(cont.)
The publication of Cleckley’s text, The Mask of Sanity (1941), marked the beginning of the modern clinical construct of psychopathy, and his characterization has remained relatively stable to the present day. Cleckley based his description of the psychopath on observations of White, middle-class male patients, residing as inpatients of a mental hospital. The conceptualization of the psychopath by Cleckley focused on the patient’s intrapersonal characteristics or “inferred, nonobservable, processes."
Cleckley recognized that many psychopaths never became involved with the criminal justice system. Moreover, many could succeed in business or in other endeavors, particularly in those careers that offered considerable material success. Cleckley observed that the primary psychopathic characteristics of glibness, superficial charm, emotional detachment, and lack of remorse or guilt could be used for successful criminal or noncriminal careers. Psychopaths can pursue what they want without experiencing anxiety attributable to a concern for how their actions might impact others.
In the wake of Cleckley’s findings, the word psychopath became popular among laypersons as well as mental health professionals. Ellard attributes this notoriety to the term’s status as both an explanation for and a cause of depraved and frequent criminal behavior. He cautions, however, that this logic was as inherently circular and suspect during Cleckley’s period as it is today. Illustrating the tautological nature of Cleckley’s psychopath, Ellard questions, “Why has this man done these terrible things? Because he is a psychopath. And how do you know that he is a psychopath? Because he has done these terrible things”.
A baby is a baby because it hasn't grown up yet.
ReplyDeleteIt hasn't grown up yet because it's a baby.
Here's another one for you.
Idiot (n)
1. A person who is a moron.
Moron (n)
2. A person who is idiotic.
It hasn't grown up yet because it's a baby is an error to me. Better examples to be found.
DeleteThe other thing is about SYNONYMS, not cause and effect.
Here's another.
ReplyDeleteI know he's has cancer because the tests on the giant ass tumor growing out of his nuts came back positive.
The tests on the giant ass tumor growing out of his hairy ass nutsack came back positive BECAUSE HE HAS CANCER!
OH NOEZ!!!! CANCER IS FAKE!!!
DDERRRRRRR!!!
For the love of all that is holy, start quoting people with functional brains.
Ahh...alright. Circular reasoning would be - the tests came back positive (effect) because he has cancer (cause) and he has cancer (effect) because of the tests (cause).
DeletePeter, I can see why and how you are confused.
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion you can take out of the quote is that a psychopath is a person who does terrible things.
ReplyDeleteSo, if you know that someone is a psychopath then he might do terrible things, case in which you are aware of the danger.
On the opposite side, if someone does terrible things, he might be a psychopath, case in which you seek treatment or whatever.
The term psychopath is standing in the middle. If you want to know what causes this condition you should look in the brain chemistry field for an explanation.
This guy's logic is however primitive, searching for a way to stop the behaviour and the cause of it instead of controlling it.
END.
There's no confusion on my part.
ReplyDeleteThe guy called a basic cause and effect relationship circular logic.
You have the effect becuase of the cause, and you know you have the cause because of the effect. Thus, your reasoning is flawed/circular.
That's a really moronic thing to say, especially when you're speaking with the authority of an expert. Idiots everywhere will assume that what you're saying is true and find fault with the entire concept of psychopathy, particularly because the obvious problems of accuracy superficially appear to add credence to his statements. The only real problem is our lack of understanding of the disorder. As the poster above suggested, we need to know more about the underlying causes and mechanics so we can devise more accurate and definitive tests.
This is not at all what Ellard the Idiot was saying.
Again, M.E., please start quoting people with functional brains.
You can't have the cause because of the effect and the effect because of the cause... that doesn't make sense.. one of them caused the other... that's why one is the effect and the other is the cause...
DeleteYou'd have to have a functional brain to be able to tell the difference.
ReplyDeleteCleckley observed that the primary psychopathic characteristics of glibness, superficial charm, emotional detachment, and lack of remorse or guilt could be used for successful criminal or noncriminal careers. Psychopaths can pursue what they want without experiencing anxiety attributable to a concern for how their actions might impact others.
ReplyDeleteSo, if you know that someone is a psychopath then he might do terrible things, case in which you are aware of the danger.
On the opposite side, if someone does terrible things, he might be a psychopath, case in which you seek treatment or whatever.
in other words anyone one with the primary psychopathic characteristics and ability to pursue what they want anxiety free is a psychopath, whether they have done terrible things or not?
Is there someone willing to talk about what a shallow emotion is?
ReplyDeleteI think a shallow emotion is a faked emotion.
ReplyDeleteIf a shallow emotion is a faked emotion, then anyone on a bad day who's forced to work in the service industry is vis-a-vis a psychopath. It's very common for people who are not part of the mental health field such as Peter above to resort to ad-hominem insults when facets of abnormal psychology are backed into a corner. "People with these traits are psychopaths because psychopaths have these traits" is not cause and effect; it is, by definition, circular reasoning- supporting a premise with the premise rather than the conclusion. The diagnosis of psychopathy was born of a need of the criminal justice system, and if you'll do your research, you'll see it is no longer used in clinical settings, but only in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, when Hare's PCL-R was challenged by graduate students at Berkeley, who found it to be so subjective as to produce a diagnosis of completely normal and a diagnosis of psychopath in the same subject, staggeringly often, based entirely upon whether the clinician was hired by the prosecution or defense in a criminal case; Hare circumvented the scientific peer review process and sought help from the criminal justice system, claiming they misquoted him and defamed his character. Needless to say, after 3 years, the study was published and Hare's claim was thrown out of court, but the instance gives us a good indication of where the doctor's "science" really lies.
ReplyDelete"People with these traits are psychopaths because psychopaths have these traits" isn't like other circular reasoning.. it's just not enough details.. it's just like saying someone matches up with the definition/traits of psychopathy. If its been used the way I think its been used, its just rather lazy, didnt give details as to why or what traits they have.
ReplyDeleteEllard's quote isn't really flawed since its implied that he's saying that psychopaths are the ones who do the terrible thing... whether or not you think someone has to be is a different story.
ReplyDeleteEttina and Anonymous / The emotions aren't exactly "faked" they just are superficial. The sick satisfaction at control/uncontrollable rage at loss of control is just so much stronger in a narcissistic,psychopathic, or sociopathic person.
ReplyDelete