I was listening to my local NPR station this morning and the topic and book linked below were discussed. The author discusses the presence and effects of psychopathic leaders in our organizations and the effects they have on society.

I was struck by this on the website by the comment that

"An essential psychopath may be diagnosed as narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder."

SLCabbie, I, and others have suggested Joseph Smith might fit the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders were he diagnosed today.

Many characteristics of an "essential psychopath" fit Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

http://www.ponerology.com/psychopaths_3.html

I wish web designers would not put light next on dark backgrounds. It is hard to read and annoys the hell out of me.

If anyone has read this, I'd be interested in what you make of it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2011 11:03PM by robertb.

I (with my limited knowledge) thought it was a good book. It delves into cultural and political anthropology regarding sociopaths and how sociopaths come to be respected by many.

I have to warn you though, the editor Laura Knight Jadczyk interjects her own thoughts into the text and she's quite a nasty character.

Her site:

http://cassiopaea.org/

and google results:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Laura+Knight-Jadcyzk+cassiopaea&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Nku&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&ei=-qN5TdD5LpG-0QHGuozRAw&ved=0CBMQBSgA&q=Laura+Knight-Jadczyk+cassiopaea&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=f65aa1d3f8dcd1fc

It's a good read. Just remember who the editor is and you'll be good to go.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2011 11:26PM by Strykary.

Thank you, Strykary. I've sometimes said the Mormon Church is a psychopathic organization--one of many and not the worst--and have been challenged that an organization can't be psychopathic. I was speaking from my gut feeling and hearing the program today on my local NPR station my ears perked up when the person interviewed said psychopathic organizations have identifying structures and processes. Hence my interest in the book. The cassiopea site struck me as very strange. Are Jadcyck's comments in the book clearly identified as hers in the text or are they simply interpolated?

An observation that led to my inclusion of the "yes men" term below (my brother-in-law, a brilliant six figure business sort himself, was also useful in helping me formulate these analyses). He sent me it in response to my sharing a piece I'd written on a the intellectual aburdities of some LDS apologists (the "yes men" in the dynamic).

There's no question the "LDS Church is a Psychopathic Organization." Pop noted to me a few years ago that it was characteristic of organizations to "take on a resemblance to the man at the top." We know Hinckley (with Monson as his understudy) essentially ran LDS, Inc. from the waning days of SWK's senility until three years ago...

And I'll stand on that belief in the post below that education is a powerful force to counter these dynamics...

Edit: My compassion goes out to those who don't have "heretics" (Pop hasn't been a believer since the early 50's) to offer a non-judgmental backstop and sounding board for stuff like this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2011 01:10AM by SL Cabbie.

It, as an organization, does not care about the lives it negatively effects, much like a large corporation may not care about how it negatively effects the environment or world markets. (I'm not naming any names) It's this 'organized self-interest' that I feel set organizations apart. Those with an organized hierarchy of 'yes-men' as Cabbie put it, have characteristics of sociopathy; it's an organization that is cold and unfeeling. The documentary "The Corporation" explains this fairly well, check that out if you'd like to get into the organizational side of things, rather than the individual.

I stumbled upon an essay in the Sunday papers by a Jonathan McCalmont regarding psychopathy. It's written around the subject of video games, but it does briefly touch on organizational psychopathy in the section "How to See Like a State."

"State agents have no interest – nor should they – in describing an entire social reality, any more than the scientific forester has an interest in describing the ecology of a forest in detail. Their abstractions and simplifications are disciplined by a small number of objectives, and until the nineteenth century the most prominent of these were typically taxation, political control, and proscription. They needed only the techniques and understanding that were adequate to these tasks."

http://futurismic.com/2011/03/02/seeing-like-a-state-why-strategy-games-make-us-think-and-behave-like-brutal-psychopaths/

I think it's an interesting perspective on 'organizational psychopathy,' as (and I'm assuming here) in large organizations you're required to perceive reality in a way that is conducive to the needs of said organization. Individual needs do not matter to the upper echelons of the hierarchy, as individual needs do not directly influence the survival of the organization.

"‘Smoothness’ is not a human value, as the efficiency of an entire city or civilisation[sic] really does not matter to an individual human being. ‘Smoothness’ is an aesthetic value that only becomes apparent when you detach yourself from the limited viewpoint of an individual human in order to look at the world from a detached perspective."

Regarding the book, 'Political Ponerology,' there's a preface by Laura Knight Jadczyk. As far as the rest of the text goes, I cannot tell whether or not she injected her own opinions into the text. There's a lot of fascinating information in the book and I think you'd enjoy reading it. However, the author presumes that there is a cure to pathocracy and suggests "global psychotherapy" to bring it to fruition (284). I don't agree with this idea as it seems counter-intuitive (at least to me). I do agree with what Cabbie said "I suggest, though, that education will always have value because it will create empowered, largely self-actualized individuals who can keep the sociopaths in check." Doris Lessing touches on this in her collection of essays, 'Prisons We Choose to Live Inside.'

"Can we imagine this being taught in school, imagine it being taught to children: If you are in this or that type of situation, you will find yourself, if you are not careful, behaving like a brute and a savage if you are ordered to do it. Watch out for these situations. You must be on your guard against your own primitive actions and instincts" (Lessing 58).

Take that as you will.

Let me know if you'd like a copy of the book, Robert and Cabbie.

Edit: I'd like to clarify that while I agree with these ideas, I don't believe that they could ever be successfully implemented on a massive scale. Especially in the process of education, "How do you know what you're doing is objective, factual, true and not for your own benefit?" It's all very enticing information and that makes me hesitant.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2011 09:04AM by Strykary.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2011 01:30AM by SL Cabbie.

Hi robertb, do you know if there is anyway to listen to the NPR show you heard, if it is archived anywhere?

If you don't like the color scheme of the site you can go to the View menu, then select Page Styles, and select no style. Wala, black text on a white background. I agree with you about the readability of that site.

And as my last classes only included a long addiction workshop and a course in Egyptology (related to my teaching major), I'm troubled by much of this, but I lack the "contemporary perspective" to address some of these issues; I'm reduced to "using the language of the 80's and 90's" to reply, some of which would probably be recognizable as "Freudian" or deemed otherwise archaic.

BTW, isn't Hare considered by many to be the current "authority" on sociopaths? I'm working from memory here, but I seem to recall a discussion here on that subject (and if I recall correctly, it became decidedly explosive). I'm afraid I need a bit of background on him if that's the case; I recall having strong feelings that I was reading more of the "sane individuals trying to understand insanity" rhetoric than anything I considered genuinely insightful. But then I do feel I've had considerable experience with sociopaths (I'm going to use sociopath/psychopath interchangeably since that appears to be what the author is doing). And I would frame this debate as another nature/nurture investigation, and this one appears to be clearly on the side of "nature," i.e. that these traits are largely inherited.

And it's not that I see something inherent in the "nature" argument that prompts me to reject them out of hand; indeed, on a purely "pragamatic scale of evolutionary survival value," sociopathic behaviors have a lot going for them. Unbound by conventional morals, they can impregnate more women; by rising to levels of power they make themselves more attractive...Etc. etc.

Item: "Low intelligence: Psychopaths are slightly below average in intelligence, with no instances of the highest intelligence or creativity."

I choked on this one. Off the top of my head, if a trait is inherited, then the normal distribution curve of intelligence ought to apply, and if not, why not?

Too, from my addictions studies, it's been demonstrated that those who develop addictive disease (presumably at least in large measure as a result of genetics; I'm not going to argue that one, however) are known to be of above average intelligence and generally recognized as "better looking." Honest, that's from the literature, folks (I even saw it on CSPAN where a congressional hearing was televised). And there are plenty of sociopaths in that crowd (one reason I've known so many); my view is that the "overlay" of substance abuse exacerbates the underlying psychopathology and more acting-out episodes result...

From my experience 20 years ago working adolescent treatment, it was generally understood that "conduct disorders" among teens were precursors to adult sociopathy...

Thus, I reject the following, and I'll go so far as to say it is the biased thought-product of someone who is unfamiliar with the behavior dynamics within families-of-orgin that give rise to adult psychopathology. I've hollered in the past about how the "science in psychology" school "hijacked" the literature on dysfunctional families for agendas of their own, which included researchers rejecting obvious connections because to do so would force them to confront their own agendas. And what was lost in this warfare was the immense value of "clinical impressions" as a means of developing better theoretical understandings of the etiologies of the various pathologies. I would call this one "The Backlash of the Control Freaks." People largely seek to control that which causes them unease.

>Bad Childhoods: While many believe psychopaths become the way they are from abusive childhood experiences, there is no evidence to suggest this is true. Most children who suffer abusive childhoods do not become psychopaths, and many psychopaths grow up in healthy families. Some attachment difficulties in infancy are a symptom of psychopathy, not a cause. (Hare, 170, 172, 175)

This is the same black-and-white thinking they characterize as occuring within "psychopaths." A greater understanding of the "psychodynamics of beliefs and the survival value thereof" would point to more sophisticated and accurate evaluation of upbringing and family-of-origin dynamics and also point to "predictive factors" in so-called "healthy families" (which are probably in a decided minority). A "lack of empathy" has strong survival value (permitting aggression to have an unbridled run), and I suggest it is usually the result of trauma and represion, IMHO (Cue up Freud, as I suggested I was going to do).

What is predictable at this point is that abusive families do create toxic pathologies in adulthood; "perennial victimhood" is one outcome, and psychopathic behavior is merely another, and an adaptive one at that (yeah, I'm in the "nuture not nature" camp. BTW, since Ted Bundy was mentioned, the case history of his childhood becomes relevant, and it was particulary horrific. A good friend and mentor of mine was the first individual who interviewed Bundy when he was first captured in Utah. He noted--and I agreed with him--that there were likely "visual triggers" to Bundy's acting-out episodes. I believe Bradshaw's "cathexis of frozen toxic shame" adequately explains the formation of the ego-states that gave rise to those episodes. I'll have a bit more to say on this one on the issue of "sociopaths recognizing each other).

Therapeutic interventions and treatment of those disorders is, as robertb has agreed here in the past, particularly problematic. I suggest this is the reason for what I see as a "retreat to genetics" in explaining their intractable nature, and of course I'm certain that view would outrage the "other side."

Okay, now for the overall hypothesis, "Psychopaths in organizations": That's a given... Only it remains in "some organizations," not all (and even if extant in a majority, as well may be occurring these days, factors that operate to exclude them from "some systems" can and ought to be identified). Too, I suggest that one factor operating in the success of "systems headed by psychopaths" is the underlings; "weak systems" are dominated by "yes men" (there are "yes women," too, lots of them, so I'm just using the generic designation here, and I note that calling a male by such a name is perjorative while a woman in such a role is generally seen as loyal, valuable, nurturing, and a contributor to the ultimate desirable outcome). More capable and effective organizations rely on the abilities of the underlings to effect goals in spite of the "psychopaths above."

Just my Cabdriver philosophical observations, and dang, these are complex issues that have no easy remedies... I suggest, though, that education will always have value because it will create empowered, largely self-actualized individuals who can keep the sociopaths in check... I think it's no accident that there's a strong "anti-education bent" among the more dysfunctional operations such as the Utah-based "Americans for Prosperity," which has been identified as operating recently in Wisconsin (okay, political rant over).

Finally, it's also abundantly clear that sociopaths "recognize" each other, and they're also adept at "identifying potential victims."

It's from those victims that they derive their opportunities to rise upwards in the organizations they infect.

Thanks, Cabbie. Sounds like "proceed with caution." I've had an off-and-on interest in organizational behavior and our recent conversation about Joseph Smith along with the NPR program sent me off in this direction. It would be good to have a taxonomy for such organizations. I wonder what it looks like and what kind of relationship there would be with "cults."

Like you, I'm also interested in how people become enmeshed in destructive organizations. I've spent some significant time thinking about what attracted me to Mormonism and, for a significant amount of that time--mostly early on--strong feelings of devotion to Joseph Smith. I rarely mention that, although it was significant and I had to deal with some painful deficits in myself to see him for what he was. I try not to be too hard on myself since even Hare struggled with not being taken in by psychopaths. I did read his book Without Conscience some years ago and recommend it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2011 01:19AM by robertb.

If I picked up Laura Knight Jadczyk, I'd make sure she was in the back seat, hope the ride was short, and she'd only get the "vanilla material" I usually reserve for Mormons...

Edit: My thanks to Strykary for the lead-in to the one-liner...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2011 01:31AM by SL Cabbie.

Mormonism is an organization that actually requires leader worship. Is that really any different than North Korea?

I have seen Mormons tear up and blubber when talking about prophets and presidents. Pathology gets my nod.

Great to see this work happening. I found a very good analysis for the JWS - The Jehovah Witness Society group, that also fits the profile of being a sociopathic group. Here's the link to that:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/146288/1/Profile-of-a-Sociopathic-Organization

Hopefully you can produce a similar page for the world to see.
I look forward to the day when the psycopathic personality disordered are no longer in control as we, the normal folk, figure them out.

Thanks to everyone on this thread for the fascinating reference material on this subject.

I have not read Hare yet, but spent a week (years ago) on the Cassiopaea website by Laura Knight-Jadczyk. She struck me as someone who was tirelessly curious about the world, both past and present, and willing to read and educate herself. She very much went into "X-Files" territory, and had several conspiracy theories and rants, but I would hesitate to call her "nasty".

But back to topic; sadly I think state, corporate and religious organizations are happy hunting grounds for sociopaths.

(But I believe their influence can be checked by other individuals in the organization who are healthy, and willing to establish and keep boundaries.)

I am discouraged by how common people can be dazzled by their "larger than life" charisma and refuse to see their tell-tale actions; but encouraged by the spread of information on personality disorders.

P.S. My sister-in-law is a narcissist, and can go from charming to hateful in two seconds. This is one of the reasons my wretched brother is hoping for "the end of the world" to come soon. He is "enduring to the end", hoping Jesus's return will fix everything. Yikes. Sad to say, I would call him an intelligent person, and educated. (Shakes head mournfully.) Damn cult.

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=18126.msg236916#msg236916

See this and the first post on the thread.

"The only reason the Fellowship exists is because we realized we may need a legal structure in this legally structured world, i.e. using their own weapons against them. We realized that we already lived a certain lifestyle due to what we had learned, we only needed to formalize it WITH THE PROVISO that we can adjust the formalization as we learn more. Thus, the Statement of Principles incorporates a section on modifications and has version numbers.

In other words, practicing being wise as serpents and gentle as doves. "

Well, and this:

http://paleochristianity.org/how-to-join/

http://paleochristianity.org/signup/

Anyways...

"With this change came competing convictions and a newfound responsibility for one's own salvation, as well as a greater interest in finding a sect that most closely resembled one's particular lifestyle. Individualism now took on a new meaning: the right to do what we wanted provided it did not harm others This consumer oriented mentality, coupled with the desire to avoid the church's less forgiving denominations, brought about a flowering of new religions and "New Age" innovations, from white witchcraft and goddess worship to doomsday cults. It is the cult, Bruce argues, with its emphasis on the freedom to do whatever one thinks is right, that will define religion in the twenty-first century. "

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/ComparativeReligion/?view=usa&ci=9780198781516&view=usa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2011 11:51AM by Strykary.

Same sort of psychoses, just different psychotics...

But I promised RaptorJesus I would be a good example and maintain reasonable abstinence from that balderdash... I mean there was that link on the right column, "An Attack From Harvard Law on the Escalating 9/11 Truth Movement." That one would've been right at home at LDSFF... Come to think of it, wasn't Barack Obama editor of the "Harvard Law Review" at one time? There must be a connection...

Okay, Cabbie, quit clowning and remember the Wise Ol' Cabbie's advice about not acting crazy too much or you might wind up being crazy and not knowing it...

I said my piece above, and I really did see what talented therapists could accomplish with early intereventions on conduct disorders and budding narcissists when such stuff was encountered in adolescents. Sadly, in the family-of-origin dynamics, such roles are "fixed," and the "identified patient" winds up fullfilling the needs of the family's pathology.

These folks are playing into the hand of the same devil they denounce...

Yes it is and it's a shame that they attach themselves to Lobaczewski's book.

I would like a copy of the PDF to see if the book is something I want to buy. rbrtbaumgardner@yahoo.com Thank you, Strykary.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2011 09:31PM by robertb.

corporations are psychopathic. Period. They meet the criteria of no conscience, no anxiety, and completely out for their own profit. Corporations are this way by law, and court decisions over the years have magnified this. It was a sad day to realize that I shared the basic landscape of my life and country with psychopaths that were so embedded in the US that they were almost invisible. Look at any major corporation that you deal with, shop at, eat at, etc. and you will see that this is the case.

It was a sad day because I realized that I could not avoid psychopaths in my life. I have known a few and since there is no remedy for their outlook and behavior, the only defense is to put as much distance between them and me as possible.

However, every time I turn on the TV or go to websites with advertising, I am likely to be faced with a charming come-on by a psychopath, which cares not at all about me or the community, or even the country.

The morg, as it moved from "church" to corporation has become increasingly characteristic of psychopaths. Now my question is this: do people who work for these corporations become psychopathic in their outlook? At least at work. I suspect that to the extent that they identify with the organization, that they do.

Hare's book "Without Conscience" is very good, as is "The Psychopath Next Door" by Martha Stout. Political Ponology is is my cart. It looks like a good read.

P.S. Hare reported that psychopaths fall across the range of intelligence and some are very intelligent, so I was surprised to read that generally they are not so smart. I would tend toward accepting Hare, given the scientist he is.

As for JS being a psychopath or sociopath, who is to say. He certainly has some features of it as seen from our perspective. When does a glib con man cross the line? Given the choice between labeling him a narcissist and a sociopath, I would go for sociopath, who also got carried away from living in his bubble of worshipers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2011 12:36PM by Adult of god.

I remember starting this topic about a year ago. At that time, I proposed that JS was a psychopath, and caused quite a ruckus here.

I still think he is a Psychpath. I attended a Psychopathy conference put on by Dr. Hare right after that thread, and came away even more convinced that JS was one.

I spent time at lunch with Dr. Hare and his right hand man, whose name I'd have to find, discussing JS. It was too taboo of a topic and they didn't want to discuss it much, but the one point where they didn't think that he would fit the criteria was for "Criminal Versatility".

Then I told them that he had been arrested more than once, and died in jail after being arrested for destroying a printing press that told the truth about him. They looked surprised and said something like, "oh, that changes things." But they clearly didn't want to go on record pissing millions of Mormons off by saying JS was a psychopath. But the one criteria that they thought would keep him from scoring high enough, he clearly would score high on.

After the conference I wrote up my clarified thoughts on the subject. But now I have a new computer and can't find it, but it's probably on here somewhere. If I find it, I'll post it.

One other lingering thought on the subject is that there is a lot of data now from brain scans of psychopaths that show convincing evidence of a biological difference in the brains of psychopaths.

They really are different than the rest of us. That doesn't excuse them, because if it is in their own interest to not act in a way that gets them arrested, then they can follow the rules of society. So they do have choice in how they act, they just don't find it to be in enough of their best interest enough of the time.

JS was certainly Narcissistic, and most Psychopaths are Narcissists. But conversely, most Narcissists are not Psychopaths. I think JS went beyond Narcissistic and used people everywhere he went from the time he was a teen.

It didn't matter how many died because of him. It didn't matter how many went hungry and cold. There simply was not a point where he would say, "this is too much, too many people are being hurt, I need to come clean".

Put the wishes of JS smith on one side of a scale, and put dead bodies, and suffering children on the other side of the scale... And there was no amount that couldn't be balanced out by his own selfish desires. He never did say, "this is too much, I have to stop."

He wanted what he wanted, was clever enough to figure out how to get it, and it didn't matter who had to suffer in order for him to have it.

Include his marriage to Emma and his relationships with his family and individuals like Porter Rockwell (whom he certainly used, but he rewarded well).

He appears to have a conscience at times, and he was aware of the recriminations his actions brought down on him. The break-up with Bennett, for example, was in part brought on by Bennett's view that JS was too concerned with the "Temple Rituals" and just should've "got on with it." Bennett appears to me more of a socopathic opportunist than JS...

As for the "differences" in the brainscans of sociopaths, those are open to interpretation. I have no doubt the "rewards center" (involving the various neurological structures, some dopaminergic, some norepenephrine oriented, and some where serotonin is the dominant neurotransmitter) are likely different; the question is that an outgrowth of nature "genetics" or "nurture" (malnurturing actually).

Those would provide the stimulus/reinforcment connections that would make the behaviors self-rewarding. Early "sexualizing" of a child often appears to be a factor in the intransigent resistance of many sexual disorders to therapeutic intervention, even extreme interventions (such as I electroshock, which I wholly condemn). There is a "physiological force" that drives such monsters, and the two cases I was most familiar with (exhibitionists, I was "fortunate" not to have to listen to the particulars of other "garbage") convinced me that they were frequently incapable of preventing themselves from losing control long before they were consciously aware of anything...

But as another mentor note, this kind of stuff isn't something you want to be identified as acquiring an expertise about...

Now watch for the pharmacy companies to come up with a "pill for socopathy" and Hare's "nature" claims to find a ready market...

They don't think anything is wrong with them.

Their unfortunate partners would have to slip it into their Gojii Juice. Better make it a quick-dissolving powder.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> As for the "differences" in the brainscans of
> sociopaths, those are open to interpretation. I
> have no doubt the "rewards center" (involving the
> various neurological structures, some
> dopaminergic, some norepenephrine oriented, and
> some where serotonin is the dominant
> neurotransmitter) are likely different;

Not really. Here is part of what has been found.

Brain scans of the antisocial people, compared with a control group of individuals without any mental disorders, showed on average an 18-percent reduction in the volume of the brain's middle frontal gyrus, and a 9 percent reduction in the volume of the orbital frontal gyrus – two sections in the brain's frontal lobe.

Another brain study, published in the September 2009 Archives of General Psychiatry, compared 27 psychopaths — people with severe antisocial personality disorder — to 32 non-psychopaths. In the psychopaths, the researchers observed deformations in another part of the brain called the amygdala, with the psychopaths showing a thinning of the outer layer of that region called the cortex and, on average, an 18-percent volume reduction in this part of brain.

And what caused them? Nature or nurture?

BTW, the orbital frontal lobes--where the gyrus(es?) referred to are located, contain the most dopamine sensitive structures--the ones I referred to--above. Back when I was reviewing the research on this one, the literature was showing that rats would self-medicate with cocaine injections (cocaine blocks the reuptake of a number of neurotransmitters) to the point of death, and the dominergic structures were heavily involved; it was, as nearly as I could tell, more than just the pleasure centers that were involved, since dopamine also involved in muscular activity. These rats were literally helpless to stop their behavior as an act of "will." Any addict in recovery can attest to the validity of that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobe

>The frontal lobe contains most of the dopamine-sensitive neurons in the cerebral cortex. The dopamine system is associated with reward, attention, long-term memory, planning, and drive. Dopamine tends to limit and select sensory information arriving from the thalamus to the fore-brain. A report from the National Institute of Mental Health says a gene variant that reduces dopamine activity in the prefrontal cortex is related to poorer performance and inefficient functioning of that brain region during working memory tasks, and to slightly increased risk for schizophrenia.

As for that smallish structure hidden deep within the brain, the amygdala...

http://www.kurzweilai.net/amygdala-size-correlated-with-size-complexity-of-ones-social-networks

>“We know that primates who live in larger social groups have a larger amygdala, even when controlling for overall brain size and body size,” said Barrett. “We considered a single primate species, humans, and found that the amygdala volume positively correlated with the size and complexity of social networks in adult human."

Okay, but what is the result of trauma in one's upbringing on the amygdala and the structures mentioned near the cerebral cortext? And nutrition? This question suggests itself:

Did they control for the use of psychoactive drugs such as cocaine and alcohol in their study? I suggest that sociopathic types (and those with addictive disease) wouldn't have given reliable answers in their case histories in the first place.

This would prevent a determination of whether the cause was likely to be genetic or environmental...

And from my modest readings on brain size, it's not the size of the brain that determines the complexity of the function, it's the "wrinkles." That's a bit of a silly simplification, but what it strongly suggests is that the deeper and intricate connections involving "the wiring" are related to the complexity of the cognitive operations.

Now I'll repeat my question above: "Off the top of my head, if a trait is inherited, then the normal distribution curve of intelligence ought to apply, and if not, why not?"

Finally, perhaps you'd like to comment on the article I just read a few days ago about how psychiatrists are rarely engaging in psychotherapy these days (as opposed to psychologists and clinicial social workers, among others).

I'll also suggest the reason for that howler, "psychopaths have lower intelligences than normal" is that the smart psychopaths mangage to avoid being identified.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2011 08:36PM by SL Cabbie.

I think it is due to changes in the field due to more available drugs and fewer training programs in psychotherapy. There is also an economic consideration in that a psychiatrist can see 3-4 patients an hour after the initial consult and make 200-300 hundred dollars or more in an hour. I often have to tell my clients not to expect talk therapy when they see a psychiatrist because they expect it and are disappointed and angry when it doesn't happen. I know two psychiatrists in my town who do psychotherapy as well as meds and one has retired. Both are excellent in both activities, in my opinion.

Yes. I have seen medication be very helpful, but it has also been oversold, in my opinion. The next worse thing we do is blame the individual for all his or her problems rather than see they have a context. The reform we need is not only in how we live as individuals, but in how we live as a society. I think we know enough about what makes humans prosper to make those changes, but, well, it's not "profitable."

My opinion is this is both a nature/nurture problem. One aspect may be predominant. On the "nurture" side, in my work with military veterans I have learned the military conditions soldiers and marines to suspend important aspects of conscience, and they largely succeed, at least temporarily. Unfortunately, following military service, some combat veterans don't fully recover their conscience and normal ability to form loving relationships.

Jonathan Shay's book, Odysseus in America: Combat Trauma and the Trials of Homecoming discusses this problem and how it might be treated. It is important to note he is writing about men who acquired psychopathic behaviors through conditioning and trauma as young adults and not those who are "hardwired" for such behaviors from birth or childhood.

And the vast majority of killers are not psychopaths. Psychopaths are a pretty specific breed.

Yes. Most murders, from what I understand, are "crimes of passion." I mention the military because we can be conditioned to behave in psychopathic ways, when normally we would not. Another difference between nurture and nature is learned or conditioned psychopathic behaviors damage character (which resists them) unlike "natural" psychopathy, which is the stuff from which the character is formed. I remember your post on JS as a psychopath and couldn't understand why you caught hell for it, because psychopathy is on a continuum. If you find it, I'd enjoy seeing it again, minus the you catching hell part.

I'm looking for it. As I said, I got a new computer a few weeks ago, and between the new computer, using windows 7 for the first time, and having Best Buy switch all the files very badly, I'm kind of screwed.

I can hardly find even photos that I always knew where were.

Too bad I never emailed it to anyone. I can find stuff in old emails all the time.

If I find it, I'll post it for sure.

Cabbie,I really like your theory about how the normal distribution of intellect should apply across an inherited trait.

I have long held that intellect should be lower among those who are anti-science and anti-literate, i.e. Mormon fundamentalists. This is from anecdotal experience. But you have suggested, if I may take the liberty of saying so, that smart psychopaths are harder to identify. They don't want to be found out. Wouldn't this include narcissists?

I think you have synthesized a lot of psychology in your brief statements. There are people who are dedicated to manipulating those around them for personal gain. If they're clever enough, they will pull it off. If I point them out and say: "hey, you're a fraud," they laugh at me because I'm not capable of manipulating a group of followers.

I feel like a canary that died unnoticed in a coal mine. Thanks for your thoughts, Cabbie. You keep it real.

Don B.