Psychopaths

Um... the first one you learn is to back away (and cry). You learn to hit back when backing away is not an option and crying only gets you more hits. You may then also learn that hitting back means worse than you started with, and is pointless. <_<

If you're really lucky, you don't go on to learn that Mummy/ Daddy/ Uncle/ Auntie/ Sister/ Brother smiles/ gets exited/ is pleased when they hit me: it's good to hit others when you want to and they can't stop you like they do to me. But some people find it easier to go on to that pattern than others do. -_-

edited 1st Oct '13 8:44:17 PM by Euodiachloris

Of course there can be. Premises/Conclusions that result in people being served as fairly as possible. However:

1) You are still assigning value into "people being served as fairly as possible", because there's no way that you can measure the amount of "value" that is in people being served fairly. Value only exists when people assign value to things. It's not an intrinsic property. And:

2) That still springs from the premise "people being served fairly is good" which is not an objective judgment. While I agree with that statement myself I have to admit that is also one of my axioms as I accept it only because I found it desirable, where desirability has no objective measurement.

@ De Marquis

I was referring crudely to schizophrenia, which is a mental illness. I probably should have been more clear.

My point was about the validity and fairness of the negative generalisation, not about the subjectivity or objectivity of the characteristics that were being generalised.

It is pretty common to argue that a cold-blooded murderer is evil (I'm not saying I hold this view though), but I'm not aware of any basis for believing that all cold-blooded murderers are mentally ill. I'm not sure I'm actually clear on your meaning here.

Regardless, what understanding of mental illness would lead you to believe that someone who knowingly and deliberately commits an act that they themselves regard as evil is insane, but someone who regularly hallucinates might be perfectly sane? I don't understand this.

@ Teraus

I missed one of your earlier posts.

Why is this logically unjustifiable?

"It is pretty common to argue that a cold-blooded murderer is evil (I'm not saying I hold this view though), but I'm not aware of any basis for believing that all cold-blooded murderers are mentally ill. I'm not sure I'm actually clear on your meaning here."

It's simple, you just have my chain of reasoning backwards. Not all people who commit evil acts are evil, not all mentally ill people are evil, but in my view I cant tell the difference between a person being evil vs. having a form of mental illness.

If editerguy was talking about hallucination, then I'm completely down with his point. Schizophrenia =/= evil. My best friend is a manic-depressive, paranoid schizophrenic with synesthesia and a host of other things. Clinically, she is mentally ill. She complains about the fact that walls are always moving; not changing locations, just rippling and flowing as if they were a liquid. She once confided in me that some day, the walls are going to eat her, and she had to make her peace with that a long time ago. She sees sounds and tastes colors and, recently during a particularly bad breakdown caused by her pregnancy, she started hallucinating that everyone around her was a monstrous bug-person.

None of this has caused her to become incapable of empathizing with people, or hindered her ability to interact socially. Insanity does not turn you into a remorseless killer.

I don't think he equated insanity with evil.

edited 3rd Oct '13 8:03:35 AM by Teraus

Just to be absolutely and completely clear- there was no intent to imply that people with mental illnesses are evil, or in any way to blame for their condition.

I am questioning the use of the term "evil" as applied to people. There are those who want to apply that label to anyone who commits acts they regard as unacceptable. I'm suggesting (obviously not very clearly) that such people may not be "evil", they're simply mentally ill.

I thought that you meant that "being evil" could be considered a mental illness. I don't see why it wouldn't, since there is already stuff like Sadistic Personality Disorder. The problem, as always, is the inherent vagueness of "being evil", because sadism is more clearly defined but not all cases of sadism would be necessarily considered morally wrong (punishments, for instance).

The problem is that:

1. There is no logical justification for it.

2. It is a transparent oversimplification which is so reductive it renders both terms meaningless. You might as well just call both "totes uncool, huh?" and consider the job done, for all the practical specificity you're going to get out of that definition.

It may be comforting to feel that immoral people are an "other" which is completely unlike us, because we exist in a completely distinct and separate category. 'Psychopaths', or evil as insanity, can serve this purpose. However, this is a feel-good delusion which is unproductive and irrational. The world is simply not so black and white.

@ De Marquis

I think I understand your view now, but I disagree with your clarified point.

edited 3rd Oct '13 8:29:23 PM by editerguy

Well, to be fair I'm not completely agreeing with this argument. One can remember that normal people can become this "other" that is immoral people (in the same way as "normal people can become the President") and still consider immoral people as an "other". The final outcome is still the same: normal people can do bad and immoral things, just that when and while they do them they are no longer "normal" for that time.

I personally prefer thinking that way as opposed to "doing bad and immoral things is normal" as that can lead to "hey, I'm doing this immoral thing. So what?" which I don't like.

edited 3rd Oct '13 9:19:06 PM by IraTheSquire

Fair point. What I meant to refer to, however, is when the immoral person as the "other" gets bundled up with other characteristics that are unrelated. Consider as an example the old idea of how evil people have let Satan in their heart and willingly serve him. This kind of otherising by bundling up immorality with other (non-demonstrably related) traits to emphasise the point that these people just aren't like us, and to create extra distance between 'normal' people (sane, God-fearing, etc) and others (insane, Satan-following, etc) is overly simplistic and isn't justified.

I can see I made the point poorly, but you are talking about something that I think is significantly different to the point I was trying to make.

edited 4th Oct '13 4:11:06 AM by editerguy

Taking one set of characteristics and comparing that to the objective criteria for mental illness (to the extent that such exist) does not logically carry any implications for other sets of characteristics that have been related to other, unrelated mental illnesses. If we did take, say, sadistic violent behavior, label this "evil", then take the evil label away and replace that with some sort of mental illness, this would not have any implication that the new mental illness, nor any others, are "evil".

Would it be possible that Psychopathy might be passed down in a family? Because it seems my mother and father both exhibit various sociopathic / psychopathic traits.

I do not wish to go into specific examples due to how sensitive the topic is, but my mother tells us not to lie to her, when she lies a lot. She basically told my dad "its okay if I do it".

She views her boyfriend as basically a toy she likes to play with. Its a simple mask of a loving new wife just done with a divorce.

She is a social little bug, enjoying showing her charismatic, fun loving mask.

Her emotional affect is actually, rather surprisingly low.

My Dad disdains human contact, explicitly says he doesn't like socializing all that much, and only has certain rules in place until he needs to change them.

He seems cold, unemotional, detached.

He is often very angry if I do not do all my jobs the way he wants. He even demanded to know why I don't play with the dog the way he does.

Would it be In the Blood? Or would it be being raised by these two individuals who made me what I am?

Another question or two; I cannot understand why people would follow rules and be stringent with them, if the rules are not like society's rules and thus, aren't enforced with jail or such a penalty. I cannot get following rules that are not enforced by a binding law of the state. It simply makes no sense.

For the second question, how do other people tell psychopaths / sociopaths apart from others? Is it a look at the eyes? Posture? Inferences behind words? Because someone figured it out a while before I had the proper terminology to describe my condition. I want to know how he did it so I can make sure it does not happen again.

edited 5th Oct '13 6:41:34 AM by NickTheSwing

Some mental illnesses are hereditary. Schizophrenia, for example. But as psychopathy is ceasing to even be considered a thing that exists, I would say that "psychopaths being born from psychopaths" is more a case of the nurture aspect, from being raised by a psychopath, in instances where it happens. Children learn through imitating and their parents have a major impact on how they develop, but it's also important to note that this is no guarantee a child will grow up to be identical to their parent; many kinds do wind up going the opposite direction if they were unhappy with their childhood.

edited 5th Oct '13 6:54:42 AM by TobiasDrake

Also, schizophrenia is passed down only as a predisposition that can be triggered, i.e. it involves nature plus nurture.

@ De Marquis

I don't see a reason to make this connection in the first place.

Also, sadistic violent behavior is a fairly specific category, and what is generally considered evil is a very broad category.

edited 5th Oct '13 7:38:40 AM by editerguy

@Nick: Well, the criteria for determining psychopathy is tricky. There is a well known measuring technique called the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, but Hare (the creator) warns that "the test should only be considered valid if administered by a suitably qualified and experienced clinician under scientifically controlled and licensed, standardized conditions." I gather it's unlikely you can do that with your parents.

There are other measures and criteria that have been used, some of which are described here. Then there is the "Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV", sort of the official symptoms list for psychiatry and psychotherapy. The criteria for psychpathy are listed here. But the same warning applies to these as well- only a trained professional is really qualified to make this determination.

Also bear in mind that everyone will fulfill some of the criteria. It's an inexact science.

@Editorguy: I was just using that as an example of the point I wanted to make. Some people seemed confused regarding what I was really saying.

I'm not sure if we should conflate Psychopathy with ASPD. Hare, for one, is especially critical of the tendency to assume they're the same diagnosis.

Yes, but the debate is still ongoing, and that side of the debate has basically been categorised as the die-hard segment in favour of the older definitions at this point in larger circles. <_< There are a few pathologies that can slot into ASD if you consider it a spectrum of related and/or inter-related symptomatologies. <shrugs>

In short, we're mainly hashing out the semantics... again. -_- The problem basically stems from the fact that finding "pure" psychopaths, narcissists and sociopaths is... not that easy. <_< People just aren't that good at landing squarely in the list of ticky boxes for the definitions (even if you are in full agreement on what those definitions are, to begin with). When you face so many instances of people taking bits from columns A, B and C and occasionally leaning on one more than others, but not exclusively so... you start to wonder if you're not actually looking at one thing that comes with blended flavour-notes, rather.

And, borderline personality disorder has a debate all its own ongoing, and wouldn't suit, either, as an umbrella term. <_<

It's the old adage: when your definitions are great in the textbook, but don't work as effectively in the field as they're supposed to... you change the textbook to fit the field.

edited 5th Oct '13 6:29:17 PM by Euodiachloris

I somewhat meant on the fly, if such material was not immediately available, but that works too.

Sometimes I really do find myself confused by some of the things "normal" individuals believe. The aforementioned "nonessential rules" among them.

Why would you not follow the rules when you know there's good reason behind them?

Rules can get contradictory, have so many unstated sub-clauses or just not work. <shrugs> Even social or moral ones.

Nonsensical stuff happens a lot, particularly if your viewpoint diverges on a number of issues and even some of the definitions that are assumed to be standard. It's one of the reasons why we get cultural difference, after all... and the dynamo driving Values Dissonance.

Rational irrationality is... something to consider when it comes to dealing with people en masse. <_<

"Another question or two; I cannot understand why people would follow rules and be stringent with them, if the rules are not like society's rules and thus, aren't enforced with jail or such a penalty. I cannot get following rules that are not enforced by a binding law of the state. It simply makes no sense."

That depends on what rules you are talking about. Can you give an example?

Because having very good reasons behind them means that they're very good, well thought out rules for other people to follow. I, however, am a Unique and Special Snowflake. It's okay if I bend the rules just this once; it's really important, you see. You would do it too, if you were in my position. But you shouldn't, because the rules need to be followed, I just have a REALLY good reason for not following it, but you SHOULD.

That is a logic train, right there, and it's one that's very easy to make. People tend to be more accepting of their own excuses than of others'.

edited 6th Oct '13 8:13:49 AM by TobiasDrake

I'd go with two reasons

1. Emotional - empathy is less the cause of a moral compass than it is a reason to follow it. "Because I'll feel like shit afterwards if I don't" is a surprisingly powerful motivator for following extrinsically unenforced rules.

2. Reciprocal altruism◊ - it's the sort of thing that, in the long run, tends to work out for people more often than it doesn't. This isn't just because the above emotional reinforcement, but also tangible long term benefit. Doing good by others primes them do do the same, and a good reputation as a principled individual inclines people to help you out more. It's not a conscious decision (that would be enlightened self-interest), mind you, but more of a heuristic.

In other words, chalk it up to evolution, be it socially or genetically transmitted.

Now, if you're asking about religious rules (presuming that they're not informally enforced via ostracism and the like), I have no damn idea either.

edited 6th Oct '13 8:46:01 AM by Sparkysharps

There's also the flip side to reciprocal altruism: "if I don't toe the line and I get caught, my neighbours will find a way to make my life hell".

edited 6th Oct '13 8:49:42 AM by Euodiachloris