If Joffery wasn't raised in KL, nature v nurture

[smashedhalo]

Just a thought but what if Joffery wasn't raised by Cercie? And would he turned out differently or still the same? Also would the Wo5Ks still have happened?

The idea is that Joffery was still a psychopath but wasn't raised directly by Cercie. Say after he skinned the cat he was sent to foster with one of the Lords Paramount. Cercie feed the ego of this kid, raised him to think he was above the same standards expected of other nobles. Say if Robert fostered him with Ned. From a line of kings, lord of half the realm in his own right, and Robert's oldest friend(even with the falling out). Using Theon as the example he treated him honorably for a captive. Theon was torn about betraying Rob and regretted it for the most part. If he had Joffery as a ward he would have instilled a sense of honor in the kid maybe. Got through that heavy is the head that wears the crown and the crown is beholden to its people. The only wild card is Catlynne.

Or most like Tywin raises him, mainly cause Cercie keeps it in the family. Looking at Tywin he's sort of like Ned in some regards. Wants the House to be respected. Ran the 7K for the mad king so he knows how to rule. Tried to impart that a wise ruler lets people submit. Punish those that raise the sword but extend a hand to those that knelt.

Jon Aryne is to close to KL as hand and Tully isn't given much info on character.

Would a different tutor still let him think he's infallible or would he pull a Bolton and just be really good at hiding his true nature from prying eyes.

Lastly if he was raised by Ned, would Ned have still tried the public route to swap the throne or would the lessons of Jon Aryne carry over. Would Joffery being raised by Ned make Joffery take the same route or still freak out once his life was a lie. He'd at least swing the sword himself.

Would Tywin make him more reasonable. Plan was to send Ned to the Wall, a self confessed traitor, to the edge of kingdom. Out of sight out of mind.

Basically without Cercie's direct corruption of already damaged goods, what are the odds Joffery would A) be a capable ruler, B) still be alive i.e. no purple wedding because despite having a rebellion, his nastier predilections are still unknown.

[sweetsunray]

Hmmm, you can't really diagnoze a child < 18 to be a psychopath. Psychopathy is at least partially genetic, but it is hoped/believed there is also a nurture factor. Let's say Joffrey has the genetic psychopathy factors hanging over his head. This would mean that his brain would have limited capabilities for empathy (frontal neocortex connection with lymbic system issues), to love (issues with the receptors in the brain for the bonding hormones), and little or no ability to learn consequences from their behaviour (frontal neocortex issues). So, if there is room for improvement (which you cannot rule out for a child, since their brains still develop) for Joffrey then he'd need to be raised by someone who can teach him about love, encourage empathy without using punishment, but instead positive reinforcement, and yet without reinforcing entitlement. Basically, a parent/foster parent would need to be able to emotionally ignore the child when it does bad stuff for attention (an emotional time out so to speak, because any emotional response is a reward for bad behaviour), but reward the child with emotional positive encouragement when it behaves positively.

Cersei lacks empathy and love herself, so she's not equipped to teach him that. She encourages entitlement and rewards bad behaviour. She encourages him to lie, to use masks and pretend. She does not punish him, but that wouldn't help in any case.

Let's pretend there was room for improvement and he was raised from a very early age already (from 2 on) by a capable parent in the way I described, he might have had the abilities to relate with others, develop a form of empathy enough not to want to hurt those close to him, and possibly to even experience positive emotions. I doubt though that he'd have the ability to actually deal with strangers and people who don't factor in his life much at all to be a benevolent ruler to them. Feeling empathy for just anyone most probably would beyond his scope. I think this because he has a sadistic streak in him from a very young age already. Being sadistic is not a necessary feature of psychopathy.

[CharlesW]

If he's raised by someone sensible, then maybe he could've turned out ok.

[Mal Malenkirk]

I don't know the state of research in psychology, but from what little I know there's usually a mix of both. Some conditions are heavy on nature (schyzophrenia, bipolar disorders etc.) and other on enviroment (Phobia) but usually both come into play.

In the case of psychopathy, or Anti-Social Personality disorder as I believe the current DSMV refers to it these days, there's certainly a lot of 'nurture' involved. Plenty of people exhibits different degree of psychopathy but learn to behave smoothly in society without committing crimes. Things like poor impulse control can be improved and lack of empathy can be exploited gainfully without, you know, killing people.

[sweetsunray]

I don't know the state of research in psychology, but from what little I know there's usually a mix of both. Some conditions are heavy on nature (schyzophrenia, bipolar disorders etc.) and other on enviroment (Phobia) but usually both come into play.

In the case of psychopathy, or Anti-Social Personality disorder as I believe the current DSMV refers to it these days, there's certainly a lot of 'nurture' involved. Plenty of people exhibits different degree of psychopathy but learn to behave smoothly in society without committing crimes. Things like poor impulse control can be improved and lack of empathy can be exploited gainfully without, you know, killing people.

ASPD is not fully equal to psychopathy. Psychopathy was never included in the DSM (whichever version). Basically all psychopaths would also be diagnozed with ASPD, but not all people diagnozed with ASPD would be diagnozed as psychopaths on Hare's PCL-R test. Someone with ASPD can have developed it purely because of nurture, but the brain scan would not fit the psychopath's brain-scan. The reason why the DSM would have ASPD and not psychopathy, is because the DSM is not only used for diagnosis, but also for developing treatment and therapy. Psychopathy (that is only if you apply the term to an adult) can't be treated with therapy or medication. Most psychopaths don't commit murder: while they are impulsive, they can control themselves when they feel the need or want to.

[smashedhalo]

Pychopath would be the wrong word in hindsight. Narcissistic Personality Disorder with sadistic tendencies would be a better fit.

Cercie being out of the picture would Joffery possibly turned out like Tommen who was neglected by his mother.

Lacking empathy he would be more calculating i would think. Less the people are starving, more the starving people get a reprieve from taxes if they're dead.

Battle command becomes a numbers game and meat for the grinder.

And the Law is the Law. Stannis in some ways

[Wmarshal]

He would have been okay:

His mother taught him being a sadist should not be punished.

Robert taught him a king does as he liked.

And Baelish was the one that told him to kill Ned.

I think he has more a case of being a mental case then pre Reek Theon.

[sweetsunray]

The killing of the cat is interesting insofar the reason why he did it: not out of malice, but to see the kittens. A case of not abnormal curiosity, but an abnormal lack of empathy. Little children will pull a cat's tail or things like that to experiment how the animal would react and such. It's usually harmless, because the child ends up either feeling guilty for the cat's yelp response OR learns from the clawed swat that it's not a good idea to treat an animal badly and that it can turn on you.

Robert tries to instill a lesson with Joffrey by becoming mad at him and hit him. But all it taught Joffrey's mind was that he gained attention from it from his father, attention his father barely ever gave him. I think this is the seed of his malignance if he's a narcissist, or sadism if he's got the making of a psychopath.

It's quite difficult to separate narcissism of psychopaths, because entitlement is one of the aspects for both. But I think you may be right, that Joffrey might be a malignant narcissist over a psychopath in the making, because he's not a defiant child to either his mother (before he's king) or to his father, and actually hopes to gain fervor from his father. Then again, his father dies before he's even a full fledged adolescent. He's a pre-teen when he inherits the throne. If narcissism is his actual disorder, then he'd probably would have turned out a better person in a family with an attentive foster-father and in a position where entitlement feelings wouldn't be nourished: as in, no foster family would have doted on him as if he's their golden boy. Again though, he would needed to have been fostered at a very young age. The seeds of narcissism develop in the earliest childhood with a mother doting on the child too much.

[GallowsKnight]

It always struck me how good a position Joffrey would have been had he been trueborn and/or not a psycho.

He would be King, with Tywin Lannister as his Grandfather, Ned Stark as his father-in-law and Stannis Baratheon as his uncle. That regime is pretty darn secure.

[smashedhalo]

Stannis, not so much other than fleet commander. But Ned and Tywin=Honor and money.

[GallowsKnight]

Stannis, not so much other than fleet commander. But Ned and Tywin=Honor and money.

Also arguably one of the best all round military commander in Westeros (if not THE best). And 100% loyal if Joffrey was true (or less obviously false).

Add to that Robb Stark as a brother-in-law.

What I'm saying is it's pretty unlikely for him to be displaced by rebellion or invasion with all these guys on his side.

[Mal Malenkirk]

The killing of the cat is interesting insofar the reason why he did it: not out of malice, but to see the kittens. A case of not abnormal curiosity, but an abnormal lack of empathy. Little children will pull a cat's tail or things like that to experiment how the animal would react and such. It's usually harmless, because the child ends up either feeling guilty for the cat's yelp response OR learns from the clawed swat that it's not a good idea to treat an animal badly and that it can turn on you.

Personnally, I believe that detail has been included because it's a well known marker for serial killers. A high proportion of serial killers have tortured/killed small animals in their youth. It's something both the author and many readers would be familiar with so that's Martin telling us something about Joffrey's nature if he had grown to maturity.

PS: A serial killer is not necessarily a psychopath. Other pathology are possible, I like the case made for malignant narcissim above.

PPS: Not saying Joffrey was already a serial killer. Sure was heading that way, though.

PPPS: Since the technical definition of a serial killer is simply someone who killed three times or more with a cool down period between incidents, one can conclude there are a shitload of serial killers in Westeros, including people counted as 'good guys'!

[Mal Malenkirk]

ASPD is not fully equal to psychopathy. (snip)

Fair enough.

[smashedhalo]

Also arguably one of the best all round military commander in Westeros (if not THE best). And 100% loyal if Joffrey was true (or less obviously false).

Add to that Robb Stark as a brother-in-law.

What I'm saying is it's pretty unlikely for him to be displaced by rebellion or invasion with all these guys on his side.

Stannis is like iron. Will break before he bends.

Also all the 7k except Dorne mostlike with their 3 targ plan. 8000 unsullied(maybe) , the golden company, maybe 100,000 dathroki (those that cross the ocean) and maybe 3 dragons.

No ironborn rising up, the reach is still in it's place, and there are no depleted ranks.

Hell even the Others wouldn't be a issue because Winter is Coming, with living Starks to help out.

Just noticed this. If Joffery had empathy or less desire to get praise of robert, no attempt on Bran, tyrion never get kidnapped, the none of the escalating reactionary forces, no clegane forces in the riverlands, no fight in the streets, Ned would have more guards on hand, the Coup de ta would have smoother transition, stannis would be king.

All because one character had a shred of a normality

[Light a wight tonight]

It always struck me how good a position Joffrey would have been had he been trueborn and/or not a psycho.

He would be King, with Tywin Lannister as his Grandfather, Ned Stark as his father-in-law and Stannis Baratheon as his uncle. That regime is pretty darn secure.

If Joffrey had been trueborn he wouldn't have been born at all, after a manner of speaking. Cersei would have aborted him like she did with her other pregnancy by Robert.

[sweetsunray]

Personnally, I believe that detail has been included because it's a well known marker for serial killers. A high proportion of serial killers have tortured/killed small animals in their youth. It's something both the author many most reader would be familiar with so that's Martin telling us something about Joffrey's nature if he had grown to maturity.

PS: A serial killer is not necessarily a psychopath. Other pathology are possible, I like the case made for malignant narcissim above.

I agree.