Psychopathy, autism, and pointing fingers (part 2)

Not surprisingly, some people found the call for greater understanding and more careful (and empathetic) use of the term and diagnosis of the disorder psychopath to be a bridge too far.

One person has suggested that the term is not ableist or any other -ist because it perfectly accurately describes people who are the bane of humanity and should be rightfully outed and oppressed lest everyone else should be oppressed. The evidence this person provides are google image searches.

The one for psychopath:

The one for autism:

See everyone! Psychopaths are all portrayed as old white males (never mind that autism is also portrayed as very white male)! They can't possibly be oppressed. The diagnosis can't possibly be misunderstood. But it is that very white/evil/male/oppressor portrayal that the original article criticizes:

"In radical communities working toward intersectional social justice, the figure of the psychopath is invoked all too often to characterize members of oppressive classes, especially when they are in a position of political power in addition to apolitical structural power."

Psychopaths, in other words, or merely those who share traits with psychopaths aren't these ubermensch who only oppress and are never themselves to oppressed because they are far too clever. Sometimes psychopaths are children. Sometimes they are people who were abused as children. Sometimes they are people from disenfranchised races (one study found that African-Americans were twice as likely as white Americans to be assigned this diagnosis) or low socioeconomic classes, circumstances that they had no control over. The unfortunate reality, as the original author argues, is that the actual use of the word psychopath to diagnose (typically people who are institutionalized) "is most often a tool for criminalizing poverty, blackness and brownness, and disability."

But some people think sociopaths deserve as much as we can throw at them and more. Proving the earlier point about people with a particular disorder disavowing any similarity or mistreatment of other disorders (e.g., arguments like "my diagnosis is misunderstood, not like these other people who really are monsters") :

When most people think of the word psychopath, they imagine Ted Bundy, Adolph Hitler, son of sam, Dexter, the zodiac killer, jack the ripper, brutal megalomaniac dictators.

For these people the label of psychopath fits perfectly. However we should actually be focusing more about the corporate psychopath, the CEO, the stockholders, the ruling class who show no empathy or remorse, who manipulate and ruin societies and economies.

Psychopaths are the people who oppress, they benefit from being psychopaths because they have no moral restraints whatsoever. That makes them oppressors, most of them are men, white and cis. Again, oppressors.

Erasing this label can only serve the psychopath, the oppressor and the ruling class.

We have to be able to tell people that the emperor has no clothes. To deal with these people we have to open our eyes to the evil they do, and label them for what they are, manipulative dangerous psychopaths. Only then can we hope to remove them from the places of high power, by shaking off our collective apathy and paying attention when someone calls someone out for acting psychopathic we take away their power to manipulate.

Your boss who takes credit for your work all while manipulating people to believe you are useless? Psychopath.

The person who abuses laws and rules to oppress people. Psychopath.

The person who uses bureaucratic excuses to deny needing people social services. Psychopath.

Your therapist who plays games with you, makes you jump through hoops and then still denies you real care. Psychopath.
***
Psychopaths benefit from being psychopaths, dont defend them. Call them out as the oppressors they are.

The thing that this proposal has going for it is its simplicity -- bad person = evil psychopath and deserves to be outted as such. I can't really criticize this proposal because the actual reasoning behind method of diagnosing and treating sociopaths is hardly any better.

The first author argues against the use of a label but rather just focusing on those who manifest certain behavior:

“My advice: Be precise in your language and say that oppressive structures are violent and manipulative. Say that those who abuse their structural positions of power act with reckless disregard for other human beings. Say that they are callous and unabashedly wielding the power that comes with their privilege.

But don’t call them psychopaths.”

The critic's response:

So, you don’t want us to use the word psychopath, but instead describe them as a psychopath instead? That wont change the reality that people will still use this in a racist and ableist way.

Yes, the only thing that can change the reality that people will still use "psychopath" in a racist and ableist way is if that term stops being a slur we hurl at our enemies or a scapegoat for all of the evil in the world and rather acknowledge what it as what it purports to be -- a mental disorder. 

Overgeneralizing

I chose that title instead of demonizing or stereotyping or scapegoating, but they are all getting at the same basic human impulse. I really liked how this recent comment stated it, in response to this assertion: "People’s memory is the biggest resource towards learning and avoiding people that will hurt them again":

No two people are exactly alike, but we all share common traits. You've learned to identify and avoid the people who have hurt you, and that is good. However, that memory only relates to the specific people who have harmed you. Expanding that experience to cover large groups of mostly unrelated people will lead to racism, scapegoating, and stereotyping. That makes you the aggressor and them your victims, and you'll find that the people you harm will learn to avoid you as well. 

The rest of the comment is also interesting:

You didn't seem to catch this, but "The one thing I know is we are constantly being born" is a metaphor. My interpretation is that we are always facing new circumstances, and in facing them we enter a new world every day.

Animals are capable of learning, especially when the stimuli are rewards and pain. Animals live in the wild, hunting or foraging, searching for mates, bearing and caring for offspring. If their offspring survive to become self-sufficient, then they have lived full lives. The gift of intelligence merely allows people to be alive without living, doing none of the things they were born to do.

Sociopaths as scapegoats

This was an interesting comment from a recent radio interview I did with CBC. In response to another user's (TorontoProud) comment, "I wonder if there is a connection between sociopaths and feminism because there seems to be", Doctor R replied:

@TorontoProud It's not that feminists are necessarily sociopathic. But like any mass movement, sociopaths can hijack it and turn it to their own ends. This is what happened under Hitler and Stalin. Any ideology can become a vehicle for hate-mongering and irrationaity- feminism is no different in that regard. At the same time, that doesn't mean that feminists don't have legitimate concerns. That's why a critique of feminist ideas is so necessary- to help separate the good ideas from the bad. Sadly, that kind of critique is not politically correct, which is why CBC censors so many comments that attempt to provide analysis of feminist ideas. And in the end, it's that kind of censorship that will bring feminism into disrepute, if it hasn't already.

What do you think? Is there a connection between sociopaths and feminism? Maybe I'm not as up on feminist theory, but in what ways does it seem like it has been hijacked by sociopaths? And who were the sociopaths that hijacked Hitler and Stalin's ideology and turned it to their own ends?

Another commenter, jmhaze, replied: "@TorontoProud if you equate the goal of 'equality' to being sociopathic then i guess all freedom fighters would fall under your blanket definition." Or maybe freedom fighters really are sociopaths. Che, anybody?

I ask these questions because maybe these commenters are just not doing a good job explaining themselves, or maybe theirs are just bald assertions, wholly unsupported, and a ridiculous attempt to slander an otherwise legitimate political movement? It's sometimes hard for me to tell because people associate sociopaths with a lot of the world's ills. So how am I supposed to know whether these assertions are serious and which are just politicking when they all seem misguided and ill-informed to me. So I, like economists, largely take people's preferences and beliefs seriously as they come.

I think sometimes people think it should be easy for anyone to tell the difference, that of course everyone would know that X is wrong and Y is right and anyone who says differently is just politicking or otherwise trying to gain some unfair advantage (or troll, on the internet). But it turns out that research shows most people aren't being disingenuous about their assertions of their beliefs, that they actually occupy different moral universes with different laws that they're abiding by (and judging others by). In a world in which we cannot act according to every virtue in every situation, compromises must be made and it turns out that everybody prioritizes certain values over others, e.g. whistleblowers value fairness over loyalty. One thing that has been interesting about the book is not just how polarizing it has been, but how often people remark that they can't understand why other people love/hate it as much as they do. I don't know why this is, but people seem to vastly overestimate the degree of heterogeneity in their community, much less the world. Makes me question how accurately people are actually and accurately able to feel empathy for total strangers, if they always seem to be surprised by others' legitimate beliefs.

Speaking of, my Mormon friend told me how she was hanging out with other Mormons and one of them said something about "the gay agenda." My friend shut her down quickly to which the girl replied "I thought I would at least be safe saying something like that among other members." But no, even Mormons are heterogeneous. Some say that some of them are even sociopaths? Don't get too excited or think this proves something about the Mormon church, there are sociopaths that belong to every group you belong to as well -- atheists, protestants, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindu, every political party, every profession, every gender and ethnicity, every political sphere. Can you empathize with sociopaths?