Sociopaths and climate change

Here's an interesting review of Superfreakonomics:

The whole conceit behind “SuperFreakonomics” and, before that, “Freakonomics,” which sold some four million copies, is that a dispassionate, statistically minded thinker can find patterns and answers in the data that those who are emotionally invested in the material will have missed. (The subtitle of “Freakonomics,” published in 2005, is “A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything.”) In this way, Levitt and Dubner claim to have solved the mystery of why crime, after soaring in the nineteen-eighties, dropped in the nineteen-nineties. (The explanation, they say, is the legalization of abortion, some eighteen years earlier.) They also have proved—at least to their own satisfaction—that names like Ansley and Philippa will be popular for girls in the coming decade, that reading to your kids doesn’t matter, and that drunks should be encouraged to drive rather than walk.

Their proposed climate-change solution:

“Once you eliminate the moralism and the angst, the task of reversing global warming boils down to a straightforward engineering problem,” Levitt and Dubner write. All we need to do is figure out a way to shoot huge quantities of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere on our own. This could be done, they say, by sending up an eighteen-mile-long hose: “For anyone who loves cheap and simple solutions, things don’t get much better."

A solution which causes this reviewer to seethe:

But what’s most troubling about “SuperFreakonomics” isn’t the authors’ many blunders; it’s the whole spirit of the enterprise. Though climate change is a grave problem, Levitt and Dubner treat it mainly as an opportunity to show how clever they are. Leaving aside the question of whether geoengineering, as it is known in scientific circles, is even possible—have you ever tried sending an eighteen-mile-long hose into the stratosphere?—their analysis is terrifyingly cavalier.
* * *
Though Levitt and Dubner . . . manage to anticipate [Al]Gore’s position. The two argue that his views are the ones that rest on magical thinking. “If you think like a cold-blooded economist instead of a warm-hearted humanist, Gore’s reasoning doesn’t track,” they write. “It’s not that we don’t know how to stop polluting the atmosphere. We don’t want to stop, or aren’t willing to pay the price.” Here the two have a point. By the end of [Gore's book] “Our Choice,” it may be clear that we possess the tools needed to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions, but the book has also shown—intentionally or not—that deploying them would require a lot from us. It would mean changing the way we eat, shop, manufacture, and get around, and, ultimately, how we see ourselves. It is the difficulty of imagining such changes that makes schemes like Levitt and Dubner’s at once so alluring and so dangerous.

"Alluring and dangerous"? Changing "how we see ourselves"? "terrifyingly cavalier"? When I first read this, I was surprised at how someone could react with such emotion to climate change -- and what a unique and interesting venue for taking the moral high ground! Kudos!

Full disclosure, I don't really believe the depth with which one feels emotions or the capacity for empathy actually improves logical analysis. I am actually a fan of dispassionate, statistically minded thinking. Maybe if we had more of that we would have nuclear power everywhere instead of pumping carbon into the air by burning gas and coal. But of course we wouldn't do that, because nuclear power is somehow wrong -- and not really the problem here! Stop distracting from the fact that big corporations killed the electric car! And people refuse to buy produce from local farmers! Demonize! Idealize! I do think we could stand to eat less meat and stop certain agricultural subsidies, but because it makes sense to me -- not because I think they are morally wrong. I guess this is just one of those moral outrage things I will never really get (see also Octomom).

Pop science

A reader recently sent this article. I have no way of confirming whether this is an actual newspaper, but I decided to dedicate a post to it because I think it's important to remember that although I'm sure most of us surround ourselves with well-informed, well-educated, and reasonable people, there is still a contingent of crazies out there that not only are clueless, but are also incredibly insistent that the rest of us are deluding ourselves. This irritates my libertarian self (perhaps contradictorily? or hypocritically?) more than anything else -- the only thing this has to do with sociopathy is the subject matter of the article. Under the headline "psychopaths are hard to spot," we are treated to such gems as:

The issue of the psychopath in popular culture is, unfortunately, muddied by TV shows like "Dexter." He's no psychopath, he's just Old Testament, as in justifying taking a life for the greater good. Closer to the reality, only through adept use of satire and irony, is the film version of American Psycho.

True psychopathy has no moral, nothing to redeem taking a life. It's ugly, evil and dark because of the absence of anything resembling any positive human quality. The true psychopath is a destroyed human who can do nothing other than maliciously spread his or her destructive nature.

We are invited to "contact reporter Paul Walton at PWalton@nanaimodailynews.com or call 250-729-4230." Just, you know, if you would like to hear some more of his pet theories.

Now I am sort of questioning publishing this. Who cares, right? It's obviously so stupid that no one would give this sort of thing credence, would they? Yeah, tell that to the next mob that has decided to target one of your personally defining characteristics.

Ch-ch -changes

A reader informs me that aspies aren't the only ones getting reshuffled in the proposed new DSM.

Interestingly, the new DSM, or at least the draft presented online, (1) renames ASPD to "Antisocial/Psychopathic PD" and (2) completely removes NPD. Narcissists now have "a core personality impairment with prominent traits such as callousness, manipulativeness, histrionism and narcissism." Sociopaths on the other hand have "callousness, aggression, manipulativeness, hostility, deceitfulness, narcissism, irresponsibility, recklessness and impulsivity." It seems that under the new definitions sociopaths are just malicious, foolhardy narcissists with a diminished emotional repertoire. This is really a new perspective and one that might or might not be as absurd as it seems at first glance.

Again, this shows how the definitions (such as DSM) are completely misleading as to the depth of experience and as to the diversity of different wirings out there.

New blow to aspies: sociopathy under umbrella of neurodiversity

A reader provides even more info on the changing face of neurodiversity:

I have had the chance to interact with lots of researchers who aim to help autistic people deal with their affective problems (and the resulting social ones). I must say that many of them are now aware of the "neurodiversity" principle. I have even had the chance to discuss sociopathy as a potential condition to be placed under the umbrella of neurodiversity with a specialist, and the response I got was surprisingly encouraging. The discussion concluded, among other things, that sociopaths ought to be allowed to think however they wish, as long as they don't break laws and harm others, and that no one has the right to impose a particular method of thinking to anybody else. Of course, ideas that emerge in select institutions of higher education take decades to spread among the general public, so that will be something for the following generations to witness I guess.

Ah aspies, when it rains it pours. Don't worry, though. You can stand under my umbrella.

Asperger's = Autism?

Oh no, aspies! I just heard the bad news that "the man" is basically trying to kick your unique diagnosis to the curb and lump you amongst the (relatively more) unwashed masses (i.e., auties). I hope this doesn't jeopardize your social status amongst your neurodiversity cohorts! A reader flagged this New York Times op-ed for me:

Many people with milder symptoms of autism have, for the past 20 years or so, received a diagnosis of Asperger’s disorder. Some autistic adults call themselves “Aspies” to celebrate their talents and differences. And many parents have embraced the label because they have found it less stigmatizing, and so it has eased their sense of loss.

This may soon change, however. The American Psychiatric Association, with its release this week of proposed revisions to its authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is recommending that Asperger’s be dropped. If this revision is adopted, the condition will be folded into the category of “autism spectrum disorder,” which will no longer contain any categories for distinct subtypes of autism like Asperger’s and “pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified” (a category for children with some traits of autism but not enough to warrant a diagnosis).

Wow, there goes your social life, right? It's just like when your rich parents got divorced and you had to move to the wrong side of the tracks with your mom and shop at flea markets for your black leather jacket and army boots that were so ugly and ill-fitting, they distracted anyone from seeing the pain/shame inside. But don't worry, aspies, I am diagnosis blind when it comes to personality disorders. I accept all empathy-challenged types here. Small comfort, you say? Yeah, I know that you have traditionally considered yourself too good for sociopaths, but this may be as good of an offer as you are going to get now.