_

[funtensity]

_

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Pros-to-Being-a-Psychopath-176019901.html



Psychopath, AKA, ISTP.[/FONT][/COLOR]

I think the whole thing has to do with healthy vs unhealthy.

There are good people who value efficiency in the world, just as there are bad people who value compassion.

 

[Totenkindly]

What's the definition of "bad" again? If someone was compassionate, I don't know if I would label them "bad."

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Hope this thread takes off.

There are some ideas here I would like to see expanded.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

What's the definition of "bad" again? If someone was compassionate, I don't know if I would label them "bad."

What I was trying to get across was that people are different.

Some are born with greater or lesser degrees of inclination towards compassion (or maybe understand compassion differently).

That inclination (aka who we are as an individual) does not decide whether or not we are good or bad as a person, our actions do.

To put it in MBTI terms, the fact that you are an NTJ does not make you a bad person anymore than being an FP makes you a good person.

Bringing it full circle, psychopathic traits (in healthy individuals) benefit society. Those traits aren't bad per se, it's how they're used that determines ones character.

 

[baccheion]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Pros-to-Being-a-Psychopath-176019901.html



Psychopath, AKA, ISTP.[/FONT][/COLOR]

ISTP is usually associated with sociopathy. Psychopaths usually come across as extroverts (even though the claim is you shouldn't try to type sociopaths/psychopaths due to brain damage).

The problem with psychopaths (even the non-violent ones) is that they are inherently self-centered. Even if they don't resort to violent crime, they tend to always make their presence known by doing other underhanded things. And, at the end of the day, they are usually non-violent because they don't have to be. If the situation calls for it, or they have to become so to get what they want, then they won't hesitate. They are almost always a drain on the people around them. Then again, this can be said for people that aren't psychopaths.

I don't have any pros to add, because the quote lists pretty much all I can think of. Also, you can have all the pros of a psychopath without actually being one, so there is usually no need to resort to finding a psychopath to get those things.

 

[SensEye]

The article in the OP is deliberatly playing down the bad traits of psychopaths. Those being lack of compassion and empathy and lack of guilt. Low scores on those fronts are almost always a bad thing.

I might argue society has a little too much tolerance for psychopaths. This is why ruthless businessmen (i.e. sweatshop owners, CEOs that bankrupt pension plans while extracting millions of personal profits from a corporation) and corrupt politicians are so common. They do immoral things but gloss over it with success and/or boldy lie about their offences to the extent people actually believe they are innocent (when they know full well they are not). They often get away with their wrong doings, encouraging other like minded individuals to mimic their actions.

 

[Night]

I don't see how any of the offered traits would be useful. Psychopathy is incapacity to find value in other people, paired with an openness to wield aggression, while pursuing (sometimes) malignant ambition. This is the exact opposite of what social evolution has taught us to culturally value. As such, the blunt interpersonal traits commonly associated with psychopathy leave the individual alone and at a loss for how to relate.

Sure, a lack of guilt and the ability to project a veneer of intimidating self-confidence would seem nice, but would you honestly prefer it instead of emotional connection/depth in human relationships and a subsequent lifestyle of bitterness and frustration at never being able to quite fit in unless you put on an act?

Tongue-in-cheek articles like the OP only focus on the sexy traits of the disorder. The article doesn't even cite actual psychopaths in their examples - probably out of sensitivity and decorum (ironic) ...but please. Let's be clear here.

Why not talk about the horrible side of the disorder and the unimaginable pain the very worst examples of psychopaths have produced. Can the special forces crap; tell me about the many lives Ted Bundy forever disfigured. Sure, for every nightmare, there are 1,000 who exist in peace. But why mince words when discussing the disorder - why not pursue a balanced approach? Seems more like a platform than an examination.

It's what happens when pop culture/cinema interpose cliché over real-world disorder. Pulpy, one-sided fanboy gibberish.

 

[Night]

You taking ownership of the term suggests you've been clinically diagnosed with the disorder?

 

[Night]

Gotcha. I would point you to my above post; I am going to delete it in about 10 mins. I don't like the idea of sharing that part of my backstory, but please look it over in the interim. I hope it helps on some small level.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Detachment can be positive in dealing with problems rationally or having an independent mindset.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The traits do exist on a sliding scale.

 

[Stanton Moore]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Pros-to-Being-a-Psychopath-176019901.html
Psychopath, AKA, ISTP.[/FONT][/COLOR]

"the Oxford research psychologist argues that psychopathic personality traits—charm, confidence, ruthlessness, coolness under pressure—can, in the right doses, be a good thing. Not all psychopaths are violent, he says, and some of them are just the sort of people society can count on in a crisis."


Trouble is that almost all psychopaths are by definition, not someone you 'can count on in a crisis'. Maybe one could depend on one, if they were assured of deriving some personal benefit.
I really don't know what the utility is of taking certain traits out of context and trying to rehabilitate the image of psychopathy. Sure, one can possibly learn something from somone who is 'cool under pressure', but most of the traits, as defined by this condition, have no utility outside of the brain of the psychopath.
So I really don't get what this book is all about.

 

[Stanton Moore]

I don't get what someone who thinks the MBTI is BS is doing in the MBTI forums.

Moving on, when you put certain high functioning members of society in a brain scanner, their scans look just like psychopaths and criminals. So something is going on here. We can't explain this away so easily as saying "it's a sliding scale." We really don't understand what's going on yet..

Yeah, what's wrong with those people?

 

[Ginkgo]

I don't see how any of the offered traits would be useful. Psychopathy is incapacity to find value in other people, paired with an openness to wield aggression, while pursuing (sometimes) malignant ambition. This is the exact opposite of what social evolution has taught us to culturally value. As such, the blunt interpersonal traits commonly associated with psychopathy leave the individual alone and at a loss for how to relate.

Sure, a lack of guilt and the ability to project a veneer of intimidating self-confidence would seem nice, but would you honestly prefer it instead of emotional connection/depth in human relationships and a subsequent lifestyle of bitterness and frustration at never being able to quite fit in unless you put on an act?

Tongue-in-cheek articles like the OP only focus on the sexy traits of the disorder. The article doesn't even cite actual psychopaths in their examples - probably out of sensitivity and decorum (ironic) ...but please. Let's be clear here.

Why not talk about the horrible side of the disorder and the unimaginable pain the very worst examples of psychopaths have produced. Can the special forces crap; tell me about the many lives Ted Bundy forever disfigured. Sure, for every nightmare, there are 1,000 who exist in peace. But why mince words when discussing the disorder - why not pursue a balanced approach? Seems more like a platform than an examination.

It's what happens when pop culture/cinema interpose cliché over real-world disorder. Pulpy, one-sided fanboy gibberish.

New research indicates that psychopaths can "switch" empathy on, if prompted - whereas the neurotypical has to switch it off.

Even still, in Lark's absence, I'm going to have to echo one of his earlier posts about how a current more is to celebrate psychopathic traits. Modern notions of success, as they become pressured by increases in competition, value cut-throat, self-serving techniques over more intrinsically rewarding techniques. The rate of this process seems exponential. Perhaps psychopathic values instilled in neurotypicals are even more dangerous than psychopaths.

Romanticized portrayals of psychopaths, such as Dexter, really aren't as romantic as people would like to believe.

Just thoughts.

 

[Mole]

We need the hard rough men patrolling our borders so we can sleep safe and sound in our beds at night.

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

We need the hard rough men patrolling our borders so we can sleep safe and sound in our beds at night.

Huh?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Perhaps psychopathic values instilled in neurotypicals are even more dangerous than psychopaths.

What a welcoming thread environment.

Really makes me want to contribute.

 

[AzulEyes]

How bout just learn to adapt the traits of "charm, confidence, ruthlessness, coolness under pressure" sans psychosis.
Screw psychosis- it's unpredicable and can be dangerous- and we shouldn't glorify mental illness (not stigmatize it) but we should be realistic and call it what it is.

 

[Ginkgo]

Huh?

Basically what he means is that there's a place in society for psychopaths - to be expendable wartime cannon fodder. (I'm taking my paraphrasing artistic license to some charming heights, mind you).

What a welcoming thread environment.

Really makes me want to contribute.

You have more experience in the workplace than I do, so I personally value your contributions here - even if they were purely anecdotal.