[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/siberia/ - Off-topic

"No chin, no right to speak."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
siberia archives


File: 1707774798987.jpeg (743.07 KB, 2731x4096, F25fo0IakAEnhSf.jpeg)

 No.503068

hello users of the leftypols. is it actually idpol when peopl are like omg psychopaths are so scary and evil. it seems rlly rude and presumptuous to me + idealist. also another thought is how does radical mental health fit into this topic?

anyways rlly want to know the thoughts of siberians on this important topic is the scare about psychopathy idpol

 No.503072

so true bestie

 No.503075

Yeah, pretty much. Psychopathy isn't that big of a deal, it's just movies sensationalized the shit out of it for a long time.

 No.503077

>>503068
Yes. Your assumptions are correct.

 No.503081

Psychopaths have a higher concentration in professions such as CEOs, lawyers, police officers and politicians. It's really not that hard to imagine that a person devoid of fear and empathy may be more prone to and effective in engaging in socially harmful behavior for self-gain. It's not idealist either, since the neurology of psychopaths is actually different and their anti-social behavior is well recorded. It's rather idealist to neglect that material factor. Are psychopaths however primarily responsible for everything fucked up going on in this system? No, given that they are the minority and the earlier stated professions are also taken up by ordinary people who engage in the same behavior. Psychopaths are definitely not all crazy serial killers and that's just media sensationalization. But I wouldn't say psychopaths aren't a danger either.

 No.503128

>>503068
TBH individuals with psychopathic traits are fucking annoying and kind of spooky (like there is some genuine reason to not want to be around someone who has little empathy and who has heightened sensory/excitement needs, it doesn't necessitate violence but that personality type more easily allows for it), but yes it's all sensationalized and especially it doesn't touch on the fact that these people are, 1) a spectrum, and 2) made not born, and made via abuse. They are victims and the narrative should be on prevention not stigma. (as well as humanization, understanding that their enjoyment of life is as valuable as anyone else's, e.g. not just a focus on prevention because they're scary (they're not as scary as made out to be), but prevention primarily because it's a traumatized, abused person, and the prevention of that abuse is important for that individuals well-being)

 No.503195

>>503128
>made not born
Not quite. Sociopaths are made but psychopathy is genetic.

 No.503230

you mean sociopaths. sociopaths are fucking annoying

 No.503276

>>503195
>>503230
Research has supported Kernberg’s (1984) concept of a range of narcissistic
conditions (disorders of the self), with extreme psychopathy on the far end (e.g.,
Gacano, Meloy, & Berg, 1992). Robert Hare (e.g., Hare et al., 1990) distinguishes true
psychopaths from people with antisocial tendencies, using the term “psychopath” to
denote only a fraction of the larger spectrum. This is a valuable distinction for research,
and one that has had vital practical outcomes such as identifying job applicants who
would be disastrous employees. For purposes of discussing dynamics that pervade the
antisocial spectrum, however, I use the adjective “psychopathic” more loosely, as
equivalent to “antisocial,” and the noun “psychopathy” for the whole antisocial range.
But unlike my practice in 1994 and in deference to Hare’s differentiation, I use the noun
“psychopath” only for the extreme version of this psychology, and I avoid using
“sociopathic,” as that term now suggests a dated distinction.
[…]
The fact that infants differ in temperament from birth (something any parent with more
than two children always knew) has now been well established scientifically (Kagan,
1994; Thomas, Chess, & Birch, 1968). Some areas in which infants have demonstrated
innate variability include activity level, aggressivity, reactivity, consolability, and similar
factors that might tilt development in a psychopathic direction. Early studies of twins
and adoptees (e.g., Vandenberg, Singer, & Pauls, 1986) concluded that people who
become antisocial may have more constitutional aggressivity than others. In the years
since the first edition of this book, there has been an explosion of brain research
showing that our prior assumptions about the separability of what is constitutional and
what is learned was naive: Genetic dispositions can be skewed by early experience, genes
can be turned on or off, brain chemicals are altered by experience, and everything
interacts. In a well-designed longitudinal study, Caspi and colleagues (2002) found that
people with a variation in the expression of a gene that breaks down norepinephrine and
related neurotransmitters (the monoamine oxidase A [MAOA] variation that can have
permanent effects on the X chromosome), are much more likely when subjected to
maltreatment to develop violent and antisocial patterns (see Fonagy, 2003; Niehoff,
2003).

Early neglect, abuse, and maltreatment can affect the development of the
orbitofrontal cortex, which seems to be the moral center of the brain (Damasio, 1994;
Martens, 2002; Yu, 2006). Thus, the biological substrate for the high levels of affective
and predatory aggression in antisocial people may not directly implicate their genetic
heritage, but may still be essentially “hardwired” by the interaction of experience and
genes. Antisocial personalities have low serotonin levels, of whatever origin (Coccaro,
1996), and diagnosed psychopaths have remarkably low reactivity of the autonomic
nervous system (Intrator et al., 1997; Lykken, 1995), a fact that may explain their
sensation-seeking and long-noted “failure to learn by experience” (Cleckley, 1941,
p. 368).
[…]
The childhoods of antisocial people are often rife with insecurity and chaos. Confusing
amalgams of harsh discipline, overindulgence, and neglect have long been noted in the
clinical literature (Abraham, 1935; Aichhorn, 1936; Akhtar, 1992; Bird, 2001; Greenacre,
1958; Redl & Wineman, 1951). Especially in the histories of violent psychopaths, one
can find virtually no consistent, loving, protective influences. Weak, depressed, or
masochistic mothers and explosive, inconsistent, or sadistic fathers have been linked
with psychopathy, as have alcoholism and other addiction in the family. Moves, losses,
and family break-ups are common. Under unstable and frightening circumstances like
these, the normal confidence in one’s early omnipotent feelings and later in the power of
others to protect the young self could not possibly develop normally. The absence of a
sense of power at developmentally appropriate times may impel children in this
predicament to spend the rest of their lives seeking confirmations of their omnipotence.

Even if they are aware of them, psychopathic people cannot acknowledge ordinary
emotions because they associate them with weakness and vulnerability. It is probable
that in their families of origin, no one helped them put words to emotional experiences.
They have no concept of using language to state feelings and no internalized basis for
knowing another role for speech. Clinical observations suggest that in their families,
words were used mostly to control others. The deficits of their caregivers in responding
to their emotional needs are related to another piece of clinical lore: Children who
become psychopathic have often been indulged materially and deprived emotionally.
The parents of an antisocial patient of mine used to get her extravagant gifts (a stereo, a
car) when she seemed upset. It did not occur to them to draw her out and listen to her
concerns. This kind of “generosity” is particularly destructive; in the case of my patient,
it left her no way to formulate her lingering sense that there was something missing in
her life.

The most penetrating recent psychoanalytic thinking about psychopathy (e.g.,
Kernberg, 2004; Meloy, 1997) emphasizes the failure (from whatever accidents of
temperament and rearing) of attachment and consequent internalization. The antisocial
person seems never to have attached psychologically, incorporated good objects, or
identified with caregivers. He or she did not take love in and never loved. Instead,
identification may have been with a “stranger selfobject” (Grotstein, 1982) experienced
as predatory. Meloy (1988) writes of “a paucity of deep and unconscious identifications
with, initially, the primary parent figure and ultimately the archetypal and guiding
identifications with the society and culture and humankind in general” (p. 44).


Unique IPs: 7

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]