The number of things that cause physical revulsion in people astonishes me. Take cleaning, I know people who will talk about things being 'filthy' and I see nothing but some dust. I reserve the term filth for stuff like the time the septic tank backed up while I was doing laundry and the toilet erupted. Now THAT was filthy and no amount of dust and clutter qualifies.
I agree. I have had people have such a difficult time with smell, and then look at me absolutely perplexed when I say, "Don't breathe through your nose and you'll be fine." It's like there is this need to consume the smell and also complain about it, when all of that is unnecessary.
You're not strange. I personally feel it's healthy to strike a balance between keeping things reasonably clean and becoming a slave to the upkeep of one's own living quarters.
Yeah that could be OCD type territory. Possibly also a misguided attempt to turn the tide on intrusive negative emotions by exerting external control.
Humans do all kinds of crazy things that are bad for them when they lose touch with their feelings, which often compounds on the initial dynamic that created the whole situation. Could be an expression/variation of repetition compulsion.
Interesting that we both are on that word "revulsion". hehehe. Perhaps from different aspects: I think I feel revulsion: Sometime ago, while working a W-2 job in USA, I found out the taxes deducted weekly are really enormous. What seems fair or reasonable, when the employer offers it, is far different than what workers get.
In that moment, I experienced something (revulsion?) and I changed my life, in a financial way, but of course that drives so many results and consequences. It seems to worked out pretty good. I don't know if that is helpful or useful to anyone else.
Your reaction to "filthy" does make me smile. I don't find you strange at all. Toilet erupting??!! Now that is filthy, worthy of our finest revulsion!! hahaha. Have a great week!!
Some of us can do too much of this decoupling for our long-term health, though. Autistics who "mask" are often decoupling underlying emotions from our behavior; unlike psychopaths, we generally can have very strong emotions that also have to be decoupled from behavior in many situations to behave like an NT (for instance, if we are in sensory pain in a situation that does not cause NTs pain and have to do that every day with no opportunity to get emotional support from those NTs either on it; if we are having to tolerate social uncertainty in situations that NTs just "get" but also we have to keep focusing upon acting NT; lots of other things). NT society does not let up on its requirements of NT-appropriate behavior, so we can feel we have to mask (honest) reponses to very aversive situations to us, for long long periods.
I think doing that too much is part of why I've had "burnout" periods; if there is not actual cheerfulness, actual positive feedback for us, underneath the "correct behavior", some deep part gets very drained for me. My inner motivation sort of rebels, and movement turns to glue - but it's not clinical depression. This may make no sense to many people.
There is just starting to be some research on "autistic burnout" but like most actually useful research on adult autistics, it only started a few years ago and is mostly NOT done by U.S. scientists. (With a handful of exceptions, and those exceptions are not known to most clinicians.)
I think this is a good point, I've had two occassons recently, the first was where the dentist was pull so hard on my left molar that my head was lifting off the headrest - afterwards she and her assistanct commented on my compliance i.e., that I didnt make a fuss like most patients despite the trauma. I was just thinking that if I did, it would only prolong the painful experience. Thier comments gave me a valuable insight into what NT's would do under similar circumstances. The second, was where a blood was being taken by a nurse from arm, she missed the vein and hit a nerve, it was intensly painful, much like having boiling water thrown on the outside of my hand and lower arm, but if i flinched the needle stuck in my arm would have caused even more pain; i told her about it but she didnt believe me. It took over six months for my arm to not tingle when at full extension. I'm not psychopathic, but decoupling behaviour from emotions I think is very much situation specific, and particualrly so for people on the spectrum.
The nurse should have definitely listened to you. That is a mistake she could repeat on another patient, and while she had a very calm patient with you, someone else might punch her as a reaction.
I think masking is also part of the reason why autistics are said to have a “high pain tolerance”.
I legit can’t tell the difference between “major” and “minor” pain. It’s not because it feels the same, but rather because I have trained myself to think of all pain as “minor”. It can make identifying health problems nearly impossible because unless the pain is “major” it’s not considered serious.
One of my fears is that I’ll experience “minor” pain and then it turns out to be a heart attack. I wouldn’t be the first one it has happened to.
I could see that being a risk because I am quite similar. It means that you have to know your body really really well and listen to it. At least that is what it has meant for me.
I've known patients who visited their primary care physician, certain that they were suffering from panic attacks, or severe "heartburn", plus a "touch of something". An ambulance had to be called while they continued to protest during a heart attack that it was "nothing". Be careful!!! Know the symptoms, and have your heart checked during an annual physical. I have a pretty high pain tolerance, too. I also hate having interruptions when I'm busy. Sometimes, I think the denial is due to the inconvenience of illness.
I don't think you're at all incorrect about revulsion, but there are indeed complexities the unraveling of which can add clarification. I believe revulsion can be interpreted correctly through the emerging paradigm of dopamine as the motivation (not reward) molecule.
When we don't want to do something, it's usually because we've associated that thing to negative stimuli, which hi-jacked our dopamine circuits in a counterproductive fashion, making us effectively not want to do that thing because it has been established by our neurological circuits as a source of unwell-being - which makes our instinctual areas of brain to class that thing as something to avoid.
This can be especially mind-bending when the association arises over something that one very much wants to do, but figuratively gets their heart broken over. The result is feeling like one's mental brakes and accelerators get pushed at the same time, and that's a recipe for frustration at best, or depression on average, or eventually traumatization at worst. I recently learned that full blown traumatization seems to imply a degree of losing touch with one's sense of revulsion, and that can be very problematic since it deprives oneself of one's inner compass, often pushing the person towards progressive traumatization aka train-wreck-type-life-mentality. Overcoming traumatic disorders seems to imply reconnecting with one's revulsion, which is why I don't think your instinctive hunch was incorrect.
------
It's also why I must say this "decouple emotion from behavior deal" is not as good advice as it may seem, because it encourages repression and potentially a host of other maladaptive routes. Feelings are messengers, and they have a reason for existing, one that indeed ties with one's survival mechanisms and intrapsychic balance.
I would therefore deem it wiser to instead fully acknowledge and carefully explore one's feelings and work with them by using logic, much like one would do as a well-rounded adult trying to influence a child one is in charge of education to learn manners and routines conducive to their well-being, as opposed to a tyrant parent who presumes they know better.
For former scenario I actually get the impression is indeed what you do. From what I gather in your writings - you don't ignore your emotions, nor do you seem to repress them. You seem to work with them in a way that yields the best possible results in alignment with your feelings. Which I feel is indeed a solid advice, one that I can wholeheartedly vouch for.
-----------
However, one must be mindful that doing so might prove near impossible to begin with, since there could be all sorts of mental blockages and traumatic experiences shaping up as invisiable walls that one first may need to sort through either in theraphy and/or with medication - the overarching task being one of rewiring maladaptive neural pathways that have shaped up, for whatever reason, in ways antagonic to one's best interests. You seem to also wisely realize this, judging from the later part of the article. Here's a bit that may not be obvious to you (or anyone else who hasn't been through it:)
In practice, this process of (actually) *reconnecting emotions to behavior* and learning to orchestrate both aspects effectively is subjectively experienced as the process of establishing a proper inner dialogue with one's emotional side, which may require a bit of self reparenting, which may require the assistance of a good therapist or counselor who can provide a healthy frame of reference. It's not impossible to do without external guidance, but it is far more challenging.
Simply decoupling emotional from behavior is the cornerstone of all dissociative disorders, and the result is usually not favorable in the long term. That is ableist advice, Mr. Dutton. Works well just as long as one is not dealing with major inner obstacles. Which one very well may happen to be, and it's no thing to be ashamed - just a thing to do, really. And it could sometimes turn out be the very best thing to be done.
"This can be especially mind-bending when the association arises over something that one very much wants to do, but figuratively gets their heart broken over. The result is feeling like one's mental brakes and accelerators get pushed at the same time, and that's a recipe for frustration at best, or depression on average, or eventually traumatization at worst."
This is fascinating to me. I cannot imagine such a state.
It's not fun, but it may be somewhat common. Whenever people seem at odds with themselves, a variation of this theme could be at play. Suggested reading:
PS - as someone who also has messy pets, I found a workaround to the vacuuming conundrum.
I rearranged my furniture in a way that allows me to do a super quick clean up every day. It's amazing how clearing the central area in a room along with a putting away of all unused chairs will facilitate such tasks.
There is quite a bit of behavioural decision literature on emotions and decion-making that demonstrates the depth and power of emotions over rational processes. A good example (I will have to check this), is from a study where volunteers were induced into a negative emotional state, and then asked to bid on ebay. the outcome was that negative emotions equal paying more for the same/similar item. I'm sure you can imagine that there is spectrum to that phenomenon, where those least influenced by the stressor/ induction would be less likely to pay more.
That is super interesting. I wonder why though. I would think that negative emotions would make them angry at paying for something even a penny over what it should be. I would think negative emotions would serve to highlight what might be perceived as unfairness. The opposite being the case is a bit odd.
Also to myself in principle, at least that I'm aware.
But it's something some frustrated people seem to do, and therefore it's entirely possible I also do it at times, unaware - as I'm also a person and I surely have my own blind spots.
I do think our emotions have a way of playing tricks on us, when left unmonitored.
That was a study of college students at the University of CA, San Francisco. The researchers divided the students into 2 groups, and created anxiety and stress in one group by having a number of stressful tasks performed. The other half were observers. Then the 2 groups bid on several items. Maybe stress makes the bidder want to "win" no matter what. It might increase their competitive drive. Negative emotions can make people more impulsive, and risk taking, or thrill seeking. Some might think winning the item will alleviate their anxiety. Since this was a study only of college kids, the results might not be the same with older people who are more likely to be conservative, and less impulsive despite stress.
Unfortunately, I have no link for the psychopath manifesto. It was a paper that Dutton wrote, but either was never published, or it hasn't made it's way online. He has spoken about the points in videos, which is what this article is based on. I transcribed his words from those videos. This is the only mention of it I can find in text:
"So there’s a couple of examples of how you can utilize or harness a psychopathic mindset within everyday life. I’m actually bringing out a paper very shortly called “The Psychopath Manifesto” in which there are ten commandments of psychopathy which every day people can use in their lives to make themselves a little bit more successful."
I enjoyed the transcript of the Dutton conversation and I agree with you that Stout’s criticism fails.
Psychopaths can be motivated by the satisfaction of meeting a challenge. This is self-interested motivation. Most people in finance and mathematical work derive satisfaction from meeting the challenges of their profession. Although the work is a benefit to society, it is done for a self-centered reason. In these cases, non-psychopathic individuals are acting from the same motive as the psychopathic surgeon that Dutton references in his book. Also, the nature of business is psychopathic; it’s doesn’t run like a commune.
Another take on this is discussed in the book Altruism by Barbara Oakley, whose sister is a psychopath. Modeling shows that psychopaths provide benefits to society up to becoming more than 10% of the population; someone has to spark change and say the the emperor has no clothes. There is a reason that psychopaths are present in the human species. Their actions come from adaptation to their nature as do the actions of non-psychopaths.
I agree, psychopaths certainly are valuable in the human population, though I disagree about there being up to ten percent of the population that is psychopathic. The largest estimate that seems to be consistent across different measurements is .75-1% of the population.
Yes, the rate is around 1%. In 400 people, on average, there will be 4 psychopaths; 1 female and 3 males. I was discussing a modeling statistic from the book. The model is giving a range of percentages where psychopathy adds value to the society. The range ends at 10%. According to the model, if psychopaths are over 10% of the population, they will have a negative impact on the society. This is a modeled evolutionary statistic like human sleep types - lark, normal and owl. The breakdown is 25% lark, 25%, owl and 50% normal. The evolutionary distribution provides the best protection for the herd; some group is always awake to watch over the others. The point is that evolution produces optimal ranges for human characteristics across a society. Further, can anyone be blamed for acting according to their adaptive characteristics? Should a companionate person be rewarded for acting in accordance with his adaptive nature ? Should a predator be criticized for acting in accordance with its adaptive nature ? The book would argue the that are both doing what their adaptive characteristics require; just as larks and owls do.
I agree that psychopathy is very beneficial for existing, though I will argue that they have no idea how many psychopaths are female because they have done incredibly shoddy work investigating psychopathy in women.
Athena: Hey. I'm slow on this sometimes. You mean that our actions (all of us) are often (many closer always) tied to emotions.
So even "procrastination" (a NoN-Action) is motivated by emotions generated from somewhere else inside the person.
Dammit: do I have this correct?
So if I plan to speak with a family member, about X, and I find myself bubbling with emotional turmoil, I can use my brain to decouple the emotion from the discussion?
If my goal is to talk about X, to solve it like a problem, for some reason, added to or overlaid upon, I added the emotional response or the like?
And you mean that even I likely have that coupling (in a limiting or non-productive way)?
Further, because we live in a relative "dark ages" and unenlightened times, your observations are largely unknown to the masses of people currently on the planet.
Pardon me, in advance. You know I often don't get these things quite right.
I hope I do have it right: Imagine the potential of millions of people cutting themselves loose from our own bullshit.
This is very much in line with Stoic Philosophy. I’m starting to think that perhaps the leader of the Stoics, Marcus Auralious (I know I spelled that wrong) was a psychopath. Have you read any of his teachings?
I wouldn’t think so. Meditations was a private journal Aurelius wrote for himself. It was never meant to be published. He frequently talks about the inevitability of death and how to cope with it, but it’s all advice that he wrote for himself.
It reads more like a depressed man trying to keep it together rather than a psychopath who has never dealt with suffering.
The number of things that cause physical revulsion in people astonishes me. Take cleaning, I know people who will talk about things being 'filthy' and I see nothing but some dust. I reserve the term filth for stuff like the time the septic tank backed up while I was doing laundry and the toilet erupted. Now THAT was filthy and no amount of dust and clutter qualifies.
But then maybe I'm just strange.
I agree. I have had people have such a difficult time with smell, and then look at me absolutely perplexed when I say, "Don't breathe through your nose and you'll be fine." It's like there is this need to consume the smell and also complain about it, when all of that is unnecessary.
You're not strange. I personally feel it's healthy to strike a balance between keeping things reasonably clean and becoming a slave to the upkeep of one's own living quarters.
Yes, absolutely. I have known the cleaners that freak out if something is a millimeter out of place. They never seem like very happy people.
Yeah that could be OCD type territory. Possibly also a misguided attempt to turn the tide on intrusive negative emotions by exerting external control.
Humans do all kinds of crazy things that are bad for them when they lose touch with their feelings, which often compounds on the initial dynamic that created the whole situation. Could be an expression/variation of repetition compulsion.
Indeed, I could see that
I'll agree with the use of the word "filthy" there, and a few more words could be added in front of filthy.
Interesting that we both are on that word "revulsion". hehehe. Perhaps from different aspects: I think I feel revulsion: Sometime ago, while working a W-2 job in USA, I found out the taxes deducted weekly are really enormous. What seems fair or reasonable, when the employer offers it, is far different than what workers get.
In that moment, I experienced something (revulsion?) and I changed my life, in a financial way, but of course that drives so many results and consequences. It seems to worked out pretty good. I don't know if that is helpful or useful to anyone else.
Your reaction to "filthy" does make me smile. I don't find you strange at all. Toilet erupting??!! Now that is filthy, worthy of our finest revulsion!! hahaha. Have a great week!!
Good article! This is indeed a very useful skill.
Some of us can do too much of this decoupling for our long-term health, though. Autistics who "mask" are often decoupling underlying emotions from our behavior; unlike psychopaths, we generally can have very strong emotions that also have to be decoupled from behavior in many situations to behave like an NT (for instance, if we are in sensory pain in a situation that does not cause NTs pain and have to do that every day with no opportunity to get emotional support from those NTs either on it; if we are having to tolerate social uncertainty in situations that NTs just "get" but also we have to keep focusing upon acting NT; lots of other things). NT society does not let up on its requirements of NT-appropriate behavior, so we can feel we have to mask (honest) reponses to very aversive situations to us, for long long periods.
I think doing that too much is part of why I've had "burnout" periods; if there is not actual cheerfulness, actual positive feedback for us, underneath the "correct behavior", some deep part gets very drained for me. My inner motivation sort of rebels, and movement turns to glue - but it's not clinical depression. This may make no sense to many people.
There is just starting to be some research on "autistic burnout" but like most actually useful research on adult autistics, it only started a few years ago and is mostly NOT done by U.S. scientists. (With a handful of exceptions, and those exceptions are not known to most clinicians.)
I think this is a good point, I've had two occassons recently, the first was where the dentist was pull so hard on my left molar that my head was lifting off the headrest - afterwards she and her assistanct commented on my compliance i.e., that I didnt make a fuss like most patients despite the trauma. I was just thinking that if I did, it would only prolong the painful experience. Thier comments gave me a valuable insight into what NT's would do under similar circumstances. The second, was where a blood was being taken by a nurse from arm, she missed the vein and hit a nerve, it was intensly painful, much like having boiling water thrown on the outside of my hand and lower arm, but if i flinched the needle stuck in my arm would have caused even more pain; i told her about it but she didnt believe me. It took over six months for my arm to not tingle when at full extension. I'm not psychopathic, but decoupling behaviour from emotions I think is very much situation specific, and particualrly so for people on the spectrum.
The nurse should have definitely listened to you. That is a mistake she could repeat on another patient, and while she had a very calm patient with you, someone else might punch her as a reaction.
I think masking is also part of the reason why autistics are said to have a “high pain tolerance”.
I legit can’t tell the difference between “major” and “minor” pain. It’s not because it feels the same, but rather because I have trained myself to think of all pain as “minor”. It can make identifying health problems nearly impossible because unless the pain is “major” it’s not considered serious.
One of my fears is that I’ll experience “minor” pain and then it turns out to be a heart attack. I wouldn’t be the first one it has happened to.
I could see that being a risk because I am quite similar. It means that you have to know your body really really well and listen to it. At least that is what it has meant for me.
I've known patients who visited their primary care physician, certain that they were suffering from panic attacks, or severe "heartburn", plus a "touch of something". An ambulance had to be called while they continued to protest during a heart attack that it was "nothing". Be careful!!! Know the symptoms, and have your heart checked during an annual physical. I have a pretty high pain tolerance, too. I also hate having interruptions when I'm busy. Sometimes, I think the denial is due to the inconvenience of illness.
That is most likely true. I have seen that in people several times
Very interesting
I don't think you're at all incorrect about revulsion, but there are indeed complexities the unraveling of which can add clarification. I believe revulsion can be interpreted correctly through the emerging paradigm of dopamine as the motivation (not reward) molecule.
When we don't want to do something, it's usually because we've associated that thing to negative stimuli, which hi-jacked our dopamine circuits in a counterproductive fashion, making us effectively not want to do that thing because it has been established by our neurological circuits as a source of unwell-being - which makes our instinctual areas of brain to class that thing as something to avoid.
This can be especially mind-bending when the association arises over something that one very much wants to do, but figuratively gets their heart broken over. The result is feeling like one's mental brakes and accelerators get pushed at the same time, and that's a recipe for frustration at best, or depression on average, or eventually traumatization at worst. I recently learned that full blown traumatization seems to imply a degree of losing touch with one's sense of revulsion, and that can be very problematic since it deprives oneself of one's inner compass, often pushing the person towards progressive traumatization aka train-wreck-type-life-mentality. Overcoming traumatic disorders seems to imply reconnecting with one's revulsion, which is why I don't think your instinctive hunch was incorrect.
------
It's also why I must say this "decouple emotion from behavior deal" is not as good advice as it may seem, because it encourages repression and potentially a host of other maladaptive routes. Feelings are messengers, and they have a reason for existing, one that indeed ties with one's survival mechanisms and intrapsychic balance.
I would therefore deem it wiser to instead fully acknowledge and carefully explore one's feelings and work with them by using logic, much like one would do as a well-rounded adult trying to influence a child one is in charge of education to learn manners and routines conducive to their well-being, as opposed to a tyrant parent who presumes they know better.
For former scenario I actually get the impression is indeed what you do. From what I gather in your writings - you don't ignore your emotions, nor do you seem to repress them. You seem to work with them in a way that yields the best possible results in alignment with your feelings. Which I feel is indeed a solid advice, one that I can wholeheartedly vouch for.
-----------
However, one must be mindful that doing so might prove near impossible to begin with, since there could be all sorts of mental blockages and traumatic experiences shaping up as invisiable walls that one first may need to sort through either in theraphy and/or with medication - the overarching task being one of rewiring maladaptive neural pathways that have shaped up, for whatever reason, in ways antagonic to one's best interests. You seem to also wisely realize this, judging from the later part of the article. Here's a bit that may not be obvious to you (or anyone else who hasn't been through it:)
In practice, this process of (actually) *reconnecting emotions to behavior* and learning to orchestrate both aspects effectively is subjectively experienced as the process of establishing a proper inner dialogue with one's emotional side, which may require a bit of self reparenting, which may require the assistance of a good therapist or counselor who can provide a healthy frame of reference. It's not impossible to do without external guidance, but it is far more challenging.
Simply decoupling emotional from behavior is the cornerstone of all dissociative disorders, and the result is usually not favorable in the long term. That is ableist advice, Mr. Dutton. Works well just as long as one is not dealing with major inner obstacles. Which one very well may happen to be, and it's no thing to be ashamed - just a thing to do, really. And it could sometimes turn out be the very best thing to be done.
"This can be especially mind-bending when the association arises over something that one very much wants to do, but figuratively gets their heart broken over. The result is feeling like one's mental brakes and accelerators get pushed at the same time, and that's a recipe for frustration at best, or depression on average, or eventually traumatization at worst."
This is fascinating to me. I cannot imagine such a state.
It's not fun, but it may be somewhat common. Whenever people seem at odds with themselves, a variation of this theme could be at play. Suggested reading:
https://cptsdfoundation.org/2021/01/18/the-human-autonomic-nervous-system-and-emotional-flashbacks/
PS - as someone who also has messy pets, I found a workaround to the vacuuming conundrum.
I rearranged my furniture in a way that allows me to do a super quick clean up every day. It's amazing how clearing the central area in a room along with a putting away of all unused chairs will facilitate such tasks.
There is quite a bit of behavioural decision literature on emotions and decion-making that demonstrates the depth and power of emotions over rational processes. A good example (I will have to check this), is from a study where volunteers were induced into a negative emotional state, and then asked to bid on ebay. the outcome was that negative emotions equal paying more for the same/similar item. I'm sure you can imagine that there is spectrum to that phenomenon, where those least influenced by the stressor/ induction would be less likely to pay more.
That is super interesting. I wonder why though. I would think that negative emotions would make them angry at paying for something even a penny over what it should be. I would think negative emotions would serve to highlight what might be perceived as unfairness. The opposite being the case is a bit odd.
It is! Those behaviors could be compensatory. A way to turn around the tides of emotion by exerting external control.
That's quite strange to me
Also to myself in principle, at least that I'm aware.
But it's something some frustrated people seem to do, and therefore it's entirely possible I also do it at times, unaware - as I'm also a person and I surely have my own blind spots.
I do think our emotions have a way of playing tricks on us, when left unmonitored.
That was a study of college students at the University of CA, San Francisco. The researchers divided the students into 2 groups, and created anxiety and stress in one group by having a number of stressful tasks performed. The other half were observers. Then the 2 groups bid on several items. Maybe stress makes the bidder want to "win" no matter what. It might increase their competitive drive. Negative emotions can make people more impulsive, and risk taking, or thrill seeking. Some might think winning the item will alleviate their anxiety. Since this was a study only of college kids, the results might not be the same with older people who are more likely to be conservative, and less impulsive despite stress.
Very interesting indeed
Hi Athena,
I can’t find anything titled “The Psychopath Manifesto” by Kevin Dutton. Please publish a link or reference to it.
While looking for it, I did find a review of his book on successful psychopaths by Martha Stout, another psychopath researcher. Here’s the link:
https://newrepublic.com/article/111087/wisdom-of-psychopaths-kevin-dutton
What are your thoughts on her criticisms ? Are they true in your case ?
Unfortunately, I have no link for the psychopath manifesto. It was a paper that Dutton wrote, but either was never published, or it hasn't made it's way online. He has spoken about the points in videos, which is what this article is based on. I transcribed his words from those videos. This is the only mention of it I can find in text:
"So there’s a couple of examples of how you can utilize or harness a psychopathic mindset within everyday life. I’m actually bringing out a paper very shortly called “The Psychopath Manifesto” in which there are ten commandments of psychopathy which every day people can use in their lives to make themselves a little bit more successful."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/psychopathys-bright-side-kevin-dutt-12-12-28/
As for Martha Stout and her review of Dutton's work, I wrote about that here:
https://www.quora.com/What-do-psychopaths-think-about-this-review-of-Kevin-Duttons-book-%E2%80%9CIn-Praise-of-Empty-Souls%E2%80%94Can-We-Learn-From-Psychopaths-%E2%80%9D/answer/Athena-Walker
I found her work to be more than lacking.
Hi Athena,
I enjoyed the transcript of the Dutton conversation and I agree with you that Stout’s criticism fails.
Psychopaths can be motivated by the satisfaction of meeting a challenge. This is self-interested motivation. Most people in finance and mathematical work derive satisfaction from meeting the challenges of their profession. Although the work is a benefit to society, it is done for a self-centered reason. In these cases, non-psychopathic individuals are acting from the same motive as the psychopathic surgeon that Dutton references in his book. Also, the nature of business is psychopathic; it’s doesn’t run like a commune.
Another take on this is discussed in the book Altruism by Barbara Oakley, whose sister is a psychopath. Modeling shows that psychopaths provide benefits to society up to becoming more than 10% of the population; someone has to spark change and say the the emperor has no clothes. There is a reason that psychopaths are present in the human species. Their actions come from adaptation to their nature as do the actions of non-psychopaths.
I agree, psychopaths certainly are valuable in the human population, though I disagree about there being up to ten percent of the population that is psychopathic. The largest estimate that seems to be consistent across different measurements is .75-1% of the population.
Yes, the rate is around 1%. In 400 people, on average, there will be 4 psychopaths; 1 female and 3 males. I was discussing a modeling statistic from the book. The model is giving a range of percentages where psychopathy adds value to the society. The range ends at 10%. According to the model, if psychopaths are over 10% of the population, they will have a negative impact on the society. This is a modeled evolutionary statistic like human sleep types - lark, normal and owl. The breakdown is 25% lark, 25%, owl and 50% normal. The evolutionary distribution provides the best protection for the herd; some group is always awake to watch over the others. The point is that evolution produces optimal ranges for human characteristics across a society. Further, can anyone be blamed for acting according to their adaptive characteristics? Should a companionate person be rewarded for acting in accordance with his adaptive nature ? Should a predator be criticized for acting in accordance with its adaptive nature ? The book would argue the that are both doing what their adaptive characteristics require; just as larks and owls do.
I agree that psychopathy is very beneficial for existing, though I will argue that they have no idea how many psychopaths are female because they have done incredibly shoddy work investigating psychopathy in women.
Athena: Hey. I'm slow on this sometimes. You mean that our actions (all of us) are often (many closer always) tied to emotions.
So even "procrastination" (a NoN-Action) is motivated by emotions generated from somewhere else inside the person.
Dammit: do I have this correct?
So if I plan to speak with a family member, about X, and I find myself bubbling with emotional turmoil, I can use my brain to decouple the emotion from the discussion?
If my goal is to talk about X, to solve it like a problem, for some reason, added to or overlaid upon, I added the emotional response or the like?
And you mean that even I likely have that coupling (in a limiting or non-productive way)?
Further, because we live in a relative "dark ages" and unenlightened times, your observations are largely unknown to the masses of people currently on the planet.
Pardon me, in advance. You know I often don't get these things quite right.
I hope I do have it right: Imagine the potential of millions of people cutting themselves loose from our own bullshit.
Yes, you are correct, though I imagine it isn't a simple task for most people
-smiles- Wow. Meaning the potential is there!! Breathtaking isn't it!!!
I wrote several things here: Deleted them all-
At this point, right here, right now, for me: Infinite direction or aspects could be said!!
To choose any one, risks diminishing that potential.
Best to thank you for your posts and willingness to reveal yourself for your readers benefit.
Thank you, Athena.
Interesting. Stoic philosophy is very much aligned with the idea of disconnecting emotion from
action and he was the big stoic guy.
This is very much in line with Stoic Philosophy. I’m starting to think that perhaps the leader of the Stoics, Marcus Auralious (I know I spelled that wrong) was a psychopath. Have you read any of his teachings?
I wouldn’t think so. Meditations was a private journal Aurelius wrote for himself. It was never meant to be published. He frequently talks about the inevitability of death and how to cope with it, but it’s all advice that he wrote for himself.
It reads more like a depressed man trying to keep it together rather than a psychopath who has never dealt with suffering.
No, I haven't