Support NeoGAF

[ChubbyHuggs]

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?)

Wait, what?
They imprisoned them for the murder without the murder happening.

 

[The Technomancer]

Wait, what?
They imprisoned them for the murder without the murder happening.

Right, exactly, that's the problem with Minority Report. You can't imprison someone for a crime they didn't commit but you certainly can stop them from doing it

 

[ChubbyHuggs]

Right, exactly, that's the problem with Minority Report. You can't imprison someone for a crime they didn't commit but you certainly can stop them from doing it

The basis is that they were going to and the program was obviously working, because the crime rate was down. The only problem was the human aspect of it, because some cases had alternatives. The only thing the movie didn't address was whether any of them would go on to commit multiple killings, so to a degree they were only stopping murderers and at some small degree serial killers.

 

[The Technomancer]

The basis is that they were going to and the program was obviously working, because the crime rate was down. The only problem was the human aspect of it, because some cases had alternatives.

Right, which is why the punitive aspect of it was the problematic part. I don't see the preventative part as being problematic even if there are alternative futures, any more then the police acting on a tip about a future event that may or may not come to pass is.

 

[Jangocube]

Once dated a Sociopath and it was quite a trip. She refused to get help and wouldn't talk to other people about her "true" self except for me.

Things ended badly because of her condition and I don't talk to her to this day. It's very hard to help someone that either A) doesn't see anything wrong and/or B) won't talk to anyone about who they are and how they really feel about life.

 

[Zaptruder]

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.

Because normal cockbags and psychopathic cockbags are at their core different things.

One arises from socialization and emotional problems that can be fixed or moderated through therapy, where as the other is a physiological deficit that expresses as an alien mindset in the psychopaths that are difficult for normal people to properly fathom, much less deal with and treat.

That, the application of one sort of fix (i.e. appropriate socialization and behaviourial therapy) is actually detrimental to the psychopath (in equipping them with better tools to wreak more havoc), and wider society as a whole (again, in equipping them with better tools to wreak more havoc)... and thus requires a reconsideration of our strategy in identifying and dealing with these guys in a way that makes them less of a threat, less of a drain on society, and more of a boon (in bringing beneficial qualities of society - by the appropriate (specialized) rehabilitation of them into productive members of society).

I understand the angle from which it seems seriously disturbing, but through a couple pages of discussion, I believe most of those angles are erroneous, based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the disorder, and a misunderstanding on how pervasive a problem it can be.

There's absolutely room for greater understanding and research into the subject matter. If the stats are to be believed, then it's one of the most considerable health care issues in America and indeed the world, outside of cancer and heart disease. But that doesn't mean we should remain innert until we've discovered evidence beyond the obfuscationary abilities of lay people (which is an extremely high bar to cross).

 

[duckroll]

Because normal cockbags and psychopathic cockbags are at their core different things.

One arises from socialization and emotional problems that can be fixed or moderated through therapy, where as the other is a physiological deficit that expresses as an alien mindset in the psychopaths that are difficult for normal people to properly fathom, much less deal with and treat.

Cockbags are cockbags. I'm going to treat people based on what they do, rather than what I think they might do. Thank you very much. I hope everyone else does the same.

By trying to "convince" others that a better way would be to isolate and persecute people who have done nothing wrong based on a perceived psychological profile will not help your case. In fact, as you can see it will only turn others against you and make you look like a crazy bigot. Maybe you should stop reading these books and go out to the read world and see how society operates, and you'll see why your solutions are not welcomed by people.

 

[Zaptruder]

Cockbags are cockbags. I'm going to treat people based on what they do, rather than what I think they might do. Thank you very much. I hope everyone else does the same.

By trying to "convince" others that a better way would be to isolate and persecute people who have done nothing wrong based on a perceived psychological profile will not help your case. In fact, as you can see it will only turn others against you and make you look like a crazy bigot. Maybe you should stop reading these books and go out to the read world and see how society operates, and you'll see why your solutions are not welcomed by people.

From a personal perspective, that's fair enough.

From a societal perspective, treating people differently based on what we think they will do is a fairly common occurrence.

I mean, the entire political system kind of rests on that notion - that we elect people that we think we perform well based on observable traits, in the hope that they will do well by the people. I know of course that's not how it really pans out in practice, given the multitude of other factors that are in play. We also do the same with plenty of special education systems - putting kids in advanced or gifted classes on the basis of their exhibited potential.

If we are going to do that, (or rather, because it is natural and not necessarily at all deleterious to do that), then we should do so at least with some predictive efficacy. With some measurement of traits that are based in science.

In reality, the lack of societal awareness on psychopathy means that we not only do not treat them according to how they might act, we don't treat them accordingly to how they *do* act - because they are adept at defeating normal social mechanisms that allow us to infer on how they might act in future (i.e. they can and will readily manipulate us into believing their recalcitrance and rehabilitation).

To put it another way, you would assume it's perfectly natural to be wary of a convicted killer yes. Or perhaps a convicted child rapist. Sure, that's how they acted in the past, but it doesn't necessarily spell how they will act in future. But been guarded and wary against them is fairly natural you'd assume.

Now, what if there was a strong pre-killing, pre-raping indicator - where having that indication would provide a very high guarantee that the person will rape, kill, or do a bunch of other really harmful things?

Should we really pretend that such a thing shouldn't hold any water or consideration? What if by better understanding the incidence of this problem, we can better consider the circumstances and treatment of other non-psychopathic offenders, allowing for a more effective treatment of both groups, rather than the frustrating and seemingly ineffectual of the two groups lumped into one?

 

[Vermillion]

Actually, I agree with pizzaroll.

Which of the problems that you mentioned in the OP does being less tolerant of the type of behavior sociopaths display NOT cover?

Instead of profiling people out of jobs, now we just look unfavorably upon the traits usually praised in those jobs...

 

[duckroll]

In reality, the lack of societal awareness on psychopathy means that we not only do not treat them according to how they might act, we don't treat them accordingly to how they *do* act - because they are adept at defeating normal social mechanisms that allow us to infer on how they might act in future (i.e. they can and will readily manipulate us into believing their recalcitrance and rehabilitation).

Look at what you're saying though. Seriously. Read your own words. You are saying that there is a hidden race of super villains in this world who are smarter than us and can outwit us at every corner, and that if we do not do something to stop them before it is too late, they will destroy us from within.

No, that's not what is happening. What you are talking about are assholes and fuckers who happen to be smart and occasionally manages to find loopholes to circumvent the law to commit illegal things. Sometimes they get caught, sometimes they don't. Just like with all crimes. At other times, they might not be committing crimes at all, but just being general all round assholes are are unsympathetic to others, or who take pleasure in the suffering of others - which they might or might not be directly causing.

That seems pretty normal to me. We're not unaware of these people, even though we might not have a psychological profile to specifically define a group. That isn't really required. The human race is not made up of a singular type of person. The way you make it sound, you seem to think that everyone who isn't a psychopath is a dimwit who is a potential victim to be fooled by these evil societal vampires who prey at you from the shadows. That's bullshit. Give people more credit.

There are people who are easily fooled, there are people who are less easily fooled, and there are people who are very hard to fool. These could be people from all walks of life, both good and bad. People with psychopathic tendencies can also hail from all walks of life, have different educational backgrounds, levels of intelligence, and also have different levels of control over their psychological tendencies. Trying to group them all into one side labeled "BE WARY, NEEDS HELP!" and everyone else being labeled "NON-SERIOUS THREATS, OR LAMBS!" seems really comical and silly really.

Oh and regarding gifted streaming exercises, there are actually arguments against that, and for good reason. At best they should be (and usually are) opt-in programs, where potential is recognized and an opportunity offered. It should not be something forced upon anyone, because in the pursuit of trying to make children feel more special, you also make them feel different. That can be detrimental to development, especially on a social level.

 

[SystemShock2]

In some of the more controversial threads here and elsewhere I've seen what I would personally consider to be some displays of psychopathic and/or sociopathic behavior. At least if one were to take those types of posts at face value. The pronounced lack of empathy is what always stands out to me in those particular messages. It's that cold indifference that catches my attention. I think it's a lot more common than suspected. Of course there are varying degrees, too.

Oh hey, and this thread appears right on time to demonstrate my point. See if you can spot the psycho(s) in here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=466965

There was one thread that I read well after it had ended where a bunch of people humiliated some women doing live webcam shows. No doubt they were psychopaths.

 

[Zaptruder]

Look at what you're saying though. Seriously. Read your own words. You are saying that there is a hidden race of super villains in this world who are smarter than us and can outwit us at every corner, and that if we do not do something to stop them before it is too late, they will destroy us from within.

To a large extent, they are already destroying us from within - by placing a large disproportionate strain on the legal and justice system as well as by negatively affecting the lives of people around them, especially those that care for them (such as parents and lovers).

It is down to the fact that they are superficial and generally lacking in forward planning that makes them less prolifically wanton then they otherwise could be.

And yeah, they are largely hidden - in the sense that they are misunderstood - lumped in with people that have developmental problems that could be fixed through the appropriate socialization and therapy. If we knew that at their core, that they were much less malleable to normal therapy, it would only make sense that we seek alternative means of treatment that is more effective.

But they're not necessarily smarter than us - just to say that they are humans, humans are smart, but that because they lack fundamental elements that allow for normal socialization, that they use the cognitive talents that would be normally employed in other ways, to figure out and 'defeat' social interaction rules and norms - rules and norms which are based largely on people that have the complete set of normal human functions.

No, that's not what is happening. What you are talking about are assholes and fuckers who happen to be smart and occasionally manages to find loopholes to circumvent the law to commit illegal things. Sometimes they get caught, sometimes they don't. Just like with all crimes. At other times, they might not be committing crimes at all, but just being general all round assholes are are unsympathetic to others, or who take pleasure in the suffering of others - which they might or might not be directly causing.

There are plenty of normal assholes and fuckers that are smart and manages to find loopholes and circumvent the law that do not fall into the category of psychopathy. Indeed, most criminals are not psychopaths. But a disproportionately large amount are.

Even simply designing the legal system to better detect and cope with psychopathy would be a huge boon to us all - which is a position that I've fallen back to multiple times without commensurate compromise in the position of those vehemently against the idea of detection.

That seems pretty normal to me. We're not unaware of these people, even though we might not have a psychological profile to specifically define a group. That isn't really required. The human race is not made up of a singular type of person. The way you make it sound, you seem to think that everyone who isn't a psychopath is a dimwit who is a potential victim to be fooled by these evil societal vampires who prey at you from the shadows. That's bullshit. Give people more credit.

I give people plenty of credit. But I also am not willing to underestimate psychopathy. To be sure, these guys are capable of fooling trained professionals with sufficiently alarming regularity. General population is simply not properly equipped to deal with them.

There are people who are easily fooled, there are people who are less easily fooled, and there are people who are very hard to fool. These could be people from all walks of life, both good and bad. People with psychopathic tendencies can also hail from all walks of life, have different educational backgrounds, levels of intelligence, and also have different levels of control over their psychological tendencies. Trying to group them all into one side labeled "BE WARY, NEEDS HELP!" and everyone else being labeled "NON-SERIOUS THREATS, OR LAMBS!" seems really comical and silly really.

One of the interesting things is that people with psychopathic traits can actually be helpful (or at least excel) in society. But only if they are able to sufficiently control and moderate some of the more deleterious traits of that psychopathy. One of the reasons you'd want to provide them with specialized treatment is so that you can focus on minimizing their harmfulness and brining out their innate talents.

Of course there's a natural variance of how affected people are by psychopathic traits - and some will actually be quite useful in society. But without sufficient acknowledgement and treatment, how do you propose to better shift that group over to the side of the line where they stop been a drain on the system, people around them, and onto the side where they're positive contributing members of society?

Oh and regarding gifted streaming exercises, there are actually arguments against that, and for good reason. At best they should be (and usually are) opt-in programs, where potential is recognized and an opportunity offered. It should not be something forced upon anyone, because in the pursuit of trying to make children feel more special, you also make them feel different. That can be detrimental to development, especially on a social level.

That's a fair enough rebuttal. Personally, I think we don't go nearly far enough in offering a striation of curriculum and courses that are better suited to the individual. See Ken Robinson's TED talk on "How Schools Kill Creativity" and also Salman Khan's TED talk on the Khan Academy for more details. Essentially, the point is, by better matching classes to the moment by moment strengths and interests of each student, and ensuring that they have mastered each class before moving onto the next, you're able to significantly improve education as a whole. And if that's the new norm, I can hardly see how students would come to feel unnaturally isolated. Indeed, celebration and accomodation of that diversity is a much healthier message for society I feel. But this is all rather tangential to the point at hand.


Anyway, it's been an interesting discussion, but it's diverted too much of my time from other work I actually should be doing.

I think it would be a more interesting discussion if you read the book "Without Conscience" as I linked to earlier. Robert Hare doesn't go nearly as far in his suggestions as I do - so I'd be interested to see if your stance changes after getting a better and more detailed explanation into these guys - or perhaps after reading that, you'll still surmise that I'm very much out of line with these suggestions, in which case, fair enough.

 

[PK Gaming]

Oh my god.

I THINK ABOUT THIS ALL OF THE TIME. The greatest problem with our society isn't "differences of opinion", or mankinds "true nature" its fucking psychopaths. I pray that you guys don't get involved with any of them in the near future since they could potential end up ruining your life for good.

 

[Zaptruder]

There was one thread that I read well after it had ended where a bunch of people humiliated some women doing live webcam shows. No doubt they were psychopaths.

I don't doubt that there are a number of psychopaths on GAF itself (natural given their proportion in society and how many members GAF have) - but I would certainly shy away from diagnosing (even in jest) any particular member as a psychopath - given the complexity of the diagnosis and the manner in which the internet can draw out absurdist and unempathetic comments from otherwise normal people.

 

[duckroll]

There are plenty of normal assholes and fuckers that are smart and manages to find loopholes and circumvent the law that do not fall into the category of psychopathy. Indeed, most criminals are not psychopaths. But a disproportionately large amount are.

Even simply designing the legal system to better detect and cope with psychopathy would be a huge boon to us all - which is a position that I've fallen back to multiple times without commensurate compromise in the position of those vehemently against the idea of detection.

I'm trying to understand this point here. I've typed, deleted, and re-typed various replies to this, but I don't think it is fair to you if I basically rail on your for my failure to even comprehend what you are really saying here. So instead of being sarcastic or dismissive, I'll simply highlight my confusion in what you're saying here.

Okay so there are plenty of "normal" assholes and fuckers who are smart and manage to find loopholes and circumvent the law. But somehow, because they are not psychopaths according to some sort of profile, you think they are less important of an issue and not something we need to be particularly concerned with. But if they're NOT "normal" assholes and fuckers, we should pay more attention to finding and catching them even though they are committing the same crimes, because they're.... somehow... more dangerous? I'm not buying this if that's what you're saying. A crime is a crime.

As for designing a legal system to "better detect and cope with psychopathy", I also do not understand this. My understanding is that in general, criminals who commit certain crimes or based on the circumstances of a crime, they do get psychological evaluations, and if they have a disorder or a problem, especially in sexual crimes, they do get extra attention, even after release. What sort of better system are you suggesting here, and how would it be any different? I'll really like to know.

I give people plenty of credit. But I also am not willing to underestimate psychopathy. To be sure, these guys are capable of fooling trained professionals with sufficiently alarming regularity. General population is simply not properly equipped to deal with them.

So these guys are capable of fooling trained professionals with sufficiently alarming regularity. Okay. They're smart, they're manipulative, they probably can't get caught. Gotcha. Okay, so now while we're looking for these people, isn't it going to be more likely that since they're so smart and manipulative, we're going to more likely going to find people who might exhibit some of these symptoms, but not the actual ones we're looking for (the ones who are actively evading us)?

In fact, if they know that there is a system in place looking for people like them, if they truly have ill intentions, you would likely be profiling and identifying people who might exhibit similar traits but are the ones who have no ill intention, and are simply victimized and profiled by the system because they were not actively trying to evade it. Do you not see the problem here?

One of the interesting things is that people with psychopathic traits can actually be helpful (or at least excel) in society. But only if they are able to sufficiently control and moderate some of the more deleterious traits of that psychopathy. One of the reasons you'd want to provide them with specialized treatment is so that you can focus on minimizing their harmfulness and brining out their innate talents.

Of course there's a natural variance of how affected people are by psychopathic traits - and some will actually be quite useful in society. But without sufficient acknowledgement and treatment, how do you propose to better shift that group over to the side of the line where they stop been a drain on the system, people around them, and onto the side where they're positive contributing members of society?

Another clarification: Are you suggesting here that there are currently no psychopathic people who are contributing to society and being useful and non-detrimental? Are they ALL automatically evil right now simply because we haven't found who they are and what they can do? Guilty until proven innocent? That would be a very disturbing charge if that's the case...

That's a fair enough rebuttal. Personally, I think we don't go nearly far enough in offering a striation of curriculum and courses that are better suited to the individual. See Ken Robinson's TED talk on "How Schools Kill Creativity" and also Salman Khan's TED talk on the Khan Academy for more details. Essentially, the point is, by better matching classes to the moment by moment strengths and interests of each student, and ensuring that they have mastered each class before moving onto the next, you're able to significantly improve education as a whole. And if that's the new norm, I can hardly see how students would come to feel unnaturally isolated. Indeed, celebration and accomodation of that diversity is a much healthier message for society I feel. But this is all rather tangential to the point at hand.

I agree completely that in an ideal society education would be tailored to individuals instead of groups. But that is not a reality, and it cannot happen on a general large scale because of logistics and how systems work. This is why in such a reality, we have to be very careful about segregation. Putting a child into a special stream because the child exhibits higher learning potential might be well intended, but if this is done after the child is already familiar with a more general learning environment, there is the matter of making the child understand and accept that he or she might be more gifted or more special in a positive way. If the child reacts positively to it, it can definitely be beneficial.

But again, individuals are different and what works for one person does not always work for others. Forcing this without understanding the circumstances can create undue pressure or expectations on the child, or cause alienation and unhappiness which will produce negative results. If such a system is mandatory and cannot be assured to produce positive results, it is definitely better to consider that even those with higher learning potential might simply benefit more from having a more general school environment, especially at a younger age.

 

[mr2xxx]

Psychologists operate from the frame of mind that they can help people with mental disorders so why are they going to suddenly give up on these people? It might have a strong genetic component but that is not the only component involved and plenty of people will be wrongly punished. You can't just take an MRI of someone say yep that's an evil man and remove them from society based on imperfect science. To rely on imperfect science to help someone is fine if that is the best option we have but the keyword here is help them.

There is reason we live in a society that has the motto "innocent until proven guilty", you want to get rid of the guilty part and go straight to punishment. Do you know how crazy that sounds?

 

[agrajag]

here's a cool article about psychopathy that I really like:

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-unburdened-mind/

Psychopaths/sociopaths absolutely terrify me.

 

[The Main Event]

I've been reading a lot about this topic for the past months, glad I found this recent thread. Known that person for over 2 years now. My gut always had that feeling that something was wrong with her, but I never been able to identify it until recently. I wanted to label her, and she seemed to fit with the "alpha female' trait.

Until I read more about sociopathy. I actually am still "friend" with her, but now that I know what's going on behind her mind her sociopathic traits become so obvious.

Eight Ways to Spot Emotional Manipulation

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm trying to understand this point here. I've typed, deleted, and re-typed various replies to this, but I don't think it is fair to you if I basically rail on your for my failure to even comprehend what you are really saying here. So instead of being sarcastic or dismissive, I'll simply highlight my confusion in what you're saying here.

Okay so there are plenty of "normal" assholes and fuckers who are smart and manage to find loopholes and circumvent the law. But somehow, because they are not psychopaths according to some sort of profile, you think they are less important of an issue and not something we need to be particularly concerned with. But if they're NOT "normal" assholes and fuckers, we should pay more attention to finding and catching them even though they are committing the same crimes, because they're.... somehow... more dangerous? I'm not buying this if that's what you're saying. A crime is a crime.

As for designing a legal system to "better detect and cope with psychopathy", I also do not understand this. My understanding is that in general, criminals who commit certain crimes or based on the circumstances of a crime, they do get psychological evaluations, and if they have a disorder or a problem, especially in sexual crimes, they do get extra attention, even after release. What sort of better system are you suggesting here, and how would it be any different? I'll really like to know.

So these guys are capable of fooling trained professionals with sufficiently alarming regularity. Okay. They're smart, they're manipulative, they probably can't get caught. Gotcha. Okay, so now while we're looking for these people, isn't it going to be more likely that since they're so smart and manipulative, we're going to more likely going to find people who might exhibit some of these symptoms, but not the actual ones we're looking for (the ones who are actively evading us)?

In fact, if they know that there is a system in place looking for people like them, if they truly have ill intentions, you would likely be profiling and identifying people who might exhibit similar traits but are the ones who have no ill intention, and are simply victimized and profiled by the system because they were not actively trying to evade it. Do you not see the problem here?



Another clarification: Are you suggesting here that there are currently no psychopathic people who are contributing to society and being useful and non-detrimental? Are they ALL automatically evil right now simply because we haven't found who they are and what they can do? Guilty until proven innocent? That would be a very disturbing charge if that's the case...

I actually intended to get back to this, but kind of forgot about it until it was bumped by The Main Event.

Look. What I'm saying is simple.

There are a group of people that have a collection of traits that can be detected, that provide a high degree of certainty of their negative trait of affect on society.

I'm trying to balance efficacy with humanism here. I understand and agree that we shouldn't needlessly prejudge individuals - it's an especially slippery slope when you consider the bigotry and prejudice throughout the course of humanity.

But at the same time, if there is a group of people that you can reliably detect that you can be certain will wreak havoc and disaster on society... would you not feel obligated to detect and turn them away from that path if possible?

Psychopaths are kind of like that - except the degree of certainty is lower... instead of certain, it's just very likely. And in the case where they're not violent psychopathic killers, they can nonetheless still cause a great deal of stress and harm on people that they interact with. It is to the benefit of all those that interact with them that they understand the nature of their problem, so that they can better empathize with the psychopath (realise that this person doesn't think and act like a normal human), and better avoid been deleteriously manipulated by a psychopath (i.e. they become aware of their logical/behavioural fallacies, despite their charming mannerisms).

Of course as with most other human traits - psychopathy has a certain range of affect - it's not a sharp cut-off between psychopaths and non-psychopathic populations. Some are more affected than others, so really the point to make is that upon detection of psychopathic traits, you actively monitor. On one hand, it would be unfortunate for a 'non-psychopath' to be caught in the 'net' of testing... but on the other hand, if they're monitored and repeatedly prove to be acting in a psychopathic manner, it's a pretty strong, pretty certain assurance that they are indeed psychopathic. And by acting in a psychopathic manner, I mean acting in a way that is deleterious and even criminal. It necessarily includes examples of criminal activity.


As for at the very least, devising a criminal justice system better able to cope with psychopaths and normal people - it would be ideal if all in the criminal justice system was made very aware of the problem of psychopathy - but they're not, nor is the training to properly detect and *handle* psychopaths, a trivial matter. As a result, the most effective solution is to have a duality - one that handles and provides rehabilitation and solutions for normal criminals, which can be rehabilitated, socialized on a more normal basis (through focusing on empathetic means), and one for psychopaths which cannot be rehabilitated via the other mean - and as a result should have a specialized treatment devised for them to moderate their ill-characteristics.

It's especially problematic with paroles - most prison boards are not properly equipped to handle and assess psychopathy - in large part due to the difficulty in handling them... but also if they were tuned to weeding out psychopaths, they would also unduly negatively influence normal and actually contrite criminals which would be served by a parole.

As a result, because of the incompatibility of strategies for handling normal and psychopathic criminals, we need a more targeted solution that is appropriate to the characteristics and traits of psychopaths and non-psychopaths - in essence we need a criminal justice system that treats them differently from normal criminals.

I think even just that alone... sorting out psychopathic criminals from normal criminals would significantly help to reduce/moderate their negative/deleterious impact on society. And an increased social awareness would better help us to understand that most people are generally responsive to rehabilitation/environmental changes, but that there are a genetically afflicted group of people that are not responsive to normal rehabilitation/normal human environments.

 

[Karsticles]

Oh, I thought this thread died...goodie!

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.

I follow you. Doesn't it partially matter what the weight is made up of, too? Human males tend to have less body fat and more muscle, etc. I'm concerned about the explanatory power this distinction has.

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.

I have always been on Magneto's side. Out with the old and in with the new, I always say!

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

A good psychoanalyst, by which I mean one who has been well educated (every profession has poorly educated people), does not seek to interpret your behavior to you. That's bad analysis. Freud discovered this very early on in his work. Early on, he thought that the goal was for the analyst to figure out unconscious content and present it to the analyst, and then this would free everything up. This is not how good psychoanalysists work though, and Freud made that clear in later papers. There's even a derogatory term for it in the field: "id guessing".

Good analysis proceeds through ego reflection, in assisting the patient come to self-realization of how they think about things. For example, here are a few lines from one of Mr. A's sessions:

Mr. A: “Why would I want to tell you to fuck off? You haven't done anything but been here.”

Levenson: “Maybe that’s why.”

Mr. A: “Yes, you’re the doctor. Why haven’t you cured me? I’ve been waiting for you to fix me.”

This is right after Mr. A has had an outburst toward his analyst and said "Do I want to tell you to FUCK OFF!" There's a huge history here that I won't repeat unless you're extremely interested, but the point is that Levenson isn't trying to convince Mr. A of some kind of unconscious content, he's not "interpreting" Mr. A, he's offering him reflective feedback. The goal of a good analysis is to help the patient self-interpret.

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.

A lot of it depends on what kind of psychoanalytic branch you ascribe to. Personally, I tend toward ego analysis, which means I place a lot of emphasis on self-interpretation. In other words: does it feel right to the patient once the connection is made by himself? Note that it would not work the same if the connection is drawn for the patient. The analyst's job is to create moments of self-realization. An interpretation about sexual desire for the mother fits more in the lines of "id guessing". Maybe it's right, but who cares? It doesn't have any explanatory power for the patient, no one would go "oh, I want to fuck my mom, now I get it", and is then better off (unless that's an ever-present issue in the person's life).

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.

In my opinion, the goal of psychoanalysis is not to treat behaviors or to find out causes of behavior, but rather to assist patients in becoming self-aware. The rest will come. That's really how it differs from cognitive/behavioral therapy. You might put it this way. Diseases have symptoms. If you're treating the symptoms, you're missing the bigger picture. If someone has a behavioral problem, it's for a reason. If you fix that problem, the symptom will manifest in another way. A good example: it's not a coincidence that the "cure" for alcoholism is turning to religion. They both perform the same kind of role in someone filled with self-loathing. The self-loathing is still there, but now it's being expressed in a way that most people wouldn't consider it to be a symptom of self-loathing, and so the person is thought to be "cured".

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.

I don't doubt that they often are more successful about treating certain behaviors, but I would not consider that a mark against psychoanalysis.

I've been reading a lot about this topic for the past months, glad I found this recent thread. Known that person for over 2 years now. My gut always had that feeling that something was wrong with her, but I never been able to identify it until recently. I wanted to label her, and she seemed to fit with the "alpha female' trait.

Until I read more about sociopathy. I actually am still "friend" with her, but now that I know what's going on behind her mind her sociopathic traits become so obvious.

Eight Ways to Spot Emotional Manipulation

The fun thing about that list is that it's prone to self-justification. Take for example this one:
"If you find yourself in a relationship where you figure you should start keeping a log of what’s been said because you are beginning to question your own sanity --You are experiencing emotional manipulation."

Contrast it with this, two sentences later:
"They can lie so smoothly that you can sit looking at black and they’ll call it white - and argue so persuasively that you begin to doubt your very senses."

If you were to bring a habitual liar's attention to his or her behavior, taking these sentences at face value would give them cause to think you're just being emotionally manipulative. Ironic.

 

[Zaptruder]

To reiterate and clarify...

It is important to seek the aid of a psychological professional trained in psychopathy detection in determining whether or not a person is psychopathic.

It is the combination of multiple behaviourial and even genetic factors, along with a case history of behaviour that helps to determine psychopathy.

An awareness of the problem allows you to understand

1. That there *are* people in this world that are almost alien to us in their emotions, that we will not have an easy time understanding.

2. That the people and environment around certain people are not to blame in the ill-damaging behaviour of that person... that some people can be like that, irrespective of how much engagement you have with them (at least normal engagement, as opposed to specifically designed and targeted).


Also, Duckroll, with regards to the point about psychopaths regularly fooling 'trained professionals', it's a line I need to provide additional information on...

It's worth noting that these guys can in a limited scale/time engagement, still fool Robert Hare - the guy that literally wrote the book on the subject matter. But of course that doesn't mean that he's not capable of detecting them - quite the contrary, he is far more able to reliably detect them than most people.

Similarly, people trained to detect and handle psychopaths will have a far greater effectiveness at doing so than normal people, be they psychologists, prison guards/wardens/parole boards/judges/lawyers/teachers/etc.

To someone with limited engagement with them, they'll almost seem like normal people. Even friends that don't understand that psychopathy is a mental disorder will generally assume that these people are charming but callous, narcissistic, manipulative.
But people that are entangled with psychopaths - spouses, childrens, parents... they have the worst fates, been emotionally and even physically brutalized without an understanding of why, despite whatever action they may take, that the psychopaths they love act the way they do.

 

[Mumei]

I follow you. Doesn't it partially matter what the weight is made up of, too? Human males tend to have less body fat and more muscle, etc. I'm concerned about the explanatory power this distinction has.

It does, but I think he was just making the point that sexual dimorphism is relatively small in humans compared to other mammals and even other primates, and doesn't resemble the sexual dimorphism found in animals that do have those harem models.

 

[Satyamdas]

Zaptruder you old cad, you had just better hope that megalomaniacs are never scrutinized in the same manner you would like to see done to the psychopath.

With all due respect, your vision of a Brave New World can get fucked. All I see in your walls of text are an out of control god complex and unfortunate shades of fallen GAF member and fellow megalomaniac Shanadeus.

duckroll has been a wonderful bastion of rationality in contrast to your absurd power fantasies.

 

[Fugu]

The emotionally unmalleable nature of psychopaths makes them difficult to educate, to teach, to create empathy and the necessary cognitive skills that make them functional social citizens. This early detection would allow parents and caretakers to realize early on what they're dealing with, so that they can take the appropriate steps to ready themselves and innur themselves to the unresponsive nature of psychopaths.

How did you read about psychopathy without learning how fundamentally fallacious this strategy is? Children cannot be determined to be psychopaths due to inherent overlap between traits tied to development and traits tied to psychopathy. The number of false positives would be absurd. Let's not forget, as well, that not all psychopaths are criminals, and judging them as evil before they've had a chance to demonstrate themselves as such is just as wrong with psychopaths as it is with anyone else.

EDIT: I feel it necessary to point out the nearly absurd amount of comma splices in your posts. It's frustrating to read.

 

[Karsticles]

It does, but I think he was just making the point that sexual dimorphism is relatively small in humans compared to other mammals and even other primates, and doesn't resemble the sexual dimorphism found in animals that do have those harem models.

I thought (and think) that his claim was a bit more than that. My understanding was that the sexual dimorphism was indicative of sexual relations, and not merely correlative or coincidental. If he just wants to claim that it's correlative or coincidental, then I won't disagree, but I'm also not sure why it was brought up in the first place if it has no explanatory power with regard to human relationships.

How did you read about psychopathy without learning how fundamentally fallacious this strategy is? Children cannot be determined to be psychopaths due to inherent overlap between traits tied to development and traits tied to psychopathy. The number of false positives would be absurd. Let's not forget, as well, that not all psychopaths are criminals, and judging them as evil before they've had a chance to demonstrate themselves as such is just as wrong with psychopaths as it is with anyone else.

EDIT: I feel it necessary to point out the nearly absurd amount of comma splices in your posts. It's frustrating to read.

I get the feeling that he just read a book on a subject for the first time that made a huge impact on him, and now he's overestimating how much he understands the topic.

 

[Zaptruder]

How did you read about psychopathy without learning how inherently fallacious this strategy is? Children cannot be determined to be psychopaths due to inherent overlap between traits tied to development and traits tied to psychopathy. The number of false positives would be absurd. Let's not forget, as well, that not all psychopaths are criminals, and judging them as evil before they've had a chance to demonstrate themselves as such is just as wrong with psychopaths as it is with anyone else.

I realize I've done a pretty poor job overall of expressing just how different psychopaths can be to a normal person. I have urged repeatedly that people do go and read/research more into the matter - it would be ill advised to take everything I say at face value, given my layperson understanding.

But the general point is - psychopaths, even early on will elucidate very difficult traits from even children that are simply misbehaving or acting out.

Repeatedly killing animals, terrorizing their siblings through what literally amounts to torture...

It's not a pretty sight. To be fair, using this high detection threshold strategy, you'd only really net the more extreme examples of psychopathy - but that's ok. Plus, running a battery of tests to confirm that they are indeed psychopathic, that their parents require the necessary training and resources and support to deal with their children in an effective manner.

The rest of the psychopaths that don't cross the high bar set, or that don't become criminals? Leave them alone, and allow increased general societal awareness of the issue to provide the 'weak' filter on the issue. Not dissimilar to how we deal with many mental disorder nowadays.

Zaptruder you old cad, you had just better hope that megalomaniacs are never scrutinized in the same manner you would like to see done to the psychopath.

With all due respect, your vision of a Brave New World can get fucked. All I see in your walls of text are an out of control god complex and unfortunate shades of fallen GAF member and fellow megalomaniac Shanadeus.

duckroll has been a wonderful bastion of rationality in contrast to your absurd power fantasies.

I would be more than ok with submitting to any number of psychological tests you'd want to run me through. For the most part, my thinking and positions are as rational and congurent as I can make them. I am human and capable of drawing the wrong conclusions from time to time - but in this case as in many others, I operate of the same few rules of thumbs - primarily regarding a consequentialist view of morality.

(That is, morality only really derives its qualitative strength from how effective it ultimately is at producing benefits for its constituent members and how effective it is at minimizing harm).

I get the feeling that he just read a book on a subject for the first time that made a huge impact on him, and now he's overestimating how much he understands the topic.

I'd say I understand the topic more than most people arguing against me (that is to say, I think most people calling me a cad, or insinuating that I'm some sort of insane power mad authoritarian, probably hasn't read a single book (perhaps even article) on the subject matter)... it's a relative thing after all. But I'm not assuming authority on the subject matter - just simply stating that there is far less awareness on the matter than there should be, given the degree and extent to which the issue of psychopathy negatively affects society in general.

 

[Fugu]

I realize I've done a pretty poor job overall of expressing just how different psychopaths can be to a normal person. I have urged repeatedly that people do go and read/research more into the matter - it would be ill advised to take everything I say at face value, given my layperson understanding.

But the general point is - psychopaths, even early on will elucidate very difficult traits from even children that are simply misbehaving or acting out.

Repeatedly killing animals, terrorizing their siblings through what literally amounts to torture...

It's not a pretty sight. To be fair, using this high detection threshold strategy, you'd only really net the more extreme examples of psychopathy - but that's ok. Plus, running a battery of tests to confirm that they are indeed psychopathic, that their parents require the necessary training and resources and support to deal with their children in an effective manner.

The rest of the psychopaths that don't cross the high bar set, or that don't become criminals? Leave them alone, and allow increased general societal awareness of the issue to provide the 'weak' filter on the issue. Not dissimilar to how we deal with many mental disorder nowadays.

I have done a lot of research on psychopathy; I'm relatively well-versed on the subject. I'm inclined to believe that a large percentage of non-scientific literature on psychopathy has a tendency to over-estimate its nature. On top of increasing evidence that psychopathy is a spectrum disorder, there is continued debate over the exact implications on morality that psychopathy has, as well as the relevance (if any) of the upbringing of a psychopath. I doubt that parental awareness will have any positive effect considering that the psychiatric community -- a community with credentials that amount to more than just "fortunate fornicators" -- is entirely uncertain of how to deal with psychopaths themselves.

I cannot stress enough how important it is for you to acknowledge that children cannot be diagnosed with psychopathy. This is basic information for anyone who wishes to actually learn anything about this topic; the DSM does not accept a diagnosis of psychopathy for any child, and many jurisdictions outright forbid diagnosing children with psychopathy.

 

[Karsticles]

I'd say I understand the topic more than most people arguing against me (that is to say, I think most people calling me a cad, or insinuating that I'm some sort of insane power mad authoritarian, probably hasn't read a single book (perhaps even article) on the subject matter)... it's a relative thing after all. But I'm not assuming authority on the subject matter - just simply stating that there is far less awareness on the matter than there should be, given the degree and extent to which the issue of psychopathy negatively affects society in general.

I think it's important for you to realize that the book you read, and that author's perspective, are not the only perspective within that field of educated individuals. I think you would do well to read a lot more literature on the topic before being so keen on advocating for what ought to be done. Earlier, someone was kind enough to find articles for you to read about why you should be skeptical about the entire idea of "mental illnesses" - did you read them? Nothing indicates so, and you certainly still refer to them as though they are a scientific concept. They were great articles, give them a read.

Also, consequentialism is incoherent.

 

[Zaptruder]

I have done a lot of research on psychopathy; I'm relatively well-versed on the subject. I'm inclined to believe that a large percentage of non-scientific literature on psychopathy has a tendency to over-estimate its nature. On top of increasing evidence that psychopathy is a spectrum disorder, there is continued debate over the exact implications on morality that psychopathy has, as well as the relevance (if any) of the upbringing of a psychopath. I doubt that parental awareness will have any positive effect considering that the psychiatric community -- a community with credentials that amount to more than just "fortunate fornicators" -- is entirely uncertain of how to deal with psychopaths themselves.

I cannot stress enough how important it is for you to acknowledge that children cannot be diagnosed with psychopathy. This is basic information for anyone who wishes to actually learn anything about this topic; the DSM does not accept a diagnosis of psychopathy for any child, and many jurisdictions outright forbid diagnosing children with psychopathy.

Don't you think it would be important for parents to know if they're dealing with psychopathic children... if only so that they realize the extent and difficulty of the problem that they're faced with, and to understand that they're not at fault for the bad behaviour?

It's almost like suggesting that we shouldn't diagnose autistic children, because that would cause us to negatively interact with them.

I mean... if I knew my child was psychopathic, I would know that he/she would require significantly more supervision in social interactions with other people/children/animals.


I can understand why it is controversial to diagnose children with it - if done poorly, could conflate many children with simple but normal developmental difficulties with psychopathy.

But is that to say that psychopathy cannot occur in children? From what I can tell a spectrum disorder is far more genetically weighted than environmentally weighted in outcome... as a result, it would also seem that children can be afflicted with the problems of psychopathy as much as any adult would, even if we should exercise caution in its diagnosis (in children).

I think it's important for you to realize that the book you read, and that author's perspective, are not the only perspective within that field of educated individuals. I think you would do well to read a lot more literature on the topic before being so keen on advocating for what ought to be done. Earlier, someone was kind enough to find articles for you to read about why you should be skeptical about the entire idea of "mental illnesses" - did you read them? Nothing indicates so, and you certainly still refer to them as though they are a scientific concept. They were great articles, give them a read.

Also, consequentialism is incoherent.

Can you relink it? I only found Empty Vessel's articles which were more critical about drug use and the (mis)diagnosis of mental illnesses that could result.

That in itself is a pretty interesting discussion - and not one that I entirely disagree with, but from my skimming and comprehension, it doesn't seem to be saying that mental illnesses are an illegitimate idea - just that, we are all too happy to prescribe it even when not necessary. To an extent, that does affect this discussion - but I don't feel like it's an all or nothing thing; where we can either have no mental illnesses, or too much mental illnesses and too much drugs to treat them. Between methodology, research and treatment, it seems like we can continue to strive for a better middle ground that maximizes the efficacy of the issue.

And although this isn't the thread, I'm always happy to debate moral systems - if you care to PM me on your objections on consequentialism; or perhaps your own moral views (i.e. how you derive them).

Castrating your kid with strict supervision in social interactions with other people/children/animals for years because a flawed diagnostic told you he is, at his tender and still developing age, a psychopath, could result in a true, full blown psychopath, I suspect. Even with such a diagnostic, your kid is not bubble boy.

Again, this seems a bit all or nothing. I don't mean supervision as an asshole - but greater involvement in the day to day activities of my child, and talking to the social circles of the child to get them to 'spy'. Yeah, that sounds pretty bad admittedly... but what else can you do? You monitor for a while - if after monitoring, you find that the fears are unfounded, you stop. Otherwise, you're proven right, and you take more active steps to moderate/reduce the negative behaviour as best you can, even while understanding its a difficult task.

What's the alternative here? Do nothing, get frustrated as your kid acts like a complete shit, not knowing why, despairing as any and all solutions that you've devised under the assumption that if only you treat them right (as in, treat them like a normal child) they'll respond... fail to work and take hold?


Anyway, I've certainly repeated my points enough in this thread. I'll let it be the last on the subject matter until I've done additional research and understanding into the subject matter (i.e. I've read another book from another author).

 

[Barbacoatl]

Castrating your kid with strict supervision in social interactions with other people/children/animals for years because a flawed diagnostic told you he is, at his tender and still developing age, a psychopath, could result in a true, full blown psychopath, I suspect. Even with such a diagnostic, your kid is not bubble boy.

 

[Satyamdas]

I would be more than ok with submitting to any number of psychological tests you'd want to run me through. For the most part, my thinking and positions are as rational and congurent as I can make them. I am human and capable of drawing the wrong conclusions from time to time - but in this case as in many others, I operate of the same few rules of thumbs - primarily regarding a consequentialist view of morality.

(That is, morality only really derives its qualitative strength from how effective it ultimately is at producing benefits for its constituent members and how effective it is at minimizing harm).

1. I have no desire to see you submit to any psychological tests at all. Unlike you, I have no desires toward monitoring the populace and screening out particular traits I deem dangerous. It would seem I have a far more liberal view of society than you. Basically it's "Be free until you harm others". Megalomaniacs and psychopaths are free and clear in my world until they actually, you know, commit a crime. Madness, I know. I don't buy your alarmist rhetoric about how psychopaths are some superhuman threat that requires special attention. You have practically elevated them to another species entirely.

2. Appealing to your "utilitarian morality" as justification for effectively becoming big brother is remarkably weak and hole-ridden. I submit that your stigmatization practices would increase harm for a large number of non-psychopathic children and adults who are misidentified as such. I also reject the idea that your screening procedures would produce measurable benefits for anyone other than those in the positions of power who get to enjoy seeing their maniacal control fantasies come to life.

 

[Fugu]

Don't you think it would be important for parents to know if they're dealing with psychopathic children... if only so that they realize the extent and difficulty of the problem that they're faced with, and to understand that they're not at fault for the bad behaviour?

It's almost like suggesting that we shouldn't diagnose autistic children, because that would cause us to negatively interact with them.

I mean... if I knew my child was psychopathic, I would know that he/she would require significantly more supervision in social interactions with other people/children/animals.


I can understand why it is controversial to diagnose children with it - if done poorly, could conflate many children with simple but normal developmental difficulties with psychopathy.

But is that to say that psychopathy cannot occur in children? From what I can tell a spectrum disorder is far more genetically weighted than environmentally weighted in outcome... as a result, it would also seem that children can be afflicted with the problems of psychopathy as much as any adult would, even if we should exercise caution in its diagnosis (in children).

Current study on the issue suggests that this is an oxymoron. Pointers like the killing of animals and disregard for authority are vague. Even more specific diagnoses like ODD and Conduct Disorder still so uncommonly predispose towards psychopathy; it is only in studies that look at children diagnosed with a conduct disorder plus ADHD plus high CU (such as this one) that characteristics in children consistent with adult psychopathy have been found. That is a careful and rare diagnosis that is expressly not at all like psychopathy in adults.

EDIT: Megalomania isn't a DSM term either. It's not even worth discussing.

 

[Satyamdas]

EDIT: Megalomania isn't a DSM term either. It's not even worth discussing.

Megalomania is a psycho-pathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. 'Megalomania is characterized by an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation by persons of their powers and beliefs'.

I wasn't suggesting anything other than Zap's posts in this thread and his attitude towards controlling and monitoring society reek of power fantasies and an immense overestimation of his beliefs. He thinks psychopaths are a danger so what is his solution? Completely monitor everyone!

 

[Zaptruder]

Current study on the issue suggests that this is an oxymoron. Pointers like the killing of animals and disregard for authority are vague. Even more specific diagnoses like ODD and Conduct Disorder still so uncommonly predispose towards psychopathy; it is only in studies that look at children diagnosed with a conduct disorder plus ADHD plus high CU (such as this one) that characteristics in children consistent with adult psychopathy have been found. That is a careful and rare diagnosis that is expressly not at all like psychopathy in adults.

EDIT: Megalomania isn't a DSM term either. It's not even worth discussing.

Ok. If the the latest studies are showing that detectability of psychopathy is poor in children, then what else can be done, except to continue research, and only apply it to the cases where it is effective (i.e. in adults).

But if we can effectively detect it in children... should we not? The answer to me seems so obvious that it doesn't merit a discussion, much less the moral outrage that most in this thread are expressing.

The point I will continue to stand by is that the criminal justice system needs to be better equipped to deal with the dichotomy of psychopaths and non-psychopaths...

Spoiler

Yeah, that's all.

 

[Karsticles]

Megalomania is a psycho-pathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. 'Megalomania is characterized by an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation by persons of their powers and beliefs'.

I wasn't suggesting anything other than Zap's posts in this thread and his attitude towards controlling and monitoring society reek of power fantasies and an immense overestimation of his beliefs. He thinks psychopaths are a danger so what is his solution? Completely monitor everyone!

I think Fugu's point isn't there's no such thing as what you just described there, but that we ought not to conflate terms relevant in diagnostic psychology, such as psychopathy, with those which are not, such as megalomania.

Ok. If the the latest studies are showing that detectability of psychopathy is poor in children, then what else can be done, except to continue research, and only apply it to the cases where it is effective (i.e. in adults).

But if we can effectively detect it in children... should we not? The answer to me seems so obvious that it doesn't merit a discussion, much less the moral outrage that most in this thread are expressing.

The point I will continue to stand by is that the criminal justice system needs to be better equipped to deal with the dichotomy of psychopaths and non-psychopaths...

Spoiler

Yeah, that's all.

It's not a moral outrage necessarily. Appointing "experts" to forcefully determine the psychological stature of your children has enormous social implications. To even begin to think about this would mean a massive increase in government powers and the general intrusion into private life. That's all aside from the diagnostic impossibilities being passed off here like a real science.

Can you relink it? I only found Empty Vessel's articles which were more critical about drug use and the (mis)diagnosis of mental illnesses that could result.

That in itself is a pretty interesting discussion - and not one that I entirely disagree with, but from my skimming and comprehension, it doesn't seem to be saying that mental illnesses are an illegitimate idea - just that, we are all too happy to prescribe it even when not necessary. To an extent, that does affect this discussion - but I don't feel like it's an all or nothing thing; where we can either have no mental illnesses, or too much mental illnesses and too much drugs to treat them. Between methodology, research and treatment, it seems like we can continue to strive for a better middle ground that maximizes the efficacy of the issue.

And although this isn't the thread, I'm always happy to debate moral systems - if you care to PM me on your objections on consequentialism; or perhaps your own moral views (i.e. how you derive them).

The articles Empty Vessel linked to show that:
1) Diagnostics of "mental illnesses" aren't scientific in any sense of the word.
2) Treatment of "mental illnesses" through drug therapy does not have scientific backing.

The natural criticism that follows is: if one can't ever determine whether these "mental illnesses" exist in the form they are being purported, and if one can never treat them, why ought we to think that they actually exist as purported?

I'm an amoral individual, so I can't tell you how I derive my moral views. I can tell you that consequentialism is incoherent because it takes a form like the following:
"In all given situations, do whatever it is that would maximize X".

X is usually something like happiness, well-being, etc. It's not really important for the purposes of arguing against consequentialism.

The natural response is to recognize that situations are necessarily temporal, and when time is taken into consideration maximization falls into nonsense. It would only make sense to say:
"In all given situations, do whatever it is that would maximize X for time Y."

All actions have necessary consequences, and long-reaching consequences are not known. It only makes sense to make consequential decisions with regard to long-term effects, and not short-term ones. I.e. if you want to maximize happiness, it does not make sense to perform an action that gives +50 happiness at t=0 and +10 happiness at t=5 where there is an action that would give +10 at t=0 and +50 at t=0. This simply has to be the case. Yet to make the appropriate decision you must always be acting with regard to the latest possible time t, and this information is not available. You are always making a decision with respect to some arbitrary time you suppose will come about as a result of your actions. Thus, you are never in a position to know whether you are making the best decision with regard to long-term applicability. To reduce consequentialism to short-term applicability is surely nonsense, and to morph it into a philosophy of intentional action would give us cause to rename it "wishful thinking", since that's all that one ever applies.

 

[Trent Strong]

In other words, despite what a lot of liberals will tell you, some people really are born "evil".

 

[duckroll]

Look. What I'm saying is simple.

Right.

I'm trying to balance efficacy with humanism here. I understand and agree that we shouldn't needlessly prejudge individuals - it's an especially slippery slope when you consider the bigotry and prejudice throughout the course of humanity.

Okay.

But at the same time, if there is a group of people that you can reliably detect that you can be certain will wreak havoc and disaster on society... would you not feel obligated to detect and turn them away from that path if possible?

Sure.

Psychopaths are kind of like that

I see...

- except the degree of certainty is lower...

Hmmm....

Of course as with most other human traits - psychopathy has a certain range of affect - it's not a sharp cut-off between psychopaths and non-psychopathic populations.

Right... right...

On one hand, it would be unfortunate for a 'non-psychopath' to be caught in the 'net' of testing... but on the other hand, if they're monitored and repeatedly prove to be acting in a psychopathic manner, it's a pretty strong, pretty certain assurance that they are indeed psychopathic.

Yeah, I no longer follow you. You just went in a huge roundabout way to bring up a point which gives your argument validity, and then proceed to detain your point until it no longer has any validity. Good job.

Also, Duckroll, with regards to the point about psychopaths regularly fooling 'trained professionals', it's a line I need to provide additional information on...

It's worth noting that these guys can in a limited scale/time engagement, still fool Robert Hare - the guy that literally wrote the book on the subject matter. But of course that doesn't mean that he's not capable of detecting them - quite the contrary, he is far more able to reliably detect them than most people.

Similarly, people trained to detect and handle psychopaths will have a far greater effectiveness at doing so than normal people, be they psychologists, prison guards/wardens/parole boards/judges/lawyers/teachers/etc.

To someone with limited engagement with them, they'll almost seem like normal people. Even friends that don't understand that psychopathy is a mental disorder will generally assume that these people are charming but callous, narcissistic, manipulative.
But people that are entangled with psychopaths - spouses, childrens, parents... they have the worst fates, been emotionally and even physically brutalized without an understanding of why, despite whatever action they may take, that the psychopaths they love act the way they do.

Okay, I follow this. I know exactly what you are saying here, and I can proceed to explain in a very clear and concise way without being condescending, why this is a terrible idea.

You are basically saying that there are these people who you feel have a huge negative effect on society, and at the same time the worst ones are extremely hard to detect, even by experts in the field. But it is possible, in your opinion, for a very highly "trained" expert to be able to reasonably tell that it is likely that such a person does fall into this spectrum. And you proceed to suggest that we should have more of such experts out there, give them more power under the law to make judgement calls on such people, and we should listen to them and defer to their expertise.

What this translates to is that you want to give a very small number of specialists in a narrow field the power and authority to ruin someone's life even if they have done nothing wrong, and you feel that we as a society should support such a system. This is a terrible idea. In such a system you would in fact invite more of the problems which you are trying to "solve" here. Psychopaths will still slip through and get into powerful positions in society, while psychopath-experts will now be empowered to destroy lives to gain personal benefits in return for either not ruining someone's life, or worse, closing an eye to an actual "danger to society" which such a system is trying to catch in the first place.

Giving such power and responsibility to a field of experts who employ an area of study most people are not familiar with intimately, and are not in a good position to question or criticize is a terrible idea. Evidence can be scrutinized and questioned. Psychoanalysis is much harder, and what you are suggesting has far larger consequences on the life of a person than even a short prison term for a petty crime.

So yeah, thanks but no thanks, you can take your entire idea and shove it into the bin where it belongs.

 

[Satyamdas]

I think Fugu's point isn't there's no such thing as what you just described there, but that we ought not to conflate terms relevant in diagnostic psychology, such as psychopathy, with those which are not, such as megalomania.

For fuck's sake, I was just teasing Zaptruder by saying that if someone else were to take his initiative on monitoring society, but instead of psychopathy they decided to focus on people with god complexes and power fantasies, he might be in trouble. For the sake of brevity I used a word that describes that condition. I wasn't trying to make a 1:1 comparison between psychopathy and megalomania.

 

[Karsticles]

For fuck's sake, I was just teasing Zaptruder by saying that if someone else were to take his initiative on monitoring society, but instead of psychopathy they decided to focus on people with god complexes and power fantasies, he might be in trouble. For the sake of brevity I used a word that describes that condition. I wasn't trying to make a 1:1 comparison between psychopathy and megalomania.

I know.

 

[trollcity]

this fear mongering thread is hilarious!

the only real threat of psychopaths is murdering and we already have a system to deter this kind of behaviour. those that do still choose to commit violent acts are in such small numbers that the cost of monitoring/flagging/testing all children etc does not outweigh the benefit.

i don't understand the threat of having psychopaths working in legal/financial industries.. what are they going to do? make money for themselves? isn't this what everyone psychopath or not is trying to do?

 

[Zaptruder]

So yeah, thanks but no thanks, you can take your entire idea and shove it into the bin where it belongs.

I should at least give you another response, seeing as this thread has reemerged because of my response to you.

But no tit for tat rebuttal.

I'll simply ask...

What kind and degree of evidence would you need to convince you that something needs to be done rather than nothing (i.e. not changing anything from status quo)?

And assuming that there is some degree of evidence that can convince you of that... then what do you think we should do as a society... about this issue?

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

Calling people with a mental illness a "great blight?" Someone's sociopathy is showing...

edit: Oh wow. Talking about alienating them from society and limiting their freedoms, as well as remarking on their "usefulness." I think it's time to look in a mirror, broseph.

 

[ajim]

Luckily we have people like duckroll in the world.

Interesting thread, just wish it wasn't filled with 'we need to stop them!' posts.

 

[duckroll]

I should at least give you another response, seeing as this thread has reemerged because of my response to you.

But no tit for tat rebuttal.

I'll simply ask...

What kind and degree of evidence would you need to convince you that something needs to be done rather than nothing (i.e. not changing anything from status quo)?

And assuming that there is some degree of evidence that can convince you of that... then what do you think we should do as a society... about this issue?

I don't need any evidence to convince me that "something needs to be done" if you're talking about targeting people who have committed no crimes whatsoever and putting them under a monitoring program against their will which might result in their freedoms being restricted significantly without any sort of criminal charge.

Nothing will convince me that such a cause of action is good, healthy, or humane in any way. Simply because it is not. In the same rational, no amount of evidence about racial behavior and crime statistics will "convince" me that anyone should ever consider racial profiling when it comes to criminal justice. The "evidence" doesn't matter because the solution is wrong.

There is no "issue" here other than a very disturbing fascination you have about highlighting why you feel people of a certain psychological profile should have less civil liberties than everyone else. That is the issue, and my solution to that issue is to repeatedly tell you how wrong you are, while destroying your argument completely, because hopefully you will see the flaw in your line of thinking and change for the better.

On the other hand, if you question is "what should we do about people who might lie and cheat their way into positions of power, and then proceed to abuse that power to make life more miserable for everyone else", then my answer is simple. We should have higher standards on how we evaluate people voted into political office, and there should be more open and transparent systems in both government and corporate sectors, so if there are lapses in judgement where it matters, it can be detected and remedied more quickly.

If a person is not fit for office, he should not be there. But that doesn't mean we should start witch hunts and have systems created out of fear and paranoia.

 

[Zaptruder]

I typed up a longer response, but I won't post it. If you want to continue the discussion, I can PM you.

But I feel like I've wasted too much time already, getting dogpiled on. Despite the popular support for your posts, I don't think you or anyone else have properly addressed several key points that I am attempting to make.

You may feel that it's because those points are invalid - I wouldn't expect you to keep arguing so stridently if you felt otherwise. I am fair minded and have demonstrated the willingness to reconsider positions if I feel that the argument against is strong. But at the same time, it also seems as though I've touched of a large emotional nerve that prevents every point from been argued rationally to reach the strongest mutual conclusion - as a result, I won't attempt to push the matter any further.

 

[travisbickle]

I don't need any evidence to convince me that "something needs to be done" if you're talking about targeting people who have committed no crimes whatsoever and putting them under a monitoring program against their will which might result in their freedoms being restricted significantly without any sort of criminal charge.

Nothing will convince me that such a cause of action is good, healthy, or humane in any way. Simply because it is not. In the same rational, no amount of evidence about racial behavior and crime statistics will "convince" me that anyone should ever consider racial profiling when it comes to criminal justice. The "evidence" doesn't matter because the solution is wrong.

There is no "issue" here other than a very disturbing fascination you have about highlighting why you feel people of a certain psychological profile should have less civil liberties than everyone else. That is the issue, and my solution to that issue is to repeatedly tell you how wrong you are, while destroying your argument completely, because hopefully you will see the flaw in your line of thinking and change for the better.

On the other hand, if you question is "what should we do about people who might lie and cheat their way into positions of power, and then proceed to abuse that power to make life more miserable for everyone else", then my answer is simple. We should have higher standards on how we evaluate people voted into political office, and there should be more open and transparent systems in both government and corporate sectors, so if there are lapses in judgement where it matters, it can be detected and remedied more quickly.

If a person is not fit for office, he should not be there. But that doesn't mean we should start witch hunts and have systems created out of fear and paranoia.

Psychopaths are unable to feel anything, they have no understanding of what it feels like to be miserable so they don't know how or why you would inflict that on another person, the unfortunate part is we have built a society in which the person who shows less feeling is the most likely too succeed. What we know about psychopaths is they have no feelings and they have an uncontrollable force to succeed. They are the hero we need for a capitalist society but not the hero we want.

Everyone grows up being told that to succeed you have to be ruthless, you have to be fearless...psychopaths have no fear; to be ruthless for 99% of the population means to show no compassion but for 1% they literally have no compassion. I was told it's a "dog eat dog world" when I was young. When I was told that I envisioned two dogs angry with each other, showing passion, hiding fear, trying not to let their guard down, but as we now understand psychopaths don't know what anger is, don't understand fear because they have never felt it, and with no fear they do not need "a guard".

The problem is people love stories and narratives, and the typical fiction psychopath is a person who gains pleasure from inflicting pain but psychopaths do not feel pleasure, and only a tiny minority of psychopaths have sado-masochistic tendencies that lead them to inflicting physical pain on others.

When asked for a word to describe psychopaths, I think most people would respond with "evil" but a lot of contemporary psychologist are questioning how you could label someone that who is incapable of truly understanding what it means?

 

[duckroll]

I typed up a longer response, but I won't post it. If you want to continue the discussion, I can PM you.

But I feel like I've wasted too much time already, getting dogpiled on. Despite the popular support for your posts, I don't think you or anyone else have properly addressed several key points that I am attempting to make.

You may feel that it's because those points are invalid - I wouldn't expect you to keep arguing so stridently if you felt otherwise. I am fair minded and have demonstrated the willingness to reconsider positions if I feel that the argument against is strong. But at the same time, it also seems as though I've touched of a large emotional nerve that prevents every point from been argued rationally to reach the strongest mutual conclusion - as a result, I won't attempt to push the matter any further.

You are being dogpiled because you are suggesting something which people find to be unreasonable and in most countries simply unconstitutional. If you cannot understand that, I cannot help you.

 

[Sickboy007]

As a psychopath and heartless monster, i'm greatly offended by this thread.

 

[Fugu]

Ok. If the the latest studies are showing that detectability of psychopathy is poor in children, then what else can be done, except to continue research, and only apply it to the cases where it is effective (i.e. in adults).

But if we can effectively detect it in children... should we not? The answer to me seems so obvious that it doesn't merit a discussion, much less the moral outrage that most in this thread are expressing.

The point I will continue to stand by is that the criminal justice system needs to be better equipped to deal with the dichotomy of psychopaths and non-psychopaths...

Spoiler

Yeah, that's all.

We can't effectively diagnose it in adults (not just because the criteria associated with psychopathy is vague but also because the diagnosis of any mental illness is vague), so what you're describing is an impossible task. Being a psychopath is not like having a tumour; conclusions are based on a large number of behavioural abnormalities and not the existence of a physical defect.

Even if it isn't, I see the diagnosis of children as psychopaths as free reign for a witch hunt. Psychopaths are not all criminals, and whether you intend it to or not the cultural and factual precepts associated with the term "psychopath" will effectively criminalize them in the eyes of the people around them ("Johnny's a psychopath, no recess for him"). And honestly, how else do you expect them to treat the budding alleged psychopath considering the literature is how it is? The legal process offers no effective method of dealing with psychopaths other than "lock 'em up and throw away the key" and that's an atrocious abortion of human rights, especially for someone who hasn't committed any crimes.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Societal solutions for psychopaths

Because of this, it would seem to me that it's very important to raise general societal awareness on the issue - and that people are willing and actively taking their children to be tested for psychopathy.

The emotionally unmalleable nature of psychopaths makes them difficult to educate, to teach, to create empathy and the necessary cognitive skills that make them functional social citizens. This early detection would allow parents and caretakers to realize early on what they're dealing with, so that they can take the appropriate steps to ready themselves and innur themselves to the unresponsive nature of psychopaths.

Further research is needed in order to figure out how to best treat this group of people - but knowing what we know here... it seems irresponsible, on a societal level, to let them roam freely, interact freely with the rest of the world.

At the very least, we need specialized institutions that have people trained specifically to deal with them - educational facilities, as well as incarceration and rehabilitation. I don't doubt that much of their more damaging traits could be quelled, given the appropriate interaction... but we won't get there without awareness and keen identification.

Actually, there is evidence that children with psychopathic traits are more malleable than adults, and may be amenable to certain types of treatment (for example, they respond beter to reward-based parenting than punishment-based parenting). However, it would be a mistake to use the PCL:YV and other diagnostic tools in the forensic context because doing so may infringe on the child's right to receive treatment by influencing the opinions of parents, teachers, psychiatrists, judges, juries, etc. which could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Research on juvenile psychopathy is in its infancy, and I think your suggestions are dangerous given our current level of ignorance and the impact your suggestions will have on children and their families. Before we start applying the psychopathy construct to childrein in the clinical and forensic settings, we need a couple of things to happen. First, more longitudinal studies to replicate preliminary results that demonstrate the stability of psychopathic traits in childhood and adolescence. Second, research should focus heavily on investigating possible treatment strategies, particularly those focusing on rewards, parent-child bonds, and cognitive-behavioural therapy. Finally, the tools used to measure juvenile psychopathy must be refined before they play a major role in the forensic or clinical environments.