Talk:Macdonald triad

Vfd
On 29 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Votes for deletion/MacDonald Triad for a record of the discussion. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 01:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

How to remove this line?
This line does not appear in edit view, but appears at the bottom of the page in normal view: "occurs whwn heart and mind are not reconciled" ... Can someone delete it? 24.18.35.120 11:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know why bedwetting is a warning sign? Animal cruelty and pyromania are self-explanatory but people who haven't studied psychology wouldn't really be able to presume why.

Uncited paragraph
Removed uncited material:


 * This Triad, developed in 1963, has been called into question by other researchers. These researchers note that children and teenagers who set fires or harm animals may do so for many reasons, including boredom, imitation of adult punishment of household pets, exploration of a "tough guy" identity, or feelings of frustration. It is thus difficult to know whether these variables are in fact relevant to serial murder etiology and, if so, how precisely they matter.

"Researchers"? Which researchers, what research? Feel free to reinstate if proper citations are found. -- Joie de Vivre 22:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

vote for delete
i've now seen the archived discussion  and am struck by its lack of detail. A single article in 1963 by a man called MacDonald doesn't mean the MacDonald triad has currency. If there are futher refs, please provide them. My search found less than 500 hits and all on the first page were in wikispace. I could have missed others. Seems not notable. 203.220.149.37 14:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Referenced by DSM IV conduct disorder of course it's notable. --Zeraeph 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

there's no such ref in the link you provide. what page of DSM IV and what words describe the triad? Please provide info before you remove AfD again. 203.220.149.251 12:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep-an anonymous user without an account should not be the deciding factor in this article. Chris 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

deciding factor is how wikipedia operates. ie anonymous users are welcome. play the ball and not the person. you, chris, must provide the requested info if we want to keep, not cast aspersions in an un wiki like manner. 203.220.148.210 12:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not casting aspersions. Each anonymous user that has posted at this discussion is under domain 203. Since you will not give your name, that's sock-puppetry. I state clearly who I am. Your turn. Chris 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Eponym?
I've also heard this referred to as Helman's Triangle - perhaps as with many medical eponyms, regional or international variation exists. I will add this when I have both time and a verifiable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.253.59 (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Really?
"Enuresis can be used as a predictor of either firesetting or animal cruelty."

I'd be very surprised if this is true.202.82.171.186 (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer did not engage in acts of animal cruelty. He played with roadkill and dissected already dead animals, but according to his own admission never killed or harmed animals. He found already dead animals.216.119.176.119 (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually Dahmer did in fact engage in animal cruelty http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/07/06/animalkillers/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raab.Em (talk • contribs) 05:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Narcissism Rather Than Sociopathy?
Isn't sociopathy simply lack of empathy, not love of causing pain(that would be sadism). For example, a person who doesn't have any desire to go out and hurt people for its own sake could still be a sociopath. A sociopath would have no qualms about hurting people in the course of trying to get what they want, even killing them but would not necessarily go out of their way to cause harm. Not being a sociopath could mask sadism in some people(a person might desire to cause pain but not do so because of empathy) making sociopaths statistically more likely to be sadists(since someone with a desire that is never expressed due to empathy could never be diagnosed as sadistic). Some sociopaths are found in big business, since they have no qualms about hurting people if it will help maximize profit. Since theyre relating cause and effect to the odds of becoming a serial killer and since the descriptions of how this happens(humiliation, releasing tension to regain self-worth) this sounds more like narcissism caused the homicidal tendancies in these cases than sociopathy. A sociopath would be unlikely to feel humiliation in the first place because they have no empathy. A narcissist is in love with their image(mistakenly feeling like they are in love with themselves) and easily feels humiliation and reacts aggressively if they feel their image is threatened. Unless narcissism somehow progresses to sociopathy. Maybe the child is not a sociopath but their psyche turns off empathy in order to avoid the pain of hurting people in trying to save their feelings of self-worth. Though I don't know if that's how it happens, but if there's anyone who does know and has a source it would be worth including a mention of the narcissism-sociopathy progression in the article.67.162.221.84 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sociopaths are often called "secondary psychopaths", and tend to be more prone to anxiety (See Newman, J., et al 2005). Sociopathic individuals can still feel as if their pride and status is being attacked, and can still be aware of how they are perceived. So there is no reason why a sociopath wouldn't feel humiliated by bed-wetting, as it is unintentional and perceived as "gross", harming their image. It's not unheard of for people to turn to violence/aggression in response to real or perceived threats on their self-conception (see. Tedeschi and Bond, 2001)
 * This has little to do with the article, but just explaining why there's really no need to reclassify as narcissism. Romogoth (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead section and article needs clean-up
I have added multiple cleanup tags to this article because I can barely understand it. When I first read this article I didn't even think it had a lead section. From what I can glean from the first paragraph I suspect this article describes a scientific hypothesis that certain behaviours exhibited by children can predict criminal activity in later life. Although I not certain if I have interpreted this quite right, as it is not really clear what this article is trying to explain. The lead section needs introduce and summarize an article, so that readers who know nothing about this topic can understand what it is about. The first sentence assumes readers are familiar with the topic, when it should be assumed they are not. The readers should be put first and not read like a scientific journal where the audience is familiar with existing research, but be written in plain English that anyone can understand, without needing to read the research first. Also, the lead is too long and detailed. It should be limited to about two paragraphs, according to MOS:LEADLENGTH, at this stage of the article's development. The extra details should be moved into the body of the article. See MOS:LEAD. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)