5 ms·

Where on earth are you getting this from? The guy has done excellent hard research, psychopathy is fairly well established at this point: http://en.wikipedia.o

Where on earth are you getting this from? The guy has done excellent hard research, psychopathy is fairly well established at this point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy Further, there should be nothing outrageous in the claim that some people have radically different emotions from "normal people," especially considering the fact that you can take a pill and instantly change the sort of consciousness and emotions that you experience.

TimothyFitz 17y ago
I think there's a fair point to make that calling one person a psychopath and another person not a psychopath is a purely arbitrary line drawn in the sand. Hare's test measures various responses and draws an arbitrary line (30 of 40 points) between which someone is or is not a psychopath. It's a classical false dichotomy that the article promotes in sensationalist terms.
- itistoday 17y ago
  It may be arbitrary in the same sense the question, "Is that a fast car?" is arbitrary, but in exactly the same sense you can compare and make statements regarding the degree to which someone exhibits psychopathic traits, and as his research shows, this isn't something that's simply caused by a bad upbringing. The fact that it's not a black & white issue doesn't mean that there aren't concrete physical differences between the brains of the general population and the 1% of the population labeled as psychopaths. It's the same situation for any mental "disorder", i.e. Asperger Syndrome, etc.
metamemetics 17y ago
Psychopathy is a label that's not even widely used anymore. It's not a diagnostic in the DSM. This guy is a super old-timer who mainly works with police. 'Psychopathy' was a catch-all category that he is making increasingly more catch-all. We make categories because they are useful, but this categorization wasn't specific enough to be useful which is why it isn't used anymore. "According to Hare, the consensus among researchers in this area is that psychopathy stems from a specific neurological disorder which is biological in origin and present from birth[10] although this was not what was reported by a 2008 review which instead indicated multiple causes and variation between individuals" I am obviously not arguing that antisocial behavior doesn't exist, murder obviously is an action that has happened at least once before. What I am arguing strongly against is the idea that people are born intrinsically evil. Also the point he hammers in is all about "empathy", but empathy is also absent in autism... his category is too broad to be usable at helping people. Treating an individual as an individual rather than a category allows you to take off the blinders and address there specific situation better to promote more positive change. The methodology of categorizing someone as having an intrinsic psychological disorder is extremely pessimistic and hinders resocialization. It has also been out the door with the advent of positive psychology, here is a speech by a president of the american psychological association: http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology.html http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psy... http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/10773.html http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/10773.html The above is a completely different approach to looking at antisocial behavior. It is also one that leads to positive outcomes. It is also quantifiable.
- itistoday 17y ago
  > The above is a completely different approach to looking at antisocial behavior. It is also one that leads to positive outcomes. It is also quantifiable. That's ridiculous, it's an article about how early malnutrition can cause antisocial behavior, that in no way disproves any of Hare's research. > What I am arguing strongly against is the idea that people are born intrinsically evil. Also the point he hammers in is all about "empathy", but empathy is also absent in autism... his category is too broad to be usable at helping people. You're splitting hairs at this point. The term 'evil' is totally subjective. Hare himself doesn't use it, and if you read the article, you'd know that he too is fully aware of the potential for misuse of labels and his own research by people who lack any training in this field. No surprise, he doesn't approve of that. Some people are _born_ with mental disorders. Some people get mental disorders from environmental factors such as childhood malnutrition. Hare is fully aware of this, and none of that detracts from his research, or the existence of psychopaths and its worth as a label in describing a mental condition.
  - metamemetics 17y ago
    The last link wasn't a refutation or response to Hare's research, it was a different METHODOLOGY of doing research. I wanted to contrast the _methodology_. And no, people are NOT born with mental disorders due to environmental factors, they are born with NEUROLOGICAL disorders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurological_disorders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurological_disorders The two musn't be confused.
    - a-priori 17y ago
      And no, people are NOT born with mental disorders due to environmental factors, they are born with NEUROLOGICAL disorders What is the difference? At some level, all "mental" (i.e, psychological) disorders are neurological.
      - metamemetics 17y ago
        That's my point of view, and why I think we should look at interesting _neuroscience_ research (which I consider the true science). As it stands now, they are considered to be fundamentally different (thanks to Descartes and dualism), which is why you have psychiatrists\diagnostic-psychologists as a completely separate field from neurology.

TimothyFitz 17y ago

I think there's a fair point to make that calling one person a psychopath and another person not a psychopath is a purely arbitrary line drawn in the sand. Hare's test measures various responses and draws an arbitrary line (30 of 40 points) between which someone is or is not a psychopath. It's a classical false dichotomy that the article promotes in sensationalist terms.

itistoday 17y ago
It may be arbitrary in the same sense the question, "Is that a fast car?" is arbitrary, but in exactly the same sense you can compare and make statements regarding the degree to which someone exhibits psychopathic traits, and as his research shows, this isn't something that's simply caused by a bad upbringing. The fact that it's not a black & white issue doesn't mean that there aren't concrete physical differences between the brains of the general population and the 1% of the population labeled as psychopaths. It's the same situation for any mental "disorder", i.e. Asperger Syndrome, etc.

metamemetics 17y ago

Psychopathy is a label that's not even widely used anymore. It's not a diagnostic in the DSM. This guy is a super old-timer who mainly works with police. 'Psychopathy' was a catch-all category that he is making increasingly more catch-all. We make categories because they are useful, but this categorization wasn't specific enough to be useful which is why it isn't used anymore. "According to Hare, the consensus among researchers in this area is that psychopathy stems from a specific neurological disorder which is biological in origin and present from birth[10] although this was not what was reported by a 2008 review which instead indicated multiple causes and variation between individuals" I am obviously not arguing that antisocial behavior doesn't exist, murder obviously is an action that has happened at least once before. What I am arguing strongly against is the idea that people are born intrinsically evil. Also the point he hammers in is all about "empathy", but empathy is also absent in autism... his category is too broad to be usable at helping people. Treating an individual as an individual rather than a category allows you to take off the blinders and address there specific situation better to promote more positive change. The methodology of categorizing someone as having an intrinsic psychological disorder is extremely pessimistic and hinders resocialization. It has also been out the door with the advent of positive psychology, here is a speech by a president of the american psychological association: http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology.html http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psy... http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/10773.html http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/10773.html The above is a completely different approach to looking at antisocial behavior. It is also one that leads to positive outcomes. It is also quantifiable.

itistoday 17y ago
> The above is a completely different approach to looking at antisocial behavior. It is also one that leads to positive outcomes. It is also quantifiable. That's ridiculous, it's an article about how early malnutrition can cause antisocial behavior, that in no way disproves any of Hare's research. > What I am arguing strongly against is the idea that people are born intrinsically evil. Also the point he hammers in is all about "empathy", but empathy is also absent in autism... his category is too broad to be usable at helping people. You're splitting hairs at this point. The term 'evil' is totally subjective. Hare himself doesn't use it, and if you read the article, you'd know that he too is fully aware of the potential for misuse of labels and his own research by people who lack any training in this field. No surprise, he doesn't approve of that. Some people are _born_ with mental disorders. Some people get mental disorders from environmental factors such as childhood malnutrition. Hare is fully aware of this, and none of that detracts from his research, or the existence of psychopaths and its worth as a label in describing a mental condition.
- metamemetics 17y ago
  The last link wasn't a refutation or response to Hare's research, it was a different METHODOLOGY of doing research. I wanted to contrast the _methodology_. And no, people are NOT born with mental disorders due to environmental factors, they are born with NEUROLOGICAL disorders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurological_disorders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurological_disorders The two musn't be confused.
  - a-priori 17y ago
    And no, people are NOT born with mental disorders due to environmental factors, they are born with NEUROLOGICAL disorders What is the difference? At some level, all "mental" (i.e, psychological) disorders are neurological.
    - metamemetics 17y ago
      That's my point of view, and why I think we should look at interesting _neuroscience_ research (which I consider the true science). As it stands now, they are considered to be fundamentally different (thanks to Descartes and dualism), which is why you have psychiatrists\diagnostic-psychologists as a completely separate field from neurology.