Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Handling sociopaths

The same guy from last post also suggested some ways to deal with sociopaths. Things that don't seem to work are"Insight-oriented, emotion-based therapy should not be provided for offenders. Making punishment more severe, or trying to "scare 'em straight" are also ineffective." Things that seem to work better are: "Effective programs [which] teach offenders something useful -- academic, vocational, social or personal management skills. Effective programs are firm but fair." He also mentions the possibility of pharmaceutical solutions in the future, including possibly lithium for violent offenders. His main suggestions, though, are for people that deal with sociopaths:
If they knew how to recognize psychopaths, and how psychopaths operate, people might better protect themselves and reduce the harm psychopaths cause.

An important part of such education would emphasize that people should not trust their intuitions and impressions of strangers, and should rely instead on reputations earned over time. The more that people did that, the harder it would be for psychopaths to exploit others. Theoretically, at least, young women comprise the group that would benefit most from such "anti-psychopath" training.

The idea that psychopathy is not a disorder but is instead an adaptation leads to this notion of "anti-psychopath" training which is a way of reducing the environmental niche for psychopathy. What else would make that niche smaller? Theoretically, psychopaths should thrive when resources are scarce and when there is a lot of social instability so that people frequently have to deal with strangers.

Thus, a typical North American urban environment may be just the place to foster psychopathy not because that environment causes psychopathy directly, but because such an environment provides a large niche for its expression.

Conversely, social policies that increase social and economic equity, and enhance family and community cohesiveness, while decreasing social isolation and anonymity might be exactly those that make it difficult for psychopaths to prosper. Over generations such policies might actually reduce the incidence of psychopathy.
This sounds like an argument for conservatism to me. Anyone else?

More on "America's hidden infection":

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Psychopath = adaptation, not disorder

A reader sent me this discussion of psychopathy as an adaptation:
A disorder, by definition, is the failure of some physical or mental feature to do its natural, evolved function.
***
Research on psychopaths shows big differences in the ways they act (impulsive especially in the presence of rewards), process information (unaffected by emotionally powerful information), and learn from experience (resistant to punishment). These have been thought of as defects, but it is just as possible they are adaptations that underlie a life long aggressive, cheating, and manipulating strategy.
What is the new scientific evidence that suggests that psychopathy is an adaptation and not a disorder?
[O]ther researchers have discovered that violent people have high rates of particular types of medical problems in their histories -- obstetrical problems (toxaemia, Rh factor, maternal substance abuse, etc.), and perinatal difficulties (e.g., prematurity, low birth weight, severe fetal distress). Such problems are also associated with schizophrenia. These findings suggest that violence can be the result of problems in very early physical development, and that schizophrenia is a true disorder of neurological development. (It is interesting that people with schizophrenia are not especially violent, however.)

What does our adaptation theory say should be found in the prevalence of these medical problems among psychopaths? Because the theory says that psychopathy is not a disorder of neurological development, psychopaths should have fewer of these problems than other violent offenders. And that is what we found. If psychopathy were an extreme disorder (and knowing that these problems are associated with violence), one would predict that psychopaths would have high rates of these problems, but we found the opposite.

We also tested our theory with another measure of developmental stability -- fluctuating bilateral asymmetry. That is a polysyllabic way of saying, the degree to which the left side of the body is exactly the same size as the right side. In all species, the two sides of the body are genetically programmed to be the same size -- symmetrical. The amount of difference between the two sides, asymmetry, is a measure of the instability in a person's development. Again, violent individuals have been reported to be asymmetrical as have persons with schizophrenia. What about psychopaths? Our research showed that violent offenders who were also psychopaths were more symmetrical than those who were not psychopaths.

Again, although psychopaths are the most dangerous offenders, they do not have signs that their neurological development has been disrupted. From a medical point of view, they appear to have had healthy development compared to persons with schizophrenia or mental retardation.

Of course, our theory definitely says that the nervous systems of psychopaths must be different somehow. But that difference should not, according to the theory, look like damage. In fact, attempts by other researchers to find signs of damage in psychopaths using neuropsychological tests or fancy imaging methods (CT, PET, MRI scans, etc.) have not panned out.

So far at least, it does not look as though psychopaths have damaged brains, even though it does appear that their brains are different.
Interestingly, the author of this article (Grant Harris) was one of the researchers of the famed failed Social Therapy Unit at Oak Ridge from the 1960s-70s, through which we learned that having psychopaths sit around and talk about their feelings actually seems to make them worse, not better. Even then Dr. Harris acknowledged that psychopath doesn't seem much like your typical disorder: "Unlike virtually every other mental disorder, however, where the existence of the problem is inferred from difficulties experienced by the patient, psychopathy is a disorder whose negative effects accrue more to those who come into contact with the psychopath than to the patient him or herself."

Ha.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Rupert Murdoch: Narcissist?

A reader sent this great profile on Rupert Murdoch from the Economist, detailing how he couldn't quite bring himself to remain penitent and remorseful amid jeers and other provocations directed at his ego:
"THIS is the most humble day of my life," Rupert Murdoch told members of the House of Commons, after the media, culture and sports select committee summoned the global media tycoon before them to explain the phone-hacking, police-bribing, politician-bullying ways of his British press titles. Having established his humility, Mr Murdoch then spent more than two hours telling the MPs that he was—in essence—much too important and busy to have known what his feckless underlings were up to.
***
Some have written that Rupert Murdoch came across as a frail, diminished figure, comparing his appearance to the final moments of the Wizard of Oz. I disagree. Thumping the table with the palm of his hand for emphasis (despite nervous signals from his wife to stop) Mr Murdoch showed flashes of something I can only describe as raw power, notably when any MP seemed about to patronise him.

Thus when an MP suggested employees had kept Mr Murdoch in the dark about the phone-hacking scandal, Mr Murdoch came to life, growling:

Nobody kept me in the dark, I may have been lax in not asking, but [the News of the World] was such a tiny part of our business.
And during questioning by MP Louise Mensch:
Mrs Mensch, looking and sounding like a clever young prosecution barrister, reminded Mr Murdoch that he had said Les Hinton, a former chief executive of News International (News Corp's British newspaper subsidiary), had resigned because he was the "captain of the ship" when wrongdoing took place. Is it not the case, sir, that you are the captain of the ship, she asked the elder Mr Murdoch? The magnate's pride seemed piqued, and he rose to the bait. "Of a much bigger ship," he rumbled.

Mrs Mensch did not blench. "It is a much bigger ship, but you are in charge of it. And as you said in earlier questions, you do not regard yourself as a hands-off chief executive, you work ten to 12 hours a day. This terrible thing happened on your watch. Mr Murdoch, have you considered resigning?"

"No," said Mr Murdoch.

"Why not?" said Mrs Mensch.

"Because," Mr Murdoch replied. "I feel that people I trusted, I'm not saying who, I don't know what level, have let me down. I think they behaved disgracefully and betrayed the company, and me. It's for them to pay. I think that, frankly, I'm the best person to clear this up."
To me, this is classic narcissist. He hates that anyone, even the highest levels of government or law enforcement, would dare impugn his moral character and his infinite wisdom about how the world should be run. If you're a narcissist, the saddest part about being surrounded by idiots is that they don't realize how much stupider they are than you. I can almost guarantee that he feels absolutely no remorse, not even that he was caught. Probably the only thing he regrets is that he lives in a world in which morons elect imbeciles, who then try to keep the real movers and shakers from getting on with important business.

Sunday, August 7, 2011

willPOWER

A reader asks:
I've been reading your blog with considerable interest for the past few months. I'm an empath, but I have a strong interest in understanding the sociopath purely because I find the idea of them interesting, so I've read most of the texts I could find. What I would be interested to grasp is the sociopaths response to discipline. Much of what I've read suggests sociopaths typically would avoid pursuits which require impulse control/dedication etc. such as a diet, goal setting, pursuing a degree or working hard generally. It would be great if you can provide some idea of how a sociopathic individual perceives discipline, and delayed gratification. I find it hard to reconcile the idea that sociopaths will do anything to get what they want, with the idea that they are very poor at controlling impulses and dealing with delaying gratification. I ask this question as I'm fairly sure I've encountered a few sociopathic individuals in work settings that have been extremely hard working, disciplined and dedicated to the task.
My response:

Good question. I think your intuition is right, that some sociopaths are clearly able to discipline themselves enough to accomplish longterm goals. I myself always brag about having fully funded my retirement by the time I was 30. I didn't do it as a feat of self control, though, I did it because I love making money and my employment and community has various benefits to incentivize retirement savings that would be silly to not take advantage. The pleasure in retirement savings for me then is to play the game so much better than everyone else is -- and so seemingly effortlessly! In fact that's my main interest/love about money: that so many people want it but can't figure out how to get/keep more of it. It makes any wealth making you do look almost like magic -- very powerful image to project!

So maybe then the real distinction is not that sociopaths are more weak-willed than empaths or vice versa, but that they're both weak-willed in their own unique and predictable ways. Empath weaknesses appear egregious to sociopaths because they seem so obvious and easy to avoid, whereas sociopath weaknesses seem abhorrent to empaths because they find it so shocking that anyone would even consider behaving in that way. It makes perfect sense then that empaths would look weak to sociopaths and sociopaths look like monsters to empaths.

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Gender and sociopaths

A socio leaning reader writes a little more on being trans and gender identity:
Hello,

I've been browsing your blog for awhile now, and just yesterday stumbled upon an entry about a transwoman and her experiences as a sociopath, and how the two were related.

This made me think. I am a transman (20 years old and one year into my transition), and have identifyed as a sociopath for years. As time goes by, I can't help but think that my so-called "gender dysphoria" is just something for me to play with for the time being.

I have never felt as if I were one gender or the other. I cannot remember having that painful, consuming feeling that people describe as gender dysphoria. In the frankest possible terms, my transition began the day that I deciced it would be interesting--fun, even--to be a male.

I took to the role quickly and flawlessly, and despite having been an extremely feminine girl (and, for what its worth, a now feminine man) I was able to convince everyone around me that I was always meant to be a male. My parents have even come to recall instances in my childhood to justify this behavior.

Gender transition is a long, tedious process. It takes years. While it does not demand my full attention, it is always convinient for days when I find the boredom unbearable.

Despite never feeling like I had a need to transition, like many of the transgender people I've come into contact with, I have never regretted what I've done. I've sunk about a thousand dollars into this, watched as my face slowly became more masculine, and watched my friends and family struggle to accept this drastic change. And I love it.

I feel like I've created my most flawless persona yet. It's an accomplishment, in my eyes. And why wouldn't it be? I've had to convince dozens of people--even a trained gender-therapist--into believing that I experience a rather intense aversion to my assigned gender.
Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

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.