Psychopaths

[Cunt]

Lets all read this while remembering that homosexuality was considered insane until quite recently.

False analogy. We're talking about brain dysfunction. A disorder that prevents important information from being associated together, and results in aberrant behavior, killing and maiming people and so forth.

You are talking about a diagnosis from the DSM-IV, which is being loosly correlated with a study or two about brain architecture done on prisoners, but not on a wider public.

Homosexuality was, quite recently, considered insane. Still is, in some cultures, and we know that diagnosis would be different culture to culture. (many of these diagnosis's are dependent on which culture the patient is from)

What's that got to do with homosexuality?

I would hope that you would see that your arguments could have come from a respected psychiatrist just a few decades ago.

Not much hope, for a guy who still threatens being 'pissed off' and impinges a whole group 'the retarded' to insult people who hold a particular political philosophy (libertarianism)

But I think others here can read, so I have a bit of hope there.

Do you think killing and maiming people is normal behavior? Do you think it's desirable? Do you think people should be allowed to do it?

No, I think people should be allowed to think about it, though.
There is a large difference between a thought and an action. It would take a whale of a lot of evidence to convince me that forcing a psychological intervention on someone for 'thought crimes' or 'future crimes' was a good idea.

With that in mind, how about everyone do a Turing test on this shit. Turing was a homo war hero you can look him up.
He was smart as fuck AND handsome as all get out.
Fucking hero.
The test is this - is the way Schneibster wants to handle some 'insane' people better, or worse than the way Mr. Turing and other queers were treated recently, in Turings time.

First, Turing is a hero of mine. I'm well aware he was homosexual, and I consider the way he was hounded to death a crime against humanity; he unquestionably would have greatly advanced cybernetics and math had he lived, if nothing else.

Are you aware that your 'hero' was considered 'insane' at the time?

Do you see why I am drawing the comparison now? I understand that you don't like it, but step back from your emotional outbursts (try getting less 'pissed off') and have another look.

Second, we have not spoken of what I want to do. You are attributing something to me without evidence. I have asked questions. You are attacking me for asking them. I thought you were better than that.

Attacking? Really? By questioning your post?

I thought that was WHY you posted here...

Third, what do you think cognitive therapy is? Did you even check before you decided I'm Dr. Mengele? Or are you just knee-jerking along, without a care for reality?

Who is 'Dr. Mengele' and where did I say that you were him?

Or are you just joking around? Spouting bullshit?

The answer to your question is, infinitely better, in fact so much so that your question is ridiculous. Not to mention that it makes insulting assumptions about me and about psychology.

I was addressing the issue of forcing treatment on people. You were saying that they would certainly end up in hell. I am not religious, by the way. I don't believe in 'hell'.

Unless you were going to construct a 'hell analogy' to torture these people in...

This sounds like the BS about motorcycle helmets and seatbelts.

Not only are we preventing harm to others, we are preventing these unfortunate people from being locked up. With criminals. Without treatment. In hell. They and their victims both cry out for our intervention.

In your fantasy world, maybe.

But wasn't it you who said there were so many of them around? With so many of them around, and with your certainty that they will end up locked up, you should be able to find ALL of them in prison. Not at the heads of corporations and government, the way you have suggested elsewhere.

I say that some of them find their own reasons to not hurt those around them. Without your precious 'feelings'.

And saying that they are all crying out for help is pure bullshit. Some may, and you may insist that someone without your feelings should be 'cured', but ask them. Each and every one of them, before saying that they are all 'crying out for help'.

These people are insane. You're suggesting we let them wander around untreated until they maim or kill someone instead of treating them. I disagree. Strongly.

But so many of them don't kill. Why do you suppose that is?

You aren't talking about what I'm talking about and need to think about this a great deal more before you say something that will piss me off seriously.

You are one funny fucker, Schneibster.

What a laugh.

Threat?

You've accused me of being Dr. Mengele,

If you can't find a quote where I said this, you are clearly lying, or insane.

Maybe you are crying out for treatment. I would suggest cognitive therapy. It reviews rather well compared to many other 'interventions'.

which is where it looked like you were going from the above. There is no threat. There is merely the fact that I will decide you're not worth talking to.

Funnier still.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're hostile toward medicine.

Nope, fucking LOVE that I get to live twice as long as many of my ancestors. I just don't follow blindly.

And I think autonomy is more important than just about anything.

I'd never have bothered engaging you if I had known you're an anti-psychology crank.

This is a personal attack, and I will ask you to stop it.

I am not 'anti-psychology', but I AM anti 'forced treatment', even if you say I should fear some vague end enough to change my mind.

I asked you a similar question before, about the word you use 'libertardian'. I noticed that you bravely did not anwer. I still don't know what you mean by it. Could you spell that out, too?

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 2#p1046882

Apparently you never bothered to read my response.

Sorry, I missed it. That's a busy thread. Thanks for pointing it out.

It's a confuction of "Libertarian" (i.e., "member of the US Libertarian Party, a right wingnut organization that doesn't know any economics) and "retard."

So you would insult an opressed minority (people with intellectual disabilities used to be called 'retarded') as a way of making a differing political philosophy look bad? I am reasonably sure there is a latin name for this kind of insulting horseshit.

I expect a bit better from mature adults. I know many 'retards' who I would much rather have making decisions than you. Much rather have them in my neighbourhood, too.

[Cunt]

Schneibster, have a look at this story for a bit of insight into why I don't want to respect your use of 'retard' as an insult, and why I don't want any new groups targeted.
We think we are doing the best we can now, of course. The staff and management at Huronia no doubt were equally certain.

I am pleased that there is a way to identify a malfunction in the brain and offer help. What I am not pleased with is the way you seem to suggest that all folks who test positive for psychopathy should be treated. Offer them treatment, surely, but why force it? They aren't all killers, as you well know.

[Schneibster]

SRSLY?

Sure, they've got extensive archives, procedurals, manuals and whatnot, but those are historical documents, not stuff that goes into the actual training of prelates involved in the Congregation... Nowadays, the CDF deals mostly in Jesuit tradittion of skewed debate, propaganda, and sophistic argumentation than in the legacy of the domini canes (who are no longer associated with it, as you might notice)...

I have little doubt that if the Church were to get back the kind of temporal power it had 5 centuries ago, it might exhume the old documentation and resume forceful extirpation of heresy, but even if such an event happens, I'm pretty certain I won't be there to witness it.

Rumor has it that they concluded after the Spanish Inquisition that it was a waste of time torturing people and they weren't saving souls. Some doctrine about willing conversion or something, along with the rise of the Enlightenment and the suppression of witch hunts by various large European governments, IIRC.

But I can't imagine them ever throwing anything away. And they would know if it works or not, wouldn't they? I can only think of one or two organizations that would know better, neither of whom had done much of their research by 1963.

[Svartalf]

Problem is they would know it in the way of a scholar, not a practitioner.

[Schneibster]

Cunt, I'm too busy to respond properly now. I don't want you to think I'm disrespecting; I spent two hours on what I have so far, and it's saved. Probably tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for your response, which is much more thoughtful than the ones last night.

[Schneibster]

Lets all read this while remembering that homosexuality was considered insane until quite recently.

False analogy. We're talking about brain dysfunction. A disorder that prevents important information from being associated together, and results in aberrant behavior, killing and maiming people and so forth.

You are talking about a diagnosis from the DSM-IV, which is being loosly correlated with a study or two about brain architecture done on prisoners, but not on a wider public.

Doesn't sound very loose to me. Sounds like a 1:1 correspondence. That's not "loose."

Homosexuality was, quite recently, considered insane. Still is, in some cultures, and we know that diagnosis would be different culture to culture. (many of these diagnosis's are dependent on which culture the patient is from)

That's called the "slippery slope" fallacy. They're not going to suddenly start persecuting gays again.

What's that got to do with homosexuality?

I would hope that you would see that your arguments could have come from a respected psychiatrist just a few decades ago.

It's still the slippery slope fallacy.

Not much hope, for a guy who still threatens being 'pissed off' and impinges a whole group 'the retarded' to insult people who hold a particular political philosophy (libertarianism)

But I think others here can read, so I have a bit of hope there.

Big-L Libertarian is not a political philosophy, it's a political party in the United States.

Do you think killing and maiming people is normal behavior? Do you think it's desirable? Do you think people should be allowed to do it?

No, I think people should be allowed to think about it, though.

We're not talking about people who think about it. We're talking about people who don't get a feeling it's a bad idea when they do.

There is a large difference between a thought and an action.

Yes; the action is precipitated when a thought is matched with positive emotions, and not matched with negative ones. We're talking about someone whose capacity to have negative emotions about killing people is impaired.

It would take a whale of a lot of evidence to convince me that forcing a psychological intervention on someone for 'thought crimes' or 'future crimes' was a good idea.

I have no idea what you mean by "thought crimes" or "future crimes." We are talking about teaching people who do not have negative feelings about killing people to have negative feelings about killing people. You think this is a bad idea? Don't you think they'll be more successful people if they feel inhibited from killing people, like the rest of us do?

Think better. You are allowing ideology to blind you.

With that in mind, how about everyone do a Turing test on this shit. Turing was a homo war hero you can look him up.
He was smart as fuck AND handsome as all get out.
Fucking hero.
The test is this - is the way Schneibster wants to handle some 'insane' people better, or worse than the way Mr. Turing and other queers were treated recently, in Turings time.

First, Turing is a hero of mine. I'm well aware he was homosexual, and I consider the way he was hounded to death a crime against humanity; he unquestionably would have greatly advanced cybernetics and math had he lived, if nothing else.

Are you aware that your 'hero' was considered 'insane' at the time?

I am aware that bigots were allowed to trespass on medicine, yes. I am not sanguine about it, but I'd like to know why you think that's the same as teaching someone to feel uptight when they think of killing someone. I'm still seeing a slippery slope fallacy here. You keep asserting it over and over and you keep not providing any evidence except they did it once. So what? I stole a cookie once.

Do you see why I am drawing the comparison now?

No. It looks like the same old slippery slope fallacy to me.

I understand that you don't like it,

It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. You're trying to change the subject and make it about me instead of about helping people feel normal upset at the idea of killing people. You seem to be against helping people feel inhibited when they want to kill someone like we all do. It's kind of a component of living in a society. Human societies can be extremely cruel to those who do not have these inhibitions.

but step back from your emotional outbursts (try getting less 'pissed off') and have another look.

I'm not getting pissed off about the subject. I'm getting pissed off about your argumentation tactics.

Second, we have not spoken of what I want to do. You are attributing something to me without evidence. I have asked questions. You are attacking me for asking them. I thought you were better than that.

Attacking? Really? By questioning your post?

No, by using underhanded argumentation tactics like the slippery slope fallacy and accusing me of wanting to control peoples' minds.

I thought that was WHY you posted here...

To be abused every time someone gets all butthurt because something they won't even discuss makes them upset at the idea of psychological treatment? To listen to anti-psychological hysteria? No, not really.

Third, what do you think cognitive therapy is? Did you even check before you decided I'm Dr. Mengele? Or are you just knee-jerking along, without a care for reality?

Who is 'Dr. Mengele' and where did I say that you were him?

He's a famous Nazi doctor who did experiments on Jews in the extermination camps, in many cases experiments that led to their deaths in various unpleasant ways.

Or are you just joking around? Spouting bullshit?

Nope. You're accusing me of advocating mind control, I see little difference between that and the Nazis.

The answer to your question is, infinitely better, in fact so much so that your question is ridiculous. Not to mention that it makes insulting assumptions about me and about psychology.

I was addressing the issue of forcing treatment on people. You were saying that they would certainly end up in hell. I am not religious, by the way. I don't believe in 'hell'.

It's a metaphor. Sorry you're having trouble.

I think we should "force treatment" on all psychotics. Including those whose psychosis is that they do not receive correct and appropriate emotional cues when they think of killing people.

Unless you were going to construct a 'hell analogy' to torture these people in...

And I'm the one getting emotional?

OK.

This sounds like the BS about motorcycle helmets and seatbelts.

Not only are we preventing harm to others, we are preventing these unfortunate people from being locked up. With criminals. Without treatment. In hell. They and their victims both cry out for our intervention.

In your fantasy world, maybe.

Insult.

And I'm the one getting emotional?

OK. You asked why I was talking about getting pissed off. There it is. I'm stopping here, if any of your other points are salient you'll need to re-make them because I stop responding at the first insult.

[Schneibster]

Schneibster, have a look at this story for a bit of insight into why I don't want to respect your use of 'retard' as an insult, and why I don't want any new groups targeted.
We think we are doing the best we can now, of course. The staff and management at Huronia no doubt were equally certain.

It's still a slippery slope fallacy.

I am pleased that there is a way to identify a malfunction in the brain and offer help. What I am not pleased with is the way you seem to suggest that all folks who test positive for psychopathy should be treated. Offer them treatment, surely, but why force it? They aren't all killers, as you well know.

Why force it? Because they aren't inhibited from killing people. That's the problem with them. That's what psychopathy is. The only reason they aren't all killers is because some of them have never wanted anything enough to bother killing someone to get it. Present them with something they want enough, and their lack of inhibiting emotions will allow them to kill without remorse.

They don't care enough about other people in the first place to get treated. That's their disease. If you don't force them none of them will.

[Cunt]

You are talking about a diagnosis from the DSM-IV, which is being loosly correlated with a study or two about brain architecture done on prisoners, but not on a wider public.

Doesn't sound very loose to me. Sounds like a 1:1 correspondence. That's not "loose."

Are you going to find a bunch of people with this brain architecture who never commit a crime?

That's called the "slippery slope" fallacy. They're not going to suddenly start persecuting gays again.

'They' still are prosecuting gays, just not in your well-insulated neighbourhood (is it the USA?)
That's not the point anyway. Identifying a malformation in the brain among a bunch of murderers does not mean that everyone with that malformation will murder.
While it may show correlation, it certainly doesn't show causation.

It's still the slippery slope fallacy.

No, it is the correlation/causation thing you have neglected to notice.

Not much hope, for a guy who still threatens being 'pissed off' and impinges a whole group 'the retarded' to insult people who hold a particular political philosophy (libertarianism)

But I think others here can read, so I have a bit of hope there.

Big-L Libertarian is not a political philosophy, it's a political party in the United States.

If you are using the retarded to insult a group, you lose my respect. Quite simple, really. People who have been labelled 'retarded' are often better at this civility thing than you are.

We're not talking about people who think about it. We're talking about people who don't get a feeling it's a bad idea when they do.

I don't care. What thoughts are in your head are yours alone.
Actions may be subject to sanction, but think all you want.

There is a large difference between a thought and an action.

Yes; the action is precipitated when a thought is matched with positive emotions, and not matched with negative ones. We're talking about someone whose capacity to have negative emotions about killing people is impaired.

Some people have no emotions (as you understand them) alltogether. Does that give you the right to force treatment on them?
Does it bother you when you can't play on the fears of someone because they have none?

It would take a whale of a lot of evidence to convince me that forcing a psychological intervention on someone for 'thought crimes' or 'future crimes' was a good idea.

I have no idea what you mean by "thought crimes" or "future crimes." We are talking about teaching people who do not have negative feelings about killing people to have negative feelings about killing people.

That's fine IF, and only IF, the person wants to start having those feelings.
You want to take action before there is any crime, and the only problems reside in a persons (possibly disordered) thoughts.

I think it's arrogant crap to think you know best. What if we let those without feelings decide how to repair you, with your feelings interfering with nearly every rational decision you make?
Does it still look fair when you turn it around like that?

You think this is a bad idea? Don't you think they'll be more successful people if they feel inhibited from killing people, like the rest of us do?

Nope.
I define 'success' for me. You cannot, because you can't know what I want or need.
They haven't killed anyone, and you want to take action. You are trying to take that action against 'future crime', or 'thought crime'.
If and when they break the law, the law should respond. If that means that we have to wait for a murder to occur before we can prosecute someone for murder, that sounds okay to me.

Think better. You are allowing ideology to blind you.

It isn't an 'ideology'. You could be accused of being blinded by your empathy into thinking that everyone should have it.

I am aware that bigots were allowed to trespass on medicine, yes. I am not sanguine about it, but I'd like to know why you think that's the same as teaching someone to feel uptight when they think of killing someone. I'm still seeing a slippery slope fallacy here. You keep asserting it over and over and you keep not providing any evidence except they did it once. So what? I stole a cookie once.

Bigots were not 'trespassing on medicine'. That was the official psychiatric view at the time. It changed later, to be more accepting of the full spectrum of humanity (in that case with regards to sexual orientation)
This view on people who don't feel the same empathy as you could change again too.

What if we found that most people with this brain difference had never committed crimes against other people? Would you then understand that a brain difference doesn't automatically make someone murder?
Correlation is not equal to causation. It's important, please learn it.

Do you see why I am drawing the comparison now?

No. It looks like the same old slippery slope fallacy to me.

Some psychopaths are murderers.
Not nearly all of them are.
You want to treat all of them because they could be murderers.
Some Jews are murderers.
Not nearly all of them are.
How do you want to treat them? If different, why?

Get the correlation/causation thing figured out or you won't understand.
Or maybe you just wont understand.

It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. You're trying to change the subject and make it about me instead of about helping people feel normal upset at the idea of killing people.

I don't feel upset at the idea of killing people.
So what? I have never killed someone, and treat my neighbours well.
I would feel upset at the fact of someone being killed (hint - a fact is something that HAS HAPPENED)
See the difference there? Thoughts are all my business. The actions are the business of whoever is affected by those actions.

You seem to be against helping people feel inhibited when they want to kill someone like we all do.

But we all don't. By saying 'we all do' you are trying to make out like it is a teeny group who don't feel inhibited like you. It is not true, according to your own words on the subject. You yourself have said that there are a huge number of these 'psychopaths' among us.
Oh look, today, most of them didn't kill anyone. Even those who felt fine about killing.

Oh look, same yesterday.

It's kind of a component of living in a society. Human societies can be extremely cruel to those who do not have these inhibitions.

Like forcing therapy on everyone who has the right shape to their brain?

but step back from your emotional outbursts (try getting less 'pissed off') and have another look.

I'm not getting pissed off about the subject. I'm getting pissed off about your argumentation tactics.

Then set up rules, and lets choose a moderator. Otherwise, explain what 'tactics' you think are worth getting overly-emotional about.

You know, I would rather have someone who could better contain their emotions try to make your point. With all your strong feelings, I am not getting it.

Maybe we should start again. I started by suggesting that this test be used on a wider group than just a group of prisoners. Just to get more and better data, you understand. Maybe we should start there again.

No, by using underhanded argumentation tactics like the slippery slope fallacy and accusing me of wanting to control peoples' minds.

Isn't it trying to control peoples' minds? You are talking about taking people who are not guilty of any crime, and forcing an intervention to change what they think.

I thought that was WHY you posted here...

To be abused every time someone gets all butthurt because something they won't even discuss makes them upset at the idea of psychological treatment? To listen to anti-psychological hysteria? No, not really.

Ya...gotta hate those folk who wont even discuss...

Well, maybe you gotta hate them if you are bound tightly to too much empathy. Don't worry Schneibster, I think modern neuroscience is on the track to a cure for too much feeling. Just give it time.

]Who is 'Dr. Mengele' and where did I say that you were him?

He's a famous Nazi doctor who did experiments on Jews in the extermination camps, in many cases experiments that led to their deaths in various unpleasant ways.

So you brought him into this conversation why?

Or are you just joking around? Spouting bullshit?

Nope. You're accusing me of advocating mind control, I see little difference between that and the Nazis.

You are suggesting forcing therapy on people who never committed a crime, but have an anomolous structure in their brain which you decree is making them think things that they shouldn't, and not feel things that they should. All that goes on in the brain (I don't know exactly what the 'mind' is) and if you are trying to control what goes on in other peoples' brains...well, draw the comparisons you want to.

I was addressing the issue of forcing treatment on people. You were saying that they would certainly end up in hell. I am not religious, by the way. I don't believe in 'hell'.

It's a metaphor. Sorry you're having trouble.

They won't end up in any 'hell', or at least they don't usually, according to your rants about one fifth of the population being psychopaths and sociopaths.
Many are having what I would describe as tremendous success.

And you want to change them, whether they realize they are crying out for help or not.

I think we should "force treatment" on all psychotics. Including those whose psychosis is that they do not receive correct and appropriate emotional cues when they think of killing people.

Then you are trying to control thoughts, not just actions.

Good luck with that. Others have not been very lucky.

In your fantasy world, maybe.

Insult.

Not at all.
You are trying to suggest that everyone who has this structural abnormality of the brain is 'crying out' for help. I am listening, and don't hear anything. Do you mean that they cry out in reality? Or in your fantasy?

Many who have no 'appropriate emotional response' will not want to be meddled with. Can you accept that? Or are you going to go on fantasizing that everything they say is a 'cry for help'?

OK. You asked why I was talking about getting pissed off. There it is. I'm stopping here, if any of your other points are salient you'll need to re-make them because I stop responding at the first insult.

[/quote]
I am glad you are stopping because I think making forced psychological interventions based on a very small study indicating correlation (but NOT causation!) is a shit idea. I am glad you are going to stop promoting it.

---------------------------------------

There are plenty of killings every year based on strong emotion. Maybe you should round up all those who have strong feelings and damp them down. It would be tragic if their strong feelings led them to kill. You could stop them before someone DIES.

On a more serious note, should we compare the number of killings by feeling individuals with the number of killings by unfeeling individuals, then see which is more likely to lead to a murder? Or should we just accept that your 'feeling' way is the best way and force the rest to come around?


EDIT - to fix tags

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My hex-wife fit the serial killer profile very nicely except for one thing, she was a coward. That alone kept her from following through with her impulses I think. I imagine there are many more people out there with damaged minds who would act on the things the voices urge them to do if there was no risk involved. I also suspect this is the reason some prey on children, less danger to themselves.

[Gallstones]

I don't mind, but you'd literally be insane if you didn't. By one of the definitions of insane: not having an appropriate emotional response to a situation.

Oh fuck (add another minute of spanking), that's me then.
Insane.
I thought so.

[Gallstones]

We have tens of millions of years of social behavior behind us, and those feelings are what made it work. Without them, we are destructive to those around us.

Oh fuck (add on another minute of spanking), that's me again.

I do have an excuse and a doctor's note.

[Cunt]

Now that the emotional (argument?) has been dispensed with, back to the op. Can we extend this testing outside of prison to see how many Doctors, Lawyers, Politicians, Plumbers and Jaywalkers have the same malformation?

It seems to me that to make a correlative case for some kind of intervention, you would have to stack up a lot more evidence, and anywhere along the way could be a surprise. I once read that it isn't the 'EUREKA' moments which mark the largest advances, but the '...that's odd...' moments.

[Cunt]

Oh, and also, (I just re-read my op) if there are enough people with this 'lack of empathy' (or whatever it is) so that they held the majority, could they rightfully vote for treatment of those who have too much empathy?

I personally prefer live and let live, but it seems most of the world isn't that way.

[Schneibster]

You are talking about a diagnosis from the DSM-IV, which is being loosly correlated with a study or two about brain architecture done on prisoners, but not on a wider public.

Doesn't sound very loose to me. Sounds like a 1:1 correspondence. That's not "loose."

Are you going to find a bunch of people with this brain architecture who never commit a crime?

Me? No, I'm not a neuroscientist. You seem a bit loose about who exactly is doing what exactly. Why don't you think about this question and formulate it a bit better?

That's called the "slippery slope" fallacy. They're not going to suddenly start persecuting gays again.

'They' still are prosecuting gays, just not in your well-insulated neighbourhood (is it the USA?)

California, in fact. And yes, "they" still are trying to persecute gays here, but "they" are steadily losing, because "they" are dying out. My estimation is that "they" will all be dead or powerless in this regard by the time this is technically possible for any large fraction of the population.

That's not the point anyway. Identifying a malformation in the brain among a bunch of murderers does not mean that everyone with that malformation will murder.
While it may show correlation, it certainly doesn't show causation.

You are misrepresenting the correlation. There's no point in talking about it if you haven't read the article, or don't remember it.

And it's still the slippery slope fallacy.

It's still the slippery slope fallacy.

No, it is the correlation/causation thing you have neglected to notice.

Ummm, assuming you're speaking of the supposed correlation you just mentioned, that is not the correlation in the article. Again, you need to read the article in order to be discussing reality here. There's no point in talking to someone who has a bunch of preconceptions that lead them to believe I'm a Nazi when those preconceptions are untrue.

This is far too frustrating to be worth my while. Stop attacking me and I'll consider replying to your thread again.

[Cunt]

Just what is it that you think I missed in the article?