Can You Call a 9-Year-Old a Psychopath?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Can You Call a 9-Year-Old a Psychopath?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-year-old-a-psychopath.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
20 comments
It is not clear that what you have to say has anything to do with the article. This article is about a child who is clearly intelligent, manipulative and possessive of unhealthy behaviors outside the norm. Instead it appears that you prefer to broadly tar the field of Psychology by arguing that facts can be distorted with careful presentation of statistics.
>It has a long history of shifting its positions, and a long history of debunked and discredited bodies of theory
This is not a bad thing on its own. It just means the search space is large and complex with many potholes and convergence will take a while yet.
> Don't you think that, with a few weeks of study, I could apply any subset of mental disorders from the DSM-IV to any person I wished?
No I don't think so. Not in any substantial way that couldn't just as accurately be replicated by a markov chain with the specificity of a fortune cookie. You can't just trivialize an entire branch of study like that. Certainly there is a lot of room for improvement and terms like disorder, psychopath, multiple personality, schizophrenic are abused and misused but there are behavioural patterns and characteristics by which people can be clustered. The mistake most people make is to think these clusters are static and disjoint.
Your ideas on Psychology are outdated. What Freud believed is nonsense and without experimental feedback he could do little better. Things are better these days, there is cross-talk between areas like Machine Learning, Psychology and neurobiology. Here is a better example of what the future of Psychology will be like: http://videolectures.net/icml09_niv_tnorl/
Also: http://www.med.wisc.edu/news-events/news/psychopaths-brains-...
>It has a long history of shifting its positions, and a long history of debunked and discredited bodies of theory
This is not a bad thing on its own. It just means the search space is large and complex with many potholes and convergence will take a while yet.
> Don't you think that, with a few weeks of study, I could apply any subset of mental disorders from the DSM-IV to any person I wished?
No I don't think so. Not in any substantial way that couldn't just as accurately be replicated by a markov chain with the specificity of a fortune cookie. You can't just trivialize an entire branch of study like that. Certainly there is a lot of room for improvement and terms like disorder, psychopath, multiple personality, schizophrenic are abused and misused but there are behavioural patterns and characteristics by which people can be clustered. The mistake most people make is to think these clusters are static and disjoint.
Your ideas on Psychology are outdated. What Freud believed is nonsense and without experimental feedback he could do little better. Things are better these days, there is cross-talk between areas like Machine Learning, Psychology and neurobiology. Here is a better example of what the future of Psychology will be like: http://videolectures.net/icml09_niv_tnorl/
Also: http://www.med.wisc.edu/news-events/news/psychopaths-brains-...
"Being sane in insane places", the 1973 Rosenhan experiment, concluded "we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
Your argument is highly misleading, First, Rosenhan was commenting on the state of psychiatry at the time rather than making a universal statement. Second, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)--today regarded as the Bible of psychiatry--was not written yet, meaning that psychiatry was at a state where repeatable metrics had not been defined and ratified for everyday use by medical professionals. In fact, Rosenhan's experiment was one of the catalysts that led to the creation of the DSM. Your comment supports a sentiment that is vastly outdated and no longer supported by the current state of psychiatric research.
"Your comment supports a sentiment that is vastly outdated and no longer supported by the current state of psychiatric research."
[Citation needed]
[Citation needed]
I am no psychiatrist, but from what I've read, the current consensus indicates that psychiatric orders can be detected using reasonable criteria. The widespread use of the DSM demonstrates this idea. The DSM is occasionally updated, and each revision reflects the changing ideas about psychiatry.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/us/dsm-revisions-may-sharp...
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/us/dsm-revisions-may-sharp...
> The terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" are already bywords for "doesn't share my politics or worldview". You can see this clearly in the article and the comments. The article mentions "financiers and business people", and the first comment covers explicitly naming the opposing political party. In fact, how many articles from the last few years manage to bring up the subject without casually slipping in a reference to businessmen? I am guessing not many.
They've slipped in because that's where the research is pointing, after decades of anecdotes. One of the main instruments for diagnosing psychopathy is the HARE checklist, as in Robert D. Hare; guess what Hare's latest book is called? _Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work_. Yeah.
(I could finish by accusing you of baselessly accusing your opponents of twisting psychology to fit one's worldview, but I don't think most people would appreciate the irony.)
They've slipped in because that's where the research is pointing, after decades of anecdotes. One of the main instruments for diagnosing psychopathy is the HARE checklist, as in Robert D. Hare; guess what Hare's latest book is called? _Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work_. Yeah.
(I could finish by accusing you of baselessly accusing your opponents of twisting psychology to fit one's worldview, but I don't think most people would appreciate the irony.)
It's easy to examine the situation by flipping it around.
Suppose the research centered on people who care too much. And the implicit assumption is that people who care too much cause problems, because they make suboptimal decisions for the group. Should we begin to stigmatize these people? Was Mother Theresa psychologically defective? Is your overly caring boss causing problems in the workplace because he won't fire the underperformer nobody likes? What should be done about this endemic problem of overly caring bosses? How can we begin to classify and nullify these people?
In both cases the behavior is nightmarish. Here in stark relief for one kind of bias.
Suppose the research centered on people who care too much. And the implicit assumption is that people who care too much cause problems, because they make suboptimal decisions for the group. Should we begin to stigmatize these people? Was Mother Theresa psychologically defective? Is your overly caring boss causing problems in the workplace because he won't fire the underperformer nobody likes? What should be done about this endemic problem of overly caring bosses? How can we begin to classify and nullify these people?
In both cases the behavior is nightmarish. Here in stark relief for one kind of bias.
I don't want to derail the topic, but Mother Teresa isn't exactly the best kind of example for your argument.
Yes she is.
You've clearly never read The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa In Theory And Practice, by Christopher Hitchens.
Mother Teresa was pure evil.
You should read up on how she intentionally tortured dying people by denying them basic pain killers. How she stipulated the use of dull needles. How she claimed pain was desirable because it was the kiss of Jesus. How she refused to properly treat people that were dying in agony, while her charity hoarded massive sums of money. The stories abound, Hitchens was kind enough to document it heavily, both in book and video documentary format.
You've clearly never read The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa In Theory And Practice, by Christopher Hitchens.
Mother Teresa was pure evil.
You should read up on how she intentionally tortured dying people by denying them basic pain killers. How she stipulated the use of dull needles. How she claimed pain was desirable because it was the kiss of Jesus. How she refused to properly treat people that were dying in agony, while her charity hoarded massive sums of money. The stories abound, Hitchens was kind enough to document it heavily, both in book and video documentary format.
I know about all of that. That's exactly why I don't think she's a good example of someone who had excessive empathy for others, because she didn't seem to have much empathy at all.
>Hitchens was kind enough to document it heavily //
You appear to think Hitchens didn't have a huge axe to grind ...? If you had to pick someone who would be least likely to make an unbiased report of Mother Theresa's actions then he's be pretty close to top of the list.
>How she stipulated the use of dull needles. //
This seems least likely to be possibly contextually twisted; do you have a reference to a corroborating report on such things from a, shall we say, less motivated party?
As the claim is she stipulated it I expect the reasoning is in her letters or the accounts of her workers?
You appear to think Hitchens didn't have a huge axe to grind ...? If you had to pick someone who would be least likely to make an unbiased report of Mother Theresa's actions then he's be pretty close to top of the list.
>How she stipulated the use of dull needles. //
This seems least likely to be possibly contextually twisted; do you have a reference to a corroborating report on such things from a, shall we say, less motivated party?
As the claim is she stipulated it I expect the reasoning is in her letters or the accounts of her workers?
Dr Robin Fox wrote, in the Lancet, about her home in Calcutta. The Lancet and the BMJ covered her re-use of needles. The risk of infection is obvious, especially since there wasn't any differentiation between people with or without a terminal illness.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionaries_of_Charity#Controv...)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionaries_of_Charity#Controv...)
>The risk of infection is obvious, especially since there wasn't any differentiation between people with or without a terminal illness. //
What was the result. Were more people killed or were more people saved from the particular illness/disease the injections were treating?
Was there facilities to readily test for preexisting conditions. Were people already known to be diagnosed with [blood] communicative conditions allowed to pass those on?
Whilst the risk of infection may be obvious the action to serve the greater good doesn't appear to be obvious in the depth we have treated this situation so far.
Do you have a link for the Lancet article please?
What was the result. Were more people killed or were more people saved from the particular illness/disease the injections were treating?
Was there facilities to readily test for preexisting conditions. Were people already known to be diagnosed with [blood] communicative conditions allowed to pass those on?
Whilst the risk of infection may be obvious the action to serve the greater good doesn't appear to be obvious in the depth we have treated this situation so far.
Do you have a link for the Lancet article please?
(http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(...)
Report from someone who used to work with her:
(http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html)
> Were more people killed or were more people saved from the particular illness/disease the injections were treating?
Many people died long slow painful deaths. The pain was deliberate, a function of her distorted thinking.
Report from someone who used to work with her:
(http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html)
> Were more people killed or were more people saved from the particular illness/disease the injections were treating?
Many people died long slow painful deaths. The pain was deliberate, a function of her distorted thinking.
>Many people died long slow painful deaths. //
How many? Also do you know the answer to the question you cut and pasted ... presumably you've read both those links so you know if there's a quantitative treatment?
All I could find about Haiti wrt the Sisters of Mercy was that the SoM went there in 1991 (according to graphic here, http://www.mercyworld.org/mercy_network/network-map.cfm). Whilst Susan Shields left the order in 1989 after 9 years "living in the Bronx, Rome, and San Francisco" and apparently then published her story of the situation in Haiti that so shocked her another 9 years later in 1998 (http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/index_18.html, http://www.texnews.com/1998/religion/morph0117.html).
I don't have access to the text in the Lancet (which turns out to be a letter to the editor, and so not reviewed) - do you have a link to an open access version?
I realise we're way OT, but I'm keen to investigate this.
How many? Also do you know the answer to the question you cut and pasted ... presumably you've read both those links so you know if there's a quantitative treatment?
All I could find about Haiti wrt the Sisters of Mercy was that the SoM went there in 1991 (according to graphic here, http://www.mercyworld.org/mercy_network/network-map.cfm). Whilst Susan Shields left the order in 1989 after 9 years "living in the Bronx, Rome, and San Francisco" and apparently then published her story of the situation in Haiti that so shocked her another 9 years later in 1998 (http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/index_18.html, http://www.texnews.com/1998/religion/morph0117.html).
I don't have access to the text in the Lancet (which turns out to be a letter to the editor, and so not reviewed) - do you have a link to an open access version?
I realise we're way OT, but I'm keen to investigate this.
[deleted]
If you think you can make a valid counterpoint via ad hominem instead of with facts you are mistaken.
Questioning someone's potential bias is not an "ad hominem" attack.
If requesting corroboration offends you then you need to ask yourself why.
I've searched the BMJ archive (http://www.bmj.com/archive) and can't find any reference to this particular claim; only a few retrospectives and passing references.
Also where it is mentioned in other literature, the claim is limited to reuse of hypodermics and there is no mention that she specified that hypodermics must be blunt, eg in order to increase the pain of patients - as adventureful appears to intimate.
Given the choice between not getting an innoculation or getting one from a used needle ... well that's a hard choice isn't it. As I can't find the article there is nothing to tell us what factors are at play, the seriousness of the diseases or the attempted mitigation (if there was any).
If requesting corroboration offends you then you need to ask yourself why.
I've searched the BMJ archive (http://www.bmj.com/archive) and can't find any reference to this particular claim; only a few retrospectives and passing references.
Also where it is mentioned in other literature, the claim is limited to reuse of hypodermics and there is no mention that she specified that hypodermics must be blunt, eg in order to increase the pain of patients - as adventureful appears to intimate.
Given the choice between not getting an innoculation or getting one from a used needle ... well that's a hard choice isn't it. As I can't find the article there is nothing to tell us what factors are at play, the seriousness of the diseases or the attempted mitigation (if there was any).
[deleted]
that's where the research is pointing
Are you defending the claim that businessmen and Republicans are psychopaths? I'm sorry, but that's generally untrue, and no amount of valid research will ever prove it.
Are you defending the claim that businessmen and Republicans are psychopaths? I'm sorry, but that's generally untrue, and no amount of valid research will ever prove it.
About one in one hundred people are probably psychopath in the general population. When you look at some sub-populations you find higher representations of psychopaths, or of tendencies associated with pyschopathy. One clear example given in the article is in the prison population. Other examples include high-level businessmen and politicians. Obviously saying "there's an over-representation of psychopaths among politicians" is not the same as a simplistic "all politicians are psychopaths".
Better quality research is needed, and pop-psychology books are pretty frustrating.
Better quality research is needed, and pop-psychology books are pretty frustrating.
Is there any evidence that high-level businessmen and politicians are more likely to be psychopaths than the general population?
For business at least, there seems to be: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422644
Research I've seen reported seems quite dubious. For instance, a CEO may take decisions that 'harm' hundreds of employees and not appear to feel anything like 'remorse.' That could be because he's a psychopath... but a more likely explanation is that he is confident that his decision was ethical and justified.
A justified decision may be appropriate to be painful. Do you think the person who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima should feel good about it, even if it were universally agreed to be the lesser evil?
If a group advocates more self-reliance and less organised help for the less fortunate then it's not unreasonable to accuse them of having less empathy.
I completely disagree. You can't enjoy life on the dole. The nanny state is a form of cruelty. I truly believe these things. I could go on at length, but what's the point.
Fiscal conservativism != less empathy.
Fiscal conservativism != less empathy.
You added the word "dole" and thereby changed the content of what you claimed to reply to.
I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't edit my post, if that's what you mean by "added."
I took the reference to Republican advocacy for "more self-reliance" as synonomous with Republican advocacy for less welfare. welfare == dole.
Although in actuality, almost all Republicans are RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), because almost all of them are altruists that advocate expanding the government/nanny state, just at a less rapid rate than Democrats. So "Republican" in this discussion may be a misnomer.
</rant>
I took the reference to Republican advocacy for "more self-reliance" as synonomous with Republican advocacy for less welfare. welfare == dole.
Although in actuality, almost all Republicans are RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), because almost all of them are altruists that advocate expanding the government/nanny state, just at a less rapid rate than Democrats. So "Republican" in this discussion may be a misnomer.
</rant>
Are you sure it's "less organized help" they are advocating for, or is it "not forced help"? I find it to be the latter in almost all cases. People tend not to argue against charity, but rather "forced charity" (which is not something I would consider charity at all).
I think GP is using "organized" to mean the same thing you're using "forced" to mean - given by a governing body from its tax revenue. Funny how we tend to choose the adjective that puts our personal views in the best possible light. :P
It's hard enough to trust any research than can simply be turned around and used as a political weapon. Research that supports a blanket tarring of some group's political enemies is very suspect.
I don't think it does support blanket tarring if interpreted reasonably.
I don't see it as a positive thing when science gets suppressed because it's conclusions are considered politically incorrect or unfortunate -- either by the left or the right.
We should have a heightened watchfulness for political bias from the researchers in these cases, sure, but usually it's not the researchers who are misinterpreting or over-interpreting or drawing heavily political conclusions from their work.
I don't see it as a positive thing when science gets suppressed because it's conclusions are considered politically incorrect or unfortunate -- either by the left or the right.
We should have a heightened watchfulness for political bias from the researchers in these cases, sure, but usually it's not the researchers who are misinterpreting or over-interpreting or drawing heavily political conclusions from their work.
Science does get suppressed when its conclusions are considered politically incorrect or unfortunate. That's exactly why politically convienent and fortunate research is so suspicious--any dissenting research is automatically disqualified, so it has the appearance of truth when really it's just systemically one-sided.
No it doesn't. As far as I know, the opposite thing happens: politically motivated research that doesn't deserve to be called scientific gets published over and over again. I'm specifically thinking about a few "scientific" articles sponsored by oil companies that happen to explain away global climate change, for instance. Or the many papers in which the Cato foundation, earnestly and with the best of intentions no doubt, tries to establish the inferiority of public healthcare. Or the Genesis Foundation defense of creationism.
There's no suppression. Just bullshit addition.
There's no suppression. Just bullshit addition.
If you take a step back, one man's convenient is another man's inconvenient. And don't think for a minute that science limits itself to pissing off rightwingers. Nature has a way of pissing all over all sorts of ideological preferences. There's nothing about the laws of the universe that force, say, human biology to work in a way that suits a given political agenda. One day it might seem to be on your side, another day not so much.
Ultimately when politically sensitive research is allowed to happen, independently confirmed (or disconfirmed), and slowly digested in a mature fashion on all sides of the political spectrum (no "ha I told you so!" and systematic over-interpretation, no knee-jerk "the only explanation is political bias and the research must stop"), society surely stands to benefit from a more realistic and nuanced worldview in which to decide on policy. Not easy to achieve of course, but it makes me sad when people fail at the first hurdle.
Ultimately when politically sensitive research is allowed to happen, independently confirmed (or disconfirmed), and slowly digested in a mature fashion on all sides of the political spectrum (no "ha I told you so!" and systematic over-interpretation, no knee-jerk "the only explanation is political bias and the research must stop"), society surely stands to benefit from a more realistic and nuanced worldview in which to decide on policy. Not easy to achieve of course, but it makes me sad when people fail at the first hurdle.
Please can you cite the research that supports a blanket tarring of some group's political enemies?
When people talk about some politicians being psychopaths they are i: careful to limit it to "some", not "all" or "most" and ii: not limiting it to some particular party. It's as possible for someone in $PARTY_X to be psychopathic as someone in $PARTY_Y.
When people talk about some politicians being psychopaths they are i: careful to limit it to "some", not "all" or "most" and ii: not limiting it to some particular party. It's as possible for someone in $PARTY_X to be psychopathic as someone in $PARTY_Y.
> Why do we continue to teach Freud and Jung in college English departments?
Freud and Jung are taught to English students because their work, while thoroughly debunked, has indeed influenced a lot of authors.
Also, at least in the case of Freud, he was a fairly prolific literary critic in his own right, with his contributions in this field being quite separate from his psychoanalytic efforts (if perhaps influenced by them at times).
Freud and Jung are taught to English students because their work, while thoroughly debunked, has indeed influenced a lot of authors.
Also, at least in the case of Freud, he was a fairly prolific literary critic in his own right, with his contributions in this field being quite separate from his psychoanalytic efforts (if perhaps influenced by them at times).
Can you point me to some reading on the debunking of Freud's tripartite model of the mind (id, ego, superego). I find it a useful description, it often seems apposite in describing my internal mental machinations and conflicts of thought and desire so hearing that it is apparently clearly debunked is interesting ...
Do you mean they've been shown not to be scientific? That just sounds like psychology as a whole to me ...
Do you mean they've been shown not to be scientific? That just sounds like psychology as a whole to me ...
The terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" are already bywords for "doesn't share my politics or worldview".
You sure about that? I mostly hear them used as:
psychopath: dysfunctional thought processes, turns violent
sociopath: hates people, turns violent
You sure about that? I mostly hear them used as:
psychopath: dysfunctional thought processes, turns violent
sociopath: hates people, turns violent
Not even psychologists and psychiatrists agree on what sociopath/psychopath/ASPD (anti-social personality disorder) means.
http://helpingpsychology.com/sociopath-vs-psychopath-whats-t...
That article proposes that while most people consider the terms interchangeable, some people consider sociopaths to be psychopaths with additional personality disorders; from the description that additional disorder could be in the schizoid spectrum or something else like bipolar disorder that would cause them to be under-socialized.
Exhibit 2. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/07/us-brains-psychopa...
Those English psychiatrists are trying to redefine ASPD to mean hot-headed with poor impulse control, which is the opposite of my understanding of what it is: lacking empathy or deep emotions. Those shrinks want that to be called "psychopathy", and distinguish it from their redefined ASPD, even though psychopathy/sociopathy/ASPD currently, according to many psych professionals, refer to the same general thing.
I can see how some hot-headed criminals might seem to fit the clinical definition of ASPD, but I don't see how any reputable shrink would diagnose poor impulse control as ASPD. Borderline personality disorder, for instance, could be a better fit for many "hot heads".
http://helpingpsychology.com/sociopath-vs-psychopath-whats-t...
That article proposes that while most people consider the terms interchangeable, some people consider sociopaths to be psychopaths with additional personality disorders; from the description that additional disorder could be in the schizoid spectrum or something else like bipolar disorder that would cause them to be under-socialized.
Exhibit 2. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/07/us-brains-psychopa...
Those English psychiatrists are trying to redefine ASPD to mean hot-headed with poor impulse control, which is the opposite of my understanding of what it is: lacking empathy or deep emotions. Those shrinks want that to be called "psychopathy", and distinguish it from their redefined ASPD, even though psychopathy/sociopathy/ASPD currently, according to many psych professionals, refer to the same general thing.
I can see how some hot-headed criminals might seem to fit the clinical definition of ASPD, but I don't see how any reputable shrink would diagnose poor impulse control as ASPD. Borderline personality disorder, for instance, could be a better fit for many "hot heads".
Dysfunctional thought processes = religion
Turns violent = expansionist, militaristic.
Hates people = Anti-American, War on Religion, War on Marriage, War on America, _____(s) hate(-s) America.
I am sad to say that I see them getting used to describe opposing worldviews or political preferences all too often.
Edit: Did people think that I believed them? I don't think that they are accurate in the slightest. I noted useages that I have seen before.
Turns violent = expansionist, militaristic.
Hates people = Anti-American, War on Religion, War on Marriage, War on America, _____(s) hate(-s) America.
I am sad to say that I see them getting used to describe opposing worldviews or political preferences all too often.
Edit: Did people think that I believed them? I don't think that they are accurate in the slightest. I noted useages that I have seen before.
I think that a lot of it stems from an ignorance in the general population of what mental disease is. Practising psychiatrists don't use the words psychopath or sociopath when describing people, at least not in my experience (a relatively new internal medicine doctor), and I'm going to disagree that psychiatry is "highly subjective", although there is definite a large component of subjectivity, since it mostly deals with things that are difficult to objectively measure (although there are examples such as the PHQ-9 score for depression).
I agree with you that psychiatry has a history of being soft, but modern psychiatrists are medical doctors and there are very few living one's that I know who use aspects of Freud or Jungian theories in the way they treat psychiatric diseases. Nowadays, just like the bulk of medicine, the focus on is on evidence based therapeutics. Unfortunately, how the brain works is still much of a black box and for many of the medications we use we have no idea how they work. We have some inkling of what they do in general, but on a directly mechanistic level it's still at a point where we try things based on what we think might work, and then if it's shown to work in a large population better (or maybe as well as, with less side effects) then we keep it.
I do think that you could apply some subsets of various aspects of the DSM to anybody, but if you read it, these diagnosis have time courses, and based on the current way they are diagnosed (which is soon to change when DSM V comes out), you have to have symptoms present for a specific amount of time before you can be labelled.
Anyways, the feeling I get from your post is a concern about psychiatric diagnosis being applied too liberally. In my experience I see so many people with the really big psychiatric issues, such as people who have just had a luckily unsuccessful suicide attempt or are actively hallucinating from schizophrenia. The psychiatrists I work with are overwhelmed (especially in child psychiatry) with these kinds of patients and aren't out to change abnormal behaviors into pathologies.
But, I see your point about people dropping psychiatric diagnosis on things they don't agree with which is wrong. I'm just defending the field of psychiatry, which I don't think has any interest in redefining what is normal/abnormal.
I agree with you that psychiatry has a history of being soft, but modern psychiatrists are medical doctors and there are very few living one's that I know who use aspects of Freud or Jungian theories in the way they treat psychiatric diseases. Nowadays, just like the bulk of medicine, the focus on is on evidence based therapeutics. Unfortunately, how the brain works is still much of a black box and for many of the medications we use we have no idea how they work. We have some inkling of what they do in general, but on a directly mechanistic level it's still at a point where we try things based on what we think might work, and then if it's shown to work in a large population better (or maybe as well as, with less side effects) then we keep it.
I do think that you could apply some subsets of various aspects of the DSM to anybody, but if you read it, these diagnosis have time courses, and based on the current way they are diagnosed (which is soon to change when DSM V comes out), you have to have symptoms present for a specific amount of time before you can be labelled.
Anyways, the feeling I get from your post is a concern about psychiatric diagnosis being applied too liberally. In my experience I see so many people with the really big psychiatric issues, such as people who have just had a luckily unsuccessful suicide attempt or are actively hallucinating from schizophrenia. The psychiatrists I work with are overwhelmed (especially in child psychiatry) with these kinds of patients and aren't out to change abnormal behaviors into pathologies.
But, I see your point about people dropping psychiatric diagnosis on things they don't agree with which is wrong. I'm just defending the field of psychiatry, which I don't think has any interest in redefining what is normal/abnormal.
I agree, and take it further. Psychopathy is a label looking for a definition. It's defined as the opposite of any of the qualities that we associate with the root "human".
They're normal people except that they can't be humane, they can't show any humanity, they completely lack compassion and normal human emotion. They don't share our motivations, their motives are alien and disruptive. They are "other". How do we diagnose them? Each of us decides what is morally repugnant to us, then when other people don't find it repugnant, we label it as sick and speculate whether it's genetically irredeemable. Did they have a mutation in their morality gene? Or are they just the descendants of Cain?
It's 100% culturally bound. Some people think that profit is morally repugnant - does that mean we live in a world of psychopaths? If they were the majority it would.
It's an ugly, dehumanizing term, and reveals a lot of psychology as a moral system rather than a scientific one - being its equivalent of evil. Labeling a 9-year old a psychopath is part of the same cultural process that causes children to be tortured and killed as witches in Nigeria.
btw: support http://steppingstonesnigeria.org :)
btw2: this doesn't mean I believe in Xenu.
They're normal people except that they can't be humane, they can't show any humanity, they completely lack compassion and normal human emotion. They don't share our motivations, their motives are alien and disruptive. They are "other". How do we diagnose them? Each of us decides what is morally repugnant to us, then when other people don't find it repugnant, we label it as sick and speculate whether it's genetically irredeemable. Did they have a mutation in their morality gene? Or are they just the descendants of Cain?
It's 100% culturally bound. Some people think that profit is morally repugnant - does that mean we live in a world of psychopaths? If they were the majority it would.
It's an ugly, dehumanizing term, and reveals a lot of psychology as a moral system rather than a scientific one - being its equivalent of evil. Labeling a 9-year old a psychopath is part of the same cultural process that causes children to be tortured and killed as witches in Nigeria.
btw: support http://steppingstonesnigeria.org :)
btw2: this doesn't mean I believe in Xenu.
If the majority believed profit to be morally repugnant and the person in question didn't understand why due to a lack of empathy, then yes, perhaps they would be a psychopath. I think most anarchists would agree that it is not that the majority of the population is emotionless and uncaring, they just haven't been educated about the alternatives in an open-minded, truthful fashion.
You're making psychopath mean what you want it to mean. I've rarely heard anybody say that psychopaths don't understand emotions in other people. That would be autism.
Also, anarchists aren't the people against profit - many libertarians are anarchists.
Also, anarchists aren't the people against profit - many libertarians are anarchists.
What I wrote was that psychopaths don't experience empathy, I never said anything about not understanding emotions in others.
Also, you clearly don't know what anarchism is, libertarians (in the American sense) are not anarchists, they are capitalists. The two are mutually exclusive.
Also, you clearly don't know what anarchism is, libertarians (in the American sense) are not anarchists, they are capitalists. The two are mutually exclusive.
Interesting way of highlighting the subjectivity inherent in any social sciences, and the dangers that come with claiming to know the "truth". As long as culture changes, people change and ultimately what is defined as normal and "ill" is going to change. No matter what wonderful data one is able to generate, it is most likely trying to project something from the past to the future. And no matter how scientific it may look, in the end calculating the future of society tuned out to be mostly numbers based fortune telling. The evolution of society is an exciting thing, but as soon as someone make the claim to carry the "only truth", I get very, very skeptical.
> Would you trust a court-ordered psychologist to make an accurate appraisal of your psyche?
That's not what happens. They are asked very specific questions about the person being evaluated.
> When Tom Cruise begins to sound more sane than the psychology he criticizes, you know something is wrong.
Luckily, that hasn't happened yet.
That's not what happens. They are asked very specific questions about the person being evaluated.
> When Tom Cruise begins to sound more sane than the psychology he criticizes, you know something is wrong.
Luckily, that hasn't happened yet.
When I was 5 years old and starting kindergarten, I met another boy the same age who I quickly decided would end up in jail as an adult. He certainly wasn't the only one who misbehaved frequently or did cruel things to other children, but I could tell he was different somehow. He never seemed to need to feel justified in his cruelty.
In 1998, at age 19, he took part in a murder. He was sentenced to 20 years with 5 suspended. I think he's out on parole now.
In 1998, at age 19, he took part in a murder. He was sentenced to 20 years with 5 suspended. I think he's out on parole now.
i have had similar thoughts about kids i knew growing up, and a few have had a tough time in life. kids (peers) may be better at identifying warning signs than adults.
If this is true (and it might be), it would be only because most adults are completely oblivious when it comes to children. Adults in our society are notoriously good at seeing only what they want to see (I'm not talking about the HN type of person, I'm talking about your general population adult), and often this means overlooking certain characteristics in children. Or only seeing aspects of ADHD, or bipolar. Or not seeing that a parent is a really awful parent, etc.
Kids generally do not have as many biases as adults, and as a result they have less expectations. They don't see their peer as some angel, because they don't expect him to be an angel. They don't expect anything at all, so their perceptions aren't clouded.
But in general adults are much better at picking up on things like social cues and odd behavior.
Kids generally do not have as many biases as adults, and as a result they have less expectations. They don't see their peer as some angel, because they don't expect him to be an angel. They don't expect anything at all, so their perceptions aren't clouded.
But in general adults are much better at picking up on things like social cues and odd behavior.
Kids are also more likely to accept their environment as normal because they have never seen different, and so don't think to complain about abuse, neglect, religion (if you think that is vrainwashing), etc
Generally by brainwashing, I refer to things like media stereotypes. While religion can have a very brainwashing effect, it really depends on the institution.
I don't believe in cures for anti-social personality disorder. I think the children who go on to display no symptoms in adulthood are the ones who have learned to successfully fake it. I say this as someone with many symptoms of ASPD who has learned to fake it.
That may be good enough. A psychopath doesn't necessarily have to understand the rules of society intuitively, it would suffice if he accepted and followed them.
Right, this just sounds like a more extreme version of introverts who have learned to "act" extrovert in huge crowds. E.g. Nixon
That's true. We all do it in different ways to counter our own psychological quirks. To say that our social behavior is a reflection of our true tendencies would be a lie. A psychopath is more honest when he is acting one than when he is pretending to be like the rest of us.
People are different from each other. Some more so than others. It's evolution at work. Acknowledge it and get over it.
I don't know much about psychopathy, but is it generally accurate to say that psychopaths don't "understand" the ethical rules of society or the motivation for having said rules? I thought it was more that they didn't feel any sense of personal moral obligation to follow these rules or any sense of guilt when they don't follow them (while they still might completely understand the rules and their philosophical justifications, and may even be completely in favor of these rules existing and everyone else following them).
(Like I said though, I know very little about the disorder and am mostly conjecturing based on superficial familiarity)
(Like I said though, I know very little about the disorder and am mostly conjecturing based on superficial familiarity)
There is an extremely interesting podcast episode about that topic. I recommend it to everybody who is interested in a scientific discussion of this topic:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszon...
From the transcript:
So we all start by mimicking but by the time we are adults we can tell why rape is wrong. Rape is wrong because of the horrible suffering that it inflicts on the victim. And psychopaths, even when they're adults, will say 'of course rape is wrong', they don't really understand that it's wrong or why it's wrong. They are just saying that because other people have told them that and it helps them get along in society to mimic.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszon...
From the transcript:
So we all start by mimicking but by the time we are adults we can tell why rape is wrong. Rape is wrong because of the horrible suffering that it inflicts on the victim. And psychopaths, even when they're adults, will say 'of course rape is wrong', they don't really understand that it's wrong or why it's wrong. They are just saying that because other people have told them that and it helps them get along in society to mimic.
We lose so much potential in these people to change social norm from conventions nobody else is willing to question. Especially when you drug them from a young age into a continuous waking stupor.
A lot of aged traditions that will not mesh with an instantaneously connected, constantly communicating and sharing global society will not work in the next several decades, and some of the textbook "unbalanced" will hopefully be the ones to push change to match changing realities.
A lot of aged traditions that will not mesh with an instantaneously connected, constantly communicating and sharing global society will not work in the next several decades, and some of the textbook "unbalanced" will hopefully be the ones to push change to match changing realities.
> the children who go on to display no symptoms in adulthood are the ones who have learned to successfully fake it
This is one of the reasons why Dexter is simultaneously disconcerting and fascinating to so many people - it alerts us to the (very real) possibility that we are surrounded by psychopaths who pretend to be normal people.
This is one of the reasons why Dexter is simultaneously disconcerting and fascinating to so many people - it alerts us to the (very real) possibility that we are surrounded by psychopaths who pretend to be normal people.
Dexter is in no way a psychopath by the clinical definition. He is clearly pictured as very emphatic.
yes, this is very annoying. The author is a classic case of "mental illness as fashionable attire."
Reading into the article is good for finding an important point often lost in discussions of issues like this: "While the chance of inheriting a predisposition to psychopathy is high, Lynam noted, it is no higher than the heritability for anxiety and depression, which also have large genetic risk factors, but which have still proved responsive to treatment. Waschbusch agreed. 'In my view, these kids need intensive intervention to get them back to normal — to the place where other strategies can even have an effect. But to take the attitude that psychopathy is untreatable because it’s genetic' — he shook his head — 'that’s not accurate. There’s a stigma that psychopaths are the hardest of the hardened criminals. My fear is that if we call these kids "prepsychopathic," people are going to draw that inference: that this is a quality that can’t be changed, that it’s immutable. I don’t believe that. Physiology isn’t destiny.'"
The key issue, of course, when a child's behavior is already as off-track at age nine as the child profiled in the article, is to figure out what to do about it. My own sense after reading the article is that grouping kids with these kinds of behavioral characteristics is a distinctly bad idea. But giving them very close adult supervision by prevention-minded adults like the psychologists profiled in the article is a first step to figuring out what can put the kids on the track to being empathetic and better able to control their own behavior for the good of others as well as for their own desires.
From further along in the article: "In the 1970s, the psychiatry researcher Lee Robins conducted a series of studies on children with behavioral problems, following them into adulthood. Those studies revealed two things. The first was that nearly every psychopathic adult was deeply antisocial as a child. The second was that almost 50 percent of children who scored high on measures of antisocial qualities did not go on to become psychopathic adults. Early test scores, in other words, were necessary but not sufficient in predicting who ultimately became a violent criminal."
The key issue, of course, when a child's behavior is already as off-track at age nine as the child profiled in the article, is to figure out what to do about it. My own sense after reading the article is that grouping kids with these kinds of behavioral characteristics is a distinctly bad idea. But giving them very close adult supervision by prevention-minded adults like the psychologists profiled in the article is a first step to figuring out what can put the kids on the track to being empathetic and better able to control their own behavior for the good of others as well as for their own desires.
From further along in the article: "In the 1970s, the psychiatry researcher Lee Robins conducted a series of studies on children with behavioral problems, following them into adulthood. Those studies revealed two things. The first was that nearly every psychopathic adult was deeply antisocial as a child. The second was that almost 50 percent of children who scored high on measures of antisocial qualities did not go on to become psychopathic adults. Early test scores, in other words, were necessary but not sufficient in predicting who ultimately became a violent criminal."
The Onion was on to this years ago: http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-study-reveals-most-chil...
This kid is a textbook psychopath. I can't even imagine being a parent in that situation. What can you do, even if you think he may someday hurt someone else? I mean, you can't just drive them out to the desert and push them out of the car and speed away.
What you can do is teach him rational thinking and explain social and moral rules in terms of how they create an environment that is safer and more pleasant for everyone to live in, and how breaking the rules for personal gain tends to be risky. Then try to make him risk-averse.
You are deeply missing the difficulty. If a kid would listen to reason or threat, this problems would never existing. Or worse, he could rationally know the profit in evil.
No, it's you who is completely missing it. Psychopaths listen to reason or threat just fine. What they don't care about is the feelings of others or social approval.
And rationally, the profit in evil is negative in most cases. Criminals get caught most of the time, especially repeat offenders.
And rationally, the profit in evil is negative in most cases. Criminals get caught most of the time, especially repeat offenders.
I imagine it should be similar to having a kid with a physical disability - I might be wrong, but as I understand it, psychopathy is said to be caused by some kind of physical deficiency in the brain. I suppose it has to be taken as something like a debilitating medical condition...
... but then how do you know?
... but then how do you know?
In my rather controversial yet experienced opinion (I work with many kids), these kids develop the way they do as a result of bad parenting and improper/inadequate attention from adults. The majority of kids who display anti-social behaviors also tend to be the most intelligent students. This is even more true of the kids who exhibit highly manipulative behaviors.
I've worked with hundreds of students, and I've never come across a student who I would pin as incapable of empathy. They might be able to turn that empathy switch off, but with appropriate attention from an adult, they can turn it on just as easily. And keep it on if they want.
I think a lot of the behaviors exhibited by the kid in this article are rooted in basic human emotion and tendency. First of all, manipulation is something that is enjoyable. You might claim me to be a psychopath for that statement, but who doesn't enjoy a good troll every now and then? Especially when the manipulations are harmless, it can be fun to toy with somebody else for a bit. Second, these kids 'are good at getting what they want.' That's another obvious benefit to manipulation: you can get most situations to work out in your favor. Furthermore, the behaviors of anger and revenge are typical human behaviors.
These kids stand out in the way that their emotions are much more extreme, and they rarely exhibit empathy (at least, in front of the researchers. In my experiences with hundreds of kids, I've found that everybody has the capacity for empathy). But I see this mostly as a result of their intelligence. Initially, they get bored with the standard activities. So they find other ways to entertain themselves, for example, they take apart the gate that keeps them from leaving their room.
The problems start happening when the adults respond in frustration and anger. Yes, this kid broke the rules, and yes, this kid is doing something that you don't want him or her to be doing, but that's because you aren't stimulating this kid properly. S/he got bored.
These kids start to lose their empathy when they are repeatedly told to 'sit down and behave.' or 'do this for this long and you'll get a reward.' Ultimately, they stop caring about the reward, because they are human and they eventually conclude that freedom is more enjoyable than a piece of candy (or a gameboy, or anything you want to offer them in return for docile behavior. A gameboy might do the trick if the kid isn't used to big rewards, but in all liklihod, if you're offering the kid a gameboy for 1 weekend of good behavior, you've struggle through this route before and the kid already has something that's comparable to a gameboy). And so the kid remorselessly misbehaves. The kid knows what they are losing out on, but they don't care because they ALSO realize what they are gaining by doing their own thing.
The real problem, in my (once again, experienced but controversial and incomplete) opinion, occurs when you take a highly intelligent child and try to mold them into a specific shape, and tell them to do specific things. These kids have creative energy that they want to spend, and if you don't give them an outlet, they will find their own outlet. And then the REAL problems start to occur when their 'creative output' is met with anger and frustration. These kids start to become hateful and antisocial (we're talking over the course of years, not months or weeks) because that's all they are ever treated with. Showing them compassion for behaving doesn't do anything for them, because they don't want to behave, they want to get creative and do their own thing.
And I've found that taking these kids and giving them a creative way to spend their energy, and then rewarding them for doing what they want to do goes miles and miles with these kids. (I'm not talking about physical rewards here, I'm talking about approval.)
The other thing I've found that really helps is being sympathetic towards a kid after he's done something wrong. For example, when a kid deliberately lets all of the family pets run away or does something else destructive, you can win tons of respect from the kid simply by not blowing up at him, and not punishing him. When you take the side of the kid, and start working to help him, he starts to reciprocate your empathy.
I'd be happy to argue this point with anybody who has doubts or counter points. I have some formal education in psychology (3 college level courses), but most of my comfort comes from being around kids all of the time, and having common situations where a kid tells me I'm the only adult that understands them.
I've worked with hundreds of students, and I've never come across a student who I would pin as incapable of empathy. They might be able to turn that empathy switch off, but with appropriate attention from an adult, they can turn it on just as easily. And keep it on if they want.
I think a lot of the behaviors exhibited by the kid in this article are rooted in basic human emotion and tendency. First of all, manipulation is something that is enjoyable. You might claim me to be a psychopath for that statement, but who doesn't enjoy a good troll every now and then? Especially when the manipulations are harmless, it can be fun to toy with somebody else for a bit. Second, these kids 'are good at getting what they want.' That's another obvious benefit to manipulation: you can get most situations to work out in your favor. Furthermore, the behaviors of anger and revenge are typical human behaviors.
These kids stand out in the way that their emotions are much more extreme, and they rarely exhibit empathy (at least, in front of the researchers. In my experiences with hundreds of kids, I've found that everybody has the capacity for empathy). But I see this mostly as a result of their intelligence. Initially, they get bored with the standard activities. So they find other ways to entertain themselves, for example, they take apart the gate that keeps them from leaving their room.
The problems start happening when the adults respond in frustration and anger. Yes, this kid broke the rules, and yes, this kid is doing something that you don't want him or her to be doing, but that's because you aren't stimulating this kid properly. S/he got bored.
These kids start to lose their empathy when they are repeatedly told to 'sit down and behave.' or 'do this for this long and you'll get a reward.' Ultimately, they stop caring about the reward, because they are human and they eventually conclude that freedom is more enjoyable than a piece of candy (or a gameboy, or anything you want to offer them in return for docile behavior. A gameboy might do the trick if the kid isn't used to big rewards, but in all liklihod, if you're offering the kid a gameboy for 1 weekend of good behavior, you've struggle through this route before and the kid already has something that's comparable to a gameboy). And so the kid remorselessly misbehaves. The kid knows what they are losing out on, but they don't care because they ALSO realize what they are gaining by doing their own thing.
The real problem, in my (once again, experienced but controversial and incomplete) opinion, occurs when you take a highly intelligent child and try to mold them into a specific shape, and tell them to do specific things. These kids have creative energy that they want to spend, and if you don't give them an outlet, they will find their own outlet. And then the REAL problems start to occur when their 'creative output' is met with anger and frustration. These kids start to become hateful and antisocial (we're talking over the course of years, not months or weeks) because that's all they are ever treated with. Showing them compassion for behaving doesn't do anything for them, because they don't want to behave, they want to get creative and do their own thing.
And I've found that taking these kids and giving them a creative way to spend their energy, and then rewarding them for doing what they want to do goes miles and miles with these kids. (I'm not talking about physical rewards here, I'm talking about approval.)
The other thing I've found that really helps is being sympathetic towards a kid after he's done something wrong. For example, when a kid deliberately lets all of the family pets run away or does something else destructive, you can win tons of respect from the kid simply by not blowing up at him, and not punishing him. When you take the side of the kid, and start working to help him, he starts to reciprocate your empathy.
I'd be happy to argue this point with anybody who has doubts or counter points. I have some formal education in psychology (3 college level courses), but most of my comfort comes from being around kids all of the time, and having common situations where a kid tells me I'm the only adult that understands them.
>they don't want to behave, they want to get creative and do their own thing //
That's not going to get them far in life outside of their family homes and the basic education system. A certain degree of decorum is required for a functioning society.
>For example, when a kid deliberately lets all of the family pets run away or does something else destructive, you can win tons of respect from the kid simply by not blowing up at him, and not punishing him. When you take the side of the kid, and start working to help him, he starts to reciprocate your empathy. //
It sounds like my experience is far more limited that yours, and is mainly of boys in the 7-11 age range. However when I've attempted to be understanding of a child’s misbehavior it has usually resulted in being taken advantage of. There is no longer any 'real' consequence to misbehavior (to the childs mind) other than being talked to and empathised with; that this, contrary to your suggestion, breeds a total lack of respect.
Of course this could be an age related change or pertinent to the group dynamics of a situation (or something else entirely). I'd certainly expect older children to be more likely to respond to an empathetic manner.
Could you give some details as to your age, the kids age and the setting in which you "work with many kids"? It sounds like the setting is a particular rigid and unstimulating school??
>rewarding them for doing what they want to do goes miles and miles //
If you did what you wanted then you've already had your reward. So what are you reinforcing by adding further reward? The notion that they should continue to do whatever they like and that only narcissism - by which I mean self-pleasing behaviour - is really worth while??
That's not going to get them far in life outside of their family homes and the basic education system. A certain degree of decorum is required for a functioning society.
>For example, when a kid deliberately lets all of the family pets run away or does something else destructive, you can win tons of respect from the kid simply by not blowing up at him, and not punishing him. When you take the side of the kid, and start working to help him, he starts to reciprocate your empathy. //
It sounds like my experience is far more limited that yours, and is mainly of boys in the 7-11 age range. However when I've attempted to be understanding of a child’s misbehavior it has usually resulted in being taken advantage of. There is no longer any 'real' consequence to misbehavior (to the childs mind) other than being talked to and empathised with; that this, contrary to your suggestion, breeds a total lack of respect.
Of course this could be an age related change or pertinent to the group dynamics of a situation (or something else entirely). I'd certainly expect older children to be more likely to respond to an empathetic manner.
Could you give some details as to your age, the kids age and the setting in which you "work with many kids"? It sounds like the setting is a particular rigid and unstimulating school??
>rewarding them for doing what they want to do goes miles and miles //
If you did what you wanted then you've already had your reward. So what are you reinforcing by adding further reward? The notion that they should continue to do whatever they like and that only narcissism - by which I mean self-pleasing behaviour - is really worth while??
I'm 19, and I work with kids in 2 primary settings: Sunday School at my church (2 hours a week all through high school, maybe 100 different kids total), and as a martial arts instructor (~3-7 hours per week all through high school, 500+ different kids total.). The age range is 4-12 usually. I work with older kids too but I tend not to understand them nearly as well. Sunday School is a mostly open environment. There are roughly 45 minutes within a 2 hour service where they are expected to sit down and listen, and the rest of the time they can pretty much do what they want (with the standard 'be nice, share, don't do anything dangerous' set of rules). The martial arts school is much more formal and restricting. Kids are given time to be creative, but mostly we keep them occupied doing explicit activities.
I have little experience in a home environment. This hadn't occurred to me before, but you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
> when I've attempted to be understanding of a child’s misbehavior it has usually resulted in being taken advantage of. There is no longer any 'real' consequence to misbehavior (to the childs mind) other than being talked to and empathised with; that this, contrary to your suggestion, breeds a total lack of respect.
That's a fine line that a lot of people struggle with, and I'm having trouble explaining myself. The thing about respect is that there is a difference between demonstrated respect and internal respect. The key with being understanding of a child's misbehavior is doing it to earn the child's internal respect. The next steps with that child is to show them constructive ways to spend their energy, instead of destructive ways. This is more complicated, because you may have to invent exercises for the child (such as, find a way to do x as fast as possible). In my martial arts school, one of the most common ways to handle boredom/misbehavior is to let the bored kid teach a student who doesn't fully understand the curriculum yet. It usually works because the kid feels responsibility, feels challenged, and feels appreciated. (and usually we pair them with someone younger who we already know they enjoy being around. We wouldn't pair them with a kid they are known to quarrel with).
> If you did what you wanted then you've already had your reward. So what are you reinforcing by adding further reward? The notion that they should continue to do whatever they like and that only narcissism - by which I mean self-pleasing behaviour - is really worth while??
Ultimately, yes. But you couple it with teaching that the bigger long term reward is better than the smaller quick reward. And then, you couple it with a constructive activity. Being constructive feels good. Being appreciated (presumably derived from being helpful) also feels good. So you show that to a kid. And you give them ways to be constructive and helpful that doesn't have them sitting in class bored because they already know the curriculum.
Furthermore, being disapproved of feels bad. Even if you are not upset with misbehavior, there are most likely other people who are upset with the child's misbehavior, and this feels bad. When a child misbehaves, s/he is most likely not misbehaving because it feels good. S/he is probably misbehaving because it feels less bad than being bored or conforming to something they don't like doing. Again, this can be solved by showing the child something they can do that is entertaining to them and also not misbehaving or destructive.
I have little experience in a home environment. This hadn't occurred to me before, but you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
> when I've attempted to be understanding of a child’s misbehavior it has usually resulted in being taken advantage of. There is no longer any 'real' consequence to misbehavior (to the childs mind) other than being talked to and empathised with; that this, contrary to your suggestion, breeds a total lack of respect.
That's a fine line that a lot of people struggle with, and I'm having trouble explaining myself. The thing about respect is that there is a difference between demonstrated respect and internal respect. The key with being understanding of a child's misbehavior is doing it to earn the child's internal respect. The next steps with that child is to show them constructive ways to spend their energy, instead of destructive ways. This is more complicated, because you may have to invent exercises for the child (such as, find a way to do x as fast as possible). In my martial arts school, one of the most common ways to handle boredom/misbehavior is to let the bored kid teach a student who doesn't fully understand the curriculum yet. It usually works because the kid feels responsibility, feels challenged, and feels appreciated. (and usually we pair them with someone younger who we already know they enjoy being around. We wouldn't pair them with a kid they are known to quarrel with).
> If you did what you wanted then you've already had your reward. So what are you reinforcing by adding further reward? The notion that they should continue to do whatever they like and that only narcissism - by which I mean self-pleasing behaviour - is really worth while??
Ultimately, yes. But you couple it with teaching that the bigger long term reward is better than the smaller quick reward. And then, you couple it with a constructive activity. Being constructive feels good. Being appreciated (presumably derived from being helpful) also feels good. So you show that to a kid. And you give them ways to be constructive and helpful that doesn't have them sitting in class bored because they already know the curriculum.
Furthermore, being disapproved of feels bad. Even if you are not upset with misbehavior, there are most likely other people who are upset with the child's misbehavior, and this feels bad. When a child misbehaves, s/he is most likely not misbehaving because it feels good. S/he is probably misbehaving because it feels less bad than being bored or conforming to something they don't like doing. Again, this can be solved by showing the child something they can do that is entertaining to them and also not misbehaving or destructive.
Thanks for a full and detailed response.
Given the fact that the parents don't seem abusive at all and their other two kids seem to turn out normal, a brain defect would be a much better explanation.
The article is far from complete enough to make a judgement of the parents, but it's possible to be a bad/impatient/non-understanding/etc. parent while still being loving, trying to do the best, and not being abusive in any sense that would be considered by a court.
If the children were identical in all other aspects, maybe, but they seldom are and as mentioned in the article the first problems arose with the birth of the second child.
I'm not saying it's not a brain defect, but the above is far from conclusive.
I'm not saying it's not a brain defect, but the above is far from conclusive.
They never show any affection, though. All they want is kids that function well - according to their ideas, not the ideas of the kids.
One day this kid will make a reddit account and a few months later he'll be the Hegemon.
The only unique attribute this particular kid has is that he happens to have gotten picked for a NYTimes article. Psychopathy's/Sociopathy's incidence rate is hard to nail down due to both definition and detection problems, but estimates are generally 1% of the population, give or take a bit. It's not that rare.
And yet, I've never met anyone who claimed to be one. I've never read an article entitled "Here are what my experiences are like, as a psychopath". There has never been a reddit "IAMA psychopath, AMA".
If it's that common surely there should be more first-person accounts of it? Or at least interviews with psychopaths?
I remain unconvinced that "psychopath" is actually a real thing, rather than a label we stick on people who are really just plain ol' jerks.
If it's that common surely there should be more first-person accounts of it? Or at least interviews with psychopaths?
I remain unconvinced that "psychopath" is actually a real thing, rather than a label we stick on people who are really just plain ol' jerks.
In the end, there are no bright shining lines in psychology. It is likely that psychopaths are on one end of a bell curve rather than being a distinct, binary pathology. Neveretheless, we are free to observe that there is such a dimension and discuss those on the extremes in certain ways using certain terms, just as we do with depression or OCD, both of which have the same characteristic of not having a "bright line", yet clearly existing.
One of the most powerful ways to understand psychology is to see its history, like math's history, as one long attempt to create and refine definitions that let us discuss the field. Except where math is using those definitions to create the field from scratch and the effort is to build up useful systems from the bottom, psychology is trying to understand an incomprehensibly complicated system from the top down and using those definitions to try to break things into comprehensible and consistent pieces in a landscape that is being aggressively fuzzy and resistant to classification.
I do find myself wondering if you have not encountered any apparent interviews or research on psychopaths not because it doesn't exist, but because you've never gone looking for it. There's quite a bit of it. There's still some professional skepticism on the topic of it being something distinct, but that's rather different than the skepticism you seem to be expressing. The phenomena aren't so much what the debate is about as what the best way to slice and dice it up with the definitions are. For them to professionally agree that psychopathy is a real thing carries additional implications beyond just what Merriam-Webster writes in their next dictionary edition, but it's easy for a layman to misread that as an argument about whether the phenomena described by the debated term exists.
So, of course it's a label. But it's used to describe something far more different-than-baseline than just being a plain ol' jerk. In fact, psychopaths are often not jerks at all. "Jerk" is usually used to describe someone openly abrasive and simply randomly hostile, and that's not what a psychopath is. At least, not as an adult. As the article says, they lack emotional empathy but develop a cognitive empathy, and generally learn by adulthood the thing that jerks never do, which is that open hostility really has no advantages to anybody. They learn far, far more subtle manipulation techniques than that. (We all learn how to manipulate; I'm not convinced they are "extra skilled" at that. They simply learn how to do it with one less constraint than most of us.)
One of the most powerful ways to understand psychology is to see its history, like math's history, as one long attempt to create and refine definitions that let us discuss the field. Except where math is using those definitions to create the field from scratch and the effort is to build up useful systems from the bottom, psychology is trying to understand an incomprehensibly complicated system from the top down and using those definitions to try to break things into comprehensible and consistent pieces in a landscape that is being aggressively fuzzy and resistant to classification.
I do find myself wondering if you have not encountered any apparent interviews or research on psychopaths not because it doesn't exist, but because you've never gone looking for it. There's quite a bit of it. There's still some professional skepticism on the topic of it being something distinct, but that's rather different than the skepticism you seem to be expressing. The phenomena aren't so much what the debate is about as what the best way to slice and dice it up with the definitions are. For them to professionally agree that psychopathy is a real thing carries additional implications beyond just what Merriam-Webster writes in their next dictionary edition, but it's easy for a layman to misread that as an argument about whether the phenomena described by the debated term exists.
So, of course it's a label. But it's used to describe something far more different-than-baseline than just being a plain ol' jerk. In fact, psychopaths are often not jerks at all. "Jerk" is usually used to describe someone openly abrasive and simply randomly hostile, and that's not what a psychopath is. At least, not as an adult. As the article says, they lack emotional empathy but develop a cognitive empathy, and generally learn by adulthood the thing that jerks never do, which is that open hostility really has no advantages to anybody. They learn far, far more subtle manipulation techniques than that. (We all learn how to manipulate; I'm not convinced they are "extra skilled" at that. They simply learn how to do it with one less constraint than most of us.)
Well, I guess I walked into that one.
Even reading those, though, I'm not convinced that being a psychopath is a real thing -- that is, a difference from normal human behaviour that is one of kind, not of degree.
Even reading those, though, I'm not convinced that being a psychopath is a real thing -- that is, a difference from normal human behaviour that is one of kind, not of degree.
If you consider the mind to be a series of complicated, inter-connected components, then one consequence of that is sometimes things get disconnected or incorrectly connected.
Sometimes that leads to people who see sound or taste colors, other times you get people that simply cannot empathize or feel zero remorse.
It's a real thing. Sometimes it's by degrees, the connections are weak or malfunctioning, but sometimes there's never been a connection or anything to connect with. They're damaged by definition compared to the "norm".
Sometimes that leads to people who see sound or taste colors, other times you get people that simply cannot empathize or feel zero remorse.
It's a real thing. Sometimes it's by degrees, the connections are weak or malfunctioning, but sometimes there's never been a connection or anything to connect with. They're damaged by definition compared to the "norm".
So what real thing does this kid have, then? Or what _degree_ is it?
He's a brat.
He's also a brat who has learned he can get more of a reaction out of adults by acting in a certain way that they find unsettling, thus reinforcing that behaviour. From the sounds of things, his bad behaviour has been getting reinforced by feelings of specialness ever since he got sent to a psychiatrist at the age of three for being a little more bratty than usual.
At this point, being a brat has got him all the way to being profiled in the New York Times, so I doubt there's much hope for him now. He's internalized "I am a kid who misbehaves, misbehavior makes me special".
He's also a brat who has learned he can get more of a reaction out of adults by acting in a certain way that they find unsettling, thus reinforcing that behaviour. From the sounds of things, his bad behaviour has been getting reinforced by feelings of specialness ever since he got sent to a psychiatrist at the age of three for being a little more bratty than usual.
At this point, being a brat has got him all the way to being profiled in the New York Times, so I doubt there's much hope for him now. He's internalized "I am a kid who misbehaves, misbehavior makes me special".
You don't know much about children. I was a brat. I mean, I was the worst kid in every class, but I never destroyed toilet seats in uncontrollable day-long rages. The kid's a classic nutjob, and I'd give you 10-to-1 odds that he'll murder his first prostitute before he's 25.
And kids, like one who grew up on my block, who got their kicks dunking people's cats in gasoline and throwing fireworks at them? Was that just being a brat?
[deleted]
No, he was an asshole.
Now your dancing around the wording. This one boy got pleasure bullying the rest of us neighbor kids, and more disturbingly, killing and maiming animals for fun.
This was elementary school since he was shipped off to some special place by middle school. He had two really nice brothers who seemed as relieved as the rest of us when he was gone.
As already recommended in this thread, I urge a viewing of "We Need to Talk about Kevin"
Asshole, brat, jerk ... We all might fall in and out of these fugues as we mature. But, very few of us are evil. You do disservice to those trying to understand these conditions (whether biological or environmental) by minimizing them.
This was elementary school since he was shipped off to some special place by middle school. He had two really nice brothers who seemed as relieved as the rest of us when he was gone.
As already recommended in this thread, I urge a viewing of "We Need to Talk about Kevin"
Asshole, brat, jerk ... We all might fall in and out of these fugues as we mature. But, very few of us are evil. You do disservice to those trying to understand these conditions (whether biological or environmental) by minimizing them.
http://www.med.wisc.edu/news-events/news/psychopaths-brains-...
The study showed that psychopaths have reduced connections between the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), the part of the brain responsible for sentiments such as empathy and guilt, and the amygdala, which mediates fear and anxiety.
The study showed that psychopaths have reduced connections between the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), the part of the brain responsible for sentiments such as empathy and guilt, and the amygdala, which mediates fear and anxiety.
[deleted]
There have been several claimed sociopath IAMAs.
I felt that this was was an interesting read.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/otl8z/iama_diagnosed_p...
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/otl8z/iama_diagnosed_p...
Interesting and cold.
Reddit is way too stupid for an intelligent person to make progress there. Much more likely, the kid will create a Hacker News account and become the Hegemon.
On the contrary, it takes a lot of intelligence, of a certain kind, to bend a mass of common idiots to your side. It takes dishonesty as well, but certainly there is some skill involved.
I thought this would come up. I think redditors are too stupid even for that. I mean, there is a certain point where you're preaching the Gospel to a group of orangutans, no? Anyway, it matters not.
>the Hegemon.
Okay, after searching the web I give up. Can you please explain what that is? (I get a general gist from related words but it would be nice to know what you're specifically referring to.)
Okay, after searching the web I give up. Can you please explain what that is? (I get a general gist from related words but it would be nice to know what you're specifically referring to.)
It's a reference to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender%27s_Game_(series)
More specifically, a pair of kids (neither of which is the main character) create online pseudonyms ("Locke" and "Demosthenes") and eventually use them to convince the world of their great ideas (that they post in online forums). One of the kids eventually becomes "Hegemon," or the world leader.
By the way, I'd extremely highly recommend "Ender's Game" (the first book). Besides being an utterly awesome book, I even got a friend who "hated" reading to try it, and even he liked it. I mean, it's that good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender%27s_Game_(series)
More specifically, a pair of kids (neither of which is the main character) create online pseudonyms ("Locke" and "Demosthenes") and eventually use them to convince the world of their great ideas (that they post in online forums). One of the kids eventually becomes "Hegemon," or the world leader.
By the way, I'd extremely highly recommend "Ender's Game" (the first book). Besides being an utterly awesome book, I even got a friend who "hated" reading to try it, and even he liked it. I mean, it's that good.
>By the way, I'd extremely highly recommend "Ender's Game" (the first book). Besides being an utterly awesome book, I even got a friend who "hated" reading to try it, and even he liked it. I mean, it's that good.
I've read it.
(There was someone else who posted before you, but I'm replying here because I thought it would be good to clarify that.)
Thank you all for reminding me of that part of Ender's Game. It's been a while since I've read it. But for what it's worth I did think of that when I saw the reference. I just didn't know that was Peter's title once he ruled earth.
I've read it.
(There was someone else who posted before you, but I'm replying here because I thought it would be good to clarify that.)
Thank you all for reminding me of that part of Ender's Game. It's been a while since I've read it. But for what it's worth I did think of that when I saw the reference. I just didn't know that was Peter's title once he ruled earth.
...or listen to it - the audio book of Ender's Game is very good, and I believe Orson Scott Card may have said that he felt that this was the optimum form for the work.
He did, in fact, say that. The 20th Anniversary Edition[1] is a full-cast production with an afterward by the author. Highly recommended.
1. http://www.audible.com/pd/ref=sr_1_1?asin=B002V5A12Y&qid...
1. http://www.audible.com/pd/ref=sr_1_1?asin=B002V5A12Y&qid...
I believe it's a reference to the Ender's Game series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enders_Game, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_of_the_Hegemon), as lampooned here: http://xkcd.com/635/
It's probably a reference to the Orson Scott Card series of books that started with Ender's Game. Ender's older brother Peter[0] was a sociopath/sadist who becomes an influential blogger (under pseudonyms) and eventually takes the position of Hegemon (something like a president-king of Earth).
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wiggin
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wiggin
Of course, Reddit would be only one of the channels he worked through. As long as you know you're working with stupid people, you can work on manipulating them. But maybe that's more of a Demosthenes thing.
Locke registered a long time ago...maybe he'll go straight to hollywood!
Son of two Psychiatrists here. Psychopathy and Sociopathy are two fairly broad conditions. Socio/Psychopaths (henceforth, SPs) can actually function pretty normally (I have worked with one before)...Hollywood tends to portray them as ruthless killers (a select few are). To answer the title's question, you can determine if a kid is a psychopath at a relatively young age...and you should take whatever precautions necessary. In particular, you should be careful if your kid wets his bed at a later age and is cruel to animals -- two symptoms of more agressive SP archetypes.
If there are 9-year-old prodigies then there are also 9-year-old psychopaths.
If the mind/brain is relatively modular (as is widely believed), then it's entirely likely that compassion is subserved by a particular (perhaps widely distributed) subsystem.
One irony, then, is that sociopathy or psychopathy might arise not only from too little empathy, but as a way of coping with an empathy "subsystem" that is overactive -- one easy way to deal with this is thus to turn the gain on this signal "way down".
In other words, it would be ironic if psychopaths suffer not from too little empathy, but from so much that it's disabling, and needs to be shut off.
One irony, then, is that sociopathy or psychopathy might arise not only from too little empathy, but as a way of coping with an empathy "subsystem" that is overactive -- one easy way to deal with this is thus to turn the gain on this signal "way down".
In other words, it would be ironic if psychopaths suffer not from too little empathy, but from so much that it's disabling, and needs to be shut off.
I know it must be the most difficult job on earth being Michael's mother, but I can't help thinking how it would feel to have a mother say in public that you will grow up to be a serial killer... How ever their relationship got to this point, and I agree a personality disorder on Michael's part seams likely, it's sure not an easy situation to turn around, even for a healthy kid. :/
I hope it works out...
I hope it works out...
Reading this article was oddly reminiscent, as he sounds like me when I was younger. In fact, I can seem to relate to a large portion of the article. Let me try and shed some light on several points:
His gaze settled on Allan. Grabbing a wooden chair, he hoisted it overhead as though to do violence but paused for several seconds, giving Miguel a chance to yank it away.
Right - first, psychopaths (let's just call it that for now) absolutely understand reward and punishment. The question, however, becomes more "can I avoid the punishment?" rather than "oh no, if I do that, will I be punished?" It's not entirely conscious - it's natural. Maybe this only happens with a certain degree of intelligence, but if his parents made it clear that he'd have no way of weaseling out of a punishment, and would be caught for sure, then it would deter his behavior. That is, of course, unlikely. His parents are emotional, and I'm sure he knows it. Either that, or the punishment just isn't affecting him. He just screams and pretends, so they won't try something new. All tactics I've used. He realizes that if he throws the chair, he will ACTUALLY get in trouble. He just wanted to get a point across. He overreacts, and his parents respond accordingly, and lectures his brother. Win-win.
Some, including Michael, were actually worse; one had begun biting the counselors.
This is probably misrepresented. When a kid throws a tantrum, often the counselors will try to restrain him. Yes, this happened to me (twice). If the kid cannot use his arms or legs, it should really be expected that he's going to bite. He believes he has a logical reason for throwing a fit - restraining him isn't going to change that.
Coldblooded, callous-unemotional children, by contrast, are capable of being impulsive, but their misbehavior more often seems calculated. “Instead of someone who can’t sit still, you get a person who may be hostile when provoked but who also has this ability to be very cold. The attitude is, ‘Let’s see how I can use this situation to my advantage, no matter who gets hurt from that.’ ”
I'd argue that psychopaths have both 'hotblooded' and 'coldblooded' elements. Which they display at any given time, is simply a question of which has the most reward. If the situation is hopeless, even the most hotblooded psychopath will return to being coldblooded. They'll probably never swallow their pride, but they'll win, one day. The trick is understanding their logic - because their logic is more cause-effect, than reflecting on societal norms we've grown up with.
So they don’t develop the same aversion to punishment or to the experience of hurting someone.”
That's not true at all. My parents used to beat me (Chinese family, accepted norm) when I threw tantrums and did something wrong. I used to hate it, but I doubt I would've grown the same way without it. Rather than having to form my own mental punishment, I could relate "if I do this, I'll get beat". Then the question became, "is it worth the potential of a beating, and can I prevent them from finding out?" Psychopaths understand punishment just fine... at least intelligent ones do. When I entered high school, however, I found out that any suspensions go on my record for University. I also heard that good universities don't accept people with bad records. I was suspended over 50 times in elementary/junior high, but since high school, I've had excellent behavior. It's easy to trick your parents into thinking you're remorseful... it's harder to convince an organization that deals with thousands of applications.
In another study, the researcher Mark Dadds found that as C.U. children matured, they developed the ability to simulate interest in people’s feelings.
It's not just simulating interest - it's simulating emotions altogether. It was difficult as a child, but over the years, I've learned what emotions are supposed to be, when people display them, and what degree they should be displayed. Hence, if a psychopath starts to live two different lives, they can easily switch between different levels of emotional display. It makes adaptation a lot easier, and people don't really consciously notice.
It's like programming. if(situation) { respond(situation.severity)} Eventually, you get to see enough situations, and can extrapolate responses for situations you haven't seen. Once in a blue moon, you're completely off. That isn't to say ALL emotions are restricted. Shame, guilt, fear, sadness, and love may be difficult, but happiness, boredom, and anger come easily.
All in all, I feel people really misunderstand psychopaths. If you're a parent, and have psychopathic children, find something they inherently cannot live without, and threaten it. Beatings may work, but it's not fool proof. You can't starve them, because they realize it'll hurt you more than it'll hurt them, and mutually assured destruction (up to a point) is acceptable. Remember - it's not how they inherently behave. It's how they behave, given the circumstances. Instead of trying to fix the root problem, go after a symptomatic treatment. Just because they misbehave, doesn't mean they won't be productive members of society later on.
His gaze settled on Allan. Grabbing a wooden chair, he hoisted it overhead as though to do violence but paused for several seconds, giving Miguel a chance to yank it away.
Right - first, psychopaths (let's just call it that for now) absolutely understand reward and punishment. The question, however, becomes more "can I avoid the punishment?" rather than "oh no, if I do that, will I be punished?" It's not entirely conscious - it's natural. Maybe this only happens with a certain degree of intelligence, but if his parents made it clear that he'd have no way of weaseling out of a punishment, and would be caught for sure, then it would deter his behavior. That is, of course, unlikely. His parents are emotional, and I'm sure he knows it. Either that, or the punishment just isn't affecting him. He just screams and pretends, so they won't try something new. All tactics I've used. He realizes that if he throws the chair, he will ACTUALLY get in trouble. He just wanted to get a point across. He overreacts, and his parents respond accordingly, and lectures his brother. Win-win.
Some, including Michael, were actually worse; one had begun biting the counselors.
This is probably misrepresented. When a kid throws a tantrum, often the counselors will try to restrain him. Yes, this happened to me (twice). If the kid cannot use his arms or legs, it should really be expected that he's going to bite. He believes he has a logical reason for throwing a fit - restraining him isn't going to change that.
Coldblooded, callous-unemotional children, by contrast, are capable of being impulsive, but their misbehavior more often seems calculated. “Instead of someone who can’t sit still, you get a person who may be hostile when provoked but who also has this ability to be very cold. The attitude is, ‘Let’s see how I can use this situation to my advantage, no matter who gets hurt from that.’ ”
I'd argue that psychopaths have both 'hotblooded' and 'coldblooded' elements. Which they display at any given time, is simply a question of which has the most reward. If the situation is hopeless, even the most hotblooded psychopath will return to being coldblooded. They'll probably never swallow their pride, but they'll win, one day. The trick is understanding their logic - because their logic is more cause-effect, than reflecting on societal norms we've grown up with.
So they don’t develop the same aversion to punishment or to the experience of hurting someone.”
That's not true at all. My parents used to beat me (Chinese family, accepted norm) when I threw tantrums and did something wrong. I used to hate it, but I doubt I would've grown the same way without it. Rather than having to form my own mental punishment, I could relate "if I do this, I'll get beat". Then the question became, "is it worth the potential of a beating, and can I prevent them from finding out?" Psychopaths understand punishment just fine... at least intelligent ones do. When I entered high school, however, I found out that any suspensions go on my record for University. I also heard that good universities don't accept people with bad records. I was suspended over 50 times in elementary/junior high, but since high school, I've had excellent behavior. It's easy to trick your parents into thinking you're remorseful... it's harder to convince an organization that deals with thousands of applications.
In another study, the researcher Mark Dadds found that as C.U. children matured, they developed the ability to simulate interest in people’s feelings.
It's not just simulating interest - it's simulating emotions altogether. It was difficult as a child, but over the years, I've learned what emotions are supposed to be, when people display them, and what degree they should be displayed. Hence, if a psychopath starts to live two different lives, they can easily switch between different levels of emotional display. It makes adaptation a lot easier, and people don't really consciously notice.
It's like programming. if(situation) { respond(situation.severity)} Eventually, you get to see enough situations, and can extrapolate responses for situations you haven't seen. Once in a blue moon, you're completely off. That isn't to say ALL emotions are restricted. Shame, guilt, fear, sadness, and love may be difficult, but happiness, boredom, and anger come easily.
All in all, I feel people really misunderstand psychopaths. If you're a parent, and have psychopathic children, find something they inherently cannot live without, and threaten it. Beatings may work, but it's not fool proof. You can't starve them, because they realize it'll hurt you more than it'll hurt them, and mutually assured destruction (up to a point) is acceptable. Remember - it's not how they inherently behave. It's how they behave, given the circumstances. Instead of trying to fix the root problem, go after a symptomatic treatment. Just because they misbehave, doesn't mean they won't be productive members of society later on.
"it's simulating emotions altogether."
Find a good therapist. You do have emotions, they are just buried. Or again, even if I was downvoted in another thread, at least read Alice Miller.
Find a good therapist. You do have emotions, they are just buried. Or again, even if I was downvoted in another thread, at least read Alice Miller.
[deleted]
> > So they don’t develop the same aversion to punishment or to the experience of hurting someone.”
> That's not true at all.
So you are not a psychopath.
> That's not true at all.
So you are not a psychopath.
Psychopaths exist for an evolutionary reason. The fact that the military essentially screens for them in order to make the most of the mounted 50 calibers suggests why. But they are less important now, and given the demographics of the prison population, it's clear why.
It's actually best not to treat such a thing. Just evict them from the gene pool via the justice system and the problem will solve itself.
It's actually best not to treat such a thing. Just evict them from the gene pool via the justice system and the problem will solve itself.
> the military essentially screens for them in order to make the most of the mounted 50 calibers
Citation needed, not calling bullshit necessarily but I can't imagine selecting for pyschopaths in the military does wonders for unit cohesion / morale.
Citation needed, not calling bullshit necessarily but I can't imagine selecting for pyschopaths in the military does wonders for unit cohesion / morale.
> The fact that the military essentially screens for them
No, no they don't. What makes you think that they do?
No, no they don't. What makes you think that they do?
Because it's a huge field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_psychology
It's actually pretty common sense. Pulling a trigger is not easy when it's aimed at another creature, and I've seen people refuse to shoot deer. When training infantry costs a million dollars, you have to economize by distinguishing who will be a state-sponsored killer, and who will shoot in the air out of compunction.
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Against-Fire-Problem-Command/dp/08...
I maybe wouldn't believe it, but I've seen it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_psychology
It's actually pretty common sense. Pulling a trigger is not easy when it's aimed at another creature, and I've seen people refuse to shoot deer. When training infantry costs a million dollars, you have to economize by distinguishing who will be a state-sponsored killer, and who will shoot in the air out of compunction.
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Against-Fire-Problem-Command/dp/08...
I maybe wouldn't believe it, but I've seen it.
Being willing to effectively fight in combat isn't equivalent to being a psychopath. It's something most men can be trained to do. Once you've in an actual combat situation it's either you or them--at that point it's just a rational manifestation of self-preservation. Even more to the point, people will kill in order to defend each other, which certainly favors empathy towards one's comrades over psychopathy.
I'm sure some psychopaths get through, but for anything important the military tries to screen against them, and for good reason--the foundation of an effective military is teamwork, and military culture strongly honors heroism of the self-sacrificial sort, certainly not the stuff psychopaths are made of.
I'm sure some psychopaths get through, but for anything important the military tries to screen against them, and for good reason--the foundation of an effective military is teamwork, and military culture strongly honors heroism of the self-sacrificial sort, certainly not the stuff psychopaths are made of.
You would be surprised at how many soldiers deliberately miss the enemy, or don't fire at all.
Discussions on the matter: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=536561 http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_to...
I can provide more solid material if needed.
Discussions on the matter: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=536561 http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_to...
I can provide more solid material if needed.
I know about that; I'm not contesting that, I'm contesting the notion that the military deliberately screens in favor of psychopaths. They don't, and it's absolute bullshit to say that they do.
I just saw a film about this topic last night called "We Need to Talk About Kevin."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1242460/ Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLRgAe2jLaw
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1242460/ Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLRgAe2jLaw
Perhaps the article is lazy with elaborating on its normative perspectives onto a mass. The primary danger is when normative behavior is hegemonic and enforced with a uniform acceptance on what a person/child should behave like.
Stories of 'psychopathic' children reminds me of the following, but there are probably many more examples of stories about children being cruel and how people have responded to such cruelty (what are others you have seen?): Cidade de Deus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_God_%282002_film%29) Akira (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_%28film%29) Léon: The Professional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_%28film%29) Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_%28manga%29) GTO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Teacher_Onizuka) Dogtooth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogtooth_%28film%29) Heathers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathers)
Stories of 'psychopathic' children reminds me of the following, but there are probably many more examples of stories about children being cruel and how people have responded to such cruelty (what are others you have seen?): Cidade de Deus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_God_%282002_film%29) Akira (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_%28film%29) Léon: The Professional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_%28film%29) Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_%28manga%29) GTO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Teacher_Onizuka) Dogtooth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogtooth_%28film%29) Heathers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathers)
Sure, there must be something wrong with their brains. Never blame the parents, after all, they did everything by the book.
There exist theories about why people suppress their emotions. I recommend reading some Alice Miller.
Funny, I suppose as long as the diagnosis is "Depression" or something, the reaction is probably "oh noes, what have we done, what can we do", but I suspect for psychopathy it might be "a heck, but at least he'll become a badass boss and make millions on Wall Street".
Didn't read the story to the end, but where there even acts of "liking" by the mum? Not just "don't bounce the ball", "stop it" or "share your toys, honeys"?
There exist theories about why people suppress their emotions. I recommend reading some Alice Miller.
Funny, I suppose as long as the diagnosis is "Depression" or something, the reaction is probably "oh noes, what have we done, what can we do", but I suspect for psychopathy it might be "a heck, but at least he'll become a badass boss and make millions on Wall Street".
Didn't read the story to the end, but where there even acts of "liking" by the mum? Not just "don't bounce the ball", "stop it" or "share your toys, honeys"?
So how come the supposed psychopaths allegedly can't feel, but they can hate?
To me the story (stories) doesn't really add up so far.
To me the story (stories) doesn't really add up so far.
We are missing the solution because we don't understand the problem.
If I break my leg the cure is obvious: don't do anything for a month. Conveniently, it will hurt when I move my leg, so I won't try to move. The cure is only obvious because what actually constitutes the ailment (a broken leg) is obvious.
Now transfer this to psychological disorders. We don't know what exactly is wrong. Imagine if that were the case with the person with the broken leg. Current practice would be that the person goes to a doctor complaining that he doesn't feel like moving (because his leg hurts). The patient doesn't understand why, the doctor prescribes pain killers and - lo and behold - the patient feels like moving again. It worked! Great. But as soon as the patient tries to get off the medication, he finds that the pain returns (because the root cause of his symptoms has not been solved at all, he's probably worse off than he was before). In this example the so-called disease (leg pain, lack of willingness to be active) is not a disease at all. It is actually a part of the solution to the disease.
We are trying to 'cure' a disease without knowing what it is. When we try to solve problems without understanding their cause, we are bound to fail.
Human beings have accumulated enormous amounts of pent up emotion, that we began accumulating when thought activity started to appear in us hundreds of thousands of years ago. Before thought, emotion was solely the body's response to its physical environment, or more precisely: the body's response to its five senses. The body's natural response to emotion - fear, anger - is action which seeks to eliminate the threat: escape, fight (respectively). When thought activity starts creating emotions, this approach no longer works. The mind can neither be escaped from, nor can we fight it. Well, we can fight it with alcohol, which many people resort to, but this is obviously not a real solution.
We have been trying to escape all these emotions that have pent up over the many many generations that have passed since thought first appeared in us, but are still stumbling because we don't understand what is happening. In some people emotions simply break out because it needs to. The body can simply no longer hold back the massive amount of emotional energy that has amassed in us since the birth of thought. Many people become insane when this happens; they are simply not able to handle the power of the emotions being released. Some jump off a building, others turn to drugs and alcohol, and yet others discover what is actually happening. They find out that there is nothing wrong with them, what is happening is actually quite healthy. They discover that they don't need to do anything; they are not sick. The symptoms that might be perceived as a disease (the massive out-flux of emotion) is actually the cure.
Resisting this process is what causes insanity. Emotional energy held back energizes the mind instead (it can't be held back) and the hyperactive mind creates more emotion, thus creating a vicious cycle that ends in either death, self-medication or a realization of what is happening. There is nothing wrong with anger, sadness or fear. Treating emotions as a disease is the actual disease.
If I break my leg the cure is obvious: don't do anything for a month. Conveniently, it will hurt when I move my leg, so I won't try to move. The cure is only obvious because what actually constitutes the ailment (a broken leg) is obvious.
Now transfer this to psychological disorders. We don't know what exactly is wrong. Imagine if that were the case with the person with the broken leg. Current practice would be that the person goes to a doctor complaining that he doesn't feel like moving (because his leg hurts). The patient doesn't understand why, the doctor prescribes pain killers and - lo and behold - the patient feels like moving again. It worked! Great. But as soon as the patient tries to get off the medication, he finds that the pain returns (because the root cause of his symptoms has not been solved at all, he's probably worse off than he was before). In this example the so-called disease (leg pain, lack of willingness to be active) is not a disease at all. It is actually a part of the solution to the disease.
We are trying to 'cure' a disease without knowing what it is. When we try to solve problems without understanding their cause, we are bound to fail.
Human beings have accumulated enormous amounts of pent up emotion, that we began accumulating when thought activity started to appear in us hundreds of thousands of years ago. Before thought, emotion was solely the body's response to its physical environment, or more precisely: the body's response to its five senses. The body's natural response to emotion - fear, anger - is action which seeks to eliminate the threat: escape, fight (respectively). When thought activity starts creating emotions, this approach no longer works. The mind can neither be escaped from, nor can we fight it. Well, we can fight it with alcohol, which many people resort to, but this is obviously not a real solution.
We have been trying to escape all these emotions that have pent up over the many many generations that have passed since thought first appeared in us, but are still stumbling because we don't understand what is happening. In some people emotions simply break out because it needs to. The body can simply no longer hold back the massive amount of emotional energy that has amassed in us since the birth of thought. Many people become insane when this happens; they are simply not able to handle the power of the emotions being released. Some jump off a building, others turn to drugs and alcohol, and yet others discover what is actually happening. They find out that there is nothing wrong with them, what is happening is actually quite healthy. They discover that they don't need to do anything; they are not sick. The symptoms that might be perceived as a disease (the massive out-flux of emotion) is actually the cure.
Resisting this process is what causes insanity. Emotional energy held back energizes the mind instead (it can't be held back) and the hyperactive mind creates more emotion, thus creating a vicious cycle that ends in either death, self-medication or a realization of what is happening. There is nothing wrong with anger, sadness or fear. Treating emotions as a disease is the actual disease.
The idea that emotions are a kind of gas that you build up and need to release has been debunked for quite a long time. In fact it has been shown to be actively harmful. If you think carefully about what emotions are, that is, a nervous response to stimulous- it is a thing that happens. Not a substance. Emotions aren't a physical thing you can collect in a canister. The idea is kind of silly and outdated.
Of course emotions have a long lasting effect. Unless you are a psychopath, you probably know that. Have you never been disappointed and wrestled with that for a long time? Like being left from a girl-friend or whatever?
That may be no "building up" (ie 10 times being left from a girl-friend does maybe not build 10 times the emotion from being left once), but it is not just a fleeting response to stimulus either.
That may be no "building up" (ie 10 times being left from a girl-friend does maybe not build 10 times the emotion from being left once), but it is not just a fleeting response to stimulus either.
Thoughts cause emotions and emotions cause thoughts. The brain is an engine and a feedback loop, an organic computer that can program itself. The correct analogy is not of a balloon releasing gas, but a bicycle slowing down.
My experience says otherwise :). But we can agree to disagree.
Regarding your bicycle metaphor: just as a balloon releases gas into its surroundings, a bicycle - when we stop adding to its kinetic energy - transfers energy from itself to its surroundings until it stops. I think it's largely irrelevant whether we use the release of a physical substance or energy as a metaphor, but whatever works for you.
I also realize that I missed an important point in my previous post, which is gaining the ability to stop thinking when thinking isn't needed. This is basically the development of an awareness of thought activity. Since, as you correctly say, thoughts create emotions and vice verse, releasing emotional energy will not work if you keep creating new emotional energy through unconscious thinking. But this is really an integrated part of the release of emotions; the two things happen simultaneously. Indeed, some emotions cannot even be released/experienced until you become conscious of the previously unconscious thought patterns that held them back.
> The correct analogy is not of a balloon releasing gas, but a bicycle slowing down.
I guess part of my point was that just as the bicycle wheel doesn't stop immediately after we stop propelling it, emotions don't disappear immediately either even if thought activity subsides completely. There is an inertia left that can make us experience emotions related to an incident long after it has happened (even with no thought present). Very much like the remaining momentum of the bicycle wheel in the analogy.
Regarding your bicycle metaphor: just as a balloon releases gas into its surroundings, a bicycle - when we stop adding to its kinetic energy - transfers energy from itself to its surroundings until it stops. I think it's largely irrelevant whether we use the release of a physical substance or energy as a metaphor, but whatever works for you.
I also realize that I missed an important point in my previous post, which is gaining the ability to stop thinking when thinking isn't needed. This is basically the development of an awareness of thought activity. Since, as you correctly say, thoughts create emotions and vice verse, releasing emotional energy will not work if you keep creating new emotional energy through unconscious thinking. But this is really an integrated part of the release of emotions; the two things happen simultaneously. Indeed, some emotions cannot even be released/experienced until you become conscious of the previously unconscious thought patterns that held them back.
> The correct analogy is not of a balloon releasing gas, but a bicycle slowing down.
I guess part of my point was that just as the bicycle wheel doesn't stop immediately after we stop propelling it, emotions don't disappear immediately either even if thought activity subsides completely. There is an inertia left that can make us experience emotions related to an incident long after it has happened (even with no thought present). Very much like the remaining momentum of the bicycle wheel in the analogy.
What I mean is that, "venting" the traditional process of "releasing" emotions, rather than releasing the gas in a balloon, is actually just pedalling the bicycle, adding more energy to it.
As ZenPsycho says, this idea has been debunked and is harmful.
Take, for example, anxiety. Therapists used to think that there was a root cause, some deep-seated trauma. They thought that to treat the anxiety you needed to find and uncover the trauma, and get the patient to deal with it, and only then would the patient be free to deal with their anxiety. They thought that treating the anxiety directly would not help; that the trauma would cause further problems.
People would spend a long time in treatment.
Then cognitive models began to be introduced. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy was developed, and researched, and found to be effective. There's now a lot of evidence to support CBT.
A course of CBT lasts between 8 to 14 weeks, with one hour guided work per week and some hours of "homework" per week.
Take, for example, anxiety. Therapists used to think that there was a root cause, some deep-seated trauma. They thought that to treat the anxiety you needed to find and uncover the trauma, and get the patient to deal with it, and only then would the patient be free to deal with their anxiety. They thought that treating the anxiety directly would not help; that the trauma would cause further problems.
People would spend a long time in treatment.
Then cognitive models began to be introduced. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy was developed, and researched, and found to be effective. There's now a lot of evidence to support CBT.
A course of CBT lasts between 8 to 14 weeks, with one hour guided work per week and some hours of "homework" per week.
I'm not discounting Cognitive Behaviour Therapy at all. I haven't tried it myself, but I can see why it would help, since it deals with thoughts, which can create new emotions. As I wrote in reply to ZenPsycho, I really missed an important point in my post above, which is that unconscious thought activity creating new emotions is definitely a part of the condition.
Another way to explain the process I outlined above is to say that as a person becomes aware of his own thoughts, unconscious thought patterns are broken up and dissolved, and the emotions that were held back by these thought patterns are released/experienced. This is another, just as valid, perspective on the same process. So you are completely right to say that emotional release isn't the chief cause of the relief of symptoms; it's simply a part of the process that unfolds as we become more conscious of our thoughts.
Another way to explain the process I outlined above is to say that as a person becomes aware of his own thoughts, unconscious thought patterns are broken up and dissolved, and the emotions that were held back by these thought patterns are released/experienced. This is another, just as valid, perspective on the same process. So you are completely right to say that emotional release isn't the chief cause of the relief of symptoms; it's simply a part of the process that unfolds as we become more conscious of our thoughts.
Kill them with fire
Children such as the one portrayed in the article are the reason I believe that the age at which abortion can be performed should be extended to 18 years.
The problem is made worse by the highly subjective nature of psychiatry. When practiced in good faith, it seems to be beneficial for some people. Of course, as a science, it is particularly soft. It has a long history of shifting its positions, and a long history of debunked and discredited bodies of theory. (Why do we continue to teach Freud and Jung in college English departments?) Psychology is the sort of thing that works only when you can trust the person employing it, and sometimes not even then.
I am not a psychologist, I am more of a computer scientist. Using leeway in statistics and figures, I can show you any result I want to. For instance, I could present a compelling argument that Facebook will expand extraordinarily over the next decade. I could also present an argument damning the possibility of Facebook expanding at all. Don't you think that, with a few weeks of study, I could apply any subset of mental disorders from the DSM-IV to any person I wished?
Would you trust a court-ordered psychologist to make an accurate appraisal of your psyche? I don't know that such an appraisal is even possible. And I am worried about the increasing confidence in these sorts of appraisals. It sounds like, very soon, anyone interested in furthering American business aims will be suspect for mental disorders. The pretext is already here in America's paper of record. How long before this movement grows to having real influence in our judicial system?
When Tom Cruise begins to sound more sane than the psychology he criticizes, you know something is wrong.