highway rear axle hopping
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: All about "Cooyon Billy"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:15:10 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>"24Bit®" <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote in message
>news:ug1e939fnn4c659uhkhugi1m3pu9d46d7t@4ax.com.. .
>><Wrote nothing as usual.>
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
<LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>"24Bit®" <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote in message
>news:ug1e939fnn4c659uhkhugi1m3pu9d46d7t@4ax.com.. .
>><Wrote nothing as usual.>
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: All about "Cooyon Billy"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:15:10 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>"24Bit®" <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote in message
>news:ug1e939fnn4c659uhkhugi1m3pu9d46d7t@4ax.com.. .
>><Wrote nothing as usual.>
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
<LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>"24Bit®" <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote in message
>news:ug1e939fnn4c659uhkhugi1m3pu9d46d7t@4ax.com.. .
>><Wrote nothing as usual.>
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: All about "Cooyon Billy"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:15:10 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>"24Bit®" <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote in message
>news:ug1e939fnn4c659uhkhugi1m3pu9d46d7t@4ax.com.. .
>><Wrote nothing as usual.>
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
<LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>"24Bit®" <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote in message
>news:ug1e939fnn4c659uhkhugi1m3pu9d46d7t@4ax.com.. .
>><Wrote nothing as usual.>
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: L.W. "Cooyon Billy" Goatman------- III
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:14:36 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>"24Bit®" <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote in message
>news:4v0e931mmjfpeug0hi13olvnesuhiaqp8s@4ax.com.. .
>><Wrote nothing as usual.>
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
<LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>"24Bit®" <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote in message
>news:4v0e931mmjfpeug0hi13olvnesuhiaqp8s@4ax.com.. .
>><Wrote nothing as usual.>
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: L.W. "Cooyon Billy" Goatman------- III
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:21:21 GMT, 24Bit® <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:56:33 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
><LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>
>> There you go again, the little jealous, REALLY JEALOUS, over the fact
>>that I once own a '37 Lasalle, ranting over my documents, possessions,
>>successes, manliness, Super Southern California surfing body, family, and
>>name. What a jealous little draft dodging senile coward from Navarre,
>>Florida, that of course, doesn't have a DD214, it had to have served our
>>country for that. Who's only way to get attention is to make a fool of its
>>self, with its goat obsession/fetish, where it writes via remailers, to no
>>one's surprise. Like when the other kids laughed at its attempt to use foul
>>language in elementary school play grounds, but its just gibberish. Too
>>senile to remember what he last wrote, like the rest of Florida. You remind
>>me of a little rat dog, like a Mexican Chiwawa with its senseless barking
>>it's rabid head off, me too, me too. And is too afraid to use your name,
>>address, or even sign your statement as any man would, totally worthless!
>> Posted pornography at: news:0u7g43dkje4pdkqi07hl66s8kpifo564k1@4ax.com
>>As a member of the moral majority I know what ---- is when I see it!
>> But now worth the time to forward this low life to: abuse@mchsi.com,
>>fraud@mchsi.com, fraud@4AX.COM, abuse@aioe.org, admin@***.net,
>>abuse@teranews.com for forgery.
>> I thought your attacks were just personal disagreements, but with
>>passing of my country's Independents Day, I realize these attacks are
>>stemming from my love of God and America, and that's what you've been doing
>>all along is declaring your hatred for the United States of America, with
>>each declaration of my signature, but just too cowardly to be a ---------.
>>It's America, love it, or leave it, so get the f*ck out!
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
>On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:56:33 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
><LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>
>> There you go again, the little jealous, REALLY JEALOUS, over the fact
>>that I once own a '37 Lasalle, ranting over my documents, possessions,
>>successes, manliness, Super Southern California surfing body, family, and
>>name. What a jealous little draft dodging senile coward from Navarre,
>>Florida, that of course, doesn't have a DD214, it had to have served our
>>country for that. Who's only way to get attention is to make a fool of its
>>self, with its goat obsession/fetish, where it writes via remailers, to no
>>one's surprise. Like when the other kids laughed at its attempt to use foul
>>language in elementary school play grounds, but its just gibberish. Too
>>senile to remember what he last wrote, like the rest of Florida. You remind
>>me of a little rat dog, like a Mexican Chiwawa with its senseless barking
>>it's rabid head off, me too, me too. And is too afraid to use your name,
>>address, or even sign your statement as any man would, totally worthless!
>> Posted pornography at: news:0u7g43dkje4pdkqi07hl66s8kpifo564k1@4ax.com
>>As a member of the moral majority I know what ---- is when I see it!
>> But now worth the time to forward this low life to: abuse@mchsi.com,
>>fraud@mchsi.com, fraud@4AX.COM, abuse@aioe.org, admin@***.net,
>>abuse@teranews.com for forgery.
>> I thought your attacks were just personal disagreements, but with
>>passing of my country's Independents Day, I realize these attacks are
>>stemming from my love of God and America, and that's what you've been doing
>>all along is declaring your hatred for the United States of America, with
>>each declaration of my signature, but just too cowardly to be a ---------.
>>It's America, love it, or leave it, so get the f*ck out!
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: L.W. "Cooyon Billy" Goatman------- III
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:21:21 GMT, 24Bit® <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:56:33 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
><LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>
>> There you go again, the little jealous, REALLY JEALOUS, over the fact
>>that I once own a '37 Lasalle, ranting over my documents, possessions,
>>successes, manliness, Super Southern California surfing body, family, and
>>name. What a jealous little draft dodging senile coward from Navarre,
>>Florida, that of course, doesn't have a DD214, it had to have served our
>>country for that. Who's only way to get attention is to make a fool of its
>>self, with its goat obsession/fetish, where it writes via remailers, to no
>>one's surprise. Like when the other kids laughed at its attempt to use foul
>>language in elementary school play grounds, but its just gibberish. Too
>>senile to remember what he last wrote, like the rest of Florida. You remind
>>me of a little rat dog, like a Mexican Chiwawa with its senseless barking
>>it's rabid head off, me too, me too. And is too afraid to use your name,
>>address, or even sign your statement as any man would, totally worthless!
>> Posted pornography at: news:0u7g43dkje4pdkqi07hl66s8kpifo564k1@4ax.com
>>As a member of the moral majority I know what ---- is when I see it!
>> But now worth the time to forward this low life to: abuse@mchsi.com,
>>fraud@mchsi.com, fraud@4AX.COM, abuse@aioe.org, admin@***.net,
>>abuse@teranews.com for forgery.
>> I thought your attacks were just personal disagreements, but with
>>passing of my country's Independents Day, I realize these attacks are
>>stemming from my love of God and America, and that's what you've been doing
>>all along is declaring your hatred for the United States of America, with
>>each declaration of my signature, but just too cowardly to be a ---------.
>>It's America, love it, or leave it, so get the f*ck out!
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
>On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:56:33 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
><LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>
>> There you go again, the little jealous, REALLY JEALOUS, over the fact
>>that I once own a '37 Lasalle, ranting over my documents, possessions,
>>successes, manliness, Super Southern California surfing body, family, and
>>name. What a jealous little draft dodging senile coward from Navarre,
>>Florida, that of course, doesn't have a DD214, it had to have served our
>>country for that. Who's only way to get attention is to make a fool of its
>>self, with its goat obsession/fetish, where it writes via remailers, to no
>>one's surprise. Like when the other kids laughed at its attempt to use foul
>>language in elementary school play grounds, but its just gibberish. Too
>>senile to remember what he last wrote, like the rest of Florida. You remind
>>me of a little rat dog, like a Mexican Chiwawa with its senseless barking
>>it's rabid head off, me too, me too. And is too afraid to use your name,
>>address, or even sign your statement as any man would, totally worthless!
>> Posted pornography at: news:0u7g43dkje4pdkqi07hl66s8kpifo564k1@4ax.com
>>As a member of the moral majority I know what ---- is when I see it!
>> But now worth the time to forward this low life to: abuse@mchsi.com,
>>fraud@mchsi.com, fraud@4AX.COM, abuse@aioe.org, admin@***.net,
>>abuse@teranews.com for forgery.
>> I thought your attacks were just personal disagreements, but with
>>passing of my country's Independents Day, I realize these attacks are
>>stemming from my love of God and America, and that's what you've been doing
>>all along is declaring your hatred for the United States of America, with
>>each declaration of my signature, but just too cowardly to be a ---------.
>>It's America, love it, or leave it, so get the f*ck out!
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: All about "Cooyon Billy"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:15:10 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>"24Bit®" <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote in message
>news:ug1e939fnn4c659uhkhugi1m3pu9d46d7t@4ax.com.. .
>><Wrote nothing as usual.>
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
<LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>"24Bit®" <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote in message
>news:ug1e939fnn4c659uhkhugi1m3pu9d46d7t@4ax.com.. .
>><Wrote nothing as usual.>
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: L.W. "Cooyon Billy" Goatman------- III
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:21:21 GMT, 24Bit® <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:56:33 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
><LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>
>> There you go again, the little jealous, REALLY JEALOUS, over the fact
>>that I once own a '37 Lasalle, ranting over my documents, possessions,
>>successes, manliness, Super Southern California surfing body, family, and
>>name. What a jealous little draft dodging senile coward from Navarre,
>>Florida, that of course, doesn't have a DD214, it had to have served our
>>country for that. Who's only way to get attention is to make a fool of its
>>self, with its goat obsession/fetish, where it writes via remailers, to no
>>one's surprise. Like when the other kids laughed at its attempt to use foul
>>language in elementary school play grounds, but its just gibberish. Too
>>senile to remember what he last wrote, like the rest of Florida. You remind
>>me of a little rat dog, like a Mexican Chiwawa with its senseless barking
>>it's rabid head off, me too, me too. And is too afraid to use your name,
>>address, or even sign your statement as any man would, totally worthless!
>> Posted pornography at: news:0u7g43dkje4pdkqi07hl66s8kpifo564k1@4ax.com
>>As a member of the moral majority I know what ---- is when I see it!
>> But now worth the time to forward this low life to: abuse@mchsi.com,
>>fraud@mchsi.com, fraud@4AX.COM, abuse@aioe.org, admin@***.net,
>>abuse@teranews.com for forgery.
>> I thought your attacks were just personal disagreements, but with
>>passing of my country's Independents Day, I realize these attacks are
>>stemming from my love of God and America, and that's what you've been doing
>>all along is declaring your hatred for the United States of America, with
>>each declaration of my signature, but just too cowardly to be a ---------.
>>It's America, love it, or leave it, so get the f*ck out!
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
>On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:56:33 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
><LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>
>> There you go again, the little jealous, REALLY JEALOUS, over the fact
>>that I once own a '37 Lasalle, ranting over my documents, possessions,
>>successes, manliness, Super Southern California surfing body, family, and
>>name. What a jealous little draft dodging senile coward from Navarre,
>>Florida, that of course, doesn't have a DD214, it had to have served our
>>country for that. Who's only way to get attention is to make a fool of its
>>self, with its goat obsession/fetish, where it writes via remailers, to no
>>one's surprise. Like when the other kids laughed at its attempt to use foul
>>language in elementary school play grounds, but its just gibberish. Too
>>senile to remember what he last wrote, like the rest of Florida. You remind
>>me of a little rat dog, like a Mexican Chiwawa with its senseless barking
>>it's rabid head off, me too, me too. And is too afraid to use your name,
>>address, or even sign your statement as any man would, totally worthless!
>> Posted pornography at: news:0u7g43dkje4pdkqi07hl66s8kpifo564k1@4ax.com
>>As a member of the moral majority I know what ---- is when I see it!
>> But now worth the time to forward this low life to: abuse@mchsi.com,
>>fraud@mchsi.com, fraud@4AX.COM, abuse@aioe.org, admin@***.net,
>>abuse@teranews.com for forgery.
>> I thought your attacks were just personal disagreements, but with
>>passing of my country's Independents Day, I realize these attacks are
>>stemming from my love of God and America, and that's what you've been doing
>>all along is declaring your hatred for the United States of America, with
>>each declaration of my signature, but just too cowardly to be a ---------.
>>It's America, love it, or leave it, so get the f*ck out!
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: L.W. "Cooyon Billy" Goatman------- III
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:21:21 GMT, 24Bit® <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:56:33 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
><LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>
>> There you go again, the little jealous, REALLY JEALOUS, over the fact
>>that I once own a '37 Lasalle, ranting over my documents, possessions,
>>successes, manliness, Super Southern California surfing body, family, and
>>name. What a jealous little draft dodging senile coward from Navarre,
>>Florida, that of course, doesn't have a DD214, it had to have served our
>>country for that. Who's only way to get attention is to make a fool of its
>>self, with its goat obsession/fetish, where it writes via remailers, to no
>>one's surprise. Like when the other kids laughed at its attempt to use foul
>>language in elementary school play grounds, but its just gibberish. Too
>>senile to remember what he last wrote, like the rest of Florida. You remind
>>me of a little rat dog, like a Mexican Chiwawa with its senseless barking
>>it's rabid head off, me too, me too. And is too afraid to use your name,
>>address, or even sign your statement as any man would, totally worthless!
>> Posted pornography at: news:0u7g43dkje4pdkqi07hl66s8kpifo564k1@4ax.com
>>As a member of the moral majority I know what ---- is when I see it!
>> But now worth the time to forward this low life to: abuse@mchsi.com,
>>fraud@mchsi.com, fraud@4AX.COM, abuse@aioe.org, admin@***.net,
>>abuse@teranews.com for forgery.
>> I thought your attacks were just personal disagreements, but with
>>passing of my country's Independents Day, I realize these attacks are
>>stemming from my love of God and America, and that's what you've been doing
>>all along is declaring your hatred for the United States of America, with
>>each declaration of my signature, but just too cowardly to be a ---------.
>>It's America, love it, or leave it, so get the f*ck out!
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
>On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:56:33 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
><LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>
>> There you go again, the little jealous, REALLY JEALOUS, over the fact
>>that I once own a '37 Lasalle, ranting over my documents, possessions,
>>successes, manliness, Super Southern California surfing body, family, and
>>name. What a jealous little draft dodging senile coward from Navarre,
>>Florida, that of course, doesn't have a DD214, it had to have served our
>>country for that. Who's only way to get attention is to make a fool of its
>>self, with its goat obsession/fetish, where it writes via remailers, to no
>>one's surprise. Like when the other kids laughed at its attempt to use foul
>>language in elementary school play grounds, but its just gibberish. Too
>>senile to remember what he last wrote, like the rest of Florida. You remind
>>me of a little rat dog, like a Mexican Chiwawa with its senseless barking
>>it's rabid head off, me too, me too. And is too afraid to use your name,
>>address, or even sign your statement as any man would, totally worthless!
>> Posted pornography at: news:0u7g43dkje4pdkqi07hl66s8kpifo564k1@4ax.com
>>As a member of the moral majority I know what ---- is when I see it!
>> But now worth the time to forward this low life to: abuse@mchsi.com,
>>fraud@mchsi.com, fraud@4AX.COM, abuse@aioe.org, admin@***.net,
>>abuse@teranews.com for forgery.
>> I thought your attacks were just personal disagreements, but with
>>passing of my country's Independents Day, I realize these attacks are
>>stemming from my love of God and America, and that's what you've been doing
>>all along is declaring your hatred for the United States of America, with
>>each declaration of my signature, but just too cowardly to be a ---------.
>>It's America, love it, or leave it, so get the f*ck out!
>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: L.W. "Cooyon Billy" Goatman------- III
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:17:24 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>"24Bit®" <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote in message
>news:vs2e93h8m3umcs2fldc4rguj5hc47oc4sb@4ax.com.. .
>><Wrote nothing as usual.>
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
<LWBill------@------.net> wrote:
>"24Bit®" <24Bit@Ur.Asylum.org> wrote in message
>news:vs2e93h8m3umcs2fldc4rguj5hc47oc4sb@4ax.com.. .
>><Wrote nothing as usual.>
The Partial Psychopath
In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with
psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all
definitions of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy
defined in a specific two-part way.
Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in
another person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what
constitutes empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different
about the psychopath is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally
from the knowledge that he gains by putting himself in your shoes.
Thus, although he is able to very quickly glean during the briefest
encounter with another person a lot of very useful information about
what makes that person tick, this knowledge is simply knowledge to be
used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing in psychopaths
is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response to the
knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the
way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing
aspect of empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my
experience easily seen and one does not often get a second glimpse of
it if one has been treated to a first one by mistake.
A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had
inflicted multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged
with attempted murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about
the offence during the early stages of a first interview. His eyes
were moist as he accurately described how the woman must have felt
during and after the attack. But later in the same interview, after
good rapport had been established, this boy blurted out, "I don't know
what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a dozen scratches."
To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the psychiatric
hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he quickly
learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the
experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often.
With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings
affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled
look, or even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?"
The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the
automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the
other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath
can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the
subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An
untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the
real thing.
Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the
choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can
choose what script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or
automatically to react to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the
normal person, he has been told, or learned by observing others, what
he is supposed to feel.
As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your
pain, your terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic,
compelling, intuitive connection between what he knows you feel and
what he feels. There is no way he must feel. Thus there is none of
this kind of restraining force on his behavior. Therein lies the
danger of psychopathy.
Are experiences in the first three years critical in developing this
two-part type of empathy? Yes - if you accept that psychopathy can be
created in the first three years.
For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for
creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in
the first three years. There are probably other things - genetic,
organic, or biochemical, that can sometimes predispose a person to
psychopathy. But that should not lull us into forgetting the one
never-failing recipe. More importantly, we should be mindful that less
severe disruptions of attachment, like a dozen different caregivers in
the first three years can create partial psychopaths.
If we had an unfakable way to measure this two-part type of empathy we
would be able to correlate such findings with clinical impressions of
severity of psychopathy, whether we are speaking about psychopaths in
prison, in politics, in business, or the day before they kill.
To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part
type of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what
are the consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are
functioning without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is
happening to others a necessary component in the makeup of a majority
of persons in order for a group to function as a group? From a
sociological perspective, isn't this one of the functional
prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical mass for this
type of empathy for a society to survive?
