Psychopaths??

Yeah Yeah Yeah

a) It seems that there is an increasing awareness/acceptance of Psychopaths, and b) for many advocates of this, the theory is also that a Psychopath is incureable.

Any thoughts?

JuliusCaesar

Impossible to give you any thoughts unless you expand your post a little. I haven't a clue what you are trying to say.

Yeah Yeah Yeah

a) do you agree with the existence of psychopaths, ie: when it is argued that most of sucessful politicians, business people are psychopaths

b) is it cureable

from wiki:

Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) is a personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. It is defined in different ways, but can involve a lack of empathy or remorse, false emotions, selfishness, grandiosity or deceptiveness; it can also involve impulsiveness, irritability, aggression, or inability to perceive danger and protect one's self.
However, there is no consensus about the symptom criteria for psychopathy, and no psychiatric or psychological organization has sanctioned a diagnosis of "psychopathy" itself.'[3]
The current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders includes a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), and states that this is also known as psychopathy. Nevertheless, the DSM-V working party is recommending the addition of a subtype specifically termed 'psychopathic'.[4] The ICD-10 diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization has a Dissocial personality disorder, which it states includes the psychopathic personality.[5] The term 'sociopathic' is also often treated as equivalent, having been introduced as an alternative term indicating social causation. However, most psychopathy measures are different from the criteria for ASPD in that ASPD focus on observable behavior while psychopathy measures also include more indirect personality judgments.[3]
Psychologist Robert Hare has been a particular champion of the concept of psychopathy, based largely on a characterization introduced by Hervey Cleckley mid 20th century. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist is a standard ratings tool most often used in forensic settings to assess psychopathy. A study by Hare and colleagues suggested that one to two percent of the US population score high enough on a screening version of the scale to be considered potential psychopaths.[6] The diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder covers two to three times as many prisoners as are rated as psychopaths on Hare's scale.[7]
According to some, there is little evidence of a cure or effective treatment for psychopathy; no medications can instill empathy, and psychopaths who undergo traditional talk therapy might become more adept at manipulating others and more likely to commit crime.[8] Others suggest that psychopaths may benefit as much as others from therapy. According to Hare, psychopathy stems from as yet unconfirmed genetic neurological predispositions and as yet unconfirmed social factors in upbringing.[9] A review published in 2008 indicated multiple causes, and variation in causes between individuals.[10]
Despite being unused as the main term in diagnostic manuals, the term 'psychopath' is still used by some mental health professionals and by the general public, popular press and in fictional portrayals. Despite the similarity of the names, psychopaths are rarely psychotic. Although psychopathy is associated with and in some cases defined by conduct problems, criminality or violence, most psychopaths are not violent.[11]

JuliusCaesar

Yes, psychopathy exists.

No, I don't level accusations of psychopathy at people I haven't assessed.

Personality disorders can be worked with, but with only mediocre results mostly.

the_syco

Yeah Yeah Yeah wrote: »

that most of sucessful politicians, business people are psychopaths

Yeah Yeah Yeah wrote: »

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist

In reference to businessmen, politicians, etc, you'd wonder how many of those traits are taught to the person, rather than the person already having them.

From the above link, these are seen as "Factor 1"

Glibness/superficial charm If a salesmen can talk people into a sale, I'd say they'd get rewarded.
Grandiose sense of self-worth made possible from the above
Pathological lying if you want to keep making sales you may say whatever you need to to complete the sale
Cunning/manipulative this goes hand in hand with the superficial charm
Lack of remorse or guilt when you sell the €400 tea maker when they just wanted a tea strainer, you'll probably forget about them the moment they walk out the door;you have your sale.
Shallow affect not sure about this one
Callousness; lack of empathy is this similar to "lack of remorse"?
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions you bought it, tough sh|t.

I'd say if you swapped "salesmen" with "politician" and "sale" with "election" most of them would make sense.

Thus although some people would go in as psychopaths and use their "god given talent" at the expense of others, without doing the test before they entered politics/sales I think it may be hard to see if they were always like this, or if these traits were just seen as "skills" they picked up along the way?

Or would those who had the traits on the way in, and those who, once they learned the traits, used the traits on people outside their job, be considered psychopaths? And if "natural" psychopaths are untreatable, are those who leant the traits also untreatable?

An interesting topic.

*Please note that I don't mean all politicians and salesmen are like this, but that these professions may draw that sort of people, in the same way a sadistic individual may be drawn to a job of a torturer, although not all torturer are sadistic.

krd

the_syco wrote: »

Shallow affect not sure about this one

"Shallow effect" is something very hard to define. I don't really think most people pick up on it. I'm pretty tolerant of people who just plain strange - "shallow effect" always makes me feel a little uncomfortable. The person's emotional cues, just seem muted - or even faked. That doesn't really clarify things. In their speech - the modulations - the emphasises are in the wrong places. Which is hard to explain. If you think about computer voice simulations. Where they've recorded words separately and then play back full sentences, that kind of weirdness.

I will say something, you can lots of these traits and not be a psychopath. And not even be a bad person. They're not traits that will necessarily make you a good person either.

Callousness; lack of empathy is this similar to "lack of remorse"?

They're close but not the same thing. Empathy is the feeling you get when you look at someone else who is sad - if you have empathy you feel sad too.

I have a feeling empathy can be switched on and off like a tap - with psychopaths it's off all the time. And there isn't a way for it to be switched on.

It can be misplaced too. There are people who can be very cruel to other people, and not feel empathy for them. But would be very distressed if they witnessed someone giving a dog a beating.

It can differ across cultures. In England the Royal Society for the prevention of cruelty to Animals, gets five times as much in donations from the public than the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Whereas in France, animal cruelty is not really considered an issue. English people died trying to stop farmers exporting cattle for white veal farming on the continent.

Lacking empathy may not make you a psychopath.

In Michael Moore's film, Roger and Me. There's a scene where a rabbit is slaughtered. There was public outrage over it. But in the scene just before the rabbit slaughter, a man is shot dead. Moore never received any complaints over that scene.


A you tube comment on the scene.
When I saw this movie in the theater, everyone(myself included) cringed when this woman killed and skinned the rabbit but when the guy in Flint was gunned down by the police everyone laughed. I thought about that later when the movie was over and was sick to my stomach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3gvHWf7ldY

Yeah Yeah Yeah

Really appreciate your thorough , thoughful replies.

Thanks

krd wrote: »

the_syco wrote: »

Shallow affect not sure about this one

"Shallow effect" is something very hard to define. I don't really think most people pick up on it. I'm pretty tolerant of people who just plain strange - "shallow effect" always makes me feel a little uncomfortable. The person's emotional cues, just seem muted - or even faked. That doesn't really clarify things. In their speech - the modulations - the emphasises are in the wrong places. Which is hard to explain. If you think about computer voice simulations. Where they've recorded words separately and then play back full sentences, that kind of weirdness.

I will say something, you can lots of these traits and not be a psychopath. And not even be a bad person. They're not traits that will necessarily make you a good person either.

Callousness; lack of empathy is this similar to "lack of remorse"?

They're close but not the same thing. Empathy is the feeling you get when you look at someone else who is sad - if you have empathy you feel sad too.

I have a feeling empathy can be switched on and off like a tap - with psychopaths it's off all the time. And there isn't a way for it to be switched on.

It can be misplaced too. There are people who can be very cruel to other people, and not feel empathy for them. But would be very distressed if they witnessed someone giving a dog a beating.

It can differ across cultures. In England the Royal Society for the prevention of cruelty to Animals, gets five times as much in donations from the public than the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Whereas in France, animal cruelty is not really considered an issue. English people died trying to stop farmers exporting cattle for white veal farming on the continent.

Lacking empathy may not make you a psychopath.

In Michael Moore's film, Roger and Me. There's a scene where a rabbit is slaughtered. There was public outrage over it. But in the scene just before the rabbit slaughter, a man is shot dead. Moore never received any complaints over that scene.


A you tube comment on the scene.
When I saw this movie in the theater, everyone(myself included) cringed when this woman killed and skinned the rabbit but when the guy in Flint was gunned down by the police everyone laughed. I thought about that later when the movie was over and was sick to my stomach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3gvHWf7ldY

Yeah Yeah Yeah

Thank you JC.

"No, I don't level accusations of psychopathy at people I haven't assessed."

I presume from your above comment that you are a qualified/practicing/in training psychologist or similar?

"Personality disorders can be worked with, but with only mediocre results mostly."

I'm wondering is this your personal opinion, or one that is profesionally accepted as being the norm?

Thanks for your comments.

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Yes, psychopathy exists.



QUOTE]

TrollHammaren

OP, whipping out a DSM and ticking all the boxes doesn't allow for an accurate diagnosis. It takes a trained psychologist/psychiatrist to determine whether those traits are pathological. Pop psychologists may have you believe that a number of high-profile individuals are psychopaths, but unless they're formally diagnosed they're mostly likely not.

sambuka41

TrollHammaren wrote: »

but unless they're formally diagnosed they're mostly likely not.

I wonder how many would be diagnosed? How often does the criminal system crossover with the psychiatric???
(genuine question, is it mandatory to engage in assessments or services in the criminal system?)

TrollHammaren

sambuka41 wrote: »

I wonder how many would be diagnosed? How often does the criminal system crossover with the psychiatric???
(genuine question, is it mandatory to engage in assessments or services in the criminal system?)

In order for someone like that to be diagnosed they would need to have had reason to visit a psychiatrist. I'm always skeptical of a huge amount of psychology, particularly pop psychology. A lot of pop psychs claim high up individuals in society are psychopaths because theoretically they tick the boxes and it always makes for an interesting story.

I highly doubt it's common practice to screen people convicted of offences for psychiatric disorders as so much research has shown a massively elevated prevalence of disorders such as ADHD and specific learning disorders in the prison system.

sambuka41

TrollHammaren wrote: »

In order for someone like that to be diagnosed they would need to have had reason to visit a psychiatrist. I'm always skeptical of a huge amount of psychology, particularly pop psychology. A lot of pop psychs claim high up individuals in society are psychopaths because theoretically they tick the boxes and it always makes for an interesting story.

I highly doubt it's common practice to screen people convicted of offences for psychiatric disorders as so much research has shown a massively elevated prevalence of disorders such as ADHD and specific learning disorders in the prison system.

Yeah I agree with the pop psychologists diagnosing people from a distance, its not good for many reasons.

But I can see how it may be difficult for a diagnosis to be made for people with ASPD unless its done through the prison system. Hare's psychopath's who are violent, for the most part have grown up on the fringes of society, maybe underprivileged backgrounds that include violence against them, so I'm trying to imagine an instance where they would engage with a psychiatrist. Of course thats a bit of a generalisation but as regards numbers of people accessing services themselves I can see how they might be low.

krd

TrollHammaren wrote: »

In order for someone like that to be diagnosed they would need to have had reason to visit a psychiatrist.

Psychopathy is gauged more by what someone does. They don't present themselves in crisis at mental health services. They don't really have a problem - it's those who are unfortunate to interact with them do.

I'm always skeptical of a huge amount of psychology, particularly pop psychology.

A lot of pop psychs claim high up individuals in society are psychopaths because theoretically they tick the boxes and it always makes for an interesting story.

Pop psychologists like who? And do you have any specific examples.

You're not calling Robert Hare a pop psychologist, are you.


If 1% of the population are psychopaths, that's a very significant number of people.

I personally believe I have come into contact with two psychopaths in my life. Maybe I've met more - I just didn't know it.

The vast majority of people are completely taken in by psychopaths.

There's a strong possibility many mental health professionals are psychopaths. I would say it's a profession that attracts them. And reading recently about a certain cult like course run in Ireland (I probably don't need to spell out who that is) - the people running do sound like psychopaths.

People who are good at climbing through organisations are not necessarily bad people. But some very bad people are incredibly good at doing it.

And lots of bad people are not psychopaths. They're just pathetic specimens of human beings. I have no empirical way of gauging, I do know many people are not very nice. They may on occasion, or often, behave like psychopaths - I think where the difference ultimately lies, is psychopaths behave like psychopaths always.

r3nu4l

This reminds me of the manner in which Bipolar disorder is often called the 'CEO disease'. I don't know if there's any credible scientific evidence to support that assertion but there have certainly been high-profile CEOs with bipolar disorder and yet many who either don't have or have not being diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

I'd like to see the clinical studies that show a significantly higher number of psychopaths become successful politicians and businessmen than say the number of psychopaths who become scientists, musicians or refuse collectors...

krd

r3nu4l wrote: »

This reminds me of the manner in which Bipolar disorder is often called the 'CEO disease'. I don't know if there's any credible scientific evidence to support that assertion but there have certainly been high-profile CEOs with bipolar disorder and yet many who either don't have or have not being diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

I've never heard of bi-polar disorder being associated with CEOs. It's not really the kind of condition that would work well for someone in the business world.

I'd like to see the clinical studies that show a significantly higher number of psychopaths become successful politicians and businessmen than say the number of psychopaths who become scientists, musicians or refuse collectors...

Psychopathy is not like depression, or schizophrenia, or obsessive compulsive disorder. Or athletes foot.

It's hard to detect, because the psychopath is usually very high functioning. They're only recognised for the chaos, mayhem and harm the cause to other people.

I would be nearly willing to put money on it. That a trained clinician, who can spot depression, schizophrenia, OCD, would not be able to determine a psychopath to be a psychopath just by interviewing them. They'd likely be charmed by their glibness and think they're a swell guy or gal.

r3nu4l

krd wrote: »

I've never heard of bi-polar disorder being associated with CEOs. It's not really the kind of condition that would work well for someone in the business world.

GIYF

TED.com mention

It's an idea that seems to be gaining currency in the US but to be honest, I think it's a pile of horse manure which is the point I was making regarding psychopaths being over-represented in business etc.

Psychopathy is not like depression, or schizophrenia, or obsessive compulsive disorder. Or athletes foot.

It's hard to detect, because the psychopath is usually very high functioning. They're only recognised for the chaos, mayhem and harm the cause to other people.

Indeed, but I'd like to see some evidence from all of those psychopaths who have been recognised as such as to their role in life and their career. How many recognised psychopaths have been successful in politics and business and how does that compare to non-psychopaths at the same level and in other walks of life.

I would be nearly willing to put money on it. That a trained clinician, who can spot depression, schizophrenia, OCD, would not be able to determine a psychopath to be a psychopath just by interviewing them. They'd likely be charmed by their glibness and think they're a swell guy or gal.

Exactly. Equally just because someone shares some of the traits of a psychopath does not make them a psychopath. Therefore, again, I'd like to see some actual evidence for the claim that the ranks of highly successful politicians and businessmen are stuffed full of psychopaths.


EDIT: Oh and by the way, the google search I linked above shows exactly why the internet can be a terrible tool for research by those not trained in research methods or critical thinking

krd

r3nu4l wrote: »

It's an idea that seems to be gaining currency in the US but to be honest, I think it's a pile of horse manure which is the point I was making regarding psychopaths being over-represented in business etc.

I think there might be an over-diagnosis of bi-polar. It's probably not the best condition to suit the world of work. The thing is. Everyone gets a little
manic and a little depressed from time to time. Being moody and irrational doesn't mean there's anything really wrong with you. If bi-polar was common in CEO's we'd hear mad stories, of CEOs going manic and taking the corporate jet down to some Polynesian island, blowing the petty cash on mad stuff. It generally does not happen.

The reason psychopaths might be over-represented in business could be a case of their traits nicely dovetailing with the way some businesses operate. It may also be the structure of businesses suits psychopaths. In businesses, people who are not psychopaths, will attempt to destroy their rivals to get ahead. It's easier for a psychopath to do this, as they have no remorse - they're not troubled by their actions.

Indeed, but I'd like to see some evidence from all of those psychopaths who have been recognised as such as to their role in life and their career.

It's hard to know. As far as I am aware, there is only one definitive test for psychopathy. It involves brain scans, and administering 50 volt shocks - it's kind of deemed unethical.

The thing with psychopaths, is it's not one thing - it's a whole cluster that adds up. Bernie Madoff might be a psychopath. He may not.

It's really hard to know. One of the things about psychopaths is how good they are at masking it. And some of the masking is recognised as traits - you could meet someone, who appears to be very selfless and charitable, but they could in fact be very evil.

Glibness is something to really watch for. Even people who are not psychopaths, will put on a glib act to sucker people.

Bernie Madoff rings a few bells. Bernie was at his scam for over 40 years without getting caught. All his clients thought he was a lovely guy. He used to sell his "service" with a kind of glib down homeyness - he was very active in charities. This is a good one - people automatically assume that if someone has involvement in a charity, they must be a nice guy - they suspend critical judgement. But this is a really common trick among fraudsters - they associate themselves with charities to trick people. The huge ponzi scam in Romania in the 90s was called Caritas. Latin for charity. It was part of the trick.

How many recognised psychopaths have been successful in politics and business and how does that compare to non-psychopaths at the same level and in other walks of life.

I don't think psychopaths are that common in democratic politics. But you will find psychopathic behaviour in dictators and in dictatorships.

Exactly. Equally just because someone shares some of the traits of a psychopath does not make them a psychopath. Therefore, again, I'd like to see some actual evidence for the claim that the ranks of highly successful politicians and businessmen are stuffed full of psychopaths.

Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, Gaddaffi, Suharto, Castro. Funnily enough, Hitler was democratically elected. I have a theory that psychopaths, and people who consistently use psychopathic behaviour can only get so far in democratic politics before they hoist themselves by their own petard.


As for business. I think the estimate is that 5% of CEOs are psychopaths. If 1% of the population are psychopaths, it just means there's five times as many psychopaths in the CEO population as there is in the general population.

No one is saying that all people in business are psychopaths.

But if you're in a large business. say employing 100 people. On average there could be one psychopath in the office. You may not notice - but if you find yourself in the way of their career, you might find out pretty quickly. Well you might not. They could be very pleasant to your face - but working relentlessly behind the scenes to undermine you.

The more people become aware of what a psychopath is - the more information on psychopaths there is in the popular domain - the harder it might be to spot psychopaths, as they'll get better at hiding. That's happened in instances where there has been attempts to treat psychopaths - they became worse, but better at hiding it.

krd

laffop wrote: »

beware the charmer with too many stories and whos emotions just dont sit right, over reacting over silly things and not effected by significant stressors

*cough".....that sounds like me.