Support NeoGAF

[Zaptruder]

It seems that you didn't really think this entire plan through, and hence you are suggesting extreme measures which won't fly in reality, because you can't think of anything better. That is the downfall of all systems which are intended for good purposes but not thought through in the long term.

If society now does not have the tools to deal with a problem properly, the solution is certainly not to deal with the problem improperly.

Yeah, I guess we could train everyone to be aware of and guarded against psychopaths.

Personally, I think that would introduce another set of considerable issues - particularly with the over-identification and potential abuse that you guys are worried about.

I mean... is having special institutions where staff and outcomes are tailored to dealing with psychopathy an extreme measure?

I mean, ignoring the school/education angle for now... do you think it's a bad idea to have a justice system that is able to appropriately identify and striate psychopathic criminals from normal criminals? If only so that these guys aren't able to apply their superficial glib charm to parole boards that aren't suited for coping with them, to reduce their prison sentences that they, more than any other criminal type need?

If we accept that, maybe that's actually an effective thing to do... why is it so much worse to have institutions that are designed to cope with them before they enter prison?

Anyway, this is going to have to be my last post of the day. It's getting late for me. Probably you too.

With so little research, we couldn't even make an educational system to address these children even if we were to take this stance. I don't think isolation is going to be effective, even if such a situation were to occur. Integration of the child with her peers, I feel, would be more successful than removing them altogether. They need to learn how to interact in a proper behaviour with those around them and I don't see how you can do that if you squirrel them away. Ultimately, psychopathy is a socializing disorder and I don't know how you would address that without the social interactions.

I guess that's the primary point of contention between the Hare view of psychopathy and other more traditional views.

Having some (not professional level) understanding of the cognitive neuroscience of the brain and emotions... I would be inclined to agree with Hare.

That the emotional part of the brain... the limbic system... can be malformed like many other parts of human physiology (my personal take is that the brain is unable to (or deficient at) making two way connections between the neural cortex and the limbic system - resulting in a lack of complex interplay and development between cognition and emotion)... and that the consequences result in the behaviourial malformation characterized as psychopathy.

That problematically, this deficit affects their ability to be socialized in the normal manner, and that their intelligence is able to cope with the deficiency by becoming keen observers of the minutiae of social interaction, allowing them to manipulate it. That because of this, they cannot be properly helped as you would help other people that express problematic behaviours that aren't psychopathic.

 

[CornBurrito]

Back before psychoanalysis, they were just considered conniving or evil.

Modern psychology has discarded psychoanalysis in pretty much all of the rigorous areas (cognitive/behavioral) by the way.

 

[shadyspace]

What exactly is the difference between an alpha male and a sociopath? These people are useful.

 

[CornBurrito]

What exactly is the difference between an alpha male and a sociopath? These people are useful.

Please explain.

How are they useful in this modern day and age?

 

[Plumbob]

As far as I know psychopathy isn't a medically recognized disease. At least there is no DSM characterization for it.

"The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders incorporated various concepts of psychopathy/sociopathy/antisocial personality in early versions but, starting with the DSM-III in 1980, used instead the term Antisocial Personality Disorder and focused on earlier behavior instead of using personality judgements."

-wiki

 

[faceless007]

I've been meaning to read this book: Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, has anyone else?

I find the very idea of people like these terrifying, more terrifying than people who commit overtly evil and violent acts.

 

[Lucario]

This thread makes me incredibly nervous.

I've always shown multiple symptoms of psychopathy, and this thread is just giving me more and more >.> The only difference is, I have absurdly strong empathy towards literally every other human being. I'm always the first in a room to know if someone's emotionally or physically hurt, even if I despise the person.

So....

The fuck? If I have every symptom for psychopathy but my friends know me as the most empathetic person they've ever met, what the hell am I?

 

[ChubbyHuggs]

I mean... is having special institutions where staff and outcomes are tailored to dealing with psychopathy an extreme measure?

If we accept that, maybe that's actually an effective thing to do... why is it so much worse to have institutions that are designed to cope with them before they enter prison?

I don't think you gave to much thought into this at all. First of all, you're taking in all these psychopaths and putting them together. You're giving them highly trained individuals as their first subjects. These people are teaching them to cope with their problems and showing them how to behave in the real world. If they could convince someone trained to think they're fit for society, then normal people wouldn't stand a chance of ever finding out the real them.

Since they start at a young age, they already know something must be different about them. So they'll adhere to what's expected. But the bigger issue is that this serves as a breeding ground. Bonds are made faster and easily in younger children, so the likelihood that they'd pair up with someone is pretty high. Find other kids that share the same interest, hobbies or maybe they'll just find someone weaker that they like and want to keep around.

So now you have a group of high trained psychopaths, who have the tools to deal with normal people, who may or may not have found that someone they want to keep around to help them later on in whatever endeavor they choose.

 

[Tomat]

This thread makes me incredibly nervous.

I've always shown multiple symptoms of psychopathy, and this thread is just giving me more and more >.> The only difference is, I have absurdly strong empathy towards literally every other human being. I'm always the first in a room to know if someone's emotionally or physically hurt, even if I despise the person.

So....

The fuck? If I have every symptom for psychopathy but my friends know me as the most empathetic person they've ever met, what the hell am I?

I'm willing to bet that a lot of people do. Based on the OP I might be a psychopath because I like to push people's buttons IRL.

At the same time, I generally know when to stop, and I do feel bad about it if I go too far.

My point is, I'm sure every single GAFer could come in here and find something about themselves that would fit a symptom of being a psychopath.

 

[Seraphinianus]

Please explain.

How are they useful in this modern day and age?

because each person is a blend of characteristics and the right blend of motivation to succeed and emotional detachment can yield a high achiever. Depends on what they contribute to.

which is why it's a bad idea to preemptively label people as one thing or the other. It just highlights that personality trait and keeps it on their mind. Not to mention the stigma that would come with telling someone you were found to have psychopathic/sociopathic traits. All that would do is put most of the people labeled at a disadvantage in life with the side effect of maybe preventing a couple psychotic episodes.

no matter what way you slice it, the mental health community shouldn't get to administer anything in a positivist, preemptive way like that. It'll just further stratify society and oppress those who have to live with being told they have an existing condition, which hasn't caused them to do anything bad yet, but might make them a homicidal maniac later.

 

[Karl2177]

I find it ironic that you're proposing solutions to a certain group of people to get a desired outcome, similar to how you say psycho/sociopaths do in the OP.

The reason is - psychopaths view other human beings not as we view human beings... but as complex machines. Give them a certain input, and we'll get a certain output. It's strangely dehumanizing thinking about people that way... act a certain way, and we'll most likely act a certain way in return. Yet it's an effective and upon consideration a very true rule of thumb and describes human behaviour.

 

[BeesEight]

I guess that's the primary point of contention between the Hare view of psychopathy and other more traditional views.

Having some (not professional level) understanding of the cognitive neuroscience of the brain and emotions... I would be inclined to agree with Hare.

That the emotional part of the brain... the limbic system... can be malformed like many other parts of human physiology (my personal take is that the brain is unable to (or deficient at) making two way connections between the neural cortex and the limbic system - resulting in a lack of complex interplay and development between cognition and emotion)... and that the consequences result in the behaviourial malformation characterized as psychopathy.

That problematically, this deficit affects their ability to be socialized in the normal manner, and that their intelligence is able to cope with the deficiency by becoming keen observers of the minutiae of social interaction, allowing them to manipulate it. That because of this, they cannot be properly helped as you would help other people that express problematic behaviours that aren't psychopathic.

But you're trying to extrapolate this to children who aren't going to have the developed physiology you are seeing in these adults in the first place.

You can't actually be diagnosed as a psychopath without being 18 (could be 16) or older for precisely this reason. There's another classification for people under the age limit that escapes me currently. But most of the behaviours for that classification are things like "disobeys authority, truancy etc..." which are mostly conformity issues. You're proposing a system that is meant to address an issue by dealing with an element we don't fully understand the connection between.

I'm hesitant to draw conclusions from correlational studies of neuroscience. The brain is a wholly misunderstood organ and finding some shared characteristics in a highly restrictive sample pool can have some grossly inaccurate solutions. I'm reminded of the studies of homosexual brains and the finding that the midsagittal area resembled that of a female's than a males. These are complex issues that aren't going to be answered by just finding a size difference in brain areas.

Though, let me make it clear, there are going to be physiological differences between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. That much is clear. What the causes of these differences are and what they mean for the disorder, however, are things we don't understand yet and should be careful about drawing conclusions.

This thread makes me incredibly nervous.

I've always shown multiple symptoms of psychopathy, and this thread is just giving me more and more >.> The only difference is, I have absurdly strong empathy towards literally every other human being. I'm always the first in a room to know if someone's emotionally or physically hurt, even if I despise the person.

So....

The fuck? If I have every symptom for psychopathy but my friends know me as the most empathetic person they've ever met, what the hell am I?

A human being?

If you are highly empathetic then you do not meet a large number of conditions for the classification. Unless... do you commit a lot of different types of crimes? Is there something you would like to tell us Lucario?

 

[empty vessel]

The construct of psychopathy/ASPD is highly controversial and has been thoroughly abused in the American criminal justice system. Hare, in particular, shares some of the blame for that, as his checklist has become a kind of a lazy-psychiatrist's substitute for actual work that has resulted in the extreme over-diagnosis of psychopathy. This has had a real impact on people, as people (usually black) get incarcerated longer or even sentenced to death based on hack science.

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/26/136619689/can-a-test-really-tell-whos-a-psychopath

Although I have sometimes referred to white collar professionals as sociopaths, I can't say I buy into the psycopathy/ASPD construct. I have yet to see a diagnosis of ASPD that was legit, anyway.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

This thread makes me incredibly nervous.

I've always shown multiple symptoms of psychopathy, and this thread is just giving me more and more >.> The only difference is, I have absurdly strong empathy towards literally every other human being. I'm always the first in a room to know if someone's emotionally or physically hurt, even if I despise the person.

So....

The fuck? If I have every symptom for psychopathy but my friends know me as the most empathetic person they've ever met, what the hell am I?

You're perfectly normal.
We all display these tendencies, we are all antisocial/autistic/ADHD/manic/bipolar in a way - it's just when it is causing problems for oneself and others that we call it that particular disorder.

Generally speaking.

 

[BeesEight]

Although I have sometimes referred to white collar professionals as sociopaths, I can't say I buy into the psycopathy/ASPD construct. I have yet to see a diagnosis of ASPD that was legit, anyway.

I don't know, I'd say the serial killers diagnosed seem to suggest a strong presence of a mental disorder.

 

[Karsticles]

Modern psychology has discarded psychoanalysis in pretty much all of the rigorous areas (cognitive/behavioral) by the way.

It has discarded psychoanalysis, but that does not mean psychoanalysis is wrong. It's just no longer fashionable, primarily for social reasons. Psychoanalysis, unlike behavioral and cognitive psychology, is not a science, it's a techne (craft or art, like blacksmithing). Psychoanalysis has suffered from becoming too popular, like most things that become too popular. Mostly, though, Americans are just too lazy to care about self-understanding. We'd much rather pop a pill in our mouths and be happy.

If you're at all interested in learning about psychoanalysis from someone who actually practices and understands it, check out Jonathan Lear's Freud. He's a professor of mine, and provides an excellent argument for why psychoanalysis ought to be taken seriously without disparaging cognitive and behavioral psychology.

I find it ironic that you're proposing solutions to a certain group of people to get a desired outcome, similar to how you say psycho/sociopaths do in the OP.

BAM! No shit, right? I'm unconvinced that psychopaths are something to be done away with. "More deleterious than average to society" just doesn't sell me, and a lack of human empathy sure as hell doesn't, since I largely lack empathy myself. Someone might say that I have psychopathic traits, since I look at people as machines to be manipulated in certain ways, and I am constantly making lists in my head of what actions I perform that can make people respond in certain ways. It took me over 20 years to accept that how other people feel about things should even be taken into account. Regardless, I'm always skeptical of herd animal arguments. Especially when they are made by field specialists.

Check out Foucault's Madness and Civilization if you're interested in another way of looking at psychopaths.

 

[Vermillion]

Trying to stop crimes before they happen? That doesn't usually work out.

On one end, treating/grouping sociopaths differently could be emotionally damaging - but they don't feel, so what do they care? On the other hand, isn't this exactly what we have emotions for? So we don't do things like this?

As we've already established, many people exhibit psychopathic/sociopathic traits. If that's true, then what's the point, honestly? There will still be assholes, there will still be people who commit insane crimes, there will still be people that hurt others without even blinking. So we keep the sociopaths away on the basis that they might do evil, while leaving the "normal" people to do their own crimes?

Furthermore, you drastically underestimate the consequences of over-diagnosis. Let's say it works out the way that you're thinking - people go and test their kids (which really shouldn't happen based on the nature of psychological diagnosis anyways) and the doctor says "Nope, kid's fine." Alright, that's where it ends? Nope. Now the kid has been labelled as a possible psychopath or criminal that worries its parents. Now the parents don't just stop worrying either - many times they'll still wonder, still go back to test again. The kid thinks, or knows they're not normal now, and not being sociopathic, they feel.

They feel a disconnect from their parents that may push them to do things we consider "wrong," and... well, story writes itself from there.

 

[Karsticles]

Furthermore, you drastically underestimate the consequences of over-diagnosis. Let's say it works out the way that you're thinking - people go and test their kids (which really shouldn't happen based on the nature of psychological diagnosis anyways) and the doctor says "Nope, kid's fine." Alright, that's where it ends? Nope. Now the kid has been labelled as a possible psychopath or criminal that worries its parents. Now the parents don't just stop worrying either - many times they'll still wonder, still go back to test again. The kid thinks, or knows they're not normal now, and not being sociopathic, they feel.

Well said. My brother-in-law has gone to a therapist his whole post-pubescent life for emotional dysfunction, and as a result he has become awfully convinced that there's something wrong with him. Something worth hating. It reminds me a bit of the psychoanalysis case of a man, Mr. A.

Mr. A was a stand-up guy in his early 30s. He was a successful lawyer, an activist in feminism, and was in a loving relationship with a girlfriend, with whom he had a child. Mr. A would also only have intercourse with his girlfriend if she stayed on top. Why? At some point in his life, he came to feel as though the normal, aggressive desires any healthy man experiences were a kind of "dark side" to him. He felt like having intercourse with his girlfriend in a non-female-dominant position was a mean thing to do to her. It's also why he was an active feminist, it was a sort of apology to the world for these aggressive feelings he sometimes had. He was constantly worried that if he allowed any kind of expression of his aggression, it would overtake him and cause him to do horrible, violent things.

Mr. A went into psychoanalysis with a goal: to help rid him of his aggressive desires. Psychoanalysis did the opposite though, it made him healthy by helping him accept his aggressive desires and incorporate those tendencies into his life. By his own account, his therapy allowed him to marry his girlfriend and buy a house with her, and he ended up acquiring a promotion or two in his law firm.

To me, that's the difference between the good that psychoanalysis can offer, and the punitive ideas that seek to categorize and mentally castrate "deviants" from the norm. The goal in any healthy society should be incorporation, just like the goal in any healthy human being is incorporation. Your instincts never waver, and society will never not have to deal with psychopaths. An attempt to separate, categorize, and "cure" them is missing the point.

 

[CornBurrito]

It has discarded psychoanalysis, but that does not mean psychoanalysis is wrong. It's just no longer fashionable, primarily for social reasons. Psychoanalysis, unlike behavioral and cognitive psychology, is not a science, it's a techne (craft or art, like blacksmithing). Psychoanalysis has suffered from becoming too popular, like most things that become too popular. Mostly, though, Americans are just too lazy to care about self-understanding. We'd much rather pop a pill in our mouths and be happy.

No. It isn't unpopular because of social reasons.

Psychology is the scientific study of the mind. Psychoanalysis is unscientific as fuck.

Psychoanalysis should be to Psychologists as Astrology is to Astronomists.

Also I hate calling you a liar, but Mr. A may not be real. If he is, your interpretation of his behavior is not necessarily correct.

 

[empty vessel]

I don't know, I'd say the serial killers diagnosed seem to suggest a strong presence of a mental disorder.

Well, when I said "I had yet to see," I was speaking literally, as in my line of work (I work in the criminal justice system). I have yet to see an appropriate diagnosis of ASPD/psychopathy and these diagnoses are present in just about every case. The overdiagnosis is rampant because the diagnosis is easy, the psychiatric/psychological field is largely incompetent, and the diagnosis serves the interests of the system.

Second, I am not denying the existence of mental illness (far from it). I am saying I am skeptical of the very specific construct of antisocial personality disorder and/or psychopathy (and personality disorders more generally). Which isn't to say that I think it is not possible to classify people according to clusters of personality attributes observed in them, just that I'm not sure that it matters so much that we do and may cause more problems than it solves (not the least of which is the sloppiness with which these diagnoses are often slapped on people). I am not sure that identifying somebody as having, e.g., a histrionic personality disorder, really accomplishes anything for society or the individual.

Note there is a big difference between Axis II personality disorders (e.g., antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, etc.) and Axis I clinical disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc.).

 

[genjiZERO]

What exactly is the difference between an alpha male and a sociopath? These people are useful.

There is no such thing as an alpha male in humans. Alpha/Beta/Omegas is a concept of pack animals who have breed ranks. We have a much more complex social dynamic. Humans have roles not ranks. There was another tread about this the other day. I don't personally know of any ethological (the biological science of behavior) studies that looks at human social dynamics, but I would guess it's likely similar to Myers-Briggs personality types.

"The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders incorporated various concepts of psychopathy/sociopathy/antisocial personality in early versions but, starting with the DSM-III in 1980, used instead the term Antisocial Personality Disorder and focused on earlier behavior instead of using personality judgements."

-wiki

Right, but psychopathy and ASPD aren't quite the same thing as defined by this book. If I'm wrong - if he's saying psychopathy and ASPD are the same thing then that's fine. But he should use that term - not psychopathy - because it's the medically accepted term. Using "psychopathy" seems to me to be pop-psychological and pseudo-scientific.

 

[Karsticles]

No. It isn't unpopular because of social reasons.

Psychology is the scientific study of the mind. Psychoanalysis is unscientific as fuck.

Psychoanalysis should be to Psychologists as Astrology is to Astronomists.

I already said psychoanalysis is a techne - did you actually read my post? It's unclear what you mean by "scientific". If by "scientific" you mean "empirical", then psychoanalysis certainly has a scientific aspect to it. If by "scientific" you mean "quantifiable", then you are correct that psychoanalysis has no measure of science in it, and that is certainly one of its virtues. The real astrology to psychology these days is medicinal psychiatry, not psychoanalysis.

Also I hate calling you a liar, but Mr. A may not be real. If he is, your interpretation of his behavior is not necessarily correct.

I have met Mr. A's therapist. I have read a transcript of one of his therapy sessions. Certainly, this could all be a conspiracy, but it would have to be an elaborate one. The interpretation, by the very nature of being an interpretation, cannot be "necessarily" correct. It is however the interpretation Mr. A came to accept of himself through himself (i.e. he came to it on his own), an interpretation which he was very grateful to have come to, and which lead him to a much healthier life.

No need to respond. It seems that you just read some book that you think is really special, and this thread is more about preaching what you just read than understanding anything about psychology. I won't bother to continue to argue against the "expert opinions" that are so dear to you.

There is no such thing as an alpha male in humans. Alpha/Beta/Omegas is a concept of pack animals who have breed ranks. We have a much more complex social dynamic. Humans have roles not ranks. There was another tread about this the other day. I don't personally know of any ethological (the biological science of behavior) studies that looks at human social dynamics, but I would guess it's likely similar to Myers-Briggs personality types.

As long as your concept of "role" also incorporates the idea of rank (i.e. you are incorporating rank in a more subtle fashion), then I agree with you.

 

[Truth101]

OP, I think you would like a world like is displayed in Minority Report.

Stop people before they commit a crime, ruling out the ability people have called choice. What you are suggesting would take choice away from people just because they are how they are.What is to stop similar sanctions being implemented on kleptomaniacs, or vast array of other "problems" people are born with.

Thinking like this disgusts me. People that think of things like this to me are worse than those who they feel should be "guided" through their lives. Because people are born with the innate ability to choose, yes or no, do or don't.

I hate people that think problems can be solved by trampling on choice; because without the ability to choose you might as well be enslaved.

 

[CornBurrito]

The real astrology to psychology these days is medicinal psychiatry, not psychoanalysis.

You mean the thing that actually has double-blind studies backing its effectiveness? I guess empirical evidence is overrated.

 

[genjiZERO]

As long as your concept of "role" also incorporates the idea of rank (i.e. you are incorporating rank in a more subtle fashion), then I agree with you.

I'm not saying H. sapiens is without rank, but that it far less important than in other animals. In social hierarchies rank refers to breeding rights. The alpha always gets first choice, followed by betas and then omegas. But we don't have that. We have competition for breeding, not breeding based on group status.

 

[Karsticles]

You mean the thing that actually has double-blind studies backing its effectiveness? I guess empirical evidence is overrated.

As I said before, I won't argue against you further. If you have an interest above the dogmatic status quo, I've recommended two books that you might find useful, and I'll recommend a third:
Thomas Szasz's The Myth of Mental Illness

He's a psychiatrist, by the way. There are two very clear criticisms of medicinal psychiatry as a science that should be apparent to anyone who takes the label "science" seriously, as I do.

I'm not saying H. sapiens is without rank, but that it far less important than in other animals. In social hierarchies rank refers to breeding rights. The alpha always gets first choice, followed by betas and then omegas. But we don't have that. We have competition for breeding, not breeding based on group status.

I don't think we're on entirely different pages then, but I'd like to know how you view these situations within your schema:
1) A human society runs on the harem model, and it's a monarchy. Thus, the king has a lot of women, his trusted members with rank have a many women, but not as many, and then the rest of society kind of has to get what it can get. Of course, the women of the various harems often sneak off and have intercourse with men other than those they are assigned with.

2) A gorilla group has a male that dominates the group sexually, but other members will often sneak off and have intercourse.

3) As with the gorilla group, but with dogs or another pack animal.

 

[empty vessel]

You mean the thing that actually has double-blind studies backing its effectiveness? I guess empirical evidence is overrated.

To be fair, there is a lot of current criticism over drug studies.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/illusions-of-psychiatry/

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

OP, I think you would like a world like is displayed in Minority Report.

Stop people before they commit a crime, ruling out the ability people have called choice.

I think an even better example would be A Clockwork Orange.


At any rate, the idea that people need to be screened for psychopathy to ensure that they are withheld from top-ranking positions in business or finance almost seems to ride solely on the negative connotation of the word psycopath. Strictly speaking, they have the traits necessary to perform their jobs with high efficiency and their particular cognitive balance that gives them those strengths should not be treated as a disorder if it never manifests itself as one. A person that can think without regard to their own emotion or others' is not a criminal.

This discussion reminds me of the kid who can draw entire cityscapes from memory after flying over a city in a short helicopter ride. Technically, he is able to do this because he "suffers" from a mental disorder. Under the OP's line of thinking, his incredible talent should be squashed because that's just not how a person's brain is supposed to function and as such it needs to be returned to normalcy.

 

[Slayven]

This sounds incredibly dangerous. I'm not sure I can ever support any sort of movement to isolate a group of people and turn society against them without any sort of definite proof of wrongdoing or without them voluntary seeking help.

This sounds like the X-Men argument where mutants should be registered, tracked, and identified clearly because WE MUST KNOW WHO THEY ARE, AND ABOVE ALL WHAT THEY CAN DO! :/

 

[Barbacoatl]

Lol at some of the ideas in this thread. The future might be murder afterall.

 

[Karsticles]

To be fair, there is a lot of current criticism over drug studies.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/illusions-of-psychiatry/

I'm reading these now, and I'm glad that the first and all-too-obvious but often overlooked criticism of medicinal psychiatry is mentioned in the first article:

That was a great leap in logic, as all three authors point out. It was entirely possible that drugs that affected neurotransmitter levels could relieve symptoms even if neurotransmitters had nothing to do with the illness in the first place (and even possible that they relieved symptoms through some other mode of action entirely). As Carlat puts it, “By this same logic one could argue that the cause of all pain conditions is a deficiency of opiates, since narcotic pain medications activate opiate receptors in the brain.” Or similarly, one could argue that fevers are caused by too little aspirin.

If the second is contained, then you'll have made my day.

 

[Insertia]

We live in a western society that holds an ideology from the Greco-Roman era. (the people who built this great society were not by any means 'normal')

Barbians used to be a threat as well...then they got pissed off at the way the 'world' viewed them, adopted a superiority complex, and became Nazis.

A rise in 'psychopaths' is a failure of each induvidual in a society.

 

[genjiZERO]

I don't think we're on entirely different pages then, but I'd like to know how you view these situations within your schema:

1) A human society runs on the harem model, and it's a monarchy. Thus, the king has a lot of women, his trusted members with rank have a many women, but not as many, and then the rest of society kind of has to get what it can get. Of course, the women of the various harems often sneak off and have intercourse with men other than those they are assigned with.

2) A gorilla group has a male that dominates the group sexually, but other members will often sneak off and have intercourse.

3) As with the gorilla group, but with dogs or another pack animal.

1) humans don't have harem models. Harem models are seen in animals that are sexually dimorphic (several baboon sepecies for example). Sexual dimorphism has a specific definition meaning: one sex is considerably larger than the other. Humans aren't sexually dimorphic because males and females are approximately the same size (fur seals are sexually dimorphic as an example). Also, in a harem system males compete with each other and choose females to mate with (intrasexual selection). But in humans it's the other way around - females choose males (intersexual selection). This is also consistent with not being sexually dimorphic as mammals that are not sexually dimorphic tend to also have female sexual choice (interestingly they also see to be more likely to have active paternal rearing - also seen in humans).

Of course we have "harems" in human society, but they are not harems in the zoological sense. They also don't fit the model because the women in the king's harem are just a subset of the women in the population. The poor man still has a wife. In animals that have harem systems all of the females are in one harem or another.

2) As far as I know gorillas are pack animals. The pack consisting of family members. They are also sexually dimorphic. There is definitely opportunistic sex, but that sort of thing happens even with animals that are "monogamous".

3) Dogs/wolves are the same as above. Although I don't think they are sexually dimorphic.

 

[Vanillalite]

Subject has in general come up in my world as of late because my GF who's currently in nursing school starts her Psych rotation tomorrow. Stuff is interesting to me even if I'm not quite sure what to make of it all.

 

[Karsticles]

1) humans don't have harem models. Harem models are seen in animals that are sexually dimorphic (several baboon sepecies for example). Sexual dimorphism has a specific definition meaning: one sex is considerably larger than the other. Humans aren't sexually dimorphic because males and females are approximately the same size (fur seals are sexually dimorphic as an example). Also, in a harem system males compete with each other and choose females to mate with (intrasexual selection). But in humans it's the other way around - females choose males (intersexual selection). This is also consistent with not being sexually dimorphic as mammals that are not sexually dimorphic tend to also have female sexual choice (interestingly they also see to be more likely to have active paternal rearing - also seen in humans).

Ah, then we disagree here in two ways:
1) I think human males are substantially larger than females on average.
2) Many societies have what you call the "intrasexual selection" model. I find it difficult that someone could believe human females don't compete with each other for male attention, but perhaps, if your thought were fleshed out more, this would not be a problem.

Of course we have "harems" in human society, but they are not harems in the zoological sense. They also don't fit the model because the women in the king's harem are just a subset of the women in the population. The poor man still has a wife. In animals that have harem systems all of the females are in one harem or another.

To what degree, though, is that just an expression of how large human society is? I would be astonished if, in the history of humanity, there were no instances where a male successfully laid claim to all of the females.

2) As far as I know gorillas are pack animals. The pack consisting of family members. They are also sexually dimorphic. There is definitely opportunistic sex, but that sort of thing happens even with animals that are "monogamous".

I suppose that would be my above point. If pack animals have opportunistic sense, then how does it essentially differ from the human perspective? I might to phrase it this way:

1) Gorilla alphas monopolize the females. Sometimes those females sneak off with other males and have intercourse.

2) Human males in harem societies (we're both clear, I think, that I mean this in a social sense, and not a zoological one) want to monopolize females, but concede some to other members of male society out of convenience (i.e. there's a strategic value in giving some females to other males to reduce opportunistic sex).

In these pictures, it looks like I could say that humans work a lot like gorillas do, but they simply have a better tactic to retaining the harem they have.

3) Dogs/wolves are the same as above. Although I don't think they are sexually dimorphic.

But you said that harem models are under sexually dimorphic kinds of animals, yah? Again, just trying to understand your perspective. I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion and the distinctions one might make zoologically.

Subject has in general come up in my world as of late because my GF who's currently in nursing school starts her Psych rotation tomorrow. Stuff is interesting to me even if I'm not quite sure what to make of it all.

You have to be careful with what schools teach you when it comes to these things. My wife is a veterinary nurse, and her school's nutrition class was designed by Purina. Just to pre-empt any criticism, she went to one of the best schools in the nation for this - it's something you find everywhere. An MD consists a great deal in teaching doctors which pharmaceutical drugs are appropriate for various situations, and believe me, plenty of that information comes from the companies that make those drugs. That doesn't mean it's all crap - my wife learned a lot from her nutrition class. It just means you should be suspicious of what you learn. This should always be the case, but an extra level of doubt is appropriate when a lightning rod salesman is trying to convince you how much your house could use a lightning rod.

 

[Rentahamster]

I mean... what's the other solution? As far as I can tell, you're saying, leave them alone until they break our laws?

Um. Yes.

 

[Karsticles]

To be fair, there is a lot of current criticism over drug studies.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/illusions-of-psychiatry/

Empty Vessel, I've read the second link, and I'm glad I did. Thanks for both of these. The second one brings up the second obvious criticism of psychiatry - color me pleased. It's unfortunate that psychoanalysis is described as dualistic or immaterial in nature, though - a poor reading, considering that Freud was trained in neuroscience, and the man was an avowed atheist and materialist. A small blemish overall, though.

 

[genjiZERO]

Ah, then we disagree here in two ways:
1) I think human males are substantially larger than females on average.

it's a bit late to go over everything, but I can answer this one fairly easily. When we are talking about sexual dimorphism, and "substantially larger" we are talking about a magnitude or more bigger.

so some examples, on average:

Gorillas: females 100 kg and males 175 kg
Lions: females 150 kg and males 225 kg
South American Sea Lions: females 150 kg and males 300 kg
Southern Elephant Seals: females 680 kg and males 2045 kg
Northern fur seals: females 60 kg and males 270 kg
Great Red Kangaroos: females 35 kg and males 85 kg
Sperm Whales: females 25,00 kg and males 50,000 kg

Humans (US): females ~62 kg males ~78.5 kg

See the difference? Even the species with the smallest difference that difference (75 kg) is about 165 lbs.

I'll try to get to your other questions tomorrow.

 

[Zaptruder]

It would appear that the thread has backfired quite completely. That's ok. Not the first time it's happened, nor will it be the last.

I prefer to think it's because I'm a layperson trying to explain a complex and poorly understood (even by me) disorder.

I understand the objections and reservations towards to solutions proposed, at least to an extent...

But... are people really saying that:

1. We shouldn't be more aware of this issue on a societal level?
2. We shouldn't have more professionals trained in its diagnosis?
3. We shouldn't have institutions that can cope better cope with them?

Setting aside the childhood assessment thing - wouldn't the acceptable minimum point of awareness/action, be in criminals?

That every criminal be assessed for psychopathy upon entering the system and appropriately seperated from non-psychopathic criminals, with wardens, guards, councellors/psychologists/parole boards that are specially trained to deal with them?

Because not only are they more violent than normal criminals, not only are they better at charming and lying their way out of trouble (or at least reducing it), not only are they better at manipulation, but they have traits that make them 'natural leaders' in a prison environment, where other criminals might be tempted to follow or emulate their actions.


I realize that to some extent, there is a discussion about how effective the measure and tests for psychopathy is - and that's fair enough. While I can assert that it (the psychopathy checklist, properly administered) appears to be a strongly statistically valid assessment that reliably assesses for clusters of personality traits that also reliably predicts for criminal and damaging behaviour - I'm ill equipped to argue the 'finer points' of attack on the whole establishment of clinical psychology, so will not attempt to do so.


Anyway, I know I've botched the explanation and the suggestions of action (although I still firmly believe that some action is far better than no action), but if you're at all interested in the subject matter, that you should delve into the topic deeper - with the book "Without Conscience - The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths among us" been a great starting point.

It's particularly eye-opening how damaging this under-examined, under-considered portion of humanity is. I mean... previously, I was of the disposition that nearly all people could be rehabilitated given the correct socializing environment, but now I realize that not all people can be treated the same way - that it better serves our needs to properly identify disorders and provide specific treatments.

To be sure, Robert Hare definitely recommends exercising caution in diagnosing psychopathy - he generally doesn't accept the biased self-assessments of lay people as been indicative of psychopathy, but rather mandates that any true assessment be left up to professionals well trained in administering the checklist (rather than even just a normal psychologist, or psychiatric professional). I would agree with this without reservation. Just as I agree with the implicit (and explicit really) premise of the book - that society needs greater awareness and understanding of the condition.

 

[mantidor]

This sounds incredibly dangerous. I'm not sure I can ever support any sort of movement to isolate a group of people and turn society against them without any sort of definite proof of wrongdoing or without them voluntary seeking help.

This sounds like the X-Men argument where mutants should be registered, tracked, and identified clearly because WE MUST KNOW WHO THEY ARE, AND ABOVE ALL WHAT THEY CAN DO! :/

exactly what I thought!

Psycopathy is likely to be a very real thing, ok it is, but since we cannot diagnose it with perfect accuracy trying to do anything like "flaging" can only lead to terrible things.

Kids that kill animals should be closely followed for sure, but beyond that, what can you do? as someone already said, we need to cure society before we can deal with them, is this society the one that lets them get away with what they want. They are superficially charming? so lets make a society that doesn't fall that easy for that, we sadly leave in a very superficial society, realizing someone is only saying to you what you want to hear shouldn't be that hard.

 

[The Technomancer]

This sounds incredibly dangerous. I'm not sure I can ever support any sort of movement to isolate a group of people and turn society against them without any sort of definite proof of wrongdoing or without them voluntary seeking help.

This sounds like the X-Men argument where mutants should be registered, tracked, and identified clearly because WE MUST KNOW WHO THEY ARE, AND ABOVE ALL WHAT THEY CAN DO! :/

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think that X-Men is the wrong comparison. I've always kind of agreed with the Mutant Registration people since powers in the X-Men universe can include things like mind control or even just the ability to blow up entire city blocks at will.

 

[duckroll]

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think that X-Men is the wrong comparison. I've always kind of agreed with the Mutant Registration people since powers in the X-Men universe can include things like mind control or even just the ability to blow up entire city blocks at will.

It's clearly the right comparison since it brings out people like you! Now when the mutant revolution is upon us, I'll know which side you're on!!!

 

[genjiZERO]

Sorry Zaptruder if I've contributed to the derail! It just sorta happened with a couple of questions that were posed.

 

[Zaptruder]

Sorry Zaptruder if I've contributed to the derail! It just sorta happened with a couple of questions that were posed.

Naw dude. It's cool. I was kinda hoping for observations from people about people or acquaintances that they suspect might be psychopathic... but conversations are what they are! It's what makes them fascinating.

 

[TAJ]

I'm pretty sure I used to work for one.
Someone dropped a running reciprocating saw on my ankle, and his only reaction was to matter-of-factly say, "I hope you don't miss a lot of work.".
His so-called best friend fell 27 feet onto a pile of broken concrete, and his initial reaction was to yell to everyone that anyone who called 911 would be fired. He let the guy just sit there in shock for 40 minutes until he was done with the business call he was on.
He fit pretty much all of the criteria closely, but the lack of empathy always stood out most to me.
He was the violent type, though... from torturing/killing animals and bullying as a youth, on through to assault and pulling guns on people in his 50s.

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm pretty sure I used to work for one.
Someone dropped a running reciprocating saw on my ankle, and his only reaction was to matter-of-factly say, "I hope you don't miss a lot of work.".
His so-called best friend fell 27 feet onto a pile of broken concrete, and his initial reaction was to yell to everyone that anyone who called 911 would be fired. He let the guy just sit there in shock for 40 minutes until he was done with the business call he was on.
He fit pretty much all of the criteria closely, but the lack of empathy always stood out most to me.
He was the violent type, though... from torturing/killing animals and bullying as a youth, on through to assault and pulling guns on people in his 50s.

And that's why I'm advocating for awareness and detection...

I mean, if we go off the assumption that these people are just giant-cockbags, and treat them like normal giant-cockbags... they'll run roughshod over normal people.

I mean, it certainly sounds like he was involved in a signficant amount of criminal conduct - even if he was never properly jailed for it.

That's why the idea that you'd be giving people help before they commit a crime is a misnomer. The fact they commit hella crimes, even if not murderous, or importantly, caught, is a strong indication of psychopathy, and should be tested for and treated for it if necessary.

 

[Risette]

And that's why I'm advocating for awareness and detection...

I mean, if we go off the assumption that these people are just giant-cockbags, and treat them like normal giant-cockbags... they'll run roughshod over normal people.

I mean, it certainly sounds like he was involved in a signficant amount of criminal conduct - even if he was never properly jailed for it.

That's why the idea that you'd be giving people help before they commit a crime is a misnomer. The fact they commit hella crimes, even if not murderous, or importantly, caught, is a strong indication of psychopathy, and should be tested for and treated for it if necessary.

Why not just be less tolerant of cockbags in general instead of singling out the ones that are psychopaths/sociopaths. Seems like a plan.

This thread [or, the thinking on display here from you] is seriously disturbing.

 

[CornBurrito]

As I said before, I won't argue against you further. If you have an interest above the dogmatic status quo, I've recommended two books that you might find useful, and I'll recommend a third:
Thomas Szasz's The Myth of Mental Illness

My main problem with psychoanalysis is the assumption (from some) that the interpretations of behavior are correct.

In Mr. A's case, the idea that he was a feminist as a means to suppress aggressive tendencies was helpful. But so too could the idea that he was a feminist as a means to express his latent sexual desire for his mother.

Psychoanalysis can be a useful tool for treating certain behaviors, but I don't believe it is good for finding out the actual causes of a behavior.

Meanwhile, just from reading studies it seems that cognitive/behavioral therapy is far more successful at treating certain behaviors than basic therapy centered around psychoanalysis.

 

[TAJ]

I mean, it certainly sounds like he was involved in a signficant amount of criminal conduct - even if he was never properly jailed for it.

He somehow never did more than a month in jail, mostly overnighters. He wore an ankle bracelet a few times, too.
He was asked to leave the Army, but they let him keep his VA benefits.

 

[The Technomancer]

OP, I think you would like a world like is displayed in Minority Report.

Stop people before they commit a crime, ruling out the ability people have called choice. What you are suggesting would take choice away from people just because they are how they are.What is to stop similar sanctions being implemented on kleptomaniacs, or vast array of other "problems" people are born with.

Minority Report has always had one thing about it that annoyed the fuck out of me: the only problem with the system is that the people are imprisoned for murder afterwards. Why the hell couldn't they just stop the murders from occurring without actually charging the criminals with full on murder? If a cop sees someone about to get raped in an alley there's nothing wrong with them intervening to stop it before the actual "crime" occurs.

(okay, I guess you can make an argument for "invasion of privacy" but then...is it wrong to call the authorities if you hear someone getting killed in your neighbors house?)