Listening to The Sociopath Next Door. Hannibal got me on a bit of a psychology/neurology fix; I just finished Mind on Fire: My Month of Madness, which was the primary inspiration for Jack's anti-MNDA receptor encephalitis, and now moving on to psychopathy and sociopathy.
Less interested in "oh my ex husband/girlfriend/wife/" and more people who did not appear to have functional system of empathy, glib charm, and inability to adhered to social standards.
I'm pretty sure I have a paternal cousin Jacob would score pretty highly. He has the weird Idaho aw-shucks charm and some superficial charisma, but he beat the shit out of me every chance he got when we were alone, and picked on me constantly whenever I was struggling with outdoor activities (read: whenever I was involved in outdoor activities.) He also "offered" to sell my fathers' 500$ camera on Ebay, and then refused to give my father any of the near-500$ he got from the sale. He went on a mission to Brazil and I just kind of imagine he murdered prostitutes down there. He has the weird, scary "lizard eyes" that the book associates with real sociopaths.
Asshole does not equal sociopath. Most of that is recognizable human behavior (bullying, stealing), unless he did go and murder prostitutes.
Sometimes I think I have a stripe of sociopathy in me, due to lacking much sense of the value of human life, but it's more like I'm socially awkward and hateful. I probably wouldn't take care of three cats if I were a sociopath.
I'm trying to make that distinction.
My cousin Jacob is very, very strange. His eyes look cold, but he's almost always smirking. He steals; iirc he was also once arrested for stealing a car but somehow got off. Whatever knowledge I have of him seems to fit the key criteria of sociopathy; above-average intelligence, flat affect, superficial charm, cruelty and deceitfulness, inability to live within societal norms. If he was a substance-abuser he'd be 6/6, but he's Mormon. He also really looks like Bundy. I mean, a lot. Mormon Bundy.
TBH I'm particularly interested in those with law enforcement background, BB and CdM for instance.
Most are dull petty criminals and whores. You've probably met quite a few in your life, it's not extremely uncommon. Imagine some of the people you went to school with that were bullies, troublemakers and eventually dropped out. You probably had nothing more then contempt for them. Those are your typical Sociopaths.
There are a lot of different types. A lot of them are bums or addicts or prostitutes.
TBH I'm kind of skeptical of the category; only 2,000 years ago both my Celtic and Germanic ancestry would busily slaughter captured soldiers for the glory of Tiwaz or Taranis. That's why I'm interested in anecdotes.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 19, 2014, 03:15:31 PM
There are a lot of different types. A lot of them are bums or addicts or prostitutes.
Most tend toward crime. Poor impulse control, aggressive behavior and amoral outlook often lands you in jail. Honestly most would be pitiable if they weren't so vile.
I once saw a guy carrying around a nice Chianti. Counts?
TBH I think it's entirely possible to have pity for sociopaths. Even guys like Dahmer are at least as pathetic as they are horrifying.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 19, 2014, 03:17:07 PM
TBH I'm kind of skeptical of the category; only 2,000 years ago both my Celtic and Germanic ancestry would busily slaughter captured soldiers for the glory of Tiwaz or Taranis. That's why I'm interested in anecdotes.
I do not think that qualifies as Sociopathy. Sociopathy is a mental dysfunction. I don't think it should be confused with people from brutal cultures.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 19, 2014, 03:17:07 PM
TBH I'm kind of skeptical of the category; only 2,000 years ago both my Celtic and Germanic ancestry would busily slaughter captured soldiers for the glory of Tiwaz or Taranis. That's why I'm interested in anecdotes.
Yeah, but that was well within social norms.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2014, 03:26:08 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 19, 2014, 03:17:07 PM
TBH I'm kind of skeptical of the category; only 2,000 years ago both my Celtic and Germanic ancestry would busily slaughter captured soldiers for the glory of Tiwaz or Taranis. That's why I'm interested in anecdotes.
I do not think that qualifies as Sociopathy. Sociopathy is a mental dysfunction. I don't think it should be confused with people from brutal cultures.
:yes: Even mentally healthy people are capable of incredible brutality if they're conditioned the right way. In fact, it's the concept of limited warfare and mercy for the losers that's highly artificial and intellectual in nature.
Pharao smiting foreigners. :wub:
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2014, 03:34:13 PM
Pharao smiting foreigners. :wub:
Never figured you for an Egyptian Supremacist.
:huh: I'm not a superracist.
We should test for it in early childhood and then involuntarily commit those who test positive to psychological institutions where they would be experimented upon in an effort to fix their brains. It would markedly improve society.
Are you being intentionally ironic?
It would be quite oppressive, but it actually would improve society. Sociopaths don't have any legitimate desires because they only get off on harming others. :ph34r:
I don't think that's true. They only care about gratifying themselves, and just don't care about hurting others; have low thresholds for boredom, so they tire of normal pleasures easily, so hurting others can become a preferred outlet for some.
Is there a sociopathy spectrum, like for autism or Green Lanterns?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 19, 2014, 04:25:39 PM
We should test for it in early childhood and then involuntarily commit those who test positive to psychological institutions where they would be experimented upon in an effort to fix their brains. It would markedly improve society.
---
It would be quite oppressive, but it actually would improve society. Sociopaths don't have any legitimate desires because they only get off on harming others.
this plays on the incorrect assumption that all sociopaths hurt others and are evil evil people. we only hear about the bad sociopaths for a reason. who knows how many "good" sociopaths exist in the world and function normally
Quote from: LaCroix on January 19, 2014, 05:14:48 PM
this plays on the incorrect assumption that all sociopaths hurt others and are evil evil people. we only hear about the bad sociopaths for a reason. who knows how many "good" sociopaths exist in the world and function normally
I'd think it comes down to impulse control, if your dials aren't maxed out in the wrong psycho direction you can be a fairly well adjusted socio/psychopath instead of being a Gacy or Kuklinski.
I'm fairly certain I went to school with one, he was something to behold, completely fearless, utterly free of the notion of tit-for-tat social graces, superficially quite charming and very easily bored. Popular with the girls although nothing ever lasted for more than a few weeks. Had a fairly flimsy personality, but it did the job, he's a well regarded surgeon today.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 19, 2014, 05:31:19 PM
completely fearless, utterly free of the notion of tit-for-tat social graces, superficially quite charming and very easily bored. Popular with the girls although nothing ever lasted for more than a few weeks. Had a fairly flimsy personality, but it did the job
Ed? :unsure:
HEY NOW
Quote from: Queequeg on January 19, 2014, 03:11:19 PM
I'm trying to make that distinction.
My cousin Jacob is very, very strange. His eyes look cold, but he's almost always smirking. He steals; iirc he was also once arrested for stealing a car but somehow got off. Whatever knowledge I have of him seems to fit the key criteria of sociopathy; above-average intelligence, flat affect, superficial charm, cruelty and deceitfulness, inability to live within societal norms. If he was a substance-abuser he'd be 6/6, but he's Mormon. He also really looks like Bundy. I mean, a lot. Mormon Bundy.
TBH I'm particularly interested in those with law enforcement background, BB and CdM for instance.
I don't really have much, to be honest.
99% of the people I prosecute I have empathy for - they are people who have made bad decisions, or are fighting addiction, or have impaired capacities, or are at least nice to their children/mother, or something worthwhile.
I do remember one guy I prosecuted repeatedly in the Yukon. Never successfully. Witnesses were scared shitless to testify against him. Capable of extreme, gratuitous violence as a regular occurrence. I remember one charge against his own family - his parents (and brother) were surprisingly normal.
He died of a cocaine overdose several years back. Good riddance.
Isn't that the reason we're here on Languish--to have encounters with psychopaths and sociopaths?
But if you think about it, why would anyone ever testify? The evildoer will only be in jail for a few months and our 'justice' system refuses to hang people convicted of a crime. Fortunately I don't travel in those kind of circles, but I would never help the police under any circumstances. Too dangerous.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2014, 03:06:32 PMSometimes I think I have a stripe of sociopathy in me, due to lacking much sense of the value of human life, but it's more like I'm socially awkward and hateful.
QuoteAsshole does not equal sociopath.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 19, 2014, 07:12:29 PM
HEY NOW
Hey now? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-s7ol38Ifs
I don't have any paths.
Quote from: Neil on January 19, 2014, 03:29:21 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 19, 2014, 03:17:07 PM
TBH I'm kind of skeptical of the category; only 2,000 years ago both my Celtic and Germanic ancestry would busily slaughter captured soldiers for the glory of Tiwaz or Taranis. That's why I'm interested in anecdotes.
Yeah, but that was well within social norms.
Exactly. Psychiatric pathology is determined by comparison to the present population. A consistent inability to abide within the law above the age of 18 is how we define antisocial personality disorder today. 2000 years ago we'd have a whole other set of norms they'd gleefully violate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 19, 2014, 07:59:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2014, 03:06:32 PMSometimes I think I have a stripe of sociopathy in me, due to lacking much sense of the value of human life, but it's more like I'm socially awkward and hateful.
QuoteAsshole does not equal sociopath.
^_^
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2014, 04:41:10 PM
I don't think that's true. They only care about gratifying themselves, and just don't care about hurting others; have low thresholds for boredom, so they tire of normal pleasures easily, so hurting others can become a preferred outlet for some.
Is there a sociopathy spectrum, like for autism or Green Lanterns?
Before the age of 18 we say they have conduct disorder. Above the age of 18 it becomes antisocial personality disorder. It's not graded from my experience.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 19, 2014, 05:14:48 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 19, 2014, 04:25:39 PM
We should test for it in early childhood and then involuntarily commit those who test positive to psychological institutions where they would be experimented upon in an effort to fix their brains. It would markedly improve society.
---
It would be quite oppressive, but it actually would improve society. Sociopaths don't have any legitimate desires because they only get off on harming others.
this plays on the incorrect assumption that all sociopaths hurt others and are evil evil people. we only hear about the bad sociopaths for a reason. who knows how many "good" sociopaths exist in the world and function normally
There is no good form of sociopathy. That's akin to saying there's a good form of diabetes or cancer. People who truly have this disorder without exception have a long history of run ins with the law and a profound lack of respect for the rights of others.
What about the CEO population?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2014, 12:04:43 AM
What about the CEO population?
It's highly unlikely anyone who could get through high school, college, graduate school, and years of professional life is a sociopath. There's just too many boundaries they'd have to respect and social norms they'd have to uphold.
Can I still use sociopath as an epithet?
Quote from: Fate on January 19, 2014, 11:57:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2014, 04:41:10 PM
I don't think that's true. They only care about gratifying themselves, and just don't care about hurting others; have low thresholds for boredom, so they tire of normal pleasures easily, so hurting others can become a preferred outlet for some.
Is there a sociopathy spectrum, like for autism or Green Lanterns?
Before the age of 18 we say they have conduct disorder. Above the age of 18 it becomes antisocial personality disorder. It's not graded from my experience.
Hey Fate, do you know if there is any kind of treatment for the personality disorder yet? Anything in the works?
There is always the led pill...
Obligatory for somebody to say it since its the internet and we're all special snowflakes: me.
Quote from: Fate on January 20, 2014, 12:04:02 AMThere is no good form of sociopathy. That's akin to saying there's a good form of diabetes or cancer. People who truly have this disorder without exception have a long history of run ins with the law and a profound lack of respect for the rights of others.
without a single exception? so, in the entire history of diagnosed sociopathy, there is not a single instance where a sociopath has not had a run-in with the law? are you sure about that? how much would you be willing to bet?
now, if one can do it, then others can do it. that we hear about those that are bad just makes sense, since they're the ones that get plastered on the news or we read about. those that don't commit crimes and for whatever reason are able to navigate around at least some of the boundaries of society (whether it's because they are high functioning, raised in a correct environment, impulse control as legbiter suggested, whatever), we wouldn't hear about them
Fate overreached, but there is a strong tendency to run into legal problems. It's a mental sickness that leads to self-destructive behavior. It's not like films and TV where a sociopath is some amoral genius.
I'm unsure how to define a sociopath or psychopath.
I knew one guy, who was the husband of a friend of my mother's, who was a manipulative pathological liar who had absolutely no remorse when caught out - his reaction was, generally, to flee and start up again with a new gf and circle of aquaintances. He was constantly in and out of correctional facilities for small-time fraud; he was very successful with the ladies, in spite of his extreme personal ugliness and criminality - he'd have made a poster boy for the "seduction community". :D
However, he never as far as I know committed crimes of violence. More like he was constantly manipulating others, men for money and respect and women for money and sex, and had zero remorse about it, and seemingly no close ties to anyone that meant anything to him. Example: one day a daughter from a previous liason showed up at his (ex) wife's door, to meet her half-brother whom she'd just found out about. When asked if she had met her dad, turned out she had as an adult - when she did, he's gone into some long (totally fictional) sob story about how her mom had done him wrong, the end result of which eventually being that 'dad' scammed the daughter out of her (small) savings she was building up to go to university.
Was he a sociopath? I have no idea. He was a very bad dude to know, definitely.
I'd guess the CEOs are just as much outliers as the ones on the "negative" end of the scale. We don't "diagnose" positive stuff though.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 20, 2014, 11:10:56 AM
Quote from: Fate on January 20, 2014, 12:04:02 AMThere is no good form of sociopathy. That's akin to saying there's a good form of diabetes or cancer. People who truly have this disorder without exception have a long history of run ins with the law and a profound lack of respect for the rights of others.
without a single exception? so, in the entire history of diagnosed sociopathy, there is not a single instance where a sociopath has not had a run-in with the law? are you sure about that? how much would you be willing to bet?
now, if one can do it, then others can do it. that we hear about those that are bad just makes sense, since they're the ones that get plastered on the news or we read about. those that don't commit crimes and for whatever reason are able to navigate around at least some of the boundaries of society (whether it's because they are high functioning, raised in a correct environment, impulse control as legbiter suggested, whatever), we wouldn't hear about them
I'll bet you one billion trillion zillion dollars. The disorder is diagnosed by virtue of run ins with the law, lack of respect for social norms, etc. If you aren't getting in trouble with authority you don't have the pathology. You may have antisocial traits (which all humans have, to a varying degree), but you do not have antisocial personality disorder or the most severe variant known as psychopathy/sociopathy.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2014, 12:59:08 AM
Quote from: Fate on January 19, 2014, 11:57:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2014, 04:41:10 PM
I don't think that's true. They only care about gratifying themselves, and just don't care about hurting others; have low thresholds for boredom, so they tire of normal pleasures easily, so hurting others can become a preferred outlet for some.
Is there a sociopathy spectrum, like for autism or Green Lanterns?
Before the age of 18 we say they have conduct disorder. Above the age of 18 it becomes antisocial personality disorder. It's not graded from my experience.
Hey Fate, do you know if there is any kind of treatment for the personality disorder yet? Anything in the works?
Epidemiological studies show 1/3rd spontaneously remit from antisocial personality disorder in mid-adulthood, 1/3rd stay the same severity, and 1/3rd get worse.
Marriage has been shown to mildly mitigate the severity of their pathology. Antipsychotic medications can pacify actively violent individuals but does not decrease antisocial tendencies. There is no effective treatment. Cognitive behavioral therapy is largely useless.
Quote from: Malthus on January 20, 2014, 12:22:53 PM
I'm unsure how to define a sociopath or psychopath.
I knew one guy, who was the husband of a friend of my mother's, who was a manipulative pathological liar who had absolutely no remorse when caught out - his reaction was, generally, to flee and start up again with a new gf and circle of aquaintances. He was constantly in and out of correctional facilities for small-time fraud; he was very successful with the ladies, in spite of his extreme personal ugliness and criminality - he'd have made a poster boy for the "seduction community". :D
However, he never as far as I know committed crimes of violence. More like he was constantly manipulating others, men for money and respect and women for money and sex, and had zero remorse about it, and seemingly no close ties to anyone that meant anything to him. Example: one day a daughter from a previous liason showed up at his (ex) wife's door, to meet her half-brother whom she'd just found out about. When asked if she had met her dad, turned out she had as an adult - when she did, he's gone into some long (totally fictional) sob story about how her mom had done him wrong, the end result of which eventually being that 'dad' scammed the daughter out of her (small) savings she was building up to go to university.
Was he a sociopath? I have no idea. He was a very bad dude to know, definitely.
He probably had antisocial personality disorder (ASPD.)
Sociopath/psychopath has a more nebulous definition. It's not longer a diagnosis in modern psychiatry but the term persists in pop culture. Classically it was seen as a malignant subset of ASPD. Not all people with ASPD are psychopaths, but all psychopaths have ASPD
How many of them are previously-normal people who at some point had some kind of break?
It can be brought on by brain damage, and generally speaking a shitty childhood can unlock stuff that's already there in the brain or the genes.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2014, 01:36:30 PM
How many of them are previously-normal people who at some point had some kind of break?
You may be referring to a psychotic break or psychosis - that is a completely different disease process. Psychosis is a spectrum that ranges from a brief psychotic episode (< 1 month of psychosis) to schizophrenia (>6 months of psychosis) in the extreme. It has no relation to antisocial personality disorder or sociopathy/psychopathy.
Psychosis is essentially a loss of contact with reality - be it catatonia, auditory/visual hallucinations, bizarre delusions, etc. It is not generally characterized by violence or willful violation of the rights of others. Individuals with antisocial personality disorder are very much in contact with reality and exhibit the aforementioned behaviors.
You don't go from being completely normal to having ASPD. It's very much the fiber of who you are. This is why it's so resistant to treatment. 3-5% of the general population has ASPD. A past study within the prison population has put the prevalence at around 70%.
Is it true that we should herd diagnosis people into camps?
Quote from: The Brain on January 20, 2014, 02:16:58 PM
Is it true that we should herd diagnosis people into camps?
That sounds like quite a diagnosis!
Why are there so many posts in thie thread?
This is not an interesting topic.
That's old world tribalist/socialist/kibutznik thinking Seebrew.
Here in the Land of the Free people can think and talk about whatever they want.
Quote from: Siege on January 20, 2014, 03:22:15 PM
Why are there so many posts in thie thread?
This is not an interesting topic.
Well, for the rest of us, psychopaths are a bit of a
novelty ... ;)
Quote from: Fate on January 20, 2014, 01:24:03 PMI'll bet you one billion trillion zillion dollars. The disorder is diagnosed by virtue of run ins with the law, lack of respect for social norms, etc. If you aren't getting in trouble with authority you don't have the pathology. You may have antisocial traits (which all humans have, to a varying degree), but you do not have antisocial personality disorder or the most severe variant known as psychopathy/sociopathy.
i found a link that explains the major way (i believe) on how psychopathy is diagnosed, which is the psychopathy checklist revised (PCL-R). it lists 20 traits, and each trait is marked on a 0-2 scale, so 40 points possible. if the person receives a score of 30 or higher they are labeled as a psychopath
Quoteglibness/superficial charm
grandiose sense of self worth
need for stimulation/prone to boredom
pathological lying
conning/manipulative
lack of remorse or guilt
shallow emotional response
callous/lack of empathy
parasitic lifestyle
poor behavioral controls
promiscuous sexual behavior
early behavioral problems
lack of realistic long term goals
impulsivity
irresponsibility
failure to accept responsibility for their own actions
many short term relationships
juvenile delinquency
revocation of conditional release
criminal versatility
this list shows that criminal history is a factor considered, but not a
requirement of psychopathy. furthermore, checking the wikipedia page shows that one criticism by a peer reviewed paper argues that this list actually places too much emphasis on the criminality of the person
not to mention loads of psychologists that disagree...
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopathy_in_a_community.pdf
QuoteMore recent conceptualizations of psychopathy (Hare, 1993) have also
suggested that the syndrome is neither restricted to incarcerated populations
nor to those who engage in criminal acts. Rather, the syndrome may
be found among community groups, even high achievers, such as business-
men, politicians, doctors, lawyers, and university students who, because of
core features such as good social skills, high intelligence, and high socio-
economic status, may have escaped law enforcement agencies or have
taken advantage of others without formally committing illegal acts (Hare,
1993; Zagon & Jackson, 1994).
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/psychopathy-a-misunderstood-personality-disorder.html
QuoteAlong with challenging the assumption that psychopathy is a monolithic entity, perhaps the other most important myth that the authors hope to dispel is that psychopathy is synonymous with violence. Skeem points out that psychopathic individuals often have no history of violent behaviour or criminal convictions. "Psychopathy cannot be equated with extreme violence or serial killing. In fact, "psychopaths" do not appear different in kind from other people, or inalterably dangerous," she observes. Nor is it clear that psychopathy predicts violence much better than a past history of violent and other criminal behavior – or general antisocial traits.
i also found this, which notes the psychopath/sociopath is diagnosed but has no criminal record:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/confessions-sociopath
so, you are incorrect when you say that a requirement of a psychopathy diagnosis is that the person has a criminal past
no need to pay me one billion trillion zillion dollars
You don't seem to understand that people who avoid getting in trouble with the law and respect social norms aren't going to end up getting a diagnosis of ASPD. There is a difference between a disorder and traits. People with traits are normal. They by definition cannot be the most severe form of ASPD (psychopaths).
We don't diagnose antisocial personality disorder purely via surveys. Surveys may be useful as a screening tool, but this is still a
clinical diagnosis.
DSM-IV definition of antisocial personality disorder - i.e. the one used by Western medical science
Quote
A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; reckless disregard for safety of self or others
4. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
5. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
B) The individual is at least age 18 years.
C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode
Looks like only 1 and 3 are somewhat related to illegality. Seems like then someone could get the diagnosis on basis of 2, 4 and 5.
Quote from: Fate on January 20, 2014, 05:58:57 PM
Let's stick to psychiatry and medical science. Psychopath is no longer a medical diagnosis accepted by the community at large. In the past has referred to the most severe form of antisocial personality disorder. People with severe ASPD aren't becoming doctors or lawyers. Don't confuse people who may have antisocial traits with those with who have a disorder.
We don't diagnose antisocial personality disorder via surveys. Surveys may be useful as a screening tool, but this is still a clinical diagnosis.
DSM-IV definition of antisocial personality disorder - i.e. the one used by Western medical science
Quote
A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; reckless disregard for safety of self or others
4. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
5. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
B) The individual is at least age 18 years.
C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode
ok
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16756576
QuoteAlthough often used interchangeably, the diagnostic constructs of psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial personality disorder are distinct.
...
For example, research shows that between 50% and 80% of prisoners meet the criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, yet only approximately 15% of prisoners would be expected to be psychopathic, as assessed by the PCL-R. As such, the characteristics and research findings drawn from the psychopathy research may not be relevant for those with antisocial or dissocial personality disorder.
also, and this is admittedly nitpicking, "run ins with the law" which you originally said was a requirement of psychopathy is different than "acts that are grounds for arrest"
but we both know the DSM-IV isn't perfect, as it just can't be given the abundant level of research into psychology that occurs every day. they focus so much on the criminal acts because psychologists use prisoners as their main source of research for this issue. that the DSM-IV states someone must have conducted "acts that are grounds for arrest" in their past to be diagnosed with antisocial behavior does not mean there is not someone with antisocial behavior that has committed no "acts that are grounds for arrest" (beyond childhood)
edit: actually, wait. yours says "three or more" .. the list i found on some bullshit website said "must meet all of the following." that makes it easier.
also, why are you using DSM-IV? this is 2014 ;)
http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/610_clinica_cuadrosfront_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf
this shows DSM-V's list:
Quote
General Criteria for a Personality Disorder
The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in
personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of
pathological personality traits. To diagnose a personality disorder,
the following criteria must be met:
A.
Significant impairments in self (identity or self-direction) and
interpersonal (empathy or intimacy) functioning.
B.
One or more pathological personality trait domains or trait facets.
C.
The impairments in personality functioning and
the individual‟s
personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and
consistent across situations.
D.
The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s
personality trait expression are not better understood as
normative for the individual‟s developmental stage or sociocultural environment.
E.
The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s
personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct
physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse,
medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head
trauma)
Antisocial Personality Disorder
The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in
personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of
pathological personality traits. To diagnose antisocial personality
disorder, the following criteria must be met:
A.
Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:
1.
Impairments in self functioning (a or b):
a.
Identity: Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from
personal gain, power, or pleasure.
b.
Self-direction: Goal-setting based on personal
gratification; absence of prosocial internal
standards associated with failure to conform to
lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior.
AND
2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):
a.
Empathy: Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or
suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or
mistreating another.
b.
Intimacy: Incapacity for mutually intimate
relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of
relating to others, including by deceit and coercion;
use of dominance or intimidation to control others.
B.
Pathological personality traits in the following domains:
1.
Antagonism, characterized by:
a.
Manipulativeness: Frequent use of subterfuge to influence
or control others; use of seduction, charm, glibness,
or ingratiation to achieve one's ends.
b.
Deceitfulness: Dishonesty and fraudulence;
misrepresentation of self; embellishment or
fabrication when relating events.
c.
Callousness: Lack of concern for feelings or
problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse
about the negative or harmful effects of one's
actions on others; aggression; sadism.
d.
Hostility: Persistent or frequent angry feelings;
anger or irritability in response to minor slights and
insults; mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior.
2.
Disinhibition, characterized by:
a.
Irresponsibility: Disregard for and failure to
honor financial and other obligations or commitments;
lack of respect for and lack of follow through on
agreements and promises.
b.
Impulsivity: Acting on the spur of the moment
in response to immediate stimuli; acting on a
momentary basis without a plan or consideration
of outcomes; difficulty establishing and following
plans.
c.
Risk taking: Engagement in dangerous, risky, and
potentially self-damaging activities, unnecessarily
and without regard for consequences; boredom
proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to
counter boredom; lack of concern for one,,s
limitations and denial of the reality of personal danger
C.
The impairments in personality functioning and the
individual's personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and
consistent across situations.
D.
The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s
personality trait expression are not better understood as
normative for the individual's developmental stage or socio-cultural environment.
E.
The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s
personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct
physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse,
medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head
trauma).
F.
The individual is at least age 18 years
Quote from: Fate on January 20, 2014, 01:33:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 20, 2014, 12:22:53 PM
I'm unsure how to define a sociopath or psychopath.
I knew one guy, who was the husband of a friend of my mother's, who was a manipulative pathological liar who had absolutely no remorse when caught out - his reaction was, generally, to flee and start up again with a new gf and circle of aquaintances. He was constantly in and out of correctional facilities for small-time fraud; he was very successful with the ladies, in spite of his extreme personal ugliness and criminality - he'd have made a poster boy for the "seduction community". :D
However, he never as far as I know committed crimes of violence. More like he was constantly manipulating others, men for money and respect and women for money and sex, and had zero remorse about it, and seemingly no close ties to anyone that meant anything to him. Example: one day a daughter from a previous liason showed up at his (ex) wife's door, to meet her half-brother whom she'd just found out about. When asked if she had met her dad, turned out she had as an adult - when she did, he's gone into some long (totally fictional) sob story about how her mom had done him wrong, the end result of which eventually being that 'dad' scammed the daughter out of her (small) savings she was building up to go to university.
Was he a sociopath? I have no idea. He was a very bad dude to know, definitely.
He probably had antisocial personality disorder (ASPD.)
Sociopath/psychopath has a more nebulous definition. It's not longer a diagnosis in modern psychiatry but the term persists in pop culture. Classically it was seen as a malignant subset of ASPD. Not all people with ASPD are psychopaths, but all psychopaths have ASPD
Reading the definition you just posted, this guy fit it very well.
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
- Yup. He was always in the slammer.
2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
- Consistent, pathological lying and conning. Mind you, he apparently lied even when he didn't stand to gain.
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; reckless disregard for safety of self or others
- This one, no. He wasn't into violence.
4. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
- Yup. He was a deadbeat. Never worked an honest day in his life, as far as I know.
5. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
- And how! He stole the college fund from the kid he abandoned, when she sought him out in some sort of effort to 'connect' with her long-lost dad. Can't think of lower, more rotten behaviour, myself. Didn't phase him in the slightest, apparently.
make sure you check my edit, fate. it just doesn't make sense that criminal background would be a requirement to diagnose psychopathy. you know? just think about it
Quote from: Fate on January 20, 2014, 01:24:03 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 20, 2014, 11:10:56 AM
Quote from: Fate on January 20, 2014, 12:04:02 AMThere is no good form of sociopathy. That's akin to saying there's a good form of diabetes or cancer. People who truly have this disorder without exception have a long history of run ins with the law and a profound lack of respect for the rights of others.
without a single exception? so, in the entire history of diagnosed sociopathy, there is not a single instance where a sociopath has not had a run-in with the law? are you sure about that? how much would you be willing to bet?
now, if one can do it, then others can do it. that we hear about those that are bad just makes sense, since they're the ones that get plastered on the news or we read about. those that don't commit crimes and for whatever reason are able to navigate around at least some of the boundaries of society (whether it's because they are high functioning, raised in a correct environment, impulse control as legbiter suggested, whatever), we wouldn't hear about them
I'll bet you one billion trillion zillion dollars. The disorder is diagnosed by virtue of run ins with the law, lack of respect for social norms, etc. If you aren't getting in trouble with authority you don't have the pathology. You may have antisocial traits (which all humans have, to a varying degree), but you do not have antisocial personality disorder or the most severe variant known as psychopathy/sociopathy.
Oh, so psychology is just a social construct then and not an actual science? That's a bummer.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2014, 06:40:30 PM
Quote from: Fate on January 20, 2014, 01:24:03 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 20, 2014, 11:10:56 AM
Quote from: Fate on January 20, 2014, 12:04:02 AMThere is no good form of sociopathy. That's akin to saying there's a good form of diabetes or cancer. People who truly have this disorder without exception have a long history of run ins with the law and a profound lack of respect for the rights of others.
without a single exception? so, in the entire history of diagnosed sociopathy, there is not a single instance where a sociopath has not had a run-in with the law? are you sure about that? how much would you be willing to bet?
now, if one can do it, then others can do it. that we hear about those that are bad just makes sense, since they're the ones that get plastered on the news or we read about. those that don't commit crimes and for whatever reason are able to navigate around at least some of the boundaries of society (whether it's because they are high functioning, raised in a correct environment, impulse control as legbiter suggested, whatever), we wouldn't hear about them
I'll bet you one billion trillion zillion dollars. The disorder is diagnosed by virtue of run ins with the law, lack of respect for social norms, etc. If you aren't getting in trouble with authority you don't have the pathology. You may have antisocial traits (which all humans have, to a varying degree), but you do not have antisocial personality disorder or the most severe variant known as psychopathy/sociopathy.
Oh, so psychology is just a social construct then and not an actual science? That's a bummer.
:huh:
Anyway, here is what the DSM V categorizes as a disorder:
Quote"A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above."
Seems sensible enough.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2014, 06:40:30 PMOh, so psychology is just a social construct then and not an actual science? That's a bummer.
i heard a girl once say that schizophrenia was just a normal reaction to the craziness of society :)
Quote from: LaCroix on January 20, 2014, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2014, 06:40:30 PMOh, so psychology is just a social construct then and not an actual science? That's a bummer.
i heard a girl once say that schizophrenia was just a normal reaction to the craziness of society :)
I've heard girls say all sorts of strange things.
We already know about the psychopathy of corporations and how they fit the metrics of a psychopath, but here's a recent FBI bulletin on Corporate Psychopaths themselves.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/november-2012/the-corporate-psychopath
Forbes piece on The Disturbing Link Between Psychopathy And Leadership (http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/)
Oh look, Seedy posts links supporting his distorted world view.
I just always found it highly ironical how those corporate leadership training and cohorts I've attended coached you in teamwork, cooperation, respect, "golden rule" stuff, etc.,...and yet, the organizations are always run by those that never followed that bullshit.
Ironic? I think it makes sense. Keeps those not in senior management complacent as long as the ruse isn't insultingly obvious.
QuoteIn 2005, James Fallon's life started to resemble the plot of a well-honed joke or big-screen thriller: A neuroscientist is working in his laboratory one day when he thinks he has stumbled upon a big mistake. He is researching Alzheimer's and using his healthy family members' brain scans as a control, while simultaneously reviewing the fMRIs of murderous psychopaths for a side project. It appears, though, that one of the killers' scans has been shuffled into the wrong batch.
The scans are anonymously labeled, so the researcher has a technician break the code to identify the individual in his family, and place his or her scan in its proper place. When he sees the results, however, Fallon immediately orders the technician to double check the code. But no mistake has been made: The brain scan that mirrors those of the psychopaths is his own.
After discovering that he had the brain of a psychopath, Fallon delved into his family tree and spoke with experts, colleagues, relatives, and friends to see if his behavior matched up with the imaging in front of him. He not only learned that few people were surprised at the outcome, but that the boundary separating him from dangerous criminals was less determinate than he presumed. Fallon wrote about his research and findings in the book The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist's Personal Journey Into the Dark Side of the Brain, and we spoke about the idea of nature versus nurture, and what—if anything—can be done for people whose biology might betray their behavior.
One of the first things you talk about in your book is the often unrealistic or ridiculous ways that psychopaths are portrayed in film and television. Why did you decide to share your story and risk being lumped in with all of that?
I'm a basic neuroscientist—stem cells, growth factors, imaging genetics—that sort of thing. When I found out about my scan, I kind of let it go after I saw that the rest of my family's were quite normal. I was worried about Alzheimer's, especially along my wife's side, and we were concerned about our kids and grandkids. Then my lab was busy doing gene discovery for schizophrenia and Alzheimer's and launching a biotech start-up from our research on adult stem cells. We won an award and I was so involved with other things that I didn't actually look at my results for a couple of years.
This personal experience really had me look into a field that I was only tangentially related to, and burnished into my mind the importance of genes and the environment on a molecular level. For specific genes, those interactions can really explain behavior. And what is hidden under my personal story is a discussion about the effect of bullying, abuse, and street violence on kids.
You used to believe that people were roughly 80 percent the result of genetics, and 20 percent the result of their environment. How did this discovery cause a shift in your thinking?
I went into this with the bias of a scientist who believed, for many years, that genetics were very, very dominant in who people are—that your genes would tell you who you were going to be. It's not that I no longer think that biology, which includes genetics, is a major determinant; I just never knew how profoundly an early environment could affect somebody.
While I was writing this book, my mother started to tell me more things about myself. She said she had never told me or my father how weird I was at certain points in my youth, even though I was a happy-go-lucky kind of kid. And as I was growing up, people all throughout my life said I could be some kind of gang leader or Mafioso don because of certain behavior. Some parents forbade their children from hanging out with me. They'd wonder how I turned out so well—a family guy, successful, professional, never been to jail and all that.
I asked everybody that I knew, including psychiatrists and geneticists that have known me for a long time, and knew my bad behavior, what they thought. They went through very specific things that I had done over the years and said, "That's psychopathic." I asked them why they didn't tell me and they said, "We did tell you. We've all been telling you." I argued that they had called me "crazy," and they all said, "No. We said you're psychopathic."
I found out that I happened to have a series of genetic alleles, "warrior genes," that had to do with serotonin and were thought to be at risk for aggression, violence, and low emotional and interpersonal empathy—if you're raised in an abusive environment. But if you're raised in a very positive environment, that can have the effect of offsetting the negative effects of some of the other genes.
Courtesy James Fallon
I had some geneticists and psychiatrists who didn't know me examine me independently, and look at the whole series of disorders I've had throughout my life. None of them have been severe; I've had the mild form of things like anxiety disorder and OCD, but it lined up with my genetics.
The scientists said, "For one, you might never have been born." My mother had miscarried several times and there probably were some genetic errors. They also said that if I hadn't been treated so well, I probably wouldn't have made it out of being a teenager. I would have committed suicide or have gotten killed, because I would have been a violent guy.
How did you react to hearing all of this?
I said, "Well, I don't care." And they said, "That proves that you have a fair dose of psychopathy." Scientists don't like to be wrong, and I'm narcissistic so I hate to be wrong, but when the answer is there before you, you have to suck it up, admit it, and move on. I couldn't.
I started reacting with narcissism, saying, "Okay, I bet I can beat this. Watch me and I'll be better." Then I realized my own narcissism was driving that response. If you knew me, you'd probably say, "Oh, he's a fun guy"–or maybe, "He's a big-mouth and a blowhard narcissist"—but I also think you'd say, "All in all, he's interesting, and smart, and okay." But here's the thing—the closer to me you are, the worse it gets. Even though I have a number of very good friends, they have all ultimately told me over the past two years when I asked them—and they were consistent even though they hadn't talked to each other—that I do things that are quite irresponsible. It's not like I say, Go get into trouble. I say, Jump in the water with me.
What's an example of that, and how do you come back from hurting someone in that way?
For me, because I need these buzzes, I get into dangerous situations. Years ago, when I worked at the University of Nairobi Hospital, a few doctors had told me about AIDS in the region as well as the Marburg virus. They said a guy had come in who was bleeding out of his nose and ears, and that he had been up in the Elgon, in the Kitum Caves. I thought, "Oh, that's where the elephants go," and I knew I had to visit. I would have gone alone, but my brother was there. I told him it was an epic trek to where the old matriarch elephants went to retrieve minerals in the caves, but I didn't mention anything else.
When we got there, there was a lot of rebel activity on the mountain, so there was nobody in the park except for one guard. So we just went in. There were all these rare animals and it was tremendous, but also, this guy had died from Marburg after being here, and nobody knew exactly how he'd gotten it. I knew his path and followed it to see where he camped.
That night, we wrapped ourselves around a fire because there were lions and all these other animals. We were jumping around and waving sticks on fire at the animals in the absolute dark. My brother was going crazy and I joked, "I have to put my head inside of yours because I have a family and you don't, so if a lion comes and bites one of our necks, it's gotta be you."
Again, I was joking around, but it was a real danger. The next day, we walked into the Kitum Caves and you could see where rocks had been knocked over by the elephants. There was also the smell of all of this animal dung—and that's where the guy got the Marburg; scientists didn't know whether it was the dung or the bats.
A bit later, my brother read an article in The New Yorker about Marburg, which inspired the movie Outbreak. He asked me if I knew about it. I said, "Yeah. Wasn't it exciting? Nobody gets to do this trip." And he called me names and said, "Not exciting enough. We could've gotten Marburg; we could have gotten killed every two seconds." All of my brothers have a lot of machismo and brio; you've got to be a tough guy in our family. But deep inside, I don't think that my brother fundamentally trusts me after that. And why should he, right? To me, it was nothing.
After all of this research, I started to think of this experience as an opportunity to do something good out of being kind of a jerk my entire life. Instead of trying to fundamentally change—because it's very difficult to change anything—I wanted to use what could be considered faults, like narcissism, to an advantage; to do something good.
What has that involved?
I started with simple things of how I interact with my wife, my sister, and my mother. Even though they've always been close to me, I don't treat them all that well. I treat strangers pretty well—really well, and people tend to like me when they meet me—but I treat my family the same way, like they're just somebody at a bar. I treat them well, but I don't treat them in a special way. That's the big problem.
I asked them this—it's not something a person will tell you spontaneously—but they said, "I give you everything. I give you all this love and you really don't give it back." They all said it, and that sure bothered me. So I wanted to see if I could change. I don't believe it, but I'm going to try.
In order to do that, every time I started to do something, I had to think about it, look at it, and go: No. Don't do the selfish thing or the self-serving thing. Step-by-step, that's what I've been doing for about a year and a half and they all like it. Their basic response is: We know you don't really mean it, but we still like it.
I told them, "You've got to be kidding me. You accept this? It's phony!" And they said, "No, it's okay. If you treat people better it means you care enough to try." It blew me away then and still blows me away now.
But treating everyone the same isn't necessarily a bad thing, is it? Is it just that the people close to you want more from you?
Yes. They absolutely expect and demand more. It's a kind of cruelty, a kind of abuse, because you're not giving them that love. My wife to this day says it's hard to be with me at parties because I've got all these people around me, and I'll leave her or other people in the cold. She is not a selfish person, but I can see how it can really work on somebody.
Related Story
The Dark Side of Emotional Intelligence
I gave a talk two years ago in India at the Mumbai LitFest on personality disorders and psychopathy, and we also had a historian from Oxford talk about violence against women in terms of the brain and social development. After it was over, a woman came up to me and asked if we could talk. She was a psychiatrist but also a science writer and said, "You said that you live in a flat emotional world—that is, that you treat everybody the same. That's Buddhist." I don't know anything about Buddhism but she continued on and said, "It's too bad that the people close to you are so disappointed in being close to you. Any learned Buddhist would think this was great." I don't know what to do with that.
Sometimes the truth is not just that it hurts, but that it's just so disappointing. You want to believe in romance and have romance in your life—even the most hardcore, cold intellectual wants the romantic notion. It kind of makes life worth living. But with these kinds of things, you really start thinking about what a machine it means we are—what it means that some of us don't need those feelings, while some of us need them so much. It destroys the romantic fabric of society in a way.
So what I do, in this situation, is think: How do I treat the people in my life as if I'm their son, or their brother, or their husband? It's about going the extra mile for them so that they know I know this is the right thing to do. I know when the situation comes up, but my gut instinct is to do something selfish. Instead, I slow down and try to think about it. It's like dumb behavioral modification; there's no finesse to this, but I said, well, why does there have to be finesse? I'm trying to treat it as a straightaway thing, when the situation comes up, to realize there's a chance that I might wrong, or reacting in a poor way, or without any sort of love—like a human.
A few years ago there was an article in The New York Times called, "Can You Call a 9-Year-Old a Psychopath?" The subject was a boy named Michael whose family was concerned about him—he'd been diagnosed with several disorders and eventually deemed a possible psychopath by Dan Waschbusch, a researcher at Florida International University who studies "callous unemotional children." Dr. Waschbusch examines these children in hopes of finding possible treatment or rehabilitation. You mentioned earlier that you don't believe people can fundamentally change; what is your take on this research?
In the 70's, when I was still a post-doc student and a young professor, I started working with some psychiatrists and neurologists who would tell me that they could identify a probable psychopath when he or she was only 2 or 3 years old. I asked them why they didn't tell the parents and they said, "There's no way I'm going to tell anybody. First of all, you can't be sure; second of all, it could destroy the kid's life; and third of all, the media and the whole family will be at your door with sticks and knives." So, when Dr. Waschbusch came out two years ago, it was like, "My god. He actually said it." This was something that all psychiatrists and neurologists in the field knew—especially if they were pediatric psychologists and had the full trajectory of a kid's life. It can be recognized very, very early—certainly before 9-years-old—but by that time the question of how to un-ring the bell is a tough one.
My bias is that even though I work in growth factors, plasticity, memory, and learning, I think the whole idea of plasticity in adults—or really after puberty—is so overblown. No one knows if the changes that have been shown are permanent and it doesn't count if it's only temporary. It's like the Mozart Effect—sure, there are studies saying there is plasticity in the brain using a sound stimulation or electrical stimulation, but talk to this person in a year or two. Has anything really changed? An entire cottage industry was made from playing Mozart to pregnant women's abdomens. That's how the idea of plasticity gets out of hand. I think people can change if they devote their whole life to the one thing and stop all the other parts of their life, but that's what people can't do. You can have behavioral plasticity and maybe change behavior with parallel brain circuitry, but the number of times this happens is really rare.
So I really still doubt plasticity. I'm trying to do it by devoting myself to this one thing—to being a nice guy to the people that are close to me—but it's a sort of game that I'm playing with myself because I don't really believe it can be done, and it's a challenge.
In some ways, though, the stakes are different for you because you're not violent—and isn't that the concern? Relative to your own life, your attempts to change may positively impact your relationships with your friends, family, and colleagues. But in the case of possibly violent people, they may harm others.
The jump from being a "prosocial" psychopath or somebody on the edge who doesn't act out violently, to someone who really is a real, criminal predator is not clear. For me, I think I was protected because I was brought up in an upper-middle-class, educated environment with very supportive men and women in my family. So there may be a mass convergence of genetics and environment over a long period of time. But what would happen if I lost my family or lost my job; what would I then become? That's the test.
For people who have the fundamental biology—the genetics, the brain patterns, and that early existence of trauma—first of all, if they're abused they're going to be pissed off and have a sense of revenge: I don't care what happens to the world because I'm getting even. But a real, primary psychopath doesn't need that. They're just predators who don't need to be angry at all; they do these things because of some fundamental lack of connection with the human race, and with individuals, and so on.
Someone who has money, and sex, and rock and roll, and everything they want may still be psychopathic—but they may just manipulate people, or use people, and not kill them. They may hurt others, but not in a violent way. Most people care about violence—that's the thing. People may say, "Oh, this very bad investment counselor was a psychopath"—but the essential difference in criminality between that and murder is something we all hate and we all fear. It just isn't known if there is some ultimate trigger.
And though there isn't an absolute "fix," you talk about the importance of the "fourth trimester"—the months following a baby's birth when bonding is key. What are other really crucial moments where you can see how someone may be at risk, or where this convergence of genetics and environment might be crucial for intervention, or at least identifying what is happening?
There are some critical periods in human development. For the epigenome, the first moment is the moment of conception. That is when the genetics are very vulnerable to methylation and, therefore, the effects of a harsh environment: the mother under stress, the mother taking drugs, alcohol, and things like that. The second greatest susceptibility is the moment of birth and, of course, there are the third and fourth trimesters. After that, there is a slow sort of susceptibility curve that goes down.
The first two years of life are critical if you overlap them with the emergence of what are called complex adaptive behaviors. When children are born they have some natural kinds of genetic programming. For example, a kid will show certain kinds of fear—of certain people, then of strangers, then it's acceptance of people—that's complex-adaptive behavior at work in social interactions. But even laughing, and smiling, and making raspberry sounds are all complex-adaptive behaviors, and they will emerge automatically. You don't need to be taught these things.
One idea is that over the first three years there are 350 very early complex adaptive behaviors that go in sequence, but if somehow you're interrupted with a stressor, it will affect that particular behavior that's emerging or just about to emerge. It could be at a year and half, 3 months, or 12 months. After that, the effects of environment really start to drop; by the time you start hitting puberty, you kind of get locked in. And during puberty your frontal lobe system does a switch.
Courtesy James Fallon
Before puberty, a lot of your brain–your frontal lobe and its connections—has to do with the orbital cortex, amygdala, and that lower half of the brain that controls emotional regulation. It is also the origin of people's natural sense of morality, when they learn regulation and the rules of the game, which are ethics. Before then, generally, a normal kid is very much living in a world of id—eating, drinking, some sexuality—but they're also extremely moralistic. So, those are two things that are fighting each other those first years.
Courtesy James Fallon
Then, there's a switch that occurs late in adolescence. For some people it could be 17, 18, 19, or 20-years-old. What happens is that the upper part of the brain, the frontal lobe and its connections, start to mature. That's a critical time because that's usually when you see schizophrenia, some forms of depression, and those major psychiatric disorders emerge. For personality disorders it's not really known when they will emerge because it's very understudied. People will say, you can't do anything about it, it's locked in and there seems to be almost no treatment. Whereas, for things like depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, you can do something about it. There are drugs, or things you can do with brain stimulation and talk therapy, so that's where Big Pharma and the whole industry goes.
You start to really see personality disorders emerge around puberty, but for some children who might be primary psychopaths—that is, they have all the genes and their brain sort of set in the third trimester—this can start emerging very early, around 2 or 3-years-old. That is why we have to have more trained eyes—because that is where this becomes important for society.
A primary psychopath won't necessarily be dangerous, but if we can see that in a kid, we can tell parents to look for certain kinds of behavior. And if those behaviors emerge, we can safely discuss, protecting the privacy of that family and of the kid, how to have the child interact with a nurse practitioner or a trained professional. At that point, we can say: Make sure this kid is never bullied in school; keep them away from street violence, on and on.
A lot of kids, most kids, get bullied and they may get pissed off, but that doesn't create a personality disorder. But there are 20 percent of kids who are really susceptible and they may ultimately be triggered for a personality disorder in puberty. If we know these children can be helped by making sure that they aren't abused or abandoned—because you've got to get there really early—well, then, that would be important to do. I don't mean to preach.
Well, go into the idea of preaching a little. You make a kind of grandiose statement at the beginning of your book that research into psychopaths, even with all of the privacy concerns, could have great implications for things from parenting to World Peace. What does that mean?
It means, for example, that if you have to go to war, and sometimes you probably have to go to war—I'm not talking about a belligerent country starting war or fomenting discord, but if you have to go to war and to engage infantry—you do not send 18-year-olds into it, because their brains aren't set. They don't know how to adjudicate what's happening emotionally and hormonally with the intellectualization of it. When you're 20, 25, it's a different matter because things gel a little more. Our emotions don't get away from us as much in terms of what is happening. Other factors, sociological ones like what soldiers return to, are also important, but we're not going to get rid of war any time soon, so we might as well engage in a way that does the least amount of damage.
In terms of legal action, you've been used as a researcher for court cases—not to determine guilt or innocence, but for sentencing. Do you think there's a moral boundary for that since we don't have enough knowledge on this field yet to determine guilt or innocence?
We don't have enough research. You can't just take genetics—even though I'm a big proponent of it—or imaging, and tell if someone's a criminal or a psychopath. If you put together all that information, you could explain a lot of behavior and causality and early abuse—but we don't know enough.
So, when I get a case to look at, first of all, I don't accept money—and it's not because I'm a nice guy. It's because I think I'd be biased. I don't accept any payment and I don't want to know who the person is.We all try to create a story or narrative, and I'm just as weak as anybody. I'll tell the defense attorney, or public defender, or whoever it is to just send me scans, maybe with normal scans to try to throw me off, and then I'll look at them and discuss what the traits of the person might be based on the lack of activity in certain areas or not.
I can usually say, "Oh, this person might have a language problem," or "This person might have trouble with impulsivity." After all of that analysis is there, we can look at their traits and see what they've done.
We've talked a lot about how to support a child that might be psychopathic, but what if the parent is the one whose brain resembles that of a psychopath? For example, what was it like for you to form attachments with your own children?
During the time when our kids were the most vulnerable, they remember a magical time with me. In talking about this, our three oldest children have said they thought I was the warm one who was always around and always interacting with them, and they don't understand how I could say that I was cold to them. But my wife and I were 21 when we got married. Things started changing for me when I was about 19 or 20-years-old, and it was really in my late 20s when the kids were older and took care of themselves more, that I took on a lot of these psychopathic qualities—though early on I clearly had some. My actual behavior didn't go south until later on, and I think my wife's stability kept things together.
Some people have this psychopathy or are almost psychopaths, and they get into trouble and go right to jail and end up in the prison system as 18-year-olds. It's awful because they get unlucky and they don't have enough impulse control to pull it back at the last instant. So, what is that edge where somebody's got these traits, and they are impulsive? What puts one guy on a pathway to becoming an attorney or successful in general, and the other one has life in prison? We just have to find out what that edge is. I think we will have parameters to work with, but it's not the same for everybody.
Link. (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/life-as-a-nonviolent-psychopath/282271/#disqus_thread)
That's really interesting. Maybe Buddha was a psychopath. heh
I think it just sounds like a great way for a person to sell his book.
Seems hard to trust the writing of a person who claims to have a personality disorder that involves compulsive lying.
QuoteWhat puts one guy on a pathway to becoming an attorney or successful in general, and the other one has life in prison?
Who can say?
Anyway, a pretty cool article. Kind of goes against what Fate was saying about psychopaths not being able to be CEOs, as well.
The sort of long-term palliative care he advocates seems expensive and nearly impossible to get to function, though. Sometimes I'm just struck by the sheer tragedy of how the Nazis and the American South really ruined eugenics for everyone, even though it's beyond obvious that--once we have the knowledge and technology--we should just select away from embryos with the genes for serious mental issues. And I say this as someone who's pretty certain he'd have been aborted under that regime, so that means I get to say it.
Enough with your self-loathing.
No, that's sober-minded advocacy. The improvement of the human race is one of the great possibilities of the 21st century, as long as we approach it with decency and humility. In a hundred years, it's possible that no person born will ever be susceptible to depression, anxiety, antisociality, cognitive deficiencies or any the myriad of other issues that have plagued us since before history. It'll be a better world.
A lot less creative.
I strongly doubt it.
I think it will be. A lot of famous works have stemmed from people facing said challenges.
And how many works remained uncreated because mental disorders and the problems associated with them got in the way?
In any event, that's a canard that gets brought out frequently when the prospect of suffering's end is brought up; it's so anti-human I don't know where to begin. Does a handful of famous novels and poems really justify the torment undergone by millions if not billions of lives? Sure, why not, I love Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2014, 11:31:20 PM
And how many works remained uncreated because mental disorders and the problems associated with them got in the way?
In any event, that's a canard that gets brought out frequently when the prospect of suffering's end is brought up; it's so anti-human I don't know where to begin. Does a handful of famous novels and poems really justify the torment undergone by millions if not billions of lives? Sure, why not, I love Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas.
Or the super-special non-western way of abusing it? Supposedly, the producers of
Neon Genesis: Evangelion dumped the writer's anti-psychotic meds down the drain because his work wasn't as appealing when he was lucid.
The South had fuck all to do with eugenics, though I suppose that line was more of Ide's self hatred.
Quote from: Captain CarrotOr the super-special non-western way of abusing it? Supposedly, the producers of Neon Genesis: Evangelion dumped the writer's anti-psychotic meds down the drain because his work wasn't as appealing when he was lucid.
I'm not 100% convinced it was ever all that appealing. :D
That's a nutty dude. As far as I can tell, he'll keep remaking Evangelion till he dies. Maybe this time, Hideaki, maybe this time...
Quote from: Eddie TeachThe South had fuck all to do with eugenics, though I suppose that line was more of Ide's self hatred.
No, we totally did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Eugenics_Board
In fairness, eugenics laws existed all over America.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2014, 11:22:15 PM
No, that's sober-minded advocacy. The improvement of the human race is one of the great possibilities of the 21st century, as long as we approach it with decency and humility. In a hundred years, it's possible that no person born will ever be susceptible to depression, anxiety, antisociality, cognitive deficiencies or any the myriad of other issues that have plagued us since before history. It'll be a better world.
No gays either.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2014, 11:31:20 PM
And how many works remained uncreated because mental disorders and the problems associated with them got in the way?
:huh:
or were created because of it
Yeah, that was garb's initial point.
You realize that people with serious mental disorders have, practically by definition, serious problems living effectively, right? And that this includes producing creative work, not to mention developing the connections and friendships necessary to have creative work produced?
The whole idea is anti-human, and it's ignorant, and it's selfish. It's looking at a fraction of a percent of the mentally ill--and for some reason ignoring the majority of great art made by perfectly functional folks, and ignoring that the art produced by the mentally ill could probably have still been made--and saying "Oh, isn't it so fucking great they suffered intense pain, so that I could be briefly entertained." Jesus Christ. It's like that Ursula Le Guin book except putting the kid on the box doesn't do anything except produce a middling novella every few years.
Entertained? :hmm:
garbon doesn't like great art. Shocker.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 25, 2014, 05:48:42 PM
Yeah, that was garb's initial point.
You realize that people with serious mental disorders have, practically by definition, serious problems living effectively, right? And that this includes producing creative work, not to mention developing the connections and friendships necessary to have creative work produced?
The whole idea is anti-human, and it's ignorant, and it's selfish. It's looking at a fraction of a percent of the mentally ill--and for some reason ignoring the majority of great art made by perfectly functional folks, and ignoring that the art produced by the mentally ill could probably have still been made--and saying "Oh, isn't it so fucking great they suffered intense pain, so that I could be briefly entertained." Jesus Christ. It's like that Ursula Le Guin book except putting the kid on the box doesn't do anything except produce a middling novella every few years.
now i could be wrong, but aren't you suggesting we "cure" every potentially harmful condition? it's easy to argue for that when considering the low-functioning persons, but have you realized that there are a ton of people that are high-functioning? it is they, not the low-functioning, that tend to provide either works of art, scientific advances, etc. that the rest of society benefits from. take dyslexia, for example. wouldn't that be eradicated under your regime? yet studies have shown those with dyslexia are able to think differently (in positive ways) than the normal mind - they suffer a disadvantage but gain an advantage
not to mention that there might be wide consequences when considering the potentially large number of people who are so high functioning that they wouldn't appear on your standard spectrum espoused by psychologists - people who think differently than the average person yet are able to traverse society without much issue. people think differently, hear differently, and experience senses differently. who knows what the cause of that is, and who knows how it later lends to/influences some creation/invention.
what you are suggesting is akin to normalizing earth's population, and i don't think that's a good thing. i think your suggestion is far more "anti-human"
What I'm suggesting doesn't have anything to do with eliminating people that actually exist (that's a whole different pamphlet!). It's about genetic counseling to prevent the births of those blighted with conditions that would lower their quality of life. The whole thing would not too different than how we counsel people about diseases like Tays-Sachs and such now. The technology is just about there.
Socially, we're also about to a point where we could implement the plan without insane consequences.
Of course, unless it turns out libertarianism is actually just a high-functioning form of sociopathy--who knows?--it's not like difference in opinion would vanish just because negative traits were removed before they could be expressed. You'd still have politics; you'd still have artistic expression; you'd still have cultural differences. It's all good.
And as the technology continues to advance, simple eugenics will be replaced by active manipulation of human DNA to produce people that are not just the most well-adjusted possible humans, but better than any human could possibly be. Stronger, smarter, happier, longer-lived, more creative, able to see things in ways so different that you and I are unable to conceive them, which you seem to find so important.
It's about making people happier and better.
P.S. the only thing I am worried about in regards to losing genetic diversity is what could happen in the face of a pandemic; and that's not as easily waved away.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 25, 2014, 08:33:47 PM
What I'm suggesting doesn't have anything to do with eliminating people that actually exist (that's a whole different pamphlet!). It's about genetic counseling to prevent the births of those blighted with conditions that would lower their quality of life. The whole thing would not too different than how we counsel people about diseases like Tays-Sachs and such now. The technology is just about there.
Socially, we're also about to a point where we could implement the plan without insane consequences.
Of course, unless it turns out libertarianism is actually just a high-functioning form of sociopathy--who knows?--it's not like difference in opinion would vanish just because negative traits were removed before they could be expressed. You'd still have politics; you'd still have artistic expression; you'd still have cultural differences. It's all good.
And as the technology continues to advance, simple eugenics will be replaced by active manipulation of human DNA to produce people that are not just the most well-adjusted possible humans, but better than any human could possibly be. Stronger, smarter, happier, longer-lived, more creative, able to see things in ways so different that you and I are unable to conceive them, which you seem to find so important.
It's about making people happier and better.
P.S. the only thing I am worried about in regards to losing genetic diversity is what could happen in the face of a pandemic; and that's not as easily waved away.
i don't think you understood my post
Perhaps not, although you used an example I never did, dyslexia, which I don't know enough even to say that it is a disease.
If it does not cause suffering in any meaningful sense, then I see no particular reason to use eugenics to screen against it.
The examples I used do cause suffering, and the highest-functioning depressive lacks utility in his or her life in comparison to someone who does not have the disease, pretty much by definition; the highest-functioning sociopath is an emotional, financial, or physical danger to other people, like our doctor friend who's trying to de-asshole himself through behavioral therapy but has spent decades being cruel to others. I don't see how or why such "diversity" should be valued. If it's a disease, it's a fucking disease; we didn't value polio for building character, we eradicated it.
I would have liked it if they were able to screen the crazy out of me. Sure, I think differently then others, sometimes in creative ways that others do not, but it's not worth the trouble.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 25, 2014, 08:47:22 PM
Perhaps not, although you used an example I never did, dyslexia, which I don't know enough even to say that it is a disease.
If it does not cause suffering in any meaningful sense, then I see no particular reason to use eugenics to screen against it.
The examples I used do cause suffering, and the highest-functioning depressive lacks utility in his or her life in comparison to someone who does not have the disease, pretty much by definition; the highest-functioning sociopath is an emotional, financial, or physical danger to other people, like our doctor friend who's trying to de-asshole himself through behavioral therapy but has spent decades being cruel to others. I don't see how or why such "diversity" should be valued. If it's a disease, it's a fucking disease; we didn't value polio for building character, we eradicated it.
we eradicated polio because it is physically infectious; it brings only harm. what you're suggesting is eradicating genes associated with a sizable percentage of the species. also, disease can be defined as "abnormal condition," which is a far more neutral way to put when discussing mental states
when i said normalizing the population, or thinking the same, i don't mean on the surface. i wasn't suggesting that it would make everyone's politics the same. i was referring to the deeper issue of
how people think. you start zapping genes away and who knows what the result would be. take visualization, for example. einstein, tesla, ramanujan, etc. had abnormal visualization, which (at least in part) allowed them to make their discoveries. as mentioned here before, my old autistic undergrad professor has eidetic memory - a trait that seems to pop up every now and then in autistic savants. their extreme brilliance and near superhuman traits might very well be caused by the same genes that create your low-functioning suffering individuals. some (normal-functioning) people just generally think differently without having those extraordinary traits, and maybe that's a result of some gene somewhere that might be associated with one of your "diseases"
i don't feel everyone should think, feel, or experience the same way. that's the normalization i referred to
Genetic disorders are extremely physically infectious. If your parent has a genetic disorder, you stand a significant chance of contracting it yourself.
As for potentially destroying the traits of our most gifted scientists, that's not really an argument against eugenics, that's an argument for how eugenics ought to be applied. If they can be applied in such a way as to preserve cool traits like eidetic memory and being able to visualize physical models, while screening for the combination of genes that contribute to low-functioning autists, who can barely make do. In other words, your objection is a technical one.
As for how people think or experience, that's shakier ground; but if people don't feel the same way, they should, if possible, feel the same thing, which is obviously happiness.
Happiness and entertainment? Is that all that there should be?
And intellectual pursuit, I suppose.
I probably define the two more broadly than I you're implying. :unsure:
Quote from: Ideologue on January 25, 2014, 09:32:22 PM
Genetic disorders are extremely physically infectious. If your parent has a genetic disorder, you stand a significant chance of contracting it yourself.
As for potentially destroying the traits of our most gifted scientists, that's not really an argument against eugenics, that's an argument for how eugenics ought to be applied. If they can be applied in such a way as to preserve cool traits like eidetic memory and being able to visualize physical models, while screening for the combination of genes that contribute to low-functioning autists, who can barely make do. In other words, your objection is a technical one.
As for how people think or experience, that's shakier ground; but if people don't feel the same way, they should, if possible, feel the same thing, which is obviously happiness.
polio is not in the same classification as schizophrenia
we don't know how to apply eugenics because we don't know what sort of interactions will cause a fluke that creates an einstein. even if we did know, maybe it's a completely random chance that cannot be reenacted. furthermore, by messing with genes we might unintentionally prevent a positive abnormality from forming - one we wouldn't know of until it happened
your last point sounds like this whole exercise is a projection of some depression
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2014, 09:54:16 PM
your last point sounds like this whole exercise is a projection of some depression
Which oddly enough is where this tangent began. :D
Quote from: garbon on January 25, 2014, 10:15:24 PMWhich oddly enough is where this tangent began. :D
:lol: that's what i get for not reading half a page
I am not. My emotions inform me; they do not define me.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 26, 2014, 12:10:08 AM
I am not. My emotions inform me; they do not define me.
it's all part of the sum
I just hope they contribute to the big ol' mosaic of our world, I guess.