Well written. The thing is that psychology is not a science, it does have science in it as a tool but it has always been manipulated by opinions and commonality.
Thank you for the post. I've been feeling uncomfortable that psychologists don't have enough training related to neurology. I wish it was more fact based. A good friend of mine (who has been seeing psychologists since she was a young child) told me he/she wished that her psychologists did brain related tests, because many problems (anxiety, depression, OCD...) must be there. His/Her words made me think a lot... And your post made me think even more...
Changing your opinion is difficult, specially if, like you said, your ego and money were involved... I have a doubt. Is ego related to our feelings or our accomplishments? Or is it just related in neurotypicals? Is it separate in psychopaths? From what I've understood from your posts, psychopaths have a rock solid self-confidence. Do you have a rock solid ego? How do you experience it? I'm not even sure if I have the correct definition of ego in my head... (I think it's our sense of self and self worth)
Ever since I started reading your posts, I started questioning which things are sepparate from emotions and which depend on emotions (from your previous post, fear is mainly emotional and the physical part can happen sepparately).
I have never looked at anything I have accomplished as being reflective of me. I do stuff I want to do, accomplish it, and then look for something new to do. The actual accomplishment was just for the challenge, not the kudos, or ego aspect. That doesn't have an impact on me.
I am me. I am fine with what I am good at, and I am fine with what I am bad at. I have no problem admitting that there are things I can't do, things that are out of my reach, and failure has no effect on me past finding out what I should do differently in the future. I will be writing a post about failure and the psychological torture people inflict on themselves due to their fear of it in the coming week I think.
Hi! Thank you for your reply! It was very insightful. I will be looking forward to your next post! Will you also include your thoughts about the psychological torture people inflict on themselves AFTER the failure? At least, it causes me a great deal of anxiety and stress and it impacts my self-steem. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts and see if I can learn some of it to reduce unnecessary torture :D
Agreed. It is a mess. I have seen this many times over when digging into psychopathy, but tis is a depth that I don't see recovery from without serious overhauls.
So couldn't hear the speaker good enough to listen to her presentation. I did however read the interview afterwards. Can I just say this woman has crossed the line. .. that imaginary line from genius to insanity. Or may I just say she's batshit crazy. I am appalled that they would ask her to speak at any school. Wow.
You know, this whole situation points to a larger problem that I'm not sure you fully noticed yet.
Context - as you know, humans are generally led around by their feelings that they use to navigate reality; those feelings condense into attitudes sink down and get converted in beliefs that then source their subsequent thoughts that spark emotions that create feelings and so on, and so forth.
My point - our beliefs dictate our thinking and shape our affects. Beliefs are deep-rooted and hard to change by design.
For a person who has a personality disorder or psychotic disorder, changing beliefs is particularly difficult, since it's some of their core beliefs actually sustain their disorders or psychoses.
Dogma is akin to crystallized beliefs in the shape of monkey wrenches stuck in the cogs of cognition. It's what keeps *most* people from being able to think, regardless of their intellectual level.
That is why many people feel personally attacked when their beliefs are challenged. Their cognition is hindered by dogma. And dogma is arguably a sign of psychopathology, some type of which must affect the majority of the population across all hierearquies from top to bottom.
Indeed this is something I have thought about. I plan on writing a post about this aspect of human behavior and interaction with the the world. I wonder if it can be untangled so a person can begin to critically consider things, even when they have an emotional reaction.
I've been reading a book I chanced across by Joe Dispenza called "Evolve your Brain" that does a surprisingly good job at undoing such entanglement by using neuroscience to explain why people get addicted to their beliefs. It elaborates on my previous assertion in rather fascinating ways.
The gist of his hypothesis is that when a person is conditioned (by others or themselves) to keep thinking the same thought patterns, this establishes a negative feedback loop by creating and reinforcing neural pathways wherein their experienced feelings consistently overflow the body with specific neuropeptides and hormones (matching the feelings experienced) that make the cells throughout the body progressively develop more receptors for those specific neurotransmitters (this is probably when attitudes set it); after a while, the body effectively starts actually demanding those substances very much as if it was an addiction, which creates intrusive thoughts or otherwise crystallizes existing thought patterns. (this is probably where beliefs set in).
The result is readily apparent:
Any new external idea that disrupts that balance, irrespective of whether it's true or even if it's better for the person than their existing ideas will therefore disrupt homeostasis and create huge psychophysiological discomfort - since at the time it's the body (feelings) that begin to drive the thoughts, not the other way around.
This suggests that people are then slaves to their own neural networks (aka beliefs), and their bodies are addicted to the thoughts they've been thinking, the matching feelings, and the corresponding neurotransmitters which is probably why humans (and other animals) are therefore creatures of habit. It clarifies many phenomena, from bad habits that die hard to people who seem to love creating drama, to abusive relationships that people can't escape from and also sheds light on how dogma turns a person into a zombie-like self junkie.
I'm really impressed by this book. It looks on the surface like typical self-help crap, except the author (who began as chiropractor) actually went on to get a neuroscience degree so he could adequately substantiate is slightly esoteric ideas.
Simply put, beliefs can be seen as biochemical additions to specific neurotransmitters. When people get to this point ( and I suspect a majority of the population has thus been conditioned ), people are effectively and literally - ideologic junkies. Dissident thoughts will at such point make such a person physically uncomfortable.
Huh... it reminds me of the notion of there is no free will. That before a person makes a movement, their brain, prior to awareness of the movement being decided on, has already fired off the necessary elements to make that movement, thus creating the argument that if the brain knows before the consciousness knows, there is no free will.
If the body controls the thoughts, and it cannot be easily broken, and likely cannot be without breaking down and reforming how the body is operating, you cannot break zealotry very easily, and if that is the case, is there free will.
It also brings to mind the notion of the role of protein in this process. Cults have often deprived new and even long term members of protein to make them more malleable. I wonder what protein might do to possibly disrupt this process.
Athena, If you're talking about protein, remember the a-amino acid Tryptophan.
L-Tryptophan turns into L-5-Hydroxytryptophan via Tryptophan hydroxylase enzyme, and then it turns into 5-hydroxytriptamine (aka. serotonin) via Aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase enzyme.
What's my point with serotonin?
I've experienced recently that abundance of serotonin makes you less afraid and consequently, less prone to be manipulated. Also it makes you less impulsive, less prone to depression (a state where you can be manipulated), and more skeptical. Note that you've mentioned earlier the importance of serotonin in the psychopathic brain.
And there is the other way of Phenylalanine (another protein)
I won't mention the enzymes now, only the substances that result of this process:
Marco, that's a solid puzzle whose parts you've outlined, but here is the frame that needs to go around that puzzle to make sure the different parts hold together:
Exactly. I would say there is free will and it's the natural state, but it's been usurped as necessary part of the civilizational process, and now we're at a time in history where it must be collectively reclaimed to keep civilization from collapsing under its own weight.
Some conjectures:
A) I suspect that all adults are run by their feelings, even if they're psychologically healthy, as maturing involves establishing beliefs.
B ) Moreover, all people who have personality disorders are sequestered by the feelings of their caretakers.
C) Additionally, people who have psychotic disorders are bound even more deeply to their caretakers beliefs, since there is a genetic level.
These are three different levels of zealotry that I just described that are progressively harder to deconstruct. A) can be done with rethoric, B requires a deeper therapeutic approach, C) requires medication ( that can include nutrition, which in some cases could suffice).
Disrupting the rote body-thinking in a way that restores proper thinking and free will seems quite more effective when done in a meditative context that allows the information to break through to the subconscious where it can help disrupt the existing programming. This could account for the cathartic value of some art and literature, as well as the effectiveness of techniques like EMDR that have hypnotic aspects.
Factor 1 psychopathy could work as a shield that prevents one's subconscious from being implanted with negative core beliefs in the first place, since external negative attitudes will be logically rejected rather than emotionally entertained as naturally happens in neurotypical children.
Some technical reflections:
Proteins are indeed of the essence, since they're cellular building blocks. Amino acids are likewise quite important since they are akin to the binding for those blocks. Then there are the very ill regarded cannabinoids that have been oddly banned worldwide a century ago, even though it turns out they also have tremendous value since they are effectively neuromodulators specialized in the re-establishment of homeostasis, and from a chemical standpoint, amino acids are their precursors.
Our body needs endocannabinoids to orquestrate all its biochemical symphonies, and they're abundantly present in all healthy people, and produced out of amino acids and used to orquestrate the protein synthesis at cellular level across the entire body.
This is why phytocannabinoids (aka marijuana) is proving to be a valid treatment ( primary and/or complementary) to literally hundreds of physical and mental conditions, including a wide range of rare diseases.
An absent ability to synthesise endocannabinoids seems to be the common thread of all psychophysiopathologies (including those with a genetic base), and this has been well established at this point in history through actual scientific research. Try running some searches on endocannabinoids, phytocannabinoids and the endocannabinoid system and you will be astounded with the sheer volume and depth of available information.
Which breeds a larger question: was it entirely a matter of change that cannabinoids were banned worldwide one century ago? Was it a matter of ignorance, malice, or both working in tandem?
I have seen this trend recently called "glowing down". "Glowing up" would refer to a physical transformation of improvement, such as weight loss, a makeover, hitting the gym, or generally making a large change in physical appearance. Likely this would be accompanied by a emotional elevation I would imagine, as often improvement in status has that effect.
Glowing down is the opposite direction. It is someone that spent time and effort to make a good appearance in the world deciding that they no longer want to bother doing so, often because they have come to the conclusion that doing so comes with all sorts of social trappings that they no longer are interested in participating in. This is something that you will see a lot in people that are zealots ideologically.
What I have noticed is that the people I have seen do this seem that the transformation isn't just a physical one, but a mental one as well, for the negative. One in particular was so dramatic that she went from a very healthy very pretty girl to looking like a homeless person with serious mental illness. It has made me wonder if they are behaving their way into mental illness, or if they are already mentally ill, and it is just another outlet for it to present itself in.
It's very curious, and rather unfortunate. Thinking of the what we were discussing above, I wonder if this is a almost foregone conclusion of the path that these people are choosing. All of it is quite vexing. I know humans are very capable of self destruction, but I am wondering to what degree that is the case, and how far a person can destroy themselves without there already being problems present.
That's interesting! My intuition says that it can go either way, depending on which side dominates and takes charge.
Mind-Feelings-Body are clearly on a continuum, even though they appear discrete aspects of our being.
So when the body does the thinking, the person gets stuck in a purely emotional state that easily turns dysfunctional and inevitably sways the mind and leads to behaviors that match the feelings. This is quite apparent in people who are caught in depression - which if we think about it, can effectively be regarded as synonym for "glowing down".
It also works the other way around - when a person overcomes depression they will experience a "glow up" as their reasoning skills gets back in synch and leads them to make choices that will ultimately reflect on their physical appearance.
I also experienced this effect after undergoing a PTSD and depression in the wake of my cancer episode. Once my mind eventually cleared and took charge, my moods settled, my body followed suit and I began having healthy cravings only. Before my mind cleared, by body kept pushing my mind in wrong directions.
The same principle is also apparent in someone who is obese, and I say this as someone who has been obese most of my life, so I'm speaking from personal experience. Obesity is clearly the result of emotional imbalance that makes a person overeat and crave wrong foods and try to fill a void that one is not even aware of.
This is probably why factor 1 psychopaths are unlikely to be obese, since they are very unlikely to indulge emotional eating on a regular basis (we've debated this topic awhile back on Quora, you may recall).
Personally - the key to regulate my weight turned out to be regulating my mind, which also regulated my appetite and made me lose all interest in junk food, processed food and sugary food, while making me more interested in exercise. Having done this, my excess weight gradually dropped on its own, simply because I started making right choices.
I now actually have a hard time taking interest in bad food. Sugar is arguably the worst drug of all, since it's so widespread, insidious, addictive, and dismissive of the other flavors asides from salty (which is also addictive).
While I still get cravings all the time, now they always center on healthy foods and at this point my body seems to have developed a knack for driving my mind to get the needed nutrition to get the job done.
Sometimes I actually go around reading scientific papers to figure out specific cravings I get from a nutritional standpoint (the latest examples being hot chili and mustard and microgreens that I out of the blue began consuming in industrial amounts even though I didn't use to like them while I was addicted to sugar and emotional eating), and I keep getting the impression my stomach is at this point far more intelligent than I am, as it keeps nudging me in the right directions, as attested by my bloodwork and emotional states.
This is why we can gauge the mental state of any person by observing their presentation - but especially by inspecting their domestic environment, since it takes a lot more energy and consistency to upkeep a household compared to one's physical appearance.
I have also been observed this in myself - how tidy I keep my work desk and my home is always a clear and direct reflection of my prevailing emotional states, and at this point I can often turn around a negative mood simply by pushing myself to tidy up my place.
Addendum: Dogma is by no means exclusive to psychology - it affects hard sciences as well.
I've run into very comparable issues to what you describe here in recent years, while surviving cancer and realizing that cannabinoids are at this point well established as anti tumoral drugs that work synergistically with conventional treatments like chemotheraphy to deliver noticeably superior results with far less damage to the body compared to conventional treatments alone.
The effect is notorious but also dose dependent; massive amounts are needed (so much that it makes the most hardcore pothead seem meek, and makes it impractical to use smoking as the main administrative route) and it works best in full tandem with the main treatment rather than as a palliative afterthought.
Though all of this quite well documented at this point in history (most of it pertaining cutting edge research from the past 10-20 years, side prior to that there was a dramatic ban preventing cannabis to be properly and scientifically scrutinized), most of my doctors outright refused this possibility, no matter how extensively and thoroughly I tried to back up my claims.
I ended up convincing them to agree to disagree and instead let my test results speak for themselves, which they did quite cleary and loudly... only to be dismissed as a coincidence rather than a corroboration of my claims - all of which, I repeat, are rather extensively documented with towering piles of hard data as well as consistently recurring anectotical reports like mine that are consistently dismissed as lacking substance, with specialists clamoring the need for moved evidence without even once glancing at the towering piles of evidence already available. This I have witnesses first hand. Which made me realize,:
All the data in the world is useless ... unless there is someone to objectively consider its implications and be willing to have their beliefs challenged. That's the real scientific spirit right there, and it's sorely lacking in the modern industrialized political driven scientism that likes to pretend it's science.
Dogma is therefore the common enemy, and I suspect it has a psychopathological aspect to it. I actuality became interested in psychology and ended up on Quora while trying to figure out this stuff.
I have seen exactly what you are referring to, and it amazes me when people are so willing to dismiss the evidence, or, to protect their beliefs (or financial stake) in whatever is being discussed, they will intentionally construct studies to fail.
I have to agree with you. Over on Quora I wrote a piece deconstructing this ridiculous claim about psychopathy and the tendency towards antisocial traits. There was a paper written by someone "notable" that claimed that 93% of all psychopathic males were antisocial, and a large number of claims built on this idea.
The paper was entirely false. It dealt in completely fabricated numbers that could never be claimed by even the most generous of interpretations. Why did the person write the paper? Who knows, funding, prestige, expectation, it's hard to say. However, anyone with a will to simply look at the information presented can pull it apart without any effort at all. It wasn't even a flimsy attempt, it was just a pointless lie. Now with this identitarian nonsense making its way into these "studies" and claims, there isn't any firm ground to walk on.
It's going to be a long hard slog through to get be something even remotely credible for psychology to claim.
My take on this situation : most people don't really care about the truth, they care about advancing their agendas while safeguarding their beliefs.
This is a very human thing. Rather, it's an expression of the lower animal side that hinders all of us, without exceptions - and most especially those who refuse to consider such possibility.
This is very interesting, and I look forward to reading it. It wouldn't surprise me if that is the case, but will certainly read how the author came to suspect and reach that conclusion.
Hello, thank you for the post. A question -- do you feel that, overall, psychology has gotten worse in the ways you're noting? Have you read a lot of the historical stuff about this field?
I'm not an expert on it by any means; I've been reading on the history of "autism" as a diagnosis, since seeking that diagnosis and getting it officially confirmed at age 52 a few years ago.
Re. that issue I don't feel that the "field" has devolved; it's had a lot of badly done science in it from the start! Science is supposed to evolve with new evidence, but it seems a lot of the folks in the autism field cannot shed their presuppositions.
Unfortunately I think neurologists do the same kind of thing in their own field... maybe most humans do... I often read stuff about, say, some cellular-level difference, and it's just labeled "deficient" immediately sometimes. No research into how that tiny difference affects the massively more complex neurology; just assumptions. No consideration that maybe the most average neurotypical version of whatever might have its own problems. I seem to find little to no research into strengths of alternative wirings; lots of assumptions -- not good science. But as you imply, which group has more PhDs and positions as head of peer reviewed journals?
Unfortunately these sorts of things really bother me emotionally; maybe not all neurotypes are bothered by that stuff? I believe I see how it's likely affecting many lives badly though. (I post some on Quora from an older, late-diagnosed female autistic perspective btw.)
I agree with you that the history of psychology and psychiatry is fraught with problems, and bad actions/actors. It is something that they seemed to be getting a handle on in the last few decades, but that progress seems to have halted, and seems to now be backsliding into some of the baser instincts of humans. Instead of the exploration of the science, and what constructs the human function, it is now tribalistic, and seeks to deconstruct humans and place them into groups of immutable characteristics.
I know what you mean about neurology as well. I used to converse with a neuroscientist that spoke a lot about these things to me with dismay. He found the lack of establishing baselines from which to work frustrating, and felt that many things were misrepresented to make a hypothesis work instead of testing a hypothesis to prove it wrong.
I can appreciate that there is always going to be growing pains, but when we are backtracking over already covered and discarded ideas because those ideas were counterproductive to human relationships, it seems that they have given into aspects of the human mind that are emotionally driven, not scientifically. Until that is rectified, there is nothing that can be trusted coming from that area of study.
Thank you for this post. I agree with the other commentator about psychology not being a science. It’s also that many people talk about how influenced psychology was say 50 years ago but they don’t realize that it is still so, just by different parties and ideas, those they find positive and therefore it’s somehow not the same. As for incompetence of many therapists, it seems to me that for many neurodivergent people finding the right specialist can be quite difficult. For most of my neurodivergent acquaintances, myself included being in therapy was either completely useless or even harmful. Many therapists are not educated about different mental health conditions, let alone different variants of the norm, and how to work with them.
I may be in the minority here, but I think that often people see therapists about problems that they are more than capable of sorting out themselves. Idk if it will sound ignorant or retrograde, but therapy focused on patriarchal trauma or exploring gender is..well..some people may need it but I think as much as we need a special cup to pour water on the carpet. ( Btw, you may enjoy reading this :
I don’t know. Cherishing this little thing in one’s psyche and cherishing that doesn’t really seem to strengthen people mentally, rather make them more dependent on the rituals and concepts learnt in therapy, I may be wrong, again, but I have observed that.
I agree, things have shifted dramatically, and it is unfortunate. The exploration of the mind, and how it adapts to the world for survival and the ability to thrive has gone out the window.
I also read up a lot about how Antisocial Personality Disorder, psychopathy, and sociopathy are defined, and it seems that their main qualifiers are patterns of rule-breaking behaviors, rather than a specific thought process that lacks typical emotions. While it is asserted in many definitions that lack of remorse is essential to the diagnosis, what it really refers to is a disorder that produces behavior that violates laws. It seems that it's not wrong that the criminals are what define the diagnosis, because the diagnosis was meant to be a study of their behavior. What you are, is different, and as far as I know, lacks diagnosis.
Regardless, the title of that virtual talk is perplexing. So is its learning objectives. I am confused why they focus so much on lack of empathy in defining psychopathy when it's a diagnosis meant for defining patterns of behavior. Lack of empathy is a correlated pattern among criminals perhaps, but it's not what causes it if not all un-empathic persons behave criminally. Haven't other professionals criticized this talk? How did we end up confusing the diagnosis?
I am professionally diagnosed, and have had brain scans that support the diagnosis. Psychopathy is not defined by behavior, nor does criminality have anything to do with it. It is defined by a different brain structure and chemical processing in the brain.
Antisocial personality disorder is what is defined by behavior alone. I spoke about this in greater detail here;
Deciding that criminality has anything to do with psychopathy, while only studying psychopathy in prisons is asinine and has no basis in reality. Most psychopaths are not criminals, less than fifteen percent are involved with the criminal justice system, while the vast majority are living normal lives.
If aliens came to this planet and decided that the thinking, intelligence, and actions of neurotypicals should purely be defined by those neurotypicals that are criminals, you would find that to be ridiculous. It is no less ridiculous to do this with psychopathy, and yet that is precisely what is done.
A construct cannot be defined by something that is only associated with it by the very nature of the study constructed to study it. That would be like studying cancer in prisons, and concluding that since all cancer patients that you studied were criminals, cancer is therefore definable by criminal behavior. That notion is laughable.
My apologies if anything that I said were offensive. We actually already do agree, I was just not aware that psychopathy was scientifically distinguished from antisocial personality disorder. I thought that like the latter, the former is a diagnosis specifically made on criminals instead of a specific thought process. I also assert that there are individuals who lack typical emotions but are not criminal.
Thank you for your detailed answers. May I please request a study/studies on psychopathy to get me started on the right track? I always thought it was just a pop term for antisocial so I need more scientific basis to get me out of that mindset.
The problem is due has multiple fronts. The first being Robert Hare. When you look into psychopathy, his is usually the name that will come up as the "expert" regarding it. However, this leaves out his absolute disdain for psychopathy in general, and also his corner on the market. He makes A LOT of money being the gatekeeper of psychopathy, and he is very protective of that empire. There is a great deal more about this, but it would be a very long comment if I included it. If you want to know more, let me know. It is pretty amazing that he has any credibility at all, let alone the power that he has.
The second being the categorization. It was filed under ASPD in the DSM. If you don't have any idea how the DSM is constructed, you might be very surprised. It is literally a bunch of clinicians gathering in a room, throwing out terms, and then coming up with things that define those terms. Hare, to his limited credit, very much opposed psychopathy being removed. He lobbied hard for it to be included, but failed. There is a rumor that it will be included in a future edition under the term "Hare's syndrome".
The third is where it is studied. It is only studied in prisons, and this is self limiting and reductive. Its studied in criminals, therefore it is criminal by nature. Not, we decided to study it in prisons, and ignore the larger population of psychopaths in the general population. When they are brought up by another researcher, we will laugh at them and discredit them.
The fourth is the catchall nature of the term that the general public has adopted. It is a stand in for anyone that does something egregious. Thus phrases like;
Not all psychopaths are serial killers, but all serial killers are psychopaths.
Or;
Not all narcissists are psychopaths, but all psychopaths are narcissists.
Neither of these statements are based in facts, but they perpetuate regardless.
In the write up that you reference in the second comment, there are long source citations at the end of at least one of the parts, if not both. Otherwise I recommend;
When looking into psychopathy it is littered with issues in how it is considered. Neurotypicals make assumptions as to how the world is experienced in the psychopathic mind based on how they experience it. This is an error, and causes a lot of preconceptions that are asserted as fact, but can be easily be debunked with any practical consideration.
I have noticed that the definition is a mess due to the mix of cultural perceptions and it seems even professionals have a biased perception of their own, based on what I hear about Robert Hare. (And published papers that I have read do often associate psychopathy with a behavior-type diagnosis like ASPD, hence my initial assumption that they were the same.)
If you have some time to spare, I'd like to know more about how anyone has absolute power over defining a word that supposedly belongs to the realm of a scientific study. That is absurd, I can't believe it, but if I really want to explore this profession I'll have to understand.
One more issue is that the general population will readily accept scientific papers, not knowing that the procedures are actually not good enough to make sure what idea or conclusion gets accepted actually makes use of good logic and factual basis. This will continue the cycle of misinformation for as long as the industry cannot monitor itself correctly. I believe that not all professionals are willing to buy that kind of bullshit, but as you have been saying, there are true barriers to why they can't make direct action to fix what sounds like a convoluted mess. As an aspiring researcher, this is far too appalling. I would like to know more but of course I will do my own share of reading up on this.
Hare got the power by basically stealing a checklist, changing a few things on it, getting a copyright on that pilfered list, and getting it to be the diagnostic "gold standard". There was a hole in the market, Hare saw it, and he filled it.
Now he teaches psychopath spotting weekends, specific training on how to use the PCL system, makes royalties on the use of the PCL system which he tries to downplay by saying that it's only about $35,000 a year, he writes books on psychopathy, was a university professor who made it so the PCL system is what is taught for psychopathy identification, and he is a lecturer on it as well.
He became the loudest voice in the room, and has a bully mentality to match it. When people challenge his assertions, he literally sues them for defamation to shut them up. It's amazing to me that anyone takes his work as credible just based on how he behaves, but he is still considered the guru of psychopathy. So much so that it was being considered for addition in the DSM as "Hare's syndrome".
It's too much to hear this happening; I feel foolish for having hoped that research was untouchable by irrationality and corruption. I thought that human error is inevitable, but that the logic and basis of science will always be there to self-correct. I had always assumed the field to be a strictly scientific, but then again it SHOULD be. Only that its powerful members don't uphold such principles, which makes me understand now why it's arguably a futile struggle to try to make a difference within the profession.
I'm certain that you do this for your own fulfillment, but allow me to still offer you my thanks. I wholly appreciate your thoughtful responsiveness and detailed information distribution, to an unquantifiable extent.
I will have to think about this some more, personally.
Falsehood is inconvenient and regressive, and the truth itself can never decay, but man can.
I love this field from the deepest depths of my unappeasable mind, and I cannot give it up for anything (within the limits of what I previously thought), but if getting inside the profession means I have to play pretend, be subject to incompetent powers, and ignore the tampering of man's truth—I will need to recalibrate my own path.
I've searched and read what little I could for now but it seems the results I'm getting are limited to Quora. If I may additionally ask then, why Quora? Are there barriers to formally publishing all these findings with Dr. Natalie? What I like about published research is that there are opportunities for formal and professional peer review to further elevate the significance of research, increase credibility, and spread awareness more reliably. (In case there are actually peer-reviewed publications, I'm sorry then, I take my questions back.)
I hope you can forgive any offense from these questions of mine. I am trying to understand this topic and am very eager to do so, which is why I am giving my best feedback as a reader and an information consumer.
You didn't offend me, I actually don't experience offense. I can be annoyed by misinformation, but personal offense isn't something that I experience.
I started writing on Quora because I liked the way the site operated. It gave me a specific question to ponder, and provide an answer to. As to why that answer isn't published, I am not a psychologist. I don't have the alphabet soup after my name, nor do I want it. I prefer working outside the confines of the psychological community.
When I wrote this piece I sent it to a psychologist to be assured I wasn't being overly critical or hyperbolic, and what that person sent back to me regarding the environment of research. She stated that most of it is not done by clinicians, but rather PhD students, and academics churn it out without really understanding the things that they are researching, among other serious problems. In other words, the research is done without real consideration of what they are putting forth as findings. They don't begin what they are researching to begin with, and the arrive at conclusions regardless.
Peer review is another place that I would really recommend you look into the validity of. It is rather... suspect. You can pay to get the "peer reviewed" label, it doesn't lend any credibility to anything. You can get things peer reviewed when it is clear that no one bothered to read what is in the paper. Frankly, it's a racket. To prove this, a group submitted a number of nonsensical papers, some that were just rewritten passages from Mein Kampf using current social justice language, and they got the peer reviewed stamp. It was just done to prove that peer review is a waste to place any faith in.
If this is the study you are going to go into, you might really need to dig into how the profession conducts itself. it's pretty messy.
Thanks for the very helpful insight! I didn't know the profession was so crazy :( I'm still hoping I could somehow make a difference, but listening to all of this now, I'm worried if it's useless... I suppose I still want to explore it before making a decision from there. Thanks for the reality check!
Well written. The thing is that psychology is not a science, it does have science in it as a tool but it has always been manipulated by opinions and commonality.
It is considered a soft science, and that is something that recently I have watched it venture further and further from the practice of.
Thank you for the post. I've been feeling uncomfortable that psychologists don't have enough training related to neurology. I wish it was more fact based. A good friend of mine (who has been seeing psychologists since she was a young child) told me he/she wished that her psychologists did brain related tests, because many problems (anxiety, depression, OCD...) must be there. His/Her words made me think a lot... And your post made me think even more...
Changing your opinion is difficult, specially if, like you said, your ego and money were involved... I have a doubt. Is ego related to our feelings or our accomplishments? Or is it just related in neurotypicals? Is it separate in psychopaths? From what I've understood from your posts, psychopaths have a rock solid self-confidence. Do you have a rock solid ego? How do you experience it? I'm not even sure if I have the correct definition of ego in my head... (I think it's our sense of self and self worth)
Ever since I started reading your posts, I started questioning which things are sepparate from emotions and which depend on emotions (from your previous post, fear is mainly emotional and the physical part can happen sepparately).
I have never looked at anything I have accomplished as being reflective of me. I do stuff I want to do, accomplish it, and then look for something new to do. The actual accomplishment was just for the challenge, not the kudos, or ego aspect. That doesn't have an impact on me.
I am me. I am fine with what I am good at, and I am fine with what I am bad at. I have no problem admitting that there are things I can't do, things that are out of my reach, and failure has no effect on me past finding out what I should do differently in the future. I will be writing a post about failure and the psychological torture people inflict on themselves due to their fear of it in the coming week I think.
Hi! Thank you for your reply! It was very insightful. I will be looking forward to your next post! Will you also include your thoughts about the psychological torture people inflict on themselves AFTER the failure? At least, it causes me a great deal of anxiety and stress and it impacts my self-steem. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts and see if I can learn some of it to reduce unnecessary torture :D
That was exactly what it's going to be about. How to fail, and have it not be life ending. Or, at the very least not have it be such a concern.
I'm afraid that the field of psychology is on the way to becoming akin to phrenology
If things are not righted, I agree.
Science At its core, is based on doubt.
Every time a theory is proven wrong, it creates an opening for deeper understanding of reality.
Thus, the experts are not doing science, but merely defending their own identity castle.
It may feel they have a rational basis in doing so, in their own self interest.
But it’s not science
Agreed. It is a mess. I have seen this many times over when digging into psychopathy, but tis is a depth that I don't see recovery from without serious overhauls.
Quite
And yet this begs the question- why “should” they overhaul it?
Morbid curiosity?
Sell books? (Psychopathy is sexy/creepy)
“Help” psychopaths?
(We fully)covered that on another forum )
Why would a psychopath care if it was overhauled?
(Yes, that’s right)
Pursuit of knowledge would be my interest, but I understand that is not something that is much cared about in the long run by others.
So couldn't hear the speaker good enough to listen to her presentation. I did however read the interview afterwards. Can I just say this woman has crossed the line. .. that imaginary line from genius to insanity. Or may I just say she's batshit crazy. I am appalled that they would ask her to speak at any school. Wow.
Agreed
A similar thing happens with politics. Words like ‘fascist’ have lost their meanings.
Oh yes, very much so.
You know, this whole situation points to a larger problem that I'm not sure you fully noticed yet.
Context - as you know, humans are generally led around by their feelings that they use to navigate reality; those feelings condense into attitudes sink down and get converted in beliefs that then source their subsequent thoughts that spark emotions that create feelings and so on, and so forth.
My point - our beliefs dictate our thinking and shape our affects. Beliefs are deep-rooted and hard to change by design.
For a person who has a personality disorder or psychotic disorder, changing beliefs is particularly difficult, since it's some of their core beliefs actually sustain their disorders or psychoses.
Dogma is akin to crystallized beliefs in the shape of monkey wrenches stuck in the cogs of cognition. It's what keeps *most* people from being able to think, regardless of their intellectual level.
That is why many people feel personally attacked when their beliefs are challenged. Their cognition is hindered by dogma. And dogma is arguably a sign of psychopathology, some type of which must affect the majority of the population across all hierearquies from top to bottom.
Indeed this is something I have thought about. I plan on writing a post about this aspect of human behavior and interaction with the the world. I wonder if it can be untangled so a person can begin to critically consider things, even when they have an emotional reaction.
I've been reading a book I chanced across by Joe Dispenza called "Evolve your Brain" that does a surprisingly good job at undoing such entanglement by using neuroscience to explain why people get addicted to their beliefs. It elaborates on my previous assertion in rather fascinating ways.
The gist of his hypothesis is that when a person is conditioned (by others or themselves) to keep thinking the same thought patterns, this establishes a negative feedback loop by creating and reinforcing neural pathways wherein their experienced feelings consistently overflow the body with specific neuropeptides and hormones (matching the feelings experienced) that make the cells throughout the body progressively develop more receptors for those specific neurotransmitters (this is probably when attitudes set it); after a while, the body effectively starts actually demanding those substances very much as if it was an addiction, which creates intrusive thoughts or otherwise crystallizes existing thought patterns. (this is probably where beliefs set in).
The result is readily apparent:
Any new external idea that disrupts that balance, irrespective of whether it's true or even if it's better for the person than their existing ideas will therefore disrupt homeostasis and create huge psychophysiological discomfort - since at the time it's the body (feelings) that begin to drive the thoughts, not the other way around.
This suggests that people are then slaves to their own neural networks (aka beliefs), and their bodies are addicted to the thoughts they've been thinking, the matching feelings, and the corresponding neurotransmitters which is probably why humans (and other animals) are therefore creatures of habit. It clarifies many phenomena, from bad habits that die hard to people who seem to love creating drama, to abusive relationships that people can't escape from and also sheds light on how dogma turns a person into a zombie-like self junkie.
I'm really impressed by this book. It looks on the surface like typical self-help crap, except the author (who began as chiropractor) actually went on to get a neuroscience degree so he could adequately substantiate is slightly esoteric ideas.
Simply put, beliefs can be seen as biochemical additions to specific neurotransmitters. When people get to this point ( and I suspect a majority of the population has thus been conditioned ), people are effectively and literally - ideologic junkies. Dissident thoughts will at such point make such a person physically uncomfortable.
Huh... it reminds me of the notion of there is no free will. That before a person makes a movement, their brain, prior to awareness of the movement being decided on, has already fired off the necessary elements to make that movement, thus creating the argument that if the brain knows before the consciousness knows, there is no free will.
If the body controls the thoughts, and it cannot be easily broken, and likely cannot be without breaking down and reforming how the body is operating, you cannot break zealotry very easily, and if that is the case, is there free will.
It also brings to mind the notion of the role of protein in this process. Cults have often deprived new and even long term members of protein to make them more malleable. I wonder what protein might do to possibly disrupt this process.
So much to consider.
Athena, If you're talking about protein, remember the a-amino acid Tryptophan.
L-Tryptophan turns into L-5-Hydroxytryptophan via Tryptophan hydroxylase enzyme, and then it turns into 5-hydroxytriptamine (aka. serotonin) via Aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase enzyme.
What's my point with serotonin?
I've experienced recently that abundance of serotonin makes you less afraid and consequently, less prone to be manipulated. Also it makes you less impulsive, less prone to depression (a state where you can be manipulated), and more skeptical. Note that you've mentioned earlier the importance of serotonin in the psychopathic brain.
And there is the other way of Phenylalanine (another protein)
I won't mention the enzymes now, only the substances that result of this process:
Phenylalanine –> L-Tyrosine –> L-Dopa –> Dopamine –> Norepinephrine –> Epinephrine.
So, indeed, you're right Athena, proteins have much to see in the processes you're talking about and in brain regulation.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Tryptophan_metabolism.svg/1024px-Tryptophan_metabolism.svg.png
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anna-Vegh-3/publication/308037816/figure/fig3/AS:460152101969923@1486720218700/Pathway-of-catecholamine-biosynthesis-Synthesis-of-epinephrine-and-norepinephrine-is.png
Here you can see graphically these processes.
Marco, that's a solid puzzle whose parts you've outlined, but here is the frame that needs to go around that puzzle to make sure the different parts hold together:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110547/
https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2017162
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24125890/
I was at a conference where Sam Harris was doing a lecture on free will.
I quipped- I have no choice to believe in free will
I don’t think he found it funny
But... that's pretty damn funny.
Exactly. I would say there is free will and it's the natural state, but it's been usurped as necessary part of the civilizational process, and now we're at a time in history where it must be collectively reclaimed to keep civilization from collapsing under its own weight.
Some conjectures:
A) I suspect that all adults are run by their feelings, even if they're psychologically healthy, as maturing involves establishing beliefs.
B ) Moreover, all people who have personality disorders are sequestered by the feelings of their caretakers.
C) Additionally, people who have psychotic disorders are bound even more deeply to their caretakers beliefs, since there is a genetic level.
These are three different levels of zealotry that I just described that are progressively harder to deconstruct. A) can be done with rethoric, B requires a deeper therapeutic approach, C) requires medication ( that can include nutrition, which in some cases could suffice).
Disrupting the rote body-thinking in a way that restores proper thinking and free will seems quite more effective when done in a meditative context that allows the information to break through to the subconscious where it can help disrupt the existing programming. This could account for the cathartic value of some art and literature, as well as the effectiveness of techniques like EMDR that have hypnotic aspects.
Factor 1 psychopathy could work as a shield that prevents one's subconscious from being implanted with negative core beliefs in the first place, since external negative attitudes will be logically rejected rather than emotionally entertained as naturally happens in neurotypical children.
Some technical reflections:
Proteins are indeed of the essence, since they're cellular building blocks. Amino acids are likewise quite important since they are akin to the binding for those blocks. Then there are the very ill regarded cannabinoids that have been oddly banned worldwide a century ago, even though it turns out they also have tremendous value since they are effectively neuromodulators specialized in the re-establishment of homeostasis, and from a chemical standpoint, amino acids are their precursors.
Our body needs endocannabinoids to orquestrate all its biochemical symphonies, and they're abundantly present in all healthy people, and produced out of amino acids and used to orquestrate the protein synthesis at cellular level across the entire body.
This is why phytocannabinoids (aka marijuana) is proving to be a valid treatment ( primary and/or complementary) to literally hundreds of physical and mental conditions, including a wide range of rare diseases.
An absent ability to synthesise endocannabinoids seems to be the common thread of all psychophysiopathologies (including those with a genetic base), and this has been well established at this point in history through actual scientific research. Try running some searches on endocannabinoids, phytocannabinoids and the endocannabinoid system and you will be astounded with the sheer volume and depth of available information.
Which breeds a larger question: was it entirely a matter of change that cannabinoids were banned worldwide one century ago? Was it a matter of ignorance, malice, or both working in tandem?
I wonder that about many things.
I have seen this trend recently called "glowing down". "Glowing up" would refer to a physical transformation of improvement, such as weight loss, a makeover, hitting the gym, or generally making a large change in physical appearance. Likely this would be accompanied by a emotional elevation I would imagine, as often improvement in status has that effect.
Glowing down is the opposite direction. It is someone that spent time and effort to make a good appearance in the world deciding that they no longer want to bother doing so, often because they have come to the conclusion that doing so comes with all sorts of social trappings that they no longer are interested in participating in. This is something that you will see a lot in people that are zealots ideologically.
What I have noticed is that the people I have seen do this seem that the transformation isn't just a physical one, but a mental one as well, for the negative. One in particular was so dramatic that she went from a very healthy very pretty girl to looking like a homeless person with serious mental illness. It has made me wonder if they are behaving their way into mental illness, or if they are already mentally ill, and it is just another outlet for it to present itself in.
It's very curious, and rather unfortunate. Thinking of the what we were discussing above, I wonder if this is a almost foregone conclusion of the path that these people are choosing. All of it is quite vexing. I know humans are very capable of self destruction, but I am wondering to what degree that is the case, and how far a person can destroy themselves without there already being problems present.
A real, chicken or the egg, proposal I suppose.
That's interesting! My intuition says that it can go either way, depending on which side dominates and takes charge.
Mind-Feelings-Body are clearly on a continuum, even though they appear discrete aspects of our being.
So when the body does the thinking, the person gets stuck in a purely emotional state that easily turns dysfunctional and inevitably sways the mind and leads to behaviors that match the feelings. This is quite apparent in people who are caught in depression - which if we think about it, can effectively be regarded as synonym for "glowing down".
It also works the other way around - when a person overcomes depression they will experience a "glow up" as their reasoning skills gets back in synch and leads them to make choices that will ultimately reflect on their physical appearance.
I also experienced this effect after undergoing a PTSD and depression in the wake of my cancer episode. Once my mind eventually cleared and took charge, my moods settled, my body followed suit and I began having healthy cravings only. Before my mind cleared, by body kept pushing my mind in wrong directions.
The same principle is also apparent in someone who is obese, and I say this as someone who has been obese most of my life, so I'm speaking from personal experience. Obesity is clearly the result of emotional imbalance that makes a person overeat and crave wrong foods and try to fill a void that one is not even aware of.
This is probably why factor 1 psychopaths are unlikely to be obese, since they are very unlikely to indulge emotional eating on a regular basis (we've debated this topic awhile back on Quora, you may recall).
Personally - the key to regulate my weight turned out to be regulating my mind, which also regulated my appetite and made me lose all interest in junk food, processed food and sugary food, while making me more interested in exercise. Having done this, my excess weight gradually dropped on its own, simply because I started making right choices.
I now actually have a hard time taking interest in bad food. Sugar is arguably the worst drug of all, since it's so widespread, insidious, addictive, and dismissive of the other flavors asides from salty (which is also addictive).
While I still get cravings all the time, now they always center on healthy foods and at this point my body seems to have developed a knack for driving my mind to get the needed nutrition to get the job done.
Sometimes I actually go around reading scientific papers to figure out specific cravings I get from a nutritional standpoint (the latest examples being hot chili and mustard and microgreens that I out of the blue began consuming in industrial amounts even though I didn't use to like them while I was addicted to sugar and emotional eating), and I keep getting the impression my stomach is at this point far more intelligent than I am, as it keeps nudging me in the right directions, as attested by my bloodwork and emotional states.
This is why we can gauge the mental state of any person by observing their presentation - but especially by inspecting their domestic environment, since it takes a lot more energy and consistency to upkeep a household compared to one's physical appearance.
I have also been observed this in myself - how tidy I keep my work desk and my home is always a clear and direct reflection of my prevailing emotional states, and at this point I can often turn around a negative mood simply by pushing myself to tidy up my place.
Addendum: Dogma is by no means exclusive to psychology - it affects hard sciences as well.
I've run into very comparable issues to what you describe here in recent years, while surviving cancer and realizing that cannabinoids are at this point well established as anti tumoral drugs that work synergistically with conventional treatments like chemotheraphy to deliver noticeably superior results with far less damage to the body compared to conventional treatments alone.
The effect is notorious but also dose dependent; massive amounts are needed (so much that it makes the most hardcore pothead seem meek, and makes it impractical to use smoking as the main administrative route) and it works best in full tandem with the main treatment rather than as a palliative afterthought.
Though all of this quite well documented at this point in history (most of it pertaining cutting edge research from the past 10-20 years, side prior to that there was a dramatic ban preventing cannabis to be properly and scientifically scrutinized), most of my doctors outright refused this possibility, no matter how extensively and thoroughly I tried to back up my claims.
I ended up convincing them to agree to disagree and instead let my test results speak for themselves, which they did quite cleary and loudly... only to be dismissed as a coincidence rather than a corroboration of my claims - all of which, I repeat, are rather extensively documented with towering piles of hard data as well as consistently recurring anectotical reports like mine that are consistently dismissed as lacking substance, with specialists clamoring the need for moved evidence without even once glancing at the towering piles of evidence already available. This I have witnesses first hand. Which made me realize,:
All the data in the world is useless ... unless there is someone to objectively consider its implications and be willing to have their beliefs challenged. That's the real scientific spirit right there, and it's sorely lacking in the modern industrialized political driven scientism that likes to pretend it's science.
Dogma is therefore the common enemy, and I suspect it has a psychopathological aspect to it. I actuality became interested in psychology and ended up on Quora while trying to figure out this stuff.
I have seen exactly what you are referring to, and it amazes me when people are so willing to dismiss the evidence, or, to protect their beliefs (or financial stake) in whatever is being discussed, they will intentionally construct studies to fail.
I rather believe at this point the civilizational apple is quite more rotten than one could have ever imagined possible.
I have to agree with you. Over on Quora I wrote a piece deconstructing this ridiculous claim about psychopathy and the tendency towards antisocial traits. There was a paper written by someone "notable" that claimed that 93% of all psychopathic males were antisocial, and a large number of claims built on this idea.
The paper was entirely false. It dealt in completely fabricated numbers that could never be claimed by even the most generous of interpretations. Why did the person write the paper? Who knows, funding, prestige, expectation, it's hard to say. However, anyone with a will to simply look at the information presented can pull it apart without any effort at all. It wasn't even a flimsy attempt, it was just a pointless lie. Now with this identitarian nonsense making its way into these "studies" and claims, there isn't any firm ground to walk on.
It's going to be a long hard slog through to get be something even remotely credible for psychology to claim.
Ha! On that topic, I recently came across this really interesting pearl that I think you'll enjoy looking at.
Apparently several credible authors tried to debunk this research, only to realize it was very much solid and accurate.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
My take on this situation : most people don't really care about the truth, they care about advancing their agendas while safeguarding their beliefs.
This is a very human thing. Rather, it's an expression of the lower animal side that hinders all of us, without exceptions - and most especially those who refuse to consider such possibility.
This is very interesting, and I look forward to reading it. It wouldn't surprise me if that is the case, but will certainly read how the author came to suspect and reach that conclusion.
Hello, thank you for the post. A question -- do you feel that, overall, psychology has gotten worse in the ways you're noting? Have you read a lot of the historical stuff about this field?
I'm not an expert on it by any means; I've been reading on the history of "autism" as a diagnosis, since seeking that diagnosis and getting it officially confirmed at age 52 a few years ago.
Re. that issue I don't feel that the "field" has devolved; it's had a lot of badly done science in it from the start! Science is supposed to evolve with new evidence, but it seems a lot of the folks in the autism field cannot shed their presuppositions.
Unfortunately I think neurologists do the same kind of thing in their own field... maybe most humans do... I often read stuff about, say, some cellular-level difference, and it's just labeled "deficient" immediately sometimes. No research into how that tiny difference affects the massively more complex neurology; just assumptions. No consideration that maybe the most average neurotypical version of whatever might have its own problems. I seem to find little to no research into strengths of alternative wirings; lots of assumptions -- not good science. But as you imply, which group has more PhDs and positions as head of peer reviewed journals?
Unfortunately these sorts of things really bother me emotionally; maybe not all neurotypes are bothered by that stuff? I believe I see how it's likely affecting many lives badly though. (I post some on Quora from an older, late-diagnosed female autistic perspective btw.)
I agree with you that the history of psychology and psychiatry is fraught with problems, and bad actions/actors. It is something that they seemed to be getting a handle on in the last few decades, but that progress seems to have halted, and seems to now be backsliding into some of the baser instincts of humans. Instead of the exploration of the science, and what constructs the human function, it is now tribalistic, and seeks to deconstruct humans and place them into groups of immutable characteristics.
I know what you mean about neurology as well. I used to converse with a neuroscientist that spoke a lot about these things to me with dismay. He found the lack of establishing baselines from which to work frustrating, and felt that many things were misrepresented to make a hypothesis work instead of testing a hypothesis to prove it wrong.
I can appreciate that there is always going to be growing pains, but when we are backtracking over already covered and discarded ideas because those ideas were counterproductive to human relationships, it seems that they have given into aspects of the human mind that are emotionally driven, not scientifically. Until that is rectified, there is nothing that can be trusted coming from that area of study.
Thank you for this post. I agree with the other commentator about psychology not being a science. It’s also that many people talk about how influenced psychology was say 50 years ago but they don’t realize that it is still so, just by different parties and ideas, those they find positive and therefore it’s somehow not the same. As for incompetence of many therapists, it seems to me that for many neurodivergent people finding the right specialist can be quite difficult. For most of my neurodivergent acquaintances, myself included being in therapy was either completely useless or even harmful. Many therapists are not educated about different mental health conditions, let alone different variants of the norm, and how to work with them.
I may be in the minority here, but I think that often people see therapists about problems that they are more than capable of sorting out themselves. Idk if it will sound ignorant or retrograde, but therapy focused on patriarchal trauma or exploring gender is..well..some people may need it but I think as much as we need a special cup to pour water on the carpet. ( Btw, you may enjoy reading this :
https://www.drvalerie.com/about-psd )
I don’t know. Cherishing this little thing in one’s psyche and cherishing that doesn’t really seem to strengthen people mentally, rather make them more dependent on the rituals and concepts learnt in therapy, I may be wrong, again, but I have observed that.
I agree, things have shifted dramatically, and it is unfortunate. The exploration of the mind, and how it adapts to the world for survival and the ability to thrive has gone out the window.
let’s make a movie together.
I also read up a lot about how Antisocial Personality Disorder, psychopathy, and sociopathy are defined, and it seems that their main qualifiers are patterns of rule-breaking behaviors, rather than a specific thought process that lacks typical emotions. While it is asserted in many definitions that lack of remorse is essential to the diagnosis, what it really refers to is a disorder that produces behavior that violates laws. It seems that it's not wrong that the criminals are what define the diagnosis, because the diagnosis was meant to be a study of their behavior. What you are, is different, and as far as I know, lacks diagnosis.
Regardless, the title of that virtual talk is perplexing. So is its learning objectives. I am confused why they focus so much on lack of empathy in defining psychopathy when it's a diagnosis meant for defining patterns of behavior. Lack of empathy is a correlated pattern among criminals perhaps, but it's not what causes it if not all un-empathic persons behave criminally. Haven't other professionals criticized this talk? How did we end up confusing the diagnosis?
I am professionally diagnosed, and have had brain scans that support the diagnosis. Psychopathy is not defined by behavior, nor does criminality have anything to do with it. It is defined by a different brain structure and chemical processing in the brain.
Antisocial personality disorder is what is defined by behavior alone. I spoke about this in greater detail here;
https://athenawalker.substack.com/p/the-nature-or-nurture-debate
Deciding that criminality has anything to do with psychopathy, while only studying psychopathy in prisons is asinine and has no basis in reality. Most psychopaths are not criminals, less than fifteen percent are involved with the criminal justice system, while the vast majority are living normal lives.
If aliens came to this planet and decided that the thinking, intelligence, and actions of neurotypicals should purely be defined by those neurotypicals that are criminals, you would find that to be ridiculous. It is no less ridiculous to do this with psychopathy, and yet that is precisely what is done.
A construct cannot be defined by something that is only associated with it by the very nature of the study constructed to study it. That would be like studying cancer in prisons, and concluding that since all cancer patients that you studied were criminals, cancer is therefore definable by criminal behavior. That notion is laughable.
My apologies if anything that I said were offensive. We actually already do agree, I was just not aware that psychopathy was scientifically distinguished from antisocial personality disorder. I thought that like the latter, the former is a diagnosis specifically made on criminals instead of a specific thought process. I also assert that there are individuals who lack typical emotions but are not criminal.
Thank you for your detailed answers. May I please request a study/studies on psychopathy to get me started on the right track? I always thought it was just a pop term for antisocial so I need more scientific basis to get me out of that mindset.
The problem is due has multiple fronts. The first being Robert Hare. When you look into psychopathy, his is usually the name that will come up as the "expert" regarding it. However, this leaves out his absolute disdain for psychopathy in general, and also his corner on the market. He makes A LOT of money being the gatekeeper of psychopathy, and he is very protective of that empire. There is a great deal more about this, but it would be a very long comment if I included it. If you want to know more, let me know. It is pretty amazing that he has any credibility at all, let alone the power that he has.
The second being the categorization. It was filed under ASPD in the DSM. If you don't have any idea how the DSM is constructed, you might be very surprised. It is literally a bunch of clinicians gathering in a room, throwing out terms, and then coming up with things that define those terms. Hare, to his limited credit, very much opposed psychopathy being removed. He lobbied hard for it to be included, but failed. There is a rumor that it will be included in a future edition under the term "Hare's syndrome".
The third is where it is studied. It is only studied in prisons, and this is self limiting and reductive. Its studied in criminals, therefore it is criminal by nature. Not, we decided to study it in prisons, and ignore the larger population of psychopaths in the general population. When they are brought up by another researcher, we will laugh at them and discredit them.
The fourth is the catchall nature of the term that the general public has adopted. It is a stand in for anyone that does something egregious. Thus phrases like;
Not all psychopaths are serial killers, but all serial killers are psychopaths.
Or;
Not all narcissists are psychopaths, but all psychopaths are narcissists.
Neither of these statements are based in facts, but they perpetuate regardless.
In the write up that you reference in the second comment, there are long source citations at the end of at least one of the parts, if not both. Otherwise I recommend;
https://www.quora.com/Who-are-some-best-known-and-valued-researchers-and-experts-in-psychopathy/answer/Athena-Walker
When looking into psychopathy it is littered with issues in how it is considered. Neurotypicals make assumptions as to how the world is experienced in the psychopathic mind based on how they experience it. This is an error, and causes a lot of preconceptions that are asserted as fact, but can be easily be debunked with any practical consideration.
I have noticed that the definition is a mess due to the mix of cultural perceptions and it seems even professionals have a biased perception of their own, based on what I hear about Robert Hare. (And published papers that I have read do often associate psychopathy with a behavior-type diagnosis like ASPD, hence my initial assumption that they were the same.)
If you have some time to spare, I'd like to know more about how anyone has absolute power over defining a word that supposedly belongs to the realm of a scientific study. That is absurd, I can't believe it, but if I really want to explore this profession I'll have to understand.
One more issue is that the general population will readily accept scientific papers, not knowing that the procedures are actually not good enough to make sure what idea or conclusion gets accepted actually makes use of good logic and factual basis. This will continue the cycle of misinformation for as long as the industry cannot monitor itself correctly. I believe that not all professionals are willing to buy that kind of bullshit, but as you have been saying, there are true barriers to why they can't make direct action to fix what sounds like a convoluted mess. As an aspiring researcher, this is far too appalling. I would like to know more but of course I will do my own share of reading up on this.
Hare got the power by basically stealing a checklist, changing a few things on it, getting a copyright on that pilfered list, and getting it to be the diagnostic "gold standard". There was a hole in the market, Hare saw it, and he filled it.
Now he teaches psychopath spotting weekends, specific training on how to use the PCL system, makes royalties on the use of the PCL system which he tries to downplay by saying that it's only about $35,000 a year, he writes books on psychopathy, was a university professor who made it so the PCL system is what is taught for psychopathy identification, and he is a lecturer on it as well.
He became the loudest voice in the room, and has a bully mentality to match it. When people challenge his assertions, he literally sues them for defamation to shut them up. It's amazing to me that anyone takes his work as credible just based on how he behaves, but he is still considered the guru of psychopathy. So much so that it was being considered for addition in the DSM as "Hare's syndrome".
It's too much to hear this happening; I feel foolish for having hoped that research was untouchable by irrationality and corruption. I thought that human error is inevitable, but that the logic and basis of science will always be there to self-correct. I had always assumed the field to be a strictly scientific, but then again it SHOULD be. Only that its powerful members don't uphold such principles, which makes me understand now why it's arguably a futile struggle to try to make a difference within the profession.
I'm certain that you do this for your own fulfillment, but allow me to still offer you my thanks. I wholly appreciate your thoughtful responsiveness and detailed information distribution, to an unquantifiable extent.
I will have to think about this some more, personally.
Falsehood is inconvenient and regressive, and the truth itself can never decay, but man can.
I love this field from the deepest depths of my unappeasable mind, and I cannot give it up for anything (within the limits of what I previously thought), but if getting inside the profession means I have to play pretend, be subject to incompetent powers, and ignore the tampering of man's truth—I will need to recalibrate my own path.
I've searched and read what little I could for now but it seems the results I'm getting are limited to Quora. If I may additionally ask then, why Quora? Are there barriers to formally publishing all these findings with Dr. Natalie? What I like about published research is that there are opportunities for formal and professional peer review to further elevate the significance of research, increase credibility, and spread awareness more reliably. (In case there are actually peer-reviewed publications, I'm sorry then, I take my questions back.)
I hope you can forgive any offense from these questions of mine. I am trying to understand this topic and am very eager to do so, which is why I am giving my best feedback as a reader and an information consumer.
You didn't offend me, I actually don't experience offense. I can be annoyed by misinformation, but personal offense isn't something that I experience.
I started writing on Quora because I liked the way the site operated. It gave me a specific question to ponder, and provide an answer to. As to why that answer isn't published, I am not a psychologist. I don't have the alphabet soup after my name, nor do I want it. I prefer working outside the confines of the psychological community.
When I wrote this piece I sent it to a psychologist to be assured I wasn't being overly critical or hyperbolic, and what that person sent back to me regarding the environment of research. She stated that most of it is not done by clinicians, but rather PhD students, and academics churn it out without really understanding the things that they are researching, among other serious problems. In other words, the research is done without real consideration of what they are putting forth as findings. They don't begin what they are researching to begin with, and the arrive at conclusions regardless.
Peer review is another place that I would really recommend you look into the validity of. It is rather... suspect. You can pay to get the "peer reviewed" label, it doesn't lend any credibility to anything. You can get things peer reviewed when it is clear that no one bothered to read what is in the paper. Frankly, it's a racket. To prove this, a group submitted a number of nonsensical papers, some that were just rewritten passages from Mein Kampf using current social justice language, and they got the peer reviewed stamp. It was just done to prove that peer review is a waste to place any faith in.
If this is the study you are going to go into, you might really need to dig into how the profession conducts itself. it's pretty messy.
Thanks for the very helpful insight! I didn't know the profession was so crazy :( I'm still hoping I could somehow make a difference, but listening to all of this now, I'm worried if it's useless... I suppose I still want to explore it before making a decision from there. Thanks for the reality check!
Definitely do your own research into it. You can probably make a difference, but you will have to find a good pathway for yourself.