The Psychology Thread

Really, he wouldn't be a psychopath so much as someone who deals with cognitive dissonance through dehumanizing or victim-blaming his targets. It's what most people do when they recognize an act as wrong but too difficult to avoid/stop doing.

One thing that might help flesh him out is to have him rationalize his actions in his head - instead of seeing himself as a game hunter, he might see himself as someone who takes down rabid or otherwise dangerous animals. In his head, anyone who he's been hired to kill probably did something to deserve it - someone else already did the job of judgment, and he's just the executioner.

In short: Say hello to the just world hypothesis.

Alternatively, if he knows his target didn't deserve it, he might rationalize their death as inevitable. If he doesn't take the job, someone else will, and at the very least he can ensure the pour soul's demise to be as painless as possible, whereas his hypothetical competitor would likely torture them first (or so he thinks).

Shifting topics: Anyone have a favorite psychologist, in terms of research or personality? I'm fond of Daniel Kahneman and Herman Ebbinghaus, myself.

No problem. Cognitive dissonance theory is pretty damn fascinating.

edited 6th Nov '13 10:07:57 AM by Sparkysharps

Whoa, those are great ideas! Thanks.

So, I was curious, if someone laughs alone, is something wrong with him? Or is laughing alone just a harmless quirk some people have?

And I don't mean maniacal cackling done by a hobo washing blood off his hand or something. Just like, walking around and laughing out loud because they find themselves entertaining in their head.

It's a problem if they do it constantly when alone as if they're a looped canned laughter distributor, yes (laughing at every little thing? — oh, dear). But, almost everybody has the occasional thought, connection or, even, misconnection that cracks them up every so often.

Why would that make you a touch mad? <confused> Also, how often would depend on a number of factors. You can, for example, laugh to relieve stress... so your hindbrain might try to shoot for tripping your forebrain up with some dark humour when it least expects it.

edited 9th Nov '13 9:28:25 PM by Euodiachloris

I dunno, I couldn't name (or remember) one person who wasn't awkward'ed out by someone laughing alone (saying that as someone who does it every so often).

Maybe it's a cultural thing, it could be for all I know.

Eh? You mean you've never laughed at something, found somebody heard you and then tried to share the joke so they can laugh, too? How's that weird? <honestly confused>

It's in the same general area as crying over something, finding something awesome and/or beautiful or really ugly... but, you just happen to not have company that you know about at the time you react to it.

edited 9th Nov '13 9:56:45 PM by Euodiachloris

No, I mean laughing alone in company. As in, in a class or something, but without talking to someone.

Oh, you mean like laughing at something you're reading or watching on the bus? Yup, others can get creeped out by that (mostly because they can be worried you're laughing at them). Usually, that's their problem, though, not the problem of the laugher... whatever the social stigma attached. <_<

Eh, that's hardly an indication of mental problems. Sure, you're not self-monitoring as much as you probably should, but that's a pothole everyone falls into more often than they'd like to admit.

I'm not saying I'm blaming my Psychology course for making me think everything is a mental condition, but I am implying it.

... I'm not the only one that ever got worried when reading the symptoms of a condition, right?

Right?

Easily done, mate. <hugs> If in doubt, stare at some isometric tests done by the truly bonkers and compare to your own. That soon soothes the jitters.

And, remember: nobody is ever "totally normal", as hitting the median every time hints at Problems, if in a different way. :|

edited 9th Nov '13 10:51:45 PM by Euodiachloris

Well I am not really trying to be "normal" (I've learned a while ago that there's no such thing), but those symptom descriptions are so vague sometimes.

It wasn't until I've seen a video of an actual Schizophrenic who thought she was the sun at some point that I realized how batshit-nonsensical you gotta be to be considered Schizophrenic.

edited 9th Nov '13 11:13:04 PM by QuestionMarc

Ah, Abnormal Psychology class - I have yet to find a more reliable producer of hypochondriacs.

Don't worry, it happens to everyone. Think of it as a psychology major's right of passage.

edited 10th Nov '13 12:16:07 AM by Sparkysharps

Yup: if you don't worry for three days that you might be, e.g. psychotic, there's something wrong with you.

Phew, that's reassuring.

I can finally go back to painting blood motifs on my walls to appease the other voices in my head. Could you imagine if something really was wrong with me?

Then you'd be ahead of the game. The idea wouldn't just go away after a few days, but occasionally come back to mind about a specific set of symptoms that you might occasionally still look up. (After all, it wouldn't likely be a seriously acute case of anything, as others around you would've started measuring you up for therapy or a chemical regime if it was before you got to thinking.)

Until you take the dive and get the much needed professional second opinion: the first rule of medicine is... "never rely on self-diagnosis".

edited 10th Nov '13 8:09:09 AM by Euodiachloris

Yeah, really bad psychological ailments tend to be noticeable by other people long before the subject would notice. Not always, but most of the time. But keep in mind, sometimes one ailment might look like another. I know someone who keeps saying he has symptoms that sound like really extreme schizophrenia, but I found that he told someone else a completely different set of symptoms that sound very similar to extreme rapid-cycling bipolar syndrome. There might be something to do with pathological lying or (I don't remember what it was called) the thing where you manufacture illnesses to get people to pay attention to you.

edited 10th Nov '13 1:50:35 PM by Zendervai

Contex: In the "Aggressive" atheism versus "gentle" atheism..." I asked how one can feel with others (having empathy) but still no incentive to help those people. @demarquis: I'm aware that empathy levels vary between humans. I was under the impression that as long as you can feel with others you want to help them. The difference is that some people only feel empathy for certain people and not for others (it has been shown that racists don't feel empathy for those of other races for example) or none at all (antisocial personality disorder). Also, I thought when the amount of empathy is low you still want to help them, but just not with much effort.

edited 6th Dec '13 8:56:01 AM by Antiteilchen

Well, there's also the situation of not being able to help someone, due to lack of resources or no mechanism in place to do it with. Trust me, that feels horrible.

Now, I'm not an expert, and hopefully we can entice Euodiachloris to jump in with some of her expertise. You may be right, so far as it goes, but what you may not be taking into account is that there are other motivational systems that also affect how and how much we help or hinder other people, and these might take over if empathy is low enough. The rational pursuit of self-interest, or a sense of reciprocal obligation, or a willingness to suppress the ego in favor of the group and it's needs, or any of a number of other lifestyle choices, might all lead to behavior patterns that take very little account of empathy at all. And then there are people who are just selfish, whose feelings of desire overwhelm their feelings of empathy. For another example, see Sparkysharps page topper.

Bottom line- I dont think you have to be a complete sociopath to decide to ignore someone in pain.

edited 6th Dec '13 8:44:59 AM by demarquis

Ah, now I understand what you mean. The ultimate outcome of a response to someone in need hasn't to always be to help them. That does not mean the willingness to help them is inexistence. Just that it is outvoted by other motivations. The larger the level of empathy the more it has to say in an intermotivational vote.

For example, if your friends bully someone else, you might want to help the victim. But you don't want to lose you're friends either. Depending on the level of empathy, the closeness to your friends and the possibility of getting punished by them, you might help the victim or not.

edited 6th Dec '13 9:04:37 AM by Antiteilchen

Like a good cognitive psychologist I would call it a "weight" rather than a "vote", but otherwise pretty much. But dont forget the final step, which is to rationalize why the eventual behavior that was chosen was the absolute right thing to do. And then that rationalization becomes one of the weights that influences the next such decision.

The last step happens often but not always. I myself made decisions I regreted immediately afterwards. I just didn't do what I thought was right because I was too scared or even to lazy.

edited 6th Dec '13 9:39:18 AM by Antiteilchen

That's because the weight of your previous decisions and personal experiences was too great for any short term rationalization to overcome it. But what if your "network of beliefs" had been based on the notion that only favors that can be reciprocated need be honored, or that the group was more important than any individual? Might you have come to a different conclusion?

I'm not sure. As I mentioned, when I see someone suffering I'd like to help them because it causes suffering in me. I cannot not imagine me in their shoes. I'm not sure if another "network of beliefs" would do away with that. The thing is that empathy extends the border of the self to others (maybe a bit hyperbolic but still). And considering not helping myself would requiering some very profound change in motivation. It is possible that a group-over-individual ideology could have shaped some assessments differently, though. So as seeing harming others as sacrificing them (and hence a part of me) for the good of the group. But I still had to be convinced that the sacrifice is absolutely necessary.