3 ms·
These are justifications for not attempting to understand and thereby humanize him. These same sort of broad brush strokes have been used against any group of
by kingkawn 13y ago
These are justifications for not attempting to understand and thereby humanize him. These same sort of broad brush strokes have been used against any group of people that are deemed unworthy of being truly seen.
- contextual 13y agoAfter 50 years of research, that is the understanding of a psychopath. Pathological lying, lack of remorse or guilt, manipulativeness, superficial charm are what make a psychopath a psychopath. You wouldn't pass any of the dozens of psychopath tests available if you lacked these traits, and you certainly wouldn't call yourself a psychopath.
- kingkawn 13y agoWe have no predictive power to show who will become a psychopath. There are loose associations, and a jumble of character traits that are shared with any number of other syndromes and illnesses. Any personality trait can be made or unmade.
- kansface 13y agoDo you know why psychopaths can't beat the test?
- contextual 13y agoSome of the test questions I've seen aren't really questions. They're scenario based statements designed to uncover the subject's true way of thinking. I'm sure these tests can be defeated though. Please keep in mind I'm not a psychologist or expert on the subject.
- wpietri 13y agoAnd why are those arguments so convincing? Why does painting people as monsters work so well? One possible answer is that it's a counter-adaptation to psychopathy. If some people are naturally monsters, being naturally afraid of monsters might be a good adaptation. That's not to say we shouldn't treat him with compassion, or that we should treat him as a monster. But people who haven't seen the damage a predator can cause are often too glib; they literally can't imagine how dangerous another human can be.