Hi Athena, I'd like it if you could share the Jeremy Vines story. That should be interesting.
I think we need to challenge American psychiatry as a whole, including its classification of psychopathy. I suspect that there are many more nonviolent, noncriminal "psychopaths" out there who chose not to get diagnosed and simply learned to function in society. Psychiatrists are clouded by moralistic judgements and personal bias. I also suspect psychopathy is not uncommon amongst psychiatrists. For me, it's a fight against the fundamental assumptions made by western society when dealing with deviance. Are they simply attempting to punsih those who can't be brainwashed by culture and society? In the end, psychiatry is another form of social control.
I agree about psychology as a whole. There are large glaring problems in it, and how things are handled. I think that there are a lot of people trying to do their best to help others with where they are struggling in their lives, and that help can be world changing and life saving for those individuals. However, I also note that there are so many problems with how the research aspect is being conducted, that many patients are not going to ever get what they need. The trickle down effect is profound, and it is becoming more and more obvious as time progresses.
All right, I will write up the Jeremy Vine story. It may be shorter than my regular posts, but it was funny how it unfolded.
Not a comment about your recent article, directly at least, but wanted to let you know that I shared it and recommended your writing on my FB profile. “ If anyone is interested in reading about psychopathy, antisocial behaviour or non-neurotypical brains, how to think/read critically or how to evaluate yourself and your behaviours without so much “emotion”, I highly recommend this writer/blogger. Very careful, thoughtful writing, with proofs (and yes, she is a psychopath). The discourse is intelligent. I respect her a great deal.”
It’s all true. And your article points out very obvious flaws with studies that many would not pick up on. You are doing a noble thing, which I know is a bit of a side-effect as your intent is not quite that, yet there it is.
Definitely. I think there are a few other non-neurotypicals who have commented on her writing, giving their points of view, which I find interesting and helpful as someone who wants to understand all people and treat them as well as I can, which is hard, coming at it from one perspective. I just love how Athena is able to describe the way she thinks/feels and is able to compare/understand others as well as she does. I think her advice for those of us with, perhaps, the burden of too much emotion, is excellent. It’s been helpful to me, most definitely. Her honesty with herself and her readership is so commendable. She, and her writing, is a real gift.
I hope you do write that book. Your points about how poorly written and constructed research papers are these days is an important topic.
When I was in university, psychopathy was the popular topic, and I did my undergrad thesis on it. It was a survey of the students using the SRP III. I divided the students by major program, hoping to find something interesting about the business students. I didn't. They're not.
But later on I floated the idea of a community sample and found no interest on any level.
At best, people will tolerate another estimate of prevalence. There was an Australian study like that, but it used the SRP II, which had some issues. Nobody, to my knowledge, wants a deeper dive into what sectors of the population a psychopath would thrive in.
Anyway, I think you are on to something about the popular ideas about psychopathy, and I would wonder about what is being hidden, or distracted from, by the focus on those faulty ideas.
I agree, there seems to be a dedicated notion of formulating psychopathy around the negative in people's minds. There is a lot of push back when I try to remove any sort of negative or positive aspects. Merely trying to look at it in a neutral position is regarded as trying to paint psychopaths as superheroes.
Yes, but as I have said before, the superhero thing may never go away, because.... no suffering! Still, yes, point taken, it's not coming from your side.
It's interesting that the title "superhero" would be applied to someone simply for the fact that they don't suffer. It seems that their actions would be what determined whether or not the qualified for the title.
Hi, Athena. The nutshell of your argument is that the study of Psychopathy is unscientific (pseudoscientific?), and you make a strong case for that. Now I'd like to add some context, and I hope I'm not talking about something you already describe...
The study of personality disorders is inherently difficult. For example people with NPD leave a trail of destruction in their wake, and while it is comment for their victims to seek psychotherapy, sufferers of NPD themselves do not seek psychotherapy unless in rare cases they suffer losses significant enough to cause them to want to address their problems. Most, for their part, live by gaslighting and living in a fantasy world of their own making.
As for Psychopaths, it is less clear to me how many of them would seek help. I would suppose it is because of their problems (or their own perceived lack of them) that perhaps even fewer would seek an opportunity where they could be helped, studied or described, except in situations where they are in captivity. But as you point out the samples used, clearly show comorbidities which will be difficult to tease out. How many NFL veterans are psychopaths, for example? Purely statistically speaking, some of them must be (unless the data from which the statistics are derived itself is faulty).
This presents a problem. How do you study a group that sees no reason to be studied, especially if their behavior and thinking processes cause them to resist proper study, (like you did in your youth)? I covet a response from you that could help, regardless of whether you find my question offensive or not, for the sake of having a better understanding of how I can reach and help those in my ministry who I discover having various cluster B tendencies...let alone make the whole discipline make progress in the interest of those who suffer from the consequences of such personality disorders.
I think that the first step is to stop classifying it as a disorder, and to very publicly clarify that psychopathy is not and should not be defined by the ridiculous myths around it.
In my writing I have come across many people that recognized themselves in my words and would say that they have always wondered what made them different. Reading what I wrote gave them clarification as to their function. However, these are people leading normal lives. Often they are married, have children, have never committed a crime or if they had it was in their much younger years much like myself.
Many of these people would consider being part of studies if being a part of those studies didn't immediately mean that they were though of as criminals, serial killers, or life ruiners. What needs to happen first is that the psychological community needs to step back and leave psychopathy alone. If they wantr to study what happens when a psychopath decides to commit crimes, that's fine, so long as they are looking at why they are antisocial, not blaming the crime on the fact they are psychopathic.
Once they have taken a step back, and it is clarified what psychopathy actually is, give that change time to steep in the public's mind so there won't be blow back that is unrecoverable from if a person is determined to be psychopathic. Let the actual traits of psychopathy be out there, get the public and research community to release their hold on the myths, and then take a fresh approach studying it in the general population, and the people that know that they are different may well be driven by their curiosity to understand how they are different. Participation is doomed if it is going to negatively impact their lives, so that perception and that reality has to change first.
I would if I thought that it was well constructed and well contrived. Also, the mentality of the researchers would be prevalent in my mind. If they are looking to associate psychopathy with the negative without looking at it through a neutral lens, then I would demure from that study.
Thank you for your helpful comment. I now see that my caution regarding certain psychotherapeutic practices is warranted but for reasons I didn't think of. harmful labels themselves would be in opposition to the hippocratic oath, for example, and this is a case where this happens on a mental level. Indeed I see what people consider our understanding of mental issues to still be in its infancy, and why in the DSM they're trying to dial back the use of disorder terms and use behavioral categories instead.
From a religious point of view I can say, whether one has much or little empathy is not so much the issue as whether one helps or harms one's neighbor. In the case of 'psychopathy' toughness or cebrebral rigor is contextual, but evil (which can be categorized as disregard and harm for God, others, and self) is not.
Two more things: I say to people that God has many odd-shaped tools in his toolbox. You are one of them. I see you as I am, just another sinner who needs saving, but whom God dearly loves and leads according to his great wisdom and compassion which goes much deeper than just being "nice" (yuck!)
Well thank heavens you continue, and that you point out the mess that is research at the moment and have the acumen to assess it from a technical point of view. I imagine all of us followers feel pretty fortunate, and trust your viewpoint, because your work hangs together totally and has done so for years. I think and hope that with a bit of thought, neurotypicals can understand psychopathy at least somewhat, on the basis that it's easier to understand an absence of something than a presence of that which one has never felt. Just because it is my way, I have spent much time (in the early insomnia hours) turning over your descriptions of how life feels to you, and I genuinely think that I have got my head around most of it, because there really REALLY are parallels and comparable situations and conditions in neurotypical experience, if they open up and look for them, particularly for those of us who are a bit 'loopy'. With a bit of effort, I can find times when I have felt all the things you describe as your normal. I do not think I am deluded, just someone who experiences a wild ride of a mindscape. For no good reason, that means a lot to me. My life has had a big emphasis on connectedness and understanding. My trying to know the whole world is partly about establishing a kinship everyone in it. And as a bit of an outsider myself, I feel the importance of that acutely.
I think people are also influenced by what they see on TV. In films the psychopath is always a serial killer or a person harmful to society.
On the studies conducted by professionals I do not pronounce, I do not have the qualifications to do so. I can only say that I often find incorrect and/ or contradictory information (the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" used as synonyms). A study conducted on 14 people (there are 8 billion people in the world) seems quite ridiculous and offensive to me. So I understand why you do what you do, I would do the same thing.
I've already said I feel that the study of psycopathy should be far more scientific and less psychology. Although both are needed, the study you referred to is just so bad, I have no idea how it could even be considered.
I do see to that funding could be an issue to getting this done the right way.
I would think that something as rare as psycopathy is, it must hard to get funding for a good study .
Also finding enough people to do a study could be challenging.
I agree that we are a long way of from changing people's view of psycopathy as well.
It would be good if someone could have a well thought out plan to get the ball rolling.
I think you do a great job of correcting the misinformation out there and hopefully your book will bring a larger audience to the table, maybe even people that are able to start on the road to real change .
Considering the source, it likely is entirely a fabricated person. I know who is responsible for this site, and the claims that they made are not only ridiculous, but also impossible. I broke them down here:
Hi Athena, I'd like it if you could share the Jeremy Vines story. That should be interesting.
I think we need to challenge American psychiatry as a whole, including its classification of psychopathy. I suspect that there are many more nonviolent, noncriminal "psychopaths" out there who chose not to get diagnosed and simply learned to function in society. Psychiatrists are clouded by moralistic judgements and personal bias. I also suspect psychopathy is not uncommon amongst psychiatrists. For me, it's a fight against the fundamental assumptions made by western society when dealing with deviance. Are they simply attempting to punsih those who can't be brainwashed by culture and society? In the end, psychiatry is another form of social control.
I agree about psychology as a whole. There are large glaring problems in it, and how things are handled. I think that there are a lot of people trying to do their best to help others with where they are struggling in their lives, and that help can be world changing and life saving for those individuals. However, I also note that there are so many problems with how the research aspect is being conducted, that many patients are not going to ever get what they need. The trickle down effect is profound, and it is becoming more and more obvious as time progresses.
All right, I will write up the Jeremy Vine story. It may be shorter than my regular posts, but it was funny how it unfolded.
Not a comment about your recent article, directly at least, but wanted to let you know that I shared it and recommended your writing on my FB profile. “ If anyone is interested in reading about psychopathy, antisocial behaviour or non-neurotypical brains, how to think/read critically or how to evaluate yourself and your behaviours without so much “emotion”, I highly recommend this writer/blogger. Very careful, thoughtful writing, with proofs (and yes, she is a psychopath). The discourse is intelligent. I respect her a great deal.”
It’s all true. And your article points out very obvious flaws with studies that many would not pick up on. You are doing a noble thing, which I know is a bit of a side-effect as your intent is not quite that, yet there it is.
I appreciate that, thank you.
Asperger’s could also benefit from an author as astute.
Definitely. I think there are a few other non-neurotypicals who have commented on her writing, giving their points of view, which I find interesting and helpful as someone who wants to understand all people and treat them as well as I can, which is hard, coming at it from one perspective. I just love how Athena is able to describe the way she thinks/feels and is able to compare/understand others as well as she does. I think her advice for those of us with, perhaps, the burden of too much emotion, is excellent. It’s been helpful to me, most definitely. Her honesty with herself and her readership is so commendable. She, and her writing, is a real gift.
Thank you kindly.
I hope you do write that book. Your points about how poorly written and constructed research papers are these days is an important topic.
When I was in university, psychopathy was the popular topic, and I did my undergrad thesis on it. It was a survey of the students using the SRP III. I divided the students by major program, hoping to find something interesting about the business students. I didn't. They're not.
But later on I floated the idea of a community sample and found no interest on any level.
At best, people will tolerate another estimate of prevalence. There was an Australian study like that, but it used the SRP II, which had some issues. Nobody, to my knowledge, wants a deeper dive into what sectors of the population a psychopath would thrive in.
Anyway, I think you are on to something about the popular ideas about psychopathy, and I would wonder about what is being hidden, or distracted from, by the focus on those faulty ideas.
I agree, there seems to be a dedicated notion of formulating psychopathy around the negative in people's minds. There is a lot of push back when I try to remove any sort of negative or positive aspects. Merely trying to look at it in a neutral position is regarded as trying to paint psychopaths as superheroes.
Yes, but as I have said before, the superhero thing may never go away, because.... no suffering! Still, yes, point taken, it's not coming from your side.
It's interesting that the title "superhero" would be applied to someone simply for the fact that they don't suffer. It seems that their actions would be what determined whether or not the qualified for the title.
True, but superheroes have strengths and superpowers that we wish we had ourselves.
A fair point
Hi, Athena. The nutshell of your argument is that the study of Psychopathy is unscientific (pseudoscientific?), and you make a strong case for that. Now I'd like to add some context, and I hope I'm not talking about something you already describe...
The study of personality disorders is inherently difficult. For example people with NPD leave a trail of destruction in their wake, and while it is comment for their victims to seek psychotherapy, sufferers of NPD themselves do not seek psychotherapy unless in rare cases they suffer losses significant enough to cause them to want to address their problems. Most, for their part, live by gaslighting and living in a fantasy world of their own making.
As for Psychopaths, it is less clear to me how many of them would seek help. I would suppose it is because of their problems (or their own perceived lack of them) that perhaps even fewer would seek an opportunity where they could be helped, studied or described, except in situations where they are in captivity. But as you point out the samples used, clearly show comorbidities which will be difficult to tease out. How many NFL veterans are psychopaths, for example? Purely statistically speaking, some of them must be (unless the data from which the statistics are derived itself is faulty).
This presents a problem. How do you study a group that sees no reason to be studied, especially if their behavior and thinking processes cause them to resist proper study, (like you did in your youth)? I covet a response from you that could help, regardless of whether you find my question offensive or not, for the sake of having a better understanding of how I can reach and help those in my ministry who I discover having various cluster B tendencies...let alone make the whole discipline make progress in the interest of those who suffer from the consequences of such personality disorders.
I think that the first step is to stop classifying it as a disorder, and to very publicly clarify that psychopathy is not and should not be defined by the ridiculous myths around it.
In my writing I have come across many people that recognized themselves in my words and would say that they have always wondered what made them different. Reading what I wrote gave them clarification as to their function. However, these are people leading normal lives. Often they are married, have children, have never committed a crime or if they had it was in their much younger years much like myself.
Many of these people would consider being part of studies if being a part of those studies didn't immediately mean that they were though of as criminals, serial killers, or life ruiners. What needs to happen first is that the psychological community needs to step back and leave psychopathy alone. If they wantr to study what happens when a psychopath decides to commit crimes, that's fine, so long as they are looking at why they are antisocial, not blaming the crime on the fact they are psychopathic.
Once they have taken a step back, and it is clarified what psychopathy actually is, give that change time to steep in the public's mind so there won't be blow back that is unrecoverable from if a person is determined to be psychopathic. Let the actual traits of psychopathy be out there, get the public and research community to release their hold on the myths, and then take a fresh approach studying it in the general population, and the people that know that they are different may well be driven by their curiosity to understand how they are different. Participation is doomed if it is going to negatively impact their lives, so that perception and that reality has to change first.
Hopes for the future.
Would you participate in a study, Athena?
I would if I thought that it was well constructed and well contrived. Also, the mentality of the researchers would be prevalent in my mind. If they are looking to associate psychopathy with the negative without looking at it through a neutral lens, then I would demure from that study.
Thank you for your helpful comment. I now see that my caution regarding certain psychotherapeutic practices is warranted but for reasons I didn't think of. harmful labels themselves would be in opposition to the hippocratic oath, for example, and this is a case where this happens on a mental level. Indeed I see what people consider our understanding of mental issues to still be in its infancy, and why in the DSM they're trying to dial back the use of disorder terms and use behavioral categories instead.
From a religious point of view I can say, whether one has much or little empathy is not so much the issue as whether one helps or harms one's neighbor. In the case of 'psychopathy' toughness or cebrebral rigor is contextual, but evil (which can be categorized as disregard and harm for God, others, and self) is not.
Two more things: I say to people that God has many odd-shaped tools in his toolbox. You are one of them. I see you as I am, just another sinner who needs saving, but whom God dearly loves and leads according to his great wisdom and compassion which goes much deeper than just being "nice" (yuck!)
AND - HATS OFF to your magnificent parents!!!
Well thank heavens you continue, and that you point out the mess that is research at the moment and have the acumen to assess it from a technical point of view. I imagine all of us followers feel pretty fortunate, and trust your viewpoint, because your work hangs together totally and has done so for years. I think and hope that with a bit of thought, neurotypicals can understand psychopathy at least somewhat, on the basis that it's easier to understand an absence of something than a presence of that which one has never felt. Just because it is my way, I have spent much time (in the early insomnia hours) turning over your descriptions of how life feels to you, and I genuinely think that I have got my head around most of it, because there really REALLY are parallels and comparable situations and conditions in neurotypical experience, if they open up and look for them, particularly for those of us who are a bit 'loopy'. With a bit of effort, I can find times when I have felt all the things you describe as your normal. I do not think I am deluded, just someone who experiences a wild ride of a mindscape. For no good reason, that means a lot to me. My life has had a big emphasis on connectedness and understanding. My trying to know the whole world is partly about establishing a kinship everyone in it. And as a bit of an outsider myself, I feel the importance of that acutely.
That is really interesting that you are able to do that.
Well I hope I am able, can't know for certain.
I think people are also influenced by what they see on TV. In films the psychopath is always a serial killer or a person harmful to society.
On the studies conducted by professionals I do not pronounce, I do not have the qualifications to do so. I can only say that I often find incorrect and/ or contradictory information (the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" used as synonyms). A study conducted on 14 people (there are 8 billion people in the world) seems quite ridiculous and offensive to me. So I understand why you do what you do, I would do the same thing.
Very well written and thought out.
I've already said I feel that the study of psycopathy should be far more scientific and less psychology. Although both are needed, the study you referred to is just so bad, I have no idea how it could even be considered.
I do see to that funding could be an issue to getting this done the right way.
I would think that something as rare as psycopathy is, it must hard to get funding for a good study .
Also finding enough people to do a study could be challenging.
I agree that we are a long way of from changing people's view of psycopathy as well.
It would be good if someone could have a well thought out plan to get the ball rolling.
I think you do a great job of correcting the misinformation out there and hopefully your book will bring a larger audience to the table, maybe even people that are able to start on the road to real change .
Thank you, Sheez.
I agree, it may be difficult to find participants and funding, but unless the effort is made, I think that the misinformation will continue to flow.
First impression
Reading that Toxy section, it does not have the tone or meter of a psychopath.
More of an MNPD, or faux psychopath to garner negative attention.
Considering the source, it likely is entirely a fabricated person. I know who is responsible for this site, and the claims that they made are not only ridiculous, but also impossible. I broke them down here:
https://www.quora.com/How-much-will-you-actually-learn-and-understand-about-psychopathy-by-reading-on-Quora/answer/Athena-Walker
Knowing that, I think Toxy was just more imagination.
Agreed