Child and adolescent psychopathy by Randall Salekin and John Lochman (2017)
The journal Child and adolescent psychopathy by Randall Salekin and John Lochman (2017) focus on the risks and protective factors of child psychopathy.
Very little research had been done on childhood psychopathy before the 90s, but as it turns out, a child’s upbringing plays a huge role in the development of the disorder.
There is believed to be a time during a child’s developmental process when psychopathic characteristics might be unstable, and therefore more adaptable to treatment.
Salekin and Lochman write about how variables in a child’s life such as having an active social life can determine whether or not they develop a psychopathic personality, and feasible ways to prevent them from growing up to become such callous adults.
Authentic literature can pose great complications when read by non-native speakers.
If you approach this challenge the wrong way, you will not be satisfied with the extent of your understanding.
By using some simple methods, you can both expand your vocabulary and learn how to efficiently read a demanding text.
I fully agree with the fact that we should do something, however I disagree with Salekin and Lochmans beliefs that nurture is a way more significant part in the development of psychopathy than nature.
I think they make it sound like a credible fact, when it is just a speculation. There is, for the time being, no bulletproof evidence supporting either side completely.
But it was refreshing reading something i vaguely disagreed with, it really gave me new perspective on the topic.
Other than that miniscule detail, I really enjoyed the text, however the language used was very tiring and heavy and the vocabulary used was way broader than I could understand.
Unfamiliar words such as delinquent, criterion, acquisition, adequate and pejorative were used in every other sentence, making it troublesome for me to understand anything at all.
In addition, phrases like “risk and protective factors” and “skin conductance responsivity” just made it even worse.
The journal mentions many so names and years that it was hard to separate the fundamental information from the citations.