Your zero trust nature helps you a lot in your life. See, the lack of insight and interviews from actual sociopaths should be glaringly obvious to anyone who reads the book, as those would be a very good source of credibility for the book . But people are wilfully blind to that fact because as soon as they have seen her credentials, they have firmly believed that she has to know what she is talking about.
Makes me wonder, how many times has that nature helped you in your life? I mean , how many times ( out of ten)you didn't believe in something and turned out to be right, when everyone else was wrong in accepting the fact without questioning it?
It happens so often that I would never be able to keep count. What's more vexing is that no matter how many times I am correct, people still refuse to to believe me about whatever it is they are investing in.
No no, I mean believing every statement to be false and working backwards to ascertain it's truth. If we were to think like that about everything, and be right most of the time, it must mean that people usually lie a lot.
Especially the second half of the article where you discuss the errors in what Martha Stout et. al. are doing and their reasons for doing so shows me the behavior of a grifter. I get quite angry about such people because it is not easy to publicly rebuke them, and I wish I could be more objective and clear about it and make the rebuke stick.
The problem is that her type of writing is aimed towards emotion, not logic, and when the emotional part of the brain is charged up a person is unable to hear the logical argument you just provided to them, so they would defend Stouts book instead of heeding the warning that you provided them with.
Hey Athena, can you do an article on Ray from Mr Inbetween? I think if he is a reasonably good example of a psychopathic character (as you have mentioned) then analysis of this character with examples can serve to improve people's understanding of psychopathy.
Hey Tom!! As I write Athena hasn't posted a reply to your question. She may not "know" Ray as much as we who enjoyed each episode!
I love the show. I enjoy the actor's portrayal of a criminal with a moral compass. He has standards and there are some things he simply won't do. Unless he has to! Haha.
In my opinion, the character certainly is not a psychopath. However, he is very good at compartmentalizing. This makes his adventures all the more silly and humorous (even though not on their face) He appears to see himself as a "regular bloke" and trying to support his family.
I have not read anything from the shows writers or producers- However, doesn't it lose much of its meaning if the character is meant to be a psychopaths? How are the predicaments he gets into "funny" unless "we" all could be there?
Hehehe. Great to know you enjoy the show and here's to hoping there is a new season soon!!
Ray, aside from small errors, is an extremely well done (compared to previous attempts) representation of a moderately functioning psychopath. Granted, I have not watched the final two episodes in this last season... or three, I don't remember, and I haven't watched the previous seasons in awhile, but while there are mistakes, he is still the closest that I have seen to being psychopathic in nature.
You have put in your study and expertise to make these kind of decisions. Of course, I defer to you as I know very little of subject nor experience.
I don't see these detrimental effects.
You might say the criminal lifestyle: That does have "effects".
One positive is plenty of cash, control of work hours, his own boss..
I don't see effects that he doesn't prefer except to the point of accepting them as a tradeoff. We do that everyday. Even those who choose a criminal life.
I read in your blog that a child can develop sociopathy after severe trauma by suppressing their emotions as unnecessary. What do you base this theory on? Are there any studies on it or any studies about how neuron connections work, for example, that could indirectly give an idea as for how sociopathy can be developed?
It seems that sociopathy research is basically non-existent.
I may be searching wrong, but all studies I have found so far are horrible. Not just the content, but the fundamental principles of research are horrible.
I have no idea why there is a tradition to study psychopathy/sociopathy in prisons. The results are so biased. It also seems like the general approach is to make ideas out of whole cloth and then use your findings to validate them. It is detrimental to any scientific progress.
I base it on the inability to learn language after a certain age. This has been demonstrated in individuals that never learned to speak prior to the age of five. The brain will trim away neurons that it has no use for. If you do not use certain neurons it sees them as irrelevant and will prune them.
If a child lives a life that is devoid of love, trust, kindness, calmness, security, empathy, and other such things, the brain would hypothetically prune the neurons for those things as well. The basic road map still exists, but it is often not traversable for the connection to be made. It would explain why sociopaths can sometimes feel different things, and sometimes feel them very deeply, but often do not.
Sociopathy doesn't get studied any longer, so while I have my hypothesis about this, that is all it likely will ever be. As far as research goes, sociopathy, unlike psychopathy, can not currently be seen on a brain scan, which is fairly important when it comes to asking for funding.
Are there any descriptions of experience by sociopaths? The ones I have found so far vary greatly, there is little connection between them to be able to say they are related.
And it is one thing to study people who’s experience is somewhat known, though often ignored by the researchers, it is another, when even that is not.
I wish to see a normal study one day. Maybe if I get a degree in neuroscience I will make one lol. It interests me.
About developmental stages and empathy in particular -- or maybe bonding in particular -- there's the ?data? from Romanian orphanage survivors who were not handled/cared-for/nurtured during infancy and toddlerhood, and were later adopted into various families, and basically had become unable to bond with said families. It's pretty much all anecdotal as evidence, but nonetheless quite persuasive. Dunno how that might fit with sociopathy in particular. But re stages after which the brain won't do it, yup.
Have you noticed that people with empathy suck at empathy? If folk would look internally first, at themselves and their proclivities, it would seem very ridiculous to throw labels on folk. If you believe people are people like you are a people, there it is! So, every person is a whatever??? We can all do fucked up shit. I have. I will again if I don't check in with my own self. Bad at empathy. Very very bad. Everybody read Sapolsky's BEHAVE. Check yourself first. Again, Athena, thank you.
In summary; the quickest way to generate empathy is through hatred of an outgroup. So what we call 'empathy' in the wild tends to be selective empathy. Most human empathy is based, paradoxically, on the denial of empathy to certain groups. So I agree; the people who talk most about empathy can also be some of the least empathetic.
There's a young lady who I am acquainted with who has regularly declared herself an empath. I will not attempt to do any sort of diagnosis but I'm fairly certain that if there's such a thing as an empath that she is not one
I have noticed that a lot of people that declare themselves "empaths" often lack empathy for anyone not like them. It's very strange to me that they are so limited in their understanding given their proclamation.
So true: “People are fallible, and inherently self-interested. Not some people, all people.” Yeah that Stout book was about as shallow as it gets. I read it because I wanted some insight into corporate life. I saw a lot of sociopaths running around! Most such “sociopaths,” I’ve concluded, have no condition other than committed selfishness. More or less neurologically normal but have decided to privilege what’s in their own best interests. They want to win, and if someone gets in the way, too bad. The most brilliant essay I’ve read on the topic of sociopaths in business is called “the gervais principle” at ribbonfarm blog.
Im very thankful that you spread awareness of the truth without bias. People with abcs behind their names are too often seen as Gods and their "findings" as gospel, even when it's absolutely false. I appreciate your work to educate people factually. It matters. Being left to the hands of people like the above author is not a good place to be for a sociopath trying to live a normal life. We are not all evil selfish bastards trying to steal your hearts and wallets. If people like her had her way, we would all be in prison being tortured, "justifiably" I'm sure because we are the spawn of the devil and must be punished for existing.
I don’t disagree with most of this. However, there’s one thing to mention the displays the ordinary, shocking incompetence of journalists. There’s one key figure who disagrees with the Goldwater rule now: the man who wrote it. He was not a psychologist. He was a lawyer who drafted ethics for the American psychiatric Association. When Trump was running for president, he wrote an article stating that the Goldwater rule had been a guide, not a hard and fast rule. And that in cases where the public safety was in danger, benefits outweighed costs.
Not a single journalist was worth their salt enough to actually ask the man behind the rule. Or even so much as discuss whether or not we, as adult Homo sapiens, might be entitled to make our own decisions as whether we agree with it. But I wasn’t surprised, given how incompetent journalists were at dealing with authoritarianism in general, as their preference seemed to be to ARGUE with it 🤦🏻♂️. Hopeless bastards
I adore your comment comparing the consequences of manufactured conclusions of a psychologist and a structural engineer. Psychology/psychiatry is a messy discipline. The dsm v is not science. Practitioners in the field who attempt to pass it off as being a scientific document are inauthentic or delusional. Therapists who diagnose with no primary involvement with the individual in question should have their licenses and credentials revoked.
Your zero trust nature helps you a lot in your life. See, the lack of insight and interviews from actual sociopaths should be glaringly obvious to anyone who reads the book, as those would be a very good source of credibility for the book . But people are wilfully blind to that fact because as soon as they have seen her credentials, they have firmly believed that she has to know what she is talking about.
Makes me wonder, how many times has that nature helped you in your life? I mean , how many times ( out of ten)you didn't believe in something and turned out to be right, when everyone else was wrong in accepting the fact without questioning it?
It happens so often that I would never be able to keep count. What's more vexing is that no matter how many times I am correct, people still refuse to to believe me about whatever it is they are investing in.
So people are usually lying all the time?
When someone is proven wrong about something that they adamantly believed was factual, I wouldn't call that lying. It's more or less denial.
No no, I mean believing every statement to be false and working backwards to ascertain it's truth. If we were to think like that about everything, and be right most of the time, it must mean that people usually lie a lot.
I don't think any assumption should be applied to statements. Rather a neutral stance to evaluate the thought process
Ok
Especially the second half of the article where you discuss the errors in what Martha Stout et. al. are doing and their reasons for doing so shows me the behavior of a grifter. I get quite angry about such people because it is not easy to publicly rebuke them, and I wish I could be more objective and clear about it and make the rebuke stick.
The problem is that her type of writing is aimed towards emotion, not logic, and when the emotional part of the brain is charged up a person is unable to hear the logical argument you just provided to them, so they would defend Stouts book instead of heeding the warning that you provided them with.
Hey Athena, can you do an article on Ray from Mr Inbetween? I think if he is a reasonably good example of a psychopathic character (as you have mentioned) then analysis of this character with examples can serve to improve people's understanding of psychopathy.
I will need to rewatch the series, so it might take me some time, but that seems to be an interesting post idea.
Hey Tom!! As I write Athena hasn't posted a reply to your question. She may not "know" Ray as much as we who enjoyed each episode!
I love the show. I enjoy the actor's portrayal of a criminal with a moral compass. He has standards and there are some things he simply won't do. Unless he has to! Haha.
In my opinion, the character certainly is not a psychopath. However, he is very good at compartmentalizing. This makes his adventures all the more silly and humorous (even though not on their face) He appears to see himself as a "regular bloke" and trying to support his family.
I have not read anything from the shows writers or producers- However, doesn't it lose much of its meaning if the character is meant to be a psychopaths? How are the predicaments he gets into "funny" unless "we" all could be there?
Hehehe. Great to know you enjoy the show and here's to hoping there is a new season soon!!
Ray, aside from small errors, is an extremely well done (compared to previous attempts) representation of a moderately functioning psychopath. Granted, I have not watched the final two episodes in this last season... or three, I don't remember, and I haven't watched the previous seasons in awhile, but while there are mistakes, he is still the closest that I have seen to being psychopathic in nature.
Also, the show is over.
Thanks for your thoughtful and kind reply.
I genuinely like Ray and enjoyed the show alot. I view as a comedy. Ray always seems in some trouble, created mostly by his family and friends.
Ray is a criminal. He knows this and is not confused. He employs violence as a tool.
Yet, he is very loyal. He seems to have feelings towards the people in his life. He pretty consistently puts them before his own interest.
Other than problems with the law, Ray would make a good friend. He certainly would liven up most parties and keep the "bullshit" down.
If Ray is merely "moderately" functioning, I want to meet "high" functioning!! They must be accomplishing so much in their lives!!
Best-
He's moderate in my mind because he is behaving in ways that have detrimental effects in his life that he doesn't prefer.
You have put in your study and expertise to make these kind of decisions. Of course, I defer to you as I know very little of subject nor experience.
I don't see these detrimental effects.
You might say the criminal lifestyle: That does have "effects".
One positive is plenty of cash, control of work hours, his own boss..
I don't see effects that he doesn't prefer except to the point of accepting them as a tradeoff. We do that everyday. Even those who choose a criminal life.
Am I just not seeing it?
He finds jail and prison an inconvenience, but he still does the things that land him there. It seems to be self limiting to continue that pattern.
I read in your blog that a child can develop sociopathy after severe trauma by suppressing their emotions as unnecessary. What do you base this theory on? Are there any studies on it or any studies about how neuron connections work, for example, that could indirectly give an idea as for how sociopathy can be developed?
It seems that sociopathy research is basically non-existent.
I may be searching wrong, but all studies I have found so far are horrible. Not just the content, but the fundamental principles of research are horrible.
I have no idea why there is a tradition to study psychopathy/sociopathy in prisons. The results are so biased. It also seems like the general approach is to make ideas out of whole cloth and then use your findings to validate them. It is detrimental to any scientific progress.
I base it on the inability to learn language after a certain age. This has been demonstrated in individuals that never learned to speak prior to the age of five. The brain will trim away neurons that it has no use for. If you do not use certain neurons it sees them as irrelevant and will prune them.
If a child lives a life that is devoid of love, trust, kindness, calmness, security, empathy, and other such things, the brain would hypothetically prune the neurons for those things as well. The basic road map still exists, but it is often not traversable for the connection to be made. It would explain why sociopaths can sometimes feel different things, and sometimes feel them very deeply, but often do not.
Sociopathy doesn't get studied any longer, so while I have my hypothesis about this, that is all it likely will ever be. As far as research goes, sociopathy, unlike psychopathy, can not currently be seen on a brain scan, which is fairly important when it comes to asking for funding.
Are there any descriptions of experience by sociopaths? The ones I have found so far vary greatly, there is little connection between them to be able to say they are related.
And it is one thing to study people who’s experience is somewhat known, though often ignored by the researchers, it is another, when even that is not.
I wish to see a normal study one day. Maybe if I get a degree in neuroscience I will make one lol. It interests me.
There was over on Quora, but a lot of them deleted their accounts. I haven't followed the writings in the section in quite awhile either.
About developmental stages and empathy in particular -- or maybe bonding in particular -- there's the ?data? from Romanian orphanage survivors who were not handled/cared-for/nurtured during infancy and toddlerhood, and were later adopted into various families, and basically had become unable to bond with said families. It's pretty much all anecdotal as evidence, but nonetheless quite persuasive. Dunno how that might fit with sociopathy in particular. But re stages after which the brain won't do it, yup.
Have you noticed that people with empathy suck at empathy? If folk would look internally first, at themselves and their proclivities, it would seem very ridiculous to throw labels on folk. If you believe people are people like you are a people, there it is! So, every person is a whatever??? We can all do fucked up shit. I have. I will again if I don't check in with my own self. Bad at empathy. Very very bad. Everybody read Sapolsky's BEHAVE. Check yourself first. Again, Athena, thank you.
This is because they have never developed cognitive empathy to enhance and assist their cognitive empathy. It's unfortunate.
I've thought a bit about this. While NPR is usually very banal, this one piece of theirs is tremendously insightful.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/15/712249664/the-end-of-empathy
In summary; the quickest way to generate empathy is through hatred of an outgroup. So what we call 'empathy' in the wild tends to be selective empathy. Most human empathy is based, paradoxically, on the denial of empathy to certain groups. So I agree; the people who talk most about empathy can also be some of the least empathetic.
Yes, this is true. It is the root cause of terrorism for this very reason.
Dang! That is fascinating. (Says one who grew up with that "old sense" of empathy.)
There's a young lady who I am acquainted with who has regularly declared herself an empath. I will not attempt to do any sort of diagnosis but I'm fairly certain that if there's such a thing as an empath that she is not one
I have noticed that a lot of people that declare themselves "empaths" often lack empathy for anyone not like them. It's very strange to me that they are so limited in their understanding given their proclamation.
So true: “People are fallible, and inherently self-interested. Not some people, all people.” Yeah that Stout book was about as shallow as it gets. I read it because I wanted some insight into corporate life. I saw a lot of sociopaths running around! Most such “sociopaths,” I’ve concluded, have no condition other than committed selfishness. More or less neurologically normal but have decided to privilege what’s in their own best interests. They want to win, and if someone gets in the way, too bad. The most brilliant essay I’ve read on the topic of sociopaths in business is called “the gervais principle” at ribbonfarm blog.
Im very thankful that you spread awareness of the truth without bias. People with abcs behind their names are too often seen as Gods and their "findings" as gospel, even when it's absolutely false. I appreciate your work to educate people factually. It matters. Being left to the hands of people like the above author is not a good place to be for a sociopath trying to live a normal life. We are not all evil selfish bastards trying to steal your hearts and wallets. If people like her had her way, we would all be in prison being tortured, "justifiably" I'm sure because we are the spawn of the devil and must be punished for existing.
Indeed, this tends to be the mentality of many that are supposed to know better.
I don’t disagree with most of this. However, there’s one thing to mention the displays the ordinary, shocking incompetence of journalists. There’s one key figure who disagrees with the Goldwater rule now: the man who wrote it. He was not a psychologist. He was a lawyer who drafted ethics for the American psychiatric Association. When Trump was running for president, he wrote an article stating that the Goldwater rule had been a guide, not a hard and fast rule. And that in cases where the public safety was in danger, benefits outweighed costs.
Not a single journalist was worth their salt enough to actually ask the man behind the rule. Or even so much as discuss whether or not we, as adult Homo sapiens, might be entitled to make our own decisions as whether we agree with it. But I wasn’t surprised, given how incompetent journalists were at dealing with authoritarianism in general, as their preference seemed to be to ARGUE with it 🤦🏻♂️. Hopeless bastards
What does it matter that he doesn't agree with it?
I actually find that him changing his stance when it comes to someone he disagrees with and indictment on his character.
The rule itself has value.
People who change their ethics because they only want them to apply to the side they agree with do not.
Such an awesome picture!
I adore your comment comparing the consequences of manufactured conclusions of a psychologist and a structural engineer. Psychology/psychiatry is a messy discipline. The dsm v is not science. Practitioners in the field who attempt to pass it off as being a scientific document are inauthentic or delusional. Therapists who diagnose with no primary involvement with the individual in question should have their licenses and credentials revoked.
I agree