I had to figure some of this stuff out after my autism diagnosis about 6ish years ago. Silly me thought that "autism experts" might want to get the perspectives of autistic adults! HAHahahaha. heh.
Otoh, I have been glad to find a few people with lots of letters after their names, publishing studies that included actual autistic people in the design etc. of the research, as well as including some autistic researchers. They even refrain from labeling every autistic trait as a deficit!
I was shocked to find that many autism experts label my faster-than-normal reading a deficit; apparently I don't understand what I read, per the "experts"??? It's labeled "hyperlexia". Huh. OH that's just how I might have been at age 5 - but these researchers only study autistic kids 90%+ of the time, from the perspective that every difference is a deficit too. I used that ability to get through grad school etc.; my auditory comprehension is slow, so that's how I approach a lot of life. Visually. But only the negative part of that tradeoff is studied, last I looked. Nothing of why the little girl I was, loved visually searching for little berries on the mountain with my grandma is seen as a positive. It's all about getting autistic kids to make more eye contact. Circular assumptions, circular research, derogatory labels. Unfortunately (in this way) I'm not psychopathic; things really can bother me, so I stopped reading this garbage so much. How can autistic researchers survive this &*%*?
Autism doesn't seem associated with nearly the same fear as does psychopathy, yet there seems fear of our perspectives all the same. Perhaps it's partly that some cannot deal with the idea that their perspective is just an ephemeral set of mushy partly-logical neuronal firings taking place in the brain of an evolved monkey... Mine included of course.
A commonly repeated one... Apparently we autistics have defective "Theory of Mind", per such experts as the illustrious Simon Baron-Cohen. Since we don't understand NT minds as easily as NTs do, this must mean that we cannot understand other minds well. Period. But wait, you might ask... Might we understand some autistic minds better than NTs? Do NTs actually understand minds different from their own, or do they also fail to cross these divides? Might it be... a "Double Empathy Problem"?? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_empathy_problem) Some researchers do think so, beginning with an autistic researcher. To his credit, Baron-Cohen seems to be considering this alternative framework. It's looking like this all might be a two-way street, with NTs also having trouble understanding many things about non-NT thinking; there are still loads of researchers, clinicians, and regular people who just repeat the 20-year-old stuff about our defective brains though.
I have been wondering if part of the unspoken stuff in that, is that some NTs implicitly believe that their sort of mind is the only sort of possible intelligence; any deviation from that is defective, so why even worry about whether NTs can understand defective minds? It's not a two-way street in their minds; the universe revolves around them, they (NTs) were made in the ultimate deity's image, and all that. I wonder - do they feel that their Gods are NT? Perhaps it is an underlying assumption. Oh well. Thank you for reading if you got through all that.
My favorite autism journal, for anyone interested: "Autism in Adulthood"
Simon Baron-Cohen has a lot of ridiculous claims about psychopathy as well.
No, I do not think that most neurotypicals understand minds not like their own. There is an incredible amount of hubris that is needed to tell a person that they are wrong about how they think. It's interesting to me that in the case of autism that they are still willing to tell you that you are wrong about you. At least with psychopathy, they have the age old argument of, "Well, psychopaths lie, so we can't trust anything that they say." They don't have this with autism, and yet we see the same behavior.
My guess is that there are few that will point out the hypocrisy. With autism is seems to be:
"We're the experts and because we say so. Don't listen to anyone else.".
While with psychopathy it's:
"We're the experts and psychopaths lie, so don't listen to them. For the rest of it, also because we say so".
I don't know where I heard this quote from but it summarizes societies attitudes towards the two conditions quite well; 'People fear psychopaths. People feel sorry for autistic people'.
I think the main reason why autistic people are dismissed is because we're seen as incapable forever children, and if we're not, then we must not be autistic enough; therefore, only experts and parents of severely autistic children can be truly KNOW how an autistic mind works.
Yes, it's both nonsensical and arrogant. It's saying that NT's are the norm, and everything else is a "deviation" rather than an "interesting difference." Along with everyone "should" strive to be like the NTs. (Disclaimer: I do happen to be an NT, but I don't share this mindset.)
I have never understood why anyone would want the world made up of like individuals. There would be no advancement. People that contrast tend to make the best strides by considering things from different perspectives.
Because cohesion is easier when people are more similar to each other. It is tempting to think that if we all were the same, there would be less problems because we would agree on what to do and there is hefty of "me and mine know the best how to live life, so everyone else should do like us". Comfort and harmony. And like... Cultural clashes and other clashes make up much of history and some differences just aren't functional, so it is easy to say "the more something deviates the more likely it is to fail". Differences can be as challenging as they are inspiring and helping in advancement.
Me too, my grandson is autistic and in the Air Force, if you know anything about the armed forces, you have to be really smart to get into the air force.
I would like to try to understand him better so I'll be checking out that link as well.
TY for your revealing and most excellent thoughtful post.
My friend's two sons have some degree of autism. I do not think of them as "defective".
They don't like to be around visitors so I don't get to see them because they stay out of my visit area. The older son is very particular about his pants. He only wears certain ones that he likes. He likes them folded a certain way. Pretty understandable. It is like a 'baseline' that before he moves on, he takes care of the pants issue.
I'm like that too on other stuff. But for the fact he has to deal with his mother, including with pants, because she folds them, there isn't much difference of him to me.
The younger brother is more to himself and I don't see him much or know anything about him.
I know my friend. I know her husband. If I could, I would like to know the sons better.
TY for the link. I'm will click there now.
Best wishes. Congratulations of your grad school!! Way to go
People have a habit of assigning labels to behavior that they themselves can't quite understand. They have a need to categorize, and when they hear about something that might fit what they are hearing about, even if it is in the most distant connection, they will assume that is what they are seeing.
This is the same behavior that you will see in people that will tell others what to do about their health problems. I cannot count the number of times that I have seen this, but it is very common that someone mentions that they are dealing with something medically, and the other person feels the need to tell them how to handle it, even if they have no idea what they are talking about. I have seen this so often that it is a bit mind numbing to me. I have considered writing about this, as the behavior fascinates me.
LOL. Dammit Athena. Sizzling Burn!!! " the other person feels the need to tell them how to handle it, even if they have no idea what they are talking about"
Unfortunately, people often are not willing to change their ways, even if it is contrary to their better interests. This is common in illnesses. Smokers who know that they have had serious lung changes who insist on smoking anyway. They aren't going to listen to reason
Hey, Savannah, Please let me comment here to your father's situation.
My friends were complaining that I was bigger and had put on weight.
My doctor trained in Germany for healing, not treatment: So he doesn't take insurance or the like. He isn't in the AMA or isn't going to work at a hospital.
So...
He talked to me, gave me some books:
I came up with two "rules"-
1) try to eat as much UN-processed food as possible, try for 85%. Raw, uncooked, without salt or sugar.
2) don't drink with meals. Allow 30 minutes before you eat and 30 minutes after.
I read all the books and talked with the doctor: There was alot I couldn't do, so this was for me. I made a YT of it a couple years ago.
When I went to my ETN specialist, she was alarmed!! I lost 27 pounds between visits!!
Just from those two things.
But here is the thing: My first Dr.? He said he gave MANY people material and suggestions and counseling, the whole thing.
He said I was the only person who ever did anything with it.
He said that by eating sugar (and salt) we become like addicts. We all this right? Likely this leads to Diabetes Cancers and other degenerative diseases. Yet we eat on as if nothing will happen.
If someone said that out loud to you Savannah, I would find them incredibly rude and without any social grace whatever. I would red flag them for no future contact and delete their friends and family, if possible.
The 'social norm' is to extend kindness and courteously, to those of us who don't quickly make the social grades.
Very likely you do pick up on social norms about as much as anyone else. Certainly more than me. I live outside the USA in a Spanish speaking country. I constantly offend people here. Yet, in the USA, I am in no man's land of sorts.
In CA particularly, people are very kind to me and often greet me. I'm certain they are moved by compassion I seem so out of place.
Savannah: In other posts we talk about seeing the weakness in people. Do you agree the speaker showed their weakness?
Best Wishes. BTW- Have you tried CA? It is expensive but often very pleasant. It will make you smile at the most unexpected times.
-smiles- Land of Milk and Honey. CA is California. I live a few hundreds miles south. My physical office is in San Diego.
It is un-believably expensive to go out for a restaurant or do anything- At least as much as Las Vegas. But every time I go there, so many people end up reaching out and talking to me and having a good time.
You sound like a very interesting person. I can't imagine what it means to "seem invincible" or "put together". Likely you must have some cool things going in your life. And you try really hard and want things to be right and work out well.
Obviously, if you need validation you are very vulnerable to other people especially people close to you, like a boyfriend.
My friend's daughter is all that: spoiled, immature and self centered. Yet, she has a degree, a great job, and a nice family. She is the prettiest girl I know personally. I can truly say that everyone in her life, me included, love her fiercely. We would do anything for her and we accept she is a bit of her worst enemy.
In that sense, she had a very hard life. You can imagine how much trouble she has gotten into!!
On her wedding day, in her beautiful dress, in front of all her friends, she grabbed me and danced with me. She whispered all sorts of things to me as the whole place looked at us askew as if some terrible obscene event was happening.
That is a lifetime. No one ever treated me so well as that before. Likely won't ever again.
I know those character flaws she has, but I like her, and admire her. I will always treasure her. I will have a relationship with her the rest of my life.
When I think of her, it is one of the things that gives me strength in my life. I'm sure how or why, but I know she made me a better person.
It is quite possibly, maybe likely, you do that very same thing for people around you.
-smiles- Exactly!!! Like your father: I know my youngest son is not perfect, but I adore him. My youngest daughter, I shop for properties to buy for her. She is not perfect, but I only know this in my head. In my heart, they ARE perfect!! haha.
I had very strong feelings for a girl that was engaged when I met her: She was in a fire and had scares on her face. She was still extraordinary woman and incredibly desirable. I still ask about her to this day!!
Love is possible and worthy in our own (and others!) IM-perfections. I know I used physical imperfections in this post: Let me do another!!
In my first year of small liberal arts college, there was a stunning girl in class that wore a red silk blouse!! Hehehe. Every man in that was stunned with her appearance. yet on both of her cheeks she had scars of being bite by a dog when she was a young girl.
She was also brilliant in mind and spirit. Dammit, in this moment, if I could only see her smile again. She was the highest grade in the classes I had with her: Higher than mine.
I think most people who follow your posts are interested in psychopathy, but aware that there is a huge gap in the knowledge and theories, because most of these studies were done on criminals in prison. I bet there are a lot of PHD's following your posts, or would be if they were aware of them. From what I've seen, most of the experts seem to admit so much of psychopathy is really not well understood. Dr. Fallon's book went a long way to opening eyes and expanding thinking. I think many anthropologists now recognize that Mother Nature wants human populations to have a certain percentage of psychopathic brains. The percentage, we're told, is the same within all regions of the globe. So it's driven by evolutionary purpose to have that percentage.
But outside of prisoners, most psychopaths, I think, wisely remain in the shadows. What advantage in coming out? And few psychopaths see a need to visit a shrink. So we know they're there, but how they think remains a mystery.
That's why your posts are valuable and I think the audience will grow. It would probably really take off if you started a YT channel.
kevin: Great Post!@!!! Wow. Athena via YouTube!?? Dammit!! I don't know if I could stand the intensity!!! but I would try: What if she was just reading her own past work? Stored for posterity.
TY of your interesting observation of percentage by regions.
Do you think most psychopaths know they are one? I would think not but I have no idea. Thanks again!
Dr. Fallon did not know he was one. But I do think most of them know they're different. Too a great many of them, they sense weakness in neurotypicals that is theirs to exploit. This prompts tricky questions. It's said that all psychopaths are narcissists(though not all narcissists are psychopaths). The problem is that if you feel you are superior to those around you, and in fact in many ways you are superior, is that narcissism? No! What makes a narcissist a narcissist is that his perceptions about himself are delusional. If those perceptions are accurate, there's no delusion.
People with Aspergers have their own unique body language, so they quickly recognize each other. Does the same apply to psychopaths? I would guess so, to some degree. Also, they can now use AI to recognize a psychopath in an interview setting. With a high degree of accuracy. I think the AI is trained to look at how they hold their head. They tend to be more still and focused than NT.
Most of our knowledge of psychopaths comes from prison studies. Psychopaths rarely go in for psychiatric care. And psychopathic women are very hard to spot, unless it's really an extreme case.
I have a YT channel, so if Athena wanted to set her own channel up, I could help. I'm sure she could figure it out perfectly on her own, though.
Hmm, now that's interesting. I don't know if we do or don't. I do know one other psychopath, but haven't specifically noticed anything that I would then extrapolate to try and identify other psychopaths. Perhaps our walk as we both have a very confident stride, but I'm not certain.
I don't consider it meaningless at all, because they can get MRI's of the psychopaths in prison, and the differences in the brain are very observable, AND very consistent with what's known about psychopathy. The brain regions observed to be different are known to be associated with empathy. Which psychopaths are incapable of(effective empathy; they are capable of cognitive empathy).
But when studies are limited to prisoners, you're getting a very incomplete picture. Imagine if all we knew about high-IQ people was from prison studies. We might assume most high-IQ people become criminals.
Athena often mentions: Psychopaths are wired (differently) than NT from birth.
If, as you suggest, MRIs can see that different, that rewiring, then why is the MRI for observations limited to prison?
kevin, I'm just not quite following that part. Likely I just don't see:
If it is an exacting science of observation, (not harmful in the least) why is the focus on prison study?
Please let me say one more way: If we are studying prisoners, oh, okay got it.
If we are studying MRI in relationship to psychopathy, why are we not looking at the larger population?
BTW: We don't even know the affects of prison on a person or even if prisons "work". We allow solitary confinement, even in USA, without a shred of study on the affects.
This is the sense of "meaningless".
I apologize for hacking Athena's thread. Haha. Maybe she will give me a hall pass for the new year!! haha.
Because they need volunteers. Prisoners volunteer in exchange for benefits. But where would they find noncriminal psychopaths? Someone like Athena. Why would she ever walk in to a shrink's office? Why would she ever submit to an MRI?
There are some “experts” who know nothing about specific topics on their field. I’m not criticizing them for that, as we are humans and it’s impossible that we know it all. My issue, however, is the arrogance that sometimes comes with it. This hits home right now.
My psychiatrist diagnosed me with something based on the most well known symptoms, so I started doing my own research. A little like you and psychopathy, I got to know my neurodivergence better than him; after all, I AM the one who experiences it everyday. The other day on my consult with him, he not only showed a complete lack of understanding as to how my brain works, but dared to basically tell me that I didn’t know anything. I got angry when I explained a couple of times but he dismissed me completely, because HE was the expert, not me.
Sorry, but having an alphabet soup after your name is NOT a guarantee that you know it all, and feeling like you do only creates a false sense of “security” where you stop learning and your confirmation bias makes you dismiss altogether everything that doesn’t support your previous knowledge.
I am worried, though. Because I knew that what he was saying wasn’t the truth thanks to my own research and my lived experience, but if I didn’t know better, if this had happened when I was younger, I would’ve felt like shit (the doc was basically telling me that I wasn’t trying hard enough to be neurotypical, so my hardships were MY fault). Because if I weren’t used to doing my own research and taking almost everything with a grain of salt, I would’ve blindly trusted him (he’s the expert!) and I would’ve felt stupid and useless. I would’ve blamed myself for everything.
So yeah, don’t trust “experts”. But also, silencing them is not the best course of action. We really don’t want to live in a world where someone can decide what is the truth and silence everyone who disagrees.
Challenging their incorrect ideas with logic is definitely the best course of action. When people hear the challenge, but do not hear a reasonable response to that challenge outside of "because I say so", they will lose their status as an expert.
I wish this approach worked better than it seems to with some people, Athena. Perhaps it's part of the NT thing with social status, but the same seemingly reasonable, challenging, response given by someone without the alphabet soup (or given by a female, or a person with some other characteristic lowering status in the subconscious of some NTs or something) can just be ignored completely - yet the statement might be fully considered if given by a "social peer" of the NT. I can't prove why they ignore such challenges and perspectives, but have seen this happen amongst humans so very many times that I no longer doubt myself.
Yes, this is unfortunate, and it is something that I have considered. There was a question over on Quora tangentially related to the one that inspired this post that asked how a debate between Robert Hare and me would go.
I never answered the question because there would never be a debate. Hare wouldn't bother acknowledging anything that I have to say on the topic. I don't have the alphabet soup and wouldn't be considered part of his class or status. He ignores people that do have the alphabet soup, and I am just someone on the internet that he can dismiss out of hand. I deal with his zealots quite often, and none of them are willing to even look at the issues with his work.
A few years back, I took some science courses and one of the first things they teach you is about the scientific method and how to properly conduct research. They also went on about biases and how they can affect the results of a study. The thing is, as human beings we are riddled with biases and this can affect how researchers carry out studies. A good researcher will recognize this and find ways to mitigate their own biases or if they're unable to just not do the research. This is also why the peer review process is vital in academia.
That being said, as with every single organization in human society, how members of said group are suppose to behave is not necessarily how the members are going to behave, and plenty of research papers have emotionally laden language that is not suppose to be there or is clearly the result of cultural biases.
What this means is that, if the scientific method and review process are taught at the introductory level, and researchers who have been in the field for years makes these kinds of errors, then they're either willfully ignorant or they just don't know.
It should be something reinforced continually for researchers to ensure that the information that they derive from their studies is of the highest value.
It seems to be a bigger problem with psychology and the social sciences rather than the hard sciences. I guess it makes sense, if an engineer gets the physics wrong, they'll build a bridge that'll fall down. With sociology, you can have an entire society with a high rate of domestic abuse and it'll just be seen as normal by the average person in said society.
I think another aspect of this is that they are trading on that "expert" status, and with many people that are seeking answers, they may be apt to substitute what they know about themselves for what the "expert" tells them is reality. This can be done through overall myths that are so pervasive that no one thinks to question them, or it can be through emotional subversion where the person thinks that they simply must be wrong because of how the "expert" makes them feel.
A psychopath likely will never know that they are psychopathic, because an "expert" will tell them that psychopathy is synonymous with criminality and antisocial personality disorder. They can live their whole life without knowing this information however, and it really doesn't change anything.
A patient may go to a medical doctor with an unusual presentation of an illness, or simply an illness that the doctor is unfamiliar with past a cursory glance in a text book, and be told that what they suspect is wrong with them is incorrect because that illness is very rare. Doctors are trained with this phrase:
"when you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras”
which means that doctors should consider the most likely possibility first when thinking of a diagnosis. Often this results in a dismissive attitude toward the patient when they may in fact have something that will end their lives without treatment.
"Experts" need to remind themselves that they do not know everything, they don't know what they don't know, and what they do know is a small snippet reality, and not reality in its entirety.
That does make sense, when the subjects of study are people I can imagine how social instincts can take affect, which includes the desire to show off social status. Try getting a PHD in astrophysics and getting the moon to respect your intellectual superiority. The moon could randomly grow a green spot tomorrow, be there for 3 days then vanish, and the moon wouldn't care whether or not scientists believe it was possible.
I think most astronomers would be excited and curious to find out why the green spot appeared. Saying that the green spot didn't occur because the physics says in impossible would not be a satisfactory answer. For people however, social scientist can get away with, "oh they're mistaken", "They're lying", etc.
There is some basis to outsider perspective, to being able to see something better because one is not mired in it. But slope towards this kind of dismissal as is described here is really slippery.
And problem with horses and zebras is that it really is horses more often. But every now and then a zebra shows up too.
Great article. The harm caused by "expert" arrogance and misinformation is significant. Psychology is not science in most instances. And the dsm is overwhelmingly opinion, drummed up to try to make it look like science and on a par with medical specialties. Then there is popular culture and the influence of social media and the internet which convince susceptible users that they have been victims of "narcissistic abuse" or "psychopathic manipulation" or any number of made up diagnoses. Its not your fault you are a loser. You don't have to take responsibility and be accountable for your own behavior and its consequences. You are a victim. A psychotherapist or mental health professional with an m.a. ph.d m.s.w. b.a. whatever will guide you through your victimhood and make you feel better cuz it wasn't your fault. cha-ching $$$.
Neurodivergency is not disorder or illness or defect. It doesn't necessarily have to be fixed. Understood, most certainly. And assistance, if needed, to exist in an nt world and contribute to the fullest extent of your sometimes remarkable abilities.
I find the largest problem to be that there is this assumption that behavior is directly coupled with something. This is certainly the case with psychopathy.
They assume that antisocial behavior is part of it because they research it in prisons.
It then becomes what they consider required to be present in order for psychopathy to be present.
They then reinforce that belief by assigning the diagnosis to behavior, not brain structure.
It becomes synonymous with brutal crimes and the assumption that someone that commits a brutal crime is by definition a psychopath.
This in turn removes any investigation into why a brutal crime would be committed by a neurotypical. There is so much information removed from understanding by using "psychopath" in place of horrible person whose actions should be understood.
I will admit, before I found you I use to believe in this main stream version of psychopathy and unfortunately I told a few people about it.
What made me decide to delve deeper and actually look into it was the fact that psychopaths are born, and this portrayal by seemingly everyone on the internet of psychopaths being evil. One of my moral beliefs is that no one is born evil. Naturally I wanted to know how actual psychopaths thought which you can only get by asking asking people with the condition.
I found that many sources that talk about psychopaths seem to presume that the person searching has been abused somehow, and quite honestly that seems pretty predatory to me.
When I heard to excuse of “psychopaths lie and manipulate so you can’t trust them!” as a way to try and scare people away from asking psychopaths directly, I thought to myself “even if they were lying I can still check their reliability by asking multiple psychopathic people and unless I put personal stake in what they’re saying, I really don’t have much to fear from lies.”
While Hare and these so called psychopath “experts” may have a monopoly on the mainstream perception of psychopathy, the fact that this perception is so over the top evil, that is what broke the illusion for me.
Any time something is painted in black or white, I find that to be suspicious. Very rarely are people so linear, and often there is a lot to their story that I simply do not understand. Also, learning their story and trying to understand it does not translate to tacit agreement with their position, but unfortunately that seems to be the thinking for many people.
Understanding an opponents position is philosophical debate 101, if debaters don’t do this, then they’re creating a straw man.
Those websites also acted as if simply talking to a psychopath will put you in danger, which as long as you keep your wit about you, and have measures to keep yourself safe, you don’t really have much to fear from simply trying to get another person’s point of view.
Thank you, Athena. Great topic, and discussion. Generally, I think that most people want to know the truth, although they tend to lean towards their biases. But, there are also many wouldbe academics who are outright frauds. I'm thinking of people like Elizabeth Holmes, and Dr. Andrew Wakefield who wrote the Lancet article blaming the MMR vaccine for autism, to name just two. There are still believers in Wakefield's fraudulent research. Afterall, The Lancet is a reputable medical journal. Unfortunately, clinging stubbornly to disproven ideas can injure all of us. There are people in other academic fields, like economics, who will die on the hill of their favorite school of thought rather than concede that those theories don't really work in the real world, or only work for a few, or have unintended consequences which are unacceptable. The Dalai Lama said, “If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.” That's the ideal approach to knowledge, I think.
Hey kevin: Athena replied below as you see. She writes of the substantial commitment of time (days) and money (more than $4000) borne by her for a diagnostical determination.
This is far more than evaluation of a simple MRI picture of a brain.
With Athena's permission, I wish to say more:
I'm under the impression MRI shows the brain of psychopaths in a definitive way, as wired differently, than NTs.
Does this have value- to the researchers- from their perspective?
Please excuse my inartful use of English symbols. Reading is like driving: We don't think about the process until we try to do something new.
If the MRI picture, to build a database of "brain wiring" has value, we might be better served to ask those in hospital waiting rooms, than transport prisoners to the machines.
I hope you as fascinated by the prospects as I am. It is quite possible we live in a rather dark ages of sorts. Best wishes to you in everything.
As always, spot on. I absolutely love reading everything you write. Your ability to cut through the noise and spell things out as they are is extremely admirable.
I have always felt that the whole point of science is to attempt to understand our world and use that knowledge to benefit us; I also feel that there are too many people who seem to miss the part about science being an attempt to understand. When beliefs are dogmatic and /shall not be questioned/, it’s a religion, not an ever-evolving quest for knowledge. Too many people treat “science” like a religion, and “scientists” are their gods.
I don’t see the harm in asking questions. A scientist should encourage others to investigate their theories and welcome challenge. That’s how we grow and learn.
I agree. How boring would the world be if everything about it was already settled understanding with no room for growth. I think that is part of why people feel so lacking in motivation. It is all so easy, and they are told what to think. No disagreement means not adventure, nothing to challenge or understand, nothing to work through for a better understanding. It leaves humans feeling listless and without direction. That is not a good thing for our species.
Hey. Vitamin D could be a really tricky thing to measure, idk. It seems some invasive to use a blood test each time.
Even in Winter, sunlight, especially between 10 am and 2 pm, should give you some naturally manufactured D. You don't have to be outside: Only where the sun hits you directly on as much skin surface as you can arrange.
It seems there is some recent evidence that people who died from Covid were far more likely to be low in D: AND it seems about 25% USA pop is D deficient.
The whole thing seems barbaric to me. One day, an entire range of health indicators and tests will be readily available. It appears we are in the grip of "profit motive" and industry of health care and insurance.
I generally agree. However, what about a situation where the president of the United States is propagating information that is demonstrably dangerous to human life, e.g. that drinking Clorox is effective as a "cure" for COVID, or that wearing masks or taking COVID vaccinations is dangerous to human health?
I mean, rational people may see through this immediately and know to ignore it, but what about the nearly 50% of the US population who are functionally illiterate (defined as having a reading level below the standard for 5th grade), and therefore lack the skills needed to determine independently whether the information being given is or is not dangerous to human health?
These people listen to authority figures because they don't really have any way to find things out independently. And I would say that "the powers that be" have a vested interest in the educational system being what it is, so that those who "should be kept in their place" in fact stay in that place. The result is that the literacy problem is now so serious that no one really knows what to do about it.
So, if we see that people are dying because they took some authority figure's advice, should that authority figure not be deplatformed and held criminally responsible for their deaths?
I very much like this post, Athena, thank you.
I had to figure some of this stuff out after my autism diagnosis about 6ish years ago. Silly me thought that "autism experts" might want to get the perspectives of autistic adults! HAHahahaha. heh.
Otoh, I have been glad to find a few people with lots of letters after their names, publishing studies that included actual autistic people in the design etc. of the research, as well as including some autistic researchers. They even refrain from labeling every autistic trait as a deficit!
I was shocked to find that many autism experts label my faster-than-normal reading a deficit; apparently I don't understand what I read, per the "experts"??? It's labeled "hyperlexia". Huh. OH that's just how I might have been at age 5 - but these researchers only study autistic kids 90%+ of the time, from the perspective that every difference is a deficit too. I used that ability to get through grad school etc.; my auditory comprehension is slow, so that's how I approach a lot of life. Visually. But only the negative part of that tradeoff is studied, last I looked. Nothing of why the little girl I was, loved visually searching for little berries on the mountain with my grandma is seen as a positive. It's all about getting autistic kids to make more eye contact. Circular assumptions, circular research, derogatory labels. Unfortunately (in this way) I'm not psychopathic; things really can bother me, so I stopped reading this garbage so much. How can autistic researchers survive this &*%*?
Autism doesn't seem associated with nearly the same fear as does psychopathy, yet there seems fear of our perspectives all the same. Perhaps it's partly that some cannot deal with the idea that their perspective is just an ephemeral set of mushy partly-logical neuronal firings taking place in the brain of an evolved monkey... Mine included of course.
A commonly repeated one... Apparently we autistics have defective "Theory of Mind", per such experts as the illustrious Simon Baron-Cohen. Since we don't understand NT minds as easily as NTs do, this must mean that we cannot understand other minds well. Period. But wait, you might ask... Might we understand some autistic minds better than NTs? Do NTs actually understand minds different from their own, or do they also fail to cross these divides? Might it be... a "Double Empathy Problem"?? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_empathy_problem) Some researchers do think so, beginning with an autistic researcher. To his credit, Baron-Cohen seems to be considering this alternative framework. It's looking like this all might be a two-way street, with NTs also having trouble understanding many things about non-NT thinking; there are still loads of researchers, clinicians, and regular people who just repeat the 20-year-old stuff about our defective brains though.
I have been wondering if part of the unspoken stuff in that, is that some NTs implicitly believe that their sort of mind is the only sort of possible intelligence; any deviation from that is defective, so why even worry about whether NTs can understand defective minds? It's not a two-way street in their minds; the universe revolves around them, they (NTs) were made in the ultimate deity's image, and all that. I wonder - do they feel that their Gods are NT? Perhaps it is an underlying assumption. Oh well. Thank you for reading if you got through all that.
My favorite autism journal, for anyone interested: "Autism in Adulthood"
https://home.liebertpub.com/publications/autism-in-adulthood/646
Simon Baron-Cohen has a lot of ridiculous claims about psychopathy as well.
No, I do not think that most neurotypicals understand minds not like their own. There is an incredible amount of hubris that is needed to tell a person that they are wrong about how they think. It's interesting to me that in the case of autism that they are still willing to tell you that you are wrong about you. At least with psychopathy, they have the age old argument of, "Well, psychopaths lie, so we can't trust anything that they say." They don't have this with autism, and yet we see the same behavior.
My guess is that there are few that will point out the hypocrisy. With autism is seems to be:
"We're the experts and because we say so. Don't listen to anyone else.".
While with psychopathy it's:
"We're the experts and psychopaths lie, so don't listen to them. For the rest of it, also because we say so".
It's nonsensical.
I don't know where I heard this quote from but it summarizes societies attitudes towards the two conditions quite well; 'People fear psychopaths. People feel sorry for autistic people'.
I think the main reason why autistic people are dismissed is because we're seen as incapable forever children, and if we're not, then we must not be autistic enough; therefore, only experts and parents of severely autistic children can be truly KNOW how an autistic mind works.
*sigh*
If people think that those with autism are incapable forever children, I would suggest that perhaps they have never met a person with autism.
They should get out more.
Yes, it's both nonsensical and arrogant. It's saying that NT's are the norm, and everything else is a "deviation" rather than an "interesting difference." Along with everyone "should" strive to be like the NTs. (Disclaimer: I do happen to be an NT, but I don't share this mindset.)
I have never understood why anyone would want the world made up of like individuals. There would be no advancement. People that contrast tend to make the best strides by considering things from different perspectives.
Indeed. Not only which, it would be b-o-r-i-n-g. (Yawn.)
Exactly
Because cohesion is easier when people are more similar to each other. It is tempting to think that if we all were the same, there would be less problems because we would agree on what to do and there is hefty of "me and mine know the best how to live life, so everyone else should do like us". Comfort and harmony. And like... Cultural clashes and other clashes make up much of history and some differences just aren't functional, so it is easy to say "the more something deviates the more likely it is to fail". Differences can be as challenging as they are inspiring and helping in advancement.
Agreed
Thanks for the autism journal recommendation! I’ll check it out.
Me too, my grandson is autistic and in the Air Force, if you know anything about the armed forces, you have to be really smart to get into the air force.
I would like to try to understand him better so I'll be checking out that link as well.
TY for your revealing and most excellent thoughtful post.
My friend's two sons have some degree of autism. I do not think of them as "defective".
They don't like to be around visitors so I don't get to see them because they stay out of my visit area. The older son is very particular about his pants. He only wears certain ones that he likes. He likes them folded a certain way. Pretty understandable. It is like a 'baseline' that before he moves on, he takes care of the pants issue.
I'm like that too on other stuff. But for the fact he has to deal with his mother, including with pants, because she folds them, there isn't much difference of him to me.
The younger brother is more to himself and I don't see him much or know anything about him.
I know my friend. I know her husband. If I could, I would like to know the sons better.
TY for the link. I'm will click there now.
Best wishes. Congratulations of your grad school!! Way to go
"brain of an evolved monkey" = awesome!
People have a habit of assigning labels to behavior that they themselves can't quite understand. They have a need to categorize, and when they hear about something that might fit what they are hearing about, even if it is in the most distant connection, they will assume that is what they are seeing.
This is the same behavior that you will see in people that will tell others what to do about their health problems. I cannot count the number of times that I have seen this, but it is very common that someone mentions that they are dealing with something medically, and the other person feels the need to tell them how to handle it, even if they have no idea what they are talking about. I have seen this so often that it is a bit mind numbing to me. I have considered writing about this, as the behavior fascinates me.
LOL. Dammit Athena. Sizzling Burn!!! " the other person feels the need to tell them how to handle it, even if they have no idea what they are talking about"
It's an unfortunate habit. I am writing a post about it
Unfortunately (for the rest of the world) I do something very similar. If you need someone to illustrate a "bad example" feel free to use me!!
I am laughing so damn hard bc I know what I have done in my life, the havoc caused others, always thinking "what a fine fellow I really am."
Looking forward to your work! I can't undo the past, but I can going forward. Thanks!
So true. I always wondered why people do this.
That's a bit different. I am referring to more serious things like chronic illness or cancer that is long term or terminal
Unfortunately, people often are not willing to change their ways, even if it is contrary to their better interests. This is common in illnesses. Smokers who know that they have had serious lung changes who insist on smoking anyway. They aren't going to listen to reason
Hey, Savannah, Please let me comment here to your father's situation.
My friends were complaining that I was bigger and had put on weight.
My doctor trained in Germany for healing, not treatment: So he doesn't take insurance or the like. He isn't in the AMA or isn't going to work at a hospital.
So...
He talked to me, gave me some books:
I came up with two "rules"-
1) try to eat as much UN-processed food as possible, try for 85%. Raw, uncooked, without salt or sugar.
2) don't drink with meals. Allow 30 minutes before you eat and 30 minutes after.
I read all the books and talked with the doctor: There was alot I couldn't do, so this was for me. I made a YT of it a couple years ago.
When I went to my ETN specialist, she was alarmed!! I lost 27 pounds between visits!!
Just from those two things.
But here is the thing: My first Dr.? He said he gave MANY people material and suggestions and counseling, the whole thing.
He said I was the only person who ever did anything with it.
He said that by eating sugar (and salt) we become like addicts. We all this right? Likely this leads to Diabetes Cancers and other degenerative diseases. Yet we eat on as if nothing will happen.
Is this helpful? Two rules!~!!
If someone said that out loud to you Savannah, I would find them incredibly rude and without any social grace whatever. I would red flag them for no future contact and delete their friends and family, if possible.
The 'social norm' is to extend kindness and courteously, to those of us who don't quickly make the social grades.
Very likely you do pick up on social norms about as much as anyone else. Certainly more than me. I live outside the USA in a Spanish speaking country. I constantly offend people here. Yet, in the USA, I am in no man's land of sorts.
In CA particularly, people are very kind to me and often greet me. I'm certain they are moved by compassion I seem so out of place.
Savannah: In other posts we talk about seeing the weakness in people. Do you agree the speaker showed their weakness?
Best Wishes. BTW- Have you tried CA? It is expensive but often very pleasant. It will make you smile at the most unexpected times.
-smiles- Land of Milk and Honey. CA is California. I live a few hundreds miles south. My physical office is in San Diego.
It is un-believably expensive to go out for a restaurant or do anything- At least as much as Las Vegas. But every time I go there, so many people end up reaching out and talking to me and having a good time.
You sound like a very interesting person. I can't imagine what it means to "seem invincible" or "put together". Likely you must have some cool things going in your life. And you try really hard and want things to be right and work out well.
Obviously, if you need validation you are very vulnerable to other people especially people close to you, like a boyfriend.
My friend's daughter is all that: spoiled, immature and self centered. Yet, she has a degree, a great job, and a nice family. She is the prettiest girl I know personally. I can truly say that everyone in her life, me included, love her fiercely. We would do anything for her and we accept she is a bit of her worst enemy.
In that sense, she had a very hard life. You can imagine how much trouble she has gotten into!!
On her wedding day, in her beautiful dress, in front of all her friends, she grabbed me and danced with me. She whispered all sorts of things to me as the whole place looked at us askew as if some terrible obscene event was happening.
That is a lifetime. No one ever treated me so well as that before. Likely won't ever again.
I know those character flaws she has, but I like her, and admire her. I will always treasure her. I will have a relationship with her the rest of my life.
When I think of her, it is one of the things that gives me strength in my life. I'm sure how or why, but I know she made me a better person.
It is quite possibly, maybe likely, you do that very same thing for people around you.
Best.
-smiles- Exactly!!! Like your father: I know my youngest son is not perfect, but I adore him. My youngest daughter, I shop for properties to buy for her. She is not perfect, but I only know this in my head. In my heart, they ARE perfect!! haha.
I had very strong feelings for a girl that was engaged when I met her: She was in a fire and had scares on her face. She was still extraordinary woman and incredibly desirable. I still ask about her to this day!!
Love is possible and worthy in our own (and others!) IM-perfections. I know I used physical imperfections in this post: Let me do another!!
In my first year of small liberal arts college, there was a stunning girl in class that wore a red silk blouse!! Hehehe. Every man in that was stunned with her appearance. yet on both of her cheeks she had scars of being bite by a dog when she was a young girl.
She was also brilliant in mind and spirit. Dammit, in this moment, if I could only see her smile again. She was the highest grade in the classes I had with her: Higher than mine.
I think most people who follow your posts are interested in psychopathy, but aware that there is a huge gap in the knowledge and theories, because most of these studies were done on criminals in prison. I bet there are a lot of PHD's following your posts, or would be if they were aware of them. From what I've seen, most of the experts seem to admit so much of psychopathy is really not well understood. Dr. Fallon's book went a long way to opening eyes and expanding thinking. I think many anthropologists now recognize that Mother Nature wants human populations to have a certain percentage of psychopathic brains. The percentage, we're told, is the same within all regions of the globe. So it's driven by evolutionary purpose to have that percentage.
But outside of prisoners, most psychopaths, I think, wisely remain in the shadows. What advantage in coming out? And few psychopaths see a need to visit a shrink. So we know they're there, but how they think remains a mystery.
That's why your posts are valuable and I think the audience will grow. It would probably really take off if you started a YT channel.
@Athena: This YT idea seems really strikingly "good"!!
Start VLK: Very Low Key.
Maybe guest with someone else? Every quarter or the like? Just a LiveStream?
Look at how much fun everyone had on this thread! Could be relaxing and fun for you??
It is a new year????
I have been very clear that I will never do anything that reveals my identity.
1,000 pardons and apologies. I didn't know this. Pardon me please.
No problem. I simply see no reason to give those that dislike me so an idea of who to look for.
I understand. Thank you for your kind reply.
I'd love to interview her over zoom. Or a livestream if she preferred. Or if she sets up her own channel, I'll gladly subscribe.
That's very kind of you
kevin: Great Post!@!!! Wow. Athena via YouTube!?? Dammit!! I don't know if I could stand the intensity!!! but I would try: What if she was just reading her own past work? Stored for posterity.
TY of your interesting observation of percentage by regions.
Do you think most psychopaths know they are one? I would think not but I have no idea. Thanks again!
Most know that they are different, but they will likely never consider psychopathy because of the nonsense information surrounding it.
Dr. Fallon did not know he was one. But I do think most of them know they're different. Too a great many of them, they sense weakness in neurotypicals that is theirs to exploit. This prompts tricky questions. It's said that all psychopaths are narcissists(though not all narcissists are psychopaths). The problem is that if you feel you are superior to those around you, and in fact in many ways you are superior, is that narcissism? No! What makes a narcissist a narcissist is that his perceptions about himself are delusional. If those perceptions are accurate, there's no delusion.
People with Aspergers have their own unique body language, so they quickly recognize each other. Does the same apply to psychopaths? I would guess so, to some degree. Also, they can now use AI to recognize a psychopath in an interview setting. With a high degree of accuracy. I think the AI is trained to look at how they hold their head. They tend to be more still and focused than NT.
Most of our knowledge of psychopaths comes from prison studies. Psychopaths rarely go in for psychiatric care. And psychopathic women are very hard to spot, unless it's really an extreme case.
I have a YT channel, so if Athena wanted to set her own channel up, I could help. I'm sure she could figure it out perfectly on her own, though.
Hmm, now that's interesting. I don't know if we do or don't. I do know one other psychopath, but haven't specifically noticed anything that I would then extrapolate to try and identify other psychopaths. Perhaps our walk as we both have a very confident stride, but I'm not certain.
Prison studies. yes, Athena mentions this.
In Prison, time and experience allows, well, anyone to "read people" that is, to see the character flaws in others. How interesting!!
In Poker, they speak of "tells" of whether a player is bluffing.
Imagine how much more useful "character flaws" are to exploit: How tempted one might be given the limited and far less interesting alternatives.
Again, overtime a person could become quite skilled.
Unlike clinical settings, first hand opportunity to test your knowledge: To set someone up and see if you can make them fall.
Now add a researcher looking for psychopaths and narcissists in prison!! haha. How delightful!!
I'm sure it is just me: However, I suggest any information from prison studies is meaningless on its face.
There is no meaningful research or insight on any other aspect of prison- how could psychopathy be any different?
I don't consider it meaningless at all, because they can get MRI's of the psychopaths in prison, and the differences in the brain are very observable, AND very consistent with what's known about psychopathy. The brain regions observed to be different are known to be associated with empathy. Which psychopaths are incapable of(effective empathy; they are capable of cognitive empathy).
But when studies are limited to prisoners, you're getting a very incomplete picture. Imagine if all we knew about high-IQ people was from prison studies. We might assume most high-IQ people become criminals.
Absolutely true
Good for you to look into this sort of thing.
Athena often mentions: Psychopaths are wired (differently) than NT from birth.
If, as you suggest, MRIs can see that different, that rewiring, then why is the MRI for observations limited to prison?
kevin, I'm just not quite following that part. Likely I just don't see:
If it is an exacting science of observation, (not harmful in the least) why is the focus on prison study?
Please let me say one more way: If we are studying prisoners, oh, okay got it.
If we are studying MRI in relationship to psychopathy, why are we not looking at the larger population?
BTW: We don't even know the affects of prison on a person or even if prisons "work". We allow solitary confinement, even in USA, without a shred of study on the affects.
This is the sense of "meaningless".
I apologize for hacking Athena's thread. Haha. Maybe she will give me a hall pass for the new year!! haha.
Best to you kevin!
No apologies necessary
Because they need volunteers. Prisoners volunteer in exchange for benefits. But where would they find noncriminal psychopaths? Someone like Athena. Why would she ever walk in to a shrink's office? Why would she ever submit to an MRI?
There are some “experts” who know nothing about specific topics on their field. I’m not criticizing them for that, as we are humans and it’s impossible that we know it all. My issue, however, is the arrogance that sometimes comes with it. This hits home right now.
My psychiatrist diagnosed me with something based on the most well known symptoms, so I started doing my own research. A little like you and psychopathy, I got to know my neurodivergence better than him; after all, I AM the one who experiences it everyday. The other day on my consult with him, he not only showed a complete lack of understanding as to how my brain works, but dared to basically tell me that I didn’t know anything. I got angry when I explained a couple of times but he dismissed me completely, because HE was the expert, not me.
Sorry, but having an alphabet soup after your name is NOT a guarantee that you know it all, and feeling like you do only creates a false sense of “security” where you stop learning and your confirmation bias makes you dismiss altogether everything that doesn’t support your previous knowledge.
I am worried, though. Because I knew that what he was saying wasn’t the truth thanks to my own research and my lived experience, but if I didn’t know better, if this had happened when I was younger, I would’ve felt like shit (the doc was basically telling me that I wasn’t trying hard enough to be neurotypical, so my hardships were MY fault). Because if I weren’t used to doing my own research and taking almost everything with a grain of salt, I would’ve blindly trusted him (he’s the expert!) and I would’ve felt stupid and useless. I would’ve blamed myself for everything.
So yeah, don’t trust “experts”. But also, silencing them is not the best course of action. We really don’t want to live in a world where someone can decide what is the truth and silence everyone who disagrees.
Challenging their incorrect ideas with logic is definitely the best course of action. When people hear the challenge, but do not hear a reasonable response to that challenge outside of "because I say so", they will lose their status as an expert.
I wish this approach worked better than it seems to with some people, Athena. Perhaps it's part of the NT thing with social status, but the same seemingly reasonable, challenging, response given by someone without the alphabet soup (or given by a female, or a person with some other characteristic lowering status in the subconscious of some NTs or something) can just be ignored completely - yet the statement might be fully considered if given by a "social peer" of the NT. I can't prove why they ignore such challenges and perspectives, but have seen this happen amongst humans so very many times that I no longer doubt myself.
Yes, this is unfortunate, and it is something that I have considered. There was a question over on Quora tangentially related to the one that inspired this post that asked how a debate between Robert Hare and me would go.
I never answered the question because there would never be a debate. Hare wouldn't bother acknowledging anything that I have to say on the topic. I don't have the alphabet soup and wouldn't be considered part of his class or status. He ignores people that do have the alphabet soup, and I am just someone on the internet that he can dismiss out of hand. I deal with his zealots quite often, and none of them are willing to even look at the issues with his work.
A few years back, I took some science courses and one of the first things they teach you is about the scientific method and how to properly conduct research. They also went on about biases and how they can affect the results of a study. The thing is, as human beings we are riddled with biases and this can affect how researchers carry out studies. A good researcher will recognize this and find ways to mitigate their own biases or if they're unable to just not do the research. This is also why the peer review process is vital in academia.
That being said, as with every single organization in human society, how members of said group are suppose to behave is not necessarily how the members are going to behave, and plenty of research papers have emotionally laden language that is not suppose to be there or is clearly the result of cultural biases.
What this means is that, if the scientific method and review process are taught at the introductory level, and researchers who have been in the field for years makes these kinds of errors, then they're either willfully ignorant or they just don't know.
It should be something reinforced continually for researchers to ensure that the information that they derive from their studies is of the highest value.
It seems to be a bigger problem with psychology and the social sciences rather than the hard sciences. I guess it makes sense, if an engineer gets the physics wrong, they'll build a bridge that'll fall down. With sociology, you can have an entire society with a high rate of domestic abuse and it'll just be seen as normal by the average person in said society.
I think another aspect of this is that they are trading on that "expert" status, and with many people that are seeking answers, they may be apt to substitute what they know about themselves for what the "expert" tells them is reality. This can be done through overall myths that are so pervasive that no one thinks to question them, or it can be through emotional subversion where the person thinks that they simply must be wrong because of how the "expert" makes them feel.
A psychopath likely will never know that they are psychopathic, because an "expert" will tell them that psychopathy is synonymous with criminality and antisocial personality disorder. They can live their whole life without knowing this information however, and it really doesn't change anything.
A patient may go to a medical doctor with an unusual presentation of an illness, or simply an illness that the doctor is unfamiliar with past a cursory glance in a text book, and be told that what they suspect is wrong with them is incorrect because that illness is very rare. Doctors are trained with this phrase:
"when you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras”
which means that doctors should consider the most likely possibility first when thinking of a diagnosis. Often this results in a dismissive attitude toward the patient when they may in fact have something that will end their lives without treatment.
"Experts" need to remind themselves that they do not know everything, they don't know what they don't know, and what they do know is a small snippet reality, and not reality in its entirety.
That does make sense, when the subjects of study are people I can imagine how social instincts can take affect, which includes the desire to show off social status. Try getting a PHD in astrophysics and getting the moon to respect your intellectual superiority. The moon could randomly grow a green spot tomorrow, be there for 3 days then vanish, and the moon wouldn't care whether or not scientists believe it was possible.
I think most astronomers would be excited and curious to find out why the green spot appeared. Saying that the green spot didn't occur because the physics says in impossible would not be a satisfactory answer. For people however, social scientist can get away with, "oh they're mistaken", "They're lying", etc.
Indeed, it is really interesting to see the difference in how these things are treated.
There is some basis to outsider perspective, to being able to see something better because one is not mired in it. But slope towards this kind of dismissal as is described here is really slippery.
And problem with horses and zebras is that it really is horses more often. But every now and then a zebra shows up too.
"they are trading on that "expert" status" WoW
And/or they are so emotionally invested in what they believe they know, that they dismiss any and all bits of evidence that contradict their view.
Unfortunately this is a very common occurance
Emotional investment is considered a bias and in fact that class recommended staying away from researching topics we were emotionally invested in.
It's always better to know what people think even if you really don't like what they say about it.
Exactly
Great article. The harm caused by "expert" arrogance and misinformation is significant. Psychology is not science in most instances. And the dsm is overwhelmingly opinion, drummed up to try to make it look like science and on a par with medical specialties. Then there is popular culture and the influence of social media and the internet which convince susceptible users that they have been victims of "narcissistic abuse" or "psychopathic manipulation" or any number of made up diagnoses. Its not your fault you are a loser. You don't have to take responsibility and be accountable for your own behavior and its consequences. You are a victim. A psychotherapist or mental health professional with an m.a. ph.d m.s.w. b.a. whatever will guide you through your victimhood and make you feel better cuz it wasn't your fault. cha-ching $$$.
Neurodivergency is not disorder or illness or defect. It doesn't necessarily have to be fixed. Understood, most certainly. And assistance, if needed, to exist in an nt world and contribute to the fullest extent of your sometimes remarkable abilities.
I find the largest problem to be that there is this assumption that behavior is directly coupled with something. This is certainly the case with psychopathy.
They assume that antisocial behavior is part of it because they research it in prisons.
It then becomes what they consider required to be present in order for psychopathy to be present.
They then reinforce that belief by assigning the diagnosis to behavior, not brain structure.
It becomes synonymous with brutal crimes and the assumption that someone that commits a brutal crime is by definition a psychopath.
This in turn removes any investigation into why a brutal crime would be committed by a neurotypical. There is so much information removed from understanding by using "psychopath" in place of horrible person whose actions should be understood.
I will admit, before I found you I use to believe in this main stream version of psychopathy and unfortunately I told a few people about it.
What made me decide to delve deeper and actually look into it was the fact that psychopaths are born, and this portrayal by seemingly everyone on the internet of psychopaths being evil. One of my moral beliefs is that no one is born evil. Naturally I wanted to know how actual psychopaths thought which you can only get by asking asking people with the condition.
I found that many sources that talk about psychopaths seem to presume that the person searching has been abused somehow, and quite honestly that seems pretty predatory to me.
When I heard to excuse of “psychopaths lie and manipulate so you can’t trust them!” as a way to try and scare people away from asking psychopaths directly, I thought to myself “even if they were lying I can still check their reliability by asking multiple psychopathic people and unless I put personal stake in what they’re saying, I really don’t have much to fear from lies.”
While Hare and these so called psychopath “experts” may have a monopoly on the mainstream perception of psychopathy, the fact that this perception is so over the top evil, that is what broke the illusion for me.
Any time something is painted in black or white, I find that to be suspicious. Very rarely are people so linear, and often there is a lot to their story that I simply do not understand. Also, learning their story and trying to understand it does not translate to tacit agreement with their position, but unfortunately that seems to be the thinking for many people.
Understanding an opponents position is philosophical debate 101, if debaters don’t do this, then they’re creating a straw man.
Those websites also acted as if simply talking to a psychopath will put you in danger, which as long as you keep your wit about you, and have measures to keep yourself safe, you don’t really have much to fear from simply trying to get another person’s point of view.
Thank you, Athena. Great topic, and discussion. Generally, I think that most people want to know the truth, although they tend to lean towards their biases. But, there are also many wouldbe academics who are outright frauds. I'm thinking of people like Elizabeth Holmes, and Dr. Andrew Wakefield who wrote the Lancet article blaming the MMR vaccine for autism, to name just two. There are still believers in Wakefield's fraudulent research. Afterall, The Lancet is a reputable medical journal. Unfortunately, clinging stubbornly to disproven ideas can injure all of us. There are people in other academic fields, like economics, who will die on the hill of their favorite school of thought rather than concede that those theories don't really work in the real world, or only work for a few, or have unintended consequences which are unacceptable. The Dalai Lama said, “If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.” That's the ideal approach to knowledge, I think.
What a great quote of Dalai Lama. TY!!
I agree
Was that a trick false statement Athena?
The Earth DOES revolve in an elliptical orbit around the Sun, doesn’t it?
It was an inversion or the proper statement, I corrected it
Possibly she meant they both revolve around the epicenter of their masses. Which is a point inside the sun but not at its center.
It was a mistake on my part
I think she might have reversed the reversal accidentally.
You are correct. I fixed it
OMG so well said.
I love it 😍.
"There is more religion in science, than science in religion."
-Henry David Thoreau.
I am saving this, thanks.
Hey kevin: Athena replied below as you see. She writes of the substantial commitment of time (days) and money (more than $4000) borne by her for a diagnostical determination.
This is far more than evaluation of a simple MRI picture of a brain.
With Athena's permission, I wish to say more:
I'm under the impression MRI shows the brain of psychopaths in a definitive way, as wired differently, than NTs.
Does this have value- to the researchers- from their perspective?
Please excuse my inartful use of English symbols. Reading is like driving: We don't think about the process until we try to do something new.
If the MRI picture, to build a database of "brain wiring" has value, we might be better served to ask those in hospital waiting rooms, than transport prisoners to the machines.
I hope you as fascinated by the prospects as I am. It is quite possible we live in a rather dark ages of sorts. Best wishes to you in everything.
As always, spot on. I absolutely love reading everything you write. Your ability to cut through the noise and spell things out as they are is extremely admirable.
I have always felt that the whole point of science is to attempt to understand our world and use that knowledge to benefit us; I also feel that there are too many people who seem to miss the part about science being an attempt to understand. When beliefs are dogmatic and /shall not be questioned/, it’s a religion, not an ever-evolving quest for knowledge. Too many people treat “science” like a religion, and “scientists” are their gods.
I don’t see the harm in asking questions. A scientist should encourage others to investigate their theories and welcome challenge. That’s how we grow and learn.
I agree. How boring would the world be if everything about it was already settled understanding with no room for growth. I think that is part of why people feel so lacking in motivation. It is all so easy, and they are told what to think. No disagreement means not adventure, nothing to challenge or understand, nothing to work through for a better understanding. It leaves humans feeling listless and without direction. That is not a good thing for our species.
Great Work!! Your rest and well being of the recent holiday looks good on you!!
I love this: "Once a bad idea is established, an entire field of study will be built on that bad idea." !!!
hahaha!!!!
May I suggest two "bad ideas"?
"Big Bang Theory". Please. However, try saying that and NOT hearing immediately something about "God"
"Our Bodies lack Design". Oh, my!! Say this and see how fast you are thrown to the lions... like other Christians!! hahaha.
Am I on the wrong track? Did I miss your message?
The blackness of my heart is so dark, I offer what mass murderers think as they commit their crimes!! haha.
Yet, for me to question "Big Bang" and "Evolutionist", can ONLY be explained that I am a Christian 'Evangel' pointing you to Jesus!
These two ideas seem to be locked in place, in the same way as Hare: By grants, salaries, book deals, reputations, power and prestige.
They are not in any meaningful way open to examination by "commoners".
All my best Athena. 2023 is off to a great start.
All the best to you as well, Tim
Hey. Vitamin D could be a really tricky thing to measure, idk. It seems some invasive to use a blood test each time.
Even in Winter, sunlight, especially between 10 am and 2 pm, should give you some naturally manufactured D. You don't have to be outside: Only where the sun hits you directly on as much skin surface as you can arrange.
It seems there is some recent evidence that people who died from Covid were far more likely to be low in D: AND it seems about 25% USA pop is D deficient.
The whole thing seems barbaric to me. One day, an entire range of health indicators and tests will be readily available. It appears we are in the grip of "profit motive" and industry of health care and insurance.
I generally agree. However, what about a situation where the president of the United States is propagating information that is demonstrably dangerous to human life, e.g. that drinking Clorox is effective as a "cure" for COVID, or that wearing masks or taking COVID vaccinations is dangerous to human health?
I mean, rational people may see through this immediately and know to ignore it, but what about the nearly 50% of the US population who are functionally illiterate (defined as having a reading level below the standard for 5th grade), and therefore lack the skills needed to determine independently whether the information being given is or is not dangerous to human health?
These people listen to authority figures because they don't really have any way to find things out independently. And I would say that "the powers that be" have a vested interest in the educational system being what it is, so that those who "should be kept in their place" in fact stay in that place. The result is that the literacy problem is now so serious that no one really knows what to do about it.
So, if we see that people are dying because they took some authority figure's advice, should that authority figure not be deplatformed and held criminally responsible for their deaths?