/sci/ - Science & Math

And in addition to that, there seems to be some weird, exaggerated examples on listing the causes for those conditions. I've seen serious considerations that a few minutes without parental support as a baby can turn a person into a sociopath - even though what we see in babies is only a change in external behavior, and has no scientific validity in my eyes. Some also say that being exposed to even one scene of violence in early childhood can modify a person psychological background for life. Even if the child's too young to even understand what the violence means.

It all seems to be too convenient to me. It appears that the categorization of psychopathy and antisocial personality fit perfectly what we want to believe as a society that is now more than ever obsessed with criminal justice and the possibility of rehabilitation into society (or lack thereof). It strikes me as quite similar to how XIXth century eugenics evolved.

That's what I wanted /sci/'s help with discussing. I know this isn't exactly the place for that, but I don't really like to inhabit forums.

We know it exists by things like galvanic skin response showing lack of emotion etc.

Chill out man .... read some nuclear physics for now and stop posting so many thread that start the same way.

>>3434697
>Psychopaths
>Lack of emotion

Let me start by saying, there is biology at play behind psychopathy. Imbalances of chemicals in the brain.
Psychopathy as a condition:
It helps if you think of a psychopath as someone with mental attributes considered significantly outside of the norm. I know norm is hard to define, so maybe better would be mental attributes outside what the majority of people have.
These attributes generally have a negative effect on the person when it comes to contributing/interacting with other people or society. However, you will find that most people have some attributes that would be viewed this way, so tests are administered wherein if you fill a certain amount of 'psychopathic traits', you are considered dangerous.

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

Regarding psychological framework of a psychiatrist. Yes, this does play into consideration, which is why psychopaths are analyzed by several psychiatrists. Read up on the mental health act in your country, I guarantee that there are minimum requirements for labeling people.

Conditioning is irrelevant.

>>3434716

The vast majority of the human population fit most of these criteria.

>>3434692
>>3434689
I think the most interesting and telling aspect of psychopathy is how afflicted individuals respond to emotion in others. When asked to identify the emotions displayed on a face, they often can't.

I know this is from Wikipedia, but I'm going to say it's OK in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Facial_affect_recognition

>>3434692
These statements are taken from correlation. Correlation =/= causation. What is known is that things negatively affecting the psyche come into play early in cognitive development. For example, abuse, rape, exposure to extreme violence etc is known to cause problems later in life. It is a combination of cognitive development and your genetic makeup that decide how you turn out later in life, not one or the other.

>>3434716
It seems to me the factors have more to do with the criminal lifestyle than with a chemical imbalance in the brain. Also, how are stuff such as "lack of remorse" and "lack of empathy" measured? They seem to me to be more like learned behavior than a consequence of a mental condition.

>>3434723
I think you didn't read what I wrote.

>These attributes generally have a negative effect on the person when it comes to contributing/interacting with other people or society. However, you will find that most people have some attributes that would be viewed this way, so tests are administered wherein if you fill a certain amount of 'psychopathic traits', you are considered dangerous.

>However, you will find that most people have some attributes that would be viewed this way, so tests are administered wherein if you fill a certain amount of 'psychopathic traits', you are considered dangerous.

>if you fill a certain amount of 'psychopathic traits', you are considered dangerous.

>>3434740

Read:
>>3434733

>>3434743

And I said that the vast majority of the human population fits most of those traits, not just a few.

sociopath and convicted felon here.

I know the answers but I'm not interested in the arguments.

check out deformity of the hippocampus. Also note the common traits of mild heavy metals poisoning in childhood.

be aware that many other diseases cause similar antisocial tendencies, but the criminally antisocial tend to suffer from brain deformity and often childhood metals poisoning.

>Psychiatry
>Science
Please be joking. Neurology is a science psychiatry is nothing more than a bunch of gibberish. Hell even sociology is more of a science.

>>3434752
No, they don't. I think you are confusing layman's terms with psychology terms.
Eg. Most people would consider parasitic lifestyle to be living in your parent's home.

In psychology, parasitic lifestyle is taking without giving in return. It means expecting one or two other people to do everything for you so you don't have to. It means manipulating them if you have to, charming them, whatever it takes so you do not have to alter your lifestyle, so they continue to do everything for you.

Living with your parents or relying on others is not parasitic, because there is a two way relationship there, you give and you take. Sometimes more take than give, but there is still give.

>>3434758
Agreed. Psychiatry is mostly geussing based on loose correlations.

>>3434758
Go back to fucking high school, kid. Behavioral sciences, whether they're studying non-human animals are people, are legitimate. Yeah, with people you have to consider the fact that they may be lying if your asking them questions, but that's just part of understanding behavior. Lying is a behavior that's just as interesting to science as any other.

>>3434768

And the vast majority of people would do just that if they could manage the manipulation.

>>3434782
> non-human animals are people
What an opportune time for a typo!
Please read that as "non-human animals or people".

>>3434783
you've been spending too much time with children and /b/tards.

not healthy.

>>3434798

No, you're just naive.

>>3434801
I'm a sociopath, to me everyone looks like a sociopath.

I'm not the anon you were arguing with before though... I'm just pointing out that your view is like my own. presumably that isn't good news.

>>3434801
Please.
You have no idea how the real world works. If you're so cynical of other people you should hope that you're a psychopath. Otherwise, you will go nowhere. Have fun never making any significant scientific progress because you can't play well with others. Eventually you have to learn to trust and work with other people, even the callous ones.

>>3434816
>Man is cynical
>HURR HE MUST REFUSE TO WORK WITH ANYONE

>>3434816
That last sentence tacked on there not out of spite, but out of my own personal experience. I have a hard time trusting people, but for different reasons. I don't see them as evil or manipulative; I simply have a hard time believing that they could legitimately like me as a person and aren't just 'putting up with' me (so antisocial vs avoidant personality disorders, if you look at it that way [and, no, I'm not self-diagnosing]).

>>3434716
>Let me start by saying, there is biology at play behind psychopathy. Imbalances of chemicals in the brain.
>there is biology at play

As in......a deviation from standard form, as in....mutation....as in......RANDOM?!?!?

Bcause that is what it was supposed to be right? Random. An just randomly the exacts same process occurs on the kabillion genes in fuckarrillion correct ways.......every time the same shit, every ficking time.....

Nah, I think they're faking it.

>>3434806
that's just one view. i would think it would take more than that for you to start thinking he might be like you.

personally i despise psychiatry, there is too much clumsy labelling and the very idea that you can have a bunch of people deciding what parameters are socially acceptable pisses me off majorly, especially the idea of 're-habilitation', the arrogance of it.

>>3434866
his presence on 4chan is a strike against him, being on /sci/ is another.

>>3434806
To be honest I don't believe you're a sociopath. I believe you believe you're a sociopath, but...

>>3434884
I don't believe I'm a sociopath either.

but whatever, you get a label you can either ignore it or run with it. I mostly ignore it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyCEDnKxxLc