Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Here some backup material for those who don't know what I'm talking about.

For what I've seen, people both on- and offline seem to be awfully eager to pin all kinds of immoral people, for corrupt businessmen and politicans, despotic dictators, and even fictional characters, to having some kind of anti-social personality disorder, or being socio-/psychopaths.

From my personal POV, while there's no doubt some sociopaths among business sharks and such (as such enviroment suits them very well), I don't see reason to assume that most, or even significant part of them would be sociopaths. Such an assumption depends on the idea that only sociopaths would be capable of doing terrible things to other people. While I can understand why some people would prefer to think that no decent human being would be capable of exploiting cheap desperate workforce or racial genocide, I think that is still rather childish, and even potentially harmful way of thinking.

Not that we are all monsters incapable of empathy of course. I'm sure most of us can and are usually kind and generous to other people. But that doesn't mean we don't have other, even conflicting needs too. Humans seem to have this awful habit of categorising each other into groups (race, religion, occupation etc.), and a desperate need to be part of some group, combined with belief that that group is superior to the others of it's kind. Not to mention that culture, like it or not, does influence a lot of what we think is right or wrong. In Rome, for example, it was perfectly normal to abandon a newborn father didn't accept, something only a sociopath would be likely to do in today's world where harming children is one of the greatest taboos possible. With that said, can't business enviroment be considered one kind of culture too? Where maximizing profits is the greatest good that every company member must comply to be worthy of being in the presence "his kind"? Not to mention makes life considerably more beneficial for him? Power corrupts they say.

So what do you guys think? Are monsters always born, or can peer pressure and lack of consenquences make them? And do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

I think this is an interesting topic. Dave Cullen's book Columbine goes into this a bit. It details the characteristics of a psychopath, which fit Eric Harris. Since I read I get annoyed when people use "psychopath" to describe a bad person. I think some monsters are born and some are made.
Eric Harris was a (posthumously) diagnosed psychopath. His writings detail it greatly. He described his hatred for nearly everything, how he lied to adults(particularly his father), his belief that he was superior to others(godlike), and his lack of emotion during shooting, which fit characteristics of a psychopath.
Charles Whitman was a fairly normal child, however his father was very strict and abusive. He worked hard ranking eagle scout and joining the marines. When he married he was abusive to his wife. Shortly before the shootings his mother and father separated. Before the snipings he murdered his mother and wife so as to protect them from any aftermath of the shootings. However I think the murder of his mother was more of a final "f**k you" to his dad. So I'd say Whitman's father is indirectly responsible for the shootings.
So yeah, some are born and some are made.

Just want to make stuff clear that people don't know: Though sociopaths and psycopaths are very similar to each other, they are different from each other. A psycopath was born with the antisocial behavior, while the sociopath acquired the antisocial behavior due to negative factors in society, like poverty or being abandoned by their parents. There are more differences, but i think this is the most important one.

Psycopath dinstinct brain

Both of them are antisocial personality disorders. That means they are only socio-/psychopaths, if they are considered a "disease" in their current society. The term "path" in socio-/psychopaths (In Latin) means sick.