Politics Thread!

[(o)(o)]

The Jon Ronson book is a good read (as is most of his stuff)

Nice primer on corporate-psycopathy I thought, but I don't take Ronson too seriously he tells a good story.

the most interesting stuff for me was the stuff about how hard it is to classify mental health conditions and the particular problems of current systems of diagnosis.

Interesting as this was perhaps the weakest aspect of the book.

His representations of classification methodology were way off base.. here's Hare's statement on this in full :

http://www.psychopathysociety.org/image ... 202012.pdf

AFAIK psycopath isn't a term used anymore by mental health professionals either but if you put it in a book title it helps sell books

Naah.. "psycopath" might have limited representation in DSM V but the term is used liberally in the criminal system, mental health authority, dangerous persons units (places where they are more likely to come into contact with mental health professionals), research, academia, etc etc...

Other terms are bandied about but the "psycopathic" traits do not necessarily fall within the definition of anti social disorder, though they commonly will (at the far end of the scale), nor are they sociopaths.

Anyway, the nomenclature is a red herring.. it doesn't undermine the basic premise of "psychopathy" being pervasive and influential in a host of environments.

[(o)(o)]

Can you detect a psycopath objectively?

According to Dr Nigel Blackwood from Kings College "Using MRI scans we found that psychopaths had structural brain abnormalities in key areas of their ‘social brains’ compared to those who just had ASPD."

Specifically, significantly reduced grey matter volumes in the anterior rostral prefrontal cortex and temporal poles.

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iop/news/records/2 ... brain.aspx

Early stages of research of course. The above evidence applies to offenders specifically.

Could "sufficient volume of anterior rostral prefrontal cortex and temporal poles" conceivably be a pre-requisite for senior positions !?

It would be interesting to see how much IDS has of the stuff, hmmm

[Absolute_Zero]

Can you detect a psycopath objectively?

They're known to possess a generally poor sense of smell... and a tendency to misspell 'psychopath'.

[gravy]

Ooof!

As for the stuff above, it's a good illustration of the lack of consensus on classification and diagnosis.

Hare and DSM are at odds.

[Dio]

The current feeling in the scientific community is that the whole mental illness diagnosis is a mess, nothing better than classifying symptoms and saying very little about the underlying causes. You might as well say lung cancer, pneumonia, silicosis and TB are all the same thing because they cause people to wheeze a bit. So now they want to rip it up and replace with specific causal diagnosis instead. But the problem is it can't be done yet.

[(o)(o)]

Think things are steering toward dimensionality and constellations of traits rather than categorical diagnosis atm..



But it's academic to the premise anyway. On a continuous scale people who score very high on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist score very high on DSM for antisocial PD.

"Identifying persistently antisocial offenders using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist and DSM antisocial personality disorder criteria."

"The results from two samples of male offenders indicated thatwhen the PCL–R (whether scored from file alone or from file and interview) and DSM APD criteria are each scored as continuous measures the association between them is extremely high. Each method ranked participants in essentially the same order, with any differences attributable almost entirely to measurement error. This high rank-order correlation means that, assuming the use of appropriate cut-off scores, individuals would be categorized nearly identically by the two approaches."

[gravy]

Yes.

We're at the start of a massive shift towards a being able to understand physically what's going on the brain rather than trying to classify / treat / understand people's problems by looking at symptons.

On the other hand you have the DSM, the standard tool for classifying mental disorders, which despite being incredibly widely used is updated very infrequently (DSM V came out last year, DSM IV 13 years earlier) and reflects the established view when it was drafted. Which is likely a good half a decade behind whatever the current research was at the time.

It's always hard when you go through a period of scientific advancement and how that relates to large scale administration of something like health care because anything that needs to operate at industrial scale needs stability and certainty. On top of that you also end up with a lot of vested interests with huge financial incentives to maintain the current status quo.

So yeah, I find this stuff interesting and the increasing understanding in how the brain works physically is going to be a massive revolution.

On the other hand if we stick with the current DSM approach that knowledge won't be applied helping people on wide scale for a couple of decades.

And thanks to Jon Ronson for highlighting the issues with that. It's not a radical or unshared view, just something I wasn't aware of before reading the book.


You might want to spin this off into a separate thread. It's interesting stuff.

[Harlequin]

The current feeling in the scientific community is that the whole mental illness diagnosis is a mess, nothing better than classifying symptoms and saying very little about the underlying causes. You might as well say lung cancer, pneumonia, silicosis and TB are all the same thing because they cause people to wheeze a bit. So now they want to rip it up and replace with specific causal diagnosis instead. But the problem is it can't be done yet.

The causes of most mental illness are still unknown and even the neurochemical anomalies associated with groups of people with some illnesses appear to be secondary to mostly unknown biological and/or psychological factors. According to the last shrink to diagnose me, the point of diagnosis is primarily to attach the most practical labels in order to suggest which treatments might be effective. Just being labelled can also be helpful to the patient. For example, when I am at the edge of the horrific dark abyss of suicidal despair I can remember that this is officially due to a medical problem rather than being a "natural" emotional response to circumstances, and that if I hold on and get myself to bed the feelings and impulses shall probably have passed in the morning.

[gravy]

And it's a double edged sword dependant on individual reaction. Some people's reaction to diagnosis is a feeling of stigmatisation.

This is tricky stuff.

[gravy]

Another perspective on Hare's psychopathy checklist:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... e59890.pdf

To be honest I don't have much insight into this but it -seems- to be fair to say the there's not universal acceptance of Hare's work in this field by his peers.

On a wider note it's probably also fair to say that behavioural only based classification of mental problems are on their way out.

[(o)(o)]

The checklist is considered the gold standard in most fields psycopaths come into contact with.

[By the way the author of that article you just cited IS a psycopath - but that's not a reason to dismiss his work ]

Here are some comments from http://www.psychopath-research.com/

In order to keep all of us on the same page I would like to point out that for purposes of discussion the term used here at this forum is Psychopath, not "socio-path". I know the term psychopath gets people thinking it only applies to the Bundy's of the world. What we are discussing here are those Psychopaths who are walking amongst us - the socialized Psychopath.

The nomenclature problem is a pit of vipers. There seems to be no standard usage. Research psychologists and those involved in the correctional system seem to prefer the use of Psychopath. Psychiatrists seem more likely to refer to the ASPD definition in DSM-IV-TR

Here's what Hervey Cleckley has to say in the Preface to the 5th Edition of "The Mask of Sanity"

"Since the first edition of this book, revisions of the nomenclature have been made by the American Psychiatric Association. The classification of psychopathic personality was changed to that of sociopathic personality in 1958. In 1968 it was changed again to antisocial personality. Like most psychiatrists I continue to think of the people who are the subject of this book as psychopaths and will most often refer to them by this familiar term.

The Mask of Sanity is highly revered work you can get a free copy here : http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/sanity_1.PdF

Yes there is some crossover in classification between Hares and ICD and DSM.. but it''s a strawman.. the basic concern is the effect of psychopathy in positions of authority and that concern is gaining traction.

WRT the criticisms of Jon Ronson's book the "...X reads to item Y of the Hares checklist.." is a misrepresentation of the way a person would or should be assessed. That approach would be prone to failure. You have to attack the checklist from various vantage points without making it obvious to the target, otherwise a psychopath will just run circles around you.

His conclusion "... and then I realised *I* was sort of becoming a psycopath.. " was a neat way to round off the story, and that's what Ronson does, but shouldn't be taken too seriously.

I agree Harlequin labels can be very helpful and therapeutic. That's especially true with more clear cut diagnosis. Personality disorders though tend to operate on spectrums of differing degrees, and I see them more in descriptive terms (how a person deviates from the norm) than a diagnosis per se.. potentially useful labels, but rarely absolutes. Certainly there is stigma but that's another issue.

[(o)(o)]

Here is James Fallon again... who is also a psycopath.. talking about the ingredients, according to research, that might differentiate a physically dangerous psycopath (which is what I think most lay persons would presume a psychopath to be) from those who blend into society.. eg politicians.

[Harlequin]

I tend to see mental illness as something which impairs one's ability to function, and personality disorders more as labels for the different ways in which people can be irritating to others.

And, yes, perhaps the psychopathy discussion should be split from this thread.

[gravy]

The checklist is considered the gold standard in most fields psycopaths come into contact with.

Well that's just saying a lot of people implement this on the basis of policy of the organisations they work for. That's true. It's also based on decades old work. As I said before currently policy will always lag behind latest understanding especially if there's any vested interests at play.

Speaking of which these two things do not sit easily with me:

* Hare has suppressed peer reviewed scientific research by threat of legal action because he felt it critical of his work
* Hare makes a lot of money from the PCL-R -because- it's a gold standard for litigators in the US

I don't like that his rebuttal of what Ronson wrote plugs his own book either.

Does that mean the PCL is any less or more effective? No and to be fair it's completely impossible for me to weigh the the mixed opinion specialists in this field have about this instrument. I don't know enough about it and I'd be loathe to form an opinion based on Hare's own work.

[merman]

Cameron is going to lose his battle against Juncker being appointed EU president.

Can you blame them for not taking the advice of the man who employed Andy Coulson?