4 ms·

This presupposes there's something wrong with sociopathy. Note that most sociopaths are living in society without causing harm to others, so who are we to say

This presupposes there's something wrong with sociopathy. Note that most sociopaths are living in society without causing harm to others, so who are we to say their state of being is inherently wrong or that we should be vested with authority to change them? If they're voluntarily seeking help, then that's different, of course. How often does that happen? (Genuine question. I have no idea, and I'd love to find out.)

Zigurd 12y ago
> without causing harm to others Not all of them all the time, of course. And some of them never. But the same could be said of pedophiles. Whatever you may think of the DSM, sociopathy is listed as a disorder. It is associated with violent crime and crimes against humanity. Or, look at it this way: Let's say you're not a sociopath and a taking MDMA is just a pleasant experience. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to administer it prophylactically? Or in vocations, like policing, where there's a large risk of developing sociopathy. Might make your next flight less dicey.
- electronvolt 12y ago
  If you replaced your argument for treating potential sociopaths with "treating potential gay people", do you see why that's a kind of dangerous approach to psychiatric diseases? It's pretty dicey to just say "it's a disorder in the DSM associated with (negative things) and therefore we should push for administration of treatment to otherwise healthy/happy people." It isn't too long ago now that being gay was also in the DSM. Respected scientists claimed all sorts of "harm" that the "gay lifestyle" caused to people in it and outside of it. I suppose my question is: your logic would you suggest that it is worthwhile or valuable to administer prophylactic treatment to every DSM disorder, for those considered "at risk." You assert that MDMA is "just a pleasant experience", but I'd counterclaim that no drug is always just a pleasant experience, and you always need to consider the side effects (which for MDMA read like the side effects of many legal psychiatric drugs that affect the seratonin/dopamine/norepinephrine system). Keeping in mind that psychiatric disorders are some of the few disorders where the consent of the patient still isn't absolutely legally necessary to administer treatment, that means that you are arguing that these should be at least considered for administration to actively unwilling patients. Given the difficulty of diagnosing these illnesses in the first place and the possibility of misdiagnosis (see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment), I think it's important to be careful of the arguments made for treatments. Treatments often are applied to involuntary patients (who may be considered incapable), and both the DSM and psychology (as a science) are not some be-all, end-all bible of things that can be stated to be definitively negative or harmful or unwanted which exist outside of the culture they're formed in.
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    You missed my point: In the use of MDMA, is there a downside to misdiagnosis? Let's say MDMA was effective treating alcoholism, but had no therapeutic effect, nor any harmful effect, on anyone else. Lots of people take it recreationally. We can certainly find out if that population is suffering any negative consequences. I take your point about the dubiousness of some parts of the DSM. But what's your theory about sociopaths? Are you seriously suggesting sociopathy will be redeemed in some way?
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  To be fair, in the DSM-V pedophilia was replaced with pedophilic disorder which requires either significant distress or actually acting to harm. The attraction, in and of itself, is not considered a disorder. (Granted, must of the population, even among psychologist/psychiatrist, have differing feelings about this.) That being said, if we could replace the attraction with a more statistically normal one tomorrow, I would say to do so because it would make the world a better place.
d357r0y3r 12y ago
Sociopaths generally don't make very good parents or partners. Most of them don't directly harm people, sure, but I'm making a value judgment that empathy is a positive trait.
- throwawaytime 12y ago
  Please define "good parent" and "good partner." Assume we have some sort of sociopath detector which works from birth. Assume further that we have a treatment for sociopathy. It sounds like you'd be in favor of using that treatment on people who are fine with their state of being and who don't want to be... modified. At one time in history, black people were considered mentally inferior or inherently violent. Most black people lived their lives without harming anyone at all. In the same way, most sociopaths currently live their lives without harming anyone. It's too easy to apply the sort of justifications that you're applying now to justify why people should be changed. How far should we take this? Should it be mandated by the state that a parent must treat their child for sociopathy in the same way vaccinations are mandatory? I am wholly in favor of the latter. But how can anyone be in favor of the former? Vaccinations don't change behavior, whereas making someone "not sociopathic" certainly would. People are people, and until they harm someone else, they should be allowed to live their lives.
  - d357r0y3r 12y ago
    I define a good parent as one that is able to care for a child physically and emotionally. A sociopath, at best, will be able to put food on the table, but they will never be able to show genuine affection. An emotionally neglected child is more likely to commit crimes or abuse others. I haven't suggested that there be some kind of mandated treatment for anti-social individuals, I just think we should try to have a better understanding of how a person can lack empathy. Yes, this is based on assumptions and value judgments, mostly on this weird notion I have of not wanting to be killed or harmed by people that don't particularly care if they hurt others. Like, I don't hate lions or grizzly bears. I don't even think they're evil. I still would like to avoid living in close proximity to them.
    - 12y ago
WhitneyLand 12y ago
What are the primary reasons people don't hurt each other more? 1) Unfavorable risk/reward ratio (threat of punishment or nothing to gain) 2) They are not a sociopath You don't mind losing half the safety net right up front?
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure there have been cases where laws were needed to counteract social pressures that pushed towards violence. Such as the origins of "an eye for an eye". Your item (2) seems to assume that social pressures are universally positive, or at least towards non-violence.
  - WhitneyLand 12y ago
    Not social pressures, rather having a conscious. The existence of empathy, compassion, etc has certainly helped the cause of mercy.
    - tbrownaw 12y ago
      Your conscience will be vastly different depending on what culture you trained it in.
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
>Note that most sociopaths are living in society without causing harm to others, I disagree. IMO sociopathic behavior is often harmful, just not always in a directly obvious way.
- collyw 12y ago
  Unfortunately a lot of them seem to seek positions of power as well.
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
>so who are we to say their state of being is inherently wrong or that we should be vested with authority to change them? What level of risk are we willing to accept before we should be vested with the authority to make a change to reduce such risk?

Zigurd 12y ago

> without causing harm to others Not all of them all the time, of course. And some of them never. But the same could be said of pedophiles. Whatever you may think of the DSM, sociopathy is listed as a disorder. It is associated with violent crime and crimes against humanity. Or, look at it this way: Let's say you're not a sociopath and a taking MDMA is just a pleasant experience. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to administer it prophylactically? Or in vocations, like policing, where there's a large risk of developing sociopathy. Might make your next flight less dicey.

electronvolt 12y ago
If you replaced your argument for treating potential sociopaths with "treating potential gay people", do you see why that's a kind of dangerous approach to psychiatric diseases? It's pretty dicey to just say "it's a disorder in the DSM associated with (negative things) and therefore we should push for administration of treatment to otherwise healthy/happy people." It isn't too long ago now that being gay was also in the DSM. Respected scientists claimed all sorts of "harm" that the "gay lifestyle" caused to people in it and outside of it. I suppose my question is: your logic would you suggest that it is worthwhile or valuable to administer prophylactic treatment to every DSM disorder, for those considered "at risk." You assert that MDMA is "just a pleasant experience", but I'd counterclaim that no drug is always just a pleasant experience, and you always need to consider the side effects (which for MDMA read like the side effects of many legal psychiatric drugs that affect the seratonin/dopamine/norepinephrine system). Keeping in mind that psychiatric disorders are some of the few disorders where the consent of the patient still isn't absolutely legally necessary to administer treatment, that means that you are arguing that these should be at least considered for administration to actively unwilling patients. Given the difficulty of diagnosing these illnesses in the first place and the possibility of misdiagnosis (see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment), I think it's important to be careful of the arguments made for treatments. Treatments often are applied to involuntary patients (who may be considered incapable), and both the DSM and psychology (as a science) are not some be-all, end-all bible of things that can be stated to be definitively negative or harmful or unwanted which exist outside of the culture they're formed in.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  You missed my point: In the use of MDMA, is there a downside to misdiagnosis? Let's say MDMA was effective treating alcoholism, but had no therapeutic effect, nor any harmful effect, on anyone else. Lots of people take it recreationally. We can certainly find out if that population is suffering any negative consequences. I take your point about the dubiousness of some parts of the DSM. But what's your theory about sociopaths? Are you seriously suggesting sociopathy will be redeemed in some way?
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
To be fair, in the DSM-V pedophilia was replaced with pedophilic disorder which requires either significant distress or actually acting to harm. The attraction, in and of itself, is not considered a disorder. (Granted, must of the population, even among psychologist/psychiatrist, have differing feelings about this.) That being said, if we could replace the attraction with a more statistically normal one tomorrow, I would say to do so because it would make the world a better place.

d357r0y3r 12y ago

Sociopaths generally don't make very good parents or partners. Most of them don't directly harm people, sure, but I'm making a value judgment that empathy is a positive trait.

throwawaytime 12y ago
Please define "good parent" and "good partner." Assume we have some sort of sociopath detector which works from birth. Assume further that we have a treatment for sociopathy. It sounds like you'd be in favor of using that treatment on people who are fine with their state of being and who don't want to be... modified. At one time in history, black people were considered mentally inferior or inherently violent. Most black people lived their lives without harming anyone at all. In the same way, most sociopaths currently live their lives without harming anyone. It's too easy to apply the sort of justifications that you're applying now to justify why people should be changed. How far should we take this? Should it be mandated by the state that a parent must treat their child for sociopathy in the same way vaccinations are mandatory? I am wholly in favor of the latter. But how can anyone be in favor of the former? Vaccinations don't change behavior, whereas making someone "not sociopathic" certainly would. People are people, and until they harm someone else, they should be allowed to live their lives.
- d357r0y3r 12y ago
  I define a good parent as one that is able to care for a child physically and emotionally. A sociopath, at best, will be able to put food on the table, but they will never be able to show genuine affection. An emotionally neglected child is more likely to commit crimes or abuse others. I haven't suggested that there be some kind of mandated treatment for anti-social individuals, I just think we should try to have a better understanding of how a person can lack empathy. Yes, this is based on assumptions and value judgments, mostly on this weird notion I have of not wanting to be killed or harmed by people that don't particularly care if they hurt others. Like, I don't hate lions or grizzly bears. I don't even think they're evil. I still would like to avoid living in close proximity to them.
  - 12y ago

WhitneyLand 12y ago

What are the primary reasons people don't hurt each other more? 1) Unfavorable risk/reward ratio (threat of punishment or nothing to gain) 2) They are not a sociopath You don't mind losing half the safety net right up front?

tbrownaw 12y ago
I'm pretty sure there have been cases where laws were needed to counteract social pressures that pushed towards violence. Such as the origins of "an eye for an eye". Your item (2) seems to assume that social pressures are universally positive, or at least towards non-violence.
- WhitneyLand 12y ago
  Not social pressures, rather having a conscious. The existence of empathy, compassion, etc has certainly helped the cause of mercy.
  - tbrownaw 12y ago
    Your conscience will be vastly different depending on what culture you trained it in.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago

>Note that most sociopaths are living in society without causing harm to others, I disagree. IMO sociopathic behavior is often harmful, just not always in a directly obvious way.

collyw 12y ago
Unfortunately a lot of them seem to seek positions of power as well.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago

>so who are we to say their state of being is inherently wrong or that we should be vested with authority to change them? What level of risk are we willing to accept before we should be vested with the authority to make a change to reduce such risk?