Our partner

do you relate to this?

Antisocial Personality Disorder message board, open discussion, and online support group.

Moderators: seabreezeblue, Otter

Forum rules
Attention Please. You are entering the ASPD forum. Please read this carefully.

Given the unique propensities of those who are faced with the issues of ASPD, topics at times may be uncomfortable for non ASPD readers. Discussions related to violent urges are permitted here, within the context of deeper understanding of the commonalties shared by members. Indulging these urges is not what regular users here are attempting to do.

Conversations here can be triggering for those who have suffered abuse or violent encounters. Respectful questioning is welcome from non ASPD members.

For those who have no respect for either this illness or for those who are living with it, please do not enter this forum. Discrimination of Personality Disorders is not tolerated on this site.

Moderators are present here to ensure that members treat each other with dignity and respect. If topics become overly graphic or drift from having a healthy perspective, moderators will intervene.
Please feel free to contact a moderator if you have any questions or concerns.

Best Regards,
The Team

Re: do you relate to this?

Postby crystal_richardson_ » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:46 pm

it need not be proven to be valid in the way you are saying

its validity is shown through self-report data of patients gathered by psychs who then create concepts around it

the real issue here is whether this meets your arbitrary standard of validity. after all, this could all be a dream which renders nothing valid.

just because something cannot be directly observed doesn't mean it's not valid. in the way that just because our entire universe could be a illusion doesn't mean our basic sensory observations are invalid.

the contents of the mind, and psychological concepts that follow, are indirectly observed through patients, including psychopaths, relaying those contents to observers, that is describing what they see in their own mind.

so it's pretty much on par with 'secondary data' gathering which holds some recognized validity
crystal_richardson_
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 35214
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:55 pm
Local time: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


ADVERTISEMENT

Re: do you relate to this?

Postby OneRinger » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:52 pm

crystal_richardson_ wrote:it need not be proven to be valid in the way you are saying


In order to be able to do universal declarations of necessity, like you do here:
like say all psychopaths are having this type of fantasy driven feature, and conversely all the people that have this fantasy are psychopaths. In logic it is called an equivalency. It has the biggest burden of proof possible. You not only have to prove the validity of both concepts, but you have to also prove that they logically follow in both direction. While you will find some valid concepts in psychology, you pretty much never find those type of universal causes, let alone equivalency. Maybe for very small concepts you might, although it is usually obvious through the definition alone.

Speaking of which, psychopathy is already defined by this in psychoanalytical circles, so it is true by definition, if you subscribe to their belief system. But their definition of psychopathy is different than yours. So what this guy says is true according to his belief. I just happen to believe it is BS. That definition has barely anything to do with ASPD or Hare's auto-defining test. << And those two are the most used definitions at this point or "psychopathy".

crystal_richardson_ wrote:its validity is shown through self-report data of patients gathered by psychs who then create concepts around it


That is empiricism, but empiricism is not good enough to derive universal claims. Strictly speaking, you can't derive anything from it, unless you make valid tests, on valid concept, and use those concepts to defined reality, then, make sure that it always follow that the other valid concept happens in reality. What you describe is no different than to say some women say the tomb of Jesus, and it was empty. :o :o :o :o :shock:
And everybody believed them. :o :o :o :o :o :shock:
Nobody went to check if it was true though, and nobody even check if Jesus was a real person to start with (valid concept). But hey, this proves it is possible for everybody, so why not?
Next step is just to say that everybody can do it, as long as they are as nice as Jesus, and have him in their heart.
We all know the drill.

And then you have the problem that the "fantasy" is based on self-report, which is also a problem of diagnosis in general. This type of thing is highly susceptible to confirmation bias from the subject with some small directed prompts by the observer. Nobody knows if the subject does not say yes because he tries to please the observer, for example.

crystal_richardson_ wrote:the real issue here is whether this meets your arbitrary standard of validity. after all, this could all be a dream which renders nothing valid.


It is not just MY standard, it is universal standards in science, logic and statistical method (some science light, that allows some universal claims based on approximate generalizations). That last one is pretty much the minimum that should be allowed, and that is being really generous on falsehoods. :roll:
Especially since their standards keep going down, and they don't even follow those minimums pretty often, but anyway. But even with using this truthiness, claims of necessity have to be pondered, by soft words, like "most", and "rarely", or "some evidence", "some correlation".

crystal_richardson_ wrote:just because something cannot be directly observed doesn't mean it's not valid. in the way that just because our entire universe could be a illusion doesn't mean our basic sensory observations are invalid.


There are statistical ways to figure out the validity of imaginary concepts. That is the minimum agreement achieved. Some people don't follow it, like Garrison. What he probably is doing, is either reason from the revealed truth of his belief, or projecting his own desires to commit crimes on others, despite that his own belief says that this is not always the case. And that is why I believe Garrison should be put under surveillance. :)

He either projects or is an heretic to his own faith. So either a wannabe criminal or someone with zero authority. Not saying he is not a nice person, he may very well be all this.

crystal_richardson_ wrote:the contents of the mind, and psychological concepts that follow, are indirectly observed through patients, including psychopaths, relaying those contents to observers, that is describing what they see in their own mind.

so it's pretty much on par with 'secondary data' gathering which holds some recognized validity


Sure, but like I said, it is a belief. You can believe in the authority of Garrison, and be his follower on Twitter, a Garrison fanboy/girl. Or you can rely on scientific data, which usually includes the authority of many, with standardized tests, so they study the same thing, and hopefully may discredit each others, and thus follow the fallibility test.

The problem is that we don't know who Garrison met, or at this point, maybe I don't even know if he met anybody, he could just be repeating things he heard, and messing up with it a bit to make himself known and published, and become a new authority who imposes his views on fresh students who assumes he knows what he is talking about. I don't know if he is one of the women in the Jesus story, or if he is a modern bishop who "heard" rumors about it. I also don't know if he is not crazy, or if what he is saying is even true. There is no way to check.

But yes, that is how belief usually works, and it has some validity, and can be useful generally speaking, I don't have a problem with that. There is nothing scientific about it though, and you can't derive something from it, and it is dubious to say the least. I expect more from people who claim to know something that I can't see for myself. And since nobody can see all "psychopaths", then that is why I reject it. Bring definitions, bring tests, bring the scientific method, then we can start talking.

Even the FBI thing Reaper linked to, it is interesting no doubt, and actually is more believable than Garrison will ever be, even his wife no doubt is watching his clothes every night to comb for foreign hare. But you can't generalize from that report alone, it is just anecdotal evidence. But I am sure those case actually exist, and I am sure Garrison's case exist as well. You just can't generalize from them is all.
User avatar
OneRinger
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm
Local time: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:30 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: do you relate to this?

Postby crystal_richardson_ » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:36 pm

i don't think anyone claimed that this is the only psychopathy

that the only psychopathy that exists - insofar as psychopathy itself exists - is one in which this weird form of fantasy is had

i don't even believe that as it doesn't explain the cases where they come from 'good upbringings'

i still believe there is an entirely genetic subtype of psychopathy where the person is born with a different brain that doesn't react to love or whatever, who also has an inability to respond to people's fear, who has a peculiar curiosity about people's fear due to this brain difference, etc.

i believe in reality there are many roads to the syndrome that is psychopathy. psychopathy is just a set of symptoms, what may cause it is yet to be determined; however, according to patient testimonies, at least some of the psychopaths in this world can be accounted for at least in part - or so a strong case can be made i believe or as strong as one can make in psychology - by this form of fantasy in response to certain experience

so it's a valid subtype, or as valid as anything else can be in psychology, or the study of personality which generally does rely on self-report data
crystal_richardson_
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 35214
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:55 pm
Local time: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: do you relate to this?

Postby crystal_richardson_ » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:59 pm

the role of this form of fantasy in this subtype of psychopathy is so fundamental and longstanding that we can assume the author of the passage was probably rewording what someone else said

Garrison may not even be an authority on the topic, i didn't choose it for his or her 'authority'

i already knew that this form of fantasy and how it arose was important, i just thought the passage, and the quotes contained within, concisely stated it for people to read and understand

it connects all the dots, from cause (some form of abuse), to process (some form of fantasy), through to outcome (psychopathy)

most 'credible' information on the net talks at length about only some specific aspect of the problem, because that is the nature of inquiry or whatever, or the way such information is typically presented. so most information out there consists of just endless articles on very specific aspects of the problem. the passage kind of brings a lot of things under one roof to create a complete story rather than leaving the waters as they are now for the most part muddled or incomprehensible, an infinite sea of possibilities amidst research on infinitely numerous and divided 'parts' where a total psychological picture of the individual is lost

like everything about psychopathy is its own special topic usually, so it's hard to really understand it within a comprehensive personality theory or set of connected concepts. the passage kind of presents that 'full picture'. of course every stage is still contentious and debatable, but at least a sensible and i'm fairly sure observed story has been put together, that is chiefly its draw to me
crystal_richardson_
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 35214
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:55 pm
Local time: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: do you relate to this?

Postby justonemoreperson » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:54 am

The problem with this type of discussion is that there is no 'type' for psychopathy, for the simple reason that, according to the medical world, psychopathy does not exist.

Therefore, it's used as a catch-all term for people who scare the f*ck out of society because they fall into a certain category.

To use an example: autism - no two autistic children are the same; they present differently and the symptoms vary considerably between individuals in their nature and extent.

At one point, it wasn't seen as a condition and many children were relegated to the position of "slow" or "difficult" and only after some time did autism become a valid medical condition.

However, once it became recognised it was studied and, as a result, has become more categorised and we see different strains appear, such as Asperger's etc. The definition and the consideration of these people is now going through substantial changes and I'm sure we'll see some fairly significant developments in this condition.

Psychopathy, which is in no way the same as AsPD, is similar. I'm sure that if it were categorised in the same way as, for example, autism then we would start to see maybe not a spectrum but certainly driving factors, theories of causes and types.

To emphasise how difficult this is, I fall into the best category for definition. I wasn't abused as a child, my behaviour ticked all of the boxes and my brain scan showed a fundamental difference in how I process information. However, despite this, I don't have a diagnosis of psychopathy, simply AsPD, which is largely irrelevant.
I'm not arguing, I'm simply explaining why I'm right.
justonemoreperson
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:02 am
Local time: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: do you relate to this?

Postby OneRinger » Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:06 am

^
Jomp, did they actually say in more detail what the brainscan differences were?

crystal_richardson_ wrote:i don't think anyone claimed that this is the only psychopathy


You did when you attacked what I said, which was just to show it applied in other places, and you might want to look at the big picture.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=elucB0 ... rs&f=false

The history starts at page 3.

This Garrison thing probably comes from Kernberg mainly, but also dates back to Kraepelin to some degree. For Kernberg, psychopaths have a borderline personality organization. And there is a blurring of fantasy and reality. Kraepelin would call that schizotypal. Pretty much the same thing, but said differently.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=KWOhAw ... sy&f=false

Not really mainstream anymore. Too vague. Can't be proven.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/article ... narcissism

It's probably best to focus on the actual differences with other disorders, not their commonality. In ASPD, it is usually a lack of inhibition that is causing issues. If you want a theory, there some that say there is no superego, or that it is partial, or is paranoid (bad introjects). Of course it does not say much, but you can look it up. The narcissist component though, will usually talk about the type of delusional thing said above. It is a blurring between the grandiose fantasy and reality. But since it is the antisocial element that makes psychopathy different, best to focus on that. Otherwise, it could be anything quite literally.
User avatar
OneRinger
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm
Local time: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:30 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: do you relate to this?

Postby justonemoreperson » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:52 am

OneRinger wrote:^
Jomp, did they actually say in more detail what the brainscan differences were?


They probably did at the time; I can't remember.
I'm not arguing, I'm simply explaining why I'm right.
justonemoreperson
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:02 am
Local time: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: do you relate to this?

Postby crystal_richardson_ » Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:55 am

OneRinger wrote:
crystal_richardson_ wrote:i don't think anyone claimed that this is the only psychopathy


You did when you attacked what I said, which was just to show it applied in other places


which is irrelevant

OneRinger wrote:and you might want to look at the big picture.


here is the big picture.

you are so cynical and disheartened by the misuse of psychopathy and other PDs as labels of social control by the system that you fail to see where legitimate disorders lie and the boundaries between.

the authorities are wrong about psychopathy and Aspd overall in terms of their ideas about it as expressed through the pattern of diagnoses

but amidst all the crap, there lies the legitimacy. but you cannot see/accept this for some reason; for some reason Oneringer you see the issues in the authorities' ideas and practices but instead of looking past that and the legitimacy amidst the crap you throw the baby out with the bathwater, rejecting the essential notion of PD entirely. that is where we fundamentally differ. what follows assumes a rejection of most 'authoritative' notions of Aspd and psychopathy, and represents my attempt to see the legitimacy amidst the crap.

Aspd is a criminal compulsion arising out impulsivity, anger (either explosive, reactive, or 'cold'), or issues with authority. psychopathy is also a criminal compulsion or compulsion toward other serious dysfunction, but unlike Aspd, there is a fundamental lack of empathy, detachment, and grandiosity, that is the difference on the syndromal level.

on the level of cause (what leads to the syndrome), Aspd and psychopathy are further differentiated, and in ways that explain their syndromal differences. if you look carefully, both the syndromal differences between Aspd and psychopathy, and corresponding causes have been observed in practice via self-report and other data, so i am not just making this up or theorizing out of thin air here.

the syndrome of Aspd that i described is always if not always caused by a 'rough' childhood; in keepin with the theme of linking syndrome to causes, could be dad abuses boy physically so boy develops authority issues and becomes Aspd. utterly simplistic but that is the idea. experience -> personality. yes, there could be some innate factors, but that's irrelevant. no one is born with a personality disorder (other than maybe psychopathy, which i'll get to last)

next comes the type of psychopathy that this thread talked about. it is like Aspd in that experience plays a key role, some kind of abuse, but its coped with differently, i.e. via this form of fantasy, and the rest described in the op quote. again, innate factors could play a role, but experience is key. what differentiates this from Aspd above is, in addition to the particulars of the cause (which are more specifically something that would lead a child to develop this form of fantasy rather than just, say, authority issues), there are syndromal differences, those being completely lack of empathy, complete inability to connect or love; in short there is a more thorough and complete reworking of reality, far beyond just Aspd, which is more a set of learned bad habits than gross reality reconstruction. both this type of psychopathy and Aspd as described above are criminally compulsive, hence clinically relevant.

finally, there is the supposed 'purely genetic' psychopathy, the child born with an inability to internalize love of the mother, born with an inability to recognize fear in people's faces, or words; so there is some kind of significant miswiring giving rise to their oddies. why call this psychopathy at all? because they nevertheless show the syndrome. due to their innate oddies, they are much like the type of psychopathy described above with the weird form of fantasy. they are as detached, lacking in empathy, grandiose, etc. they are again criminally compulsive or compulsively dysfunctional, although due to the almost entirely if not entirely genetic basis, it's possible for this to occur - and such a syndrome has been observed - among relatively privileged classes and upbringings, hence while dysfunctional (and often clinically so), this type of psychopathy may avoid the level of overt criminality of the other type described above, but they are no less dysfunctional.

so those are the three subtypes of the 'antisocial' personality disorders that best, imo, capture the data, while completely disregarding all the other crap however considered authoritative, that is all the Aspds and psychopathies that are merely used and diagnosed and theorized as little more than labels of social control, as jomp says, 'anything that scares people' or simply goes against societal interests.

so what you need to do Oneringer is accept that authorities are wrong, first, and second rather than become cynical toward the whole thing (possibly because deep down you have deep reliance on authority for your own sense of security), seeing the legit disorders among the crap.

to use an analogy, in the early days of medicine, treatments and tests for various diseases like 'the plague' and whatnot were crude. part of this was due possibly to the agenda at the time to maintain ignorance about disease, because maybe they served some other purpose, like punishing people or something for moral wrongdoing, and part of it was maybe due to simple lack of technology or knowledge about the 'truth' of disease. and yet today you would not deny the existence of disease, or its nature.

*and also note, that like diseases, it's possible to have more than one antisocial subtype; so it's possible that an individual can be all three subtypes of antisocial personality, with corresponding causes. so don't confuse these distinctions with practice; they are merely for purposes of understanding, but nor does that mean things overlap to the extent you seem to think; no, the issues (syndrome + causes) are distinct, but they can co-occur within individuals.
crystal_richardson_
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 35214
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:55 pm
Local time: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: do you relate to this?

Postby crystal_richardson_ » Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:25 pm

well what is your response Oneringer?

i am not beating a dead horse here. there are still many issues to contend.

but i think my typology should clarify some things, the question is do you accept it, or is it too emotionally jarring for you?

you say you are not invested in any of this, but i wonder...
crystal_richardson_
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 35214
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:55 pm
Local time: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: do you relate to this?

Postby justonemoreperson » Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:18 am

Two of the three types you mention are experience based, one being genetic.

The problem with experience-based conditions is that they are formed randomly, based on the inclinations of the individual, so how it presents will always be different.

For example: Johnny has a terrible childhood and psychologically reacts to it. How he reacts to it depends on his mind set, the nature of how he personally experienced the abuse and what is common to him in his environment. So, where one person might develop depression, another might develop multiple-personalities, another might become bipolar and one might "switch it all off" and become Anti-social. Also, one might be able to deal with the abuse and turn out relatively intact.

Because this is a reactive condition, there will never be two the same; as each one will adopt behaviours differently; it's a custom-fit condition.

However, in your third type, genetic, the presentation of the condition should be more consistent, as there's a specific change in behaviour based on a specific physiological difference. The difference in the person now based on their general personality.
I'm not arguing, I'm simply explaining why I'm right.
justonemoreperson
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:02 am
Local time: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Antisocial Personality Disorder Forum




  • Related articles
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 128 guests

cron