9 ms·

The Myth of the Psychopath

52 points by dpflan 11y ago

jugad 11y ago
We don't have to go too far to find psychopaths... a relatively larger percentage of teenagers are "psychopaths" - as in, they lack empathy. All it takes to convert them into adult psychopaths is lack of guidance by parents and a ruthless outside environment. I would state, without proof, that the number of people who would be labeled as psychopaths (by their behavior, violent nature and lack of empathy) would be larger in third world countries as compared to, say, US, Norway or Sweden... this is going by my personal experience.
- sumitviii 11y ago
  Psychopathy, in the current context, is a clinical term for a condition. Its not a state.
dpflan 11y ago
This makes me curious about computational psychology/psychiatry/neuroscience and diagnosing individuals with DSM-IV disorders. Anyone have any experience in the field?
wmil 11y ago
I'm not buying this article. There's a very strong tabula rasa / pure nuture contingent that's been refusing to cede any ground despite decades of evidence. The article is pure opinion... and I have trouble believing that a trio of SFU / Okanagan College professors are the top researchers.
- magicalist 11y ago
  I'd say that a non-clinical pop diagnosis invented in the 18th century would have to justify itself, actually. The onus shouldn't be on others to disprove that it doesn't exist. edit: which isn't to say there's not disagreement on the subject, but it's important to keep in mind where the status quo actually is, and it's not as represented in cable TV shows and tabloid covers. There is currently no recognized disorder here.
- pekk 11y ago
  It's odd that you call the article pure opinion, because I don't see you providing anything more substantial than your own feelings here. Can you provide any citation or even a thesis to evaluate rather than just flinging around epithets like "tabula rasa," asserting that someone is ignoring evidence of something, and sniffing at institutional affiliations? The article is just a magazine article, but at least it provides the name of the book so people can track it down and look at its references if they want. You don't provide anything for readers of your comment to look into at all.
  - kemiller2002 11y ago
    Sure, Dr. Kent Khiel on the study of FMRIs and people fitting the profiles of psychopathy. There is significant evidence that people who are true psychopaths (as in those who aren't misdiagnosed) suffer a deficiency in the anterior cingulate cortex which relates to things like emotional regulation and learned behaviors (Robert Hare has shown that psychopaths show a deficiency in understanding things like fear of a negative outcome). The book the author notes says this is anecdotal except that the research has been going on for quite some time, and there have been several studies conducted. Now the author argues that the main study of brain anatomy and behavior is based on people who are incarcerated, and this to a certain extent is true. However there are also cases where people who aren't in jail have gotten FMRIs and exhibit the same types of behavior. James Fallon is a prime example (he has an article about him in the Smithsonian). He's a neuroscientist and fully admits that he fits the profile. The author states that it can't be a disorder, because it only equates to life experiences, but from a sociological perspective this can disproved. Psychopathy has been noted across different cultures and socioeconomic barriers. Plus, if life experience was purely the cause, one could stand to argue that psychopathy would be significantly weighted towards one culture, economic upbringing etc. It's not. Why would a kid with loving parents become a psychopath.....and his brother with similar experiences not. Look up the Ranes brothers. One of them is definitely a serial killer, and the other is (was) also serving a life sentence for murder....except there is evidence that the second isn't a psychopath even though he was convicted. There is a lot of evidence that showed it was possible he was wrongly convicted and he doesn't fit the profile. They had horrible childhoods and if upbringing was to be a significant indicator, this could disprove that rule as the brothers should similarly. The article says something about a study which shows that psychopaths can "turn their emotions on an off" (I remember reading the article but not specifics). Kevin Dutton argues that psychopaths are essentially predators and yes, they can understand emotion. That's how they are capable of finding people they can take advantage of. Plus it's one study, and if it can't be verified then it's not a very strong case. There was also a study recently which the author stated that he was able to help true psychopaths (not just people who have been diagnosed as APD) using behavioral therapy. This would lead to suggest that if that works, then it's behavioral and not neurological, but once again, it's only one article. What really gets me is the last paragraph, declaring them as "evil" and because of that they must be the "boogey man" Labeling someone as a psychopath based on the criteria actually humanizes them, and makes them someone who should be kind of pitied. They're dangerous and they do bad things, but if the neurological evidence is correct, they really don't understand. They aren't capable of understanding right and wrong like the rest of us. Saying that disorder is a myth really turns these people into monsters, because it means that we are assuming they have the same range of emotions as the rest of society and they choose to ignore what they know is right and wrong. Personally, I think that is a cop out answer to allow people to get mad and take revenge on people who may not understand at an emotional level what they are doing with a clear conscience. That's just me though.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- orthoganol 11y ago
  It's equally ideological to always be polarizing it into pure nurture-ists vs. (let's say) Steven Pinker-ists. The vast majority of people in these debates concede that both sides (nature & nurture) influence. It's just tiny minorities and click bait driven journalists that like to make it out as these big unreasonable camps on such or such side. Easy to see the drivel it is.
- xx101010 11y ago
  You have a point about their background, and maybe a point about their leaning towards "pure nurtue" (as in 'nurture versus nature'), though this is actually not said. I am not aware of anyone who does lean pure nurture. If they do, that is obviously in correct. But that also does not mean that there is a label "psychopath" that is anywhere taken seriously. "Sociopath" has some value. "Psychopath" has a little, in terms of slang for impact. The later term is far, far too wide, though, to be of much material use for anyone, be they in security or social work or therapy or anywhere. Trying to argue pure nature or pure nurture is probably, in general, a very bad idea. Usually, however, it is true, there are very specific events in aggressively criminal individual's background which are noteworthy to help understand 'who they are'. It is reasonably best to actually be "sociopathic" or lacking emotional bias when dealing with such analysis. Just like how doctors go, "Okay, wound, fix", and non-doctors get grossed out. They are blinded by their own overcoming emotionality. Emotion can be great for communication, but it can also get in the way and be entirely counter productive.
norea-armozel 11y ago
In part, I agree with the author's skepticism that psychopathy is purely a mental disorder. I've known people who would easily be classified as psychopaths but they clearly knew what they were doing was wrong, hurtful, and downright evil (these people oddly happened to be bullies that fixated on me through most of my childhood too). Sometimes people are just evil and trying to sugar coat the notion that someone can be evil doesn't make it easier to cope with it. All it does is delude people into thinking we should have respect or love for someone when they do wrong by us and betray our trust. I think it's better to treat a so-called psychopath as an adult (if they are one) rather than as some broken down piece of machinery. At least then, you won't find yourself with your guard down and your judgement clouded by false sympathies.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  Evil is not a clinical term and attempting to clinically define brain disorders is not sugar coating evil. The word evil really has no place in a clinical discussion.
ExpiredLink 11y ago
You don't know what a psychopath is until you meet one. I decided to leave a project because the project lead turned out to be a real psychopath. It's difficult to describe a psychopath's behavior. They are not 'evil', sadistic or cruel. They are clearly self-centered, narcissist and self-important but in unusual appearances. Appearances which can be very abusive to dependent persons in their sphere of influence.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure you're referring to a sociopath. Not that the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" aren't functionally useless beyond mere colloquialisms.
  - justinator 11y ago
    The description also seems to fit a, "sociopath" as well. There's sometimes incredibly likable, until you hear about some of the ways they act.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I've met... many... that meet their description. Some I know had decent parents and childhood. The thing they had in common is they saw people like objects rather than people. That was most distinctive. Being a bit impulsive and anal about certain things was another. All could present themselves in whatever way they needed to in front of a given audience. Some I've read on but didn't meet had compulsive violence with even sexual arousal. Did they learn that and with what practice that hardwires one's junk to a woman's screams? So, esp with some having good childhoods, it's hard for me to believe they just transformed into this by making some choices. Seems more likely to be innate. Still a possibility that much of this was learned behavior but I'm just saying I lean in a different direction given what I've seen and heard dealing with them.
  - mjfl 11y ago
    I seriously think that people who label others as psychopaths without clinical diagnosis are a much bigger problem than the actual psychopaths.
kukx 11y ago
Here's an interesting talk from a psychopath https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzqn6Z_Iss0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzqn6Z_Iss0 He made previously an other confession, which was less funny and much darker. Unfortunately it's gone now. I guess, he had a second thought, and asked to remove it. As far, as I remember he mentioned, for example, that if someone did something bad to him, he could not forget it and he would get even in some way, no matter if years had to pass. Also, another interesting talk related to the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bysVPcKQfeY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bysVPcKQfeY
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dbbolton 11y ago
I'd like to see Robert Hare's response to this.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Let's test the title against proposed alternative with one sentence in the article: "even though that flow is unproven in the scientific literature on psychopathy" So, a lot of speculation with no evidence to back it makes the existence of psychopaths a myth. Further, the article intentionally ignores research that supports the existence of people with their alleged traits, even neurological differences. Pop psychology and religious rhetoric are far from the only things that went into it. So, the article's claims are unbalanced, weak, and defeat themselves for now with above quote.
- eric_h 11y ago
  I thought the article made a good point about the general popular adoption of the ill-defined term 'psychopath', and that the reality of individuals with traits often attributed to psychopaths may not be as clear as they are portrayed in such pop culture representations as e.g. Dexter. My real complaint is that the article seems to have conflated the psychopath with the sociopath. I was under the impression that sociopaths were a superset of psychopaths, with psychopaths being more traditionally "evil" (a la jack the ripper). I do agree that the article's arguments in general are weak, and I don't really see any reasonable conclusion to be drawn from it. At the very least, though, I do find the description of this Gregory character to be interesting and to some extent representative of the small handful of people (~3) I've met in my life who I believed to be sociopaths (admittedly, I'd never heard of those particular individuals running someone over with a car with no remorse or hesitation, but I also believe that had they done such a thing, they wouldn't bring it up in conversation).
  - Retra 11y ago
    I'm pretty sure the medical community at large considers sociopathy and psychopathy to be the same thing, if they are considered at all. 'Traditional evilness' isn't really the kind of symptom a psychiatrist can use.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    That point about popular adaption was good. It's clear that what psychologists are debating and what happens on TV are different. Far as sociopath vs psychopath, psychologists tell me they're both mostly pop-psych terms with meanings that vary due to who you're talking to. The only one they mention is Anti-social Personality Disorder. I'm under the impression that they focus more on the potential psychopath's individual traits and less on the categorization itself. I've seen some interesting categorizations which seemed to be there just to have one. They treated the symptoms. He was an interesting character. He exhibited that kind of behavior. Yet, it could easily be his upbringing especially if growing up under and around hustlers. The guy might have never been taught better. So, I call that sort of thing bad character, a bit evil, but not all out psychopath in my book. This may not be everyone, but I tend to associate it with people who clearly have no conscience and seem to compulsively do these things. I've met them and they stand out from the average bad apple. Either the article or a commenter mentioned them getting back at people years later. The inability to let go without doing what they were compelled to do. Many I've met had that trait, too. That's why you figure out what pisses them off and avoid it. Assuming you can't avoid them... (sighs)
dpflan 11y ago
Here are two HN submissions from 2 and 4 years ago entitled 'Letter from a Psychopath. The content of course is what you'd expect from the title. 1. 2 years ago - 340 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6941171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6941171 2. 4 years ago - 109 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3094824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3094824
bcg1 11y ago
Pieter Hintjens is writing a series on psychopaths. I found what I've read so far to be worth my time. Start here if interested: http://hintjens.com/blog:78 http://hintjens.com/blog:78
xx101010 11y ago
There's sociopathy, but there isn't even a DSM definition for "psychopath". That is a slang term (like sociopathy). Not that the DSM is even meant to be taken entirely literally, but having models for diagnosis and treatment for common classes of mental disorders can be useful. People are themselves extremely varied, however, and a lot of the best methods for treatment and diagnosis take into account that. eg, Ericksonian therapy. (Which, sadly, most people will only hear of from some severely bastardized version, if at all.) I think, a lot of what they mean is "psychopathy", often covered for the other slang term "sociopathy" which has more value for analysis. There has been a lot of pop psychology on the later, and while I do definitely believe it is an useful term one has to note there are "enlightened sociopaths" and ... not. The vast majority are not as people think, and surely not criminals. A good list came out not long ago which pointed out that on an "empath" to "sociopath" scale, cops and surgeons score high on the sociopath side, while grade school teachers and social workers score high on the other side. The article is very right in pointing out how anti-social personal disorder is very different from the model of the sociopath. Night and day different. Behavior involved in severe criminal behavior is often very unique, unique in formation, and unique to the person, even if many commonalities or classes of definitions may be applied to some. The remaining question of any value is: do these labels actually help you help any of them to change? In terms of comp sec, putting on that kind of label on people won't help you control them nor predict their behavior. You might do so from noting their past behavior, if you know enough about it. But that is based on observation of that particular individual, and would only give deceptive evidence in regards to the actual usefulness of the label. Which is a label, which is a way to shortcut thinking; and a way to shortcut dealing with individuals as individuals in creative ways taking into account their complexity. A pain to do, perhaps, definitely does not fit into tidy lists and written down procedures. But it is what is required.

52 points by dpflan 11y ago

jugad 11y ago

We don't have to go too far to find psychopaths... a relatively larger percentage of teenagers are "psychopaths" - as in, they lack empathy. All it takes to convert them into adult psychopaths is lack of guidance by parents and a ruthless outside environment. I would state, without proof, that the number of people who would be labeled as psychopaths (by their behavior, violent nature and lack of empathy) would be larger in third world countries as compared to, say, US, Norway or Sweden... this is going by my personal experience.

sumitviii 11y ago
Psychopathy, in the current context, is a clinical term for a condition. Its not a state.

dpflan 11y ago

This makes me curious about computational psychology/psychiatry/neuroscience and diagnosing individuals with DSM-IV disorders. Anyone have any experience in the field?

wmil 11y ago

I'm not buying this article. There's a very strong tabula rasa / pure nuture contingent that's been refusing to cede any ground despite decades of evidence. The article is pure opinion... and I have trouble believing that a trio of SFU / Okanagan College professors are the top researchers.

magicalist 11y ago
I'd say that a non-clinical pop diagnosis invented in the 18th century would have to justify itself, actually. The onus shouldn't be on others to disprove that it doesn't exist. edit: which isn't to say there's not disagreement on the subject, but it's important to keep in mind where the status quo actually is, and it's not as represented in cable TV shows and tabloid covers. There is currently no recognized disorder here.
pekk 11y ago
It's odd that you call the article pure opinion, because I don't see you providing anything more substantial than your own feelings here. Can you provide any citation or even a thesis to evaluate rather than just flinging around epithets like "tabula rasa," asserting that someone is ignoring evidence of something, and sniffing at institutional affiliations? The article is just a magazine article, but at least it provides the name of the book so people can track it down and look at its references if they want. You don't provide anything for readers of your comment to look into at all.
- kemiller2002 11y ago
  Sure, Dr. Kent Khiel on the study of FMRIs and people fitting the profiles of psychopathy. There is significant evidence that people who are true psychopaths (as in those who aren't misdiagnosed) suffer a deficiency in the anterior cingulate cortex which relates to things like emotional regulation and learned behaviors (Robert Hare has shown that psychopaths show a deficiency in understanding things like fear of a negative outcome). The book the author notes says this is anecdotal except that the research has been going on for quite some time, and there have been several studies conducted. Now the author argues that the main study of brain anatomy and behavior is based on people who are incarcerated, and this to a certain extent is true. However there are also cases where people who aren't in jail have gotten FMRIs and exhibit the same types of behavior. James Fallon is a prime example (he has an article about him in the Smithsonian). He's a neuroscientist and fully admits that he fits the profile. The author states that it can't be a disorder, because it only equates to life experiences, but from a sociological perspective this can disproved. Psychopathy has been noted across different cultures and socioeconomic barriers. Plus, if life experience was purely the cause, one could stand to argue that psychopathy would be significantly weighted towards one culture, economic upbringing etc. It's not. Why would a kid with loving parents become a psychopath.....and his brother with similar experiences not. Look up the Ranes brothers. One of them is definitely a serial killer, and the other is (was) also serving a life sentence for murder....except there is evidence that the second isn't a psychopath even though he was convicted. There is a lot of evidence that showed it was possible he was wrongly convicted and he doesn't fit the profile. They had horrible childhoods and if upbringing was to be a significant indicator, this could disprove that rule as the brothers should similarly. The article says something about a study which shows that psychopaths can "turn their emotions on an off" (I remember reading the article but not specifics). Kevin Dutton argues that psychopaths are essentially predators and yes, they can understand emotion. That's how they are capable of finding people they can take advantage of. Plus it's one study, and if it can't be verified then it's not a very strong case. There was also a study recently which the author stated that he was able to help true psychopaths (not just people who have been diagnosed as APD) using behavioral therapy. This would lead to suggest that if that works, then it's behavioral and not neurological, but once again, it's only one article. What really gets me is the last paragraph, declaring them as "evil" and because of that they must be the "boogey man" Labeling someone as a psychopath based on the criteria actually humanizes them, and makes them someone who should be kind of pitied. They're dangerous and they do bad things, but if the neurological evidence is correct, they really don't understand. They aren't capable of understanding right and wrong like the rest of us. Saying that disorder is a myth really turns these people into monsters, because it means that we are assuming they have the same range of emotions as the rest of society and they choose to ignore what they know is right and wrong. Personally, I think that is a cop out answer to allow people to get mad and take revenge on people who may not understand at an emotional level what they are doing with a clear conscience. That's just me though.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
orthoganol 11y ago
It's equally ideological to always be polarizing it into pure nurture-ists vs. (let's say) Steven Pinker-ists. The vast majority of people in these debates concede that both sides (nature & nurture) influence. It's just tiny minorities and click bait driven journalists that like to make it out as these big unreasonable camps on such or such side. Easy to see the drivel it is.
xx101010 11y ago
You have a point about their background, and maybe a point about their leaning towards "pure nurtue" (as in 'nurture versus nature'), though this is actually not said. I am not aware of anyone who does lean pure nurture. If they do, that is obviously in correct. But that also does not mean that there is a label "psychopath" that is anywhere taken seriously. "Sociopath" has some value. "Psychopath" has a little, in terms of slang for impact. The later term is far, far too wide, though, to be of much material use for anyone, be they in security or social work or therapy or anywhere. Trying to argue pure nature or pure nurture is probably, in general, a very bad idea. Usually, however, it is true, there are very specific events in aggressively criminal individual's background which are noteworthy to help understand 'who they are'. It is reasonably best to actually be "sociopathic" or lacking emotional bias when dealing with such analysis. Just like how doctors go, "Okay, wound, fix", and non-doctors get grossed out. They are blinded by their own overcoming emotionality. Emotion can be great for communication, but it can also get in the way and be entirely counter productive.

norea-armozel 11y ago

In part, I agree with the author's skepticism that psychopathy is purely a mental disorder. I've known people who would easily be classified as psychopaths but they clearly knew what they were doing was wrong, hurtful, and downright evil (these people oddly happened to be bullies that fixated on me through most of my childhood too). Sometimes people are just evil and trying to sugar coat the notion that someone can be evil doesn't make it easier to cope with it. All it does is delude people into thinking we should have respect or love for someone when they do wrong by us and betray our trust. I think it's better to treat a so-called psychopath as an adult (if they are one) rather than as some broken down piece of machinery. At least then, you won't find yourself with your guard down and your judgement clouded by false sympathies.

gnaritas 11y ago
Evil is not a clinical term and attempting to clinically define brain disorders is not sugar coating evil. The word evil really has no place in a clinical discussion.

ExpiredLink 11y ago

You don't know what a psychopath is until you meet one. I decided to leave a project because the project lead turned out to be a real psychopath. It's difficult to describe a psychopath's behavior. They are not 'evil', sadistic or cruel. They are clearly self-centered, narcissist and self-important but in unusual appearances. Appearances which can be very abusive to dependent persons in their sphere of influence.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
I'm pretty sure you're referring to a sociopath. Not that the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" aren't functionally useless beyond mere colloquialisms.
- justinator 11y ago
  The description also seems to fit a, "sociopath" as well. There's sometimes incredibly likable, until you hear about some of the ways they act.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
I've met... many... that meet their description. Some I know had decent parents and childhood. The thing they had in common is they saw people like objects rather than people. That was most distinctive. Being a bit impulsive and anal about certain things was another. All could present themselves in whatever way they needed to in front of a given audience. Some I've read on but didn't meet had compulsive violence with even sexual arousal. Did they learn that and with what practice that hardwires one's junk to a woman's screams? So, esp with some having good childhoods, it's hard for me to believe they just transformed into this by making some choices. Seems more likely to be innate. Still a possibility that much of this was learned behavior but I'm just saying I lean in a different direction given what I've seen and heard dealing with them.
- mjfl 11y ago
  I seriously think that people who label others as psychopaths without clinical diagnosis are a much bigger problem than the actual psychopaths.

kukx 11y ago

Here's an interesting talk from a psychopath https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzqn6Z_Iss0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzqn6Z_Iss0 He made previously an other confession, which was less funny and much darker. Unfortunately it's gone now. I guess, he had a second thought, and asked to remove it. As far, as I remember he mentioned, for example, that if someone did something bad to him, he could not forget it and he would get even in some way, no matter if years had to pass. Also, another interesting talk related to the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bysVPcKQfeY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bysVPcKQfeY

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dbbolton 11y ago

I'd like to see Robert Hare's response to this.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Let's test the title against proposed alternative with one sentence in the article: "even though that flow is unproven in the scientific literature on psychopathy" So, a lot of speculation with no evidence to back it makes the existence of psychopaths a myth. Further, the article intentionally ignores research that supports the existence of people with their alleged traits, even neurological differences. Pop psychology and religious rhetoric are far from the only things that went into it. So, the article's claims are unbalanced, weak, and defeat themselves for now with above quote.

eric_h 11y ago
I thought the article made a good point about the general popular adoption of the ill-defined term 'psychopath', and that the reality of individuals with traits often attributed to psychopaths may not be as clear as they are portrayed in such pop culture representations as e.g. Dexter. My real complaint is that the article seems to have conflated the psychopath with the sociopath. I was under the impression that sociopaths were a superset of psychopaths, with psychopaths being more traditionally "evil" (a la jack the ripper). I do agree that the article's arguments in general are weak, and I don't really see any reasonable conclusion to be drawn from it. At the very least, though, I do find the description of this Gregory character to be interesting and to some extent representative of the small handful of people (~3) I've met in my life who I believed to be sociopaths (admittedly, I'd never heard of those particular individuals running someone over with a car with no remorse or hesitation, but I also believe that had they done such a thing, they wouldn't bring it up in conversation).
- Retra 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure the medical community at large considers sociopathy and psychopathy to be the same thing, if they are considered at all. 'Traditional evilness' isn't really the kind of symptom a psychiatrist can use.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  That point about popular adaption was good. It's clear that what psychologists are debating and what happens on TV are different. Far as sociopath vs psychopath, psychologists tell me they're both mostly pop-psych terms with meanings that vary due to who you're talking to. The only one they mention is Anti-social Personality Disorder. I'm under the impression that they focus more on the potential psychopath's individual traits and less on the categorization itself. I've seen some interesting categorizations which seemed to be there just to have one. They treated the symptoms. He was an interesting character. He exhibited that kind of behavior. Yet, it could easily be his upbringing especially if growing up under and around hustlers. The guy might have never been taught better. So, I call that sort of thing bad character, a bit evil, but not all out psychopath in my book. This may not be everyone, but I tend to associate it with people who clearly have no conscience and seem to compulsively do these things. I've met them and they stand out from the average bad apple. Either the article or a commenter mentioned them getting back at people years later. The inability to let go without doing what they were compelled to do. Many I've met had that trait, too. That's why you figure out what pisses them off and avoid it. Assuming you can't avoid them... (sighs)

dpflan 11y ago

Here are two HN submissions from 2 and 4 years ago entitled 'Letter from a Psychopath. The content of course is what you'd expect from the title. 1. 2 years ago - 340 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6941171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6941171 2. 4 years ago - 109 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3094824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3094824

bcg1 11y ago

Pieter Hintjens is writing a series on psychopaths. I found what I've read so far to be worth my time. Start here if interested: http://hintjens.com/blog:78 http://hintjens.com/blog:78

xx101010 11y ago

There's sociopathy, but there isn't even a DSM definition for "psychopath". That is a slang term (like sociopathy). Not that the DSM is even meant to be taken entirely literally, but having models for diagnosis and treatment for common classes of mental disorders can be useful. People are themselves extremely varied, however, and a lot of the best methods for treatment and diagnosis take into account that. eg, Ericksonian therapy. (Which, sadly, most people will only hear of from some severely bastardized version, if at all.) I think, a lot of what they mean is "psychopathy", often covered for the other slang term "sociopathy" which has more value for analysis. There has been a lot of pop psychology on the later, and while I do definitely believe it is an useful term one has to note there are "enlightened sociopaths" and ... not. The vast majority are not as people think, and surely not criminals. A good list came out not long ago which pointed out that on an "empath" to "sociopath" scale, cops and surgeons score high on the sociopath side, while grade school teachers and social workers score high on the other side. The article is very right in pointing out how anti-social personal disorder is very different from the model of the sociopath. Night and day different. Behavior involved in severe criminal behavior is often very unique, unique in formation, and unique to the person, even if many commonalities or classes of definitions may be applied to some. The remaining question of any value is: do these labels actually help you help any of them to change? In terms of comp sec, putting on that kind of label on people won't help you control them nor predict their behavior. You might do so from noting their past behavior, if you know enough about it. But that is based on observation of that particular individual, and would only give deceptive evidence in regards to the actual usefulness of the label. Which is a label, which is a way to shortcut thinking; and a way to shortcut dealing with individuals as individuals in creative ways taking into account their complexity. A pain to do, perhaps, definitely does not fit into tidy lists and written down procedures. But it is what is required.