In reply to:

---

In reply to:

Like you've either got a cold or you havent got a cold, but it could be a really stinking bad cold or a mild 'just a sniffle' cold?


That's not quite it, but pretty much like it, yes. I think the way I meant it would better be explained by saying it's like autism, you know, a "spectrum disorder". One distinctive affliction, but with many degrees of severity and a range of possible symptoms.

---

Fine I understand that. So you dont see psychopathy grading seamlessly into 'normal' . You definitely see a break between the two, a discontinuity? And how is this recognised?

Is there a sudden measurable jump in emotional response between the psychopath and normal person for instance?

In reply to:

---

So you dont see psychopathy grading seamlessly into 'normal' . You definitely see a break between the two, a discontinuity? And how is this recognised?

Is there a sudden measurable jump in emotional response between the psychopath and normal person for instance?

---

I cannot say I have any idea how you could objectively quantify emotional response, I personally believe that's by nature impossible. But I'd say there IS a set of specifications most, if not all, psychopaths would meet.
There is a variety of definitions of psychopathy in scientific circles, but if I had to categorize all commonalities I have found, I'd start with this:

"Psychopathy, as it is, is defined by a distinctive lack of outwardly aimed emotional attachment on an interpersonal level, without any measurable collective retardation of cognitive functions and social skills."

That's of course not at all comprehensive, I certainly missed a lot especially in the neurological department, and it does not explain at all how psychopathy comes to exist. But it's the bedrock of the disorder in my opinion, and if we can agree on this much, that's something to work from. I think it's quite accurate actually, since it translates into most, if not all, symptoms a psychopath may exhibit: Lack of remorse and empathy, completely egocentric worldview, failure to learn from punishment, outright disregard of other persons rights, yet a high understanding of right and wrong as it concerns the treatment of his person, manipulativeness, possessiveness, intense focus on corporal pleasures.
In other words, every emotion, care and pleasure a normal human might project on other people a psychopath projects solely on himself. He is fully functional in social and intellectual interaction yet feeling dissociated, is slightly megalomaniac, and probably awash in a cacophony of feelings he cannot control or categorize, all relating to him, his perception of himself and the way he relates to everything in his immediate vicinity.

Of course, this could all be completely wrong, but I don't think it is.

Well, no matter what the cause this is the bedrock of reactive attachment disorder as well. That first outwardly aimed emotional attachment is the mother... fail at that and there is no other.

But this still does not show cause. It still goes back to nurture vs. nature. And maybe there are multiple causes for this. Part genetic, all genetic, part nurture, all nurture.... round it goes. Who knows?

I do know this much. Many people with neglectful or abusive mothers still learn to attach and do not end up psychopathic. Many people who were abused as children can and do feel empathy and compassion for others.

All I know for certain is I never ever want to be involved with one again.

Diane1969

Daath,

________________________
"Psychopathy, as it is, is defined by a distinctive lack of outwardly aimed emotional attachment on an interpersonal level, without any measurable collective retardation of cognitive functions and social skills."
________________________

Well, you can go back to object relations theory. This is explained as the failure to internalize the mother during early cognitive development. It has been a long time since I read any of this but I think Karen Horney was about the most lucid in this theory. And then there is attachment theory.

Of course none of this explains the physiology behind this deficit, but as far as I know that hasn't been adequately researched yet.

It is a tough question.

Personally, I'd like to see a comprehensive genetic analysis run on diagnosed Psychopaths to see if there are multiple variables that contribute to this and if the number of those variables present contributes to the severety of the disorder.

Here is a very interesting article you may want to read. I'm about half way through it.

http://human-nature.com/nibbs/01/psychopathy.html

Here's an interesting quote from the article:

"Psychopathy is not associated with low birth weight, obstetric complications, poor parenting, poverty, early psychological trauma or adverse experiences, and indeed Robert Hare remarks ‘I can find no convincing evidence that psychopathy is the direct result of early social or environmental factors’ (Hare, 1993, p. 170)."

Diane1969

In reply to:

---

Fine I understand that. So you dont see psychopathy grading seamlessly into 'normal' . You definitely see a break between the two, a discontinuity? And how is this recognised?

Is there a sudden measurable jump in emotional response between the psychopath and normal person for instance?

---

hi JAM,

I see what you're driving at. many, natural phenonena sum into "bell curves"
whether the underlying distributions are gaussian, or not. but many do not,
and there is no rule that everything must do so.

as a counter-example, many complex, dynamical systems like the brain settle
into well defined, easily recognized states, e.g. "P", or "not P".

the famous example is the "on/off" switch to your stereo. no matter what
inputs from you, your toddler, teen, guest, in-law, or out-law, the stereo
flips discontinuously (well, almost) fron "ON" to "OFF". if there's a
volume control, it can also be quiet or loud, but it's still "ON" or "OFF".

another example is the global weather. the Sahara flips discontinuously
between savannah and desert; the earth between "inter-glacial" and "ice-age".

the brain famously recruits every neuron it can lay its hands on for the
task at hand, "cascading" discontinously from one state to another.

so I don't see any a priori reason to assume a continuous bell-curve of
"P"-ness.

from a mathematical modelling stand-point, Hare's scale only applies to
criminals who are already behind bars. properly understood, it might really be
an estimate of how likely an incarcerated P is to commit another crime.

it probably measures a particular facet of psychopathy, or psychopathy
confounded with another variable -- it's not necessarily applicable to
the general population.

so I think we need another test for the general population, which might
come out gaussian, or might not.

does this topic need its own thread?

-WK

Hi Diane1969,

The problem is not what the P feels, it is how he thinks.

I think the two are inextricably linked - what the P feels (or doesn’t) is very much part of the equation. I don’t know if there’s been any official determination as to whether feelings drive thoughts or the other way around - seems like a chicken-egg discussion.

He thinks he is entitled to be taken care of, to be catered to, to have the right to control and manipulate you and lie to you. P's can even be embarassed by their behavior, but it is never enough for them to change because their attitudes are so very concretely set in this center-of-the-universe entitlement, AND they are so very good at scape-goating others to lessen their feelings of discomfort, AND they are very good at enlisting the aid of others to support their entitlements.

Everyone under their sphere of influence is seen by them as their "property" and they believe they have the right to do with their property as they see fit.

Agreed.

That is why they are often surprised when they are forced by laws to pay for wrongs they have committed. Why should they have to pay for something they have done to something that "belongs" to them?

I don’t know that they are surprised, more resentful it seems because certainly they don’t think the law should apply to them.

Sylvie

Hi Daath,

I am finally getting around to responding. I find that Christmas and discussions about Psychopathy don’t mix too well.

Sylvie seems to believe a psychopath may feel a desire to be loved (if I'm wrong, sorry, for the misunderstanding). That's in itself a valid opinion, but it depends mostly on what you assume his understanding of "love" to be.

It’s not quite the point I was making even though I could see why you would have thought that given the thread I posted it in. Think my choice was a little misleading. I do think that psychopathic personalities are not averse to trying to make some sort of human connection. I hesitate to call it “love” because of the lack of empathy that usually defines them.

I definitely believe that psychopathy at least in part derives from attachment/lack of nurture issues in their childhood and that drives their interpersonal interactions. It would be difficult for me to dismiss that as a factor because I’ve seen it in the four Ps I’ve encountered and it is very pronounced. All of them seem to have experienced (or perceived) a level of rejection by their mother’s and I believe that a lot of their rage, resentment and interpersonal difficulties stem from that. At the same time I’ve observed there also seems to be a need to make a connection of sorts with certain individuals, however, their own antisocial tendencies preclude them from being able to do so. That in turn I feel fuels more rage and alienation. In fact the people they perceive as rejecting or betraying them are targeted for the worst possible treatment because I think that really rubs salt in their wounds. One P used to always refer to women in the most derogatory terms. It was all too obvious where that came from. The interesting thing is he didn’t make those sweeping generalizations about men even though he had been mistreated by his father as well.

Humans are fundamentally social creatures, so yes, as far has he understands human emotion, he likely craves interaction to a certain degree.

I think that’s actually a pretty good depiction of the way I see Ps in this context.

I hope you continue to post. I think you bring a lot to the discussion.

Sylvie

Hi JAM,

I came across this quote a while ago and came to the conclusion that Willem H.J. Martens, M.D., Ph. doesnt have a clue what he is talking about.

I read the article again because I wanted to try and ascertain whether he was talking about clinical psychopaths or just people with some P traits. It still isn’t obvious to me which. What’s interesting, is that I can read the same article as you and Di and come away with a very different conclusion.

I do in fact think (up to a point) that Martens knows what he’s talking about because certainly it resonates with my experience with Ps. Having said that, the extent to which he emphasizes their feelings makes them sound downright sappy and that I can’t relate to. When it comes to suffering, I think Ps visit exponentially more suffering, actually devastation, on their victims and so I can only stomach a little talk about any suffering they may experience.

Actually I have a lot more to say to back up my position but I think I’m posted out for today. I always find P topics easier to deal with in bite-size pieces because they're so negative.

Sylvie

Sylvie,

My ex-P on my birthday this past year slipped a note into my card. It was in reference to a conversation we had been having about attachment. This is what he wrote, "Sometimes avoidance is the ultimate in attachment." Just exactly what he meant by that I am of course unsure of. But taken in context it very likely refers to the total enmeshment that these people get into with their owned "objects." The avoidance I know he was refering to was because I stated that he was lazy around emotional issues in relationships and he responded with, "Not lazy, avoidant."

Diane1969

In reply to:

---

Here's an interesting quote from the article:

"Psychopathy is not associated with low birth weight, obstetric complications, poor parenting, poverty, early psychological trauma or adverse experiences, and indeed Robert Hare remarks ‘I can find no convincing evidence that psychopathy is the direct result of early social or environmental factors’ (Hare, 1993, p. 170)."

---

Yes, I've read that one. But, like WhiteKnight said farther below, Hare had a very narrow field of study... And it's hard to say what a particular psychopath might have become if his life had been different, don't you agree? So this is an assumption to be careful with, one of the reasons I cannot consummately agree with Mr. Hare.

In reply to:

---

the famous example is the "on/off" switch to your stereo. no matter what
inputs from you, your toddler, teen, guest, in-law, or out-law, the stereo
flips discontinuously (well, almost) fron "ON" to "OFF". if there's a
volume control, it can also be quiet or loud, but it's still "ON" or "OFF".

[...]

from a mathematical modelling stand-point, Hare's scale only applies to
criminals who are already behind bars. properly understood, it might really be
an estimate of how likely an incarcerated P is to commit another crime.

it probably measures a particular facet of psychopathy, or psychopathy
confounded with another variable -- it's not necessarily applicable to
the general population.

---

That's exactly what I was trying to get at, you summarised that very nicely. Thank you very much.

In reply to:

---

I don’t know that they are surprised, more resentful it seems because certainly they don’t think the law should apply to them.

---

I think it's more because they didn't REALLY think they could ever get caught. I liken that to juvenile drug abusers who just refuse to believe it could be them who end up with a needle in their arm, somewhere on a railway station toilet. It obviously happens to someone all the time, but never to them, now does it? *sigh*

In reply to:

---

At the same time I’ve observed there also seems to be a need to make a connection of sorts with certain individuals, however, their own antisocial tendencies preclude them from being able to do so. That in turn I feel fuels more rage and alienation.

---

Yes, that's cognate with my experiences with mental illness in general. Most mentally ill persons understand at one or more points in their life that something is going on with them, and they are horrified by the fact that they can't do anything about it - and this usually just makes them spin all the more faster into the gap. Ever met a manic depressive?

I think one of the most fundamentally tragic facts about psychopathy is that a Psychopath is often very well aware that he lacks... something, at least intellectually aware. He doesn't know what it is, and he doesn't usually think about it, but in those rare moments of introspection he may notice that something is amiss. Even the most self-absorbed character sooner or later realizes that all his relationships fail spectacularly, after all. Of course this doesn't mean he decides to act on it, or is even more capable of helping himself on his own that the average psychotic. But it certainly makes them ever more angry and unstable. A true "Teufelskreis," a malicious circle that fuels itself.

In reply to:

---

I hope you continue to post. I think you bring a lot to the discussion.

---

Thank you. I will.