You must log in or register to comment.

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Sadly I didn't get a perfect score I have some growth I need to do.


OdiousOutlaw wrote

Using standardized models for the mind and using the demonized model as an ideal to strive for.

You sure do.

(I'm being a dick, do whatever).


Archaplain wrote

Common Myth: While many people believe that psychopathy is more prevalent among CEOs and Wall Street bankers, this is a myth not supported by any research.



lettuceLeafer OP wrote

This applies to you too /u/nulloperation

I don't understand this criticism. The concept of psychopathy is a method of society to demonize and villanize people. Often times chocking it up to it to being how they were born. It's a method of dehumanizing those who don't follow societal norms.

Psychopathy is a method of social control. So I wonder why you cling to this method of oppressing people. Should we not be spending out time dismantling methods of oppression rather than reinforcing them and using them for our own gains?

Like you seem to understand that the diagnosis of pychopath is used to dehumanize those will less power in society as CEOs and wallstreet bankers who probably would apply to this definition aren't counted.

Not to mention it seems that the risk factors of becoming a psychopath are being in poverty and abused.

So it's outright stated that the purpose of psychopathy is to demonize the poor and the abused who don't follow societal norms. So rather than seeking to dismantle such as vector of oppression you complaint is that its not oppressing enough rich people? I don't get it tbh


Archaplain wrote

All i know about Psychopathy is that it isnt even a medical or a diagnostic term. I had no idea about the baggage it has for the poor and abused. I guess i have been using it the wrong way all the time i thought it was just an insult or something.


lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Yes and no

Yes psychopath isn't a diagnosis but is a studied disorder. I say no because anti social personality disorder is a diagnosable condition which psychiatrists argue as a disorder which is quite similar disorder to psychopathy or is a disorder psychopaths fall into.

Plus there are diagnostic criteria outside of of the DSM 5 which allows clinicians to diagnose psychopathy


nulloperation wrote

I don't understand this criticism.

I mean, I'm not sure I understand either. I found the test confusing. I'll elaborate below.

The concept of psychopathy is a method of society to demonize and villanize people.

I agree that is one side of the issue. Another side could be people using the concept of psychopathy to call out oppression and violence, and try to come up with a label for that.

I think the questions in the test you linked unfairly groups together wildly different traits. Take these questions:

  • I do whatever I feel like doing, and I don’t care what others think — or even if it’s illegal.

  • I’ve gotten into legal or criminal trouble as an adult (not just a speeding or parking ticket).

Hell yes!! If that's what we understand as psychopaths, count me in!

Other questions:

  • Every person for themselves; I don’t see the point in feeling sorry for other people and have no desire to help others.

  • I never feel remorse, shame or guilt about something I’ve said or done.

I wouldn't like to be in the club that answers yes to those questions, because I'm no ancap / laizzes faire capitalist — hey, what about mutual aid? — and if I say something that makes someone else feel unsafe or anxious, then I may feel remorseful, yes.

That psychopath test effectively lumps together respect for the law with empathy towards fellow beings. I found that incredibly confusing, which is why I asked whether you considered 0/24 or 24/24 the perfect score. I wasn't trying to criticize, just wanted to hear your thoughts.


lettuceLeafer OP wrote

for clarification I didn't really care about the test as a whole. I mostly see psychopathy and anti social personality disorders as a demonetization on peoples behavior in a way I don't like. The most interesting bit was the intersections of anarchism and psychopathy as most of the ideas intersect. So I made an edgy post about this thought about how it was interesting as I viewed most of the psychopaths traits as desirable.

psychopathy to call out oppression and violence, and try to come up with a label for that.

Psychopathy seems to almost certainly be about not following morality, societal goals and lack of empathy. None of which are oppressive. If people want to call out oppression spending their time using a medical diagnosis of oppression neutral traits is a useless way to do that. Hell, if not being able to empathize with people is an actual disability people are born with (I doubt it is) using this disability to criticize oppressors is literally oppressive.

Every person for themselves; I don’t see the point in feeling sorry for other people and have no desire to help others. I never feel remorse, shame or guilt about something I’ve said or done.

I think this an interesting intersection of anarchism. I think it is quite positive to reframe the reference to others in mutual aid. Its called mutual aid because the point is its to help yourself. Doing mutual aid work to help others rather than help yourself in my experience is a bad idea. It often leads to a unequal relationship of saint and poors to be lucky for the blessed good persons help, the employee and the receive. I could go on. I think the idea that mutual aid is for ones own selfishness is a great idea to make mutual aid less oppressive. Hell I think it could be argued that if you're doing mutual aid to help people its charity not mutual aid.

I haven't felt guilty for at least a year all by choice. I think 1. guilt isn't helpful in solving the harm you have caused. 2. Often times in doing anarchist projects guilt seems like a weird interpretation. Like I have literally never seen a black person see a white person feeling guilty and go wow thanks. Racism sucks but now that this white person is being guilty rather than doing anything its so helpful.

If it were me if people were wanting to help me from a place of guilt it would piss me off. When your help comes from a place of guilt its just using the person as a means of an end to end your self inflicted suffering. While if your help is coming from an understanding of how freeing each other from oppressive structures is the only way for us to all be free this is a relationship to others that is a deeper understanding of your relation to others and a humanizing experience. While a place of guilt the hurt person is just a stepping stone to remove guilt. I much rather peoples place of help come from a place as equals rather than one seeing themselves as indebted to me for a past wrong or whatever.

My point isn't to change your mind but to explain how while I don't value morality or guilt and only care about myself I don't become some violent oppressor. I just view and relate to problems a different way.

To be clear with my intentions I don't actually think that this test to be an actually good indicator of ones anarchist politics. I do think that many of the qualities of psychopathy are things that make people better anarchists. Just as not having guilt or only caring about yourself. Most of them I find value neutral though a few are negative such as sadistically hurting animals. Also, I am quite against psychology as an institution and flipping the script and glamorizing a group of people who most would consider evil as positive is interesting and necessary to dismantle tools of oppression.


rot wrote

psychopathy is like the opposite of anarchist. at least how they define it.

i guess you could be a psychopath and anarchist but i wouldn't think that selfish and manipulative would like anarchy


Tecate_Coyote wrote

"Psychopathy" isn't recognized by the DSM-V, it would fall under the Anti-Social Personality Disorder.


lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

This is false

Plus the DSM 5 Is one very important document is psychology. Even if it wasn't mentioned in the DSM 5 psychopathy is still a studied disorder that is considered real. Hell, linked below I talked about a diagnostic model to diagnose psychopathy for psychiatrists in this very thread.

So 1 you are wrong about it not being in the DSM 5

2 You wrongly state this claim to prove that psychology doesn't view psychopathy as a real disorder which is also false

  1. Plus you seem to not know why psychopathy wasn't originally included in the DSM 5

Silly take on many more counts.


Tecate_Coyote wrote

Your comment comes across as quite hostile and defensive- did you intend that or am I misinterpreting it?

Psychopathy isn't a diagnosis. Psychopathic traits, under the umbrella of Anti-Social Personality Disorder, do indeed exist, I never said that they didn't. The second source you quoted backs this up- "For the very first time, the APA recognized psychopathy as a “specifier” of clinical antisocial personality disorder in the DSM-5, although psychopathy is still not an officially accepted clinical diagnosis." (paragraph 14)

You're putting words in my mouth that I never said and it feels like an underhanded argumentative tactic. You linked two sources, an abstract to a paper about the validity of psychopathic assessments (No white paper though, did you link this just to show that psychopathic assessments exist?) and another that explains psychopathy, some assessments, and that it is a condition for being diagnosed with Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

So in essence, what are you trying to argue with me about? Nothing I have said is "false" as you put it. Maybe this is a misunderstanding, perhaps I should have written, if I intended to be more accurate, "Psychopathy is not recognized as a diagnosis by the DSM-V, it falls under Anti-Social Personality Disorder"


MHC wrote

"Please accept our privacy policy

PsychCentral uses cookies to improve your experience and to show you personalized ads."