Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
A trait about psychopaths (Always in Hare’s sense) is not so much that they’re “immoral,’ but that they have much less of an emotional reaction to behaviors expressed. So for them killing someone has the emotional association normal people have in peeling a banana. In that sense, they’re “cold blooded.” Some thermo-imaging studies of the brain of a psychopath demonstrates markedly less activity in those parts of the brain associated with emotional activity when presented with what would be considered emotionally arousing stimuli.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 07 September 2011 07:13 AM
How about neurosurgery for psycopaths, Dennis? If psychopathy is a result of a genetic defect that (presumably) results in abnormalities in brain function (which must have structural correlates) then, in theory, couldn’t they be fixed?
And just to get in first, I know someone here will bring up the ‘slippery slope’ arguments about tampering with nature, and ask the question: Why not also use neurosurgery to fix other ‘abnormalities’ like homosexuality?, but the important difference is that psychopaths are dangerous to others.
Sam Harris and others see a great future for neuro-science. If we could cure them we wouldn’t have to kill them and that would be one ethical dilemma solved. I’m all for neuroscience and brain modification if it becomes possibe. More research needed.
There’s always the Ludovico Technique. It’s just a matter of establishing the right mental structures that punish the psychopath when s/he behaves improperly.
There’s always the Ludovico Technique. It’s just a matter of establishing the right mental structures that punish the psychopath when s/he behaves improperly.
Assume you’re kidding. That may be like punishing Down’s Syndrome people to be smarter.
ASD, your chapter 3 was a fun read. It occurred to me that it might make a pretty good screenplay scene, but I’d hate to miss out on the inner nonsense-betting going on with the shrink. Do you remember Jennifer Overington? She’s an unusual thinker and a specific type of mathematician (Burt would probably remember which type), and I couldn’t help wondering if maybe you were utilizing some aspect of her personality. Your shrink character seems detached from certain kinds of emotions, such as those involved with empathy and caring. And she laughs at her own words about how almost all psychopaths are men. It would be cool to see it somehow worked out for the big screen, but I can’t quite imagine how it could be done. I guess that’s what the best directors get the big bucks for.
I think you got some true details of that [disorder], for instance that the psychopath can be a particular hazard to his mother. And embarrassment can seem startlingly absent about things that seem embarrassing. It’s a most peculiar [disorder].
By the way, the way psychopath and sociopath are used needs some straightening out in my opinion. We need to be able to refer to both of them with one word. I would suggest making p the dominant term with s a subset of p. It would make it much easier to talk about them all. Also, it must be kept in mind that some portion of sociopaths will necessarily be labeled psychopaths, at least the way diagnosis takes place today, due to how a person can be raised in an environment that offers no empathy training and be in possession of psychopathic neurological equipment from birth.
I am quite empathetic, but, with the help of an insightful psychologist, I learned that my empathy often distorted rather than clarified the truth and also was a twisted form of narcissism. I thought I knew what other people were feeling, when in reality, I was simply projecting my feelings onto them. Also, I misinterpreted events. For instance, if someone were crying hysterically over something, I would assume they were feeling the same emotions that I would feel if I were crying hysterically. This is a mistake. I’ve cried hysterically maybe 5 times in my life while some folks cry hysterically every two weeks. Also, misguided empathy tends to cloud one’s judgment. I am overly permissive of bad behavior, both from adults and children.
My point is that empathy is a virtue, but only if it is skillfully employed. Stupid compassion is harmful. I am much more cautious about my empathetic reactions than I used to be, but, of course, I regress frequently I wish psychology, logical reasoning, and maybe even philosophy were part of the school curriculum.
There’s always the Ludovico Technique. It’s just a matter of establishing the right mental structures that punish the psychopath when s/he behaves improperly.
Assume you’re kidding. That may be like punishing Down’s Syndrome people to be smarter.
That doesn’t seem like a very good analogy, man.
ASD is suggesting a psychopath can be conditioned to behave as if he has a conscience, or to act more or less normal, even if he does so solely because he has an egocentric/narcissistic motive to do so (the first trick would be to convince him of that, I suppose). ASD is not suggesting, as far as I can tell, that a psychopath can be punished into not being psychotic. Negative psychotic behavior is not an inherent condition of psychosis. Lack of smart is a necessary condition of Down Syndrome, though.
What merit his idea may have is another matter entirely, but I don’t think “treating” a psychopath to correct psychopathic behavior is comparable with “treating” someone with Down Syndrome to increase intelligence.
In a practical sense, the only situation in which psychopaths can be so managed with positive/negative reinforcement, is in prison, where they may constitute 20% of the population; and prisons are not staffed nor set up for that kind management. They’re basically secure warehouses. Clockwork Orange was an older movie that illustrated such an attempt; funny movie, but apt. Outpatient settings in which therapy maybe tried seems ineffective. Medications also of no use. About all we’re left with is confinement. The diagnosis is quite useful, if made well, for the purposes of prediction; outside of prisons, message is to avoid them.
I am quite empathetic, but, with the help of an insightful psychologist, I learned that my empathy often distorted rather than clarified the truth and also was a twisted form of narcissism. I thought I knew what other people were feeling, when in reality, I was simply projecting my feelings onto them.
Oh yeah. I can see that ... but don’t think for a second you’re at all unique in this tendency. I’d say you are pretty unique, though, in that you can actually recognize it, and particularly in that you accept its true nature.
Isn’t that just saying your “empathy” was, in reality, absolutely in no way actually empathy?
saralynn - 08 September 2011 06:02 AM
My point is that empathy is a virtue, but only if it is skillfully employed. Stupid compassion is harmful. I am much more cautious about my empathetic reactions than I used to be, but, of course, I regress frequently I wish psychology, logical reasoning, and maybe even philosophy were part of the school curriculum.
Interesting. This is more or less what I’ve been arguing all along, and that most people seem ready to fight tooth and nail against ... often to the freakin’ death! You have to separate your empathy (and your emotions in general) from critical analyses and analytical formulae. We can call a flat affect an emotion (i.e. the lack of a philosophy is still a philosophical position/a philosophy, and so is a lack of emotion a state of emotion), but that’s just sidestepping the point by technicality, an “argument” by grammatic structure (like a legal argument that doesn’t address the situation in question, but rather only the pertinent legalese). In one form or another this is what I’m usually talking about when I refer to “intellectual self-discipline”.
In a practical sense, the only situation in which psychopaths can be so managed with positive/negative reinforcement, is in prison, where they may constitute 20% of the population; and prisons are not staffed nor set up for that kind management. They’re basically secure warehouses. Clockwork Orange was an older movie that illustrated such an attempt; funny movie, but apt. Outpatient settings in which therapy maybe tried seems ineffective. Medications also of no use. About all we’re left with is confinement. The diagnosis is quite useful, if made well, for the purposes of prediction; outside of prisons, message is to avoid them.
You’d probably be interested in the series Dexter, and the book/movie American Psycho (assuming you’re not already familiar with them). I agree it’s not a very practicable idear, but it does make for some really damn interesting fiction, IMO.
In a practical sense, the only situation in which psychopaths can be so managed with positive/negative reinforcement, is in prison, where they may constitute 20% of the population; and prisons are not staffed nor set up for that kind management. They’re basically secure warehouses. Clockwork Orange was an older movie that illustrated such an attempt; funny movie, but apt. Outpatient settings in which therapy maybe tried seems ineffective. Medications also of no use. About all we’re left with is confinement. The diagnosis is quite useful, if made well, for the purposes of prediction; outside of prisons, message is to avoid them.
You’d probably be interested in the series Dexter, and the book/movie American Psycho (assuming you’re not already familiar with them). I agree it’s not a very practicable idear, but it does make for some really damn interesting fiction, IMO.
Am familiar. Recently, over the last few years, “cop show” programs have become much more sophisticated about psychopathy and other Dx. One thing I find interesting re Pd is that this Dx really flies in the face of the “we can fix anyone” idea, or “if they knew better.” Pds are “loners,” since all of the research indicates they do not “bond” with anyone or anything; they function basically alone. Really not clear if Pd is an either/or Dx of a matter of degrees. W, The PCLR scale calls someone a Pd if they are above a set point on that scale; which can, BTW be used with a high degree of inter-rater reliability, some 87%.
In a practical sense, the only situation in which psychopaths can be so managed with positive/negative reinforcement, is in prison, where they may constitute 20% of the population; and prisons are not staffed nor set up for that kind management. They’re basically secure warehouses. Clockwork Orange was an older movie that illustrated such an attempt; funny movie, but apt. Outpatient settings in which therapy maybe tried seems ineffective. Medications also of no use. About all we’re left with is confinement. The diagnosis is quite useful, if made well, for the purposes of prediction; outside of prisons, message is to avoid them.
Skeptic is right about what I was implying. I submit that some psychopaths do “manage” their own psychosis, at least to the point that they don’t get into trouble with the law. You’re probably only personally familiar with the kind that are total fuck-ups and end up in prison or the loony bin (like the kind described in the case studies of Cleckley’s The Mask of Sanity). Robert Hare wrote a book called Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. I haven’t read it yet (it’s on reserve from the library), but from the description it implies that some psychopaths (possibly a lot of them!) are able to control their psychosis enough to not only not get arrested, but hold good-paying jobs. Which in turn implies that they do have some control over their behavior. They’ll obviously never have a true conscience, but with the right “incentives,” they might be made to conform to generally accepted rules of behavior.
ASD, your chapter 3 was a fun read. It occurred to me that it might make a pretty good screenplay scene, but I’d hate to miss out on the inner nonsense-betting going on with the shrink. Do you remember Jennifer Overington? She’s an unusual thinker and a specific type of mathematician (Burt would probably remember which type), and I couldn’t help wondering if maybe you were utilizing some aspect of her personality. Your shrink character seems detached from certain kinds of emotions, such as those involved with empathy and caring. And she laughs at her own words about how almost all psychopaths are men. It would be cool to see it somehow worked out for the big screen, but I can’t quite imagine how it could be done. I guess that’s what the best directors get the big bucks for.
I think you got some true details of that [disorder], for instance that the psychopath can be a particular hazard to his mother. And embarrassment can seem startlingly absent about things that seem embarrassing. It’s a most peculiar [disorder].
By the way, the way psychopath and sociopath are used needs some straightening out in my opinion. We need to be able to refer to both of them with one word. I would suggest making p the dominant term with s a subset of p. It would make it much easier to talk about them all. Also, it must be kept in mind that some portion of sociopaths will necessarily be labeled psychopaths, at least the way diagnosis takes place today, due to how a person can be raised in an environment that offers no empathy training and be in possession of psychopathic neurological equipment from birth.
Thanks for reading! Like I said, your old psychopath thread was my inspiration. It sparked my interest and I ended up doing a bit of research on psychopaths (Cleckley’s The Mask of Sanity, plus a few other books he referenced). I don’t think I ever heard of Jennifer Overington. The name of the shrink character comes from a girl I knew in high school. Yes, she is detached from empathy because she is herself a psychopath. It was her own Scrupus implant that caused her to experience the twinge of pain in her neck while looking over her shoulder in the supermarket. There are other clues as well, like when she smiles when explaining how rare female psychopaths are: she’s proud of herself for being exceptional. And, of course, her propensity for manipulating other people’s emotions for her own amusement.
Skeptic is right about what I was implying. I submit that some psychopaths do “manage” their own psychosis, at least to the point that they don’t get into trouble with the law. You’re probably only personally familiar with the kind that are total fuck-ups and end up in prison or the loony bin (like the kind described in the case studies of Cleckley’s The Mask of Sanity). Robert Hare wrote a book called Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. I haven’t read it yet (it’s on reserve from the library), but from the description it implies that some psychopaths (possibly a lot of them!) are able to control their psychosis enough to not only not get arrested, but hold good-paying jobs. Which in turn implies that they do have some control over their behavior. They’ll obviously never have a true conscience, but with the right “incentives,” they might be made to conform to generally accepted rules of behavior.
My understanding is that there are a lot of functional psychotics cruising around “out there”, particularly in the corporate world (or maybe I’m thinking business, if that’s even a meaningful distinction).
Just as all of us are atheists to some degree (atheists as to most gods ever believed in, and for most of you, atheists as to all gods), is there some level of psychopathy in all of us? This is not to imply that there is a connection between atheism and pyschopathy - I’m just making an analogy. There are some things that just don’t touch my conscience or empathy or emotions. When the women in the office have an office baby-shower and they are all oohing and ahhing over photos and doilies and baby stuff, I just don’t get it at all. When men get emotionally involved in certain sports, certain women don’t get it at all. We may all react in horror when people nearby are harmed, but many barely bat an eye when children are starving in Somalia, since it happens “over there” all the time. Males seems to have it more than females, generally, but there are exceptions. I’ve noticed reactions of women when informed of a guy getting his penis or testicles amputated, and often the reaction is a smile, giggle or out-right laughter.
Point is, are there certain limitations on empathy that make “psychopathy” more of a sliding scale than a clear-cut diagnosis?
Skeptic is right about what I was implying. I submit that some psychopaths do “manage” their own psychosis, at least to the point that they don’t get into trouble with the law. You’re probably only personally familiar with the kind that are total fuck-ups and end up in prison or the loony bin (like the kind described in the case studies of Cleckley’s The Mask of Sanity). Robert Hare wrote a book called Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. I haven’t read it yet (it’s on reserve from the library), but from the description it implies that some psychopaths (possibly a lot of them!) are able to control their psychosis enough to not only not get arrested, but hold good-paying jobs. Which in turn implies that they do have some control over their behavior. They’ll obviously never have a true conscience, but with the right “incentives,” they might be made to conform to generally accepted rules of behavior.
One of the problems with Hare’s original definition of Pd was that one of the three criteria was/is “criminal behavior,” which means they were caught and convicted. I’ve encountered those who’ve met all the other criteria, except that one. It may be that the smart/lucky ones don’t get caught. Even so, it has been useful for me to have been able to identify those w/o the criminal element (i.e. not caught yet) in order to manage my relationship with them and/or avoid same. Another trait of Pd is a lack of any long-range efforts, planning, or delay of gratification, so they tend to be under-represented in the professions that require years of effort. No implications of Pd re intelligence, they can be dumb or bright. Usually, they’re verbally glib and facile, which is often a clue. They may mimic, quite well, emotions but they’re role-acting w/o apparently any real experiences of their own. They can conform quite well to immediate consequences, and tend to be “model prisoners” who commonly mislead wardens to think they’re rehabilitating well, but when free that all goes away as they respond to the fewer immediate constraints outside of prison. Same applies re people, they may be beautifully responsive to an immediate relationship (think car salesman) but that does not extend beyond that immediate relationship.
Point is, are there certain limitations on empathy that make “psychopathy” more of a sliding scale than a clear-cut diagnosis?
Good point. One, perhaps the main trait of the Pd is that they bond with no one; all people to them are as objects. Even in sociopathic gangs, they’re considered “strange” or “loners.” Most people can and do bond with some of those around them, but those living out of sight or contact, less so. That is not psychopathic.
Sara: I am quite empathetic, but, with the help of an insightful psychologist, I learned that my empathy often distorted rather than clarified the truth and also was a twisted form of narcissism. I thought I knew what other people were feeling, when in reality, I was simply projecting my feelings onto them.
Skeptic: Isn’t that just saying your “empathy” was, in reality, absolutely in no way actually empathy?
This is an interesting philosophical question. Does anyone really feel empathy or are we all projecting our feelings onto others? I may know you are sad because your dog died and I know how I would feel if my dog died, but can I really know what your grieving feels like?
This is an interesting philosophical question. Does anyone really feel empathy or are we all projecting our feelings onto others? I may know you are sad because your dog died and I know how I would feel if my dog died, but can I really know what your grieving feels like?
Excellent point. The psychopath does not feel empathy for others because s/he does not have the kind of emotions most of us feel and can, to some degree, identify in others. There is always the danger of thinking that because that’s the way we’d feel in a given situation, we assume someone else will feel the same way. In a given culture, with people who share that culture, that’s a fair bet. With Pd people or people from a different culture, that bet is less sure.
. . . ASD is not suggesting, as far as I can tell, that a psychopath can be punished into not being psychotic.
Keep in mind that psychosis and psychopathy are very different things. For an intriguing solution to the latter problem, read ASD’s chapter 3, which he linked the other day here. (“Just Another Scrupus Implant”)
. . . Other fascinating aspects that come to mind involve early social-psychology experiments identifying cognitive dissonance wherein a person’s willingness to inflict greater levels of pain on an unknown “subject” increases due to prompting by an authority figure; another with the increasing display of “sadistic” behavior demonstrated upon initial suggestive prompting and subsequently left in isolation as an authority figure to be “able to carry it out” (the Abu Graibe syndrome); yet another, the display of mob behavior (eg, rioting) and other anti-social behaviors exhibited under other than normal conditions, all seeming to involve some form of the phenomenon of anonymity and de-individuation (the exhibition of abnormal behaviors where the risk of self-identification by others is perceived to be minimal or absent). Singer’s “camera effect” seems to emphasize addressing these behavioral phenomena, although efficacy may be questionable (ex, internet sex scandals). No doubt we are highly social animals due to evolutional processes with our social structures and attitudes open to fluid construction as we gain greater understanding of ourselves, as you so aptly suggest, nv.
Thanks for bringing this up, good-gray Answerer. You seem to have gotten my point, but now I realize that I was vague at best. Struggle is not only necessary for certain kinds of circumstantial success but also for mental success. Without struggle, we tend to wither. I think most of us do, at least. Perhaps all. Singer and other social motherers seem to think that if we can only get past the struggle, we’ll be okay. I say if we ever get past the struggle, we’ll be a very different species indeed from what we now are. They almost seem to be seeking purity of heaven on earth. The unreality of such a quest seems obvious, doesn’t it? Maybe I’m cognitively old fashioned.
Answerer - 05 September 2011 02:13 PM
But doesn’t empathy training start with all of us from birth when our mothers don’t rush to give us the tit every time we cry? The child that misses all these related lessons along the way is bound to form a re-enforced view that the universe revolves around him/her alone and exists only for his/her gratification.
For me personally, this is an especially difficult question. Where does proper parental supervision end when it comes to intellectually disabled kids striving to grow into their optimal adult selves?
. . . ASD is not suggesting, as far as I can tell, that a psychopath can be punished into not being psychotic.
Keep in mind that psychosis and psychopathy are very different things. For an intriguing solution to the latter problem, read ASD’s chapter 3, which he linked the other day here. (“Just Another Scrupus Implant”)
D’oh!
My psych profs would be very disappointed (those who are still alive and relatively lucid, anyway).
... Robert Hare wrote a book called Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. I haven’t read it yet (it’s on reserve from the library), but from the description it implies that some psychopaths (possibly a lot of them!) are able to control their psychosis enough to not only not get arrested, but hold good-paying jobs….
So, I wonder if Snakes in Suits can be effectively shortened to Suits? I have a tendency to defensively regard anyone who works in a business suit as a probable well-masked psychopath, until they have clearly proven otherwise.
But doesn’t empathy training start with all of us from birth when our mothers don’t rush to give us the tit every time we cry? The child that misses all these related lessons along the way is bound to form a re-enforced view that the universe revolves around him/her alone and exists only for his/her gratification.
For me personally, this is an especially difficult question. Where does proper parental supervision end when it comes to intellectually disabled kids striving to grow into their optimal adult selves?
That is a complex question, but I think much of the basics are well established, aren’t they? It’s definitely an ongoing process, the most critical being in early development. I would consider that it starts with nurturance and progresses more to a function of supervision, although both are closely related and interimposed. Take the early surrogate mother experiments with monkeys and the severe psychosis-like symptoms or dysfunction produced from the lack of mere physical contact. Or the current data on stimulative input on later intellectual development resulting in interventions such as Head Start programs. Or the influence of peer relationships and role models for the development of social skills (socialization). So many factors go into the development of a healthy sense of self-esteem and the skills needed for optimum function in society. “Proper” parental supervision may not end in the case of disabled kids, and “improper” or lack of parental supervision may be part of the problem. Education never ends. For many, “optimal adult selves” may constitute developing a minimal profiency in life skills to allow as much self-reliance as possible but nowhere near “normal.” The adage that “it takes a village to raise a child” is so true, community and professional involvement is so necessary, depending on ones vision of what kind of society we’re willing to construct. As Obama alluded to last night, half of our society is willing to do nothing to minimal with respect to investments and assistance that benefit society as a whole, in a “fend for ones-self,” “law of the jungle,” “I got mine,” “class-warfare,” “I’m better/smarter than you,” “I did it all myself” mentality while clinging to a convoluted, negative, erroneous and inapplicable concept of socialism. It’s a matter of prioirities.
. . . “Proper” parental supervision may not end in the case of disabled kids, and “improper” or lack of parental supervision may be part of the problem. Education never ends. For many, “optimal adult selves” may constitute developing a minimal proficiency in life skills to allow as much self-reliance as possible but nowhere near “normal.” The adage that “it takes a village to raise a child” is so true, community and professional involvement is so necessary, depending on ones vision of what kind of society we’re willing to construct. . . .
I would add that when it comes to mentally handicapped children, it takes a village with improved (from what we now have) empathic knowledge. For instance, one of my kids has autism as severe as I’ve ever seen in a child. She lacks so many social skills while looking so normal that people don’t know how to take her. They see her staring at them, or trying to smell them or run around them or lie down to get a new angle to stare, or . . . any other oddness that circumstances might provide her. As a result, some of the people she’s trying in her own way to interact with scowl at her or speak rudely. If the person is a child, he might try to impede her movements, a thing he could end up regretting unless I intervene quickly. Retribution just for being in the way of her preferred path (say on a climbing playground setup in a park) can be severe, with resulting pain lasting for hours, I’m guessing. She knows right where to hit if her mood is less than happy at the moment. Just the fact that she has no functional speech (she’s not a pretender like I am) sets her up to appear to be insulting to those she comes into contact with. She can take a stranger somehow insulting her character now and then, but if the insults start to add up, resulting agitation takes over her mood and it can take hours or even days before she’s back to her usual self.
But I realize that the public, at least where I live, is only beginning to learn about how to interact with the mentally handicapped population, and it’s an enormous group of people, formerly closeted in large institutional warehouses. Attitude adjustments take time, along with further knowledge and understanding.
