But if Amanda hadn't given up Freddy the second he was born, the events in the series wouldn't've happened.
Well, I'm leaving the plot up to the reader for now.
Actually it is. Check out my profile to see that this is actually my profession. My PhD is in cognitive psychology, which is the study of the brain and there is ample evidence that psychiatric disorders are genetic. Predisposition to murder has been linked to a lack of activity in the frontal lobe of the brain, which is the center for impulse control. More than anything nuture related, this has had a high positive correlation with serial killers.
What you are proposing is a completely nuture based development which really isn't very likely. Generally, a person's psychological profile is going to be a combination of nature and nuture. That is why I suggested that although he may not be the same murderer under a different nuturing environment, the environment alone does not act as a complete buffer against genetic predisposition.
First off, you've committed the anecdotal fallacy. You're assuming that just because something has happened in your personal life that it is not true everywhere else.
There is more than ample evidencce that psychiatric disorders are inherited genetically. http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/08/19/5-major-mental-illnesses-traced-to-same-genetic-variations/58642.html
The above article talks abouto a major genome study that shows a genetic predisposition for psychiatric disorders.
And you missed my entire point. I did not say that everyone who has a psychiatric disorder will pass it on to their children. I said that there is proof of a genetic predisposition to psychiatric disorders. This means that there is a genetic component that is inherited but that component can be influenced by environmental factors. Furthermore, you have both your mother and your father's genes, so while your father may have Asperger's, if you're mother doesn't and her genetic material in that area is dominant, it might be so weak in your that it will never develop. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And just to let you know, Aspergers is not longer a diagnosis. It's now called Austism Spectrum Disorder. It was changed for the DSM V because there are so many similarities between autism and aspergers that they are now considered different levels of the same condition.
Tell that to someone who dies of cancer because it can't be cured. Tell that to someone who gets Alzheimers, which is permanant. Tell that to someone who is uncurably schizophrenic.
Now you're just arguing for the sake of it. I've already demonstrated that it is. Unless you have documented evidence that refutes what I have shown you cannot make this claim.
Well, I didn't say ALL illnesses didn't last forever. I was referring to those that don't.
As a psychologist, I study suicide and motive for suicide. Plenty of the case studies and patients I have interviewed are victims of rape. I am not suggesting that you read the case studies because they are EXTREMELY heavy and depressing. I do it because I want to help people live but even with my training, I sometimes end up in month long bouts of depression reading and talking to the people who have gone through things like this. Plenty of rape babies are treated HORRIBLY by their natural parents. I have talked to patients whose natural mothers have blamed them for the rape, which is absolutely unfair. But it happens.
Amanda may have been able to create a loving bond with Freddy. She also might not have. We don't know for sure but there are no guarantees either way.
As I explained before, there's still love, it's hard to show, but it's there.
Exactly, anything is possible. Freddy probably would've turned into a murderer. He probably wouldn't've.
This article here explains in short terms how varied it can be. http://www.aaets.org/article213.htm 62 serial killers were profiled. 48% of them, less than half, were rejected or abused by their parents. 52% were not. Then, equally, there are people who are abused and unloved and never become serial killers. You think Freddy Krueger had a bad and unloving unbringing? Read about David Pelzer. http://www.popmatters.com/review/child-called-it/ Compared to Pelzer, Freddy Krueger had it easy. But Pelzer didn't become a serial killer. He, in fact, served his country during Desert Storm and received commendations from Presidents Reagn, Bush and Clinton.
So you see, it's an interplay of nature and nuture. But to say that psychiatric conditions are not passed on genetically is just not accurate.
And just to let you know, Pelzer served in the Gulf War but he is not responsible for killing anyone.
It's one thing to kill someone who you are mutually engaged in combat with. It's another to cold bloodedly take the life of someone who you is not out fighting you on a battle field and is usually completely minding their own business.
Well it's still killing nonetheless.
Kickstarting?
Actually it is. Check out my profile to see that this is actually my profession. My PhD is in cognitive psychology, which is the study of the brain and there is ample evidence that psychiatric disorders are genetic. Predisposition to murder has been linked to a lack of activity in the frontal lobe of the brain, which is the center for impulse control. More than anything nuture related, this has had a high positive correlation with serial killers.
What you are proposing is a completely nuture based development which really isn't very likely. Generally, a person's psychological profile is going to be a combination of nature and nuture. That is why I suggested that although he may not be the same murderer under a different nuturing environment, the environment alone does not act as a complete buffer against genetic predisposition.
First off, you've committed the anecdotal fallacy. You're assuming that just because something has happened in your personal life that it is not true everywhere else.
There is more than ample evidencce that psychiatric disorders are inherited genetically. http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/08/19/5-major-mental-illnesses-traced-to-same-genetic-variations/58642.html
The above article talks abouto a major genome study that shows a genetic predisposition for psychiatric disorders.
And you missed my entire point. I did not say that everyone who has a psychiatric disorder will pass it on to their children. I said that there is proof of a genetic predisposition to psychiatric disorders. This means that there is a genetic component that is inherited but that component can be influenced by environmental factors. Furthermore, you have both your mother and your father's genes, so while your father may have Asperger's, if you're mother doesn't and her genetic material in that area is dominant, it might be so weak in your that it will never develop. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And just to let you know, Aspergers is not longer a diagnosis. It's now called Austism Spectrum Disorder. It was changed for the DSM V because there are so many similarities between autism and aspergers that they are now considered different levels of the same condition.
Illness isn't a genetic thing. Illness doesn't last forever.
As a psychologist, I study suicide and motive for suicide. Plenty of the case studies and patients I have interviewed are victims of rape. I am not suggesting that you read the case studies because they are EXTREMELY heavy and depressing. I do it because I want to help people live but even with my training, I sometimes end up in month long bouts of depression reading and talking to the people who have gone through things like this. Plenty of rape babies are treated HORRIBLY by their natural parents. I have talked to patients whose natural mothers have blamed them for the rape, which is absolutely unfair. But it happens.
Amanda may have been able to create a loving bond with Freddy. She also might not have. We don't know for sure but there are no guarantees either way.
As I explained before, there's still love, it's hard to show, but it's there.
Exactly, anything is possible. Freddy probably would've turned into a murderer. He probably wouldn't've.
This article here explains in short terms how varied it can be. http://www.aaets.org/article213.htm 62 serial killers were profiled. 48% of them, less than half, were rejected or abused by their parents. 52% were not. Then, equally, there are people who are abused and unloved and never become serial killers. You think Freddy Krueger had a bad and unloving unbringing? Read about David Pelzer. http://www.popmatters.com/review/child-called-it/ Compared to Pelzer, Freddy Krueger had it easy. But Pelzer didn't become a serial killer. He, in fact, served his country during Desert Storm and received commendations from Presidents Reagn, Bush and Clinton.
So you see, it's an interplay of nature and nuture. But to say that psychiatric conditions are not passed on genetically is just not accurate.
You can't be serious and be comparing the army killing with serial killing.
And just to let you know, Pelzer served in the Gulf War but he is not responsible for killing anyone.
Army killing affects more people than serial killing
As a psychologist, I study suicide and motive for suicide. Plenty of the case studies and patients I have interviewed are victims of rape. I am not suggesting that you read the case studies because they are EXTREMELY heavy and depressing. I do it because I want to help people live but even with my training, I sometimes end up in month long bouts of depression reading and talking to the people who have gone through things like this. Plenty of rape babies are treated HORRIBLY by their natural parents. I have talked to patients whose natural mothers have blamed them for the rape, which is absolutely unfair. But it happens.
Amanda may have been able to create a loving bond with Freddy. She also might not have. We don't know for sure but there are no guarantees either way.
As I explained before, there's still love, it's hard to show, but it's there.
Exactly, anything is possible. Freddy probably would've turned into a murderer. He probably wouldn't've.
This article here explains in short terms how varied it can be. http://www.aaets.org/article213.htm 62 serial killers were profiled. 48% of them, less than half, were rejected or abused by their parents. 52% were not. Then, equally, there are people who are abused and unloved and never become serial killers. You think Freddy Krueger had a bad and unloving unbringing? Read about David Pelzer. http://www.popmatters.com/review/child-called-it/ Compared to Pelzer, Freddy Krueger had it easy. But Pelzer didn't become a serial killer. He, in fact, served his country during Desert Storm and received commendations from Presidents Reagn, Bush and Clinton.
So you see, it's an interplay of nature and nuture. But to say that psychiatric conditions are not passed on genetically is just not accurate.
Well, technically, Pelzer did kill people. He served in the army, and the army kills people.
Actually it is. Check out my profile to see that this is actually my profession. My PhD is in cognitive psychology, which is the study of the brain and there is ample evidence that psychiatric disorders are genetic. Predisposition to murder has been linked to a lack of activity in the frontal lobe of the brain, which is the center for impulse control. More than anything nuture related, this has had a high positive correlation with serial killers.
What you are proposing is a completely nuture based development which really isn't very likely. Generally, a person's psychological profile is going to be a combination of nature and nuture. That is why I suggested that although he may not be the same murderer under a different nuturing environment, the environment alone does not act as a complete buffer against genetic predisposition.
First off, you've committed the anecdotal fallacy. You're assuming that just because something has happened in your personal life that it is not true everywhere else.
There is more than ample evidencce that psychiatric disorders are inherited genetically. http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/08/19/5-major-mental-illnesses-traced-to-same-genetic-variations/58642.html
The above article talks abouto a major genome study that shows a genetic predisposition for psychiatric disorders.
And you missed my entire point. I did not say that everyone who has a psychiatric disorder will pass it on to their children. I said that there is proof of a genetic predisposition to psychiatric disorders. This means that there is a genetic component that is inherited but that component can be influenced by environmental factors. Furthermore, you have both your mother and your father's genes, so while your father may have Asperger's, if you're mother doesn't and her genetic material in that area is dominant, it might be so weak in your that it will never develop. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And just to let you know, Aspergers is not longer a diagnosis. It's now called Austism Spectrum Disorder. It was changed for the DSM V because there are so many similarities between autism and aspergers that they are now considered different levels of the same condition.
I never said they ALWAYS would, I just said it's not ENTIRELY common.
Yep. Thought up the idea myself.
As a psychologist, I study suicide and motive for suicide. Plenty of the case studies and patients I have interviewed are victims of rape. I am not suggesting that you read the case studies because they are EXTREMELY heavy and depressing. I do it because I want to help people live but even with my training, I sometimes end up in month long bouts of depression reading and talking to the people who have gone through things like this. Plenty of rape babies are treated HORRIBLY by their natural parents. I have talked to patients whose natural mothers have blamed them for the rape, which is absolutely unfair. But it happens.
Amanda may have been able to create a loving bond with Freddy. She also might not have. We don't know for sure but there are no guarantees either way.
Well it's still a situation.
As I explained before, there's still love, it's hard to show, but it's there.
Exactly, anything is possible. Freddy probably would've turned into a murderer. He probably wouldn't've.
Well, I bet there'd still be love. It'd be hard to show, but it'd be there.
Actually it is. Check out my profile to see that this is actually my profession. My PhD is in cognitive psychology, which is the study of the brain and there is ample evidence that psychiatric disorders are genetic. Predisposition to murder has been linked to a lack of activity in the frontal lobe of the brain, which is the center for impulse control. More than anything nuture related, this has had a high positive correlation with serial killers.
What you are proposing is a completely nuture based development which really isn't very likely. Generally, a person's psychological profile is going to be a combination of nature and nuture. That is why I suggested that although he may not be the same murderer under a different nuturing environment, the environment alone does not act as a complete buffer against genetic predisposition.
My dad had Asperger's Syndrome, and I don't.
And again, to make this very clear, I am not saying that is Freddy's fault because it's not. You cannot blame a rape baby for the actions which caused his/her birth. It is also not the fault of the baby how the mother treats them. But fault doesn't change reality. However, very, very often it is much healthier for these babies to be adopted because adopted parents don't connect the baby with the rape. In Freddy's case, however, the fault seems to lie more with the agency that adopted him out than anyone else. If they had put him with a decent and loving family rather than a single and abusive alcoholic (which is VERY unrealistic), perhaps he could have received the loving and nuturing environment every child deserved, that he would not have gotten from Amanda. However, if that happened, these movies would really suck.
Well, he probably wouldn't've become a murder if he was put with a loving family. I bet Amanda would still give Freddy the love any other parent would've given him.
In fact, if Amanda had left her order and raised Freddy, things may have been worse. While Amanda's rape was not Freddy's fault, it is often very difficult for a raped woman to create a positive emotional attachment to a baby produced from that rape. While this is extremely unfair to the baby, who has done nothing wrong, it is nevertheless very often true. As far as Amanda was concerned, she was raped by 100 men hundreds of times, and having her raise Freddy might have actually been worse for Freddy than it would have been if he hadn't been put up for adoption. It would have been difficult for Amanda to form a truly loving bond with Freddy and she may have made him worse because of that.
I've seen shows where the main character is born of rape, and the mother still loves them. In fact, in Teen Titans, despite Arella's daughter Raven being born from Trigon raping her, Arella still loved her. And I don't exactly see how it'd be worse for him.
Mental illness isn't really a trait that's passed down from generation to generation. My theory is that if Amanda had kept Freddy, he could've been taken down the right path and never turned into a murderer. The only way I could see him becoming a murderer in this timeline is if Amanda's church had abusive nuns.
But if Amanda hadn't given up Freddy the second he was born, the events in the series wouldn't've happened.
A crossover of Nightmare On Elm Street and Steven Universe
Here's a picture: