3 ms·

>"Psychopath" absolutely has a clinical meaning. While not formally defined in the DSM ... Would that be the same DSM that's being abandoned by those who know

by lutusp 13y ago

>"Psychopath" absolutely has a clinical meaning. While not formally defined in the DSM ... Would that be the same DSM that's being abandoned by those who know it best? Consider this position taken by the sitting director of NIMH: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... 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." Given the present widespread changes in the field of mental health, it might be better to find a more reliable source for views on this topic -- if they exist. As to psychopathy, the linked article says it all -- a researcher finds out he's a dangerous person by reading a brain scan, with no other supporting evidence and copious contraindications.

nzp 13y ago
> As to psychopathy, the linked article says it all -- a researcher finds out he's a dangerous person by reading a brain scan, with no other supporting evidence and copious contraindications. Pretty much no, that's not what the article says at all. He didn't find he's dangerous, he found out his brain is lacking in capacity for "empathy, morality and self-control" (which is what he self-observed in the first place). These traits are central to psychopaths, but that does not mean a person with such traits is necessarily violent or actually doing anything overtly anti-social. And that's what the article actually says and tries to explain. A brain scan which shows dysfunction in ventromedial frontal cortex does not mean you're looking at a brain of an anti-social maniac, it's somewhat more nuanced. EDIT: I forgot to mention a very relevant finding: it has been shown that intelligence has a non linear and interesting interaction with psychopathic personality traits. Basically, very high level intelligence can and does act like a defensive factor, extremely intelligent people with such traits are able to compensate the lack of empathy, self-control etc. (the relation is not so simple with lover levels of intelligence, as I said it's not linear). I wish I could give you some reference, but ATM I don't have anything in English at hand, sorry.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > that's not what the article says at all. On the contrary, that is exactly what the article says. > He didn't find he's dangerous, he found out his brain is lacking in capacity for "empathy, morality and self-control" That wasn't an insight he had in advance, that was an interpretation forced on him by the test results. In other words, he was cornered into accepting a picture of himself, clearly at odds with reality, through personal dedication to his experiment and its outcome. Science history contains any number of similar stories, in particular in psychology, where what one feels a need to believe becomes the evidence for the very thing being "objectively" studied. > ... it has been shown that intelligence has a non linear and interesting interaction with psychopathic personality traits. I think your use of "it has been shown" is completely overboard, given the level of evidence in this field. It has also "been shown" that Albert Einstein was mentally ill, on the ground that he wasn't a well-adjusted and boring member of society, but someone who focused his attention on a small handful of things that had no obvious utility at the time, and ignored his wife and family. By the way, Thomas Jefferson, Bill Gates any many others have been labeled mentally ill on the same ground -- unconventional thoughts and choices. "It has been shown" indeed. Meanwhile, in reality, evolution requires diversity -- all sorts of people with all sorts of behaviors, some of which are very useful. Without diversity, we have a perfect psychological world, but no innovation and no unconventional ideas. The evidence for evolution, and what evolution requires in order to function, is vastly better than the evidence for psychology's set of beliefs. If we accepted modern psychology's basic premise -- that there is a normal behavior toward which we should all aspire -- evolution would grind to a halt, as would science. It has been shown. :)
  - nzp 13y ago
    > That wasn't an insight he had in advance, that was an interpretation forced on him by the test results. In other words, he was cornered into accepting a picture of himself, clearly at odds with reality, through personal dedication to his experiment and its outcome. Whether he in particular is a well adjusted psycho is actually irrelevant. He's trying to sell a book, he may even be completely lying about how he behaves just in order to spice up the story and sell more books. The point is that what he is describing is based on solid current knowledge about psychopathy. The behaviour he is describing is congruent with current best scientific knowledge on the topic. His behaviour and brain scan, whether true or just imagined, is not evidence to support anything and he isn't implying it is. It's just an illustration. > If we accepted modern psychology's basic premise -- that there is a normal behavior toward which we should all aspire [...] Just what on earth are you talking about? Please, stop the nonsense.

by lutusp 13y ago

nzp 13y ago

> As to psychopathy, the linked article says it all -- a researcher finds out he's a dangerous person by reading a brain scan, with no other supporting evidence and copious contraindications. Pretty much no, that's not what the article says at all. He didn't find he's dangerous, he found out his brain is lacking in capacity for "empathy, morality and self-control" (which is what he self-observed in the first place). These traits are central to psychopaths, but that does not mean a person with such traits is necessarily violent or actually doing anything overtly anti-social. And that's what the article actually says and tries to explain. A brain scan which shows dysfunction in ventromedial frontal cortex does not mean you're looking at a brain of an anti-social maniac, it's somewhat more nuanced. EDIT: I forgot to mention a very relevant finding: it has been shown that intelligence has a non linear and interesting interaction with psychopathic personality traits. Basically, very high level intelligence can and does act like a defensive factor, extremely intelligent people with such traits are able to compensate the lack of empathy, self-control etc. (the relation is not so simple with lover levels of intelligence, as I said it's not linear). I wish I could give you some reference, but ATM I don't have anything in English at hand, sorry.

lutusp 13y ago
> that's not what the article says at all. On the contrary, that is exactly what the article says. > He didn't find he's dangerous, he found out his brain is lacking in capacity for "empathy, morality and self-control" That wasn't an insight he had in advance, that was an interpretation forced on him by the test results. In other words, he was cornered into accepting a picture of himself, clearly at odds with reality, through personal dedication to his experiment and its outcome. Science history contains any number of similar stories, in particular in psychology, where what one feels a need to believe becomes the evidence for the very thing being "objectively" studied. > ... it has been shown that intelligence has a non linear and interesting interaction with psychopathic personality traits. I think your use of "it has been shown" is completely overboard, given the level of evidence in this field. It has also "been shown" that Albert Einstein was mentally ill, on the ground that he wasn't a well-adjusted and boring member of society, but someone who focused his attention on a small handful of things that had no obvious utility at the time, and ignored his wife and family. By the way, Thomas Jefferson, Bill Gates any many others have been labeled mentally ill on the same ground -- unconventional thoughts and choices. "It has been shown" indeed. Meanwhile, in reality, evolution requires diversity -- all sorts of people with all sorts of behaviors, some of which are very useful. Without diversity, we have a perfect psychological world, but no innovation and no unconventional ideas. The evidence for evolution, and what evolution requires in order to function, is vastly better than the evidence for psychology's set of beliefs. If we accepted modern psychology's basic premise -- that there is a normal behavior toward which we should all aspire -- evolution would grind to a halt, as would science. It has been shown. :)
- nzp 13y ago
  > That wasn't an insight he had in advance, that was an interpretation forced on him by the test results. In other words, he was cornered into accepting a picture of himself, clearly at odds with reality, through personal dedication to his experiment and its outcome. Whether he in particular is a well adjusted psycho is actually irrelevant. He's trying to sell a book, he may even be completely lying about how he behaves just in order to spice up the story and sell more books. The point is that what he is describing is based on solid current knowledge about psychopathy. The behaviour he is describing is congruent with current best scientific knowledge on the topic. His behaviour and brain scan, whether true or just imagined, is not evidence to support anything and he isn't implying it is. It's just an illustration. > If we accepted modern psychology's basic premise -- that there is a normal behavior toward which we should all aspire [...] Just what on earth are you talking about? Please, stop the nonsense.