MovieChat Forums > The Dirties (2014) Discussion > Matt is NOT a psychopath?

Matt is NOT a psychopath?


Who here thinks that Matt is not necessarily a psychopath? Sure he read a list of psychopathic qualities and said they fit him, but you can take the characteristics of any label that describes you and not necessarily be that label. Matt did only kill the bad guys. How many people that shoot up schools actually shoot specific people? He was dumb as obviously he is going to get caught and he told people he was planning on doing a school shooting (which everybody kept to themselves making THEM worse than Matt), but I know if I could get away with doing something like that I would hurt people who have done me wrong. That does not make me a psychopath.

reply

Hmmm, maybe not a 'psychopath'. I think he thought he was just because of the books he was reading, and the way his best friend was very creeped out by how he was acting.

He was just a kid who thought way too much into it, basically developing a mental instability, and letting it loose in a terrible way.

Yes, he only shot the bad guys, but even that, was the works of a person with a mental problem, or a delusional teenager fearing that he is, in fact crazy(?)

reply

I don't think he'd qualify as an actual psychopath. Everyone has some psychopathic personality traits, but based on what is revealed about him in the film, he doesn't seem to have a history of repeatedly disregarding the rights or harming others.

reply

he doesn't seem to have a history of repeatedly disregarding the rights or harming others

... well, he's young. Give him time: this is, afterall, "only" his first time at trying to disregard the rights and killing the crap out of people. :)

By the way, look up the scheming, the back-up planning, and the perspective gaming that psychopaths engage in before giving this kid a clean bill of (anti social personality disorder) health.

reply

Anyway, to get back to the original posting, if we're looking at probabilities, he is more likely to be a psychopath (actually, a person having anti-social personality disorder) than he is likely to be a mentally normal person.

Is he a psychopath (as opposed to being a sociopath or being a normally sane person?) well, I think you can find many red flags for Matt.

But the biggest flag?--he plans and executes mass murder. If you ever entertain these thoughts with actions like acquiring school plans, then you should consider yourself a psychopath. (rationalizing why the victims "deserved" what they got is a hallmark for psychopaths... and terrorists: but rationalization isn't relevant if you aren't authorized to give judgments)

By the way, when a murderer goes about planning his killings and he mentions his plans to people who discount his comments, the plotting mass killer is STILL worse than the people who kept it to themselves. Kids in school are not therapists trained in being able to differentiate false positive BS that kids say vs. real threats. So, no, the other kids are not worse than an actual, scheming, murderer.

But you ask, given some of your thoughts, could you be a psychopath? You have to consider that Yes, you may be.

And, yes, you can be a mentally ill person even though you function better than a schizophrenic who has trouble with reality. You may have a VERY good grasp of reality and still be a psychopath. In fact, that kind of differentiates you from labels like sociopath. A psychopath quite often maintains long term relationships, can be very charming, and can execute very detailed plans for their crimes (including contingency planning).

You mentioned hurting people who "did you wrong"... you mean like you're in a captive situation (like spousal assault, incestual sexual assault, criminal abduction) and have no means of actual escape without imminent threat to your life? Now those LIFE-THREATENING criminals are really doing you wrong. But you aren't harming someone while in the process of escape, are you? In fact, you had time to sit and cool your thoughts down over an hour, a day, a week, right? And you STILL plan on hurting people as long as "you could get away with it"? Yeah, consider that you are suffering an anti-social personality disorder. (that type of person is no fun to meet during riots or drunk parties and such).

There are more positive ways with dealing with guilty thoughts: write novels, for example. But if "getting away with it" is the only thing stopping you, well...

A psychopath is not the best person to judge who has "done me wrong" and to measure reasonable penalties.

I believe there are other signs Matt currently has and would likely develop over time that are shared by other people who branch out into full blown psychopaths:

-career instability
-an apathy and danger to strangers and people who offers nothing that is of benefit to the psychopath
-a growing mental perspective that the world is "doing them wrong"
-an inflated belief in their own grandiosity
-a rage towards people or evidence who disagrees or proves them wrong
-exercises in getting away with crimes that eventually grows into a belief that rules simply don't apply to them
-a mastery of charm and manipulation that involves forcing others to see situations as how it affects the psychopath only and not how it could affect others (narcissism)
-escalation in sadism, rape and/or murder

Matt's shirt gives a telling irony--Matt, and other actual murdering psychopaths like him, ARE the Bad Guys.

-

reply

Very interesting comments.

reply

He was dumb as obviously he is going to get caught and he told people he was planning on doing a school shooting (which everybody kept to themselves making THEM worse than Matt)


You do realize that the people Matt told did not think he was serious right? It's not like they knew he'd do it and were keeping this secret for him.

To suggest that these people are worse than Matt who actually killed people is quite ignorant really just ridiculous.

reply

No, it isn't. These people could have stopped Matt if they had only told somebody in a position of authority. It doesn't matter if they believed he was joking or not. They let it happen. It's better to be safe than sorry. Anyways, of course this is why so many terrible things happen.

reply

I never disagreed with the fact that if someone told they could have stopped Matt. The only point I was replying to was that you said they were worse than Matt. Do you care to explain why they were worse than the person that actually killed people? Matt could have stopped it as well. He could have decided not to do it. He could have told someone in authority that he was thinking about it, he could have done all kinds of things to stop it. He didn't stop it either and he was the one that actually went and killed people.

I'll say again, that is a completely ignorant statement and doesn't really make any sense.

reply

I think differently that most people. For instance, I believe that people that lie about being raped are worse than rapists.

Also, the fact that these students knew about Matt's threat and did not tell the police is actually illegal. And if it isn't, it should be considering it is merely on the other end of being an accessory to murder.

I tried to find out if it is indeed illegal but of course, I could not find an official source stating if it is or is not.

reply

I too think people who lie about being raped are horrible horrible people and it should be severely punished. That's not really what we're talking about though.

You still haven't explained why the people who didn't tell are worse than Matt. Are you going to explain? Or continue to avoid the question?

I'm going to break this down as simply as possible.

On one side we have people that could have told and stopped Matt.

On the other side we have Matt who could have told someone of authority to stop himself and who actually killed people.

So again, why would someone who only did 1 of these things (didn't tell anyone) be worse than someone who did both things (didn't tell anyone and killed people)?

You're not making any sense.

reply

I will try to explain it as best as I can.

Okay. So basically if someone is a murderer, they're a bad person (according to society's general view). If you knew somebody was a murderer or was going to kill someone, you would stay away from them. Great! You have the knowledge you need to keep yourself safe from that individual!

People pretty much think you're a good person if you haven't killed or raped or done anything super terrible in life. I have much higher standards for what I consider to be a good person.

Let's pretend I'm friends with Chrissy (which I would never be).

If I don't know Matt at all, I would not know about his threats to shoot up the school. But Chrissy knows. This is information she should share with me whether she thinks Matt was being serious or not. I deserve to know about Matt's threat. I deserve to decide for myself if he is being serious or not. I deserve to have the knowledge needed to protect myself. Also, Chrissy joked about Matt killing Mr. Bird making her even less innocent.

Yeah, yeah, Matt is the physically dangerous one, but Matt is not my friend. Chrissy is. Friends are supposed to look out for each other and protect each other whenever possible.

If Chrissy happened to die in the shooting, I would never know that she knew about Matt's plans and I would mourn for her. What a game changer it would be if we both lived and I found out that Chrissy knew and put my life in danger. I would end my friendship with her and make her life miserable.

Do you get what I'm saying?

reply

I get what you're saying (though I completely disagree) and I appreciate you taking the time to explain it.

You're still completely ignoring what I pointed out in my last post. On one side you have people could have told an authority - on the other side you have someone who both could have told an authority and who killed people.

So I say again, how is someone who only did 1 thing worse than someone who also did that 1 thing and another horrible thing as well?

To simplify it further, it's like you're saying someone who stole is worse than someone who stole and raped. Again, doesn't make much sense to me.

Matt could have told a person of authority just like all the other people could have told a person of authority...oh yeah, and he also murdered people.

Do you get what I'm saying?

Sure it's different when you have some hypothetical story where you're friends with one of the people that didn't tell and not friends with the murderer because then you've got personal feeling involved with only one of the people we're talking about and not the other. In your hypothetical situation, Chrissy has a reason to tell you - she's your friend. It's not really relevant to our discussion and not really a good example.

Perhaps a better hypothetical...
Let's say your best friend is Amy. You and Amy have two acquaintances named John and Bill. Bill tells John that he is planning on murdering Amy and then he murders her. Both John and Bill knew that Bill was going to murder Amy and either one of them could have told you but neither did. Would you really be more angry or disgusted at John? Would you really think John is a worse person than Bill?

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to actually explain your thoughts in the previous post.

reply

Technically someone who stole and raped is worse than someone who just stole, but those two actions are relatively unrelated.

Once information gets relayed to a third party and is no longer only in the mind of the perpetrator, it needs to be shared with people who would be affected by the criminal act as well as the authorities.

I mean, most people don't just go up to someone and say "Hey, I'm going to kill you on Thursday!"

And as mater of fact, I would be more angry and disgusted at John! It's bad enough that I will have to suffer emotional trauma, but knowing that a third party knew and did nothing to stop the murder would make it even worse. What if I ended up killing myself because I couldn't handle this?

It's like somebody who is aware that a child is being abused at home and keeps it to themselves.

Let's think about drug addicts and their enablers. Let's say Ashley is addicted to meth. Ashley is unable to make her own money to pay for the drugs she wants, but, she has ONE enabler in her life - let's say it's her mother, Joan.

One day Joan gives Ashley the money she needs to go buy meth and get high. While high, Ashley ends up going *beep* and kills an innocent person.

If Ashley hadn't gotten the drug money, she wouldn't have been high and that person would not have been killed.

Yeah it's Ashley's choice to do drugs, but that doesn't change the fact that her mother played a part in that person's MURDER.

reply

I'm definitely not going to get to a point where I agree with you and it doesn't sound like I'm convincing you to rethink you're line of thought.

I definitely see what you're saying and I'm not saying that other people involved (either giving money for drugs, or keeping something horrible to themselves, or whatever) are innocent at all. I think they can be very much to blame depending on circumstances. Definitely not saying they are in the clear just because they didn't do the actual horrible act. I'm just saying it's a bit crazy to say they are worse than the person that actually "did the deed".

It almost seems like you're taking an extreme uncommon stance just to stir things up and bit and be extreme. Maybe not, but I guess that's how difficult I find your line of reasoning to be.

Again, I don't understand and certainly don't agree with your line of reasoning but I appreciate you taking the time to explain and have a civil conversation. I think we've taken this about as far as we can.

reply

Indeed. It was a good discussion.

reply

Indeed, you guys brought up some good points. I'm assuming that you're both young, but I'm not sure (???)

Anyway, you both missed making one VERY important point, which doesn't necessarily directly support or challenge either of your theories (neither is 100% 'right' or 'wrong' IMO, though there are some things you both just don't have enough information about, because of your age, profession (if you're at that stage) or both:

Chrissy is not a professional, nor a 'mandated reporter' (if you don't know what that is google it, as I'm so sleepy right now :) In other words, not only is she just a teenager, but furthermore, even if she were an adult - say the school secretary, she would have no legal obligation to tell anyone, by the virtue of her profession - or, more precisely, lack thereof; e.g., if Matt had told a school counselor, a doctor, nurse, teacher, etc., because they're mandated reporters. Now, you could make the case that Chrissy, and to a greater degree, a school secretary/parent might have an ethical obligation to tell someone, IF, they truly believed that Matt was going to shoot up the school.

But it was obvious to me that Chrissy thought that he was kidding, and again, esp mindfreakmandy, you cannot hold her to any kind of legal or professional obligation (e.g., if Matt had told his guidance counselor, the guidance counselor is a mandated reporter, and would have to use his/her professional judgment as to whether it is a serious threat). And that's something that's extremely difficult for even the best, say, psychiatrist to actually predict - as in threats vs. action. Though psychiatrists, because they have the most training (and perhaps PhD level psychologists) are usually held to an even higher standard, than say, a school counselor - well, on certain issues.

BTW, I'm a clinical social worker (I do adult and adolescent psychotherapy), so I do know a little bit about this stuff :)

reply

It's interesting that you brought that up. I am young and I actually took a Social Service Worker program in College.

It Matt told his counselor that he feels like hurting himself or someone else, that counselor has a DUTY TO REPORT but yes, sometimes they may not if they feel that Matt will not act on it. It depends on how the client phrases their threats and a whole bunch of other things.

However, the counselor should not just ignore it. They need to give the client resources and help them have a plan of what they will do when they start having these thoughts.

reply

[deleted]

It's interesting that you brought that up. I am young and I actually took a Social Service Worker program in College.


That's great, Mandy!! (I'm thinking that your name, is, indeed, Mandy :) Perhaps it will be something that you'd like to pursue professionally at some point - we could always use more SMART and COMPASSIONATE people in our field and you seem to be both. And if you continue your studies in psychology or social work, you'll see some of the (very interesting/insightful) points you made previously are opinion-based, but there are certain things that DO have black/white answers - even though much about human behavior is in the 'gray area' that you learn from theory classes and experience.

It Matt told his counselor that he feels like hurting himself or someone else, that counselor has a DUTY TO REPORT but yes, sometimes they may not if they feel that Matt will not act on it. It depends on how the client phrases their threats and a whole bunch of other things.


Exactly - that's what a mandated reporter is obligated to do under the law. And I'm sure you know about doctor/patient confidentiality laws (HIPPA). This also applies to other type of healthcare providers - or other types of professional, like lawyers (though if differs somewhat in what they're required to reveal). However, as you also seem to be well aware of, we're REQUIRED to break that confidentiality, if we think a patient is a threat to himself or to others - and they sign something before being treatment that spells all of that out. (and quite often, they're relieved that we have to tell!! Not that I've had that I've had too many situations whereby I became that 'reporter'). And like what you were saying about if Matt went to his counselor, I used to teach HS Health Ed and was also a guidance counselor for a few years at the middle school level, and you're absolutely right: I could get into trouble if I DID NOT report something like that, or if I suspected a student was being abused or neglected at home.

Now, you might not like this part, but here's the thing: you do get to know certain kids and sometimes they DO joke around (and in this day and age, it definitely pissed me off!!!). So while you're required to report such things as threats, you also have to make educated judgment calls; in other words, if I were to call the proper authorities for every single crazy thing a student would say, I'd seriously be on the phone all day, and not able to do 99% of my actual job!! While NOBODY can predict who will act and who won't 100% of the time, with experience, you learn how to determine what is truly an imminent threat and what is not. And IF something were to happen on 'my watch,' I'd be judged by the 'reasonable person standard,' which is a legal concept. Whomever was determining whether I acted negligently or not, would take into consideration what the 'standard of care' would be among other individuals with my education and training - and if I met it.

Wow - I didn't mean to write such a long post!! Anyway, good luck with whatever you decide to pursue in college and otherwise :)


reply

Thank you! I won't pursuing a career in this field, though. And I wonder what the deleted post said.

reply

I'm gonna side with Mandy on this one.

reply

He is a psychopath if he hadn't killed a living human being prior to launching this assassination against the Dirties. He exhibits a very psychopathic apathy, treating everything as though it was joke, lacking empathy for others who have been harmed and who've not necessarily been harmed by him. It is, however, possible that he is merely desensitized, as he doesn't respond harm done to him in quite the normal way either. Perhaps his clownishness is a way of coping with pain, remorse and persecution.

Anyway, he is quite a lot like a number of violent archetypes or rather kinds of people who have experience with terminating human lives in cold blood. He is like a soldier, a cop, a mercenary, a "cleaner" or a gangster, who has developed years of experience and desensitization, in a sense. I'm thinking whether or not he is a psychopath, as in having antisocial personality disorder specifically, is inconclusive. Without a doubt his behavior is psychopathic, though.

reply