I know that this isn’t usually diagnosed in under-18s because that behaviour can be very common and mistaken for being ‘spoiled’ or general delinquency.
Now I try to be more rational than to use pejoratives like ‘spoiled’ to evoke emotion as much as a lot of people I know when I see a teenager/young adult who displays behavioural, emotional or psychological problems, but there can seem to be an overlap in their behaviour.
People expect that a teenager who is antisocial might ‘grow up’, take responsibility and stop being entitled, but then they some become suicidal terrorists or mass murderers. My question is, are there distinct but subtle differences that suggest that calling them spoiled is only delusion ignoring a serious and potentially dangerous individual?
Antisocial disorder is a clinical diagnosis, not usually given unless a person over 18 years old has committed some type of crime.
“Spoiled” is a matter of opinion, it’s normal for teens to not be as emotionally mature or responsible as adults, but unless it’s well beyond the extreme expected for children that age (such as in the case of the Columbine killers) then no I wouldn’t be hypochondriac and try to ‘self diagnose’ a kid as antisocial.
I think what you are asking, is if there is a way to tell the difference between someone who is inherently “bad,” and someone who was made “bad” by poor quality parenting.
I think the most accurate answer is “no.” There is still a lot of disagreement over whether sociopaths are caused, or born. And at least part of the reason why there is a controversy about differences in class, when it comes to prosecutions and sentences, is because rich children who run afoul of the law tend to be declared “spoiled,” and poor children who do the same things, tend to be labeled “antisocial.”
Or maybe they just like history or horror movies. Plenty of children grow up hearing their older relatives war stories and have fantasies about the exciting, heroic parts. When I was five I wanted to be a sniper and I was going to be the best capable of those tricky shots where two bad guys were taken out with one bullet or shooting an enemy through his medals, etc.
I was thinking of posting a similar thread. I have a report on a child who is diagnosed with “conduct disorder.” How is that different from what we used to call a “bad kid”?
Most of the spoiled teens I know (and I have two teens myself) are anything but antisocial. They have lots of friends (because spoiling them often involves making sure they have stuff that friends can take advantage of). They are manipulative, which takes good social skills, because they are used to getting their own way and have learned to manipulate situations to get it.
Then there are the range of medical issues - my daughter has ADHD. That leads to poor impulse control. It also means that at seventeen I still pick up after her. She lacks the attention span to do it - and having her jacket hung up isn’t important to her. I either hang it up, let it sit (and drive myself nuts) or nag (and drive both of us nuts with no result). I spent a lot of time trying the last one before I decided her jacket on the floor was MY problem, not hers.
The ADHD has also impacted her social life - i.e. she seems a little antisocial. She tends to hang with other kids who have little ADHD or Aspergers. Those kids understand that not everything that comes out of your mouth was well considered :).
I have a friend whose nephew lived with them for a while. He’s now eighteen and has taken off. He was a “bad kid” - and in some ways “spoiled” - he also went through a series of diagnoses - autism, ADHD, ODD. Watching him grow up, I’ve determined my own theory of bad kids.
This kid had mental health issues and learning disabilities - those were obvious from a young age. His parents were both addicts, and a stable homelife was not in the cards.
The diagnosis of those issues became an excuse for him and his mother - everyone had to work around Brady’s issues - rather than Brady learning how to adapt to his issues. My daughter’s jacket is my problem - her homework is her problem. I haven’t given her an IEP because life doesn’t come with IEPs, even though she qualifies and her GPA would be a lot higher if she had one. This is the spoiling part - when the parent steps in to compensate for this issue instead of giving the child the skill to deal with it. What an individual parent and child might determine are issues worth stepping in for and what aren’t are going to vary (i.e. I am probably spoiling my daughter by picking up her coat or her room, other people are not spoiling their kids through an IEP, its a necessary tool for them) - but some behavior we agree as a society isn’t to be excused (Brady threw chairs at classmates, but that was his ODD, not him).
It is very hard to figure out where to draw the line. A toddler has tantrums, and a kid with a disability might have tantrums in elementary school. But eventually, the tantrums have got to be something we stop mainstreaming and making excuses for - and admit that the problems are too disruptive. Some kids with some issues might be taught the skills necessary to adapt. Others will find that beyond their reach. Its only spoiling when a kid who could develop the skills isn’t encouraged to.
I think separating upbringing from brain abnormality overlooks the fact that upbringing shapes brain development. A kid who is raised in an environment that lacks stimulation will be just as delayed as a kid who has a brain that can’t properly process stimulation. In the case of the former, perhaps intervention can make up for lost time. But typically that individual will always have issues compared to the individual who was raised in an optimal environment, because some facets of the brain get established early in life and are resistent to modification (for instance, if you don’t learn how to process sounds before a certain age, it will be extremely difficult for you to learn how to speak later in life.)
I have a cousin who was raised by my crazy-ass aunt. I don’t know if my aunt meets the criteria for a specific personality disorder, but she definitely hits a number of the checkboxes. So my cousin has grown up to be someone who has more issues than usual. One day I caught my mother making some very judgmental comments about him. She will readily admit that her sister drives everyone crazy. But she still thinks her nephew should be able to rise above his baggage and be more “normal”. Whereas I think he deserves some credit for being as normal as he is, despite everything.
As for how to distinguish a brat from a patient, I don’t know. I know I am inclined to feel more sympathy for the latter, but perhaps if I knew why the brat was a brat, I wouldn’t bother teasing the two apart. I’m all for diagnosing people based on their abherrent behaviors regardless of the suspected cause, and then providing them the treatment based on whatever seems to work for that person. For instance, it’s possible that someone who seems like a brat might benefit from medication, while someone with a bonafide disorder might benefit from CBT or talk therapy.
The behaviour we associate with “spoiled” kids is the result of neglect, not over-involvment.
Rich neglectful parents agree with whatever their children demand, because it’s less work that way. But the kids aren’t getting spoiled by getting whatever they want. They are spoiled by not getting care and attention.
I think people confuse asocial (avoiding social interaction) with antisocial (behaviour that goes against a societird cultural norms and ethical values) however you’re right.
Using an example from my secondary school, we had a guy called Alex who was the ‘weirdest kid ever’. He was incredibly quiet but respectful and courteous. However, when he got into conersations he would say the most unusual and disturbing things (perverse sexual remarks, homicidal ideations, suicidal ideations) that drove people away from him.Most of the year thought he was an attention seeker but I always suspected something more was at work and I was right. He ended up in a murder suicide some time back after we graduated.
Looking back for me, he always had some conflict with authority figures and his parents which he expressed on an continous basis. He expressed violent thoughts towards them but in a passive agressive manner. He never seemed rude but just an ‘outcast’. From what I could gather his parents and therapist believed he was just a ‘brat’ but how wrong they were. Most brats have some morals towards other people and usually stop after their behaviour after they reach the mid-20s; This guy didn’t.
I perceive a major difficulty distinguishing “valid” mental health diagnoses, as opposed to character traits/flaws. Even more difficult (IMO) with minors.
Diagnosing someone with ODD, ADHD, personality disorder, as opposed to character traits/predispositions - IM (non-medical) O&E, differs primarily with respect to degree/severity. Same with depression, anxiety, etc.
“Spoiled” is similarly imprecise. Some kids might show antisocial tendencies due (in part) to a lack of adult direction/positive influence/role modeling. A child who is raised in a household with abusive/uneducated/unemployed/absent/addicted/etc parents, is hardly “spoiled”, yet I suspect they are unlikely to internalize good lessons on laudable societal expectations, societally desirable motivations and expectations, and the like.
Why do some people act irresponsibly? Why do some seem to fail to appreciate the repercussions of their actions, or the interests of others?
Many aspects of the medical/counseling/pharma communities benefit hugely from diagnosing and treating as widely as possible. And many folk have a strong preference for attributing their difficulties to a disorder, than to a personal shortcoming or simply an effect of the difficulties posed by modern day society. There is great pressure for people to be “happy” - whatever that means. Plus countless other messages. If I’m not happy, is something wrong with me that needs to be treated/accommodated? And many folk seek a cure from a pill, rather than performing the heavy lifting needed to improve their character/body/situation. Same holds true (IMO) for many “physical” conditions as well.
My personal thought is that our current society places a greater emphasis on attributing behavior to diagnosable and treatable (for profit) disorders, rather than personal shortcomings. I believe that over the past the pendulum has swung back and forth between those two. And I fear that many (most?) individual cases likely involve a combination of the two.
There is definitely a perceived difficulty in distinguishing between valid diagnoses and character flaws, but I believe it almost always lies in outside observers and not so much in the families or actual doctors of those afflicted. Yes, it’s very easy to see a child whose behaviour is out of line and assume that the parents are lazy or bad role models or not strict enough or that the child is just plain bratty or “bad”, and that any proffered medical explanation is excuse-making. And that’s a damn shame, because for those children and families who have to live with the challenges and heartache it is real as hell. Getting the right diagnosis and treatment can take years – the notion that “Big Pharma” is in cahoots with lazy, greedy doctors to screw over children’s well-being to make a buck has very little truth in my (real-life, hard-earned) experience, and the perpetuation of that idea makes things that much harder for parents and children whose lives are already extremely difficult. I agree with you that there are probably some kids out there on medication that they may not need, but in my experience the prescription is the last resort, and for most parents a very painful decision to make.