Psychopathy: is it real?

[Kho]

Recently I've spotted a psychological finding, in the guise of various articles, making the rounds on Facebook.
I've traced down the epicentre:
It started with the Daily Mail online (reputable lot that they are) at 10:32 GMT, 26 April 2016.
The title:


Are YOU creative? Then you're probably a psychopath: Dark personality traits play a key role in making people more artistic
-Psychologists tested volunteers for creativity and psychopathic traits
-They found creativity was associated with emotional disinhibition
-They also found meanness and risk taking were linked to creativity
-Prosocial psychopaths seem to be the most creative individuals, they say

Here is the link.

I'll give you a minute to read that drivel.


Read it?
Here's my opinion:


1. The very label of psychopathy is severely riddled with discrepancies and bias.
Psychopathy is a fictitious, convenient term or label designed for the purposes of creating an illusory but relatively manageable all-encompassing category for certain emotionally damaged and/or deeply misunderstood individuals that have, wilfully or otherwise, hurt the ones around them.

I mean I just made up that sentence, but that's my honest-to-god opinion.

I've been accused of being both a psychopath AND an extreme wimp.
My emotional reactions are not 'normal'.
Does that make me a psychopath, then?
I have emotions. I do. And people are frightened of what I do or don't feel.
So I don't really let the real thing show too often.

I think psychopathy must be related more to hypersensitivity than the 'lack' of emotions.
Have you ever heard of a q-zombie, or a qualia zombie?
I've linked the Wikipedia description here, have a look.

I think that's what the endorsers of the term are trying to convince us the psychopaths are.
Rather than try to expand our understanding, 'they' (whoever 'they' are) are, (wilfully or otherwise,) boxing the 'misunderstood' into the non-category of being 'misunderstood'.
It's only natural that an overlap would occur between the categories of 'creative' and 'lacking'.
Their only defining characteristic is that they are 'not normal' and 'to be feared'.

1-1. The psychopath as thrill-seeking killer myth.
If they didn't have emotions, would they seek thrills at all?
Let that sink in for a bit.
If they didn't have 'emotions', how would they be motivated to do anything then?
If they really were defined by the 'absence' of emotions, the force of crushing a watermelon and the force of crushing a human skull should make no difference to them.
If they really didn't feel anything at all, what would be the point of manipulating and hurting others? Just because they 'can'?
I'd argue that, contrary to popular belief, 'psychopaths' are people who are so excruciatingly emotional that they have gradually grown fundamentally numb, shell-shocked at the pain that ensues from being in the world.
The mean ones want, subconsciously, to 'retaliate' on some level or other.
These so-called psychopaths are made, never born.

2. 'Creative' people are not 'Normal'.
Of course we aren't, and we wouldn't want to be any other way, either.



There was a train of thought somewhere there but I did lose it along the way.
I have cookies for anyone who dares to venture an opinion on this subject.

 

[Thalassa]

Of course.

 

[Kho]

Of course.

oh. why?
they say creativity correlates directly with psychopathy btw.. im not buyin it.
sorry im terse, im on mobile atm

 

[Thalassa]

oh. why?
they say creativity correlates directly with psychopathy btw.. im not buyin it.
sorry im terse, im on mobile atm

Creativity is not a direct correlation with psychopathy. Histrionics and Borderlines share a similar love of impulse...if you are looking for a love of James Ingram, or red wine, or Dario Argentino films. ...the things you are not looking for is psychopathy. It saddens me that anyone with a love of sex, beauty, aesthetics, or even horror films might think that the answer is "psychopath." It's more likely Prince, Tori Amos, Air Supply and Emma Stone.

 

[Kho]

Yeah but. [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION]

Recently I've spotted a psychological finding, in the guise of various articles, making the rounds on Facebook.
I've traced down the epicentre:
It started with the Daily Mail online (reputable lot that they are) at 10:32 GMT, 26 April 2016.
The title:


Are YOU creative? Then you're probably a psychopath: Dark personality traits play a key role in making people more artistic
-Psychologists tested volunteers for creativity and psychopathic traits
-They found creativity was associated with emotional disinhibition
-They also found meanness and risk taking were linked to creativity
-Prosocial psychopaths seem to be the most creative individuals, they say

Here is the link.

I'll give you a minute to read that drivel.


Read it?
Here's my opinion:


1. The very label of psychopathy is severely riddled with discrepancies and bias.
Psychopathy is a fictitious, convenient term or label designed for the purposes of creating an illusory but relatively manageable all-encompassing category for certain emotionally damaged and/or deeply misunderstood individuals that have, wilfully or otherwise, hurt the ones around them.

I mean I just made up that sentence, but that's my honest-to-god opinion.

I've been accused of being both a psychopath AND an extreme wimp.
My emotional reactions are not 'normal'.
Does that make me a psychopath, then?
I have emotions. I do. And people are frightened of what I do or don't feel.
So I don't really let the real thing show too often.

I think psychopathy must be related more to hypersensitivity than the 'lack' of emotions.
Have you ever heard of a q-zombie, or a qualia zombie?
I've linked the Wikipedia description here, have a look.

I think that's what the endorsers of the term are trying to convince us the psychopaths are.
Rather than try to expand our understanding, 'they' (whoever 'they' are) are, (wilfully or otherwise,) boxing the 'misunderstood' into the non-category of being 'misunderstood'.
It's only natural that an overlap would occur between the categories of 'creative' and 'lacking'.
Their only defining characteristic is that they are 'not normal' and 'to be feared'.

1-1. The psychopath as thrill-seeking killer myth.
If they didn't have emotions, would they seek thrills at all?
Let that sink in for a bit.
If they didn't have 'emotions', how would they be motivated to do anything then?
If they really were defined by the 'absence' of emotions, the force of crushing a watermelon and the force of crushing a human skull should make no difference to them.
If they really didn't feel anything at all, what would be the point of manipulating and hurting others? Just because they 'can'?
I'd argue that, contrary to popular belief, 'psychopaths' are people who are so excruciatingly emotional that they have gradually grown fundamentally numb, shell-shocked at the pain that ensues from being in the world.
The mean ones want, subconsciously, to 'retaliate' on some level or other.
These so-called psychopaths are made, never born.

2. 'Creative' people are not 'Normal'.
Of course we aren't, and we wouldn't want to be any other way, either.



There was a train of thought somewhere there but I did lose it along the way.
I have cookies for anyone who dares to venture an opinion on this subject.

That was kind of my response to the recent psychological finding that DID link psychopathy to creativity.. hence my post

 

[Mole]

If psychopaths exist it is because they have been selected to ensure the propagation of our species.

We can imagine that before modern warfare psychopaths were effective in warfare leading to better chances of propagation.

But with modern warfare hand to hand combat is being limited to terrorists, and is rare or unknown anywhere else, so the usefulness of psychopaths is less obvious.

So in modern times psychopaths are not celebrated as great warriors but are seen as sick individuals.

 

[Pionart]

That's all bullshit.

Psychopaths are some of the least creative people in existence.

Sociopaths are often quite creative, however.

 

[Thalassa]

There is no other self.

 

[/DG/]

 

[prplchknz]

probably, but i would not base my decision off an article from the daily mail. and was it a professional that called you a psychopath or just a random person? because a random person wouldn't know, and just because someone said something that isn't true for you does not mean psychopathy does not exist, I think it's rarer than today's world wants us to believe but i think it exists in some form. Not all creative people are psychopaths but to be a highly functional one that would i believe require some creativity. someone could call me a man and though I am not a man that does not automatically mean men do not exist. I've been called a lot of things that aren't true. I've been accused of being contradictory when i wasn't. I've been accused of being borderline and histrionic when i don't fit the criteria(i've asked my therapists the possibility so it's not just me being in denial about it). I've been accused of being a "victim" when someone was giving me a hard time. I've been accused of being a doormat because i let someone give me a hard time and didn't stand up for myself. what i'm trying to say is people are fucked up and no matter what you do people are gonna accuse you of bad things that don't apply to you, but just because they don't apply to you does not mean they don't exist.

 

[GIjade]

probably, but i would not base my decision off an article from the daily mail. and was it a professional that called you a psychopath or just a random person? because a random person wouldn't know,

Neither would "some" psychiatrists.

 

[Frosty]

Honestly, this might be paranoia but sometimes I wonder if Im a psychopath. I mean. I don't think so. But occasionally, Ill look at myself and wonder- 'how could I do that'- and sometimes I don't feel guilty per-say but just mystified.

But I mean, oftentimes-most times- I do feel guilt, to different degrees- sometimes intense degrees, so then I think that Im probably NOT a psychopath.

But I mean, in an intense fight or flight situation- I mean, in a life or death situation, I might not do the moral thing- I might put myaekf first. I mean. Yeah. Im probably not a psychopath. Its probably even a dumb thing for me to worty about. But I mean. Yeah I think they exist, and well I think its just a case of a far deviation from a norm in conscience.

Back to it later.

 

[Masokissed]

I'd argue that, contrary to popular belief, 'psychopaths' are people who are so excruciatingly emotional that they have gradually grown fundamentally numb, shell-shocked at the pain that ensues from being in the world.
The mean ones want, subconsciously, to 'retaliate' on some level or other.

This is true for me, but I'm not a psychopath. I have borderline. I was having a conversation about stuff like this about psychopaths with a friend not too long ago.

These so-called psychopaths are made, never born.

This, I know, is true.

Psychopaths

Sociopaths

Same thing.

 

[Kho]

[MENTION=360]prplchknz[/MENTION]
Thanks for your comment!
I think, well, actually my thought process wasn't at all based on the daily mail, and it wasn't at all based off of what I've been called
(I've been called all sorts of things, but that doesn't prove or negate anything.)

I guess I should've been more clear. I was trying to say multiple things in the post.
Oh well, Mercury in Retrograde is certainly making itself known...
My main reasoning was contained largely in the latter part of my post, which is logically self-contained (based off thought experiments) and not linked to any anecdotal or hearsay premises:

I think psychopathy must be related more to hypersensitivity than the 'lack' of emotions.
Have you ever heard of a q-zombie, or a qualia zombie?
I've linked the Wikipedia description here, have a look.

I think that's what the endorsers of the term are trying to convince us the psychopaths are.
Rather than try to expand our understanding, 'they' (whoever 'they' are) are, (wilfully or otherwise,) boxing the 'misunderstood' into the non-category of being 'misunderstood'.
It's only natural that an overlap would occur between the categories of 'creative' and 'lacking'.
Their only defining characteristic is that they are 'not normal' and 'to be feared'.

1-1. The psychopath as thrill-seeking killer myth.
If they didn't have emotions, would they seek thrills at all?
Let that sink in for a bit.
If they didn't have 'emotions', how would they be motivated to do anything then?
If they really were defined by the 'absence' of emotions,
the force of crushing a watermelon and the force of crushing a human skull should make no difference to them.
If they really didn't feel anything at all, what would be the point of manipulating and hurting others? Just because they 'can'?
I'd argue that, contrary to popular belief, 'psychopaths' are people who are so excruciatingly emotional that they have gradually grown fundamentally numb, shell-shocked at the pain that ensues from being in the world.
The mean ones want, subconsciously, to 'retaliate' on some level or other.

So those are my main arguments, and my internally-contained, logically sound (though not necessarily valid or proven) train of thought.
It's something I've believed in for a while, so that's what got me riled up when I saw the Daily Mail article

(because, and clearly I haven't stressed this enough, I DISAGREE WITH THE DAILY MAIL ARTICLE.)

 

[Duffy]

If they didn't have emotions, would they seek thrills at all?
Let that sink in for a bit.
If they didn't have 'emotions', how would they be motivated to do anything then?
If they really were defined by the 'absence' of emotions,
the force of crushing a watermelon and the force of crushing a human skull should make no difference to them.

Rather than a complete lack, perhaps it's more a dullness. Seeking to stimulate and bring out something inherent. I would not categorize myself as a psychopath, but I do a lot of heightening and stimulating of emotions, even the more negative ones -- mostly through imagination.

Anyways, I've always felt psycho or sociopaths glamorized in some circles. Because their actions are peculiar, there's an assumption that their internal world reflects this, and so it's interesting and misunderstood. Maybe.... Personally, I've always imagined their internals worlds incredibly, even excruciatingly dull.

 

[Kho]

For the more academic-minded AND/OR Sensing-oriented among you, here's an interesting article AND/OR appeal to authority that actually supports my claim of hypersensitivity being linked to clinical diagnoses of psychopathy.

Emotional Sensitivity in Psychopaths

Title:
Emotional Capacities and Sensitivity in Psychopaths

Author:
Willem H. J. Martens, MD, PhD
Director of the “W. Kahn Institute of Theoretical Psychiatry and Neuroscience.”


Abstract:
Although psychopaths demonstrate emotional abnormalities such as shallow affect, lack of empathy, incapacity for love, lack of guilt or remorse, lack of fear, and emotional processing and response deficiencies they may show normal emotional responses or emotional hypersensitive in other areas. The correlates of emotional incapacities, emotional hypersensitivity, and normal emotional activities in psychopaths are studied and discussed in this paper. Emotional hypersensitivity might be linked with: a history of neglect, rejection and abuse; insult; changes which are forced or not under control of the psychopath; obstacles that prevent the psychopath to do what he or she wants to do; narcissistic injury; broken friendships or relationship. Normal emotional functioning might be associate with grief, warm relationship, adequate attention, disease, academic and/or occupational success, impressive events, confrontations, contemplation and maturation, hidden suffering (also as a result of neurobiological determination).

Conclusion:
Psychopathy is diagnostically characterized by serious emotional deficiencies, which may interrelate with other diagnostic features such as incapacitiy for love, lack of empathy, shallow emotions, social-emotional incapacities (lack of interactional skills), pathological egocentricity, grandiose sense of self-worth, irresponsibility, impulsivity, and aggression. Despite their disturbed emotional world some psychopaths may exhibit normal emotional experiences such as normal feelings for pets, relatives, art, sports, and so on. In current and past studies the healthy aspects of emotional life in psychopaths are underexposed. It is, however of major interest to examine the etiological, psychosocial, neurobiological correlates, conditions of normal emotional functioning in different categories of psychopaths, and in what particular circumstances it can happen and flourish. It could be useful for the psychotherapist to direct towards these healthy emotional elements and try to expand or relate them to other emotional and related social and moral areas.
Emotions are hardly objectively measurable, and it is possible that psychopaths “emotional incapacities” in some cases could be better explained as fundamental different emotional functioning rather than emotionally “inferior” or affectively “cold.” Furthermore, there is some evidence that not all “pure” psychopaths demonstrate abnormal emotionality (Martens, 1997). Clear psychopaths (PCL-R scores between 30 and 40) do not necessarily meet all diagnostic features (Hare, 1991), and may show normal emotions. And some psychopaths report that they have normal emotional experiences, while they are unable to show affections (Martens, 1997). This may lead to observations of "shallow" emotions.
More research is needed into effective therapeutic stimulation of emotional development in distinctive categories psychopaths, such as violent non-sexual, violent sexual, frauds, and non-violent and non-criminal psychopaths, which are characterized by their own specific emotional abnormalities which are linked to their crimes and/or personality/behavior patterns (Martens, 1997).

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I read this thread and I don't understand the point OP was trying to make. I just don't get it.

Psychopathy doesn't exist but it does? I'm confused.

 

[Pionart]

[MENTION=24829]Masokissed[/MENTION]

A psychopath is born a psychopath; they are born lacking certain features that make a human human, and thus are incapable of certain human acts.

A sociopath is a person who has been molded into a psychopath-esque way of behaviour. Certain features have been disabled through their experiences.

They say you cannot help a psychopath to be more human simply because that is not what they are, whereas you can help a sociopath to heal.

 

[classic-misdirection]

I'm glad to read this. I've thought for a while that psychopathy is a lazy diagnosis based on pseudoscience. For some reason it's hard for people to swallow that sometimes bad people do bad things, and that's the whole story. Not everything has a rational explanation - it would be irrational to demand otherwise, just as it would be irrational to believe that we're capable of understanding everything.
I think that psychopathy is an attempt by Feeling, Judges to define the unpleasant behavior of certain Perceivers. Of course, I'm an entp so I've got a dog in this fight...

 

[Kho]

I read this thread and I don't understand the point OP was trying to make. I just don't get it.

Psychopathy doesn't exist but it does? I'm confused.

It's a complex batch of abstract co-dependent thoughts that I guess I could have disentangled a bit more.
Let me break down my thought process into more manageable bullet-points, to explain:



1. Event. I saw a Daily Mail article (linked) that said:
---1-1) "creative people are more likely to be psychopaths."


2. Reaction. I disagree with the Daily Mail article. BECAUSE:
---2-1) It's dangerous to equate creativity to psychopathy. because:
---2-2) Creativity and psychopathy have only two things in common:
------- a. the ability to be 'abnormal' without fearing the repercussions or taboos.
--------b. being feared, shunned, and misunderstood by society.


3. Reason. This blatant attempt to link 'misunderstood'/ non-mainstream/ 'taboo' characteristics implies two things:
---3-1) Labels of convenience such as 'creative' or 'psychopath' are intentionally designed to control, contain, and homogenise the population.
---3-2) This would mean that: It is possible that there is no such thing as a 'psychopath'.
---------a. The label 'psychopath' is used as a means of persecution, and is not legitimate psychology in any way.
---3-3) A good way to examine the idea that there is no such thing as a psychopath is to conduct a simple thought experiment.
---------a. Imagine a being with no emotions that could act like it had emotions (a Q-zombie of emotions, in a way. I shall call her Q-zombieE.)
---------b. Imagine that there were: a watermelon and a human head in front of it.
---------c. For Q-zombieE, because she is unhampered by emotions, the purely physical impact/ force required to crush a watermelon and crushing a human skull is roughly the same.
---------d. IF Q-zombiE is unhampered by emotions, but has other faculties such as intelligence,
---------e. THEN Q-zombieE can calculate the repercussions that 'murder', labelled taboo by society, can have, as opposed to merely crushing a watermelon.
---------f. THEREFORE: a psychopath (as defined by absence of emotions: Q-zombieE) would rather be more predisposed to crushing watermelons rather than crushing human skulls.
---------f. THEREFORE: a psychopath (as defined by absence of emotions: Q-zombieE) SHOULD in fact be LESS likely, not MORE likely, to commit a crime or murder, etc, compared to the normal population.
---------g. BUT, the percentage of psychopaths in prison is much higher than the percentage of control populations in prison (I've seen statistics; have omitted this in the OP.)
---------h. This leads me to believe that there is no such thing as a psychopath.

And there was a bit more whinging about my being misunderstood and creative and all that emocore blah mixed into the bone structure of this thought process that I have delineated above.
I hope it makes more sense now. Sorry, I'm out of touch with communicating with people; thought for a moment that this forum lived in my head. It's my dysfunctional Ne. Damn you, dysfunctional Ne! *shakes fist at dysfunctional Ne*

I'm glad to read this. I've thought for a while that psychopathy is a lazy diagnosis based on pseudoscience. For some reason it's hard for people to swallow that sometimes bad people do bad things, and that's the whole story. Not everything has a rational explanation - it would be irrational to demand otherwise, just as it would be irrational to believe that we're capable of understanding everything.
I think that psychopathy is an attempt by Feeling, Judges to define the unpleasant behavior of certain Perceivers. Of course, I'm an entp so I've got a dog in this fight...

OH MY GOD I AGREE