One of my relatives started a job as a teacher's assistant at a grammar school. She talked to me about how there are two students in the class that she believes are clearly attention deficit-disordered. Why? Because they don't pay attention in class. It's not that they're not smart, she says, because when she gets them to look at the particular paragraph or reading material they're studying, they can answer questions about it. I asked her why she thinks that means that they *can't* concentrate or focus on the material versus that they *won't*. She looked at me a little as if I was either being daft or difficult, making a distinction without a difference, in her mind. But I think it is often an assumption that people make in educational contexts, that if someone isn't doing something that we expect most people to be able to do, it must mean that they can't rather than they won't. Oddly, when it comes to behavioral things outside of that context, people frequently make the opposite conclusion -- that because someone isn't doing something that everyone else "ought" to be able to do, it must mean that they can but choose not to for some perverse reason.
It reminded me of this old comment:
There was a peer-reviewed article in "Social Cognition" where a study showed something that will surprise a few naysayers. Here's a quote from the author's abstract:
"When the others were described as in-group members, participants higher in psychopathy showed greater concern for those others. This indicates that the lack of concern for others produced by everyday psychopathy is due to a lack of motivation to care about others, rather than a lack of ability to do so."
Believe it or not, but high-functioning members can show concern for others. They just need a reason for it. Ironically, the study was conducted on university undergraduates (though in truth, it is common for research universities to use the student populace as guinea pigs).
In case anyone is interested, the article is called "Understanding Everyday Psychopathy: Shared Group Identity Leads to Increased Concern for Others among Undergraduates Higher in Psychopathy." by Arbuckle and Cunningham in the journal called Social Cognition (October 2012).
But here's the thing I thought about when talking to my relative the teacher's assistant -- do we fault children for not being motivated to learn any more or less than we fault them for a hardwired lack of ability to focus? They live in an economically disadvantaged area. They likely won't have the resources to do much of higher education. Or even if they did, there are people with college and advanced degrees that have lower paying jobs than their parents do. Why be motivated to learn about the different Chinese dynasties? If there is a reason to learn that, then surely the child could be convinced eventually to learn. Similarly, do we blame the sociopath who doesn't care enough to show concern for others if no one has ever shown him why he should care? Who is going to go to the trouble of trying to convince him?
It reminded me of this old comment:
There was a peer-reviewed article in "Social Cognition" where a study showed something that will surprise a few naysayers. Here's a quote from the author's abstract:
"When the others were described as in-group members, participants higher in psychopathy showed greater concern for those others. This indicates that the lack of concern for others produced by everyday psychopathy is due to a lack of motivation to care about others, rather than a lack of ability to do so."
Believe it or not, but high-functioning members can show concern for others. They just need a reason for it. Ironically, the study was conducted on university undergraduates (though in truth, it is common for research universities to use the student populace as guinea pigs).
In case anyone is interested, the article is called "Understanding Everyday Psychopathy: Shared Group Identity Leads to Increased Concern for Others among Undergraduates Higher in Psychopathy." by Arbuckle and Cunningham in the journal called Social Cognition (October 2012).
But here's the thing I thought about when talking to my relative the teacher's assistant -- do we fault children for not being motivated to learn any more or less than we fault them for a hardwired lack of ability to focus? They live in an economically disadvantaged area. They likely won't have the resources to do much of higher education. Or even if they did, there are people with college and advanced degrees that have lower paying jobs than their parents do. Why be motivated to learn about the different Chinese dynasties? If there is a reason to learn that, then surely the child could be convinced eventually to learn. Similarly, do we blame the sociopath who doesn't care enough to show concern for others if no one has ever shown him why he should care? Who is going to go to the trouble of trying to convince him?
