It's really really hard to communicate to someone that their system of categorization might be wrong. That tends to be an ego hit in many cases. I know we discussed this before, but the old psychological definition of psychopathy seems to require some kind of antisocial personality disorder. Psychopathy as defined by neurology does not. I do wonder if calling it anafectivity would help address the issue of those still using the old definition and emphasize that antisocial personality disorder was not a diagnostic requirement.
Huh. You're right. "Shallow affect," specifically, is a phrase commonly used to describe psychopaths and part of the reason that they need a mask to interact fluidly in some social circles.
It's weird, but anaffectivity is something totally different.
I also wonder what aspect of neurology would be best to highlight.
That's where I found Dan Wells' John Cleaver books.
I digged premise of the first book (the whole reveal about identity and reasons of the killer and how it contrasted with the protagonist) and I got hooked on the protagonist's character arc and challenges he faced (whether personal or figuring out his adversaries) throughout the series (though I think that resolution of the last book got rather out of the author's hands) and I really do appreciate it was aiming for sympathetic understanding perspective, but boy... Was it a lot of usual ingredients rolled together. Mcdonald triad, almost non-existent ability to bond (changes in later books), various urges and irritability, very clever and very worried about not losing control of his tendencies... I could go on. Safely it can be said the lad was an abused child (something something about father) and not a born psychopath and I guess one can imagine he got shorter version of Warrior gene, so maybe a sociopath would have something more to say on the matter, but still. Well, I have fond memories of the series anyway.
That's the problem with closed-mindedness in general. Most people lack the ability to hold two thoughts, are too quick to make judgments, or(and) fail to change their worldview in light of contrary information. It's human nature I suppose. If one is too quick to change opinions, then what I are they constitutionally made of? But hold on to and operate from antiquated/limited/false frames and one can be severely limited to the point of death.
How can we get James Fallon on Jimmy Fallon though?
I saw that interview, A female interviewer and the specialist psychologist was British, from Oxford university I think. I forgot his name but he’s well respected in his field. I agree, he was dismissive and absolutely focussed on dismantling what Fallon was trying to communicate. He was completely obsessed with a preconceived profile and when Fallon didn’t fit, the psychologist dismissed any possibility that Fallon could be correct in what he was saying. Unedifying.
The problem with psychology and neuroscience is that there is still so much that we don’t yet understand about the brain and people don’t like unknowns. They feel far more comfortable with profiles, boxes ticked and labelled. That doesn’t solve anything, I agree, that keeps us stuck. Far better to admit we don’t yet know it all, we are ‘undecided’ then we at least have a fighting chance of actually learning something!
It was Prof. Simon Baron-Cohen, he is a leading expert on autism. He should know better than to do that on TV, especially American TV.
With regards to the point about pigeon-holing because ‘you have to put the information somewhere right’, it is common in psychology for people to add stuff to established concepts unfortunately. For me one of the best things about Darwin was that he actively sought out and engaged with contradictory opinion and facts, which it what made him a great scientist and researcher.
It wasn't Dutton, no. I don't imagine Dutton being dismissive of Fallon considering that Dutton tends to also be in the outside of the accepted psychological narrative regarding psychopathy. He has written two books about psychopathy that challenge the approved thought consensus
I read ‘The Wisdom of Psychopaths’. Great read. There’s a description of Dutton and his forces friend taking a test. A series of really shocking images whilst they were both wired up to register brain activity. He describes himself just sitting there spaced out at the end, trying to reconcile the images he had just been subjected to. Meanwhile his psychopath friend was already on his feet and busy chatting up the lab technician. It highlighted the difference in their two reactions perfectly.
I see what you mean, unlikely to have been Dutton on that basis.
White wolf: "When specialists let their egos get in the way of their passion for knowledge, scientific progress is hindered and breakthroughs won't happen as fast as they could. What a shame."
Black wolf: "When all specialists involved in a task are encouraged to have tunnel vision, morals won't get in the way of the big picture. That's probably how the atom bomb was made."
Agreed. Dealing with people it often seems one is in a room filled with blind people touching an elephant and insisting their perception is the only correct one, while one sees the whole elephant or at least the suggestion of what could be an elephant. Part of it may be that people invest too big a part of themselves in some of their theories and ideas. That would probably make it harder to accept that they are mistaken and consider new ideas when given new evidence. It is probably good the old eventually die and give way to the young. Similar to how forest fires make way for new growth. Some of us seem stuck in ways that no longer serve a purpose. To live forever would allow us to wreak havoc attempting to impose obsolete methods on incoming generations for our own convenience, which seems foolish, but is precisely what some often attempt to do.
I had a previous teacher who works in web design. Her job is designing the front end pages of websites. Due to fact that we live in an interconnected world, she ends up creating websites for a variety of clients with different backgrounds.
One common issue she has dealing with clients is that often they are so use to their specialty, and the knowledge and jargon that comes along with it, that they don't understand that what they consider "basic knowledge" is unknown to the general population. She basically has to tell them "We're going to have to rewrite this because your readers, and potential customers, aren't going to understand this." Clients don't tend to like being told that.
It is amazing how often we take our knowledge for granted. It's not just unwillingness to see the bigger picture, but also this subconscious expectation that other people are going to understand what we understand. It's not just specialist that do this, people do this all the time when it comes to culturally ingrained knowledge. I remember as a kid being yelled at a lot for not knowing things that the adults considered "common sense". Cultural misunderstandings happen all the time. There is no such thing as 'common sense'.
Well written and compelling, Athena. Thank you. I've recently been discussing absolute certainty with a friend, and read with great interest.
Recently, I commented on Quora about a subject that I can tell many people are absolutely certain that their point of view is the only correct one. I pointed to one or more points of view that are worth considering, only to be told that I seem "confused", and when I decide "which side I'm on" to come back. Then, I'm blocked! The issue may be a minor one to me, but to some people, it's of earth shattering importance. It's an 'us vs them' mindset, and to budge even a little is the same as surrender and defeat.
I read a book by Mark Vonnegut, Kurt's son, who is a Harvard trained pediatrician, and was on the board of admissions for Harvard's medical school. He talked about how incredible the applicants were, and how sad that the rejected students might give up on becoming doctors because either they, or their parents, or both wanted Harvard or nothing. He said that most of them would be great doctors no matter where they were trained. So, this all or nothing focus on Harvard is such a shame. Another interesting point he made is that Harvard wants what seems to be a neurodiverse student body. So, the rejected applicants should not feel bad. They were smart enough, but not the right type intellect. Harvard wanted a balanced group with differing strengths, and there are good reasons for this. One might be to avoid what you are talking about. It might prevent like-minded students from seeing only from one limited perspective.
Tribalism is such a strange thing to me. Asking someone "which side" they're on, isn't a thinking position, it is a feeling position and there is little to be gained from feeling that your position is correct, instead of trying to gather as much information as possible and allowing your perspective to change based on new information you come across.
Tribalism, feelings and an immature insistence on "my truth" despite all evidence to the contrary. What a pointless endeavor it is to try to reason with. This is new for me to observe, and I actually suspected this person was a bot until I looked at her profile, and there are lots of people whose feelings apparently align with hers. Some of them immediately pounced on my comments when she did, like gang members, only to block me right afterwards - Cowards. They don't want to be confronted. SMFH
I used to hate the soft (social) sciences in general, qualitative data is generalized/unreliable. AI is really helping to disentangle or make the use of qualitative data.
For example you ask 100 people how they feel today: Great, Good, Ok, Less than ok, Fuckin Miserable
I also jump off into seemingly unrelated stories when I make a point. I recall reading something by a counter terrorism expert who said that people will do what they know which was how the SAS caught most terrorist. Now I have to dig around and see if I still have that book
i like this one. my teen years i stayed in lots of hospitals and d/t missing lots of the social cues that were apparently so obvious to everyone else, it flew over my head that 'you aren't supposed to challenge professionals because that's rude,' and i pissed many specialists off by printing out articles to show that they were on the wrong track when they dismissed me as 'just being anxious' etc.
they finally lowered their sights i guess, because i got diagnosed properly and don't have to stay in hospitals anymore 😂
ASPD is the diagnosis, yes, but it is not a correct diagnosis as ASPD has nothing to do with psychopathy, and psychopathy has nothing to do with ASPD, nor with psychology to begin with.
ASPD has no value as a diagnosis for anyone. I went into detail about this here:
I have the brain structure and chemical processing of a psychopath. ASPD is a behavioral diagnosis only. Literally anyone alive can be diagnosed with ASPD so long as their behavior is consistent with the diagnostic criteria, and most people with these behaviors have them for wildly different reasons which makes the "diagnosis" a very poor construct.
Most people with ASPD are neurotypical, and most psychopaths do not have ASPD. Also, something being in the DSM or not is unimportant. The DSM is nothing more than an insurance repayment manual, not a diagnostic bible. It has no relevance to psychopathy in general, but it should not be considered as anything more than a coding book. Anything outside of that is an incorrect way of viewing it.
Thanks for your honesty, you're diagnosed with ASPD. Why do you think they removed psychopathy all together as a construct from the DSM? It was a conclusion after years of debate among peers.
You seem to be describing yourself as what is known as a factor 1 psychopath, not a sociopath/factor 2 psychopath/ASPD. Why do you think you're misdiagnosed? Do you think a factor 1 psychopath would (allow him/herself no matter age to) be diagnosed with ASPD?
I don't think I am misdiagnosed. I am a psychopath. I think ASPD as a diagnosis is garbage and has no value. I think anyone that understood what ASPD and the DSM is would find the "diagnosis" of ASPD as laughable as I do. It is nothing more than laziness on the part of psychologists.
As for its removal, it has no reason to be there in the first place. It has nothing to do with psychology, and everything to do with neurology.
"We are each alone in our own dreamstate bubble, wandering the hallways of Maya's House of Mirrors where there are no originals, only endless reflections. Your dreamstate is a well-equipped playground in which creation, preservation and destruction are all equally creative acts. You can’t really create, preserve or destroy anything, but you can engage in whatever virtual world-building or planet-killing games amuse you in the privacy of your own little universe. What happens in the holodeck stays in the holodeck."
In all fairness to older people, the world is moving way too fast to easily keep up. But, they should accept being challenged, as long as you're not confrontational, or irritable about it. Pick your arguments wisely, present them calmly, and as kindly as possible, then let it go. Or, agree to disagree. Especially when they are all emotional about something. You don't want to bark up that tree. That's a waste of time. Older people get stuck in their ways because something worked for them, so they don't want to rock the boat. They want you to apply for a job the way that worked for them - they want you to be a success. Just explain the new etiquette for that, then do as you please. Better yet, show them an article or video that explains it so you don't lose your patience.
If they are supporting you, they could always say that if you don't like it, you can leave. Then, what? Just saying...
Racism is wrong, but I can see why it exists in political systems that thrive on fearmongering. You are sincere, and right to object to this. But, it's probably just fear.
I would cut your father some slack because he's experienced it, so it would be hard to shake him from this belief. Cross that bridge if and when you get to it. He's just trying to save you from heartbreak, which is sweet. He's been traumatized. Let it be until you meet the right guy, and then sort it out with him if you have to.
There's still a huge amount of racial discrimination. And some of the racists actually go out and shoot folks. So yeah, it's a serious problem. Has there been progress since the 50's? Yes. But there's also been some serious backsliding. And hey, I'm a white gal, and yeah, old. But I've seen a lot of stuff in my day too.
That's sadly true. It's often a stealthy form of racism as well. But, it's like two steps forward, one step back. Progress will prevail, one would like to presume.
It's really really hard to communicate to someone that their system of categorization might be wrong. That tends to be an ego hit in many cases. I know we discussed this before, but the old psychological definition of psychopathy seems to require some kind of antisocial personality disorder. Psychopathy as defined by neurology does not. I do wonder if calling it anafectivity would help address the issue of those still using the old definition and emphasize that antisocial personality disorder was not a diagnostic requirement.
I have wondered this as well. It seems to me that the term psychopathy is likely irreparably tarnished.
I decided to see if anefectivity was a thing. Well anaffectivity already exists but the definition doesn't fit psychopaths so we need to keep trying.
Maybe some neuroscientist can come up with a term
Huh. You're right. "Shallow affect," specifically, is a phrase commonly used to describe psychopaths and part of the reason that they need a mask to interact fluidly in some social circles.
It's weird, but anaffectivity is something totally different.
I also wonder what aspect of neurology would be best to highlight.
Maybe start by removing primary psychopathy from the DSM, and put the ball in the neuroscientists' court.
Athena, ever thought about writing a screenplay? What would it look like to present a psychopath to the world that wasn't a serial killer?
Perhaps
Oh, like the movie "Nightcrawler"? Or the movie "Throughoughbreds"? Or the movie....
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Oh, I see...They’ve already done that. Maybe I should buy a television.
Naw, torrent everything and find good shows from TVtropes.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralSociopathy
That should get you started on actual portrayals of sociopathy in media.
That's where I found Dan Wells' John Cleaver books.
I digged premise of the first book (the whole reveal about identity and reasons of the killer and how it contrasted with the protagonist) and I got hooked on the protagonist's character arc and challenges he faced (whether personal or figuring out his adversaries) throughout the series (though I think that resolution of the last book got rather out of the author's hands) and I really do appreciate it was aiming for sympathetic understanding perspective, but boy... Was it a lot of usual ingredients rolled together. Mcdonald triad, almost non-existent ability to bond (changes in later books), various urges and irritability, very clever and very worried about not losing control of his tendencies... I could go on. Safely it can be said the lad was an abused child (something something about father) and not a born psychopath and I guess one can imagine he got shorter version of Warrior gene, so maybe a sociopath would have something more to say on the matter, but still. Well, I have fond memories of the series anyway.
That's the problem with closed-mindedness in general. Most people lack the ability to hold two thoughts, are too quick to make judgments, or(and) fail to change their worldview in light of contrary information. It's human nature I suppose. If one is too quick to change opinions, then what I are they constitutionally made of? But hold on to and operate from antiquated/limited/false frames and one can be severely limited to the point of death.
How can we get James Fallon on Jimmy Fallon though?
That would be interesting.
Awesome.
I saw that interview, A female interviewer and the specialist psychologist was British, from Oxford university I think. I forgot his name but he’s well respected in his field. I agree, he was dismissive and absolutely focussed on dismantling what Fallon was trying to communicate. He was completely obsessed with a preconceived profile and when Fallon didn’t fit, the psychologist dismissed any possibility that Fallon could be correct in what he was saying. Unedifying.
The problem with psychology and neuroscience is that there is still so much that we don’t yet understand about the brain and people don’t like unknowns. They feel far more comfortable with profiles, boxes ticked and labelled. That doesn’t solve anything, I agree, that keeps us stuck. Far better to admit we don’t yet know it all, we are ‘undecided’ then we at least have a fighting chance of actually learning something!
It was Prof. Simon Baron-Cohen, he is a leading expert on autism. He should know better than to do that on TV, especially American TV.
With regards to the point about pigeon-holing because ‘you have to put the information somewhere right’, it is common in psychology for people to add stuff to established concepts unfortunately. For me one of the best things about Darwin was that he actively sought out and engaged with contradictory opinion and facts, which it what made him a great scientist and researcher.
Yes, I agree
Was it Dutton, might have been Kevin Dutton? I’m rubbish with names, I can see him in my minds eye, just can’t remember the name.
It wasn't Dutton, no. I don't imagine Dutton being dismissive of Fallon considering that Dutton tends to also be in the outside of the accepted psychological narrative regarding psychopathy. He has written two books about psychopathy that challenge the approved thought consensus
I read ‘The Wisdom of Psychopaths’. Great read. There’s a description of Dutton and his forces friend taking a test. A series of really shocking images whilst they were both wired up to register brain activity. He describes himself just sitting there spaced out at the end, trying to reconcile the images he had just been subjected to. Meanwhile his psychopath friend was already on his feet and busy chatting up the lab technician. It highlighted the difference in their two reactions perfectly.
I see what you mean, unlikely to have been Dutton on that basis.
White wolf: "When specialists let their egos get in the way of their passion for knowledge, scientific progress is hindered and breakthroughs won't happen as fast as they could. What a shame."
Black wolf: "When all specialists involved in a task are encouraged to have tunnel vision, morals won't get in the way of the big picture. That's probably how the atom bomb was made."
Agreed. Dealing with people it often seems one is in a room filled with blind people touching an elephant and insisting their perception is the only correct one, while one sees the whole elephant or at least the suggestion of what could be an elephant. Part of it may be that people invest too big a part of themselves in some of their theories and ideas. That would probably make it harder to accept that they are mistaken and consider new ideas when given new evidence. It is probably good the old eventually die and give way to the young. Similar to how forest fires make way for new growth. Some of us seem stuck in ways that no longer serve a purpose. To live forever would allow us to wreak havoc attempting to impose obsolete methods on incoming generations for our own convenience, which seems foolish, but is precisely what some often attempt to do.
I had a previous teacher who works in web design. Her job is designing the front end pages of websites. Due to fact that we live in an interconnected world, she ends up creating websites for a variety of clients with different backgrounds.
One common issue she has dealing with clients is that often they are so use to their specialty, and the knowledge and jargon that comes along with it, that they don't understand that what they consider "basic knowledge" is unknown to the general population. She basically has to tell them "We're going to have to rewrite this because your readers, and potential customers, aren't going to understand this." Clients don't tend to like being told that.
It is amazing how often we take our knowledge for granted. It's not just unwillingness to see the bigger picture, but also this subconscious expectation that other people are going to understand what we understand. It's not just specialist that do this, people do this all the time when it comes to culturally ingrained knowledge. I remember as a kid being yelled at a lot for not knowing things that the adults considered "common sense". Cultural misunderstandings happen all the time. There is no such thing as 'common sense'.
I can understand her perspective and experience.
Well written and compelling, Athena. Thank you. I've recently been discussing absolute certainty with a friend, and read with great interest.
Recently, I commented on Quora about a subject that I can tell many people are absolutely certain that their point of view is the only correct one. I pointed to one or more points of view that are worth considering, only to be told that I seem "confused", and when I decide "which side I'm on" to come back. Then, I'm blocked! The issue may be a minor one to me, but to some people, it's of earth shattering importance. It's an 'us vs them' mindset, and to budge even a little is the same as surrender and defeat.
I read a book by Mark Vonnegut, Kurt's son, who is a Harvard trained pediatrician, and was on the board of admissions for Harvard's medical school. He talked about how incredible the applicants were, and how sad that the rejected students might give up on becoming doctors because either they, or their parents, or both wanted Harvard or nothing. He said that most of them would be great doctors no matter where they were trained. So, this all or nothing focus on Harvard is such a shame. Another interesting point he made is that Harvard wants what seems to be a neurodiverse student body. So, the rejected applicants should not feel bad. They were smart enough, but not the right type intellect. Harvard wanted a balanced group with differing strengths, and there are good reasons for this. One might be to avoid what you are talking about. It might prevent like-minded students from seeing only from one limited perspective.
Tribalism is such a strange thing to me. Asking someone "which side" they're on, isn't a thinking position, it is a feeling position and there is little to be gained from feeling that your position is correct, instead of trying to gather as much information as possible and allowing your perspective to change based on new information you come across.
Tribalism, feelings and an immature insistence on "my truth" despite all evidence to the contrary. What a pointless endeavor it is to try to reason with. This is new for me to observe, and I actually suspected this person was a bot until I looked at her profile, and there are lots of people whose feelings apparently align with hers. Some of them immediately pounced on my comments when she did, like gang members, only to block me right afterwards - Cowards. They don't want to be confronted. SMFH
There is one truth, and then there are people's perspectives. Perspectives do not shift reality, however.
I used to hate the soft (social) sciences in general, qualitative data is generalized/unreliable. AI is really helping to disentangle or make the use of qualitative data.
For example you ask 100 people how they feel today: Great, Good, Ok, Less than ok, Fuckin Miserable
That means nothing to me. Lol.
Fine thanks. You?
Chuckling :) thanks
I also jump off into seemingly unrelated stories when I make a point. I recall reading something by a counter terrorism expert who said that people will do what they know which was how the SAS caught most terrorist. Now I have to dig around and see if I still have that book
i am late to the party but this was great.
i like this one. my teen years i stayed in lots of hospitals and d/t missing lots of the social cues that were apparently so obvious to everyone else, it flew over my head that 'you aren't supposed to challenge professionals because that's rude,' and i pissed many specialists off by printing out articles to show that they were on the wrong track when they dismissed me as 'just being anxious' etc.
they finally lowered their sights i guess, because i got diagnosed properly and don't have to stay in hospitals anymore 😂
Specialists often are unable to take a step back and see the larger picture
Good read, as usual.
Thank you
Hi, great Substack. But, How can one be a diagnosed psychopath, when it's not a diagnose (DSM 4/5). Diagnosed ASPD I assume?
ASPD is the diagnosis, yes, but it is not a correct diagnosis as ASPD has nothing to do with psychopathy, and psychopathy has nothing to do with ASPD, nor with psychology to begin with.
ASPD has no value as a diagnosis for anyone. I went into detail about this here:
https://athenawalker.substack.com/p/psychopathy-and-aspd
I have the brain structure and chemical processing of a psychopath. ASPD is a behavioral diagnosis only. Literally anyone alive can be diagnosed with ASPD so long as their behavior is consistent with the diagnostic criteria, and most people with these behaviors have them for wildly different reasons which makes the "diagnosis" a very poor construct.
Most people with ASPD are neurotypical, and most psychopaths do not have ASPD. Also, something being in the DSM or not is unimportant. The DSM is nothing more than an insurance repayment manual, not a diagnostic bible. It has no relevance to psychopathy in general, but it should not be considered as anything more than a coding book. Anything outside of that is an incorrect way of viewing it.
I went into more detail about these things below.
https://athenawalker.substack.com/p/finding-out-youre-a-psychopath
https://athenawalker.substack.com/p/psychopathy-and-the-dsm
https://athenawalker.substack.com/p/antisocial-psychopaths
Thanks for your honesty, you're diagnosed with ASPD. Why do you think they removed psychopathy all together as a construct from the DSM? It was a conclusion after years of debate among peers.
You seem to be describing yourself as what is known as a factor 1 psychopath, not a sociopath/factor 2 psychopath/ASPD. Why do you think you're misdiagnosed? Do you think a factor 1 psychopath would (allow him/herself no matter age to) be diagnosed with ASPD?
I don't think I am misdiagnosed. I am a psychopath. I think ASPD as a diagnosis is garbage and has no value. I think anyone that understood what ASPD and the DSM is would find the "diagnosis" of ASPD as laughable as I do. It is nothing more than laziness on the part of psychologists.
As for its removal, it has no reason to be there in the first place. It has nothing to do with psychology, and everything to do with neurology.
(ASPD / Sociopathy / Psychopathy factor 2 is the diagnose, being quite distant from factor 1)
"We are each alone in our own dreamstate bubble, wandering the hallways of Maya's House of Mirrors where there are no originals, only endless reflections. Your dreamstate is a well-equipped playground in which creation, preservation and destruction are all equally creative acts. You can’t really create, preserve or destroy anything, but you can engage in whatever virtual world-building or planet-killing games amuse you in the privacy of your own little universe. What happens in the holodeck stays in the holodeck."
-Jed McKenna
https://www.wisefoolpress.com/
Some older people have this weird nostalgia that glorifies the past, and want to go backwards when that's impossible, and a bad idea anyway.
But, tradition is also valuable.
In all fairness to older people, the world is moving way too fast to easily keep up. But, they should accept being challenged, as long as you're not confrontational, or irritable about it. Pick your arguments wisely, present them calmly, and as kindly as possible, then let it go. Or, agree to disagree. Especially when they are all emotional about something. You don't want to bark up that tree. That's a waste of time. Older people get stuck in their ways because something worked for them, so they don't want to rock the boat. They want you to apply for a job the way that worked for them - they want you to be a success. Just explain the new etiquette for that, then do as you please. Better yet, show them an article or video that explains it so you don't lose your patience.
If they are supporting you, they could always say that if you don't like it, you can leave. Then, what? Just saying...
Racism is wrong, but I can see why it exists in political systems that thrive on fearmongering. You are sincere, and right to object to this. But, it's probably just fear.
I would cut your father some slack because he's experienced it, so it would be hard to shake him from this belief. Cross that bridge if and when you get to it. He's just trying to save you from heartbreak, which is sweet. He's been traumatized. Let it be until you meet the right guy, and then sort it out with him if you have to.
There's still a huge amount of racial discrimination. And some of the racists actually go out and shoot folks. So yeah, it's a serious problem. Has there been progress since the 50's? Yes. But there's also been some serious backsliding. And hey, I'm a white gal, and yeah, old. But I've seen a lot of stuff in my day too.
That's sadly true. It's often a stealthy form of racism as well. But, it's like two steps forward, one step back. Progress will prevail, one would like to presume.