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.
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!
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.
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 😂
"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."
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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 😂
Good read, as usual.
Hi, great Substack. But, How can one be a diagnosed psychopath, when it's not a diagnose (DSM 4/5). Diagnosed ASPD I assume?
"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/