I recall watching an excerpt of that Khalanani woman speaking and thinking that she was a danger to society. I tend to take people seriously when they personally admit to a desire to commit random acts of violence.
Truth is there is a huge hole in mental heath, so many people let down leading unforfilled lives cause of lack of funding knolage an understanding, that stigma still surrounds it, I don't understand. How you can have a disease an every one is so sorry for you, but if your souls unwell everyone labels you, in general a Ross the board 😡
The DSM is a complete joke. Psychologists, especially in America swear by it and as a consequence people suffer i.e. they don't get the right treatment. I believe the profession as a whole is outdated and most psychologists are institutionalised. You might as well use a bible to determine if someone has a psychosis. As for ignorance over psychopathy, until I discovered your work on Quora 2 years ago I would be equally to blame.
May 17, 2022·edited May 17, 2022Liked by Athena Walker
Thank you for the post. I find that "Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind" quite funny at the moment... probably can't explain why without more reflection. <snicker snicker>
That same laziness is in evidence when looking at how various "experts" write on numerous other neurotypes; autism, add, etc. Horrible science and circular thinking abound, and sometimes get a better salary than I'm making too.
"I think that there is this enormous river of laziness and ego that has taken root in psychology."
Another possibility worth considering is the over-abundance of an already postulated - although severely under-estimated mental illness that might be slitting under the radar despite flying across everyone's face, because:
a) it hinges on lazy blame-shifting, thrives on intellectual dishonesty and gears up on ridiculously overblown egos lacking the least inkling of humility, instead masquerading together as a seemingly civilized and markedly well-composed persona, which would likewise imply b) such a condition would like not seem to affect the person's chances of career progression, especially if such person would band together with other people having similar traits in a way that would effectively be both counter-productive and outright disruptive to the development of knowledge (not only in the field of psychology, but across all fields of inquiry), and c) its particular properties could very well add insult, rather than relief, to the injury harbored by those suffering from other mental illnesses who make them excessively hot tempered rather than icy cold beyond reason.
Further, such a mentality would likely scapegoat psychopathy while looking to expunge its own sins. It would be especially hard to pin point in a field like psychology, due to its inherent qualities and also because such hypothetical professionals would be holding the proverbial keys to the kingdom.
But apparently it's tabboo to raise such possibilities too explicitly, even though it's not that fat-fetched (the proof is in the pudding) and despite the fact hat such conceptions seem to be well underway being shaped up in the back of many inquisitive minds out there. Maybe it's a matter of time, who knows.
PS -I don't suppose Hare was being *completely* ridiculous in his assertion that "all mental illness hinge around narcissism", and it's entirely possible Athena could be allowing her (understandable) disavowal of the author to not allow her sight to be as clear as it could be. Failing to do so, there could be a risk of subscribing the very same type of generalizing bias, over tribalism and hive mind mentality that Hare might have made himself, which possibly pertains the whole dynamic I elaborated initially.
I don't find it reasonable to dismiss any view as 100% ridiculous, since even a broken clock sometimes gets it right. I'm especially wary of doing so because that was the entire premise behind the witch hunts of old. I sometimes feel it would be a tremendous benefit to humanity if all scientific theories were kept anonymous, so we could all focus on the ideas whiteout obsessing too much about either glorifying or vilifying the authors.
The crux of the matter would not be so much "Why is narcissism so evil"? but rather "what causes narcissism to go pathological, and what exactly does that entail, and how does it manifest across different conditions?
What causes some seemingly well-adjusted people to put up a pristine yet hollow persona that is diametrically at odds with their deeply festering antisocial ways which they learned to keep private - in a way that sometimes hinders the communication between both sides, to the point that a person may be fully oblivious to their own darkness?
Or, to put it simply --- "Why do not many people realize they are (at least) two-faced? What is the scientific basis of widespread hypocrisy, and how to best uprooted this noxious weed?"
This hypothetical hypocritical group I'm here alluding to (while doing my best effort to not just outright blurt out that "pathological narcissism is the root cause of all evils of humanity, as well as the common hub to the spokes that are mental disorders") could be perpetuating the toxic aspects of civilization, while imagining they're actually vanquishing them. That could explain some things.
TL;DR: we're seemingly looking at the very same type of problems (pertaining the reliable systematization of knowledge) that eventually led to the development of modern science and the scientific method in the first place, so there's that.
You talked about your experience with psychological testing, brain scans, etc,. Did those psychiatrists or psychologists give you any input regarding Hare and the prevailing steps taken for determining the presence of psychopathy? It seems that the whole process was very detailed, repetitive (as a way of filtering out bogus info, I assume) and complex. That process itself seems to rule out simplistic diagnosing, and the Hare paradigm itself. Did any of the people who evaluated you weigh in, did you question them at all, or was that whole process before you started researching the field?
Reminds me of Jean-Francois Lyotard "Knowledge is produced, to be sold".
Overall the DSM is only a taxonomy and If taken as a bible this is troublesome. However as a taxonomy it is the only taxonomy that ensures payment by insurances and state for medical treatment.
Now there was a hypothesis in a comment to Asimov's foundation triology that there is a correlation between available money in field and growing professionals in that field. In so far if there is money no one is willing to bite of the hand that feeds them, and that means the DSM might not see itself being removed.
Next only crow punches out a crows eye, if one reaches the status of an acceptable phD in a field he/she has climbed a social ladder which means he is hierarchical above the laymen and thus to an extend protected from criticism of the less educated. This boils down to the middle ages when the doctores had been a non heredical title ensuring a costatus with the noblemen and women.
In so far closing this comment, what might change some minds is public research from those with a certain diagnosis. However it had to adhere to the scientifical necessities of statistics and be empirical.
For example sixty diagnosed write down diaries of their symptoms for a year and afte a year compare those diaries. As the mind is a constructivistic machine all things need to be considered subjective until found to appear statistical more than x times.
Very well thought out and stated.
I recall watching an excerpt of that Khalanani woman speaking and thinking that she was a danger to society. I tend to take people seriously when they personally admit to a desire to commit random acts of violence.
Truth is there is a huge hole in mental heath, so many people let down leading unforfilled lives cause of lack of funding knolage an understanding, that stigma still surrounds it, I don't understand. How you can have a disease an every one is so sorry for you, but if your souls unwell everyone labels you, in general a Ross the board 😡
The DSM is a complete joke. Psychologists, especially in America swear by it and as a consequence people suffer i.e. they don't get the right treatment. I believe the profession as a whole is outdated and most psychologists are institutionalised. You might as well use a bible to determine if someone has a psychosis. As for ignorance over psychopathy, until I discovered your work on Quora 2 years ago I would be equally to blame.
Thank you, Athena, thank you.
Thank you for the post. I find that "Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind" quite funny at the moment... probably can't explain why without more reflection. <snicker snicker>
That same laziness is in evidence when looking at how various "experts" write on numerous other neurotypes; autism, add, etc. Horrible science and circular thinking abound, and sometimes get a better salary than I'm making too.
*round of applause* im short on time so this is short. Thank you for this. True af
"I think that there is this enormous river of laziness and ego that has taken root in psychology."
Another possibility worth considering is the over-abundance of an already postulated - although severely under-estimated mental illness that might be slitting under the radar despite flying across everyone's face, because:
a) it hinges on lazy blame-shifting, thrives on intellectual dishonesty and gears up on ridiculously overblown egos lacking the least inkling of humility, instead masquerading together as a seemingly civilized and markedly well-composed persona, which would likewise imply b) such a condition would like not seem to affect the person's chances of career progression, especially if such person would band together with other people having similar traits in a way that would effectively be both counter-productive and outright disruptive to the development of knowledge (not only in the field of psychology, but across all fields of inquiry), and c) its particular properties could very well add insult, rather than relief, to the injury harbored by those suffering from other mental illnesses who make them excessively hot tempered rather than icy cold beyond reason.
Further, such a mentality would likely scapegoat psychopathy while looking to expunge its own sins. It would be especially hard to pin point in a field like psychology, due to its inherent qualities and also because such hypothetical professionals would be holding the proverbial keys to the kingdom.
But apparently it's tabboo to raise such possibilities too explicitly, even though it's not that fat-fetched (the proof is in the pudding) and despite the fact hat such conceptions seem to be well underway being shaped up in the back of many inquisitive minds out there. Maybe it's a matter of time, who knows.
PS -I don't suppose Hare was being *completely* ridiculous in his assertion that "all mental illness hinge around narcissism", and it's entirely possible Athena could be allowing her (understandable) disavowal of the author to not allow her sight to be as clear as it could be. Failing to do so, there could be a risk of subscribing the very same type of generalizing bias, over tribalism and hive mind mentality that Hare might have made himself, which possibly pertains the whole dynamic I elaborated initially.
I don't find it reasonable to dismiss any view as 100% ridiculous, since even a broken clock sometimes gets it right. I'm especially wary of doing so because that was the entire premise behind the witch hunts of old. I sometimes feel it would be a tremendous benefit to humanity if all scientific theories were kept anonymous, so we could all focus on the ideas whiteout obsessing too much about either glorifying or vilifying the authors.
The crux of the matter would not be so much "Why is narcissism so evil"? but rather "what causes narcissism to go pathological, and what exactly does that entail, and how does it manifest across different conditions?
What causes some seemingly well-adjusted people to put up a pristine yet hollow persona that is diametrically at odds with their deeply festering antisocial ways which they learned to keep private - in a way that sometimes hinders the communication between both sides, to the point that a person may be fully oblivious to their own darkness?
Or, to put it simply --- "Why do not many people realize they are (at least) two-faced? What is the scientific basis of widespread hypocrisy, and how to best uprooted this noxious weed?"
This hypothetical hypocritical group I'm here alluding to (while doing my best effort to not just outright blurt out that "pathological narcissism is the root cause of all evils of humanity, as well as the common hub to the spokes that are mental disorders") could be perpetuating the toxic aspects of civilization, while imagining they're actually vanquishing them. That could explain some things.
TL;DR: we're seemingly looking at the very same type of problems (pertaining the reliable systematization of knowledge) that eventually led to the development of modern science and the scientific method in the first place, so there's that.
You talked about your experience with psychological testing, brain scans, etc,. Did those psychiatrists or psychologists give you any input regarding Hare and the prevailing steps taken for determining the presence of psychopathy? It seems that the whole process was very detailed, repetitive (as a way of filtering out bogus info, I assume) and complex. That process itself seems to rule out simplistic diagnosing, and the Hare paradigm itself. Did any of the people who evaluated you weigh in, did you question them at all, or was that whole process before you started researching the field?
Reminds me of Jean-Francois Lyotard "Knowledge is produced, to be sold".
Overall the DSM is only a taxonomy and If taken as a bible this is troublesome. However as a taxonomy it is the only taxonomy that ensures payment by insurances and state for medical treatment.
Now there was a hypothesis in a comment to Asimov's foundation triology that there is a correlation between available money in field and growing professionals in that field. In so far if there is money no one is willing to bite of the hand that feeds them, and that means the DSM might not see itself being removed.
Next only crow punches out a crows eye, if one reaches the status of an acceptable phD in a field he/she has climbed a social ladder which means he is hierarchical above the laymen and thus to an extend protected from criticism of the less educated. This boils down to the middle ages when the doctores had been a non heredical title ensuring a costatus with the noblemen and women.
In so far closing this comment, what might change some minds is public research from those with a certain diagnosis. However it had to adhere to the scientifical necessities of statistics and be empirical.
For example sixty diagnosed write down diaries of their symptoms for a year and afte a year compare those diaries. As the mind is a constructivistic machine all things need to be considered subjective until found to appear statistical more than x times.
Well a hell of a work to be honest.