Page 1 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


What should we do with psychopaths?
Mandatory birth brain scans to identify and track them 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
High security units 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Termination (pre or ante natal) 13%  13%  [ 5 ]
Sterilisation 5%  5%  [ 2 ]
Ban them from any position involving the vulnerable or political power 25%  25%  [ 10 ]
Leave them to their own devicees 53%  53%  [ 21 ]
Total votes : 40

Ectryon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2014
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,241
Location: Hundred Acre Wood

21 Jun 2014, 4:23 pm

This study shows that amongst the rich and powerful psychopathy is quite common.

Natural selection is actually creating a part of society who are biologically likely to have psychopathic traits. These traits are desirable and necessary to succeed in that world. This means that the most desirable mates may have the highest psychopathic score. Their genes are then passed on to the next generation and the average psychopathic score is bound to increase as the cycle continues.

The implication makes alot of sense all things considered but is highly disturbing when we consider that our statesmen and leaders are drawn from this pool.

What does ethics dictate that we do about this? Im very utilitarian in my ethics so I would suggest that psychopaths be barred from positions where they have access to power influence and vulnerable people. See this link


EDIT: To clarify therapy and rehabilitation cant alter the fundamental desires of a psychopath. Im talking about people who score above 25 on the official test (US is 30). They are what they are and their neurological and genetic makeup make them the human equivalent of remorseless predators.This is a scientific fact. No cure or successful therapy has been found. And most psychologists actually say that therapy makes them worse manipulators :?


_________________
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ! !
My history on this forum preserves my old and unregenerate self. In the years since I posted here I have undergone many changes. I accept responsibility for my posts but I no longer stand behind them.
__________________
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high Hebrews 1:3


Last edited by Ectryon on 22 Jun 2014, 8:10 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Jun 2014, 6:04 pm

Assuming "Leave them to their own devices" in this case means leave them be that's what I voted for.
Do we really want to start culling people out based on whether or not they fall on the wrong side of a line?
It shouldn't take a genius to see where that leads..... :?


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Ectryon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2014
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,241
Location: Hundred Acre Wood

21 Jun 2014, 7:02 pm

Quote:
Do we really want to start culling people out based on whether or not they fall on the wrong side of a line?


Its not an arbitrary line. Im not personally advocating culling anyone but I would say that its incredibly irresponsible to allow psychopaths to become world leaders church ministers surgeons doctors psychiatrists and care workers. Allowing a psychopath to become a world leader is like allowing sex offenders to work with children. In both cases we know that the individual will abuse the position of trust

Quote:
It shouldn't take a genius to see where that leads..... :?


Psychopaths are generally responsible for most of the persecutions throughout history. Hitler Mao Pol Pot Stalin.Most people agree that they were psychos. However I do agree that whenever we curtail the rights of one group of innocents we start on a slippery slope.

Problem is that psychos are neurologically wired to be predators. We curtail the rights of criminals to protect society,so there is precedent there. The slippery slope argument should only apply to the innocent. A diagnosis of psychopathy is about as close as we can to precognitive crime prevention (Minority report). If a child is diagnosed as a psychopath we instantly know that if that child is given power responsibility or care it will be abused. Bottom line.

I believe that a great great deal of society's suffering is caused by the psychopaths who occupy the seats of power and who dictate policy.

Also true political change is never going to happen while we have the kind of people we do in power.Its impossible. Any power structures that will be implemented will always focus power in the hands of the rich. Even if we concede that the rates of psychopaths amongst the rich is normal we still have to contend with the fact that power once attained is addictive.


_________________
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ! !
My history on this forum preserves my old and unregenerate self. In the years since I posted here I have undergone many changes. I accept responsibility for my posts but I no longer stand behind them.
__________________
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high Hebrews 1:3


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Jun 2014, 7:59 pm

Ectryon wrote:
Quote:
Do we really want to start culling people out based on whether or not they fall on the wrong side of a line?


Its not an arbitrary line. Im not personally advocating culling anyone but I would say that its incredibly irresponsible to allow psychopaths to become world leaders church ministers surgeons doctors psychiatrists and care workers. Allowing a psychopath to become a world leader is like allowing sex offenders to work with children. In both cases we know that the individual will abuse the position of trust

Quote:
It shouldn't take a genius to see where that leads..... :?


Psychopaths are generally responsible for most of the persecutions throughout history. Hitler Mao Pol Pot Stalin.Most people agree that they were psychos. However I do agree that whenever we curtail the rights of one group of innocents we start on a slippery slope.

Problem is that psychos are neurologically wired to be predators. We curtail the rights of criminals to protect society,so there is precedent there. The slippery slope argument should only apply to the innocent. A diagnosis of psychopathy is about as close as we can to precognitive crime prevention (Minority report). If a child is diagnosed as a psychopath we instantly know that if that child is given power responsibility or care it will be abused. Bottom line.

I believe that a great great deal of society's suffering is caused by the psychopaths who occupy the seats of power and who dictate policy.

Also true political change is never going to happen while we have the kind of people we do in power.Its impossible. Any power structures that will be implemented will always focus power in the hands of the rich. Even if we concede that the rates of psychopaths amongst the rich is normal we still have to contend with the fact that power once attained is addictive.


I don't doubt or deny that psychopaths can be and often are harmful to just about everything BUT when we start diagnosing, categorizing, and weeding them out before they've actually broken the law it sets us on a slippery slope. It's good intention in a way but unconstitutional and definitely has potential for abuse. How many times have they tried to stick the label of autism on a disgruntled killer? The bottom line; it's a s**t sandwich but one we're going to have to eat for the greater long term good, f*cked up as that sounds.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

21 Jun 2014, 8:20 pm

Why should anything be done to a psychopath unless that psychopath has acted upon psychopathic tendencies in a way that is unlawful? Is there some proof that every psychopath, or even a slight majority of psychopaths, will, at sometime in their life, harm another human being?



Ectryon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2014
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,241
Location: Hundred Acre Wood

22 Jun 2014, 4:02 am

khaoz wrote:
Why should anything be done to a psychopath unless that psychopath has acted upon psychopathic tendencies in a way that is unlawful? Is there some proof that every psychopath, or even a slight majority of psychopaths, will, at sometime in their life, harm another human being?


I do understand that it seems punitive and goes against all notions of liberty but I would not allow a diagnosed psychopath to work in any position where they can abuse their power.

I looked around google for a while and the general impression I got was that the best outcome for a psychopath is that they will avoid arrest. This points towards the "socialised psychopath". These are the very people I refer to when I talk of the ultra rich.

The problem is that being diagnosed a psychopath is itself proof that you will harm another human being given the opportunity.No empathy, violent impulses,lack of impulse control,a need to manipulate and control, shallow emotions, and cruelty to gain power. That's just a selection from the various outlines of the behaviour. It would seem self evident that this is a high risk individual who should not become a world leader.

The other issue is that the most dangerous psychopaths are the ones who find ways to let out their inner beast without being caught. These are the guys who might find a schizophrenic and manipulate him and play with his mind. A psychopath might find a lonely suicidal woman at a bridge seduce her sire a child and then leave. Then there are the ones who figure out how to instigate arguments which lead to murderous crimes. None of these things are crimes and the last is borderline but very difficult to convict. What causes more harm the psychopath who robs a bank or the psychopath who emotionally abuses the many women he dates and the many children he fathers over the course of 30 years? Emotional abuse is legal at least where I live


Quote:
I don't doubt or deny that psychopaths can be and often are harmful to just about everything BUT when we start diagnosing, categorizing, and weeding them out before they've actually broken the law it sets us on a slippery slope. It's good intention in a way but unconstitutional and definitely has potential for abuse. How many times have they tried to stick the label of autism on a disgruntled killer? The bottom line; it's a sh** sandwich but one we're going to have to eat for the greater long term good, f*cked up as that sounds.


We could approach this from a different direction. Someone on WP mentioned issuing brain scans to people applying to become a leader. Would it be unconstitutional to prevent people with certain traits like cruelty lack of responsibility and violence from becoming prime minister? We already prevent certain types of people from becoming world leaders so would this be unconstitutional? It would result in exactly the same results as directly banning psychopaths at any rate.


Psychopaths are my new special interest so im a little bit obsessive at the moment. Many apologies!


_________________
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ! !
My history on this forum preserves my old and unregenerate self. In the years since I posted here I have undergone many changes. I accept responsibility for my posts but I no longer stand behind them.
__________________
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high Hebrews 1:3


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

22 Jun 2014, 5:18 pm

Ectryon wrote:
Raptor wrote:
I don't doubt or deny that psychopaths can be and often are harmful to just about everything BUT when we start diagnosing, categorizing, and weeding them out before they've actually broken the law it sets us on a slippery slope. It's good intention in a way but unconstitutional and definitely has potential for abuse. How many times have they tried to stick the label of autism on a disgruntled killer? The bottom line; it's a sh** sandwich but one we're going to have to eat for the greater long term good, f*cked up as that sounds.


We could approach this from a different direction. Someone on WP mentioned issuing brain scans to people applying to become a leader. Would it be unconstitutional to prevent people with certain traits like cruelty lack of responsibility and violence from becoming prime minister? We already prevent certain types of people from becoming world leaders so would this be unconstitutional? It would result in exactly the same results as directly banning psychopaths at any rate.

Maybe, but how accurate and definitive is the scan?
What's the margin of error?


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Ectryon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2014
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,241
Location: Hundred Acre Wood

22 Jun 2014, 6:30 pm

Raptor wrote:
Ectryon wrote:
Raptor wrote:
I don't doubt or deny that psychopaths can be and often are harmful to just about everything BUT when we start diagnosing, categorizing, and weeding them out before they've actually broken the law it sets us on a slippery slope. It's good intention in a way but unconstitutional and definitely has potential for abuse. How many times have they tried to stick the label of autism on a disgruntled killer? The bottom line; it's a sh** sandwich but one we're going to have to eat for the greater long term good, f*cked up as that sounds.


We could approach this from a different direction. Someone on WP mentioned issuing brain scans to people applying to become a leader. Would it be unconstitutional to prevent people with certain traits like cruelty lack of responsibility and violence from becoming prime minister? We already prevent certain types of people from becoming world leaders so would this be unconstitutional? It would result in exactly the same results as directly banning psychopaths at any rate.

Maybe, but how accurate and definitive is the scan?
What's the margin of error?


Well this is purely theoretical so as accurate and definitive as we want. From what ive seen brain scans are pretty reliable. Theyre way better than the psychometric tests we currently use anyways. Autonomic response tests are useful as well. Presenting individuals with images or sounds and watching for abnormal or absent reflex responses in the retina or amygdala


Also who voted for termination! :o i'd like to hear the reasoning behind that since its such a hardline approach


_________________
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ! !
My history on this forum preserves my old and unregenerate self. In the years since I posted here I have undergone many changes. I accept responsibility for my posts but I no longer stand behind them.
__________________
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high Hebrews 1:3


Last edited by Ectryon on 22 Jun 2014, 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,411
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Jun 2014, 7:52 pm

I voted to leave them to their own devices. In our country and civilization, you don't punish people for what they may one day do. And where do you draw the line? If people with the potential to be psychopaths are either aborted, sterilized, or banned from certain professions, how soon will it be till that applies to people with the potential for mental illness? Or how long will it be till they decide they can prevent school shootings by applying the same rules to us Aspies?
I wish one of the options had been to offer childhood education and therapies for children who might one day show psychopathic personality types, as is done with autistic kids.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

22 Jun 2014, 8:16 pm

Ectryon wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Ectryon wrote:
Raptor wrote:
I don't doubt or deny that psychopaths can be and often are harmful to just about everything BUT when we start diagnosing, categorizing, and weeding them out before they've actually broken the law it sets us on a slippery slope. It's good intention in a way but unconstitutional and definitely has potential for abuse. How many times have they tried to stick the label of autism on a disgruntled killer? The bottom line; it's a sh** sandwich but one we're going to have to eat for the greater long term good, f*cked up as that sounds.


We could approach this from a different direction. Someone on WP mentioned issuing brain scans to people applying to become a leader. Would it be unconstitutional to prevent people with certain traits like cruelty lack of responsibility and violence from becoming prime minister? We already prevent certain types of people from becoming world leaders so would this be unconstitutional? It would result in exactly the same results as directly banning psychopaths at any rate.

Maybe, but how accurate and definitive is the scan?
What's the margin of error?


Well this is purely theoretical so as accurate and definitive as we want. From what ive seen brain scans are pretty reliable. Theyre way better than the psychometric tests we currently use anyways. Autonomic response tests are useful as well. Presenting individuals with images or sounds and watching for abnormal or absent reflex responses in the retina or amygdala

It's still a slippery slope when you start weeding people out.
First psychopaths, then sociopaths, then autistics, then narcissists, etc...

Quote:
Also who voted for termination! :o i'd like to hear the reasoning behind that since its such a hardline approach

1. YOU listed it as an option so you shouldn't be too surprised
2. Could be just someone trying to get a rise out of you or whoever else saw it


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,280
Location: The end of the northwest passage

22 Jun 2014, 8:29 pm

Ultimately, the best solution is to have a society that doesn't reward psychopathic behavior, and a culture that glorifies them.

As far as termination goes, I'd dread letting the state have the power to kill people for such reasons. I don't know if it would be any safer to leave it in the hands of individuals, either. I've met some abusive sociopaths, and while I do believe the world would be a better place without those two, I didn't feel sufficiently motivated to take them out myself.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,246
Location: Cottonopolis

24 Jun 2014, 11:25 am

I actually think the non-psychopathic (a category I fall into, I have an extremely low score on tests for psychopathy) can actually dominate and control the psychopathic if only they'd organise. We won't need to do it through coercion and we won't need to treat psychopaths any differently to anyone else. All we have to do is take political control. What this amounts to is that we will ultimately have to dismantle capitalism (a psychopathic ideology) in order to save humanity and our planet. The time to do this hasn't come yet, but eventually it will be our moral imperative as well as our only chance of survival. The meek shall inherit the earth when they are forced by circumstance to have to overcome their meekness. At the moment, they haven't had enough incentive to seize power but I'm betting they will do one day (after I'm dead, probably - but not long after). I could be wrong, and we could continue with the current system until it causes a catastrophe that wipes most of the human race out; then we'd have to start again post-apocalyptically, if we survive.

If I was God, I'd be getting my popcorn.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Stoek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2012
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 763

24 Jun 2014, 11:35 am

khaoz wrote:
Why should anything be done to a psychopath unless that psychopath has acted upon psychopathic tendencies in a way that is unlawful? Is there some proof that every psychopath, or even a slight majority of psychopaths, will, at sometime in their life, harm another human being?

It's part of what it means to be a pyscopath. It's a defining part of who they are.

They have no ethical or moral instincts to speak of. If they did they wouldn't be pyscopaths.

Ironically I think few people understand what neurodiversity means on a societal level.

If were to accept that autistic deserve rights to personalized roles in societal the same could said about our empathically challenged cousins.

Ppaths have a right to exists and make a living, but only to the point when it can cause harm to others. Screening people for impairments is already a part of our society when the public is at risk.

Once neuroscanning becomes cheaper hopefully the morally challenged are not able to harm societies in the way they have been.

Ironically aspies are the best to work with Ppaths because our moral compass is so much stronger than the average nt, combined with a bit of training and were very very hard to corrupt.

Ppaths are harmless if they have someone being their moral compass for them, in fact much of our society has been engineered againsts the Ppaths hacking our societal norms.

EDIT: On a side note I think theres a lot we can learn from ppaths. We share a similiar emotional detachment from society despite a completely different reason for this behavior. We suffer a life long conflict over our inability to be typically human, while ironically they couldn't even experience that level of personal conflict.



Stoek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2012
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 763

24 Jun 2014, 11:46 am

jrjones9933 wrote:
Ultimately, the best solution is to have a society that doesn't reward psychopathic behavior, and a culture that glorifies them.

As far as termination goes, I'd dread letting the state have the power to kill people for such reasons. I don't know if it would be any safer to leave it in the hands of individuals, either. I've met some abusive sociopaths, and while I do believe the world would be a better place without those two, I didn't feel sufficiently motivated to take them out myself.


Yeah this part is key. The problem were facing is from non violent Ppaths, the violent type have long been taken care of by our prisons.



Ectryon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2014
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,241
Location: Hundred Acre Wood

24 Jun 2014, 11:54 am

Stoek wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Ultimately, the best solution is to have a society that doesn't reward psychopathic behavior, and a culture that glorifies them.

As far as termination goes, I'd dread letting the state have the power to kill people for such reasons. I don't know if it would be any safer to leave it in the hands of individuals, either. I've met some abusive sociopaths, and while I do believe the world would be a better place without those two, I didn't feel sufficiently motivated to take them out myself.


Yeah this part is key. The problem were facing is from non violent Ppaths, the violent type have long been taken care of by our prisons.


Psychopaths by their very nature are violent. The ones we have to fear are those who have learned to channel their aggression in subtle non criminal ways. Crashing economies for instance.

Also, psychopaths are only harmless when they have someone forcing them to act morally. When they have no other choice in other words. Is that what you meant in your previous post?

Also does the majority voting for leave them alone mean that they should be allowed to become leaders and care workers? Surely the mess we're in at the moment is mainly due to that stance? I mean I struggle to believe that anyone would allow a psychopath to look after their disabled mother or father.


_________________
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ! !
My history on this forum preserves my old and unregenerate self. In the years since I posted here I have undergone many changes. I accept responsibility for my posts but I no longer stand behind them.
__________________
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high Hebrews 1:3


Last edited by Ectryon on 24 Jun 2014, 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.