View Single Post
Old 01-16-2011, 06:37 PM   #79
Master Po
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 378
My Ride: E46 no more
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
Well, Let us look at this from the DSM (at least as quoted from Wikipedia)

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR = 301.7, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[1]

A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring for as long as either childhood, or in the case of many who are influenced by environmental factors, around age 15, as indicated by three or more of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors 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 behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;

B) The individual is at least 18 years of age.
C) There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode. "

So basically if we take the evidence that crime does pay, as the majority of crimes are never caught, let alone punished. There is nothing wrong with conning people, as the great thing about a con is that the mark is a willing participant, & there is no reason for remorse. One does what one does, and the feelings of other people are their responsibility. To feel remorse is just falling into a "guilt trap".

Now, one can make the argument that teaching kids those three things will likely get them higher standardized test scores and more money in the bank. Since (according to Rapier7's post) that is the goal of parenting. Then teaching children to be sociopaths is just as valid a means of parenting the "superior chinese mother" model. They both end up with the same result.

Isn't raising kids via the sociopath just as good an idea as raising them with "chinese mothers"? If not, why not?
One method teaches kids to work hard, be focused on academics (because it's believed that academic success correlates to success in life), not waste time with playing (although I disagree with this one since some of those activities can be social skills development) and find success by playing by the rules (although this is not addressed or implied in the WSJ article, but from my experience).
The other method (as you described it) teaches kids to break laws for personal gains.
Big difference.

This is also the answer to hayabusa's comment
Originally Posted by hayabusa55 View Post
If he wants to have sex with his kids, should one also "live and let live"
There's law against that. I'd live and let law enforcement officials handle it.

Last edited by Master Po; 01-16-2011 at 06:49 PM.
Master Po is offline   Reply With Quote