It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are some people born evil?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


The board is cropping a larger picture into a narrow avatar.




posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snow.In.Summer

Originally posted by NorEaster

I'm actually in a pretty good position to make an informed opinion


This is the sentence that concerns me. If you are not a mental health professional, then it is not an "informed" opinion. You have information that you have gathered by interaction, and observation. But unless you have the training, you cannot diagnose, only suppose.

I see layman's bias in the words you use, such as "creepy". I am mainly having this discussion, because I am generally tired of seeing psychological terms such as "psychopath" flung around carelessly. These labels are often misused, and can be very harmful.

You wouldn't diagnose yourself, or a family member with diabetes, would you? You would declare your symptoms, and see a Dr. This is my case in point. Psychology has been hijacked by popular culture, and it's terms and definitions have become warped. The field of psychology deserves the same respect as the field of medicine. A proper diagnosis, by a trained professional is required, always.


So, offer up an alternative potential. Just a broad spectrum of possibilities, not expecting a dead-on diagnosis. The guy is perfectly functional and really articulate. Performs well in a professional corporate environment and is a Sr VP with a large regional west coast bank. Doesn't drink, doesn't do drugs, no head injuries, and he has (according to his family members) been "detached" in this way his whole life, although as a teenager, it caused him to be a bit cruel at times (as one would expect from a kid who can't feel remorse or connection). Other than that, you've got all the necessary information.

I'm curious as to the possible disorders you think fall within this very specific range of behavioral indications. I'm willing to explore the possibuility that I'm mistaken, but I need a small bit of evidence that I am before I simply acknowledge that I'm wrong. A responsible alternate possibility - if you have one - would be a good place to start me on my road to correct thinking.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I think society has a role to play in this, in terms of how individuals are treated by the group organism in school's and the workplace.

For example, you are expected to do a, b,c,d,e,f and g in this amount of short time to the highest standard for the lowest pay.

The way you should behave while doing it is this:- forget about yourself, your only role in life is to serve in an efficient, polite manner while towing the line, doing everything that you are told to and dedicating your entire life to the pursuit of getting hit constantly by the stick while never getting the carrot, not even getting a glimpse of it.

But yeah, if you think people are just born evil then good for you,
Hope you have fun living in your laa laa land.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Well Hare's checklist for psychopathy is as follows:


The twenty traits assessed by the PCL-R score are: * glib and superficial charm * grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self * need for stimulation * pathological lying * cunning and manipulativeness * lack of remorse or guilt * shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness) * callousness and lack of empathy * parasitic lifestyle * poor behavioral controls * sexual promiscuity * early behavior problems * lack of realistic long-term goals * impulsivity * irresponsibility * failure to accept responsibility for own actions * many short-term marital relationships * juvenile delinquency * revocation of conditional release * criminal versatility
Link

Score each one as either 0 for not true, 1 for partially true, or 2 for completely true. A score over 25 indicates psychopathy.

Keep in mind that the DSM is entirely unscientific, and consists of a board of "professionals" who simply voice their opinion on what a disorder is and how it should be labeled and treated. Any decent psychologist will readily admit that they're simply doing a lot of trail and error, and nothing they assess is based on true scientific techniques.




posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Other than that, you've got all the necessary information.


No, I certainly do not. All I know is that this man is succesful in his career, has no brain injuries or addictions, and is seemingly emotionally detached. Not even a qualified professional would hazard a guess, based on so little information.

You should not be asking for a list of possible disorders from me, based on a few sentences I have read on a forum, not coming from the subject himself, but from an observer.

This is akin to asking a medical student on a forum "My auntie gets frequent headaches, but otherwise she seems fine. What's wrong with her?" It's irresponsible, simply not helpful, and can only do more harm than good.

All I am asking is that people please do not fling around psychological terms, when really, they don't have that diagnosis. It would be better to simply declare the symptoms. Something akin to "My wife's brother is emotionally detached, and has been seemingly so, since his teenage years," would be more responsible.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

Keep in mind that the DSM is entirely unscientific, and consists of a board of "professionals" who simply voice their opinion on what a disorder is and how it should be labeled and treated. Any decent psychologist will readily admit that they're simply doing a lot of trail and error, and nothing they assess is based on true scientific techniques.


Are you saying that any decent psychologist will admit that the DSM is not based on valid scientific research?

I am a psychology student, and am honestly floored by that assertion. I have not heard it from any pyschologist I know.

Again, it's my opinion that you simply do not want to move on from the old diagnosis of "psychopath", and accept the new diagnosis for APD.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Snow.In.Summer
 


I'm sure you are, as you've been heavily brainwashed.

Please refer to the above video for the answer your questions.

Check out this link, too:


Psychiatrists Confess Psychiatrists at the American Psychiatric Association Convention admit that there is no science behind diagnosing individuals with “mental health disorders”. When asked “Are there any medical or scientific tests for psychiatric disorders?” Psychiatrists responded with the following: -“There are no biological tests for any mental illnesses that I am aware of.” -“There are not current available tests to verify your diagnosis.” -“There is no real test, there is no specific test to differentiate between, let’s say schizophrenia and Bipolar disorder, Not a single test.” -“We have not really confirmatory tests for the diagnosis.” -“There is no test, there is no biopsy you can do that says this person is depressed, this person is Bipolar.” -“ We don’t have anything really currently to identify mental illness per se” -“ No there are no specific tests to confirm the diagnosis or to show the improvement, like any blood tests or any X-Rays or anything.” You can look on-line at “No Science-No Cures” and watch the video interview yourself.
Link

[edit on 16-7-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions


I'm sure you are, as you've been heavily brainwashed.

Please refer to the above video for the answer your questions.


If I was the sort of person who easily takes offense, I would be upset by your assertion that I am brainwashed.

However, I am not.

I have seen this video before, thank you. I have my own opinions on it, as this is a hotly debated subject within the field of psychology.

*Edit* I have also seen the link before, thank you. Believe it or not, I do follow up on these debates. I find them interesting, and I form my own opinions, as do you.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Snow.In.Summer]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Snow.In.Summer
 


I understand, but do you understand that from my point of view the goal of a psychologist is to impose the political will of the government by pseudo-scientific judgments? Labeling someone as diseased for having social/emotional difficulties is bizarre and wicked, imo. Some of the people whom a psychologist would label as diseased are in fact quite rational and sane, it seems to me.

Krishnamurti: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”


It's my opinion that psychology will be pretty much phased out as practices like orthomolecular therapy become more accepted, and emerging fields like nutrigenomics become more widely available.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Snow.In.Summer
 


I understand, but do you understand that from my point of view the goal of a psychologist is to impose the political will of the government by pseudo-scientific judgments? Labeling someone as diseased for having social/emotional difficulties is bizarre and wicked, imo. Some of the people whom a psychologist would label as diseased are in fact quite rational and sane, it seems to me.

Krishnamurti: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”


I want to understand your point, but you are confusing me by saying two different things. On the one hand, you cling to the diagnosis for "psychopath", and assert it's validity. On the other hand, you want to dismiss all psychological diagnoses as "bizarre and wicked".



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Snow.In.Summer
 


Well as you said, psychopathy isn't even in the DSM-V or the ICD-11. The difference between the majority of diagnosis in those books and psychopathy is that they can't be properly seen through brain-scans and described by abnormalities of neurobiology. Psychopathy can.

My personal take is that everyone is biochemically individuated, and we all run on a continuum. I don't see the necessity to label people except in the very extreme form, because they're essentially a deadly beast disguised as a human being. I think that human beings are all slightly different, but psychopaths I don't consider in our family of trust. They don't simply have an issue. They are born this way and, for the sake of everyone else, should be known for how they are.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snow.In.Summer

Originally posted by NorEaster
Other than that, you've got all the necessary information.


No, I certainly do not. All I know is that this man is succesful in his career, has no brain injuries or addictions, and is seemingly emotionally detached. Not even a qualified professional would hazard a guess, based on so little information.

You should not be asking for a list of possible disorders from me, based on a few sentences I have read on a forum, not coming from the subject himself, but from an observer.

This is akin to asking a medical student on a forum "My auntie gets frequent headaches, but otherwise she seems fine. What's wrong with her?" It's irresponsible, simply not helpful, and can only do more harm than good.



This is a messageboard forum. This isn't a sentencing hearing. Okay. Don't offer any other suggestions then. I agree that too many people toss the psychopathic label around. I know people who exhibit psychopathic personality behavioral traits, but I also know better than to think they are psychopaths. I just assumed that you'd know of a list of mental disorders that mimic the classic psychopathic profile. Frankly, I don't know of a range of such disorders. Not ones that aren't obviously littered with indications that this person simply doesn't have.


The twenty traits assessed by the PCL-R score are:

* glib and superficial charm - YES (six marriages - are you kidding?)
* grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self - YES (he knows he's the smartest person in any room he enters)
* need for stimulation - YES (absolutely - always needs intense chaotic drama in his life)
* pathological lying - YES (meaning that he lies when he doesn't need to)
* cunning and manipulativeness - YES (then again, it's in his job description)
* lack of remorse or guilt - YES (he's the victim of these terrible women - all six of them)
* shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness) - YES (I described the effort to connect with his own daughter)
* callousness and lack of empathy - YES (the divorces have been brutal, and the women have suffered emotionally when he's realized they were not "the one(s)")
* parasitic lifestyle NO - (he requires complete control over everyone and everything around him)
* poor behavioral controls YES - (divorce testimonies have included terribly explosive scenarios)
* sexual promiscuity - YES (six marriages - two with strippers, and at least a couple to women that he barely knew - this is a guy who races right back out to conquer another bride as soon as he tosses one away)
* early behavior problems - YES (his siblings and parents have plenty of horror stories)
* lack of realistic long-term goals - YES (six destroyed marriages to women he should never have promised his future to - and the divorces have cost him plenty and still do - completely unrealistic goal setting)
* impulsivity - Yes (umm....did I tell you about how he's been married six times to - generally - the first woman that he meets after getting divorced?)
* irresponsibility - YES (see above...)
* failure to accept responsibility for own actions - YES (he is the victim - always)
* many short-term marital relationships - YES (I don't think I need to beat this to death...)
* juvenile delinquency - NO (very aware and engaged parents. Some trouble but nothing that made it into the justice system)
* revocation of conditional release - I DON"T KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS
* criminal versatility - NO (he's a one-trick pony, and he's never had to resort to criminal activity to satisfy his need for money and authority.)


If this is what it takes to be viewed as a psychopath, then yes, I think this guy is a classic example of a psychopath. Only 4 "no" votes and they pertain to criminal activity and a capacity to allow other control over his life. He's highly functional, as I already said, so criminality and the obvious deliberate failure of a parasitic lifestyle are just not his kind of personal expression.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by NorEaster]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


There are many disorders that can be neurobiologically described, and seen on scans, schizophrenia is just one.

Honestly, I cannot have a discussion which includes the sentence "deadly beast disguised as a human being". You are not only mislabelling, in my opinion, but you are furthermore de-humanizing people. I cannot accept this. It's my job to try and understand, and to help people. Not to burn them at the stake, metaphorically.

Let's just agree to definitively disagree, again.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


No, the PCL-R score is not "all it takes". There must be an accompanying interview, with a trained professional, to complete the diagnosis (which is no longer valid, according to the DSM IV).



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Snow.In.Summer
 


You can trace differences from controls and schizophrenics on brain scans, but the neurological differences are rarely the same. Schizophrenia is a catch all for extreme emotional duress, and perceptive disturbances.

I find it very sad that you are unable to accept the truth that some people are born a certain way, and no amount of help based on our current technological capabilities will change their mindset. Furthermore, this subgroup of people are vastly more destruction to humanity and the environment than any other one.

I would highly recommend you search this site for other mentions of psychopathy as related to positions of power, and how they use their influence to be incredibly sadistic, & manipulative, to the extent that our science foundations, to say the least, has become corrupted institutions to serve their kind and abuse humanity.

All the same, I'm more than willing to indefinitely agree to disagree.



Peace.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Haydn_17
 


Most recently a man published a study, of course I can't find it now, but the study showed a genetic basis for criminal behavior which though a powerful indicator, might be overridden by a positive supportive environment and optimal family interaction.

The end result of testing and his book was that some people are born genetically predisposed to criminal behavior or violence.
There was a genetic marker for these behaviors found in a large sampling of subjects.
One day someone asked the author to submit his own genetic information for study and to his own surprise he had criminal behavior in his bloodline and was tagged as "prone to criminal activity and violent behavior" himself.

It was theorized that because he came from a very loving and supportive family and was never abused in his life he did not develop into the criminal he might have become.
It was also thought that if his circumstances had been different growing up and he was unwanted or abused he could easily adopted a life of crime.

Here is another article on the subject. Very interesting.reason.com...

In the Science study, researchers at the University of Wisconsin looked at a cohort of 442 males from New Zealand whose lives had been followed from birth to age 26. Genotype analysis found 279 subjects had high MAOA activity and 163 had low activity.
The researchers also considered whether the subjects had experienced abuse as children.
By age 11, 36 percent had suffered either "severe maltreatment" (8 percent) or "probable maltreatment" (28 percent).
Maltreatment was defined as frequent changes in primary caregivers, rejection by the mother, or physical or sexual abuse.
Subjects who both suffered abuse and carried the low-activity MAOA gene were nine times as likely as the rest of the study group to engage in antisocial behavior such as persistent fighting, bullying, lying, stealing, or disobeying rules in adolescence.
They accounted for only 12 percent of the subjects but 44 percent of the study group's convictions for violent crime.
The results were even starker for the subjects who had suffered the most serious abuse. "As adults, 85 percent of the severely maltreated children who also had the gene for low MAOA activity developed antisocial outcomes, such as violent criminal behavior," said Terrie Moffitt, one of the lead researchers.


I think this was a very good question.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
This is a great question.

One train of thought is that people are simply hardware and the soul runs the software that issues commands to the hardware to perform tasks. This would mean that people are never evil as they are simply the shell.

Another train of thought is that not everyone is born with a soul which negates my first proposal. Personally I believe this to be true. That means that there are degrees of separation amongst humanity where some people function as antennas for the spirit (sages and mystics) and some are simply base matter (CEOs come to mind).

I choose to understand that the manifest universe is based on separation and that the separation of one, leads to duality which causes fixed matter to exist. The process of unification returns energy to the source and leads us to the crossroad where a sage must choose to stay behind to help others through the process or simply poof!

Peace



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


I see no truth in what you are asserting, I only read fear, and again, a hint of paranoia. And I know you disagree with that. I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree with your minset.

But yes, indefinitely agree to disagree. I think we'll find no common ground, and I'd rather leave this discussion in peace, as you say.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


There's dozens of studies which pick one chemical and focus on it to form an erroneous conclusion. Not only maoi, it's white/grey matter vs. controls, levels of vasopressin, oxytocin, dopamine, serotonin, brain histamine, etc, etc..

We know penis, for the most part.

I would agree with people that being emotionally supportive goes a long way for 99% of the people out there, however, that 1% or so who has severely disordered, or severed orbitofrontal-cortex --> amygdala .. simply can't be nurtured into wellness. There is a fundamental neurological difference that disables the person's ability to empathize, and therefore, grow a conscience.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snow.In.Summer
reply to post by unityemissions
 


I see no truth in what you are asserting, I only read fear, and again, a hint of paranoia. And I know you disagree with that. I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree with your minset.

But yes, indefinitely agree to disagree. I think we'll find no common ground, and I'd rather leave this discussion in peace, as you say.



Why are you on ATS, then?

Have you no clue that the majority of the people here are in full agreement that psychopaths rule the world, and are deliberately engineering humanity into an utterly sick dystopian state? All you have to do is read some real history to see what's going on.

Generally, you would be referred to as a sheep by conspiracy theorists. Just thought I'd mention that.

Here, I'll save you a minute in search if you, or anyone else, is interested in checking out threads on psychopathy here:

....

.....

.....





[edit on 16-7-2010 by unityemissions]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join