Nature vs. Nurture in HP

[wandrider]

Originally Posted by storyteller

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.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

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…. ).

Originally Posted by storyteller

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.

Originally Posted by storyteller

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.

Originally Posted by storyteller

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.

Originally Posted by wandrider

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!

[wandrider]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

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???

[storyteller]

That is very true about more sociopaths developing in the US. Just look at this link:
17 year old kills brother. 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.

[storyteller]

Teen kills brother
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.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by storyteller

Teen kills brother
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.

Bloomsbury Live Chat, July 30, 2007 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?

[Alastor]

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

[storyteller]

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?

[Hes]

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?.

[merrymarge]

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?

[Alastor]

Originally Posted by merrymarge

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

[Siriusandme]

Originally Posted by wandrider

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.

[storyteller]

Originally Posted by Siriusandme

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.

Originally Posted by Wimsey

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.)

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by storyteller

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.

[wandrider]

Originally Posted by Siriusandme

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.

Originally Posted by storyteller

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.

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!

Originally Posted by storyteller

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.

[storyteller]

Originally Posted by wandrider

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.

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.

Originally Posted by canismajoris

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

[wandrider]

Originally Posted by storyteller

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!

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?

[Alastor]

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?