Psychopath Night - Channel 4 TV (UK)

[davey72]

{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.

You make a lot of of assumptions that appear to be geared toward defending Dutton. IMO

 

[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.

Honestly and objectively, if that's possible.

God, it's so frustrating to have to wade through the verbal garbage that apologists for pathology try to pass off as objectivity and true scholarship, when all they're really doing is eroding (or attempting to) the hard work and commitment to the truth that Martha Stout, Laura, Anna Salter, Lobaczewski, Hare and others have brought to the field.
And for what? To promote a pseudo-scientific book written by some hireling who's trying to make a name for himself and a few bucks.

 

[Vic]

Just go back through all of Jasmine's other posts. She has demonstrated pathological traits many times. I've kept quiet because I could see, mainly in a sort of observational restraint in their responses to some of her comments, that certain senior people here were wise to her. There were one or two naive responses to her less than wholesome comments, but my perception was that she was being observed with mild interest. She wasn't out and out dangerous - but it's all pretend with her. It was just a matter of time.

Did you get impatient, Jasmine. You had to wait too long for the attention didn't you?

What will you do now? Go off to some other place and attack this community?

Or will you stop your games and get real? Can you even get real?

 

[Jasmine]

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.

Who made you the spokesman for this forum, you take the liberty to speak for everyone else? Your post is rude. You rant and insult because you don't agree with me. If you don't agree try inserting some logic into the discussion. Name calling and ranting is immature. If I'm missing the mark, it's this network that's going to help correct me. Insulting people is not how we learn. Shame on you! Talk about a lack of conscious.

If you want to take everything for face value go right ahead, I don't, I question everything and get to the bottom of my concerns. No hidden agenda here, I've brought my concerns out in the open.

You need to check yourself before tossing around assumptions, criticizing and attacking members.

 

[Redrock12]

First of all, Jasmine, nobody, including myself, made me a spokesperson for this forum, nor have I claimed to be such.
My last post is simply a summation of what I, and others as well, perceive to be your hidden agenda to promote a book based on an obviously faulty, and probably intentionally so, thesis that it's somehow beneficial to society, and oneself, to be a psychopath.
Notwithstanding the work done by Stout et al to the contrary, which, as pointed out by others, you unsuccessfully attempted to denigrate.

So how am I being rude? By pointing out the obvious?
As I see it, my response is in fact a logical and reasoned rebuttal to the information you have provided in your posts.
And yep, I really am sick and tired of people defaming honest scholarship with spurious and misleading arguments.
And again, for what? To help sell a book based more on little more than pop psychology.

BTW, you have yet to answer Perceval's question.

And if I am wrong in my assessment, in all honesty I would appreciate it if someone with more objectivity would please point out my errors.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

So how am I being rude? By pointing out the obvious?
As I see it, my response is in fact a logical and reasoned rebuttal to the information you have provided in your posts.

Actually, your post was rude. It appears you took Jasmine's posts personally, then got personal with her and jumped to your own conclusions (pretty similar to what Jasmine is doing!). Hardly a "logical and reasoned rebuttal". That said, it doesn't change the fact that Jasmine has been doing the same thing.

Who made you the spokesman for this forum, you take the liberty to speak for everyone else? Your post is rude. You rant and insult because you don't agree with me. If you don't agree try inserting some logic into the discussion. Name calling and ranting is immature. If I'm missing the mark, it's this network that's going to help correct me. Insulting people is not how we learn. Shame on you! Talk about a lack of conscious.

I'm afraid you ARE missing the mark in this discussion, Jasmine, which several members have been trying to get across to you. As for the whole "shame on you / no, shame on YOU", "you lack a conscience / no, YOU lack a conscience" dynamic, it's really childish.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Martha Stout has proven herself, through her actions, to be someone who understands psychopathy and its effects on people and society. This is perfectly clear in her books. What has Dutton done, in comparison? Yes, he's 'selling a book', but he's doing so using misleading claims, irrelevant data, and by avoiding the crux of the matter, i.e., the real DAMAGE caused by psychopaths. In other words, his book is disinformation. It may contain some true information, but the overall effect steers AWAY from the crux of the matter: that psychopaths lack conscience and are the cause of inevitable harm. I think it's really that simple.

 

[Turgon]

Martha Stout has proven herself, through her actions, to be someone who understands psychopathy and its effects on people and society. This is perfectly clear in her books. What has Dutton done, in comparison? Yes, he's 'selling a book', but he's doing so using misleading claims, irrelevant data, and by avoiding the crux of the matter, i.e., the real DAMAGE caused by psychopaths. In other words, his book is disinformation. It may contain some true information, but the overall effect steers AWAY from the crux of the matter: that psychopaths lack conscience and are the cause of inevitable harm. I think it's really that simple.

I agree. A person can discuss psychopathy as much as they want and claim to be spreading information and knowledge, but if they whitewash, downplay, ignore or mislead (even unintentionally) from the core issues regarding psychopaths then they are spreading disinformation. I'm not sure why Dutton is trying to prescribe some 'good' qualities to psychopath's while at the same time trying to blend in an 'inner psychopath' with normal human beings but to me it seems like an attempt to join the two together at the hip and make it even harder for normal human beings to distinguish that a psychopath's inner landscape is different from their own.

Can you imagine the later effects if this kind of idea were to take hold in society? For one, fear would be rampant in exposing psychopaths as conscienceless beings because that would then reflect back on normal human beings who supposedly have an 'inner psychopath' which would put their own humanity and ability to empathize and have a conscience into question. I think Dutton's work is dangerous and idiotic and for him to come to the conclusions that Charles Dickens and JFK are high on the psychopathy list just shows how much disinformation he is spreading.

 

[Jasmine]

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

Thank you Perceval, I'm supporting Dutton because he make sense in an odd way. He's not promoting becoming a serial killer. He looks at some of the traits that we all share in common and how psychopaths brains are wired for using those traits in contrast to how a normal person responds. People are confusing his work by thinking he recommends emulating the most extreme behaviors of cold calculated lack of conscious, for their benefit. I don't believe he's doing that. If he was suggesting that, it would be ridiculous. Like Dr. Salters said yesterday in the radio program, it would be ridiculous for people to want to attain to emulate the cold hearted behaviors of a psychopath. In my opinion, that's not what Dutton is subscribing to. He concentrates on traits like, fear under pressure, confidence, and mental toughness. Frankly, I'm just enjoying the unique perspective he presents. He talks a lot about psychopath core traits throughout his book and gives lots of examples and cites lots of professional studies into the brain and behaviors of psychopaths. But his overall objective, seemed to be an over the top obvious attempt to critique a very serious subject. Obvious being the key word, like the book is more of an interesting read rather than a how-to manual. That is how I perceived it even before I read it. I wasn't looking for a how-to manual, and people that are might be disappointed.

I cant say that I really support the idea in the way that you asked. I neither support it nor deny it. I just don't think Dutton is the poster boy for "normalizing" psychopathy that everyone is making him out to be. There is a place in the world for what he promotes. You don't have to agree with him. But there is no evidence to me that he is "normalizing" anything. Some of his comments are misleading. I think it's noble of people to want to save others from less than perfect information about psychopaths, and the true dangers of psychopaths. But we can't save people from the evil of organized religion, we can't save people period.

I hope I answered your questions, if not please continue with feedback.

 

[Laura]

If I'm missing the mark, it's this network that's going to help correct me.

That's what has been attempted but to no avail, thus the frustration of a couple of less self-controlled members.

For my part, I have to agree that either you have an agenda yourself, or you have been ponerized by some of this stuff. It reminds me of Lobaczewski's description of the "professor" in Political Ponerology and how propaganda could anchor in the mind of those less critical and slowly, subtly, take over their thinking and twist it.

So, either all the rest of us are nuts and you are perfectly right, or we are right and your thinking capacities are disintegrating thanks to selection and substitution of premises... in either case, you are entitled to your view and we are entitled to ours. And since this forum seeks consensus BASED ON FACTS AND DATA, you'll just need to find yourself a different hang-out.

Simple, eh?

 

[Renaissance]

Thank you Perceval, I'm supporting Dutton because he make sense in an odd way. He's not promoting becoming a serial killer. He looks at some of the traits that we all share in common and how psychopaths brains are wired for using those traits in contrast to how a normal person responds. People are confusing his work by thinking he recommends emulating the most extreme behaviors of cold calculated lack of conscious, for their benefit. I don't believe he's doing that. If he was suggesting that, it would be ridiculous. Like Dr. Salters said yesterday in the radio program, it would be ridiculous for people to want to attain to emulate the cold hearted behaviors of a psychopath. In my opinion, that's not what Dutton is subscribing to. He concentrates on traits like, fear under pressure, confidence, and mental toughness. Frankly, I'm just enjoying the unique perspective he presents.

The thing is psychopaths are wired so differently that a comparison of 'admirable' traits to human ones is an apples and oranges discussion. For example, their 'confidence' is very different from human confidence. Theirs has nothing to do with knowing, it has to do with complete self centeredness and denial of reality. He's promoting aspects of their mask of sanity as something to learn from, while leaving out what lies underneath, which is extremely harmful and devastating. We can learn from their mask but it is essential that it is understood in it's context. Psychopaths simply have no admirable, useful or healthy characteristics when it comes to human beings.

If Dutton wrote a book called "The Wisdom of Pedophiles", and how we can learn from their attention to children, would you take the same position? Sure, paying proper attention to children is a beneficial thing and something many adults could probably be better at, but omitting the pedophile's predatory and inhuman use of it would be unconscionable.

 

[Jasmine]

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.

Perceval, LOL, I do not know Dutton. I've never even traveled to Europe.

There is no agenda here Endymion, I'm just speaking my mind.

I apologize for upsetting so many members.

 

[Laura]

There is no agenda here Endymion, I'm just speaking my mind.

I apologize for upsetting so many members.

No need to apologize: you've spoken your mind and the members have pretty much said that your mind is different stuff... so now you can find a forum of your own kind, whatever that is.

 

[H-KQGE]

If I'm missing the mark, it's this network that's going to help correct me.

That's what has been attempted but to no avail, thus the frustration of a couple of less self-controlled members.

For my part, I have to agree that either you have an agenda yourself, or you have been ponerized by some of this stuff. It reminds me of Lobaczewski's description of the "professor" in Political Ponerology and how propaganda could anchor in the mind of those less critical and slowly, subtly, take over their thinking and twist it.

So, either all the rest of us are nuts and you are perfectly right, or we are right and your thinking capacities are disintegrating thanks to selection and substitution of premises... in either case, you are entitled to your view and we are entitled to ours. And since this forum seeks consensus BASED ON FACTS AND DATA, you'll just need to find yourself a different hang-out.

Simple, eh?

I thought that this would be obvious since there's sooo much information on the forum, recommended reading, numerous cognitive psychology threads with in-depth discussions... which is why I also think that ponerization must have taken a firm yet subtle grip. That's what happens, & that should be a big warning for others that may not see the critical importance of P.P. & the other necessary books that have long been vetted by very experienced long-time members. Think of the repeated messages of reading LWB & the keto pages for starters. Any who bother with those threads will either slowly or quickly come to realize that a lifetime of self-administered poisoning can be, & is increasingly fatal.

The fact that plenty can recover is nothing short of miraculous IMO. But many cannot. And that's what we eat every day. In the realm of the mind we don't have such a "luxury", ponerogenesis is rather smooth in it's entry for certain types of people. They won't get a reaction like those with say, an autoimmune problem.

We recognize that the inability to recognize pathological forms of behavior, and thus pathology itself, within one’s social milieu is the First Criterion of Ponerogenesis.

The example of the "professor" is apt where Dutton is concerned. And this quote is really quite sad.

"You can imagine our worry, disappointment, and surprise when some colleagues we knew well suddenly began to change their world view; their thought-patterns furthermore reminded us of the "professor's" chatter. Their feelings, which had just recently been friendly, became noticeably cooler, although not yet hostile. Benevolent or critical student arguments bounced right off them. They gave impressions of possessing some secret knowledge"[…]

Which seems to have been going around lately like the common cold. I think it would be wise to re-read P.P. for some people, or read it if you haven't for those wondering what the fuss is about. Having regular dealings with psychopaths in one's life & then gaining the information to inoculate oneself maybe needed for some, I don't know. Here's another useful quote...

"a complex pattern of deeply embedded psychological characteristics that are expressed automatically in almost every area of psychological functioning"

Theodore Millon describing personality. So preferred thinking & behavioural patterns. I'll leave you with this :

"Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal & undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervour about convincing & converting other people to his view."

 

[Redrock12]

If I'm missing the mark, it's this network that's going to help correct me.

That's what has been attempted but to no avail, thus the frustration of a couple of less self-controlled members.

For my part, I have to agree that either you have an agenda yourself, or you have been ponerized by some of this stuff. It reminds me of Lobaczewski's description of the "professor" in Political Ponerology and how propaganda could anchor in the mind of those less critical and slowly, subtly, take over their thinking and twist it.

So, either all the rest of us are nuts and you are perfectly right, or we are right and your thinking capacities are disintegrating thanks to selection and substitution of premises... in either case, you are entitled to your view and we are entitled to ours. And since this forum seeks consensus BASED ON FACTS AND DATA, you'll just need to find yourself a different hang-out.

Simple, eh?

I thought that this would be obvious since there's sooo much information on the forum, recommended reading, numerous cognitive psychology threads with in-depth discussions... which is why I also think that ponerization must have taken a firm yet subtle grip. That's what happens, & that should be a big warning for others that may not see the critical importance of P.P. & the other necessary books that have long been vetted by very experienced long-time members. Think of the repeated messages of reading LWB & the keto pages for starters. Any who bother with those threads will either slowly or quickly come to realize that a lifetime of self-administered poisoning can be, & is increasingly fatal.

The fact that plenty can recover is nothing short of miraculous IMO. But many cannot. And that's what we eat every day. In the realm of the mind we don't have such a "luxury", ponerogenesis is rather smooth in it's entry for certain types of people. They won't get a reaction like those with say, an autoimmune problem.

We recognize that the inability to recognize pathological forms of behavior, and thus pathology itself, within one’s social milieu is the First Criterion of Ponerogenesis.

The example of the "professor" is apt where Dutton is concerned. And this quote is really quite sad.

[quote] "You can imagine our worry, disappointment, and surprise when some colleagues we knew well suddenly began to change their world view; their thought-patterns furthermore reminded us of the "professor's" chatter. Their feelings, which had just recently been friendly, became noticeably cooler, although not yet hostile. Benevolent or critical student arguments bounced right off them. They gave impressions of possessing some secret knowledge"[…]

Which seems to have been going around lately like the common cold. I think it would be wise to re-read P.P. for some people, or read it if you haven't for those wondering what the fuss is about. Having regular dealings with psychopaths in one's life & then gaining the information to inoculate oneself maybe needed for some, I don't know. Here's another useful quote...

"a complex pattern of deeply embedded psychological characteristics that are expressed automatically in almost every area of psychological functioning"

Theodore Millon describing personality. So preferred thinking & behavioural patterns. I'll leave you with this :

"Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal & undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervour about convincing & converting other people to his view."

[/quote]

The last highlighted quote would seem to indicate people with an authoritarian personality. They seem to be deifying a person because of the position she/he holds, whether or not they came to be in that position legitimately or otherwise. Just the fact that she/he holds that position is enough to render all opposing views without merit or legitimacy, even if there is evidence to the contrary.