Psychopaths

[Coito ergo sum]

If psychopathy is a neurological condition, is there are direct opposite I wonder? People so crippled with empathy and sympathy that they cannot function "normally"?

Is there a baseline "normal" psychology?

I just googled pathological empathy:

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s ... 0199738571

http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/article. ... urnalID=18

http://saferelationshipsmagazine.com/ge ... er-empathy

I only skimmed these links. But I think I might have it.

I don't know what's totally normal. Pathological Normalcy?

An Empath?

[laklak]

I'm slightly confused, Schneibster. If one cannot force cognitive therapy on someone, then what is the utility of insisting on treatment for anyone who appears to be psychopathic?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My point is that it is quite easy to find examples which contradict the statement you made. They can camoflage themselves quite well (as this Colonel did - I don't believe that the military encouraged psychopaths, just that they made good use of him)

The military is more rigorous in weeding out psychopaths than the general population, that's my point. You are safer in a room with 19 other guys who have had military training and all heavily armed, than you would be with 19 other people chosen at random on the street.

"The suggestion that any organization could identify a clever psychopath using any type of routine interview or assessments is just not plausible," Okros argued.

That quote is from "University of British Columbia's Robert Hare, one of the world's foremost authorities on psychopathology".

It could be dangerous to let your confidence get too far ahead of the best research.

Military training is not a "type of routine interview or assessment". That's my point. You really get to know those guys. You put your lives in their hands, and that requires more faith than an HR person invests in a fifteen minute interview.

[Cunt]

Military training is not a "type of routine interview or assessment". That's my point. You really get to know those guys. You put your lives in their hands, and that requires more faith than an HR person invests in a fifteen minute interview.

Here is more of the quote, from someone who is kind of well-informed on the subject...

"Professor Alan Okros, deputy chair of command, leadership and management at Canadian Forces College, where officers are trained, said research suggests it is difficult for any organization to identify a psychopath in its ranks.

Okros cited the work of the University of British Columbia's Robert Hare, one of the world's foremost authorities on psychopathology. Hare has demonstrated that psychopaths are often skilled, charming individuals, who are capable of outsmarting psychological tests for abnormal behaviour.

"The suggestion that any organization could identify a clever psychopath using any type of routine interview or assessments is just not plausible," Okros argued. "

He didn't say that it was impossible, and I don't totally disagree that the trained soldiers being a safer bunch than random folks, but the nature of our society causes those who don't fit in to hide among us, or risk being ostracized.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And you can't hide in the military. You are constantly in contact with other people and you are observed all the time. It's not perfect, I agree, but the environment is much less friendly to psychos than something like, say, postal worker.

[Cunt]

...or corporate exec...or social worker.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

...or corporate exec...or social worker.

Yep. But "going postal" comes to mind immediately. (Twofy...)

And you frequently hear "He was quiet, kept to himself." when neighbors talk about the guy with 17 bodies in the basement.

[Gallstones]

...or corporate exec...or social worker.

Yep. But "going postal" comes to mind immediately. (Twofy...)

And you frequently hear "He was quiet, kept to himself." when neighbors talk about the guy with 17 bodies in the basement.

If one has a hobby of collecting bodies for the basement, one is probably circumspect with regards to bragging about that and one might think it more prudent to keep to oneself. Besides, as soon as you let someone else in on the secret you have to share the bodies and the basement.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

...or corporate exec...or social worker.

Yep. But "going postal" comes to mind immediately. (Twofy...)

And you frequently hear "He was quiet, kept to himself." when neighbors talk about the guy with 17 bodies in the basement.

If one has a hobby of collecting bodies for the basement, one is probably circumspect with regards to bragging about that and one might think it more prudent to keep to oneself. Besides, as soon as you let someone else in on the secret you have to share the bodies and the basement.

Makes sense, but those types don't make it in the military. You can't be a recluse with you sleep in the same room with 99 other guys.

[Schneibster]

As I pointed out - these services are quite often delivered by Catholic Social Services and other groups like that. I am not worried about CBT, but more about what will happen when it is decided that therapy can be force-fed to any group.

Again, you can't "force" cognitive therapy. It's impossible.

Read what I said, not what you wanted me to say.

Read this: you can't "force" cognitive therapy. It would be like pushing on a rope; totally useless.

I am not an anti-psychology crank.

Then how come you keep ignoring me when I tell you you can't "force" cognitive therapy? Cranks ignore facts. If you're not a crank stop acting like one.

Answer me this though - was Rosenham an anti-psychiatry crank to you?

I have neither any idea nor any interest.

[Schneibster]

I wouldn't want to force therapy on them.

[Schneibster]

I'm slightly confused, Schneibster. If one cannot force cognitive therapy on someone, then what is the utility of insisting on treatment for anyone who appears to be psychopathic?

Oversight.

[Cunt]

As I pointed out - these services are quite often delivered by Catholic Social Services and other groups like that. I am not worried about CBT, but more about what will happen when it is decided that therapy can be force-fed to any group.

Again, you can't "force" cognitive therapy. It's impossible.

True, but what would be forced by Catholic Social Services when they have a mandate to treat the unwilling?

You keep missing this point. Cognitive therapy, in an ideal setting, is great. Do you know how close to 'ideal' those service-delivery organizations get?

Read what I said, not what you wanted me to say.

Read this: you can't "force" cognitive therapy. It would be like pushing on a rope; totally useless.

I have passed a rope up to a fellow on my roof. It was a regular rope which I usually use for boating. I could have easily fastened a hammer to the end and pushed it up to him with that weight on it.

Innovation will find a way. Forced therapy + Catholic Social Services = good enough for you maybe...not for me. I understand that a rope can be frozen, to aid with pushing.
You can only see the ideal.

I am not an anti-psychology crank.

Then how come you keep ignoring me when I tell you you can't "force" cognitive therapy? Cranks ignore facts. If you're not a crank stop acting like one.

Why don't you take the cotton out of you ears and put it in your mouth?

Now that we have had fun insulting each other, how do you think Catholic Social Services might mis-use a mandate to force therapy on a group? I can think of a few ways. Use behavioural assessment instead of fMRI. Change the therapy ever-so-slightly to better fit their mandate. Use many therapies, including CBT, but encouraging their preferred methods more.

Answer me this though - was Rosenham an anti-psychiatry crank to you?

I have neither any idea nor any interest.

Figures. Anything that doesn't fit your conclusion isn't worth checking in to. I thought you were leaving this thread...ever heard of Shakers Law?


Schneibster, forget your kooky ideals (nice as they may be) and remember how these things are delivered once they get into the hands of the service providers. Maybe then you will see how reasonable caution is sensible.

[Schneibster]

As I pointed out - these services are quite often delivered by Catholic Social Services and other groups like that. I am not worried about CBT, but more about what will happen when it is decided that therapy can be force-fed to any group.

Again, you can't "force" cognitive therapy. It's impossible.

True, but what would be forced by Catholic Social Services when they have a mandate to treat the unwilling?

Slippery slope fallacy.

[Cunt]

That is not what they would force on people, but it would be something slippery.

You seem to be ignoring that people can fail, and do in pretty predictable ways. Give the Rosenham study a quick read. Then tell me if you would be comfy with forced 'treatment' by 'caring professionals'. If you would, GREAT! You can go. I still advocate for personal choice. I think it's kind of important.