It's like so many things I don't get, various sorts of body dysphoria, suicidal ideation, PTSD, depression and the list goes on and on. I know it happens and it sucks for people who have those problems but I can't even imagine it.
Ultimately I fully appreciate why most people can't imagine being me
Exactly. There is a total disconnect, our experience from neurotypicals. I may not understand theirs, but I have never thought to myself, "I don't understand them but they should definitely be altered to be more like me" Somehow that seems to be the go-to for a lot of neurotypicals in regard to psychopaths.
Annoying that there’s not the option to leave comments or questions under that article. At the least I’d ask the author why they believe psychopaths being born rather than made is a myth!
I thought I’d comment before finishing this post, so I apologize if you address this more later. I do agree that Myth #2 needs to be stated for people who are new to this subject. I agreed that its a given that psychopathy and psychosis are not the same thing, but I’ve been following your writing and that of others (infrequently). Most people need to be informed that this is indeed a myth, because they are seen as two sides of the same ‘evil.’ The psychopath is seen as Hannnibal Lector: invariably cool, controlled , calculating and intelligent, who operates below the snow line whenever possible. The psychotic model is more of a Joker type: just batshit crazy, exhibitionist evil. The general perception is almost of an introvert v an extrovert version of the same evil person. Her definitions of both need addressing, but it doesn’t hurt to list this. It’s definitely not a given with the general population.
People who conflate psychopathy, ASPD, etc., are grouping any and all who aren’t like them as the same type of people: the bad ones, the wrong ones. It’s kind of like a psychological autoimmune response to people not considered ‘self.’ And that’s when the actual listening and rumination stops, and people fail to take a step back and re-evaluate the situation and their own opinions.
"In her mind, psychopathy is a personality disorder. That is factually incorrect. A personality disorder is something that forms because of how your parents or caregivers raise you and the environment in which you are reared."
I understand your frustration with articles like this, Athena. I'm confounded that primary and secondary seem loosely combined into one concept of 'psychopathy' when they are completely distinct, and unrelated. This needs clarity, and some consensus formed around the language and definitions used. Or, is this deliberately dumbed down for the readers' sake? It isn't doing anyone any favors.
There are likely several reasons why they have conflated ASPD, psychopathy, and sociopathy. I think that a lot of it comes from intellectual laziness and convenience, however. It is far easier to be able to make spurious claims about something if you keep the terms nebulous and difficult to understand. If you have to explain why "psychopath" isn't a catch-all meaning evil person, it means that you have to explain evil in humans in general. That is an uncomfortable prospect for many people.
I was listening to a video earlier involving teens that committed murder, one of which helped kill and dismember her own father, and the narrator said that he wondered what these people were thinking when they committed the crime, but then quickly decided that he really didn't want to imagine it. That it was much akin to wondering what a dog was thinking, because that thought process was so incomprehensible. That in and of itself is the problem with human self-examination. It really is not a stretch to find the evil within every human, and ignoring it, or treating it like it is some alien prospect, is how people allow themselves to be overwhelmed by that evil side when it is given a little bit of leeway for action.
Look at what war does to neurotypical soldiers. They go to war, perhaps wholesome, virtuous and very naive, and are asked to commit atrocities at times. The military justifies this to them in any number of ways. Facing the reality of destruction and evil in oneself and in others, is probably the main cause of PTSD in this group. Unfortunately, evil is usually projected onto someone/something else unless an excellent therapist provides guidance, and that's not usually the case.
Just in daily living, it can be traumatic to realize one's own potential for evil. The Jonathan Knowles novel, "A Separate Peace" deals with simple classmate envy and jealousy that leads to violence. The author writes in the first person as the perpetrator examining his memory and conscience about an event he experienced in school. Studying the darkness in one's own being is profoundly difficult. In this book, the journey is worth it.
I think I heard about the kids that you referred to. Nevada? They were angry about the father trying to keep them apart, and retaliated sadistically. They seemed pretty giddy over it. Sexual sadism? I mean, if the girl was determined to see him, why not get emancipated? That would have been easier. They showed too much exhilaration about it. Teenagers are so unstable, but their behavior was totally bizarre. It reminded me of "Natural Born Killers".
Indeed, Peterson speaks about PTSD in soldiers and how it is a fracturing of who they believed themselves to be, and who they were in the moment that they violated that understanding.
One further thing I will say though. If any one person has such a lack of fear (combined with enough of a lack of common sense) that it’s leading them to make unsafe decisions for themselves(like repeatedly walking out into busy traffic or jumping into dangerous rivers etc) couldn’t it be considered that nature has made them broken to a point - including any low functioning psychopaths who might fall into that category?
The interviewer was gathering information from many sources. The other person that she connected with was James Fallon, who will also be a part of the show.
I feel like she's talking about sociopaths in almost everything I read.
Perhaps she has wrongfully lumped psychopaths and sociopaths together? Idk. A sociopath can be raised to be moral and kind. perhaps treated young enough they would get better, as they are made by trauma in the first place, but all the love in the world doesn't give them empathy, once it's turned off.
No one that I've ever heard of has found a way to turn it back on.
So I'm not sure where she's getting this information from.
Perhaps she hasn't done the amount of research that you have, or she has accepted Hares' list as true?
Also why do people think that because you're not like the majority, that you need to be fixed?
I get that people want to understand and fix the criminal minds, for their own safety, so it seems like she thinks that psychopaths have a criminal mind by nature.
I think she honestly wants to understand, but has been given a lot of information on criminal psychopaths, that seems to be influencing her thinking. Perhaps she isn't even aware that it is.
Possibly that is the case, or it may be that she is dealing with a convoluted definition that is so nebulous that no one can make a correct or incorrect statement regarding it. If you conflate psychopathy and sociopathy, and then add in ASPD, you can make nearly any claim that applies to criminals and assign it to psychopathy and/or sociopathy as well. No one can contradict the claim, and this may be intentionally laid out this way.
I think that there is value to forcing clarified definitions in situations like these. If they finally clarify psychopathy as criminally minded serial killer, I would no longer be considered a "psychopath" which I am fine with. At least then we can all have an idea of what we are all discussing. However, that appears to be not what is desired by the psychological community. It seems that they would much rather have the mess that has been created.
Indeed, this article, like many others, desperately needs to establish an operational definition of "psychopath" and stick to it. It appears to erroneously conflate psychopathy as a neurotype, offenders who also happen to be psychopathic and (maybe?) sociopaths.
In points 1. and 3. she makes the point that not all psychopaths are criminals or have ASPD, yet later in points 4. and 5. she goes on to say that psychopaths are made and can be treated, which must be either referring to psychopathy+ASPD or sociopathy. If one gives it a generous interpretation, one can read it as "not all children with a psychopathic neurological makeup become offenders and whether they do depends on their environment. The ones that do, however, can learn to act in a more pro-social way through treatment and behavioural interventions", which would make more sense. However, the problem with this is, as you mentioned, the vague language.
I see this problem in many other discourses, like for example the whole question of gender/sex, or whether something is a disorder or not, etc. For some unfathomable reason people like to get hung up on semantics. I don't know if it makes them feel smarter or morally superior compared to the other party, or they actually believe that words are like some tiny metaphysical labels attached to things, rather than just means of communication that _hopefully_ gets your point across.
They are obviously not scientists, or they would be more likely to define different brain functions and or disorders, which would be a much more logical approach.
On this we've always agreed.
Well perhaps after you meet with her she will get a better understanding. One can hope.
good article. once again, you are in a position having to correct the so called experts. the term psychoPATHy itself indicates an abnormal condition requiring treatment or some sort of "handling" to protect the normals from the likes of you. still think this label should be replaced. neurodivergent - emotional processing or something like that for instance if there must be a label.
also, your comment regarding meanness as an experience of the victim of your being honest or "blunt" strikes me as a bit arrogant on your part. understanding our differences is the goal here. knowing that your honesty has the potential of hurting a neurotypical should prevent you from being blunt unless absolutely necessary. we all need to get along.
While I may now, after many years of cognitive empathy training, understand that something that I might say or do may cause someone harm, it is still a rather removed concept from me. I get that apparently it is painful when someone is blunt and direct, but I do not have that experience at all. What is considered "mean" to a neurotypical is not at all to me. If someone said exactly the same thing to me it would have literally no impact on me at all.
It isn't mean to speak unless the intent is to be mean. Bluntness is not intentionally mean, it is simply not padding the truth because a neurotypical might be emotionally bothered by what is said. If I intended to intentionally and directly cause harm, that would be something that I can understand being considered "mean". If I am simply telling a person factual information that I have no reason to think should bother them because I do not share their emotional makeup, that isn't mean. It simply is what it is.
don't mean to belabor this, but whether your intent is to hurt or not, the consequence is the same. whether it was said with the intent to be mean or not, it still ends up that way. meanness here is defined as not giving a crap how the recipient of your comments will react, emotionally. we are all different.
It isn't mean unless the intention is to be mean. Otherwise it is a totally subjective definition that is so nebulous it has no value. What one person considers mean may not be considered mean by another human on the planet. Their subjective opinion cannot be what defines a word or be attributed to the other individual.
I get what you're saying, and not to mean but it sounds like you expect that Athena or Someone like myself should know how to babysit how someone else feels about what we say.
Because being blunt can sound like being mean, then being blunt is not acceptable.
As for myself, I have no idea how to be any other way in most cases, and in time people who get to know me realize that this is the case. People who don't, just think I'm mean.
Honestly, I use to try and figure this whole idea of talking in code, I never did get it so I gave up and now, I also realize I'm not responsible for how someone feels about what I say, I make it a point to speak the truth.
I have no idea how to soften it, nor am I willing to go through the pains of trying to figure it out anymore. I'm at the point where if you don't like the way I talk, than don't talk to me.
So (a) did you do that interview? And (b) I disagree with what looks like your statement that children are unemotional. Seems to me that most children are extremely emotional. They do not yet have the brain development that allows them to moderate-modulate their emotions. At least, that is my personal experience and my observation about other kids. (Not that I am still a kid -- haven't been for more decades than I like to admit to.)
I never thought I’d read the words “shocked Pikachu face” in a post of yours, but here we are.
Indeed we are
I can't imagine even wanting to be fixed.
It's like so many things I don't get, various sorts of body dysphoria, suicidal ideation, PTSD, depression and the list goes on and on. I know it happens and it sucks for people who have those problems but I can't even imagine it.
Ultimately I fully appreciate why most people can't imagine being me
Exactly. There is a total disconnect, our experience from neurotypicals. I may not understand theirs, but I have never thought to myself, "I don't understand them but they should definitely be altered to be more like me" Somehow that seems to be the go-to for a lot of neurotypicals in regard to psychopaths.
Annoying that there’s not the option to leave comments or questions under that article. At the least I’d ask the author why they believe psychopaths being born rather than made is a myth!
Indeed, further discussion would be interesting
I thought I’d comment before finishing this post, so I apologize if you address this more later. I do agree that Myth #2 needs to be stated for people who are new to this subject. I agreed that its a given that psychopathy and psychosis are not the same thing, but I’ve been following your writing and that of others (infrequently). Most people need to be informed that this is indeed a myth, because they are seen as two sides of the same ‘evil.’ The psychopath is seen as Hannnibal Lector: invariably cool, controlled , calculating and intelligent, who operates below the snow line whenever possible. The psychotic model is more of a Joker type: just batshit crazy, exhibitionist evil. The general perception is almost of an introvert v an extrovert version of the same evil person. Her definitions of both need addressing, but it doesn’t hurt to list this. It’s definitely not a given with the general population.
You're correct, and no, I didn't go into that further.
People who conflate psychopathy, ASPD, etc., are grouping any and all who aren’t like them as the same type of people: the bad ones, the wrong ones. It’s kind of like a psychological autoimmune response to people not considered ‘self.’ And that’s when the actual listening and rumination stops, and people fail to take a step back and re-evaluate the situation and their own opinions.
Yes, I agree
"In her mind, psychopathy is a personality disorder. That is factually incorrect. A personality disorder is something that forms because of how your parents or caregivers raise you and the environment in which you are reared."
I understand your frustration with articles like this, Athena. I'm confounded that primary and secondary seem loosely combined into one concept of 'psychopathy' when they are completely distinct, and unrelated. This needs clarity, and some consensus formed around the language and definitions used. Or, is this deliberately dumbed down for the readers' sake? It isn't doing anyone any favors.
There are likely several reasons why they have conflated ASPD, psychopathy, and sociopathy. I think that a lot of it comes from intellectual laziness and convenience, however. It is far easier to be able to make spurious claims about something if you keep the terms nebulous and difficult to understand. If you have to explain why "psychopath" isn't a catch-all meaning evil person, it means that you have to explain evil in humans in general. That is an uncomfortable prospect for many people.
I was listening to a video earlier involving teens that committed murder, one of which helped kill and dismember her own father, and the narrator said that he wondered what these people were thinking when they committed the crime, but then quickly decided that he really didn't want to imagine it. That it was much akin to wondering what a dog was thinking, because that thought process was so incomprehensible. That in and of itself is the problem with human self-examination. It really is not a stretch to find the evil within every human, and ignoring it, or treating it like it is some alien prospect, is how people allow themselves to be overwhelmed by that evil side when it is given a little bit of leeway for action.
Look at what war does to neurotypical soldiers. They go to war, perhaps wholesome, virtuous and very naive, and are asked to commit atrocities at times. The military justifies this to them in any number of ways. Facing the reality of destruction and evil in oneself and in others, is probably the main cause of PTSD in this group. Unfortunately, evil is usually projected onto someone/something else unless an excellent therapist provides guidance, and that's not usually the case.
Just in daily living, it can be traumatic to realize one's own potential for evil. The Jonathan Knowles novel, "A Separate Peace" deals with simple classmate envy and jealousy that leads to violence. The author writes in the first person as the perpetrator examining his memory and conscience about an event he experienced in school. Studying the darkness in one's own being is profoundly difficult. In this book, the journey is worth it.
I think I heard about the kids that you referred to. Nevada? They were angry about the father trying to keep them apart, and retaliated sadistically. They seemed pretty giddy over it. Sexual sadism? I mean, if the girl was determined to see him, why not get emancipated? That would have been easier. They showed too much exhilaration about it. Teenagers are so unstable, but their behavior was totally bizarre. It reminded me of "Natural Born Killers".
Indeed, Peterson speaks about PTSD in soldiers and how it is a fracturing of who they believed themselves to be, and who they were in the moment that they violated that understanding.
One further thing I will say though. If any one person has such a lack of fear (combined with enough of a lack of common sense) that it’s leading them to make unsafe decisions for themselves(like repeatedly walking out into busy traffic or jumping into dangerous rivers etc) couldn’t it be considered that nature has made them broken to a point - including any low functioning psychopaths who might fall into that category?
Yes, or perhaps a psychopath that has had a traumatic brain injury might qualify.
Excellent article, thank you! I hope the interviewer gets to read this in advance, and reconsiders some things?
Ack, this Hare guy is just so not a decent primate, I would not share my bananas with him.
The interviewer was gathering information from many sources. The other person that she connected with was James Fallon, who will also be a part of the show.
I feel like she's talking about sociopaths in almost everything I read.
Perhaps she has wrongfully lumped psychopaths and sociopaths together? Idk. A sociopath can be raised to be moral and kind. perhaps treated young enough they would get better, as they are made by trauma in the first place, but all the love in the world doesn't give them empathy, once it's turned off.
No one that I've ever heard of has found a way to turn it back on.
So I'm not sure where she's getting this information from.
Perhaps she hasn't done the amount of research that you have, or she has accepted Hares' list as true?
Also why do people think that because you're not like the majority, that you need to be fixed?
I get that people want to understand and fix the criminal minds, for their own safety, so it seems like she thinks that psychopaths have a criminal mind by nature.
I think she honestly wants to understand, but has been given a lot of information on criminal psychopaths, that seems to be influencing her thinking. Perhaps she isn't even aware that it is.
Possibly that is the case, or it may be that she is dealing with a convoluted definition that is so nebulous that no one can make a correct or incorrect statement regarding it. If you conflate psychopathy and sociopathy, and then add in ASPD, you can make nearly any claim that applies to criminals and assign it to psychopathy and/or sociopathy as well. No one can contradict the claim, and this may be intentionally laid out this way.
I think that there is value to forcing clarified definitions in situations like these. If they finally clarify psychopathy as criminally minded serial killer, I would no longer be considered a "psychopath" which I am fine with. At least then we can all have an idea of what we are all discussing. However, that appears to be not what is desired by the psychological community. It seems that they would much rather have the mess that has been created.
Indeed, this article, like many others, desperately needs to establish an operational definition of "psychopath" and stick to it. It appears to erroneously conflate psychopathy as a neurotype, offenders who also happen to be psychopathic and (maybe?) sociopaths.
In points 1. and 3. she makes the point that not all psychopaths are criminals or have ASPD, yet later in points 4. and 5. she goes on to say that psychopaths are made and can be treated, which must be either referring to psychopathy+ASPD or sociopathy. If one gives it a generous interpretation, one can read it as "not all children with a psychopathic neurological makeup become offenders and whether they do depends on their environment. The ones that do, however, can learn to act in a more pro-social way through treatment and behavioural interventions", which would make more sense. However, the problem with this is, as you mentioned, the vague language.
I see this problem in many other discourses, like for example the whole question of gender/sex, or whether something is a disorder or not, etc. For some unfathomable reason people like to get hung up on semantics. I don't know if it makes them feel smarter or morally superior compared to the other party, or they actually believe that words are like some tiny metaphysical labels attached to things, rather than just means of communication that _hopefully_ gets your point across.
It would seem so.
They are obviously not scientists, or they would be more likely to define different brain functions and or disorders, which would be a much more logical approach.
On this we've always agreed.
Well perhaps after you meet with her she will get a better understanding. One can hope.
good article. once again, you are in a position having to correct the so called experts. the term psychoPATHy itself indicates an abnormal condition requiring treatment or some sort of "handling" to protect the normals from the likes of you. still think this label should be replaced. neurodivergent - emotional processing or something like that for instance if there must be a label.
also, your comment regarding meanness as an experience of the victim of your being honest or "blunt" strikes me as a bit arrogant on your part. understanding our differences is the goal here. knowing that your honesty has the potential of hurting a neurotypical should prevent you from being blunt unless absolutely necessary. we all need to get along.
While I may now, after many years of cognitive empathy training, understand that something that I might say or do may cause someone harm, it is still a rather removed concept from me. I get that apparently it is painful when someone is blunt and direct, but I do not have that experience at all. What is considered "mean" to a neurotypical is not at all to me. If someone said exactly the same thing to me it would have literally no impact on me at all.
It isn't mean to speak unless the intent is to be mean. Bluntness is not intentionally mean, it is simply not padding the truth because a neurotypical might be emotionally bothered by what is said. If I intended to intentionally and directly cause harm, that would be something that I can understand being considered "mean". If I am simply telling a person factual information that I have no reason to think should bother them because I do not share their emotional makeup, that isn't mean. It simply is what it is.
don't mean to belabor this, but whether your intent is to hurt or not, the consequence is the same. whether it was said with the intent to be mean or not, it still ends up that way. meanness here is defined as not giving a crap how the recipient of your comments will react, emotionally. we are all different.
It isn't mean unless the intention is to be mean. Otherwise it is a totally subjective definition that is so nebulous it has no value. What one person considers mean may not be considered mean by another human on the planet. Their subjective opinion cannot be what defines a word or be attributed to the other individual.
I get what you're saying, and not to mean but it sounds like you expect that Athena or Someone like myself should know how to babysit how someone else feels about what we say.
Because being blunt can sound like being mean, then being blunt is not acceptable.
As for myself, I have no idea how to be any other way in most cases, and in time people who get to know me realize that this is the case. People who don't, just think I'm mean.
Honestly, I use to try and figure this whole idea of talking in code, I never did get it so I gave up and now, I also realize I'm not responsible for how someone feels about what I say, I make it a point to speak the truth.
I have no idea how to soften it, nor am I willing to go through the pains of trying to figure it out anymore. I'm at the point where if you don't like the way I talk, than don't talk to me.
I agree with you completely .
So I'm not a psychopath, but I am very blunt. I realize it can hurt people's feelings but honestly I have no idea how to talk any other way.
To me this thing that other people do when they talk to each other is like some kind of code, and I have no idea what they are trying to say.
Seriously, I have to ask people all the time what mean.
Athena, will your vast experience and knowledge in this area perhaps Your the expert & should write the book to dispel these myths.
Perhaps someday
Another great and informative article. Thank you, Athena.
Thank you, Merry
So (a) did you do that interview? And (b) I disagree with what looks like your statement that children are unemotional. Seems to me that most children are extremely emotional. They do not yet have the brain development that allows them to moderate-modulate their emotions. At least, that is my personal experience and my observation about other kids. (Not that I am still a kid -- haven't been for more decades than I like to admit to.)