Showing posts with label psychopathy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychopathy. Show all posts
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Sociopaths and animals (part 2)
My response:
You're right, I feel like there is a lot of emphasis on animal cruelty in the diagnostic criteria for psychopaths, typically juvenile cruelty. Does animal cruelty only appeas to a juvenile psychopath's mind? Or they shift their cruel behavior to humans as they age?
I myself have no affection for animals, certainly no greater affinity for them than I would have for any person. Still I don't go out of my way to hurt or kill them, but I have also never shied away from it when the situation called for it. For instance, I don't have the urge to kill a chicken just to see its blood spill, but no problem killing it to slaughter it for food. I am the type of person that would kill a neighbor's barking dog if I knew there would be no negative repercussions from it.
I saw this on some site: "I know one sociopath who really likes her Preying Mantis and doesn't like dogs. An enjoyment of dogs generally requires some degree of caring, empathy--characteristics devoid in sociopaths." Maybe. I just don't understand the appeal of animals, other than their pure utilitarian value. But I love children and inanimate objects, so I'm not judging or anything.
i've also been thinking, though, in regards to everyone that asks me if they are a sociopath or not. my thought is this, either you believe that sociopaths exist, or you don't, you think that they are self-aware narcissists or have ADD or asperger's or autism or are borderline or manic depressive or schizoid, or not loved as a children, guarded, unemotional, or the myriad of other "disorders" that if you stack them on top of each other in the right combinations could explain everything a sociopath is. but if you believe that 1-4% of the population has a condition called
"sociopathy," then ask yourself -- in a room full of 100 people, am i the most coldhearted, remorseless bastard in that room? if the answer is yes, than that is probably a good indication that you are a sociopath. if no, or if maybe, then you probably aren't, or your aren't enough to really be concerned about it. and as many have said before, labels do not have any intrinsic value, just the value from being able to explore the truth about yourself and others.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Sociopaths and animals (part 1)
A reader asks:
Dear ME,
After reading your website, I've come to believe that I'm possibly a mild sociopath. Not only is my world view and general behavior in many ways consistent with a sociopath but my childhood and teen years definitely have featured the kind of social rejection consistent with the development of this disorder. However one thing keeps on bugging me. A commonly described characteristic of sociopaths is cruelty to animals. But I have never been cruel to animals. In fact, I feel a profound love for animals of all kinds, even going out of my way to kill many species of bugs. In my childhood, I bought a pet snake, because I thought it would be cool but ended up in tears when I first watched my snake constrict a baby mouse. Indeed, seeing animals in pain or seeing people behave cruelly towards them has always been upsetting to me.
Is it even possible for an actual sociopath to feel this kind of strong connection to animals? Let me reiterate that my feelings towards humans are almost completely opposite: I'm a total misanthrope and have no faith at all in human nature. My theory for this dissonance is that, while humans have always treated me like shit, even though I've been nothing but kind to them, animals have always reciprocated my friendliness. One recent anecdote serves as a kind of mise en abyme for my entire relationship with animals. A girl I'd been hooking up with had inexplicably broken things off with me. I left her residence in tears, and collapsed in the woods outside her house. It was cold and I was sobbing in the darkness when I heard something coming towards me. One of the cats that lived at her house had followed me and rubbed it's face affectionately against my body, purring as it nuzzled back and forth. The cat was there to comfort me when the human had broken my heart. And that pretty much encapsulates my relationship with animals throughout life.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Responsibility
Irresponsibility is supposed to be a sociopathic trait. I often wonder why, or what it means. I feel like I am fairly responsible. I excelled in life, I paid my debts, I fully funded my retirement by the time I was 30. Looking at just those things, I seem exceptionally responsible.
The other day I saw a college-aged kid with his parents. He had opened a rear car door, only to have a ceramic vase fall out and shatter on the ground. The kid just laughed about it. His father was very angry and started yelling, but the kid started yelling back that it wasn't his fault, that the vase must have have shifted while they were driving. The mom corrected him, "yes it is your fault, but you broke it accidentally," but the kid refused to take any of the blame. "No one is at fault here, there is no fault."
I found this to be such an interesting perspective -- no one is at fault? From where I was standing, I could see that the car door had a window -- the son could have easily seen that the vase was leaning up against the door if he had taken the time to see. He boy knew or should have known that there were risks, that he behaved recklessly. To me, the boy clearly seemed to be at fault, just as his mother said.
Maybe he wasn't morally in the wrong for the vase, whatever that would have meant, but clearly he was the cause of the destruction of the case and could have easily prevented it by being more cautious, or securing the vase when it was first loaded, or arranging other transportation for the vase, or wrapping the vase up, or packing it in a box, or any number of different options that he could have chosen that would have protected it from being destroyed.
The more I thought about it, the more I wondered -- why would the boy even want to believe that no one was at fault? When something goes wrong in my life, I always try to look for something I did wrong because that means that there is something I could do better next time to potentially avoid the negative event. Taking responsibility for yourself, for your actions, equates to taking control -- you determine your destiny, you choose what happens in your life. Being irresponsible makes you a victim. You don't make things happen, they happen to you, all you can do is hope and pray to be spared true calamity.
I just don't see why, given that sociopaths are primarily motivated by power, that sociopaths would be irresponsible like this boy with the vase. It doesn't make sense to me. Maybe when they include irresponsible in the diagnostic criteria it is because sociopaths tend to blame others as a sympathy play? Maybe because most sociopaths that are studied are incarcerated and every prisoner thinks they are innocent of whatever crime they supposedly committed? Maybe because sociopaths don't see anything morally wrong in what they do? Or we try to work the system, which sometimes includes parasitic behavior? But lack of responsibility is sort of a weird phrase to encapsulate all of that. Because we are very aware of the consequences of our actions, it's what helps us to play the games we play as well as we play them.
The other day I saw a college-aged kid with his parents. He had opened a rear car door, only to have a ceramic vase fall out and shatter on the ground. The kid just laughed about it. His father was very angry and started yelling, but the kid started yelling back that it wasn't his fault, that the vase must have have shifted while they were driving. The mom corrected him, "yes it is your fault, but you broke it accidentally," but the kid refused to take any of the blame. "No one is at fault here, there is no fault."
I found this to be such an interesting perspective -- no one is at fault? From where I was standing, I could see that the car door had a window -- the son could have easily seen that the vase was leaning up against the door if he had taken the time to see. He boy knew or should have known that there were risks, that he behaved recklessly. To me, the boy clearly seemed to be at fault, just as his mother said.
Maybe he wasn't morally in the wrong for the vase, whatever that would have meant, but clearly he was the cause of the destruction of the case and could have easily prevented it by being more cautious, or securing the vase when it was first loaded, or arranging other transportation for the vase, or wrapping the vase up, or packing it in a box, or any number of different options that he could have chosen that would have protected it from being destroyed.
The more I thought about it, the more I wondered -- why would the boy even want to believe that no one was at fault? When something goes wrong in my life, I always try to look for something I did wrong because that means that there is something I could do better next time to potentially avoid the negative event. Taking responsibility for yourself, for your actions, equates to taking control -- you determine your destiny, you choose what happens in your life. Being irresponsible makes you a victim. You don't make things happen, they happen to you, all you can do is hope and pray to be spared true calamity.
I just don't see why, given that sociopaths are primarily motivated by power, that sociopaths would be irresponsible like this boy with the vase. It doesn't make sense to me. Maybe when they include irresponsible in the diagnostic criteria it is because sociopaths tend to blame others as a sympathy play? Maybe because most sociopaths that are studied are incarcerated and every prisoner thinks they are innocent of whatever crime they supposedly committed? Maybe because sociopaths don't see anything morally wrong in what they do? Or we try to work the system, which sometimes includes parasitic behavior? But lack of responsibility is sort of a weird phrase to encapsulate all of that. Because we are very aware of the consequences of our actions, it's what helps us to play the games we play as well as we play them.
Monday, June 14, 2010
I'm not a crook
From Friday's NY Times, an article with accusations of potential censorship against everyone's favorite psychopath scholar with a monopoly on this poorly understood disorder, Robert Hare, regarding his alleged overemphasis of criminality in the PCL-R:
Academic disputes usually flare out in the safety of obscure journals, raising no more than a few tempers, if not voices. But a paper published this week by the American Psychological Association has managed to raise questions of censorship, academic fraud, fair play and criminal sentencing — and all them well before the report ever became public.The abstract of the offending paper:
The paper is a critique of a rating scale that is widely used in criminal courts to determine whether a person is a psychopath and likely to commit acts of violence. It was accepted for publication in a psychological journal in 2007, but the inventor of the rating scale saw a draft and threatened a lawsuit if it was published, setting in motion a stultifying series of reviews, revisions and legal correspondence.
***
The inventor of the clinical test, Robert D. Hare, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, sees a different principle at stake.
“The main issue here is that these authors misrepresented my views by distorting things I said,” he said in a telephone interview. “I have been doing this work for 40 years and never seen anything like it.”
***
The paper — “Is Criminal Behavior a Central Component of Psychopathy?” — was circulated widely among forensic psychologists well before publication. Experts say the scientific issue it raises is an important one.
Dr. Hare’s clinical scale, called the Psychopathy Checklist, Revised, is one of the few, if not the only, psychological measures in forensic science with any scientific backing. Dr. Hare receives royalties when the checklist is used; he called the income it generated “modest” compared with providing paid expert testimony — which he said he does not do.
Dr. Skeem and Dr. Cooke warned in their paper that the checklist was increasingly being mistaken for a complete definition of psychopathy — a broader personality construct that includes deceitfulness, impulsivity and recklessness, though not always aggression or illegal acts. The authors contended that Dr. Hare’s checklist warps that concept by making criminal behavior a more central component than it really is.
Dr. Hare maintains that he has stressed “problematic, not antisocial or criminal, behavior” and that his comments were distorted.
Dr. Skeem said she was “just worn out” by the prolonged dispute.
“When we first wrote the paper,” she said, “we saw it simply as a call to the field to recognize we were going down a path where we were equating an abstract concept with a checklist, and it was preventing us from looking at the concept more closely.”
The report appears in the June issue of the journal Psychological Assessment — that is, along with a rebuttal by Dr. Hare, and a return response from Dr. Skeem and Dr. Cooke.
The development of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 2003) has fueled intense clinical interest in the construct of psychopathy. Unfortunately, a side effect of this interest has been conceptual confusion and, in particular, the conflating of measures with constructs. Indeed, the field is in danger of equating the PCL-R with the theoretical construct of psychopathy. A key point in the debate is whether criminal behavior is a central component, or mere downstream correlate, of psychopathy. In this article, the authors present conceptual directions for resolving this debate. First, factor analysis of PCL-R items in a theoretical vacuum cannot reveal the essence of psychopathy. Second, a myth about the PCL-R and its relation to violence must be examined to avoid the view that psychopathy is merely a violent variant of antisocial personality disorder. Third, a formal, iterative process between theory development and empirical validation must be adopted. Fundamentally, constructs and measures must be recognized as separate entities, and neither reified. Applying such principles to the current state of the field, the authors believe the evidence favors viewing criminal behavior as a correlate, not a component, of psychopathy.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
What once was lost
There are all sorts of weird side effects of my condition. For instance, I have a genius for finding things things that other people have lost. If I know a person well enough, I have a pretty accurate idea of the way their mind works -- I have all the formulas and patterns that explain the bulk of their behavior, I just need to plug in a certain unknowns to get a very accurate prediction of their future or present behavior. The only time normal people really see this at work is when I am helping them find something that they lost (sometimes emotionally, but in this case physically).
I recently received important mail at work that had been misplaced. Many people had remembered seeing it. Even I remembered seeing it on a particular surface. I casually questioned people, narrowed it down to a few leads, asked a few more questions -- this time hypothetical questions all based around what could have happened to the mail. Within 30 minutes of discovering that the mail was missing, I was able to locate it in a specific trash can in the office before it got emptied.
My most impressive "find," though, didn't involve any questions at all. I was on vacation with friends. At the airport, one of these friends was concerned that he had lost his glasses -- he had apparently been looking for them all morning, and they could have been anywhere. When I heard about it I immediately asked him, did you check in the top of the cooler? He looked, there they were. How did I know? I just know this person very well: very concerned about glasses, no glass case, safe and secure pouch in the top of the cooler, if I were him (and i mean actually him, not just if *i* were in his position) that is where I would have put the glasses. Sometimes I am amazed that people aren't able to do this for even their own selves.
It's a little thing to find some physical object that is lost, but I think it's illustrative of how scarily accurate my knowledge of someone can be. This hyper-awareness of others must be a primary distinction between us and those on the autism spectrum or the narcissists, or as you will see it on many diagnostic criteria, "charming and seductive." And yet society still loves aspies more (I feel my cain-complex flaring up again).
I recently received important mail at work that had been misplaced. Many people had remembered seeing it. Even I remembered seeing it on a particular surface. I casually questioned people, narrowed it down to a few leads, asked a few more questions -- this time hypothetical questions all based around what could have happened to the mail. Within 30 minutes of discovering that the mail was missing, I was able to locate it in a specific trash can in the office before it got emptied.
My most impressive "find," though, didn't involve any questions at all. I was on vacation with friends. At the airport, one of these friends was concerned that he had lost his glasses -- he had apparently been looking for them all morning, and they could have been anywhere. When I heard about it I immediately asked him, did you check in the top of the cooler? He looked, there they were. How did I know? I just know this person very well: very concerned about glasses, no glass case, safe and secure pouch in the top of the cooler, if I were him (and i mean actually him, not just if *i* were in his position) that is where I would have put the glasses. Sometimes I am amazed that people aren't able to do this for even their own selves.
It's a little thing to find some physical object that is lost, but I think it's illustrative of how scarily accurate my knowledge of someone can be. This hyper-awareness of others must be a primary distinction between us and those on the autism spectrum or the narcissists, or as you will see it on many diagnostic criteria, "charming and seductive." And yet society still loves aspies more (I feel my cain-complex flaring up again).
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Speeding through the turns
Sometimes when I am driving I want to take chances, drive aggressively, get a rush. I want to push the limits, I want to feel the danger. I don't choose to speed, though. or I don't speed in the straightaways. I think that is too obvious, and I'd be worried about getting a speeding ticket or worse. Speeding is so cut and dry a rule that it is very apparent when people are breaking it. Going excessively fast through a turn, though, you get all of the rush you're after, without obviously breaking any rule. Those little signs giving the suggested speed for a turn are just that -- suggestions. And even if they weren't, the turns go too quick for anyone to clock you. There is obviously still the chance of losing control, harm and injury to yourself or others, but that is what you are after, why you are doing it in the first place. This is the appeal of speeding through turns -- smaller likelihood of getting caught, or least having a decent excuse if you do get caught: you didn't expect the turn to be so sharp, you are unfamiliar with this stretch of road, you did not see the warning signs. It is harder to explain away something like extreme speeding.
I feel like I live my life this way. I don't tend to explicitly break rules. Rather I look for loopholes, areas of exploitation in the social fabric. I want to have a ready made excuse when I get caught. I try to have the bad things I do intentionally be things that other people do mistakenly or accidentally.
Maybe this is why I don't feel fear -- I always have an escape plan. I've had a doctor try to diagnose me with anxiety disorder before based on this obsession with escape and certain physical markers. I thought it was laughably inaccurate when I heard it -- I have such a low fear response, never get nervous, a healthy death wish, etc. But the more I thought about it, I realized that I do get anxious, particularly in crowds or with strangers, something that I had always credited to my fear of mobs or clear vision of the horrors of which seemingly "normal" people are capable. But I wonder if this is just indicative of a very healthy survival instinct, something that has largely become obsolete in the modern world of few avoidable hazards, but something that still has great use for someone like me. Maybe even the secret to my success.
I feel like I live my life this way. I don't tend to explicitly break rules. Rather I look for loopholes, areas of exploitation in the social fabric. I want to have a ready made excuse when I get caught. I try to have the bad things I do intentionally be things that other people do mistakenly or accidentally.
Maybe this is why I don't feel fear -- I always have an escape plan. I've had a doctor try to diagnose me with anxiety disorder before based on this obsession with escape and certain physical markers. I thought it was laughably inaccurate when I heard it -- I have such a low fear response, never get nervous, a healthy death wish, etc. But the more I thought about it, I realized that I do get anxious, particularly in crowds or with strangers, something that I had always credited to my fear of mobs or clear vision of the horrors of which seemingly "normal" people are capable. But I wonder if this is just indicative of a very healthy survival instinct, something that has largely become obsolete in the modern world of few avoidable hazards, but something that still has great use for someone like me. Maybe even the secret to my success.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Sociopath quote of the day: outplay
"You might get lucky and beat me, but you'll never outplay me."
-- Chris Ferguson, a.k.a. Jesus, poker champion
-- Chris Ferguson, a.k.a. Jesus, poker champion
Friday, June 4, 2010
Thoughts on versatility
The versatility of the human personality is far, far underestimated. We're raised to believe and to put faith in the fact that people are special, that we have some greater meaning of life, and that we serve some purpose of design. Growing up is a process of finding out that it's all bunk; that we really are just animals with animalistic goals and with animal desires. However, by the time we realize this about our lives, we've already spent a long time carefully dividing our conscious from our sub-conscious, instinct from fitting into the social norm, and being socially accepted from being happy. Suppression (sexual as Freud would say) causes the intricacies of the personality to develop through adolescence. Any empath or emotional being would tell you that this separation somehow makes them special. That these intricacies make them unique. In reality, each suppression is met by a compensation of the subconscious, and each compensation is predetermined in our chemical make-up. Jung would call this the collective unconscious, where similar human traits, natures, instincts etc are stored.
What any empath would call a soul, originality, or spirit, the sociopath and reality would call instinct, function, and science. Having no delusions of purpose, the sociopath mind is unclouded by such "human" or "spiritual" demands and simply functions. This function illustrates with regularity what myths and universal themes illustrate on a sociological scale. The sociopath puts people into classifications and predicts their actions as a creation myth presents symbolic representations of the developmental standards that people follow. Recurring themes in stories are recurring subconscious traits. These themes are not coincidence, nor are they when they are implemented on a singular scale.
The sociopath has a very real grasp of reality minus the symbolism. They understand that life as they know it is here for them, their happiness, and their well-being. They never lose too much sight of their instinct because they never try too hard to suppress it. This lack of suppression leaves the aspects of their personality already intact. So while other people are going off discovering their subconcious, and inner self, sociopaths are using their desire for finding meaning and their self deception as a tool to get what they want. This selfishness is not bad, but simply the only good that people can ever really hope to achieve with their life.
While the Empath desperately clings to belief, faith, love, God, meaning and other such trite and worthless sentimentalities, the sociopath has reacted already as nature simply intended them to do. Those who really grow up, grow up to realize that they are merely an assorted amount of traits, factors and actions that nature designed specifically to react specifically to promote life. Those who suppress more of themselves have more sub-conscious reactions, easily exploited.
Versatility is something we are all capable of. The traits compiled by nature are predetermined. Any time you suppress a conscious desire, you replace it with a subconscious reaction. And vice versa. Any time something consciously unbearable happens, your subconscious compensates. Neuroses, compulsions, etc. are examples of sick, overly suppressed minds. Perhaps the healthy versatility of the sociopath is an example of a healthy mind, and the goal in the long run is simply to figure out that it all really meant nothing. Perhaps the sociopath is just farther advanced, or more "naturally" balanced.
What any empath would call a soul, originality, or spirit, the sociopath and reality would call instinct, function, and science. Having no delusions of purpose, the sociopath mind is unclouded by such "human" or "spiritual" demands and simply functions. This function illustrates with regularity what myths and universal themes illustrate on a sociological scale. The sociopath puts people into classifications and predicts their actions as a creation myth presents symbolic representations of the developmental standards that people follow. Recurring themes in stories are recurring subconscious traits. These themes are not coincidence, nor are they when they are implemented on a singular scale.
The sociopath has a very real grasp of reality minus the symbolism. They understand that life as they know it is here for them, their happiness, and their well-being. They never lose too much sight of their instinct because they never try too hard to suppress it. This lack of suppression leaves the aspects of their personality already intact. So while other people are going off discovering their subconcious, and inner self, sociopaths are using their desire for finding meaning and their self deception as a tool to get what they want. This selfishness is not bad, but simply the only good that people can ever really hope to achieve with their life.
While the Empath desperately clings to belief, faith, love, God, meaning and other such trite and worthless sentimentalities, the sociopath has reacted already as nature simply intended them to do. Those who really grow up, grow up to realize that they are merely an assorted amount of traits, factors and actions that nature designed specifically to react specifically to promote life. Those who suppress more of themselves have more sub-conscious reactions, easily exploited.
Versatility is something we are all capable of. The traits compiled by nature are predetermined. Any time you suppress a conscious desire, you replace it with a subconscious reaction. And vice versa. Any time something consciously unbearable happens, your subconscious compensates. Neuroses, compulsions, etc. are examples of sick, overly suppressed minds. Perhaps the healthy versatility of the sociopath is an example of a healthy mind, and the goal in the long run is simply to figure out that it all really meant nothing. Perhaps the sociopath is just farther advanced, or more "naturally" balanced.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The pro-social sociopath?
I found this recent comment on an old post. It raised an interesting question of whether sociopaths can ever be "pro-social" despite being clinically labeled antisocial. The reader explains it thusly:
I don't fit the textbook description of "antisocial personality disorder". That's because there appear to be two types of sociopaths... intelligent ones and stupid ones. The stupid ones break the law (and get caught), lie (and get caught), hurt people (and get caught), and therefore have relationship problems, etc - and get the psychiatric label. Intelligent ones, on the other hand, become politicians, businessmen, etc. At least I assume they do, because not being stupid, they don't get labeled with a psychiatric disorder.This is not the first time I have heard of a pro-social sociopath fitting almost exactly this description, even apart from my own self. But there is also another very simple explanation for this that keeps everything people think they know about sociopaths -- just categorically exclude all of these people from the definition. If you otherwise fit all of the diagnostic criteria for being a sociopath, but have ever done something good in your life that didn't immediately benefit you and only you, we'll call you a social-apath. No?
So with my definitions, I'm an "intelligent" sociopath. I don't have problems with drugs, I don't commit crimes, I don't take pleasure in hurting people, and I don't typically have relationship problems. I do have a complete lack of empathy. But I consider that an advantage, most of the time.
Do I know the difference between right and wrong, and do I want to be good? Sure. One catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. A peaceful and orderly world is a more comfortable world for me to live in. So do I avoid breaking the law because it's "right"? No, I avoid breaking the law because it makes sense. I suppose if I weren't gifted with the ability to make a lot of money in a profession doing what I like, I might try and profit by crime. But with my profession, I'd have to really hit the criminal jackpot to make it worth a life of crime.
When you're bad to people, they're bad back to you. I'm no Christian, but "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you" works.
So to any other sociopaths out there reading this... don't be an idiot.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Haitian rape
This is somewhat of a follow up to an idea I sort of hinted at in my last post, the idea that sociopaths possibly succumb to temptation less than empaths do, such that proportionally we yield to temptation less than normal people do (i.e. fewer indiscretions per temptation), if not necessarily less in terms of raw numbers. I think there is some evidence for this -- that empaths are also quite inclined to commit crimes, they just see fewer opportunities than sociopaths do. I think the strongest evidence for this comes from times of war or other social strife when the fabric of society has broken down to the point that people are basically getting away with murder.
I read a statistic recently that 20% of the violent crimes committed after the Haitian earthquake were rapes, and that 11% of the population knows someone who was raped. It makes sense. Whenever there is unrest, whenever they can get away with something, people exploit the situation by looting whatever there is of value. In a situation like Haiti post earthquake, there isn't much more of value besides other people. For your pleasure, from this article:
I read a statistic recently that 20% of the violent crimes committed after the Haitian earthquake were rapes, and that 11% of the population knows someone who was raped. It makes sense. Whenever there is unrest, whenever they can get away with something, people exploit the situation by looting whatever there is of value. In a situation like Haiti post earthquake, there isn't much more of value besides other people. For your pleasure, from this article:
But women are not the only victims that are falling prey to sexual predators. According to the AP, two small girls ages 7 and 2-years-old were victims of rape attacks and as of Monday (March 16), leaving the toddler taking antibiotics for a gonorrhea infection of the mouth.Lest we think that this uptick in rapes is earthquake specific (men mad with grief at the loss of a wife turning to rape?), any sort of social upheaval will do:
"We are aware of problem ... but it's not a priority," Information Minister Marie-Laurence Jocelyn Lassegue said last month.
Rapes, which have been a big problem in Haiti even before the earthquake, were frequently was used as a political weapon in times of upheaval. Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the first democratically elected president, was ousted twice after his enemies assassinated his male supporters and raped their wives and daughters.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Lie to me
I've finally gotten around to watching the television drama "Lie to Me," where they detect lies by reading microexpressions. It's sort of making me nervous. I realize that like all fictional depictions of science, the good guys are going to have a success rate of almost always, when in real life the accuracy of these methods is not nearly as high. Still, I'm worried. When I say I fake emotions well, I mean well enough to get by in a world where people assume that I am having normal emotions and/or don't care. My skills are not good enough to withstand this sort of close scrutiny.
The show also portrays the struggle that occurs when one person can intuit things about another person that that person doesn't want to be known. First, it's hard to be the one intuiting, to look the other way, to pretend you don't see what is happening, or to be presented with the temptation of using that information for your own gain and to not yield to that temptation. Second, it is hard for the person being read to not conceal their secrets, to not be able to control how the reader sees them, and to feel constantly vulnerable around another person because they can read you and you can't even fathom them. This is sort of an interesting dynamic that most people here are familiar with, but rarely gets represented in entertainment media.
And the show does make you more aware of different means of deception, which will always be relevant if you ever interact with anyone.
The show also portrays the struggle that occurs when one person can intuit things about another person that that person doesn't want to be known. First, it's hard to be the one intuiting, to look the other way, to pretend you don't see what is happening, or to be presented with the temptation of using that information for your own gain and to not yield to that temptation. Second, it is hard for the person being read to not conceal their secrets, to not be able to control how the reader sees them, and to feel constantly vulnerable around another person because they can read you and you can't even fathom them. This is sort of an interesting dynamic that most people here are familiar with, but rarely gets represented in entertainment media.
And the show does make you more aware of different means of deception, which will always be relevant if you ever interact with anyone.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sociopaths in the news: predator
This article is worth reading about a textbook sociopath running amok:
With wonder and horror, authorities and associates are recounting a singular crime spree in which, they say, a dogged con man exploited others' goodwill or greed.Among the priceless text messages Niroula sent to friends and lovers:
"This guy wanted that quantum leap," said Greg Ovanessian, a veteran San Francisco police fraud inspector, "from zero to everything."
In his wake, authorities say, he left ruin. He contributed to the 2008 closure of New College of California in San Francisco, which had been around for 37 years. He is accused of conning an art collector out of $400,000 - money he blew in Las Vegas.
In the capper, police say, Niroula and an odd band of accomplices killed a Palm Springs retiree and tried to sell his home. That has the 28-year-old Niroula - whom San Francisco prosecutors call the "Dark Prince" - in a Riverside County jail awaiting a Sept. 7 murder trial.
"I am a predator. That's why you love me."I included the mug shots above of Niroula, his accomplices, and people that got caught up in everything just because I think it is very obvious who the sociopath is.
"Honey, everyone believes me until they have been conned ... some even after that."
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Gloves come off
I know nothing about hockey, but apparently you must take off your gloves to fight. When the gloves come off in boxing, that means that things are going to get ugly, hence the origin of the phrase "gloves come off." If it is the same in hockey, it seems unusual that officials would promote that sort of violence, or at least more than they already do by routinely allowing fights to proceed uninhibited.
I sort of like the hockey rule. I feel that there is something more honorable about fighting with the gloves off than with them on. You're not pretending. You're not hiding behind something or somebody else. The way I feel about things is that if you have a problem with me, let's go at it. I can play dirty and you can play dirty, but don't try to kid yourself or anyone else that you don't want to, that you are just doing your job, or whatever else. Don't hide behind your badge. If you think you need to take out the trash and that includes me, then okay, but don't later pretend that you've never gotten dirty. That's what I really can't stand about the guilt trips or the public shaming. Let's just both agree to disagree and get on with it because you can take me down in a fair fight, or you can cheap shot me to death, but even if I don't have the time or the inclination to play enforcer with you, some other crusader will, and I know for a fact that you will eventually get yours.
I sort of like the hockey rule. I feel that there is something more honorable about fighting with the gloves off than with them on. You're not pretending. You're not hiding behind something or somebody else. The way I feel about things is that if you have a problem with me, let's go at it. I can play dirty and you can play dirty, but don't try to kid yourself or anyone else that you don't want to, that you are just doing your job, or whatever else. Don't hide behind your badge. If you think you need to take out the trash and that includes me, then okay, but don't later pretend that you've never gotten dirty. That's what I really can't stand about the guilt trips or the public shaming. Let's just both agree to disagree and get on with it because you can take me down in a fair fight, or you can cheap shot me to death, but even if I don't have the time or the inclination to play enforcer with you, some other crusader will, and I know for a fact that you will eventually get yours.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Sociopaths on television: Breaking Bad
Our time is now (!), as suggested by this review of "Breaking Bad":
When, and why, did American television and cinema viewers first fall in love with the Sociopath protagonist? Perhaps the audience was always there, nascent and ready to be born. My current favorite Sociopath television show is AMC’s Breaking Bad, the story of an ordinary, albeit resentful and self-loathing, married man who breaks out of his bourgeois cocoon to become a Methamphetamine dealer. His bourgeois name is the aptly constructed “Walter White,” representing the plain vanilla nature of his high school Chemistry teacher life in small town New Mexico. His alter ego name is “Heisenberg” (after Nobel winning German physicist Werner Heisenberg), chosen by White, to represent his genius in making the purest and best “Meth” ever seen in the Southwest and Mexico.
I think Coppola’s Godfather series created the modern heroic Sociopath. We rooted for Brando’s and Pacino’s characters, although Michael Corleone became unlikable by the end of Godfather II. Coppola was the first to romanticize the familiar character of the gangster in movies. But Quentin Tarantino perfected the generalized concept of the protagonist Sociopath. His breakout film was, of course, Pulp Fiction, a so-called dark comedy with such a wide variety of watchable sociopaths one could probably make a television series around virtually every major character in the film. In fact, the two strands of modern Sociopathic television and films can be plausibly traced to either Coppola or Tarantino. In the organized crime motif, for example, there is of course The Sopranos and the unfortunately canceled series Brotherhood. But shows like Dexter and Breaking Bad are in the dark comedy mode consistent with Tarantino’s sensibility.
Breaking Bad has 2 million viewers. Stuck on AMC (I have 150 HD channels but AMC is not one of them) this is a pretty big audience. Going back to my opening question, why are these shows appealing? For me, the theme was repulsive. Then I watched it. I root for Heisenberg/White, even though he has been directly and indirectly responsible for many deaths. In real life I would want him dead yesterday. But in my sometimes fantasy life, I somehow identify with him. What’s that all about? Maybe “between the dust and love that hangs on everybody, there is a dead man trying to get out.” Or a Sociopath.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Imposter
The problem with that kid who faked his way into Harvard was that he took it one step too far. Adam Wheeler allegedly forged several documents to get admitted to Harvard, including straight-A transcripts from MIT and a prestigious prep school. While he was there, he collected tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships and grants. Adam was eventually caught when he applied for the prestigious Rhodes and Fulbright fellowships, using a fake transcript and plagiarized research. A professor he asked for a recommendation from noticed some similarities between Adam’s article and that of another Harvard professor, and that was it for Adam.
Many have noted that Adam would have gotten away with it if he had taken the degree and ran. Probably. Lying is very difficult to pull off flawlessly, particularly a continuing lie, such as pretending to be something or somebody that you aren't. Those lies are like being in the mafia. It can be great at the time, good experience, above average pay, but eventually you want to get out before you get caught or killed.
Some say that this Adam kid got greedy. They say that a lot about con men and habitual bank robbers too. I don't really think that is the issue for a lot of them, though. I think for a lot of people with a lifestyle outside of the law, it is the lifestyle itself that attracts them. Either they want the constant thrill, or there is no legitimate outlet for their particular skills and they'd hate to see their talents go to waste. Or they just don't know any different, or in my case, a little of all three. I have gone too far myself. Eventually you get tired or lazy or sloppy, you make a mistake, and depending who is around to see it, it could be a disaster. Luckily most of my slip ups have been relatively private. But it's sort of a but-for-the-grace-of-god type situation.
Many have noted that Adam would have gotten away with it if he had taken the degree and ran. Probably. Lying is very difficult to pull off flawlessly, particularly a continuing lie, such as pretending to be something or somebody that you aren't. Those lies are like being in the mafia. It can be great at the time, good experience, above average pay, but eventually you want to get out before you get caught or killed.
Some say that this Adam kid got greedy. They say that a lot about con men and habitual bank robbers too. I don't really think that is the issue for a lot of them, though. I think for a lot of people with a lifestyle outside of the law, it is the lifestyle itself that attracts them. Either they want the constant thrill, or there is no legitimate outlet for their particular skills and they'd hate to see their talents go to waste. Or they just don't know any different, or in my case, a little of all three. I have gone too far myself. Eventually you get tired or lazy or sloppy, you make a mistake, and depending who is around to see it, it could be a disaster. Luckily most of my slip ups have been relatively private. But it's sort of a but-for-the-grace-of-god type situation.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Top 10 secrets of effective liars
Good advice from a Psychology Today blogger:
As I've written earlier, human beings have an innate skill at dishonesty. And with good reason: being able to manipulate the expectations of those around us is a key survival trait for social animals like ourselves. Indeed, a 1999 study by psychologist Robert Feldman at the University of Massachusetts showed that the most popular kids were also the most effective liars. Just because our aptitude is hardwired doesn't mean it can't improve with practice and skill. Here are ten techniques that top-notch liars use to maximize their effectiveness. (By the way, this information is offered as a way to help detect deceit in others, not to practice it yourself. Honestly!)
#1 Have a reason. "Prisons are filled with bad liars," says psychologist Charles Ford, author of the book Lies! Lies! Lies!. "The good liars are out running HMOs." So what's the big difference? Basically, says Ford, the trick is to lie as little as possible - only when you actually have something to gain. "Pathological liars can't stop themselves from lying, so they tell a lot of little lies and wind up getting caught," he says. Truly expert fabricators, on the other hand, save their ammunition - they don't bother to lie unless it's going to get them something they really want.
#2 Lay your groundwork. Don't wait until you're under the interrogation lamp to start putting your story together. A 1990 study by psychologist Bill Flanagan showed that liars who had worked out the details of their stories beforehand had significantly more success than those who hadn't. As in everything, practice makes perfect. "It's easier to catch someone in lie the first time they tell it," says psychologist Dr. Cynthia Cohen
#3 Tell the truth, misleadingly. The hardest lies to catch are those which aren't actually lies. You're telling the truth, but in a way that leaves a false impression. Technically, it's only a prevarication - about half a sin. A 1990 study of pathological liars in New York City found that those who could avoid follow-up questions were significantly more successful at their deceptions.
#4 Know your target. Good liars have the same gift as good communicators: the ability to get inside the listener's head. Empathy not only clues you in to what your subject wants to hear, it will help you avoid stepping onto trip wires that will trigger their suspicions. "To make a credible lie, you need to take into account the perspective of your target," says Carolyn Saarni, co-editor of the book Lying and Deception in Everyday Life. "Know what they know. Be aware of their interests and activities so you can cover your tracks."
#5 Keep your facts straight. "One of the problems of successful lying is that it's hard work," says psychologist Michael Lewis. "You have to be very consistent in doing it." That means nailing down the details. Write down notes if you have to. "One of the things that trips people up is that they give different information to different people, who then start talking about it and comparing notes," says Dr. Gini Graham Scott, author of The Truth About Lying.
#6 Stay focused. "When I'm trying to catch a liar, I watch to see how committed they are to what they're telling me," says Sgt. John Yarbrough, interrogation expert with the LA Sheriff Department's homicide bureau. "If I accuse someone of lying, and they're not very committed to the statement they just made, a red flag goes up." One of the reasons most people make bad liars is that they find lying a deeply unpleasant activity. Fear and guilt are evident in their facial expressions. They want to get the process over as quickly as possible, so they show relief when their interrogator changes the topic. That's a dead giveaway. Really good liars, on the other hand, actually enjoy the process of deceiving other people. "The best liars don't show any shame or remorse because they don't feel it," says Cohen. "They get a thrill out of actively misleading others. They're good at it, and they enjoy the challenge."
#7: Watch your signals. It's folk wisdom that people fidget, touch their noses, stutter, and break eye contact when they lie - the proverbial "shifty-eyed" look. But research has shown that just isn't so. In his 1999 study of high school students, Feldman found that nonverbal signals were crucial in determining who got away with telling lies. "The successful kinds were better at controlling their nonverbal signals, things like the the amount of eye contact and how much they gestured," he says.
#8: Turn up the pressure. If your target has clearly become suspicious, it's time to raise the emotional stakes. "The best liars are natural manipulators," says Sgt. Yarbrough. He cites as a perfect example the scene in Basic Instinct where Sharon Stone is brought to the cop station for questioning and winds up flashing everyone a glimpse of her Lesser Antilles. "She was turning them on," Yarbrough explains, "and that's a form of manipulation - using sexual or emotional arousal to distract the interviewer."
#9: Counterattack. The fact is, just as most of us are uncomfortable telling lies, most are uncomfortable accusing others. This discomfort can be used in the liar's favor. "You'll often see politicians respond to accusations with aggression," says Stan Walters, author of The Truth About Lying: Everyday Techniques for Dealing with Deception. "What they'll do is drive critics away from the issue, so they're forced to gather up their resources to fight another scrimmage."
#10: Bargain. Even when the jig is up, liars can often escape the worst by using a process psychologists call bargaining. "You want to soften, alleviate, or totally eliminate feelings of responsibility for the lie," explains researcher Mary DePalma. "If you can decrease responsibility for blame and the anger that goes with it, you're really looking at a much better outcome."
Monday, May 24, 2010
An empathy exercise
A lot of the empathy-challenged have expressed an ability to "imagine" what it would feel like to be another person going through a particular situation. I was explaining this to someone and they asked -- isn't this empathy? If it is, then I guess I'm an empath too. But first let me describe what it feels like using an unusual analogy that I hope works.
Imagine that you are having sex with someone. Better yet, imagine that you are engaged in foreplay, attempting to stimulate a reluctant lover. This is your first time. You have been on an island, grown up there alone, and one day another island dweller like yourself appears. Your experience so far has been auto arousal. You are very familiar with the ins and outs of your own equipment but have had no other exposure to sex other than what you have seen in wildlife. As you attempt to elicit a reaction from your partner, you think of everything you like to do to yourself and try that first. The more similar your partner is to you, the more accurate and effective your actions will be. But what if your partner's equipment looks nothing like your own? In that situation, the best you could do is extrapolate from your own experiences to imagine what it might feel if you had equipment more like your partner's, and act accordingly.
The process may seem very artificial to you at first, like when you scratch a part of your skin that has been numbed by anesthesia and feel only the scratching, not the being scratched. But the more similar the situation is to something you have experienced yourself, the more you can rely on your own personal experiences. Even if the other person is rather different from you, if you have done a decent job data-mining them you should be able to come up with a relatively accurate picture of them. And just like with the sex analogy, you would be getting positive or negative feedback indicating whether you are on target. If you engage in this imaginative exercise enough you can get quite good at it, the same way a professional pianist is not born with the ability to play, but can make it seem like he was with the ease with which he manipulates the keys. As I tell my loved ones all the time -- I don't understand you, but I can predict you very well.
If this is empathy, then I feel empathy. If empathy involves some automatic response to the emotions of another, though, or vicariously experiencing the emotions of another, then probably not. I don't feel vicariously what another feels any more than I vicariously feel the pleasure that I give someone else. Or maybe empaths don't feel empathy either. Maybe they think they are feeling what another feels, but really they are just projecting their own emotions on another.
Rejoinders, empaths?
Imagine that you are having sex with someone. Better yet, imagine that you are engaged in foreplay, attempting to stimulate a reluctant lover. This is your first time. You have been on an island, grown up there alone, and one day another island dweller like yourself appears. Your experience so far has been auto arousal. You are very familiar with the ins and outs of your own equipment but have had no other exposure to sex other than what you have seen in wildlife. As you attempt to elicit a reaction from your partner, you think of everything you like to do to yourself and try that first. The more similar your partner is to you, the more accurate and effective your actions will be. But what if your partner's equipment looks nothing like your own? In that situation, the best you could do is extrapolate from your own experiences to imagine what it might feel if you had equipment more like your partner's, and act accordingly.
The process may seem very artificial to you at first, like when you scratch a part of your skin that has been numbed by anesthesia and feel only the scratching, not the being scratched. But the more similar the situation is to something you have experienced yourself, the more you can rely on your own personal experiences. Even if the other person is rather different from you, if you have done a decent job data-mining them you should be able to come up with a relatively accurate picture of them. And just like with the sex analogy, you would be getting positive or negative feedback indicating whether you are on target. If you engage in this imaginative exercise enough you can get quite good at it, the same way a professional pianist is not born with the ability to play, but can make it seem like he was with the ease with which he manipulates the keys. As I tell my loved ones all the time -- I don't understand you, but I can predict you very well.
If this is empathy, then I feel empathy. If empathy involves some automatic response to the emotions of another, though, or vicariously experiencing the emotions of another, then probably not. I don't feel vicariously what another feels any more than I vicariously feel the pleasure that I give someone else. Or maybe empaths don't feel empathy either. Maybe they think they are feeling what another feels, but really they are just projecting their own emotions on another.
Rejoinders, empaths?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.
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.