Important Notes on Psychopathy

bedower said:
...have there ever been times with any of you when you feel uncomfortable being in unavoidable close proximity with someone for no apparent reason, usually, but not always, a stranger.... This has happened to me on numerous occasions; in some instances it has been so strong a revulsion that I've had to get up and move away from them.... Now it occurs to me that this is nothing to do with auras as such, but is an actual warning sign that this person, and it can be male or female, has a psychopathic trait and should be avoided at all costs?

I think it *could* be a "warning sign" of psychopathology. However, while such reactions should be taken note of, I think one needs to be careful about forming any definite conclusions about someone on the basis of a subjective "feeling" alone. It is likely in such a situation that the person is "putting out" SOMETHING of an off-putting nature, and that you are sensitive to it. But it could be any number of "negative" things that you are "picking up on", other than psychopathology, such as anger, hostility, depression, illness, etc.

Also, for someone who is not very aware of their own prejudices, belief systems, etc (and I don't mean *you*, bedower), something as innocuous the smell of garlic on someone's breath might set off an "unexplainable" feeling of "revulsion", on a subconscious basis, because when they were young their mother instilled in them a fear of immigrants.

So, I guess I'm saying that an "unexplainable" feeling of revulsion towards a stranger is definitely an indication of SOMETHING, but figuring out what that something is would be highly dependent on one's own self-knowledge and self-awareness, as well as concurrent and subsequent objective observation of the behaviour of the person you are reacting to.

Does that make sense?
 
I guess that if you get an "unexplainable feeling" and you are in a situation where you are required to interact with the person, you should definitely be on your guard and not be swayed by efforts designed to put you at ease. I've had such feelings before and because of my tendency to "give the benefit of the doubt," have interacted with the person way longer than I should have and to my detriment.

So, we must try not to be unconsciously subjective, while recognizing that sometimes our unconscious subjectivity/feelings can be deadly accurate!

In the end, I always tend to err on the side of giving the person a chance. I would rather be hurt a bit myself than hurt someone else who is in struggle. But I do it keeping the option open of cutting off the interaction the moment I am certain ...
 
Laura said:
I guess that if you get an "unexplainable feeling" and you are in a situation where you are required to interact with the person, you should definitely be on your guard and not be swayed by efforts designed to put you at ease. I've had such feelings before and because of my tendency to "give the benefit of the doubt," have interacted with the person way longer than I should have and to my detriment.

So, we must try not to be unconsciously subjective, while recognizing that sometimes our unconscious subjectivity/feelings can be deadly accurate!

In the end, I always tend to err on the side of giving the person a chance. I would rather be hurt a bit myself than hurt someone else who is in struggle. But I do it keeping the option open of cutting off the interaction the moment I am certain ...

I've learned by observation, that psychopaths look for targets similar to other animal predators: the old, the sick or injured, and the young/inexperienced. In a crowd, the predators stand out in this way: they are focused on something, and exibit a kind of awareness. If you watch people, they are all lost in their heads.
Even in social situations! I've even turned around in a store, having gotten the creepy feeling of being watched, and met the eyes of a young woman who looked at me like I was dinner. Once she saw that recognition in my face, she abruptly left. I've seen this from all ages and both genders.

Once a predatory person sees that you notice them, most of the time they pass you by.

When this isn't enough, being rude and refusing to listen and keeping clear physical distance can be a life saver.

When it comes to online communications and meeting others via friends...that can get tough, because all our programs kick in. Like you, Laura, I've learned to keep the option open of cutting off contact. My only difference?

When people cut ME off, while it may hurt me or confuse me now and then, it's not an action I take personally anymore.

I'm not sure if that's a sign of maturity or fatigue. :lol:
 
I think one needs to be careful about forming any definite conclusions about someone on the basis of a subjective "feeling" alone. It is likely in such a situation that the person is "putting out" SOMETHING of an off-putting nature, and that you are sensitive to it. But it could be any number of "negative" things that you are "picking up on", other than psychopathology, such as anger, hostility, depression, illness, etc.

That's a good point, Pepper - but this thing has happened when there has been no discernable reason for it; including the smell of garlic, which is pretty unmistakable, osit. :) Also, I seem to be able to pick up on anyone who feels depressed or ill, which are things to provoke compassion rather than revulsion, imo, because I find the words; "What's wrong, (whoever)?" pass my lips before going through my conscious mind, if you know what I mean. Anger and hostility likewise give out a 'prickly' feeling; again, not the kind of revulsion I'm talking about.

Also, for someone who is not very aware of their own prejudices, belief systems, etc (and I don't mean *you*, bedower),

Thanks for that encouraging remark; I try to fight those particular demons every day, as well as the others I've learned about here, and it's hard work, I don't mind telling you.

So, I guess I'm saying that an "unexplainable" feeling of revulsion towards a stranger is definitely an indication of SOMETHING, but figuring out what that something is would be highly dependent on one's own self-knowledge and self-awareness, as well as concurrent and subsequent objective observation of the behaviour of the person you are reacting to.

Well, there was before Sott/Cass, when all I wanted to do was to get away from them by blaming an 'aura clash', and there is after Sott/Cass where I can now analyse the feeling as objectively as I can. I find that I still want to remove myself from their immediate vicinity!

Also, it may be worth mentioning that this has worked in the opposite way as well; that I can find myself in the vicinity of someone who in some strange way will relax me. It may be, of course, that I've got this all wrong -that the 'wrongness' is within me, not these strangers. That has also occurred to me. And that's a very scary thought!

Thanks for your response, Pepper. It's given me a lot to think about.

So, we must try not to be unconsciously subjective, while recognizing that sometimes our unconscious subjectivity/feelings can be deadly accurate!

Thanks for answering, Laura. It's hard to be objective about such a strong feeling (or any strong feelings, osit), but I am working on it. It has been a lot easier since I was guided to the SOTT page first and through that to the Cass site. Fwiw, I have found the articles on psychopathy to be the most beneficial in my own life; they have explained, what was at the time, the inexplicable. I can't thank you and the other authors you've quoted enough.

Also, I can't help feeling (there's that word again!) that there is a way to identify the psychopaths and OPs among us, if only we knew what it was; working along the lines of 'For every illness there is a cure' sort of thing. We can identify them on some deep level, osit - the problem is accessing that level. Or, at least, recognising that we have when we do, as it were.

This needs a lot more thinking about. Thanks again. :)
 
Gimpy said:
I've learned by observation, that psychopaths look for targets similar to other animal predators: the old, the sick or injured, and the young/inexperienced. In a crowd, the predators stand out in this way: they are focused on something, and exibit a kind of awareness. If you watch people, they are all lost in their heads.
Even in social situations! I've even turned around in a store, having gotten the creepy feeling of being watched, and met the eyes of a young woman who looked at me like I was dinner. Once she saw that recognition in my face, she abruptly left. I've seen this from all ages and both genders.

Once a predatory person sees that you notice them, most of the time they pass you by.

I tend to agree with you gimpy, or at least this is what I have observed. I'm hesitant about labeling psychopaths as a whole this way though. Some of those 'looking for lunch' may not be psychopaths (perhaps a vampire archetype active?), and psychopaths may be very well camouflaged especially if they are not 'looking for lunch'.
These people do seem to be alot more aware (to some extent) than most of the people around them however.

I can think of one occasion in the past (well before sott) that is similar to yours, walking in town and two lads walking side by side heading right for me, I noticed them and they where both fixated on me (despite being crowded). Instant recognition of being a 'target/lunch' with them about 6 feet away. Made deliberate eye contact (hostile given I was suddenly aware of hostile intent towards me) and they froze in there tracks and stepped aside (so I walked between them).....that was quite off putting.

Bedower said:
Thanks for answering, Laura. It's hard to be objective about such a strong feeling (or any strong feelings, osit), but I am working on it. It has been a lot easier since I was guided to the SOTT page first and through that to the Cass site. Fwiw, I have found the articles on psychopathy to be the most beneficial in my own life; they have explained, what was at the time, the inexplicable. I can't thank you and the other authors you've quoted enough.

Absolutely! I find myself questioning/observing so much now, including contant re-evaluation of past incidences where the new knowledge helps explain who I was dealing with.

Bedower said:
Also, I can't help feeling (there's that word again!) that there is a way to identify the psychopaths and OPs among us, if only we knew what it was; working along the lines of 'For every illness there is a cure' sort of thing. We can identify them on some deep level, osit - the problem is accessing that level. Or, at least, recognising that we have when we do, as it were.

This needs a lot more thinking about. Thanks again. :)

Feeling and thinking. Perhaps observe and compare/cross reference the feeling and thinking?
Whenever I'm in a situation where I have strong thoughts/feelings, I use it as a reminder to pay particularly close attention to whats going on. Having read this thread I think I may extend that to include interactions with others full stop.
I try to be aware of what may be triggered, or sensed, and what may be foreign or my own. I think a clue in how useful a 'feeling' is, is where does it come from/where is it located (given the context of an interaction).
The two spots that usually relate to warnings of some sort are my gut/solar plexus, and the top of my head (if it feels like great pressure...usually has something going on on an energetic level). Head and neck seem to be related to programs running, but I need to keep practicing observing to be sure.
Perhaps this may be a place to start?

As for determining if someone is an OP, I seem to remember a thread on OP's that included comments along the lines (I think from the C's) that its useful to suspect/be open to the possibility, but to be careful not to judge. Apologies for not being able to find the quote at the moment.

Bedower said:
Well, there was before Sott/Cass, when all I wanted to do was to get away from them by blaming an 'aura clash', and there is after Sott/Cass where I can now analyse the feeling as objectively as I can. I find that I still want to remove myself from their immediate vicinity!

Also, it may be worth mentioning that this has worked in the opposite way as well; that I can find myself in the vicinity of someone who in some strange way will relax me. It may be, of course, that I've got this all wrong -that the 'wrongness' is within me, not these strangers. That has also occurred to me. And that's a very scary thought!
I've learnt that I tend to have that relaxing effect on those around me (although I 'think' I can turn it on/off now)...it has been particularly useful in the past when it comes to helping kids in my care get to sleep if they are having trouble. Along those lines I've been told that I have a strong presence, because they can tell when I walk into a room without looking (although oddly, I can walk into a room sometimes and people are startled to see me when they look round....this happens alot)....possibly getting off topic here

Its possible (and this is just a working hypothesis, apologies if I'm getting too subjective here) that one thing that may cause peoples vicinity to be unpleasant, is that they are psychologically projecting an unpleasant part of themselves onto you. Being sensitive to what there image of 'you' is, I can understand not wanting to be near them.
Of course I'm focusing on just one possible aspect here, I think pepper's observations are very useful to be aware of too. Program triggers are funny old things (and pretty scary) once you start to spot them. They can appear almost magical to some extent, with some part of you being able to pick up cue's the conscious part of you is totally unaware of. Sometimes the cue's are purely internal too which helps to confuse observations.
 
I think a clue in how useful a 'feeling' is, is where does it come from/where is it located (given the context of an interaction).
The two spots that usually relate to warnings of some sort are my gut/solar plexus, and the top of my head (if it feels like great pressure...usually has something going on on an energetic level).

Hi RedFox,

The only way I can describe it for me is like a silent alarm going off in my head - a silent clanging alarm, if you know what I mean, and too urgent to ignore. In extreme cases, all the hairs on my skin have stood on end.

As for determining if someone is an OP, I seem to remember a thread on OP's that included comments along the lines (I think from the C's) that its useful to suspect/be open to the possibility, but to be careful not to judge. Apologies for not being able to find the quote at the moment.

I seem to remember the same thread, and, like you, can't recall where! :-[ But this is the way I'm dealing with it at the moment - being aware and staying aware that I must be careful not to judge.

)...it has been particularly useful in the past when it comes to helping kids in my care get to sleep

I had to laugh when I read this - having dealt with fractious grandchildren by doing just that; usually within 10 seconds or so! ;D

Its possible (and this is just a working hypothesis, apologies if I'm getting too subjective here) that one thing that may cause peoples vicinity to be unpleasant, is that they are psychologically projecting an unpleasant part of themselves onto you.

Consciously or unconsciously? I tend to use public transport a lot, and I'm not sure most people are really aware of who is next to them on a crowded bus. For sure, the people who have provoked such a negative reaction in me when they are complete strangers are projecting something. Maybe it's as Gimpy wrote - that they are predators looking for prey.

I've learned by observation, that psychopaths look for targets similar to other animal predators: the old, the sick or injured, and the young/inexperienced. In a crowd, the predators stand out in this way: they are focused on something, and exibit a kind of awareness. If you watch people, they are all lost in their heads.
Even in social situations! I've even turned around in a store, having gotten the creepy feeling of being watched, and met the eyes of a young woman who looked at me like I was dinner. Once she saw that recognition in my face, she abruptly left. I've seen this from all ages and both genders.

This has become a lot easier for me since being on this forum and knowing what I know now. Observation and awareness seem to be the key words here.

Must think more about this.
 
I really enjoyed this thread. There is alot of useful information here.

My exN (who I believe was/is a malignant and pathological narcissistic sociopath) "bragged" about being a "secret psychopath" on his wikipedia page.

Well, I study psychopaths and narcissists, along with personality and other disorders .. but I have never heard of this "secret" variety.

Maybe they keep diaries? :lol:
 
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a primative model fit for psychopaths?

In the Venus Project thread, an issue came up over the value of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The topic seems to deserve it's own thread. Here's what's transpired so far:

E said:
First things first. You can’t start at the top of Maslow’s pyramid while we can’t even achieve the first level. First put food in everyone’s tummies, and then aim higher.

anart said:
Well, truth be told, Maslow's theory left much to be desired - in fact, one of my college professors loved to explain to first year students that the only people who ever actually attained Maslow's 'self actualization' were Maslow and his graduate students.

Ultimately, human civilization is determined, if not defined, by one factor - and that is pathology in positions of power. Solve that - and you just might find that humanity can self-govern quite successfully and in a mutually beneficial way. But - to solve that, one must educate the masses - against the will of pathology in power - without addressing that factor, nothing will change - human history is overflowing with evidence of this simple, yet horrific, fact.

E said:
anart] Maslow's theory left much to be desired [/quote] Yet we can't even achieve the base level goals of [i]that[/i] elementary structure for the majority. [/quote] [quote author=Los said:
E said:
Yet we can't even achieve the base level goals of that elementary structure for the majority.

The majority can't, but successful psychopaths can... I think that says a lot about Maslow's theory.

E said:
[quote author=Los]
The majority can't, but successful psychopaths can... I think that says a lot about Maslow's theory.

Objectively, that says nothing about the theory at all. Psychopaths in positions of power, that's the crux of the matter. Maslow's theory itself is not psychopathic. I'm interested why you would imply that the theory (whether there is room for improvement or not and no matter what needs are prioritized above others) is psychopathic in nature.

What I wrote was incomplete. I should have included that a psychopath can reach Maslow's 'self actualization' and that says a lot about his theory. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs covers more than the psychopathic reality, but is imo, limited to what Dabrowski termed the primary or primitive level, which he defined as the following,

Mental Growth said:
The first stage, called primitive or primary integration, is characterized by mental structures and functions of a low level; they are automatic and impulsive, determined by primitive, innate drives. At this stage, intelligence neither controls nor transforms basic drives. It is used in a purely, instrumental way, so as to supply the means towards the ends determined by primitive drives.

Dabrowski's Theory of Positive Disintegration is a more complete model and using it as a comparison brings some insight on the matter. This thread is worth checking out if anyone is not familiar with Dabrowski.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is based on the gratification of several categories of needs - once one set is gratified, the individual is able to advance to the next level. The first level is 'Safety Needs', then comes 'Belongingness and Love Needs', then 'Esteem Needs', and then 'Self Actualization'.

A psychopath can meet all of these needs easily (love isn't a need for them and so it isn't a factor towards self actualization), and it even seems their default mode to already be self actualized - no development needed! Maslow defined self actualization as 'being true to [the individual's] own nature' - Psychopaths seem to have no problem being psychopathic, yet how hard it is to be human...

But I don't think Maslow acknowledged such difficulty as developmental. So, another problem in regards to a theory based on development is that Maslow built his material on gratification. In Motivation and Personality Maslow writes,

In most of the known societies, chronic extreme hunger of the emergency type is rare, rather than common. In any case this is still true in the United States. The average American citizen is experiencing appetite rather than hunger when he says, "I am hungry." He is apt to experience sheer life-and-death hunger only by accident and then only a few times throughout his entire life.

Obviously a good way to obscure the higher motivations, and to get a lopsided view of human capacities and human nature, is to make the organism extremely and chronically hungry or thirsty. Anyone who attempts to make an emergency picture into a typical one, and who will measure all of man's goals and desires by his behavior during extreme physiological deprivation is certainly being blind to many things. It is quite true that man lives by bread alone - when there is no bread. But what happens to man's desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled?

At once other (and higher) needs emerge and these, rather than physiological hungers, dominate the organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still higher) needs emerge, and so on. This is what we mean by saying that the basic human needs are organized into a hierarchy of relative prepotency.

One main implication of this phrasing is that gratification becomes as important a concept as deprivation in motivation theory, for it releases the organism from the domination of a relatively more physiological need, permitting thereby the emergence of other more social goals. The physiological needs, along with their partial goals, when cronically gratified cease to exist as active determinants or organizers of behavior. They now exist only in a potential fashion in the sense that they may emerge again to dominate the organism if they are thwarted. But a want that is satisfied is no longer a want. The organism is dominated and its behavior organized only by unsatisfied needs. If hunger is satisfied, it becomes unimportant in the current dynamic of the individual.

This statement is somewhat qualified by a hypothesis to more fully later, namely, that it is precisely those individuals in whom a certain need has always been satisfied who are best equipped to tolerate deprivation of that need in the future, and that furthermore, those who have been deprived in the past will react differently in the past will react differently to current satisfactions than the one who has never been deprived.

Sounds to me like Maslow has some pretty big biases. He posits those who live in luxury their whole lives would be better able to cope with poverty than those who consistently endure it. Never mind the exploitation; the underlying message seems to be that it is an inherent psychological makeup which makes someone poor. I wonder if Maslow was a Republican? His elitism is further relayed in his view that self-actualized persons are qualitatively different in their growth-oriented motivations, when in reality those who excel in the gratification of primitive level needs do so more because of chance or exploitation. I don't mean to dismiss his entire theory, because there is particular worth in 'mastering ordinary life' (that of the primary level) or being a 'good obyvatel' as Gurdjieff put it. But, to be able to do so in a normal and healthy way, it still takes discomfort and struggle rather than gratification.

Bill Tillier, a student of Dabrowski, writes a relevant comparison on Maslow and Dabrowski's theories:

Bill Tillier said:
The main point about Maslow and Dabrowski is in the nature of the self that is actualized.
Maslow had a pretty flat approach what was there should be actualized his
main point was that a mature person should be able to actualize all aspects
of the self, including the lowest animal appetites along with the highest
artistic endeavors without feeling guilt or subsequently developing some
sort of Freudian neurosis about it - it was a guilt free actualization of
the self as is. Hitler was a pretty good example of a Maslow
self-actualized individual - he stepped to his own drumbeat, as we saw, the
lowest values - really, paranoid animalistic, trapped rat type values -
where accentuated.

Dabrowski differentiates the higher aspects of self that are associated with
authenticity and universal human and humane qualities versus our lower
vestiges of animal instinct that we still carry along as well as the
mediocre and middle ground, our unthinking and robotic adjustment to our
social environment and to what people expect us to be doing. Of course
Dabrowski is all for actualization - but only a special kind of multilevel
actualization where those higher aspects that the individual chooses
consciously and freely to incorporate into his or her personality ideal are
emphasized. These lower qualities are inhibited and the energies associated
with them transformed into the pursuit of higher level endeavors.

Dabrowski also took a different approach to neurosis and psychoneurosis -
these are important, necessary aspects of positive development in many
cases-and in all cases of higher development. This is contrasted with the
traditional Freudian view where neurosis represent some sort of
symptom/blockage that prevents growth and must be resolved before growth can
take place. This is also Maslow's view. Ken Wilbur takes this same view in
his model of the levels of human development. Dabrowski's approach is
pretty radical on this point.

Dabrowski and Maslow agreed on the idea of universal human values and the
idea that as development progresses there is a convergence of values so that
at the highest levels we don't see a bunch of ego maniacs running around
with their own agendas, thinking they're right protesting others should
follow them, we see a bunch of altruistic, like thinking individuals who
pretty much agree on the core human values but the key point and this has to
be emphasized is that they got there through an individual process of
disintegration of their previous socialization, a process of deep reflection
leading to the development of an individualized idealization of personality
that then guides their subsequent development. So this is not an agreement
in values through any kind of prescription, education, indoctrination,
follow the leader, (as Van Morrison said, No Guru, No Method, No Teacher)
etc. it is an individual quest and discovery of the deep core values that
make us human and not animals. Of course these human values are seldom seen
- never seen - in our educational, political or social system, which sadly
operates on a psychopathic, robotic, stimulus response basis, where values
like competition, success, individual achievement, material wealth, etc. are
the champions and where the dog eat dog, survival of the fittest model is
encouraged to achieve these values. Bill.
 
Re: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a primative model fit for psychopaths?

Hi Los, thanks for the elaboration.

[quote author=Los]
Dabrowski's Theory of Positive Disintegration is a more complete model
[/quote]

As an advertiser, I’ve never given Maslow’s theory much thought from a psychological aspect. It’s always just been a basic guideline in the back of my mind to categorize a target market. I don’t agree with Maslow that needs higher up in the hierarchy only materialize once lower level needs are being met. I think the needs on all the levels of his hierarchy are ever present in normal individuals regardless of where you fall within his ‘pyramid’. Someone without food and shelter desire all the things on the upper levels without having achieved the lower level goals.

I also doubt whether someone who has achieved all the goals in Maslow’s “self-actualization” category, is actually all that “self-actualized”, but for members of this forum that goes without saying. A life of misery and “non self- actualization” is likely more beneficial in the bigger picture, once we check out. So esoterically, it’s meaningless, but when approaching something like the Venus Project, it’s an effective guideline.

But the question at hand is not the usefulness of Maslow’s theory, but whether the thinking behind it is pathological in nature.

[quote author=Los]
A psychopath can meet all of these needs easily
[/quote]

I don’t think Maslow had pathological individuals in mind when he came to his conclusions. He based his theory on living examples of what he considered the “cream” of society.

[quote author=wikipedia]
Maslow studied what he called exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy." Maslow also studied the healthiest one percent of the college student population. In his book, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature, Maslow writes, "By ordinary standards of this kind of laboratory research... this simply was not research at all. My generalizations grew out of my selection of certain kinds of people. Obviously, other judges are needed."
[/quote]

Do you really think a psychopath can reach “self-actualization” according to Maslow’s theory? I don’t think so. A psychopath doesn’t even desire the things at the top of Maslow’s pyramid. By it’s very nature, the things at the top of Maslow’s pyramid is impossible for a psychopath to obtain. A psychopath can’t even achieve the second and third levels from the top in Maslow’s Hierarchy. Basically I’m just saying that Maslow theory (however cripple it may be), has no bearing on psychopathology.

[quote author=Los]
Maslow defined self actualization as 'being true to [the individual's] own nature'
[/quote]

And the very fact that Maslow considered things like morality, love, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, respect of others etc. as being “true to one’s nature” is more evidence that he wasn’t considering psychopathology.

[quote author=Motivation and Personality]
This statement is somewhat qualified by a hypothesis to more fully later, namely, that it is precisely those individuals in whom a certain need has always been satisfied who are best equipped to tolerate deprivation of that need in the future, and that furthermore, those who have been deprived in the past will react differently in the past will react differently to current satisfactions than the one who has never been deprived.
[/quote]

[quote author=Los]
Sounds to me like Maslow has some pretty big biases.  He posits those who live in luxury their whole lives would be better able to cope with poverty than those who consistently endure it.  Never mind the exploitation; the underlying message seems to be that it is an inherent psychological makeup which makes someone poor.  I wonder if Maslow was a Republican?  His elitism is further relayed in his view that self-actualized persons are qualitatively different in their growth-oriented motivations, when in reality those who excel in the gratification of primitive level needs do so more because of chance or exploitation.
[/quote]

This is a strange conclusion to come to based on the bit you quoted from Maslow’s book. I think I agree with Maslow here. Growing up in poverty and being malnourished hampers development on all levels and the damage is irreversible. So I do think that the individual with the developmental advantage is better equipped for the challenge.

[quote author=Bill Tillier]
Hitler was a pretty good example of a Maslow self-actualized individual
[/quote]

I don’t think Hitler qualifies as an example of Maslow’s Self-actualization at all.

[quote author=Bill Tillier]
Dabrowski and Maslow agreed on the idea of universal human values and the
idea that as development progresses there is a convergence of values so that
at the highest levels we don't see a bunch of ego maniacs running around
with their own agendas, thinking they're right protesting others should
follow them, we see a bunch of altruistic, like thinking individuals who
pretty much agree on the core human values but the key point and this has to
be emphasized is that they got there through an individual process of
disintegration of their previous socialization, a process of deep reflection
leading to the development of an individualized idealization of personality
that then guides their subsequent development.
[/quote]

Doesn’t sound very psychopathic to me.

We are unfortunately not created equal. We’re a society of winners and losers. To be a winner in society’s standards means squad when you check out however. So from that aspect Maslow theory is completely meaningless. It has its uses though when you’re trying to improve collective living conditions.

The idea that “some are more capable than others” is one of Gurdjieff’s conclusions as well, however unfortunate it may be. It is what it is.

Psychopathic? Not to me.
 
Re: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a primative model fit for psychopaths?

E,

Have you read Maslow the Schizoidal Humanist?

Maslow the schizoidal humanist
"Peak performance", "human potential". These terms have entered our vocabulary thanks to the work in humanistic psychologist of Abraham Maslow.

The book Fascism And Democracy In The Human Mind: A Bridge Between The Mind And Society by Israel Charny includes some excerpts from the diary Maslow that reveal a rather disturbing mindset.

Seems he may have had a rather good mask of a very warped mind.

From pg 42-44 of Charny:

An excellent and sadly shattering example of the way the mind of a devoted humanistic psychologist can move along the same track of the fascist paradigm to a point where he calls for execution [sic] of the nonbelievers -- in this case, nonbelievers in humanism! -- is found in the posthumously published writings of no less than Abraham Maslow, recognized and beloved as the founder of modern humanistic psychology! The same Maslow who conceptualized the unfolding development of the mind and personality of a person as the highest state of human development, and who attributed to the "self-actualized" person an ethical and empathic orientation toward other human beings and the society in which he lives, was revealed after his death to be a highly self-involved, bitter loner filled with contempt and rage at the many people who did not appreciate him or his ideas, and who dared to conceive on a broader community level the identification and execution of those who opposed proposed humanistic policies for the betterment of society.

The following are shocking, almost unbelievable excerpts from Maslow's posthumously published writings:

Humanistic psychology absolutely needs a doctrine of an elite, degrees of humanness, health and sickness, winners and losers, aggridants (whether by heredity or by learning), good specimens, no equal votes, non-equal weighting. The taste or judgment of one superior can and should outweigh 1000 or a million blind ones.

The Third-Force philosophy is antideath-wish, anti-exploiting of others, antistunting or crippling, antivalue-destroying, antibaby-crippling and diminishing; anti-unrealism = antifake.... We keep alive many of the people whom nature left to itself would kill off. So we are hurting the human gene pool, which must be deteriorating. We can certainly continue to do this, to be compassionate with anyone living, but this right to reproduce might very well be limited. In the immediate future -- within the next century -- we must anyway cut hack the population of the world. The right to reproduce must surely become rather a privilege which is socially controlled and socially granted.... One could speculate that the worsening gene pool is partly responsible for the large number of naysayers, death-wishers and born losers and schlemiels.

I find myself secretly entertaining all sorts of "cold-blooded" possibilities... drug users are performing a kind of biologically unselfish act, a sort of noblesse oblige for the good of the species and voluntarily killing themselves "for the good of the gene pool." ... Sooner or later, after the catastrophes force us to pace theoverpopulation, we'll stop with all the crap about more food, or better strains of rice {which just produce more people). How can we give up on humanitarianism? But how can we not permit voluntary (or maybe involuntary) euthanasia and suicide? One day we'll have to talk about the exposure or killing of monster-babies, or even of healthy surplus babies.

As with some, nothing will work ultimately but shooting.

These are terrifying statements from anyone, let alone a great psychologist, especially one who is recognized as one of the fathers of "humanistic psychology." Maslow's fascist intolerance of lesser beings and his readiness to call for real murderous actions on behalf of a super race of humanists is a powerful warning to all of us to look for the corresponding readiness in us, and to overcome such readiness with what we will be describing as a democratic mindset.


Sounds like Maslow was in agreement with what Łobaczewski calls the schizoidal declaration, so let's look at the traits of the schizoidal type:

Literature provides us with descriptions of several varieties of this anomaly, whose existence can be attributed either to changes in the genetic factor or to differences in other individual characteristics of a non-pathological nature. Let us thus sketch these sub-species’ common features.

Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, while, at the same time, pay little attention to the feelings of others. They tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions. They easily become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others. Their impoverished psy- chological worldview makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.” Let us call this typical expression the “schizoid declaration”.

Human nature does in fact tend to be naughty, especially when the schizoids embitter other people’s lives. When they become wrapped up in situations of serious stress, however, the schizoid’s failings cause them to collapse easily. The capacity for thought is thereupon characteristically stifled, and frequently the schizoids fall into reactive psychotic states so similar in appearance to schizophrenia that they lead to misdiagnoses.

The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotion and lack of feeling for the psychological realities, an essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to some incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which works as though founded on shifting sand. Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity, but because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people.

I wonder how many other "great psychologists" are as sick as Maslow? And they are the ones setting the standards by which the rest of us are measured! It is amazing that someone with such a distorted capacity for psychological insight could become such a highly regarded psychologist. But in a world where deviant values rule, up is down and right is left.

Your quote from wikipedia:

Maslow said:
"the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy."

also seems to hint at the contempt and distrust that characterizes schizoidal psychopathy, osit.
 
Re: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a primative model fit for psychopaths?

Hi Kesdjan,

I wasn’t aware of those excerpts from Maslow diary. Unbelievable. So we can safely conclude that Maslow was “a little disturbed”. It would be interesting to know at what stage of his life he made those inscriptions.

Since he was wearing his mask of sanity when he created the theory, do we conclude then that the theory itself is psychopathic? It’s certainly very ‘noble’ things to aspire to. Clearly his ambitious “self-actualization” was out of his own reach as well. Must have been frustrating coupled with all that superiority. Do we conclude then that this little glimpse into Maslow’s private thoughts discounts all his theories. I would imagine so. If the architect is ‘warped’ then the house surely can’t stand.

I think what is missing from Maslow’s theory is maybe more telling than what’s there.

Los, I have a way of jumping into threads on impulse, but at least that way I learn a lot!

Thank you both.
 
Re: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a primative model fit for psychopaths?

E said:
Since he was wearing his mask of sanity when he created the theory, do we conclude then that the theory itself is psychopathic?

I assume this is a rhetorical question since you then say:

E said:
I would imagine so. If the architect is ‘warped’ then the house surely can’t stand.

Ultimately, if a psychological theory is developed by someone who is pathological, how could the theory be anything but?  It might hit a true note here or there, especially when heard through the filter of critical correction, but, ultimately it will always be tainted by the pathological world view. (Freud would be another example...)

I think that's basically the conclusion you were reaching, though it seems a bit tempered by your familiarity with the theory and what you find useful about it (I think - could be off on that).
 
Re: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a primative model fit for psychopaths?

Yeh, but I will keep going until all avenues are closed. I suppose I just feel a bit silly for insisting that his theory should “stand alone” and when viewed in isolation it doesn’t seem psychopathic, irrespective of any mounting evidence in this thread pertaining to Maslow’s psychological condition.

It’s my ‘I cannot lose a debate program’, and it’s one of my particularly strong programs. Sure you’ve noticed. ;)

And it's even more disconcerting to me that I’m realizing that my entire education is completely ponerized. Yes, yes, I know it’s old news that the entire educational system has been ‘infiltrated’ long ago. It’s just hitting me lately, when I think of examples of ideas that were taught to us and repeated throughout and enacted in plays every year. Ideologies which are completely psychopathic. Gees!
 
Psychopathy Gene?

_http://machineslikeus.com/news/warrior-gene-linked-gang-membership-and-weapon-use

'Warrior gene' linked to gang membership and weapon use

Mon, 06/08/2009

Boys who carry a particular variation of the gene Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), sometimes called the "warrior gene," are more likely not only to join gangs but also to be among the most violent members and to use weapons, according to a new study from The Florida State University that is the first to confirm an MAOA link specifically to gangs and guns.

Findings apply only to males. Girls with the same variant of the MAOA gene seem resistant to its potentially violent effects on gang membership and weapon use.

Led by noted biosocial criminologist Kevin M. Beaver at FSU's College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, the study sheds new light on the interplay of genetics and environment that produces some of society's most serious violent offenders.

"While gangs typically have been regarded as a sociological phenomenon, our investigation shows that variants of a specific MAOA gene, known as a 'low-activity 3-repeat allele,' play a significant role," said Beaver, an award-winning researcher who has co-authored more than 50 published papers on the biosocial underpinnings of criminal behavior.

"Previous research has linked low-activity MAOA variants to a wide range of antisocial, even violent, behavior, but our study confirms that these variants can predict gang membership," he said. "Moreover, we found that variants of this gene could distinguish gang members who were markedly more likely to behave violently and use weapons from members who were less likely to do either."

The MAOA gene affects levels of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin that are related to mood and behavior, and those variants that are related to violence are hereditary. Some previous studies have found the "warrior gene" to be more prevalent in cultures that are typified by warfare and aggression.

"What's interesting about the MAOA gene is its location on the X-chromosome," Beaver said. "As a result, males, who have one X-chromosome and one Y-chromosome, possess only one copy of this gene, while females, who have two X-chromosomes, carry two. Thus, if a male has an allele (variant) for the MAOA gene that is linked to violence, there isn't another copy to counteract it. Females, in contrast, have two copies, so even if they have one risk allele, they have another that could compensate for it. That's why most MAOA research has focused on males, and probably why the MAOA effect has, for the most part, only been detected in males."

The new study examined DNA data and lifestyle information drawn from more than 2,500 respondents to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Beaver and colleagues from Florida State, Iowa State and Saint Louis universities detailed their findings in a paper to be published in a forthcoming edition of the journal Comprehensive Psychiatry. Currently, the paper ("Monoamine oxidase A genotype is associated with gang membership and weapon use") is accessible online at www.comppsychjournal.com via the "Articles in Press" link.

In addition to the MAOA study, Beaver's body of biosocial criminology research includes published research that links genetics to adolescent victimization and formation of delinquent peer groups and the use of steroids to "roid rage" -- all among the first such works in the field. He won the American Society of Criminology's 2009 Ruth Shonle Cavan Young Scholar Award in recognition of his outstanding scholarly contributions during the short time since he earned a Ph.D. in criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati in 2006. Beaver is the coauthor/editor of "Biosocial Criminology: A Primer" (Kendall/Hunt, 2009) and six other books.

A bit about the genetics from wikipedia:

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A

Monoamine oxidase A, also known as MAOA, is an enzyme which in humans is encoded by the MAOA gene.[2][3] Monoamine oxidase A is an isozyme of monoamine oxidase. It preferentially deaminates norepinephrine (noradrenaline), epinephrine (adrenaline), serotonin, and dopamine (dopamine is equally deaminated by MAO-A and MAO-B). It is inhibited by clorgiline and befloxatone.

Function

This gene encodes monoamine oxidase A, an enzyme that degrades amine neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin. The protein localizes to the outer mitochondrial membrane. The gene is adjacent to a related gene (MAOB) on the opposite strand of chromosome X. Mutation in this gene results in monoamine oxidase deficiency, or Brunner syndrome.[4]

Clinical significance

An association between a rare 2 repeat of the VTNR region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found.[5][6]

MAO-A levels in the brain as measured using positron emission tomography are elevated by an average of 34 percent in patients with major depressive disorder.[7] Genetic association studies examining the relationship between high-activity MAO-A variants and depression have produced mixed results, with some studies linking the high-activity variants to major depression in females,[8] depressed suicide in males,[9] major depression and sleep disturbance in males[10] and major depressive disorder in both males and females.[11] Other studies failed to find a significant relationship between high-activity variants of the MAO-A gene and major depressive disorder.[12][13]

Warrior gene

A version of the primate monoamine oxidase-A gene has been referred to as the warrior gene. Several different versions of the gene are found in different individuals, although a functional gene is present in most humans (with the exception of a few individuals with Brunner syndrome).[14] The genotype associated with behavioural traits is shorter (30 bases) and may produce less MAO-A enzyme.[15] This gene variation is in a regulatory promoter region about 1000 bases from the start of the region that encodes the MAO-A enzyme. However, behaviour is dependent on both genes and the environment.[16]

This variant (or genotype) of monoamine oxidase-A was over-represented in a small sample of current Māori.[17] This supported earlier studies that there are different proportions of variants in different ethnic groups. This is the case for many genetic variants, with 33% White/Non-Hispanic, 61% Asian/Pacific Islanders having the shorter promoter variant of the MAO-A gene.[15][18] Due to the sensitive political nature of the findings, and the standard peer review process, the research has been heavily scrutinized. Several objections have been raised, such as the small sample size, and the extrapolation of non-Maori studies to the Maori population. In addition, ideological objections were raised, as well as concerns about announcing such findings in the early stages of research.[19][20][21]

Some MAO-A inhibitors

* Synthetic compounds
o Befloxatone (MD370503)
o Brofaromine (Consonar)
o Cimoxatone
o Clorgiline
o Methylene Blue
o Minaprine (Cantor)
o Moclobemide (Aurox, Manerix)
o Pirlindole (Pirazidol)
o Toloxatone (Humoryl)
o Tyrima (CX 157)

* Herbal sources
o Curcumin (Turmeric)
o Harmala Alkaloids (Tobacco, Syrian Rue, Passion Flower)
+ Harmine
+ Harmaline
+ Tetrahydroharmaline
 
Re: Psychopathy Gene?

There was just an interesting TEDtalk released with the title "Exploring the mind of a killer", which talks about just this thing, the MAOA gene and psychopathology. Here's the link:
_http://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_killer.html
 
Back
Top Bottom