Psychopaths

[Schneibster]

A bunch of violent criminals were evaluated by psychiatrists. Some of them were psychopaths. Using the others as controls, they attempted to discover a physical difference using two different types of brain scan, one static, one dynamic. The dynamic one is a new type called "fMRI" that tracks (more or less) the burning of sugar in the brain. They found a 100% correlation with certain features.

They didn't work without a control group as you implied.

[nellikin]

I hate to butt in late here, and am sorry if I'm rehashing something already posted, but what worries me is the supposed infallibility of this test. From reading the article, 20 prisoners (diagnosed as psychopaths) were compared with 20 control prisoners (non-psychopaths, but just as horrible in terms of their actions). That seems like a small sample size to me for predicting the infallibility of a test. I use a highly precise instrument (IRMS) for determining something entirely different. It's got a phenomenal precision (as good as 0.03 parts per millie, which is fantastic in environmental analysis), but around 1 - 5 % of samples will be outliers. That is, despite the very high precision of the instrument, it's accuracy is (sometimes), wrong. To determine the accuracy of a test you normally need to use it on thousands of samples whose independant results are known (i.e. standards). Given the study in question has compared onlny 20 psychopaths with 20 non-psychopathic (but neverless violent!) criminals, I'm not convinced about this method of 100% accurately testing for psychopathy. Perhaps it can, but I'd say that loads more tests are needed in order to truly determine the accuracy either way. Diagnosing a false negative could be dangerous, but a false positive truly devastating to those affected.

[Schneibster]

I hate to butt in late here, and am sorry if I'm rehashing something already posted, but what worries me is the supposed infallibility of this test. From reading the article, 20 prisoners (diagnosed as psychopaths) were compared with 20 control prisoners (non-psychopaths, but just as horrible in terms of their actions). That seems like a small sample size to me for predicting the infallibility of a test. I use a highly precise instrument (IRMS) for determining something entirely different. It's got a phenomenal precision (as good as 0.03 parts per millie, which is fantastic in environmental analysis), but around 1 - 5 % of samples will be outliers. That is, despite the very high precision of the instrument, it's accuracy is (sometimes), wrong. To determine the accuracy of a test you normally need to use it on thousands of samples whose independant results are known (i.e. standards). Given the study in question has compared onlny 20 psychopaths with 20 non-psychopathic (but neverless violent!) criminals, I'm not convinced about this method of 100% accurately testing for psychopathy. Perhaps it can, but I'd say that loads more tests are needed in order to truly determine the accuracy either way. Diagnosing a false negative could be dangerous, but a false positive truly devastating to those affected.

Not really; treatment involves making them more sensitive to their own feelings about other people.

How awful. /sarcasm

[Schneibster]

Not to be a complete smartass, this is not a measurement and does not produce a number. It's a combination of a psychological diagnosis by a clinical psychologist, and two brain scans looking for certain types of responses. It's quite complex and you're not going to get a single number good/bad. You're going to get a range of responses; severely suppressed responses require treatment; suppressed responses should be offered treatment. The first are probably psychopathic; the second probably sociopathic.

This is a fast-moving area and there is controversy, but the emerging consensus is that there is a spectrum of cortical feedback that gets associated with incoming sensory impressions, and with ideas. People with strong cortical feedback consider many factors when they make decisions about what to do, and are normal. People with various problems have suppressed output of various kinds, for various reasons. Such suppression is abnormal and is associated with symptoms like psychopathy, sociopathy, poor impulse control, bad prediction of likely consequences of one's actions, bad prediction of social reactions to one's behavior, and similar. Suppression of input from one particular area has now been associated strongly with psychopathy. Knowing this, good therapy techniques can be used that will not harm those who are not sick if there is a mistake, but that will help those who are if there is not. And the types of therapy I'm discussing are cognitive; that is, the initial cause of psychopathy (some psychopathy) is, in my conjecture, a lack of feedback from this area, and by teaching the sufferer not to suppress this feedback, they become normally endowed and start considering how they feel about people instead of murdering them because they want their lollypop.

[hadespussercats]

I hate to butt in late here, and am sorry if I'm rehashing something already posted, but what worries me is the supposed infallibility of this test. From reading the article, 20 prisoners (diagnosed as psychopaths) were compared with 20 control prisoners (non-psychopaths, but just as horrible in terms of their actions). That seems like a small sample size to me for predicting the infallibility of a test. I use a highly precise instrument (IRMS) for determining something entirely different. It's got a phenomenal precision (as good as 0.03 parts per millie, which is fantastic in environmental analysis), but around 1 - 5 % of samples will be outliers. That is, despite the very high precision of the instrument, it's accuracy is (sometimes), wrong. To determine the accuracy of a test you normally need to use it on thousands of samples whose independant results are known (i.e. standards). Given the study in question has compared onlny 20 psychopaths with 20 non-psychopathic (but neverless violent!) criminals, I'm not convinced about this method of 100% accurately testing for psychopathy. Perhaps it can, but I'd say that loads more tests are needed in order to truly determine the accuracy either way. Diagnosing a false negative could be dangerous, but a false positive truly devastating to those affected.

Not really; treatment involves making them more sensitive to their own feelings about other people.

How awful. /sarcasm

How would treatment make psychopaths more sensitive?

If you were claiming treatment would train them to lead assimilated lives and refrain from violent crime, I could maybe see what you're getting at. But people who physically can't experience emotion (their brains, according to this study anyway, are structurally different from those of people who can experience emotion, right?) aren't going to become "more sensitive to their own feelings about other people." They can't.

It's like training people with no legs to clog-dance.

[Schneibster]

I hate to butt in late here, and am sorry if I'm rehashing something already posted, but what worries me is the supposed infallibility of this test. From reading the article, 20 prisoners (diagnosed as psychopaths) were compared with 20 control prisoners (non-psychopaths, but just as horrible in terms of their actions). That seems like a small sample size to me for predicting the infallibility of a test. I use a highly precise instrument (IRMS) for determining something entirely different. It's got a phenomenal precision (as good as 0.03 parts per millie, which is fantastic in environmental analysis), but around 1 - 5 % of samples will be outliers. That is, despite the very high precision of the instrument, it's accuracy is (sometimes), wrong. To determine the accuracy of a test you normally need to use it on thousands of samples whose independant results are known (i.e. standards). Given the study in question has compared onlny 20 psychopaths with 20 non-psychopathic (but neverless violent!) criminals, I'm not convinced about this method of 100% accurately testing for psychopathy. Perhaps it can, but I'd say that loads more tests are needed in order to truly determine the accuracy either way. Diagnosing a false negative could be dangerous, but a false positive truly devastating to those affected.

Not really; treatment involves making them more sensitive to their own feelings about other people.

How awful. /sarcasm

How would treatment make psychopaths more sensitive?

If this theory of the disease is correct it would have to; that's what the problem is. They're suppressing emotional reactions to other people, they see them as objects and their feelings as unimportant. To fix it clearly requires increasing that sensitivity. The only method I know of to do that is cognitive therapy, and it will go much quicker if you get them early. Get them late and you may never be able to break the feedback loop that has crippled their brain.

They have to give people lobotomies for neuralgia, you know; can't cure it once it's in the brain. We are vulnerable to feedback loops. Lots of people get them; that's why they hand out all those drugs, to try to help people break those loops. It works sometimes. If you get them early it works all the time.

If you were claiming treatment would train them to lead assimilated lives and refrain from violent crime, I could maybe see what you're getting at. But people who physically can't experience emotion (their brains, according to this study anyway, are structurally different from those of people who can experience emotion, right?) aren't going to become "more sensitive to their own feelings about other people." They can't.

It's like training people with no legs to clog-dance.

In some cases it will be impossible. But the longer you wait, the more of those there will be. That's the nature of feedback loops in the human brain.

[nellikin]

So you are claiming this diagnosis is infallible? I find that hard to believe. Even people as brilliant genius as myself are fallible, not to mention the instruments we devise.

On another note - it seems we have really gto a Vogit-Kampff scale. Can we name it Dicks Test in honour?

[Schneibster]

So you are claiming this diagnosis is infallible?

I'm claiming it's complicated and that you're oversimplifying it.

I find that hard to believe. Even people as brilliant genius as myself are fallible, not to mention the instruments we devise.

If you see a broken bone on an X-ray, it's not fallible. It won't find all breaks unless you're a very good interpreter; but a major break is obvious, plain as the nose on your face.

This is the same way.

You have a picture in your head of a giant dial that says "3.5" or "4.0" or something and if it's above 3.7 then you're "sick." That's wrong. It's not like that.

Please read the article.

[nellikin]

I read the article - I'm concerned about the extremely limited sample number they have used. Please read my above post. Oh, and your talking about nuances and scales and ranges - how the hell do you guage those of a test with 20 psychopaths and 20 convicted violent crims?! More samples needed...

[Schneibster]

I'm concerned about the extreme amount of anti-psychology I see.

Do you know anything about cognitive therapy? It's like being against hugs.

[Schneibster]

Sorry, but

Ohe noes! Scary hugs!

[Cunt]

A bunch of violent criminals were evaluated by psychiatrists. Some of them were psychopaths. Using the others as controls, they attempted to discover a physical difference using two different types of brain scan, one static, one dynamic. The dynamic one is a new type called "fMRI" that tracks (more or less) the burning of sugar in the brain. They found a 100% correlation with certain features.

They didn't work without a control group as you implied.

I understood that part, but what they didn't do (and maybe 'control group' wasn't the right term) was to see if the difference is the same between non-criminal psychopaths.

There may be many with that exact brain anomoly (at least to the limits of our detection) who are not criminal in any way. If they are there, don't they deserve a voice?

Would you suggest everyone should have your valuable 'empathy'? How would you take a suggestion from them that you should not have it?


I know enough about cognitive therapy that it seems like the best bet going for people who want to change something about their thinking or feelings.

I know enough about therapists to know that it is a shit idea to force their help on anyone. Even if it is just 'hugs'. (and some are quite reasonably against hugs, is THAT okay with you?)

I am fairly sure that Catholic Social Services will get a proposal in early to deliver this required treatment to all children diagnosed with this anomoly. I wonder if they will stick to fMRI, or if they will use behavioural assessments to screen candidates...?

Would you like to put you children in their hands? I hear there will be hugs. You are not against hugs, are you?

[nellikin]

BTW Schneib - I've used an NMR - it operates on the same principal as MRI (proton relaxation after excitement using different magnetic pulses), I didn't get 'absolute' numbers either, but had to interpret my data, as any good scientist would. This is not always straightforward, so I wonder how you can imply that test done on 40 subjects is decisive.

I have been to cognitive behavioural therapy. So yes, I am aware of some techniques. I have nothing against psychology, but people can react differently to it, and forcing anyone to do anything is a real issue.

I advised a woman earlier this year who believed she was being stalked to go to counselling to help her gain some strength to make it through the situation. There was no evidence of stalking, and the people she claimed to back her up all distanced themselves from her. I don't know if she was being stalked, but I strongly believe she needed professional help to deal with the situation, whether real or not. I did this in a friendly, understanding manner (after sitting listening to her for hours) and was not aggressive or threatening. As soon as I suggested it, she clammed up, became cold and distant and ceased discussions with me. I have also experienced a similar reaction with my partner whenever I've suggested we might need counselling/external help to get us through a phase in our relationship. Many people think attending counselling is a sign of weakness and do not react well to it. I doubt their capacity to engage meaningfully with a therapist and hence would not force it on anyone.

[Schneibster]

A bunch of violent criminals were evaluated by psychiatrists. Some of them were psychopaths. Using the others as controls, they attempted to discover a physical difference using two different types of brain scan, one static, one dynamic. The dynamic one is a new type called "fMRI" that tracks (more or less) the burning of sugar in the brain. They found a 100% correlation with certain features.

They didn't work without a control group as you implied.

I understood that part, but what they didn't do (and maybe 'control group' wasn't the right term) was to see if the difference is the same between non-criminal psychopaths.

In the general population? No, not yet.

There may be many with that exact brain anomoly (at least to the limits of our detection) who are not criminal in any way. If they are there, don't they deserve a voice?

You might as well be arguing that having a prefrontal lobotomy makes someone normal. Because that's quite precisely what this is: suppression of signals from the frontal lobes to the amygdala.

Would you suggest everyone should have your valuable 'empathy'?

Unless you think killing people is a good idea, yes.

How would you take a suggestion from them that you should not have it?

As a suggestion I get lobotomized. See above.

I know enough about cognitive therapy that it seems like the best bet going for people who want to change something about their thinking or feelings.

I had cognitive therapy.

The therapist cared about me.

That's all.

It was all I needed.

It was really rough. I thought I was gonna die. /sarcasm

I know enough about therapists to know that it is a shit idea to force their help on anyone. Even if it is just 'hugs'. (and some are quite reasonably against hugs, is THAT okay with you?)

Sorry, no more abuse. Try again if you have points beyond this you think are worthwhile. I'm not gonna sit here and be shat on by you.

[Schneibster]

BTW Schneib - I've used an NMR - it operates on the same principal as MRI (proton relaxation after excitement using different magnetic pulses), I didn't get 'absolute' numbers either, but had to interpret my data, as any good scientist would. This is not always straightforward, so I wonder how you can imply that test done on 40 subjects is decisive.

You don't appear to know what fMRI is, nor to have heard about recent results with them.

For example, they can detect conservatives and liberals.

I have been to cognitive behavioural therapy. So yes, I am aware of some techniques. I have nothing against psychology, but people can react differently to it, and forcing anyone to do anything is a real issue.

The mere idea of trying to force cognitive therapy on someone is ludicrous. It's like trying to push on a rope.

I've been leading Cunt along to see whether he knew it. Obviously he does not. Obviously, despite having had it or some form of it, you either didn't think about what you'd seen or for some other reason never questioned the pshrinkophobia.

I advised a woman earlier this year who believed she was being stalked to go to counselling to help her gain some strength to make it through the situation. There was no evidence of stalking, and the people she claimed to back her up all distanced themselves from her. I don't know if she was being stalked, but I strongly believe she needed professional help to deal with the situation, whether real or not. I did this in a friendly, understanding manner (after sitting listening to her for hours) and was not aggressive or threatening. As soon as I suggested it, she clammed up, became cold and distant and ceased discussions with me. I have also experienced a similar reaction with my partner whenever I've suggested we might need counselling/external help to get us through a phase in our relationship. Many people think attending counselling is a sign of weakness and do not react well to it. I doubt their capacity to engage meaningfully with a therapist and hence would not force it on anyone.

Fear of psychologists is widespread and irrational.