Dr. Stone and The Anatomy of Evil

scratch that

number230000 wrote:In serial killers where Factor 2 is lacking, we should rather describe them in terms of varying degrees of psychopathy or narcissism, since only these constructs properly capture ...

... their personality.

Maybe I'm schizotypal after all (ie: odd thinking).

I don’t know how this guy is diagnosing ASPD but torturing and killing people is “violating social norms” “violating others rights”. If you do it more than once it shows lack or remorse and you would have to have a lack of empathy to do it to begin with. That is more than enough for a diagnosis of ASPD by any standard

Really interesting discussion, I'm 46 and just diagnosed...I wonder now I've seen criteria how no-one picked it up...adoption, death of parent etc...who knows...but scary glancing at your post...eager to read...after I've had a nap!

*mod edit* like a true schizoid I don't tend to talk with anyone unless I have too 1) work / study 2) kids. So it would be nice, after finally getting diagnosis to speak *mod edit* with another SZDPD.

number230000 wrote:The apparent source of our disagreement and the problem I see with your approach is that you seem to forget that the DSM and the PCL-R are only imperfect tools. Hare himself talks about "white collar/successful" psychopaths. These people wouldn't meet the criteria for psychopathy, or even ASPD, but they are psychopaths nonetheless, like the so-called Angels of Death. Sure, for practical and research purposes it's advantageous to use those diagnostic instruments, but in the present context, clinical judgment has precedence; and since the hallmark of those disorders is callousness, it makes sense that serial murder would be more than enough to warrant the "antisocial" label. I agree there could be some exceptions though: a good prospect is schizoid Denis Nilsen.

The problem is that those constructs are medical ones, at least in psychiatry. They mean something, and there is a protocol to follow in order to diagnose. If people don't, it is just using terms badly in order to suggest other things, or using credentials that you don't have. If you say callousness is enough, the problem is that there are plenty of callous people, and they don't do anything antisocial.

Let's just take conduct disorder, which is pretty much the same construct as antisocial PD. It is necessary that there is a pattern of disruptive behaviors.
https://ijponline.biomedcentral.com/art ... 017-0404-6
The socialization of those with this behavior is all over the place, and so is the emotions, callous or not.

That's why, something specific like serial murders, simply does not fit the pattern in and of itself, no matter how horrific you might want to call it, it is not antisocial in a scientific way, but only in a vague colloquial way. Its also not something the person can "hide", nor are any of the other personality disorders, otherwise, what's the point of it? it can't be seen, and therefore cannot be diagnosed either. If people start doing that, it is simply guess work. Medical conditions can be seen, they are not something you just make up without any symptoms.

And that is the problem here. If you assume there are covert antisocials, and covert psychopaths that are undetectable, and commit serial murders and can only be diagnosed once caught, it is a serious problem, and can explain everything, just like the unconscious. Its basically pseudo-science.

But it is true that many people that commit those typed of crimes do have that observable behavior. I don't believe it is the reason they do it though, but it is a risk factor. Those are easier to catch, since they probably have priors with the law.

The problem here is that Stone makes a lot of emphasis on the callous-unemotional factor, and it seems like it is his goal to make it more evil, and he wants to have harsher sentences for people that have the wrong emotions.

There is a problem here though, since it is hard to tell from afar, the actual psychic process.

"The psychic process dynamics, despite being extremely important, can confuse the professional in the categorization of PDs. For example, a psychiatrist can confuse the affective state of schizophrenia, or even that of schizoidism (which is characterized by a deficient affective expression), with the indifference and affective insensitivity of antisocial PD."
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=s15 ... xt&tlng=en

Here's another time the myths.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... t-excerpt/

The majority of them are not loners, and they fit quite well into the community. The majority means the majority, which means more than 47%. According to Stone, the vast majority are psychopaths, and sexual sadists, and half are schizoids. Somehow, he is not seeing the same thing as everybody else.

His only study seems to be this:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-14916-001
I could not find the whole text, but he is basing his opinions mainly on biographies. That's quite a problem, and I would take that with a grain of salt. From a strictly scientific point of view, it is quite useless. If he actually took their real official diagnosis, it would be more useful, but he makes his own, based on very limited data, web searches, and media coverage (yes, I checked a few things about his method).

Just in normal sexual homicide cases, the PDs that are diagnosed, when there is one are ASPD, BPD and NPD in order, from what I saw, which makes a lot more sense. If you include murder in general, not the sexual type, PPD is often second. I don't know why he decided to diagnose all those people with SPD, but my guess is their lack of emotional display, and some of them are somewhat loners. Its not exactly enough for a diagnosis, but if you stretch everything's possible. When you simply look at third hand accounts of the media or Hollywood, many people look like loners, which may or may not be consistent with the reality. That's why interviews are generally considered necessary, it's the Goldwater rule, and Stone broke it.

number230000 wrote:

I believe Dahmer fits that description [of a Borderline]

LOL, I know Wikipedia believe that too, but Dahmer's name literally appears under the definition of the schizoid serial killer. Perhaps it's possible to be both Schizoid and Borderline.

He was properly diagnosed at least, and yes, both can be true at the same time, but he wasn't diagnosed as SPD as far as I saw. BPD and some ASPD traits. Its not what wikipedia believes, its what he was diagnosed with in reality, and not from a search engine.

[quote="number230000"]
It's related to Borderline Personality Organization in general - therefore schizoid - of which polymorphous perverse sexuality is a symptom.[quote]

Schizoids don't have a borderline personality organization, but that is psychoanalysis, different beast.

There’s more to forensic psychiatry than the medical model. There’s psychoanalysis of course.

A psychopath who isn’t antisocial (they do exist) is still a psychopath, but your much beloved descriptive psychiatry is not detecting them, while it erroneously lumps heterogeneous people based on external behaviors that have different intrapsychic meanings, potentially failing the first and most important step in treatment: correctly identify the diagnosis.

Like I said, it’s technically possible for a serial killer to be neither antisocial nor psychopathic - like Marybeth Tinning - but they are exceptions. Some are are highly narcissistic, but the vast majority have ASPD or full-blown psychopathy. It doesn’t mean they can’t be schizoid or borderline too. But unlike psychopathy or schizoid PD, BPD in a serial killer won’t be a major psychopathological factor, apparently.

Serial murder has to be the most antisocial thing someone can do, yet you still struggle with the notion that they are most likely at least ASPD. Go figure. Also why you give full credit to some internet articles but you can’t trust that the leading expert on psychopathic behavior knows what he’s talking about is another baffling question.

You don’t need an official diagnosis to see that Dahmer was schizoid for the same reason that you don’t need a meteorologist to notice that the sky is blue. But don’t stop there and read more about him. Unless you don’t trust yourself…

Finally, I have no idea where you got the idea that schizoid is not part of BPO.

number230000 wrote:There’s more to forensic psychiatry than the medical model. There’s psychoanalysis of course.

A psychopath who isn’t antisocial (they do exist) is still a psychopath, but your much beloved descriptive psychiatry is not detecting them, while it erroneously lumps heterogeneous people based on external behaviors that have different intrapsychic meanings, potentially failing the first and most important step in treatment: correctly identify the diagnosis.

You still need to know the people, even more so if you are going to read their minds. People that truly believe in this, usually don't diagnose, and most think everything is on a spectrum, and that everyone has traits of everything, it is just a matter of degree. So if you want to use your beloved approach, I deny the diagnosis.

number230000 wrote:Like I said, it’s technically possible for a serial killer to be neither antisocial nor psychopathic - like Marybeth Tinning - but they are exceptions. Some are are highly narcissistic, but the vast majority have ASPD or full-blown psychopathy. It doesn’t mean they can’t be schizoid or borderline too. But unlike psychopathy or schizoid PD, BPD in a serial killer won’t be a major psychopathological factor, apparently.

According to Stone, not according to others.

number230000 wrote:Serial murder has to be the most antisocial thing someone can do, yet you still struggle with the notion that they are most likely at least ASPD.

I don't struggle with it. Its simply not enough for an actual diagnosis. Most serial killers are ASPD, but the reason is not because they murdered someone. That's why that type of argument is a circular argument, and adds nothing, no new information.

number230000 wrote:Go figure. Also why you give full credit to some internet articles but you can’t trust that the leading expert on psychopathic behavior knows what he’s talking about is another baffling question.

Not really, he simply isn't a leading expert, and I looked at one of those shows where he features, and he has no method that is remotely standard. He basically looks at the type of crimes, and then give a number in his chart, and then diagnose because it is written in his chart. So his diagnosis is just garbage, and so are his stats, which are a lot higher than everybody else. And I don't give full credit to an article, I just know it is true, because it is the consensus. I just put it there so you could learn something, since you don't care about the consensus, nor about validity, just to defend some guy you think is an expert for whatever reason.

number230000 wrote:You don’t need an official diagnosis to see that Dahmer was schizoid for the same reason that you don’t need a meteorologist to notice that the sky is blue. But don’t stop there and read more about him. Unless you don’t trust yourself…

I don't trust myself to diagnose people at a distance, no. Nor should you, or Stone. And that is especially true if you want to read his mind. You don't know if what you read is the whole truth, you only get what someone thinks is important, usually for dramatic reason. If you think that you can just look at someone and diagnose that person, in the same way a person might think the sky is blue, because they see blue, then it is completely external, and it follows the descriptive model, so pretending you know better because you can read mind at a distance does not apply here, does it?

Even forensic psychiatrists often don't see eye to eye, and they make interviews with those they diagnose. Its far from being a perfect science, and people get bought and have their bias. In fact it seems like the whole forensic science stuff is for the most part anti-scientific, but that is another story. Psychiatry and psychology as a whole, is also in a similar boat, which is why those diagnosis construct are being eliminated from modern research. But for those that actually use it, they should use it properly at least, even if it is still garbage in the end.

number230000 wrote:Finally, I have no idea where you got the idea that schizoid is not part of BPO.

Yes, you are right about that.

Anyway, I am not interested in that issue anymore. I know the guy is a charlatan. I trust my own eyes on this.

I exaggerated when I said you could diagnose Dahmer just by looking at him, but at least you can see he's an introvert, something I definitely wouldn't say about Charles Manson. So of course I wasn't saying observable behavior is useless, just that it shouldn't be the only diagnostic tool.

I know the guy is a charlatan. I trust my own eyes on this.

Now I think it's time we let this thread RIP.