Diagnosis sociopath: mask of sanity
(cont.)
The publication of Cleckley’s text, The Mask of Sanity (1941), marked the beginning of the modern clinical construct of psychopathy, and his characterization has remained relatively stable to the present day. Cleckley based his description of the psychopath on observations of White, middle-class male patients, residing as inpatients of a mental hospital. The conceptualization of the psychopath by Cleckley focused on the patient’s intrapersonal characteristics or “inferred, nonobservable, processes."
Cleckley recognized that many psychopaths never became involved with the criminal justice system. Moreover, many could succeed in business or in other endeavors, particularly in those careers that offered considerable material success. Cleckley observed that the primary psychopathic characteristics of glibness, superficial charm, emotional detachment, and lack of remorse or guilt could be used for successful criminal or noncriminal careers. Psychopaths can pursue what they want without experiencing anxiety attributable to a concern for how their actions might impact others.
In the wake of Cleckley’s findings, the word psychopath became popular among laypersons as well as mental health professionals. Ellard attributes this notoriety to the term’s status as both an explanation for and a cause of depraved and frequent criminal behavior. He cautions, however, that this logic was as inherently circular and suspect during Cleckley’s period as it is today. Illustrating the tautological nature of Cleckley’s psychopath, Ellard questions, “Why has this man done these terrible things? Because he is a psychopath. And how do you know that he is a psychopath? Because he has done these terrible things”.
.
Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.
(cont.)
A baby is a baby because it hasn't grown up yet.
ReplyDeleteIt hasn't grown up yet because it's a baby.
Here's another one for you.
Idiot (n)
1. A person who is a moron.
Moron (n)
2. A person who is idiotic.
Here's another.
ReplyDeleteI know he's has cancer because the tests on the giant ass tumor growing out of his nuts came back positive.
The tests on the giant ass tumor growing out of his hairy ass nutsack came back positive BECAUSE HE HAS CANCER!
OH NOEZ!!!! CANCER IS FAKE!!!
DDERRRRRRR!!!
For the love of all that is holy, start quoting people with functional brains.
Peter, I can see why and how you are confused.
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion you can take out of the quote is that a psychopath is a person who does terrible things.
ReplyDeleteSo, if you know that someone is a psychopath then he might do terrible things, case in which you are aware of the danger.
On the opposite side, if someone does terrible things, he might be a psychopath, case in which you seek treatment or whatever.
The term psychopath is standing in the middle. If you want to know what causes this condition you should look in the brain chemistry field for an explanation.
This guy's logic is however primitive, searching for a way to stop the behaviour and the cause of it instead of controlling it.
END.
There's no confusion on my part.
ReplyDeleteThe guy called a basic cause and effect relationship circular logic.
You have the effect becuase of the cause, and you know you have the cause because of the effect. Thus, your reasoning is flawed/circular.
That's a really moronic thing to say, especially when you're speaking with the authority of an expert. Idiots everywhere will assume that what you're saying is true and find fault with the entire concept of psychopathy, particularly because the obvious problems of accuracy superficially appear to add credence to his statements. The only real problem is our lack of understanding of the disorder. As the poster above suggested, we need to know more about the underlying causes and mechanics so we can devise more accurate and definitive tests.
This is not at all what Ellard the Idiot was saying.
Again, M.E., please start quoting people with functional brains.
You'd have to have a functional brain to be able to tell the difference.
ReplyDeleteCleckley observed that the primary psychopathic characteristics of glibness, superficial charm, emotional detachment, and lack of remorse or guilt could be used for successful criminal or noncriminal careers. Psychopaths can pursue what they want without experiencing anxiety attributable to a concern for how their actions might impact others.
ReplyDeleteSo, if you know that someone is a psychopath then he might do terrible things, case in which you are aware of the danger.
On the opposite side, if someone does terrible things, he might be a psychopath, case in which you seek treatment or whatever.
in other words anyone one with the primary psychopathic characteristics and ability to pursue what they want anxiety free is a psychopath, whether they have done terrible things or not?