Great article! I think a lot of people stay silent because they don't want to deal with the hateful judgements that come with the label. Many people spend a great deal of time and energy hiding the fact that they are different than other's. I would like to argue that every personality type has a place in society. There are many situations where emotions MUST be set aside and steady hands, laser focus, and clear rational thought are required. A surgeon, ems driver, rescue worker, even teacher all must be able to set emotions aside and do the job required. Can they break down later if needed? Some can. Some can't. Everyone deals in different ways. Not everyone has the constitution to be steady handed. Its a gift that has an important place. 💞
What about people who burn out due to high empathy? There has to be a balance. Some people learn how to turn their emotions on and off to survive. Doesn't necessarily make them of evil or bad judgement. I don't have to care about the person or the outcome in order to do the right thing. Its simply the right thing to do. I have been taught well. I do not have to feel in order to act. I do what is right because it is right.
I didn't really comprehend that burning out from high empathy was a risk. I have such a disconnect from it, it isn't relatable, but it is interesting to think about. If that is the case, than those that can turn their emotions off and on, provided that they have a decent handle on cognitive empathy, that seems to be a winning combination.
Yep, the possibility of burn out is real, and the shutting off essential. At any given time, one can take this much or that, and it's important to know how much detachment is necessary to protect ourselves.
I have been enjoying your writing and your information for some years now, thanks to Quora. This site of yours is a goldmine to me, so many thanks for your sharing yourself and your knowledgeable insight. I feel more enlightened about humans, emotions, psychiatric medical science, and lastly, current social trends. I have many questions with which I won’t be burdening you, Athena- I will do my diligent research and discover what I can then return to you. Meanwhile, know that your effort is greatly appreciated.
The lack of clarity in the thinking of many people like the quoted psychologist, the way the basic constructs in their thought seem warped by primate-brain emotions like "DIFFERENT NOT HUMAN OTHER" has caused repeats of this sort of thing across so many situations. It is rare that humanity takes a stand against it, and it's only done selectively -- like "we must never define people of religious group X as lacking humanity".
But then, the ability to have empathy for one's own "group" and also totally shut off empathy for other groups, may have conferred survival advantage to some of our genocidal ancestors...
It's fricking terrifying, speaking as a neurominority who feels fear but luckily can mask pretty well.
I became interested in following you from your quora activities. The thing that was sort of a wake up for me was the lack of oxytocin reception, that's me, and inability to become addicted which was something I'd discovered when I had some surgeries a few years back and for the life of me couldn't figure out what the big deal with OxyContin and other opioids was suppose to be. It helped with pain and when I stopped hurting so much I didn't take it anymore.
Then there are things like The Mask and other techniques used to deal with a neurotypical world that I recognized in myself.
Indeed, all of that is very familiar to me. I have never understood the addiction issues, and it can make me very callous to those that struggle with it, so I have had to learn cognitive empathy for something that I can never understand.
I have to watch my own callousness toward addiction because what I'm really thinking is "if they die, they die" and I know that's not at all appropriate
It's a bit more than that for me I think. I can't understand any part of it, so I tended towards having the opinion that they are choosing it. I can't get addicted to anything, and if I extrapolate my experience out and apply it to others, I will assume that they can't either, so it has to be a choice.
That is completely unconsidered, and I am making assumptions based on my own understanding of the world, without taking into account that there are things I can't comprehend. There is difference in how I consider addiction versus emotional experiences that I cannot have because to me, this is a physiological thing. Up until I understood that the brain I was born with literally processes things differently than that of NTs, I couldn't understand why they couldn't just stop doing what they were doing. I saw nothing that made sense to me.
I get it now cognitively, but it still is very strange to me as well.
That is exactly the divide that I am dealing with. Cognitively I can see that it is indeed more than that, but personal experience I can't understand what the draw or the hold is that drugs have.
It's worth considering addictions in terms of basic human necessities, because that's what it feels like for the addicted body and brain. If you can comprehend extreme desperation hunger, desperate thirst, or just even needing to breathe after however many swim strokes in the pool, and how those things feel to a person, you can sort of understand addiction. The need feels the same, perhaps worse as it has a mental and emotional dimension as well, but no matter. And with some drugs, since they initially offer a degree of intense pleasure beyond that of the non druggie people to understand, let alone psychopaths, that's a further problem for people staying clean.
Knowing that you could get addicted is a strength in my estimation. It won't take you by surprise as it has so many other people. You know that there is a risk, and you can therefore steer clear of it. Knowing where you could fall, so you can avoid those situations is something I would deem rather positive.
When I was younger I did occasionally try different drugs. A friend of mine at the time who was very deeply invested his own illegal marijuana grows and the like would occasionally express something like you said here. That any time I tried something it was almost like the first time since I never made a habit of any of it.
The thing is that I do not believe that my experience was anything nearly as intense as what he and his wife and other friends would feel. Drugs never even affected me to the point where I would even have a craving for something. I feel more strongly about Popeye's Fried Chicken than any drug because ever couple of months it'll occur to me that I've not had any in a while
What would you say needs to change? The name or the perception of psychopaths? I agree people won’t change their views on psychopaths, to most, they are just evil people to be avoided at all costs.
And also, I don’t think well adjusted psychopaths will want to share their diagnosis, if they agreed to a proper diagnosis in the first place. If they are happy as they are, why bother going through all the tests?
Some people would go through it out of curiosity, as it does answer some questions about why they think like they do. When you have always been different and can't figure out why that is, it is interesting to have the information that answers that question. However, that won't be the case until people can look at psychopathy and see that it actually does apply to them, and want to look into it further.
As for what needs to change, I think that people need to have access to information that counters what is believed about psychopathy, and that information must be more mainstream than what is currently available. That would be the first step. The goal of course is to influence the up and coming people that are going to go into research, so they pursue new pathways away from the criminal cohort that has been favored until now.
Yes, yes information to the contrary is needed, if I can help in influencing and bringing it more mainstream, I will. Any suggestions? I don't actually talk to anyone about psychopathy? Bringing the subject up would almost be like bringing up religion or politics . . . . and in today's world not an easy conversation.
I would say that it is probably something that a lot of people have to come to on their own. If they believe that psychopaths are fundamentally evil, that is a hard belief to challenge, so they are more likely going to be willing to challenge that belief privately, thus why I write what I do.
I don't bring it up either, nor do I try to personally give them contrary information.
If it is brought up in a conversation, and the person has a lot of incorrect ideas, I have personally said to people like this,
"I can understand your perspective. I used to think that way as well, but I heard this Ted Talk by psychologist that addressed a lot of my previously held beliefs, and had decent counterpoints that I have been considering."
Then give them a link to Kevin Dutton, or Armon Tamatea (he is the one with the Ted Talk) and if they watch it, great. If not, oh well.
To be certain, "Psychopathy Sucks". Reading your posts on Quora and here, have absolutely turned my life around. My understanding (now) and personal experience with psychopathy has been entirely as you describe in your numerous and excellent writings. I will be forever grateful for the 'treasure' --the gift -- you provided to me.
I really enjoyed reading that piece Athena! It cuts to the chase, and eliminates the garbage that misconstrued labelling, judgement, fear, revulsion and scorn are poured upon psychopaths heads from every conceivable direction. Either that, or people scatter randomly - now uncertain how to deal with this unknown entity in their midst. Occasionally it would be interesting to be a fly-on-the-wall to hear what they say. I generally don’t have the energy or Inclination, to ponder over their discussions much though!
Ok so here's where I get a little confused....1 percent of the population are psychopaths, yet 15 percent of inmates are psychopaths. So how does that stack up against how much of the general population is in prison? It looks like a high number of psychopaths are criminal considering the numbers. Without the having the percent of NTs in prison to compare it to.
You can't figure out how many neurotypicals are in prison as they haven't done brain scans on them. Many things are considered neurodivergent, so it isn't exactly easy to say, this percentage is "neurotypical", but rather, this percentage is "other than psychopathic".
I also have to point out that the number of psychopaths in prison estimate is using the PCL-R as the standard to measure them by. Many people that are considered psychopathic by that tool are actually just ASPD individuals, as the PCL-R is not a great tool. It is more likely that seven percent is closer to the number, but I will concede to the study and use the fifteen percent.
Ok even after that, I don't see, how you come to the conclusion that there are more non criminal or violent psychopaths then violent ones. Wouldn't you have to compare the prison population to society to come up with those numbers? like, what percentage of the GP is in prison, compared to what percentage of psychopaths are in prison? Compared to what percentage of the population that are psychopaths, and then how many of them are incarcerated for violent crimes, before you can say that there are more or less, violent psychopaths?
What does fifteen percent of that number look like.
What percent is the number of psychopaths in prison versus those that are not.
That translates to 10-13%, so I concede to the 15% estimation understanding that there is going to be overestimation due to the PCL-R being the tool used.
All of those numbers are in the answer I sent you the link to.
To take it a step farther, what I see in the numbers is that there is only 1percent of the GP that are psychopaths and 15 percent of the prison population are . It looks like percentage wise there are more psychopaths in prison then there are in the GP. So we would also need to compare the number of the GP in prison that are violent, to come up with a true statical percent. That said you're probably right, there are more non violent psychopaths then violent, however the numbers you have do not lead to that conclusion, I think because the math is incomplete.
I cannot see how you would arrive at that number. There are several million of psychopaths in the US, and only a couple hundred thousand estimated to be in prison.
I'm familiar with the works of Hervey Cleckley, Robert Hare and Jon Ronson, and their definitions of psychopathy seems to be quite different from what you're describing. Which traits do you think defines psychopathy? Only the interpersonal-affective traits? It would be interesting if you refined your view as a new checklist. Maybe "Walkers Psychopathy Checklist" could be a topic for a future post?
Thanks! I found a screenshot of Dutton's test on Quora (The test on his website doesn't work). It's interesting to see the differences between the many tests.
Heya, you have absolutely sparked my Jack-Skeleton reflex of " What's this!?!"; Please point me out to unbiased sources that describe Hare's profitable scam.
I am actually working on a detailed post about Hare at the moment that will go up sometimes next week. It will be long, and plenty of links for resources to read further into it.
Interestingly, I don't care so much about the Hollywood writers, because, as you said, it is their job to entertain. It is the people that believe it so readily, or the doctors/researchers that entertain the notion that any of these characters are representative of psychopathy. That is where a lot of the problems come from, and unfortunately, it is just making more myths to debunk.
Great article! I think a lot of people stay silent because they don't want to deal with the hateful judgements that come with the label. Many people spend a great deal of time and energy hiding the fact that they are different than other's. I would like to argue that every personality type has a place in society. There are many situations where emotions MUST be set aside and steady hands, laser focus, and clear rational thought are required. A surgeon, ems driver, rescue worker, even teacher all must be able to set emotions aside and do the job required. Can they break down later if needed? Some can. Some can't. Everyone deals in different ways. Not everyone has the constitution to be steady handed. Its a gift that has an important place. 💞
I agree. As my mother has always said, "Takes all kinds to make a world".
What about people who burn out due to high empathy? There has to be a balance. Some people learn how to turn their emotions on and off to survive. Doesn't necessarily make them of evil or bad judgement. I don't have to care about the person or the outcome in order to do the right thing. Its simply the right thing to do. I have been taught well. I do not have to feel in order to act. I do what is right because it is right.
I didn't really comprehend that burning out from high empathy was a risk. I have such a disconnect from it, it isn't relatable, but it is interesting to think about. If that is the case, than those that can turn their emotions off and on, provided that they have a decent handle on cognitive empathy, that seems to be a winning combination.
Yep, the possibility of burn out is real, and the shutting off essential. At any given time, one can take this much or that, and it's important to know how much detachment is necessary to protect ourselves.
Totally agree, Detachment is important and essential.
Indeed
I have been enjoying your writing and your information for some years now, thanks to Quora. This site of yours is a goldmine to me, so many thanks for your sharing yourself and your knowledgeable insight. I feel more enlightened about humans, emotions, psychiatric medical science, and lastly, current social trends. I have many questions with which I won’t be burdening you, Athena- I will do my diligent research and discover what I can then return to you. Meanwhile, know that your effort is greatly appreciated.
That is very kind of you, Elizabeth
Thank you for another excellent article!
The lack of clarity in the thinking of many people like the quoted psychologist, the way the basic constructs in their thought seem warped by primate-brain emotions like "DIFFERENT NOT HUMAN OTHER" has caused repeats of this sort of thing across so many situations. It is rare that humanity takes a stand against it, and it's only done selectively -- like "we must never define people of religious group X as lacking humanity".
But then, the ability to have empathy for one's own "group" and also totally shut off empathy for other groups, may have conferred survival advantage to some of our genocidal ancestors...
It's fricking terrifying, speaking as a neurominority who feels fear but luckily can mask pretty well.
Even without the feeling of fear, I can definitely agree with the necessity of masking.
I became interested in following you from your quora activities. The thing that was sort of a wake up for me was the lack of oxytocin reception, that's me, and inability to become addicted which was something I'd discovered when I had some surgeries a few years back and for the life of me couldn't figure out what the big deal with OxyContin and other opioids was suppose to be. It helped with pain and when I stopped hurting so much I didn't take it anymore.
Then there are things like The Mask and other techniques used to deal with a neurotypical world that I recognized in myself.
Indeed, all of that is very familiar to me. I have never understood the addiction issues, and it can make me very callous to those that struggle with it, so I have had to learn cognitive empathy for something that I can never understand.
I have to watch my own callousness toward addiction because what I'm really thinking is "if they die, they die" and I know that's not at all appropriate
It's a bit more than that for me I think. I can't understand any part of it, so I tended towards having the opinion that they are choosing it. I can't get addicted to anything, and if I extrapolate my experience out and apply it to others, I will assume that they can't either, so it has to be a choice.
That is completely unconsidered, and I am making assumptions based on my own understanding of the world, without taking into account that there are things I can't comprehend. There is difference in how I consider addiction versus emotional experiences that I cannot have because to me, this is a physiological thing. Up until I understood that the brain I was born with literally processes things differently than that of NTs, I couldn't understand why they couldn't just stop doing what they were doing. I saw nothing that made sense to me.
I get it now cognitively, but it still is very strange to me as well.
That's probably a better description of my opinion than what I'd said. They make a choice and if they die they die.
That is exactly the divide that I am dealing with. Cognitively I can see that it is indeed more than that, but personal experience I can't understand what the draw or the hold is that drugs have.
I would guess that the distinction of a regular heavy drinker is the ability to walk away from it?
It's worth considering addictions in terms of basic human necessities, because that's what it feels like for the addicted body and brain. If you can comprehend extreme desperation hunger, desperate thirst, or just even needing to breathe after however many swim strokes in the pool, and how those things feel to a person, you can sort of understand addiction. The need feels the same, perhaps worse as it has a mental and emotional dimension as well, but no matter. And with some drugs, since they initially offer a degree of intense pleasure beyond that of the non druggie people to understand, let alone psychopaths, that's a further problem for people staying clean.
That is a very interesting way of describing it.
Yes, that's correct.
Knowing that you could get addicted is a strength in my estimation. It won't take you by surprise as it has so many other people. You know that there is a risk, and you can therefore steer clear of it. Knowing where you could fall, so you can avoid those situations is something I would deem rather positive.
I disagree. If you are blind to your weakness, it's still there, and it has a lot of power without you having the ability to understand that weakness.
When I was younger I did occasionally try different drugs. A friend of mine at the time who was very deeply invested his own illegal marijuana grows and the like would occasionally express something like you said here. That any time I tried something it was almost like the first time since I never made a habit of any of it.
The thing is that I do not believe that my experience was anything nearly as intense as what he and his wife and other friends would feel. Drugs never even affected me to the point where I would even have a craving for something. I feel more strongly about Popeye's Fried Chicken than any drug because ever couple of months it'll occur to me that I've not had any in a while
That sounds a great deal like me
What would you say needs to change? The name or the perception of psychopaths? I agree people won’t change their views on psychopaths, to most, they are just evil people to be avoided at all costs.
And also, I don’t think well adjusted psychopaths will want to share their diagnosis, if they agreed to a proper diagnosis in the first place. If they are happy as they are, why bother going through all the tests?
Great post as always, Athena!
Some people would go through it out of curiosity, as it does answer some questions about why they think like they do. When you have always been different and can't figure out why that is, it is interesting to have the information that answers that question. However, that won't be the case until people can look at psychopathy and see that it actually does apply to them, and want to look into it further.
As for what needs to change, I think that people need to have access to information that counters what is believed about psychopathy, and that information must be more mainstream than what is currently available. That would be the first step. The goal of course is to influence the up and coming people that are going to go into research, so they pursue new pathways away from the criminal cohort that has been favored until now.
Yes, yes information to the contrary is needed, if I can help in influencing and bringing it more mainstream, I will. Any suggestions? I don't actually talk to anyone about psychopathy? Bringing the subject up would almost be like bringing up religion or politics . . . . and in today's world not an easy conversation.
I would say that it is probably something that a lot of people have to come to on their own. If they believe that psychopaths are fundamentally evil, that is a hard belief to challenge, so they are more likely going to be willing to challenge that belief privately, thus why I write what I do.
I don't bring it up either, nor do I try to personally give them contrary information.
If it is brought up in a conversation, and the person has a lot of incorrect ideas, I have personally said to people like this,
"I can understand your perspective. I used to think that way as well, but I heard this Ted Talk by psychologist that addressed a lot of my previously held beliefs, and had decent counterpoints that I have been considering."
Then give them a link to Kevin Dutton, or Armon Tamatea (he is the one with the Ted Talk) and if they watch it, great. If not, oh well.
Thank you for the tip and reference to Dutton and Tamatea. Very much appreciate🌻
Happy to help
To be certain, "Psychopathy Sucks". Reading your posts on Quora and here, have absolutely turned my life around. My understanding (now) and personal experience with psychopathy has been entirely as you describe in your numerous and excellent writings. I will be forever grateful for the 'treasure' --the gift -- you provided to me.
Thank you for reading, NB
I really enjoyed reading that piece Athena! It cuts to the chase, and eliminates the garbage that misconstrued labelling, judgement, fear, revulsion and scorn are poured upon psychopaths heads from every conceivable direction. Either that, or people scatter randomly - now uncertain how to deal with this unknown entity in their midst. Occasionally it would be interesting to be a fly-on-the-wall to hear what they say. I generally don’t have the energy or Inclination, to ponder over their discussions much though!
Well written as always. One question... How do you know there are more non violent psychopaths then violent ones?
I wrote a post about exactly that:
https://athenawalker.substack.com/p/antisocial-psychopaths
Ok so here's where I get a little confused....1 percent of the population are psychopaths, yet 15 percent of inmates are psychopaths. So how does that stack up against how much of the general population is in prison? It looks like a high number of psychopaths are criminal considering the numbers. Without the having the percent of NTs in prison to compare it to.
You can't figure out how many neurotypicals are in prison as they haven't done brain scans on them. Many things are considered neurodivergent, so it isn't exactly easy to say, this percentage is "neurotypical", but rather, this percentage is "other than psychopathic".
I also have to point out that the number of psychopaths in prison estimate is using the PCL-R as the standard to measure them by. Many people that are considered psychopathic by that tool are actually just ASPD individuals, as the PCL-R is not a great tool. It is more likely that seven percent is closer to the number, but I will concede to the study and use the fifteen percent.
Ok even after that, I don't see, how you come to the conclusion that there are more non criminal or violent psychopaths then violent ones. Wouldn't you have to compare the prison population to society to come up with those numbers? like, what percentage of the GP is in prison, compared to what percentage of psychopaths are in prison? Compared to what percentage of the population that are psychopaths, and then how many of them are incarcerated for violent crimes, before you can say that there are more or less, violent psychopaths?
How many people are in the US.
What percent of that is .75-1%
How many people are in prison.
What does fifteen percent of that number look like.
What percent is the number of psychopaths in prison versus those that are not.
That translates to 10-13%, so I concede to the 15% estimation understanding that there is going to be overestimation due to the PCL-R being the tool used.
All of those numbers are in the answer I sent you the link to.
To take it a step farther, what I see in the numbers is that there is only 1percent of the GP that are psychopaths and 15 percent of the prison population are . It looks like percentage wise there are more psychopaths in prison then there are in the GP. So we would also need to compare the number of the GP in prison that are violent, to come up with a true statical percent. That said you're probably right, there are more non violent psychopaths then violent, however the numbers you have do not lead to that conclusion, I think because the math is incomplete.
I cannot see how you would arrive at that number. There are several million of psychopaths in the US, and only a couple hundred thousand estimated to be in prison.
I'm familiar with the works of Hervey Cleckley, Robert Hare and Jon Ronson, and their definitions of psychopathy seems to be quite different from what you're describing. Which traits do you think defines psychopathy? Only the interpersonal-affective traits? It would be interesting if you refined your view as a new checklist. Maybe "Walkers Psychopathy Checklist" could be a topic for a future post?
That would be interesting. I agree with Dutton's checklist. If you aren’t familiar, I am happy link it.
Thanks! I found a screenshot of Dutton's test on Quora (The test on his website doesn't work). It's interesting to see the differences between the many tests.
Heya, you have absolutely sparked my Jack-Skeleton reflex of " What's this!?!"; Please point me out to unbiased sources that describe Hare's profitable scam.
I am actually working on a detailed post about Hare at the moment that will go up sometimes next week. It will be long, and plenty of links for resources to read further into it.
What is the difference between psychopathy and sociopathy if we follow his definitions?
Interestingly, I don't care so much about the Hollywood writers, because, as you said, it is their job to entertain. It is the people that believe it so readily, or the doctors/researchers that entertain the notion that any of these characters are representative of psychopathy. That is where a lot of the problems come from, and unfortunately, it is just making more myths to debunk.
I know what you mean. It's a mess. I am thinking about writing a post about this exact problem.