To be or not to be a psychopath?

[Ginkgo]

No, I think that is limited, defensive and boring. The ego is important for control but needs something to control, and the id and the superego provide the life of the mind.

The id and the superego are the horses and the ego is charioteer.

I agree. Your metaphor makes me laugh as well.

 

[Ginkgo]

No, I think that is limited, defensive and boring. The ego is important for control but needs something to control, and the id and the superego provide the life of the mind.

The id and the superego are the horses and the ego is charioteer.

So, why did you say that Coriolis's post was ego based? I don't really see how it was, necessarily.

 

[Mole]

I agree. Your metaphor makes me laugh as well.

Of course if the ego is not in control, the mind becomes chaotic.

So the strong ego allows us to let go of control for a while, then return to control with our treasure. So the ego allows us to go deep sea diving, and bring us back to the surface when we need to breathe. And of course we dive for treasure.

And a weak ego has little control of what the mind is doing, and can't let go at the right time and can't pull back at the right time.

 

[Mole]

So, why did you say that Coriolis's post was ego based? I don't really see how it was, necessarily.

I thought Coriolis was always subtly trying to best me. Coriolis made no contribution of their own but only wanted to argue with my contribution. After a while this becomes wearing.

 

[Mole]

But now I have been making a contribution for a while, so now it is your turn to make a contribution.

Questions won't cut it and arguing won't cut it, so what are you going to bring to the table?

 

[Ginkgo]

But now I have been making a contribution for a while, so now it is your turn to make a contribution.

Questions won't cut it and arguing won't cut it, so what are you going to bring to the table?

This amazing penguin.

 

[Coriolis]

You have been responding to my posts in the same tone for quite a while now. I am starting to think it is an ego response. In other words, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You seem to think we are having an ego contest.

Of course if the ego is not in control, the mind becomes chaotic.

So, is an "ego-based" response bad, or does it just mean that I am in control of my own mind and not being chaotic in my thinking?

I understand though that you want mutual understanding. If we reached a mutual understanding, how would this make you feel? And what would you like to do next?

I would feel a sense of harmony and like we could obtain some sort of mutual objective.

I find a mutual understanding a worthy end in itself. Harmony is less of a priority. A mutual objective is fine, but it is also fine for us to have different objectives, as we are different people. We should be able each to work towards our individual objectives, helping other if possible, but at least not hindering each other.

I thought Coriolis was always subtly trying to best me. Coriolis made no contribution of their own but only wanted to argue with my contribution. After a while this becomes wearing.

Questions won't cut it and arguing won't cut it, so what are you going to bring to the table?

I consider asking questions to be a contribution. Often asking the right question is even more important than getting the answer. My responses to you often ask for clarification of your contribution. This is because what you have contributed is unclear, even apparently contradictory, to me and likely to others reading it. If my question leads you to explain yourself in a way that more people understand, that, too, is a contribution. Sometimes your statements also make significant assumptions, about people's thinking and how and why they do what they do. My response then will be to show you how those assumptions are sometimes wrong; how you need to include possibilities other than what your post addressed. If you want to label all that "arguing", so be it. You seem to value harmony for its own sake more than I.

 

[Salomé]

And a weak ego has little control of what the mind is doing, and can't let go at the right time and can't pull back at the right time.

QFT

What's the bet everyone who voted "Yes" is INTx?

It's like asking to have your leg cut off to stop you stubbing your toe. Lame.

 

[Coriolis]

OK, folks, let's give Salomé data. I voted yes, and I'm INTJ. Anyone else ready to confess?

What's the bet everyone who voted "Yes" is INTx?

It's like asking to have your leg cut off to stop you stubbing your toe. Lame.

Your analogy is a bit backwards. As ill-formed as the original poll question is, I would expect even you to vote yes. You are, after all, INTx also.

 

[Salomé]

OK, folks, let's give Salomé data. I voted yes, and I'm INTJ. Anyone else ready to confess?

LMAO. I'm that good.

Your analogy is a bit backwards. As ill-formed as the original poll question is, I would expect even you to vote yes. You are, after all, INTx also.

You on the other hand? Let's just say you have a distance to travel.

It is possible to recognise the common cognitive pitfalls inherent in one's type, without falling prey to them oneself.
*flicks dust off shoulders*

Edit. Talking of confessions of a wannabe psychopath...brings to mind this article.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/confessions-sociopath

Nice role-model, Cori.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I have the impression from what I've read about psychopathy that the category itself is a bit of a mess. The checklist of behaviors reminds me a lot of chronic pain diagnosis of what is most often called "fibromyalgia" these days. The same symptoms of pain and fatigue can result from a hormonal imbalance, auto-immune issues, sleep disorders, vascular problems, low grade infections, suppressed emotional trauma, etc. the root causes that exhibit the same symptoms can be completely unrelated.

If you look at any other neuro-atypical issue, these are not connected to sadism. On the one hand it seems like it's being diagnosed based on external symptoms which could have diverse root causes, but on the other hand there is this specific issue of amygdala damage that is being suggested to have neutral outcomes for non rage based psychopaths. Is the definition looking at a single root cause that can exhibit in a variety of ways, or is it looking at similar external manifestations without examining root causes?

I don't know of any other neuro-atypical issue connected to a particular form of sadism. Aspbergers and other high functioning autisms have hyper focus, some extreme personal hypersensitivity to emotional and sensory data, can at times lack empathy, and yet there is no particular connection to being cruel per say, although there are likely people with Aspbergers who are. Do you see the inherent confusion I am seeing in this topic?

I find this lack of clarity makes this issues a mess to parse apart and discuss. If there is more clarity available, I'd be especially interested to see it. It would change how one would best approach this topic.

 

[Salomé]

I have the impression from what I've read about psychopathy that the category itself is a bit of a mess.

How does that really differ from other psychiatric disorders though?
Depression similarly has multiple causes/manifestations/treatments, yet still has a recognisable clinical picture.
The clinical picture here involves absence of empathy. I don't think sadism is necessarily a defining feature, and when it appears, it's more a function of a quest for dominance than anything else, I'd venture. The quest for dominance / vying for status is something common to all social animals to varying degrees. Because of the specific way in which the psychopath's brain is disordered, they reveal what happens when the "brakes" of empathy are removed. Which is fascinating. It leads us to understand how morality is rooted in empathy.
I have read* that the difference between lack of empathy in autism and psychopathy is this: empathy has two components - cognitive (" theory of mind") and affective. In autists it is the former that does not function effectively; in psychopaths / sociopaths it is the latter. What do you think?

*in "Zero Degrees of Empathy" by Baron-Cohen amongst other places.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

How does that really differ from other psychiatric disorders though?
Depression similarly has multiple causes/manifestations/treatments, yet still has a recognisable clinical picture.
The clinical picture here involves absence of empathy. I don't think sadism is necessarily a defining feature, and when it appears, it's more a function of a quest for dominance than anything else, I'd venture. The quest for dominance / vying for status is something common to all social animals to varying degrees. Because of the specific way in which the psychopath's brain is disordered, they reveal what happens when the "brakes" of empathy are removed. Which is fascinating. It leads us to understand how morality is rooted in empathy.
I have read* that the difference between lack of empathy in autism and psychopathy is this: empathy has two components - cognitive (" theory of mind") and affective. In autists it is the former that does not function effectively; in psychopaths / sociopaths it is the latter. What do you think?

*in "Zero Degrees of Empathy" by Baron-Cohen amongst other places.

I am still planning to come back and continue this discussion. I think you have an interesting idea here that is likely exactly right. I'll have to read and think a bit more to contribute anything further. It makes so much sense what you said about the two different components of empathy.

 

[Coriolis]

Edit. Talking of confessions of a wannabe psychopath...brings to mind this article.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/confessions-sociopath

Nice role-model, Cori.

I have read this article before. It illustrates well the premise of the OP, that there may be some advantages to psychopathy, or at least to traits usually associated with that condition. How she handles the escalator situation is perfect.

I will be interested in the additional analysis you and Fia come up with. I, too, do not see sadism as an inherent quality of psychopaths. I had the impression that aspergers/autism was associated with lack of affective empathy rather than cognitive, and that a true psychopath (assuming that can be defined) lacks either.

 

[Salomé]

I have read this article before. It illustrates well the premise of the OP, that there may be some advantages to psychopathy, or at least to traits usually associated with that condition. How she handles the escalator situation is perfect.

You think?
The woman is utterly delusional. She states that she is "generally free from irrational emotions" right after describing a "megalomaniacal fantasy" in which she strangles a jobsworth. The extent of her murderous rage is utterly irrational. In fact, she is ensnared by irrational emotions - all the more so because of her lack of self-insight. Lack of self-awareness/self-knowledge is a side effect of empathy deficit. We come to understand ourselves by coming to understand others, not the other way around. So she is not just interpersonally impaired, but intrapersonally impaired. Stalking the guy through the mall only to impotently decide to do nothing at all is kinda lame. In what way is that perfect, to you? What did she actually accomplish?

As for how successful she is, yes, sociopaths can do well, especially in Law (it's easier to float to the top in certain professions if you untether yourself from any kind of moral constraints - you're still only on top of a pile of shit), but they are consummate liars. We can't take anything this woman says on faith. And from the situations she cites as "successes", she presents quite a pathetic figure, in my view. They are broken people, more pitiable than enviable.

I will be interested in the additional analysis you and Fia come up with. I, too, do not see sadism as an inherent quality of psychopaths.

There are two dimensions to psychopathy, as measured by the PPI: fearless-dominance and impulsive-antisociality. It is the latter dimension that is linked to sadism/cruelty and criminality. Psychopaths who manage to stay out of the criminal justice system are likely lower on this dimension.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819310/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2916168/#!po=83.3333

I had the impression that aspergers/autism was associated with lack of affective empathy rather than cognitive, and that a true psychopath (assuming that can be defined) lacks either.

http://www.sltinfo.com/autism-and-theory-of-mind.html

Cognitive_versus_affective_empathy
Rogers' research, following the distinction between cognitive empathy and affective empathy, suggests that people with Asperger syndrome have less ability to ascertain others' feelings (in terms of theory of mind), but demonstrate equal empathy when they are aware of others' states of mind (in terms of affect).[14]
Regarding the subdivision of emotional empathy into personal distress and empathic concern, individuals with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) self-report lower levels of empathic concern, and they show less or absent comforting responses toward someone who is suffering. However, individuals with ASD also report equal or higher levels of personal distress compared to controls. The combination of reduced empathic concern and increased personal distress may lead to the overall reduction of empathy in ASD.[21] Social psychology research found that when a person is overwhelmed by his or her own feelings when observing a person who needs help, he or she is unlikely to engage in comforting or helping others.[21]
"As regards the failure of empathic response, it would appear that at least some people with autism are oversensitive to the feelings of others rather than immune to them, but cannot handle the painful feed-back that this initiates in the body, and have therefore learnt to suppress this facility."[60]

Autists (paradoxically, given the derivation of the word) also have a defective sense of self. They are unable to properly distinguish between self and other. This probably exacerbates the problem, because to be able to offer assistance (empathic response) one must be able to effectively suppress one's own distress.

Psychopaths have no problem with theory of mind - which is what makes them such successful manipulators. If they did not have this cognitive aspect of empathy, they would not be able to charm and ingratiate. They are the definition of Machiavellian. Where they have a deficit is in pairing that cognition with what we regard as appropriate affect - concern for the other person or even themselves. They are therefore able to be both fearless and merciless. Even if they understand that they will be punished for something, a feature of the condition is that they are unable to learn to fear punishment - that other "brake" on reckless behaviour. This actually constitutes a learning disability. Evolution gave us emotion for a reason. It's useful. As already mentioned, the amygdala controls fear response and tends to be damaged in the sociopath (along with other brain regions collectively termed "the empathy circuit"). A feature of autism is excessive fearfulness and anxiety, (for example, around change of routine/novelty) which also indicates a role for the amygdala, but again implies over-sensitivity rather than under-sensitivity .

 

[Magic Poriferan]

According to any psychological assessments I've taken that can account for this sort of thing, I'm essentially an anti-psychopath (and an INTP for the record).

I feel like being such a person can be fairly painful. You get depressed by sensing that other people are unhappy. You feel sometimes cripplingly anxious about the consequences of any decision you make. You deny yourself a lot of things for a lot of reasons. And to top it all off, it apparently makes you a lot less attractive.

But I wouldn't change this particular aspect of myself, really. I'd change a lot, but not this. I think the very nature of being such a person would compel one to not want to stop being such a person and become a psychopath, as I and I would think anyone like me would immediately notice that A) it would be far more detrimental to the greater number of people, and B) it would mean leaving a lot more of one's life to risks and random chances. That sounds like exactly what I don't want.

So is something very suspect about anyone that appears to act on their conscience but then goes on long tirades about the credit they're owed. You have to wonder if they ever really acted on their conscience. And I guess what I'm saying is that anyone like me who says "I wish I were a psychopath" immediately appears to me to possibly be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Pulling out a little further, these questions are always kind of silly. In a way they are a bit like the questions that ask if you would have rather been another MB or Enneagram type. I think the questions are odd because the type itself effects the things you want. I find it confusing when people say "I want to want something else." And if you were something else, would you know it? Wouldn't you just be used to that and pine over something else you don't have in this different form?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I will be interested in the additional analysis you and Fia come up with. I, too, do not see sadism as an inherent quality of psychopaths.

Sadism is associated only high IQ psychopathy.

This actually constitutes a learning disability.

That is a dubious premise because cognitive deficiencies are deemed learning disabilities when they prevent the individual from cultivating the intellectual competencies necessary for a fulfilling life. The inability to learn fearful behavioral traits can harm the psychopath in scenarios where a risk-averse rather than a jeopardous plan of action is viable. Prior to the rise of civilization, it is evident that fearful behavioral predispositions were profusely rewarded. It was impossible for one to survive without exercising a great deal of caution to avoid predators, highly infectious diseases and find shelter from the harsh conditions of the environment. Today, risk-averse activities are much less rewarding and Kevin Dutton characterizes many non-psychopaths as "pathologically risk-averse". Could it be that since our circumstances have changed, it is now the ordinary people rather than the psychopaths who have a learning disability? Maybe we are the ones who should be concerned that we cannot learn fearless behavioral dispositions that could clearly benefit us in many walks of life?

 

[Mole]

The Berserkers, CEOs and Wolves

To go berserk means to change form. Yes, berserkers wore wolf skins into battle, and became like a fearless wolf, and fought in a nearly uncontrollable trance like fury.

And in ancient tribes, who were constantly at war with one another, psychopathic qualities may well have been selected for.

And indeed psychopathic qualities may well be selected for in CEOs ( Chief Executive Officers) of highly competitive and ruthless companies, quite like warring ancient tribes.

Yes, homo homini lupus (man is a wolf unto man).

 

[Salomé]

Sadism is associated only high IQ psychopathy.

That's not true at all.

That is a dubious premise because cognitive deficiencies are deemed learning disabilities when they prevent the individual from cultivating the intellectual competencies necessary for a fulfilling life.

I don't see how anyone can describe a psychopath's life as fulfilling. The condition entails blunted affect which necessarily entails a blunted feeling of fulfilment, even if their relationship issues did not.

The inability to learn fearful behavioral traits can harm the psychopath in scenarios where a risk-averse rather than a jeopardous plan of action is viable. Prior to the rise of civilization, it is evident that fearful behavioral predispositions were profusely rewarded. It was impossible for one to survive without exercising a great deal of caution to avoid predators, highly infectious diseases and find shelter from the harsh conditions of the environment. Today, risk-averse activities are much less rewarding and Kevin Dutton characterizes many non-psychopaths as "pathologically risk-averse". Could it be that since our circumstances have changed, it is now the ordinary people rather than the psychopaths who have a learning disability? Maybe we are the ones who should be concerned that we cannot learn fearless behavioral dispositions that could clearly benefit us in many walks of life?

I think being "pathologically risk-averse" and pathologically risk-seeking are both undesirable states.

You forget that psychopaths could not thrive in a world full of psychopaths. They are predators - they need prey. They only get to the top by exploiting the vulnerabilities of others. In a world of invulnerable people, we would just annihilate each other. Certainly civilisation as we know it(which is founded on cooperative values, tolerance and fair play) would collapse. We have only achieved mastery of the planet because we are essentially an empathic species committed to the welfare of the group above the individual.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

That's not true at all.

I think you may have misunderstood me, I am not saying that all sadists are high IQ psychopaths. Rather, that high IQ psychopaths are more likely to be sadists than low IQ psychopaths, but there could be non-psychopathic sadists and quite a few sadistic psychopaths them may have a low IQ.

Kevin Dutton documented various studied showing that high IQ psychopaths are more empathetic than their low IQ counterparts and they are able to use their empathy to derive gratification from the suffering of their victims. That's tantamount to Sadism, is it not?

I don't see how anyone can describe a psychopath's life as fulfilling.

Psychopaths certainly miss out on the joys of intimate emotional connections with others, but are their lives truly less fulfilling than that of most normal people? I voted "no" on my own poll because I found my niche and have satisfying relationships, but who am I to say that most people can achieve a fulfilling life the way I did? Divorce rates are through the roof, close friendships are becoming increasingly less common, professional milieus are rife with conflicts or underlying tensions between staff members, familial ties are weakening and lifelong friendships tend to disappear as we rely more on technology and increase the geographical distance between ourselves and our childhood friends. As we are becoming increasingly more work-focused as a society, we invariably neglect our relationships as by nature, we become more adversarial, self-centered and egotistical. If the main advantage that we have over the psychopaths is that we are able to enjoy deep interpersonal relationships and that is being jeopardized now, what do we have to show for? What is it that an average person has that a psychopath should envy? On the other hand, the psychopath has plenty for the average person to envy including freedom from anxiety, in many cases status, wealth and ability to take on new adventures that are often richly rewarding.

The condition entails blunted affect which necessarily entails a blunted feeling of fulfillment, even if their relationship issues did not.

A sizable portion of our population lives in a state of constant dread, shame, anxiety and deep uncertainty. Part of this is caused by the excessively rigid norms of conventional or religious morality, the precarious nature of the economy and the instability of interpersonal relationships. Psychopaths are much more immune to all of these feelings and generally handle uncertainty better. What good is it to not have blunted feelings when most of the feelings that normal people tend to experience are predominantly negative. These overwhelming sentiments drive a considerable percentage of Koreans and Japanese to suicide and many Americans are beginning to feel the strain of excessive pressure at work, overwhelming responsibilities to their families and other conditions that make their lives seemingly intolerable. What about the psychopaths? They either cope with these uncertainties better or they are at the helm of government agencies and transnational corporations that make life difficult for many ordinary citizens.

I think being "pathologically risk-averse" and pathologically risk-seeking are both undesirable states.

That is true, but pathological conditions are always defined within the context of a society where the alleged patient resides. In our society, pathological risk-aversion is more serious of a deficiency than pathological risk-seeking. The psychopaths are currently better adapted to our society, whether or not that may change in the future is another topic.