October 1, 2008

Psychopathy, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Narcissism

Updated 12 years later.


A 1996 editorial by Robert Hare, who is the most prominent researcher on psychopathy, even inventing a diagnostic checklist which for complex reasons he named the Hare Psychopathy Checklist.

The article explains the difference between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder.

He writes that in 1980 with DSM III, psychopathy was relabeled as antisocial personality disorder.   While they still referred to the same individual, it was the approach that was different.  This wasn't just a name change,  it was a paradigm shift: instead of describing personality characteristics, it focused on behaviors.  Not nouns, but gerunds.

Psychopathy: egocentricity, deceit, shallow affect, manipulativeness, selfishness, and lack of empathy, guilt or remorse

Antisocial Personality Disorder: persistent violations of social norms, including lying, stealing, truancy, inconsistent work behavior and traffic arrests

That this happens in 1980 makes sense, coming at a time where "people are not bad, behaviors are."

Interestingly, Hare is mostly concerned that this relabeling will mean psychopathy will be overdiagnosed.  His reasoning is that APD is a broader classification-, and few of these are actually psychopaths.   But once the "diagnosis" of APD is made, clinicians and lawyers may overgeneralize and call them psychopaths.

It matters.  As Hare points out, psychopathy is considered an aggravating, not mitigating factor  in a crime (opposite to, say, bipolar.)  Psychopaths are evil and will do it again, so throw the book at them.

That was 1996.

Anyone who has read more than one post on this blog knows where I'm going: What Hare had labeled psychopathy sounds a lot like narcissism.

A glance at the above description supports this, but there are three important differences.

Identity:   The narcissist has identity-- but it is one he chose, not one that evolved naturally.  That means he thinks of himself as something-- based on a model.  He consciously identifies with someone-- Tony Soprano, the guy from Coldplay, Jack Kerouac, or a combination of traits from people, etc. 

The psychopath has no model-- he just exists.

Since the narcissist's identity is entirely made up, it requires other people for constant reaffirmation of his identity and of its value.  Psychopaths don't need people for this, they need them for material things.

Ability to feel:

Psychopathy is characterized by a lack of feeling and empathy-- a lack.  When he kills you, he does not feel remorse, or fear--  after the immediate emotions, he doesn't feel anything. The next day is the same as the previous day. 

"Narcissists, whatever their faults, feel deeply, too deeply.  That's why they take rejection so hard."

No. Narcissists appear to have emotions, feelings, empathy-- they cry, laugh, feel your pain, etc-- but none of this is real.  They don't feel it.  It's not linked to anything internal.  They're crying at the funeral, for sure, but on the inside they're wondering why it doesn't hurt as much as they think it should.  They're proud at their daughter's ballet recital, but not actually proud, inside they're wondering about their promotion, or that jerk at the store, etc.  He may feel pride that she's his daughter, but not empathy, nothing about her as a separate person.

Sometimes even they believe the emotion is real.  If you've decided you're The Godfather, then those are the emotions you're going to experience or not experience, with the same intensities.  Pride matters, lust won't.  Etc.

And don't get confused.  Narcissists don't pick their identity based on their genetic or preset emotional range; the choosing of the identity comes first.  Picking who you are actually changes how you feel, how you think. 

A narcissist is a psychopath who has assimialted the emotions of the character he is playing.

Narcissists don't feel guilt-- based on objective right and wrong-- they feel shame-- based on exposure.  When they get caught, they're answer is always the same: "wait, that's not really who I am..."

The only thing narcissists truly feel is the pain of narcissistic injury, and rage.

Potential for violence:

The technical distinction is how psychopaths or narcissists internalize these aggressive or libidinal forces.  Both feel aggression, but the narcissist takes that aggression and makes it a part of who he is: I am aggressive, I am an aggressor.  The psychopath lacks a properly defined ego.  He's not an aggressor; aggression is simply an as needed tool, a means to an end.

For the narcissist, violence is a volitional expression of rage, or the response to a narcissistic injury.  If he doesn't get the affirmation he needs; if something threatens his identity, then he attacks.

The psychopath is utilitarian:  I needed a burger, you had it, so I stabbed you in the throat.  Whatever.

As bad as that sounds, here's the narcissist's discourse on the same crime: I needed a burger, you had it, so I stabbed you in the throat.  But wait, that's not the whole story, listen,  what I did was justified because...


Someone is going to try and correct me, that what I am actually describing is Kernberg's malignant narcissism, and not NPD, or even "run of the mill" narcissism, which are not associated with violence.

And that would be wrong, which is the whole point.  There is no difference between the three, it's all the same, what's different is the execution, not the potential.

There is a limitless, catastrophic potential for violence.  That it rarely manifests is exclusively due to circumstances, not internal self controls.  He's the married man of 20 years who suddenly needs to stab his daughter 10 times because of something that hurt his pride.

It's the guy who goes to happy hour, then is about to get pulled over for a speeding ticket but is afraid of a DUI so he drives off.  During the high speed pursuit he accidentally hits a kid on a bike, but instead of stopping decides now he really has to get away or else he's going to jail, so he drives even faster.  Then he tries to run on foot and hide in a building, but-- surprise-- there's some woman there, so now he has to take her hostage because she's seen his face...

The psychopath does all those things because at each moment, that's his only option.  The narcissist does them because he's "actually a good person, this stuff is just an aberration, if I can just get away I'll be back to being a valuable person again..."   

And you may be tempted to blame the alcohol he had at happy hour.  And that would be wrong.

Two kinds of violence: a means of protecting the identity from exposure or harm, or the result of rage from the identity being exposed or harmed.

You say: my narcissist never ran from the cops, he never killed his daughter.  But that's because your narcissist had at that moment other ways of dealing with the problem.    It's the potential for violence.

All narcissists have this potential, it is intrinsic to the personality structure, which is defined as "me above all things."  Sure, usually they figure out non-violent ways to live their life, but that potential is there.

The reason a psychopath kills is because he is bad.  The reason a narcissist kills is so that no one finds out he is bad.


I just started reading "The... (Below threshold)

October 1, 2008 11:33 PM | Posted by Lexi: | Reply

I just started reading "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha Stout. It is a great book. Some of what she described sounded like narcissism to me, until she explained why it wasn't, that narcissism was only half the equation in the sense that narcissists don't have the capacity to feel other's pain like sociopaths, but they do feel their own pain, unlike sociopaths.

She also pointed out that sociopaths have a range of natural tendencies like everyone else, some tend toward violence, some for gaining power, some for the "easy life", etc . . . but they all had one thing in common, their lack of feeling or ability to connect with others. Especially their inability to feel love.

Have you read the book?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
What does one do once they ... (Below threshold)

October 2, 2008 12:25 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

What does one do once they realize they are a narcissist?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Have you ever treated, or d... (Below threshold)

October 2, 2008 2:47 AM | Posted by Just wonderin': | Reply

Have you ever treated, or diagnosed a narcisist? You write about examples you find in older news, but can you show (or at least make up, this is a blog here, you can't really offer proof on the internet) somehow that you've identified a person with this disorder? Can't you imagine how most people are going to look at the people they don't like and claim them as a narcisist? Does that idea bother you?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (13 votes cast)
Excellent article! The 'up... (Below threshold)

October 2, 2008 8:46 AM | Posted by xon: | Reply

Excellent article! The 'update' format actually clarified some things that I seem to have missed about your approach on narcissism before. I have to echo both Anonymous and Just wonderin'. You've done yeoman's work identifying the problem. What do you see as either the solution or the means of coping with it for the rest of us just-slightly-less-narcissistic-people-as-far-as-we-can-tell?

You know that old middle-school joke about putting, "in bed" at the end of any sentence. Try that, mutatis mutandis with "in politics" with this article. That might, maybe, convey to people the danger that this financial mess actually presents to us.

The narcissists in government and CEO suites have been imposing their world on us for a long time, and they are beginning to be exposed. It seems the majority of people are unaware at the true depths of the capacity for violence that is right underneath the pancake make-up.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
This is going to sound l... (Below threshold)

October 2, 2008 10:54 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Alone: | Reply

This is going to sound like I'm being facetious, but I'm not: stop.

Since the narcissist chooses his identity, he can choose a different one. Choose one that is "for" others, or contributes something to others.

It won't change the core personality problems, which is the self-directed worldview, but it will at least minimize the damage to others. And, like with all identities, the more you do it, the more it will stick.

The rage is a separate problem, and I'll work on a post about it.

To "Just Wonderin'" above, I'm sure people will throw the narcissism term around with no thought to its actual definition. In fact, that's what is already happening (e.g. narcissism being equated with "guy who thinks he is wonderful.") I'm trying to bring some rigor back into the term because-- and this is the point-- useful terms help make predictions about the future.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 19 (23 votes cast)
I don't think the changes i... (Below threshold)

October 2, 2008 12:08 PM | Posted by theskepticalshrink: | Reply

I don't think the changes in diagnostic criteria in DSM-III have anything to do with a touchy-feely moral ethos of the 1980s. Rather, they reflect an explicit effort at the time to move away from a theory-based, inferential diagnostic paradigm and toward operational definitions in an attempt to bring psychiatry more into line with the physical sciences. I'm not sure this is an achievable goal, that was the idea.

As for the differences between narcissists, psychopaths and APD, you are making distinctions largely based on nonfalsifiable inferences. That doesn't mean you aren't right, it just means you can never know whether you are right. However, I find your argument that narcissistic violence is held in check only by circumstances to be spurious--not because it isn't true, but because it isn't only true for narcissists. It appears more likely that it is true for all or most people. Milgram figured this out a long time ago, Fromm had already written about it 25 years before that, and the holocaust provides an excellent example of how it looks in practice when social constraints on violent behavior are removed.

As for feelings, what comprises a "real" emotion versus a fake one? From a positivist perspective there is no way to know whether someone else's emotions are "real" or not; thus there is no way to distinguish diagnostic categories on that basis. On the other hand, Foucault would argue that all identity is constructed. At a practical level, this means that as soon as an individual takes note of an emotional experience, he or she begins to interpret it and incorporate it into his or her own personal narrative--a narrative that everyone must have, not just narcissists, because personal narrative is what constitutes identity from the first-person perspective.

While the personal narrative represents the process of identity construction from a first-person perspective, individual identities are also constructed from a third-person perspective, and social narrative is the vehicle for this. If we define narcissists based on how genuine we think their emotions are, or alternatively what we think they would do under hypothetical circumstances, then it seems to me we are no longer talking about psychiatric diagnosis but rather speculating about human nature and about how specific individuals resolve dialectical differences between their own and society's values. In this context, I think clearly defined terms are actually much less useful for making predictions than they are for construcing internally consistent social narratives.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 19 (23 votes cast)
You write so much about nar... (Below threshold)

October 2, 2008 12:19 PM | Posted by JC: | Reply

You write so much about narcissism. I enjoyed your last post on Borderline Personality Disorder. Could you perhaps, if you were so inclined, write about Borderline Personality Disorder and it's validity and "competing" diagnoses? -- I'm thinking Bipolar II ---->> Bipolar^14, well you know what I mean. And if relevant, your opinion of its everstill elusive etiology and the ideas of people like Gunderson, Kernberg, Paris and people like Herman and van der Kolk and others? Your posts are always refreshing to read. Thanks.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Another great post. Especia... (Below threshold)

October 3, 2008 5:19 AM | Posted by s: | Reply

Another great post. Especially as to how it relates to the modern world, celebrity, etc...sort of a culture that encourages this kind of development. Much more useful and straightforward in clinical practice than the long-winded analytic literature. Thanks. Do a follow-up on treatment.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I second JC. How can anyone... (Below threshold)

October 3, 2008 3:30 PM | Posted by ME: | Reply

I second JC. How can anyone ever know whether you really feel an emotion, or you think you should feel an emotion, or neither? And how can anyone ever know this about themselves? How many of the people at a funeral are crying because they think they're supposed to? How many of them are narcissists? If more women than men think they're supposed to cry, does that mean more women than men are narcissists?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
So you think you're bett... (Below threshold)

October 3, 2008 6:01 PM | Posted, in reply to theskepticalshrink's comment, by Alone: | Reply

So you think you're better than me? :-)

Psychopathy is a construct. Without getting too much into the theory, the most important characteristic of a construct-- rarely mentioned-- is that it is binary. Either/or, yes/no, lots/little. Then things are judged by how far away they are from these poles.

While these constructs are really not much more than prejudices, unconscious models we use to describe people, what makes them important is that we impose them on others.

What were the two poles for psychopathy? Certainly empathy/no empathy and all the other descriptors, but one in particualr mattered most: treatable/untreatable. Psychopathy was definitionally fixed, untreatable. That was one of the reasons Hare worried (in 1996) that APD would be loosely called psychopathy and abandoned by society to jail. (Hare felt APD was changeable-- and, as a behavior system, of course it must be.)

Why is he untreatable and unchangeable? Because unlike a legally "insane" person, a psychopathy does understand what he is doing is wrong, and can control himself. But he chooses not to.

Freud and Kernberg say because the superego isn't developed/present, so there is no internalization of rules. He can be told what he did is wrong, he can learn the rules, but doesn't internalize them into a conscience.
Note the importance of behavior here: he can't change the fact that he doesn't feel anything, but he can decide to act within the "rules" that he accpets exist for other people (i.e. society.)

Hare made (IMHO) the mistake of linking psychopathy to the absence of conscience. What's conscience? I'm sure the honor killer Dad linked earlier thought he was acting by his conscience. The absence of what ends up being an entirely subjective morality can hardly the basis of whether one is a psychopath, but that was the problem in 1980. We know he has no conscience, but we're sure what that conscience is anyway.

The solution is obvious: conscience has to be fixed and a priori. Whether you want to call it religious or Kantian, there has to be an unchangeable morality that applies to human beings. The ability-- the necessity-- to perceive and accept that such fixed guiding princples exist is synderesis. It's no different than the human capacity to understand that "red" exists.

Without positing such a morality, then behavior is the only thing that matters. As long as a psychopath doesn't act up, he's not actually a psychopath.

Enter APD, which is basically taking psychopathy and saying, without these behaviors we do not care that he is a psychopath, it's the behaviors that matter, it's the impact to society that matters.

So the change over to APD was, as you point out, related to an inability to measure psychopathy (ideas/perceptions) and easier to measure explicit behaviors. "e.g. we need to be scientific about this." The problem is that in taking the easier route you do not actually get more information, you get less. How many times you cheat/don't cheat on your wife is not really predictive of how much you love her; and you can't work backwards and derive amount of love from number of affairds, either.

But focusing on behavior does create a false dichotomy: no cheating=love, cheating equals no love.

Your other point about the human potential for violence is a good one, but let me make the point that when one acts violently because they are in Milgram's prison, or a soldier "just obeying orders," etc, then at those times you have become a narcissist. You can kill those people precisely because you can say, "wait, I'm not a bad person, what I did was justified because..." No one else is real, you're the main character in your movie.

Now you could come back and say, well, you're claiming that whacky violence is done by narcissists, but you're creating a scenario where anyone can become a narcissist. Exactly what I am saying. Since we all have the capacity to regress into 2 year olds (i.e. narcissists), then I submit that people who are already narcissists-- who have chosen that world-- are an even bigger threat than the person who has not yet been so beaten by external reality as to need to regress.

That said, I disagree with the premise that anyone has that capacity for violence. Or, more accurately, the capacity exists along with an infinite capacity for sublimation.

What's the difference between a real emotion and a fake one? Nothing. You choose how you feel, and once chosen, the more you do it the longer and tighter it is fixed. But narcisssists choose to be like someone else. When they yell at their wife, they know exactly what movie character they are imitating.

Let me rephrase it: what's important isn't how genuine I think their emotions are, what's important is how genuine THEY think they are. "Yeah, I was proud at my daughter's recital, but, deep down, you know, I didn't really feel it." If even they themselves are not convinced of their own emotion-- excepting rage, which they have down pat-- then what?

You bring up the third person social narrative, but implied in "narrative" is a discourse. If the individual is not having a discourse with society-- if he is retreating into a self-generated "Matrix"-- or preferred reality-- than that social narrative has no bearing. And that's the problem with narcissism.

This is going to seem like a weird example, but here goes: in the show Heroes, there's a character (the Haitian) who can take away your memories, one at a time. So the Haitian threatens a guy-- give us X, or we'll take away your treasured memories: your wedding day, the birth of your son, etc, etc. And, indeed, they take away some of this guy's memories.

Here's the point: the guy is still the same. He can't remember the memory, but everything else about him is the same, he acts the same on the show, etc. But you, the TV viewer, think nothing odd about this. Do you know why? Because it's true. There are nearly no memories that are necessary to your identity, because a normal person's identity is overdetermined (like Freud's dreams.) Multiple reasons/causes/influences generating the same identity elements. That's why most of us bounce back from major traumas.

This isn't the case with narcissists. They rely on the character they've built. And it's not a necessary character, any other would do.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 13 (19 votes cast)
Give himself a present?... (Below threshold)

October 9, 2008 6:52 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by june: | Reply

Give himself a present?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Hi Alone, Just read your co... (Below threshold)

October 15, 2008 9:08 PM | Posted by Lexi: | Reply

Hi Alone, Just read your comment to the skeptical shrink, and finished reading The Sociopath next door. Her suggestion to tame sociopathic behaviors is to to change culture, ,it won't reduce the number of sociopaths but may mitigate the behaviors. I don't remember the details of her suggestion, and not a lot of time was spent on it, as most of the book was spent sharing how to identify them.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I've known a Narcissist. T... (Below threshold)

January 16, 2009 2:54 PM | Posted, in reply to Just wonderin''s comment, by Elizabeth Conley: | Reply

I've known a Narcissist. The description here is uncannily accurate. If you'd known a narcissist, you would know why I'd prefer to not to know another, EVER! There's no up side to being around a narcissist.

You ask, "Can't you imagine how most people are going to look at the people they don't like and claim them as a narcisist?"

Sure, "Narcissist" can become the latest fashionable pejorative, but that doesn't change the basic usefulness of information about narcissism for objective thinkers. Identifying and understanding narcissists is a very useful life skill. Narcissists are relatively common in corporate management, politics and ministry leadership. Knowing who they are and anticipating how they will act out helps people make decisions about how to deal with them.

In general, it's possible to identify a narcissist through the relatively benign manifestations of the condition and thereby be forewarned of the narcissist’s tendency to slander, exploit and abuse others.

In general, narcissist leaders tend to cause a very high turn over among subordinates. Their tendency to cover their own serious malfeasance with slander and scapegoating can open the organization employing them up to serious lawsuits. Just knowing that the individual is a narcissist can tip you off to the warning signs that s/he is up to some kind of criminal malfeasance. (If the narcissist is scapegoating, figure out what s/he is covering up. It may be some interpersonal nastiness, but sometimes it's embezzlement, criminal sexual misconduct or worse. Better to find out before there's a judgment against your company/church.)

Then there's courting and marriage. If you're dating a narcissist, stop. No good can come of it, ‘cause they can't be cured. They cause serious damage to their children and their spouses. Often the harm spans several generations. You can do better than that.
Yes, some people call names. Reading about narcissism may cause these people to use “narcissist” interchangeably with “jerk” or “A-hole”. What of it? Narcissism is a real condition. It is a Personality disorder identified by the DSM IV among the other cluster B disorders: Histrionic, Borderline, and Anti-social. If you can see ‘em coming and get through your interactions without serious harm, you are among humanity’s fortunate few. It’s worth the risk that a few dumb-bunnies will mistakenly abuse the term “narcissist”, when balanced against the benefit sensible people gain from an understanding of narcissistic personality disorder.
Personally, I can attest to the benefit of seeing narcissists coming and avoiding prolonged interactions with them. Narcissists love to spend their lives making drama, whereas I prefer to enjoy more harmonious relations. I avoid them, and they engage in head games with other people who need the drama to feel alive. Everyone is as happy as they know how to be, which is all anyone can hope for.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 10 (14 votes cast)
I think some of the things ... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2009 11:40 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I think some of the things that you mentioned -- like crying and not crying at a funeral might be just as much cultural as psychological. Our culture expects us to cry at funerals, it expects men to not cry at pain or ever be scared. Other cultures might not expect the same thing from the same groups of people. I don't think acting out a cultural expectation is the same thing as being unable to feel emotions or worrying about how others will perceive you. It's just culture.

As a personal story I personally felt like crying at my grandfather's funeral. He was in many ways my hero -- the bravest man I'd ever known. I knew that he was very much in favor of the "stiff upper lip" -- that we shouldn't weep for him but instead go on living. Despite my best efforts, I cried anyway, especially when I saw how much my grandmother was hurting. Me trying not to cry was to my mind living up to family culture, not so much trying to get people to notice me. I was in the back of the group, I wouldn't have been seen either way.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
I know this is an old post,... (Below threshold)

February 15, 2010 1:49 AM | Posted by pseudonymous maximus: | Reply

I know this is an old post, but, it can't hurt.

I'd like to thank you for going in to such detail on this subject. It's very difficult to find anything beyond the same superficial description of these conditions. I especially appreciate the exploration of NPD and identity, as it helped me to confirm the possibility that I am a narcissist.

I would take issue with an idea that self-control has nothing to do with being non-violence though. At least for people who (on your sliding scale of execution/behavior) are narcissists, I think self-control is a factor. The catch is self-image. Recently, I've been doing a lot of introspection. Well, that's not right since I've com to realize there isn't much there. Let's say retrospection from a different angle. I'm 26, but until about year ago I thought of myself as a basically good person. I spent most of my time inhabiting "good" characters. I even emulated Clark Kent much of the time. I feel it's important to point out that I don't have MPD/DID, I'm aware and in control of my "characters". They are all me, in as much as there is a me. Maybe it's more like a costume?

Anyway, I'll give a brief example on morality and violence: At the age of about 15, I went hiking with my father. He (also a narcissist), decided that dress shoes were perfectly fine for walking along the side of a mountain. We were all alone when he was hanging on to ridge for dear life. I've replayed that moment in mind many times. He arrogantly put himself in that situation. He slipped. No one would have blamed me, or likely even questioned me if I had let him fall. I resented him very strongly, I stood to gain from his death. Yet, my "good" persona was so ingrained in me then, that I did not hesitate to rescue him. I was a little upset that he never thanked me, but at the time I still truly believed it was right. Now I know I was just following the rules of my current self-image, instead of the gut instinct for goodness I believe most people experience. It may be sublte, but I think there is a difference.

I'm just not sure (if it's all just a matter of execution) if NPD and psychopathy are the same. You say that psychopaths have no identity and that basically, they are ok with that. Without a character to play I'm just a mass of envy of and discontment. Even with my new awareness I still find myself mimicking a character I like after watching TV sometimes. It makes me feel a little better. Point is, I'm not ok with having no personality. Isn't that a difference beyond execution?

I'd also like to say that not all the people on this NPD/Psychopathy spectrum do not want treatment. I know you didn't explicitly state that, but it seems to be a common belief. I think a big part of it is just having some degree of self-awareness. I've never really been content in my life and this last year things have just gotten worse. Other than being appetite on legs, I'm faced with the crushing realization that I may not (perhaps could not) ever live-up to me "grandiose" ideals. Especially not being this lazy.

Faced with the options of acting good, acting bad, or reverting to a tabula rasa doesn't matter in this regard. I wasn't content being good, and I know that being bad provides only the most temporary distraction. I wish someone would try a little harder to come up with treatment options instead of just writing us off. I'm actually afraid to bring this up with a therapist. I don't need moral judgements or endless referrals. I'm willing to put in the work if I had help. I just need to be rid of this so I can be content at least some of the time, like a normal person. Or at least find a better character. I'm mostly blank now but (to go back to Heroes) I unfortunately find Sylar to be a highly relatable character these days.

Sorry for the tangent. But I think it's important to point out the desire for treatment among at least some of us. Anyway, thanks again for your time and your efforts.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 16 (16 votes cast)
For some reason something i... (Below threshold)

July 14, 2010 6:38 PM | Posted by L: | Reply

For some reason something in this article made me stop feeling guilty for not feeling what I thought I should be, and just accept what is. So thanks.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Houses are expensive and no... (Below threshold)

August 12, 2011 10:48 PM | Posted by VINSONSue27: | Reply

Houses are expensive and not everybody can buy it. However, mortgage loans are invented to aid different people in such kind of situations.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -7 (11 votes cast)
Psychopathy has been... (Below threshold)

November 7, 2011 3:29 PM | Posted by EliteMach: | Reply

Psychopathy has been measured from within a person using fMRI data. It is shown that they have a sluggish autonomous (fight or flight) nervous systems (fearless dominance), reduced physiological responses to stress (lack of anxiety), and cortical under-arousal (chronic boredom). Psychopathy is a biological syndrome which can be exacerbated by social and environmental influences. A psychopath is born psychopathic; if he is influenced by an antisocial environment, he'll just get worse. When tested with non-psychopaths, psychopaths all respond in a similar fashion to emotive stroop tasks designed to elicit emotional responses. Words like tree, sand, and apple elicit no emotional response in either group, but when non-psychopaths were shown words like cancer, murder, and rape certain regions in the right hemisphere of the brain lit up indicating a physiological stress response; the psychopath processed the information in a different region entirely: the language and logical left-hemispheric regions showed activity. This indicates that psychopaths don't process information in a way that gives it the emotional significance that non-psychopaths do. They're cold blooded, calculating machines that truly feel nothing much at all but fleeting bouts excitement, lust, rage, and frustration. Even these can be feigned to elicit desired responses in people they wish to manipulate.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Psychopathy has been... (Below threshold)

November 7, 2011 5:16 PM | Posted by EliteMach: | Reply

Psychopathy has been measured from within a person using fMRI data. It is shown that they have a sluggish autonomous (fight or flight) nervous systems (fearless dominance), reduced physiological responses to stress (lack of anxiety), and cortical under-arousal (chronic boredom). Psychopathy is a biological syndrome which can be exacerbated by social and environmental influences. A psychopath is born psychopathic; if he is influenced by an antisocial environment, he'll just get worse. When tested with non-psychopaths, psychopaths all respond in a similar fashion to emotive stroop tasks designed to elicit emotional responses. Words like tree, sand, and apple elicit no emotional response in either group, but when non-psychopaths were shown words like cancer, murder, and rape certain regions in the right hemisphere of the brain lit up indicating a physiological stress response; the psychopath processed the