Can the sociopath/psychopath be cured?

reply to post by unityemissions


I agree that some kinds of mental illness seem to be much harder on other people than the actual sufferer, but I think equating these illnesses with evil and dehumanizing those diagnosed with them is -- barbaric, uncivilized, archaic, pick your term. There are enough 'vampires' who act out of pure greed and arrogance out there already, without putting people who never chose to be sick in the same category.

I see the harm they cause as being a kind of natural disaster in human form. If someone has a stroke while driving and causes a pileup, do you consider them a vampire on society because something out of their control used them to cause harm to others? Psychotics and sociopaths are human hurricanes, perhaps, human earthquakes, but not vampires, and definitely not sub-human or another species. They have an illness which is physical but occurs in the brain instead of a limb or organ.

I also think these disorders are hugely over-diagnosed by amateurs. There is a tendency to pathologize human evil which I think has a political subtext in its origin even when those who embrace the tendency don't intend it that way. By which I mean, I think we are being encouraged to see greedy CEOs as sociopaths rather than inevitable outgrowths of a corrupt corporatocracy.

Originally posted by simone50m
reply to post by sepermeru

 

I was wondering if it seems to you, as it does me, that Western capitalistic 'Democracy' is very conducive for the empathy-less brain, and hence will be slow to view those people as mentaly ill. Such as George W., Big Banksters, many here would say Obama, certainly, I'll bet, Bill Clinton, and the heads of Corporations, those men who do stuff like pollute, give money to politicians so they can keep polluting for profits, outsource American jobs and hid their money from US taxation. Etc.

I do think that Western capitalistic values mask a great deal of human suffering and harm, including some empathy disorders. However, I think ultimately we're encouraged to think in terms of a vacuum when analyzing those in power. If evaluating a CEO for mental illness, we are to assume it must have emerged despite his environment, and certainly not (as I believe is the case often) as a direct and inevitable result of it.

Originally posted by sepermeru
reply to post by unityemissions

 

I agree that some kinds of mental illness seem to be much harder on other people than the actual sufferer, but I think equating these illnesses with evil and dehumanizing those diagnosed with them is -- barbaric, uncivilized, archaic, pick your term. There are enough 'vampires' who act out of pure greed and arrogance out there already, without putting people who never chose to be sick in the same category.

Our ability to express our conscience appropriately, and to such a great extent seems to be ultimately what separates us from the rest of mammals. It's what gives us our humanity. Choosing not to express the conscience truly does seem to be inhumane. It's not the labeling of these individuals, but the actions they display that is barbaric, uncivilized, and archaic. The vampires you speak of have a high degree of narcissism, and depending to what extent, could be thought of as fitting into the same category of sociopathy or psychopathy.

I see the harm they cause as being a kind of natural disaster in human form. If someone has a stroke while driving and causes a pileup, do you consider them a vampire on society because something out of their control used them to cause harm to others? Psychotics and sociopaths are human hurricanes, perhaps, human earthquakes, but not vampires, and definitely not sub-human or another species. They have an illness which is physical but occurs in the brain instead of a limb or organ.

I think you're confusing psychopathy with sociopathy, or at least based on my definitions of them this is the case. A sociopath chooses, of their own free will, to be as they are. A psychopath has either inherited faulty neurobiology, else acquired it through blunt trauma, or disease.

The labeling of a vampire simply means that they feed off the negativity, and suffering they cause. This is quite apt. They do this, consciously, and with intent. If they don't do this, they will lose much of their psychic energies over time. This is akin to the vampire losing their nourishment from not sucking the blood off a victim in a given time.

I also think these disorders are hugely over-diagnosed by amateurs. There is a tendency to pathologize human evil which I think has a political subtext in its origin even when those who embrace the tendency don't intend it that way. By which I mean, I think we are being encouraged to see greedy CEOs as sociopaths rather than inevitable outgrowths of a corrupt corporatocracy.

Respectfully, I take the opposite view that it's mostly under-diagnosed by people. I think the average individual hasn't a clue what truly is right or wrong these days towards a variety of issues, so this blinds them into what is an evil in others as well. Apathy is in abundance these days.

A greedy CEO may or may not be a sociopath, and that it is an "inevitable outgrowth of a corrupt corporatocracy" doesn't negate the possibility for it to be, in part, a result of sociopathy as well. Both organization, and leader are needed for the evil deeds to be done. It's unconscionable to take such a role, if one is aware of the inevitable negative impacts of one's role.

I'm not confusing them, and I disagree that anyone chooses a mental illness or personality disorder. If you have a cite for that I'm open to being wrong, but my understanding of these issues is fairly comprehensive, and I assure you that a healthy person cannot choose to become a sociopath and a sociopath cannot choose to experience empathy.

reply to post by the.lights

You are right, I should have thought of Sarah Palin first. Hillary always took me aback with her often inapropriate facial expressions and odd uncomfortable voice/speech rythm in public, but maybe she is on some (unacknowledged undiagnosed) spectrum of Autism (Aspergers) of which I know about, since I'm an Aspe, and people used to comment mean things about me when I would appear in a public gathering of my fellow enthusiasts re. a mutual hobby/pursuit. due to my social aukwardness. (And unaknowledged undiagnosed malady.)
Palin is a -- perfect -- example, in my opinion, of what a female psych/socio would be like.

Originally posted by sepermeru
I'm not confusing them, and I disagree that anyone chooses a mental illness or personality disorder. If you have a cite for that I'm open to being wrong, but my understanding of these issues is fairly comprehensive, and I assure you that a healthy person cannot choose to become a sociopath and a sociopath cannot choose to experience empathy.

You're probably correct that nobody initially chooses a mental illness or personality disorder. My apologies for stating it as such. I think what can be done in the case of sociopathy, is people can be taught to logically deduce that their actions have negative consequences for their selves. This may be enough to somewhat socialize the individual. As for psychopathy, I don't think that route helps much. They will do what they want to do for immediate gratification, no matter what the long term consequences truly are. It seems this is because they are missing connections between key regions of the brain which would enable them to realize the long-term consequences of their actions. They truly live in the moment.

Originally posted by simone50m
reply to post by the.lights

 

Palin is a -- perfect -- example, in my opinion, of what a female psych/socio would be like.

She is driven by power, status, is narcissistic, is superficially charming (in order to get her way), she hunts animals and kills them, makes outrageously provocative statements against China, and targets opposition politicians on her website with gunsights.

In a truly sane world, she'd be locked up!

Originally posted by sepermeru

Originally posted by the.lights

Originally posted by apacheman

I suspect that they are a genuine subspecies of humanity, a true race of social vampires preying on normal humanity.

Your post, and the above quote, hit the nail on the head.

I think this perspective is both incorrect and tragic.

I think he meant 'subspecies' in the sense of an evolutionary subset rather than something less evolved or lower than. Since he went on to say in his post that he would post more information regarding the genetic component of psychopathology.

But I have to say, I agreed with him because from my own personal experience the behaviour exhibited by those with psychopathology is actually quite vampiric or parasitic in nature. They manipulate, influence, charm, deceive, undermine, drain and bully others in order to get to where they want or to get what they want.

Originally posted by sepermeru
I'm not confusing them, and I disagree that anyone chooses a mental illness or personality disorder. If you have a cite for that I'm open to being wrong, but my understanding of these issues is fairly comprehensive, and I assure you that a healthy person cannot choose to become a sociopath and a sociopath cannot choose to experience empathy.

That's my understanding too. From what I've read and studied, you cannot consciously decide to exhibit these behaviours, since it would require a complete personality change.

I think where the issue may get confused is that there is a large percentage of humanity easily manipulated and weak who will do the bidding of truly evil, powerful psychopathic people once told or ordered to. Therefore, apparently ordinary and 'good' people are capable of the most horrendous crimes and atrocities.

We see this in war particularly. The Final Solution in Nazi Germany could only have been collectively put together by a bunch of psychopathic personalities. It was the power they had attained that allowed them to then enforce the evil by making those weaker individuals carry out the atrocities. And this was wholesale slaughter of millions carried out by many thousands all orchestrated by a few dozen mostly psychopathic leaders.

I think, what I'm driving at, is that the weak, easily manipulated and cowardly of humanity are preyed on by the psychopaths and in a perverse way, actually become puppets or marionettes of the psychopaths and blindly follow them and do their bidding.

Originally posted by the.lights
For the majority of humans this may be true.

For all humans it's true.

Originally posted by the.lights
But sociopaths and psychopaths will lie convincingly that they recognise, accept and regret the wrongs of their past actions when in fact this couldn't be further from the truth. In their minds what they did was perfectly acceptable and always will be.

There is no reforming them. They will go on to behave exactly as they did previously in life and will never reform, most likely making someone's life a misery, somewhere.

There is no reforming anybody else. One can only be reformed by oneself. The most an attempt to reform another can do is trigger the desire to reform oneself. If it does not do this, your attempt to reform somebody will fail.

As to whether it's likely that somebody with a psychopath diagnosis will experience the shame and want to change? That may be highly unlikely. But that wasn't my point.

Originally posted by sepermeru
I'm not confusing them, and I disagree that anyone chooses a mental illness or personality disorder. If you have a cite for that I'm open to being wrong, but my understanding of these issues is fairly comprehensive, and I assure you that a healthy person cannot choose to become a sociopath and a sociopath cannot choose to experience empathy.

You claim to be comprehensive in this subject yet you confuse psychopaths with psychotics.

hubpages.com...

So forgive me for doubting you slightly. But read the link, it explains it a little more.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Originally posted by the.lights
For the majority of humans this may be true.

For all humans it's true.

I meant majority as in the majority who are not psychopaths. Psychopaths appear to be hardwired as psychopaths. There is something genetically, fundamentally, different about the way their brains are constructed.

Psychopaths Among Us

So many of these awkward questions would vanish if only there were a functioning treatment program for psychopathy. But there isn't. In fact, several studies have shown that existing treatment makes criminal psychopaths worse. In one, psychopaths who underwent social-skills and anger-management training before release had an 82 percent reconviction rate. Psychopaths who didn't take the program had a 59 percent reconviction rate.

Conventional psychotherapy starts with the assumption that a patient wants to change, but psychopaths are usually perfectly happy as they are. They enrol in such programs to improve their chances of parole. "These guys learn the words but not the music," Hare says. "They can repeat all the psychiatric jargon -- 'I feel remorse,' they talk about the offence cycle -- but these are words, hollow words."

Hare has co-developed a new treatment program specifically for violent psychopaths, using what he knows about the psychopathic personality. The idea is to encourage them to be better by appealing not to their (non-existent) altruism but to their (abundant) self-interest. "It's not designed to change personality, but to modify behaviour by, among other things, convincing them that there are ways they can get what they want without harming others," Hare explains. The program will try to make them understand that violence is bad, not for society, but for the psychopath himself. (Look where it got you: jail.) A similar program will soon be put in place for psychopathic offenders in the UK. "The irony is that Canada could have had this all set up and they could have been leaders in the world. But they dropped the ball completely," Hare says, referring to his decade-old treatment proposal, sitting on a shelf somewhere within Corrections Canada.

Even if Hare's treatment program works, it will only address the violent minority of psychopaths. What about the majority, the subclinical psychopaths milling all around us? At the moment, the only thing Hare and his colleagues can offer is self-protection through self-education. Know your own weaknesses, they advise, because the psychopath will find and use them. Learn to recognize the psychopath, they tell us, before adding that even experts are regularly taken in.

After thirty-five years of work, Bob Hare has brought us to the stage where we know what psychopathy is, how much damage psychopaths do, and even how to identify them. But we don't know how to treat them or protect the population from them. The real work is just beginning. Solving the puzzle of the psychopath is an invigorating prospect -- if you're a scientist. Perhaps the rest of us can be forgiven for our impatience to see the whole thing come to an end.

reply to post by Tarnished Templar


Yes, it can be cured. Look up Robert G. Heath's research with implants. There is also a note on Dr. James W. Prescott's page "The Origins of Love and Violence"

www.violence.de...

"The validation of my SAD theory which includes cerebellar regulation of limbic system activity that mediates emotional-social behaviors (Prescott, 1968, 1971, 1976, 1983) has been provided by a number of NICHD supported brain studies in isolation reared monkeys (Saltzberg, Lustick and Heath, 1971; Heath, 1972,1975; Floeter and Greenough, 1979; Riesen, Dickerson and Struble, 1977; Struble and Riesen, 1978; Bryan and Riesen, 1989). Abnormal brain electrical activity and abnormal neuroanatomy of brain cells (abnormal dendrites and dendritic spines) were found in somatosensory and motor cerebral neocortex and in cerebellar cortex.

Additionally, a neurosurgical study involving paleocerebellar decortication (removal of my hypothesized abnormal paleocerebellar cortical cells due to sensory deprivation) in a previously untouchable pathologically adult isolation reared monkey transformed that monkey into a very friendly, inquisitive and touchable monkey. This same brain surgery was also found to be effective in reducing approximately 80% of the autistic-like behaviors in isolation reared monkeys (reduction in stereotypical rocking behaviors; depression and tactile avoidance behaviors). (Berman, Berman and Prescott, 1974)."

I've studied this area for years.

reply to post by Tarnished Templar


Yes. They can be cured. With a lethal injection.

And if you dont want to cure them, they should be sterilized, put somewhere in the middle of nowhere, with no way to build an escape craft, and let nature take its course.

The environment together with genes are really what makes a person. Genes can't really be changed, but if they were brought up in a bad environment, you can try to make the environment more healthy. Probably part of the reason why criminals in the US have greater rates of entering back into prison than countries where the environment is looked at, like some of the Nordic countries.

Originally posted by Tarnished Templar

Its horrible to think a person could get to a state, mentally, that they couldn't ever recover from. Something in me resists this interpretation. Something I feel about the human soul; I somehow deep in my gut feel this can't possibly be true.

Alzheimers? Parkinsons? Kuru? There are bunches of examples of "states" that can occur in the human brain that we have no way to get you out of, and this is not speculative, so why the problem with the idea that sociopathy may be one of them?

It really isnt a question of "can there be mental states we cannot cure " absolutely there are. I havent ever, and I love science, ever heard of anyone making a reputable claim that they could change or cure a sociopath. Maybe someday, but until then, they should be at the very least quarantined.

Originally posted by sliceNodice
I'm thinking maybe some receptor density problems are to blame. Or maybe some foreign infection, like a parasite, or fungus is creating some chemical imposter that is turning down the volume.

I doubt it. There is such a benefit to both individuals and groups for sociopathy that I would place my money on them being like homosexuals. A percentage of the population (likely a similar one 2%) that arises in utereo by means which we are not yet aware, but once wired that way are that way for life.

Because while we are bitching about them, lets not overlook the very real benefit to the sociopath. They can gather resources by any means, completely unfettered by any need to reciprocate socially. It makes it easy to get rich if they are also smart enough to pretend not to be sociopaths.

And for groups, lets not pretend that a group with a sociopathic leader does not have a survival benefit over one who is not a sociopath. Even here in the US, people who are not sociopaths support sociopathic behavior by our government in hopes that some of the resources these people are murdering people for will fall their way.

reply to post by mr-lizard


I did not compare them at all. In fact, I specifically pointed out how different they are to someone who did. So either you're confusing posters, or you should probably not expect your own contribution to be taken very seriously when it's clear you're not paying attention.

In general psychopaths/sociopaths are diagnosed by their purposeless and irrational antisocial behaviour, lack of conscience, and emotional vacuity. They are thrill seekers, literally fearless. Punishment rarely works, because they are impulsive by nature and fearless of the consequences. Incapable of having meaningful relationships, they view others as fodder for manipulation and exploitation. According to one psychological surveying tool (DSM IIIR) between 3 – 5% of men are sociopaths; less than 1% of female population are sociopaths. Sociologists argue that these statistics relate highly to societies structure, and not the individual as such. As one sociologist said “As a percentage it is small, but if you were to calculate that percentage into a number, the results would be shocking. I could understand this to be an individual problem if the number of sociopaths were smaller, but when looking at the statistics one can’t help link it to the social structure and social changes which influence every one of us”. Although criticized for his comments, one can’t help, but to start and see the hidden complexities behind this mainly one-sided story. This opens a big debate; do sociopaths deserve a voice?

Not all sociopaths and psychopaths are murders as most stereotypes lead us to believe; often they are successful businessmen or world leaders. Then again when it is easy to devalue others, and you have had a lifetime of perceived injustices and rejection, murder might seem like a natural choice. Are sociopath’s victims who are lashing out in ways we do not understand? At first glance it is not easy for someone who doesn’t understand this condition to reply that sociopaths are not victims, nor can their actions be accepted as lashing out for their own injustices. But if we start to look at the environmental influences peoples views may change.

he following are environmental factors which psychiatrists/psychologists, say create a sociopath:
Studies show that 60% of psychopathic individuals had lost a parent;
Child is deprived of love or nurturing; parents are detached or absent;
Inconsistent discipline: if father is stern and mother is soft, child learns to hate authority and manipulate mother;
Hypocritical parents who privately belittle the child while publicly presenting the image of a “happy family”.

These are just some of the common factors which can lead to sociopathic upbringing. Although they do not compensate for the actions of sociopaths, they do give us a deeper insight to where sociopathic behaviour begins to form. This is just one factor for sociopathic creation, if we look at the genetic, physiological and environmental side we start to unravel a deeper understanding.

Tests are showing that the nervous system of the psychopath is markedly different; they feel less fear and anxiety than normal people. One carefully conducted experiment revealed that “low arousal levels” not only causes impulsiveness and thrill-seeking, but also showed how dense sociopaths are when it comes to changing their behavior. A group of sociopaths and a group of healthy individuals were given a task, which was to learn what lever (out of four) turned on a green light. One lever gave the subject an electric shock. Both groups made the same number of errors, but the healthy group quickly learned to avoid the punishing electric shock, while sociopaths took much longer to do so. This need for higher levels of stimulation makes the psychopath seek dangerous situations. Perhaps this is the reason for many serial killers seeking to become part of the police force due to the intensity of the job.

Genetics and physiological factors also contribute to the building of a psychopath. One study in Copenhagen focused on a group of sociopaths who had been adopted as infants. The biological relatives of sociopaths were 4 – 5 times more likely to be sociopathic than the average person. Yet genetics don’t tell the whole story; it only shows a predisposition to antisocial behavior. Environment can make or break the psychopathic personality. This environmental factor again relates back to what sociologists were saying, about how the social structure and social influence play a part. The words of the sociopath “I haven’t failed, society has failed me” seems to be more powerful and explanatory than first anticipated.

When a psychopath does inherit genetically-based, developmental disabilities, it is usually a stunted development of the higher functions of the brain. 30 – 38% of psychopaths show abnormal brain wave patterns, or EEGs. Infants and children typically have slower brain wave activity, but it increases as they grow up. Not with psychopaths. Eventually, the brain might mature as the psychopath ages. This may be why most serial killers are under 50. The abnormal brain wave activity comes from the temporal lobes and the limbic system of the brain, the areas that control memory and emotions. When development of this part of the brain is genetically impaired, and the parents of the child are abusive, irresponsible or manipulative, the stage is set for disaster. If this is the case, can psychopaths be successfully treated?

In relation to successful of psychopaths psychiatrists say, “No.” Shock treatment doesn’t work; drugs have not proven successful in treatment; and psychotherapy, which involves trust and a relationship with the therapist, is out of the question, because psychopaths are incapable of opening up to others. They don’t want to change. This bold statement of no hope is being argued by a number psychologist’s, stating that psychopathic behaviour can be treated with the right procedures. Psychologists state that psychotherapy can be successful, but isn’t adopted by most psychiatrists because it takes a long period of time to work. Psychiatrists have been attacked by the psychologists saying “not everything can be fixed quickly through the administering of medication; some things require more time and effort than anything else.”

Due to the lack of treatment available for psychopaths, as well as the demoralising fact that they can not be treated most psychopaths end up in prison, instead of psychiatric hospitals. This sad reality may begin to change with more and more psychologists taking on such cases as well as the advancements in research. Although it will take considerable time for change to occur on a wide spread level, it has already begun with some treatments becoming successful.

sociopathic.net...

As long as evolutionary pressures for emotions to be reliable communication and commitment devices leading to long-term, cooperative strategies coexist with counter-pressures for cheating, deception, and "rational" short-term selfishness, a mixture of phenotypes will result, such that some sort of statistical equilibrium will be approached. Cheating should thus be expected to be maintained as a low-level, frequency-dependent strategy, in dynamic equilibrium with changes in the environment which exist as counter-pressures against its success. This type of dynamic process has been modelled extensively by evolutionary biologists who use game theory- the topic I turn to next.

The above is an excerpt from a paper entitled:

THE SOCIOBIOLOGY OF SOCIOPATHY: AN INTEGRATED EVOLUTIONARY MODEL

for which I'll provide a link when I find it again..(I downloaded the paper for study),,don't have the link handy right now.

It appears that sociopathy evolved as an evolutionary strategy because once you reach a certain population density it confers an enormous social advantage. I'd be willing to bet that if you tested the top 5% of any given society, most would be found to be sociopaths.

By subspecies, I don't mean sub-human, I mean a genetically seperate group of humans who share common characteristics between themeslves that normal humans don't, and lack common characteristics that normal humans have.

Remember that "royal" lineages carefully manage their breeding: most rulers would have a very high propensity for socipathy through genetics. The sociopathy would be far more likely to be "activated" by the lack of warmth, attention, and proper parenting: sociopaths breed more socipaths through both geneteics and behavior. If you study history enough, you'll find most ruling classes described as snake pits of intrigue, lies, and betrayals: hallmarks of sociopathy.

I think there should be screening for it, and forced removal from areas of responsibility: they CANNOT be trusted, by their very nature, literally. No sociopath should be allowed to run for office or run a corporation, any more than a sexual predator should be allowed to run a daycare.

reply to post by apacheman


There is a lot of other interesting research that applies too, in game theory, and in evolutionary computer models of "cheaters and altruists."

But yes. There is an enormous advantage both to being a sociopath IN A GROUP WHERE THE MAJORITY ISNT. And for a group to have sociopathic leaders.

It only pays to be a sociopath in a group IF you have a majority that cooperates to prey upon. A group entirely composed of sociopaths would be easily out competed by groups of cooperators.

So, it is always essentially a balancing. Cooperators SHOULD always be on the lookout for sociopaths to exterminate them from the group, if they want to do well. Because the evolutionary models show that if they do NOT discriminate against the cheaters, the sociopaths, they are always, every single time wiped out by the sociopaths.

If, however, you have other groups who have sociopathic leaders, you may need to keep some of your sociopaths on reserve.

In any event, before anything could be done that made any sense, the majority of people would have to get realistic about what is happening. In our society, sociopathy is increasing. I think the percentages are going up as the cooperators are being out competed.