<p>"I believe there is a miscommunication here. Bedwetting is not associated with mental illness. Firesetting and hurting animals are associated with sociopathy. I believe this was the intent (of Shrinkrap’s statement), but the structure of the sentence is confusing. "</p>
<p>What I was trying to say was, in many instances, what we once thought we knew, we found out was wrong. Many years ago bed wetting, firesetting, and cruelty toward animals were together considered a “triad” “red flag” for sociopathy.</p>
<p>Macdonald triad
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad</a></p>
<p>“The Macdonald Triad: Persistence of an Urban Legend”
Abstract:</p>
<pre><code>For the last half century, a trio of behaviors—cruelty to animals, firesetting, and enuresis—has enjoyed popular acceptance by criminologists, psychologists, and law enforcement officers. These professionals have long linked the presence of the Macdonald Triad in childhood to a variety of criminal careers. Recent crime series on television and Hollywood movies have breathed new life into the alleged phenomenon. Of 90 undergraduate students in a criminal psychology class asked to “research” the Macdonald Triad, 88 reported the alleged phenomenon related to sociopaths or to serial murderers. In fact, John Macdonald’s (1963) study was of psychiatric patients who threatened violence and makes no reference to either sociopaths or multiple murderers. More importantly, using a methodology based on grounded theory, an extensive review of the literature offers little empirical support for the triad as a bona fide phenomenon. Yet it persists. These observations raise critical questions for educators and practitioners in criminal justice. As educators, how thoroughly do we vet the concepts we teach? As practitioners, what constitutes reliable information? More broadly, what lends credibility to an alleged phenomenon? This paper examines the Macdonald triad and its evolution over time with an eye to addressing these questions."
</code></pre>
<p>I wouldn’t say hurting animals meant “nothing”, but clearly enuresis and most fire-setting are no longer considered “red flags” we once thought they were.</p>
<p>Anyway, no matter. I was just on my “mental health can’t be reduced to sound bites” soap box. </p>
<p>Yes; hurting small animals is bad, especially in the context of other things. When my D was about three, we saw a frog on the sidewalk. She jumped up and down with glee…and landed on the frog! She was devastated. Now, she won’t even eat red meat.</p>