For me this argument boils down to whether or not you believe that people exist in this world that are genetically unable to process oxytocin - if you do, then by definition it's valid to distinguish between psychopathy and sociopathy as far as I'm concerned, regardless of what terms we actually use to describe them (I don't really care what words we use, call them 'apple' and 'bob' for all I care, but it would be helpful if we could just pick two terms and stick with them, instead of keep changing our terminology every 5 minutes! And since we have two perfectly good words already, in psychopathy and sociopathy, we may as well just keep using those, no?).
If you accept that people exist with a genetic mutation that prevents them from processing oxytocin, and that that genetic/chemical difference causes traits like lack of empathy, low emotionality, lack of fear etc, then clearly we have on our hands one very specific non-neurotypical condition with a very specific cause, and a very specific collection of traits that come with it.
But at the same time it seems pretty well established at this point in human history that abuse, neglect and trauma from a young age can produce almost any combination of negative traits and behaviours in neurotypical humans, depending on the exact nature of the abuse/trauma - some of which are similar to the traits caused by inability to process oxytocin, eg low emotionally (caused by repression), lack of empathy (due to repressed emotions), impulsivity (due to boredom from the emotional void) etc.
So if those two things are true - some people have 'callous-unemotional' traits due to oxytocin immunity, and some people have 'callous-unemotional' traits due to emotional repression as a result of childhood abuse, then by definition it's valid (if not imperative!) to distinguish between the two.
If you're arguing against making a distinction between them, as PsychopathyIS seem to be, then to me that implies that you think everyone with traits at that end of the spectrum has developed them due to nurture, and that the genetic inability to process oxytocin isn't real.
There are three things (other than the actual research) that convince me that inability to process oxytocin is real:
1. There are 8 billion people on this planet, evolving over a period of several hundred thousand years - from an evolutionary point of view it would be quite surprising if such a genetic mutation didn't crop up from time to time
2. The fit between the established traits of psychopathy and the role of oxytocin in the body is basically a perfect match (leaving out the criminal ones that should never have been on the list in the first place). Even if no research had ever been done into psychopathy itself, just purely based on what was already known about oxytocin from other research, the traits of psychopathy are EXACTLY what you would logically expect to find in a person who can't process it.
3. The traits of psychopathy, in my view, are too extreme, too absolute, and too consistent, to be explained solely by things that would come under the category of 'nurture' - we're not talking about less emotional empathy, we're talking about none. We're not talking about low levels of fear, we're talking about it being non-existent to the point of sometimes being a danger to oneself. We're not talking about just not being very socially minded, we're talking about complete indifference to the views of others. We're not talking about just not being a very emotional person, we're talking about complete inabilty to code any memory with any emotion - these are extreme traits, and to me it seems that only something huge like the inability to process a core brain chemical like oxytocin can really explain it.
I'm not sure what agenda PsychopathyIS is trying to push, or why, but if they want to take issue with the oxytocin explanation, then they really need to start engaging with the research and explaining why they disagree with it, rather than just making sweeping statements and random assertions!
It's odd isn't it, how the 'big names' in psychopathy research seem so hung up on controlling the narrative, and forcing psychopathy to fit their own pre-conceived ideas about it, rather than having a genuine curiosity about it, or a desire to uncover the truth. It's almost like there's something about psychopathy that attracts narcissists lol, which I guess makes sense actually, because that level of calm, indifference, and self assurance, is something most narcissists can probably only dream of. The more M E Thomas videos I watch the more she seems to be revelling in her 'psychopath' status, especially when she starts talking about how she 'enjoys ruining people'. Which would make her decidedly neurotypical, or at least certainly not psychopathic!
"sweeping statements and random assertions" perfectly describes the site. They want to be the self-proclaimed authority on all things psychopathy, in the same way that Robert Hare did. Then, they propose to treat what is not treatable...
I took their screening test almost 3 years ago. There was only 1, now there are 5. They said I was in the 99th percentile. They sent me an email asking if I wanted to be in a research study. It was from "Georgetown Kids Behavior Study" at Georgetown University. I said yes because, why not? They sent a follow up email saying they were finalizing things and they would get in touch when they were ready. I've never heard anything since. I can forward the emails to you if you want.
I do not understand why some people invest so much energy into something they clearly don't even want to understand. Is it some sort of religious impulse that drives them?
I mentioned this in another comment, but I suspect that they are seeking to fill the hole that Hare's inevitable passing will lead. He has made a mint off of psychopathy, and he is ninety.
"I guess the best we can do for you is neurotypical."
Funny, Athena. My religious friends would say "plain ole sinner" will suffice! That guy seemed to be trying to convince, and bragging. This site is just bad news for clarity...
"We have assembled the most comprehensive set of scientifically accurate videos, articles and podcasts about Psychopathy on the internet."
This is NPD level grandiose! Like you said, the grift is obvious.
"Psychopathyis.org cannot verify the accuracy of the submitted content."
Then how is it "scientifically accurate"?
The thing about diagnosing children is just too sad, and also extremely dangerous. Thank you for the pushback, Athena. This site has the potential to do a lot of damage to a lot of people.
Indeed, it is really unfortunate that they are willing to subject children to this sort of thing for what seems to be the chasing of clout. When writing this, I had a thought that there is a possibility they are trying to fill the inevitable and upcoming hole that Robert Hare's death will present. He is ninety, afterall.
What an insight. I'm sure there'll be competition to do so, too. I wonder how long they'll wait before reconsidering Hare's work altogether? It will be fascinating to watch unfold. As for the children, what about the protocol that a diagnosis not be made until age 18? Maybe with the state of kids' mental health, the powers that be decided they've been waiting too long? I thoroughly despise the idea of parents going over a checklist looking for traits in their children, and slapping a label on them. You know a lot of people will do this on their own given carte blanche from sites like this. Being told to seek professional help after the fact won't inhibit parental application of their own diy solutions.
Yes, I imagine that the vacuum and those that rush to fill it will be a sight to behold.
They clearly do not care about any of the ethical guidelines regarding children, since they are willing to institutionalize them for something that isn't treatable. Talk therapy, drugs, or institutionalization will not change how a person's brain is structured or how it processes chemistry. To pretend that it will is straight out lying, and fleecing people for money on the backs of children.
The thought of institutionalization is beyond outrageous. There's no end to the potential for abuse. I'm sure there are plenty of parents who don't want to be bothered with their responsibilities any longer, and would find this to be an easy way out, especially managing young teenagers. I have a "paranoid schizophrenic" friend who has never been dangerous or psychotic. She spent two years in what she described to me as a prison-like system under the pretense of being a hospital mostly because her single mother couldn't deal with her. I don't know whether or not my friend told anyone that she'd taken a hit of acid prior to the events that led to her hospitalization, but it accounted for the "psychotic" symptoms that led to her diagnosis. She was locked up until the age of 18 when her mother was no longer responsible for her. I've known many people with schizophrenia, and I still don't believe that her diagnosis was correct. Nevertheless, she's been on antipsychotics for years. She could have been mistaken for having psychopathy, too. Teenagers, by the nature of their being, can seem mentally ill.
Fear of being jailed, probably. I don't know what she was thinking. Then, I didn't see her for 2 years. I tried talking to her mother and then her grandmother in hopes of intervening on her behalf. They seemed to really believe that this diagnosis was correct. She was sent to a really expensive hospital, which would later be known as notorious, confirming the few things she told me about it later. She had obviously been traumatized, so we rarely talked about it. But, I don't think the diagnosis would have mattered. I also don't think the acid was enough to bring on all of this tribulation. Personally, I felt that they were looking for a reason. Any diagnosis would do.
For me this argument boils down to whether or not you believe that people exist in this world that are genetically unable to process oxytocin - if you do, then by definition it's valid to distinguish between psychopathy and sociopathy as far as I'm concerned, regardless of what terms we actually use to describe them (I don't really care what words we use, call them 'apple' and 'bob' for all I care, but it would be helpful if we could just pick two terms and stick with them, instead of keep changing our terminology every 5 minutes! And since we have two perfectly good words already, in psychopathy and sociopathy, we may as well just keep using those, no?).
If you accept that people exist with a genetic mutation that prevents them from processing oxytocin, and that that genetic/chemical difference causes traits like lack of empathy, low emotionality, lack of fear etc, then clearly we have on our hands one very specific non-neurotypical condition with a very specific cause, and a very specific collection of traits that come with it.
But at the same time it seems pretty well established at this point in human history that abuse, neglect and trauma from a young age can produce almost any combination of negative traits and behaviours in neurotypical humans, depending on the exact nature of the abuse/trauma - some of which are similar to the traits caused by inability to process oxytocin, eg low emotionally (caused by repression), lack of empathy (due to repressed emotions), impulsivity (due to boredom from the emotional void) etc.
So if those two things are true - some people have 'callous-unemotional' traits due to oxytocin immunity, and some people have 'callous-unemotional' traits due to emotional repression as a result of childhood abuse, then by definition it's valid (if not imperative!) to distinguish between the two.
If you're arguing against making a distinction between them, as PsychopathyIS seem to be, then to me that implies that you think everyone with traits at that end of the spectrum has developed them due to nurture, and that the genetic inability to process oxytocin isn't real.
There are three things (other than the actual research) that convince me that inability to process oxytocin is real:
1. There are 8 billion people on this planet, evolving over a period of several hundred thousand years - from an evolutionary point of view it would be quite surprising if such a genetic mutation didn't crop up from time to time
2. The fit between the established traits of psychopathy and the role of oxytocin in the body is basically a perfect match (leaving out the criminal ones that should never have been on the list in the first place). Even if no research had ever been done into psychopathy itself, just purely based on what was already known about oxytocin from other research, the traits of psychopathy are EXACTLY what you would logically expect to find in a person who can't process it.
3. The traits of psychopathy, in my view, are too extreme, too absolute, and too consistent, to be explained solely by things that would come under the category of 'nurture' - we're not talking about less emotional empathy, we're talking about none. We're not talking about low levels of fear, we're talking about it being non-existent to the point of sometimes being a danger to oneself. We're not talking about just not being very socially minded, we're talking about complete indifference to the views of others. We're not talking about just not being a very emotional person, we're talking about complete inabilty to code any memory with any emotion - these are extreme traits, and to me it seems that only something huge like the inability to process a core brain chemical like oxytocin can really explain it.
I'm not sure what agenda PsychopathyIS is trying to push, or why, but if they want to take issue with the oxytocin explanation, then they really need to start engaging with the research and explaining why they disagree with it, rather than just making sweeping statements and random assertions!
I agree, but they seem to take the stance of ignoring it in favor of their own narrative. It's annoying.
It's odd isn't it, how the 'big names' in psychopathy research seem so hung up on controlling the narrative, and forcing psychopathy to fit their own pre-conceived ideas about it, rather than having a genuine curiosity about it, or a desire to uncover the truth. It's almost like there's something about psychopathy that attracts narcissists lol, which I guess makes sense actually, because that level of calm, indifference, and self assurance, is something most narcissists can probably only dream of. The more M E Thomas videos I watch the more she seems to be revelling in her 'psychopath' status, especially when she starts talking about how she 'enjoys ruining people'. Which would make her decidedly neurotypical, or at least certainly not psychopathic!
"sweeping statements and random assertions" perfectly describes the site. They want to be the self-proclaimed authority on all things psychopathy, in the same way that Robert Hare did. Then, they propose to treat what is not treatable...
I took their screening test almost 3 years ago. There was only 1, now there are 5. They said I was in the 99th percentile. They sent me an email asking if I wanted to be in a research study. It was from "Georgetown Kids Behavior Study" at Georgetown University. I said yes because, why not? They sent a follow up email saying they were finalizing things and they would get in touch when they were ready. I've never heard anything since. I can forward the emails to you if you want.
By all means.
TheRealAthenaWalker@gmail.com
I appreciate it
I do not understand why some people invest so much energy into something they clearly don't even want to understand. Is it some sort of religious impulse that drives them?
I mentioned this in another comment, but I suspect that they are seeking to fill the hole that Hare's inevitable passing will lead. He has made a mint off of psychopathy, and he is ninety.
"I guess the best we can do for you is neurotypical."
Funny, Athena. My religious friends would say "plain ole sinner" will suffice! That guy seemed to be trying to convince, and bragging. This site is just bad news for clarity...
"We have assembled the most comprehensive set of scientifically accurate videos, articles and podcasts about Psychopathy on the internet."
This is NPD level grandiose! Like you said, the grift is obvious.
"Psychopathyis.org cannot verify the accuracy of the submitted content."
Then how is it "scientifically accurate"?
The thing about diagnosing children is just too sad, and also extremely dangerous. Thank you for the pushback, Athena. This site has the potential to do a lot of damage to a lot of people.
Indeed, it is really unfortunate that they are willing to subject children to this sort of thing for what seems to be the chasing of clout. When writing this, I had a thought that there is a possibility they are trying to fill the inevitable and upcoming hole that Robert Hare's death will present. He is ninety, afterall.
What an insight. I'm sure there'll be competition to do so, too. I wonder how long they'll wait before reconsidering Hare's work altogether? It will be fascinating to watch unfold. As for the children, what about the protocol that a diagnosis not be made until age 18? Maybe with the state of kids' mental health, the powers that be decided they've been waiting too long? I thoroughly despise the idea of parents going over a checklist looking for traits in their children, and slapping a label on them. You know a lot of people will do this on their own given carte blanche from sites like this. Being told to seek professional help after the fact won't inhibit parental application of their own diy solutions.
Yes, I imagine that the vacuum and those that rush to fill it will be a sight to behold.
They clearly do not care about any of the ethical guidelines regarding children, since they are willing to institutionalize them for something that isn't treatable. Talk therapy, drugs, or institutionalization will not change how a person's brain is structured or how it processes chemistry. To pretend that it will is straight out lying, and fleecing people for money on the backs of children.
The thought of institutionalization is beyond outrageous. There's no end to the potential for abuse. I'm sure there are plenty of parents who don't want to be bothered with their responsibilities any longer, and would find this to be an easy way out, especially managing young teenagers. I have a "paranoid schizophrenic" friend who has never been dangerous or psychotic. She spent two years in what she described to me as a prison-like system under the pretense of being a hospital mostly because her single mother couldn't deal with her. I don't know whether or not my friend told anyone that she'd taken a hit of acid prior to the events that led to her hospitalization, but it accounted for the "psychotic" symptoms that led to her diagnosis. She was locked up until the age of 18 when her mother was no longer responsible for her. I've known many people with schizophrenia, and I still don't believe that her diagnosis was correct. Nevertheless, she's been on antipsychotics for years. She could have been mistaken for having psychopathy, too. Teenagers, by the nature of their being, can seem mentally ill.
Why would she not tell anyone that she took acid, though?
Fear of being jailed, probably. I don't know what she was thinking. Then, I didn't see her for 2 years. I tried talking to her mother and then her grandmother in hopes of intervening on her behalf. They seemed to really believe that this diagnosis was correct. She was sent to a really expensive hospital, which would later be known as notorious, confirming the few things she told me about it later. She had obviously been traumatized, so we rarely talked about it. But, I don't think the diagnosis would have mattered. I also don't think the acid was enough to bring on all of this tribulation. Personally, I felt that they were looking for a reason. Any diagnosis would do.
I find it worrying that Essi Viding's name is on both PsychopathyIs and SSSP
There were a couple of people were unfortunate to see on these sites.
💙❤️
There are a lot of sites with wrong information.For the truth you muss. dig