In the documentary about Good versus Evil, we learned about that one psychologist that discovered he himself had the brain and genetics of a psychopath. He said that he believed he did not become a full blown psychopathic killer was because of his lovely childhood and lack of any trauma. His family all confirmed that they could see it, and that it was not that big of a surprise. When he got over his initial shock, he too saw his psychopathic tendencies. He described that he would have no problem blowing off an aunt's funeral if there was a conflicting party. I found this particularly interesting that he had never actually thought of himself as a psychopath before. But, his whole experience made me question whether or not people who are tested and proven to have the biological make up of a psychopath change in anyway. Do they now feel justified that they do not care as much? Does this affect their decisions in anyway?
Someone who finds out that they have the makeup of a psychopath could be driven farther in to their psychopathic tendencies because now they believe that it defines them. But does it? Is not knowing better? Is trying to make them conform and fit in better than knowing the truth about their potential?
I love your post! I completely agree with what you are saying, and I was thinking the same thing. Honestly, I feel like people do change a bit when they find out that they have the genetic makeup for a psychopath, because now they are aware of all the things that they do and think that show their psychopathic tendencies. But, I think there are two ways to go when one finds out that one has the genetic makeup of a psychopath. I think that a person either feels more justified in their psychopathic behaviors and uses it as an excuse not to care, or that person is hyperaware of their psychopathic tendencies and does everything they can to think like a "normal person" so they don't end up a psychopathic killer. I think it is better not to know you have psychopathic traits if you are moral and ethical human being. However, if a person has the traits that show that they could potentially become dangerous later in life, it is best that these people are tested.
ReplyDeleteI think this brings up a really interesting idea. At first I thought it would be important for people to know, so they can do the best to make sure that they and those close to them are happy and safe, so that the person doesn't become "set off." However, now I think that wouldn't be the best, because it would make the person paranoid and even less happy. So, I think in this case ignorance is bliss because they would feel normal and not be freaked out or start to become who they think they are.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a question to think about. From my experience, I have seen an influence of what a "label" can do to a person. For example, ff a person goes to a clinic and is said to have clinical depression, they may even completely accept the fact that this is who they are and there is nothing they can do about it. Maybe it's a matter of choice. If someone is defined a a "psychopath",it's a choice whether or not they want to study the topic more in depth. I agree with you, but as well, I think if someone had some kind of disorder, they should know about it. If you had sadness all your life, wouldn't you want to know why that was? And if it was depression, there are certainly many options to get treatment from it.
ReplyDelete