"From what is established through authentic research on psychopathy that we know of , lack of empathy defines what a psychopath is. What you are describing however as a separate new psychopath-like empathizing species is fiction, which is what you are claiming to write. There have been people who have tried to muddy the waters on real psychopathy research though saying things like psychopaths can feel empathy, they live unhappy lives because they cannot fit in etc. as if they were facts."
I am simply stating that through the process of trying to identify and/or diagnose psychopathy many researchers, psychologists and psychiatrists have found individuals who do in fact display sincere empathy. That does not necessarily mean they feel empathy towards those who they victimize, but rather the simple ability to feel it. That is not the only instance in which individuals being analyzed fail to meet the established norms for psychopathy, it encompasses many other behaviors. These instances are what has driven most of the research being done. The whole point is if during an examination due to a murder trial, an individuals displays empathy and/or perhaps fails to meet psychopathic norms in other instances, then the options have traditionally been 1) to declare he is not a psychopath, even though his behavior has been predatory in the extreme 2) to declare he is in fact a psychopath and simply widen the definition and perhaps revise the scale once again. The post simply shared the science that has provided another possibility.
As I mentioned and I'm sure you know, psychopathic behavior and deficient amygdala function go hand in hand. This deficient function is what allows the psychopath to operate without compunction and which allows them to either be unaware of the differences between them and others or to simply not care about them. So, if someone who is being examined to diagnose psychopathy or another personality disorder has normal amygdala function you would likely have someone who is in fact aware of the differences between themselves and 'normal' humans and who might be indeed be unhappy or confused by their natural inclinations.
"Back when I used to read thrillers, I had come across a number of books which described characters which more or less sound like what you are describing in your plot. These characters would usually form a cabal spanning across countries by identifying similar members and would secretly run the world until an ex Seal team member or some other ex-commando/ex-intelligence agency dude with a beautiful female sidekick would take them out. Terms like psychopathy were probably not used in these books - or even if they were it did not register in my mind as I was not looking for it at that time. BTW, the publishing VP's phone call to you and his behavior during the call reminded me specifically of how Robert Ludlum characters behaved in those global conspiracy thrillers in similar situations. (Please do not interpret this as doubting your experience though.) So dunno if whatever label you used for your script really made people mad - or the reasons for not finding a publisher is that the fiction space is more crowded than the other space you have had prior experience in publishing."
Believe me when I tell you that I am more than aware of how crowded the fiction space is. The dozens of rejections I received will speak to that. The fact that the manuscript got as far as it did and was then dropped is the very reason the whole situation took on a surreal quality. None of the authors of fiction and non-fiction I spoke with had gone through nor heard of anything similar. I honestly am still at a loss as to the reasons this all happened. Like I mentioned, statistically it is absolutely not beyond the norm, which means that there is a likelihood it was all in fact coincidence. I shared it because I wanted to get other folks' perspective and to see if others had gone though something similar and based on the responses I got it seems some in fact have gone through something similar. I suppose when the book is published I'll find out one way or the other whether it made some folks uneasy.
As far as my novel, I can tell you there are no 'global' conspiracies and the protagonist is far from Jason Bourne. His background served the purpose of explaining why he didn't simply move on and grieve for his daughter, whey he had to learn more. But in the end he's just a daddy who lost his little girl and he goes through the horror and trauma the same way another dad would. He's pulled into the rest of the situation unwillingly and he does not want to be a hero or an avenger. The idea of the book, as it is for many other works of fiction, is that a regular guy is plunged into extraordinary circumstances. The science presented is based on the research I have mentioned and presents one possibility of how this science might come to light.
This is not a 'secret agent' guy, globetrotting to rid the world of evil. He doesn't have a sidekick, beautiful or otherwise, he has a wife and two other kids. A good deal of the conflict in the book has to do with him dealing with his own pain and grief and with trying to help his wife and kids to move on. The husband wife relationship is integral to the story.
"Another book coming to mind, which I think was also suggested to you, is the work of Andrew Lobaczewski "Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes". It lays out very well all of those nuances between psychopaths and people who, being intrinsically more vulnerable to psychopathic influences gain psychopathic traits to the point of behaving as such. It isn't as simple as us versus them, as you know, and I wouldn't yet go as far as assuming a different race without first addressing the question of disordered characters, particularly within a society that has become psychopathic at its core, in its fundamental values."
I haven't read the book, but I have gone through some of the shared posts about the book and through Laura's posts and definitely see the relevance. The fundamental basis for it, however, is quite different. All the research I've come across and the experts that I have spoken to have had to do with strictly scientific theory. In other words, the folks that I have spoke with (other than the detectives and attorneys) have not analyzed this behavior as 'good' or 'evil', it is simply Darwinian predation. A good deal of them do not have backgrounds in psychology or psychiatry, but are experts in the physiological aspects of evolution and neuroscience and they therefore do not posit on the esoteric or 'moral aspects of their work. There are some that do, but those I have found to be a bit 'off' if you know what I mean.
There is a professor at Columbia who has developed a scale of 'evil' with 22 levels where the higher someone lands on the scale the more 'evil' they are. So someone who kills as an act of passion would land at say a 5 and Jeffrey Dahmer would land at a 22. His research has to do with behavioral observation only, not biological, evolutionary or physiological differences.
I am simply stating that through the process of trying to identify and/or diagnose psychopathy many researchers, psychologists and psychiatrists have found individuals who do in fact display sincere empathy. That does not necessarily mean they feel empathy towards those who they victimize, but rather the simple ability to feel it. That is not the only instance in which individuals being analyzed fail to meet the established norms for psychopathy, it encompasses many other behaviors. These instances are what has driven most of the research being done. The whole point is if during an examination due to a murder trial, an individuals displays empathy and/or perhaps fails to meet psychopathic norms in other instances, then the options have traditionally been 1) to declare he is not a psychopath, even though his behavior has been predatory in the extreme 2) to declare he is in fact a psychopath and simply widen the definition and perhaps revise the scale once again. The post simply shared the science that has provided another possibility.
As I mentioned and I'm sure you know, psychopathic behavior and deficient amygdala function go hand in hand. This deficient function is what allows the psychopath to operate without compunction and which allows them to either be unaware of the differences between them and others or to simply not care about them. So, if someone who is being examined to diagnose psychopathy or another personality disorder has normal amygdala function you would likely have someone who is in fact aware of the differences between themselves and 'normal' humans and who might be indeed be unhappy or confused by their natural inclinations.
"Back when I used to read thrillers, I had come across a number of books which described characters which more or less sound like what you are describing in your plot. These characters would usually form a cabal spanning across countries by identifying similar members and would secretly run the world until an ex Seal team member or some other ex-commando/ex-intelligence agency dude with a beautiful female sidekick would take them out. Terms like psychopathy were probably not used in these books - or even if they were it did not register in my mind as I was not looking for it at that time. BTW, the publishing VP's phone call to you and his behavior during the call reminded me specifically of how Robert Ludlum characters behaved in those global conspiracy thrillers in similar situations. (Please do not interpret this as doubting your experience though.) So dunno if whatever label you used for your script really made people mad - or the reasons for not finding a publisher is that the fiction space is more crowded than the other space you have had prior experience in publishing."
Believe me when I tell you that I am more than aware of how crowded the fiction space is. The dozens of rejections I received will speak to that. The fact that the manuscript got as far as it did and was then dropped is the very reason the whole situation took on a surreal quality. None of the authors of fiction and non-fiction I spoke with had gone through nor heard of anything similar. I honestly am still at a loss as to the reasons this all happened. Like I mentioned, statistically it is absolutely not beyond the norm, which means that there is a likelihood it was all in fact coincidence. I shared it because I wanted to get other folks' perspective and to see if others had gone though something similar and based on the responses I got it seems some in fact have gone through something similar. I suppose when the book is published I'll find out one way or the other whether it made some folks uneasy.
As far as my novel, I can tell you there are no 'global' conspiracies and the protagonist is far from Jason Bourne. His background served the purpose of explaining why he didn't simply move on and grieve for his daughter, whey he had to learn more. But in the end he's just a daddy who lost his little girl and he goes through the horror and trauma the same way another dad would. He's pulled into the rest of the situation unwillingly and he does not want to be a hero or an avenger. The idea of the book, as it is for many other works of fiction, is that a regular guy is plunged into extraordinary circumstances. The science presented is based on the research I have mentioned and presents one possibility of how this science might come to light.
This is not a 'secret agent' guy, globetrotting to rid the world of evil. He doesn't have a sidekick, beautiful or otherwise, he has a wife and two other kids. A good deal of the conflict in the book has to do with him dealing with his own pain and grief and with trying to help his wife and kids to move on. The husband wife relationship is integral to the story.
"Another book coming to mind, which I think was also suggested to you, is the work of Andrew Lobaczewski "Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes". It lays out very well all of those nuances between psychopaths and people who, being intrinsically more vulnerable to psychopathic influences gain psychopathic traits to the point of behaving as such. It isn't as simple as us versus them, as you know, and I wouldn't yet go as far as assuming a different race without first addressing the question of disordered characters, particularly within a society that has become psychopathic at its core, in its fundamental values."
I haven't read the book, but I have gone through some of the shared posts about the book and through Laura's posts and definitely see the relevance. The fundamental basis for it, however, is quite different. All the research I've come across and the experts that I have spoken to have had to do with strictly scientific theory. In other words, the folks that I have spoke with (other than the detectives and attorneys) have not analyzed this behavior as 'good' or 'evil', it is simply Darwinian predation. A good deal of them do not have backgrounds in psychology or psychiatry, but are experts in the physiological aspects of evolution and neuroscience and they therefore do not posit on the esoteric or 'moral aspects of their work. There are some that do, but those I have found to be a bit 'off' if you know what I mean.
There is a professor at Columbia who has developed a scale of 'evil' with 22 levels where the higher someone lands on the scale the more 'evil' they are. So someone who kills as an act of passion would land at say a 5 and Jeffrey Dahmer would land at a 22. His research has to do with behavioral observation only, not biological, evolutionary or physiological differences.
