Our partner

1. Glib and superficial charm.

Antisocial Personality Disorder message board, open discussion, and online support group.
Forum rules
Attention Please. The AsPD FORUM IS CLOSED.

The AsPD forum is closed for an indefinite period of time pending discussion of member usage, and relevance of the forum, and for revision of the forum's policies. We ask that you NOT to take AsPD threads and discussions into other forums here. This will result in being permanently banned from the forums and will only result to a longer period of forum locking or a permanent shut down. Please respect the safe spaces that those forums represent for other members here.

The Team

Is this a good symptom for sociopathy/psychopathy?

Yes - and this symptom applies to me.
5
50%
Yes - and this symptom doesn't apply to me.
0
No votes
No - and this symptom applies to me.
4
40%
No - and this symptom doesn't apply to me.
1
10%
 
Total votes : 10

1. Glib and superficial charm.

Postby Nil Banal » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:59 pm

This is part of a series of threads analysing the catalogue of alleged symptoms of The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, which purports to identify sociopathy/psychopathy.

1. GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM-- the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Psychopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A psychopath never gets tongue-tied. They have freed themselves from the social conventions about taking turns in talking, for example.


Discuss whether you believe this is a meaningful symptom and definition, and/or whether something different or more precise is better - as well as how it relates to other alleged disorders.
Last edited by Nil Banal on Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Scion exudes omen
Nil Banal
Consumer 1
Consumer 1
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:43 pm
Local time: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


ADVERTISEMENT

Re: 1. Glib and superficial charm.

Postby Delirius » Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:04 pm

Nil Banal wrote:Discuss whether you believe this is a meaningful symptom and definition, and/or whether something different or more precise is better.


I don't think this is meaningful because there are many people who are charming. And even in just a fake way, it is a part of socializing that you be nice to people even if you don't like them.
Philosophy is stupid.
Delirius
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:03 am
Local time: Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 1. Glib and superficial charm.

Postby ajr8 » Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:50 am

Agreed, it's just a normal part of basic social politeness, it shouldn't be a "symptom" of a mental disorder. Most social people do it.
ajr8
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 3292
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 4:11 am
Local time: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: 1. Glib and superficial charm.

Postby Little Boy Lost » Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:57 am

I read that they count it towards glib and superficial charm if you never break eye contract and if you respond to questions vaguely, by answering only part of the question, or by letting yourself wander off-topic. Also, if you seem "too relaxed." I have a tendency to to some of those things, but they're not uncommon or unhealthy, IMO. Why wouldn't you be relaxed, for example? Is it more psychologically healthy to stress out about talking?
“It is not to be thought that the life of darkness is sunk in misery and lost as if in sorrowing. There is no sorrowing. For sorrow is a thing that is swallowed up in death, and death and dying are the very life of the darkness.”
― Jacob Boehme
Little Boy Lost
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:52 pm
Local time: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 1. Glib and superficial charm.

Postby Infinite_Jester » Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:53 am

Hey Nil Banal, (I hope your name isn't intended to mean nothing inspired or original)

I don't know why you've saturated the ASPD sub forum with these threads but I wanted to maybe help clarify some things about the PCL-R, measurement practices in psychology, and operationalism. It's not intended as anything mean but if you're interested in criticizing a psychometrical instrument then I think you might want to know the following. Let's cut up your post:

Nil Banal wrote:This is part of a series of threads analysing the catalogue of alleged symptoms of The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, which purports to identify sociopathy/psychopathy.


When you talk about the PCL-R and psychopathy you use words and phrases that suggest that everything that the PCL-R does is alleged. As if the symptoms are "alleged symptoms" and the instrument "purports to identify" the psychopathy construct. Here's how psychometrics works:

Psychologists start with a concept with some basic understanding of what it is. Let's call it X. Psychologists then set forward the rules in which X occurs. For example, X occurs when someone sniffs women's underwear and masturbates to pornography more than two hours a day. They then develop a metric for how they are going to measure X. Then they go out into the field using their metric to measure X.

To summarize so far, psychologists have a vague idea of what they want to investigate then set forward the rules in which it occurs then develop a metric for measuring it and finally they do some research.

This leads to theory building as people learn more about X. What causes X? Who is more likely to be an X? How does X relate to other psychological constructs? What empirical correlates are there with X? And so on.

So to clarify there's nothing alleged going on. Psychologists define psychopathy then develop a metric for it. The criteria are laid down in the same way physicists lay down the rules for what a kilogram is and then develop a metric for measuring kilograms.

Of course, I imagine your thinking "well how do psychologists know that the metric they developed measures psychopathy?" Good anticipated hypothetical question Nil Banal! Let me explain.

Psychologists come up with a number of test items informed by current theory about X and then put them on the measure (sometimes they put unrelated or experimental test items as part of the validating process but we don't need to consider that). Now the test items should be highly correlated in the population of interest. For example, if I catch 40 voyeurs who panty sniff and give them my measure then the 25 test items should all correlate together whereas people who don't panty sniff data's should be negatively correlated with these test items.

The clustering of these test item gives psychologist's reason to believe there exists a latent variable that causes affirmative responses to all the test items. The latent variable stands in for the cause that causes the person to crave the odor of women's underwear, to have a lack of inhibition to go out and seize the negligée, the impulse to masturbate excessively and so on.

The fact that a psychologist can show that the test items correlate in the population of interest is partially supports the measurement claim of X but there are other ways of supporting the measurement claim of X.

You can research what X predicts. So if I measure X in a population and some go on to keep panty sniffing well then my measure predicts panty sniffing at a particular rate. This validates the measure as a tool for panty sniffing prediction.

Also, you can measure the empirical correlates of X. So if I look at panty sniffers brains and see that their meso limbic dopaminergic pathways (the reward centres of the brain) become active when I show them women's underwear that supports and informs theory of X. This adds more validity to X and supports my measure of X.

***Anyways, the point being Hare and Neumann have validated their metric of psychopathy. It predicts violent recidivism well. It has many empirical correlates that are consistent with the theory of psychopathy and all the test items correlate in certain populations and not others. This is essential. It is not as if psychopathy follows a normal curve. Instead, some people have these traits and behaviours and others don't (there some nuances here obviously between a cold and sterile Police Officer with a lack of empathy and Anton Chigurh).***

So to answer your question: all the test items are meaningful and precise.

Hopefully that clarifies things and gives you the info your really looking for. Take care.
Infinite_Jester
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:34 am
Local time: Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 1. Glib and superficial charm.

Postby Little Boy Lost » Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:00 am

Infinite Jester, did you intend to state that psychopathy is categorical as opposed to dimensional? If so, i disagree and so would many researchers.
“It is not to be thought that the life of darkness is sunk in misery and lost as if in sorrowing. There is no sorrowing. For sorrow is a thing that is swallowed up in death, and death and dying are the very life of the darkness.”
― Jacob Boehme
Little Boy Lost
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:52 pm
Local time: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 1. Glib and superficial charm.

Postby Obsidian » Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:08 am

It's based on criminal psychopaths for one. That checklist is better for measuring AsPD than psychopathy. :­P
“God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.”
Obsidian
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 10638
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:00 pm
Local time: Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 1. Glib and superficial charm.

Postby Little Boy Lost » Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:10 am

Obsidian wrote:It's based on criminal psychopaths for one. That checklist is better for measuring AsPD than psychopathy. :­P


Not the first factor.

-- Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:17 am --

Here, Obsidian: psych.wisc.edu/newman/SecurePDF/Kosson_Lorenz_Newman_2006.pdf

Add http:// to the beginning of the link.
“It is not to be thought that the life of darkness is sunk in misery and lost as if in sorrowing. There is no sorrowing. For sorrow is a thing that is swallowed up in death, and death and dying are the very life of the darkness.”
― Jacob Boehme
Little Boy Lost
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:52 pm
Local time: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 1. Glib and superficial charm.

Postby Infinite_Jester » Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:24 am

Little Boy Lost wrote:Infinite Jester, did you intend to state that psychopathy is categorical as opposed to dimensional? If so, i disagree and so would many researchers.


Hang on let me see what I wrote (I'm being genuine I have bad memory)

Infinite_Jester wrote:***Anyways, the point being Hare and Neumann have validated their metric of psychopathy. It predicts violent recidivism well. It has many empirical correlates that are consistent with the theory of psychopathy and all the test items correlate in certain populations and not others. This is essential. It is not as if psychopathy follows a normal curve. Instead, some people have these traits and behaviours and others don't (there some nuances here obviously between a cold and sterile Police Officer with a lack of empathy and Anton Chigurh).***


No. I didn't mention anything about dimensions just that psychopathic traits do not follow a normal curve. Also, I wrote that there are nuances which seems to support a dimensional conceptualization. However, the DSM-4 (which is dying soon :cry: ) seems to be categorical (you get the diagnoses or you don't) and psychometrical instruments seem to be more quantitative/dimensional. That's just how clinical psychology is. I think it should be all quantitative. Really because I'm a delusional Pythagorean who thinks everything is made up of numbers :D

Anyways, I gotta get back to the lab to work on my panty sniffer thesis.

*Edit* LBL is right that I wrote something like "people either have it or they don't" but I meant that the traits and behaviours are found to be highly correlated in some people and not at all in others. Kind of like Schizophrenia. It's not like there are people who are a little bit Schizophrenic and others not so much and that you can measure this by standard deviations from the mean.
Infinite_Jester
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:34 am
Local time: Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 1. Glib and superficial charm.

Postby yYyYy » Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:35 am

It applies to HPD.

a person with glib/superficial charm is like,
at first meeting
he/she passionately talks about grandiose dream/plan etc and impresses you(even when not necessary, it's not job interview)
but later you get to know that he really does not have interest in what he said
as it first appeared to be.
He actually does not do much thing to pursue that goal,
he only exaggerated himself and things
and he made you feel like it'd be nice to be friend with him by charming you superficially with his glibness

but actually you are walking into hell if you get close to him
what you saw as 'charming' is not really there.

hi Little Boy Lost
Image how are you???

and my opinion on members

Tempest: she wasn't glib/superficially charm in front of me but i get a feeling that she would be in social situation.
little boy lost : he is... probably.
Obsidian: 100% doesn't apply to this
Banal: that his username is nil banal(and his superficial avatar) is already glib/superficially charm
:P
yYyYy
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4968
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:42 pm
Local time: Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:45 am
Blog: View Blog (2)

Next

Return to Antisocial Personality Disorder Forum




  • Related articles
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests