nordicwitchcraft - Tumblr blog

nordicwitchcraft · 6 months ago

Text

You state in the post in the beginning that you aren't a licensed therapist or a psychiatrist. I am someone working in the field, and I think this post not only strikes me as a bit belittling of what ASPD is, but that you are forgetting one of the most important thing about this diagnose; the criterias are also judged based on the motivation and context around them.

I won't get too much into this post, other than that I think a lot of the things you write are taken out of context, or you make claims that are unsupported in the text. (For example, him not caring about Katie's attack when nothing of the sort is said in the text. The opposite really, Hagrid in HBP stating that he senses that Dumbledore is worried and saddened by the events unfolding at Hogwarts, and indirectly supported by the fact that one of the few times we see him get angry is when he witnesses his students being hurt, the scene with Umbridge and Marietta for example in OOTP) The main point of difference between them is that Dumbledore does not do illegal acts for a self-serving purpose or out of disregard of what basic morals are. He goes against the ministry and the law when the ministry is corrupt, the laws are injust, or to fight injustice. Taking up his illegal movements with the Order and escape of capture as a point to him having this diagnosis does not make much sense and I can guarantee you I as, once more, someone who works in the field (I will not say what, as that is private) would not at all see as an indicator for this diagnosis.

The point about his plans with Grindelwald is all fair and well, but you don't bring up how he in canon too had objections about Grindelwald's plans too, even in the letter we see him trying to convince Gellert of choosing a less violent path, this being backed up in canon too by how Dumbledore describes trying to ignore his own morals and close his eyes to it because (as we later know) he was in love with Grindelwald, and Grindelwald offered him freedom out of Godric's Hollow. But yes, he does have issues with power: that still do not a ASPD diagnose make.

Even the point of him lying I find issue with. Most of these are explained in the narrative as a (flawed) way of him protecting Harry or protecting others, or in Lockhart's case, a way for him to try to reveal Lockhart as a fraud as a way to prevent him from hurting others. You can fault him for lying to Harry, but he does not lie for personal gain in the way Voldemort does. He lies because he as a child has been taught secrecy is necessary to keep others alive. And he lies because he also of course knows that Harry and Voldemort's minds are connected, and telling him too much in this fantasy setting would be risky, despite Voldemort after OOTP being fearful of entering Harry's mind.

When looking at lying as a criteria for the ASPD diagnosis, one does not only look at the act of lying but why and what those lies are. Habitual lying is, after all, something that can exist in multiple diagnosis, and the lying Dumbledore does is once more not the type of lying typically associated with the ASPD diagnosis.

Point number 5, Dumbledore is the leader of a resistance movement against a genocidal dark wizard. Joining that movement poses risk; but it is not a reckless disregard of the safety of others. What is the reckless disregard here, that he and the people in the order are risking their lives to prevent mass murder? What should they have done? I hate comparing books to real life events, but this is like condemning the French resistance leaders during WWII for risking their and their members lives, because the Order IS likely inspired by these sort of movements. Again, not something I as a person in the field would even consider as a part of this. The other points I chalk up to the fact that this is a children's book where children have to save the day as a part of the genre (and nothing really even indicates he had other options here, he didn't know where the chamber was, there was in canon nowhere that was safer for Harry to be despite how horrible I find the Dursleys, and the Malfoy situation was a difficult one since Draco's and his family's lives where on the line too)

Point number 6: This just doesn't work with what we know in canon. The ministry wanted someone at the position, no one wants to be the DADA teacher since it is cursed, and convincing someone in the order to be it would certainly clash with criteria five, that would be more of a reckless endangerment than many of the points brought up. Tonks also had a real daytime job, and was much more valuable at the ministry than at Hogwarts. Number 7: This is one of the criteria he matches the least. He constantly feels remorse, he is haunted by all his faults and his guilt, enough so that he is tormented into temporary madness by the potion he drinks in the cave. Just because he outwardly tries to keep up appearances to Harry does not mean he doesn't feel for others. Again, Hagrid comments on how worried he is during HBP. He cries in OOTP over what happened in the ministry and how he failed both Harry and Sirius. Him being 'hellbent' on killing Voldemort being something that points to him having ASPD? The man trying to commit, once more, genocide, and wants to create an authoritarian empire with him on the top, immortal? The man who will not stop at anything to kill Harry, someone Dumbledore in canon loves, or Dumbledore himself? Even there, he doesn't seem to be wanting to solely kill Voldemort in OOTP when they duel. Not grieving the death of a terrorist and a man who through that terrorism and murder tries to become a dictator isn't something that I, again, would see as an indicator of having any type of empathy disorder, especially not if the person in question showed clear capabilities of showing empathy, guilt and love in all other aspects of life.

The Lockhart point also is strange in the same manner. He just heard that the man lost his memory due to trying to attack two of his students trying to erase their memories. If you tried to for example mace an innocent child and you got the mace in your own eyes, I doubt many would feel sorry for you. All of this really being a bit irrelevant, because once more, this diagnosis is very much based on context and motivation, and Dumbledore could easily fit other diagnoses better that take his own childhood trauma and his actual shows of empathy and guilt over the roles he has to play in account.

Dumbledore, Tom Riddle, and what makes a psychopath

First of all, I'm not a licensed therapist or psychiatrist, but I love reading things online. I also love analyzing fictional characters, so why not do both and show why Albus Dumbledore shows just as many signs of ASPD (Antisocial Personality Disorder) as Tom Marvolo Riddle and that both men are much more similar than they'd like to think.

Whats ASPD?

ASPD, also known as Antisocial Personality Disorder, is a personality disorder. This disorder encapsulates both what people commonly call "psychopaths" and "sociopaths" and is actually mischaracterized often. It is a real mental disorder and not all real-life people with ASPD are dangerous to be around like the fictional ones, some live completely lawful murder-free lives. This post is mostly an interesting thought exercise and not meant to be a diagnostic tool or to be seen as how all people with ASPD are.

So, personality disorders refer to mental disorders that affect thought processes, personality, and how a person interacts with the world as a whole. ASPD, as its name suggests, focuses on social interactions. It is categorized by a lack of empathy, a penchant for lying, irresponsibility, and disregard for other's rights or feelings along with a lack of remorse.

All in all it sounds a lot like what we'd associate with Tom Riddle, but Dumbledore fits just as many of the symptoms required for an ASPD diagnosis.

How is ASPD diagnosed?

The DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) categorizes and describes how to diagnose all clinically recognized mental illnesses. The DSM-5's diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder:

A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

Disregarding the law, indicated by repeatedly committing acts that are grounds for arrest

Being deceitful, indicated by lying repeatedly, using aliases, or conning others for personal gain or pleasure

Acting impulsively or not planning ahead

Being easily provoked or aggressive, indicated by constantly getting into physical fights or assaulting others

Recklessly disregarding their safety or the safety of others

Consistently acting irresponsibly, indicated by quitting a job with no plans for another one or not paying bills

Not feeling remorse, indicated by indifference to or rationalization of hurting or mistreating others

2. The individual is at least age 18 years.

3. Evidence of conduct disorder typically with onset before age 15 years.

4. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

So let's look at the boys, shall we?

This isn't meant to be a professional diagnosis, I just want to show how similar Tom and Dumbledore are in certain ways neither of them would like to confess and for that, we'll look through the behavior patterns used to diagnose ASPD.

1. Disregarding the law, indicated by repeatedly committing acts that are grounds for arrest

With Tom, this category of behavior is easy to tick off. He murdered multiple people. He led a terrorist organization. He cast illegal dark magic, including all three unforgivables, I don't think anyone would argue Tom didn't do many illegal things.

The thing is, Dumbledore disregards the law just as much, if, in different ways.

The Order of the Phoenix that he leads is an illegal paramilitary group separate from the government that is kept a secret from law enforcement at large and the general population, as shown in the news article leading to the publication of Rita's book:

WHAT was the real purpose of the secret organization known as the Order of the Phoenix?

(DH, 24)

This organization is illegal in their world. Additionally, Dumbledore shows no care for the ministry or its laws once it suits him. (It's not necessarily a bad thing because the Ministry of Magic sucks, but still). He showed as much in all his interactions with people like Fudge and Umbridge, going as far as actually resisting arrest in OotP after the DA was discovered. (again, he is right for doing it, but it still shows a disregard for their law, which I personally consider healthy because it's the Ministry of Magic)

And then, of course, there was Dumbledore's quest for muggle domination with Grindelwald:

Your point about Wizard dominance being FOR THE MUGGLES’ OWN GOOD—this, I think is the crucial point. Yes, we have been given power and yes, that power gives up the right to rule, but it also gives us responsibilities over the ruled. We must stress this point, it will be the foundation stone upon which we build. Where we are opposed, as we surely will be, this must be the basis of all our counterarguments. We seize control FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

(DH, 309)

None of which sounds awfully legal. His intentions back then were to rule over the muggles and take control by force if they had to. Showing that even in his youth, Dumbledore didn't have much consideration for the law.

2. Being deceitful, indicated by lying repeatedly, using aliases, or conning others for personal gain or pleasure

There are many examples of Tom lying for various reasons, I picked out one of them to exibit here:

Riddle laughed his high laugh again. “It was my word against Hagrid’s, Harry. Well, you can imagine how it looked to old Armando Dippet. On the one hand, Tom Riddle, poor but brilliant, parentless but so brave, school prefect, model student . . . on the other hand, big, blundering Hagrid, in trouble every other week, trying to raise werewolf cubs under his bed

(CoS, 288)

But Tom lies a lot. Both at school, at the orphanage, and about his identity. He lies to his followers often and I'd say he also lies to himself, but that's another matter. This category literally mentions using an alias and that is one of the things Tom (or, well, Voldemort) is well known for.

As for Dumbledore, he lies and conceals just as much. Abeforth said he was always this way:

“I can’t leave,” said Harry. “I’ve got a job—” “Give it to someone else!” “I can’t. It’s got to be me, Dumbledore explained it all—” “Oh, did he now? And did he tell you everything, was he honest with you?” Harry wanted with all his heart to say “Yes,” but somehow the simple word would not rise to his lips, Aberforth seemed to know what he was thinking. “I knew my brother, Potter. He learned secrecy at our mother’s knee. Secrets and lies, that’s how we grew up, and Albus. . . he was a natural.”

(DH, 477-478)

The "greater good" was all for the sake of appearances, it was a deception — a lie to make muggle domination more palatable for the general population. He lied in his position as headmaster and in his relationship with Harry:

Not telling Harry about, well, anything, and justifying it to himself by telling himself Harry would be better off not knowing, even when it isn't necessarily true.

Lying to Lockhart to get him in a dangerous position Dumbledore knew he was unfit for.

Lying about Lupin being a werewolf (this one is a lie that does have a good intention behind it, but I count it here anyway)

Lying about the petrifications in 2nd year. Dumbledore was at the school last time the Chamber opened and knew what was going on, still waited for Harry to act.

Same in 1st year. Harry himself says he's pretty sure Dumbledore always knew about Quirrell but wanted to give Harry the chance to face Voldemort.

Lying to Harry about Malfoy not being anything to worry about, even though he knows what's going on. But instead of agreeing there is concern and it is being dealt with he just tries to gaslight Harry.

I can go on, but I think the gist is clear.

3. Acting impulsively or not planning ahead

They are actually both planners when they want to be. But they can also be impulsive on occasion, if more rare for them. We'll consider this a symptom they don't have, mostly.

4. Being easily provoked or aggressive, indicated by constantly getting into physical fights or assaulting others

Now, Tom can get provoked and react aggressively, although, I won't call it easily. Tom actually avoids unnecessary bloodshed when possible:

He saw the small boy’s smile falter as he ran near enough to see beneath the hood of the cloak, saw the fear cloud his painted face. Then the child turned and ran away. . . . Beneath the robe be fingered the hand of his wand. . . One simple movement and the child would never reach his mother. . . but unnecessary, quite unnecessary. . . .

(DH, 295)

I mean, he wouldn't have been prefect and head boy if he constantly got into fights. So I feel safe in saying Tom didn't get into fights often and much of the behavior we see towards his followers is fueled by both general frustration and his feeling they deserve this punishment. These punishments are planned, they aren't often impulsive and in the moment of rage (and when they are, it's only when Harry Potter is involved).

Dumbledore is quite the same. He is capable of getting angry when provoked, but avoids violence he doesn't see as necessary.

We'll consider this a symptom they don't have.

5. Recklessly disregarding their safety or the safety of others

So many times... for both of them...

For Tom:

He clearly doesn't care about most of his Death Eaters, he wouldn't mind if they died and he endangered them often.

He also endagers himself just as much, if not more; by mutilating himself to create Horcruxes.

And by charging into battle himself often.

For Dumbledore:

Dumbledore endangers the Order's safety repeatedly. Yes, they made the decision to join, but he is still the one sending Hagrid to negotiate with the giants and Remus to talk to the werewolves. He is still the one who sends them towards danger and is willing to risk them.

Dumbledore endangers Snape, he manipulates him into the position of a spy and wilfully disregards Snape's safety.

Harry. Just everything, since he placed him on the doorstep of the Dursleys Dumbledore has willfully endangered Harry — from the abuse to setting Harry up to face the various yearly adventures every year.

Dumbledore tells Harry in HBP he takes his student's safety seriously, but he really doesn't: he knows about the Chamber, but still waits for Harry to resolve it, even when students are getting petrified. He knew Malfoy was planning something in HBP, but allowed him to continue with his ploys that sent Katie Bell to St. Mongos for months. There are more, but I think you get the gist.

Dumbledore also endangers himself quite carelessly from how he picked up the ring, his willingness to go into battle, his drinking of the potion in the locket's cave, and his willingness to die for his own plans.

6. Consistently acting irresponsibly, indicated by quitting a job with no plans for another one or not paying bills

We actually see both of them are capable of holding jobs for a long time (Dumbledore at Hogwarts and Tom at Borgin and Burkes) and even when Tom leaves Borgin and Burkes, he has a plan for his leave.

Both show irresponsibility in other ways. Tom allows his Death Eaters to wreak havoc in the ministry in book 7 while he's off chasing the Elder Wand, Dumbledore repeatedly shows how unconcerned he is with the education of the students at Hogwarts (his actual job) by hiring people like Lockhart, who he knew to be a fraud and allowing Umbridge to be hired (he had the Order, he could've convinced the real Mad-Eye Moody to come teach, or even Tonks, but no, he needed to teach Harry a lesson about the ministry so he allowed Umbridge into the school).

7. Not feeling remorse, indicated by indifference to or rationalization of hurting or mistreating others

Well, not feeling remorse is kind of a big part of Tom's character, isn't it:

“It’s your one last chance,” said Harry, “it’s all you’ve got left. . . . I’ve seen what you’ll be otherwise. . . . Be a man . . . try . . . Try for some remorse. . . .” “You dare—?” said Voldemort again.

(DH, 625)

That he isn't sorry for what he did at any point to anyone. Yes, he shows affection to Nagini and Bellatrix, but he takes occasional joy in emberessing Bellatrix.

He truly isn't sorry because he doesn't care. He is indifferent to the suffering of most.

The thing is, Dumbledore is the same.

He shows complete cold disregard for Lockhart's situation after his loss of memories, rationalizing it as "deserved".

As I mentioned, he doesn't care when Katie gets cursed by the necklace or when students get petrified in 2nd year. He allows it to happen because it isn't happening to anyone important.

Dumbledore is hellbent on killing Tom, on utterly destroying him, this is weird for a person who supposedly believes in second chances, especially a person who let Gallert Grindlewald live. Grindelwald had a much higher death count than Voldemort. He killed and hurt way more people, but Dumbledore likes him, so he rationalizes killing Tom, but not Gallert.

He disregards Harry's pain and hurt over Sirius's death:

“Oh yes, you do,” said Dumbledore, still more calmly. “You have now lost your mother, your father, and the closest thing to a parent you have ever known. Of course you care.” “YOU DON’T KNOW HOW I FEEL!” Harry roared. “YOU — STANDING THERE — YOU —”

(OotP, 824)

He speaks calmly and coldly throughout the whole exchange, just waiting for Harry to calm down enough so he can tell him about the prophecy. Dumbledore doesn't empathize with Harry's pain.

He disregards Harry's abuse:

“Five years ago, then,” continued Dumbledore, as though he had not paused in his story, “you arrived at Hogwarts, neither as happy nor as well nourished as I would have liked, perhaps, yet alive and healthy. You were not a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances. Thus far, my plan was working well.

(OotP, 837)

He says he knew Harry to be mistreated (and starved!) since 1st year, but he does nothing until 6th year when he needs Harry. No, instead he rationalizes Harry's abuse, it's necessary for the plan, so Harry won't be spoiled, it's for the greater good.

And, of course, he raised Harry like a "pig to slaughter":

“We have protected him because it has been essential to teach him, to raise him, to let him try his strength,” said Dumbledore, his eyes still tight shut. “Meanwhile, the connection between them grows ever stronger, a parasitic growth. Sometimes I have thought he suspects it himself. If I know him, he will have arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort.” Dumbledore opened his eyes. Snape looked horrified. “You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?” “Don’t be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched die?” “Lately, only those whom I could not save,” said Snape. He stood up. “You have used me.” “Meaning?” “I have spied for you and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter’s son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter—” “But this is touching, Severus,” said Dumbledore seriously. “Have you grown to care for the boy, after all?” “For him?” shouted Snape. “Expecto Patronum!”

(DH, 580)

I think it's telling how Severus Snape, who despises the concept of Harry, reacts more sympatheticly and emotionally to Harry's death than Dumbledore. Dumbledore is cold and uncaring, he just calls Snape out for caring as if Snape is in the wrong for reacting the way any human would. Because Dumbledore is cold enough to rationalize any sacrifice he considers necessary.

The last quote was also about how Dumbledore used Severus. He manipulated Snape into oaths and bonds to spy for him and protect Harry. Twisted Snape's guilt to get some use out of him. And for Dumbledore, it was justified, it was for the greater good.

Results

So, Tom got 5/7 for ASPD symptoms, and Dumbledore got 5/7. And you only need 3 for a diagnosis, so, yeah...

What I wanted to talk about and get to with all of this is Tom and Dumbledore's similarities that both of them hate to see. Their despise for each other is partly fueled by it, I think. They look at each other and see some of their own traits mirrored back, but arranged all wrong.

Dumbledore sees the worst version of himself in Tom Riddle and Tom sees their similarities and Dumbledore's hypocrisy to those similarities and hates him for that.

They were both the most brilliant wizards of their respective generations, top students at Hogwarts, when they graduated, Dumbledore planned to go on a tour of the world to study magic abroad like Tom did. They both received offers for ministry positions, which they both declined because they wanted to be professors at Hogwarts. They both lead paramilitary organizations (Death Eaters and the Order of the Phoenix) and they are both willing to make sacrifices in the quest for their goals.

Tom is willing to kill and tear himself up to create Horcruxes because it's necessary in his eyes:

Beneath the robe be fingered the hand of his wand. . . One simple movement and the child would never reach his mother. . . but unnecessary, quite unnecessary. . . .

(DH, 295)

Dumbledore is willing to sacrifice Harry and himself in the quest for the "greater good":

We seize control FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

(DH, 309)

I just find the fact that both of them show psychopathic traits in equal measure in similar ways super interesting. This distorted mirror is so fascinating, especially because the respective characters would despise being compared to each other.

153 notes · View notes

nordicwitchcraft · 11 months ago

Text

I hadn't noticed this until very recently, but Dumbledore and WICKED are very similar characters (ik WICKED isn't exactly a character but oh well). The reason why they're perceived to differently is purely due to the different ways that they're framed. (I'll be keeping solely to book canon, especially with TMR because I'm much more familiar with it and can analyse it much better)

But first, why they're so similar. Both their main beliefs lie in the fact that the ends justify the means. They are willing to get their hands dirty for "the greater good" and not feel any remorse for it. Let's briefly recap what that means for each of them:

Dumbledore - He knowingly sent Harry into an abusive home, and then played hero by taking him out of it. He does it under the pretense of "protecting" him, and them being the only relative he has left, but there are several people who would be happy to raise Harry (beyond people simply interested in his fame) and as for protecting him, the Fidelius Charm could work. Besides, Voldemort was dormant. The real purpose is to isolate him, to make him see Dumbledore as perfect, as his saviour, so he will blindly follow his instructions and will eventually sacrifice himself when Dumbledore needs him to.

This is all done "for the greater good", so Dumbledore can eventually defeat Voldemort. If Harry doesn't sacrifice himself, the last horcrux will never be destroyed and Voldemort will continue in his immortality.

WICKED - This one is a bit more obvious, since it's basically the main plot. WICKED tortures teenagers since they're young children, taking them when they're as young as possible. They ignore the parents' wishes, and if they pose too much of a problem, they kill them. They make the children believe they've saved them from the outside world (which is, in a way true) to avoid their escapes. They plant chips inside their brains to monitor their brain activity in response to different Variables. They erase their entire memories and put them in a Maze without any explanation, surrounded by deadly monsters. There were around 60 Gladers when Thomas arrived. 21 escaped alive, and that's before the Scorch. They controlled these teenagers through these chips to make them kill (Gally) and attack (Thomas) each other.

This is all done "for the greater good", so they can find the cure to the Flare. Almost all of the teenagers are Immune to the disease, and if they don't find what differs between them and the control subjects, the Flare will never be defeated.

Now that I've spent far too many lines ranting about these two, let's get into why they're different.

Order of events

Dumbledore - We don't find out what Dumbledore's true intentions were until very late in the series (I think it's in the Deathly Hallows when Harry temporarily dies, but I'm not entirely sure), and until then he's posed as the pure hero. He saves Harry from his life from the Dursleys (never mind that he put him there, he must have been oblivious), and consistently takes his side through all his problems. When he finally explains himself, while it is a betrayal, it feels easier to forgive him because of the positive prejudice the reader feels towards him, since he's "been on our side" since the beginning.

WICKED - Since the beginning, the characters feel resentment towards "the Creators". They don't know anything about them, but all they know is someone put them there, and two years are a fine amount of time to start hating someone. When they escape, and more or less cooperate with WICKED (they do what Janson asks), it's under blackmail (whoever stays behind will have a painful death) and bribery (the cure is at the end). None of the characters (save for Teresa, but she's a whole other topic to unpack, and isn't that much of a main character to most people, preferring to focus on the Ivy Trio) ever see WICKED as their heroes, or as being in the right. There's a bit of Thomas, but it's clearly explained as him being brainwashed into believing what they tell him, and he does eventually betray them.

2. Ideology

Dumbledore - All the "good" characters agree with Dumbledore's ends. They might not agree with the means, but they all agree Voldemort must be defeated.

WICKED - No one agrees with WICKED's ideology. They don't want to find a cure because they've given up on it (idk whether the "there is no cure" is from the book or the movie, but I'm pretty sure it's from the book and it ilustrates my point fairly well). They just want to live a relatively peaceful life.

3. Giving in

Dumbledore - When Harry gives in to what Dumbledore thinks is destined for him (a.k.a. death), it is essentially of his own accord. He doesn't think there's any other solution, and is volunarily offering himself up to be sacrificed. He believes that it will work, because he believes in the cause and has seen Dumbledore's logic. He may not like it, but he more or less agrees.

WICKED - When Thomas gives in to what WICKED thinks is destined for him (a.k.a. sacrificing his brain to science), he does it to plant a bomb in WICKED (if I remember correctly. I read the books in August, sorry for any mistakes. Maybe it was a listening device. He has to plan somthing, okay?), and help the Right Arm in taking it down. He doesn't agree with what they're doing, and doesn't think it'll work. In fact, he walks into the facility without knowing he's expected to give up his brain.

4. Efficiency

Simply put, Dumbledore's plan works and WICKED's doesn't. Voldemort dies, but the cure isn't found. The means can be seen as more justifiable when the ends are achieved. When it's in vain, there's very little argument in favour to be made.

5. Conclusion

So, while WICKED and Dumbledore essentially had the same morals, the way they were portrayed and seen by the reader ultimately changed whether they ended up being remembered as a hero or as a villain.

7 notes · View notes