4 ms·

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. Th

by 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.

by wmil 11y ago

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.