Would you be able to spot a psychopath?

[á´…eparted]

The article in the OP seems too anecdotal at some points, and honestly a good many of the points aren't useful determiners.

I also think people overestimate their ability to pick up on who is a psychopath or not. They wouldn't be successful if people quickly noticed that something wasn't right.

Also, watch this. It's fascinating.

 

[Forever]

That link made me feel like I was a psychopath lol.. (OP's link) I didn't fulfill every point but a lot were like uh... ok

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

The eyes. Look at any mug shot of serial killers, violent gang members etc. Dead cold eyes. You can’t hide that void that lurks in their eyes.

It bothers me and these people should be put down like rabid dogs. You can’t reform a lack of a conscience. Evil definitely exists and these people are examples.

One interesting thing I'm trying to learn more about has to do with facial expression. I've noticed and learned that people who are false do not activate the eye muscles when smiling. But I've also noticed that people who have significant anger and control issues will exaggerate the use of their mouth muscles without activating the top part of their face. What I recently learned in a brain biology class is that the top and bottom halves of our faces are wired to different parts of the brain.

This isn't necessary exactly on topic with psychopaths specifically, but it is peripherally relevant.

To answer the OP question: I tend to stay open to more extreme possibilities of who any individual person might be, and so there is a chance I could be suspicious of a psychopath without fully reaching the conclusion that is who they are. I also am not so naive as to say I could so easily spot one. The entire point of being able to discern hidden traits is to have enough respect for complexity of human behavior to admit one can be fooled. All of the great actors are not in Hollywood. Humans have the ability to convince other humans absolutely of their feeling and sincerity. There would be no Oscars if this wasn't the case.

 

[Lark]

This is one of those things, claiming a lot of knowledge of it or claiming that you can spot them, may just make a you target either for people who are psychopaths or people who like to imagine they are for a bunch of different reasons.

 

[CitizenErased]

Probably one of the most interesting Ted Talks I've watched.

Now, in my opinion, psychopathy is linked to a lack of empathy. It can mean you'll kill a person because you wouldn't feel remorse or it can mean that you don't get sad because the puppy in the movie died. The same way a religious person can kill others in a Crusade and be against homosexuality or leave everything behind and go to a random country to help poor people. There are good and bad people of every labeled group there is (except for the group of Mean People United, but you understand why).

I believe evil exists, but I understand it as something more... related to evolution than to mental illness. The rest of the animal species have instincts of self-preservation, we traded most of the instincts for self-consciousness, so it's understandable that as individuals, we'll choose things that are better for ourselves/make us happy over other people's wellbeing/happiness. Some more than others. When you take what you want without harming anybody, it's "good", and when you do, it's "evil", but I also believe good and evil are constructs. At some point it was good to get rid of witches by burning them or covering genitals of sculptures with grape leaves and now it's not. it was bad to call someone "nerd" (as I recently learned), but now it's a word that portrays a group identity.

Summing up, I use the word "psychopath" to refer to someone with low/nonexistent empathy, but in a neutral way, neither good or bad.

 

[deathwarmedup]

The eyes. Look at any mug shot of serial killers, violent gang members etc. Dead cold eyes. You can’t hide that void that lurks in their eyes.

Veiled, dulled, deadened eyes. See it all the time in rapists, human traffickers, sex traffickers, grooming gang members, violent domestic abusers, serial killers.

 

[Lark]

Probably one of the most interesting Ted Talks I've watched.

Now, in my opinion, psychopathy is linked to a lack of empathy. It can mean you'll kill a person because you wouldn't feel remorse or it can mean that you don't get sad because the puppy in the movie died. The same way a religious person can kill others in a Crusade and be against homosexuality or leave everything behind and go to a random country to help poor people. There are good and bad people of every labeled group there is (except for the group of Mean People United, but you understand why).

I believe evil exists, but I understand it as something more... related to evolution than to mental illness. The rest of the animal species have instincts of self-preservation, we traded most of the instincts for self-consciousness, so it's understandable that as individuals, we'll choose things that are better for ourselves/make us happy over other people's wellbeing/happiness. Some more than others. When you take what you want without harming anybody, it's "good", and when you do, it's "evil", but I also believe good and evil are constructs. At some point it was good to get rid of witches by burning them or covering genitals of sculptures with grape leaves and now it's not. it was bad to call someone "nerd" (as I recently learned), but now it's a word that portrays a group identity.

Summing up, I use the word "psychopath" to refer to someone with low/nonexistent empathy, but in a neutral way, neither good or bad.

This is a very interesting post, I dont agree with most social constructionism, I think there are natural laws but they are difficult to discern so people resort to things like social constructionism as an explanation, that's a gross simplification of my view but for the sake of moving the conversation on I'll leave it at that.

I highlighted what I found the most interesting point in your post, that's a remarkably good simplification of a lot of different accounts I've read, Erich Fromm writes about Genesis being an analogy for what you describe here and he suggests that this phenomenon results in mankind "being the only animal for which his existence is a problem", needing different existential answers to the "problem of existence or meaning".

He writes about believing that there is an innate drive to freedom in every individual, like Freud's drive theories, but the emotional conflicts that arise from the freedom drive lead to most people conspiring in or acquiescing in their own oppression, they conform to the social character of their time, which can be constantly changing, or so Fromm thought, but its not totally unlimited and only changes slowly, he had thought that a marketing persona, which lacked an actual self, had replaced an earlier sado-masochistic one which was typical among nazis and communists but characterised by always submitting to a higher power (even Hitler did that, it was nation, God, racial consciousness) and dominating subordinates (real or imagined).

That social character I think is what accounts for all this supposed CEO psychopathy, it also accounts for a lot of the supposed popularity of psychopathy (in both the supposedly widespread nature of it and its "popularity", I've seen a couple of books besides this Ronson book which seem to treat it as a positive label, what you can learn from, the "good" psychopath's guide etc. etc.).

The thing about this too, is that while its not the same label as psychopathy it is just as serious, if you read Fromm's books from the minor to the major its terrifying the sort of typical and untypical sadism that occurs, its not as readily used a label as psychopathy and that's something that bares thinking about too.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

The definitions for psychopathy and sociopathy have traditionally been a list of negative behavioral traits. It wasn't until James Fallon's brain scan research that this new idea developed that it is a brain condition that may or may not exhibit certain negative behavioral traits. At this point I think the definitions are indistinct. There is now discussion that some psychopathy is genetic, a brain anomaly, and other forms of psychopathy are environmentally created.

My impression is that at this point it is a lot like talking about chronic pain headaches. We look at symptoms and categorize, but the causality for certain behaviors can be completely different internally. In the same way headaches can be vascular, hormonal, the result of bad body posture habits, low blood sugar, etc, it is in this same way that psychopathic traits can be the result of very different internal processes. Before we make statements and judgments, we need to know if we are defining it based on brain structure resulting from genetics, or is it a list of negative behavioral traits.

 

[Lark]

The definitions for psychopathy and sociopathy have traditionally been a list of negative behavioral traits. It wasn't until James Fallon's brain scan research that this new idea developed that it is a brain condition that may or may not exhibit certain negative behavioral traits. At this point I think the definitions are indistinct. There is now discussion that some psychopathy is genetic, a brain anomaly, and other forms of psychopathy are environmentally created.

My impression is that at this point it is a lot like talking about chronic pain headaches. We look at symptoms and categorize, but the causality for certain behaviors can be completely different internally. In the same way headaches can be vascular, hormonal, the result of bad body posture habits, low blood sugar, etc, it is in this same way that psychopathic traits can be the result of very different internal processes. Before we make statements and judgments, we need to know if we are defining it based on brain structure resulting from genetics, or is it a list of negative behavioral traits.

I am wary of either saying "everyone is a bit psychopathic", like Ronson's video, or alternative "they are a people apart", especially when it is behaviourally defined.

I'm also wary of complete neurologically or sociobiologically determinism when it comes to crime, it can be a result of despairing of rehabilitation, or it could be an over optimistic note from a eugenic point of view, like saying its possible to breed "evil" out of the human race, I doubt it.

A lot of it I think is culturally determined or at least very much culturally influenced one way or another.

 

[deathwarmedup]

So... do you think you would be able to spot a psychopath? Even when... that is the last thing hey want you to be able to do? How would you do this?

Sharp haircut and penis-envy about other world leader's ICBM collections.

Is the idea that there are truly some people out there who are EVIL... who genuinely... do not care... does that idea bother you?

Yes. I have a certain sensitivity to it.

Have you ever had an experience with a psychopath? Do you believe you have ever met one- an obvious one or not- in your life... how could you tell? What happened?

In a bar in Bangkok. Walked in. The owner and a couple of drinkers were there. Stood in the doorway and got an intuition about him in a split second. A "bad vibe". Ignored him. Got talking to a local girl. Swapped addresses. Said goodbye. She writes months later:"you remember the bar owner? He was on British TV recently because he was at the centre of a sex trafficking ring". Wasn't surprised.

Do you believe psychopaths are evil? Do you believe evil exists?

I believe many psychopaths enjoy what they do and wouldn't change given the option.

Arkan

Ian Brady

Lenny Murphy

I think -- my best guess -- is that "evil" arises out of the complex needs of the human ego and the distortions to which it is susceptible. And these distorting influences can be independent of socio-economic factors. You can grow up to be a cunt quite randomly. Apparently, at least. I think the human ego is refined layer upon layer through evolution and becomes more and more brittle. Civilisation makes it worse. It teases and taunts the ego, provides it with a myriad of possibilities, hurdles, setbacks and temptations that I don't think would be encountered in more primitive, organic cultures. Control, power, domination, "playing god", all the distortions and susceptibilities of a social creature's fragile ego, distilled out of crude animal drives. If that's evil then we are spiritual beings with a spiritual purpose. If it's not then we're just a biological phenomena that became unnecessarily complex through unchecked evolution. That's my best guess.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

As another related, side note, there are as many levels to this as any number of levels of hell anyone has imagined. While there are people without empathy that ruin lives, cause emotional pain, inflict physical pain, etc. I can see how idealistic people want to see them as being redeemable, and as a former idealist, I'd like to think there is a significant range of behaviors from which people can be redeemed. However, I do think there are lines so extreme, that if you have seen the damage done by them concretely, there isn't a way to fit it into a philosophical construct of morality. People given completely over to sadism, who torture people to death, who select their victims based on how much suffering they had in that past, etc. are so far down the black hole that there isn't a way back out. It isn't my place to forgive them for their violation of another, and while it may not be my place to punish them either unless they came after me, I feel okay helping to facilitate it if there was a way. There are so many levels to this, and I think the most extreme levels do not fit into any abstract construct. Once they are experienced concretely they shatter every paradigm.

 

[magpie]

As another related, side note, there are as many levels to this as any number of levels of hell anyone has imagined. While there are people without empathy that ruin lives, cause emotional pain, inflict physical pain, etc. I can see how idealistic people want to see them as being redeemable, and as a former idealist, I'd like to think there is a significant range of behaviors from which people can be redeemed. However, I do think there are lines so extreme, that if you have seen the damage done by them concretely, there isn't a way to fit it into a philosophical construct of morality. People given completely over to sadism, who torture people to death, who select their victims based on how much suffering they had in that past, etc. are so far down the black hole that there isn't a way back out. It isn't my place to forgive them for their violation of another, and while it may not be my place to punish them either unless they came after me, I feel okay helping to facilitate it if there was a way. There are so many levels to this, and I think the most extreme levels do not fit into any abstract construct. Once they are experienced concretely they shatter every paradigm.

I agree with this. What I disagree with on principle is lists of traits that will supposedly help you "spot" a psychopath, especially if we are going to view anyone who has those traits as evil and irredeemable across the board. People should be judged by their actions, not their traits, and I feel that we have a dangerous thing going on in society where everyone wants to profile and control others. Not out of genuine concern for making the world better, but out of a need for authority and appropriateness. That in itself is inherently hypocritical, and I think there is a certain irony in it, because a lot of the systems in place in society are in themself psychopathic, and work by throwing that label or other labels onto others in a psychopathic and inherently hypocritical way.

I don't think there is much point in viewing people who have limited or no empathy, but haven't done anything wrong, as evil or damaged or monstrous, and I think that there is no harm at all and it's not overly idealistic to give people chances and to try to help them. If we are talking about people who slaughter and rape others, that is of course a different story, but I also think that it's dangerous to view all criminals of violent crimes as irredeemably psychopathic. There are criminals who were themselves victims first, and I think that they can be helped. Do they deserve it? It's hard to say. No, probably not, but I think that the focus on deserve is misplaced, because more important than what any individual deserves is what would create less evil in the world. I don't think it's about deserve - it's as simple as if someone can be redeemed, that does more good than just punishing them, but if they can't be redeemed, then obviously it would not do more good to try to redeem them.

Also, I think that ideology and action shouldn't be conflated. I would never advocate someone risking themselves or their well being or being reckless to try and stay with an abuser or "help" them. That does nothing good and it's a type of sacrifice that no one ever should have to make. It's suicide. I do think though that approaching the world ideologically from a place of belief in the inherent goodness of others and transformative power of redemption does much much more good than viewing the world and people as horrible and fucked beyond redemption, because what use is that viewpoint? If the idealism is healthy and balanced, it won't be acted on in a suicidal way, and nor will it block out unspeakable horror and evil. It will just not be broken by knowing that type of horrific shit exists, and that actually can allow one to open their eyes to it even more.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I agree with this. What I disagree with on principle is lists of traits that will supposedly help you "spot" a psychopath, especially if we are going to view anyone who has those traits as evil and irredeemable across the board. People should be judged by their actions, not their traits, and I feel that we have a dangerous thing going on in society where everyone wants to profile and control others. Not out of genuine concern for making the world better, but out of a need for authority and appropriateness. That in itself is inherently hypocritical, and I think there is a certain irony in it, because a lot of the systems in place in society are in themself psychopathic, and work by throwing that label or other labels onto others in a psychopathic and inherently hypocritical way.

I can see what you are saying. From what I understand of James Fallon's research and talks, he points out that low empathy people do well in jobs like surgery an emergency medicine. I see low empathy as very different from being a pathological psychopath. Also, people process emotions very differently, so what can appear to be low empathy, can in fact be hidden feeling. I think these discussions tend to become a mess because everyone has a different picture in their mind of what a psychopath is. I can see what you are saying about the problem of labeling and assuming.

I don't think there is much point in viewing people who have limited or no empathy, but haven't done anything wrong, as evil or damaged or monstrous, and I think that there is no harm at all and it's not overly idealistic to give people chances and to try to help them. If we are talking about people who slaughter and rape others, that is of course a different story, but I also think that it's dangerous to view all criminals of violent crimes as irredeemably psychopathic. There are criminals who were themselves victims first, and I think that they can be helped. Do they deserve it? It's hard to say. No, probably not, but I think that the focus on deserve is misplaced, because more important than what any individual deserves is what would create less evil in the world. I don't think it's about deserve - it's as simple as if someone can be redeemed, that does more good than just punishing them, but if they can't be redeemed, then obviously it would not do more good to try to redeem them.

Also, I think that ideology and action shouldn't be conflated. I would never advocate someone risking themselves or their well being or being reckless to try and stay with an abuser or "help" them. That does nothing good and it's a type of sacrifice that no one ever should have to make. It's suicide. I do think though that approaching the world ideologically from a place of belief in the inherent goodness of others and transformative power of redemption does much much more good than viewing the world and people as horrible and fucked beyond redemption, because what use is that viewpoint? If the idealism is healthy and balanced, it won't be acted on in a suicidal way, and nor will it block out unspeakable horror and evil. It will just not be broken by knowing that type of horrific shit exists, and that actually can allow one to open their eyes to it even more.

These are good points, and for some reason I wasn't focused on the question of staying in abusive relationships. Not allowing someone to continue to commit harm and letting them experience loss as a consequence of their actions is a form of caring. We inadvertently damage people when we allow them to hurt us.

I do think that people need to comprehend the consequences of their actions. I don't know how to make that come to be on a practical level in all cases, because I see the moral problem punishing by committing equivalent acts as the perpetrator, but I don't see how it is possible to be redeemed from a state of harmful cruelty unless there is full comprehension. This means a visceral absolute comprehension of every pain they have caused. The need to experience comprehension to have redemption is fundamental and applies to a wide range of violations - perhaps the entire range.

It is actually very complex because people are, but I tend to take a hard line in my perspective with extreme individuals. Perhaps the way to word it is to say that their behavior demonstrates a certainty of continuing to cause harm. In that way I can see a moral responsibility to second order effects. If someone is harmed by someone I could have stopped, what is my responsibility for that result?

 

[magpie]

I have a lot of thoughts on this it seems, and this isn't really a direct reply to you [MENTION=14857]labyrinthine[/MENTION], because it's going to be super tangential, but I hear you and agree with the points you're making, and recognize that comprehension and understanding of harm caused on a very deep level is necessary for redemption.

Part of what bothers me about this thread in general, as well as people in comment sections of articles about crimes calling for the rape, torture, and death of criminals, is that I do not believe they are calling for those things from the moral awareness and understanding that you have. I don't think that they are interested in using those things as a potential means of redemptive transformation through firsthand understanding of suffering caused. They are calling for those things because they believe those people deserve them, and while it may seem like their concept of deserve is the same as your concept of deserve, it isn't, because it's not "deserve" for a higher moral purpose. It is just pure revenge, and there is a difference.

If people want to judge who is and isn't a psychopath through a checklist of traits only, then here is the irony: the people calling for torture of criminals for the purpose of revenge alone fit the psychopathic traits. A desire for revenge. Low levels of empathy. A reductive view of morality. An inability to consider the greater good and wider consequences of their actions. Bloodthirstiness. Hatred. Their psychopathy is just on the side of the law, which actually makes it more dangerous than psychopathy which isn't.

This is because the law and the people who uphold and make laws have power over criminal psychopaths. No one has power over psychopathic application of law. Psychopathic application of law can't be checked or stopped - there isn't really a system in place for that. Obviously a psychopathic criminal who hasn't been caught or imprisoned is just as dangerous, but once they have been, they're vulnerable. Not in the sense of being emotionally vulnerable or whatever, but in the sense that they are vulnerable to the law and under the power of others completely. Taking away someone's power completely and then using that power to act psychopathicly against that population, with psychopathic motives, is wrong. Period.

I think that a lot of people view the law as the end all and be all of morality, but the law is only as moral, right, and true as the people who make it and uphold it. It's a human construct with human flaws. If the application of the law is psychopathic, then we have a huge problem, because it means that we are sanctioning harm that exists for no greater purpose. In order for harm to have a higher purpose, it has to be done with the intent to do good. Punishment for punishment's sake is not an intent to do good.

What is doing good? What is harm for a higher purpose? I agree that it can be having someone experience what they themselves did to another, but there is only a point in doing that if that experience is likely to result in understanding and comprehension. If it likely wouldn't lead to that because the criminal is incapable of comprehending their actions, or if they're already so broken that it would just seem, from their viewpoint, to needlessly victimize them more and therefore make them feel even more justified in doing harm unto others, it's just torture, and it would be better off to just give the criminal a death sentence. (There are more than just these two options though. I do believe that some psychopathic criminals are able to comprehend their actions fully on an emotional level without experiencing them themselves firsthand.)

I have no experience with prison, but I have experienced some degree of "corrective institutionalization," and while it could be argued that of course it didn't work for me because I didn't deserve it, I think that the focus on deserve is pointless. I was viewed as deserving it, which is why it happened, and instead of trying to split hairs and figure out some foolproof objective measure of figuring out who deserves what kind of punishment, which would be impossible because that is entirely subjective, we should try and align our motives and actions instead with what will do the most good, because while still being incredibly complex morally, that is more objective. Punishment can do good, but only punishment given with the intent to do good can do good.

I think that "deserve" should be applied to the victims of crime only, because giving the victim what they deserve, which is as much reparation and healing as possible, is a type of deserve that aligns with the greater good. So say for example that a psychopath stabs someone in the kidney intentionally. The victim lives but needs a kidney transplant, and the psychopath is a match. Should the psychopath have to give the victim their kidney? Yes, because the victim deserves a kidney. Maybe the victim also wants the psychopath to, I don't know, be waterboarded or raped or something. Does the victim deserve to have the person who stabbed them be waterboarded or raped? I would say no. The victim deserves not to live in fear of being attacked again, so the psychopath should be imprisoned. But the victim is not entitled to active retribution. Just safety, health, healing, etc. The reason we imprison people is to keep other people safe, first and foremost.

I do support the death penalty for people who have committed horrific acts and cannot be reached or redeemed, or if the act of trying to redeem them would be so difficult as to be virtually impossible - in other words, if a large amount of resources would have to be spent trying to do something that would never result in some sort of payback for those resources. So if the effort put in didn't at least equal the finished product.

Wanting punishment for the sake of revenge alone is wrong, and is a perversion of justice. Not because I think criminals should be coddled, but because without a motive for greater good, it will obviously not do any good for anyone. I think satisfaction gleaned from the pain of others in this context is sometimes mistaken for greater good, but it's not, it's just sadism. Punishment, justice, law, cannot be psychopathic. For the good of society and every individual in society, it can't be, and it is so so important to be aware of that actively, because psychopathy sanctioned by law is the most dangerous and destructive kind.

 

[magpie]

I also don't think the majority of criminals are irredeemable psychopaths. A lot of crimes, even violent ones, are born from a combination of extreme circumstances, lack of personal development due to adverse childhood experiences, and moral failure / loss of humanity. I know that technically these people aren't actually psychopaths then, but there is a kneejerk reaction to crime in general that causes people to become extremely bloodthirsty and just saps them of all empathy. Comments calling for horrific revenge on criminals are written by people who know nothing about the criminals - they don't know if they're psychopaths. They don't know their life, their motives. They don't know if they are redeemable. It is just kneejerk sadism and hatred.

This is a good resource for anyone who's interested: Humans of New York

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I agree that revenge punishment is a problem. It is exactly what creates violent individuals in the first place. That is very often what cruel people are doing as well because they nearly always feel justified. I hold a belief that the deep comprehension happens on a metaphysical level, and that it isn't our role in this world to do exactly to a perpetrator what they did to another because that is a form of complete submission to them - to become them. The behavior has to be stopped though, which can include killing them. I do think that people experience every pain they've caused and that no one gets away with anything in the end, but it may happen at the moment of death, or after death, but I can't prove it. It happens eventually regardless of any capability to do it in this life. Maybe I just hope.

EDIT: I do need to add something that also bothers me in some of these discussions. There are times that the "everyone is redeemable" inspirational meme style talk can be woefully dismissive of people who have experience harm from really sadistic, cruel people. I'll try to keep this vague, but I know someone who was hospitalized from rape assaults from someone who might have committed a lot of other violent assaults. This perpetrator is one of these extreme people very far down the black hole. One lady who is good and trying to help broke into this lecture about how evil people from the Bible were redeemed in an Old Testament story. I just looked at the floor in defiance during her entire lecture. I found it grossly offensive. I'm not the one attacked, but I was at this meeting, and she was lecturing me directly because I made a comment to her and the victim about people beyond redemption. The victim understood what I was saying and agreed. I also felt sorry for her because I can appreciate the idealism and motive to want everything to be happy in the end, and I also knew she was probably about to have all of her inner constructs crumble. Still though, it can be painful to have people on the positive side also lack comprehension.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I'm so glad to see this conversation went in this direction.

 

[magpie]

I agree that revenge punishment is a problem. It is exactly what creates violent individuals in the first place. That is very often what cruel people are doing as well because they nearly always feel justified. I hold a belief that the deep comprehension happens on a metaphysical level, and that it isn't our role in this world to do exactly to a perpetrator what they did to another because that is a form of complete submission to them - to become them. The behavior has to be stopped though, which can include killing them. I do think that people experience every pain they've caused and that no one gets away with anything in the end, but it may happen at the moment of death, or after death, but I can't prove it. It happens eventually regardless of any capability to do it in this life. Maybe I just hope.

EDIT: I do need to add something that also bothers me in some of these discussions. There are times that the "everyone is redeemable" inspirational meme style talk can be woefully dismissive of people who have experience harm from really sadistic, cruel people. I'll try to keep this vague, but I know someone who was hospitalized from rape assaults from someone who might have committed a lot of other violent assaults. This perpetrator is one of these extreme people very far down the black hole. One lady who is good and trying to help broke into this lecture about how evil people from the Bible were redeemed in an Old Testament story. I just looked at the floor in defiance during her entire lecture. I found it grossly offensive. I'm not the one attacked, but I was at this meeting, and she was lecturing me directly because I made a comment to her and the victim about people beyond redemption. The victim understood what I was saying and agreed. I also felt sorry for her because I can appreciate the idealism and motive to want everything to be happy in the end, and I also knew she was probably about to have all of her inner constructs crumble. Still though, it can be painful to have people on the positive side also lack comprehension.

I think that there are two kinds of "everyone is redeemable" viewpoints. One is inspirational meme talk that comes from lack of comprehension, denial, and is just a trite phrase that invalidates harm. Having this viewpoint in this way has no positive impact, only negative.

The other kind of "everyone is redeemable" viewpoint doesn't replace or blot out the idea that there are people too monstrous for redemption. Most of the time, I think people run into the first viewpoint and because it's so unrealistic and invalidating, they stop being able to distinguish. It probably sounds counter-intuitive, but it's possible to hold the ideology that everyone is redeemable as purely an ideology, and when it's held in this way - in a healthy way, it doesn't make it so that a person would prioritize a perpetrator over a victim. It's possible to juggle seemingly mutually exclusive moral tenants at once. Everyone is redeemable is only useful insofar that it's held as a way to align actions away from harm for harm's sake, and holding it in a way that seeks to do the least harm possible, includes an inherent focus on the safety and wellbeing of victims as the first priority. Once someone is sentenced and in prison though, it's time to focus the attention on the perpetrator too. Not instead of the victim, but as well as.

My focus in this thread has been to challenge people to think differently. Almost everyone would probably agree that a victim needs help, support, safety, etc. It's a no brainer. It's true and good that people are aware of this, but they need to be aware of more, because almost no one has considered or really understood that our justice system and all action, punishment, and regulation from within that system needs to be oriented toward an overall positive impact. By that I don't mean not imprisoning criminals - that isn't a positive impact. I mean that what action should be taken and why needs to be considered from the perspective of what would do most good for our society. The revenge mentality has to be transcended.

I think that there is a tendency for people to start out with the sort of wide eyed idealism of the first type of "everyone is redeemable" viewpoint I specified above. And then when they encounter someone who isn't, it shatters that paradigm for them and makes them unable to reconcile their old worldview with their current one, and this can lead to a lot of cynicism, despair, and nihilism. It is possible to reconcile though, and when you do, it leads back to the "everyone is redeemable" viewpoint, but in a more nuanced, meaningful, and truer way, because in getting there, you've reconciled seemingly impossibly conflicting ideologies. Is everyone truly redeemable? In a metaphysical sense, yes, but not necessarily in this lifetime. It helps to hold that ideology as a truth in this world. It only does good to hold it if you've developed it enough, and if you've developed it enough, then it actually is true, because it can hold space for its own opposite without being knocked down or shattered. It's a more comprehensive viewpoint that is directed toward life, vitality, and positive impact instead of despair and nihilism, which can only have a negative impact.

I hold a belief that the deep comprehension happens on a metaphysical level, and that it isn't our role in this world to do exactly to a perpetrator what they did to another because that is a form of complete submission to them - to become them.

Letting your view of the world be irreconcilably shattered by the evil in it is also a form of complete submission to that evil. No one is born with despair and hopelessness, we're given it, and the person who assaulted your friend gave those to you. They shattered you. Don't let them. It is the most powerful and meaningful type of defiance to believe in goodness even after it has been taken from you. Not in the goodness of the assaulter, but in the goodness of the world. That despite everything, all the suffering and horrible shit we seem so powerless to stop or effect, we will believe in redemption. Not in a way that incapacitates us to act against evil, but in a way that empowers us while also keeping us from becoming that evil or submitting to it. Because the difference between us and the perpetrators of evil acts is that we believe everyone is redeemable.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Letting your view of the world be irreconcilably shattered by the evil in it is also a form of complete submission to that evil. No one is born with despair and hopelessness, we're given it, and the person who assaulted your friend gave those to you. They shattered you. Don't let them. It is the most powerful and meaningful type of defiance to believe in goodness even after it has been taken from you. Not in the goodness of the assaulter, but in the goodness of the world. That despite everything, all the suffering and horrible shit we seem so powerless to stop or effect, we will believe in redemption. Not in a way that incapacitates us to act against evil, but in a way that empowers us while also keeping us from becoming that evil or submitting to it. Because the difference between us and the perpetrators of evil acts is that we believe everyone is redeemable.

Your entire post was very insightful, but I want to explain this point.

When I say that certain levels of suffering and violence shatter constructs and paradigms, I'm not saying to give over or submit to it in any way. I'm saying that it goes beyond explanation and definition. There are some things that don't fit into the packages of our assumptions and inner constructs. There is a respect for extreme pain in my mind that says it's beyond explaining it. Yes, we can study and learn cause and effect to learn to stop it, but the experience of it doesn't fit into a construct. The only choice is to show compassion and to let go. It goes beyond human processing. Letting go is what we can try to do when we are ready.

 

[magpie]

Your entire post was very insightful, but I want to explain this point.

When I say that certain levels of suffering and violence shatter constructs and paradigms, I'm not saying to give over or submit to it in any way. I'm saying that it goes beyond explanation and definition. There are some things that don't fit into the packages of our assumptions and inner constructs. There is a respect for extreme pain in my mind that says it's beyond explaining it. Yes, we can study and learn cause and effect to learn to stop it, but the experience of it doesn't fit into a construct. The only choice is to show compassion and to let go. It goes beyond human processing. Letting go is what we can try to do when we are ready.

That makes sense. Sorry for the assumption.