Was Ayn Rand a psychopath?
On the note of Dr. Robert Hare and the PLCR I find the causality of it problematic in that Hare described a series of traits which he deemed to be psychopathic, then went out looking for those traits, largely within the prison population. Of course, Hare based some of his traits on Harvey Cleckley's work, quite well detailed in "The Mask of Sanity" so to disregard his work as a whole is going a bit far.
The whole issue with the label of "anti-social personality disorder", "Psychopathy" and "Sociopathy" is the "core" traits. I.E. what are the core traits that make up the personality disorder and what manifest due to the core traits instead of being traits of the disorder itself.
The idealist in me thinks maybe Ayn Rand just felt like somebody needed to admire him. I often feel this way about criminals, I feel like I need to be the person in the crowd that is not throwing a stone. The cynic in me thinks she actually empathized with his behaviour.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
On the note of Dr. Robert Hare and the PLCR I find the causality of it problematic in that Hare described a series of traits which he deemed to be psychopathic, then went out looking for those traits, largely within the prison population. Of course, Hare based some of his traits on Harvey Cleckley's work, quite well detailed in "The Mask of Sanity" so to disregard his work as a whole is going a bit far.
The whole issue with the label of "anti-social personality disorder", "Psychopathy" and "Sociopathy" is the "core" traits. I.E. what are the core traits that make up the personality disorder and what manifest due to the core traits instead of being traits of the disorder itself.
The idealist in me thinks maybe Ayn Rand just felt like somebody needed to admire him. I often feel this way about criminals, I feel like I need to be the person in the crowd that is not throwing a stone. The cynic in me thinks she actually empathized with his behaviour.
Oh, I'll be the first to admit, it's easy to admire old west Robin Hood desperadoes like Butch Cassidy and the Wild Bunch, or even gunmen like Harry Tracy or Billy the Kid. But the guy who Rand idolized was just a sick bastard.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Oh, I'll be the first to admit, it's easy to admire old west Robin Hood desperadoes like Butch Cassidy and the Wild Bunch, or even gunmen like Harry Tracy or Billy the Kid. But the guy who Rand idolized was just a sick bastard.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Yes, there is a big difference between refusing to throw a stone, and idolizing.
I don't consider psychology a 'hard' science in the way physics is so I remain skeptical. I think the idea of a psychopath is popular in our culture and even academics are not immune to its influence.
I mostly agree, but that does not allow one to a priori disregard work within a specific discipline. I am highly sceptical about the scientific content of both psychology and psychiatry (especially in continental Europe, and definitely in France). But my conclusions are based on peer-reviewed scientific articles, some of which are from top tier journals (Science, Nature, PNAS etc.), and they are not just restricted to psychology and psychiatry, but also neurology and biology. And I am strong believer of the unity in science (everything is physics, even collecting stamps). A lot of psychologists (but most certainly not all of them) are not, and that is the crux of the problem.
The old purity argument still applies:
http://xkcd.com/435/
There is of course no way of arriving at a scientific concept of "evil", as this is a value judgement. But a lot of individuals who are considered by society to be evil tend to display similar traits (callous and impulsive), and the current research suggests that these traits have a significant genetic component.
We can discuss whether to call these people evil, psychopaths, ne'er-do-wells, monsters, pop musicians etc., but this does not change the fact that these personality traits exist.
I want to believe you, I really do. But when a core concept of psychopathy is a complete lack of moral emotions, then perhaps "pure evil" is not an entirely unjustified label... The rest of us are just plain and simple ass holes.
Consider this, if morals and your conscience is just an animal instinct, you would be able to ignore it much like its possible to ignore being hungry or wanting to bash someone's face in with a Texas Instruments BA II Plus Financial Calculator.
There is also the question of, exactly what kind of a moral emotion are we talking about, deontological or consequencialist ethics?
Deontological, I'll agree it becomes somewhat of an issue, however it would entirely depend upon which rules one bases what is a moral or immoral act. According to Kant, and the categorical imperative, in the naturalist formulation "So act as if your maxims should serve at the same time as the universal law (of all rational beings)", meaning that we should so act that we may think of ourselves as "a member in the universal realm of ends" However, let's say that one of my maxims is that stupid people should be chlorinated out of our gene pool, that would indicate that I would want all people who encounter a stupid person to drown them in chlorine. So, I'm moral!
If we are speaking in terms of consequentialism is somewhat solves itself, because its in essence based on the morality of actions being judged based upon their consequences. So, to use the same scenario as above, if I think stupid people will be the cause of the demise of the human race, it follows that killing them off would be a "good" act. There is also a matter of to whom the consequences need to be "good". Vic Mackey from "The Shield" is an amoral consequencialist, views acts as justifiable and "right" based on the consequences they have for the people he cares for.
In both cases, it would be entirely possible for a psychopath to be moral. However, that is of course depended on whether one views the world as having universal morality in a large majority of human beings on which one can base a standard of rigorous morals that the psychopath could be judged to be in violation of, or having a lack of.
*P.S* I love that cartoon, but I always wondered where economists would be placed, since its arguably a mix of psychology and mathematics.
In both cases, it would be entirely possible for a psychopath to be moral. However, that is of course depended on whether one views the world as having universal morality in a large majority of human beings on which one can base a standard of rigorous morals that the psychopath could be judged to be in violation of, or having a lack of.
*P.S* I love that cartoon, but I always wondered where economists would be placed, since its arguably a mix of psychology and mathematics.
I concur. I am a card carrying Aspie but I have lived long enough to function in the overwhelming predominant NT world. I have learned to adapt my external public behavior in such a manner that I can pass for human 99 times out of 100 undetected. Only a few people I have met can sense that I am not a standard NT model.
Thus, a sociopath "prudent predator" can manage his behavior so he can operate unmolested most of the time.
Fortunately for the world, my inclination is not evil so I am not trying to be the wolf that fools the sheep. The sheep have nothing I want that for which I will misuse my adaptability to obtain.
ruveyn
In both cases, it would be entirely possible for a psychopath to be moral. However, that is of course depended on whether one views the world as having universal morality in a large majority of human beings on which one can base a standard of rigorous morals that the psychopath could be judged to be in violation of, or having a lack of.
*P.S* I love that cartoon, but I always wondered where economists would be placed, since its arguably a mix of psychology and mathematics.
I concur. I am a card carrying Aspie but I have lived long enough to function in the overwhelming predominant NT world. I have learned to adapt my external public behavior in such a manner that I can pass for human 99 times out of 100 undetected. Only a few people I have met can sense that I am not a standard NT model.
Thus, a sociopath "prudent predator" can manage his behavior so he can operate unmolested most of the time.
Fortunately for the world, my inclination is not evil so I am not trying to be the wolf that fools the sheep. The sheep have nothing I want that for which I will misuse my adaptability to obtain.
ruveyn
I was speaking more of the view of the sociopath an entity without the capability of having a form of morality, more than being able to disguise and mimic behavior/acting in accordance with societal standards.
Back to the late Ayn Rand's (Alicia Rosenbaum's) mental state. She was a pisser and a hard person to be around, but she was not crazy nor was she a sociopath. At worst she was a neurotic who in the name of Man's Heroism and the Invincible Individual became a den mother to a bunch of losers and neurotics. She was ten hairs short of being a serious philosopher, but she did get a lot of people riled up especially against a government which is demonstrably unjust and incompetent. It is easy for even losers to hate a bigger loser. We are governed by the kind of scum found at the bottom of the barrel. I never was an Objectivist, but I resonated and vibrated (for a time anyway) to her disgust and vituperation. So I can see why some of her stuff got a few people worked up.
She was a workaholic and a person who imagined her vision of the world to be so Right and Perfect that no sane person would deny what she said or proposed. There is no way the United States will be brought down by even a few thousand of the top thinkers, experts and doers escaping to some Hidden Village in the Rockies. If ten thousand quit and leave another ten thousand will move in to fill the void. So much for The Strike (which was the original title of Atlas Shrugged). While being smart and indignant is not insanity as such, being too smart sometimes blinds one to his/her own capacity for error.
ruveyn
She was a workaholic and a person who imagined her vision of the world to be so Right and Perfect that no sane person would deny what she said or proposed. There is no way the United States will be brought down by even a few thousand of the top thinkers, experts and doers escaping to some Hidden Village in the Rockies. If ten thousand quit and leave another ten thousand will move in to fill the void. So much for The Strike (which was the original title of Atlas Shrugged). While being smart and indignant is not insanity as such, being too smart sometimes blinds one to his/her own capacity for error.
ruveyn
In all fairness to Ayn Rand, she is as good an author as she was a philosopher.
In all fairness to Ayn Rand, she is as good an author as she was a philosopher.
As good an author ???. Literary taste is not based on any truly objective standard. Atlas Shrugged was cleverly contrived. It involved a lot of threads that had to be put together coherently (and they were). Unfortunately she had the Victor Hugo disease and insisted on overlaying what might have been a good political action alternate time line story with way too much polemic and more than twice as many pages as were needed. If she cut most of the polemic her story might have been a good one. Contrast Atlas Shrugged with Urusla Laguin's -The Dispossessed-. That was a novel about anarchism (in a science fiction context). It was a third as long as Atlas Shrugged (maybe even shorter) but put together a fairly complex action political story.
In any event, writing an unnecessarily overlong story is not proof ipso fact of any mental disfunction.
ruveyn
Last edited by ruveyn on 07 Oct 2012, 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In all fairness to Ayn Rand, she is as good an author as she was a philosopher.
As good an author ???. Literary taste is not based on any truly objective standard. Atlas Shrugged was cleverly contrived. It involved a lot of threads that had to be put together coherently (and they were). Unfortunately she had the Victor Hugo disease and insisted on overlaying what might have been a good political action alternate time line story with way too much polemic and more than twice as many pages as were needed. If she cut most of the polemic her story might have been a good one. Contrast Atlas Shrugged with Urusla Laguin's -The Dispossessed-. That was a novel about anarchism (in a science fiction context). It was a third as long as Atlas Shrugged (maybe even shorter) but put together a fairly complex action political story.
ruveyn
In essence, it means that I find her books to be fairly painful to read, not due to the philosophy or political bits, but due to being horribly written. I know that it's subjective but I don't really care.
Consider this, if morals and your conscience is just an animal instinct, you would be able to ignore it much like its possible to ignore being hungry or wanting to bash someone's face in with a Texas Instruments BA II Plus Financial Calculator.
What would compel an individual to ignore an instinct... other than a more powerful instinct?
Deontological, I'll agree it becomes somewhat of an issue, however it would entirely depend upon which rules one bases what is a moral or immoral act. According to Kant, and the categorical imperative, in the naturalist formulation "So act as if your maxims should serve at the same time as the universal law (of all rational beings)", meaning that we should so act that we may think of ourselves as "a member in the universal realm of ends" However, let's say that one of my maxims is that stupid people should be chlorinated out of our gene pool, that would indicate that I would want all people who encounter a stupid person to drown them in chlorine. So, I'm moral!
If we are speaking in terms of consequentialism is somewhat solves itself, because its in essence based on the morality of actions being judged based upon their consequences. So, to use the same scenario as above, if I think stupid people will be the cause of the demise of the human race, it follows that killing them off would be a "good" act. There is also a matter of to whom the consequences need to be "good". Vic Mackey from "The Shield" is an amoral consequencialist, views acts as justifiable and "right" based on the consequences they have for the people he cares for.
In both cases, it would be entirely possible for a psychopath to be moral. However, that is of course depended on whether one views the world as having universal morality in a large majority of human beings on which one can base a standard of rigorous morals that the psychopath could be judged to be in violation of, or having a lack of.
None of the above. I (and a lot of authors) believe that morality makes no sense at all to a psychopath. Deontology versus consequentialism, a major discussion within moral philosophy, is of no greater interest to a psychopath than the price difference between apples and oranges.
See this site for a brutally honest description of the mind of a psychopath:
http://www.sociopathworld.com/
To quote American Psycho (heavily influenced by "The Mask of Sanity"): There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there.
In sociology (which includes all social sciences). Medicine isn't there, either. It belongs in biology. I like the cartoon because of (1) its obvious disregard for the current divisions within science and (2) its support for the unity of science. Oh, and mathematics isn't a science (no empirical content), but that is an entirely different topic...
In both cases, it would be entirely possible for a psychopath to be moral. However, that is of course depended on whether one views the world as having universal morality in a large majority of human beings on which one can base a standard of rigorous morals that the psychopath could be judged to be in violation of, or having a lack of.
*P.S* I love that cartoon, but I always wondered where economists would be placed, since its arguably a mix of psychology and mathematics.
I concur. I am a card carrying Aspie but I have lived long enough to function in the overwhelming predominant NT world. I have learned to adapt my external public behavior in such a manner that I can pass for human 99 times out of 100 undetected. Only a few people I have met can sense that I am not a standard NT model.
Thus, a sociopath "prudent predator" can manage his behavior so he can operate unmolested most of the time.
Fortunately for the world, my inclination is not evil so I am not trying to be the wolf that fools the sheep. The sheep have nothing I want that for which I will misuse my adaptability to obtain.
ruveyn
Interestingly, the current concept of psychopathy includes impulsive behaviour as a part of the definition. Which would make it difficult for the individual to manage his/her behaviour. This has led several researchers (including Robert Hare himself) to suggest that the current definition does not capture the full aspect of the trait.
Two possible explanations:
- Some people with psychopathic traits do not commit crimes, and are capable of being productive citizens (day traders, snipers etc.)
- Some people with psychopathic traits are very good at concealing their crimes
I hope for the former, but I cannot dismiss the latter...
And even surgeons who slice and dice people by cutting their flesh a removing body parts --- all for their own good of course.
Think of Jack the Ripper doing his thing to produce benefits for the victims/patients.
ruveyn
Consider this, if morals and your conscience is just an animal instinct, you would be able to ignore it much like its possible to ignore being hungry or wanting to bash someone's face in with a Texas Instruments BA II Plus Financial Calculator.
What would compel an individual to ignore an instinct... other than a more powerful instinct?
Could you please define "moral emotions" before we continue. The whole reason why I went off on that morals tangent was because in my interpretation in order for an emotion to be moral, there would need to be a definition of what exactly constitutes "moral".
If you're merely talking about conscience then we are more or less in agreement.
Deontological, I'll agree it becomes somewhat of an issue, however it would entirely depend upon which rules one bases what is a moral or immoral act. According to Kant, and the categorical imperative, in the naturalist formulation "So act as if your maxims should serve at the same time as the universal law (of all rational beings)", meaning that we should so act that we may think of ourselves as "a member in the universal realm of ends" However, let's say that one of my maxims is that stupid people should be chlorinated out of our gene pool, that would indicate that I would want all people who encounter a stupid person to drown them in chlorine. So, I'm moral!
If we are speaking in terms of consequentialism is somewhat solves itself, because its in essence based on the morality of actions being judged based upon their consequences. So, to use the same scenario as above, if I think stupid people will be the cause of the demise of the human race, it follows that killing them off would be a "good" act. There is also a matter of to whom the consequences need to be "good". Vic Mackey from "The Shield" is an amoral consequencialist, views acts as justifiable and "right" based on the consequences they have for the people he cares for.
In both cases, it would be entirely possible for a psychopath to be moral. However, that is of course depended on whether one views the world as having universal morality in a large majority of human beings on which one can base a standard of rigorous morals that the psychopath could be judged to be in violation of, or having a lack of.
None of the above. I (and a lot of authors) believe that morality makes no sense at all to a psychopath. Deontology versus consequentialism, a major discussion within moral philosophy, is of no greater interest to a psychopath than the price difference between apples and oranges.
See this site for a brutally honest description of the mind of a psychopath:
http://www.sociopathworld.com/
In essence, my whole reply to you depends on my understanding of the term "moral emotions" because of morality being such a widely discussed concept. The whole tangent on morals was an argument to the fact that a sociopath could have something akin to morals, but which is not exactly what a "normal" person would call morals.
I'm not sure how good you are with with analogies, but it comes down to something that I can illustrate with a Bill Maher quote "But thinking that the world is 6000 years old isn't really a morals or values issue, it's just stupid."
To quote American Psycho (heavily influenced by "The Mask of Sanity"): There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there.
That sounds more like depersonalization rather than sociopathy. It could allude to a flexible sense of self, which is a trait in psychopaths from what I've gathered.