Ok I want to do studies on how a sociopath/psychopath is made according to the general view of how others feel this could happen. The study is about educational institutions, e.g high schools, colleges or whatever. Now I bet you've heard stories of pupils coming to schools and shooting at people. I'm sure some people have experienced some of this mistreatment but I would like to know what everyone thinks. Please vote on the poll and express your views.

I personally think sociopaths/psychopaths are more likely to be made by society. I believe its a social construction and everyone can turn to sociopath/psychopath if they feel threatened, trapped, afraid, unsettled and so mistreated. This will likely create an outburst of frustration and society attaches this label onto them once they have acted in a sociopathical/psychopathical way. Now some people are better at dealing with situations than others where as some aren't. A lot of people argue this is due to genetics or the fact that the problem lies with the people and not society. However people fail to look at themselves and how their actions towards these so called crazies is what actually made them crazy. Now everyone has limits, there's no human on this planet without them but some people definitely have more control over their minds than others able to relinquish their hate or frustration and find inner peace. Some people are different and are outcast by society but are able to deal with it in different ways where as others cannot cope. What are your views towards this?

Thats an interesting point. I'm surprised quality of education didn't fall into that list. Everyone knows Descartes famous rhetoric for example, but no-one further extends it to others. Eg. 'I think therefore I am' becomes 'I think and feel ergo so do these things that look like me'. In fact it is this whole delusion that we are the only guaranteed person, we can only feel things that affect us, that we think we are the only person worth satisfying.
Considering others, the consequences of our actions, deciding whether battles are worth it, these are things that require intellect.

Also, just a side-note, there are studies of mental disorders being hereditary (though who's sleeping with psychopaths? ).
Anyways I'll vote on what I consider most important on that list when a few others have so it isn't obvious.

This is something I've given some thought to and have an interest in studying for myself.

I think for somebody to get to that stage whereby they feel they have to take their rage out on other human beings is a pretty severe consequence from a culmination of things. I don't think you could pinpoint what is most influential on their actions though I do feel it all boils down to stress on the mind. Like you said, obsorber, everybody has limits. People will snap under various circumstances. For somebody to really breakdown, I feel there must be some kind of mental condition for that to take place; it's not just enough to crumble under pressure. Humans are raised to understand right from wrong, but through the later years of Education, there is no reason to disregard their upbringing. Society has made and destroyed them, though their minds were susceptible to snapping in the first place. At least, that's how I feel.

It really is a complicated issue, but I would like to get one thing out of the way:
I literally, just a few days ago, presented this topic to a class of people -more or less- due to a 5,000 word essay I wrote on whether criminals (namely psychopaths) are responsible for their actions.
So what I'm trying to say is, I've read a study or two doesn't make me an expert by any measure of the word, but I have a few things to discuss.

Regarding genes. There are a number of confirmed genetic traits that lead to an increased disposition towards self-serving or aggressive behavior. The strength of this disposition is argued, but it has been used in courtrooms to alter sentences (one example being death sentence swapped for a thirty year sentence). However, having these genetics is not a cause of psychopathic behavior, but an enhancement of it.
Simply put, a good childhood even with ALL the genetic influences that make up a psychopath will usually make a good person.
however, a bad childhood with ALL the genetic influences that make up a psychopath will usually make a bad person.

The bad childhood bit on its own isn't that bad, neither is the genetic influence, but together, yes, definitely yes it's bad.

I imagine genetics as being the conceptual scheme that make up how we see the world. Imagine you have a square room. Your genetics is how that room functions in regards to what is happening outside. Lets say that having aggressive genes means having your window wide open, while having more common genes means having your window just open a little. Now lets say that your upbringing is the weather outside. A good upbringing is calm and sunny, a bad upbringing is windy and wet.
If you get stuck with the open window and the bad weather, you will end up with a soaking wet room that is all messed up. This will probably piss you off. Closing the window most of the way minimizes to problem. But there's also what's going on outside that probably matters most.

Ultimately you could see psychopaths as victims of their own circumstance.
"I think therefore I am" is a gross misunderstanding of thoughts.
You don't think, you become aware of thoughts. Thoughts can pop into your head. You can be troubled by your thoughts. You can not know what you were thinking. You can shake about uncontrollably for minutes as you try to remember the name of that one actor from that one film, but the THOUGHT DOES NOT COME.

So yes, that's how I see sociopaths and psychopaths. They are influenced by their upbringing in the most notable sense, but their genes make up a large part of that too, and then they are also influenced by mitigating circumstances around them. The upbringing puts the thoughts in their head. The genes decide how commonly those thoughts will emerge. The mitigating circumstances will be caused by this, but will then feed back into it, usually as a vicious cycle. In a more calm person, this causes them to seek out a calm life, and become calmer through it. In a more chaotic person, or a self serving person, they seek out a life that benefits them.

Sparrowsmith, I completely agree with you that a person is more likely to become a sociopath/psychopath due to external factors but genetics can also play a part in making them prone to being one. I believe having some sort of mental disorder is likely to effect your lifestyle and treatment from others which can also cause this. Especially if labels are attached to the person causing a self fulfilling prophecy. But these labels can also be attached to non conformers, individuals, intellectuals, loners and those who are just different or discriminated by others for whatever cause. This is why I personally believe in general, society is to blame for socially constructing most sociopaths/psychopaths, however individuals still have the ability to control their minds and morals.

I used this line to explain how people become self-serving. Its not about the thought process itself but rather about existence. "I think, therefore I am" basically amounts to "I can assure my own existence through my ability to think".
What I was trying to develop it into was what some other philosopher (I cant keep up with all their names) said about "the unsaid", a logical 'other side of the coin' sort of thing. In this case "I think therefore I am" becomes "I cant think/feel another, they do not exist" or rather, they're needs/desires are not as worth fulfilling as our own that we will fully appreciate through our ability to think/feel the result.

Anyways, back on topic, we can go round the nature/nurture debate indefinitely (I like that you combined the two Sparrow, I hate that they are often considered mutually exclusive) but yes it comes down to individual cases. Though many may fall into a 'psychopath' group no doubt their cases are going to be wildly different, from circumstances to the severity of the actual crime committed (killing three people is likely to receive the same treatment as killing thirty). I think its worth looking at Foucault's ideas on imprisonment itself and societies attitude towards 'wayward individuals' (but I only say that 'cause I like the guy, still its worth considering the legal systems that define sanity in these instances)

Well if we're looking at society's influence then I would consider looking at different societies.
Part of my project involved looking at Denmark. They are extremely effective at rehabilitating criminals, I can't say for sure how much of that is psychological repairing or just education, so I don't know if it's psychopaths they deal with or not.

Anyway, one of the cornerstones of Denmark's society (from what I've read) is the idea of equality. More so, you are not to think of yourself as more unique than anyone else. You are not entitled to more. You are a person, not a completely unique individual.
People are incredibly happy there, so maybe this is something to consider.

Contrast that with most other societies though, where being an individual and thriving in your own way is encouraged, then maybe it's not so hard to see why people would end up feeling detached from others. Just a thought. The very suppression of individuals comes from the idea of individualization. When we believe we are thriving in our own way, we feel more entitled, but also threatened by people thriving in a different way. We feel the need to bring them over to our particular way of doing things, or to put them down. This reverses in the other person, who see themselves as better because they don't put others down.
It's a vicious circle of self-entitlement that stems from the idea that being individual is right, but having reassurance among peers is also right. Everyone starts to think they deserve more than they have, that they're more capable that they are, to the point where a violent person would have no problems harming someone else.

This is just me thinking now though. I have less evidence to back any of this up than my previous post.

I don't think people even know what a psychopath really is. They just label what they see, for example a typical loner can have this label successfully applied to them. From looking at studies conducted by Howard Becker its clear people have no brain power to think for themselves and rather are guided by comments from others.

Sometimes I would rate myself as a loner especially in an environment where I come to get work done like at college. I speak to only a select few people and people seem to be offended because I choose not to associate myself with them. I can be much more social in a social situation. Main reason why is because I hate to engage in petty gossip which I know most of the comments heard are either true but over exaggerated, partially true or just made up rumors by jealous or trouble making people who like drama. I'd rather just get my grades and go to university because I've already wasted 4 years in employment before returning back to do my A-levels. Because I choose not to conform to something I believe I detest, I've overheard people talk about me as if I am a psychopath, heck I know I'm sometimes being watched and judged. People even do things like test me all the time and I am always aware I'm being tested. They'll send people to pretend to talk to me to find information that they can use to exploit me but I'm so mentally strong it doesn't work. Girls have even come up to me pretending they are interested but I know their game before they play. I've always been aware of everything around me. Now it's got to the point where they made up rumors that I'm a homosexual because I rejected fake behavior. It's rather annoying. In a way I wish I just started off as relatively social that way I would have avoided such nuisances. However, it's made me a stronger person to realize that in society there are people without no self thought but think way to much as a group. Once a label has been applied to a so called person who is a psychopath/sociopath whether they are or not won't depend on the person even if they have no mental illnesses. In depends on these people and people for some reason like to believe what they want. Even if they find evidence that contradicts their concept, they'll still justify their beliefs by looking for evidence that supports it for as long as it takes. Not everyone is the same but if you have enemies or you've offended a few people or people think you receive too much attention without conforming, I guarantee some will try to put you down. Labeling someone as a psychopath/sociopath is a way for this to occur as it makes you an undesirable. Someone who few want to interact with because the label has been successfully applied. This can lead to a self fulfilling prophecy but that depends on the individual, their choices and their awareness.

I'm not expert in the matter, but I'm inclined to agree with Sparrowsmith. Giving various circumstances, anybody could potentially have psychotic tendancies; however, a good upbringing can teach somebody how to keep certain agressive behaviors under control. But considering the discussion of whether a pyschopath should be held responsible for their actions is mute, to some degree. The real issue is whether or not they can remain free among law abiding citizens. Even if they are at no fault do some bit of insanity, chances are high they will still need to be kept under watch, and possibly locked away.

Edit: Note that this is all based upon my own opinion, as I said I'm not an expert to know for sure.

Rehabilitation is possible (and more effective) than imprisonment. However, it can cost more, and is a hard ideology to instill in societies that haven't already accepted it.
Denmark, for example, has a 'fixing' attitude towards prisoners.

Well that's like saying if someone wants to study to become a martial artist or the greatest fighter on the planet, then they must be a psychopathic criminal who likes to harm others. Just because someone likes violence which a large majority of the population do especially males who like to watch, fight and to see someone get hurt doesn't make them a psychopath. That's like saying most people in society are psychopaths. We see violence on TV, in public and at schools. People are rewarded, respected and acknowledged for it.

I would theoretically and personally argue that labels are attached to people who's brain operate differently to the norm, but psychopaths/sociopaths are socially constructed by society. Society decides they are psychopaths because they think and behave differently to the norm. The way they engage social interactions tend to be bizarre to the majority and their brain functions differently. Maybe it's true that could make them more prone to committing offences such as murder. Even so, at the end of the damn day it's not only biology that contributes to peoples behavior. I would argue that its more the case of how we are nurtured. If a person is treated like a psychopath then they will more likely become one. People who are treated like outcasts, discriminated against, get neglected or mistreated live frustrated lives so they do not necessarily have to be psychopaths to one day flip out and do something which is labelled as psychopathic behavior.

An argument I would use to support this is take the case of the feral children raised by wolves. They behaved in a way different to humans because of not being nurtured properly. This shows that nurture is important to live in a civilized manner. Now that kind of behavior could be labelled psychopathic/sociopathic if they weren't raised by animals but by people. But let me say one thing, what children behave anything like that if they have been raised relatively properly like most children.

I still believe external factors are what cause people to end up being like this. They may not receive enough attention at home from early years. This could later effect their ability to socialize in the future. They may have been bullied, abused by parents even sexually, suffered some kind of trauma at a young age etc. I could go on forever.

Following on, we've seen many people suffer from mental disorders from a young age but that doesn't necessarily mean they will end up with the title of what is referred to as a psycho. (oh yeah I forgot they were already so called psychopaths to begin with, what the general population accepts... )
If their parents teach them right from wrong and they will likely gain a sense of morality even if this may be more difficult to pull of because their brains work differently. I've met and known many who seem to have or have mental disorders and the majority of them have the same morals as the general population if not better morals because their parents have raised them to be more sensitive towards factors to do with morality being afraid and in order to keep them from performing such acts.

This is exactly why I cannot agree that a psychopath/sociopath is not socially constructed. You end up becoming one based on how you are treated and even normal citizens have engaged in what is labelled as psychotic behavior with no symptoms of mental disorders.

As I've said, it's certainly a mixture, and it's difficult to say which is more important.
For example, we are naturally programmed not only to learn language but also to create it. Feral children past a certain age, however, cannot learn language at all. Nurture can therefore override nature. Alternatively, nature can override nurture. To say one applies more than the other is to only look at specific cases. The truth is that every case is different.

In fact, most psychopaths go unidentified by the general public. A SOCIOPATH is someone who is generally anti-social, or this is how it is used. So someone who is different is often considered a sociopath. The new Sherlock Holmes on BBC insists in some episodes that he is a sociopath, not a psychopath, because he is uncaring of other people, not that he wants to harm them. Psychopaths, however, are callous and selfish, fully capable of harming others without remorse.
Most people see an anti-social person and think psychopath, while psychopaths are actually incredibly good at faking social interaction.
Studies have even shown that CEOs of major companies are 4 times more likely to be a psychopath than the average Joe, besides being worse at their jobs than most.
That said, there aren't actually many clinical psychopaths in the population (percentage wise) but there are a lot of anti-socials.

A better look at psychopaths would be the TV show Dexter. Dexter is clearly all kinds of messed up, but can act like a normal human being. The psychopaths that make the news aren't the weird dude in the coffee shop who mumbled to himself or collected hair.
The psychopaths that make the news were the ones no one ever suspected. The truly deranged ones are perfectly ordinary people in all respects except one: They don't care about other people, at all. Not a hint of remorse, nor anger. They don't care if they are judged beyond how it benefits them.

Basically, if you call someone a psychopath and they take offense, they're not really a psychopath. If they claim not to be, but aren't genuinely offended because they don't consider your opinion important, then yes, you're dealing with a psychopath.
Pretty much nothing can wound a psychopaths self-esteem. Life is like one big 'blending in' game to them.

So no, I really don't think you can call someone a psychopath until they start being one. You're more likely to become a psychopath by never being taught to care about other people, or by being taught the opposite.
Words don't make someone into something they're not. Behavior is taught and learned.

Obsorber: Thanks for being so open and sharing your experiences. I think that as a culture (especially in America) we do rush to put medical labels on people who don't fit the norm. Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish is a great book on this subject, although it was written a few decades ago. As for the discussion on language learning. I recommend the writings of Noam Chomsky.

I was diagnosed as bipolar in 2009, but I reject the diagnosis because I got it due to the side effects of an antidepressant I was on which caused me to go manic for three months (only sleeping for like 2 hours a night but feeling energized, feeling invincible and irresponsible, exercising 90 minutes a day and dropping down to 120 pounds). Now I'm on meds that do nothing but make me sick if I don't take them. I've had much better progress just from talk therapy once a week. This is not to say that such meds do not help some people (I have some friends who they do), but the research on the link between neurology and psychological disorders is very lacking at the moment (I think that a CAT scan should be required for a bipolor diagnosis, but currently it can be diagnosed based solely on client self-reporting).

Anyway, that's way more than you needed to know about me - but I guess my point is that the fields of psychiatry and psychology are still young and we need to hold off on slapping labels on people until we have a better grasp of how the brain affects our actions. I think it's a no brainer that circumstance, family and society play the biggest factor in mental/emotional problems. I have seen this in my experience as a teacher - I can usually (not always) guess what a student's parents/homelife is like just from the way they behave.

How would seeking a calm life not be beneficial?



People can also consciously reject what they've been taught, and act however they want to anyway. You can teach someone to be a certain way all you want, but ultimately it comes down to the person deciding whether or not to listen, and that decision in turn making them.

But their decision, even conscious, is purely indicative of the character they already are. People who have lived a life of hardship and suffering, and become diagnosed psychopaths, do not wake up one day and think "hmm, perhaps I'll be good now" no more than you can suddenly 180 your own personality.
Picture all of the people who wish they had more confidence, more willpower, more willingness to study, more outgoingness, and try saying that they can simply choose to behave differently. Behaviour is a instinctive reaction to situations brought about by previous experience. It takes a long time to reach a place where you have a virtuous behaviour, you don't just decide to be that way. There are a few rare cases where people change themselves for the better, but they have reasons for doing this, and usually struggle at first.

You need only look at reforming prisons, such as Ringe State Prison in Denmark (I think that name's right) to see how powerful an education in society can make a sociopath an ordinary person.