From a reader:
As a long-term reader in psychology I thought you might be interested in Donald W. Winnicott’s material (from 1950s) on the subject of empathy. Have you read it? His articles are pivotal to understanding why some people develop a sense of concern, and others don’t- it’s a developmental acquisition of the first 2 yrs of life and he elaborates in precise detail how that happens.
It’s a cogent, convincing and rarely researched facet of psychopathy today but an alternative to genetic explanations.
Two chapters from the book The Maturational Process and the Facilitating Environment:
- Chapter 1. Psycho-analysis and the sense of guilt
- Chapter 6. The Development of the Capacity for Concern
He has numerous other material on this topic but these two will provide an intro if its of interest.
The basic idea is that a sense of guilt/concern is built in developmentally from about 6 months of age to about 18 months. It works like this:
Baby/todler shows aggression daily- eg. biting, screaming, kicking legs, squirming, non-complying, etc. Mother gets pissed off, shows it, and walks out of the room. Baby/toddler begin to get a sense, on each occasion, that they hurt the object that brings them food and cares for them. Kid then -maybe after half an hour, makes a "reparative gesture" when he sees mother again, such as smiling at her, laughing, offering her his rattle to hold or whatever. Mother accepts reparative gesture, and this happens thousands of times in a year of child's life. Through all this the child gets built-in a sense that concern about his ruthlessness and his agressiveness, and of the impact of it on the world around him. In later life the 'reparative gesture' becomes the common 'contributing into society' in a thousand altruistic ways- but underneath that 'contributing in' is the desire to appease over and over again the feeling that one is atoning for recently past wrongs or perhaps for future wrongs..... all of this is unconscious and built in since infancy.
Now, with psychopathy the child basically doesnt get to play out the cycle of aggression-guilt- reparative gesture. His mother might have died at the beginning of this developmental period, or she may be clinically depressed or otherwise self-involved to the degree that she can't participate in the cycle. Or another option is that the mother for personal reasons cannot accept the child's reparative gesture and so the kid doesnt build-in the sense of concern. He grows up with no sense of concern.
Its like learning language, is age specific developmentally speaking. If you miss it, you miss it. BTW, the developmental period during which all this takes place is called 'the depressive position'
Winnicott seems to think a sense of concern may be discovered later in life, but I find it doubtful.
It's interesting because my mother was both very self-interested and clinically depressed while I was growing up. But I also feel like I have come to understand (perhaps through intuiting the principles of multi-stage game theory, in which there are few long-term gains for blatantly ruthless strategies) and apply reparative gestures, at least with those closest and most important to me. Is that what he means by discovering a sense of concern later in life, do you think?
Friday, January 11, 2013
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Seducing too well
Everyone wants to be seduced. There are risks to seduction, but the person being seduced is almost always willing to take them—the allure of seduction is too strong. What people don't usually think about are the risks to the person doing the seduction. There are hazards to seducing too well. It's like building a fire: there are a lot of types of fires you can build, from slow-burning, red-hot coals, to flashes in the pan that burn quickly up and quickly out. The type of fire you never want is one that gets so big you burn down your house.Seductees are subject to the whims of seducers, but seducers are subject to the emotional outbursts and vagaries of seductees, which can often be much worse. If the seducer maintains control over the seductee, these outbursts can often be reigned in. Logic can and will prevail. Seduce too well, however, and terrible things can happen to both sides. Who do you think gets murdered more frequently? Seducers or seductees?
Even if you are not getting killed, there's the risk of major emotional fallout when you seduce too well. People can get so into you that it cripples them. They lose touch with reality. They become a walking ball of emotions ready to spew at anyone who gets near them—your family and friends, your landlord, your neighbors. If they get jealous, you're toast. How will you ever get rid of them? They are unstable, and any attempt to separate from them will likely include you on the collateral damage list.
I recently over-seduced. Part of the problem was that we met once, then didn't meet again for a month or more. Letting that much time elapse is tricky. It's like throwing a match on a wood pile and walking away. When you come back your fire could be thriving, or it could be dead. I planned the activity to be "strong" enough that even if the fire had died out, I could still revive it, thinking I could later temper it if it seemed too much.
The second complication was that during that particular night I was tired and sick and could only bring myself to ask probing questions. I came across as mysterious, intense, and interested. After the night, I was almost immediately assaulted by phone calls and SMS messages. The fire I built had gotten out of control—this person was obsessed with me. I thought about just writing off the seduction attempt as a loss, but I'm a scrapper so I hung in there. I replied, but not frequently. I made and canceled plans. I used my illness and the holidays as an excuse. When we met again, I spoke straightforwardly about the seduction, in a way to keep the person both flattered and interested, but not seriously interested in me.
It was worth it, I suppose. I mean, it's like watching a movie where you already know the ending—the movie may still be good (hopefully it's a good movie), but the thrill is gone. And I'm constantly worried about over-seduction relapses because people are into people who can seduce so well, then talk intelligently about it afterward. So overall, not a complete success...
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Sociopath quote: self-knowledge
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Sharing is caring?
Are sociopaths happier for being selfish? Probably:
Although we are taught the benefits of kindness and altruism, it seems we are happiest when simply told to pursue our own self-interest.
Researchers found the key to contentment is feeling we have no choice but to be selfish.
In contrast, the study, carried out by psychologists at the University of Pennsylvania, found that those who actively choose a selfish path usually have to battle with guilt.
They speculated that because we're taught as children that 'sharing means caring', if we make a decision out of self-interest, we often feel bad for prioritising ourselves over others.
But that frequently means we forego the things we know will make us happy.
That's odd, why would being unselfish not make us happy?
Although we are taught the benefits of kindness and altruism, it seems we are happiest when simply told to pursue our own self-interest.
Researchers found the key to contentment is feeling we have no choice but to be selfish.
In contrast, the study, carried out by psychologists at the University of Pennsylvania, found that those who actively choose a selfish path usually have to battle with guilt.
They speculated that because we're taught as children that 'sharing means caring', if we make a decision out of self-interest, we often feel bad for prioritising ourselves over others.
But that frequently means we forego the things we know will make us happy.
That's odd, why would being unselfish not make us happy?
Monday, January 7, 2013
What exactly is psychopathy?
A reader sent this interesting article from one of our favorite researchers, Jennifer Skeem, whose previous attack on the PCL-R caused Robert Hare to take her to court and delay the publication before it was eventually released. The article is sort of an interesting primer on psychopathy and summary of the most recent research. She has her own ideas about the correct delineation of psychopathy that seems reasonable. First she discusses why there are so many ideas about what exactly sociopathy is:
As we will discuss, many of the controversies surrounding psychopathy stem from fundamental disagreements about its basic definition, or operationalization. The scope of phenomena encompassed by the term psychopathy has varied dramatically over time, from virtually all forms of mental disorder (psychopathy as “diseased mind”) to a distinctive disorder characterized by lack of anxiety; guiltlessness; charm; superficial social adeptness; dishonesty; and reckless, uninhibited behavior (Blackburn, 1998). Even contemporary conceptualizations of psychopathy contain puzzling contradictions. Psychopaths are often described as hostile, aggressive, and at times revenge driven (N. S. Gray, MacCulloch, Smith, Morris, & Snowden, 2003), yet they are also characterized as experiencing only superficial emotions (Karpman, 1961; McCord & McCord, 1964). They are impulsive and reckless, yet apparently capable of elaborate scheming and masterful manipulation (Hare, 1993). They can rise to high levels of achievement or status in society, attaining success in business and public life, yet present as criminals whose behavior is so poorly thought out and lacking in regard even for self-interest that they occupy bottom rungs of the social ladder
Given these contrasting depictions, it is scant wonder that some experts have concluded that the concept of psychopathy, as commonly understood, is disturbingly problematic: a “mythical entity” and “a moral judgment masquerading as a clinical diagnosis” (Blackburn, 1988, p. 511), “almost synonymous with ‘bad’” (Gunn, 1998, p. 34), “used by the media [to convey] an impression of danger, and implacable evil” (Lykken, 2006, p. 11). In the words of William and Joan McCord (McCord & McCord, 1964), two influential figures in the historic literature on psychopathy, “the proliferation of definitions, the tendency to expand the concept to include all deviant behavior, the discrepancies in judgment between different observers——these pitfalls in the history of the concept—— are enough to make a systematic diagnostician weep” (p. 56).
She then (optimistically) asserts that all is not lost, that sociopathy is a thing and we can figure out what that thing is through careful parsing of the literature and empirical evidence. First she dispels some myths:
The article is quite long. I will probably keep going back to it over the next month or so and perhaps sharing things that I learn here.
As we will discuss, many of the controversies surrounding psychopathy stem from fundamental disagreements about its basic definition, or operationalization. The scope of phenomena encompassed by the term psychopathy has varied dramatically over time, from virtually all forms of mental disorder (psychopathy as “diseased mind”) to a distinctive disorder characterized by lack of anxiety; guiltlessness; charm; superficial social adeptness; dishonesty; and reckless, uninhibited behavior (Blackburn, 1998). Even contemporary conceptualizations of psychopathy contain puzzling contradictions. Psychopaths are often described as hostile, aggressive, and at times revenge driven (N. S. Gray, MacCulloch, Smith, Morris, & Snowden, 2003), yet they are also characterized as experiencing only superficial emotions (Karpman, 1961; McCord & McCord, 1964). They are impulsive and reckless, yet apparently capable of elaborate scheming and masterful manipulation (Hare, 1993). They can rise to high levels of achievement or status in society, attaining success in business and public life, yet present as criminals whose behavior is so poorly thought out and lacking in regard even for self-interest that they occupy bottom rungs of the social ladder
Given these contrasting depictions, it is scant wonder that some experts have concluded that the concept of psychopathy, as commonly understood, is disturbingly problematic: a “mythical entity” and “a moral judgment masquerading as a clinical diagnosis” (Blackburn, 1988, p. 511), “almost synonymous with ‘bad’” (Gunn, 1998, p. 34), “used by the media [to convey] an impression of danger, and implacable evil” (Lykken, 2006, p. 11). In the words of William and Joan McCord (McCord & McCord, 1964), two influential figures in the historic literature on psychopathy, “the proliferation of definitions, the tendency to expand the concept to include all deviant behavior, the discrepancies in judgment between different observers——these pitfalls in the history of the concept—— are enough to make a systematic diagnostician weep” (p. 56).
She then (optimistically) asserts that all is not lost, that sociopathy is a thing and we can figure out what that thing is through careful parsing of the literature and empirical evidence. First she dispels some myths:
- Psychopathy is synonymous with violence: "However, psychopathy can and does occur in the absence of official criminal convictions, and many psychopathic individuals have no histories of violence."
- Psychopathy is synonymous with psychosis: "In contrast with psychotic patients, psychopathic individuals are generally rational, free of delusions, and well oriented to their surroundings"
- Psychopathy is synonymous with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD): "The difference arises largely because measures of psychopathy include personality traits inferable from behavior, whereas measures of ASPD more exclusively emphasize antisocial, criminal, and (to a lesser extent) violent behavior."
- Psychopathic individuals are born, not made: "Contemporary understanding of the pervasive interplay of genetic and environmental influences in determining behavioral outcomes of various kinds argues against the likelihood that any psychiatric condition, including psychopathy, is entirely 'born' or 'made.'"
- Psychopathy is inalterable: "some recent empirical work has emerged to suggest that personality traits in general, and psychopathic traits more specifically, undergo change across major developmental transitions"
The article is quite long. I will probably keep going back to it over the next month or so and perhaps sharing things that I learn here.
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.


