SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The subject of psychopaths comes up frequently on Soylent in many contexts, so this story caught my eye:
How do you think a psychopath can be affected despite all that has been written about the psychopath being so devious etc.? I am sure there are weaknesses which one can dig into to break him 'psychologically'. I read somewhere that they are basically people who are very insecure and they love to control people so that they feel they have a power within themselves.
I know of a psychopath who insists on people doing what he wants and anyone defying him will see his vengeful self lashing out. But I am sure there must be something that can break such a psychopath. How about belittling or bring him to shame?
The first part of the answer is to be able to distinguish a narcissist from a psychopath:
I agree with the other post that points out that the person described is a narcissist, not a psychopath. Psychopaths are very secure and they to not seek control for the sake of feeling powerful, nor are they vengeful or spiteful. You could say that psychopaths are very practical, they want pure gain for the sake of the gain (e.g. money, a sexual favor, special access to something such as convince) rather than the ego stroke or prestige. A smart psychopath would probably keep things as low key as possible, as to maximize potential gain and minimize the danger of being caught. They are cool and calm, unlike the person described who lashes out for personal reasons.
Read the rest of the article for the takeaway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @04:09PM
Kinda.
For the vast majority of psychology, they are labeling natural variation as aberrant. Very little takes into consideration environmental/cultural factors into makeup. Even the popular psychopath is little more than someone maybe a bit more calculating and manipulative and logical. The typical emotional appeals are less effective on them, but they perfectly understand "if x, then y" statements.
On the other hand, there are broken people who have had psychotic breaks, demented, etc. who are otherwise working on a different plane of reality. Psychology has little to offer them but sedatives and antipsychotics and repetition. At best, you can keep them from rolling around in broken glass, but I sometimes think exorcism might be a better treatment modality.
Anyhoo, psychiatry/psychology are still young sciences. They are going to fuck-up more than they get right at this point, but the study is still important. I do believe however they will be superseded by neurobiology.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @05:37PM
Psychology has little to offer them [psychotic patients] but sedatives and antipsychotics...
That's like saying "medicine has little to offer cancer patients except chemotherapy and surgery".
Antipsychotics saved my life. I thought I was literally in Hell: antipsychotics lifted me out of that.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday November 15 2016, @06:49PM
This is why I distinguished between psychology and psychiatry in my own comment. Antipsychotics are known to work for lots of things and lots of people and their effects are observable in an MRI scans.
However, that's where the buck stops. The neurosciences are still in their infancy and this leaves room for all the religious psychological mambo jumbo to fill in the gap. Some of the developmental stuff kinda makes sense and even tests out. But the VAST majority of psychology (again, not psychiatry or neuroscience) is nonsense.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Tuesday November 15 2016, @07:07PM
and yet, there is an astonishingly high percentage of doctors who would personally NOT undertake a chemotherapy regimen if they had to choose between that and coasting on out... hmmmm