This conversation is closed.

Do we have a right to oppress a psychopathy epidemic?

Saw a great conversation that was already closed so I couldn't weigh
in; wanted to reopen it from a slightly different angle. This is my
first post on this forum and I've only just seen it, so I'm not clear
on the etiquette or how to use the website. I only hope I've tagged
correctly.
Anyway, the topic... Controversial, I know, but it's something worth
asking. Let's, for the duration of the debate, assume that psychopathy
is an evolutionary trait as oppose to a personality "defect". It's a
pretty common theory and it makes sense.
Looking at psychopathy as a condition from an evolutionary
perspective, it's likely to become more and more of a dominant
disorder over time. Yes, to us, the psychopath is less than pleasant
as a character. But they do rather seem to have an advantage over us.
Maybe we should all just lay down now, accept their dominance and let
them establish a unified pathocratic state under which we can all
labour.
Ok, I'm being ironic. But the point still stands. To homo
neanderthalensis, his freaky cousin the homo sapien was an aberration.
something to be culled and exterminated. I think we're all in
agreeance that extermination is a little extreme at the moment, so
we've resorted to enforcing ridiculous court-mandated "treatments" for
the "condition" of psychopathy. It's pretty safe to say that this has
been ineffective, and all it seems to do is alienate and aggravate the
psychopath, as well as giving him clear motive to turn to agression.
Is this opression? Being locked in a white room because you were born
with a personality that society deems wrong and forced into
counselling sessions with people who could never understand you? You
don't "cure" a psychopath, that's fact. Is there anything wrong with
them? Do we have a right to call them "disordered" at all? Is that an ignorant label?
Seems like we're carrying out the mistakes of every previous
generation of human evolution; fighting the transition. We just do it
less agressively.
Thoughts?

  • Apr 13 2014: This is 2014. Innocent until proven guilty. In a psychocratic state the jury would be a majority of psychos. The needs of the many outweigh the few.
  • thumb
    Apr 11 2014: Our overcrowded hustle society has to face a horrific problem - we keep developing colossal mass psychosis based on illsome mentality of the crowds, and even those who consider themselves "normal" cannot escape this everyday "normal" mad "lifestyle". Nature did not make us to be crowds. Each personal mind and character is painffully supressed, cannot develop soundly. It becomes ill.

    Growing up with my schizophrenic stepmother I learned that she did not inherit her desorder but developed it for she had to go through endless devastating trouble in her life.

    As I've been her direct day-and-night victim for 16 years, I know well that it is a very bewildering situation for someone who is very close to that person. You're very confused - sorry for her but knowing that she is so abusive you cannot tolarate her any longer. I must say that often families commonly do everything to hide that relative's mental illness.

    The ill individuals are often very "skillful" to hide their sickness, until disaster happens... I have a hysterical stepsister who is imitating her schizophrenic mother so well, that it is hard to say that she is just a "drama queen" She is a true criminal based on her horrific "deeds" towards her family members, including myself, I'm still miraculously alive, but people think that she is just hysterical.

    It is much easier to recognise a psychopath when we see his/ her obvious violent moves, but there are millions of ill people who are so dangerous but so well blended among the rest!

    Why are we so shocked when we watch the loud news about someone, who was so "normal" but so "suddenly" did something bloody and crazy..

    It is very hard to diagnose and "measure" how crazy some of us may be. This kind of approach will never get us anywhere. But I see that in order to solve this problem we need to start changing our hysterical lifestyle, and society as a garden of psychopaths, while learning how to co-exist peacefully and meaningfully .
  • Apr 10 2014: I believe that Humans need psycopaths. Not EVERYONE, which your 'evolution' point seems to advocate, but some for sure. We need them because for Good or Evil, they get things done. They make things happen. Have you seen the studies which show that CEO's are sociopaths? Its a personality trait that most would consider a handicap, but the ability to ignore the pain you are causing your workers so that you can get a penny more on your stock price is highly valued in the business world.

    I believe that we need both Hitlers and Ghandis. Their disruptive influence causes changes in all of Humanity. Individuals will suffer under these disruptions, but the end result is more advancement than a steady hand gives.
  • thumb
    Apr 10 2014: The slippery slope principle says no. It is no different than eliminating people based on race, religion or gender. Only some psychopaths are problematic to society while others often end up in public office or other positions of status and authority and even proclaimed as heroes at times because they can so easily ignore risks to themselves. .

    But the sociopath brings nothing positive to the table. They have no connection to society or values or principles or ethics and generally do as they damn will please.

    The fact that there are cross overs in behaviour and attitude between the psychopath and the sociopath does not mean they are the same and the differences lie in the acting out.

    Then there is the array of symptoms that both psychopathy and sociopathy share with other illnesses and the tons of research that shows an exact diagnosis is almost impossible to guarantee.