5 ms·
"Psycopath" has no clinical meaning. The closest equivalent is Antisocial Personality disorder. In extreme cases, an antisocial can be a Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Da
by j_baker 13y ago
"Psycopath" has no clinical meaning. The closest equivalent is Antisocial Personality disorder. In extreme cases, an antisocial can be a Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, but that's not always the case.
It's worth pointing out that there is also such thing as an Antisocial personality style, meaning that a person has antisocial traits, but can keep them in check well enough to function in society. They tend to do well in roles that require aggression, and can make excellent entrepreneurs, attorneys, and politicians. In fact, people are frequently surprised to find out that some of their most prized traits are Antisocial, they have some antisocial friends, and that they probably have one or two Antisocial heroes. Martin Luther King Jr and Mother Theresa leap to mind.
TL;DR - It's simplistic to say "Trait A bad, Trait B good". There are plenty of narcissists, sociopaths, and paranoids that have done great things for society.
- chongli 13y agoIt's worth pointing out that there is also such thing as an Antisocial personality style, meaning that a person has antisocial traits, but can keep them in check well enough to function in society. They tend to do well in roles that require aggression, and can make excellent entrepreneurs, attorneys, and politicians. Just because somebody isn't a serial murderer doesn't mean they are beneficial to society. Ruthless businessmen and politicians can cause far more damage than Ted Bundy ever did.
- j_baker 13y agoIt's great that you point this out. Personality styles happen along a spectrum. You have some people who fit in well in society and do good things. Then you have some borderline cases where people can minimally fit into society albeit with many problems. Then you have people who just can't fit into society unless it's to cause damage. Depending on a person's background and talents, sometimes they're white collar and sometimes they're blue collar.
- m_d 13y agoI haven't read it, so I can't vouch for it, but Snakes in Suits [1] is a frequently recommended book on this subject. [1] http://amzn.com/0061147893 http://amzn.com/0061147893
- tekalon 13y agoGreat book on the topic. Talks a lot about how they do function in society (great business man-jerk of a boss, Provides well for family-controlling husband/father, etc). The book 'Sociopath Next Door' also goes further on how to deal with them.
- refurb 13y agoJust because somebody isn't a serial murderer doesn't mean they are beneficial to society. Ruthless businessmen and politicians can cause far more damage than Ted Bundy ever did. Unless these ruthless business men tortured, raped and murder people, then no, they did not do more damage than either of these two serial killers. I get where you're coming from the moral relativism is going overboard.
- jamesaguilar 13y agoWhat's worse, murdering 100 people or taking 10% of the quality of life (yes, it's a fuzzy metric, so what) from 1000? That's what he's getting at. Of course, there's also the question of whether there are businessmen who have done such a harm, and whether they have done so intentionally, the measure of their blame for it, etc.
- jessedhillon 13y agoThis is the worst kind of response. To just absolutely declare that morality is X (relative, absolute, personal, anything) and put a period there is not a worthy method for discussing the subject. There is absolutely a case that maximal suffering of a handful is outweighed by lesser suffering across many, many more. To take your comment at face value -- it's as if the question at the core of thousands of years of philosophy, public policy, and politics has suddenly been resolved. Much more likely that you are unaware of the nuance, and also unaware of your own unawareness. Thus you feel perfectly comfortable making bold, sweeping statements like this as if nobody has ever considered before today the matter at hand. The truth is that there are many valid ways to measure the good/badness in a thing.
- stavrianos 13y agoGotta point out, the whole cool thing about this is that he initially diagnosed himself using concrete patterns in brain scans. So, maybe the term "psychopath" is vague and handwavey, but there're real brain patterns which correlate well to groups like serial killers, that can be identified in brain scans. We might need a less loaded term to talk about these patterns with.
- j_baker 13y agoOh no, I agree completely. Here's the question that's on my mind though: does the fact that someone's brain works the same way as a serial killer mean that they'll act the same way themselves? Or are there millions of Ted Bundys out there who never actually killed anyone and even lead productive lives?
- mixmastamyk 13y agoThere's nature, nurture, and free will, as the article mentions. Biology is only one factor.
- tekalon 13y agoLike the article says, there are other factors. There are those that are genetically predisposed to addictions (alcoholism, drugs), but that doesn't mean all of them are addicts.
- brazzy 13y ago
- theorique 13y ago"Psychopath" absolutely has a clinical meaning. While not formally defined in the DSM, it can be diagnosed via the "PCL-R" test [1] administered by a psychiatrist or other qualified clinician. The test has a 40 year history of use in penology. More recently, a lot of interesting research is being done now on the physical basis of psychopathy, using various non-invasive means [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_seabrook?printable=true¤tPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_...
- j_baker 13y agoThe thing is that the literature isn't clear on there being a single agreed-upon definition of psychopathy. The PCL-R test certainly has been successful in a criminal setting. In fact, that's its chief disadvantage: it's too focused on the criminality aspect of it. There are certainly other points of view.
- dbbolton 13y agoHare's definition is rather widely agreed-upon. I doubt there are many mental illnesses that do have a single agreed-upon definition.
- theorique 13y agoGood point. The PCL-R is definitely not part of routine psychological / psychiatric practice - your average clinician would certainly not administer that test, for example. It is most commonly used in the penal system, not in mainstream mental health treatment.
- maaku 13y agoWorth noting that the PCL-R test was not designed for clinical use, and its author explicitly discourages such use (among other things, once you start using it widespread, it stops being effective as a measurement tool, and some parts of the test are reflective of history not current condition).