Psychiatry moves forward: defining the psychopath

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Psychiatry moves forward: defining the psychopath

It has annoyed me that psychopathy was so poorly understood. Psychopaths are referred to as having few or no emotions compared to "normal" people. I always knew it was bullshit. Finally, someone agrees with me, and has started to prove just how wrong the way we look at psychopaths is.

ScienceDaily (July 13, 2012)
Ice cold, hard and emotionless. Such is the psychopath -- we think. Until we get a glimpse behind the mask. Researchers have for decades been almost unanimous in their accord with the popular perception that psychopaths are made in a certain way, and will forever remain that way.
But Aina Gullhaugen, a researcher at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, disagrees.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120713122925.htm

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:When those I'm

Vastet wrote:
When those I'm arguing with are arguing exactly like theists, they deserve such responses. Case in point: This thread. Even up to now, not one person has provided a single shred of evidence to question the findings of the article, yet have dismissed it without question. It is not an insult to point out an idiot is an idiot, it's a statement of fact. Clearly only a couple people have any interest in having an intelligent discussion, and should they respond I may. Until then the asshats can have the thread. Enjoy being ignorant fucks.

Uh... Even if the stuff you said before wasn't insults, that definitely was.

The thing is, you are not specifiying who is acting 'like a theist' and who isn't. You seem to be lumping everyone in the thread into one mass of 'idiots' like before.

As far as myself, I have not even been discussing the article, but your perceived lack of reasonable discussion. Surely you are not the only offender, but seemed to me at first to be the most hostile. This is why a made a post directed at you. Even so, you have continued to argue 'just like theists' in that you seem to be ignoring points raised and criticism of your behavior. Even if said points and criticism are weak, you have still failed to show why in several cases.

Am I one of the 'assholes'? Am I therefore an 'ignorant fuck'? If so, what in the world would give you that idea? Imo I have been polite and quite respectful, contrary to what I have perceived from yourself.

If you think I am one of 'only a couple people' who are interested in having an 'intelligent discussion', than why have you ignored my posts? If you think my posts do not have enough worth to reply to, please tell me why (I guess I must be an 'ignorant fuck' if you disagree with me then?). Generalizations and vague assertions attacking directly or indirectly people (or an undefined certain group of people) posting in this thread is something a Theist stereotype would do.

 

Edit: There may have been some confusion about my standpoint, I'm not sure. I agree with the study in the OP, but I have not made direct statements about it. I do not have the qualifications or evidence to support it, but since the article itself does not seek to change current views without more evidence, I do not feel the need to argue against it either. Clearly, changes in phsychiatry will only happen if the author of the article gathers more evidence and other peers test the same hypothesis.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
The first time I ever heard

The first time I ever heard anyone use the word "asshat" was, in fact, Mattshizzle.

People apparently don't use that word in Texas.   Actually I never heard in during my six years in the military either.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Edit:

ThunderJones wrote:

Edit: There may have been some confusion about my standpoint, I'm not sure. I agree with the study in the OP, but I have not made direct statements about it. I do not have the qualifications or evidence to support it, but since the article itself does not seek to change current views without more evidence, I do not feel the need to argue against it either. Clearly, changes in phsychiatry will only happen if the author of the article gathers more evidence and other peers test the same hypothesis.

Actually, that's the standpoint of everyone on in this thread, Vaset is just arguing against his own lack of comprehension.  I'm not even sure if he read the article that he posted, or even what his point is.  I do know that we're all ignorant fucks though, and likely trolls, oh and idiot asshats.  You my friend just joint the ranks of the troll army for having disagreed with Vaset...  His extreme intellect cuts like a surgical knife through our incoherent ranting.  He simply tells us that we're idiots, and reminds us that he won something (not sure what that is, but I'm sure it involves shinny stuff).  Vaset would win an argument against Chuck Norris.  He likely has a big WIN button on his keyboard, ours lacks such a feature therefore, he wins!. (shinny stuff).

Oh well.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:I

harleysportster wrote:

I guess there is no way of really knowing without actually being in the mind of a psychopath. I mean, the popular meme that automatically leaps into a lot of people's minds when they hear the word "psychopath" is some sort of deranged killer or amoral manipulator that does anything to get his own way.

But, what could we say about psychopaths out there that may never have committed any crimes, tortured animals, abused people or done anything to make anyone aware of that part of themselves ? Assuming they exist. Of course, I would wonder if someone that lacks certain elements would be aware of it. How can I comprehend an emotion or thought that I have never experienced or had some relation to ?

Of course, as I have mentioned before, I have read that psychopaths are gifted at "pretending" to have the right responses and emotions, while maybe experiencing nothing. Which would indicate that they would have to be aware on some level, or they would not feel the need to mimic or habitually lie.

But that is just speculation on my part. I don't think there would be any way of truly knowing,unless one was one. But then we are back to the habitual liar dilemma.

This reminds me of that old story ( can't remember where it originated) but some dude from a village told an outsider " Everything that everyone says in that village is a lie" (paraphrasing). BUT, if everything they said is a lie, then to say that everything that they say is a lie would also be a lie, but that could not be a lie, because of----" (Well, you get the idea).

I was thinking about psychopathy and how it is viewed.  This thread could have been a very interesting discussion had it not been derailed, ironically by it's originator.

It seems to me that it would be perceived subjectively, meaning that both the supposed psychopath would justify the reason to suppress emotions, and the examiner would inadvertently overlay their own bios when attempting to understand a psychopath.  

What is the difference between a soldier killing 100 enemy soldiers and a psychopath killing 100 people.  I say that objectively they are the same thing.  It's only when you apply a subjective blanket of motivation, bios and perceived worth that the two begin to be distinct. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


thelilith
thelilith's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2012-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: Anyway, there

Luminon wrote:
Anyway, there are other personality disorders that negatively affect empathy (like autism spectrum) or remove emotions (defensive traumatic reactions). I'd like to understand what is the difference between such a person and a real psychopath.

You don’t need to differentiate now because if you’re in the presence of a violent sociopath IRL the ‘wildish’ or instinctive nature will kick in quickly without thought.
 
Once the sympathetic part (SNS) of your autonomic nervous system (ANS) is in gear you’ll develop a full blown or partial panic attack (wet palms, dry mouth, pounding heart etc) and you’ll know you are afraid probably very afraid and with good reason . You'll then head for the nearest exit if you can leaving you free to do the much slower rationalisations afterwards.
 

Real change will come when it is brought about, not by your ego, but by reality.
Tony de Mello


thelilith
thelilith's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2012-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Researchers


Vastet wrote:
Researchers have for decades been almost unanimous in their accord with the popular perception that psychopaths are made in a certain way, and will forever remain that way.
But Aina Gullhaugen, a researcher at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, disagrees.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120713122925.htm


From an historical perspective there’s a bit more to add on the subject of psychopathy which is an evolving concept.   Psychologist Bob Hare the inventor of the PCL-R (current gold standard psychopath test) in DSM-IV, states in ‘Without Conscience’ that ‘psychopaths are genetically constructed’ which means he thinks they are born not made. This has been the prevalent view since the 1990’s.


They weren’t always seen that way, in the 60’s and 70’s Elliot Barker and Gary Maier two psychiatrists who worked at the Oak Ridge Hospital for the criminally insane in Ontario believed they could be cured using their Capsule Programme.  They had psychopaths naked and high on LSD talking about their feelings for 100 hours a week and declared they had made the psychopaths ‘gentle’ and released them in their droves.


But they’d got it wrong, researchers in the 90’s studying recidivism rates found that the Capsule psychopaths reoffended at a rate of 80% against the usual 60%.  Psychopaths were declared untreatable and this was later confirmed by Bob Hare’s tests which found they had malfunctioning limbic system/amygdala regions of the brain which govern emotion, see ‘The Psychopath Test’ by Jon Ronson.


Since the 90’s the received wisdom has been that psychopaths learn how to fake empathy better with treatment  but Bob Hare, changing his view slightly, interprets these results in another way and believes the problem is that  traditional programs aren’t designed for psychopaths because they’re designed for the average offender. He states that ‘developing a good treatment plan is a new frontier of studying the psychopath’ (who represents 1% of the population).
Hare says ‘We know we're not going to instill in psychopaths a sense of empathy or a strengthened conscience, but we can probably work with characteristics related to their antisocial behavior, such as impulsivity, stimulation-seeking, and irresponsibility.’


In addition, Hare believes, intervention can appeal to their self-interest and make use of the best available cognitive-behavior programs. Yet this requires their active participation. ‘You say to them, most people think with their hearts, not with their heads and your problem is you think too much with your heads so let's change the problem into an asset. They understand that, they say, 'oh yeah, I'm too rational like Spock on Star Trek.’


So finding data from programs designed specifically for psychopaths is a new arena for researchers.  Aina Gullhaugen’s study falls into this category plus she looks at how psychopaths may be nurtured through abusive caregivers even though at this early stage the evidence is inconclusive. On this basis I think the OP was right to state her work moves the nurture/nature debate on from where it has been stuck since the 90’s.


 

Real change will come when it is brought about, not by your ego, but by reality.
Tony de Mello


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Vastet, I recommend you

 Vastet,

 

I recommend you read this book:

Zero degrees of empathy

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Zero-Degrees-Empathy-theory-cruelty/dp/0713997915

 

Before you bash people around the head for saying Psychopaths lack empathy. And be aware that there is still huge debate on this subject in Psychology. Just because you've found one publication confirming your thoughts does not mean other interpretations (that actually corroborate but extend upon the paper you found) are possible.

Please, Read it - it's really very good.

 

Regards