![]() Not every Antisocial is a serial killer, and not every serial killer is Antisocial. Take away the following: there are differences between Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) and Sociopathy (and depending on your operational definitions, a difference from psychopathy as well). This is a wildly misunderstood population due to both the heterogeneity of data across offenders, and the lack of access. Kudos to the people pointing out that correlation does NOT imply causation, especially herein. It is not considered as a predictive factor anymore in (informed) law enforcement circles. The MacDonald Triad is sexy as far as entertainment is concerned, but not correct. here we are nearly 100 years later questioning it. I only really ask because eventually we come to these seemingly ludicrous conclusions that bedwetting can be tied to being a serial killer, and while it's all well and good to say the scientific community will eventually peer review it and reject false information. Is it that they feel the onus is on peer review to determine if their data is significant, or they feel it's not down to them to interpret the meaning of the data? They very rarely seem to go to any time or effort to prove whether it's just merely coincidence or if there's any causality to their findings. In this case a high proportion of fire setting, cruelty, or enuresis. So often I see psychologists do 'studies' like what you've described and then seemingly draw conclusions based on nothing more than a statistic taken from that data. Why does psychology get so much scientific credit when it seems to base it's findings on arbitrary data correlations? I don't want to upset anyone with this question, so if I do. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |