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 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 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.
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 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 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.
I find it worrying that Essi Viding's name is on both PsychopathyIs and SSSP
💙❤️
There are a lot of sites with wrong information.For the truth you muss. dig