Nature vs. Nurture in HP

Nature vs/ Nurture plays a big part in HP. The three major charactors are Harry, Vody and Snape (which is part of the reason people are so devided about him). Comment on how any charactors experiences influenced their behavior.
Noquestion here, Voldy was evil by naturee and that lead to lack of nurture. Babies are born with an instinct to cry to get what they want even if it is only being held. TR did not cry when he was a baby because he did not crave human companionship as most people do; of course that might have been a side effect of the love potion.

Harry, Good by nature and nurtured until he was about three, which is the age when your personality is pretty much set.

Snape, Good by nature, bad by nurture. Was raised in a household with little love but then he met Lily and looked past the fact that he had been taught to hate Muggles and saw her for who she was. She of course reenforced this by showing him compasion., something that no one else but his mother had ever done.

Voldy was evil by naturee and that lead to lack of nurture.

Actually, we don't have much to go here. Voldemort's mother chose to die instead of living for his son. She couldn't have known that her son would turn out to be evil to leave him as such. She chose to die, because she was selfish and that in itself is lack of nurture. It would be wrong to say that Voldemort's evil nature lead to the lack of nurture.

Moreover it was his mother's choice of abandoning him, that strengthened his hatred and gave wind to his evil self. He felt that he was undesired by his own mother and this only fueled his hatred for life. Which only enhanced the evil within him. ;)

we have a thread about who is responsible for Voldemort going bad.
As for Harry, he was not nurtured by the Dursleys'. This is made quite clear. He was not starved, but he was not shown any love by his relatives. Even Dumbledore pointed this out first in OoTP, and then in HBP. Harry had 14 months of love and attention by both his parents, then when they died, he was sent to live with his relatives who took him in unwillingly. All they did was allow him was a place to stay.
We don't know that Snape was good. We guess that he became that way because of Lily's influence.

That's what I thought at first, but it isn't "natural" for babies not to cry for attention. Even as a baby he did not want to be dependent on others. Usually babies cry for attention and giggle when they get it. It is what draws people to protect them. By not having that instince he was not protected.

my niece didn't cry much as a baby. And as time went on, my son didn't cry a lot either. Neither one was abused, or ignored or anything. That was just their nature. the thread that I mentioned about who is responsible for Voldemort going bad is in the Stone. there are about 5 pages of theories that discuss nature vs. nurture.

I wanted to discuss Snape as well though and that would not be allowed.

I think I commented once on that but my opinion has changed. Babies who do not cry are usually really attractive. People like to hold them. There must have been something even then that repeled people. Look at Harry, when he was a baby Petunia was actually nice to him. It was not until he was older that she started disliking him.

In my Physchology class, Nature Vs. Nurture is a huge discussion in everything.

I agree with you on Harry and Snape. But Voldemort I don't. As I've stated in other posts, I don't think he was born evil. He didn't cry when he was a baby and I think from lack of affection, he grew into what Dumbledore saw when he visited the orphanage. And, yes, I think because the fact that he did not cry much, he got very little affection. Its human nature to want to comfort a crying baby. When a child is crying, they get comforted by their parents. Voldemort didn't have that and I think that nurture played a huge role in the way he turned out, although I'm not denying that nature didn't have a role at all, especially from Merope's side of the family, but I think people hugely underestimate the role nurture has on a child.

But as my Physchology teacher said, ultimately, when your an adult, it all comes down to choices. Our childhoods are shaped by nature and nurture but when we become adults, we have to pick which road we want to take, the good or the bad, childhood and nurture affect this greatly, but you can choose not to let that affect your choices or to let it affect your choice.

Snape made the choice to return to the good side and not let his childhood experiences with his parents and James Potter affect him anymore. Harry too, made choice not to let his childhood affect his choices. But there were also too people who did let it affect them. Bellatrix, raised pureblood and to think that she was better then everyone else because of that chose to let that also run her adult life so her nurturing experiences guided her choices in adulthood.

Bear with me here, I swear this is related to Voldy.
There is a movie called the 7th seal. In it someone is breaking all the seal to cause the Appocolyps. There is a woman who is pregnant and her child is about to be the first child to be born without a soul, because the Guf is empty. The Guf was not made up for this movie. In Jewish mysticism, the Guf is the Hall of Souls, located in the Seventh Heaven. Every human soul is said to emanate from the Guf. The Talmud teaches that the Messiah will not come until the Guf is emptied of all its souls, ...IMDB

Abby's lets herself die and her soul fills up the Guf and her son is born with a soul. "He is ...a child of 'hope', a new chance for the human race, thanks to Abby's willingness to die for him and allow the Guf to become repopulated with souls awaiting birth.
IMDB

Now in HP Merope dies but she does not do it for her son. She just gives up. She has no "Soul" left to refill the Guf. Voldy is born without a soul.

Merope herself was a good person who had a bad upbringing. I believe that is why she was so bad at magic. The way her father and brother treated her just ate away at her soul until there was nothing left.

But as my Physchology teacher said, ultimately, when your an adult, it all comes down to choices. Our childhoods are shaped by nature and nurture but when we become adults, we have to pick which road we want to take, the good or the bad, childhood and nurture affect this greatly, but you can choose not to let that affect your choices or to let it affect your choice.

Snape made the choice to return to the good side and not let his childhood experiences with his parents and James Potter affect him anymore. Harry too, made choice not to let his childhood affect his choices. But there were also too people who did let it affect them. Bellatrix, raised pureblood and to think that she was better then everyone else because of that chose to let that also run her adult life so her nurturing experiences guided her choices in adulthood.

I think you are right about people underestimating it under normal circumstances, like with women who think that if their baby's father commits a crime that their child will be a criminal too, but with Voldy both magic and fate take a hand in his upbringing.

Bella and Cissy are a very interesting pair. Bella didn't have anyone to look after her but she looked after Cissy. I think we can all agree that Cissy is the most stable of the pair, but it was because of this situation that Bella fell over the edge. She has always been the strong one. I imagine she married her husband because she wanted someone to take care of her, but she learned that he wasn't as powerful as she was and that is why she set her sights on Voldy.

Cissy loved Lucious and she let him tell her what to do, the same way Bella did when they were children. During the last few books they became more like partners because they could only count on each other.

I think you are right about people underestimating it under normal circumstances, like with women who think that if their baby's father commits a crime that their child will be a criminal too, but with Voldy both magic and fate take a hand in his upbringing..

Yes, your right on this, magic and fate do take a hand in his upbringing. I truly wonder what he would have been like, had he not been a wizard. I don't really think he would have become a muderer, I just think he would have been a very unpleasant human being. But, who knows!

Yes, Bella and Narcissa are a very interesting pair, as well as their sister, Andromeda. Each of them, really took a different route. Bella was the truest to their heritage, and one of Voldemort's most loyal followers, while Narcissa while I think she was loyal, I don't think she would have given up her life to the cause as she wasn't even a Death Eater, and then their's Andromeda, the black sheep who totally went against how they were raised and married a Muggle-born.

Once again another act by both nurture and choices. All of them were raised the same and yet all of them took different paths. While nurture certainly plays a role in their choices, Narcissa was still loyal to how she was raised without really having to give her whole life up to it, she married a Pureblood Death Eater, Bellatrix was loyal by marrying a Death Eater and becoming a Death Eater, then there's Andromeda who probably saw how wrong it was what her family stood for and made the choice to marry her Muggle-born despite her families beliefs.

My whole entire opinion for anything is it all comes down to choices, though nurture will always play a role in choices, and the same with nature.

or was Andromida the "white" sheep or the Black family? :lol:

Lol! :D

Voldemort also would have been a "nurture" case, at least in part. Orphanages are largely extinct, but what information that ever was collected indicates that they basically were like prisons or primate house: brutal struggles for dominance.

There is the question of whether Voldemort was also a psychopath, i.e., incapable of empathy. Insofar as research shows, this is simply due to a major brain malfunction: it cannot be cured or treated, and a psychopath can no more reform him/herself than a blind person can learn to see.


Rowling's stories all are about choice, and thus free-will; so, having a true psychopath might seem to be inconsistent because psychopaths do not have free will like others do. However, Voldemort is the antagonist, not the protagonist, and the stories are about what choices Harry makes, often in response to Voldemort's (much more limited) choices. So, there really is not the conflict that some people have suggested.

That is a really good point.
The arguement could be made that it was Merope's choices that caused Voldy to be a phycopath. The potion was making his father love his mother magically and that love was only maintained by redosing of the potion. Charactoristics of the father at the time of conception are carried to the fetus, so once the potion ran out, Voldy was not capable of loving anyone.

That is a really good point.
The arguement could be made that it was Merope's choices that caused Voldy to be a phycopath. The potion was making his father love his mother magically and that love was only maintained by redosing of the potion. Charactoristics of the father at the time of conception are carried to the fetus, so once the potion ran out, Voldy was not capable of loving anyone.Many people suggested that, but it probably is not the case. One argument would be that it actually is not true that "temporary" characteristics of the father are imparted onto embryos: sperm donates only DNA (not even mitochondria), so only permanent mutation of the gametic cells can introduce "new" traits for a potential offspring. (This almost always sterilizes a male, too; for example, the reactor problems in Japan following the earthquake & tsunami probably will increase infertility among Japanese men in that area: much of the sperm will be inviable, and even much of the remaining sperm will yield embryos that will just abort due to malformities.)

However, that is the real world: there's also no such thing as magic, either! :p What counts is what Rowling wants or believes to be true. But I think that we have an argument against this idea there, too: Dumbledore didn't know this to be a side-effect of love-potions, and given his prodigious knowledge of magical theory and the deeper emotional underpinnings, he would have done so.

Just to forestall the "we don't know that Dumbledore did not know this," we get this in Half-Blood Prince. There, Dumbledore asks Harry to suggest how Merope seduced Tom Riddle. Harry suggested either the Imperious Curse or a love potion. (He might have had a 3rd suggestion, but I don't recall it.) Dumbledore agreed, and said that he favored the love potion idea simply because it seemed more romantic than the Imperious curse. This is a good argument, but still a fairly weak one. "Love potions induce psychopathy as a birth defect" is a much stronger argument that would pretty much have sealed the deal.

(Of course, we also have to remember that Rowling was going to fire the love potion gun later in that story, and in true Chekhovian form, she wanted to point out the gun on the wall at least a couple of times before she shot it.)


Now, there is thought to be a genetic underpinning of psychopathy and even sociopathy as well as other complex behaviors. (There are subtle distinctions between the two which might or might not represent "real" differences versus just individual variation in the same problem: that is a topic of long-standing debate, I think.) However, look at Voldemort's ancestors: on one side, they a bunch of inbred stuck up, borderline sociopathic aristocrats; on the other side, the Gaunts. :cool:

There is the question of whether Voldemort was also a psychopath, i.e., incapable of empathy. Insofar as research shows, this is simply due to a major brain malfunction: it cannot be cured or treated, and a psychopath can no more reform him/herself than a blind person can learn to see.No "question" according to JKR. JKR has stated Voldemort is a psychopath. From an interview in 2007 after DH...

MV: Why was it important to you, Jo, to write about the cruelty and inhumanity?

JKR: I'm not sure why. But it was what I wanted to write about most. And it's about choice. And you are shown that Voldemort. Ummm... I suppose we're going to call him a psychopath. But he's so, in many ways, he is what he is and he's beyond redemption.

I would debate and contend that Tom Riddle (not Voldemort) was a sociopath, because he was very attractive, smart, and handsome in appearance & many were impressed & seduced by his personality. He used these positive traits to manipulate others including finding out about making Horcruxes at a young age. TR no doubt generated sympathy for his background, and this is a major 'trademark' of the sociopath.

Also, I totally agree with...

Originally Posted by Anhelda
I stand by what I said--little Tommy Riddle was a sociopath. Remember how much Armando Dippett liked him? Remember how Slughorn praised him, said he'd be Minister of Magic before too long? Remember how DiaryMort said that all the teachers loved him, except Dumbledore, who never fully trusted him? Remember how Hephzibah Smith just totally fawned over the charming young man who paid her such nice compliments and gave her attention, etc? Remember how our own beloved Ginny got suckered into revealing her soul to that "friend you can carry in your pocket" DiaryMort? That is a sociopathic pattern of manipulating people. In his full-out Voldemort persona as seen in books 4-7 "present day", he may have morphed more into a psychopath, but he started out a sociopath, and that's where he learned not to feel sorry for the hurtful things he did, like killing Billy Stubbs' rabbit and terrorizing the two kids in the cave as a child.

I would debate and contend that Tom Riddle (not Voldemort) was a sociopath, because he was very attractive, smart, and handsome in appearance & many were impressed & seduced by his personality. As I noted above, there is a subtle distinction between sociopathy and psychopathy in terms of the hypothesized cause. (People do debate whether they really are different things.)

At any rate, Voldemort had no real awareness of others as anything other than objects he could use or objects in his way. Being raised in an orphanage would not have helped that at all, but it might have just been gasoline on the fire.


As for the other Death Eaters, it seems that most of them were simply products of their upbringings. Occasionally people rebel against it for whatever reasons. For example, who here does not know somebody who was raised according to some religion who rejected it adamantly whereas a sibling of his/hers accepted it? Clearly the upbringing was the same, but something differed between the two siblings. It is the same thing here.

No "question" according to JKR. JKR has stated Voldemort is a psychopath. From an interview in 2007 after DH...

MV: Why was it important to you, Jo, to write about the cruelty and inhumanity?

JKR: I'm not sure why. But it was what I wanted to write about most. And it's about choice. And you are shown that Voldemort. Ummm... I suppose we're going to call him a psychopath. But he's so, in many ways, he is what he is and he's beyond redemption.

I just want to point out: given that she seems to have picked the word on a whim, I'm not sure this comment should a great deal of weight. If the goal here is to discuss whether Voldemort exhibited sociopathy or psychopathy, not only is the author unlikely to have much authority unless she has credentials to make a real diagnosis (she doesn't), but even professionals in that field debate whether there is a valid distinction between the two disorders or if they are merely different manifestations of a more general one (the key being that there are many causes and manifestations, not only two of each).

As I noted above, there is a subtle distinction between sociopathy and psychopathy in terms of the hypothesized cause. (People do debate whether they really are different things.)

I think the distinction is kind of moot. TR was definately a sociopath but after killing his family he could not be considered human and his condition would not be completely comprable to they phycology of a human.

I just want to point out: given that she seems to have picked the word on a whim, I'm not sure this comment should a great deal of weight. If the goal here is to discuss whether Voldemort exhibited sociopathy or psychopathy, not only is the author unlikely to have much authority unless she has credentials to make a real diagnosis (she doesn't), but even professionals in that field debate whether there is a valid distinction between the two disorders or if they are merely different manifestations of a more general one (the key being that there are many causes and manifestations, not only two of each).

All good writers do research on things that they are going to write about. In Jo's research that was how she interpreted it and she is clarifying that POV for the reader. I think we can take Jo's comments as canon.

As for the other Death Eaters, it seems that most of them were simply products of their upbringings. Occasionally people rebel against it for whatever reasons. For example, who here does not know somebody who was raised according to some religion who rejected it adamantly whereas a sibling of his/hers accepted it? Clearly the upbringing was the same, but something differed between the two siblings. It is the same thing here.

But then what was it that seperated the DE from Umberidge? Sirius said she was a horrible woman but not a death eater.

I wonder if she started out very altruistic and the worse things got the more she dug her heels in until she became exactly what she was fighting against?

I saw a chart, similar to this:
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc125/StorytellerRox/goodvsevil.png at one time. There is a thin line between total good and total evil. It wouldn't have taken Umbridge that much to go over the edge.

All good writers do research on things that they are going to write about. In Jo's research that was how she interpreted it and she is clarifying that POV for the reader. I think we can take Jo's comments as canon.
Well first, I wasn't really talking about canon. The issue seems to be whether we can use real-world diagnostic criteria to determine something about Voldemort's character, is it not? In that case, the author's commentary after the fact doesn't shed any light on the subject, because the test in real life is an evaluation of behaviors and statements of the individual. If the author did intend to write a psychopathic character, then the canon that matters is what she wrote--a statement to that effect following publication can't retroactively emend the work.

Second, as I stated before, there is no complete agreement even about how to categorize antisocial personality disorders, let alone how to diagnose them. It's my view that we lay people will find attempting to distinguish between various pathologies a fruitless endeavor, both because we're unqualified and because few people (or characters) fall completely within a single range of criteria.

I have no doubt that if the author said her character is a psychopath then she intended for him to be one. But that is not the same thing as having written a character who conforms to clinical criteria for psychopathy. It's clear that in Voldemort's case, ambiguity about the cause of his disturbing tendencies was intentional. What that says to me, and I may be alone here, is that the author rather believes it's futile to seek and impossible to find definitive answers about why people are the way they are. Because the importance of individual choices is so strongly emphasized throughout the novels, then I would suspect that her comments ("and it's about choice") were more an assertion that everyone should be held responsible for their actions regardless of what precipitated them. What the comments were not, however, was proof of a particular mental pathology that she researched and incorporated.

And Voldermorts actions were a result of the choices TR made.

If we look at Voldy from the POV that he was not human and therfore his actions should be taken as those of an animal using it's instinces to survive and had to be "put down" just like a bear that has a taste for human blood, we realize that he should be pittied.
Then we contrast that with Umberidge who clearly was in her right mind when she did all the horrible things she did, we see the true reason that Umberidge is so much more hated than Voldy.

It is interesting that the protaganist in the HP novels is not considered the greatest hero in the book by many and the main antagonist is not the biggest villin.

If we look at Voldy from the POV that he was not human and therfore his actions should be taken as those of an animal using it's instinces to survive and had to be "put down" just like a bear that has a taste for human blood, we realize that he should be pittied.
This question is answered over & over by JKR, because she speaks of Voldemort in human terms. His magical body is not the same as his human mind, human choices, human decisions, human upbringing, human background, TR vs HP, V vs HP, etc. (human = wizard for these purposes)

Also, I definitely do not believe a psychopath & sociopath are almost the same in the outward way they act or by established observable traits or defined characteristics. No, these are two distinct diagnosis each with unique characteristics that can be distinguished between the two by observation & analysis. (I'm not debating the causes for these abnormalities here, as there are many theories about causes that are debatable.)

I have personally researched both types, and I have personally known a dangerous sociopath. There are clear differences between the two types. (There is a surprising number of sociopaths, so you have probably encountered one yourself without even knowing it.)

A great layman's book on the subject is titled The Sociopath Next Door.

The cause or origins for each diagnosis is unique in each case, but, of course, these can originate from similar causes or origins too. (Including similar causes or orgins between psychopaths & sociopaths.)

From an evolutionary or natural selection standpoint it is believed a certain percentage of the population will have psychopaths & sociopaths selected repeatedly on an ongoing basis from the gene pool. It is believed in times of great stress such as famine, migration, or warfare these personality types will have thrived or done better than others because of the manipulative & ruthless nature of these personality types. It seems there is a perpetual 'gene machine' that will produce these predatory types, because Natural Disasters & Man-made Disasters are here to stay, forever, it seems.

Also, it is a reason why sociopaths can become so successful & dangerous in leadership positions, especially, political positions. I'm certain many psychopaths & sociopaths are attracted to warfare & crime too, which is another reason for their great potential danger to society on an ongoing basis. Especially, when one combines Political Power and Warfare with a sociopath or psychopath leading the way, even at different levels of leadership, then you can get massive destruction destroying whole nations & continents & killing millions of innocents.

I just want to point out: given that she seems to have picked the word on a whim, I'm not sure this comment should a great deal of weight. This probably is correct. Rowling's use of the word seems more or less in line with general understanding: most educated people know that sociopathy and psychopathy are not exactly the same, and many even know how they differ: but then they have to Google to remember which one is which! (I always do…. :cool:).
All good writers do research on things that they are going to write about. In Jo's research that was how she interpreted it and she is clarifying that POV for the reader. I think we can take Jo's comments as canon.I doubt that Rowling researched psychopathy vs. sociopathy per se. She probably is just using educated layman's understanding. We'd only see evidence supporting the particular view if she'd really developed Voldemort's past in the detail that she develops Harry's. Sociopath or psychopath, there is something seriously wrong with Voldemort's mind. Lack of any parental love might well have exacerbated this, but inherited mental problems also might have been an issue. From Harry's point of view, it's moot: Harry got a homicidal egomaniac who accidentally left a chunk of soul in Harry's forehead after him.
But then what was it that seperated the DE from Umberidge? Sirius said she was a horrible woman but not a death eater. She didn't have the Dark Mark. She seems to have been very much like Sirius' parents: she actually shared the beliefs that Voldemort held, but she did not approve of the way that he went aboutt them. From what little we can tell about Umbridge, she is a stickler for following established protocol: and Voldemort worked outside of the Ministry of Magic. However, she clearly had zero problems supporting the cause once it became official Ministry of Magic Policy.
I wonder if she started out very altruistic and the worse things got the more she dug her heels in until she became exactly what she was fighting against?Again, we have little on which to go, but probably not. Slughorn notes that she was (in his opinion) always very stupid, and Rowling certainly develops Umbridge as an individual with limited mental capacities.

What Umbridge probably is closest to is what Percy basically was: a moral absolutist who's source of morality comes from "tradition." Old pureblood families are better than other wizards. The Ministry of Magic is the final word on right and wrong. Etc., etc.

Now, did Umbridge have this drilled into her as a child? It is quite possible. However, Umbridge really is nothing more than a wizard equivalent of Petunia.

From an evolutionary or natural selection standpoint it is believed a certain percentage of the population will have psychopaths & sociopaths selected for in the gene pool. It is believed in times of great stress such as famine, migration, or warfare these personality types will have thrived or done better than others because of the manipulative & ruthless nature of these personality types. As an evolutionary biologist myself, I would say that this is plausible but overly simplistic. Behavioral traits always represent complex interactions between genetics and development. Now, you can have single genes that "stop" things, but you need several genes interaction to put things together.

What would seem to be a much more likely hypothesis is that fact that humans (and all other apes) are instinctively "nationalistic": our tribe über alles! Devout nationalists empathize with people of their tribe only (and really only by viewing them as extensions of themselves): but they have zero empathy for others. This invokes the concept of kin selection: things you do that help your relatives also spread your genes; yes, it's better to have offspring than nieces or nephews, but it is much, much better to have nieces and nephews than it is for unrelated peoples to succeed at their expense. (In our modern world, our instincts often misfire in this regard: but remember that modern "nation" concepts represent a centuries old concept that invokes instincts that are millions of years old.)

Of course, a side effect of polygenic / developmental traits is that you'll get considerable variation in just how "nationalistic" somebody is: and psychopathy is the end member where you are a nation of one. That's pretty much Voldemort!

As an evolutionary biologist myself, I would say that this is plausible but overly simplistic. Behavioral traits always represent complex interactions between genetics and development. Now, you can have single genes that "stop" things, but you need several genes interaction to put things together.Excellent points. :)

In the book The Sociopath Next Door it acknowledges cultural effects too by the following example recognizing in the Japanese culture there are very few sociopaths that 'flower' or are tolerated in that society, but American culture promotes sociopathic behaviors so sociopaths do 'flower' & are in much greater numbers here compared to many other cultures.

If one lives in an environment of warfare, famine, migration, disaster, or high stress, then this will tend to 'flower' & 'bloom' the psychopath or sociopath into predatory operations. The extreme concentration of wealth & promotion of selfish or individual (over group) ideals in America also promotes & produces a higher number of psychopaths & sociopaths compared to many other nations, imo.

Imo, Tom Riddle was a sociopath, and Voldemort was a psychopath. I think I could post a lot of supporting evidence from the HP books & JKR & by (diagnostic) observable behaviors that are found throughout the books, etc. to lend strong support for 'my diagnostic opinions', which I've done by posting previously to some very limited extent too.

Has anyone found a better way to describe TR or LV psychological condition or diagnosis as being something other than sociopath or psychopath???

That is very true about more sociopaths developing in the US. Just look at this link:
17 year old kills brother (http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc125/StorytellerRox/goodvsevil.png). I didn't think I would like Dexter and I actually did and it wasn't just because of Dexter he did what he did. Growing up seeing lots of violence on different TV shows contributed to itand then he saw Dexter and it all clicked. If it haden't been Dexter it probably would have been something else, but still Dexter contributed to it; of course there was something wrong with him in the first place, but it would not have happened if not for all of the stimuli.

In TR's case the I think the the major factor was the fact that he always got away with everything and he was never told "no". He was never taught there are limits, only that no one was going to look out for him except for him. Having more attention as a baby might have modified the extent of his behavior but I do not think there was anything that could have been done to stop TR from trying world domination. If he hadden't gone to Hogwarts and learned about magic, he would have tried it on the Muggles.

Teen kills brother (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/teen-kills-brother-loves-dexter-life-imitating-art/story?id=13161191)
voldy was 54 when he murdered the Potters, so that is how old hw was when he had 7 horocruxes. He made Nagini into the 8th sometime later in Albania. Even he proboly doesn't know when.

Teen kills brother (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/teen-kills-brother-loves-dexter-life-imitating-art/story?id=13161191)
voldy was 54 when he murdered the Potters, so that is how old hw was when he had 7 horocruxes. He made Nagini into the 8th sometime later in Albania. Even he proboly doesn't know when.

Voldemort only created 6 horcruxes to complete what he thought was a significant magical number, 7. The 7th piece is the soul that has to remain in Voldemort, but it's not a horcrux. JKR has said that Bertha Jorkins was the murder used to make Nagini a horcrux -- Bertha Jorkins was murdered before GOF starts, but as he didn't have a body to hold a wand until GOF, he could not have created the horcrux before then. So if Voldy was 54 when he killed Harry's parents, and Harry was 1-ish, Voldy had to be around 67 by the time he made the 6th.


J.K. Rowling: The diary - Moaning Myrtle. The cup - Hepzibah Smith, the previous owner. The locket - a Muggle tramp. Nagini - Bertha Jorkins (Voldemort could use a wand once he regained a rudimentary body, as long as the victim was subdued).
J.K. Rowling: The diadem - an Albanian peasant. The ring - Tom Riddle snr.



Back on topic - Sometimes Riddle/Voldemort seems to be an obsessive planner, and other moments are clearly explosive and out of control, and he was always manipulative. Voldemort seems to have characteristics that fit with both a sociopath & psychopath, although from what I've read, the two disorders are very similar. Personally, I don't get the feeling that nurturing would have made any difference at all in how Riddle/Voldemort ended up. Are there any studies that show nurturing can alter a socio-/psycho- pathic personality?

Don't forget, folks, that it's the HP story we are discussing here, not more or less well known real life killers.

But we are discussing whether a different upbringing for Voldy would have made a difference. Being nurtured did not seem to stop other real life "phycopaths" from killing, so it probably would not have effected Voldy.

When people do something wrong they love to blame it on their parents or their upbringing. There are lots of people brought up in lots worse conditions that turn out fine or even use those experiences to try and help others. A born soiciopath would only see it from their POV.

There is even a movie called Natural Born Killers, which I have not seen, so it would seem that the writter is implying that killers are born and not made.

If you think about it, Dumbledore and Grindelwald kind of acted like sociopaths when they were younger. Grindelwald took it to the next step but Dumbledore made a 180. Dumbledore's change of heart was because of his sister's death, but would he have stopped it before it went too far if she hadden't died? Would he have been the Voldy before Voldy was Voldy?

Nevertheless Alastor asked you not to bring up real life killers or other fictional killers. This is the HP forum and it should be known by experienced members that thread logistics are not to be discussed in the thread itself.

We have a thread about Voldemort and who is responsible for how he turned out to be. Who is to blame for Voldemort going bad? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=113801&highlight=voldemort).

Dumbledore says it's not a good idea to use an animal to make a horcrux because the animal can think for itself. is it possible that Voldemort had to somehow subdue Nagini to make her into a horcrux?

Dumbledore says it's not a good idea to use an animal to make a horcrux because the animal can think for itself. is it possible that Voldemort had to somehow subdue Nagini to make her into a horcrux?Questions about Horcruxes (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=109393&highlight=horcr%2A)

Imo, Tom Riddle was a sociopath, and Voldemort was a psychopath. I think I could post a lot of supporting evidence from the HP books & JKR & by (diagnostic) observable behaviors that are found throughout the books, etc. to lend strong support for 'my diagnostic opinions', which I've done by posting previously to some very limited extent too.

Why do you think there is a difference between TR and Voldemort??? I mean, I already grasped the idea of Voldemort being a psychopath, but I thought TR already was one when he was still TR. Especially considering he charmed his way into people's hearts just to get his way and didn't care one bit about what it did to those people.

Why do you think there is a difference between TR and Voldemort??? I mean, I already grasped the idea of Voldemort being a psychopath, but I thought TR already was one when he was still TR. Especially considering he charmed his way into people's hearts just to get his way and didn't care one bit about what it did to those people.

Actually I am starting to believe that they were both the same, but TR was just more reserved in his behavior so he acted like a sociopath though in reality he was a phycopath. There is no other way to explain his starting to kill beginning with three people. He may have been mad at his father for abandoning him, but his grandparents didn't do anything againt him. They probably did not even know he had been born.

What Umbridge probably is closest to is what Percy basically was: a moral absolutist who's source of morality comes from "tradition." Old pureblood families are better than other wizards. The Ministry of Magic is the final word on right and wrong. Etc., etc.

Now, did Umbridge have this drilled into her as a child? It is quite possible. However, Umbridge really is nothing more than a wizard equivalent of Petunia.


I didn't understand what you meant at first, because Petunia is no where near as bad as Umberidge, but I agree that they both think need everything to fit into neat little boxes of right and wrong and normal and abnormal to keep their worlds from falling apart.

Petunia was a young girl when she found out about wizardry and she of course thought it was coo, who wouldn't, so she tried to get into Hogwarts not realizing it wasn't something that could be taught (Jo is ilready showing us how wrong the inquisition was accusing muggle borns of "stealing magic".) Then Snape made that branch fall and she realized how dangerous it was to be someone without magic that is full of wizards. She decided the only way to protect herself was not to be involved with anyone that exibited the least signs of abnormality (look how well that turned out with Miss Figg being right down the road).

Then she had Dudley and she did not want him to grow up with the fear that she had so she protected him from everything. He was sheltered and on his way to becoming the muggle equivalent of Voldy but then he encountered the Dementor and his whole world was shattered. Then Dumbledore visited and made a comment about how poorly he had been raised and he was forced to confront the fact that the way he was treating others was wrong and it sparked a change in him, (as we see by him getting Harry tea and telling him he didn't think he was worthless.)

Actually I am starting to believe that they were both the same, but TR was just more reserved in his behavior so he acted like a sociopath though in reality he was a phycopath. There is no other way to explain his starting to kill beginning with three people. He may have been mad at his father for abandoning him, but his grandparents didn't do anything againt him. They probably did not even know he had been born.
I'd like to ask once again: are we basing the distinction between psychopathy and sociopathy on any particular clinical diagnostic criteria? I still believe this and "nature vs. nurture" itself are false dichotomies.

Why do you think there is a difference between TR and Voldemort??? I mean, I already grasped the idea of Voldemort being a psychopath, but I thought TR already was one when he was still TR. Especially considering he charmed his way into people's hearts just to get his way and didn't care one bit about what it did to those people.
Actually I am starting to believe that they were both the same, but TR was just more reserved in his behavior so he acted like a sociopath though in reality he was a phycopath. There is no other way to explain his starting to kill beginning with three people.
It's easy for me, since I have studied about psychopaths & sociopaths, and I have known a sociopath too. :eeep:

Where you wrote: "Especially considering he charmed his way into people's hearts just to get his way and didn't care one bit about what it did to those people."

What you just wrote above is the precise 'dark mark' of a sociopath! Charming, draws sympathy (for his background), attractive, and 'magnetic personality'. Psychopaths do not usually have these traits. Sociopaths are potentially far more deadly because of their attractive features unlike typical psychopaths.

When Voldemort came into being he definitely did not have an attractive body nor did he use a 'magnetic personality' to get his way. LV was simply ruthless on a quest for power without any physical or personality attractions in his ugly body & communications, and he did not attempt to 'cover-up' what he was doing compared to TR. Sociopaths are masters of illusion & sympathy!

There is no other way to explain his starting to kill beginning with three people.

Yes, there is. He was a sociopath that was very deadly and a murderer too. Sociopaths can be far more dangerous & deadly than a psychopath. They are far more attractive & magnetic in personality, and, usually, laypeople don't even 'believe' a sociopath committed 'the crime'.

This is a fictional character that transformed (into an ugly body, etc.) & behaved differently as LV vs TR. TR & LV were certainly perceived differently by the other HP characters & readership too. Obviously, if he had been able to maintain an attractive body & magnetic personality as LV, then he still would have been a sociopath! The fictional setting allows me to give him two different but accurate diagnosis's. Imo. :eyebrows:

This is a fictional character that transformed (into an ugly body, etc.) & behaved differently as LV vs TR. TR & LV were certainly perceived differently by the other HP characters & readership too. Obviously, if he had been able to maintain an attractive body & magnetic personality as LV, then he still would have been a sociopath! The fictional setting allows me to give him two different but accurate diagnosis's. Imo. :eyebrows:

Good point. So what you are saying is that since he was a sociopath he would not have become a phycopath if he had not made the horoctuxes because his appearence wound not have changed? That would mean that it was nurture that made TR turn into the phycopathic Voldy and he would have remained a sociopath if he had not learned about magic.

I'd like to ask once again: are we basing the distinction between psychopathy and sociopathy on any particular clinical diagnostic criteria? I still believe this and "nature vs. nurture" itself are false dichotomies.

Based upon what Jo said and cases of phycopaths and sociopaths IRL, and a bit from profiles in the TV show Criminal Minds :D

Good point. So what you are saying is that since he was a sociopath he would not have become a phycopath if he had not made the horoctuxes because his appearence wound not have changed? That would mean that it was nurture that made TR turn into the phycopathic Voldy and he would have remained a sociopath if he had not learned about magic.
Thanks for your compliment. :)

I'll clarify by repeating myself several times 'here' in three paragraphs below. Sorry! :blush:

I think TR was a sociopath, since he has many identifying key attributes of a sociopath: Attractive appearance, magnetic personality, background generates sympathy, can't feel or love, relationships are manipulated for selfish gain, he is sly & deceptive, he's a highly intelligent model student, he commits murders & theft without missing a beat, few would believe TR to be extremely dangerous, he could probably boast about terrible things he did but get away with it too (don't recall any specific examples). Only Dumbledore noticed he must be watched closely.

As I said, he transformed into a psychopath because his Voldermort body was ugly AND his Voldermort personality was not magnetic or attractive to other people unlike TR. Also, this is a fictional transformation from TR to LV, so he could become a psychopath, imo. As LV he was viewed by others as ruthless & domineering, and he was not 'seen' as a magnetic personality that most people would be attracted to.

Had TR not lost his body AND he continued to act as TR did, then TR would remain a sociopath. TR's 'personality magnetism' & 'attractiveness' was different than LV. TR the sociopath created almost all of the Horcruxes as TR. LV created the Harry Semi-Horcrux (w/o intention or knowledge or spell) & LV did Nagini. Did LV create other Horcruxes as LV?

As it's clear by now that this thread is about Voldemort only and we don't need two threads about why he became what he did, I'm closing this now.

Please continue here: Who is to blame for Voldemort going bad? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=113801&highlight=Volde%2A)