Reason & Rationality

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

The term 'psychopathology' is generic for all mental deviance. But it vanished from use when professionals changed their minds about the validity of a few specific 'disorders.' Calling someone a psychopath provides you with no meaningful information about them. Its like calling someone 'tall' or 'short' or 'ugly.'

I think Freud wrote a book called THE PSYCHOPATHOLOGY OF EVERYDAY LIFE. Huh?

In fact traits for virtually every behavior, perception, and mental activity are normally distributed. And so-called 'deviant' acts, perceptions, and mental processes arent usually dysfunctional at all.

 

[Pure]

note on 'psychopath'

jbj is partly correct , IMO. there is a generic sense of 'psychopath'. see 1, below. there is also a well established special sense, see 2, although in the later DSMs, the term 'antisocial personality' is the preferred term.

it's worth noting that the studies of Hare and others have established the upper end, the high functioning "anti social personality.' such persons escape notice by observing the obvious social rules, and abstaining from petty crimes, but violating other social norms and laws, with great subtletly. example, Iago, in Othello. possibly, Ted Bundy.

for the present discussion, the point is that the high functioning psychophathic personality who spares family and friends (unlike Bernie Madoff!), and is a bit clever in avoiding obviously illegal acts, cannot easily be described as NOT rational. his deficiency is elsewhere.


the Merriam Webster unabridged is a common source used by the US Supreme Ct.



Main Entry: psy·cho·path Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: s k path, -paa( )th, -paith
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary psych- + -path
1 : a mentally ill or unstable person : one with a poorly balanced personality structure : ECCENTRIC

2 : PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY 2




Main Entry: psychopathic personality

Pronunciation Guide
Function: noun

1 : a disorder of behavior toward other individuals or toward society in which reality is usually clearly perceived except for an individual's social responsibilities or moral obligations, which is often manifested hedonistically (as by criminal acts, drug addiction, sexual perversion, or activity leading to immediate personal gratification especially when it is believed that punishment can be avoided), by passive indifference (as by shiftlessness, untrustworthiness, or vagabondism), or in contrast by fanatical pseudosocial zealousness, and which is usually a more or less permanent way of life refractory to treatment and hence often considered a constitutional disorder

2 : an individual having a psychopathic personality


Citation format for this entry:

"psychopathic personality." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (17 Apr. 2009).

 

[amicus]

"...At the same time you defend religion,..."

Post #24

Let us be precise. I 'acknowledge' religion as mans' first attempt to comprehend the metaphysics of existence. I also acknowledge the bell curve of human intelligence and 'posit', that religion, 'belief/faith', may be the only alternative to metaphysical concepts for those of average intelligence. That may appear snobbish or elite, but I sense it is accurate.

"...Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, Empiricism can be used along with reason and logic to elucidate why we do the things we do, and in thus determining the underlying motivation, preserve the beneficial aspects, freeing us from the artificial and often arbitrary encoding of these behaviors as oral tradition...."

This is a classical 'straw man' argument.

It is not in opposition to your assertion that 'morality is an oral tradition'; it is in opposition to your claim that there is no objective, rational, absolute foundation to determine good and evil, thus the moral or ethical implications of human actions. Empiricism rejects the mental constructs of concepts and abstractions as 'true' knowledge and depends on, 'experience' as the only source of truth.

Post #25 "...In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths,..."

Moral Relativism
Value Pluralism
Moral Nihilism

You may as well provide a definition of Moral Subjectivism and include it with the rest that essentially reject reason and logic and rationality as absolute moral foundations to determine good and evil.

Let me restate the basis for this disagreement.

For early man, Theocratic absolutism, religious faith and belief, provided a divine moral base for mankind to determine good and evil.

Following the Renaissance, those 'free thinkers', divorced themselves from Religion and sought to use the human mind to comprehend the epistemological foundation for human actions in terms of good and evil.

There are a ton of them, far too many for me to catalogue and present, do your own damned search. Several have been mentioned in the course of this ongoing discussion: Pragmatism, Utilitarianism, Empiricism, Logical Positivism, and now Existentialism, via Sartre, why not Kierkegarde also,to name a few.

Before Ayn Rand, there were a handful who addressed objective morality, Burke, Mills, Voltaire, Neitzche, and those only tangentially, in the continuing effort to discover how the nature of man, by definition, also provides a moral foundation to determine the good and evil of human actions.

"...In fact, homosexuality, as a behavior, may have been selectively reinforced for precisely because of a particular social/religious behavior,.."

Again, you revert to a specific, one outside the normative, to attempt to muddy a premise.

Throughout the history of man there have been examples of almost every variety of human association.

A rational thinker will view homosexual behavior as a pattern that develops when normal heterosexual relationships are not available. Quite the same with polyandry and polygamy, where the balance between the sexes become unbalanced and the natural human desire for companionship overcomes the natural, normal, moral decisions that humans make in the vast majority of societies.

In other words, you utilize the same, 'life boat ethics', attempting to prove a general rule or law by the exception, becomes evident in most of your moral pronouncements.

The 'whining and complaining' comes from you as you continually attempt to normalize fringe behavior, even aberrant behavior, to suit your own personal beliefs or habits.

This particular forum, an avenue for writers to discuss basic issues, has become cloistered and dominated by those advocating abnormal, aberrant behavior who also attempt to use philosophical definitions to justify that behavior by claiming that nothing is absolutely good or evil, right or wrong.

A free, unmoderated forum is what it is, and will become what its' participants wish and promote. I fully understand your rabid objections to anyone daring to oppose the general trend, but that does not deter my efforts to provide an alternative to irrational subjective commentary.

It is seldom that one can call upon a current event to underline ones' premises. But the advent of Sarah Brighton, the 47 year old British woman whose vocal ability brought a crowd to tears and brought forth attestations of similar response here does just that.

It provides a truly startling revelation of the universality of human morality, ethics and values; the absolute and universal nature of human emotions.

And yes, I know that neither xssve or Pure, will acknowledge and that is of no concern, as the many others who know the veracity of what I present is beyond criticism suffice.

Amicus...

 

[wmrs2]

since i'm reduced to two lines taken out of context, i'm reposting in this spin off thread, my material from the thread about good and evil.

the question is whether reason gives us a basis for treating the other person--esp the stranger-- with respect, and not, for example, exploiting or killing him (assuming he's not friend or family). the question is NOT, isn't reason one of man's crowning glories in investigating the nature of the universe with abstraction, inference, hypothesis, systematic evidence-seeking. my argument is that some degree of compassion, fellow feeling, 'caring'--rooted in emotion-- is necessary for a foundation of morality. (i'm NOT saying 'run your life entirely from emotion or UNreason'.)

those seeking to better 'the race' or "the nation" ofter employ reason to justify the atrocities. reason says nothing about the truth of premises, such as 'XX type of people are inferior in some way." one needs to get one's fact right through scientific investigation, which is *partly* a matter of reasoning, but involves other processes as well. (Amicus' views on women and Black people are wrong , without proper basis in evidence, or inaccurate, not contrary to reason.)

further, within Rand's ethic of rational self interest, it becomes murky what is to most of us rather clear: if you see a man drowning and it takes a few mins effort and incurs no danger, you should, for example, toss him a life preserver and help him to safety. both fellow feeling and ordinary (non Randian) morality dictate this.




===

The Good and Rationality

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The good and rationality.

If people ought to pursue the good, and 'the good' has something to do with the flourishing of human life, obviously rationality has a part to play. For example a certain amount of peace is necessary in society, and some practices, e.g. inciting riots, breach the peace, and so, rationally, one must oppose on legal and moral grounds, inciting riots.

Similarly, human reason, in the broader sense is worth cultivating; the works of physicists and civil engineers, for example. And so a component of human flourishing has to do with the health of institutions that produce or sustain physicists and engineers.

Whether 'rationality' can do all the heavy lifting as regards ensuring a social component of 'the good', is however, open to question.

The good obviously includes a component of non harm to others. Certainly random and gratuitous harms, e.g. those committed by muggers, clearly harm the life of humans in their human society. Mugging is wrong.

The question though, is whether *reason* is the basis for all such rules. I think not. One need only look at the history of racism in the US. Certain harms to Black people were rationalized in terms of their 'inferiority' and 'special needs'. So for instance denial of access to a vote or to the better colleges, etc occurred. These are flagrant instances of immorality, but i argue, they don't offend "reason." It's not an offense against 'reason', but against compassion, to do these things.

It might be said that the claims about Black inferiority did not have a *rational* basis. I disagree. They did not have a factual basis. Black intellectual inferiority was believed by such rational and scientific persons as Thomas Jefferson. Now i suppose, if you were there, you could say "Tom, go gather some more data." and he might reply, "I've seen a lifetime of evidence, including the absence of Black mathematicians. I decline to collect more data." Well, Tom is being stubborn, but, I would say; one can't say "Tom, you're irrational." It's intellectual laziness, perhaps, to subscribe to the prejudices of the day, and not to investigate all manner of questions. But it's hardly *irrational.*

In conclusion, our reason cannot suffice to generate an adequate list of moral principles about treating others--especially others to whom we are not bound by family or friendly ties. It can generate a few items, but far from an adequate list. Consideration for the feelings of others, to some degree, is required, and it's our own, similar feelings that provide a reason for considering those of others to whom we have no immediate ties. Our feelings PLUS a 'golden rule', for example, can generate lots of the desired prohibitions, e.g. against beating up random Black or immigrant people for the sport of it.

If i simply go by reason, I *might* conclude this 'other' [stranger] is a person, or even that s/he has life goals etc. But this FACT is not *a reason* to treat him as equal or to adapt my behavior to his desires [assuming he's NOT family or a friend and is not able to retaliate later]. Consider the fact that a squirrel sits on my sill, and wants to live, and i know it; those facts do NOT supply a reason for me to avoid shooting it. For that, I have to care.

==

incidentally ayn rand herself was not able to solve the problem above, except by the bald assertion that the rational man will necessarily respect another rational man (or even woman), and the following claim: the interest of rational humans NEVER conflict (outisde the lifeboat); that it's NEVER in my genuine rational interest to do your such interests any harm to further my own.

as further evidence is the rand/randist discussion of whether i ought, at minimal cost and no real danger to myself, to rescue a stranger i find drowing, e.g. by throwing him a life preserver. her conclusion was that it's NOT WRONG to save them if you're so inclined, but no 'duty' is involved.

further, she argued, since NO GOOD accrues to me (i lose sweat) or mine, it's in a category of acts that needs careful scrutiny. i need scarcely remind the readers of the moral dangers of charity, encouringement of dependent and leech like behavior. the resuced fellow may start to feel the rest of humanity owes him something, and go on the dole the rest of his life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you do believe what I think you said then I am confused with what you said.

my argument is that some degree of compassion, fellow feeling, 'caring'--rooted in emotion-- is necessary for a foundation of morality. (i'm NOT saying 'run your life entirely from emotion or UNreason'.)

What you are saying is that Hitler was free to show his version of compassion and care for the German people by killing the Jew. Your explanation of logic allows this statement to be made and defended. Please clarify this statement.

 

[wmrs2]

Interesting way of putting it, but not far wrong - human behavior is driven largely by hormones, serotonin and dopamine, oxytocin and vassopressin, estrogen and testosterone, etc.

Love, it appears, is essentially an obessisve compulsive disorder, for example.

Reason does not create these things, it only allows us to understand and communicate them - or lie about them.

Is that not what Amicus is saying. Love exist as a self-evident truth. Reason does not create these things but it does allow us to understand and communicate them. For example, love is but it is driven by hormones, serotonin, etc. or at least that is what you just said.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

'Psychopathic Personality; isnt open for debate because it doesnt exist in the official nomenclature, and never did. It isnt one of the personality disorders and never was. Each personality disorder is linked to a specific set of symptoms, be it obsessive-compulsive acts or antisocial acts or paranoia or dependency etc. 'Psychopathic' means nothing more than deviation from the mean for some specific trait.

'Insanity' is another of these unofficial terms that means nothing to the mental health professional.

Try citing the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association.

'Psychopathy has quite separate legal and judicial definitions that should not be confused with the medical definition. The American Psychiatric Association is vigorously opposing any non-medical or legal definition of what purports to be a medical condition "without regard for scientific and clinical knowledge.'

 

[xssve]

XSSVE

The term 'psychopathology' is generic for all mental deviance. But it vanished from use when professionals changed their minds about the validity of a few specific 'disorders.' Calling someone a psychopath provides you with no meaningful information about them. Its like calling someone 'tall' or 'short' or 'ugly.'

I think Freud wrote a book called THE PSYCHOPATHOLOGY OF EVERYDAY LIFE. Huh?

In fact traits for virtually every behavior, perception, and mental activity are normally distributed. And so-called 'deviant' acts, perceptions, and mental processes arent usually dysfunctional at all.

For practical purposes, I imagine this is so, the general "danger to themselves or others" is the rule of thumb for intervention purposes. The word "pathology" itself merely means "an exaggeration of normality", i.e., it's normal to run around naked when you're a small child or in the privacy of your own home etc., if you go shopping at Wal Mart in the nude, we suspect a pathology.

The sheer size of the population and the huge array of behaviors represented means it's harder to cherry pick which behaviors you prefer.

I suspect you mean it's pointless to pre-emptively decide who's a sociopath wand who isn't, it's usually applied after they do something that can be characterized as sociopathic.

 

[xssve]

Post #24

Let us be precise. I 'acknowledge' religion as mans' first attempt to comprehend the metaphysics of existence. I also acknowledge the bell curve of human intelligence and 'posit', that religion, 'belief/faith', may be the only alternative to metaphysical concepts for those of average intelligence. That may appear snobbish or elite, but I sense it is accurate.

"...Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, Empiricism can be used along with reason and logic to elucidate why we do the things we do, and in thus determining the underlying motivation, preserve the beneficial aspects, freeing us from the artificial and often arbitrary encoding of these behaviors as oral tradition...."

This is a classical 'straw man' argument.

It is not in opposition to your assertion that 'morality is an oral tradition'; it is in opposition to your claim that there is no objective, rational, absolute foundation to determine good and evil, thus the moral or ethical implications of human actions. Empiricism rejects the mental constructs of concepts and abstractions as 'true' knowledge and depends on, 'experience' as the only source of truth.

There is no strawman here, I'm making the argument that one can only discover absolutes through experience and examining behavior, you are claiming some sort of a priori thing in the rational mind, like a set of stone tablets that establishes a permanent and unchanging standard - if this were so, we would have no need of laws - this is not the case, and there is no evidence that what you claim is true.

All you can do without evidence is offer your opinion, insist it's correct, and attack anybody that disagrees with you, if it exists, there will be some evidence of it, otherwise, it's mysticism.

In fact there are "normative behaviors" that exist more or less a priori, but they're pretty general - most mammals will not fight to the death with members of their own species: this is a selected trait that benefits group fitness by selecting out the most violent individuals, who eventually select themselves out through injury or death - it ain't magic, it's the law of averages.

Moral Relativism
Value Pluralism
Moral Nihilism

You may as well provide a definition of Moral Subjectivism and include it with the rest that essentially reject reason and logic and rationality as absolute moral foundations to determine good and evil.

Let me restate the basis for this disagreement.

For early man, Theocratic absolutism, religious faith and belief, provided a divine moral base for mankind to determine good and evil.

Following the Renaissance, those 'free thinkers', divorced themselves from Religion and sought to use the human mind to comprehend the epistemological foundation for human actions in terms of good and evil.

There are a ton of them, far too many for me to catalogue and present, do your own damned search. Several have been mentioned in the course of this ongoing discussion: Pragmatism, Utilitarianism, Empiricism, Logical Positivism, and now Existentialism, via Sartre, why not Kierkegarde also,to name a few.

Before Ayn Rand, there were a handful who addressed objective morality, Burke, Mills, Voltaire, Neitzche, and those only tangentially, in the continuing effort to discover how the nature of man, by definition, also provides a moral foundation to determine the good and evil of human actions.

The "normative"? Most of these guys have been dead for over a hundred years, many of them lived before Darwin, Watson and Crick, etc., etc. - they had to rely on reason, they had very little empirical evidence to go on, the fact that many of them managed to feel their way around close to the truth is quite remarkable, given the limitations.

"...In fact, homosexuality, as a behavior, may have been selectively reinforced for precisely because of a particular social/religious behavior,.."

Again, you revert to a specific, one outside the normative, to attempt to muddy a premise.

Throughout the history of man there have been examples of almost every variety of human association.

A rational thinker will view homosexual behavior as a pattern that develops when normal heterosexual relationships are not available. Quite the same with polyandry and polygamy, where the balance between the sexes become unbalanced and the natural human desire for companionship overcomes the natural, normal, moral decisions that humans make in the vast majority of societies.

In other words, you utilize the same, 'life boat ethics', attempting to prove a general rule or law by the exception, becomes evident in most of your moral pronouncements.

The 'whining and complaining' comes from you as you continually attempt to normalize fringe behavior, even aberrant behavior, to suit your own personal beliefs or habits.

This particular forum, an avenue for writers to discuss basic issues, has become cloistered and dominated by those advocating abnormal, aberrant behavior who also attempt to use philosophical definitions to justify that behavior by claiming that nothing is absolutely good or evil, right or wrong.

A free, unmoderated forum is what it is, and will become what its' participants wish and promote. I fully understand your rabid objections to anyone daring to oppose the general trend, but that does not deter my efforts to provide an alternative to irrational subjective commentary.

It is seldom that one can call upon a current event to underline ones' premises. But the advent of Sarah Brighton, the 47 year old British woman whose vocal ability brought a crowd to tears and brought forth attestations of similar response here does just that.

It provides a truly startling revelation of the universality of human morality, ethics and values; the absolute and universal nature of human emotions.

And yes, I know that neither xssve or Pure, will acknowledge and that is of no concern, as the many others who know the veracity of what I present is beyond criticism suffice.

Amicus...

Amicus, you don't define what the normative is here, "Fringe behavior is "normative", you're trying to push some sort of statistical homogeneity, the very thing you're always whining about - i.e., inventors like Thomas Edison are hardly the norm, should we conclude that they are "deviants and punish them for not being "normative"?

You just want to cherry pick, but you're up against natural selection itself, and natural selection decides who's "normative" and who isn't, and homosexuals seem to be doing just fine.

If anything, it's your inventors and creative types, the people you worship who are up against the wall, since corporations have the financial and labor resources to pretty much take whatever they want and kick you to the curb, or bury you if they can't that's your status quo.

Again, we have a general standard, "danger to yourself or others" that conforms to the more basic and fundamental "natural law" that intragroup violence is detrimental to group fitness, albeit, because we are rational beings, we have to delegate this to some degree since there are always those who will rationalize it.

"and you harm none, do what you will" - is this not rational?

You want to defend the status quo, who have a vested interest in preventing change, history indicates that change creates new opportunities and competition that drive adaptation, it's a dynamic system, but it revolves around social behavior, not sexual behavior, per se.

Thing is, back in the old days, there were gay couples, male and female, as there always have been, and nobody really thought much about it. The whole "Gay Agenda" business is well financed propaganda campaign, with the sole purpose of getting people to vote a certain way - to protect vested interests.

Trust me, the world is not going to come to an end, and if it does, it won't be because of gays, it'll be because of the Christian death wish expressed through their Armageddon fantasies.

They seem to think that's pretty "rational" too.

 

[Pure]

Note re psychopaths

Note to JBJ

JBJ said,

PURE

'Psychopathic Personality; isnt open for debate because it doesnt exist in the official nomenclature, and never did. It isnt one of the personality disorders and never was. Each personality disorder is linked to a specific set of symptoms, be it obsessive-compulsive acts or antisocial acts or paranoia or dependency etc. 'Psychopathic' means nothing more than deviation from the mean for some specific trait.

'Insanity' is another of these unofficial terms that means nothing to the mental health professional.

Try citing the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association.


Pure replies,

The concept of psychopathy has a history within psychiatry, esp. the work of H Cleckley, MD [from his bio, below]:

Cleckley was named professor of psychiatry and neurology at the Medical College of Georgia and the Chief of psychiatry/neurology at University Hospital in Augusta in 1937. In 1955, Cleckley was appointed clinical professor of psychiatry and neurology at the medical college. He was founding chairman of the Department of Psychiatry & Health Behavior at that college as well.


http://enpsychopedia.org/index.php/Hervey_M._Cleckley
Hervey M. Cleckley
From Enpsychopedia
.
/index.php/Image:Cleckley.jpg /index.php/Image:Cleckley.jpg

Hervey M. CleckleyHervey Milton Cleckley (1903 - January 28, 1984) was an American psychiatrist and pioneer in the field of psychopathy. His book, The Mask of Sanity, originally published in 1941, provided the most influential clinical description of psychopathy in the 20th Century. The term "mask of sanity" derives from Cleckley's observations that, unlike people with major mental disorders, a "psychopath" can appear to be perfectly - even robustly - normal, charming and engaging, and does not typically suffer from any neurosis or psychotic symptoms, hallucinations or delusions; nevertheless, there is a definite underlying psychosis.[1]

Biography

Education
Cleckely was born in Augusta, Georgia and graduated from the Academy of Richmond County in 1921. He graduated in 1924 summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Georgia (UGA) in Athens where he was a member of the varsity football and track and field teams. Cleckley won a Rhodes Scholarship and graduated from Oxford University with a Bachelor of Arts in 1926.[2] Cleckley then earned his M.D. from the University of Georgia Medical School (now known as the Medical College of Georgia) in Augusta in 1929. [3] [4]

Career
Cleckley was named professor of psychiatry and neurology at the Medical College of Georgia and the Chief of psychiatry/neurology at University Hospital in Augusta in 1937. In 1955, Cleckley was appointed clinical professor of psychiatry and neurology at the medical college. He was founding chairman of the Department of Psychiatry & Health Behavior at that college as well. [end excerpt]

======
Pure continues: The issue within DSM IV is simply one of terminology, and the older terminology is recognized. 'psychopathy' is called 'antisocial personality disorder,' but in terms of the criteria, the linkage with Cleckley's concept is obvious, and acknowledged:


From the DSM IV

Antisocial Personality Disorder:

The essential feature of APD is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of, the rights of others....

This pattern has also been referred to as psychopathy, sociopathy, or dyssocial personality disorder. p 645, DSM IV, APA 1994.

 

[xssve]

And you're right, polyandry and homosexuality are both adaptations to distorted gender ratios - prostitution is a form of polyandry.

Thing is, gender ratios are never perfectly stable, war, disease, caste issues, even geographical barriers all contribute, it's an imperfect world, and these "fringe" behaviors are a functional buffer that helps keep things civilized.

Look at the Utah polygynists, these guys are incredibly violent and paranoid, constantly trying to kill each other and fighting over little girls - it really ain't very sociable at all.

 

[Pure]

rationality

xssve

xssve:
"and you harm none, do what you will" - is this not rational?

yes, this is rational.

however, as i've argued, 'rationality' is, by itself, not sufficient to generate an adequate set of moral principles. nor are the facts about human nature, together with rationality, sufficient, the latter being approximately ms rand's and amicus' position

leaving aside whether 'objective morality' exists, it seems clear it cannot be founded mainly on 'rationality' and ms rand's views about human nature.

to use an example, 'and you harm none, do what you will, but don't have sex with mom, dad, bro or sis' is equally rational.

in fact, so is 'and you harm none, do what you will, but don't have sex with mom, dad, but you can 'do' bro or sis'

ADDED: related to this thread topic of antisocial acts, dangers to others, the principle 'an you harm none who are white people, do what you will.' is also rational.

so is 'an you harm none except for gays and lesbians, do what you will.'

these principle are objectionable on grounds other than rationality.

 

[xssve]

xssve

xssve:
"and you harm none, do what you will" - is this not rational?

yes, this is rational.

however, as i've argued, 'rationality' is, by itself, not sufficient to generate an adequate set of moral principles. nor are the facts about human nature, together with rationality, sufficient, the latter being approximately ms rand's and amicus' position

leaving aside whether 'objective morality' exists, it seems clear it cannot be founded mainly on 'rationality' and ms rand's views about human nature.

to use an example, 'and you harm none, do what you will, but don't have sex with mom, dad, bro or sis' is equally rational.

in fact, so is 'and you harm none, do what you will, but don't have sex with mom, dad, but you can 'do' bro or sis'

I agree, incest taboos also exist for a reason, one, it leads to genetic damage and reduction of diversity, and second, having to find a mate outside you culture, another tribe etc., also leads to cultural diversity and solidifies social ties between clans, etc.

If it was all about reason, your average mammal would be pretty much at sea, when in fact they pretty much observe most of the social customs we do, if you remove the whole "common morality" aspect of it - i.e., they form social relationships and communities, establish territories and defend them, mate, pair bond, take care of their offspring, "cheat" on each other, avoid incest, engage in homosexual behaviors, avoid excessive intragroup violence, etc., etc., all without any "rational" mind to speak of.

It completely destroys any argument about rationality, while indicating that if a priori morality/ethics exist, they are the product of natural selection, favoring certain behaviors that optimize breeding strategies.

We have only a very few "rational" things we add on top, and most in fact, distort "natural" behavior, require further restrictions to deal with the distortions they cause, and most are more political than anything, almost invariably creating a duality between "ingroup" and "outgroup" behaviors.

The worlds Four major religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and whatever the hell it is the Chinese do, ancestor worship of something, all pretty much adhere to the same basic androcentric monogamous model, complete with the political/social/economic marginalization of women, and they are all "supertribes", i.e., relatively high population density.

This, in spite of Four completely different narratives as to why this is so - it is so, because it works, in a rough sort of way, and all of these culture have prostitution, homosexuality, etc., in spite of centuries of attempts to eradicate them, i.e., they are for most practical purposes, identical, regardless of what reasoning they use to justify it.

The most technologically advanced culture at the moment in fact, happens to be the one that has the most relaxed gender identity and role restrictions.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

A mere 30 years ago gay was a mental disorder. Got that?

Thirty years ago people were neurotic. Got that?

Women with PMS dont have mental disorders like they did 25 years ago.

Gays arent sick twisted freaks anymore, and people arent neurotic now.

We make progress, we pull our heads from our asses, and we march forward. The state of the art improves.

When you call someone a psychopath it means nothing to the professional, because psychopath references nuthin much. Its a general term that alerts professionals that you have a problem with someone who acts different from others. Its like calling someone ugly.

The Brits still cling to it, but sociopathy replaced it in America. And sociopathy correctly links conduct and attitudes to criminal and unethival conduct.

 

[gauchecritic]

If it was all about reason, your average mammal would be pretty much at sea, when in fact they pretty much observe most of the social customs we do, if you remove the whole "common morality" aspect of it - i.e., they form social relationships and communities, establish territories and defend them, mate, pair bond, take care of their offspring, "cheat" on each other, avoid incest, engage in homosexual behaviors, avoid excessive intragroup violence, etc., etc., all without any "rational" mind to speak of.

I'm not sure that the animal kingdom actually deliberately avoids incest. If it did there would be little difference between 'groups' within a specie. Perhaps it's not entirely relative but there is a species of bird which cannot breed between extreme ends of its own kind. Which seems to be indicative that incest in that group at least is widespread otherwise there would be greater homogeneity.

 

[Guest]

PURE

A mere 30 years ago gay was a mental disorder. Got that?

Thirty years ago people were neurotic. Got that?

Women with PMS dont have mental disorders like they did 25 years ago.

Gays arent sick twisted freaks anymore, and people arent neurotic now.

We make progress, we pull our heads from our asses, and we march forward. The state of the art improves.

When you call someone a psychopath it means nothing to the professional, because psychopath references nuthin much. Its a general term that alerts professionals that you have a problem with someone who acts different from others. Its like calling someone ugly.

The Brits still cling to it, but sociopathy replaced it in America. And sociopathy correctly links conduct and attitudes to criminal and unethival conduct.

I agree with you on almost everything above, James, but I found that the term "pyschopath" was still used in informal discussions between mental health professionals to refer to folks with Antisocial Personality Disorder who were waaaaay at the edge of the bell curve for that disorder.

It ain't in the DSM, but it's there.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GNOME

I understand the argument. I get what PURE means because I'm old enough to have been around when psychopath was a legitimate term for criminals.

My point is: Psychopath is an archaic construct that was too broadly defined when it was in use. To be specific, all it means is someone with a mental disorder (psychopathology = the study of mental disorders) and lotsa antisocial people arent mentally ill.

Back in 1965 everyone was either psychotic or neurotic, these were the two main classifications of mental disorders, but time revealed that there are all kinds of mental health issues that cant be lumped in one pile or the other. And Neurotic was abandoned.

Fifteen years ago people were self-defeating and passive-aggressive, according to the diagnostic manual, but no longer.

 

[Pure]

updating

thanks jbj. i don't think that 'psychopath' is hopelessy outdated, as shown by, for example, this article from the Psychiatric Times, 1996, where Dr. Hare argues for clarification of overlap between his term, 'psychopath' and the 'antisocial personality disorder' of DSM IV.

He further notes that his Psychopathy checklist was actually used in field trials for DSM IV.

The difference, as he says, is that 'antisocial personality disorder' is now rather broader and can encompass habitual criminals. DSM IV does NOT highlight the affective side of lack of remorse, etc.

You will see also at the end a couple refs from the 1990s as to articles with 'psychopath' in the title, so it's hardly obsolete.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/54831

February 1, 1996

Psychiatric Times. Vol. 13 No. 2

Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case of Diagnostic Confusion

Robert D. Hare, Ph.D.

Dr. Hare, who has researched psychopathy for more than 25 years, is a professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, and was scientific director of a 1995 NATO Advanced Study Institute on Psychopathic Behavior.

A Secret Service agent recently asked if I was familiar with a 1992 FBI report that almost half of the killers of law enforcement officers met the criteria for antisocial personality. I replied that I had not seen the report but that the finding did not seem surprising or noteworthy to me. My comment was based on the assumption that the report had used antisocial personality as a synonym for antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), a category listed in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and applicable to the majority of criminals.

However, the agent explained that the description of the killers in question indicated to him that they matched the profile of the psychopath defined by the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare 1991). When I later saw a copy of the FBI report, I realized that he was correct in his assessment and that the report's findings were indeed noteworthy and chilling, particularly for law enforcement officers.

The killers' characteristics referred to as antisocial personality in the FBI report were as follows: sense of entitlement, unremorseful, apathetic to others, unconscionable, blameful of others, manipulative and conning, affectively cold, disparate understanding of behavior and socially acceptable behavior, disregardful of social obligations, nonconforming to social norms, irresponsible. These killers were not simply persistently antisocial individuals who met DSM-IV criteria for ASPD; they were psychopaths- remorseless predators who use charm, intimidation and, if necessary, impulsive and cold-blooded violence to attain their ends.

The distinction between psychopathy and ASPD is of considerable significance to the mental health and criminal justice systems. Unfortunately, it is a distinction that is often blurred, not only in the minds of many clinicians but in the latest edition of DSM-IV.

Source of the Problem

Traditionally, affective and interpersonal traits such as egocentricity, deceit, shallow affect, manipulativeness, selfishness, and lack of empathy, guilt or remorse, have played a central role in the conceptualization and diagnosis of psychopathy (Cleckley; Hare 1993; in press); Widiger and Corbitt). In 1980 this tradition was broken with the publication of DSM-III. Psychopathy- renamed antisocial personality disorder- was now defined by persistent violations of social norms, including lying, stealing, truancy, inconsistent work behavior and traffic arrests [...]


Psychopathy Checklist

Coincident with the publication of DSM-III in 1980, I presented some preliminary findings on efforts to provide researchers with an operational definition of psychopathy in offender populations (Hare 1980). During the next decade those early efforts evolved into the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) (Hare 1991), a 20-item construct rating scale that uses a semi-structured interview, case-history information and specific diagnostic criteria for each item to provide a reliable and valid estimate of the degree to which an offender or forensic psychiatric patient matches the traditional (prototypical) conception of the psychopath (Fulero; Stone). Each item is scored on a 3-point scale (0, 1, 2) according to the extent to which it applies to the individual. The total score can range from 0 to 40, with between 15 percent and 20 percent of offenders receiving a score of at least 30, the cutoff for a research diagnosis of psychopathy. To put this into context, the mean scores for offenders in general and for noncriminals typically are around 22 and 5, respectively.

A 12-item version of the PCL-R was developed for use in the MacArthur Foundation study on the prediction of violence in the mentally disordered (Hart and others 1994). Published in 1995 as the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) by Hart and colleagues, it is highly correlated with the PCL-R and is used both to screen for psychopathy in forensic populations and as a stand-alone instrument for the assessment of psychopathy in noncriminal populations. The PCL:SV formed the basis for the psychopathic personality disorder items used in the DSM-IV field trial for ASPD.
[...]


Most psychopaths (with the exception of those who somehow manage to plow their way through life without coming into formal or prolonged contact with the criminal justice system) meet the criteria for ASPD, but most individuals with ASPD are not psychopaths. Further, ASPD is very common in criminal populations, and those with the disorder are heterogeneous with respect to personality, attitudes and motivations for engaging in criminal behavior. [...]



DSM-IV
Widespread dissatisfaction with the conceptualization and criteria for ASPD led the American Psychiatric Association to initiate a field trial in preparation for DSM-IV. A stated goal of the trial (Widiger and others) was to improve coverage of the traditional symptoms of psychopathy. Included with the DSM-III-R criteria for ASPD was a 10-item version of the PCL-R, [psychopathy checklist revised] referred to in the trial as the psychopathic personality disorder criteria. Many researchers and clinicians hoped that the field trial would bring the diagnosis of ASPD back on track, but it did so in only a limited sense (Hare and Hart 1995).

The field trial clearly indicated that most of the personality traits that reflect the traditional symptoms of psychopathy were just as reliable as those of the more behaviorally specific DSM-III-R items (Widiger and colleagues). Thus, the original premise for excluding personality from the diagnosis of psychopathy/ASPD (in DSM-III) turned out to be untenable. There was now a firm empirical basis for increasing the content-related validity of ASPD in DSM-IV, without a reduction in reliability. Yet this did not happen, partly because, it was argued, the average clinician would not use the carefully structured approach to the assessment of personality traits used in the field trial.

It may come as a surprise to most clinicians that the criteria adopted for DSM-IV were not actually evaluated in the field trial. What was evaluated was the 10-item set of adult symptoms (Criterion C) for ASPD listed in DSM-III-R. The seven-item set listed in DSM-IV was derived from the 10-item set; this derivation was logical rather than empirical. Further, the field trial did not include evaluations of Criterion B (conduct disorder before age 15), a criterion listed in DSM-IV as a necessary condition for a diagnosis of ASPD.


references. [note some from the 1990s on psychopaths/psychopathy]

20. Meloy JR. Symposium on the psychopath and the death penalty. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 21st annual meeting. Oct. 27, 1990; San Diego.
21. Patrick CJ. Emotion and psychopathy: some startling new insights. Psychophysiology. 1994;31:319-330.
22. Stone GL. Review of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. In: Conoley JC, Impara JC, eds. 12th Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, Neb.: Buros Institute; 1995.

23. Widiger TA, Cadoret R, Hare RD, et al. DSM-IV Antisocial Personality Disorder Field Trial. J Abnorm Psychol. In press.
24. Widiger TA, Corbitt E. The DSM-IV Antisocial Personality Disorder. In: Livesley WJ, ed. The DSM-IV Personality Disorders. New York: Guilford; 1995.

25. Williamson SE, Harpur TJ, Hare RD. Abnormal processing of affective words by psychopaths. Psychophysiology. 1991;28:260-273.

 

[xssve]

I'm not sure that the animal kingdom actually deliberately avoids incest. If it did there would be little difference between 'groups' within a specie. Perhaps it's not entirely relative but there is a species of bird which cannot breed between extreme ends of its own kind. Which seems to be indicative that incest in that group at least is widespread otherwise there would be greater homogeneity.

I saw something on this the other day, that animals avoid mating with any other juvenile animal they have seen their mother caring for - I would have assumed pheromones, but apparently it reinforced behaviorally - which means there is some mechanism selected for that makes the reinforcement work, but still, interesting.

The bird you mention sounds like it's speciating - I have a hypothesis that incest may play a significant role in evolution under certain conditions, by accelerating the rate of random mutation, which otherwise proceeds at a fairly stately pace.

Clearly, most resulting mutations that affect general morphology are usually less desirable, and it greatly reduces inherited immunities, perhaps the most important benefit you get from sexual reproduction, but as a random mutation is in a sense, the result of a weakness or reproduction error (typically). It's possible, I believe, to inherit the weakness that caused the mutation in the first place, meaning that those who inherit that weakness are prone to an accelerated incidence of random mutations in particular loci - and incest might have helped create and reinforce those weaknesses.

No other animal, I don't believe, mutated quite as dramatically and quickly as protohominids evolved into bipedal hominids, and the growth of the cerebral cortex is equally unusual - it was so rapid, that in some senses, we're still adapting, there are women whose pelvic arch is too small for the fetal cranium, etc.

Such rapid evolution indicates a species under enormous stress, a high rate of mutation and a high rate of attrition and generational turnover, and if these stressors included diminished populations, it could be that contraction of the gene pool helped accelerate human evolution at certain points, by accelerating the random mutation rate, with rapid culling from exceptionally harsh selection stressors.

We know that the human population contracted dramatically about 75Kya, down to perhaps a few thousand individuals, around the time of the Toba supereruption, and that's about the time that the DRD4 mutation started drifting into the population if I'm not mistaken.

It doesn't appear to be widespread, but I think it might be more common among humans than in most other species - just a hunch, I have no idea what the actual numbers are.

It's also a practice that is traditionally more associated with the Alpha hierarchy: the aristocracy, priesthood, etc. in both arcane mythology, and aristocratic blood superstitions. There's quite a bit of hinting around about it in Poe's Southern Gothic horror, the Fall of the House of Usher for example, which may be where I got the idea.

 

[xssve]

I should add that homosexuality/bisexuality is probably not the result of this hypothetical accelerated mutation, it's probably inherited from our mammalian cohorts as it appears to be already well established among mammals in general.

 

[Verdad]

Re. incest, isn't there something called Westermarck Effect? Which posits a sort of imprinting that occurs when children are raised together in the first years of their lives. This imprinting, whether the children are genetically related or not, is what suppresses a later sexual attraction between them.

There was a study of children reared in Israeli kibbutz system, and it showed that no marriages were formed later in life between the kids who were raised in the same peer group. Other than that, I don't know how well it's been investigated, but it always made perfect sense to me.

Contrary to the Freudian idea, according to which we couldn't wait to fuck family members were it not for the prohibitions placed by the society, Westermarck Effect explains much better the instinctive revulsion most people feel at the thought, while still allowing for attractions occurring between close relatives who hadn't been raised together.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Familiarity breeds contempt.

I have 5 sisters. Theyre lovely women, but I wouldnt fuck them on a bet. I know them too well, and what I know removes the bloom off the old vine.

No, its better to roll the dice with a stranger. You might win the lottery. It happens. But not with your sister. She's last week's lottery ticket.

 

[xssve]

Re. incest, isn't there something called Westermarck Effect? Which posits a sort of imprinting that occurs when children are raised together in the first years of their lives. This imprinting, whether the children are genetically related or not, is what suppresses a later sexual attraction between them.

There was a study of children reared in Israeli kibbutz system, and it showed that no marriages were formed later in life between the kids who were raised in the same peer group. Other than that, I don't know how well it's been investigated, but it always made perfect sense to me.

Contrary to the Freudian idea, according to which we couldn't wait to fuck family members were it not for the prohibitions placed by the society, Westermarck Effect explains much better the instinctive revulsion most people feel at the thought, while still allowing for attractions occurring between close relatives who hadn't been raised together.

Yeah, there ya go, works the same in humans as it does in other mammals, no reason required.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I have a confession to make.

I was recently diagnosed with ANTI-SOCIALIST PERSONALITY DISORDER.

It's true.

I suspected it when I realized I was paying my bills on time, taking responsibility for me and my loved ones, and generally not burdening my community.

At first no one said anything, but I did get curious looks when I bought my groceries with cash. Then one day I had a flat tire, mumbed SHIT HAPPENS, and my companion bellowed WHATS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN? She was disappointed with my attitude, insisted that I sue someone, and sulked silently for the rest of our drive.

It finally came to a head when my boss confronted me about my performance, she said: In my homeland we have an old saying, BETTER IS THE ENEMY OF GOOD ENOUGH. And she referred me to the employee assistance program.

I argued that Anti-Socialist Personality Disorder is a disease, you know, like pedophelia or serial murders, but the evaluator shook her head forcefully, called me a Sore Loser, and insisted that I'm in denial.

 

[xssve]

Familiarity breeds contempt.

I have 5 sisters. Theyre lovely women, but I wouldnt fuck them on a bet. I know them too well, and what I know removes the bloom off the old vine.

No, its better to roll the dice with a stranger. You might win the lottery. It happens. But not with your sister. She's last week's lottery ticket.

All the same there seems to be a strong genetic attraction between "likes" - it may be a Narcissistic attachment, i.e., they remind us of us, or possibly a mechanism of trait reinforcement, i.e., it reinforces common traits, reducing the chances that a given desirable trait will be suppressed and become recessive.

Re: neurosis - in the sense I use the word, it simply means anything out of the ordinary, "ordinary" in the narrowest sense, meaning eating and sleeping.

i.e., pretty much all social behavior can be described as "neurotic" against a hypothetical "steady state" - food preferences, social attachments, etc., are all in a sense neurotic, i.e., driven by some sort of bias, inborn or acquired, and has very little to do with whether it's healthy or functional, etc.

In my previous example, I posited a person going out in public nude as a potential pathology, but in the larger picture, excessive modesty is actually the more neurotic condition - our ancestors were fairly comfortable with nudity, it's another one of those Christian neurosis, that may reflect a period of breakdown in the social order after the fall of Imperial Rome that has just gotten encoded in the oral tradition, even though the originating stressor has abated.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

I have a hunch that public nudity got a quick re-think about the first time someone's genitals stuck to a frozen flagpole or they sat on the hot hood of their Flintstone Mobile.