November Rain

If any pair of readings (Moffitt and Linehan) was to inspire a response consisting purely of puns, clichés, proverbs, and/or Guns N Roses lyrics, I would have to say, this is it.

To add insult to injury: In the words of GNR, “welcome to the jungle, it gets worse here every day.” Such righteous lyrics relate to both authors’ contentions that biological, genetic, environmental, interpersonal, emotional, cognitive etc. vulnerabilities intensify the effects of each other, thus contributing to a vicious cycle or individual/environmental interactions that only exacerbate and reinforce the emotions and behaviors associated with borderline personality disorder (BPD) and antisocial behvior (AB).

To expand a bit (in a slightly different direction), certain characteristics of both BPD and AB reveal this sort of “snowball” effect, action/reaction/action thing. The interesting thing in both BPD and AD is that the traits (personality and otherwise) are implicated not only in shaping the action, but in shaping the reaction, as well as influencing the way certain action/reaction combos are perceived, maintained and reinforced. For the individual with BPD, she tends to be highly sensitive to the point that it may seem self-centered. Such traits can influence the way she interacts with others, which can then contribute to increased self-focus, misery, etc. In BA, “difficult temperament” is often accompanied by several, profound disadvantages that limit opportunities and exposure, ultimately influencing the capacity to change. In both cases, the traits that are commonly identified as problematic, are those that complicate interpersonal interactions, and ultimately outcomes.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil: But is it enough to prevent the rust? Perhaps one of the most interesting parallels that emerged through these readings was the notion that individuals with BPD and BA demonstrate qualities/traits/behaviors that are not so subtle that they are unproblematic and/or go unnoticed, nor are they so severe that they are easily and immediately recognized, demanding dramatic intervention and/or accommodations early on so as to minimize the negative consequences. However, they are both recognized as pathologies, the causes and manifestations of which cannot easily be explained or treated, respectively. Awareness and access to resources also deserve discussion.

The apple doesn’t fall from the tree: Much attention is devoted to the potential influence of parent behaviors, traits, states on life-course—biological/genetic, environmental, learning, etc.—but not in the adolescence-limited group, where the emphasis seems to be more conscious, socially motivated, individually motivated, adaptive. Such findings provide some insight regarding the tendency to attribute certain characteristics, but not others to biological, environmental, individual, group effects. Is this a simple case of nature vs. nurture? I think not.

Birds of a feather flock together: This little saying supports Moffitt’s theory that mimicry and interaction with delinquent peers plays a role in adolescence-limited AB. It may also provide insight regarding the dispute over whether AB abstinence or AB conduct constitute pathology. Further, it may also apply to the finding that individuals with BPD find themselves in stressful, difficult relationships with individuals who may exhibit similar destructive behaviors.

Back in the good old days. Times have changed, societal values have changed, laws have changed. Moffitt reports on the relationship between age and the prevalence of crime in English men at different times (ie. 1938, 1961, and 1983) and attributes such trends to modernization as it relates to the widening maturity gap, motivation to demonstrate independence, etc. However, little attention is given to the underlying social and evolutionary mechanisms linking law (ie. what constitutes a crime), technology and success. According to some, rules and laws are implemented to protect us from imminent and/or anticipated harm. For a human in the olden days, the laws that governed us we those that ensured our survival. That meant a couple of things: 1) if you see a bear, run; 2) if you see a stick, use it to fight off the bear…or to fish some bugs out of a hole for a little snack; 3) if you see another human, whom you find a) attractive, share your bugs with him/her and protect him/her from the bear so that you may mate; or b) unattractive, use your stick to point him/her out to the bear, increasing your chances for survival, among other things. You see, the bear=harm or threat; the stick=technology; and success=dinner and a date. The evolution of certain technologies and social norms, however, has dramatically changed our definitions/perceptions of danger, ability and success. Ok, maybe not the best example, but hopefully it communicates the notion that specific outcomes are (or are perceived to be) unfavorable and perhaps detrimental to our physical, social, emotional selves…

And, while several of these rules and norms are implemented to protect our children…one might ask, from whom? Themselves? It can be suggested, however, that imposing such restrictions interferes and interacts with the processes of development such that these rules and laws may in fact be harming them, restricting them, preventing them from spreading their wings, learning to fly. The implications/consequences of such restriction can be explained from biological, social, learning, developmental, environmental, standpoints.

People in glass houses shouldn’t pick their noses. Just kidding. But while this “rule” may seem applicable to adults, there is some flexibility in the stringent application of some rules (but certainly not others) as they relate to children. Why is it that we cut kids a lot of slack in some respects? Because they are cute? Because they don’t know any better? Because they are a reflection of us? Because they are our future? Because they can (cannot) be helped? Because we feel sorry for them? Because it isn’t their fault? While these questions may seem horribly insensitive, or entirely too sensitive, or something, I pose them because I think they reveal something about the stigma and difficulty (assessing, predicting, preventing, treating, etc.) associated with these and other pathologies.

Age before beauty or over the hill? It can be suggested that the processes of aging may partially explain the observation that following the “peak” of AB in adolescence, the frequency (and perhaps, the extremity) of such behavior declines with age. In addition to the developmental, psychological and social changes associated with puberty, it can be suggested that physical fitness, physiological motivation and dispensable time/energy also peak. Thus, from a purely physical standpoint, adolescence represents the time in a man’s life in which his capacity to engage in physically demanding tasks/activities is greatest. Conversely, physical, cognitive and self-sufficiency/responsibility-related limitations in early childhood and older age may obstruct the expression of SA tendencies. For example, whereas during childhood, individuals may be lacking physical strength, among other strategic and material resources required to say, steal a car, a middle-aged man may simply be lacking the physical and cognitive energy to execute such a task.

Guitar solo, whistle, whistle; [thank you so much for your] patience, yaaaaaay, patience.