[yothi5]

(Original post by cl_steele)
in the politest way possible ... tell your mum to go **** herself. this is the 21st century Britain not feudal China.

She's not Pakistani/Muslim but Asian so that makes her Chinese.....

[NeuralGroove]

(Original post by Samrout)
To finalise. I am fully confident in my ability to identify a psychopath. I don't need any psychiatric qualifications, though it would be nice to have them. If you read the behaviour that her mother exhibits, it is plain as daylight that she is devoid of moral sanity. Until you write a detailed argument about south asian culture, and how it is responsible for this behaviour - going against one's conscience, committing bad deeds - then I am not going to be convinced that the OP's mother is a fully functioning human with any shred of a soul. There is more evidence that she is a psychopath than there is to prove her as a human.

And to note: The psychopath is well aware of social conventions, and they would have had great impact on them from birth. That is why the majority of them are not violent killers, they live quietly among humans. The psychopath will use whatever justification they please for their actions. Social conventions just give them, and sadly, sometimes the victim, a justification for abuse.

I think the most straight-forward way to resolve this issue is to demonstrate that you quite frankly have sparingly little knowledge of the condition you purport to diagnose and then condemn.

Simon Baron-Cohen's latest book "Zero Degrees of Empathy" will make enlightening reading for you. He writes on the popular notion of 'evil' from a neuroscientific standpoint, as one of the UK's leading autism researchers and a professor of Psychiatry at the University of Cambridge.
He provides accounts of dealings with sufferers of Anti-Social Personality Disorder, as 'psychopathy' is medically known.
In addition, he provides a 'checklist' used for diagnosis, which I will provide as follows, with my own analysis of the behaviour of the woman in this incident:

1) Failure to conform to social norms of lawfulness, performing arrestable offences.
This includes a history of criminality from an early age, especially violent crime. Not only does the mother refrain from physical violence, but also isn't, as a vast proportion of sufferers are estimated to be, in prison. It is no coincidence that the OP mentions that her brother has much more relaxed requirements; a classic male-female inequality in many non-Western societies. The mother is overly conforming to social norms from a bygone world.

2) Deceitfulness.
The entire issue with this woman is her lack of deceitfulness. She has been nothing but unashamedly upfront about her expectations and desires for her daughter.

3) Impulsivity and failure to plan ahead.
Whilst the verbal exchange on the street suggests impulsivity, I would posit that this is a perfectly normal response to seeing something that one is deeply opposed to taking place. We would, for want of restraint, do the same if we saw our own children taking heroin on the side of the street.

4) Irritability and agression.
I have dealt with this already. The OP has made no mention of any physical abuse at all.

There are three other diagnostic criteria that would require access to her financial, social and medical histories that we simply cannot access. As a result, any diagnosis would return at very least an inconclusive result from the data we are presented. As the four criteria which we can apply all test negative, I would see little difficulty suggesting that she was not a sufferer of the condition you call psychopathy.


Furthermore, your view of the condition as a whole would put you in a minority amongst neuroscientists and psychiatrists, much as a new-Earth creationist is at odds with palaeontologists and cosmologists.
Whilst I would contend that the 'soul' you refer to does not exist in actuality, I vehemently oppose the fundamental idea behind your statement. People with ASBD are, as you acknowledge, able to understand emotion and social expectation, but these fall short of eliciting a response due to inactive brain processes. Now that doesn't, in itself, say very much, just that the behaviour isn't there because the stimulus doesn't elicit a response, but that is at the heart of my point. What you are dealing with here is a failure to compute a stimulus and receive its significance. When sentience, consciousness and other hallmarks of human thought are so obviously present, how can you dismiss these people as subhuman?

If, for example, you were to develop lesions to your medial prefrontal cortex and/or your amygdala and other parts of the brain that correlate with empathetic behaviour, would you just be ripe for euthanasia despite your protestation that the rest of your cognitive faculties are intact? Or should we instead focus on understanding your condition and attempting to find work-arounds and coping mechanisms? I suggest the latter, but perhaps you lack sufficient empathy?


EDIT: I have just now noticed that you, in your previous post, claim that psychopaths are generally not violent. With light from the evidence that I have presented to you, I think this sits as another example that you known not of what you speak.

[Anonymous]

[QUOTE=NeuralGroove;38061226] Not only does the mother refrain from physical violence

Actually I did say she is physically abusive towards me

[A Cat]

(Original post by NeuralGroove)
I think the most straight-forward way to resolve this issue is to demonstrate that you quite frankly have sparingly little knowledge of the condition you purport to diagnose and then condemn.

Whatever. I don't need a degree to be knowledgable. Go ahead and live as strictly by the book as you like.

1) Failure to conform to social norms of lawfulness, performing arrestable offences.
This includes a history of criminality from an early age, especially violent crime. Not only does the mother refrain from physical violence, but also isn't, as a vast proportion of sufferers are estimated to be, in prison. It is no coincidence that the OP mentions that her brother has much more relaxed requirements; a classic male-female inequality in many non-Western societies. The mother is overly conforming to social norms from a bygone world.

Failure to conform to "treat others as you wish to be treated". Many psychopaths do not get arrested for anything, because they are intelligent enough to know that if they get caught, they will go down, so they hide their crimes well or restrict themselves from doing such things. You say a vast proportion of psychopaths are in prison, partially correct, but the majority of them live in day to day life.

The way a psychopath grows up, the social norms that they recognise and know to keep to for fear of punishment, have great effect on their mindset. Psychopath serial killers will have been neglected by parents and probably abused. They will not have been brought up 'right'.

2) Deceitfulness.
The entire issue with this woman is her lack of deceitfulness. She has been nothing but unashamedly upfront about her expectations and desires for her daughter.

Is it decietful to try and invoke third party violence? Yes we're working with limited information. That's the best I can do.

LOL, desires. If there was desire born of love in this woman's head then she wouldn't act this way nor prompt her daughter to ask for help on the situation.

3) Impulsivity and failure to plan ahead.
Whilst the verbal exchange on the street suggests impulsivity, I would posit that this is a perfectly normal response to seeing something that one is deeply opposed to taking place. We would, for want of restraint, do the same if we saw our own children taking heroin on the side of the street.

Impulsiveness is consistent with the information present. Screaming on the street, trying to get the father to hit someone (because she's too weak - manipulative, cunning), the "**** every tom dick and harry" part, and the private investigator lie/scare tactic. If one has the ability to plan ahead, they
would know that their actions are detrimental to the relationship. And this woman has no concept of what value a relationship holds in the human ... I don't want to say soul... but I do. Furthermore this woman doesn't even recognise what she's doing that is bad... in her mind she's right! Isn't that evil?

4) Irritability and agression.
I have dealt with this already. The OP has made no mention of any physical abuse at all.

Yes it is certainly dealt with in the OP and further confirmed.

There are three other diagnostic criteria that would require access to her financial, social and medical histories that we simply cannot access. As a result, any diagnosis would return at very least an inconclusive result from the data we are presented. As the four criteria which we can apply all test negative, I would see little difficulty suggesting that she was not a sufferer of the condition you call psychopathy.

I think that diagnostic is a pile of poky bum **** with horse**** on top. The main "qualities" of a psychopath are - lack of empathy, superficiality in emotion and knowledge, grandiose sense of self worth, failure to accept responsibility for wrongdoing. These are the qualities that make a psycho a psycho. The book you quote doesn't seem to be specific enough.

Furthermore, your view of the condition as a whole would put you in a minority amongst neuroscientists and psychiatrists, much as a new-Earth creationist is at odds with palaeontologists and cosmologists.

I don't pretend to be a psychiatrist.

Whilst I would contend that the 'soul' you refer to does not exist in actuality, I vehemently oppose the fundamental idea behind your statement. People with ASBD are, as you acknowledge, able to understand emotion and social expectation, but these fall short of eliciting a response due to inactive brain processes. Now that doesn't, in itself, say very much, just that the behaviour isn't there because the stimulus doesn't elicit a response, but that is at the heart of my point. What you are dealing with here is a failure to compute a stimulus and receive its significance. When sentience, consciousness and other hallmarks of human thought are so obviously present, how can you dismiss these people as subhuman?

I don't like to talk about ASBD, APD, because they are terms which seek to diagnose criminal behaviour as a whole. I'm talking specifically about psychopathy. They don't understand emotion and social expectation. They know of it, and it confuses them, like we know of low pitch frequencies but don't comprehend them other than in the imagination of the mind, while a dog would understand it.

Nobody taught you how to feel empathy. You know the difference between stroking a cat and putting it in the bin These are human qualities. Love not hate, as gay as that sounds.

If the entire world was full of psychopaths, they would all be dead or dying, and it wouldn't be what we call "humanity", it would be hell.

If, for example, you were to develop lesions to your medial prefrontal cortex and/or your amygdala and other parts of the brain that correlate with empathetic behaviour, would you just be ripe for euthanasia despite your protestation that the rest of your cognitive faculties are intact? Or should we instead focus on understanding your condition and attempting to find work-arounds and coping mechanisms? I suggest the latter, but perhaps you lack sufficient empathy?

EDIT: I have just now noticed that you, in your previous post, claim that psychopaths are generally not violent. With light from the evidence that I have presented to you, I think this sits as another example that you known not of what you speak. don't try and be insulting, it's just desperate, especially when you are trying to tell me to do something which goes against my conscience.

Well the consensus among psychiatrists on the subject of psychopathy is that there is no cure. Also how can one feel empathy for someone who doesn't feel empathy? I can't feel sad for a psychopath pretending to be sad I do however realise that these people are completely empty, and they desperately try and fill this hole. Whatever they do, they live in even more quiet desperation than the rest of us.

This debate seems to me to be 'book smarts' vs experience. Have you ever had experience with a psychopath? Also how do you propose the humans deal with them?

[A Cat]

[QUOTE=Anonymous;38063752]

(Original post by NeuralGroove)
Not only does the mother refrain from physical violence

Actually I did say she is physically abusive towards me

by the way, how are things going in your situation?

[davidsimpson93]

I've heard stories like this before then one day the person just disappears to a different country and ends up in some forced marriage. I wouldn't put it past your parents from reading this. Don't be that person. Give your parents the middle finger, cut all contact and start a fresh at uni. Family is what you make it

[NeuralGroove]

(Original post by Samrout)
Whatever. I don't need a degree to be knowledgable. Go ahead and live as strictly by the book as you like.



Furthermore this woman doesn't even recognise what she's doing that is bad... in her mind she's right! Isn't that evil?

I think that diagnostic is a pile of poky bum **** with horse**** on top. The main "qualities" of a psychopath are - lack of empathy, superficiality in emotion and knowledge, grandiose sense of self worth, failure to accept responsibility for wrongdoing.

This debate seems to me to be 'book smarts' vs experience. Have you ever had experience with a psychopath? Also how do you propose the humans deal with them?

I think that we've exhausted the avenue of inquiry that deals with the definition of a 'psychopath', as you seem not to care about the generally agreed definition of the term, but work from whatever 'experience' you think you have'.

I wish to show you that understanding what one is talking about is essential if you wish to talk about it; I have 'experience' with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. However, I do not have a medical degree and a lot of diagnostic tests to run, so I cannot purport to diagnose it when someone complains of fatigue; there are too many other possible explanations that cannot be ruled out. When I mentioned that she refrained from violence, I didn't mean that she'd been a perfect pacifist, simply that she'd not immediately or eventually resorted to it in the incident on the street, showing behavioural restraint.

I don't know what definition of the term you are using, but you managed to just rubbish a world-renowned expert in the field based on... what? Nothing. Your own grandiose sense of self-importance, perhaps? Look at it logically; 'psychopathy' is a limited group of symptoms that are generally agreed to form a syndrome, or common grouping. Who is likely to be better at applying this, someone with years of practical experience and 'book smarts', or an unqualified, ill-read observer in an internet chatroom? I know who I'd rather have diagnose my mother with a condition as important as that.

Furthermore, I would entirely disagree with your assessment of morality. Imagine if tomorrow, we discovered that eating cucumber was deeply morally wrong. Are you morally responsible for the evil you've committed by eating cucumber in the past? No. What about if you are a suicide bomber who truly believes killing infidels is 'moral'? What about if you're a British soldier believing that killing the 'enemy' is 'moral? As far as I am concerned, simply adhering to a system of beliefs demonstrates that one's moral faculties exist. In the absence of moral faculty, or moral understanding in the case of the patients you discuss, not adhering to something they don't understand doesn't make them immoral but amoral. It's one thing to do what you know is wrong, another to do it in the absence of the knowledge that it is wrong.

If you can't accept that, in this field, you are the one guy in the Biology lecture theatre shouting that Evolution doesn't exist, that you are a tiny, irrelevant minority in your views on this, then I'm afraid that I can't convince you otherwise. You seem to be far too emotionally invested in your definition, perhaps convincing yourself that those who wronged you are immoral psychopaths, being yourself unable to face the fact that normal people can do and be driven to nasty things, or unable to accept that normal people could wrong you. In fact, this whole conviction of yours smacks of the shaman who shouts that those who do 'wrong' in his eyes are possessed by evil spirits.

[NeuralGroove]

[QUOTE=Anonymous;38063752]

(Original post by NeuralGroove)
Not only does the mother refrain from physical violence

Actually I did say she is physically abusive towards me

I simply meant that violence seemed not to be an immediate resort in at least a number of her actions, for instance, in the incident on the street. "Psychopaths" as we are apparently calling such patients, are described as "brimming with non-directional, generalised rage". These are people who stab fellow human beings in the eyes with biros for taking the last newspaper in a supermarket, not just people who commit acts of violence in domestic situations, no matter how unfair and unpleasant they may be.

I don't mean to condone your mother's actions in the least, I think that they are unhelpful and damaging both to yourself and her. I don't, however, think they are the result of ASPD, or "psychopathy", much the same as you can have a headache without it being a brain tumor; the diagnosis simply falls apart. The other poster would, if their beliefs were made more general, be able to by the same logic conclude that despite being told there was no mass of cancerous cells in the brain, there was a brain tumor according to some other definition, one that is certainly not used by knowledgeable experts and professionals.

[NeuralGroove]

(Original post by Samrout)
Well the consensus among psychiatrists on the subject of psychopathy is that there is no cure. Also how can one feel empathy for someone who doesn't feel empathy?

In addition to what I think is a pretty full rebuttal above, this section also requires some refutation in itself.

If I see an animal in pain, I feel empathetic towards its plight. Animals don't feel empathy, but that does not even feature in the matter. Empathy isn't a rational decision one comes to, precisely why 'psychopaths' cannot reason to be empathetic.

If anyone lacks empathy, I'd suggest it would be you, advocating some kind of sick, horrific, fourth-reich extermination of people with a genuine medical condition. How do you feel about other criminals? What about murderers who show no empathy in one instance, but do in others? What about me, when I show no empathy towards a sickly friend when I myself am extremely ill? We all have episodes of 'single-mindedness' as Baron-Cohen considers it, when our own goals drive us to ignore the feelings of others. I simply think that it is more likely that this issue, for cultural reasons, elicits such a response in the mother.

[A Cat]

(Original post by NeuralGroove)
I think that we've exhausted the avenue of inquiry that deals with the definition of a 'psychopath', as you seem not to care about the generally agreed definition of the term, but work from whatever 'experience' you think you have'.

O rly? What is the agreed definition? It's surely not Cohen's sack of crap umbrella term for anyone with a criminal disposition. The symptoms of psychopathy are much more precise. And yes my experience surely does help me in recognising them. Lol you're so patronising. You've obviously never been touched by a psychopath.

I wish to show you that understanding what one is talking about is essential if you wish to talk about it; I have 'experience' with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. However, I do not have a medical degree and a lot of diagnostic tests to run, so I cannot purport to diagnose it when someone complains of fatigue; there are too many other possible explanations that cannot be ruled out. When I mentioned that she refrained from violence, I didn't mean that she'd been a perfect pacifist, simply that she'd not immediately or eventually resorted to it in the incident on the street, showing behavioural restraint.

You're mucking up the facts here. She was physically violent to her child. She did try and instigate violence on the street. Don't twist the facts for your own gain. And certainly don't be wilfully ignorant of them just to try and prove a point.

I don't know what definition of the term you are using, but you managed to just rubbish a world-renowned expert in the field based on... what? Nothing. Your own grandiose sense of self-importance, perhaps? Look at it logically; 'psychopathy' is a limited group of symptoms that are generally agreed to form a syndrome, or common grouping. Who is likely to be better at applying this, someone with years of practical experience and 'book smarts', or an unqualified, ill-read observer in an internet chatroom? I know who I'd rather have diagnose my mother with a condition as important as that.

I said psychopathy. You tried to put forward some ASPD definition to label the woman, desperately trying to find a diagnosis that you could twist for your gain, I said no. ASPD does not equate to psychopathy, whereas psychopathy would come under ASPD. So I am correct in saying that using an ASPD diagnostic on a psychopath will not yield the correct results - you will only get ASPD at best, because most psychopaths are not violent, and not "psychopath". You applied the wrong diagnostic. Oh, and it's ****e.

How about someone whose mother is a psychopath, and having had 17 years of living experience with her, I know all of her traits and tricks, and I apply this knowledge to the rest of the world. Furthermore I have done and continue to do a lot of reading on the subject. Oh and she was diagnosed as Borderline Personality Disorder, another bull **** label for women. The reality is, she's a pscyhopath with no empathy, and I know her inside out.

Furthermore, I would entirely disagree with your assessment of morality. Imagine if tomorrow, we discovered that eating cucumber was deeply morally wrong. Are you morally responsible for the evil you've committed by eating cucumber in the past? No. What about if you are a suicide bomber who truly believes killing infidels is 'moral'? What about if you're a British soldier believing that killing the 'enemy' is 'moral? As far as I am concerned, simply adhering to a system of beliefs demonstrates that one's moral faculties exist. In the absence of moral faculty, or moral understanding in the case of the patients you discuss, not adhering to something they don't understand doesn't make them immoral but amoral. It's one thing to do what you know is wrong, another to do it in the absence of the knowledge that it is wrong.

If you think that any of the actions of the mother are "moral" in any sense, you're a twisted one. When the mother does such things, she doesn't think it will be "good" for the recipient of her onslaught, she only thinks it will be "good" for herself. A psychopath holds a very self centred view of very loose morals. Yes you could say amoral, but with the lack of conscience comes the lack of will to do anything good for other people, the act of which we attribute to "morality", "empathy". From our realities, the acts of psychopaths are immoral. From the reality, they cannot be labeled. From their reality, they might be engaging in something they know is wrong, but in their mind, the end always justifies the means They don't mind rolling in **** for a £1000. No sense of shame, remorse, guilt, self-questioning, which is what prevents the majority of us from committing heinous acts.

If you can't accept that, in this field, you are the one guy in the Biology lecture theatre shouting that Evolution doesn't exist, that you are a tiny, irrelevant minority in your views on this, then I'm afraid that I can't convince you otherwise. You seem to be far too emotionally invested in your definition, perhaps convincing yourself that those who wronged you are immoral psychopaths, being yourself unable to face the fact that normal people can do and be driven to nasty things, or unable to accept that normal people could wrong you. In fact, this whole conviction of yours smacks of the shaman who shouts that those who do 'wrong' in his eyes are possessed by evil spirits.

I have not said anything factually incorrect. Nor have I said anything that goes against my conscience. Nor have I said anything (other than diagnosing without 'proper' authority) misleading, inappropriate, wrong.

Well I don't really have the time to deny all the bad things you say about me so I'm just going to re-iterate: stop making things up you filthy liar.

lol.. all you have doing is picking and choosing the points which you might be able to form some kind of reply to. Then saying I don't know anything about the subject... I'm quite confident I know much more than you and most people on here, which is why I posted. You seem incapable of accepting the facts, because in the end, the only reason you're posting is because you're trying to tell me what to do. Not gonna happen. If I see a psychopath I'll shout.

If you want to "win" then answer the questions I have presented you in previous posts too.

[A Cat]

(Original post by NeuralGroove)
In addition to what I think is a pretty full rebuttal above, this section also requires some refutation in itself.

If I see an animal in pain, I feel empathetic towards its plight. Animals don't feel empathy, but that does not even feature in the matter. Empathy isn't a rational decision one comes to, precisely why 'psychopaths' cannot reason to be empathetic.

If anyone lacks empathy, I'd suggest it would be you, advocating some kind of sick, horrific, fourth-reich extermination of people with a genuine medical condition. How do you feel about other criminals? What about murderers who show no empathy in one instance, but do in others? What about me, when I show no empathy towards a sickly friend when I myself am extremely ill? We all have episodes of 'single-mindedness' as Baron-Cohen considers it, when our own goals drive us to ignore the feelings of others. I simply think that it is more likely that this issue, for cultural reasons, elicits such a response in the mother.

Yes I would have thought you would bring up this counter argument. I agree, seeing psychopath, or anyone in pain will move me. But at the end of the day, it is how we act which holds importance, and while I may be moved by the psychopaths actions, I will not change my view towards them.

I ask you again. What would you do to resolve the problem of psychopaths in the world? Shipping them to the moon was obviously not serious, and I don't advocate a "psychopath holocaust" just yet.

You think that the mother's actions are just episodes of singlemindedness? Episodes, no, a lifetime, yes.

[NeuralGroove]

(Original post by Samrout)
O rly? What is the agreed definition? It's surely not Cohen's sack of crap umbrella term for anyone with a criminal disposition. The symptoms of psychopathy are much more precise. And yes my experience surely does help me in recognising them. Lol you're so patronising. You've obviously never been touched by a psychopath.



You're mucking up the facts here. She was physically violent to her child. She did try and instigate violence on the street. Don't twist the facts for your own gain. And certainly don't be wilfully ignorant of them just to try and prove a point.



I said psychopathy. You tried to put forward some ASPD definition to label the woman, desperately trying to find a diagnosis that you could twist for your gain, I said no. ASPD does not equate to psychopathy, whereas psychopathy would come under ASPD. So I am correct in saying that using an ASPD diagnostic on a psychopath will not yield the correct results - you will only get ASPD at best, because most psychopaths are not violent, and not "psychopath". You applied the wrong diagnostic. Oh, and it's ****e.

How about someone whose mother is a psychopath, and having had 17 years of living experience with her, I know all of her traits and tricks, and I apply this knowledge to the rest of the world. Furthermore I have done and continue to do a lot of reading on the subject. Oh and she was diagnosed as Borderline Personality Disorder, another bull **** label for women. The reality is, she's a pscyhopath with no empathy, and I know her inside out.




If you think that any of the actions of the mother are "moral" in any sense, you're a twisted one. When the mother does such things, she doesn't think it will be "good" for the recipient of her onslaught, she only thinks it will be "good" for herself. A psychopath holds a very self centred view of very loose morals. Yes you could say amoral, but with the lack of conscience comes the lack of will to do anything good for other people, the act of which we attribute to "morality", "empathy". From our realities, the acts of psychopaths are immoral. From the reality, they cannot be labeled. From their reality, they might be engaging in something they know is wrong, but in their mind, the end always justifies the means They don't mind rolling in **** for a £1000. No sense of shame, remorse, guilt, self-questioning, which is what prevents the majority of us from committing heinous acts.



I have not said anything factually incorrect. Nor have I said anything that goes against my conscience. Nor have I said anything (other than diagnosing without 'proper' authority) misleading, inappropriate, wrong.

Well I don't really have the time to deny all the bad things you say about me so I'm just going to re-iterate: stop making things up you filthy liar.

lol.. all you have doing is picking and choosing the points which you might be able to form some kind of reply to. Then saying I don't know anything about the subject... I'm quite confident I know much more than you and most people on here, which is why I posted. You seem incapable of accepting the facts, because in the end, the only reason you're posting is because you're trying to tell me what to do. Not gonna happen. If I see a psychopath I'll shout.

If you want to "win" then answer the questions I have presented you in previous posts too.

I'd argue that the very fact that these facts can be 'twisted', or rather, held up in different lights serves to demonstrate how lacking any evidence is to suggest any diagnosis at all. Why can you not see that there are simply far too many contextual factors for you to make any real, meaningful judgment from the post?

Now, you are happy to say that the diagnostic criteria for ASPD are not completed here. I would agree. You maintain that this woman is a 'psychopath'. I would like to make this clear. There is no such condition in the medical literature. What you are doing is trying to diagnose someone with 'evil'. There is no diagnostic criteria for 'psychopathy' because you cannot diagnose someone with something for which there is no agreed or even suggested diagnosis. ASPD is the closest suggested true syndrome to the condition you purport to describe.

You give the example of someone "rolling in **** for £1000". Now, what you fail to appreciate is that if someone degrades themselves or other people in the pursuit of self-gain, there can be all kinds of causes for that. Your response to such an offer of £1000 would be very different to the response of a homeless man, or someone starving to death. Similarly, we can all suspend our drives to care for others in the pursuit of self-gain when it suits us to.

I really do fail to see how at any point I've been "a filthy liar". I've been nothing but up-front with my reasons to refute your claims and have presented academic, published, reputable evidence to support my own reasoning; something that you have failed to do. Not once have you even quoted a definition of the term you are using.
Now, "the only reason I'm posting" isn't because I want to "tell you what to do". We aren't twelve any more and I'm not your mother. Instead, it's because I genuinely and wholeheartedly believe that issues like this are far too important to people's wellbeing for them to be so dismissively and inexpertly botched online. If you suspect a behavioural disorder, see a doctor about it. If you want to make up your own conditions and apply them to people, that's bully for you, but you have to accept that if you try to stand up and shout about them, educated, good-natured and sincere people will have no time for you. Our values are incommensurable.

As a side note, I've attempted to answer all your questions that presented themselves. If you've anything you'd like me to answer, please post it clearly in the next post and I will do my best.

[NeuralGroove]

(Original post by Samrout)
Yes I would have thought you would bring up this counter argument. I agree, seeing psychopath, or anyone in pain will move me. But at the end of the day, it is how we act which holds importance, and while I may be moved by the psychopaths actions, I will not change my view towards them.

I ask you again. What would you do to resolve the problem of psychopaths in the world? Shipping them to the moon was obviously not serious, and I don't advocate a "psychopath holocaust" just yet.

You think that the mother's actions are just episodes of singlemindedness? Episodes, no, a lifetime, yes.

A lifetime of single-mindedness, or rather, a lifetime of inclination towards episodes of single-mindedness is a far cry from being subhuman.

I care about suffering in others not because of their actions, their character or their usefulness, but because of my own character. I hope that I would seek to remove pain and suffering from someone I hate as readily a I would with someone I idolise or love.

[A Cat]

(Original post by NeuralGroove)
I'd argue that the very fact that these facts can be 'twisted', or rather, held up in different lights serves to demonstrate how lacking any evidence is to suggest any diagnosis at all. Why can you not see that there are simply far too many contextual factors for you to make any real, meaningful judgment from the post?

Now, you are happy to say that the diagnostic criteria for ASPD are not completed here. I would agree. I SAID ASPD DOESN'T DIAGNOSE PSYCHOPATHS. You maintain that this woman is a 'psychopath'. I would like to make this clear. There is no such condition in the medical literature. Dr Robert Hare - Without Conscience, Snakes in Suits, Dr Harvey Cleckley - The Mask of Sanity. Didn't Cohen mention it where you quoted him?What you are doing is trying to diagnose someone with 'evil'. There is no diagnostic criteria for 'psychopathy' because you cannot diagnose someone with something for which there is no agreed or even suggested diagnosis. ASPD is the closest suggested true syndrome to the condition you purport to describe. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist is well known and advocated.

You give the example of someone "rolling in **** for £1000". Now, what you fail to appreciate is that if someone degrades themselves or other people in the pursuit of self-gain, there can be all kinds of causes for that. Your response to such an offer of £1000 would be very different to the response of a homeless man, or someone starving to death. Similarly, we can all suspend our drives to care for others in the pursuit of self-gain when it suits us to.

I really do fail to see how at any point I've been "a filthy liar". Lying about lying. Nice one. I've been nothing but up-front with my reasons to refute your claims and have presented academic, published, reputable evidence to support my own reasoning; something that you have failed to do. Not once have you even quoted a definition of the term you are using.
Now, "the only reason I'm posting" isn't because I want to "tell you what to do". Yes it is. That was the original reason and the continued reason to try and shut me up We aren't twelve any more and I'm not your mother. Instead, it's because I genuinely and wholeheartedly believe that issues like this are far too important to people's wellbeing for them to be so dismissively and inexpertly botched online. If you suspect a behavioural disorder, see a doctor about it. If you want to make up your own conditions and apply them to people, that's bully for you, but you have to accept that if you try to stand up and shout about them, educated, good-natured and sincere people will have no time for you. Our values are incommensurable.

As a side note, I've attempted to answer all your questions that presented themselves. If you've anything you'd like me to answer, please post it clearly in the next post and I will do my best. No you haven't

What a waste of time. If you deny that psychopaths exist then I don't see how we can talk anymore. Furthermore I don't think you can actually read and take in what I'm saying, otherwise there would have been no more conversation since a few posts back. You don't address anything I say with specific proper conviction or argument.

Furthermore, if you show kindness to a psychopath, they will only see it as weakness. They are our enemies, and they think so themselves.

Don't compromise THE reality for your small-minded reality.

And to conclude - The best person to make a judgement on whether the person in question is a psychopath is the daughter.

[A Cat]

(Original post by NeuralGroove)
A lifetime of single-mindedness, or rather, a lifetime of inclination towards episodes of single-mindedness is a far cry from being subhuman.

I care about suffering in others not because of their actions, their character or their usefulness, but because of my own character. I hope that I would seek to remove pain and suffering from someone I hate as readily a I would with someone I idolise or love.

Again this post serves as evidence that you simply do not read what I post. Single mindedness isn't the prevailing factor which leads me to designate psychopaths as subhuman. Their lack of empathy and other HUMAN VALUES is what makes me view them as worms.

You want to answer a question? Do these: What would you do to resolve the problem of psychopaths in this world? Do you not see them as a problem? Have you ever met a psychopath? Do you think they are beneficial to the advancement of our species? Do you think their actions and way of thinking are comendable?

I don't expect you to come up with anything worthwhile, so surprise me.

EDIT: final question. Would you say this person in question is a psychopath? http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2029083

[NeuralGroove]

(Original post by Samrout)
What a waste of time. If you deny that psychopaths exist then I don't see how we can talk anymore. Furthermore I don't think you can actually read and take in what I'm saying, otherwise there would have been no more conversation since a few posts back. You don't address anything I say with specific proper conviction or argument.

Furthermore, if you show kindness to a psychopath, they will only see it as weakness. They are our enemies, and they think so themselves.

Don't compromise THE reality for your small-minded reality.

And to conclude - The best person to make a judgement on whether the person in question is a psychopath is the daughter.

Right, a few asides here. For one thing, I'm not denying that the people you call 'psychopaths' exist, just denying that any real, meaningful diagnostic criteria exists to enable such a diagnosis. Hare's checklist is famous for simply stating that there is a syndrome in which people are glib and unempathetic and then attempting to test to see if people are glib and unempathetic; it doesn't explain why, to what extent or even that this is necessarily detrimental and an established syndrome. Furthermore, its accuracy and validity has been pretty much dismissed by many prominent scientists. I do think that there is an issue here, but it is better described by many subsets of specific syndromes, but this really isn't the point of this argument.

My conviction that you are deeply and inherently wrong about in this issue stems from the fact that an unqualified poster on an internet forum can offer a 'diagnosis' that so affects people's lives based on two paragraphs of information from one perspective. To do so is fundamentally negligent, dishonest and unethical, regardless of what experience you think you have.

If we're going to quibble about who reads what, I'd point out that when I offered to attempt to answer any questions you have, you responded: "no you haven't".

It seems from the duration of this conversation that you are not, as I first thought, someone genuinely interested in the cognitive sciences. Instead, you appear to be irrational, uninformed and driven by an emotional conviction about your mother. Now, I can understand precisely why you feel this way, but arguing from such a perspective of certainty and emotional fragility is unscientific and unhelpful. I know you've repeatedly stated that you aren't a psychiatrist, but I wish to make it clear that the conversation should have ended there. These issues are better left to learned, accredited professionals.

To answer your final question, I must raise another question, with some contextualisation. Over the past few years, I've volunteered in a care home for the severely neurologically impaired. Their actions are often immensely, unwittingly, hurtful to those who love them and their levels of cognitive function are, in many cases, diminished far beyond what would allow them to survive in the outside world.
To apply your acid test of human worth:

"What would you do to resolve the problem of psychopaths in this world? Do you not see them as a problem? Have you ever met a psychopath? Do you think they are beneficial to the advancement of our species? Do you think their actions and way of thinking are commendable?"

Now, like with your 'psychopaths', I see their condition as a tragic challenge to science and medicine. My answer to both is that better science, progress and understanding is required to benefit these people.

As with either group, I don't feel that they 'are beneficial to the advancement of our species'. Mainly because I don't see that there is such a thing as the advancement of a species; there is no end goal in our evolution, and I seek not to eugenically filter the gene pool. I do, however, strongly believe that we need to concentrate on the advancement of our society, making life fairer, more enjoyable and less hostile for each individual. In that sense, these people, and our tolerance and understanding of them, is essential to working towards our end goal of a fair, beneficial world in which to live. My ideal society does not involve your horrific, degrading, supercilious, emotionally damaged plans of genocide. (I make the comment on genocide as you said that a "Psychopath holocaust [is not needed]...yet".

Do I think the actions and thought processes of either group are commendable? No. Do I think that they are a sign that these people are, to use your word, "worms"? Even less so. Instead, I simply realise that they are as much a product of their central meat computer as I am, and that my values and ideals don't apply to them. Now, if I see the possibility of improving their quality of life, then I see few ethical qualms about doing so.

Whilst a 'psychopath' might see my 'kindness as a sign of weakness', I see it as a sign of strength of the most crucial kind, one that I would not give up for any amount.

I think it a shame that you still accuse me of lying, as it furthers my cause none to do so. I have tried my best to honestly disagree with you, but I now see that you regard your views as absolutes, which only 'psychopaths' and those who 'wish to tell you what to do' would disagree with. That, to me, combined with your claims that I am trying to silence you, is a sign that this conversation is best ended. I think you most likely have a number of things that you need to resolve yourself. I wish you all the best.

[f1mad]

Tell 'em straight.

If they threaten to hurt you, then you know you're better off without them quite frankly.

[A Cat]

(Original post by NeuralGroove)
Right, a few asides here. For one thing, I'm not denying that the people you call 'psychopaths' exist, just denying that any real, meaningful diagnostic criteria exists to enable such a diagnosis. Hare's checklist is famous for simply stating that there is a syndrome in which people are glib and unempathetic and then attempting to test to see if people are glib and unempathetic; it doesn't explain why, to what extent or even that this is necessarily detrimental and an established syndrome. Furthermore, its accuracy and validity has been pretty much dismissed by many prominent scientists. I do think that there is an issue here, but it is better described by many subsets of specific syndromes, but this really isn't the point of this argument.

My conviction that you are deeply and inherently wrong about in this issue stems from the fact that an unqualified poster on an internet forum can offer a 'diagnosis' that so affects people's lives based on two paragraphs of information from one perspective. To do so is fundamentally negligent, dishonest and unethical, regardless of what experience you think you have.

If we're going to quibble about who reads what, I'd point out that when I offered to attempt to answer any questions you have, you responded: "no you haven't".

It seems from the duration of this conversation that you are not, as I first thought, someone genuinely interested in the cognitive sciences. Instead, you appear to be irrational, uninformed and driven by an emotional conviction about your mother. Now, I can understand precisely why you feel this way, but arguing from such a perspective of certainty and emotional fragility is unscientific and unhelpful. I know you've repeatedly stated that you aren't a psychiatrist, but I wish to make it clear that the conversation should have ended there. These issues are better left to learned, accredited professionals.

To answer your final question, I must raise another question, with some contextualisation. Over the past few years, I've volunteered in a care home for the severely neurologically impaired. Their actions are often immensely, unwittingly, hurtful to those who love them and their levels of cognitive function are, in many cases, diminished far beyond what would allow them to survive in the outside world.
To apply your acid test of human worth:

"What would you do to resolve the problem of psychopaths in this world? Do you not see them as a problem? Have you ever met a psychopath? Do you think they are beneficial to the advancement of our species? Do you think their actions and way of thinking are commendable?"

Now, like with your 'psychopaths', I see their condition as a tragic challenge to science and medicine. My answer to both is that better science, progress and understanding is required to benefit these people.

As with either group, I don't feel that they 'are beneficial to the advancement of our species'. Mainly because I don't see that there is such a thing as the advancement of a species; there is no end goal in our evolution, and I seek not to eugenically filter the gene pool. I do, however, strongly believe that we need to concentrate on the advancement of our society, making life fairer, more enjoyable and less hostile for each individual. In that sense, these people, and our tolerance and understanding of them, is essential to working towards our end goal of a fair, beneficial world in which to live. My ideal society does not involve your horrific, degrading, supercilious, emotionally damaged plans of genocide. (I make the comment on genocide as you said that a "Psychopath holocaust [is not needed]...yet".

Do I think the actions and thought processes of either group are commendable? No. Do I think that they are a sign that these people are, to use your word, "worms"? Even less so. Instead, I simply realise that they are as much a product of their central meat computer as I am, and that my values and ideals don't apply to them. Now, if I see the possibility of improving their quality of life, then I see few ethical qualms about doing so.

Whilst a 'psychopath' might see my 'kindness as a sign of weakness', I see it as a sign of strength of the most crucial kind, one that I would not give up for any amount.

I think it a shame that you still accuse me of lying, as it furthers my cause none to do so. I have tried my best to honestly disagree with you, but I now see that you regard your views as absolutes, which only 'psychopaths' and those who 'wish to tell you what to do' would disagree with. That, to me, combined with your claims that I am trying to silence you, is a sign that this conversation is best ended. I think you most likely have a number of things that you need to resolve yourself. I wish you all the best.

Lol. So I mention my mother is a psychopath as "credential" and you accuse me of spouting emotionally clouded logic. I'm well above that.

I don't think I can talk with you anymore if you decide to twist my words. "Acid test of human worth". No, they are just questions.

Psychopathy is a syndrome, of which there are core traits and supplementary traits which will further help to identify them. I have recognised and identified the traits, the act of which does not make me need a "professional" stature or academic qualification in order to do so. The only thing wrong with Hare's checklist is that it doesn't identify the core traits as being pivotal to the psychopath diagnosis - lack of empathy, disregard for social norms, grandiose sense of self-worth - and so a bum-psychiatrist or somebody ill informed could conclude on whether someone is a psychopath on the basis of "sexually promiscuous, pathological lying, parasitic lifestyle, manipulative". I have made the distinction between the core traits and the complementary traits the accompany them.

When challenged by you, I did say that the best person to make a diagnosis is the OP, having known the subject's case history. I do think this is the best way, but in most cases the victim doesn't know about the existence of psychopathy. So if trying to educate is unethical, in your view, then we should remain blind. Furthermore, I would not, like most people my age, state conviction without relevant and important information. I know a lot about this topic, so there is no point trying to belittle me about my knowledge to try and prove your point.

I am interested in psychopathy and its effect on humankind, in family life, in work, in the street, and in politics and business. This interest stems from my mother's behaviour. If she wasn't a psychopath, I doubt I would have the knowledge or be as strong in character. I am not uninformed, if you would like to read a thread I wrote on the subject - http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1873367 - nor irrationally driven by feelings of hate or anger towards her (although the thread was inspired by my feelings toward her). I am driven by compassion and empathy for our fellow humans, which is why I post on the subject. I argue from a perspective of experience, which I find will help the poster.

In this thread, I believe there is a good case to shout psychopath. You may not see it, having had no experience with psychopaths (I assume so). From my experience I draw the conclusion that the behaviour is very related to the psychopath mindset. And so, if I see a snail, I will say it's a snail, and so on. I do not call it a slug with a shell (ASPD), and I don't deny the snail's existence.

From your point of view, I am unqualified to make any judgement from such little information, and so with this lack of qualification and information provided, I should keep my mouth shut. In my view, the little information provided showed me a lot of psychopathic traits, much more so than human traits of which there was considerable lack, and I felt that there is more good than harm to be done by professing my belief that the subject is a psychopath, even if it just to bring up the subject in order to rouse interest. Knowledge is power when dealing with the psychopath in everyday life.

I wish you all the best too. God help you if a psychopath ever makes his slippery way into your life - I am always willing to offer advice.

[Pitt1988]

I don't know how Asian parents can expect their kids to behave in the manner of which is expected in Asia. You've been raised in a Western country, with the same influences and experiences any kids from white families have.

I can't really imagine how hard it would be but you've gotta stick to your guns, you're old enough to do your own thing and it should not concern them who you are seeing.

[NeuralGroove]

(Original post by Samrout)
Lol. So I mention my mother is a psychopath as "credential" and you accuse me of spouting emotionally clouded logic. I'm well above that.

I don't think I can talk with you anymore if you decide to twist my words. "Acid test of human worth". No, they are just questions.

Psychopathy is a syndrome, of which there are core traits and supplementary traits which will further help to identify them. I have recognised and identified the traits, the act of which does not make me need a "professional" stature or academic qualification in order to do so. The only thing wrong with Hare's checklist is that it doesn't identify the core traits as being pivotal to the psychopath diagnosis - lack of empathy, disregard for social norms, grandiose sense of self-worth - and so a bum-psychiatrist or somebody ill informed could conclude on whether someone is a psychopath on the basis of "sexually promiscuous, pathological lying, parasitic lifestyle, manipulative". I have made the distinction between the core traits and the complementary traits the accompany them.

When challenged by you, I did say that the best person to make a diagnosis is the OP, having known the subject's case history. I do think this is the best way, but in most cases the victim doesn't know about the existence of psychopathy. So if trying to educate is unethical, in your view, then we should remain blind. Furthermore, I would not, like most people my age, state conviction without relevant and important information. I know a lot about this topic, so there is no point trying to belittle me about my knowledge to try and prove your point.

I am interested in psychopathy and its effect on humankind, in family life, in work, in the street, and in politics and business. This interest stems from my mother's behaviour. If she wasn't a psychopath, I doubt I would have the knowledge or be as strong in character. I am not uninformed, if you would like to read a thread I wrote on the subject - http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1873367 - nor irrationally driven by feelings of hate or anger towards her (although the thread was inspired by my feelings toward her). I am driven by compassion and empathy for our fellow humans, which is why I post on the subject. I argue from a perspective of experience, which I find will help the poster.

In this thread, I believe there is a good case to shout psychopath. You may not see it, having had no experience with psychopaths (I assume so). From my experience I draw the conclusion that the behaviour is very related to the psychopath mindset. And so, if I see a snail, I will say it's a snail, and so on. I do not call it a slug with a shell (ASPD), and I don't deny the snail's existence.

From your point of view, I am unqualified to make any judgement from such little information, and so with this lack of qualification and information provided, I should keep my mouth shut. In my view, the little information provided showed me a lot of psychopathic traits, much more so than human traits of which there was considerable lack, and I felt that there is more good than harm to be done by professing my belief that the subject is a psychopath, even if it just to bring up the subject in order to rouse interest. Knowledge is power when dealing with the psychopath in everyday life.

I wish you all the best too. God help you if a psychopath ever makes his slippery way into your life - I am always willing to offer advice.

Your worldview is a little like that of the Spanish Catholics after the influx into Africa. The religious scripture stated that no man could keep another man as a slave. Their solution was to profess that Africans were less than human, so could be degraded indefinitely. When you say that you are driven by "empathy for fellow humans", I can't help but feel sickened by the fact that I know you consider a group of psychiatrically ill people exempt from being human, and have actively professed you see no reason why they could not be eliminated.

I think that you over-react to my usage of words; your questions were obviously loaded and you admit as much. Posing the questions, and assuming an answer was obvious, was your own way of attempting to convince me that there was no better solution for these people, so I stand by the fact that it acted as an acid test of human worth.

At the heart of this argument is the fact that, whilst you may believe that you can deal with 'psychopaths', you misunderstand how science works. How can you personally possibly criticise Hare's checklist or Baron-Cohen's for that matter? To revise them would require conclusive proof from meta-analyses and repeated clinical findings that your additions are more accurate. Needless to say, none of this has been done. Your 'observations' are not, in a scientific sense, empirical. Instead, they are based on a small number of your own beliefs, uninspired by the medical literature and branded with fire-and-brimstone moral condemnation.