BigMikeyK101
New member
To corroborate my point these 'symptoms' were taken of wikipedia.
1.failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2.deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3.impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4.irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5.reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6.consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behaviour or honor financial obligations;
7.lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalising having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
8.promiscuity;
9.having shallow or seemingly nonexistent feelings.
Now how can this warrant a mental disorder? I find rather arbitrary to be honest because these just seem to me like social preferences rather than any chemical imbalance in the brain. Is being a bit of a prick now considered to be something which can be 'cured' through drugs and therapy? Surely this is just character trait or personal preference?
To those who have commented and said that this is a mental disorder, please read this:
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/what-causes-antisocial-personality-disorder/
Now the article clearly states that there is no known cause as to how this 'disorder' occurs. So please answer this, if you cannot medically tell me what causes this supposed condition, how can we even be sure that it is one to begin with?? It proves that many of you who have commented in favour of this disorder's existence have no evidence in what you are saying.
Cant people just see that this is a way of socially controlling the masses? Also, if people are unaware that thy suffer from this condition, how on earth could they identify that they need help to begin with?
Sorry need more answers to convince me.
Having read the article again, a famous Latin provern comes to mind:
"cum hoc ergo propter hoc" which means "with this, therefore because of this".
Correlation does not imply causation.
1.failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2.deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3.impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4.irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5.reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6.consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behaviour or honor financial obligations;
7.lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalising having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
8.promiscuity;
9.having shallow or seemingly nonexistent feelings.
Now how can this warrant a mental disorder? I find rather arbitrary to be honest because these just seem to me like social preferences rather than any chemical imbalance in the brain. Is being a bit of a prick now considered to be something which can be 'cured' through drugs and therapy? Surely this is just character trait or personal preference?
To those who have commented and said that this is a mental disorder, please read this:
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/what-causes-antisocial-personality-disorder/
Now the article clearly states that there is no known cause as to how this 'disorder' occurs. So please answer this, if you cannot medically tell me what causes this supposed condition, how can we even be sure that it is one to begin with?? It proves that many of you who have commented in favour of this disorder's existence have no evidence in what you are saying.
Cant people just see that this is a way of socially controlling the masses? Also, if people are unaware that thy suffer from this condition, how on earth could they identify that they need help to begin with?
Sorry need more answers to convince me.
Having read the article again, a famous Latin provern comes to mind:
"cum hoc ergo propter hoc" which means "with this, therefore because of this".
Correlation does not imply causation.