Sunday, January 15, 2012

Cluster B

A reader gives a theory on the interactions between the DSM-IV's cluster B disorders:


My take on BPD is that it is a fake label, made up by "reformed" BPD's in the field. It's the lowest on the totem pole for the cluster B's, which succeed as follows; BPD, HPD, and AsPD...As for NPD, it does not belong here (although the new DSM is removing this and referring to Cluster B as the "Dramatic Cluster", which in a way it is. But in my opinion, it greatly differs from any type of sociopathy (AsPD). If you think about it, narcissists aim to make you dependent on them through deception and manipulation, while sociopaths seek outright control over someone. Also, Narcissists can empathize but only for themselves, while sociopaths have no ability to empathize at all. They pretty much just follow instinct and thus are “selfish” in their pursuits....A “survival of the fittest” mechanism.

But I feel that with the exception of codeps, all narcissists are horrid people, whereas all sociopaths are not.

Now here is the twist in my theory; AsPD can be comorbid with narcissism…and these are the most despicable/evil humans to walk the Earth (think Hitler…better yet, the embodiment of The Devil himself). Their aim is to have absolute control by any means without regard to any boundaries...societal or personal. But thisnarcissistic comorbidity  can run hand-in-hand with any of the remaining cluster B’s. I.e. Add Narcissism to BPD and that would give you Histrionic.

I am implying is that there are degrees of sociopathy, which can be exhibited in virtually anyone and narcissism is not a high form of it but separate…and when comingled, narcissism multiples the nastiness of sociopaths by a significant degree. BPD's have little narcissism, HPD's much more. AsPD's are higher on the sociopathic spectrum but this does not mean they have a degree of narcissism...add Narcissism to 
AsPD and you have Hitler/ Satan.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Is your company run by psychopaths?

This blogger asks the question of whether psychopaths are running your corporation.  I actually have wondered how a sociopath would be that much better at climbing the corporate ladder than an empath.  First of all, sociopaths can wear a mask for only so long before there is some sort of slip-up.  Second, some people actually are pretty able to sniff out the machinations and fake charm of a sociopath -- eventually someone might start believing them.  Third, I don't want to say necessarily that sociopaths are inherently lazy, because they are actually capable of a single minded focus that most people are not.  However, sociopaths tend to want to get away with doing as little as possible.  I myself have been fired for that particular character traits, which can become increasingly more obvious the longer you stay at a job.  Finally, there is the boredom.  What sociopath is able to stay at one job for long enough to climb the corporate ladder?  I have never had a job longer than 2-3 years.  I have not even had a profession for longer than 2-3 years, although thankfully for my c.v., I have managed to stay within my general field.  What promise of trappings of wealth or prestige could overome this congenital wanderlust?

The blogger proposes a theory that actually strikes me as being somewhat plausible:


Researchers suggest that these folks are able to rise to the top of companies without being found out because of the chaotic nature of modern corporate structures - especially rapid position-hopping - which makes their behavior almost invisible. They are not in one job long enough for co-workers and superiors to see their problems. In addition, their charm, charisma, and extroverted behavior not only appears normal but ideally suited for today’s global, competitive world.

Boddy also notes that in modern companies it’s relatively easier than in past years to claim success for a project even if you had little to do with it because of all the movement and team participation. “Success could thus be claimed by those with the loudest voice, the most influence and the best political skills. Corporate psychopaths have these skills in abundance and use them with ruthless and calculated efficiency,” he writes.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Atheists = amoral?

I thought this was an interesting op ed from the NY Times about atheists and morality.  Essentially the op ed is complaining about how religious people presume that if you don't believe in God, your morality must somehow be lacking (just because religious people derive their morality from their religion and can't imagine there being any alternative source to their own):


I gather that many people believe that atheism implies nihilism — that rejecting God means rejecting morality.  A person who denies God, they reason, must be, if not actively evil, at least indifferent to considerations of right and wrong.  After all, doesn’t the dictionary list “wicked” as a synonym for “godless?”  And isn’t it true, as Dostoevsky said, that “if God is dead, everything is permitted”?

Well, actually — no, it’s not.  (And for the record, Dostoevsky never said it was.)   Atheism does not entail that anything goes.

Admittedly, some atheists are nihilists.  (Unfortunately, they’re the ones who get the most press.)  But such atheists’ repudiation of morality stems more from an antecedent cynicism about ethics than from any philosophical view about the divine.  According to these nihilistic atheists, “morality” is just part of a fairy tale we tell each other in order to keep our innate, bestial selfishness (mostly) under control.  Belief in objective “oughts” and “ought nots,” they say, must fall away once we realize that there is no universal enforcer to dish out rewards and punishments in the afterlife.  We’re left with pure self-interest, more or less enlightened.

This is a Hobbesian view: in the state of nature “[t]he notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have no place.  Where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice.”  But no atheist has to agree with this account of morality, and lots of us do not.  We “moralistic atheists” do not see right and wrong as artifacts of a divine protection racket.  Rather, we find moral value to be immanent in the natural world, arising from the vulnerabilities of sentient beings and from the capacities of rational beings to recognize and to respond to those vulnerabilities and capacities in others.


I think I have talked about this before, but I can't find the link, so sorry if I am repeating myself.  But I frequently use this analogy to explain how being a sociopath doesn't necessarily equate to maliciousness.  Imagine that you are religious and that your religion compels you to eschew killing--"thou shalt not kill."  You believe in your religion, so you do not kill.  One day, you lose faith and stop believing.  You start thinking to yourself, "I really hate how my neighbor mows his lawn early Sunday morning and wakes me up."  You go to your neighbor's house and put a couple bullets in his head.

No, right?  You wouldn't do that.  Just because your religion was a dominant (if not primary) reason constraining your murderous impulses before does not mean that there aren't other reasons that would still keep you from killing, even if your faith failed you.  Similarly, although moral compasses typically lead people to behave like a "good person," there might be other reasons that people would do "good" things besides a firm sense of morality.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Gender

A reader asks:

What do you think the differences are between male and female sociopaths?

Females are known to be more hormonal and emotional than men, especially during a certain time of the month. How do you think this effects sociopathic women?

Also, oral contraceptives, or "the pill", increase women's estrogen and/or progesterone hormonal levels, which may, in return, cause them to be more emotional and can increase their sense of empathy. If a female sociopath is given such hormones, do you think that she could become more emotional and even feel a little empathetic towards others?

My response:

I think gender must have a big role in making us different.  Gender is a big deal for society.  There are a lot of gender roles that sociopaths of both genders who have to confront and adapt to.  Those adaptations would certainly give a unique flavor to the sociopathic style of the individual. Perhaps an even bigger deal is the different brain chemistry that each gender would have.  I know myself that even when I am sick or tired, I am a much different person than when I am not.   Transgender people frequently experience a personality modification as a result of taking different gender hormones.

To get more specifically to your question, though, what do you experience when you have a surge of female hormones?  Are you more emotional?  If you are more emotional, are those emotions legitimate responses?  Or are they something more akin to an emotional hallucination?

Reader:

I, too, agree that gender plays a big role in regards to behavior. As a woman, I feel that there is a certain level of femininity I must present to others. It appears that we, as women, are expected to be emotional, submissive, and cautious beings. I, however, am not, and have noticed that a lot of times both men and women seem to not know how to respond to this. Thus, I feel forced to act “sweeter” and more “girly” than I actually am in order to blend in.

When I experience a surge of hormones, I feel as though my thinking process becomes very foggy. I normally prefer to handle situations with logic and efficiency, but when I am hormonal, I can’t think straight and believe I’m losing my mind.


Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Bergen Conference on the Treatment of Psychopathy

Copies of the talks presented at last November's Second Bergen Conference on the Treatment of Psychopathy are available here, for those who are interested in the latest research or theories.  All of the talks include links to powerpoint or other supporting documents and Vimeo videos that hopefully should be accessible, wherever you happen to be watching geographically.

Some interesting topics include "Psychopathy: Capturing an elusive concept,"What do we think about when we think about psychopathy: Prototypicality research," "Untreatable? There might be exceptions!" "Motivating people with personality disorder to engage in treatment using a goal-based approach," "Working therapeutically with young people at risk of developing psychopathy," "Working therapeutically with women with psychopathy," and "Conceptualizing psychopathy in terms of boldness, meanness and disinhibition: Implications for prevention and treatment."

If nothing else, I think these talks give insight into how much researchers disagree about even the most basic concepts, and what drives those disagreements.
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.