Justice, Evil and Psychopaths

[henry]

I'll take a stab at answering some of your points.

My biggest issue with the demonisation of psychopathy is this: evil is not restricted to the mentally ill. Moreover, to focus on these individuals as if they were the root cause of the world's ills seems to be treading very close to a caricature of the problems that we face.

Our working hypothesis is that there exists a natural predator of mankind, the psychopath. The psychopath has attained positions of power in all the major areas of life, assisted and supported by a plethora of other pathological types and others who are influenced by their view of the world. As far as we can tell from studying history, it looks like these types of individuals have held power for centuries if not millennia.

What would society be like if these individuals were not in power? In what way does their existence change the centre of balance of society, pushing it towards the pathological? Think about the influence they have in establishing conscienceless actions as legitimate.

I don't think for a moment that evil is restricted to the pathological. I don't imagine for a minute that a world without psychopaths would immediately turn into paradise on earth.

But the environment in which these "evil" acts occur certainly is shaped to a large extent by psychopathic "values", if we can call them that, and the environment then shapes the rest of the people in it. Everyone becomes 'infected' to some extent. How can we then talk about what people would be like without that influence?

Perhaps the greatest problem of the contemporary world is that there no longer are any grand moral purposes which we can truly believe in. All the great enterprises seem doomed from the outset. Environmentalists tell us that our planet is inches from ruin and moving rapidly over that last pitiful stretch of ground. We pitch ourselves at these moral struggles as the generation of 1914 pitched themselves into the Great War.

What if these grand moral crusades were doomed because they were founded upon an illusory understanding of human nature and the world?

Perhaps the notion that "we can all agree" on a higher purpose is incorrect. If there exist different types of people, with a fundamentally different experience of the world, a fundamentally different state of being, there cannot be such a commonality of purpose. Looking for it then becomes a futile exercise.

Perhaps the only "meaning" possible is to see the world as it really is. When was the last time a group of people got together under the "banner" of objective reality? Just seeing things as they are, ourselves and the world.

But does this shoe fit us also? Is this a case of the invention of meaning through demonisation and mythologisation? Is that what is happening here? I am honestly asking this, and I do not mean any offence. Honest to God. Straight up.

So is there any hope? The fact is, as far as I can see, that you cannot change the fundamental nature of man. But that nature is infinite and changable. Once upon a time I believed that because there is an infinite capacity for darkness inside us which terrifies us all, in the desire to restrain it we seem to have set chains on the pursuit of human excellence.

I think you would agree that the world is much more complex than we can imagine. All of our attempts at changing it have been monstrous failures. Can we change the world without understanding it? Can we understand the world if we are not seeing it as it is?

So even if we wish to change things, to improve them, there is a long road of understanding ahead of us.

You speak of the fundamental nature of man. What if it is more accurate to speak of the fundamental natures because not everyone shares the same nature?

What if there are some people whose nature can't be changed? Wouldn't that be important to know so that any plans that were predicated upon changing them could be abandoned before they failed? Collecting that data and studying the question would not be a moralizing enterprise. It would be a question of survival.

But what if we are not here to change anything, but simply to learn what there is to learn and to see things as they are? In other words, there is nothing we can do about the world other than understand it as thoroughly and objectively as possible, without trying to change it? In other words, maybe we have to abandon the entire idea of change in order to create the space in which change becomes truly possible.

Henry

 

[christx11]

To talk about some unity of purpose behind psychopaths, even (in fact, especially) genetic psychopaths, overlooks the utter paucity of vision and total lack of ability to bond that is a hallmark of the psychopathic mind. Simply put, psychopaths don't like each other very much. They do not work in concert. They are, essentially, leeches.

Having no vision of what is right, of what should be done, I find it hard to understand how a true psychopath can act in concert with other psychopaths for any sustained period. Sure, while things are going well, one psychopath may assist another for mutual gain. As soon as the opportunity arises to stab anyone in the back for their own benefit, however, a psychopath will take it. It's just who they are.

It seems that much of the time you are swinging in and out of different definitions of psychopath. There does seem to be a very broad spectrum of functionality. If we only talk about the so-called asylum variety of psychopath then your traits do indeed seem to make it look as if it just could not be.

'utter paucity of vision'
'total lack of ability to bond that is a hallmark of the psychopathic mind'

But what if there are genetic psychopaths that are totally successful in society. What if they are completely functional and in fact they are able to control these traits in ways, at least enough to put them self in positions of power and money and control.

Many respected researchers tell us this is the case. The "corporate psychopath" is just one example. They even have psychopathic screening tests for corporations if they can afford it.

If that is possible and the traits of power and control and lack of concern for others don't go over into the criminal asylum like behaviors, then these traits are actually coveted as they do often lead to power and money and control. Our society is almost designed for it, which I must say is very interesting in and of itself.

When I read your above two paragraphs and especially the second, I read almost verbatim to me anyway "The History of the World".

Having no vision of what is right, of what should be done, I find it hard to understand how a true psychopath can act in concert with other psychopaths for any sustained period. Sure, while things are going well, one psychopath may assist another for mutual gain. As soon as the opportunity arises to stab anyone in the back for their own benefit, however, a psychopath will take it. It's just who they are.

Sounds like the history of the world to me. Power, success, things are going well for one psychopathic society and the controllers. One psychopath may assist another for mutual gain. As soon as the opportunity arises to stab anyone in the back for their own benefit, - (WAR) - however, a psychopath will take it. It's just who they are.

And so it goes. "It's just who they are.", is to me very accurate.

My biggest issue with the demonisation of psychopathy is this: evil is not restricted to the mentally ill. Moreover, to focus on these individuals as if they were the root cause of the world's ills seems to be treading very close to a caricature of the problems that we face. Perhaps I am wrong. I'm more than happy to hear from anyone who disagrees, and I'll really question every I say. Scout's honour. At the same time, to present a 'genetic psychopath' as the cause and culprit of all the world's current problems on a macro and micro scale seems to hold the danger of leaning toward an 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' mentality in which these invisible culprits are seen everywhere we look.

Basically, I think that blaming psychopathy massively diverts attention from common-or-garden apathy, selfishness and cruelty. These issues I believe, are utterly endemic in our society, and come about because, I would argue, of the fragmentation and vacuousness of modern culture. And while fighting psychopaths may give us back that sense of doing something good and decent in the world, the fact is that even if all the psychopaths were removed totally, I am not convinced that there would be a great deal of difference in what we see on the news every day. Apathy, indolence, despair, lack of purpose, emptiness - these are the demons of the modern age.

"to focus on these individuals as if they were the root cause of the world's ills seems to be treading very close to a caricature of the problems that we face."

The focus is very broad. It includes the observation that functional psychopathy is the default environment of civilization. It has been so for millennia. Its influence is so deeply engrained that it effects every facet of life across a vast spectrum. It effects the behavior of your grocer, your parents, your teachers you had, your neighbor, how they drive, politicians, doctors, the garbage man, literally every thing to one degree or another is infected and it is passed on from parent to child, generation to generation.

I am not saying that everyone is a psychopath, but I am saying that if civilization favors competition, aggressiveness, selfishness, not caring for others. If ignoring pain, cheating, lying, gets you ahead, gives power, then that environment will flourish and it will effect everyone, even to the degree that we are numb to it and do not even notice or see it. Our world seems to favor those strategies. If there are two fundamental types of humans, say those with a possibility of a conscience and those who know that conscience is a weakness. My guess is the ones who know conscience is a weakness will be in control.

And then your description -

I find it hard to understand how a true psychopath can act in concert with other psychopaths for any sustained period. Sure, while things are going well, one psychopath may assist another for mutual gain. As soon as the opportunity arises to stab anyone in the back for their own benefit, however, a psychopath will take it.

Does very much sound like a recap of the history of the world and your description of

"Apathy, indolence, despair, lack of purpose, emptiness - these are the demons of the modern age."

Seems to fit right in.

One more note. I notice you use "a true psychopath" and "the demonisation of psychopathy". It seems you might have a very specific and perhaps limited definition of what a psychopath and or what psychopathy is.

From my view if I stick to the "asylum variety psychopath" and notice the traits marking the behavior I put that at the top of the pyramid. Below that, the pyramid is broader and the traits seem to flow through below. The traits identified above seem to be favored in the tier that is the level to me that is the "controllers" of the world. Those psychological traits seem to favor power, money, control. I think at this level there is much of what research is pointing to as the successful functional psychopathic traits. Then below that are others with less power and control, mid-level. But the traits still flow through. Then other psychological traits start showing up in these other levels. Traits that we might broadly define as narcissistic. Much of the traits begin mixing as now the psychological environment is a soup bathing everyone and psychological affectations can be genetic and environmental. But the traits at the top create that environment and put us all in the soup and its effects generate more branches of traits, and on down the pyramid, until there is a broad broad layer at the bottom where nearly everyone resides and nearly every facet of our reality is affected. At the bottom then is the numbness of daily life, "Apathy, indolence, despair, lack of purpose, emptiness." I think it affects everything. But then the world is as it is because no one can see otherwise.

Don C.

 

[Laura]

Again, let me say it more clearly: "drjekyll" needs to do some research. He is going all over the place with his subjective speculations that are based on an obvious lack of research.

Spend the next 5 or 6 years reading absolutely everything you can get your hands on about the subject, correspond with experts, obtain the hard to get technical papers and textbooks that are generally not available to the public. Read all of it. Read a hundred books about case histories set out in excruciating detail. And most important of all, work with large groups of people so that you will be sure to be exposed to a few of them for first hand experimentation.

AFTER that, tell us what you think.

Because we have done all of the above, and more.

 

[drjekyll]

Again, let me say it more clearly: "drjekyll" needs to do some research. He is going all over the place with his subjective speculations that are based on an obvious lack of research.

Spend the next 5 or 6 years reading absolutely everything you can get your hands on about the subject, correspond with experts, obtain the hard to get technical papers and textbooks that are generally not available to the public. Read all of it. Read a hundred books about case histories set out in excruciating detail. And most important of all, work with large groups of people so that you will be sure to be exposed to a few of them for first hand experimentation.

AFTER that, tell us what you think.

Because we have done all of the above, and more.

Again, I'll say that I'm not lacking in research into the whole spectrum of human morality, including it's extremes.

Look, I don't mean to get anyone's back up here, though, so I'm sorry if I've said something that's annoyed you. All my ideas I will happily abandon like a used kleenex if they're taken down by people. There's no need to tell me I can't raise my ideas about morality, psychopaths and the world in which we live. I realise that we probably hold different ideas about this whole thing, but that doesn't mean we need to question people's right to post the ideas they have.

So let's be cool. I have researched morality in some depth, but I'm not saying I have all the answers. I'm happy to be taken to task on any of the content of my postings.

Finally, you've obviously taken exception to a lot of stuff I've posted. That's cool. At the same time I'd be happy to know specifically what you disagree with that's moved you to the conclusion you've reached.

 

[anart]

Again, I'll say that I'm not lacking in research into the whole spectrum of human morality, including it's extremes.

You can say you are not lacking, but the understanding you have exhibited here indicates, quite clearly, that you are.

Look, I don't mean to get anyone's back up here, though, so I'm sorry if I've said something that's annoyed you. All my ideas I will happily abandon like a used kleenex if they're taken down by people. There's no need to tell me I can't raise my ideas about morality, psychopaths and the world in which we live. I realise that we probably hold different ideas about this whole thing, but that doesn't mean we need to question people's right to post the ideas they have.

I've seen no one's 'back up' - only people who will not stand by and let you make statements that are misguided at best and false and misleading at worst. It's very simple, really - we work with data here and the truth, not subjective interpretations of it. There is no 'right' to post ideas a person has here on this forum - there is a necessity to post 'ideas' backed up by data - this is not a forum that encourages opinion or subjective understandings. There are many forums that do encourage that - it may be time for you to find one of those.

So let's be cool. I have researched morality in some depth, but I'm not saying I have all the answers. I'm happy to be taken to task on any of the content of my postings.

Finally, you've obviously taken exception to a lot of stuff I've posted. That's cool. At the same time I'd be happy to know specifically what you disagree with that's moved you to the conclusion you've reached.

This has already been explained, in replies to your postings and in an extraordinarily large amount of information on this web site and it's related web sites. Do your research on this material, then ask questions.

 

[Guest]

Again, let me say it more clearly: "drjekyll" needs to do some research. He is going all over the place with his subjective speculations that are based on an obvious lack of research.

This is ad hominem ... the tone to expect in these forums?

Spend the next 5 or 6 years reading absolutely everything you can get your hands on about the subject, correspond with experts, obtain the hard to get technical papers and textbooks that are generally not available to the public. Read all of it. Read a hundred books about case histories set out in excruciating detail. And most important of all, work with large groups of people so that you will be sure to be exposed to a few of them for first hand experimentation.

Are you here stating the requirements for opinions as a citizen? or merely the cost of being safe from ridicule?

AFTER that, tell us what you think.

Oh my ... shouting ... are the goal-posts being moved or is this traditionally accepted behaviour?

Because we have done all of the above, and more.

The argument from expertise and authority ... strikingly ironic that such sophistry be used where people are supposedly deconstructing the tactics of those who coerce on conquer.

I say ... will I have red-hot coals poured on my head now, having shown myself disloyal?

 

[Guest]

You can say you are not lacking, but the understanding you have exhibited here indicates, quite clearly, that you are.

And yet you do not quote.

It seems the tradition has herein taken root: someone is identified as needing to be singled out and the dogs are let loose.

I've seen no one's 'back up' - only people who will not stand by and let you make statements that are misguided at best and false and misleading at worst.

Someone should have explained to you how partiality affects the sort of subjective judgment you are standing on here.

Will you now carry on to condemn and sentence?

It's very simple, really - we work with data here and the truth, not subjective interpretations of it.

Right here I see quite the opposite; a typical effort to demolish another individual's credibility and self-esteem.

Thank you for having demonstrated the technique so neatly.

There is no 'right' to post ideas a person has here on this forum - there is a necessity to post 'ideas' backed up by data - this is not a forum that encourages opinion or subjective understandings. There are many forums that do encourage that - it may be time for you to find one of those.

A not so veiled threat ...

Ark, is this how science is conducted these days? I think so ... very typical of inter-personal politics.

This has already been explained, in replies to your postings and in an extraordinarily large amount of information on this web site and it's related web sites. Do your research on this material, then ask questions.

You are confident with your contempt? So, I have to guess, you have reason for being comfortable in your impunity.

A shame ... I suspect a lot of people come here expecting honest.

Very often 5th column sets up false lights, to draw people onto the rocks. (To revert to the vernacular: "Same old same-old.")

 

[Laura]

Like I said here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2886.msg38925#msg38925

Somehow I get the feeling that you have dropped into this discussion without a clue.

 

[Laura]

From: _http://hfx-ben.livejournal.com/804764.html

p.s. I noticed someone being beaten up in the "Signs" forum, one of the psychopathy threads ... a rather exemplary piece of heavy-handedness and ad hominem sophistry. I thought that was very telling: the way we end up collaborating with the psychopathic tendencies in our community are deceptive ... "slippery slope". I commented on that ("Argument from authority" has to be debunked completely and absolutely; we must first, of course, bear in mind that we're all wounded but also we must must must be evidence-based ... discourse in the Socratic method of dialectic, yes?) and, returning after breakfast to contribute something in the thread about "double speak" I found that I had been banned! I cannot even read the material! Shocking ... I mean, I am shocked ... shaken. It's like being re-traumatized all over: the military is at least open in its violence, but those who savage others' psychies ... its like encountering werewolves.

The guy obviously didn't read the thread or anything else in the forum. Hasn't got a clue.