4 ms·

Defining people as "sociopaths" is a stupid pop-psychology trend. Any human can be a "sociopath", simply cause someone to feel disgust towards another and watch

by mjfl 13y ago

Defining people as "sociopaths" is a stupid pop-psychology trend. Any human can be a "sociopath", simply cause someone to feel disgust towards another and watch the empathy fade away. Put personal gain in the way, and it's not even a question. There is nothing sociopathic about acting "cooly rational" around someone you don't like as it is standard human behavior. The article could be rewritten with one sentence: "don't be naive".

lutusp 13y ago
> Defining people as "sociopaths" is a stupid pop-psychology trend. Yes, on the ground that it has no objective definition. Anyone can be assigned the label based on the right choice of anecdotes. It will be interesting to see how neuroscience deals with such labels, as more objective causes for human behavior are matched up with effects, over the coming decades as psychological interpretations are finally set aside.
- theorique 13y ago
  Yes, on the ground that it has no objective definition. Anyone can be assigned the label based on the right choice of anecdotes. It has a precise psychiatric definition, based on the results of a particular psychometric assessment (PCL-R). Whether this qualifies as "objective" to satisfy a CS/math practitioner, I'm not sure, but it does have a well defined set of criteria.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    >> Yes, on the ground that it has no objective definition. Anyone can be assigned the label based on the right choice of anecdotes. > It has a precise psychiatric definition ... Surely you are aware that "psychiatric definition" is a contradiction in terms? That the DSM consists entirely of lists of symptoms, and no causes, which allows a great deal of latitude in diagnosis? > Whether this qualifies as "objective", I'm not sure, but it does have a well defined set of criteria. Perhaps you should read the controversy surrounding the just-released DSM-5, in which new conditions were added by -- clinical research? -- no, by people voting in secret. The outcome was so embarrassing that the director of the NIMH has reluctantly decided to abandon the DSM as a source for science (it will remain as a diagnostic guide). http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... A quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity ... Patients with mental disorders deserve better." Also, read the history of Asperger Syndrome -- once believed to be a rare condition, then its inclusion in DSM-IV resulted in an epidemic of false diagnoses, then reluctantly removed from DSM-5. Your comments suggest that different qualified practitioners can use the DSM to arrive as the same diagnosis, given the same symptom set. But this has never been true and is not true now. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, says "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have."
    - theorique 13y ago
      The PCL-R is not part of the DSM, but it is framed in a similar way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist There are definitely imperfections in the way psychiatric disorders are defined and diagnosed. Most of the difficulties happen in the edge cases. A person who scores a 0 or a "perfect 40" on the PCL is a pretty clear diagnosis. Interestingly, the signature of sociopathy (aka psychopathy) appears to have an organic basis - it can be observed via functional MRI. See, for example, the article about Dr Kent Kiehl in the New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_seabrook?printable=true&currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_...
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > The PCL-R is not part of the DSM, but it is framed in a similar way. If psychology were a science, there would be precisely one catalog of mental conditions, not as many as there are people who care to publish their own list. And the catalog would list causes as well as effects, something famously absent in modern psychological practice. > There are definitely imperfections in the way psychiatric disorders are defined and diagnosed Imperfections? Psychiatrists and psychologists famously and consistently cannot agree on diagnoses, when confronted by the same subjects. The reason is that no one knows what causes these conditions, which makes psychological clinical practice an exercise in symptomatic relief. > Most of the difficulties happen in the edge cases. Asperger Syndrome was removed from DSM-5 because all the cases were edge cases -- the diagnosis had no objective validity whatsoever. This pattern is true for many similar conditions. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, says "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have." > Interestingly, the signature of sociopathy (aka psychopathy) appears to have an organic basis - it can be observed via functional MRI. If the work were more advanced (if it were anything more than a correlation), we might consider removing sociopathy from the domain of psychology and give it to neuroscience. But we won't get away with that -- psychologists are notoriously protective of their turf. Also, the "signature" to which you refer is a correlation, not a cause-effect relationship, it isn't definitive and it doesn't identify a source for the condition. And finally, present evidence suggests that all serious mental conditions are ultimately organic, so describing them as having an organic basis is sort of self-evident.
- CognitiveLens 13y ago
  In addition to theorique's comment, there is a huge literature on the neuroscience of sociopathy going back 10+ years, showing some significant activation differences particularly around social/emotional processing areas in the brain. It has been extensively studied in part because it's such an insidious personality disorder that many high-functioning people have to varying degrees, and the depth of psychological research on the topic very quickly shows how wrong mjfl's comments are. There is definitely a flippant, pop-psych use of the word 'sociopath', but it doesn't really shed much light on the actual phenomenon.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    That may all be true, but people won't stop using "sociopath" in any way they please until its cause is uncovered and objective diagnostic criteria are established. Remember that the DSM simply lists symptoms, not causes, which allows great latitude for interpretation -- and misinterpretation. The cause of that condition we informally call "sociopathy" won't be uncovered by psychiatry or psychology. For that, we need neuroscience. And to date neuroscience isn't ready to shoulder the load. > There is definitely a flippant, pop-psych use of the word 'sociopath', but it doesn't really shed much light on the actual phenomenon. The absence of science in psychiatry and psychology should prevent anyone from seriously arguing that any imaginable use of the word "sociopath" is morally or ethically wrong. This may change in the future, but at the moment, such terms have no objective definition.
flumbaps 13y ago
More like "think for yourself". Sadly it doesn't come with the good advice to sort out your priorities first. I mean seriously, if the only thing you're able get out of a party is snack food, then you're doing social interaction wrong.

by mjfl 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago

> Defining people as "sociopaths" is a stupid pop-psychology trend. Yes, on the ground that it has no objective definition. Anyone can be assigned the label based on the right choice of anecdotes. It will be interesting to see how neuroscience deals with such labels, as more objective causes for human behavior are matched up with effects, over the coming decades as psychological interpretations are finally set aside.

theorique 13y ago
Yes, on the ground that it has no objective definition. Anyone can be assigned the label based on the right choice of anecdotes. It has a precise psychiatric definition, based on the results of a particular psychometric assessment (PCL-R). Whether this qualifies as "objective" to satisfy a CS/math practitioner, I'm not sure, but it does have a well defined set of criteria.
- lutusp 13y ago
  >> Yes, on the ground that it has no objective definition. Anyone can be assigned the label based on the right choice of anecdotes. > It has a precise psychiatric definition ... Surely you are aware that "psychiatric definition" is a contradiction in terms? That the DSM consists entirely of lists of symptoms, and no causes, which allows a great deal of latitude in diagnosis? > Whether this qualifies as "objective", I'm not sure, but it does have a well defined set of criteria. Perhaps you should read the controversy surrounding the just-released DSM-5, in which new conditions were added by -- clinical research? -- no, by people voting in secret. The outcome was so embarrassing that the director of the NIMH has reluctantly decided to abandon the DSM as a source for science (it will remain as a diagnostic guide). http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... A quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity ... Patients with mental disorders deserve better." Also, read the history of Asperger Syndrome -- once believed to be a rare condition, then its inclusion in DSM-IV resulted in an epidemic of false diagnoses, then reluctantly removed from DSM-5. Your comments suggest that different qualified practitioners can use the DSM to arrive as the same diagnosis, given the same symptom set. But this has never been true and is not true now. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, says "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have."
  - theorique 13y ago
    The PCL-R is not part of the DSM, but it is framed in a similar way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist There are definitely imperfections in the way psychiatric disorders are defined and diagnosed. Most of the difficulties happen in the edge cases. A person who scores a 0 or a "perfect 40" on the PCL is a pretty clear diagnosis. Interestingly, the signature of sociopathy (aka psychopathy) appears to have an organic basis - it can be observed via functional MRI. See, for example, the article about Dr Kent Kiehl in the New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_seabrook?printable=true&currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_...
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > The PCL-R is not part of the DSM, but it is framed in a similar way. If psychology were a science, there would be precisely one catalog of mental conditions, not as many as there are people who care to publish their own list. And the catalog would list causes as well as effects, something famously absent in modern psychological practice. > There are definitely imperfections in the way psychiatric disorders are defined and diagnosed Imperfections? Psychiatrists and psychologists famously and consistently cannot agree on diagnoses, when confronted by the same subjects. The reason is that no one knows what causes these conditions, which makes psychological clinical practice an exercise in symptomatic relief. > Most of the difficulties happen in the edge cases. Asperger Syndrome was removed from DSM-5 because all the cases were edge cases -- the diagnosis had no objective validity whatsoever. This pattern is true for many similar conditions. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, says "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have." > Interestingly, the signature of sociopathy (aka psychopathy) appears to have an organic basis - it can be observed via functional MRI. If the work were more advanced (if it were anything more than a correlation), we might consider removing sociopathy from the domain of psychology and give it to neuroscience. But we won't get away with that -- psychologists are notoriously protective of their turf. Also, the "signature" to which you refer is a correlation, not a cause-effect relationship, it isn't definitive and it doesn't identify a source for the condition. And finally, present evidence suggests that all serious mental conditions are ultimately organic, so describing them as having an organic basis is sort of self-evident.
CognitiveLens 13y ago
In addition to theorique's comment, there is a huge literature on the neuroscience of sociopathy going back 10+ years, showing some significant activation differences particularly around social/emotional processing areas in the brain. It has been extensively studied in part because it's such an insidious personality disorder that many high-functioning people have to varying degrees, and the depth of psychological research on the topic very quickly shows how wrong mjfl's comments are. There is definitely a flippant, pop-psych use of the word 'sociopath', but it doesn't really shed much light on the actual phenomenon.
- lutusp 13y ago
  That may all be true, but people won't stop using "sociopath" in any way they please until its cause is uncovered and objective diagnostic criteria are established. Remember that the DSM simply lists symptoms, not causes, which allows great latitude for interpretation -- and misinterpretation. The cause of that condition we informally call "sociopathy" won't be uncovered by psychiatry or psychology. For that, we need neuroscience. And to date neuroscience isn't ready to shoulder the load. > There is definitely a flippant, pop-psych use of the word 'sociopath', but it doesn't really shed much light on the actual phenomenon. The absence of science in psychiatry and psychology should prevent anyone from seriously arguing that any imaginable use of the word "sociopath" is morally or ethically wrong. This may change in the future, but at the moment, such terms have no objective definition.

flumbaps 13y ago

More like "think for yourself". Sadly it doesn't come with the good advice to sort out your priorities first. I mean seriously, if the only thing you're able get out of a party is snack food, then you're doing social interaction wrong.