Anti-Personality Society Disorder

[ramin]

The same thing that gives any and all forum members to post ridiculous posts' date=' from the fatally flawed theory's to the posts with comic intent. You see you are confusing this forum as your own personal platform, and we would all be the worse for it if it were. The community exists to create a free exchange, a debate or a community.

 

 

I do indeed have a problem with you basing your theory on flawed logic. As I think I've demonstrated, your presented evidence does not hold water. Even common sense would dictate that any number of causes lead to sociopathic behavior. However science does not deal with common sense, it deals in logic.

 

Logic can be demonstrated quite simply: -

 

[i']There are three men on a train traveling to Scotland. The first man is an ecologist, the second man is a logician, the third man is a mathematician. They all see a brown cow on the side of the tracks parallel to the train. The ecologist says, "Look! The cows in Scotland are brown". The logician says, "No no, all we can say is there is at least one brown cow in Scotland". The mathematician says, "You're both wrong. There is at least one cow in Scotland of which one side appears to be brown."

 

This shows us Ecologists aren't really scientists, Logicians don't look at the whole picture, so Mathematicians are the smartest.[/i]

 

You see how humor helps you learn? Your theory is flawed because of the method used to create it. That's something thats been pointed out to you before, but you use handwaving to move past it. I'm using humor to bring it back to the fore.

 

 

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even bother reading my post? I spend time and effort in my posts and you ignore them for crowd-pleasing? You are NOT a scientist.

 

I can word it as LOGIC, though it is COMMON SENSE LOGIC, and this was obvious. If you don't have a reply, don't reply!!!

 

This is the LOGIC:

 

Logic says that if someone is torturing two people and only one of them develops a mental disease, that the environment is more important.

 

Don't waste any of my time any more if you're intimidated by the logic and have no response but irrelevancy. Perhaps you should get into crowd-pleasing instead, as you've made no argument against any of my claims on this thread, nor have you responded to the question on the thread.

 

Who gives people like you the feeling of power? Talk about injustice...

[atinymonkey]

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even bother reading my post? I spend time and effort in my posts and you ignore them for crowd-pleasing?

I presume this has some sort of point to it, but I'm as a bit of a loss as to what. If your saying you don't handle even light criticisms, then you are probably in the wrong place.

 

I don't remember ever playing up the crowd. If you took a poll of popularity of forum members, I'd probably not get one vote. I post for myself, not some pseudo popularity contest.

 

You are NOT a scientist.

You are quite right. I'm an analyst. I'm paid to scrutinize complex systems/processes and come to a logical decision. I'm very accustomed to logic, million of pounds ride on me getting the systems right. I'm not sure what I'd class you as, but a few things do spring to mind.

 

I can word it as LOGIC, though it is COMMON SENSE LOGIC, and this was obvious. If you don't have a reply, don't reply!!!

I do indeed have replys. I thought I'd pointed out, in a light and accessible manner, why your 'common sense' approach was invalid. Theorys based of faulty logic are, coincidentally, faulty.

 

This is the LOGIC:

 

Logic says that if someone is torturing two people and only one of them develops a mental disease' date=' that the environment is more important.[/quote']

That, obviously, is not logic. Sadly, it spits in the face of logic.

 

Logic applied to that situation simply shows that one person has developed a mental disease, which may or may not be linked to the environment. The example is the epitome of pointless conjecture, and happy provides a perfect reason why we use case studys.

 

I'm perfectly willing to have that statement peer reviewed, should you need reassurance.

 

Don't waste any of my time any more if you're intimidated by the logic and have no response but irrelevancy. Perhaps you should get into crowd-pleasing instead, as you've made no argument against any of my claims on this thread, nor have you responded to the question on the thread.[/b']...

That's odd. I thought I'd responded succinctly to your point. I thought I'd highlighted that what you are using is not logic, but conjecture. I thought I'd presented a rather convincing argument against the very base of your theory. I'm not sure I could put it more bluntly without being rude.

 

Who gives people like you the feeling of power? Talk about injustice...

If you think I have some sort of power over you, it's only because you perceive me to have. This post, all my posts, and all the points in this thread are just ghosts in the machine. Intangible and insubstantial, you are free to ignore them or to take them to heart. It really is up to you, not me. Press the little x in the corner of the screen if you want the text to disappear.

[Sayonara]

Logic says that if someone is torturing two people and only one of them develops a mental disease, that the environment is more important.

It really, really doesn't say that at all.

[Void]

I was a little confused about the statement as well...The way I see it...If present environmental conditions are equal, and individual history is factored out...Then the only candidate are genetic dispositions.

[Sayonara]

Or if you want to be really cynical, "some biological factor".

[Void]

Or if you want to be really[/u'] cynical, "some biological factor".

 

I'm cynical enough to accept that!

[ramin]

It really, really[/i'] doesn't say that at all.

 

We really, really disagree.

 

I didn't write up the whole argument, but here it is, now that everyone is so hasty to overuse their power, or in some cases illusions of power:

 

 

 

Assumption 1: Someone irrationally and ruthlessly tortures a mass of people. As a result, some develop a mental disease, and others don't. If torture was not applied, neither group would develop the disease.

 

Assumption 2: Humans produce mass torture unnecessarily; i.e. there is absolutely no need for or inevitability of mass torture

 

 

Premise 1: There is no justified mechanism for producing mass torture

 

Premise 2: As there is no justification for producing mass torture, there is no justification for needing genes to adjust to torture

 

Conclusion: The torture (environment) is more important than genes

 

 

Can someone yell Alleluiah!

Premise 4: The genetics should not be altered

[Void]

We really' date=' [i']really[/i] disagree.

 

I didn't write up the whole argument, but here it is, now that everyone is so hasty to overuse their power, or in some cases illusions of power:

 

 

 

Assumption 1: Someone irrationally and ruthlessly tortures a mass of people. As a result, some develop a mental disease, and others don't. If torture was not applied, neither group would develop the disease.

 

Assumption 2: Humans produce mass torture unnecessarily; i.e. there is absolutely no need for or inevitability of mass torture

 

 

Premise 1: There is no justified mechanism for producing mass torture

 

Premise 2: As there is no justification for producing mass torture, there is no justification for needing genes to adjust to torture

 

Conclusion: The torture (environment) is more important than genes

 

 

Can someone yell Alleluiah!

Premise 4: The genetics should not be altered

 

Back up Hoss...

 

I do not see how you can conclude that the environment is MORE important. You need to qualify the conditions under which you making these conclusions, and do not believe you are.

 

UNDER the conditions of torture, the fact that some develop mental disease and some don't is due to genes.

 

UNDER the conditions that no torture exists, the fact that no one develops mental disease is due to environment.

 

HA!

 

Plus, if you think about it on a timeline...

 

First, torture can be seen as a form of environmental pressure.

 

Second, if there was not torture in the past, then of course there would not be "torture" adaptations.

 

Third, by the very fact that your applying pressure, your selecting for individuals who may have genes that increase their chances of survival under said conditions. (i.e. the folks with mental disease aren't looking to good in the reproduction arena)

 

Therefore, under natural selection, some sort of torture adaptation should emerge as dominant... (Cut me some slack on the timeline issues, and the extent to which this torture is applied...of course if its too severe, no one reproduces)

 

So yes, you are not going to see a "torture" gene, but over time you might.

[Sayonara]

Conclusion: The torture (environment) is more important than genes

It seems that by classifying the torture as "environment" (which it isn't, in terms of how nurture/nature inter-relate) you are basically saying "different torture = different results".

 

Which is (a) hardly revolutionary thinking, and (b) tells you nothing about genetic involvement.

[Krul]

quote

 

1. Picture this:

 

One child is very "difficult" and "causes" a negative reaction from parents. Indeed, it seems that the child has caused the parental reaction, as a more easy-going child illicits very receptive and warm reactions from the same parent.

 

However, now picture parents #2 who treat their children the same, as a pre-planned arrangement. To be specific, they do not react to the child according to the child him/herself, but they act according to principles that apply to children universally, such as that they are the subject of experiences and behave rationally. Regardless of the behavior of the child, the parent is able to communicate with him/her.

 

The environment of the two above scenarios are clearly different. Yet, you say that it is the child that illicits a reaction. Clearly, the reaction is dependent on the parents' beliefs.

 

quote

 

 

First you are again making assumptions about me saying something that I am not. Read what I write literally.........I do not say that it is the child who illicits a reaction, I say that it CAN be the child who has an influence.

 

Which man is more likely to leave his family? One who has a child who loves him and who's child does not irritate him constantly. Or one who has a child which destroys everything in the house, ignore his/her parents etc........

 

As ALL studies into psychopathy have shown psychopathic behaviour occurs VERY early in live, early cases have been seen AND CONFIRMED as early as age 5 in which children commit terrible acts.

 

Further NO common link between parenting has been found in any such cases.

 

 

2. b) Labels are implicit when someone is kicked out of school or grouped as a delinquent based on their personality. This will have a snowballing effect and make the current personality much more rigid. Go look this up, it pertains to ASP and is even considered a causal pathway to its persistence in adulthood.

 

When somebody has been kicked out of school or has become an delinquent they have ALREADY committed "immoral" acts. With re-education some of those people could probably be "cured". But not if their acts are caused by any type of biological abnormality. So that argument is totally pointless, it does not give arguments pro- or anti- nurture/nature.

 

3. Isolation can be in various ways, such as through socio-economic status, being not taught skills and cared for, improper nutrition, and a very important one, inadequate communication. These all arguably set a habitual delinquent path for kids, and even set their role in society, which can make them very angry inside for the rest of their lives.

 

 

Like I said before, in a vast amount of cases the children who were later ( as adults mostly ) diagnosed with APD/psychopathy, were raised just like any other "normal" person. Inadequate communication? You are really reaching for it now.........if your computer has a chip that is broken, you can not "repair" it by typing on your keyboard, no matter how hard you try. Communicating will not help.

 

Further most people with APD/psychopathy are NOT angry, remember the emotional shallowness?

 

4. Grandoise self-esteem? Grandiosity comes from insecurity, and insecurity from how people in the social world have treated you in the past.

 

Grandiosity comes from insecurity? Wow how interesting and how utterly and completely incorrect. You are adjusting information based on the conclusion you wish to get. Grandiosity comes from a feeling of over-confidence, over-esteem etc. If you read ANY work on psychology you can see that people with insecurity problems are INSECURE about themselves.

 

 

Integration in psychology has seldom taken place. Experts are usually experts on a certain angle, furthermore we can not rule out the idea that many researchers, and even the whole academic set up of the West on the whole, does not interpret data to its own benefit, and with its own perspective. In fact, this is shown to be true if you've read sociology.

 

True..........and your point is? I can't call upon research then anymore? You start by calling upon specific research which supposedly supports your point, however when I call upon a far more respected and accepted research, all research(ers) are not trustworthy?

 

 

Genetic studies do not prove the importance of genetics, only that genes are the cause of the disorder in a particular environment. For example, in an environment where bread is withheld, one will develop ALS depending on their genes. ALS is not a genetic disorder, but is environmental, since the bread is withheld. You are clearly misinterpreting the data.

 

 

Again you are adjusting information to get the outcome you want. In the case of ALS there are environmental AND genetical factors.

 

What you are saying is that if A+B=C then C is caused by adding B.

Which is wrong off course, C is caused by adding B TO A.

[Krul]

Your post ignores that White Males are subject to differ stressors; I refer to the heavy social pressure to succeed. If a woman does not get a promotion, she can comfort herself with assumptions of sexism and a pint of Ben & Jerry's; a white man will not always have external social reasons for a failure.

 

So one could argue that white men in eurocentric societies are more vunerable to APD because of environmental stressors.

 

And don't forget about experimental bias; if most of the group studied is of one group [i.e. white males], the profile developed will reflect the behavior and personality characteristics of that group.

 

Given that males and females are socialized very differently from birth in my society, and how they are socialized, it is only to be expected that fewer females openly demonstrate the traits associated with APD.

04-25-2005 08:38 PM

 

J.P.

 

Good to hear some valid arguments..............

 

About experimental bias you are quite correct, but in this case there has been lots of research and it all says that APD/psychopathy is more prevelant among white males then among any other groups.

 

Males and females are socialized differently, but they are also biologically different, levels of the neurotransmitter named Serotonine are quite different between both sexes just for example. A lot of other differences can be clearly seen ( which I quite like ) but there are also lots of differences which can not be seen. So based on just male-female you can drawn no conclusions.

 

What you seem to be forgetting is that by the time many of those stress-factors come into order, the person has had APD/psychopathy for a long time already. So to look at relevant environmental factors you should concentrate on before the age of 12 at maximum.

[Krul]

About the whole nonsense argument about torture.......Sayonara puts it correctly;

 

It seems that by classifying the torture as "environment" (which it isn't, in terms of how nurture/nature inter-relate) you are basically saying "different torture = different results".

Which is (a) hardly revolutionary thinking, and (b) tells you nothing about genetic involvement.

 

 

As countless times before you draw conclusions and then argue your way back to the starting point while claiming it's Logic, Ramin. If 2 people are tortured and only 1 ( person A ) of them develops APD/psychopathy ( not some other disorder which is irrelevant for this discussion ), then there are several possibilities.

 

1. Person A suffered brain damage which now causes his APD. Conclusion it CAN BE anatomically/fysiologically.

2. Person A suffered mental trauma which now causes his APD. Conclusion it CAN BE environmentally.

3. Person A always had APD, but hid it ( like most do ), and now he has decided he doesn't want to hide it anymore. Conclusion NOTHING.

etc

etc

etc

 

 

If you think you are using logic Ramin you need to really ask your parents ( nurture right? ) for some new education, because you are acting about as scientific as some medieval doctors.......

[ramin]

It seems that by classifying the torture as "environment" (which it isn't' date=' in terms of how nurture/nature inter-relate) you are basically saying "different torture = different results".

 

Which is (a) hardly revolutionary thinking, and (b) tells you [u']nothing[/u] about genetic involvement.

 

 

Maybe the problem is that my argument can be taken in different ways. No, that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that in that scenario, torture is in the environment of the two people, and the so-called "nature" of two groups of people (and herein lies the problem) interacts with this torture so that only one group develop mental illness.

 

This is the "sense" I'm speaking in. From the argument I gave it follows that the "nature" of the situation is not as important to the "nurture." The sense of "importance" I'm talking about is the sense of "cause" and "relief."

[j_p]

J.P.

 

Good to hear some valid arguments..............

 

About experimental bias you are quite correct' date=' but in this case there has been lots of research and it all says that APD/psychopathy is more prevelant among white males then among any other groups.

[/quote']

I think you miss my point. I will give the example which springs immediately to mind, if you will excuse the absence of citations [it is just so late].

 

When interest in studying serial killers was really high [late 70's? I think it was post-Bundy], 'they' did extensive interviews and background research on several convicted serial killers, and developed a definition [that's not the right word, is it?] of the psychopathology. Based on this research, it was concluded the female serial killers are very rare.

 

The research studied only males, defined the pathology according to the traits of these males, and then concluded that females did not suffer from the pathology.

 

In fact, female serial killers just have a different victim profile and different behavior patterns. John Lloyd [the Brides in the Bath killer] actually was more like a female serial killer than a male.

 

Males and females are socialized differently, but they are also biologically different, levels of the neurotransmitter named Serotonine are quite different between both sexes just for example. A lot of other differences can be clearly seen ( which I quite like ) but there are also lots of differences which can not be seen. So based on just male-female you can drawn no conclusions.

You brought up gender as well as ethnicity; I just picked one of the characteristics.

 

And yes there are lots of differences between men and women, but there are lots of similarities, too. The Bells overlap.

 

You seem to assume that the difference is serotonin levels is caused by 'nature' rather than 'nurture'; don't serotonin levels change in response to external factors? And even if it were possible to place men and women in identical environments, won't they, because of socialization, experience the environment differently?

 

What you seem to be forgetting is that by the time many of those stress-factors come into order, the person has had APD/psychopathy for a long time already. So to look at relevant environmental factors you should concentrate on before the age of 12 at maximum.

So old? I would have thought younger.

 

I am certain that children feel heavy pressure to conform to the social expectations of their gender from birth. And stressors are more powerful when they are implied, as during the earliest socialization of children, than explicated. So the white-male-specific stressors would be present early enough to cause the pathology.

 

Another half remembered study from long ago; when faced with a crying baby, most people will comfort a girl and try to distract a boy; and they will continue whether their behavior is successful or not. [i think the trigger is the perceived rather than actual sex of the child; curly-haired girls dressed in blue were distracted rather than comforted].

 

How can anyone learn compassion unless they get hugged when they cry?

[Sayonara]

Maybe the problem is that my argument can be taken in different ways. No' date=' that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that in that scenario, torture is in the environment of the two people, and the so-called "nature" of two groups of people (and herein lies the problem) interacts with this torture so that only one group develop mental illness.

 

This is the "sense" I'm speaking in. From the argument I gave it follows that the "nature" of the situation is not as important to the "nurture." The sense of "importance" I'm talking about is the sense of "cause" and "relief."[/quote']

If you are saying the difference lies in the environment, and that part of the environment is the torture itself, then you cannot verify relative changes in your variables.

 

Certainly not in any way that will allow you to rule out factors you don't want to consider.

 

It's problems with simple experimental method, coupled with a lack of proper hypotheses.

[ramin]

If you are saying the difference lies in the environment' date=' and that part of the environment is the torture itself, then you cannot verify relative changes in your variables.

 

[u']Certainly not[/u] in any way that will allow you to rule out factors you don't want to consider.

 

It's problems with simple experimental method, coupled with a lack of proper hypotheses.

 

 

I'm using "environment" to mean what is in the external environment in relation to the subjective agent. In my example, torture is part of the external environment. Genes, are the inherited internal environment. Just because some genes don't mix well with irrational, controllable, and preventable acts such as torture, it doesn't mean that these genes are causally important.

 

I'm really not sure if you're following this. Maybe it's more simple that you first assumed.

[Krul]

When interest in studying serial killers was really high [late 70's? I think it was post-Bundy], 'they' did extensive interviews and background research on several convicted serial killers, and developed a definition [that's not the right word, is it?] of the psychopathology. Based on this research, it was concluded the female serial killers are very rare.

 

The definition of psychopathology is not the same as the definition for "the" serial killer. An easy and correct thing to say is that serial killers are "sick" psychopath's. And that sickness IS very commonly caused by abuse in childhood.

 

 

Female as well as male psychopath's have common traits and recent research has confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that male psychopaths are more common.

 

You seem to assume that the difference is serotonin levels is caused by 'nature' rather than 'nurture'; don't serotonin levels change in response to external factors? And even if it were possible to place men and women in identical environments, won't they, because of socialization, experience the environment differently?

 

Tests have indicated that the levels of serotonin are genetically predispositioned. Even when siblings were split up and raised completely differently with different nutrients etc. they still had similar levels.

You can compare it to dogs in which agressiveness is either bred in or bred out.

 

How can anyone learn compassion unless they get hugged when they cry?

 

If compassion can't be learned unless people act compassionately to you, then half the children in orphanages and countless millions more would grow up as anti-social people, and that is not the case.

 

Although compassion is indeed learned by examples, those examples do not have to be about you. You can learn compassion from seeing a mother comforting a hurt child ( maybe a little slower but compassion is an easy thing ).

 

 

 

 

 

Further to all:

 

Despite thousands of attempts from all possible angles, NO psychopath has ever been "cured". Nutrients, diets, medicines, re-educating etc etc etc all have failed. At the contrary, most psychopaths have learned from the given therapy to become more capable in deceiving people.

 

What those "therapists" commonly do ( in most western nations ) is explain the psychopath how the human brain works, then how a person can feel emotional pain, then how a person can be deceived and then they tell the psychopath that inflicting such pain is wrong and deceiving people is wrong as well because "you wouldn't want anybody to do it to you right?" or ( still popular in some regions ) "you can't do any of those things, it is evil, God wouldn't want you to commit such acts"

 

 

Give a child a loaded gun, explain him how it works, where he can find it and how to aim. Then take away any pity or compassion in the child..........It might sound over the top but this IS what has happened for decades, because a number of psychologists ( a large number ) would absolutely refuse to believe that anything could be caused by "nature" instead of "nurture".

[Sayonara]

I'm using "environment" to mean what is in the external environment in relation to the subjective agent. In my[/i'] example, torture is part of the external environment. Genes, are the inherited internal environment. Just because some genes don't mix well with irrational, controllable, and preventable acts such as torture, it doesn't mean that these genes are causally important.

None of that makes any difference to my last post.

 

 

I'm really not sure if you're following this. Maybe it's more simple that you first assumed.

You're right. I'm not following it.

 

You know what? That's not because of any shortcomings on my part. It's because you are devoid of various key notions of formal logic and experimental method.

 

I'm not following your reasoning because it doesn't work.

[j_p]

The definition of psychopathology is not the same as the definition for "the" serial killer. An easy and correct thing to say is that serial killers are "sick" psychopath's. And that sickness IS very commonly caused by abuse in childhood.

I was not discussing serial killers, but giving an [admmittedly sloppy] example of how social preconceptions effects the design of the study, and the design of the study effects the results, and therefore the conclusion.

 

 

Female as well as male psychopath's have common traits and ...

It is not clear whether you mean that femal psychopaths have certain traits

in common, as do male, or that all psychopaths, female and male, have certain traits in common.

 

...recent research has confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that male psychopaths are more common.

...

At the contrary, most psychopaths have learned from the given therapy to become more capable in deceiving people.

In an earlier post, I was trying to make the point that, because girls are socialized from a very early age to be aware of the expectations and opinions of others, it is possible they learn to hide their psychopathic traits, without therapy.

 

Studies on the treatment of heart disease have shown that, if a disease of any type is believe more common in one sub-group of the population, it will be diagnosed more often and earlier, and subsequently treated more agressively, in individuals of that sub-group.

 

While I am willing to believe that psychopathy is more common in males than in females, I still believe it is possible that is more commonly diagnosed.

[Krul]

It is not clear whether you mean that femal psychopaths have certain traits, as do male, or that all psychopaths, female and male, have certain traits in common.

 

I mean that male as well as female psychopaths got the same traits in common.

 

 

While I am willing to believe that psychopathy is more common in males than in females, I still believe it is possible that is more commonly diagnosed.

 

There is always a margin of error you must take in consideration in such statistics. Just a few decades ago the mistakes you mention were frequently made among "research". However currently most "valid" research has large groups of test subjects and as the old test for psychopathy was a complete and utter joke, the new test is quite good. So if out a 1000 female test subjects 10 are found with psychopathy and out a 1000 males there are 30, and that kind of ratio is found constantly, then there is a very strong indication that it is more prevalent among males.

 

 

 

 

P.S.

 

In the old ( standard personality ) test, people had to describe themselves basically, and if you take into consideration that psychopaths are very very good liars, then...........

 

There are a large number of "funny" examples. 1 psychopath had all the text books on the test in his cell and sold profiles to other inmates whose results then would show a stead improvement for parole.

Another psychopath had 3 completely different profiles in a few years. First he was diagnosed insane, because he wanted to be transferred to a mental institute. Then he was diagnosed sane, because he didn't like it there. And then he was diagnosed with some minor problems because he wanted to get and sell some medicine.......

[j_p]

Oh. Ok.

 

What is this test? A standardized test like the SATs? I really don't know as much about psychology research as I would like. Can you recommend a good web-site for a general introduction? [College textbooks aren't really an options for me right now].

 

But, while I am willing to stipulate that psychopathy is more common in males than in females, I would still argue, that is irrelevant in a nature/nuture debate, because males and females experience different environments, or, the same environments differently.

 

I think the best way to address that issue would be to examine when the frequency of psychopathy in males and in females has changed over time, as social changes alter the environment. However, that would not be possible as the means of diagnosing the problem keeps evolving.