How to Recognize a Psychopath

In this article, Wray Herbert talks about what makes psychopaths so mysterious and incomprehensible and the theories that have evolved to explain how the disorder develops.

A new group of psychological scientists tested their hypothesis that the roots of the disorder may reach deep into the unconscious mind:

The results, reported online in the journal Psychological Science, were clear and provocative. Indeed, they comprise the first evidence ever that kids with psychopathic traits have a significant deficiency in their automatic, unconscious processing of certain cues -- especially fear cues, but also cues for disgust. Fear and disgust are closely related in the primitive mind, and the findings suggest that these troubled kids have a fundamental impairment in recognizing -- "in the blink of an eye" -- any kind of social danger. So perhaps the childhood roots of Hannibal Lecter's murderous personality lay not in fearlessness itself, nor even in his conscious thought processes, but rather in his general social cluelessness. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wray-h..._b_953703.html

As one who was told by a therapist that I am a social retard, I found the "social cluelessness" to be quite interesting.

Uhuh... So what's your opinion on the article? What are we to discuss? How are the findings significant and what implications may they hold? How do they apply to us and the rest of the world?

I didn't read the layman's article. Personally, I find them to be entirely sensationalised and misleading. Furthermore, the title itself was ridiculous and had no relevance whatever to the body of the article, aside from the attention-grabbing term "psychopath". But I did skim the study, and I found it be severely flawed.

I had watched a special oh, some time ago and they found that the part of the brain in a psychopath that has the area where empathy and regard for others and a sensitivity to pain in others is very underdeveloped. And what they also found by examining their brains is that the frontal intellectual part was stronger than the average brain. So what they lack in one area, they make up for in another area.
And usually they are of extremely high intelligence and IQ.

And not all of them end up being Hanibal's or even serial killers like Ted Bundi, some of them are very talented politicians and the way their brains are designed, they can work a crowd, make promises and not feel bad if they don't keep them and they can endure a lot more stress than a typical person with a lot of empathy. So, in other words they have the capacity to really hang in there with all that being a politician can provide in the sense of status and luxury and even power.

If we are to consider that we are in the primate family, I would think that this type of brain would be a necessity for the survival rate of the species. After all there would have to be a strong sense to control to even lead a group that could have the capacity to not be so emotional and just be strong and intelligent in order to protect that group that it controls. I am not so sure it is a lack as is thought. I think it had to be there for the sole purpose of survival. And I think it has been there all along, and many leaders have been psychopaths. And thats because one has to have a lot of brawn to get to the top of the heap. Yes, Mr. Smith never really quite makes it to the top of the heap now does he? And thats because he has too much empathy and seeing the reality and having to be fending off being eating alive by controversy and criticism, that requires a certain amount of staying power that Mr. Smith may not really have. Now thats not to say that all politicians are psychopaths and that there are no Mr. Smiths. But wouldn't it be interesting if all these brains had that same underdeveloped area and yet the area of intelligence more developed.

I could see many of them relating well with each other in politics as long as they get what they want out of it, their own piece of luxury and power and sense of control.
And they certainly have the intelligence for studying and creating the correct affect they would need to convince many and gain power.

Just a thought, I think a lot depends on how some are raised and what becomes available to them. I should think that if they are denied an not treated right, yes, they can grow to desire power by mere destruction and a deviance that can be vile.

Just my thoughts about what I have learned. Oh, an I think they may do very well at practicing law too as that is often a game of witts.

Open Eyes

My opinion: "quite interesting"

Significance: "Indeed, they comprise the first evidence ever that kids with psychopathic traits have a significant deficiency in their automatic, unconscious processing of certain cues -- especially fear cues, but also cues for disgust."

How do they apply to us and the rest of the world? Could explain why psychopaths are the way they are.

What makes the study serverely flawed?

Well, I am sure Michael may have his own opinion.

As far as the study goes that you have presented, I don't think it is flawed.
I would think that if the part of the brain where concience and empathy and fear and all those types of emotionalities is small and under developed, obviously I should think that those certain cues would show a signifcant deficiency.

I believe that what they have found and will find as they continue to study this disorder as they call it, they will see that by shear intelligence alone and desire to fill a need would cause them to be able to intellectually master disguising the proper affect of emotionality.

Now if we go back to what I believe about how we are all primates and that it might have been there all along. Well, lets think about that, if there was a primate designed to lead and control without emotionality he would still have to be intelligent enough to express emotionality. When a lead primate is challenged, by another male primate, he will make the needed affects that he has learned to create the look of fear and concern in another primate that challenges him. And, just as well, he will provide the affect of desire to be groomed and tended to by the group.

And I think that it is also there in the females as in a primate group there is also a lead female presence that is stronger and holds the top position over the others.
So she too might have to have less emotionality for shear survival and the others would receive her signals of proper affect towards them allowing her to control.

If we look at how that applies to us and the rest of the world, well, I would guess that the same would be true for shear survival. And it may not just be for leadership, it may be for the ones needed to bear arms and fight with less emotionality. However as we have progressed, those that carry normal emotionalities could be convinced to do battle by shear driven emotionality that represents loyalty and even anger. So in that there is still a supply for a defence. But think about it, there still has to be some that can run the course without falling short because of emotionality.

In my opinion, I don't think the study is severely flawed. But I can see where one who is a psychopath and has intellectually learned the proper affects, might think it is flawed.

Psychopathy may not really be a design flaw, it may have been needed for survival.
We have so much to learn yet remember, we have only just begun.

That is my opinion ofcourse

Open Eyes

I would say a lot of us here have trouble reading social cues, myself included. I suppose a therapist's job is to make you aware of such issues. However, I fail to see how using phraseology like "social retard" would do anything but make you feel worse about something you probably already felt bad about, behavior patterns you didn't choose to have. Putting it in those terms implies that you ignore social cues on purpose, setting you up for a lifelong guilt trip. I'm sorry your therapist said that to you, B.

1. The study used participants who were of the ages 7 to 11, ages far lower than what is required by DSM and PCL-R standards for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy, respectively. And because the study was conducted only a few months ago, it's impossible to determine if these little jackasses are even psychopaths at all, at least until they hit 18. As we all know, the reason for these age requirements is that a child's personality is still very malleable. It's entirely possible they'll see that ultra-violence isn't all that fun any more, and maybe they'll become productive members of society.

2. The study either didn't indicate their method of differentiating between primary and secondary psychopathy in the participants, or they didn't do it at all, which I highly suspect to be the case. As we all know, secondary psychopathy is the result of a combination of other mental disorders, mostly brought on by a poor childhood. Secondary psychopaths are high in anxiety, whereas primary psychopaths are not. Furthermore, they perceive and experience emotion differently. In fact, one study found... "Results generally indicated that primary psychopathic-traits were positively correlated with accuracy of perception of fearful faces and [positive emotion], and negatively associated with [negative emotion], while secondary psychopathic-traits were not related to emotional recognition or [positive emotion], but positively associated with [negative emotion]." [Del Gaizo, Ariel L. Primary and Secondary Psychopathic-traits and their relationship to perception and experience of emotion. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol 45(3).

3. The researchers used the APSD to determine psychopathic traits in these wee tots, a scale which is largely based on Hare's PCL-R. This is good and all (considering the PCL-R is the most reliable measurement of psychopathic traits on the market at this time), but the PCL-R does not measure anxiety traits in individuals, as noted by the fact that secondary psychopaths oft score very high on the PCL-R despite their high anxiety.

4. Their sample study was essentially comprised of a bunch of insufferable, little jackasses. What did they expect to find? Considering their sample, I'd put money on the notion that most of those kids were not primaries, but secondary psychopaths in the making, as secondary psychopaths are known for their erratic, violent, antisocial behaviour and emotional disturbance.

Recognizing a psychopathy is easy.

They have have that cold hard stare and are wearing the T-Shirt: "Don't you dare kiss me I'm a Psychopath."

It must be hard being an Italian psychopath wearing a shirt like that...

I don't think the the T Shirt supply company discriminates.