• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

To be or not to be a psychopath?

Would you choose to be a psychopath? l

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • No

    Votes: 24 85.7%

  • Total voters
    28

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
To most of us, psychopathy seems to be a monstrosity and a blight to humanity. We tend to imagine psychopaths as serial killer, mass-murderers or dangerously deranged individuals. http://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Ps...&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Wisdom+of+the+psychopath

However, it has recently been discovered that most psychopaths do not fit that description. Psychopathy is defined as a general lack of conscience, fearlessness, ruthlessness, superficial charm, tough-mindedness and the capacity to focus with great intensity. The brain of a psychopath differs from that of an ordinary person because it has a severely damaged amygdala that prevents him or her from focusing on emotions as intensely as ordinary people are able to. We have been evolutionarily conditioned to focus on emotions in order to limit our aggressive urges and instincts that compel us to seek out new adventures, as such limitations were needed for our survival. These limitations diminished our confidence in our own abilities and led humans to become more dependent on their relationships with the community and other individuals, however, the psychopathic gene withstood the test of time because communities needed fearless and ruthless individuals to make difficult decisions, keep enemies at bay and maintain a sense of order in an iron-fisted manner.

Psychopaths almost never suffer from depression or anxiety, crave risk-taking, are highly driven by rewards financial and otherwise and tend to be intensely focused on the task at hand. Because they are not distracted by the onslaught of emotions that most of us are constantly beleaguered by, they tend to be very mindful and are rarely preoccupied with ruminations about the past or worries about the future. In this respect, their deep mindfulness and focus on the present moment is similar to that of the Meditation Masters who claim to have reached Enlightenment. In part due to this virtue of their character, they tend to be successful in endeavors that reward mindfulness, focus and ruthlessness such as businesses, government policy-making and organized crime.

-------------------------------------------------------
The line between running from the police and running for office is rather thin.

The website below documents a study that has shown that most of the U.S presidents had distinctive psychopathic traits.

http://kevindutton.co.uk/psychopathy-presidents.html

Psychopaths are generally characterized by a lack of conscience, fearlessness, ruthless dominance over others, superficial charm, irresponsibility and impulsive behavioral tendencies. Only a small fraction of psychopaths end up behind bars, but they are the ones who fail to conceal their capricious and a radically egoistical nature.

To cut a long story short, your average psychopath has a lot more in common with a ruthless mid-level manager at a transnational corporation than a hardened criminal and accomplished psychopaths have more in common with Bill Clinton than with Ted Bundy.

---------------------------------------------

In principle, it is possible for one to become a psychopath by undergoing brain-surgery that alters one's amygdala in a manner that compromises the individual's attention to his or her emotions.

If this surgery was lawful and freely offered by the U.S government, would you choose to become a psychopath?

Source: ttp://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Psychopaths-Killers-Success/dp/0374291357/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373912247&sr=8-1&keywords=The+wisdom+of+the+psychopath
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I believe the main character (played by Jeremy Renner) in The Hurt Locker is held up as an example of a common kind psychopath. He's an impulsive risk taker who is very focussed under extreme circumstances.

But, no, I would not want to be one.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
To cut a long story short, your average psychopath has a lot more in common with a ruthless mid-level manager at a transnational corporation

This does not surprise me. But just because someone doesn't end up behind bars doesn't mean he is good.

These psychopaths in mid level management are probably collectively responsible for more harm in the world than the criminals behind bars, by their sheer numbers alone.

These are the people who see movies like The Godfather and Glengarry Glen Ross, and don't just see good, intense, movies, but see role models in the morally reprehensible main characters. Their attitude is "Good father, fuck you, go play with your kids."

This attitude would be half-way tolerable if it worked. But, the vast majority of these guys are losers in addition to being assholes. Their machismo fails not only to win friends, but fails to influence people too. At best, you get someone intimidated into buying real estate and will spend the rest of time fighting frivolous suits (and those law suits are their own falt). I mean, seriously, would anyone buy a tablespoon from a guy like the Alec Baldwin character in Glengarry Glen Ross, let alone a home?

With that said, those who can add some charm into the mix can be quite capable. But as was said, this is "superficial charm" for a sociopath.

Lack of conscience, and ruthlessness are not traits I think I see as being that common in presidents. Even in Clinton's case, what he did seemed more like a mind-bedingly crazy act of rationalizing impulsive behavior, not a lack of conscience. I realize there is wheeling and dealing, and a very competitive form of game playing going on in politics. But "lack of conscience" seems a bit much. I see this as more common in the Senate and House than in the Presidency. But who knows? Maybe the stuff we never here about will show the presidents past to be without conscience.

We have neurotics on one end of emotional sensitivity and psycopaths on the other. (I think it would be amusing if the Big Five change the name of the Neuroticsm scale to the Psycopathy scale and flipped the scores. Considering that the neurotics are more sensitive than psycopaths, this may be seen as implicitly embedding less normative content into the scales.)

Clam, focus, drive, and much of the other good things we ascribed to psycopaths can all be achieved without the need for lack of conscience. For me, the ill judgement towards the word psycopath comes mainly from that trait.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
To most of us, psychopathy seems to be a monstrosity and a blight to humanity. We tend to imagine psychopaths as serial killer, mass-murderers or dangerously deranged individuals. http://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Ps...&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Wisdom+of+the+psychopath

However, it has recently been discovered that most psychopaths do not fit that description. Psychopathy is defined as a general lack of conscience, fearlessness, ruthlessness, superficial charm, tough-mindedness and the capacity to focus with great intensity. The brain of a psychopath differs from that of an ordinary person because it has a severely damaged amygdala that prevents him or her from focusing on emotions as intensely as ordinary people are able to. We have been evolutionarily conditioned to focus on emotions in order to limit our aggressive urges and instincts that compel us to seek out new adventures, as such limitations were needed for our survival. These limitations diminished our confidence in our own abilities and led humans to become more dependent on their relationships with the community and other individuals, however, the psychopathic gene withstood the test of time because communities needed fearless and ruthless individuals to make difficult decisions, keep enemies at bay and maintain a sense of order in an iron-fisted manner.

Psychopaths almost never suffer from depression or anxiety, crave risk-taking, are highly driven by rewards financial and otherwise and tend to be intensely focused on the task at hand.
I question this last assumption about them not suffering from negative emotion relating to self. In looking over the scholarly articles online that is generally the accepted belief, but it is also called into question. I'll answer with the assumption that it is correct.

Psychopathy is not the only means to have hyperfocus and achievement, or to even make fearless choices. I see the lack of empathy and even the lack of internal cognitive dissonance as a fragmentation in its perception of reality. To have no empathy is to lack all that information. It is a different sort of "data" than facts about a person, but rather is a type of insight. Cognitive dissonance when looked at with internal integrity is also a form of insight. I can see why on the surface something like psychopathy can be viewed as advantageous or even like inner peace, but if you look at what is chosen in terms of "ruthless" success, or even fixating on money, those are not insightful goals, but tiny shards of reality. I'd rather take a more Buddhist approach to insight to have a more holistic conception of reality and to make choices from that vantage point. External success is often irrational in nature and dismissing the well being of others is to dismiss the reality of Self.

Pain is also information. When we don't feel pain in the body we can act in ways that further harm the body. When we don't feel psychological pain in response to reality, then we don't have full information about reality.

I don't want to live with blinders on, I don't want to rigorously grab onto a single shard of reality, I don't want to be imprisoned within self, and that is why it doesn't appeal to me.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
You may as well ask to be or not to be blue eyed or brown eyed or green eyed.

You have as much choice in that matter too.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Pain is also information. When we don't feel pain in the body we can act in ways that further harm the body. When we don't feel psychological pain in response to reality, then we don't have full information about reality.

I don't want to live with blinders on, I don't want to rigorously grab onto a single shard of reality, I don't want to be imprisoned within self, and that is why it doesn't appeal to me.

Yeah, its a pretty poor understanding of invulnerability that I think draws people into this sort of discussion but its a little like believing that it would be great to have a brain injury and be rendered a "contented infant" for the rest of your days, that's truly terrible.

The very best of the world religions, philosophies, psychology, name it, the best of human wisdom recognises that life involves pain and suffering and it can be assailed and used rather than being an end or defeating game over.

Society's even further gone than I imagined if psychopathy is the model citizen or fully developed and adapted personality. It doesnt surprise me though, its what modern economy, politics, other over arching structures demand the social character becomes and so it does. The point at which this sort of thing becomes unsustainable and whether or not that will result in any kind of true reckoning and realisation provoking a conscious rethink is surely coming. It ought to be anyway.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Psychopathy is not the only means to have hyperfocus and achievement, or to even make fearless choices.

I don't see the relevance of this objection. Just because psychopathy is not the only way to achieve these character traits, it does not follow that psychopathy does not help one achieve them. Most psychologists who study people with these qualities would say that most psychopaths have them, but some non-psychopaths also do.




I see the lack of empathy and even the lack of internal cognitive dissonance as a fragmentation in its perception of reality.

Kevin Dutton dedicated a chapter to this topic that he prefaced with a quote from Homer Simpson "just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't know!". Psychopaths, like all humans are able to experience a wide range of emotions including empathy, but they easily disregard them. Various empirical studies have shown that people of their ilk are far superior at identifying their own emotions to the non-psychopaths.

I can see why on the surface something like psychopathy can be viewed as advantageous or even like inner peace, but if you look at what is chosen in terms of "ruthless" success, or even fixating on money, those are not insightful goals, but tiny shards of reality..

Nonetheless, there is a reason why the "psychopathy gene" has endured to this day. Where would we be as a civilization if we never had business or government leaders who were able to manage crises ruthlessly and expediently?

I'd rather take a more Buddhist approach to insight to have a more holistic conception of reality and to make choices from that vantage point. External success is often irrational in nature and dismissing the well being of others is to dismiss the reality of Self.

To the contrary, psychopaths tend to have a deep understanding of their various strengths and weaknesses, that's part of the reason why they're usually very crafty at turning just about any situation to their own advantage.



Pain is also information. When we don't feel pain in the body we can act in ways that further harm the body. When we don't feel psychological pain in response to reality, then we don't have full information about reality.

They feel pain, but they're able to easily disregard it to focus on the objective they've set their mind to.

I don't want to live with blinders on, I don't want to rigorously grab onto a single shard of reality, I don't want to be imprisoned within self, and that is why it doesn't appeal to me.

They don't live with blinders on, they simply ignore the part of their identity that prevents them from achieving their goals.

You may as well ask to be or not to be blue eyed or brown eyed or green eyed.

You have as much choice in that matter too.

In principle, brain surgery can cause psychopathy. However, it is unclear if medical technology is advanced enough to achieve that objective. For all of your other comments, read my replies to fia.


This does not surprise me. But just because someone doesn't end up behind bars doesn't mean he is good.

It means he is slightly more responsible than his incarcerated counterpart.

These psychopaths in mid level management are probably collectively responsible for more harm in the world than the criminals behind bars, by their sheer numbers alone.

Despite that these psychopaths must have dramatically raised revenue for their CEOs, I imagine that ordinary citizens benefited from that very little, if at all.



These are the people who see movies like The Godfather and Glengarry Glen Ross, and don't just see good, intense, movies, but see role models in the morally reprehensible main characters. Their attitude is "Good father, fuck you, go play with your kids."

I doubt it, these people tend to have a difficult time identifying with other people on an emotional level.

This attitude would be half-way tolerable if it worked.

It does work, Kevin Dutton has shown that a significant percentage of British CEOs, lawyers, mainstream media representatives, surgeons and special forces soldiers are psychopaths. CEOs who have distinct psychopathic traits have been frequently rated by their subordinates as more charismatic, possessing superior communication skills and more admirable than their less psychopathic peers.





But, the vast majority of these guys are losers in addition to being assholes.

Most people have a misconception about psychopathy that it is a disorder that you either have or do not have. As with all disorders, psychopathy is assessed on a continuum: to be sure, a mild psychopath is far more reprehensible than a normal person, but he'll have an easier time passing himself off as socially acceptable than a radical psychopath.

http://www.daniweb.com/community-center/geeks-lounge/threads/78319/hare-psychopathy-checklist

For example, most people score 2 or less on Hare's psychopathy checklist and 27 is the minimal threshold where you can be officially diagnosed as a psychopath. At 27, you wouldn't be ruthless enough to reap the full benefits of social and financial success, but 40 will most most likely led you in the lunatic asylum sooner or later. However, at the 30-34 range, you have a considerable chance of thriving in organized crime, business or government bureaucracy.

Their machismo fails not only to win friends, but fails to influence people too.

Then why are psychopaths CEOs constantly rated as highly charismatic, persuasive and even humanitarian? Why is psychopathy so prevalent among trial attorneys, they don't seem to have many problems influencing people and I doubt they're running short on friends. They have all of the things that their normal rivals covet: status, abundance of wealth and hordes of acolytes who adore them.

At best, you get someone intimidated into buying real estate and will spend the rest of time fighting frivolous suits (and those law suits are their own falt). I mean, seriously, would anyone buy a tablespoon from a guy like the Alec Baldwin character in Glengarry Glen Ross, let alone a home? .

Most successful psychopaths don't get caught or even recognized as such, that's why not a single Wall-Street mogul stood trial in the aftermath of the 2008 Financial Crisis.



With that said, those who can add some charm into the mix can be quite capable. But as was said, this is "superficial charm" for a sociopath.

The world is full of idiots, superficial charm is all it takes to be recognized as stupendously charismatic and persuasive and most psychopaths are recognized as exactly that.

Lack of conscience, and ruthlessness are not traits I think I see as being that common in presidents.h.

Really, you think they got power by being nice and actually believing in the things they say they believe in?

Even in Clinton's case, what he did seemed more like a mind-bedingly crazy act of rationalizing impulsive behavior, not a lack of conscience..

I am sure that his decision not to intervene in the fastest genocide in the history of civilization in Rwanda had nothing to do with his lack of conscience. Nikita Kruschev repeatedly sought out conciliatory resolutions to the Cuban Missile Crisis, but Kennedy refused to comply until the brink of the nuclear showdown, what does that tell you about his conscience?

But "lack of conscience" seems a bit much. I see this as more common in the Senate and House than in the Presidency. But who knows? Maybe the stuff we never here about will show the presidents past to be without conscience.

What are you saying? Biographers of these presidents confirmed that your favorite psychopaths from our Middle School History textbooks had no conscience, do you claim that you know these people better than their biographers did?


We have neurotics on one end of emotional sensitivity and psycopaths on the other. (I think it would be amusing if the Big Five change the name of the Neuroticsm scale to the Psycopathy scale and flipped the scores.
That would be technically incorrect as the spectrum between psychopaths and saints is circular as both would score very low on neuroticism. [/QUOTE]


Clam, focus, drive, and much of the other good things we ascribed to psycopaths can all be achieved without the need for lack of conscience.

We achieve all of these virtues through years of dedication and deliberate practice, psychopaths are practically born with them.
 

baccheion

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
777
Not all psychopaths are the same. Most psychopaths are described as they are here, because they are the extreme version of the ESTx types (ESTP = risk-taking, ESTJ = idiot in management). If another type were to be a psychopath, or sociopath (usually ISTx), then they would manifest as the extreme of their type. For example, an ENFJ would be a cult leading manipulative controlling bitch.

Why you'd want to be the extreme negative version of your type, I don't know. I could see some people wanting the charming or emotionally-risilient (but they aren't.. they seem very touchy) or fearless nature of the psychopath, but I'd say separate the want of those things from the rest of what these shits are.

Sometimes I want to be a sociopath, because I've spent my entire life being accused of being one, and I suppose actually going there (instead of giving a shit about people) would be a freeing experience. Because, you see, when someone is an actual sociopath or psychopath, they put on a show for everyone, and everyone likes them and becomes their pawns.. they don't actually get accused of being fucked up, and more importantly, these idiots that would accuse me of being this way go out of their way to defend these shits. Just think of how many times these idiot women crave a "thug" (sociopath) or the fearlessness, adventurousness (risk-taking), and charm of the psychopath. Fuck 'em all. Their stupidity drives me up the wall.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Yeah, if you want to consider a pop cultural reference you should consider Dexter rather than Homer Simpson, there's a show which does a not bad job of investigating someone who lacks empathy and may be a true psycho or sociopath.

There was an episode of House too in which he treats a true psychopath, the character is contrasted with his own and he in some ways envys the psychopathic character but ultimately its portrayed, I believe rightly, as fundamentally flawed and an unenviable state.

Hearing people talk as you have favourably about it is on a par with individuals who have psychological fixations which lead them to believe their lives would be better if they could amputate a limb. Perhaps for people who are emotionally flooded frequently or experience real troubles with their emotions the idea of being able to do without that or medically inhibit it seems appealing but I dont think its a good idea, I dont think any of the "enjoy your symptom" turn in psychology or the precursors to it have been positive for human health, happiness or dignity.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't see the relevance of this objection. Just because psychopathy is not the only way to achieve these character traits, it does not follow that psychopathy does not help one achieve them. Most psychologists who study people with these qualities would say that most psychopaths have them, but some non-psychopaths also do.
It's not an objection, but there are so many other ways to achieve hyper focus that I don't see how it is a special advantage. It is not unique to psychopathy. You later say that the psychopath chooses to dismiss information, so why couldn't anyone choose hyper focus? You seem to emphasize the positive, but also see the negatives as a choice. Do you desire to see psychopathy as purely advantageous? That is the part I do not think is proven in your position.

Kevin Dutton dedicated a chapter to this topic that he prefaced with a quote from Homer Simpson "just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't know!". Psychopaths, like all humans are able to experience a wide range of emotions including empathy, but they easily disregard them. Various empirical studies have shown that people of their ilk are far superior at identifying their own emotions to the non-psychopaths.
It isn't the same sort of information, and I thought I addressed that fact. I'm well aware that a person can intellectually understand a lot about another person without a more experiential knowledge. A more experiential connection to another's worldview contains countless amounts of nuanced information that cannot be transmitted via language. Intellectual empathy is the ability to maintain accurate associations without a true knowledge of the nature of those associations. Hearing crying and relating it to sadness for the non-empathetic person is like hearing a bell and relating it to sadness. It is not complete knowledge. A damaged amygdala suggests to me that there is a lack of personal knowledge about certain aspects of experience that would absolutely constrain actual empathy.

Perhaps their superior ability to identify their own emotions is because the framework is simpler? The reason that non-psychopathic individuals can struggle with identifying emotions is because it is layered and complex. Given enough time and insight it is absolutely possible, and I strongly suspect that it is possible to know every cause for every effect.

Nonetheless, there is a reason why the "psychopathy gene" has endured to this day. Where would we be as a civilization if we never had business or government leaders who were able to manage crises ruthlessly and expediently?
I can't answer that, but I'm not going to assume that we would be in a worse scenario. There would likely have been fewer dictators who initiated wars and genocide. If the world had powerful individuals with empathy, with a sense of self that extended beyond the individual, then there could well be more highly developed arts and philosophy. Perhaps we would be traveling space by now, educated the world, and have eradicated hunger? Perhaps cancer and other diseases would be cured. Perhaps learning and knowledge would be brought to levels unimagined through research. Money and resources would have been focused on strengthening the whole of humanity and not just the power of individual dictators. The cost of our recent U.S. wars could have eradicated world hunger, but we had a likely sociopath in office.

What is the reason that the gene for mental retardation, M.S., and other issues has endured to this day? Existence of a malfunction does not necessarily prove it is superior state of being.

To the contrary, psychopaths tend to have a deep understanding of their various strengths and weaknesses, that's part of the reason why they're usually very crafty at turning just about any situation to their own advantage.
From a distanced perspective it is irrational and destructive. There is no reason to value one individual over another, even if we happen to be viewing reality from the vantage point of one individual.

They feel pain, but they're able to easily disregard it to focus on the objective they've set their mind to.
Once again, if their amgydala and limbic system is damaged or non-existent, they are not functioning with all data. They are functioning without the data provided through that system.

They don't live with blinders on, they simply ignore the part of their identity that prevents them from achieving their goals.
If they don't experience fear, if they cannot experience empathy, then they are metaphorically lacking peripheral vision.

Their brain is not fully functional from the standpoint of looking at the hardware of it. Yes, a person can interpret advantages for this state, and I agree that contextually there can be advantages. I do not agree that it is a universally advantages state of existence. Technically it is a damaged, or incomplete, piece of hardware with which they are functioning.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
You seem to emphasize the positive, but also see the negatives as a choice. Do you desire to see psychopathy as purely advantageous? That is the part I do not think is proven in your position..

The negative side of psychopathy is that they don't experience the joys of deep interpersonal relationships with other people, that's about all I can think of.

Perhaps their superior ability to identify their own emotions is because the framework is simpler?

A damaged amygdala only stops them from habitually focusing on their emotions, but it does not stop them from experiencing them. They have a visceral understanding of the emotive states that normal people go through, otherwise they'd have no way of identifying their victims as expediently and accurately. If their framework was simpler, they'd have no way of understanding what sorts of emotional appeals are necessary to manipulate the people with the complex framework.



I can't answer that, but I'm not going to assume that we would be in a worse scenario. There would likely have been fewer dictators who initiated wars and genocide. If the world had powerful individuals with empathy, with a sense of self that extended beyond the individual, then there could well be more highly developed arts and philosophy. Perhaps we would be traveling space by now, educated the world, and have eradicated hunger? Perhaps cancer and other diseases would be cured. Perhaps learning and knowledge would be brought to levels unimagined through research. Money and resources would have been focused on strengthening the whole of humanity and not just the power of individual dictators. The cost of our recent U.S. wars could have eradicated world hunger, but we had a likely sociopath in office.

We would have probably had fewer decisive conflicts that culminated in genocide or totalitarianism, but we would have been stuck in the Hobbesian state of nature for much longer. Psychopathic leaders excel at creating order that their successors can enhance by rendering it more humane.

What is the reason that the gene for mental retardation, M.S., and other issues has endured to this day? Existence of a malfunction does not necessarily prove it is superior state of being.

Cognitively impaired people tend to be very agreeable and they have their place in society, their state of being is not superior to that of normal people, but it has its applications. The same holds true for psychopathy.


From a distanced perspective it is irrational and destructive.
There is no reason to value one individual over another, even if we happen to be viewing reality from the vantage point of one individual.

Sometimes their self-interests serves the public good, after all Adam Smith was onto something when he coined his "invisible hand" term. There is a gap between people's altruistic intentions and the consequences of their action as there is between their self-serving intentions and the consequences.

Once again, if their amgydala and limbic system is damaged or non-existent, they are not functioning with all data. They are functioning without the data provided through that system..

So what? Do you envy the Obsessive compulsive person who can detect more germs on an immaculately clean table because he or she has access to more "data" than you?

If they don't experience fear, if they cannot experience empathy, then they are metaphorically lacking peripheral vision.


They have all of these experiences, that's why they are able to detect such complex feelings in others.

Their brain is not fully functional from the standpoint of looking at the hardware of it. Yes, a person can interpret advantages for this state, and I agree that contextually there can be advantages. I do not agree that it is a universally advantages state of existence. Technically it is a damaged, or incomplete, piece of hardware with which they are functioning.

Nonetheless, we would probably still be in the Dark Ages without them. It is difficult to establish a sense of order without getting your hands dirty and very few non-psychopaths are willing to do that at enormous psychological costs to themselves.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
[MENTION=14179]SolitaryWalker[/MENTION], I guess it comes down to debating over a myriad of assumptions. To actually get at a topic like this, each assumption would have to be examined. It could be interesting, but that would be a very exhaustive debate. I'll hit on a few points here.

I'm mostly curious about your assumptions of the experience of the psychopath. You are presenting a number of comments regarding the nature of their experience. Is this from articles you have read, or some personal connection. I thought that the opening statement said they did not experience fear or other emotions the same way as others, but after that you are saying they do experience everything, but have the ability to dismiss it. I debate that because of the damaged amygdala, they cannot experience it fully. These are just two experientially based assumptions bumping heads. Do either of us know the actual answer? Is there a research article that says they do experience everything? Do you know someone who has been diagnosed as psychopath and they say that they experience everything, including a feelingful empathy? Of course I could be wrong in assuming that they don't because I'm not a psychopath. I'm just assuming that something must be different in their experience if their actual brain hardware is different. Can you clarify where you are coming from with your set of assumptions? As far as what the world would be like, that is such deep conjecture that I'm fine with just leaving it with the statements made and don't see a reason to actually debate it unless it was for a game or something.

There are also conditions like Aspbergers that create hyper-focus in the brain and can create an absence of empathy in some contexts (primarily when they are hyper-focused on something else). There is also a lack of social connection possible with that "issue", but from what I understand it is different from psychopathy and actually much more like what I see you describing in this thread. I've read about it and know several people with it and they have moments of hyperfocus on their inner world and what and whom they care about, so it is just a different way of organizing the complete human experience.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
[MENTION=14179]SolitaryWalker[/MENTION], I guess it comes down to debating over a myriad of assumptions. To actually get at a topic like this, each assumption would have to be examined. It could be interesting, but that would be a very exhaustive debate. I'll hit on a few points here.

I'm mostly curious about your assumptions of the experience of the psychopath. You are presenting a number of comments regarding the nature of their experience. Is this from articles you have read, or some personal connection. I thought that the opening statement said they did not experience fear or other emotions the same way as others, but after that you are saying they do experience everything, but have the ability to dismiss it. I debate that because of the damaged amygdala, they cannot experience it fully. These are just two experientially based assumptions bumping heads. Do either of us know the actual answer? Is there a research article that says they do experience everything? Do you know someone who has been diagnosed as psychopath and they say that they experience everything, including a feelingful empathy? Of course I could be wrong in assuming that they don't because I'm not a psychopath. I'm just assuming that something must be different in their experience if their actual brain hardware is different. Can you clarify where you are coming from with your set of assumptions? As far as what the world would be like, that is such deep conjecture that I'm fine with just leaving it with the statements made and don't see a reason to actually debate it unless it was for a game or something.

There are also conditions like Aspbergers that create hyper-focus in the brain and can create an absence of empathy in some contexts (primarily when they are hyper-focused on something else). There is also a lack of social connection possible with that "issue", but from what I understand it is different from psychopathy and actually much more like what I see you describing in this thread. I've read about it and know several people with it and they have moments of hyperfocus on their inner world and what and whom they care about, so it is just a different way of organizing the complete human experience.

Nothing I stated was based on my personal experiences, it all came from the Wisdom of the Psychopath book that documented ample empirical research articles in support of all of the claims I've made. Nothing I said was a conjecture, there have been studies done showing that when forced to focus on emotions, psychopaths outperformed normal people at identifying their own feelings and that of others. They've also outperformed the non-psychopaths at feigning appropriate emotive affects. The overarching theme of these studies is that psychopaths experience an equal range of feelings to what we all experience, but with a much lesser intensity. That strikes me as rather plausible, I don't see why a damaged amygdala should stop a psychopath from experiencing all feelings, but it certainly makes sense that it would blunt the intensity of the feelings. I said the psychopaths are fearless, but that's in comparison to others, it doesn't mean they have no fear, they just much less fearful than the non-psychopaths.
 

wolfy

awsm
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
12,251
No, I wouldn't have the surgery. I think it would be a great trait to be able to turn on strongly when you needed it. A fighters instinct.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988

I will not go point for point with this since I am likely to disappear for a month or so after this post (I have not made the decision explicitly, but it is a likely scenario). Perhaps I don't have the proper psychological definition of psycopath fixed in my mind. Perhaps I am using a different definition of lacking conscience than what Kevin Dutton does. This is the first I've heard of the book, and I don't know what is being described.

My main point if the lack of desire avoid doing harm to others is not a desirable trait, no matter what advantages they may seem to confer. The desire to do harm is the essence of being evil.

If people see this desire in others, they tend to see this desire as evil. Perhaps the technical definition of psycopath does not include the desire to do harm. Perhaps the technical definition does not even include a lack of desire to avoid doing harm to others. If "lack of conscience" is equated with the lack of feeling emotional connection to others, then I think the book is quite misleading and provacative mainly due to the use of words in ways that people do not normally associate them with.

Not being "nice", and even doing things that are wrong under extreme and/or complex circumstances does not, to me, demonstrate a lack of conscience. There are may ways people end up harming others despite having a general desire not to do harm to people. One common way being labeling those having harm done to them as enemies or sub-human in some way. This is still evil. But not due the absence of conscience, but due to means that people have of circumventing the conscience that they do have.

Saints and monks perhaps achieve a calm, but they do not do so through the disconnection of their emotions. I would put saints and monks near the neutral level of emotional sensitivity. Where they can feel emotions without being overwhelmed by them.

So perhaps the words (semantics) themselves are a source of a confusion. Then it would be nice to know how Dutton uses the notion of conscience or lack thereof in his book, and how you are doing so now.

I maintain that lacking the desire to avoid harming others is not a good thing. The desire to harm others is a bad thing. Hopefully, by using plain words, we can avoid any confusion due to semantics.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
However, it has recently been discovered that most psychopaths do not fit that description. Psychopathy is defined as a general lack of conscience, fearlessness, ruthlessness, superficial charm, tough-mindedness and the capacity to focus with great intensity. The brain of a psychopath differs from that of an ordinary person because it has a severely damaged amygdala that prevents him or her from focusing on emotions as intensely as ordinary people are able to. We have been evolutionarily conditioned to focus on emotions in order to limit our aggressive urges and instincts that compel us to seek out new adventures, as such limitations were needed for our survival. These limitations diminished our confidence in our own abilities and led humans to become more dependent on their relationships with the community and other individuals, however, the psychopathic gene withstood the test of time because communities needed fearless and ruthless individuals to make difficult decisions, keep enemies at bay and maintain a sense of order in an iron-fisted manner.

Psychopaths are generally characterized by a lack of conscience, fearlessness, ruthless dominance over others, superficial charm, irresponsibility and impulsive behavioral tendencies. Only a small fraction of psychopaths end up behind bars, but they are the ones who fail to conceal their capricious and a radically egoistical nature.
I find some of the qualities of psychopaths admirable and potentially useful, while others are ultimately counterproductive and even self-destructive. Tough mindedness, capacity to focus intensely, even some degree of fearlessness and ruthlessness are all quite useful, as is the underlying ability to distance oneself from emotions. Irresponsibility and impulsive behavior are generally counterproductive (and actually would seem to be driven by one's emotions). Superficial charm and a drive to dominate others can go either way, depending on circumstances. I would not be willing to accept the second group of qualities to obtain (more of) the first, especially since, as Fia pointed out, I can already develop the first group separately.

It isn't the same sort of information, and I thought I addressed that fact. I'm well aware that a person can intellectually understand a lot about another person without a more experiential knowledge. A more experiential connection to another's worldview contains countless amounts of nuanced information that cannot be transmitted via language. Intellectual empathy is the ability to maintain accurate associations without a true knowledge of the nature of those associations. Hearing crying and relating it to sadness for the non-empathetic person is like hearing a bell and relating it to sadness. It is not complete knowledge. A damaged amygdala suggests to me that there is a lack of personal knowledge about certain aspects of experience that would absolutely constrain actual empathy.
Do you consider intellectual empathy to be inadequate? What extra information is gained through what you call an experiential connection? More to the point, what does this information allow you to do that you cannot do on the basis of intellectual empathy? Whether you associate crying or a bell or something else with sadness seems immaterial. As long as you know X = sadness, you understand that a person is experiencing a negative situation, and it would be appropriate to see if they need any help.

If people see this desire in others, they tend to see this desire as evil. Perhaps the technical definition of psycopath does not include the desire to do harm. Perhaps the technical definition does not even include a lack of desire to avoid doing harm to others. If "lack of conscience" is equated with the lack of feeling emotional connection to others, then I think the book is quite misleading and provacative mainly due to the use of words in ways that people do not normally associate them with.
I had the impression that psychopaths don't desire to do harm, they just don't care if others are harmed as they try to get what they want.
 
Last edited:

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
There are also conditions like Aspbergers that create hyper-focus in the brain and can create an absence of empathy in some contexts (primarily when they are hyper-focused on something else). There is also a lack of social connection possible with that "issue", but from what I understand it is different from psychopathy and actually much more like what I see you describing in this thread. I've read about it and know several people with it and they have moments of hyperfocus on their inner world and what and whom they care about, so it is just a different way of organizing the complete human experience.

Hyperfocus is an intense form of mental concentration or visualization that focuses consciousness on a narrow subject, separate from objective reality and onto subjective mental planes, daydreams, concepts, fiction, the imagination, and other objects of the mind.
 

Rail Tracer

Freaking Ratchet
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
3,031
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I don't equate Stoicism to Psycopathy, but.....

Stoicism is something to be attained, not mutilated.

Besides, there are other ways to achieve something similar without mutilating yourself.

I would choose to be a Stoic, but not a Psychopath
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Nothing I stated was based on my personal experiences, it all came from the Wisdom of the Psychopath book that documented ample empirical research articles in support of all of the claims I've made. Nothing I said was a conjecture, there have been studies done showing that when forced to focus on emotions, psychopaths outperformed normal people at identifying their own feelings and that of others. They've also outperformed the non-psychopaths at feigning appropriate emotive affects. The overarching theme of these studies is that psychopaths experience an equal range of feelings to what we all experience, but with a much lesser intensity. That strikes me as rather plausible, I don't see why a damaged amygdala should stop a psychopath from experiencing all feelings, but it certainly makes sense that it would blunt the intensity of the feelings. I said the psychopaths are fearless, but that's in comparison to others, it doesn't mean they have no fear, they just much less fearful than the non-psychopaths.
Is Kevin Dutton saying, though, that psychopathy exists on a continuum and that in "smaller doses" those traits have advantages? That is different than having a non-functioning amygdala. Some damage to the amygdala actually increases rage and anxiety, so I would need to see more about the research that places so many with similar personality traits into the same category.

It isn't news to me that there are high-functioning psychopaths who live out their lives in professional work environments. What isn't clear is the nature of their motivation and how that is assumed beneficial. I can see fragmented versions of benefit like with a heart surgeon I knew of that was skilled in surgery, but so cruel in his communication that every nurse that worked for him ended up physically ill. If he hadn't been admitted to medical school, then someone else would have and they would have been performing those same surgeries, only not making the nurses ill. While there are some positives and some negatives, it is a net gain, but is it greater than if a non-psychopath did the same endeavor? I really don't think a person has to be a psychopath to be excellent at helping during a crisis. There are millions of examples of people who are successful at performing those tasks. The more power a psychopath has, the more damage they can do to the world if for their own benefit. It would definitely explain why corporations and governments are causing so much abuse to humanity and the environment.

Those are the traits that our society has come to value, and so he pushed the exactly correct button to make a name for himself. It can make people feel strong to think of being like a psychopath, but there are other ways to be strong, and it has to do with expanding the sense of self beyond the individual.

I do see that the author of that book is a psychologist at Oxford which is a strong credential, but I'm also a bit hesitant with sensationalized hype and this book is presented in that manner. I've been looking for peer reviews on it and for some reason cannot find these. Ramachandran's review doesn't really say a lot, ""Dutton tackles an elusive, important and much neglected aspect of the mind, our personality. He presents some highly original insights and does so in a provocative and humorous style." Many of his quotes for what other psychologists are saying on his page seem to say there is something interesting in what he is saying, but it doesn't sound like the same level of embracing the ideas that you are demonstrating. Perhaps the book itself is not presenting psychopathy as an idealized form of being? The OP here reads like you are presenting it idealized. The only drawback you see is the lack of forming social bonds? But perhaps the psychopath doesn't care, in which case why would that be any greater drawback than the lack of empathy? or the dimmed emotional responses?

Do you consider intellectual empathy to be inadequate? What extra information is gained through what you call an experiential connection? More to the point, what does this information allow you to do that you cannot do on the basis of intellectual empathy? Whether you associate crying or a bell or something else with sadness seems immaterial. As long as you know X = sadness, you understand that a person is experiencing a negative situation, and it would be appropriate to see if they need any help.
It depends on the context. I think that there is information that only exists in the nuance of experience. To continue the metaphor of relating the bell to sadness instead of crying to sadness, the information lacking includes the effect that sadness has on the breath, why is the change in breathing related to mental sorrow? Why do movement slow? Why do different muscles fire in the face? I suspect it would be possible to identify millions of such associations between the act of crying and how sadness is experienced. The emotionally empathetic person operates from both the conscious and unconscious mind when responding in an intuitive manner. Factual associations, abstract connections that are intended to map to reality are by nature lower resolution. In some contexts this is plenty to suffice like when viewing a stock facial expression intended to convey a particular emotion. There are also a lot of basic, low resolution aspects to human behavior that even incredibly stupid, but conniving people can figure out and use to their advantage. Where this approach can be especially lacking is in providing new insight in to complex and layered emotions. It is lacking in its ability to understand a deeper level of consciousness. People go through life semi-conscious and relying on routine. Those routines are extremely low resolution, so it doesn't take much insight to hone in on them and use them to one's advantage. Fear does keep people in line, and so the lessening of that in psychopaths does allow them to examine new approaches. Edit: But this does not require that much depth of understanding of human emotion or behavior.

I had the impression that psychopaths don't desire to do harm, they just don't care if others are harmed as they try to get what they want.
It does bring up the question of what does motivate a psychopath? Is it reason? Selfishness? Money?
 

Betty Blue

Let me count the ways
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
5,063
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7W6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm amazed some people voted for being a psychopath. Hmmm... maybe not amazed, just...well... saddened that people exist who care so little about their loved ones that they would rather not care at all. Hmmm, i wonder if narcissists are wannabe socio/psychopaths. Or maybe the world has treated you so badly and you have no loved ones. I'm thinking along the lines of columbine (Ironically though, they did care).
 
Top