"Crisis of the Republic" and Pathocrats - An Exercise in Discernment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Durand
  • Start date Start date
EQ said:
One thing that makes me suspicious of comparing psychopaths to crocodiles (and I myself have compared them to predators of the natural world) is that even predators are part of nature, while psychopaths are a corruption of nature. They are failures, either genetically or through environmental factors.
Good point. In nature, when a "failure" is born to a particular species, it generally does not survive because the parents will not raise it, and often, the "failure" means that it is in some way "weak" and WILL not survive in any case.

But in the case of the psychopath, it seems that it is sort of like a mutation that is a positive adaptation for survivability - at least up to a point. One would think that if there was nothing left but psychopaths, they would kill each other off or destroy the planet in the meantime which would amount to the same thing.
 
As for psychosis vs psychopathy, there are some interesting remarks made by Cleckley on just this subject:

Hervey Cleckley said:
SANITY – A PROTEAN CONCEPT

A millionaire notable for his eccentricity had an older and better balanced brother who, on numerous fitting occasions, exercised strong persuasion to bring him under psychiatric care. On receiving word that this wiser brother had been deserted immediately after the nuptial night by a famous lady of the theatre (on whom he had just settled a large fortune) and that the bride, furthermore, had, during the brief pseudoconnubial episode, remained stubbornly encased in tights, the younger hastened to dispatch this succinct and unanswerable telegram:

WHO'S LOONEY NOW?

This, at any rate, is the story. I do not offer to answer for its authenticity. It may, however, be taken not precisely as an example but at least as a somewhat flippant and arresting commentary on the confusion which still exists concerning sanity. Although most patients suffering from one of the classified types of mental disorder are promptly recognized by the psychiatrist, many of them being even to the layman plainly deranged, there remains a large body of people who, everyone will admit, are by no means adapted for normal life in the community and who, yet, have no official standing in the ranks of the insane. The word insane, of course, is not a medical term. It is employed here because to many people it conveys a more practical meaning than the medical term psychotic. Although the medical term with its greater vagueness presents a fairer idea of the present conception of severe mental disorder, the legal term better implies the criteria by which the personalities under discussion are judged in the courts.

Many of these people, legally judged as competent, are more dangerous to themselves and to others than are some patients whose psychiatric disability will necessitate their spending their entire lives in the state hospital. Though certified automatically as sane by the verbal definitions of law and of medicine, their behavior demonstrates an irrationality and incompetence that are gross and obvious.

MATERIAL TO DISTINGUISH FROM OUR SUBJECT

These people to whom I mean to call specific attention are not the borderline cases in whom the characteristics of some familiar mental disorder are only partially developed and the picture as a whole is still questionable. Many such cases exist, of course, and they are sometimes puzzling even to the experienced psychiatrist. Certain people, as everyone knows, may for many years show to a certain degree the reactions of schizophrenia (dementia praecox) of manic-depressive psychosis, or a paranoia without being sufficiently disabled or so generally irrational as to be recognized as psychotic. Many patients suffering from incipient disorders of this sort or from dementia paralytica, cerebral arteriosclerosis, and other organic conditions pass through a preliminary phase during which their thought and behavior are to a certain degree characteristic of the psychosis, while for the time being they remain able to function satisfactorily in the community.

Some people in the early stage of these familiar clinical disorders behave, on the whole, with what is regarded as mental competency, while showing, from time to time, symptoms typical of the psychosis toward which they are progressing. After the disability has at last become openly manifest, enough episodes of deviated conduct can often be noted in retrospect to make the observer wonder why the subject was not long ago recognized as psychotic. It would, however, sometimes be not only difficult but unfair to pronounce a person totally disabled while most of his conduct remains acceptable. Do we not, as a matter of fact, have to admit that all of us behave at times with something short of complete rationality and good judgment?

***

I recall a highly respected businessman who, after years of outstanding commercial success, began to send telegrams to the White House ordering the President to dispatch the Atlantic Fleet to Madagascar and to execute Roman Catholics. There was at this time no question, of course, about his disability. A careful study revealed that for several years he had occasionally made fantastic statements, displayed extraordinary behavior (for instance, once putting the lighted end of a cigar to his stenographer's neck by way of greeting), and squandered thousands of dollars buying up stamp collections, worthless atticfuls of old furniture, and sets of encyclopedias by the dozen. None of these purchases had he put to any particular use. When finally discovered to be incompetent from illness, an investigation of his status showed that he had thrown away the better part of a million dollars. For months he had been maintaining 138 bird dogs scattered over the countryside, forty-two horses, and fourteen women, to none of whom he resorted for the several types of pleasure in which such dependents sometimes play a part.

Aside from persons in the early stages of progressive illness, one finds throughout the nation, and probably over the world, a horde of citizens who stoutly maintain beliefs regarded as absurd and contrary to fact by society as a whole. Often these people indulge in conduct that to others seems unquestionably irrational.
For example, the daily newspapers continue to report current gatherings in many states where hundreds of people handle poisonous snakes, earnestly insisting that they are carrying out God's will. Death from snakebite among these zealous worshippers does not apparently dampen their ardor. Small children, too young to arrive spontaneously at similar conclusions concerning the relationships between faith and venom, are not spared by their parents this intimate contact with the rattler and the copperhead.

It is, perhaps, not remarkable that prophets continually predict the end of the world, giving precise and authoritative details of what so far has proved no less fanciful than the delusions of patients confined in psychiatric hospitals. That scores and sometimes hundred or even thousands of followers accept these prophecies might give the thoughtful more cause to wonder. Newspaper clippings and magazine articles before the writer at this moment describe numerous examples of such behavior.

In a small Georgia town twenty earnest disciples sit up with a pious lady who has convinced them that midnight will bring the millenium. An elderly clergyman in California, whose more numerous followers are likewise disappointed when the designated moment passes uneventfully, explains that there is no fault with his divine vision but only some minor error of calculation which arose from differences between the Biblical and the modern calendars. During the last century an even more vehement leader had thousands of people, in New England and in other states, out on the hillsides expecting to be caught up to glory as dawn broke. Indeed, conviction was so great that at sunrise many leaped from cliffs, roofs, and silos, one zealot having tied turkey wings to his arms the better to provide for flight. Those who had hoped to ascend found gravity unchanged, the earth still solid, and the inevitable contact jarring. 268,283

Few, if any, who prophesy on the grounds of mystic insight or special revelation come to conclusions more extraordinary than those reached by some who profess, and often firmly believe, they are working within the methods of science. A notable example is furnished by Wilhelm Reich, who is listed in American Men of Science and whose earlier work in psychopathology is regarded by many as valuable.28 Textbooks of high scientific standing still refer to his discoveries in this field.79,129,188

It is indeed startling when such a person as this announces the discovery of "orgone," a substance which, it is claimed, has much to do with sexual orgasm (as well as the blueness of the sky) and which can be accumulated in boxes lined with metal. Those who sit within the boxes are said to benefit in many marvelous ways. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the accumulation of this (to others) nonexistent material is by Reich and his followers promoted as a method for curing cancer.59 A report of the Council of the American Medical Association lists the orgone accumulator with various quack nostrums under "Frauds and Fables." The presence of any such material as "orgone" impresses the physician as no less imaginary than its alleged therapeutic effects. The nature of such conclusions and the methods of arriving at them are scarcely more astonishing than the credulity of highly educated and intellectual people who are reported to give them earnest consideration.28

During the 1940's, crowds estimated as containing twenty-five thousand or more persons, some of them having travelled halfway across the United States, stood in the rain night after night to watch a 9-year-old boy in New York City who claimed to have seen a vision which he described as "an angel's head with butterfly wings."

A clergyman of the Church of England during World War II confirmed as a supernatural omen of good the reported appearance of a luminous cross in the sky near Ipswich. In our own generation men of profound learning have expressed literal belief in witchcraft and approved the efforts of those who, following the Biblical injunction, put thousands to death for this activity.300

These headlines from a daily newspaper deserve consideration:

NOW IN MENTAL HOSPITAL,
ACCUSED OF TREASON, HELD INSANE,
EZRA POUND GIVEN TOP POETRY PRIZE

My interest in this news does not indicate that I hold it to be impossible for a person with a serious psychiatric disorder sometimes to write good poetry or to achieve other worthwhile attainments.

The headlines nevertheless reflect a bewildering conflict of evaluation in which some of the paradoxical elements strongly suggest absurdity. They also bring to mind what sometimes seems to be a rapt predilection of small but influential cults of intellectuals or esthetes for what is generally regarded as perverse, dispirited, or distastefully unintelligible.5, 36,114, 253 The award of a Nobel Prize in literature to Andre Gide, who in his work fervently and openly insists that pederasty is the superior and preferable way of life for adolescent boys, furnishes a memorable example of such judgments.94, 198 Renowned critics and some professors in our best universities179, 282 reverently acclaim as the superlative expression of genius James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake, a 628-page collection of erudite gibberish indistinguishable to most people from the familiar word salad produced by hebephrenic patients on the back wards of any state hopsital. [...]

It is not for me to say dogmatically that Finnegan's Wake is a volume devoid of meaning. Nor could I with certainty make such a pronouncement about the chaotic verbal productions of the patient on the back ward of an old time state hospital.

Ezra Pound's continued eminence as a poet and the almost worshipful admiration with which some scholars acclaim Finnegan's Wake are likely to evoke wonder from the man of ordinary tastes and reactions if he gives these matters serious consideration. [...]

The more one considers such convictions and the sort of people who hold them, the more impressive becomes the old saying attributed 301 to Artemus Ward and indicating that our troubles arise not so much from ignorance as from knowing so much that is not so. Hundreds of other examples like those mentioned are available to demonstrate that many persons of high ability and superior education sincerely cherish beliefs which seem to have little more real support from fact or reason than the ordinary textbook delusion. Such beliefs are held as persistently by respected persons and influential groups, despite evidence to the contrary, as by psychotic patients who are segregated in hospitals.

Let it be understood that I am not advancing an opinion that those who are persuaded by prophets that the world will end next Thursday or that those who appeal to faith healers to protect a child from the effects of meningitis should be pronounced as clinically psychotic and forcibly committed to hospitals. Despite the similarity between the way such beliefs are adopted and the way a schizoid or paranoid patient arrives at his delusions, and despite the similar lack of evidence for considering either true, people such as those now under discussion are usually capable of leading useful lives in harmony with the community and sometimes of benefit to society. Few things, in my opinion, are more basic than the necessity for men to allow each other freedom to believe or not to believe, however sacred, or however false, different creeds may be held by different groups.

Convictions that the world is flat, that one must not begin a job on Friday, or that Mr. Arthur Bell of Mankind United193 is omnipotent are apparently held by some in reverent identity with the deepest religious attitudes of which they are capable. In this basic sense, each man's religion, as contrasted with the dogma or illusion in which he may frame it, his basic attitude and emotional response to whatever meaning and purpose he has been able to find in his living, deserves respect and consideration. The Methodist, the Mormon, and the Catholic, as well as the man who cannot accept any literal creed as a final statement of these issues, can honor and value, in a fundamentally religious sense, the valid reverence and the ultimate subjective aims of a good Mohammedan. This is possible without the ability to share his pleasant convictions about the likelihood of houris in paradise. [...]

Raising general questions about personality disorder, we have briefly considered (1) persons suffering from illnesses that progress to major mental disability and (2) the numerous citizens of our nation, many of them able and well educated, who hold beliefs generally regarded as unsupported by evidence and considered by many as irrational or even fantastic. Aside from these groups and aside from all types of patients recognized as psychotic, there remains for our consideration a large body of people who are incapable of leading normal lives and whose behavior causes great distress in every community.

This group, plainly marked off from the psychotic by current psychiatric standards, does not find a categorical haven among the psychoneurotic, who are distinguished by many medical characteristics from the people to be discussed in this volume. They are also distinguished practically by their ability to adjust without major difficulties in the social group.

Who, then, are these relatively unclassified people? And what is the nature of their disorder? The pages which follow will be devoted to an attempt to answer these questions. The answers are not easy to formulate. The very name by which such patients are informally referred to in mental hospitals or elsewhere among psychiatrists is in itself confusing. Every physician is familiar with the term psychopath, by which these people are most commonly designated.50 Despite the plain etymologic inference of a sick mind or of mental sickness, this term is ordinarily used to indicate those who are considered free from psychosis and even from psychoneurosis. The definitions of psychopath found in medical dictionaries are not consistent nor do they regularly accord with the ordinary psychiatric use of this word.

In a 1952 revision of the psychiatric nomenclature14 the term psychopathic personality was officially replaced by sociopathic Personality. Subsequently the informal term, sociopath, was often used along with the older and more familiar psychopath to designate a large group of seriously disabled people, listed with other dissimilar groups under the heading personality disorder.62 Still another change in the official terminology was made in 1968 when the designation sociopathic personality was replaced by personality disorder, antisocial type.15 In referring to these people now formally classified by the term antisocial personality, I shall continue to use also the more familiar and apparently more durable term, psychopath. The diagnostic category, personality disorder, officially includes a wide variety of maladjusted people who cannot by the criteria of psychiatry be classed with the psychotic, the psychoneurotic, or the mentally defective. Until fairly recent years, it was by no means uncommon for the report of a detailed psychiatric examination made on a patient in a state or federal institution to end with this diagnostic conclusion:

1. No nervous or mental disease
2. Psychopathic personality

Traditionally the psychopath (antisocial personality) has been placed in general diagnostic categories containing many other disorders, deviations, abnormalities or deficiencies, most of which have little or no resemblance to his actual condition. From the category personality disorder, as last defined in 1968, a number of these dissimilar and apparently unrelated psychiatric conditions have been removed. It is not likely however that all the confusion promoted by the older classifications will subside promptly.

In the early decades of our century a large group of abnormalities, mental deficiency, various brain and body malformations and developmental defects, sexual perversions, delinquent behavior patterns, chronically mild schizoid disorders, were all classed as constitutional psychopathic inferiority.123

After the ordinary mental defectives and most of the cases with demonstrable brain damage or developmental anomalies were distinguished, a considerable residue of diverse conditions remained under the old classification.

As time passed and psychiatric study continued, an increasing number of observers felt that the term constitutional was scarcely justified for some of the several disorders listed in the categories just menioned. Eventually the term was officially discarded in our country and psychopathic personality was adopted, not only for the type of patient to be discussed in this volume but for a good many others easily distinguished from him in life but only with difficulty in the nomenclature. [...]

In recent years a contrary tendency has become prominent in psychiatry, a tendency to make, on the basis of symbolism and theoretical postulates sweeping and unverifiable assumptions and to insist that these prove the
cause of obscure personality disorders to lie in specific infantile, or even intrauterine, experiences.82, 166, 238 This practice has become exceedingly popular and has, in my opinion, led to many fanciful and absurd pseudoscientific explanations of the psychopath and of other psychiatric problems. Let us bear in mind that the currently prevalent psychodynamic theories are of such a nature that they can be glibly used to convince oneself of the truth of virtually any assumption, however implausible, that one might make about what is in the unconscious but what is never brought to consciousness or otherwise demonstrated. Let us not mistake these easy and unsupported assumptions for actual evidence.

After many years of work in psychiatry as a member of the staff in a closed hospital devoted to the treatment of mental disorders, and after many other years in charge of the psychiatric service in a general hospital, I believe that these curious people referred to as sociopaths or psychopaths, in the vernacular of the ward and the staff room, offer a field of study in personality disorder more baffling and more fascinating than any other. The present work has been attempted because of an ever-growing conviction that this type of disorder is far less clearly understood than either the well defined psychoses or the neuroses and that this lack of understanding is, furthermore, not sufficiently recognized and admitted. Although I do not pretend to achieve a final explanation of so grave and perplexing a problem, it is hoped that a frank and detailed discussion may, at least, draw attention to the magnitude of the problem.48 [...]

According to the traditional standards of psychiatry, such patients are not eligible for admission to state hospitals for the psychotic or to the numerous hospitals of the same type maintained by the federal government for veterans of the armed services. They are classed as sane and competent and, theoretically at least, are held responsible for their conduct. Being so classed, none of the measures used to protect other psychiatric patients (and their families and the community) can be applied to bring them under any sort of treatment or restriction, even when they show themselves dangerously disordered. By many psychiatrists they have in a technical sense, been considered to be without nervous or mental disease. There are many arguments that can be brought forward in support of these beliefs, particularly if one adheres strictly to the traditional and currently accepted definitions of psychiatry and minimizes or evades what is demonstrated by the patient's behavior.

It is difficult, however, for society to hold these people to account for their damaging conduct or to apply any control that will prevent its continuing. Those who commit serious crimes have a history that any clever lawyer can exploit in such a way as to make his client appear to the average jury the victim of such madness as would make Bedlam itself tame by comparison. Under such circumstances they often escape the legal consequences of their acts, are sent to mental hospitals where they prove to be "sane," and are released. On the other hand, when their relatives and their neighbors seek relief or protection from them and take action to have them committed to psychiatric hospitals. They, not wanting to be restricted, are able to convince the courts that they are as competent as any man. [...]

These people called psychopaths present a problem which must be better understood by lawyers, social workers, schoolteachers, and by the general public if any satisfactory way of dealing with them is to be worked out. Before this understanding can come, the general body of physicians to whom the laity turn for advice must themselves have a clear picture of the situation. Much of the difficulty that mental institutions have in their relations with the psychopath springs from a lack of awareness in the public that he exists. The law in its practical application provides no means whereby the community can adequately protect itself from such people. And no satisfactory facilities can be found for their treatment. It is with these thoughts especially in mind that I seek to present the material of this book in such a manner that the average physician who treats few frankly psychotic patients may see that our subject lies in his own field scarcely less than in the field of psychiatry. After all, psychiatry, though still a specialty, can no longer be regarded as circumscribed within the general scope of medicine.35

In nearly all the standard textbooks of psychiatry the psychopath is mentioned. Several recent textbooks have indeed made definite efforts to stress for the student the challenging and paradoxical features of our subject. Often, however, tucked away at the end of a large volume, an obscure chapter is found containing a few pages or paragraphs devoted to these strange people who take so much attention of the medical staffs in psychiatric hospitals and whose behavior, it is here maintained, probably causes more unhappiness and more perplexity to the public than all other mentally disordered patients combined.

From some textbooks the medical student is likely to arrive at a conclusion that the psychopath is an unimportant figure, probably seldom encountered even in a psychiatric practice. Nor will he be led to believe that this type of disorder is particularly interesting. Not only is the chapter on psychopathic personalities often short and sometimes vague or halfhearted, but even this until fairly recently was nearly always involved with personality types or disorders which bear little or no resemblance to that with which we are now concerned.

Although it is true that these other conditions were for many decades officially placed in the same category with the one discussed here, which I believe is a clinical entity, it is hard to see how any student unfamiliar with the latter could profit by encountering it vaguely placed in a company of assorted deficiencies and aberrations that are by no means basically similar.

It is my earnest conviction that, traditionally confused with a fairly heterogeneous group under a loose and variously understood term, a type of patient exists who could, without exaggeration, still be called the forgotten man of psychiatry. If this patient can be presented as he has appeared so clearly during years of observation, if some idea can be given of his ubiquity, and, above all, if interest can be promoted in further study of his peculiar status among other human beings, I shall be abundantly satisfied. It is difficult to contemplate the enigma which he provokes without attempting to find some explanation, speculative though the attempt may be. My efforts to explain or interpret are, however, tentative and secondary to the real purpose of this volume, which is to call attention to what may be observed about our subject.
Continued next post.
 
"Good point. In nature, when a "failure" is born to a particular species, it generally does not survive because the parents will not raise it, and often, the "failure" means that it is in some way "weak" and WILL not survive in any case.

But in the case of the psychopath, it seems that it is sort of like a mutation that is a positive adaptation for survivability - at least up to a point. One would think that if there was nothing left but psychopaths, they would kill each other off or destroy the planet in the meantime which would amount to the same thing."

This brings to mind one of the most interesting questions for someone who studies the living world - that of the apparent imbalance in nature caused by human beings as a species and certain types of humans within that species. Someone brought up this point before - what would things have turned out like if psychopathy were completely absent from the human race? Is our inability to live in harmony with preexisting organisms a function of human nature, as material science would argue (since they would base their arguments on the view that we are an accident of chance events) or a result of this disease we have been so long afflicted with.

I think here, as in many places, material science fails to come up with a really satisfying explanation for this bizarre situation. Adding the spiritual aspects, such as STS and STO, hyperdimensionailty and all that implies, sheds new light on other possibilities for humanity that
before seemed just fantasies.

ps. Could someone tell me how to quote in those white boxes? thanks
 
Continuing with Cleckley:

Mask of Sanity said:
In attempt to determine the incidence of this disorder in the population as a whole is opposed by serious difficulties. The vagueness of officially accepted criteria for diagnosis and the extreme variation of degree in such maladjustment constitute primary obstacles. Statistics from most psychiatric hospitals are necessarily misleading, since the psychopath is not technically eligible for admission and only those who behave in such an extremely abnormal manner as to appear orthodoxly psychotic (that is to say, as suffering from another and very different disorder) appear in the records. If the traditional legal and medical rules were regularly followed, statistics from state hospitals and from the federal psychiatric institutions would show no psychopaths at all. Let it also be noted that these institutions contain a vast majority of the patients hospitalized in the United States for mental disorder. Most statistical studies, therefore, cannot be regarded as even remotely suggesting the prevalence of this disability in the population.

These facts notwithstanding, it is still impressive to note what the records of a typical psychiatric institution reveal during a period of twenty-nine months shortly before the first edition of this book was published in 1941. During this period 857 new patients were admitted to one federal hospital, where a staff of ten psychiatrists, including myself, classified them after careful examination and study. Of this group, 102 received the primary diagnosis of psychopathic personality, being considered free of any other mental disorder that could account for the difficulties that led to their admission. This group, comprising nearly one-eighth of all those admitted, indicates that the disorder is far from rare. The records also show 134 other patients classified under alcoholism or drug addiction, many of whom I believe, for reasons brought out in the appendix, were fundamentally like those diagnosed as psychopaths, the addiction and other complications being secondary. If even one-half of these are considered as psychopaths, we arrive at a figure of 169, or almost one-fifth of the total.

These statistics from one psychiatric institution cannot, of course, be taken as proof that the disorder is so prevalent everywhere. One must not overlook the fact, however, that each of these patients was accepted despite rules specifically classifying him as ineligible and often as a result of conduct so abnormal or so difficult to cope with that he was considered a grave emergency. Another factor worth mentioning is the psychopath's almost uniform unwillingness to apply, like other ill people, for hospitalization or for any other medical service. The survey at least suggests that these patients are common and that they constitute a serious problem in the average community and a major issue in psychiatry.

I have been forced to the conviction that this particular behavior pattern is found among one's fellow men far more frequently than might be surmised from reading the literature. If the nature of the disorder in question defines itself throughout the course of this work with sufficient sharpness and clarity to be recognizable as a pathologic entity, little doubt will remain that it presents a sociologic and psychiatric problem second to none. [...]

When we consider on the other hand these antisocial or psychopathic personalities, we find not one in one hundred who spontaneously goes to his physician to seek help. If relatives, alarmed by his disastrous conduct, recognize that treatment, or at least supervision, is an urgent need, they meet enormous obstacles. The public institutions to which they would turn for the care of a schizophrenic or a manic patient present closed doors. If they are sufficiently wealthy, they often consider a private psychiatric hospital. It should also be noted here that such private hospitals are necessarily expensive and that perhaps not more than 2 or 3 percent of our population can afford such care for prolonged periods. No matter how wealthy his family may be, the psychopath, unlike all other serious psychiatric cases, can refuse to go to any hospital or to accept any other treatment or restraint. His refusal is regularly upheld by our courts of law, and grounds for this are consistent with the official appraisal of his condition by psychiatry.

Nearly always he does refuse and successfully oppose the efforts of his relatives to have him cared for. It is seldom that a psychopath accepts hospitalization or even outpatient treatment unless some strong means of coercion happens to be available. The threat of cutting off his financial support, of bringing legal action against him for forgery or theft, or of allowing him to remain in jail may move him to visit a physician's office or possibly to enter a hospital. Subsequent events often demonstrate that he is acting not seriously and with the understanding he professes but for the purpose of evasion, whether he himself realizes this or not. He usually breaks off treatment as soon as the evasion has been accomplished.

Since medical institutions traditionally refuse to accept the psychopath as a patient and since he does not voluntarily, except in rare instances, seek medical aid, it might be surmised that prison populations would furnish statistics useful in estimating the prevalence of his disorder. It is true that a considerable proportion of prison inmates show indications of such a disorder.31,184,240 It is also true that only a small proportion of typical psychopaths are likely to be found in penal institutions, since the typical patient, as will be brought out in subsequent pages, is not likely to commit major crimes that result in long prison terms. He is also distinguished by his ability to escape ordinary legal punishments and restraints. Though he regularly makes trouble for society, as well as for himself, and frequently is handled by the police, his characteristic behavior does not usually include committing felonies which would bring about permanent or adequate restriction of his activities. He is often arrested, perhaps one hundred times or more. But he nearly always regains his freedom and returns to his old patterns of maladjustment.

Although the incidence of this disorder is at present impossible to establish statistically or even to estimate accurately, I am willing to express the opinion that it is exceedingly high. On the basis of experience in psychiatric out-patient clinics and with psychiatric problems of private patients and in the community (as contrasted with committed patients), it does not seem an exaggeration to estimate the number of people seriously disabled by the disorder now listed under the term antisocial personality as greater than the number disabled by any recognized psychosis except schizophrenia. So far as I know, there are no specific provisions made in any public institution for dealing with even one psychopath.
Now, just some quick excerpts of case histories:

Mask of Sanity said:
He seemed pleased to be at the hospital and was expansive and cordial but a little haughty despite his well-maintained air of camaraderie. Although a small man, only 5 feet, 6 inches tall, he made a rather striking impression. His glance was fresh and arresting. His movements were quick, and he had an air of liveliness vaguely suggestive of a chipmunk. Though preposterously boastful, he did not show any indications of a psychosis.

The hospital records showed that he had been a patient eight years previously for a period of two months. During this time of study he showed no evidence of a psychosis or a psychoneurosis and was discharged with a diagnosis of psychopathic personality. [...]

Several months previously he had spent six weeks at a Veterans Administration hospital in Maryland after getting into similar trouble with the police in Wilmington, Delaware. He complained at the time of having spells during which he lost his temper and attacked people, often, according to his story, with disastrous results, since, again according to his story, he had at one time been featherweight boxing champion of England.

According to the psychiatric history at the Maryland hospital, he had, in describing these spells, mentioned some points that would suggest epilepsy. As soon as he came to the hospital and was relieved of responsibility for the trouble he had made, the so-called spells ceased. His description of them varied. Sometimes, when particularly expansive, he boasted of superconvulsions lasting as long as ten hours, during which he made windowpanes rattle and shook slats from the bed. After being in the hospital for several weeks and apparently beginning to grow bored, his talk of spells died down and he seemed to lose interest in the subject. He was discharged after the staff had agreed that the alleged seizures were entirely spurious and the patient himself had all but admitted it. The diagnosis of psychopathic personality was made.
Between his first visit to the present hospital and his recent return, he had been in five other psychiatric institutions, each time following conflicts with the law or pressing difficulties with private persons. In all the records accumulated during these examinations and investigations, no authentic symptom of an orthodox mental disorder is noted. True enough, there are statements by wives and other interested parties about spells and opinions by the laity, such as the following which was quoted by his attorney on one occasion to shield him from the consequences of theft:

I had occasion to be in Dayton, Ohio, recently and talked to the people running the ... Loan Company at ... Street, having stopped there for about an hour between trains en route for Chicago. I was informed by these gentlemen that he had wheels in his head.
Statements such as the foregoing, opinions that he is "undoubtedly goofy," that he does not behave like a man in his proper senses, abound in the ponderous stack of letters, medical histories, social service reports, records of court trials, and other material that has accumulated in this man's wake. One who reads his strange and prolix story and, even more, one who knows the hero personally is only too ready to fall into the vernacular and agree.

Nevertheless, it was equally true on reviewing his record at the time of his new admission that no symptom impressing a psychiatrist had been manifested and that many groups of psychiatrists had, after careful study, continued to find him free of psychosis or psychoneurosis, in other words. sane and responsible for his conduct and even without the mitigating circumstance of a milder mental illness.

Once during this period he had been sent to prison in a southern state for forgeries a little more ambitious than his routine practice. At the instigation of his second and legal wife, who consistently flew to his aid (despite her chagrin at the patient's having meanwhile consummated two bigamous marriages), well-meaning officers of a veterans' organization became interested and took up the cudgels.

Wearying sharply of prison, the patient had for some time been talking on all occasions about a blow on the head which he had sustained while in service. This alleged incident, though absent from his military records, had cropped up frequently but not regularly during his hospitalizations. Sometimes the blow, which he had sustained accidentally from the butt of a gun that a companion was breaching, had merely left him dizzy for a moment. Again it had knocked him unconscious for a short period and necessitated several days' rest in his tent.

Max now became more specific about his wartime injury and explained that he had suffered a severe concussion, lying out stark and unconscious for some eight or nine hours. Attorneys pointed out his many periods of treatment in psychiatric hospitals. The governor soon agreed to parole him into the custody of a federal hospital in Mississippi.

During his present sojourn in the hospital he was for several weeks happily adjusted on the admission ward, busy doing small favors for the physician, congenial with all the personnel, and helpful and kindly toward psychotic patients. He was alert, quick-witted, nimble with his hands, and entirely free from delusions, hallucinations, or any of the broader personality changes associated with the ordinary psychoses. He was by no means "nervous," even in the lay sense, and showed no emotional instability or signs of ungovernable impulse. Rather than an excess of anxiety, he showed the reverse, apparently finding little or nothing in his present situation or in all his past difficulties to cause worry or uneasiness.

As the time passed, however, he began to grow restive. He became somewhat condescending toward the physician, frequently referring to himself as a man of superior education and culture and boasting that he had studied for years at Heidelberg.

Shortly before the time set for him to come before the staff, he demanded his discharge. This was denied. He now became involved in frequent altercations with attendants and sometimes fought desultorily with other patients. These fights always started over trifles, and Max's egotism and fractiousness raised the issue. He never attacked others suddenly or incomprehensibly as might a psychotic person motivated by delusions or prompted by hallucinations. The causes of his quarrels were readily understandable and were usually found to be similar to those which move such types as the familiar schoolboy bully. Usually his adversaries were patients also disposed to quarrel. No signs of towering rage appeared or even of impulses too strong to be controlled by a very meager desire to refrain.

He always took care not to challenge an antagonist who might get the upper hand. During this period he talked much of his past glories as a pugilist, describing himself as former featherweight champion of all the army camps in the United States. The desire to show off appeared to be a strong motive behind many of his fights. As will be brought out later, he was indeed a skillful boxer. These stories were not delusion but the exaggeration and falsifying, sometimes unconscious or half-conscious, that are often seen in sane people and sometimes even in those who are able, intelligent, and highly successful.

Max was often caught sowing the seeds of discontent among other patients whom he encouraged to break rules, to oppose attendants, and to demand discharges. He made small thefts from time to time. This trend culminated in his kicking out an iron grill during the night and leaving the hospital. He took with him two psychotic patients, and numerous others testified that he had tried to persuade them to leave also.
The next afternoon he was returned to the hospital by the police after being arrested in the midst of a brawl that he had caused by cheating at a game of chance in a low dive. He had taken a few beers but was shrewd, alert, and well in command of his body and his faculties.

He now insisted on his discharge from the hospital against advice and was brought before the medical staff. The diagnosis of psychopathic personality was again made. In his demands to be released, he arrogantly maintained that he had been pardoned outright by the governor of the state which had imprisoned him, pointed out vehemently that he was sound in mind and body, and expressed strong indignation at being confined unjustly in what he referred to as a "nut house." It was then pointed out to him that he was not pardoned but merely paroled, and he was told that if discharged at present he would be returned to the penitentiary.

Here his wrath began to subside at once and marvelously.
Hastily, but with some subtlety, his tone changed, and he began to find points in common with the advice he had been receiving from the staff. He left the room in a cordial frame of mind, tossing friendly and fairly clever quips back at the physicians, nearly all of whom he had known during some of his many admissions to various hospitals.

About ten days later he was pardoned outright by the governor and almost immediately took legal action which got him discharged against medical advice. [...]

He was at all times shrewd, somewhat witty on low levels of humor, and entirely free from ideas or behavior suggesting any recognized psychosis.

He became very friendly with me during this period and talked entertainingly and with enthusiasm about his many adventures. He denied all misconduct on his part but admitted that he had often been in trouble because of his wife and others. It was not the denial of a man who is eager to show himself innocent but the casual tossing aside of matters considered irrelevant or bothersome to discuss. After briefly laughing off all his accusations, he at once shifted the subject to his many triumphs and attainments.

Telling of his early life in Vienna, his birthplace, he spoke of his excellent scholarship in the schools, of his preeminence at sports, and of the splendid figure in general he had cut as a youth in that gay and urbane city.

In none of these statements did he lay in details such as might be expected of a man developing a delusional trend.

No psychiatrist, and few laymen for that matter, would have had the least difficulty in recognizing all this as "tall talk" designed to deceive the listener and to put the talker in a good light. All the patient's reactions showed that he himself was far from being taken in.

His birth and upbringing in Vienna coincide with the facts as obtained from his army records. His alleged experiences at Heidelberg are recorded many times on his own testimony. He described himself as a distinguished student in that honorable university, referring to Kant and Schopenhauer and several of the Greek philosophers as special subjects of his study. He spoke also of a deep interest in Shakespeare during his student days and sought to give the idea that he was celebrated among his fellows for his knowledge of the Bard.

The shrewdness and agility of his mind were prettily demonstrated in these references to the picturesque and traditional gaieties of student life, and to the works of the philosophers and poets. No less vividly and convincingly did he reveal an utter lack of real acquaintance with any of the subjects in which he boasted himself learned.

He knew the names of a half-dozen Shakespearean plays, several catchpenny lines familiar to the man on the streets, a scattering of great names among the philosophers. He was totally ignorant not only of the systems of thought for which his philosophers are famous but also even of superficial and general facts about their lives and times that any person, however unintellectual, could not fail to remember if he ever had the interest to read of such matters.

Of Shakespeare he knew practically nothing beyond the titles that rolled eloquently from his tongue and a few vague and jumbled conceptions that have crept into the ideologies of bootblacks, peasants, and street gamins the world over. Furthermore, he had no interest, as contrasted with knowledge, in any matter that could be called philosophic or poetic.

He liked to rattle off his little round of fragmentary quotations, the connections and the connotations of which he realized only in the most superficial sense, to contribute a few pat and shallow saws of his own believed by him to be highly original, iconoclastic, and profound, to boast generally of his wisdom, and then to go on to descriptions of his other attainments and experiences.

To my surprise, he was several times taken by psychiatrists who studied him briefly and by social service workers as a man of some intellectual stature. His story of study at Heidelberg, though usually discounted, was, if the implication of the psychiatric histories is correctly read, sometimes taken as true or probably true.
Although my actual contact with Heidelberg is superficial enough, I had no difficulty in demonstrating in the patient a plain lack of acquaintance with the ways of life there. The general plan of study and the physical setup of the university, matters that would be familiar to anyone who had been an undergraduate there, however briefly and disinterestedly, were unknown to Max. He showed that he might have passed through the town and that he had heard and still clearly remembered gossip and legend from the streets of Vienna about the university and its customs, but he had no more real understanding of it than a shrewd but unlettered cockney would have of Cambridge.

This phase of his examination provided, in my opinion, a striking example of the ambiguity inherent in our world intelligence.

Here was a man of exceptional acumen. His versatile devices of defraud, his mechanical inventions to overcome safeguards which ordinarily protect slot machines, and other depositories of cash, and his shrewd practical reasoning in the many difficulties of his career demonstrate beyond question the accuracy, quickness, and subtlety of his practical thinking. His memory is unusually sound; his cleverness at manipulating bits of information so as to appear learned is exceptional. He is not a man to be taken in by the scheming of others, though he himself takes in many. One can truthfully say about him that he is "bright as a dollar ... .. smart as a whip," that "his mind is like a steel trap."

His ability to plan and execute schemes to provide money for himself, to escape legal consequences, and to give, when desirable, the impression that he is, in the ordinary sense, mentally deranged, could be matched by few, if any, people whom I have known. In such thinking he not only shows objective ingenuity but also remarkable knowledge of other people and their reactions (of psychology in the popular sense) at certain levels or, rather in certain modes of personality reaction. He stands out for the swiftness and accuracy of his thinking at solving puzzles and at playing checkers. At any sort of contest based on a matching of wits, he is unlikely to come off second best.

To consider his intelligence (or should one say wisdom?) from another viewpoint, from that of the ordinary man's idea of what is good sense about working out a successful plan of life on a long-term basis, only the story of his career can speak adequately. Be it noted that the result of his conduct brings trouble not only to others but almost as regularly to himself.

To take still another point of view and consider him on a basis of those values somewhat vaguely implied by "intellectuality," "culture," or, in everyday speech, by "depth of mind," we find an appalling deficiency. These concepts in which meaning or emotional significance are considered along with the mechanically rational, if applied to this man, measure him as very small, or very defective. He appears not only ignorant in such modes of function but stupid as well.

He is unfamiliar with the primary facts or data of what might be called personal values and is altogether incapable of understanding such matters. It is impossible for him to take even a slight interest in the tragedy or joy or the striving of humanity as presented in serious literature or art. He is also indifferent to all these matters in life itself. Beauty and ugliness, except in a very superficial sense, goodness, evil, love, horror, and humor have no actual meaning, no power to move him.

He is, furthermore, lacking in the ability to see that others are moved. It is as though he were colorblind, despite his sharp intelligence, to this aspect of human existence. It cannot be explained to him because there is nothing in his orbit of awareness that can bridge the gap with comparison. He can repeat the words and say glibly that he understands, and there is no way for him to realize that he does not understand.

I believe that this man has sufficient intelligence, in the ordinary sense, to acquire what often passes for learning in such fields as literature and philosophy. If he had more stability and persistence he could easily earn a Ph.D. or an M.D. degree from the average university in this country. If he had this stability and became a doctor of philosophy in literature, the plays of Shakespeare, the novels of Joseph Conrad or of Thomas Hardy would still have no power to move him. He would remember facts and he could learn to manipulate facts and even to devise rationalizations in such a field with skill comparable to that with which he now outthinks an opponent at checkers. If, for the sake of theory and speculation, such changes were granted to him, my contention that he would still be without this sort of understanding is, of course, impossible to prove. It is maintained, however, that this would be clear to all observers who have real interest in such aspects of life, however diverse might be their own formulated opinions on what is good, bad, true, or beautiful about art or about living. [...]

(Many descriptions of the adventures of Max omitted)

Some months later I, with other psychiatrists, testified at court when efforts were being made to have Max committed by law as "insane." Several citizens whom he had defrauded and seriously troubled in other ways, finding that he was not vulnerable to fines or sentences in the municipal courts, hoped to obtain relief and protection by getting him into a psychiatric hospital.

The psychiatrists could not avoid admitting that he showed no evidence of anything that is officially classed as a psychosis. Despite some sort of misgivings I had to agree. Yet it seemed plain that this man, though free from all technical signs of psychosis, was far less capable of leading a sane, or satisfactory, or acceptable life, less safe or suitable to be at large in any civilized community, than many, perhaps than most, in whom psychosis can be readily demonstrated and universally accepted as unquestionable.

Was there any means I could suggest by which he might through existing laws and institutions be more adequately controlled and kept from destructive folly? Or by which the community might be better protected from his persistent antisocial activities? As I groped without avail for an answer the sense of futility became truly oppressive.

Max, neat and well groomed, insouciant, witty, alert, and splendidly rational, rose, beaming, to hear again the verdict of freedom.
 
Another fascinating case that touches on the question of psychosis:

Mask of Sanity said:
Arnold

This patient had recently left the hospital (A.W.O.L.) while out on pass. The following letters arrived from him after a few days:

Baltimore,
April 4th, 19-- Saturday,
2 P.M.
Dear Friend:
Physically I am a very sick man. Have had fever since last Friday. Cold all the time. Very dirty. No bath since I left. Clothes wet all the time. Four meals since I left. Chest hurts severely. Can't give up. Have tried to contact my people by phone and telegram several times but am ostracized. -Hurts-Really hurts. -but they do not understand-Have never understood. No use for details regarding what is past. Will you give me just one chance please. You must. If you receive this by Monday noon will you wire me some funds at the Western Union. Use my father's first name, Stephen, for reference. If I were not sick I would not ask this. Can't beg, can't steal; so am in the devil of a shape.

Please do not try to have me detained. If you would have sent Jack [a parole patient] to the hotel last Sunday I would not have tried what I have undertaken, as I have too much respect for you and a few others to break my word.

Have I registered? Will your response be O.K.? A chancel One chance!

As ever your friend,
Arnold


New York
April 10th, 19- Friday A.M.

Dear Friend:

Man's limitations are many. I must say that it is hard, very hard, for me not to give up, but I am still trying to carry on. Frankly I was afraid and still am. It has rained ever since I left the Hospital and I believe every drop touched Arnold. Have enjoyed a fever since Tuesday morning. I will not give up. If you could see me at present you would wonder how it was possible for this condition to become mine. I am the worst looking tramp on the road.

My regret about my departure concerns you, Miss Green [nurse] and Mr. Drayton [a physically ill patient]. Doctor, you and McDaniel [a physician on the hospital staff] must make him a well man.
Respects to all my boys [fellow patients] and to any of Ward A men [dopers] who want to leave, tell them to be sure and think.

Would you stake me to a start of a few dollars? If so, write me at Hollywood Cafe, New York City. Place money order in envelope. Whatever amount is O.K. I don't think you want to be bothered with me any more so I won't suspect a trap.

Closing with my utmost respects to one of the finest characters I ever met:

I am, the young brigand from the South,
Arnold
These letters were addressed to a physician at the hospital who had taken a special interest in the patient's case, trying over a period of many months to help him achieve some sort of adjustment.

For a while a measure of faint hope was entertained that he might be able to get along with freedom to walk about the grounds. He had been in and out of the hospital for seven years, spending most of his time on a closed ward with delusional and dilapidated schizophrenic patients. Struck by the man's friendliness and his frankness to admit himself in the wrong, his physician, despite the usual rules of dealing with such behavior, made an exception of his case, restoring his ground parole time after time when it was lost by failure to adjust. The experiment had been more or less innocent, since the patient did little harm to himself or others beyond cashing a few bad checks for small amounts, cheating unsuccessfully in dice games, stealing a bicycle for which he had no use, and behaving uproariously after a few drinks and getting into jail, whence he was brought back each time safe and apparently repentant.

An effort was made to see if this rational and intelligent man, even though he failed seven times, seventy times, and seven times seventy times, might at last achieve a positive reaction to indefatigable forgiveness and succeed in finding some way to exist without supervision as incessant as that required by a traditional madman. Little or no hope was held that he might leave the hospital and live as a normal man; but something would have been gained if, still sheltered. in a psychiatric hospital, he could enjoy the freedom of the grounds and an occasional pass into town.

Be it noted that during seven years of psychiatric study and observation he had never shown any sign technically regarded as indicating a psychosis. That is to say, he was always entirely rational in conversation, alert, above average in intelligence by psychometric tests, free from delusions and hallucinations, and completely lacking in the slightest evidence of "deterioration." Nor had he ever shown retardation, a true depression of the cyclothymic type, increased psychomotor activity, flight of ideas, or any other condition which it is permissible to class as psychosis. He had been free also from any symptom characteristic of a psychoneurosis.

During his long and frequent periods within closed wards, he was superficially agreeable to his physicians most of the time but extremely fretful about his confinement. He spoke eloquently of having learned his lesson and always pressed his request for parole or discharge with good logic. Once after making an especially convincing plea for freedom and with the possibility of parole within the next few days, he succeeded during the night in obtaining whiskey by lowering on a cord an empty Coca-Cola bottle which he had obtained and which some confederate filled for him. He at once proceeded to get rather high in the dead of night to the great astonishment of the attendants, who had regarded him as a "sane" man but who were now at a loss to understand his senseless guffaws, sudden maudlin outcries, and impulsive lurches about the ward. Not realizing that he could possibly have obtained liquor, they feared for a moment that he must have developed an ordinary psychosis. On being approached he cursed, sobbed feebly, and was brought back to bed, passing intestinal gas with frequent loud and unpleasant effects, grinning almost triumphantly at the nurse who had hurried to him at each detonation.

The next morning he admitted the drinking after being confronted with the Coca-Cola bottle to which the string was still attached. He was at first superficially penitent but soon could be seen to show pleasure at his cleverness, which he seemed to feel afforded just cause for a bit of gloating. He seemed to have no deep sense of regret and could not understand why the episode delayed his parole. Indeed, he became definitely vexed and talked incessantly for a day or two about his failure to get a square deal.

This patient, entirely sane by orthodox psychiatric standards, having spent the better part of seven years closely confined among other men who, to him as to any layman, were unmistakable lunatics if otherwise agreeable company, was given another series of chances to win his freedom.

The opinion has often been expressed that the Psychopath, who in some ways seems to behave like a badly spoiled child, might he helped if he could be put in a controlled situation and allowed to feel the unpleasant consequences of his mistakes or misdeeds regularly, as he commits them.

With this patient such a policy was pursued and the effort was protracted to remarkable lengths. Such a plan of treatment or reeducation perhaps may accomplish a good deal with some patients of this type. With Arnold it yielded no discernible fruits.

His parole was restored time after time. He expressed a clear understanding that he was obligated not to leave the hospital grounds. Each time, in accordance with his past behavior, he would promptly disappear. After a few hours, several days, or perhaps a week, the police would call to say they had him in custody. Back on his ward he seemed properly regretful and immediately expressed confidence in himself, explaining that the last misadventure had served as the lesson he needed. He was soon allowed to go out on the grounds again. Two or three small acts of defrauding, the temporary misappropriation of an automobile (which he would usually abandon after his whim for a ride had been fulfilled), or some other succession of deeds incompatible with parole status always brought him back under strict supervision. After a short time he was given still another trial.

He spoke fulsomely of the handsome treatment he was receiving, protested an earnest affection for his physician, and swore staunchly that he would justify this faith shown in him. Always he seemed entirely sure that his difficulties were a thing of the past. Unlike the patient whose behavior is distorted by compulsion in the ordinary sense, he showed no evidence of a struggle, no awareness of anything that gave him doubt about his future success in achieving what he planned.

This alert, intelligent man remained always free from confusion, from any indication of powerful impulses or yearnings, froth all conscious influences that might account for his spectacular failure to gain freedom. He expressed eloquently very natural desires to live an unrestricted life outside his familiar wards where he was locked in with very psychotic men. He mentioned no force or conflict, in many long interviews, that might make it difficult for him to conduct himself in a way that would bring him release from hospitalization. He denied experiencing the slightest pleasure from alcoholic beverages. And, indeed, he always seemed miserable, melancholy, and quite unlike his usual buoyant self when he had partaken of drink. [...]

He had frequent superficially serious talks with his physician in which he expressed despair over his situation, remorse for his all but incredible record as a failure, and a quick, cheerful confidence in his future. What might be called a thin and bright surface of sincerity which is hard to indicate without paradox seemed to distinguish him from his fellows who are also described in this book. This quality, not in the simplest sense false, seemed not only consistent but almost complete. It was, however, too bodiless to hold any true resolution or remorse or to be useful to him in gaining worthwhile insight. It seems likely that his sincerity, though not a literal fraud, was so thin as to be, for practical purposes, merely an academic abstraction. He was often in high spirits, communicative, boyish, and rather winning. Though fretting and complaining continually about his confinement and apparently unable to understand adequately why this was advisable, he seemed to find mild interest and trivial pleasure in small matters. He could give no explanation of why he committed acts that demanded his remaining in a psychiatric hospital. He always fell back on the plea that he would never do so again. [...]

All this, however, is but the merest glimpse of the man. The account as related to this point is a word, and no more, in the man's history. Seven years ago, when admitted for the first time, he had already spent some ten or twelve years in and out of jails and mental hospitals, scarcely ever passing a week of his life without attention from the police. [...]

So he was presented to the hospital seven years previously: 28 years of age, a short, overnourished, quick-witted man, admitting many faults, acknowledging his human frailty, debonair but not pretentious, a close-cropped black moustache on his lip, a rather engaging, shy, swift light of merriment slipping at times into his glance. During the seven years that he was under observation, no delusion was ever noted nor any other sign even remotely suggestive of a mental disease that is accepted as such. He has never even experienced temporary hallucinations while under the influence of alcohol. He has undergone no disintegration of personality (as this is ordinarily understood), none at least that is discernible on prolonged observation, by psychiatric examination, or by any other means available. He is today plainly the same man that we first knew and who, according to all accounts, has been a problem to his community for years.

After his first admission he was carefully examined; social service reports were secured and he was observed day after day. No evidence of any condition officially known as "psychosis" could be found. [...]

Weary of his life behind locked doors among classically demented men, on several occasions he demanded his discharge. On being brought before the medical staff he was found obviously "sane" and released. Soon, however, his relatives were back with him, bearing tales of such mad folly as few, if any, people deranged in other ways could produce. Readmitted to confinement inappropriate to his plain sanity by the accepted criteria of mental disease, he soon became restless and, pointing out his legal status, left against medical advice.

Worn out by incessant traffic with police in his behalf, diverted from the customary uses of life by night-long searches for him in lonely hinterlands or in distant jails, his relatives finally succeeded in having him legally committed to the custody of the hospital as an "insane" person. There is little doubt that the personal influences and well-known political mechanisms of a rustic Southern community had weight with the courts, not to speak of common sense unversed in technical psychiatry but painfully aware of irrational conduct so long flagrantly demonstrated.

After a month or more of confinement under these circumstances, the patient demanded an interview with the staff. With admirable logic he maintained that he suffered from no mental derangement whatsoever. He lucidly described and recognized signs of mental disorder, made light and clever jokes about the impropriety of applying such criteria to him, and pointed out the absurdity of identifying him with the usual patient kept in such a hospital. Admitting his maladjustment and his inveterate but minor deeds of depravity, he insisted that he be left to ordinary legal measures in any future misconduct, which he did not deny was possible. The staff, as conscientious psychiatrists, could not do otherwise than agree that he was "sane and competent" and release him.

Three weeks later he was brought back to the hospital at midnight by a brother and a cousin. He had a fractured clavicle (memoir of his frequent brawls with local police) and was lachrymose, penitent, and all but homesick for his ward in the hospital. The physician on duty hesitated about readmitting him. His story was well known. His relatives thereupon threatened to telegraph high officers in the government. They were by no means assuaged at being told that the hospital was not maintained for the treatment of persons judged sane by the canons of psychiatry and considered responsible for their misconduct and misfortunes. After consultations with the physician in charge of the hospital, Arnold was readmitted. Some weeks later he called in local lawyers who, invoking the writ of habeas corpus, arranged a lunacy trial by jury. Of course there could be but one verdict. The man was plainly "in his right mind." No acceptable evidence of mental disease (as officially defined) could be brought out. He was taken from the custody of the hospital.

A month afterward, chastened and eager for his familiar ward which, compared to the alternative of jail, aroused nostalgia, he willingly returned, accompanied by relatives who furnished a tale of woe too long for telling here.

This brings us to his last hospital admission, which preceded the incident with which we began Arnold's story.
 
Laura said:
What to do? How to make oneself not only intellectually immune, but also emotionally immune?
I am no psychologist, but I see what empathy can do. I understand why you have allowed yourself to feel this way. You are very psychically in tune, and hate the prospect of hurting people. Here is what I think, (and like everyone else, this is just an opinion): you have learned much from the C's, you understand karma, and you understand ignorance and evil. When something like this happens you simply have to ask yourself, why did this person came to me, to my website... were they seeking for another prophet when the previous let them down, and upon disvovering that I am human, the leashed against me? This lifts the responsibility from you. Everyone has their own agendas.

What you propose here is in some cases to much for some people, even when they think they can take it. I feel sometimes I have to distance myself from the material to proper digest it. Take time. One of the reasons why I have not been able to read all the material here. Yet, I don't leash against you or anybody. I am here to learn, and to consider these possibilities. When I feel it's too much for me, I just take some time off. Many people don't have patience. I was reading Fulcanelli's book Mystere des Cathedrales, and it strikes me over and over about how careful he is to say, that some people no matter how ready they think they are to receive the truths of the great work are really not. And why he feels somethings must be conceiled. That it is an arduous work and that it takes patience. My opinion is that most people want quick fixes, and don't want to do the work.

So please, guilt is not for you, you certainly have done your work, and the only thing that you might sin of sometimes is to expect r assume that everyone attracted by the light will do the work and sacrifices you made. So how do you inmunize yourself emotionally? It's hard but sometimes all one can do is let go. Understand no matter what, that maybe their place in the development blinds them.

I remember when I got serious about esteric practices. I was always somewhat psychic for conventional people. In 1999 a dear friend of mine gave me a tarot deck pack. She was certain I could learn to use it to channel my psychic thoughts, put them into perspective. When I took them after I looked at them my first thought was, I dn't know enough. I bought a bunch of books on Qabalah, and tarot, and some were good and some were bad. I did a lot of research. I became very good at reading the cards. I started practiving with that friend, and other friends, and then I discovered 1. people don't want the truth, people want entertaiment, and escapism. My friend recented the fact that I had made a study of it. I realized that she wanted me t become her wn private freakshow. It was the night of the Millenium that I decided I would never ever do it in public, or for entertaiment reasons. Furthermore, I decided that I would never charge for it, and would never make it a business. Needless to say, I hardly ever read tarot for anyone, save on very special cases. Another thing is that I discovered that I knew what cards were going to show up as they shuffled. I knew sometimes what cards would show up by just looking at the person before I started the session. The cards became only an aid for me, nothing more. After I "retired" from that business, my friends recented me, and were somewhat vicious about it. Nthing I guess like what you have experienced, but hurt enough to know. Now I know, that I have to respect where people are at, and that the true adept, and he true seeker, will have very speciphic traits, or marks that will show me they are genuine. I don't want to teach or impart what I know, I want to share it, like you do; and I guess this was the main reason I was attracted to your site.

Ok, enough blah, I hope that insight was useful, and if it wans't I am not goign to be hurt. HAHAHA!!!
 
Ben said:
ps. Could someone tell me how to quote in those white boxes? thanks
Hi ben
You can press the quote button at the bottom of any post you wish to quote. Or you can write (with no spaces in between)
[ quote = / the person’s name ]

and at the end of the quote, you have to write (with no spaces in between) [ / quote ]

hope this helps...
 
Realmhiker said:
Many people don't have patience. I was reading Fulcanelli's book Mystere des Cathedrales, and it strikes me over and over about how careful he is to say, that some people no matter how ready they think they are to receive the truths of the great work are really not. And why he feels somethings must be conceiled. That it is an arduous work and that it takes patience. My opinion is that most people want quick fixes, and don't want to do the work.
Just a quick thought/quote to share with you all.
Movie-the Matrix said:
Smith- Do we have a deal, Mr. Reagan?

Cypher- You know…
I know this stake doesn’t exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth the matrix
is telling my brain that it is… juicy, and delicious. After nine years… you know
what I realize?
[Puts stake into mouth]
Ignorance is bliss.
Laura said:
Lobaczewski wrote:
Is a crocodile really guilty that he is not born a chimpanzee? You are partly right finding some similarity of the essential psychopathy to the way of thought of a crocodile. They are somewhat mechanical. But, are they guilty, that they have inherited an abnormal gene, and their instinctive substratum is different from that of big majority of human population? Such person is not able to feel like we are doing, or to understand a person bearing a normal instinctive endowment. Please also to try to understand a psychopath, and take some pity for them.
Laura, I have a question regarding the session below
C's from Session 970503 said:
[…]
Q: Could that mean that EM waves can be vectored by a human being simply by their presence? I also noticed that several of us have been involved with
persons and relationships that seem designed to confuse, defuse, and otherwise distort our learning, as well as drain our energy. Basically, keeping us so
stressed that we cannot fulfill our potential. Is there some significance to this observation?
A: That is elementary, my dear Knight!
Q: One of the things I have learned is that these individuals seem to attach via some sort of psychic hook that enters through our reactions of pity. Can you
comment on the nature of pity?
A: Pity those who pity.
Q: But, the ones who are being pitied, who generate sensations of pity, do not really pity anybody but themselves.
A: Yes...?
Q: Then, is it true as my son said, when you give pity, when you send love and light to those in darkness, or those who complain and want to be "saved"
without effort on their own part, when you are kind in the face of abuse and manipulation, that you essentially are giving power to their further disintegration, or
contraction into self- ishness? That you are powering their descent into STS?
A: You know the answer!
[…]
Doesn’t the C’s say pity those who pity? I realize that there must be empathy, but pity? I doubt that the psychopath has any empathy or pity. So why should we pity the psychopath? Even if it is not their fault that they are the way the are. I think we all choose at some point, in some way, and they have chosen that path. So why should we pity them for a choice they have made (subconsciously)?? Am I wrong in assuming that we are all “mechanical” and dare I say it psychopathic until we choose not to be, through the work?

EsoQuest said:
On one level a normal person cannot help but feel for them, as one feels for any diseased element of nature. That is part of the normal person's constitution, in any case. One might say psychopaths should be pitied, but psychopathy itself should not.
I agree! I guess this is sort of what I am trying to say… you have managed to word it beautifully.
 
knowledge_of_self said:
Doesn’t the C’s say pity those who pity? I realize that there must be empathy, but pity? I doubt that the psychopath has any empathy or pity. So why should we pity the psychopath? Even if it is not their fault that they are the way the are. I think we all choose at some point, in some way, and they have chosen that path. So why should we pity them for a choice they have made (subconsciously)?? Am I wrong in assuming that we are all “mechanical” and dare I say it psychopathic until we choose not to be, through the work?

EsoQuest said:
On one level a normal person cannot help but feel for them, as one feels for any diseased element of nature. That is part of the normal person's constitution, in any case. One might say psychopaths should be pitied, but psychopathy itself should not.
I agree! I guess this is sort of what I am trying to say… you have managed to word it beautifully.
Yup. EQ captured it perzactly, IMO. It's a razor's edge to walk, but nobody said it was going to be easy.

Lobaczewski talks about reducing the frequency. I'm not sure exactly what he meant by that, but I expect it goes in the direction of identifying them genetically and sterilization or something. I'm not too sure how I feel about that. After all, the STO way is to accept the right of ALL to exist. It's a knotty problem. But then, as EQ also pointed out, it's almost like a disease, a cancer on society so maybe that is the way it ought to be looked at. It is certainly true that they repeatedly rise to power because of their nature, and when they do, death and destruction fall on everyone. Lord! How much suffering!
 
Laura said:
Lobaczewski talks about reducing the frequency. I'm not sure exactly what he meant by that, but I expect it goes in the direction of identifying them genetically and sterilization or something. I'm not too sure how I feel about that. After all, the STO way is to accept the right of ALL to exist. It's a knotty problem. But then, as EQ also pointed out, it's almost like a disease, a cancer on society so maybe that is the way it ought to be looked at. It is certainly true that they repeatedly rise to power because of their nature, and when they do, death and destruction fall on everyone. Lord! How much suffering!
Hi Laura:
From what I understand this world is STS by default. I’m just speculating here, but imo psychopathy is one of the most extreme states of 3D STS.
I mean, in some way or another we all have some traits of psychopathy. Whether it be jealousy, envy, or anger… it is visible in all of us. So, from what I understand this goes back to FRV. And when you say “Labaczewski talks about reducing the frequency”, maybe he means in this sense. That if you recognize the psychopathic traits within yourself- your FRV will begin to resonate STO more than STS. I’m speculating here again… but maybe that is why we keep incarnating in this STS plain- because we have not discovered that being of an STS FRV implies that we are resonating with that of psychopathic tendencies and nature. Am I making sense? So when you say that it seems that “they repeatedly rise to power because of their nature”, that is precisely why. Because in a sense this is their world, and maybe we have come to understand what is it that makes us resonate to this world. And once we understand, maybe we no longer need to come back.

Nina
 
Laura said:
knowledge_of_self said:
Doesn’t the C’s say pity those who pity? I realize that there must be empathy, but pity? I doubt that the psychopath has any empathy or pity. So why should we pity the psychopath? Even if it is not their fault that they are the way the are. I think we all choose at some point, in some way, and they have chosen that path. So why should we pity them for a choice they have made (subconsciously)?? Am I wrong in assuming that we are all “mechanical” and dare I say it psychopathic until we choose not to be, through the work?

EsoQuest said:
On one level a normal person cannot help but feel for them, as one feels for any diseased element of nature. That is part of the normal person's constitution, in any case. One might say psychopaths should be pitied, but psychopathy itself should not.
I agree! I guess this is sort of what I am trying to say… you have managed to word it beautifully.
Yup. EQ captured it perzactly, IMO. It's a razor's edge to walk, but nobody said it was going to be easy.
Personally I am able to feel compassion for psychopaths I've been involved with, and not hate 'them'. While I can feel that way about the person, I can still be angry and horrified at the behavior they display, or have used against me and others. This makes me wary of them, keeps me alert, because I know I must protect myself from that behavior. But, if I allow myself to fall into pity for them, it leaves me vulnerable. I think of pity as an attachment to the person, the psychopath, which dulls my ability to stay objective about them. No wonder they work so hard to get my pity. It seems there is a very fine line, or razor's edge as Laura puts it, that we must stay conscious of. Perhaps the semantics of our use empathy, compassion and pity need to be more fully clarified?

Lucy
 
EsoQuest said:
One might say psychopaths should be pitied, but psychopathy itself should not.
This is the core of the problem. Thanks. People most cases cannot help being who they are, or think how they think because of their mental conditioning. I get mad at people all the time for their selfishness, but I don't hate them. I have had reason in the past to hate some people, and I couldn't bring myself to it, it takes to big a toll on me (it simply takes too much energy). However, if there is a chance for education, for opening a mind, I feel it should be taken. Yet, I still need to remember that people have free will, and that sometimes they simply don't want to know more or do better, as someone else here said here, "ignorance is bliss."

About the tunning from STS or STO, I don't understand the frequency data yet, but in practical terms, I simply try to examine the motivations of everything I do. If I am doing something in which I know I am taking advantage of someone for the sole purpose of only self benefit, I know it doesn't ring right, and can eventually cost me more. It's something I didn't used to think about consciously when I was younger because in our western societies we are so taught to seek success at all costs, to take advantage of opportunities and peoples who might be able to advance our aims. The older I grow, the more I see wrong with this type of mentality and I hope to think that I am making efforts to amend that sort of behaviour in myself.
 
Lucy said:
Personally I am able to feel compassion for psychopaths I've been involved with, and not hate 'them'. While I can feel that way about the person, I can still be angry and horrified at the behavior they display, or have used against me and others. This makes me wary of them, keeps me alert, because I know I must protect myself from that behavior. But, if I allow myself to fall into pity for them, it leaves me vulnerable. I think of pity as an attachment to the person, the psychopath, which dulls my ability to stay objective about them.
This sums up my perspective right now as well. I actually find myself feeling sad for the psychopaths I've known, and even been involved with - and that triggers the thought that I wish I could help them not be how they are, but I can't. At least I finally learned that lesson. I can't help them change, they are who they are, and for the most part they really enjoy being who they are. They'll never feel deep emotions that can move them to tears of joy, or tears of empathetic sorrow, and, to me, that is sad - but I finally understand that to them, it's exactly how they are and it's what makes them capable of doing what they want to do - and of doing those things that have caused me so much pain and left so many scars. I suppose no matter how much awe I feel when I glimpse my own capacity to feel, that doesn't mean that I should wish that for anyone else. You don't become an STO candidate by deciding what is best for other people, and you absolutely can't utilize your own energy if you allow those who will feed on you to feed on you. Thus, I simply try to avoid them at all cost.
 
KOS said:
From what I understand this world is STS by default. I’m just speculating here, but imo psychopathy is one of the most extreme states of 3D STS.
Well, that is still being debated. You might want to read the Organic Portals thread in the Home and Garden category for some thoughts about exactly what role the psychopath plays in the grand scheme of things.
 
Lucy said:
Perhaps the semantics of our use empathy, compassion and pity need to be more fully clarified?
This goes without saying, I believe. These are all loaded words, and you have completely different types of people habitually using them. What strikes me is a feeling that OP's, psychopaths and empathic individuals may all use the same words, but are actually speaking three different languages.

"Pity" is probably the most loaded of the three words mentioned above. In every case, however, it always seems to come back not so much to how to deal with the psychopaths, but how to deal with yourself dealing with the psychopaths. I know that all this makes me even more motivated to explore what "empathy", "compassion" and "pity" really mean to me, and how they correspond to the non-verbal aspect of feeling.

It is a razor's edge and we all seem to be learning to be expert acrobats!

Laura said:
Lobaczewski talks about reducing the frequency. I'm not sure exactly what he meant by that, but I expect it goes in the direction of identifying them genetically and sterilization or something. I'm not too sure how I feel about that. After all, the STO way is to accept the right of ALL to exist. It's a knotty problem.
I am not sure how Lobaczewski means it either, but there is more than one way to "reduce the frequency". In other words, psychopaths (continuing the parasite/cancer analogy) have a definite need for a food supply. It seems to take the form of their need of constant affirmative reinforcement of their persons and ways. They cannot (like OP's) simply be themselves and leave everyone else alone.

In fact, if you look at the life cycle of a parasite it remarkably parallels psychopathic behavior, attacking Adamics and reproducing through OP hosts. The only difference seems to be that natural biological parasites are still part of greater ecosystems that keep them in check somehow. Psychopaths, on the other hand, seem to have the human quality of being able to override nature, and until the ensouled side of the spectrum becomes their ecosystemic counter-force, they are like any part of an ecosystem that doesn't "fit in" with the big picture.

Lobaczewski points out that when things go pretty well in a society people become complacent, and when the psychopathic plague starts spreading some people at least learn to adapt. I find difficulty with one thing here, the assessment of a "stable society". It seems that social stability or health is rather a relative concept. I say this because pathocrats in human history have always been pulling strings behind the scenes, even in the most "stable" societies.

So I guess there were societies that have been "relatively stable", but never truly healthy. Pathocracy in such societies is like a cancer in dormancy waiting for the collective immune system to fall to just the right levels where psychopathic tumours can start exploding left and right.

In any case, there are OP's and even Adamics infected with psychopathy and there are organically mutated psychopaths (through genetics or physical trauma such as Stalin). Part of reducing the frequency is insuring prevention from getting infected or hurt by psychopaths, and then promoting a social dynamic where as many people as possible can learn to keep from being food for the parasite.

What I am saying is that reducing frequency can be a natural result of learning to deal with psychopathy since they cannot reproduce when there is no fertile ground for them to do so. To me, for example, it seems obvious that current promotions of totalitarian anti-abortion laws, in combination with the Indigo Children scenario are indicative of a trend to increase psychopathic frequency in the population.

It's frighteningly organismic in no uncertain terms, the way psychopathic propagation is promoted. As ensouled individuals mature in a collective sense and socially organize, it stands to reason that countermeasures will also be of an organismic nature (a pro-ecosystemic one) and need not be at all in contradiction with STO existential modes.

Be that as it may, the final form of any metal "tool" or "weapon" remains ill-defined until the metal cools down from the fires of its forging, and now the iron is invariably still quite hot, which also means there is much "hammering" and tempering to be done.
 
Back
Top Bottom