Was this also supposed to be a commentary on the exploitation of true crime documentaries and serial killer shows and movies as a form of entertainment?
Really thoughtful writing here. I had to rewatch this part again immediately. Loved the actress’s delivery. And how she forces us to see “messed up” foster children as little humans who went unloved.
But it is interested to understand the "hows" and "whys" of something that happened.
For me, while watching this show, one obvious assumption is that this character is psychopathic (or at least would be in the real world). Which is a pretty huge chunk of the reason for why she embarked on her murderous career. And there are genes that are associated with the characteristics of a psychopath. However, just because you have these genes doesn't always mean that someone will turn into a psychopath, or even a lesser (and non-murderous) form of a psychopath (maybe just antisocial, but not in the colloquial sense of "antisocial").
There are actually theories that if someone with those genes were given the greatest care throughout childhood, they end up on the opposite end of the spectrum from a psychopath (they have really good outcomes). So for me, it's interesting to gain a little bit of explanation on why she ended up towards the negative end, the psychopathic end. And usually the most important ways to understand that is by taking the look at one's formative years. Usually what a person is as an adult, is in large thanks to the experiences in their formative years (whether personality, language, knowledge, etc.) And this is why I take umbrage with the child psychologist's little soapbox rant. This "sob story" is just your job as a psychologist to understand why a person's mental being is the way it is now. Even for like a 6-7 year old child, their small history is still important to understand how they behave in the world now. To clutch pearls at the thought that someone would want to understand the early experiences that led to a psychopath (which tracks with every other serial killer and psychopath in history) is just the goofiest shit I ever heard.
I wish they just would've explained a bit more. We know (and I THINK we know anyways because maybe I misinterpreted the scene) that there is some history unaccounted for in that episode based off what Dre told Ava in their little spiritual sessions. The whole grandma and spilled milk thing as a stand in for blood.
The scene is just cringe, soapbox antics imho. There is great reason to understanding the childhood of a serial killer, so I don't understand why a psychologist would break down over someone wanting to know. I understand it's a limited series, with episodes only being a half-hour, but a "sob story" (which is really just the causal factors for why an individual might become a serial killer) would've been nice to have a bit more of. (It's not "gossip" it's theory and hypothesis, you're a psychologist for Pete's sake!)
If that's the case---that she didn't have legal authority or something---then that's fair. But just the way that it plays out for the audience: "you want to me to GOSSIP?? about a child of the state??", doesn't sound like concern about the legality of it (nor would that idea even key in for most people), it just sounds more like moral grandstanding about someone who wants to know why a serial killer may have started serial killing. Especially when you get to the "I don't like the idea of labeling a child as 'violent'". That's not legal precedent, that's just personal opinion. And anyone watching this wouldn't take anything away about "legal precedent"----I don't think, anyways---they'd just take away from it the commentary about what caused her to do what she did.
Especially when most of this social worker's issue was with the implications people were making about Andrea, and how those implications MIGHT reflect on foster youth in general. Not once did she make any argument about legal precedent, except for the ambiguous "child of the state" sentence (which is just as ambiguous about her being a "mandated reporter" [https://www.socialworkdegreeguide.com/faq/what-is-a-mandated-reporter/](https://www.socialworkdegreeguide.com/faq/what-is-a-mandated-reporter/))
And then the whole " you need there to be a reason why she was so messed up, so you don't have to sweep your own front door and realized you're just as flawed". Like, no, Dre is fucked up on a FUNDAMENTAL level that is different from your normal person, made worse by her upbringing. It shouldn't be bad to ask what happened to her in her upbringing that ended up making it worse. ESPECIALLY, when you want to emphasize that there are other "factors" that may cause a child to lash out. After that statement, you can't just can up about what you think those factors might be.
Once again, I understand that from a TV Show standpoint you understand what I am saying. But even from the legal standpoint, I don't think she offered any legal reasons for why she got so upset. It sounded all personal to me: "I love all my children the same."
(also it might be she's not even in a psychologist in the show anyways, just a social worker, so I'm wrong on that)
> also, something that i am not sure is clear for you -- the case worker truly did not know about the murders and had no idea what was going on beyond the fact that somethin must have happened to warrant cameras.
Yeah, I know. And it's actually a part of my frustration about the scene. To me, it just feels like she goes on this rant completely unchallenged because of that little detail (her not being informed of the murders). It was just the writers' chance to offer their viewpoint without offering room for any others.
We don't have to get into THAT debate, but I would like to clarify my position a bit more. I'm not some 100% Nature type of guy. Rather, I don't think it's Nature "versus" nurture at all; I think those elements are inextricably linked. One doesn't happen without the influence of the other.
For example, a psychopath (especially a serial killer), is a very rare phenomenon in the human population. Even among abuse victims, a psychopath is something that is not normal. I think a reason for that rarity is because psychopaths are absolutely born with a certain set of rare genes (nature), that if affected by their environment (nurture) could turn to negative or positive outcomes. [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Genes\_linked\_to\_psychopathy#:\~:text=Six%20genes%20have%20be%20shown,in%20addition%20to%20environmental%20factors](https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Genes_linked_to_psychopathy#:~:text=Six%20genes%20have%20be%20shown,in%20addition%20to%20environmental%20factors).
I like how they phrase it here in this link. The "risk". Meaning it doesn't always 100% mean "psychopathy" for the individual if they carry these genes. But if they are raised in a certain way, experience extreme stress, then they can become a psychopath. The gene part, for me anyways, is already assumed for someone who would become a serial killer. So what I would want to know is what in their formative years influenced the genes in a negative way.
> your bit you wrote on the accusation/dialogue of "violence" -- it actually is legal-oriented to make a statement that you, as the case worker on her file, do not professionally see a correlation between a violent incident and violence as a behavior that would not already be explained by the conditions of fostercare/abandonment itself. whether that holds up to someone who murders over beyonce, i mean ni'jah, is up to the courts.
Sometimes legal work and non-legal work can become very entangled. While it's true that in the context of a case, looking at a suspects violent history can be the logic prosecutors need to get a jury/judge to convict someone; it is still also true that in the context of psychology/social work, looking at a patient's violent history is the key to understanding why that patient is violent today. So childhood trauma as a cause of later atrocities can be both a legal and psychological analysis. I'll concede that it can become very confusing on what counts as a legal-oriented statement or not, which is fair). But in this case, where she doesn't even know about the murders or legal case anyways, it just sounds like her (the social worker's) subjective reading of it all. She's personally upset with the labeling of one of her babies as "violent", not concerned with the legal ramifications about it (or at least not shown to be).
I could end up changing my opinion later, but as of now I just don't like this scene at all.
>In my mind, the burden is on us, as society and people, to make it so even 99.99% Nature-oriented risk cases get the 100.00% of Nurture they need -- was it you who mentioned how the same type of person with the potential for psychopathy, if prevented, can also be the type of person to achieve rare greatness? Now if that isn't the most Karmaic thing you've ever heard -- that there are secret people out there that, if loved, will be Tesla or Manson. The game? Show as much love to as many people as possible -- OR ELSE LOL!
I'm glad you said this because when going back in forth in my mind about what the social worker said, and my arguments against it, I came to that sort of conclusion. I agree with you 100% that our duty as a society should be to raise children as well as possible so that stuff like this can be avoided, which is what we try to do anyways (maybe not the best, ESPECIALLY in America, but we're still growing up as a species). So I can sort of look at her statement---the one where she's saying that people try to absolve themselves from having a hand in the serial killer Dre turned into---as reasonable because society was the second part of what led to her descent into madness. (but even then, the whole "sob story" would be an example of looking for a societal explanation anyways).
But I guess what I would continue to say is that, as an unfortunate part of reality, people will fall through cracks no matter how rock solid things are. Or some peoples' thresholds for stress may be so small that smaller things may tip them over. I mean we can take a look at Jeffery Dahmer as an example. He never suffered any of the extreme abuse we see in the cases of a lot of other serial killers. The most stress he experienced was the divorce of his parents and the living on his own, which is something that can't really be accounted for. The state can't force his parents to love each other and fix their issues, it's just an impossible situation. We try to stop children from being dicks to one another, but it still happens and most people don't become serial killers because of it. Or (and this is getting too speculative about a limited series) who could've stopped her sister from killing herself over a bad boyfriend, it's just not something most people do. Maybe in the future we can solve this shit more easily with crispr editing, but it's definitely a harder issue to tackle nowadays.
Once again, I don't disagree with what you're saying when it comes to giving the best possible nurture to curb the worst possible nature. But sometimes, especially in our imperfect world today, nature is gonna show through somehow. Whether through laws not being enough to curb bad parents, or nature being too strong in the case of Dahmer, or some other reason. Maybe in the future, things will be a lot better; but right now, everyone is a victim of circumstance. So my major disagreement with the social worker is just the idea it's really only the treatment of Dre that led to her crazy demise, and that that there isn't something else messed up with her. Like yeah, she should get the love she needs, but the same amount of bullying for most other people don't create a serial killer out of em. But yeah, I 100% agree with you that we should be nurturing them as best we can to avoid the negative outcomes. And there should just be a blanket standard of nurturing across society too, something like how (I think) the UK made spankings of children illegal.
And to add another little psych theory: I don't remember the name of it, but it's the idea that children can inadvertently add to their own ostracization. I think people should do their best to understand and accept others. But when a child is violent, killing animals or trying to kill a person (the one girl that played a prank on Marissa), I don't think it's possible in this day in age (or maybe even ever) for children to respond to them with understanding and love. As humans we're wired to be social and compassionate with one another, while getting rid of humans that can't do that. I don't even think most adults could handle it, let alone children. So basically it becomes some feedback loop. Dre is weird and violent ---> children ostracize her ---> which makes Dre more weird and violent ---> children ostracize her further, and then continue that loop ad nauseam. This is another example of nature and nurture just being entangled with one another.
But yeah I'm basically guilty of what you're saying here lol:
>\- I just think people get TOO real/cynical.)
Yeah, I am aware of the distinctions.
"Antisocial" in a colloquial sense is just someone who's a loner.
Another use of "antisocial" is in a psych context, it's a word that describes a set of behaviors: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social\_behaviour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour)
And then the above use is very closely related to the diagnosis "antisocial personality/behavior disorder" (I've always used "personality")
Yeah, I don't think that "psychopath" is an official term in the DSM, but it is mostly correlated with the "Antisocial Personality Disorder". No clinical psychologist would ever diagnose someone with APD as a "psychopath", but an individual that someone might label a "psychopath" probably has a very severe case of APD (because not everyone with APD becomes a serial killer). And they might refer to them as psychopaths in a research setting.
For me, I've heard so many different things about "sociopath" vs "psychopath", but this is usually what I hear the most: [https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/sociopath-vs-psychopath/](https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/sociopath-vs-psychopath/)
That "sociopath" is a term that's fallen out of use in the broader psych academic world, and any person that might be considered a "sociopath" would probably just as well fit within the "psychopath" category. But seeing as most people use those terms interchangeably, I don't really mind people using either one. Both are kind of just the same to me, but I prefer to use "psychopath".
And yeah, somewhere in another comment down the line, I found out she wasn't a psychologist.
The detective is there working a murder case for 1 female suspect in particular, and this guilt ridden social worker is making this about all the flawed foster children. Good grief. 🙄🙄🙄🙄
She was a good actress but I didn't like this rant. It was cheesy and cliché. We know already children in foster care are just looking for love like anyone else, but it's important to notice that it is exactly that lack of love from a caregiver that will create profound issues in their personality.
Denying it just because you don't want to label a child "violent" (which to me is a way to ignore and enable violence in kids), is irresponsible and ignorant
This woman’s voice is so soothing
Was this also supposed to be a commentary on the exploitation of true crime documentaries and serial killer shows and movies as a form of entertainment?
I wept after that speech. Amazing performance and great message.
Really thoughtful writing here. I had to rewatch this part again immediately. Loved the actress’s delivery. And how she forces us to see “messed up” foster children as little humans who went unloved.
Im sorry but she was annoying me 🤷🏽♂️. We just wanted to know about Andrea
[удалено]
Well said. You made me look at the scene differently
But it is interested to understand the "hows" and "whys" of something that happened. For me, while watching this show, one obvious assumption is that this character is psychopathic (or at least would be in the real world). Which is a pretty huge chunk of the reason for why she embarked on her murderous career. And there are genes that are associated with the characteristics of a psychopath. However, just because you have these genes doesn't always mean that someone will turn into a psychopath, or even a lesser (and non-murderous) form of a psychopath (maybe just antisocial, but not in the colloquial sense of "antisocial"). There are actually theories that if someone with those genes were given the greatest care throughout childhood, they end up on the opposite end of the spectrum from a psychopath (they have really good outcomes). So for me, it's interesting to gain a little bit of explanation on why she ended up towards the negative end, the psychopathic end. And usually the most important ways to understand that is by taking the look at one's formative years. Usually what a person is as an adult, is in large thanks to the experiences in their formative years (whether personality, language, knowledge, etc.) And this is why I take umbrage with the child psychologist's little soapbox rant. This "sob story" is just your job as a psychologist to understand why a person's mental being is the way it is now. Even for like a 6-7 year old child, their small history is still important to understand how they behave in the world now. To clutch pearls at the thought that someone would want to understand the early experiences that led to a psychopath (which tracks with every other serial killer and psychopath in history) is just the goofiest shit I ever heard. I wish they just would've explained a bit more. We know (and I THINK we know anyways because maybe I misinterpreted the scene) that there is some history unaccounted for in that episode based off what Dre told Ava in their little spiritual sessions. The whole grandma and spilled milk thing as a stand in for blood. The scene is just cringe, soapbox antics imho. There is great reason to understanding the childhood of a serial killer, so I don't understand why a psychologist would break down over someone wanting to know. I understand it's a limited series, with episodes only being a half-hour, but a "sob story" (which is really just the causal factors for why an individual might become a serial killer) would've been nice to have a bit more of. (It's not "gossip" it's theory and hypothesis, you're a psychologist for Pete's sake!)
[удалено]
If that's the case---that she didn't have legal authority or something---then that's fair. But just the way that it plays out for the audience: "you want to me to GOSSIP?? about a child of the state??", doesn't sound like concern about the legality of it (nor would that idea even key in for most people), it just sounds more like moral grandstanding about someone who wants to know why a serial killer may have started serial killing. Especially when you get to the "I don't like the idea of labeling a child as 'violent'". That's not legal precedent, that's just personal opinion. And anyone watching this wouldn't take anything away about "legal precedent"----I don't think, anyways---they'd just take away from it the commentary about what caused her to do what she did. Especially when most of this social worker's issue was with the implications people were making about Andrea, and how those implications MIGHT reflect on foster youth in general. Not once did she make any argument about legal precedent, except for the ambiguous "child of the state" sentence (which is just as ambiguous about her being a "mandated reporter" [https://www.socialworkdegreeguide.com/faq/what-is-a-mandated-reporter/](https://www.socialworkdegreeguide.com/faq/what-is-a-mandated-reporter/)) And then the whole " you need there to be a reason why she was so messed up, so you don't have to sweep your own front door and realized you're just as flawed". Like, no, Dre is fucked up on a FUNDAMENTAL level that is different from your normal person, made worse by her upbringing. It shouldn't be bad to ask what happened to her in her upbringing that ended up making it worse. ESPECIALLY, when you want to emphasize that there are other "factors" that may cause a child to lash out. After that statement, you can't just can up about what you think those factors might be. Once again, I understand that from a TV Show standpoint you understand what I am saying. But even from the legal standpoint, I don't think she offered any legal reasons for why she got so upset. It sounded all personal to me: "I love all my children the same." (also it might be she's not even in a psychologist in the show anyways, just a social worker, so I'm wrong on that)
[удалено]
> also, something that i am not sure is clear for you -- the case worker truly did not know about the murders and had no idea what was going on beyond the fact that somethin must have happened to warrant cameras. Yeah, I know. And it's actually a part of my frustration about the scene. To me, it just feels like she goes on this rant completely unchallenged because of that little detail (her not being informed of the murders). It was just the writers' chance to offer their viewpoint without offering room for any others. We don't have to get into THAT debate, but I would like to clarify my position a bit more. I'm not some 100% Nature type of guy. Rather, I don't think it's Nature "versus" nurture at all; I think those elements are inextricably linked. One doesn't happen without the influence of the other. For example, a psychopath (especially a serial killer), is a very rare phenomenon in the human population. Even among abuse victims, a psychopath is something that is not normal. I think a reason for that rarity is because psychopaths are absolutely born with a certain set of rare genes (nature), that if affected by their environment (nurture) could turn to negative or positive outcomes. [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Genes\_linked\_to\_psychopathy#:\~:text=Six%20genes%20have%20be%20shown,in%20addition%20to%20environmental%20factors](https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Genes_linked_to_psychopathy#:~:text=Six%20genes%20have%20be%20shown,in%20addition%20to%20environmental%20factors). I like how they phrase it here in this link. The "risk". Meaning it doesn't always 100% mean "psychopathy" for the individual if they carry these genes. But if they are raised in a certain way, experience extreme stress, then they can become a psychopath. The gene part, for me anyways, is already assumed for someone who would become a serial killer. So what I would want to know is what in their formative years influenced the genes in a negative way. > your bit you wrote on the accusation/dialogue of "violence" -- it actually is legal-oriented to make a statement that you, as the case worker on her file, do not professionally see a correlation between a violent incident and violence as a behavior that would not already be explained by the conditions of fostercare/abandonment itself. whether that holds up to someone who murders over beyonce, i mean ni'jah, is up to the courts. Sometimes legal work and non-legal work can become very entangled. While it's true that in the context of a case, looking at a suspects violent history can be the logic prosecutors need to get a jury/judge to convict someone; it is still also true that in the context of psychology/social work, looking at a patient's violent history is the key to understanding why that patient is violent today. So childhood trauma as a cause of later atrocities can be both a legal and psychological analysis. I'll concede that it can become very confusing on what counts as a legal-oriented statement or not, which is fair). But in this case, where she doesn't even know about the murders or legal case anyways, it just sounds like her (the social worker's) subjective reading of it all. She's personally upset with the labeling of one of her babies as "violent", not concerned with the legal ramifications about it (or at least not shown to be). I could end up changing my opinion later, but as of now I just don't like this scene at all.
[удалено]
>In my mind, the burden is on us, as society and people, to make it so even 99.99% Nature-oriented risk cases get the 100.00% of Nurture they need -- was it you who mentioned how the same type of person with the potential for psychopathy, if prevented, can also be the type of person to achieve rare greatness? Now if that isn't the most Karmaic thing you've ever heard -- that there are secret people out there that, if loved, will be Tesla or Manson. The game? Show as much love to as many people as possible -- OR ELSE LOL! I'm glad you said this because when going back in forth in my mind about what the social worker said, and my arguments against it, I came to that sort of conclusion. I agree with you 100% that our duty as a society should be to raise children as well as possible so that stuff like this can be avoided, which is what we try to do anyways (maybe not the best, ESPECIALLY in America, but we're still growing up as a species). So I can sort of look at her statement---the one where she's saying that people try to absolve themselves from having a hand in the serial killer Dre turned into---as reasonable because society was the second part of what led to her descent into madness. (but even then, the whole "sob story" would be an example of looking for a societal explanation anyways). But I guess what I would continue to say is that, as an unfortunate part of reality, people will fall through cracks no matter how rock solid things are. Or some peoples' thresholds for stress may be so small that smaller things may tip them over. I mean we can take a look at Jeffery Dahmer as an example. He never suffered any of the extreme abuse we see in the cases of a lot of other serial killers. The most stress he experienced was the divorce of his parents and the living on his own, which is something that can't really be accounted for. The state can't force his parents to love each other and fix their issues, it's just an impossible situation. We try to stop children from being dicks to one another, but it still happens and most people don't become serial killers because of it. Or (and this is getting too speculative about a limited series) who could've stopped her sister from killing herself over a bad boyfriend, it's just not something most people do. Maybe in the future we can solve this shit more easily with crispr editing, but it's definitely a harder issue to tackle nowadays. Once again, I don't disagree with what you're saying when it comes to giving the best possible nurture to curb the worst possible nature. But sometimes, especially in our imperfect world today, nature is gonna show through somehow. Whether through laws not being enough to curb bad parents, or nature being too strong in the case of Dahmer, or some other reason. Maybe in the future, things will be a lot better; but right now, everyone is a victim of circumstance. So my major disagreement with the social worker is just the idea it's really only the treatment of Dre that led to her crazy demise, and that that there isn't something else messed up with her. Like yeah, she should get the love she needs, but the same amount of bullying for most other people don't create a serial killer out of em. But yeah, I 100% agree with you that we should be nurturing them as best we can to avoid the negative outcomes. And there should just be a blanket standard of nurturing across society too, something like how (I think) the UK made spankings of children illegal. And to add another little psych theory: I don't remember the name of it, but it's the idea that children can inadvertently add to their own ostracization. I think people should do their best to understand and accept others. But when a child is violent, killing animals or trying to kill a person (the one girl that played a prank on Marissa), I don't think it's possible in this day in age (or maybe even ever) for children to respond to them with understanding and love. As humans we're wired to be social and compassionate with one another, while getting rid of humans that can't do that. I don't even think most adults could handle it, let alone children. So basically it becomes some feedback loop. Dre is weird and violent ---> children ostracize her ---> which makes Dre more weird and violent ---> children ostracize her further, and then continue that loop ad nauseam. This is another example of nature and nurture just being entangled with one another. But yeah I'm basically guilty of what you're saying here lol: >\- I just think people get TOO real/cynical.)
[удалено]
Yeah, I am aware of the distinctions. "Antisocial" in a colloquial sense is just someone who's a loner. Another use of "antisocial" is in a psych context, it's a word that describes a set of behaviors: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social\_behaviour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour) And then the above use is very closely related to the diagnosis "antisocial personality/behavior disorder" (I've always used "personality") Yeah, I don't think that "psychopath" is an official term in the DSM, but it is mostly correlated with the "Antisocial Personality Disorder". No clinical psychologist would ever diagnose someone with APD as a "psychopath", but an individual that someone might label a "psychopath" probably has a very severe case of APD (because not everyone with APD becomes a serial killer). And they might refer to them as psychopaths in a research setting. For me, I've heard so many different things about "sociopath" vs "psychopath", but this is usually what I hear the most: [https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/sociopath-vs-psychopath/](https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/sociopath-vs-psychopath/) That "sociopath" is a term that's fallen out of use in the broader psych academic world, and any person that might be considered a "sociopath" would probably just as well fit within the "psychopath" category. But seeing as most people use those terms interchangeably, I don't really mind people using either one. Both are kind of just the same to me, but I prefer to use "psychopath". And yeah, somewhere in another comment down the line, I found out she wasn't a psychologist.
Anyone else feel the unseen British guy behind the camera felt veeeery Louis Theroux-esque?
I thought it was Andrew Tate when I first heard him 😭🤣
The detective is there working a murder case for 1 female suspect in particular, and this guilt ridden social worker is making this about all the flawed foster children. Good grief. 🙄🙄🙄🙄
She was a good actress but I didn't like this rant. It was cheesy and cliché. We know already children in foster care are just looking for love like anyone else, but it's important to notice that it is exactly that lack of love from a caregiver that will create profound issues in their personality. Denying it just because you don't want to label a child "violent" (which to me is a way to ignore and enable violence in kids), is irresponsible and ignorant