Do you think Psychopathy/Sociopathy/AsPD should be removed as a disorder?

Watch
Lyssandrah
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Pretty much every criteria that marks such a person with the condition are deliberate, conscious decisions one makes. Being manipulative, violating social norms (including those that aren't crimes), being selfish, arrogant, etc. are all choices one can make. And even if we were to say this is a proclivity/predilection or inclination towards anti-societal expectations, if it makes it any easier to accept, we all have inclinations towards certain things. It's something we call temptation. Temptations are not indicative of a disorder. Moreover, a disorder is characterized by symptoms--things out of one's control, and yet, every last "symptom" of this disorder is within full control of the psychopath's mental faculties. A temptation is quite simply an inclination--an urge to do something we know is very wrong.

Moreover, I think it is a joke and a mockery to label a pattern of behavior which are all a result of deliberate, conscious decisions one make as a legitimate medical condition when there are people with disorders like Borderline Personality Disorder and Bipolar Disorder who have given accounts of just how hellish their experiences have been and how affronted they actually feel when they see a person void of any mental health ailments actually wishing they had a mental disorder. With the psychopath, it's the opposite extreme. These people do not suffer from their disorder and actually boast about what they are.

As one person said, the hallmark of a disorder is that an individual with it suffers and the technical definition of a personality disorder is a pattern of maladaptive behaviors--that is, a pattern of personality traits and behaviors that interfere with an individual's ability to function in life. And in the case of Borderlines, they face this day in and day out and understandably, suffer a great deal. With psychopaths, it's almost as if they cruise through life, perfectly unhinged and undisturbed by the fact they are going through life without feeling the slightest twinge of guilt or remorse for their actions. In addition, the fact that the disorder features characteristics that appear so normal make it seem almost as if it's functional--even so much as perhaps an evolutionary advantage over the non-personality-disordered.

This disorder is contrary to the classic definition of a disorder in almost every possible way that I don't believe it should even be in the DSM, as I don't believe it's an actual disorder. An absence of conscience isn't a disorder as no one is born without one and it is a sign of something far more sinister.

I believe it should be removed.
1
reply
jlwman_
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Possibly.. it's a lot more common than one would think.. also it is controllable to a degree
0
reply
username457532
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
I have BPD and most of the issues that people see me struggle with due to it would seem to most people that they're conscious decisions. Also, you seem to think that everyone who has a mental illness definitely and always wants rid of it. And I know that for me, that isn't the case. I would be a different person without my mental health problems and as much as I hate myself, I don't want to change.
0
reply
Lyssandrah
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by SmallTownGirl)
I have BPD and most of the issues that people see me struggle with due to it would seem to most people that they're conscious decisions. Also, you seem to think that everyone who has a mental illness definitely and always wants rid of it. And I know that for me, that isn't the case. I would be a different person without my mental health problems and as much as I hate myself, I don't want to change.
Well, I'm sorry that you have this disorder, but if you don't want to change, just know that that is YOU--no one else with the disorder. Most people with Borderline Personality Disorder or Bipolar Disorder WANT to be rid of it and WANT to change and would do ANYTHING to be rid of it. They actually envy people unafflicted with mental disorders because they can live through life in peace without having to worry about their emotions ruling their lives. Whereas most people with Antisocial Personality Disorder LIKE who they are. This isn't mere coincidence. Mental illness, from a technical standpoint, is really no different than any physiologic illness, disorder or ailment. The only difference is the aspect of the human anatomy it affects.

What you are basically saying is that your unwillingness to get better is like a Cancer-stricken patient wanting to die from the illness or a patient afflicted with Diabetes wanting to die from it, in spite of the resources available to keep it managed.

You are an unusual case.

Let's face it, AsPD isn't real disorder.
0
reply
username457532
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by Lyssandrah)
Well, I'm sorry that you have this disorder, but if you don't want to change, just know that that is YOU--no one else with the disorder. Most people with Borderline Personality Disorder or Bipolar Disorder WANT to be rid of it and WANT to change and would do ANYTHING to be rid of it. They actually envy people unafflicted with mental disorders because they can live through life in peace without having to worry about their emotions ruling their lives. Whereas most people with Antisocial Personality Disorder LIKE who they are. This isn't mere coincidence. Mental illness, from a technical standpoint, is really no different than any physiologic illness, disorder or ailment. The only difference is the aspect of the human anatomy it affects.

What you are basically saying is that your unwillingness to get better is like a Cancer-stricken patient wanting to die from the illness or a patient afflicted with Diabetes wanting to die from it, in spite of the resources available to keep it managed.

You are an unusual case.

Let's face it, AsPD isn't real disorder.
It's not for you, or anyone, to say that I SHOULD want to get better and lose who I am. Unless you have Antisocial Personality Disorder you don't know what it's like so you can shut the **** up.
0
reply
driftawaay
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
aspd is not a disorder, lmao its called being a ****ing prick, thats all. next thing u know being a mean girl in high school will be a mental disorder. it will be called regina george syndrome and the NHS will pay for the treatment
0
reply
Rad-Reloaded
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
People with the condition tend to have physical differences in the brain so you are simply wrong.
0
reply
pineneedles
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
No. A person who has a disorder doesn't need to 'suffer' from it for it to be considered a disorder.
0
reply
Lyssandrah
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by pineneedles)
No. A person who has a disorder doesn't need to 'suffer' from it for it to be considered a disorder.
It's not just the fact they don't suffer from it, it's that the "symptoms" they display are deliberate, conscious decisions they make. Conscious decisions are NOT symptoms. Symptoms are indicative of a disorder or illness out of one's control and thus, the sufferer wants to be rid of it. Most people WANT to be rid of BPD. Most people WISH they were cured of Bipolar Disorder. Most people WISH they were cured of Cancer or AIDS. All are classic definitions of suffering.

People with psychopathy/sociopathy/AsPD?

Most LIKE who they are. Are you telling me that just because someone behaves in a way that is out of tune with your line of behavior and thinking and what society deems acceptable that they suffer from a mental condition?

People with Borderline Personality Disorder suffer from excessive levels of emotion. It is even said to be called "Borderline" aside from the fact that they're on the border between calmness and blowing their tops off because they're also in the threshold between neurosis and psychosis. These people deal with this day in and day out and they see this as a hellish experience.People with Bipolar Disorder experience extremely high moods (called mania) and low moods (depression), hence the archaic term for it known as "manic depression". They also experience racing thoughts, they have trouble completing tasks and exhibit erratic behavior because of it, and they often indulge in alcohol to counterbalance the emptiness they helplessly feel. This daily emotional dysfunctional ritual is hellish for them and they wish they could experience normal mood regulations like the rest of us.

What does the psychopath/sociopath/antisocial suffer from?A lack of conscience, a lack of empathy, a lack of human compassion and other broad array of emotions. In addition, they exhibit antisocial behavior.

This is not a condition. Our conscience serves as our moral compass--something that acts as our emotional guide to what is right and what is wrong. It also serves as our inhibitor--something that prevents us from overindulgence. In other words, it is like a leash on a rabid dog. An absence of this means that the animal is free to do as it pleases, whenever, however it wants to to its heart's content. A lack of empathy isn't a symptom because those who exhibit a lack of empathy typically do not wish to empathize. A lack of human compassion cannot be seen as a disorder because one of the essentially qualities that make us human beings is the ability to feel and display true emotion. Sociopaths are invariably seen as nonhuman for this reason. Moreover, they exhibit antisocial behavior--meaning anti-society, something that implies far beyond acts that are deemed illegal and disagreeable by the judicial system, but also acts that society as a whole frowns upon or considers taboo, like promiscuity, lying, cheating, or plain and simple bullying.All of the symptoms that characterize Antisocial Personality Disorder fall out of line with symptoms indicative of the classic definition of a disorder. Arrogance, having a philosophy of moral relativity/grey morality, selfishness, manipulation, deliberate harm to others, being unempathetic, uncaring, compassionless, unconscionable and indulging in things like promiscuity and alcohol abuse are not symptoms.

That's the whole definition of "suffering". Suffering is pain (whether physical, emotional or psychological) that results from a deficit in some form or another--the body's automatic response to counterbalance something missing--something essential. Borderlines take sedative or "chill pills" to manage the chaotic arousal of emotional stimuli. Bipolars take medication or alcohol to feel less depressed or calm themselves down.

Sure, one could say psychopaths/sociopaths/AsPDs indulge in various thrill-seeking behaviors to counterbalance the inevitable boredom and emptiness they feel, but where does the need to indulge in antisocial behavior come from? Why does one need to deviate from social norms? What is it in social nonconformity that will compensate whatever physiologic, emotional or psychological need? When it comes that, the needs are quite similar to normal people with desires like greed, lust and pride.And an absence of conscience can be seen as a deficit in terms of what is missing. However, a lack of conscience is simply a loss of restraint--nothing holds one back from doing as they please. And in that regard, an absence of conscience can be seen as a form of liberation--freedom from enslavement and in this case, emotional enslavement. Many sociopaths have even commented that we are slaves to our emotions.

Thus, all of the characteristics that describe Psychopathy, Sociopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder have tremendous overlap with things we find simply disagreeable: promiscuity, dishonesty, a lack of empathy, a lack of compassion, manipulation, deliberate harm to others, arrogance, selfishness and consciencelessness. There are no characteristics of any genuine absences of physiologic, emotional or psychological functions, just the absence of morality.

In conclusion, by the technical definition of it, AsPD is NOT a disorder.
0
reply
Lyssandrah
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Rad-Reloaded)
People with the condition tend to have physical differences in the brain so you are simply wrong.
No. Not exactly. Those brain scans are of those deemed to be psychopaths, not necessarily people with Antisocial Personality Disorder. People have made many distinctions between Antisocial Personality Disorder, Psychopathy and Sociopathy. Some people say that psychopathy and sociopathy are more malignant, dysfunctional versions of Antisocial Personality Disorder like how malignant narcissism is to Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Others believe that the opposite is true, that Antisocial Personality Disorder is a more criminal, deviant version of Psychopathy and Sociopathy. Some people say that Psychopathy is a more personality-based trait while Antisocial Personality Disorder is a more behavioral-based disorder, with Sociopathy being more often synonymous with AsPD. There have even been distinctions between Psychopathy and Sociopathy being that psychopaths are born that way and sociopaths are made that way.

There are numerous other inconsistencies made about the disorder as well:

Some people note the difference between psychopathy and sociopathy being that psychopaths are more prone to impulse-driven actions without premeditation, are less adept at blending in with society and aren't as charming as sociopaths are, hence the root prefix in the word "sociopath", with "socio-" meaning "social", while with others, it's reverse--sociopathy is a more impulse-drive condition and psychopaths, because they are born that way, hence the prefix "psycho-", meaning "mind", are much more adept at blending in with society and tend to make much more rational, conscious decisions with mind-boggling premeditation. In addition, lying, underhanded tactics and glibness are talents for them, almost as if it's second nature to them. It should also be noted that there are some people who believe that sociopaths know right from wrong while psychopaths do not.

So in that regard, Antisocial Personality Disorder has nothing to do with the brain.
0
reply
Imperion
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by driftawaay)
aspd is not a disorder, lmao its called being a ****ing prick, thats all. next thing u know being a mean girl in high school will be a mental disorder. it will be called regina george syndrome and the NHS will pay for the treatment
Go read more on MDs then make such a claim.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
I'm more concerned by pathological altruism. If you don't know what that is, then do a search, read the book and be prepared to find out why progressivism is destroying western civilisation.

I can trust a person with a lack of empathy to behave rationally in their own self-interest; I have no idea what a pathologically altruistic person will do from one moment to the next, or who they will endanger, by surrendering responsibility for their every political decision to their feelings. Most of the worst historical atrocities have been perpetrated by an appeal to altruism yet western civilisation deems it sacrosanct.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. The progressive hands over the fish, manufactures dependency and calls it altruism. The callous, selfish b*****d gives him a rod, buys his fish and sells it on for a profit. The altruism narrative is 'progressive currency.'
0
reply
Lyssandrah
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
I'm more concerned by pathological altruism. If you don't know what that is, then do a search, read the book and be prepared to find out why progressivism is destroying western civilisation.

I can trust a person with a lack of empathy to behave rationally in their own self-interest; I have no idea what a pathologically altruistic person will do from one moment to the next, or who they will endanger, by surrendering responsibility for their every political decision to their feelings. Most of the worst historical atrocities have been perpetrated by an appeal to altruism yet western civilisation deems it sacrosanct.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. The progressive hands over the fish, manufactures dependency and calls it altruism. The callous, selfish b*****d gives him a rod, buys his fish and sells it on for a profit. The altruism narrative is 'progressive currency.'
Whoa. We really are in the End Times.

This world has become so morally decadent that not only do they minimize/cheapen human worth to being nothing more than a bag of cells and chemical reactions and thus use this as an excuse for plain and simple unchaste, selfish and ignoble acts, but people actually approve of such a cold, heartless and unsympathetic mindset.

Excuse me, but since when did we see characteristics of a supposed disorder or illness as an evolutionary advantage? Do we see characteristics of AIDS as an advantage? Do we see characteristics of Gonorrhea and Syphilis as an evolutionary advantage? Do we see characteristics of Diabetes as such?

As I recall, no matter how people slice it or try to rationalize and split hairs in trying to draw distinctions between a disorder and a disease in order to validate the utter absurdity in pathologizing a pattern of behaviors that are just amoral in nature, a disorder, like an illness is indicative of suffering. Like an illness, it is obstruction of normal functioning and is thus disagreeable with the sufferer.

If such an individual is afflicted with such and is completely fine with it with no disturbance of soul whatsoever, this is either some form of perversion, severely depressed where they no longer care whether they live or die or they're actually NOT disordered.

Now, how is something, that is now being seen as some form of evolutionary advantage, a disorder?
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Lyssandrah)
Whoa. We really are in the End Times.

This world has become so morally decadent that not only do they minimize/cheapen human worth to being nothing more than a bag of cells and chemical reactions and thus use this as an excuse for plain and simple unchaste, selfish and ignoble acts, but people actually approve of such a cold, heartless and unsympathetic mindset.

Excuse me, but since when did we see characteristics of a supposed disorder or illness as an evolutionary advantage? Do we see characteristics of AIDS as an advantage? Do we see characteristics of Gonorrhea and Syphilis as an evolutionary advantage? Do we see characteristics of Diabetes as such?

As I recall, no matter how people slice it or try to rationalize and split hairs in trying to draw distinctions between a disorder and a disease in order to validate the utter absurdity in pathologizing a pattern of behaviors that are just amoral in nature, a disorder, like an illness is indicative of suffering. Like an illness, it is obstruction of normal functioning and is thus disagreeable with the sufferer.

If such an individual is afflicted with such and is completely fine with it with no disturbance of soul whatsoever, this is either some form of perversion, severely depressed where they no longer care whether they live or die or they're actually NOT disordered.

Now, how is something, that is now being seen as some form of evolutionary advantage, a disorder?
Behind the smokescreen of pseudo-intellectualism, you haven't actually said anything. All you've done is ask a question. It's also quite ironic that your subtextually hostile post is basically cloaked in appeals to 'altruism.'

How is 'altruism' a disorder? How many examples would you like? In certain cultures, suicide bombings are conducted upon appeals to altruism. Benito Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto is basically a manifesto for a modern progressive party - it advocates a minimum wage, abolishing the upper chamber, lowering the voting age (young people are more radical), nationalising transport links, progressive taxation, and a lot more besides. Every single policy is an appeal to altruism. It's the epitome of left-wing politics, yet it's universally - falsely - classified as 'right-wing.

Pathological altruism is basically an altruism which attempts to promote the welfare of others - perhaps maliciously - but garners the opposite result: unanticipated harm. Heck, we see it in western civilisation all the time - a common example could be having a family member who is addicted to painkillers, and you decide to help him obtain them.

Altruism is a quality like any other, it has both negative and positive outcomes. I see more negative than positive, particularly when 3 year old children are exploited to manufacture political capital, or a 'group' - which, like any group, retains an own-group bias - argues in favour of altruism and inadvertently, or perhaps intentionally, creates a negative outcome for another group (see feminism: equal opportunity = equal outcome, or male-only group = discriminatory, but female only group = empowering).

While these movements - groups - may start with the best of intentions (disputable), it's pretty obvious to any objective outsider that they peddle as much, if not even more, prejudice than they originally set out to eradicate. Pathological altruism isn't a positive quality - it's linked with 'caring' only for people we like or those who compromise our 'in-group' (women, minority groups, LGBTs, etc.).

Take even the start of the banking crisis in the USA - it all started with pathological altruism. Governmental policy dictated the benefits of home ownership, a policy which benefits and stabilises communities and families (particularly in poorer communities). Various Government-sponsored enterprises over-extended qualified recipients of finance, and loaned money to people who were less than qualified - all for the purposes of conforming to a social good.

The Government used these agencies with no risk-reward analysis; other considerations were sidelined because of implicit Governmental support. When the entire system collapsed, many (universally the poorest in society) either lost their homes or discovered their homes were worth far less than they originally paid for them.

Well-meaning Governmental policy produced the worst possible - not just 'bad' - economic outcome for hundreds of thousands of families.

Progressivism derives its moral authority from the sense that its actions are a 'moral good' or 'altruistic' and those who oppose them are 'selfish' or 'evil.' That sure footedness makes it easy to criticise opponents of totalitarian policy as espoused by various ethnocentric or gender-centric groups as ;racist' or 'misogynistic' when, objectively, more often than not, it's anything but. It's just the presence of rational thought in the absence of pathological altruism.

It's also important to note the during the 20th century hundreds of millions of people were murdered by despots who rose to power by appealing to altruism. Altruism can produce both evil and good, but more often than not it's exploited to accentuate a narrative in one direction or the other (man = perpetrator, woman = victim, white man = bad, non-white man = good, resident = self-interest is racism, non-resident = self-interest is acceptable). It's more often than not at odds with any conceptualisation of individual liberty, largely because it's orientated around prioritising the in-group ahead of the individual.

A more cynical person could suggest that it's all about manufacturing dependency on the state - without poor people to infantilise, who would vote progressive? Nobody.
0
reply
Lyssandrah
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
Behind the smokescreen of pseudo-intellectualism, you haven't actually said anything. All you've done is ask a question. It's also quite ironic that your subtextually hostile post is basically cloaked in appeals to 'altruism.'

How is 'altruism' a disorder? How many examples would you like? In certain cultures, suicide bombings are conducted upon appeals to altruism. Benito Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto is basically a manifesto for a modern progressive party - it advocates a minimum wage, abolishing the upper chamber, lowering the voting age (young people are more radical), nationalising transport links, progressive taxation, and a lot more besides. Every single policy is an appeal to altruism. It's the epitome of left-wing politics, yet it's universally - falsely - classified as 'right-wing.

Pathological altruism is basically an altruism which attempts to promote the welfare of others - perhaps maliciously - but garners the opposite result: unanticipated harm. Heck, we see it in western civilisation all the time - a common example could be having a family member who is addicted to painkillers, and you decide to help him obtain them.

Altruism is a quality like any other, it has both negative and positive outcomes. I see more negative than positive, particularly when 3 year old children are exploited to manufacture political capital, or a 'group' - which, like any group, retains an own-group bias - argues in favour of altruism and inadvertently, or perhaps intentionally, creates a negative outcome for another group (see feminism: equal opportunity = equal outcome, or male-only group = discriminatory, but female only group = empowering).

While these movements - groups - may start with the best of intentions (disputable), it's pretty obvious to any objective outsider that they peddle as much, if not even more, prejudice than they originally set out to eradicate. Pathological altruism isn't a positive quality - it's linked with 'caring' only for people we like or those who compromise our 'in-group' (women, minority groups, LGBTs, etc.).

Take even the start of the banking crisis in the USA - it all started with pathological altruism. Governmental policy dictated the benefits of home ownership, a policy which benefits and stabilises communities and families (particularly in poorer communities). Various Government-sponsored enterprises over-extended qualified recipients of finance, and loaned money to people who were less than qualified - all for the purposes of conforming to a social good.

The Government used these agencies with no risk-reward analysis; other considerations were sidelined because of implicit Governmental support. When the entire system collapsed, many (universally the poorest in society) either lost their homes or discovered their homes were worth far less than they originally paid for them.

Well-meaning Governmental policy produced the worst possible - not just 'bad' - economic outcome for hundreds of thousands of families.

Progressivism derives its moral authority from the sense that its actions are a 'moral good' or 'altruistic' and those who oppose them are 'selfish' or 'evil.' That sure footedness makes it easy to criticise opponents of totalitarian policy as espoused by various ethnocentric or gender-centric groups as ;racist' or 'misogynistic' when, objectively, more often than not, it's anything but. It's just the presence of rational thought in the absence of pathological altruism.

It's also important to note the during the 20th century hundreds of millions of people were murdered by despots who rose to power by appealing to altruism. Altruism can produce both evil and good, but more often than not it's exploited to accentuate a narrative in one direction or the other (man = perpetrator, woman = victim, white man = bad, non-white man = good, resident = self-interest is racism, non-resident = self-interest is acceptable). It's more often than not at odds with any conceptualisation of individual liberty, largely because it's orientated around prioritising the in-group ahead of the individual.

A more cynical person could suggest that it's all about manufacturing dependency on the state - without poor people to infantilise, who would vote progressive? Nobody.
And thus, confirms my suspicion that we are in the End Times.

What you're basically saying is that we should be more cold-hearted, more selfish, more uncaring, more compassionless, and more ruthless in our methods in order the counterbalance the instability that this nation is in.

What you're also saying is that too much altruism is bad, calling it "pathological altruism". That makes NO sense whatsoever. You say too much altruism is bad for the nation while selfishness is perfectly okay. You are essentially saying that sociopaths are needed so we don't become too trusting of people.

Need I remind you that all of the traits that define sociopathy--selfishness, arrogance, a lack of empathy, a lack of conscience, cold-bloodedness, remorselessness, lovelessness, machiavellianism and amorality--all represent qualities that are detrimental to not only this nation but the entire world as a whole. They are everything we should not be. If anything, that type of mentality is seen by sensible people as 'barbaric' or 'primordial'--qualities that are believed to be characteristics of the earliest evolution of mankind--the type of mentality man had millions of years ago. Need I remind you that the human race has evolved a great deal in intellect, technological advancement, knowledge and etc. since then? In that regard, the sociopathic mentality is "de-evolution".

And you try to validate your nonsense under the guise of wisdom. Moreover, you project your mentality on me and make it so I'm the one who is making no sense. "Pathological altruism"? My goodness, what the hell has this world come to?

Me exhibiting pseudo-intellectualism? Wow. You people really boggle my mind.

You people come up with some of the most ridiculous, so-called pragmatic theories that upon deeper perspective and probing are actually some of the most unrealistic theories that feature subjects that are completely unrelated to each other and numerous inconsistencies, contradictions and paradoxes.
And then you try to validate the obvious flaws in your conclusions, perhaps thinking that I'm dumb enough to believe anything that you say and overlook the inconsistencies or out of the genuine belief that you're somehow smarter than me. Either way, it's out of pride.

In that regard, if anything, it is YOU exhibiting pseudo-intellectualism.

I'm done talking to you. You can say whatever you want, I will not respond.
0
reply
Dalek1099
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Lyssandrah)
Pretty much every criteria that marks such a person with the condition are deliberate, conscious decisions one makes. Being manipulative, violating social norms (including those that aren't crimes), being selfish, arrogant, etc. are all choices one can make. And even if we were to say this is a proclivity/predilection or inclination towards anti-societal expectations, if it makes it any easier to accept, we all have inclinations towards certain things. It's something we call temptation. Temptations are not indicative of a disorder. Moreover, a disorder is characterized by symptoms--things out of one's control, and yet, every last "symptom" of this disorder is within full control of the psychopath's mental faculties. A temptation is quite simply an inclination--an urge to do something we know is very wrong.

Moreover, I think it is a joke and a mockery to label a pattern of behavior which are all a result of deliberate, conscious decisions one make as a legitimate medical condition when there are people with disorders like Borderline Personality Disorder and Bipolar Disorder who have given accounts of just how hellish their experiences have been and how affronted they actually feel when they see a person void of any mental health ailments actually wishing they had a mental disorder. With the psychopath, it's the opposite extreme. These people do not suffer from their disorder and actually boast about what they are.

As one person said, the hallmark of a disorder is that an individual with it suffers and the technical definition of a personality disorder is a pattern of maladaptive behaviors--that is, a pattern of personality traits and behaviors that interfere with an individual's ability to function in life. And in the case of Borderlines, they face this day in and day out and understandably, suffer a great deal. With psychopaths, it's almost as if they cruise through life, perfectly unhinged and undisturbed by the fact they are going through life without feeling the slightest twinge of guilt or remorse for their actions. In addition, the fact that the disorder features characteristics that appear so normal make it seem almost as if it's functional--even so much as perhaps an evolutionary advantage over the non-personality-disordered.

This disorder is contrary to the classic definition of a disorder in almost every possible way that I don't believe it should even be in the DSM, as I don't believe it's an actual disorder. An absence of conscience isn't a disorder as no one is born without one and it is a sign of something far more sinister.

I believe it should be removed.
I agree Empathy comes with basic intelligence you can't seriously tell me that these sociopaths and psychopaths don't know that they are hurting people?, the only real excuse of being one is that you are dumb but most of them are quite clever indeed if you hit someone on the head, you know that hurts as you have hit your head and the same logic pretty much can be applied to everything a psychopath/sociopath would do, I think they are evil and simply don't care about other people and they know it too.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Lyssandrah)
And thus, confirms my suspicion that we are in the End Times.

What you're basically saying is that we should be more cold-hearted, more selfish, more uncaring, more compassionless, and more ruthless in our methods in order the counterbalance the instability that this nation is in.

What you're also saying is that too much altruism is bad, calling it "pathological altruism". That makes NO sense whatsoever. You say too much altruism is bad for the nation while selfishness is perfectly okay. You are essentially saying that sociopaths are needed so we don't become too trusting of people.

Need I remind you that all of the traits that define sociopathy--selfishness, arrogance, a lack of empathy, a lack of conscience, cold-bloodedness, remorselessness, lovelessness, machiavellianism and amorality--all represent qualities that are detrimental to not only this nation but the entire world as a whole. They are everything we should not be. If anything, that type of mentality is seen by sensible people as 'barbaric' or 'primordial'--qualities that are believed to be characteristics of the earliest evolution of mankind--the type of mentality man had millions of years ago. Need I remind you that the human race has evolved a great deal in intellect, technological advancement, knowledge and etc. since then? In that regard, the sociopathic mentality is "de-evolution".

And you try to validate your nonsense under the guise of wisdom. Moreover, you project your mentality on me and make it so I'm the one who is making no sense. "Pathological altruism"? My goodness, what the hell has this world come to?

Me exhibiting pseudo-intellectualism? Wow. You people really boggle my mind.

You people come up with some of the most ridiculous, so-called pragmatic theories that upon deeper perspective and probing are actually some of the most unrealistic theories that feature subjects that are completely unrelated to each other and numerous inconsistencies, contradictions and paradoxes.
And then you try to validate the obvious flaws in your conclusions, perhaps thinking that I'm dumb enough to believe anything that you say and overlook the inconsistencies or out of the genuine belief that you're somehow smarter than me. Either way, it's out of pride.

In that regard, if anything, it is YOU exhibiting pseudo-intellectualism.

I'm done talking to you. You can say whatever you want, I will not respond.
Uh-huh. In all the hysteria, you haven't actually addressed any of the points or defences you've asked me to raise. You've just - shock horror - appealed to people's altruism ('if you don't listen to me, all of the bad things will happen and this evil man will destroy society!' I'm pretty sure Mussolini used similar rhetoric).

So, do you believe fascism, autocratic rule, suicide bombings and enabling drug addiction are positive behaviours/outcomes? All of them have been brought about by appeals to altruism, as well as millions of other negative or destructive consequences.

All of them have posited the same hysterical 'end of times', emotion-fuelled rhetoric seeping through your post. All of them were perceived as 'altruistic'; in fact, back in the 30's progressives like H.G. Wells labelled fascism as 'liberal fascism' and it was universally accepted as a 'progressive movement.'

Arguing against the type of pathological altruism you personify isn't arguing in favour of psychopathy, irrespective of how much you'd like to conflate the two - it's arguing against the polar opposite manifestation of psychopathy. It's arguing against the ability of people like you to manipulate and exploit 'good', perhaps even with the best of intentions (disputable), to manufacture bad or self-serving (in-group) outcomes.

It's arguing against people like you manufacturing a dependency on the state apparatus like a well-meaning, 'altruistic' Mother manufactures her drug addicted son's dependency, and enables his behaviours, when she gives him pain killers.
0
reply
pineneedles
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Lyssandrah)
It's not just the fact they don't suffer from it, it's that the "symptoms" they display are deliberate, conscious decisions they make. Conscious decisions are NOT symptoms. Symptoms are indicative of a disorder or illness out of one's control and thus, the sufferer wants to be rid of it. Most people WANT to be rid of BPD. Most people WISH they were cured of Bipolar Disorder. Most people WISH they were cured of Cancer or AIDS. All are classic definitions of suffering.

People with psychopathy/sociopathy/AsPD?

Most LIKE who they are. Are you telling me that just because someone behaves in a way that is out of tune with your line of behavior and thinking and what society deems acceptable that they suffer from a mental condition?

People with Borderline Personality Disorder suffer from excessive levels of emotion. It is even said to be called "Borderline" aside from the fact that they're on the border between calmness and blowing their tops off because they're also in the threshold between neurosis and psychosis. These people deal with this day in and day out and they see this as a hellish experience.People with Bipolar Disorder experience extremely high moods (called mania) and low moods (depression), hence the archaic term for it known as "manic depression". They also experience racing thoughts, they have trouble completing tasks and exhibit erratic behavior because of it, and they often indulge in alcohol to counterbalance the emptiness they helplessly feel. This daily emotional dysfunctional ritual is hellish for them and they wish they could experience normal mood regulations like the rest of us.

What does the psychopath/sociopath/antisocial suffer from?A lack of conscience, a lack of empathy, a lack of human compassion and other broad array of emotions. In addition, they exhibit antisocial behavior.

This is not a condition. Our conscience serves as our moral compass--something that acts as our emotional guide to what is right and what is wrong. It also serves as our inhibitor--something that prevents us from overindulgence. In other words, it is like a leash on a rabid dog. An absence of this means that the animal is free to do as it pleases, whenever, however it wants to to its heart's content. A lack of empathy isn't a symptom because those who exhibit a lack of empathy typically do not wish to empathize. A lack of human compassion cannot be seen as a disorder because one of the essentially qualities that make us human beings is the ability to feel and display true emotion. Sociopaths are invariably seen as nonhuman for this reason. Moreover, they exhibit antisocial behavior--meaning anti-society, something that implies far beyond acts that are deemed illegal and disagreeable by the judicial system, but also acts that society as a whole frowns upon or considers taboo, like promiscuity, lying, cheating, or plain and simple bullying.All of the symptoms that characterize Antisocial Personality Disorder fall out of line with symptoms indicative of the classic definition of a disorder. Arrogance, having a philosophy of moral relativity/grey morality, selfishness, manipulation, deliberate harm to others, being unempathetic, uncaring, compassionless, unconscionable and indulging in things like promiscuity and alcohol abuse are not symptoms.

That's the whole definition of "suffering". Suffering is pain (whether physical, emotional or psychological) that results from a deficit in some form or another--the body's automatic response to counterbalance something missing--something essential. Borderlines take sedative or "chill pills" to manage the chaotic arousal of emotional stimuli. Bipolars take medication or alcohol to feel less depressed or calm themselves down.

Sure, one could say psychopaths/sociopaths/AsPDs indulge in various thrill-seeking behaviors to counterbalance the inevitable boredom and emptiness they feel, but where does the need to indulge in antisocial behavior come from? Why does one need to deviate from social norms? What is it in social nonconformity that will compensate whatever physiologic, emotional or psychological need? When it comes that, the needs are quite similar to normal people with desires like greed, lust and pride.And an absence of conscience can be seen as a deficit in terms of what is missing. However, a lack of conscience is simply a loss of restraint--nothing holds one back from doing as they please. And in that regard, an absence of conscience can be seen as a form of liberation--freedom from enslavement and in this case, emotional enslavement. Many sociopaths have even commented that we are slaves to our emotions.

Thus, all of the characteristics that describe Psychopathy, Sociopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder have tremendous overlap with things we find simply disagreeable: promiscuity, dishonesty, a lack of empathy, a lack of compassion, manipulation, deliberate harm to others, arrogance, selfishness and consciencelessness. There are no characteristics of any genuine absences of physiologic, emotional or psychological functions, just the absence of morality.

In conclusion, by the technical definition of it, AsPD is NOT a disorder.
I still disagree. Sociopathy and its kin can be considered a disorder by the technical definition.
Disorder is defined as 'a derangement or abnormality of function'. Appearing to benefit from the effects of a disorder does not negate the fact there is one.
I may be completely wrong, but it seems to me that you don't really have an issue with sociopathy is being defined as a disorder in the technical sense of the word, but the fact that in doing so, it is being alikened to other mental disorders which cause suffering and cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be thought to be of an advantage to the sufferer in any way. Obviously because a lot of the 'symptoms' of sociopathy are simply the sociopath responding to their disorder, it is not fair to say that it and other mental disorders are one and the same.
0
reply
Lyssandrah
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by pineneedles)
I still disagree. Sociopathy and its kin can be considered a disorder by the technical definition.
Disorder is defined as 'a derangement or abnormality of function'. Appearing to benefit from the effects of a disorder does not negate the fact there is one.
I may be completely wrong, but it seems to me that you don't really have an issue with sociopathy is being defined as a disorder in the technical sense of the word, but the fact that in doing so, it is being alikened to other mental disorders which cause suffering and cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be thought to be of an advantage to the sufferer in any way. Obviously because a lot of the 'symptoms' of sociopathy are simply the sociopath responding to their disorder, it is not fair to say that it and other mental disorders are one and the same.
Yes, a derangement or abnormality of function that makes life difficult for the individual. Difficulty brings some degree of misfortune and something unpleasant for the individual and thus, the sufferer rightly responds negatively. Sociopathy just doesn't add up with the classic definition of a disorder. The fact that the classic definitions of disorders, diseases and other types of suffering typically evoke a negative response on behalf of the sufferer makes those with sociopathy stand out. They do not suffer from their disorder, which is quite rightly a cause for suspicion in some people. Whether it's a defect in emotional, physiologic, neurological or psychological function, the human anatomy sends an unpleasant response, whether it be through physical or emotional pain or in the form of suffering. Our nervous system, which is interconnected with our brain, acts as our sensory radar--something that is able to weed out any semblance of abnormality or derangement in function anywhere in the body and that includes mental disorders. This typically comes in the form of pain or suffering in some form and evokes a negative emotional response from the sufferer.

With the sociopath, the sufferer picks up on an abnormality--an absence of emotion, but this does not cause disturbance of soul. No negative emotional reaction. Why is that?

Let's take a look at the definition of conscience again. Conscience is defined as our moral compass--our guide to what is considered right behavior and what is wrong behavior. It's essentially our emotional guide that evokes in us a desire to make the right decision over the wrong decision. Though every choice we are faced with in life, our conscience helps us to make the right one every time. When we make the wrong choice, our conscience condemns us in the form of that nagging, painful, penetrating feeling called guilt.

Take away conscience, and you are left with an amoral individual with no moral scruples; no sense of guilt, no boundaries and no feeling of obligation to any rules. In other words, a sociopath is like a rabid animal unleashed; a barbarian; a brute; feral. All of these nouns and adjectives describe an individual who is simply uncivilized--these definitions do not classify a person that is necessarily disordered. Disordered in the sense that, their behavior is out of line with what society deems acceptable, yes, but not in psychological function.

The sociopath does not experience a difficult life like say, someone with Borderline Personality Disorder, Bipolar Disorder or Schizophrenia. Everything the sociopath experiences is a result of his/her own choices--not by the arbitrary machinations of mother nature itself like it does for those with BPD, BD and Schizophrenia. In fact, the sociopath experiences quite an easy life as this individual cruises through life taking advantage of others whenever, however they please with no twinge of guilt or remorse whatsoever. All of the qualities that define sociopathy are more in line with someone simply devoid of moral character--not necessarily someone with an absence or impairment of any real physiologic, emotional or even psychological function.

Their deficit or abnormality is their lack of conscience, lack of empathy and all positive human emotions--all which are more in line with someone of merely unpleasant/indecent character. It does not necessarily make life difficult for them or cause any long-term negative consequences for them such as stress, depression, thoughts of suicide, feelings of worthlessness or even death in the case of physiologic conditions. The long-term negative consequences that lie in wait for a sociopath are no different than any other person who deliberately violates the law or commits an immoral or unethical act--moral and/or legal consequences. The sociopaths' behavior will not cause them stress. Their behavior will not cause them death in and of itself. They do not experience depression or anxiety. Their behavior will not be of any inconvenience or discomfort for them in any way at all. The consequences are very similar to that of any other lawbreaker or sinner--punishment--that comes for an individual who violates or transgresses boundaries that have been clearly established.

In fact, every action they take seem to be in their favor at the expense of others. That is not the definition of a disorder. A lack of conscience in that regard isn't a real deficit because as I said before, the person is therefore free of any internal restraints to do whatever they please and indulge as often as they please. Categorizing sociopathy as a medical condition is therefore saying the person essentially suffers from simply doing as they please. In such, the concept of Psychopathy, Sociopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder is more closely related to our notion of spirituality; of evil vs. good; and of reprobation. The mentality of the sociopath is very similar to those of the reprobates of Sodom and Gomorrah--unrepentant, bull-headed, mulish, self-centered, obstinate in their own way, disrespectful, vicious, heartless and sinful in every manner. Hardly a description of a person suffering from a mental condition.

So sociopathy in that regard really doesn't make sense as a psychological or mental condition, as all of the characteristics that describe a sociopath are more in line with negative moral or spiritual qualities than any real psychological or neurological dysfunctions. And as you people put so much emphasis on the idea of sociopathy being a psychological condition and not a spiritual one, it's important for me to note the technical definition of psychology, with the prefix "psycho-" actually meaning "soul" and the suffix "-logy" meaning "study of". In other words, the literal definition of psychology is "study of the soul" or science of the soul. Notions of the soul are related to terms such as spirituality, so in that regard, sociopathy is a spiritual condition. It's also important for me to note the biblical definition of a character disorder: it's a will-disorder. Interestingly enough, one website even used the term 'moral insanity'. And how the Bible defines moral insanity is perversion of thoughts, passions, desires and will--completely in line with Wikipedia's definition of the term. While sociopathy may feature characteristics that are abnormal in nature like other conditions, the other conditions feature symptoms characterized by actual physiological, psychological, neurological or emotional abnormalities, impairments and/or deficits--not necessarily perversions. Perversions are practices or behaviors simply considered abnormal and/or unacceptable in a culture. It is a departure from what is considered proper, good or right--a deliberate turning from what is right. To then conclude that an individual with sociopathy, homosexuality or even pedophilia is born that way is to then conclude that people are born perverted--which is therefore no different than saying someone is born evil. It also fights against the true meaning of free will.

What are you implying then, if this is not so? That by the random, arbitrary acts of mother nature, some people are just instilled with desires, healthy or perverted, against their own will? Mother nature just randomly picks out and chooses some people to be sociopaths--instilling in them predilections towards perversions, disorders and conditions against their own will that have such a transparent effect that it tricks the individual into thinking there is nothing wrong with them and in fact evokes in them an exaggerated sense of self-worth? That they somehow believe they are actually the more superior species to the non-personality disordered and thus do not wish to get better or be 'cured'?

To imply such is to then anthropomorphize mother nature itself--which, is nature itself--something that is supposed to be one of the very aspects that are realistic and as far away from any implication or tendency towards anything spiritual or fantasy-oriented in the realm of pragmatism. In such, the concept of sociopathy is no different from the age-old theory of evolution--that everything just came into existence without rhyme or reason and that man evolved from primates.
0
reply
pineneedles
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Lyssandrah)
Yes, a derangement or abnormality of function that makes life difficult for the individual. Difficulty brings some degree of misfortune and something unpleasant for the individual and thus, the sufferer rightly responds negatively. Sociopathy just doesn't add up with the classic definition of a disorder. The fact that the classic definitions of disorders, diseases and other types of suffering typically evoke a negative response on behalf of the sufferer makes those with sociopathy stand out. They do not suffer from their disorder, which is quite rightly a cause for suspicion in some people. Whether it's a defect in emotional, physiologic, neurological or psychological function, the human anatomy sends an unpleasant response, whether it be through physical or emotional pain or in the form of suffering. Our nervous system, which is interconnected with our brain, acts as our sensory radar--something that is able to weed out any semblance of abnormality or derangement in function anywhere in the body and that includes mental disorders. This typically comes in the form of pain or suffering in some form and evokes a negative emotional response from the sufferer.

With the sociopath, the sufferer picks up on an abnormality--an absence of emotion, but this does not cause disturbance of soul. No negative emotional reaction. Why is that?

Let's take a look at the definition of conscience again. Conscience is defined as our moral compass--our guide to what is considered right behavior and what is wrong behavior. It's essentially our emotional guide that evokes in us a desire to make the right decision over the wrong decision. Though every choice we are faced with in life, our conscience helps us to make the right one every time. When we make the wrong choice, our conscience condemns us in the form of that nagging, painful, penetrating feeling called guilt.

Take away conscience, and you are left with an amoral individual with no moral scruples; no sense of guilt, no boundaries and no feeling of obligation to any rules. In other words, a sociopath is like a rabid animal unleashed; a barbarian; a brute; feral. All of these nouns and adjectives describe an individual who is simply uncivilized--these definitions do not classify a person that is necessarily disordered. Disordered in the sense that, their behavior is out of line with what society deems acceptable, yes, but not in psychological function.

The sociopath does not experience a difficult life like say, someone with Borderline Personality Disorder, Bipolar Disorder or Schizophrenia. Everything the sociopath experiences is a result of his/her own choices--not by the arbitrary machinations of mother nature itself like it does for those with BPD, BD and Schizophrenia. In fact, the sociopath experiences quite an easy life as this individual cruises through life taking advantage of others whenever, however they please with no twinge of guilt or remorse whatsoever. All of the qualities that define sociopathy are more in line with someone simply devoid of moral character--not necessarily someone with an absence or impairment of any real physiologic, emotional or even psychological function.

Their deficit or abnormality is their lack of conscience, lack of empathy and all positive human emotions--all which are more in line with someone of merely unpleasant/indecent character. It does not necessarily make life difficult for them or cause any long-term negative consequences for them such as stress, depression, thoughts of suicide, feelings of worthlessness or even death in the case of physiologic conditions. The long-term negative consequences that lie in wait for a sociopath are no different than any other person who deliberately violates the law or commits an immoral or unethical act--moral and/or legal consequences. The sociopaths' behavior will not cause them stress. Their behavior will not cause them death in and of itself. They do not experience depression or anxiety. Their behavior will not be of any inconvenience or discomfort for them in any way at all. The consequences are very similar to that of any other lawbreaker or sinner--punishment--that comes for an individual who violates or transgresses boundaries that have been clearly established.

In fact, every action they take seem to be in their favor at the expense of others. That is not the definition of a disorder. A lack of conscience in that regard isn't a real deficit because as I said before, the person is therefore free of any internal restraints to do whatever they please and indulge as often as they please. Categorizing sociopathy as a medical condition is therefore saying the person essentially suffers from simply doing as they please. In such, the concept of Psychopathy, Sociopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder is more closely related to our notion of spirituality; of evil vs. good; and of reprobation. The mentality of the sociopath is very similar to those of the reprobates of Sodom and Gomorrah--unrepentant, bull-headed, mulish, self-centered, obstinate in their own way, disrespectful, vicious, heartless and sinful in every manner. Hardly a description of a person suffering from a mental condition.

So sociopathy in that regard really doesn't make sense as a psychological or mental condition, as all of the characteristics that describe a sociopath are more in line with negative moral or spiritual qualities than any real psychological or neurological dysfunctions. And as you people put so much emphasis on the idea of sociopathy being a psychological condition and not a spiritual one, it's important for me to note the technical definition of psychology, with the prefix "psycho-" actually meaning "soul" and the suffix "-logy" meaning "study of". In other words, the literal definition of psychology is "study of the soul" or science of the soul. Notions of the soul are related to terms such as spirituality, so in that regard, sociopathy is a spiritual condition. It's also important for me to note the biblical definition of a character disorder: it's a will-disorder. Interestingly enough, one website even used the term 'moral insanity'. And how the Bible defines moral insanity is perversion of thoughts, passions, desires and will--completely in line with Wikipedia's definition of the term. While sociopathy may feature characteristics that are abnormal in nature like other conditions, the other conditions feature symptoms characterized by actual physiological, psychological, neurological or emotional abnormalities, impairments and/or deficits--not necessarily perversions. Perversions are practices or behaviors simply considered abnormal and/or unacceptable in a culture. It is a departure from what is considered proper, good or right--a deliberate turning from what is right. To then conclude that an individual with sociopathy, homosexuality or even pedophilia is born that way is to then conclude that people are born perverted--which is therefore no different than saying someone is born evil. It also fights against the true meaning of free will.

What are you implying then, if this is not so? That by the random, arbitrary acts of mother nature, some people are just instilled with desires, healthy or perverted, against their own will? Mother nature just randomly picks out and chooses some people to be sociopaths--instilling in them predilections towards perversions, disorders and conditions against their own will that have such a transparent effect that it tricks the individual into thinking there is nothing wrong with them and in fact evokes in them an exaggerated sense of self-worth? That they somehow believe they are actually the more superior species to the non-personality disordered and thus do not wish to get better or be 'cured'?

To imply such is to then anthropomorphize mother nature itself--which, is nature itself--something that is supposed to be one of the very aspects that are realistic and as far away from any implication or tendency towards anything spiritual or fantasy-oriented in the realm of pragmatism. In such, the concept of sociopathy is no different from the age-old theory of evolution--that everything just came into existence without rhyme or reason and that man evolved from primates.
I don't think you actually read my post at all.
"it seems to me that you don't really have an issue with sociopathy being defined as a disorder in the technical sense of the word, but the fact that in doing so, it is being alikened to other mental disorders which cause suffering and cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be thought to be of an advantage to the sufferer in any way. Obviously because a lot of the 'symptoms' of sociopathy are simply the sociopath responding to their disorder, it is not fair to say that it and other mental disorders are one and the same."

I specifically STATED that I did not think it is fair or right to think of sociopathy and other mental illnesses as the same.
I do not think that sociopathy being considered a disorder justifies the way sociopaths behave.

Let me ask you something, what harm does sociopathy being considered a disorder actually do?
Please be more succinct with your replies.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Feeling behind at school/college? What is the best thing your teachers could to help you catch up?

Extra compulsory independent learning activities (eg, homework tasks) (2)
4.65%
Run extra compulsory lessons or workshops (7)
16.28%
Focus on making the normal lesson time with them as high quality as possible (5)
11.63%
Focus on making the normal learning resources as high quality/accessible as possible (4)
9.3%
Provide extra optional activities, lessons and/or workshops (17)
39.53%
Assess students, decide who needs extra support and focus on these students (8)
18.6%

Watched Threads

View All