Mealey Comm kenrick

From: Wright Victoria (vmw195@soton.ac.uk)
Date: Thu May 28 1998 - 14:36:25 BST


 2. Multiplicative interactions of predisposing factors:

> Even if the underlying dimensions were continuous,
> quasi-typology, as in Figure 1b. In most situations, high
> and low risk individuals wouldappear
> qualitatively different, whereas middle range individuals
> would only show antisociality in certain
> environments. Assuming an additive model (as in "a"), the
> reaction range of all but the lowest risk
> individuals includes antisociality, and the gradation
> between moderate and high risk individuals is
> smoothly continuous and overlapping. The threshold
> depicted could change as a function of social
> class, dropping for lower class individuals, rising for
> upper class.

wouldn't this way of calculating lead to a more continuous
definition of sociopathy as it would make it more likely
that the differences between people across all classes will
be gradual. what is the justification for changing the way
of calculating underlying traits from additive to
multiplicitive? is it just a way of telling sociopaths and
other people apart doesn;t make it discontinuous.
 
> an outlaw strategy could yield a
> more favorable cost/benefit ratio for attractive,
> low-emotion people.

not that easy to band people together into one category
especially for secondary sociopaths who are influenced even
more by the environment

> On this view, it may be fairer to envision a dynamic
> conflict between
> different mating strategies, and jettison the term
> "antisocial" for those playing one strategy.

there is a problem with this because the bulk of the
population ie the social mass is the one that is being
attacked by the "sociopaths" therefore whether it is
simply a mating strategy or not,or is unfair or not is
irrelevant as sociopaths are against society in general ie
are antisocial and the word antisocial is by definintion
against society. this makes Kenrick and Browns point
obsolete. although by saying one sector of society against
the other helps with the argument for a discontinuous
theory of antisocial behaviour.

> At our present level of understanding of these dynamic
> systems, though, interventions such as those
> suggested by Mealey may be presumptious and even
> dangerous. Consider the suggestion of more
> certain social punishments for antisociality. Given our
> reasoning above, such societal tactics could
> instead widen the gap between conventional and
> unconventional individuals. Draconian measures could
> exact a high cost on marginally conventional and generally
> nondangerous individuals, while leading the
> ranks of the Capones and Mansons to become even more
> devious and ruthless.

but if you stop the big bullies in this world then their
systems cant continue therefore in the end this should be a
good solution. and a draconian law system meant that al
capone was actually captured - even though it wasnt for
murder - the system caught him and imprisoned him for tax
evasion ie a draconian system is capable of catching
sociopaths one way or the other!

----------------------
victoria wright
vmw195@soton.ac.uk



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:22 GMT