A small but not trivial portion of the public immediately lapses into a near-rage at anything that appears to be an authority figure. People seem to grow out of it.
Maybe it's PTSD from poor interactions with past authorities, maybe it's some kind of pack hierarchy hold over, who knows-- but it appears to be a pretty widespread phenomena.
It doesn't stop being real just because the description could also be abused to dismiss someone who has a legitimate complaint about a particular authority.
The claim that "it's a real thing" doesn't mean anything other than that some people exhibit certain behaviors that some other people decided to group together, give them a name, and put it in DSM-5. None of this refute GP's claim that "that's what they call mouthy rebels these days".
A small but not trivial portion of the public immediately lapses into a near-rage at anything that appears to be an authority figure. People seem to grow out of it.
With the Internet, they now all get together and organize extremist groups. Before the Internet, they had trouble achieving a critical mass. This seems to be more of a middle aged thing than something people grow out of.
It sounds quite Orwellian. I fondly remember being written up almost literally a hundred times throughout school for "willful disobedience" and being sent to the "behavior modification center" as punishment.
Like many behaviours, it can range from "personality trait" to "disorder", with a lot of grey area in between. I'm not hugely in favour of quickly applying the "disorder" label based on my personal experience of being stamped with such things which, in my opinion, are merely "personality traits" which were labelled "disorders" by well-intentioned but overly zealous mental health professionals, but that doesn't mean they don't exist in some people.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I really refuse to believe that he couldn't just be diagnosed with something else, assuming there was really a problem to begin with. This whole case is incredibly concerning. I'd wonder if this is the first time.
no, that's what they usually call young 'psychopaths' that act out, aka 'sociopaths'... there is a high correlation between the two, but no psychologist wants to label a kid as a sociopath...
I had one, in class (5th or 6th grade), and I remember the experience was eye opening. Teachers had to spend a copius amount of energy just to keep him in check.... his behavior would oscillate between funny/to scary dangerous within minutes.
at some point he got in trouble for trying to put the classroom on fire (see how fast do the desks lit/catch fire).... and got trouble again for trying to do the same to his neighbors. He eventually got removed (and I assumed ended up in juvenile correction facility).
Normally this label is not given to kids that have run of the mill problems (aka ADD/ADHD), but only for serious cases.
Psychopathy and sociopathy are two markedly different disorders, despite sharing some common symptoms. It would be prudent the difference between the two before assuming an authoritative stance on APD.
> no, that's what they usually call young 'psychopaths' that act out, aka 'sociopaths'...
That would be "conduct disorder" actually, something rather more severe than just ODD. If a kid shows a pattern of behaving in blatantly antisocial ways that demonstrate a severe lack of empathy for others, that's pretty much it. Setting stuff on fire is actually a tell-tale sign, as is willful animal cruelty.
That's what they call mouthy rebels these days