Is it possible that Psychopaths and all mental illness with ill intentions are natural? Like they are the wolves to us dogs, and that human nature at its core is meant to do harm?
What if we as a species evolved and domesticated ourselves into dogs, leaving our wolf ancestry behind, and all these people with bad intentions have prominent wolf genes which should explain their predation?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
mnn.com
twitter.com
Animals are made to hunt and eat, it's amazing that nature even manages to turn savage killers like wolves into nurturing parents that are higher on the food chain than perfected killing machines like snakes.
Of course they are, psychological pathologies are natural as fuck.
But what you understand under the term "psychopath" is not someone who wants harm people all day, the psychopaths you are talking about try to do anything to reach their goals and they don't give a fuck if someone gets harmed by their attempt of reaching that goal.
>hey don't give a fuck if someone gets harmed by their attempt of reaching that goal
that is still harm, just not physical.
The complete lack of empathy for others can usually be traced back to underdeveloped areas of your brain where enpathy/emotions get processed, like your Amygdala for example.
People like OP don't seem to understand what the term psychopath actually stands for
I think you are getting something wrong here.
The psychopaths you are talking about don't sit around all day while thinking "hmmmm, how can I fuck up humanity today"?
They are in a social situation where they need to make decisions, and psychopaths don't tend to think at all about the harm they might be causing(they actually don't give a fuck, they don't just pretend to not give a fuck), they are only seeing their goals and how to reach it.
Psychopaths are in a good number of cases physically unable to give a fuck about people around them
Actually no, that is also what I'm trying to say, the people I'm talking about dont have to think "hmmm, how can I fuck up humanity today", but rather it is perfectly normal and natural for them to do so, and some do it unknowingly, they do not notice this nor do they think that theres something wrong with them, it is whats natural for them, they have always felt like this all their life.
what I asked in the OP was, maybe these people shouldn't be shown in a negative light and have them branded as psychos or with mental illnesses, because they are much more than that, they can make hard choices, choices some people are not comfortable of, necessary choices.
I do apologize for the confusion though, I am actually finding it hard to express what is it I'm asking and trying to say, its somethin along the lines that maybe theres nothing wrong with them contrary to what modern psychology believes, and that their behavior is part of human nature itself, and that these people are actually more evolved in certain areas instead of being 'devolved'
>mixing personality disorders with "all mental illnesses"
>far fetched comparison to animals
Yet another thread about things OP doesn't understand.
My bad, sorry about that.
But I see it like that aswell, if you ask your average Joe about psychopaths, he will most likely tell you something about some serial killer or whatever, but there is so much more to that topic than most people think.
I personally believe that some psychopaths who found their way to the top had/have a huge impact in our lives in many different areas.
I fully agree with you that the term is not getting the full attention it deserves abd people just assume to much and know too less when it comes to topics like these.
>I fully agree with you that the term is not getting the full attention it deserves abd people just assume to much and know too less when it comes to topics like these.
yeah, not to mention the topic itself attracts edgelords making it hard to actually have a nice discussion about it.
in this note, whats the general consensus on Psychology itself?
Psychopaths can be very useful in warfare.
Sure, I almost agree with OP.
But what they do not seem to be able to do is adapt their malevolent ways to get ahead in society.
1 Wolf among 10 dogs can't exactly reach it's potential unless it learns to subjugate the dogs.
The wolf/dog analogy doesn't work for humans, or for any other animal for that matter. When we were naked hunters, we didn't hunt for the rush, or because we liked killing, we hunted because it provided food for our families. When we learned how to grow food, we choose agriculture over farming not because we liked farming more, or because we found hunting to be wrong, but because it provided MORE food for our families than hunting would.
When it comes down to it, we humans, like all other animals, don't follow a certain abstract path like 'good' or 'bad', we're simply egoistical and greedy, we do what we do so we can satisfy our needs, from thirst/hunger to sex to the achievement of physical/moral/intelectual superiority
>we didn't hunt for the rush
So did wolves and dogs, they dont hunt for the rush, but to provide foods to their packs, the whole thing isnt just about killing, its that SOME humans are more efficient hunters than others, and that maybe an explanation is that they are more predatory, more wolf than other humans/dogs.
again, its not about killing, its not about getting pleasure, its not about good or bad, its about how these people are biologically more predatory than some in some ways, they are better hunters, they are more competitive, they are more ruthless, not because they choose to be, but because it is in their nature.
the specific thing that makes people Anti-social or Psychopaths shouldn't be portrayed in a negative light (mental illness/hes crazy/he probably kills people) but should instead be seen as their nature, similar to how some people are more aloof than others, these people are just more predatory.
but I guess that it all comes down to the social system, and that we cannot avoid to shine a negative light since these people only help themselves and not the society as a whole
In a way, I guess if we really think about it, you are part right, that it is in fact their nature, and that by classifying them in a negative context and shunning them off only makes things worse, they instead act out on it.
What if we instead use Psychopaths sparringly? similar to this, what if instead of shunning them off, we let them embrace their nature and give them jobs in tuned with their 'advantages'?
how would it go?
There aren't that many jobs nowadays that would be good for Psychopaths. Take interrogation for example, it doesn't take a psycho to torture someone, anyone can do it, even if they don't get pleasure from it, but it happens to be illegal in most parts of the world.
Plenty of psychos do join the army just to kill people though, but most psychos aren't even aware that they're psychos, and it's a trait that you can't read easily.
>we let them embrace their nature and give them jobs in tuned with their 'advantages'? how would it go?
It doesn't work like this. People with psychopathic traits are not, cold, emotionless computers. You are thinking of Hollywood psychopaths. Psychopaths have their own goals in life and they do experience emotions and have desires too. They just lack empathy. They also usually exhibit other co morbid traits like impulsiveness, being manipulative, having a false sense of impregnability and routine risk taking.
Psychopathic people are only "efficient" in the way you describe them as long as your goals are also theirs and until their overconfidence leads them to fuck up. They are not superheroes.
>Before the Stanley Milgram Experiment on Yale students, experts thought that about 1-3 % of the subjects would not stop giving shocks. They thought that you’d have to be pathological or a psychopath to do so.
>Still, 65 % never stopped giving shocks.
65% of the Yale subjects showed psychopathic behavior.
Alot of Yale students even said they felt a rush of power, joy, excitement when administering the fatal shocks to the victim.
>the corporate entity is 'an institutional psychopath' and a 'psychopathic creature.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
>The organizational psychopath craves a god-like feeling of power and control over other people. They prefer to work at the very highest levels of their organizations, allowing them to control the greatest number of people. Psychopaths who are political leaders, managers, and CEOs fall into this category.
>According to Dutton, the ten careers that have the highest proportion of psychopaths are: CEO/managers, Lawyers, politicians, Media (TV/radio), Salesperson, businessmen
en.wikipedia.org
mnn.com
“Politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths. I think you would find no expert in the field of sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this... That a small minority of human beings literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow — but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly deceitful political behavior being one.”—Dr. Martha Stout, clinical psychologist and former instructor at Harvard Medical School
A form of government interesting to ponerologists is one they have called pathocracy, in which individuals with personality disorders (especially psychopathy) occupy positions of power and influence. The result is a totalitarian system characterized by a government turned against its own people.
That describes every government in western Europe, and the United States.
A pathocracy may emerge when a society is insufficiently guarded against the typical and inevitable minority of such abnormal pathology, which ?obaczewski asserts is caused by biology or genetics. He argues that in such cases these individuals infiltrate an institution or state, prevailing moral values are perverted into their opposite, and a coded language like Orwell's doublethink circulates into the mainstream, using paralogic and paramoralism in place of genuine logic and morality."
There is a legitimate debate that malignant narcissists should be labeled psychopath and also that the sociopath should be labeled the same. The difference between the last two is mostly higher functioning vs. lower. One is more likely to end up in prison the other will be a banker.
Gaming herd-nerds constantly fall into believing a favored company is their friend. They revert to treating Blizzard or Nintendo in a tribal mindset where someone that creates art they love is like Trog telling the tribe a great ghost story by the camp fire. In the psychopath-capitalist system though Blizzard hates the game nerds guts and functionally acts as a sociopathic enemy/rival tribe member that wants to trick the nerd out of as much money as possible. They only grudgingly make an addictive product for exchange when they've run out of other easier tricks to separate nerds from their wallets. Still people can't bring themselves to believe their precious tribal buddy is trying to rip them off with micro-payments because they're evolutionary maladapted to pschopath-capitalism.
>>Still, 65 % never stopped giving shocks.
There are many angry, vicious, vengeful people out there. This percentage is not surprising.
>and they do experience emotions
The have urges and REactions. They deny their feelings because they were conceived broken, as cowards. To ignore their fear they instill fear onto others. Basically, they're mindless rocks.
They lack goals (stupid is not equal to intelligent goals).
>Psychopaths are CEOs, political leaders, managers
I agree with this order. These are people who lack honor. They are dishonorable. They are liars. Look at trump, zuckerburg, hitler, nero, jobs...all criminals lie to scam people, and many people are too brain-damaged to tell the difference between a psycho and non-psycho (when it's so obvious).