First, go read this. Psychopathy
Then, go read this. 3 laws
Inevitably, the connotations of the word psychopath are negative, in much the same way as the word paedophile has negative connotations.
There are no “neutral” or “victim” connotations, such as you might get with the word autistic, and no positive connotations whatsoever.
By any useful definition of the word psychopath, lacking empathy, every robot ever built in Asimov’s worlds, and derivatives, would be psychopathic, as they lack empathy.
R Daneel was not human, and his apparent caring for humanity was just a figment of programming, he had no empathy.
Frankly speaking, we are no closer to being able to fabricate a positronic brain now than we were in the 50’s, but we are still as capable as we ever were of creating meat brains, we just cannot program them with the three laws at conception.
A positronic brain without three laws was postulated in at least one story, so this is in many ways analogous to the meat brain, so our definitions of empathy and psychopathy cannot rest upon a foundation of differentiating between a positronic brain and a meat brain, 4 legs good, 2 legs bad.
A corporation, or a government, may not be positronic, and may well be based upon a hive of meat based brains, but, by any useful definition of the word, these are psychopathic entities, and entities they are, for they all exist as legal persons and individuals, except when it comes to many areas of law that apply to actual individuals, you can’t put Apple in prison.
I have a friend who is studying psychology at the moment, and she has not yet reached the point where she realises that sooner or later you come across a point where you encounter circular logic, and you then face the stark choice of either accepting this, or rejecting the entire field as being logically flawed and bogus.
DMJ has a piece where he quite correctly points out that rickets is rickets is rickets, you can go to any country or location or culture on the planet, and the diagnosis, presence and treatment for rickets is the same… we in the western world are wealthy enough to avoid malnutrition, but if you impose malnutrition on one of us we will exhibit identical symptoms to some ethnic in bum fuck nowhere in the middle of the Kalahari… but so called psychological diseases like eating disorders do not exhibit universally, ergo they are not universal, ergo they are not diseases or illnesses, just precious stupid people being pandered to.
Yes, my friend faces a conundrum, to pass this course, she must not question the validity of the course material, it is rather like getting a physics degree and the only subject you are allowed to discuss is why the Free Energy Machine actually works, you aren’t allowed to do any empirical testing.
My physics teacher taught me an important lesson, in lab experiments where we would try to replicate basic physical principles, he prided himself on the fact that of the 30 pairs of bench voltmeters and ammeters handed out for experiments, only 25 of them were reliably accurate… the lesson was not to replicate the work of Ohm, the lesson was to be honest and report what you actually found, and THEN maybe try to diagnose why your results and Fred’s results were different.
Failing utterly to replicate, for example, Ohm’s, did not either mean a fail, or that you disproved Ohm, the purpose of the lesson was NOT to replicate, the purpose was not even to attempt to replicate, as in goal seeking, the purpose was to duplicate, if we could, and observe and report.
This is a principle that is not merely absent in my friend’s psych course, it is in fact the one guaranteed way to fail the course utterly.
Obtaining a degree is psychology or psychiatry is therefore more akin to passing the seminary exams and becoming ordained as a priest than to passing the 17th edition electrical exams and becoming a practising sparky…
The consensus required to get a passing mark is not the significant point, the ability to give the “right” answers to all the questions is not the significant point, the significant point is that *NOBODY* will fail the sparky course for asking the instructor how to go about verifying Ohm’s law in their own private study time…. *EVERYONE* will fail at the seminary for asking if Jesus actually exists, or at the psych course for asking if psychology has any actual validity without resorting to circular logic.
The *closest* any psychologist I know personally ever came to answering the question above about the three laws and psychopathy was someone who admitted that in fact the very definition of psychopathy was based upon the soul and empathy, a *hugely* ego- and anthro-pocentric viewpoint… my dog clearly has feeling and emotions but since it has no soul it cannot be a psychopath, or otherwise, you just cannot apply the test, 4 legs bad, 2 legs good…. “so, how does that make you feel as regards to the validity of your chosen field of psychology / psychiatry in comparison to, for example, a Zen or Buddhist approach to life and character and soul?” and they don’t really want to talk to you any more…
It’s a bit like being stood in a secret family court being falsely accused by your psycho skank ho ex of domestic violence / sexual abuse / wanting to bugger the (under age) goldfish, you got no way forward unless you first admit that you are guilty of all this shit and need help, and those feelings of disgust, well, they are really feelings of shame, because you have these tendencies and you know it, even if you don’t know it, we do, because we are experts… now, repeat after me…
Shades of the Ian Watkins (Lostprophets) story….. guy might have well as been as “psychopathic” as you like, but, he was also as dumb as a bunch of fucking rocks, as indeed was ever other GENUINE sexual offender I have ever come across, and indeed 99% of all criminals, and yet, we are CONSTANTLY told that all paedophiles are FEARSOMELY intelligent people.
Really, like Ian Watkins, who having plead guilty is a paedo, therefore he MUST be included in the category of “all paedos”, but the guy’s actions, as dumb as a fucking box of rocks… sends text/email to groupy, hey baby, when we meet next let’s fuck your 6 month baby old up the ass, we’ll do it in a hotel room, and I’ll video the crime, and make sure I get all my unique identifying marks and tat’s CLEARLY in focus for the camera.
Yeah, way to fucking go Einstein, I use more intellect than than when pushing my luck and doing 30 in a 20 zone.
And *who* tells us that these ass-holes are sooooo smart, and the likes of thee and me can’t even understand our own motives, much less the motives of these fearsomely intelligent psychopaths… well. that would be psychologists and psychiatrists of course.
It’s not like they could be lying to us, because that would mean they had no soul or empathy for us, which would make them……. hang on, my brain hurts, I’ll just stop thinking and do as I am told and assume that ***I*** am not smart enough to work this shit out, so I will just shut the fuck up and listen to and obey and trust these self appointed experts.
Wimminz - celebrating skank ho's everywhere 
You’re more likely to have an intelligent conversation with a Priest about the existence of Jesus, than with a Psychologist about the foundational principles of their field. Chances are, the Priest is going to give you better advice, too.
I draw a distinction between “Psychopath” and “Anti-social personality disorder” – once which used to be loosely supported by Psychology, but no longer is with the DSM V (one more reason to prefer Priests – at least they’re consistent). ASPD is rather simple: lack of empathy + high time preference = crime (this fails to account for moral reasoning, but then, so does dog breeding). The psychopath, however, is the constant chess player. It’s a twisted version of the “Leadership” personality – the choleric – the paranoid control freak. In a normal human being those qualities are tempered by emotiveness, which is what makes them such great leaders (the need to organize and control everything, while simultaneously caring about those under their command – and, hopefully, knowing when to let go, so as not to micromanage). In the Psychopath, they can’t stop controlling; their emotiveness is completely slaved to their intellect, with a hard-wired on/off switch. They’ll be your Best Friend in the World, so long as you’re part of their chess game; as soon as you’re no longer valuable, they don’t know you from Adam.
The Psychopath can be useful – they’re extremely adept at quickly rising up the chain, and creating organizations – and occasionally they base their persona upon ethical behaviour, so they wind up creating organizations which are doing something good – but they’re like playing with fire. Melancholics and Phelgmatics can easily fall prey to them, and wind up having their personal lives destroyed; Cholerics and Sanguines are better able to deal with them.
Comment by Davis M.J. Aurini — November 29, 2013 @ 3:27 pm
The case of the CEO – the evil bastard that lays people off, gets a huge bonus check, moves on, and leaves the company in tatters (turns out that the fat he trimmed was vital to the organization’s metabolism…) doesn’t fit neatly into either category. I could be the first one – if he’s intelligent he can complete Business School, even with high time preference – if he’s the second one he might simply have stumbled on to an interesting chess game for him to play – but personally I lean towards the idea of the majority of these people just being evil bastards that like the bitter after-taste of the devil’s cock.
Psychology doesn’t have much to say about this, though.
Comment by Davis M.J. Aurini — November 29, 2013 @ 3:30 pm