullied in grade x or on some other excuse are a dime a dozen. These latter types don't deserve any slack and it seems to me like the thread is more about them than the outlier cases.
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18670
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified
Contact:

Re: Bullied Kids More Likely to Become Psychotic Preteens

Post by Rogue 9 »

Darth Wong wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:If they truly don't comprehend the reason behind the punishment? No, there isn't.
As Samuel points out, there is still a deterrent for others.
Conceded.
Darth Wong wrote:Also ...
Deterrent depends on the ability to make a connection between action and consequence. For someone like Xeriar posits, who truly does not believe he did anything wrong, any ensuing punishment seems like it's coming out of the blue; it's like punishing a dog for chewing up the furniture hours after the fact. The entire point seems to be that the person is incapable of rational thought. Deterrence depends on rational thought on the part of the person to be deterred.
Since when are people with social disorders necessarily so fucked up that they can't even make cause and effect connections? Xeriar tries to go after me for smearing different disorders together, but it seems to me that HE (and you as well) are actually the ones doing that. Yes, there is a such thing as a mental disorder which makes you act like a complete prick. Yes, there is a such thing as a mental disorder which makes you completely incapable of functioning or thinking rationally. No, they are not necessarily the same disorder.
I am aware of that; this is why I was careful to say someone like Xeriar posits. For a sociopath or other victim of mental illness who can comprehend punishment, it is of course effective. Since I am not familiar with the subject and do not have relevant studies, I will not speculate on what proportion of the mentally ill this applies to.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician
Post Reply