Friday, October 28, 2011

Psychopathic Writings - Purpose & Change.

A Reader asks:
Some of your articles seem to say things that are very different from what you say today. In the first articles you seemed to be sure you weren't a psychopath, but now you seem to be very clarified about it and I think that's good. I think you almost seem like a different person, as if you have changed your mind also about other things. Have you changed the purpose with your website?

Articles that discuss my personal viewpoints describe as a whole the process I go through on my the journey though learning and acquiring a new and deeper understanding of my diagnosis and the conceptualization that it implies.


When I first set out to create Psychopathic Writings, I had no real knowledge about the definition of psychopathy. I have come a long way since the early days... 'early' in this context means more than 6 months old... and in many respects I grossly disagree with a lot of my early statements and viewpoints.

Articles older than 6 months should not be seen as representative for the person who authors Psychopathic Writings as the person I am now, in our present. But I have left those old articles online only to make them available for clinicians and for private readers who may want to follow me on a more long term basis in order to watch my process - or progress ;) - and see what result comes from it, if I become a more agreeable, or more positive person, or if I merely learn to become a better psychopath, a better manipulator and abuser.

The central point in what I do is two-fold: By learning about psychopathy, which is the name of my diagnosis, I learn about myself. My understanding of myself has grown tremendously, and with it my understanding of other people, and perhaps most of all the neurotypical majority.

Whereas I would be lying if I claimed that my greater awareness doesn't bear a certain element of intentions toward future deceitfulness, I do claim even more that it has provided me some basis for rapport with normal people, a potential for being able to work with them rather than against them. As I see it, what my choice in this regard will be in the future depends on how the neurotypical majority chooses to react to my out stretched hand.

In other words: What I am doing here is not merely self indulgent soul searching, it is an attempt to find some common ground upon which to build a bridge for future generations to create a constructive reality that has room for neurodiversity, also in it's extreme expressions. This, would the neurotypical world wish to meet me and embrace my idea, holds the greatest attraction for me, and no antisocial forms of activity have a chance at bending my resolve!

At this point I am not at all convinced that psychopathic individuals necessarily are merely evil and incapable of ever contributing to society or in any constructive manner be members of the human race. And this is my other purpose with Psychopathic Writings, this is my other plan: To prove this statement!

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

The label "psychopath" is an artificial construct like all labels. Not all individuals born with "psychopatic wiring" - that is, the inability to feel most emotions social people do, lack of conscience etc. - would even pass as psychopaths in the Hare test, even though I'm sure most if not all would score 2 in all Factor 1 traits. But my point is, to be labeled as a "psychopath" you will have to be screwed up in more ways than you were born with. The rest might be labelled "malignant narcissists" or something like that - and many of them already are "constructive members of society", even though I doubt not everyone that comes in contact with these individuals would agree with their positive impact on their surroundings.

Zhawq said...

What you mean is that not all psychopaths are criminals, yes?

Narcissism, malignant or not, is not psychopathy. They are two different conditions.

Anonymous said...

"What you mean is that not all psychopaths are criminals, yes?

Narcissism, malignant or not, is not psychopathy. They are two different conditions."

What I mean is that psychopathy has always been difficult if not impossible to measure in terms of psychology because it's that much different than normal personality disorder - if it's a 'disorder' at all. Personally I don't think it's a personality defect like sociopathy or narcissism, even though some professionals don't acknowledge psychopathy the way you and I think of it even exists - instead they label such individuals as sociopaths, narcissists or (with females) histrionic or borderline personality.

Now, while Dr. Hare's test might be a good way to identify certain types of psychopaths in prison environment, I claim that there exists some subtypes with similar brain wiring who wouldn't score ever close to earn that label - and vice versa, some neurotypical convicts might have such severe disorders they might score over 30.

Anyone who has been in close contact with psychopathic, sociopathic and narcissistic people instinctively know what is the difference between the first and the two latter, but it's almost impossible to put in words - or measure with diagnostic tools. And if someone who clearly has psychopathic brain doesn't score over 30 in the Hare test, how to label them? Either a sociopath or a narcissist or the combination of both is close enough, most professionals would think.

Anonymous said...

In conclusion to my previous post:

We agree that 'psychopathy' the way Robert Hare means it is a combination of nature and nurture, yes? So what do we call the people who have the nature, but otherwise might not get even close to be labeled as psychopaths in terms of scoring points in psychopathy tests?

Andreas said...

Dear Anonymous,

I would be quite interested in hearing more about your thoughts.

Zhawq and I discussed this same topic in the comments here:
http://www.psychopathicwritings.com/2011/04/pcl-r-psychopathy-check-list.html

I think that there is a way to describe the differences between the ways of thinking. Talking to others makes that easier identify the factors/differences.

It is important to remember that psychopathy existed before Dr. Hare, and his test has recently become the gold standard; it is simply the most reliable and accepted means for diagnosis, which speaks in his favor, but that doesn't change how accurate it is, there just isn't a better alternative, yet.

Please, feel free to email me at my gmail address kinaquisition. If you wish to retain additional anonymity, you could create a novel email, and contact me through there.

--------
To Zhawq,
This is also one of my primary interests. I look forward to helping you with this goal!