111–119 of 119 posts
So apparently the PCL-R is a scale to measure how nasty a son of b one his.
I just don't get it. What happens at the 30 mark in the scale that makes it an illness versus you just being a terrible human being?
That's the most interesting quote I find. It poses a paradox. What makes a person awful and toxic? Are there common personality traits to this? Are there biological causes?
Do we need a new pathology for this? Toxipath?
She later mentions this:
> I think it’s important to hold people responsible for their actions, not brain formation. People make choices. Psychopathy is not an excuse, and it’s definitely not a reason why someone does bad things.
So what are those reasons then? And what are those bad things? And what mechanism governs one's choices?
It does seem to me like psychopaths, by definition, lack all natural controls which would allow them to know what the bad things are and that they shouldn't choose to do them.
Thus, they need social controls instead. Like, society has to make it easier to achieve her goals through good means, and make it very hard to do so through bad means. Otherwise she has no means of containment. She does not fear, she does not rejoice. She does not regret or feel guilt. She does not hope and dream.
That said, what are her goals? What drives a psychopath? Adrenaline rush alone? That's what she hints at.
Finally, I noticed the quoted doctor goes out of his way to mention a spectrum. And that he'd only classify of psychopath the more extreme cases, at the far end of it. For those, he says all four traits must be clearly demonstrated. And those by definition mention:
> take pleasure in hurting others
> are physically aggressive
Which are arguably at the top of the list for "bad things".
So purely from the quoted doctor, if she does not have those traits, she's probably not high enough on the spectrum to be labeled a psychopath. At least not based on the quoted doctor's diagnostic model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the same thing Religious people say about Agnostic/Atheists, and the answer is the same. Virtually every desire a human can have is better fulfilled if most people on earth are happy and productive. Whether you want to travel the world, waste away in VR, escape to Mars, or live forever, these pursuits are more achievable if human progress advances. In no future is it better for other people to be unhappy.
> In no future is it better for other people to be unhappy. Then explain why some people are criminals or parasites on the system it it's better for everyone to be happy? Why take advantage of others if it's better overall not to do so? My guess is because some people don't care about others. Psychopaths generally fall into that category. Question is what they would do if they made up all of society, which means ever…
There have been many, many articles like this, and I think they have little value except the glorification of psychopaths. The term "psychopath" is fascinating to many, due to the cultural references linked to it. However psychopathy has never been clearly defined in the DSM. Maybe it's just a combination of other disorders (autism + NPD ?), maybe it's a separate disorder waiting to be discovered. Either way, nothing…
The whole concept of psychopathy depends on the premise that normal humans act with empathy towards each other, which is laughably false.
Children: why is that person so dirty? Why do they ask for money and food? Why do they hurt? Why are they talking to the air?
Media:
https://nypost.com/2018/08/18/state-senate-candidate-launche...
https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/08/18/no-end-in-sight...
(I cherry picked two articles from google news after searching "homeless")
I liked this. It offers hope. Bleak hope, but hope. But I can't stop thinking .. yea but maybe she isn't. Still.. the lack of fear and addiction risk in opioids bears thinking about. It suggests some brain chemistry difference. Definitely not a sociopath either. She cares enough not to want to cause pain even if she can't always read the symptoms of emotions. So.. if you have psychopathy but care enough to work aroun…
Why does it offer bleak hope? I really don’t get this parallel, where not feeling for someone equals wanting them to be in pain. Not caring doesn’t make you evil, it makes you indifferent. I think feeling less is an advantage if you do want to hurt others, but there is really no correlation between the two. You don’t automatically start wanting to hurt people, just because you don’t feel empathy.
Thats not what I meant. its bleak, because its emotionless. its unempathetic engagement. For me, its stepped over uncanny valley, into a dialogue with somebody who has no emotional engagement with you, only rational response. For some things, thats what you want. Personally, I don't think a relationship we normally couch as an emotional one, ie friend, or best-friend, or life partner, is one which is complete if its devoid of emotion. Preferably reasonably symmetrically, but there is room for variance. One sided? Thats pretty bleak, on the giving side: nothing comes back.
There have been many, many articles like this, and I think they have little value except the glorification of psychopaths. The term "psychopath" is fascinating to many, due to the cultural references linked to it. However psychopathy has never been clearly defined in the DSM. Maybe it's just a combination of other disorders (autism + NPD ?), maybe it's a separate disorder waiting to be discovered. Either way, nothing…
The whole concept of psychopathy depends on the premise that normal humans act with empathy towards each other, which is laughably false.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-love-hate-relat...
Even feeling empathy for someone in pain doesn’t naturally lead to compassion. Empathy is just the ability to mirror someone else’s emotions and is a neurotypical response. If your happy, I’m happy. If you hurt, I hurt.
If I’m hurting because you hurt my natural response is to stop my pain. In some cases that mirrored pain can result in acts of compassion but can also result in lashing out, victim blaming or fleeing. These are all normal responses for someone feeling pain.
Empathy is a “normal” response but compassion is a choice. Few people have the emotional regulation skills and patience to see someone in pain, feel their pain and sit with them in their pain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s touched on obliquely, but psychopaths are impulsive and in constant need of stimulation, which, because of their diminished emotional responses, they largely derive from anti-social behavior. Its adrenaline inducing response is one of the few ways they can “feel.” High functioning psychopaths will often pursue long-term relationships because they provide a consistent source of this kind of stimulation, while als…
> It’s touched on obliquely, but psychopaths are impulsive and in constant need of stimulation, which, because of their diminished emotional responses, they largely derive from anti-social behavior. Its adrenaline inducing response is one of the few ways they can “feel.” Another way to look at this is that psychopaths seek and respond to different kinds of stimulation. They have little interest in gossip, hanging out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In simplest terms psychopaths are people who do not "get" the particularity of human relationships. Well now, I'm pretty sure you can't use this as a definition for psychopathy, as many other types of disorders fit this definition. In my comment I was thinking of the definition given by this article, and the list of traits it provides. So going by that definition I have to disagree with your argument: "...that peopl…
> If someone checks all the boxes from the points raised in this article I would really hope that that sort of behavior never gets normalized because these traits are the exact opposite of what people should strive for in their lives. I don't see any cause for concern. Putting aside Hollywood nonsense there doesn't seem to be any reason why psychopaths would inherently engage in destructive behavior. In reality psych…