Psychopath Night - Channel 4 TV (UK)

[Jasmine]

Keit, I do not think Dutton is an "apologizer". Nor is he trying to "normalize" psychopaths. These assumptions are way over the top.

Dutton is not the poster boy for "normalizing" psychopathy. How can psychopathy be normalized? It is what it is. Can schizophrenia be normalized?

I am afraid your missing the bigger picture here.

Here is a short excerpt from an interview with K.Dutton.

You noted in the book that you’re not a psychopath yourself. Despite my profession, I scored pretty low on your survey as well. Can “normals” like you and me learn to develop these psychopathic traits, even if we don’t have them naturally?

Absolutely. Normal people can work out their psychopath muscles. It’s kind of like going to the gym in a way, to develop these attributes. It’s just like training.[//quote]

Yes, "training" just as you would if you were working on changing your diet, or improving your communication skills, or sharpening any number of skills that don't come naturally to you. It's challenging your current brain functions or ways of thinking. Dutton research points to abnormalities in psychopathic brain functions and chemical reactions in the brain. If a person is a born a coward and they wish to be brave, they have to work at it "train" themselves to be brave. This shouldn't be taken out of context.

Psychopaths don’t think, should I do this or shouldn’t I do this? They just go ahead and do stuff. So next time you find yourself putting off that chore or filing that report or something, unchain your inner psychopath and ask yourself this: “Since when did I need to feel like something in order to do it?'

This is a good example of how people run their whole life based on emotions. Weather they "feel" like doing something or not. It's not an intelligent way to run your life, basing your motives on what you "feel" like doing. Sometimes things need to be done that you may not "feel" like doing. This can be a huge obstacle to some people. What Dutton says here is big pill to swallow. He's actually correct in theory, but I don't agree with the terminology "unchain your inner psychopath." It clearly denotes that everybody has an inner psychopath. This is misleading, and I believe the wrong approach.

Another way you can take a leaf out of a psychopath’s book: Psychopaths are very reward-driven. If they see a benefit in something, they zone in on it and they go for it 100 percent. Let’s take an example of someone who is kind of scared of putting in for a raise at work. You might be scared about what the boss might think of you. You might think if you’d don’t get it you’re going to get fired. Forget it. Cut all that stuff off. “Psychopath up,” and overwhelm your negative feelings by concentrating on the benefits of getting it. The bottom line here is, a bit of localized psychopathy is good for all of us.

I actually laughed when I read this, if it wasn't such a serious subject it would be humorous. Again, I think he's correct in theory, but his approach of insinuating "localized psychopathy is good for all of us" is playing with fire.

I think Dutton was answering simplistic questions with simplistic answers. It definitely blurs the line, and misleads. But I think anybody that doesn't do their own research on this topic or any thing in life is going to be mislead anyway. I'm not making excuses for him. But he's promoting his book. And there's no simple way to answer those questions accurately without addressing the data at large, which he does in his book. Unless he is to regurgitate all the studies and science behind his work in the length of one quick interview, he belts out one liners to back up his book.

So...according to Dutton, let's re-brand psychopathy as a cool new state of mind that we all should take example on because despite their lack of conscience they're kinda cool (even the serial killers)

Wow, these are strong conclusions. He may be making sloppy claims to back up his book, but I don't see that he's "re-branding" psychopathy or do I see anywhere in his book or this article claiming or even insinuates that psychopathy is "cool".


but let's all forget what kind of damage they can do on society as a whole.

This is the main thing that bothers me about Dutton representation of psychopaths. He doesn't make an effort to emphasize the damage of psychopathics to our communities or society as a whole. Maybe if someone where to approach him with this topic, he would come clean with the truth. Perhaps it is people asking him open ended questions that lead him directly into promoting his book is why he is painted in such poor light. I would like to see his answers if faced with hard hitting questions about the unsurmountable damage psychopaths do within our society.

If we would all be a bit more psychopathic, life would be peachy, no restrain, no empathy, just urges that have be met no matter the cost or consequences. Tune in Tune out to the psychopathic evolution.

I think you're over exaggerating here to make your point. Dutton is not making these claims.


That's normalizing psychopathy to me & glaringly misleading.

yes some of it is misleading, but how do you come to the conclusion it's "normalizing" anything?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

{edit: just saw that you already commented on Stout's review}

This is the main thing that bothers me about Dutton representation of psychopaths. He doesn't make an effort to emphasize the damage of psychopathics to our communities or society as a whole. Maybe if someone where to approach him with this topic, he would come clean with the truth. Perhaps it is people asking him open ended questions that lead him directly into promoting his book is why he is painted in such poor light. I would like to see his answers if faced with hard hitting questions about the unsurmountable damage psychopaths do within our society.

Sounds like you're doing some critical correcting on Dutton's behalf here. It's not what he MIGHT say, it's what he DOES say. And by saying "misleading" things, oversimplifying matters, and confusing concepts, one effect IS normalizing psychopathy. In other words, the implicit message is that: psychopaths are not so bad, in fact we should emulate them in certain ways. The fact that he DOESN'T make important distinctions even when asked open-ended questions is his own responsibility.

 

[Jasmine]

I agree with the critical part about Dutton that was stated in this topic. And some interviews I read myself about him, I came to the same conclusion that he is normalizing psychopathy.

I think Duttons attempt to delve deeper into the unpopular perspective on psychopaths makes for valuable reading and analysis. I like to get a different perspectives on things. I'm cautious about debunking an author without having first hand experience with the material. I do not agree with Martha Stouts review of Duttons book. She had an underlying agenda which was obvious.

What do you think her underlying agenda was?

Aside from the fact that she couldn't except his perspective, even though he defines psychopaths throughout his book, he perhaps lacks the credentials worthy of her praise. Or perhaps he is at fault for not mentioning Martha herself. After-all he cited the work of dozens of leading experts. Maybe she was insulted he didn't call on her. One of his chapters is titled "Mask of Sanity" which is the title of Cleckleys' work. Perhaps it's some personal vendetta within the circles in which they mingle. We'll never know.

Her underlying agenda seemed to be Duttons mention of her esteemed colleague, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, when she wrote:

(For readers interested in how people achieve ideal performance, I recommend any of the books on the concept of flow by the eminent psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, whom Dutton mentions only glancingly and inaccurately)

She could have easily backed-up her statement with fact, but she doesn't. Regardless, it was obviously enough for her to sling him through the mud. Her whole review was full of hot air with very little substance which raised my suspicion of her review in the first place. Which I concluded was her attempt to espouse her own expertise and appease her colleague.

 

[Joe]

Why are you defending Dutton's promotion of psychopathic traits in normal humans Jasmine? Do you support such an idea? If so, why?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Aside from the fact that she couldn't except his perspective, even though he defines psychopaths throughout his book, he perhaps lacks the credentials worthy of her praise. Or perhaps he is at fault for not mentioning Martha herself. After-all he cited the work of dozens of leading experts. Maybe she was insulted he didn't call on her. One of his chapters is titled "Mask of Sanity" which is the title of Cleckleys' work. Perhaps it's some personal vendetta within the circles in which they mingle. We'll never know.

Her underlying agenda seemed to be Duttons mention of her esteemed colleague, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, when she wrote:

(For readers interested in how people achieve ideal performance, I recommend any of the books on the concept of flow by the eminent psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, whom Dutton mentions only glancingly and inaccurately)

She could have easily backed-up her statement with fact, but she doesn't. Regardless, it was obviously enough for her to sling him through the mud. Her whole review was full of hot air with very little substance which raised my suspicion of her review in the first place. Which I concluded was her attempt to espouse her own expertise and appease her colleague.

First, where do you get the impression that Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi is her "esteemed colleague"? In the review she simply recommends his book and says Dutton misrepresents it. Hardly grounds for theorizing that this is the inspiration for her opinion of Dutton's book as a whole. I think her article makes it pretty clear what her motivations were: Dutton's own 'work':

Though I have no reason to think chocolate was involved, I am concerned that a similar phenomenon may occur among readers of The Wisdom of Psychopaths by Kevin Dutton, a research psychologist at the University of Oxford. Dutton's eye-catching thesis is this: "Psychopathy is like sunlight. Overexposure can hasten one's demise in grotesque, carcinogenic fashion. But regulated exposure at controlled and optimal levels can have a significant positive impact on well-being and quality of life." Psychopathy, proposes Dutton, is "personality with a tan."

Strangely, nowhere in this book about psychopathy does Dutton accurately define psychopathy, so I will do so here. Psychopathy is a disorder of brain and behavior, the central characteristic of which is the complete absence of conscience. All of its other pathological features (such as callousness, habitual lying, and ruthlessness) emanate from this defining deficit. Yet, as a tip-off to the major fallacy in his argument, Dutton does not once discuss the concept of conscience, and, in the entire body of his book he mentions the word itself - conscience - a total of four times, and then only in passing.

What Dutton does include are elegant metaphors, a generous number of extremely well-written personal stories, and many allusions to intriguing psychological and neuropsychological studies. Unfortunately, most of the science that he cites possesses a relationship to his thesis that is equivocal at best, and at worst downright misleading. Overall, the book leaves its reader with the impression that psychopathy consists of fearlessness, "irrepressible irreverence," and a life unburdened by what other people think. The reality is more literal: no one matters to a psychopath.

 

[Jasmine]

{edit: just saw that you already commented on Stout's review}

This is the main thing that bothers me about Dutton representation of psychopaths. He doesn't make an effort to emphasize the damage of psychopathics to our communities or society as a whole. Maybe if someone where to approach him with this topic, he would come clean with the truth. Perhaps it is people asking him open ended questions that lead him directly into promoting his book is why he is painted in such poor light. I would like to see his answers if faced with hard hitting questions about the unsurmountable damage psychopaths do within our society.

Sounds like you're doing some critical correcting on Dutton's behalf here. It's not what he MIGHT say, it's what he DOES say. And by saying "misleading" things, oversimplifying matters, and confusing concepts, one effect IS normalizing psychopathy. In other words, the implicit message is that: psychopaths are not so bad, in fact we should emulate them in certain ways. The fact that he DOESN'T make important distinctions even when asked open-ended questions is his own responsibility.

I know it sounds like I'm critically correcting, but I'm not. I have nothing invested in this but the truth. Yes you are correct "it's not what he might say but what he does say". However, he has not been asked those hard hitting questions. And until he does get asked those serious questions, he will keep promoting his book with catchy one liners. With his whole life tied into researching psychopathy he is not a moron out to "re-brand" psychopathy. He simply wrote a book to look at the differences between psychopaths and non-psychopaths, to highlight similarities, and summarize how some of those qualities in psychopaths are desired by normal people. You can read into it all day long, but he is not subscribing to "emulate" a psychopath nor is his message that psychopaths are not so bad. To the contrary. The wheat needs to be separated from the chaff here.

Yes he's responsible for his answers, but this doesn't make him responsible for everyone else in the world. He's selling a book.

 

[Jasmine]

Aside from the fact that she couldn't except his perspective, even though he defines psychopaths throughout his book, he perhaps lacks the credentials worthy of her praise. Or perhaps he is at fault for not mentioning Martha herself. After-all he cited the work of dozens of leading experts. Maybe she was insulted he didn't call on her. One of his chapters is titled "Mask of Sanity" which is the title of Cleckleys' work. Perhaps it's some personal vendetta within the circles in which they mingle. We'll never know.

Her underlying agenda seemed to be Duttons mention of her esteemed colleague, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, when she wrote:

(For readers interested in how people achieve ideal performance, I recommend any of the books on the concept of flow by the eminent psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, whom Dutton mentions only glancingly and inaccurately)

She could have easily backed-up her statement with fact, but she doesn't. Regardless, it was obviously enough for her to sling him through the mud. Her whole review was full of hot air with very little substance which raised my suspicion of her review in the first place. Which I concluded was her attempt to espouse her own expertise and appease her colleague.

First, where do you get the impression that Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi is her "esteemed colleague"? In the review she simply recommends his book and says Dutton misrepresents it. Hardly grounds for theorizing that this is the inspiration for her opinion of Dutton's book as a whole. I think her article makes it pretty clear what her motivations were: Dutton's own 'work':

Though I have no reason to think chocolate was involved, I am concerned that a similar phenomenon may occur among readers of The Wisdom of Psychopaths by Kevin Dutton, a research psychologist at the University of Oxford. Dutton's eye-catching thesis is this: "Psychopathy is like sunlight. Overexposure can hasten one's demise in grotesque, carcinogenic fashion. But regulated exposure at controlled and optimal levels can have a significant positive impact on well-being and quality of life." Psychopathy, proposes Dutton, is "personality with a tan."

Strangely, nowhere in this book about psychopathy does Dutton accurately define psychopathy, so I will do so here. Psychopathy is a disorder of brain and behavior, the central characteristic of which is the complete absence of conscience. All of its other pathological features (such as callousness, habitual lying, and ruthlessness) emanate from this defining deficit. Yet, as a tip-off to the major fallacy in his argument, Dutton does not once discuss the concept of conscience, and, in the entire body of his book he mentions the word itself - conscience - a total of four times, and then only in passing.

What Dutton does include are elegant metaphors, a generous number of extremely well-written personal stories, and many allusions to intriguing psychological and neuropsychological studies. Unfortunately, most of the science that he cites possesses a relationship to his thesis that is equivocal at best, and at worst downright misleading. Overall, the book leaves its reader with the impression that psychopathy consists of fearlessness, "irrepressible irreverence," and a life unburdened by what other people think. The reality is more literal: no one matters to a psychopath.

If he wasn't an esteemed colleague why would she be advertising his books and defending him? Dutton cited dozens of experts and this is what she honed in on.

 

[SMM]

{edit: just saw that you already commented on Stout's review}

This is the main thing that bothers me about Dutton representation of psychopaths. He doesn't make an effort to emphasize the damage of psychopathics to our communities or society as a whole. Maybe if someone where to approach him with this topic, he would come clean with the truth. Perhaps it is people asking him open ended questions that lead him directly into promoting his book is why he is painted in such poor light. I would like to see his answers if faced with hard hitting questions about the unsurmountable damage psychopaths do within our society.

Sounds like you're doing some critical correcting on Dutton's behalf here. It's not what he MIGHT say, it's what he DOES say. And by saying "misleading" things, oversimplifying matters, and confusing concepts, one effect IS normalizing psychopathy. In other words, the implicit message is that: psychopaths are not so bad, in fact we should emulate them in certain ways. The fact that he DOESN'T make important distinctions even when asked open-ended questions is his own responsibility.

Exactly. When people hear the word being flown around so much with differing definitions, it is easier to dismiss or rationalise away the real net effects of psychopathy.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

If he wasn't an esteemed colleague why would she be advertising his books and defending him? Dutton cited dozens of experts and this is what she honed in on.

I don't even know how to answer that; it's not even wrong. The conclusion does not in any way follow from the premise. I can think of (and have read) hundreds of people endorsing other people's books who are not 'esteemed colleagues'. The only way to get from the data at hand (Stout defending and endorsing MC) to your conclusion (they're colleagues) is information substitution/selection, i.e. bad logic. I'm not saying they're NOT colleagues, just that it's impossible to say based on that review.

 

[Jasmine]

If he wasn't an esteemed colleague why would she be advertising his books and defending him? Dutton cited dozens of experts and this is what she honed in on.

I don't even know how to answer that; it's not even wrong. The conclusion does not in any way follow from the premise. I can think of (and have read) hundreds of people endorsing other people's books who are not 'esteemed colleagues'. The only way to get from the data at hand (Stout defending and endorsing MC) to your conclusion (they're colleagues) is information substitution/selection, i.e. bad logic. I'm not saying they're NOT colleagues, just that it's impossible to say based on that review.

Well, we may never know. The process of elimination gave me the impression they are colleagues. I'm happy with it, until proven otherwise.

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

{edit: just saw that you already commented on Stout's review}

This is the main thing that bothers me about Dutton representation of psychopaths. He doesn't make an effort to emphasize the damage of psychopathics to our communities or society as a whole. Maybe if someone where to approach him with this topic, he would come clean with the truth. Perhaps it is people asking him open ended questions that lead him directly into promoting his book is why he is painted in such poor light. I would like to see his answers if faced with hard hitting questions about the unsurmountable damage psychopaths do within our society.

Sounds like you're doing some critical correcting on Dutton's behalf here. It's not what he MIGHT say, it's what he DOES say. And by saying "misleading" things, oversimplifying matters, and confusing concepts, one effect IS normalizing psychopathy. In other words, the implicit message is that: psychopaths are not so bad, in fact we should emulate them in certain ways. The fact that he DOESN'T make important distinctions even when asked open-ended questions is his own responsibility.

I know it sounds like I'm critically correcting, but I'm not. I have nothing invested in this but the truth. Yes you are correct "it's not what he might say but what he does say". However, he has not been asked those hard hitting questions. And until he does get asked those serious questions, he will keep promoting his book with catchy one liners. With his whole life tied into researching psychopathy he is not a moron out to "re-brand" psychopathy. He simply wrote a book to look at the differences between psychopaths and non-psychopaths, to highlight similarities, and summarize how some of those qualities in psychopaths are desired by normal people. You can read into it all day long, but he is not subscribing to "emulate" a psychopath nor is his message that psychopaths are not so bad. To the contrary. The wheat needs to be separated from the chaff here.

Yes he's responsible for his answers, but this doesn't make him responsible for everyone else in the world. He's selling a book.

All the "good" that a psychopath can do for his coldness, lack of deep emotions and empathy, etc. An individual with conscience and a true I could do it too and better (if s/he is a ultra sts). I think the point is that yes, Dutton normalizes psychopathy and sold this product to normal people. People already sick by psychopaths. People bombarded by structures that psychopaths dominate, people who can not tolerate the stress and then could wanting to be like their masters and "play the game" as they do. But freedom, health and a vigorous life will not come follow soulless humanoids. So, I think it's dangerous (for normal people) this business trying to normalize a cancer as psychopathy. I'm not saying that this kind of book should not exist, but there must also be those who warn of the dangers of psychopathy, as this group and I think so does Martha Stout (yes, raise awareness and fight against the psychopathic is part of their agenda, and that is very good).

 

[mada85]

Jasmine, I read Stout's review of Dutton's book and found it balanced and well thought out, and clearly written by a person with extensive experience of psychopathy and anti-social pathology. If she had any agenda when writing it, it was to balance Dutton's grossly distorted views on psychopathology. Any attempt to normalize psychopathy must be seen for what it is - an attempt by psychopaths themselves and their followers to instil in normal humans the idea that conscience is somehow detrimental to normal and decent human life.

Dutton's hero worship of psychopathology will get him into serious trouble one day. Right now he's a 'useful idiot', but as soon as he outlives that usefulness, he will find himself tossed aside like a piece of trash.

I'm really wondering what your agenda is here, Jasmine. You seem to be hell bent on defending Dutton at all costs, and denigrating Martha Stout. Stout has written books on pathology in which her conscience is quite evident, whereas Dutton can't see the wood for the trees.

I mean, why would anyone, in their right mind, want to try and convince people that a) they actually have an 'inner psychopath', and b) that the mental attributes and lack of conscience of the psychopath are in any way desirable things? The only person who would want to do such a thing is either a psychopath themselves, or someone who themselves is lacking any understanding of the extreme damage that psychopaths have caused, and continue to cause, in our world.

 

[Joe]

I'm really wondering what your agenda is here, Jasmine. You seem to be hell bent on defending Dutton at all costs, and denigrating Martha Stout. Stout has written books on pathology in which her conscience is quite evident, whereas Dutton can't see the wood for the trees.

I mean, why would anyone, in their right mind, want to try and convince people that a) they actually have an 'inner psychopath', and b) that the mental attributes and lack of conscience of the psychopath are in any way desirable things? The only person who would want to do such a thing is either a psychopath themselves, or someone who themselves is lacking any understanding of the extreme damage that psychopaths have caused, and continue to cause, in our world.

Me too. It's really bizarre. The only thing I can think of is that Jasmine knows Dutton personally.

 

[EricG]

Why are you defending Dutton's promotion of psychopathic traits in normal humans Jasmine? Do you support such an idea? If so, why?

Jasmine can you please answer Perceval's question. It's a simple question I think.

 

[Redrock12]

Perceval and Endymion, you guys hit the nail square on the head.
And shame on you Jasmine, for supporting and being an apologist for the likes of Kevin Dutton.
Judging by your posts, Dutton is not the only one lacking a conscience.
Twisting and distorting Martha Stout's critique in order to lend pseudo-credibility to Dutton is nothing short of disgusting. You are well aware of what you're doing.
But, so are we. Thanks for baring your true pathological nature for the rest of us.
What's really amazing is that you thought you could actually pull off your hidden agenda, via pseudo-intellectualizing, in this forum and get away with it.

And, to paraphrase Eric's post, put your money where your mouth is and answer Perceval's question.