Psychopaths tend to be highly intelligent and extremely articulate to the point of being extremely charming.
Psychopaths are portrayed as such, especially in movies and TV shows. I believe (I'm not positive, I'm remembering my psych stuff) that psychopaths on the whole are not that insidious. Their aggressiveness, inability to empathize with others and impulsive behavior lead them very often to jail. The super intelligent, super charming psychopath is actually extremely rare rather than the norm.
Someone should have told my forensic psychology lecturer then.
In any case, being intelligent and reasonable doesn't mean you aren't in jail for committing a crime. I was attempting to point out that "in jail/being a criminal/doing wrong things" and "being intelligent" are not mutually exclusive.
Your argument appears to entirely rest upon this false dichotomy (ie they are aggressive, unable to emphasise and are impulsive and are thus in jail. Ergo since they are in jail they cannot be intelligent or charming.)
It's not a very strong argument, as this is not a true dichotomy. It's fallacious. Intelligent charming people can most certainly be in jail and they can be aggressive, unable to emphasise and be impulsive at the same time. None of those traits rule out another.
Dude don't worry about it. I wasn't making an argument at all, just trying to dredge up what I remembered from my pysch course a few years ago, again, not positive at all. I just thought that psychopaths were generally not super intelligent and charming, that this was the exception rather than the rule and tends to be promoted in fiction. No citations to back it up or anything, just something I think I learned and makes sense to me.
[Tycho?] on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Psychopaths tend to be highly intelligent and extremely articulate to the point of being extremely charming.
Psychopaths are portrayed as such, especially in movies and TV shows. I believe (I'm not positive, I'm remembering my psych stuff) that psychopaths on the whole are not that insidious. Their aggressiveness, inability to empathize with others and impulsive behavior lead them very often to jail. The super intelligent, super charming psychopath is actually extremely rare rather than the norm.
Someone should have told my forensic psychology lecturer then.
In any case, being intelligent and reasonable doesn't mean you aren't in jail for committing a crime. I was attempting to point out that "in jail/being a criminal/doing wrong things" and "being intelligent" are not mutually exclusive.
Your argument appears to entirely rest upon this false dichotomy (ie they are aggressive, unable to emphasise and are impulsive and are thus in jail. Ergo since they are in jail they cannot be intelligent or charming.)
It's not a very strong argument, as this is not a true dichotomy. It's fallacious. Intelligent charming people can most certainly be in jail and they can be aggressive, unable to emphasise and be impulsive at the same time. None of those traits rule out another.
Dude don't worry about it. I wasn't making an argument at all, just trying to dredge up what I remembered from my pysch course a few years ago, again, not positive at all. I just thought that psychopaths were generally not super intelligent and charming, that this was the exception rather than the rule and tends to be promoted in fiction. No citations to back it up or anything, just something I think I learned and makes sense to me.
I think you might be talking about psychopathic personality disorder which is different from a full psychopath in criminal psychology.
Sometimes psychology uses the same word in two places and is just needlessly obscure about it. Because I do think you are correct if it was PPD.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Psychopaths tend to be highly intelligent and extremely articulate to the point of being extremely charming.
Psychopaths are portrayed as such, especially in movies and TV shows. I believe (I'm not positive, I'm remembering my psych stuff) that psychopaths on the whole are not that insidious. Their aggressiveness, inability to empathize with others and impulsive behavior lead them very often to jail. The super intelligent, super charming psychopath is actually extremely rare rather than the norm.
Someone should have told my forensic psychology lecturer then.
In any case, being intelligent and reasonable doesn't mean you aren't in jail for committing a crime. I was attempting to point out that "in jail/being a criminal/doing wrong things" and "being intelligent" are not mutually exclusive.
Your argument appears to entirely rest upon this false dichotomy (ie they are aggressive, unable to emphasise and are impulsive and are thus in jail. Ergo since they are in jail they cannot be intelligent or charming.)
It's not a very strong argument, as this is not a true dichotomy. It's fallacious. Intelligent charming people can most certainly be in jail and they can be aggressive, unable to emphasise and be impulsive at the same time. None of those traits rule out another.
Dude don't worry about it. I wasn't making an argument at all, just trying to dredge up what I remembered from my pysch course a few years ago, again, not positive at all. I just thought that psychopaths were generally not super intelligent and charming, that this was the exception rather than the rule and tends to be promoted in fiction. No citations to back it up or anything, just something I think I learned and makes sense to me.
I think you might be talking about psychopathic personality disorder which is different from a full psychopath in criminal psychology.
Sometimes psychology uses the same word in two places and is just needlessly obscure about it. Because I do think you are correct if it was PPD.
I thought that he meant that most psychopaths don't have the intelligence to restrain the traits of the condition, so end up getting caught beating some random shmuck in broad daylight.
Psychopaths tend to be highly intelligent and extremely articulate to the point of being extremely charming.
Psychopaths are portrayed as such, especially in movies and TV shows. I believe (I'm not positive, I'm remembering my psych stuff) that psychopaths on the whole are not that insidious. Their aggressiveness, inability to empathize with others and impulsive behavior lead them very often to jail. The super intelligent, super charming psychopath is actually extremely rare rather than the norm.
Someone should have told my forensic psychology lecturer then.
In any case, being intelligent and reasonable doesn't mean you aren't in jail for committing a crime. I was attempting to point out that "in jail/being a criminal/doing wrong things" and "being intelligent" are not mutually exclusive.
Your argument appears to entirely rest upon this false dichotomy (ie they are aggressive, unable to emphasise and are impulsive and are thus in jail. Ergo since they are in jail they cannot be intelligent or charming.)
It's not a very strong argument, as this is not a true dichotomy. It's fallacious. Intelligent charming people can most certainly be in jail and they can be aggressive, unable to emphasise and be impulsive at the same time. None of those traits rule out another.
Dude don't worry about it. I wasn't making an argument at all, just trying to dredge up what I remembered from my pysch course a few years ago, again, not positive at all. I just thought that psychopaths were generally not super intelligent and charming, that this was the exception rather than the rule and tends to be promoted in fiction. No citations to back it up or anything, just something I think I learned and makes sense to me.
I think you might be talking about psychopathic personality disorder which is different from a full psychopath in criminal psychology.
Sometimes psychology uses the same word in two places and is just needlessly obscure about it. Because I do think you are correct if it was PPD.
I thought that he meant that most psychopaths don't have the intelligence to restrain the traits of the condition, so end up getting caught beating some random shmuck in broad daylight.
I think he may have just mixed up Psychopathy with Disorganized Serial Killers.
Psychopaths tend to be highly intelligent and extremely articulate to the point of being extremely charming.
Psychopaths are portrayed as such, especially in movies and TV shows. I believe (I'm not positive, I'm remembering my psych stuff) that psychopaths on the whole are not that insidious. Their aggressiveness, inability to empathize with others and impulsive behavior lead them very often to jail. The super intelligent, super charming psychopath is actually extremely rare rather than the norm.
Someone should have told my forensic psychology lecturer then.
In any case, being intelligent and reasonable doesn't mean you aren't in jail for committing a crime. I was attempting to point out that "in jail/being a criminal/doing wrong things" and "being intelligent" are not mutually exclusive.
Your argument appears to entirely rest upon this false dichotomy (ie they are aggressive, unable to emphasise and are impulsive and are thus in jail. Ergo since they are in jail they cannot be intelligent or charming.)
It's not a very strong argument, as this is not a true dichotomy. It's fallacious. Intelligent charming people can most certainly be in jail and they can be aggressive, unable to emphasise and be impulsive at the same time. None of those traits rule out another.
Dude don't worry about it. I wasn't making an argument at all, just trying to dredge up what I remembered from my pysch course a few years ago, again, not positive at all. I just thought that psychopaths were generally not super intelligent and charming, that this was the exception rather than the rule and tends to be promoted in fiction. No citations to back it up or anything, just something I think I learned and makes sense to me.
I think you might be talking about psychopathic personality disorder which is different from a full psychopath in criminal psychology.
Sometimes psychology uses the same word in two places and is just needlessly obscure about it. Because I do think you are correct if it was PPD.
I thought that he meant that most psychopaths don't have the intelligence to restrain the traits of the condition, so end up getting caught beating some random shmuck in broad daylight.
I think he may have just mixed up Psychopathy with Disorganized Serial Killers.
Nah, definitely wasn't that, I've never read much of anything on serial killers.
My understanding was basically what Scalfin said. That psychopaths, are aggressive and impulsive tend to do inappropriate things that will draw attention to themselves. This could be killing someone, or just more minor things over a period of time. As with the population as a whole, some of them will be very smart and better able to conceal their true natures, which is when people don't notice them. These people again could be serial killers or just your regular prick psychopath who doesn't give a shit about anyone.
Again, this is only my understanding and quite unsubstantiated.
He said "REMOVING the power the companies have is a good thing."
I don't agree with psychotix but you're snipping his quote in a place that changes its meaning.
Thanks man, for the record, since I seem to be the "conservative" on these boards, as if that's a bad thing.
Look, I don't think anybody sane is arguing that something doent need to be done. I just advocate cost lowering before handing it out to all, and it's a valid issue.
In an ideal world, I'd love for a world fucking wide system, but that's not practical.
psychotix on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Nah, definitely wasn't that, I've never read much of anything on serial killers.
My understanding was basically what Scalfin said. That psychopaths, are aggressive and impulsive tend to do inappropriate things that will draw attention to themselves. This could be killing someone, or just more minor things over a period of time. As with the population as a whole, some of them will be very smart and better able to conceal their true natures, which is when people don't notice them. These people again could be serial killers or just your regular prick psychopath who doesn't give a shit about anyone.
Again, this is only my understanding and quite unsubstantiated.
This is offset because clinical psychopaths have a tendency towards above average intelligence. Psychopathy from a forensic point of view is not the same as psychopathy from a personality point of view. The psychopathic personality disorder is a personality disorder. It's something that, conceivably, could be changed. It can pop up in all ranges of intelligence, it really depends on what happened to the person.
On the other hand Psychopathy is not something that can be changed. Where the psychopathic personality is a difficulty emphasising with others, a true psychopath is completely devoid of any emotional connection with his fellow humans. A psychopathic personality tends towards aggression, whereas for psychopathy they may not necessarily be aggressive. They tend to be instrumental in trying to achieve their goals, but you could have a psychopathic businessman who coldly crushes you with a hostile takeover and ruthless bribes using his above average intellect, without ever actually committing a crime (or at least a violent crime, I guess bribes is a crime).
A person with Psychopathy doesn't always commit violent crime (or any crime at all) where as psychopathic personality disorder is often diagnosed in violent criminals.
The distinction is that the psychopathic personality will often be quite emotional where as a psychopath will usually feel nothing at all, about anything. They could casually beat you to death and go on their way without feeling anything, not rage or aggression, if they decided it was the best way to achieve their goals. They usually also have difficulty feeling love or any positive emotion, even towards themselves.
It's two different types of person.
A good way to know the difference: Psychopathic personality knows right and wrong but their negative traits tend to cause them to commit aggressive and impulsive acts. They have a full set of emotions and often their crimes are heavily emotional. A psychopath is a complete moral idiot with no clue at all about what is wrong or not on an emotional level. Although they can be intelligent enough to realise that this will get them in trouble in so far as it will bring them unwanted attention, but there's no guilt or anything like that, it's all an intellectual decision. If they thought they could get away with it they would without thinking twice or angsting over it afterwards.
True psychopaths aren't really that rare either. Roughly 1% of the population. True psychopaths that commit violent crimes are quite rare though, because like I said, psychopathy doesn't always mean violent crime. It's the personality disorder that basically equates to violent crime.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
This is offset because clinical psychopaths have a tendency towards above average intelligence. Psychopathy from a forensic point of view is not the same as psychopathy from a personality point of view. The psychopathic personality disorder is a personality disorder. It's something that, conceivably, could be changed. It can pop up in all ranges of intelligence, it really depends on what happened to the person.
On the other hand Psychopathy is not something that can be changed. Where the psychopathic personality is a difficulty emphasising with others, a true psychopath is completely devoid of any emotional connection with his fellow humans. A psychopathic personality tends towards aggression, whereas for psychopathy they may not necessarily be aggressive. They tend to be instrumental in trying to achieve their goals, but you could have a psychopathic businessman who coldly crushes you with a hostile takeover and ruthless bribes using his above average intellect, without ever actually committing a crime (or at least a violent crime, I guess bribes is a crime).
A person with Psychopathy doesn't always commit violent crime (or any crime at all) where as psychopathic personality disorder is often diagnosed in violent criminals.
The distinction is that the psychopathic personality will often be quite emotional where as a psychopath will usually feel nothing at all, about anything. They could casually beat you to death and go on their way without feeling anything, not rage or aggression, if they decided it was the best way to achieve their goals. They usually also have difficulty feeling love or any positive emotion, even towards themselves.
It's two different types of person.
A good way to know the difference: Psychopathic personality knows right and wrong but their negative traits tend to cause them to commit aggressive and impulsive acts. They have a full set of emotions and often their crimes are heavily emotional. A psychopath is a complete moral idiot with no clue at all about what is wrong or not on an emotional level. Although they can be intelligent enough to realise that this will get them in trouble in so far as it will bring them unwanted attention, but there's no guilt or anything like that, it's all an intellectual decision. If they thought they could get away with it they would without thinking twice or angsting over it afterwards.
True psychopaths aren't really that rare either. Roughly 1% of the population. True psychopaths that commit violent crimes are quite rare though, because like I said, psychopathy doesn't always mean violent crime. It's the personality disorder that basically equates to violent crime.
Respectfully, IANAP but it seems like a definite possibility that your forensic psychology lecturer is basing a lot of his content on pop psychology. I attend a community college program for law enforcement and roughly half of what I learn is bullshit. Personal experience has taught me that former law enforcement professionals can make a lot of money selling snake oil to an uninformed public.
The current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual does not differentiate between antisocial personality disorder and criminal psychopathy. I have not heard anything about a correlation between intelligence quotient (which I assume is what you are referring to) and any disorders or vice versa.
I would appreciate it if you'd link some scholarly articles as this is an area of interest to me.
I don't see a "proper" implementation being particularly possible, though.
Seems to be working fine in almost every other western country that has tried it.
Heck the other day on page 1 of the Help and Advice forum some guy (from Canada) was looking for help because he had major wrist pain but the wait time to see an orthopedist was over six months. That sucks, though it does suck less than what we have now, where a lot of people would never get a chance to be seen.
Depends on which province this Canadian poster lived in, and even then to see a specialist one month is average/below average.
Narian on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
What was Douglas' character in the movie Falling Down? A populist?
I've seen "populist" show up a lot lately in this forum. Who wants to throw me a crash course in it?
Also, Michael Douglas' character in Falling Down was psychotic, because his wife whom had divorced him and filed restraining orders against was being terrorized by him.
Populists are those that rail against the elites of a society, supporting policies that help the "common man." Defining the latter of course is tremendously difficult.
In this country populists were a major political force from about 1890 until 1912 when the Populists and Progressives joined forces and got TR to second place as a third party candidate. They were the driving forces behind the direct election of Senators and the Amendment allowing an income tax. Also anti-trust legislation.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Exactly, all his discussions about taxes were very shady. It was like "well theres a law that works for rich, cheating people and I tried using it and it didnt work! Woe is me!" Which, from his perspective im sure is true.
But from the other side it probably looked like "some dude tried using a loop hole that wasnt meant for him, so we caught him and made him pay"
Which does raise the issue of why we have massive tax shelters for the wealthy in this country, and the middle class, and even the more decently-off working poor get bent over and fucked by the IRS annually.
Especially if you don't breed. It's like, single people without children don't need money.
Which does raise the issue of why we have massive tax shelters for the wealthy in this country, and the middle class, and even the more decently-off working poor get bent over and fucked by the IRS annually.
Especially if you don't breed. It's like, single people without children don't need money.
While I outright despise this, there is some validity to the notion of favoring breeders over non-breeders. Especially in a democracy.
So knowing nothing about anything I just filed my taxes and discovered, I can't get the hope tax credit because, being a tax credit, its only applicable if I make enough to have $1000 or more withheld?
I mean, what the crap, I'm too poor to get this particular student aid thing? That seems counterintuitive.
I can empathize with this guy's anger in some regards
If I had UH anything, I'd sit on my ass and live off the lot of you.
Well, the 'H' stands for health, so that doesn't really make much sense.
But I guess you must be pretty lazy, because there are hundreds of millions of people in the world benefiting from universal health care and their respective nations haven't collapsed.
I know. And as a result I just sit on my ass and make no effort whatsoever to work on even higher frequency radio waves or a finer Weird Al Yanovic-centered film. Entreprenuerial spirit and work ethic has been crushed.
Populists are those that rail against the elites of a society, supporting policies that help the "common man." Defining the latter of course is tremendously difficult.
In this country populists were a major political force from about 1890 until 1912 when the Populists and Progressives joined forces and got TR to second place as a third party candidate. They were the driving forces behind the direct election of Senators and the Amendment allowing an income tax. Also anti-trust legislation.
Yay, I have been educated.
On the bolded bit: So I'm assuming all the political talk revolving the middle class is a part of that (we've discussed elsewhere that there's too many ways to define the middle class as well). I can get behind the definition of policies that help the common man but people are projecting the wrong policies and that makes populist a negative term. Or, that's how I read its use on this forum.
Populists are those that rail against the elites of a society, supporting policies that help the "common man." Defining the latter of course is tremendously difficult.
In this country populists were a major political force from about 1890 until 1912 when the Populists and Progressives joined forces and got TR to second place as a third party candidate. They were the driving forces behind the direct election of Senators and the Amendment allowing an income tax. Also anti-trust legislation.
Yay, I have been educated.
On the bolded bit: So I'm assuming all the political talk revolving the middle class is a part of that (we've discussed elsewhere that there's too many ways to define the middle class as well). I can get behind the definition of policies that help the common man but people are projecting the wrong policies and that makes populist a negative term. Or, that's how I read its use on this forum.
Populists tend to not think very hard about the consequences of their actions, just so long as they punish politicians/corporations/celebrities or whatever. Thus the negativity.
At the moment there are left populists who basically think corporations are evil and must be destroyed (admittedly, I sometimes fall into this camp, especially with the banks).
And there are obviously your right populists who think politicians are evil and must be destroyed. Though they've been skillfully co-opted by the powerful.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Populists are those that rail against the elites of a society, supporting policies that help the "common man." Defining the latter of course is tremendously difficult.
In this country populists were a major political force from about 1890 until 1912 when the Populists and Progressives joined forces and got TR to second place as a third party candidate. They were the driving forces behind the direct election of Senators and the Amendment allowing an income tax. Also anti-trust legislation.
Yay, I have been educated.
On the bolded bit: So I'm assuming all the political talk revolving the middle class is a part of that (we've discussed elsewhere that there's too many ways to define the middle class as well). I can get behind the definition of policies that help the common man but people are projecting the wrong policies and that makes populist a negative term. Or, that's how I read its use on this forum.
Populists tend to not think very hard about the consequences of their actions, just so long as they punish politicians/corporations/celebrities or whatever. Thus the negativity.
At the moment there are left populists who basically think corporations are evil and must be destroyed (admittedly, I sometimes fall into this camp, especially with the banks).
And there are obviously your right populists who think politicians are evil and must be destroyed. Though they've been skillfully co-opted by the powerful.
I don't think they should be destroyed, but they need some huge overhaul. I've got friends and family assuming I hate people just because they have more money than me. If they took the time to listen, they'd discover that I dismiss that hatred from people who have integrity, aren't silly gooses, and have actually worked their asses off for that wealth. My family has assumptions that all CEOs work hard every day of the week, which isn't true, and even if they do "work hard" it isn't the same kind of "work hard" as some people making less than $30 an hour have to do (often physically demanding work).
I basically have a problem with people who have to hurt every day to make a living getting shit on by those above them, directly or on the sidelines.
CEOs have contacts. They have speaking skills. The find money even when margins are thin. They make the planet move. You could not do a CEOs job even if you imitated their daily routines exactly. They're paid out the wazoo so headhunters don't steal them away for other companies because they're super-duper unique.
CEOs have contacts. They have speaking skills. The find money even when margins are thin. They make the planet move. You could not do a CEOs job even if you imitated their daily routines exactly. They're paid out the wazoo so headhunters don't steal them away for other companies because they're super-duper unique.
That might be because they are able to forgo any and all morality for the bottom line. It's not necessarily a trait a society should want to foster.
You say they have contacts, I say they blackmail and/or pay off people. You say they have speaking skills, I say they are highly manipulative. You say they find money were margins are thin, I say they make up that money.
Other people not being able to do a CEOs job might be because other people aren't as malevolent.
Lilnoobs on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
This is offset because clinical psychopaths have a tendency towards above average intelligence. Psychopathy from a forensic point of view is not the same as psychopathy from a personality point of view. The psychopathic personality disorder is a personality disorder. It's something that, conceivably, could be changed. It can pop up in all ranges of intelligence, it really depends on what happened to the person.
On the other hand Psychopathy is not something that can be changed. Where the psychopathic personality is a difficulty emphasising with others, a true psychopath is completely devoid of any emotional connection with his fellow humans. A psychopathic personality tends towards aggression, whereas for psychopathy they may not necessarily be aggressive. They tend to be instrumental in trying to achieve their goals, but you could have a psychopathic businessman who coldly crushes you with a hostile takeover and ruthless bribes using his above average intellect, without ever actually committing a crime (or at least a violent crime, I guess bribes is a crime).
A person with Psychopathy doesn't always commit violent crime (or any crime at all) where as psychopathic personality disorder is often diagnosed in violent criminals.
The distinction is that the psychopathic personality will often be quite emotional where as a psychopath will usually feel nothing at all, about anything. They could casually beat you to death and go on their way without feeling anything, not rage or aggression, if they decided it was the best way to achieve their goals. They usually also have difficulty feeling love or any positive emotion, even towards themselves.
It's two different types of person.
A good way to know the difference: Psychopathic personality knows right and wrong but their negative traits tend to cause them to commit aggressive and impulsive acts. They have a full set of emotions and often their crimes are heavily emotional. A psychopath is a complete moral idiot with no clue at all about what is wrong or not on an emotional level. Although they can be intelligent enough to realise that this will get them in trouble in so far as it will bring them unwanted attention, but there's no guilt or anything like that, it's all an intellectual decision. If they thought they could get away with it they would without thinking twice or angsting over it afterwards.
True psychopaths aren't really that rare either. Roughly 1% of the population. True psychopaths that commit violent crimes are quite rare though, because like I said, psychopathy doesn't always mean violent crime. It's the personality disorder that basically equates to violent crime.
Respectfully, IANAP but it seems like a definite possibility that your forensic psychology lecturer is basing a lot of his content on pop psychology. I attend a community college program for law enforcement and roughly half of what I learn is bullshit. Personal experience has taught me that former law enforcement professionals can make a lot of money selling snake oil to an uninformed public.
The current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual does not differentiate between antisocial personality disorder and criminal psychopathy. I have not heard anything about a correlation between intelligence quotient (which I assume is what you are referring to) and any disorders or vice versa.
I would appreciate it if you'd link some scholarly articles as this is an area of interest to me.
You prompted me to review my sources.
Psychopathy isn't in the DSM-IV. Not everything is in the DSM-IV that is relevant to psychology as a whole. Some things don't get included. The process of a DSM revision is basically an argumente royale between psychologists and psychiatrists from a ton of different sub fields relating to abnormal. Some things may pop up since the latest revision or not be included because enough people outside of a field didn't like it, or the psychiatrists disagree with the psychologists, or it's decided it's not important enough to put in right now. There's a ton of reasons why something might not be included. It's not a bible.
First some self corrections.
Antisocial personality disorder is the correct term. I had a feeling that psychopathic personality disorder felt wrong, turns out I was having a memory fart with the first word, it's supposed to be ASD. Everything I talked about with regards to PPD is the same with ASD though I just messed up the term. :oops:
ASD and Psychopathy are distinct. ASD cannot be diagnosed prior to 18 (it's conduct disorder then) and cannot be diagnosed after 40. A current ASD diagnosis will lapse after 40. Most individuals with ASD stop being antisocial around 40 (this coincides with reduction in levels of testosterone around that age)
Psychopathy doesn't have that limitation. It has it's own checklist (it has it's own sub field of checklists, not just one, full of arguments between them) and method of diagnosis. Here's an example study I found from a cursory search of science direct.
Note the lack of correlation between scores on the PCL-R and personality/intelligence scores. However I would like to add that they used ravens progressive matrices as the test of intelligence here. It's a standard test of general intelligence but wether it is a test of overall intelligence is debatable. Obviously the people who created raven's matrices and sell the tests would like it to be, as well as people who happen to like the test, but I have my doubts. It's a good test for one type of intelligence, certainly. I would have preferred if they used more than just Raven's but their point about education levels in the prisoners ruling out certain other intelligence tests is a valid one.
This might be too much info, but I wanted to point it out.
Here's another study relating to some of the emotional processing deficits in individuals with Psychopathy.
Again it's an example study and isn't put forth as support of everything I have said. It's just to show that Psychopathy is distinctly characterised by emotional deficits.
Do tell me if there's anything else you want to know, I only did a cursory look through of science direct given I just woke up but if you want more indepth I can probably put in the effort. I don't have much to do this week really. Ask away.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I don't buy that CEOs are really worth that much to a company. In fact, this study even indicates that companies who pay their CEOs more tend to do worse.
How long does it take a CEO to completely screw up a company if they try? Can they send it into a death spiral before the shareholders have a chance to assemble and get rid of them?
How long does it take a CEO to completely screw up a company if they try? Can they send it into a death spiral before the shareholders have a chance to assemble and get rid of them?
If so, that's how high salaries can be justified.
Depending on the industry, there are innumerable positions at all levels of a Corporation which - if deliberately mismanaged - could cause severe damage before anyone has a chance to react. So it's nothing to do with that.
A smart point I've read: calling this guy a terrorist for balance isn't the real problem. Terrorism is a stupid bullshit word used to justify awful things on the part of the terrorized. The real problem is the labeling of every act of violence by a Muslim as terrorism. We should push back against that and not push for calling this guy a terrorist.
Except this is clearly an act of terrorism. And right wing terrorism being swept under the rug in order to normalize the extremity of current reactionary politics is also a bad thing. There's a reason facebook has had to taken down Joe Stack supportive groups with thousands of members.
Facebook has banned a New York radio host's tribute page for Joe Stack, the pilot who rammed his small plane into a federal building in Austin, Texas because he was angry at the Internal Revenue Service.
Jon Alvarez, host of a conservative talk program on WFBL AM 1390 in Syracuse, said he put the page up Thursday just hours after the attack, CBS station WCBS-TV reports.
The crash killed Stack and a worker in the building.
Alvarez tells The Post-Standard newspaper in Syracuse that he felt Stack had made "a sacrifice to others who were having problems with the IRS."
Facebook had yanked the site by Friday.
It sent Alvarez a note saying it didn't allow pages that are hateful or threatening.
...
One founder of a Stack fan club on Facebook, Rick Wagner, is a pilot in Minnesota. His "about me" quote, which one hopes is a joke, reads:
"When I go I want to be able to look back and tell all the passengers to quit screaming."
THE FIRES in Austin were still burning yesterday when the Internet lit up with government haters cheering suicide pilot Joe Stack and calling him a hero.
"Finally an American man took a stand against our tyrannical government that no longer follows the Constitution," wrote Emily Walters of Louisville, Ky.
Walters was one of at least two dozen people who founded Facebook fan groups to hail the homicidal pilot.
Most had only a tiny handful of members, but hers attracted more than 200 before Facebook removed it.
"His sacrifice was for all of us," wrote Texan Tyler Britten.
Crackpots were also praising the dead pilot on Twitter.
"Joe Stack, you are a true American Hero and we need more of you to make a stand," tweeted Greg Lenihan, an engineer in San Diego.
"His last actions, the suicide, the catastrophe that caused injuries and death, that was wrong," Samantha Bell, Stack's daughter from his first marriage, told "Good Morning America" in a morning television exclusive telephone interview which aired today. "But if nobody comes out and speaks up on behalf of injustice, then nothing will ever be accomplished. But I do not agree with his last action with what he did. But I do agree about the government."
When "Good Morning America" asked if she considered her father a "hero," Bell, 38, said, "Yes, because now maybe people will listen."
Bell, who lives in Norway and criticized the American system as "very faulty"...
Ed321 on
0
Options
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
That's another thing about this dude. I heard it reported that he flew to Norway once a year to see his daughter.
Destitute.
Sir Carcass on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
It's been a few days since I read his letter, but did he use the word "destitute" in reference to himself? Or did someone else in the media refer to him as that?
Bell, who lives in Norway and criticized the American system as "very faulty"...
You seem to think that means something.
Depends on how long she's lived there. Her whole life? Then she should probably not say something like "The US has a faulty system and my father is a hero" because she wouldn't really know anything about it.
And she lives in the EU. If she thinks bureaucracy in the US is bad...
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- When a man fueled by rage against the U.S. government and its tax code crashes his airplane into a building housing offices of the Internal Revenue Service, is it a criminal act or an act of terrorism?
For police in Austin, it's a question tied to the potential for public alarm: The building set ablaze by Joseph Stack's suicide flight was still burning Thursday afternoon when officials confidently stood before reporters and said the crash wasn't terrorism.
But others, including those in the Muslim community, look at Stack's actions and fail to understand how he differs from foreign perpetrators of political violence who are routinely labeled terrorists.
"The position of many individuals and institutions seems to be that no act of violence can be labeled 'terrorism' unless it is carried out by a Muslim," said Nihad Awad, director of the Washington-based Council on Islamic-American Relations.
Within hours of Thursday's crash, which several witnesses said stirred memories of the Sept. 11 attacks, both federal and local law enforcement officials, along with the White House, said it did not appear to be an act of terror. A widely quoted statement issued by the Department of Homeland Security also said officials had "no reason to believe there is a nexus to terrorist activity."
Yet at the same time, Stack's motives for flying his single-engine plane into a seven-story office building after apparently setting his house on fire were becoming clear as detectives, reporters and others found a rambling manifesto on the Web in which he described a long-smoldering dispute with the IRS and a hatred of the government.
In the note, Stack said he longs for a big "body count" and expresses the hope that "American zombies wake up and revolt."
"To keep the government from getting money, he burned his house. To keep them from getting money he crashed his airplane," said Ken Hunter, whose father Vernon, a longtime IRS employee, was the only person killed by Stack's attack. "That's not the act of a patriot. That's the act of a terrorist, and that's what he is."
Stratfor, an Austin-based global intelligence firm specializing in international risk management, said the rhetoric in Stack's rant clearly matches the USA Patriot Act's definition of terrorism: a criminal act that is intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."
"When you fly an airplane into a federal building to kill people, that's how you define terrorism," said Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican whose district includes Austin. "It sounds like it to me."
It doesn't to Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, who instead sees an isolated, criminal attack carried out by a lone individual. He said branding the crash as terrorism so soon after the plane's impact could have provoked unnecessary panic and prompted residents of Austin and beyond to erroneously conclude that other attacks might be imminent.
"I did not want to use it because I didn't want people that have children in school and loved ones at work to be panicking, thinking that, 'Oh my God, is there going to be 10 more little planes around the country crashing into buildings?'" Acevedo said. "I knew that this appeared to be one guy in one city in one event."
Other experts agree. Ami Pedahzur, a professor of government at the University of Texas and author of the book "Suicide Terrorism," said that while Stack's actions might be viewed as a copycat version of 9/11 attacks, they fall short of terrorism.
Pedahuzur said there is no evidence that Stack was involved in a highly planned conspiracy, and descriptions of Stack's state of mind in the days before the crash suggest the software engineer "snapped" after suffering an emotional breakdown. His manifesto was filled with rants that were just as personal as they were political, such as his complaint that corrupt politicians are not "the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say."
Pedahuzur compared the incident to the criminal rampage depicted by Michael Douglas in the 1993 movie "Falling Down," in which an unemployed defense worker angry at society's flaws goes on a rampage.
"(Stack) seems to be trying to cover up a personal crisis with some type of political agenda," Pedahzur said. "It looks like terrorism, but basically it's a story of a person whose anger was building up. It's more of a personal issue than a large movement."
Posts
Dude don't worry about it. I wasn't making an argument at all, just trying to dredge up what I remembered from my pysch course a few years ago, again, not positive at all. I just thought that psychopaths were generally not super intelligent and charming, that this was the exception rather than the rule and tends to be promoted in fiction. No citations to back it up or anything, just something I think I learned and makes sense to me.
I think you might be talking about psychopathic personality disorder which is different from a full psychopath in criminal psychology.
Sometimes psychology uses the same word in two places and is just needlessly obscure about it. Because I do think you are correct if it was PPD.
I thought that he meant that most psychopaths don't have the intelligence to restrain the traits of the condition, so end up getting caught beating some random shmuck in broad daylight.
I think he may have just mixed up Psychopathy with Disorganized Serial Killers.
Nah, definitely wasn't that, I've never read much of anything on serial killers.
My understanding was basically what Scalfin said. That psychopaths, are aggressive and impulsive tend to do inappropriate things that will draw attention to themselves. This could be killing someone, or just more minor things over a period of time. As with the population as a whole, some of them will be very smart and better able to conceal their true natures, which is when people don't notice them. These people again could be serial killers or just your regular prick psychopath who doesn't give a shit about anyone.
Again, this is only my understanding and quite unsubstantiated.
Thanks man, for the record, since I seem to be the "conservative" on these boards, as if that's a bad thing.
Look, I don't think anybody sane is arguing that something doent need to be done. I just advocate cost lowering before handing it out to all, and it's a valid issue.
In an ideal world, I'd love for a world fucking wide system, but that's not practical.
This is offset because clinical psychopaths have a tendency towards above average intelligence. Psychopathy from a forensic point of view is not the same as psychopathy from a personality point of view. The psychopathic personality disorder is a personality disorder. It's something that, conceivably, could be changed. It can pop up in all ranges of intelligence, it really depends on what happened to the person.
On the other hand Psychopathy is not something that can be changed. Where the psychopathic personality is a difficulty emphasising with others, a true psychopath is completely devoid of any emotional connection with his fellow humans. A psychopathic personality tends towards aggression, whereas for psychopathy they may not necessarily be aggressive. They tend to be instrumental in trying to achieve their goals, but you could have a psychopathic businessman who coldly crushes you with a hostile takeover and ruthless bribes using his above average intellect, without ever actually committing a crime (or at least a violent crime, I guess bribes is a crime).
A person with Psychopathy doesn't always commit violent crime (or any crime at all) where as psychopathic personality disorder is often diagnosed in violent criminals.
The distinction is that the psychopathic personality will often be quite emotional where as a psychopath will usually feel nothing at all, about anything. They could casually beat you to death and go on their way without feeling anything, not rage or aggression, if they decided it was the best way to achieve their goals. They usually also have difficulty feeling love or any positive emotion, even towards themselves.
It's two different types of person.
A good way to know the difference: Psychopathic personality knows right and wrong but their negative traits tend to cause them to commit aggressive and impulsive acts. They have a full set of emotions and often their crimes are heavily emotional. A psychopath is a complete moral idiot with no clue at all about what is wrong or not on an emotional level. Although they can be intelligent enough to realise that this will get them in trouble in so far as it will bring them unwanted attention, but there's no guilt or anything like that, it's all an intellectual decision. If they thought they could get away with it they would without thinking twice or angsting over it afterwards.
True psychopaths aren't really that rare either. Roughly 1% of the population. True psychopaths that commit violent crimes are quite rare though, because like I said, psychopathy doesn't always mean violent crime. It's the personality disorder that basically equates to violent crime.
Respectfully, IANAP but it seems like a definite possibility that your forensic psychology lecturer is basing a lot of his content on pop psychology. I attend a community college program for law enforcement and roughly half of what I learn is bullshit. Personal experience has taught me that former law enforcement professionals can make a lot of money selling snake oil to an uninformed public.
The current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual does not differentiate between antisocial personality disorder and criminal psychopathy. I have not heard anything about a correlation between intelligence quotient (which I assume is what you are referring to) and any disorders or vice versa.
I would appreciate it if you'd link some scholarly articles as this is an area of interest to me.
Depends on which province this Canadian poster lived in, and even then to see a specialist one month is average/below average.
I've seen "populist" show up a lot lately in this forum. Who wants to throw me a crash course in it?
Also, Michael Douglas' character in Falling Down was psychotic, because his wife whom had divorced him and filed restraining orders against was being terrorized by him.
In this country populists were a major political force from about 1890 until 1912 when the Populists and Progressives joined forces and got TR to second place as a third party candidate. They were the driving forces behind the direct election of Senators and the Amendment allowing an income tax. Also anti-trust legislation.
Which does raise the issue of why we have massive tax shelters for the wealthy in this country, and the middle class, and even the more decently-off working poor get bent over and fucked by the IRS annually.
Especially if you don't breed. It's like, single people without children don't need money.
While I outright despise this, there is some validity to the notion of favoring breeders over non-breeders. Especially in a democracy.
I mean, what the crap, I'm too poor to get this particular student aid thing? That seems counterintuitive.
I can empathize with this guy's anger in some regards
But I guess you must be pretty lazy, because there are hundreds of millions of people in the world benefiting from universal health care and their respective nations haven't collapsed.
I know. And as a result I just sit on my ass and make no effort whatsoever to work on even higher frequency radio waves or a finer Weird Al Yanovic-centered film. Entreprenuerial spirit and work ethic has been crushed.
Yay, I have been educated.
On the bolded bit: So I'm assuming all the political talk revolving the middle class is a part of that (we've discussed elsewhere that there's too many ways to define the middle class as well). I can get behind the definition of policies that help the common man but people are projecting the wrong policies and that makes populist a negative term. Or, that's how I read its use on this forum.
Populists tend to not think very hard about the consequences of their actions, just so long as they punish politicians/corporations/celebrities or whatever. Thus the negativity.
At the moment there are left populists who basically think corporations are evil and must be destroyed (admittedly, I sometimes fall into this camp, especially with the banks).
And there are obviously your right populists who think politicians are evil and must be destroyed. Though they've been skillfully co-opted by the powerful.
I don't think they should be destroyed, but they need some huge overhaul. I've got friends and family assuming I hate people just because they have more money than me. If they took the time to listen, they'd discover that I dismiss that hatred from people who have integrity, aren't silly gooses, and have actually worked their asses off for that wealth. My family has assumptions that all CEOs work hard every day of the week, which isn't true, and even if they do "work hard" it isn't the same kind of "work hard" as some people making less than $30 an hour have to do (often physically demanding work).
I basically have a problem with people who have to hurt every day to make a living getting shit on by those above them, directly or on the sidelines.
Only bad starting pitchers and CEOs!
EDIT: Forgot gumpy seven foot white dudes.
That might be because they are able to forgo any and all morality for the bottom line. It's not necessarily a trait a society should want to foster.
You say they have contacts, I say they blackmail and/or pay off people. You say they have speaking skills, I say they are highly manipulative. You say they find money were margins are thin, I say they make up that money.
Other people not being able to do a CEOs job might be because other people aren't as malevolent.
You prompted me to review my sources.
Psychopathy isn't in the DSM-IV. Not everything is in the DSM-IV that is relevant to psychology as a whole. Some things don't get included. The process of a DSM revision is basically an argumente royale between psychologists and psychiatrists from a ton of different sub fields relating to abnormal. Some things may pop up since the latest revision or not be included because enough people outside of a field didn't like it, or the psychiatrists disagree with the psychologists, or it's decided it's not important enough to put in right now. There's a ton of reasons why something might not be included. It's not a bible.
First some self corrections.
Antisocial personality disorder is the correct term. I had a feeling that psychopathic personality disorder felt wrong, turns out I was having a memory fart with the first word, it's supposed to be ASD. Everything I talked about with regards to PPD is the same with ASD though I just messed up the term. :oops:
ASD and Psychopathy are distinct. ASD cannot be diagnosed prior to 18 (it's conduct disorder then) and cannot be diagnosed after 40. A current ASD diagnosis will lapse after 40. Most individuals with ASD stop being antisocial around 40 (this coincides with reduction in levels of testosterone around that age)
Psychopathy doesn't have that limitation. It has it's own checklist (it has it's own sub field of checklists, not just one, full of arguments between them) and method of diagnosis. Here's an example study I found from a cursory search of science direct.
This one is testing the PCL-R on a brazillian sample.
Note the lack of correlation between scores on the PCL-R and personality/intelligence scores. However I would like to add that they used ravens progressive matrices as the test of intelligence here. It's a standard test of general intelligence but wether it is a test of overall intelligence is debatable. Obviously the people who created raven's matrices and sell the tests would like it to be, as well as people who happen to like the test, but I have my doubts. It's a good test for one type of intelligence, certainly. I would have preferred if they used more than just Raven's but their point about education levels in the prisoners ruling out certain other intelligence tests is a valid one.
This might be too much info, but I wanted to point it out.
Here's another study relating to some of the emotional processing deficits in individuals with Psychopathy.
ntegration of emotion and cognition in patients with psychopathy
Again it's an example study and isn't put forth as support of everything I have said. It's just to show that Psychopathy is distinctly characterised by emotional deficits.
Do tell me if there's anything else you want to know, I only did a cursory look through of science direct given I just woke up but if you want more indepth I can probably put in the effort. I don't have much to do this week really. Ask away.
If so, that's how high salaries can be justified.
Depending on the industry, there are innumerable positions at all levels of a Corporation which - if deliberately mismanaged - could cause severe damage before anyone has a chance to react. So it's nothing to do with that.
Except this is clearly an act of terrorism. And right wing terrorism being swept under the rug in order to normalize the extremity of current reactionary politics is also a bad thing. There's a reason facebook has had to taken down Joe Stack supportive groups with thousands of members.
Hell, his daughter went on GMA and called him a hero.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Destitute.
You seem to think that means something.
You're right, there's nothing incongruous about this whatsoever.
Oh. Wow. I am actually pissed off by that piece.
I'm all lightheaded now.
Christ.
I know, I hate Norway too.
Daughter from his first wife.
Depends on how long she's lived there. Her whole life? Then she should probably not say something like "The US has a faulty system and my father is a hero" because she wouldn't really know anything about it.
And she lives in the EU. If she thinks bureaucracy in the US is bad...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PLANE_CRASH_TERRORISM?SITE=ORBEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT