I got a friend who honestly believes things like "Putin is crazy because he wasn't showed any love as a kid." Aside from the fact that my friend believes the whole "PUTIN IS CRAZY" meme, the friend also mentioned that Hitler wasn't shown any love either...
Anyone have any resources that debunk this nonsense?
EDIT: I found this: https://www.thesurvivorstrust.org/FAQs/if-someone-is-sexually-abused-during-their-childhood-they-are-likely-to-become-an-abuser-themselves ("The vast majority of child abuse survivors will never perpetrate sexual abuse and are utterly appalled by the insinuation that they are capable of such an act")
EDIT 2: Also found this study: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/do-abused-children-become-abusive-parents:
Annotation
The belief that abused children are likely to become abusive parents is widely accepted, but the authors contend that this belief cannot be unconditionally supported.
Abstract
A review of case history, agency record, and self-report studies indicates that about one-third of all individuals who were physically abused, sexually abused, or extremely neglected will subject their children to one of these forms of maltreatment. The rate of abuse among individuals with a history of abuse is approximately six times higher than the base rate for abuse in the general population. Although this suggests that being maltreated as a child is an important risk factor in the etiology of abuse, most maltreated children do not become abusive parents. Many mediating factors affect the likelihood of intergenerational abuse. Consequently, unqualified acceptance of the intergenerational hypothesis is unwarranted.
Childhood abuse is linked to becoming an abuser. Not linked to becoming a capitalist head of state
Got a source on that? Cuz I've seen that it's a harmful myth.
The rate of abuse is six times higher amongst people were themselves subject to a use. While most would never, they are still six times more likely.
Sure but then this line of reasoning is used to justify all sorts of bad things cuz "black ppl are X times more likely to commit crimes" or "hispanics are X times more likely" or whatever. In fact this style of argument is used by those STEMlord types who love to talk to about IQ, even though the IQ researchers themselves are VERY reluctant to say anything definitive (as they should be since any kind of science is pretty much subject to all sorts of biases)
Perhaps but out there in the real world ppl do all the time, so it may in fact be a harmful myth, as others have suggested.
Okay then you have the choice of accepting those peoples deeply flawed premise that russias actions are 100% putins whims and debating correlation versus causation with em or saying “that’s fucking stupid, here’s a whole host of reasons that a nation might invade another in the particular geopolitical circumstances were under right now regardless of who’s ostensibly at the helm”.
what's the point of linking the source to support your claim if you don't even believe in the source
I mean I'm not sure what part of the source I'm to believe. The abstract, or the annotation which says "but the authors contend that this belief cannot be unconditionally supported." And I've seen a at least two responses in this thread alone that seem to unconditionally support that contentious belief ("Childhood abuse is strongly linked to all sorts of behavioral issues, sorry." and "Yeah I mean that’s true. ", you can search them here). So maybe the belief that abusers behave that way because they were abused is not only not true (as UnicodeHamSic's response seems to suggest to me), but also harmful.
Abuse does run in families, but assigning individual foibles and personalities as the motivating force behind geo politics is baby brained. Countries, even ones centered on the rule of individuals lie Russia are giant constellations of ideologies economic interests and social groupings.
Like putins personality may effect the willingness for the Russian state to pursue given policies, but not its impetus. If there wasn't a mass of support for war behind this invasion, then he wouldn't have even been able to launch it, let alone stay in power after it began and has gone so disastrously.
Not particularly conclusive, but examines the subject decently.
Also can cause neurological issues due to extreme stress, which tracks with things which can happen to otherwise healthy adults as well (albeit it affects adults to a lesser degree).
Abusers are likely to have been abused, Those who have been abused are not likely to be abusers (though they are more likely, they are still unlikely, because most people do not become abusers.
Also, when, who, how, and how old the person was when abuse are all contributing factors. Being abused while a teen has no correlation with sociopathy, while being abused <6 years old does have some correlation.
Also neither Putin nor Hitler were "Extremely Neglected" (which means, parents didn't feed or bathe of clothe them, not "Slightly distant mother and latchkey childhood". Though Hitler probably suffered some physical abuse, it was not more than was "normal" for the time.
Parenti had a whole thing on Psycho-history
^ That's so on the money! Thanks! As usual Parenti nails it
Welcome! I really recommend the rest of the Real History series this is a part of. It's kinda funny because he finishes off his the founding fathers talk with rather kind words for the Bill of Rights despite all the criticism he just levied at the constitution, which still applied. But they're all really great listens.
There are studiies that say this. They are however flawed in key ways. It only counts people who are caught. Historically abuse of children is just super common and unremaked upon across all parts of thr population.
So, we have to factors of error there. People who are poor are likelly to be disadvanated. People who are rich aren't likely to get convicted
When Freud stated doing psychotherepy he found the abuse rates among the elites staggering. He was gass lit into dropping it and fell into drugs before he came up with all his poop and mother stuff.
In addition to what has already been said -- something that I've always found interesting about
discussion of SA
paraphiliacs -- paraphiliac men are generally heterosexual, have poor social skills, have low self esteem, histories of childhood abuse or neglect (or were raised in families where sex was thought of as evil and normal sexual development was inhibited), and anger at women. This is very common in people with courtship disorders and in some types of rapists.
So, being a victim of what is commonly considered abuse, is not the only reason for someone becoming a potential abuser, in addition to not being guaranteed.
I think part of the issue is that yes, many people who perpetuate abuse were abused themselves. BUT, the vast majority of people who were abused do not commit abuse themselves. All Black Widows are spiders, but not all spiders are Black Widows. The problem is society only seems to hear that part but ignores the second part. No I don't have a specific source on this.
You're viewing this the completely wrong way. You've come across bad reasoning but in attempting to disprove it you've ended up accepting the premise.
Forget their angle and push yours. Putin's actions are geopolitical ones that can be understood through logical means.
The idea that all enemies of Western liberalism are simply just bad people is a thought terminating cliché designed to stop people from understanding why these governments act the way they do.
If you win this argument they'll simply find another infantile line of reasoning to ignore reality.
Liberals will say that but defend their side mindlessly destroying entire economies for the sake of themselves.
Yeah I mean that’s true. Using it to defend the abuses of the most powerful people on Earth is pretty sus though.
Thinking about this through the lens specific traumatic abuses isn’t necessarily super helpful though. What is more true is that people are the way they are because of the experiences they had that molded them to be certain ways, and if you had the same inputs you’d be doing the same thing.
Yeah I mean that’s true.
Is it thought? I've seen it referred to as a harmful myth.
Yeah well it’s not 1-to-1, that’s why I offered the more true version in my comment
It's not.
Twin studies more or less debunk this for you.
Kids are not moldable clay and it peeves me to hear it.
Twin studies more or less debunk this for you.
I've seen good criticisms of twin studies and how they're not that reliable:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/08/the-methodological-confusion-of-twin-studies.html
https://www.madinamerica.com/2022/05/debunking-minnesota-study-twins-reared-apart/
Abusive parents + abusive society.
Hitler was coddled by his mom and abused by his dad and society. Terrible combination. He also happened to be in the right place at the right time, but there were (and are) plenty of other people out there just like him. If he had died before taking over Germany, someone else who was virtually the same would have taken his place.
