Therapist Clueless About Sociopaths

[Dana1010]

if we believed that no change could ever be affected then we are all doomed

Sorry, but psychopaths can't be changed. A psychopath spends ten years in a psychiatric hospital with a team of experts doing everything imaginable to affect some kind of change in him. He goes through the motions, pretends to be cured, then gets released and rapes and murders a child two weeks later. There are actually cases like this. Read the literature.

 

[darrenS]

It's a cognitive empathy, not emotional, they use it to stalk prey, that's it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts...lent-for-recognizing-emotions/article4704549/

Interesting but then it could be argued at what level do they feel empathy - or is it simply relating to whats being said or done - ie; its easy to fake empathy if you share a common experience

and how in itself do you define what empathy really is - one study does not define a condition and it could also be argued that the MRI results could be the result of excitation - citing articles can be dangerous as they give an air of credibility, but then you have to ask, how did their peers review them and what were the results of similar studies - has the field itself accepted the finding as fact and incorporated them into treatment models

 

[anthony]

https://www.myptsd.com/threads/what-is-a-sociopath-personality-disorders-general.23710/

 

[darrenS]

Dana - many people with PTSD end up in jail also, there are people with ptsd that are actually dangerous , and some do have BPD , so should we throw away the key on those too. BTW there is no such thing as a phsycopath - that's Hollywood talk , its sociopath

 

[anthony]

BTW there is no such thing as a phsycopath - that's Hollywood talk , its sociopath

Not exactly correct mate... The ICD actually diagnose with the subtype, sociopathic or psychopathic under the dissocial type, where the DSM uses anti-social type and discards both words effectively as Hollywood chit chat. Depends which one you want to use... both are used globally.

 

[Friday]

I think these people are born without a conscience and that's it - you can't change that about them. Environment does play a role in how their behavior is channeled. But I've read of children born into loving, normal, affluent homes who are getting into legal trouble by the time they're nine.

1% of the world's pop. are psychopaths (widely accepted stat) however...

4%-7% of children (debated stat, as reporting is difficult cross culturally, hence the margin) have antisocial/ conduct disorder which if it still presents the same in adulthood is aka psychopathy. That's the whole argument against diagnosing children with psychopathy, right there. Because the vast majority grow out of it. Also, by definition, the vast majority do change.

From a neurological perspective... Whether something is nature or nurture... The answer is pretty much always "yes". It's not an either/or question, because they each affect the other. Empathy/conscience meanwhile is a learned attribute. It's something that has to be taught, as infants aren't born knowing right from wrong, much less what's right/wrong in their particular culture. So the nurture part is 'are they taught' empathy and conscience, meanwhile the nature part is 'do they have the ability to learn it'.

BTW there is no such thing as a phsycopath - that's Hollywood talk , its sociopath

<grin> Other way around (I do that sometimes, too... My sister is the expert, I just dabble, and cross my wires from time to time).

Psychopathy I - Inherent
Psychopathy II - Acquired / what sociologists call Sociopathy

 

[joeylittle]

Diagnosing people with self evidence, self diagnosing, and all the other nonsense, is a dangerous game IMO which only gives more credence to support how invalid mental health is right now, because there are people out there reading books, blogs and all other sorts of nonsense, walking away believing they can look at people and diagnose them with something, based on their life experience or knowledge, and short-term, limited observations.

This.

@Dana1010, I'm actually curious as to why your own realization that your abuser was a psycho- or socio-path was a breakthrough for you. I often wonder whether knowing the "why" behind the abuse is necessary or relevant to treatment. I know my therapist would like it if I accepted that my abusers were "sick" in some way, but to me that just seems like rationalizing or excusing their behavior. It sounds like to you, though, knowing this has given you some measure of relief. I wonder if it's because you knew yours and mine were strangers? That would make a kind of sense. And nothing I'm about to write has anything to do with undermining something that has been a breakthrough in your treatment.

This is a great article: [DLMURL]http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/112693/psychopathy-versus-sociopathy.pdf[/DLMURL]
(It's long, it's scholarly, it's worth it.)

From the opening paragraph:

While quibbling over terminology can be a tedious endeavor, it has become necessary to treat the terms psychopath and sociopath differently. When used in every day conversation the importance in the distinction is not noticeable - the words simply describe a remorseless killer and seem to denote that something could be wrong with the offender's brain. However, in brain science, the difference between these two terms has become crucial for numerous reasons. First, the history of studying psychopathy has now arrived at a point where the word psychopath means something very specific. Second, there appears to be a hesitance among scholars to use them interchangeably, preferring to use sociopathy if a brain injury or a belief system resulted in antisocial behavior (there should be no hesitance in the use of terminology). And lastly, in light of the first two reasons, the neurology underlying the psychopath and the sociopath can only be different, a crucial fact to be realized when seeking to understand the etiology, behavioral characteristics, and potential treatments for each.

To me, there is absolutely no difference between casually throwing around the term "PTSD" in society to describe someone who is generically upset about something (i.e. "I got PTSD from my math class") and throwing around "psychopath" to describe someone who kills someone else without feeling bad about it.

Because that is what you are saying. Now, it's likely that I spent a weekend with some psychopaths or sociopaths, I don't know what was accepted terminology in the 80s - and I know the cold, flat "look in the eye" that is being referred to. And yeah, it's terrifying. But I also saw looks of anger, looks of glee, looks of something resembling fear? or annoyance? when I was coming out of what were maybe seizures, maybe something else, not sure.

But do I know what was wrong with them? No. Am I making excuses for them? No. Do I give a rats ass what their psychological make-up was? Honestly, no. I know I was damaged, I know I have PTSD, I know they haunt me.

So, back to the original question: For me, there is no value to understanding the neuropathology of my abusers. My treatment remains the same.

But that's just me.

If we call every evil person a psychopath (I'm using evil in the cruel, calculated, remorseless sense) - well, then what? The little girl who led her friend out to the woods and stabbed her because she thought an invisible creature wanted her to - well, is she a psychopath?

If we diagnose purely by action, purely by outward show, then we move backwards, deny science, and close back in on the days when you were a witch if you had sex, you were a heretic if you disagreed with the dominant religion, and you were a demon if you had Down's Syndrome.

I posted a thread awhile back with an article about diagnosing and treating psycho/socio-pathy in children. It's harrowing and interesting. Early-intervention For Sociopaths?

So look, use small-p psychopath if you want, it does have an accepted meaning outside the science of mental health. But if we are really debating mental health, I believe we have a responsibility to stick to the science - not criminology, not sociology - but neuro- and psycho- logical science.

Otherwise, we only undermine our own diagnoses, indirectly. We can all spout Criterion A like it's tattooed on our arms (most of us, anyway) - because we are strongly in defense of the clinical definition of our disorder. It's hypocrisy to not apply the same to all psychological diagnoses - in my own very strongly held (but happy to defend and debate) opinion.

 

[darrenS]

So, back to the original question: For me, there is no value to understanding the neuropathology of my abusers. My treatment remains the same.

But that's just me.

If we call every evil person a psychopath (I'm using evil in the cruel, calculated, remorseless sense) - well, then what? The little girl who led her friend out to the woods and stabbed her because she thought an invisible creature wanted her to - well, is she a psychopath?

I couldnt agree with you more - labels are like the containers we usually place them on - disposable , but i also understand that many find comfort in using labels as it removes an added layer and at times aids their closure

 

[Friday]

Sorry, but psychopaths can't be changed. A psychopath spends ten years in a psychiatric hospital with a team of experts doing everything imaginable to affect some kind of change in him. He goes through the motions, pretends to be cured, then gets released and rapes and murders a child two weeks later. There are actually cases like this. Read the literature.

This is the same thing... You can't look at one person, or even a small handful of people (anecdotal evidence) and translate it onto everyone.

Similarly... The traits that are brought up, are characteristic of more than one disorder (as well as no disorder at all). How many of us, here, have misplaced our emotions from time to time? Or for extended periods of time? Go numb, or cold, or disassociate? Quite a lot. How many of us have killed or hurt people in that state? Or in a rage? A few, probably. Does it make us psychopaths? Nope. We may be psychopaths, although we probably aren't... As it's the constellation of symptoms that persist, over time, in multiple environments, etc. Not any one thing.

 

[joeylittle]

many find comfort in using labels as it removes an added layer and at times aids their closure

Yes, I get that - makes sense. But we need to use the labels accurately. Something was wrong with that little girl I'm referring to, above, but I can't just call her a psychopath any more than I could call her schizophrenic, maladaptive, or brain-washed.

I can safely say that something was very wrong with her. I can safely say that things were very wrong with my attackers. Anything else is conjecture. So why can't we use a label that is as accurate as we can possibly be, and not use labels that might be flat-out wrong?

 

[Dana1010]

I'm actually curious as to why your own realization that your abuser was a psycho- or socio-path was a breakthrough for you.

Basically it's like I wrote earlier, it helps to stop the projection - all people are like me, and if I were to do something like that, the person would have to really deserve it, so I must have deserved it.

Diagnosing children is a difficult issue and I never claimed to have the answers.

There is a wealth of research showing real neurological anomalies in psychopaths. There's a book called The Wisdom of Psychopaths (title not to be taken seriously) by Andrew Dutton that contains some really interesting stuff.

How many of us have killed or hurt people in that state? Or in a rage? A few, probably. Does it make us psychopaths? Nope.

This has nothing to do with the definition of psychopathy. Experts clearly distinguish between psychopaths and people who commit crimes out of passion, rage, derangement, schizophrenia, etc. The big thing with psychopaths is they are sane. There's a coldness to their attacks on others, it's not just blind rage, they know what they're doing.

Dana - many people with PTSD end up in jail also, there are people with ptsd that are actually dangerous , and some do have BPD , so should we throw away the key on those too.

No, because they're treatable. Psychopathy isn't. Simple. Of course if they really are a threat to society due to PTSD, then yeah, I'd rather have them contained than stalking around my neighborhood.

 

[joeylittle]

No, because they're treatable. Psychopathy isn't. Simple.

No. There is currently little evidence to suggest a treatment. But this, for example:
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/136/8/2550
Is interesting.

And before we get into treatable vs. manageable, lets all recognize that neither borderline personality disorder nor PTSD are recognized as "cureable."
Treatable, yes.
And it is not a medical fact that there is no treatment for anti-social personality disorder, or dissocial personality disorder (DSM and ICD, respectively.)

You can't call an unproven assumption a fact.