Frequent visitors to the dr-robert website know about the Dr. Robert Forum, a threaded message board open to comments about this website, requests for advice from other visitors, or anything else relevant to psychotherapy, human potential, spiritual awareness, etc.
Recently, the Forum has become a place for interesting conversations among self-identified psychopaths. A psychiatrist friend of mine who follows the Forum told me that the Forum has "tapped into 'inner worlds' in a way that, I believe, face to face conversations cannot achieve without long periods of contact."
Although I read everything submitted to the Forum, I seldom comment there myself, since I have sufficient space here on my own website for airing whatever views I wish. Nevertheless, occasionally I am moved to add something to the discussions on the Forum, usually for the purpose of moving things along. I reproduce below an entire thread called "Confessions about love, relationships guilt and the world from a young sociopath," to which I did contribute a post, and which I think offers a very direct view of the reasoning of a self-described sociopath.
Hi everyone, i'm diego, a 19 years old that today has discovered that he is 80% sociopath. i'm figuring out about the other 20%. i have read dr robert writings, and of course i have been on the internet searching for stuff.
Im going to write my thoughs about some stuff about my relationships with girls, and my point of view about "love". i could just write this on a diary, but maybe some of you could help me figuring
For me, love is just a weakness. When people have somepart of them missing, and they find that part in another person, they call it love. for example, a guy who has always been told that he is ugly, and a cute girl says to him that he is cute, then he had filled that hole and he will say that he is in love with her with the time. (thats a simple example, but the 30 couples i know and i have analysed, its just always a weakness)
i can identify my sociopaths characteristics better when i'm drunk. when i'm drunk i can just think of 4 things at a very high level: laugh, eat, drink more, and girls(when i'm sober i'm also just thinking of these things too, but in a more controlled level).
when i'm drunk its like im seeing everything that is happening but i cant control my actions, this is what happened on one night. im kind of pyromaniac,that night i lighted up my friend shirt from the back just to turn on my cigarette, then of course he got mad at me, but the forgived me because i made everyone laugh. Then i saw a group of girls, and i grabbed him and i throwed him in the group of girls, i said to the girls "sorry, he is so drunk" they laughed, and we started to dance with them. every-time i use people to get girls, my friends, i have had dates with their sisters, and i know in a unconscious level that every-time i make a new friend is just because i know he can set me up with a friend of her (or her sister, or her actual girlfriend :P).
i have had just 3 girlfriends that lasted at least 1 week in all my life. but there was one special, a bipolar girl, i lasted with her 3 months (she was the girlfriend of a friend of me, and i dont know how we started to date) (ok, now i remember, i talked with my friend and said to him that she wasnt worth it, i felt no guilt for him, my justification said "this girl is so fun, that she deserves a better guy" :P) . i remember the first time that she said me "i love you" i couldnt say a word, but as i never show nervous or stuff like that even if im feeling it, i just smiled but i couldnt talk. then, after a minute i said "i love you too" but i knew that i didnt. i just said that because i wanted to kiss her, to make her mine. and i didnt felt guilt, i said to me "i said that just to dont hurt her feelings, im a good guy" i always end up justifying my actions.
But, guess when i started to feel like i loved her. when she left me. then i said, "ohh i think i was in love but i never realized it". now i know that the thing i was feeling was "how could that ***** left me, she cant, im perfect, whats wrong?" i thought it was love, but it was just my ego that was hurted.
After that relationship, i have been with girls, but i cant love anyone, i just like their bodies, their things that they say to me.. but i can declare that i really have never been in love.
i have mixed feelings, somedays i feel sad with no confidence, somedays i feel like im the most desirable man in the world, and it sucks. i know everyone feels different everyday, but my change of emotions are very drastic, i know i have a problem. in those days of "over-confidence" i go to parties to get girls. im not handsome at all, but i know that girls prefer a confident, strong, cocky and funny guy that a girly needy cute guy. i cant be with ugly or fat girls, im very picky about them, i just date cute girls, even i know im kind of ugly.
im a very philosophic person, sometimes i think nothing exists, that its just me and my mind, that all the people are just to help me growing up, so i think thats why sometimes i dont care if im hurting somebody.
but the most complicated part is this... whats right or wrong?
am i right cause i have all my needs fulfilled and i have all i want, and i don't have repressions like other people?
or am i wrong cause i have hurted and used a lot of people to fulfill my deepest needs?
what do you think? i think that the absolute truth doesn't exist, that nobody is wrong or right, everyone have to do what they want, but the society, the religion, and the laws are the things that control our instincts to regulate and have peace.
sorry for my bad english, i'm spanish speaker.
Daniel Birdick:
Dec 3rd, 2009 - 12:48 PM
Re: Confessions about love, relationships guilt and the world from a young sociopath.
Who cares Diego de la Vega? As far as I’m concerned, might makes right, sanity is a numbers game, (meaning that the definition of sane, i.e. ‘normal’, is often decided by tradition and the majority rather than on hard fact) and all that crap. Of course there is no objective right or wrong, good or evil. I’m not saying anything that isn’t well known by most thinking people. So, IMNSHO, you’re asking the wrong questions, and you probably know it. Trying to make your lived experience fit within the confines of imaginary ethical constructs is indeed a complicated mental exercise. The good news is it’s completely unnecessary.
Here at Dr. Robert’s site, “sociopathy” is defined by the presence or absence of a conscience, with the requisite guilt and remorse that accompany it. So fine, let’s go with that. If you’re sincerely asking questions about right and wrong because you’re having a “moral struggle”, then you may have a conscience, which would mean you’re not a sociopath. Bummer. Apparently everyone who’s anyone wants to have this particular personality “disorder”. It’s the in thing to be for the misunderstood types. (I’m being sarcastic, btw.) If you’re asking this question just because... well, that’s cool too. I can tell you this though. At the ripe old age of 35, I’ve come to believe that most philosophizing is a waste. A lot of it is nothing more than mental ************ for the smart but bored bunch. (Solipsism is an example of mental ************ at its finest, which I only mention because of your sentence about being the only mind that exists.) Only people with normal consciences need bother with ethical systems. The only reason you’d ever concern yourself with stuff like that is when you want to push someone’s guilt button, and even then, I don’t think moral philosophy is useful. Zeroing in on a particular person’s sense of right and wrong is easier without interpreting what you are observing thru excessive mental baggage.
Diego
Dec 23rd, 2009 - 11:31 PM
Re: Confessions about love, relationships guilt and the world from a young sociopath.
But what´s a conscience?
for me, having conscience is just distinguish between whats wrong or good for most of the people. that´s it. you decide at the end what path you are going to follow depending on your genes and the social circle where you grew.
Well, that solipsism trick it´s just what i do to take actions fast in things that are new in my life, things that i didn't think i was able to do before. it´s like "re-programming my brain" i use it to quit all stupid things that society told me. (you have to be rich to be popular, you have to be rich and handsome to get girls).
So i have two options when i have to make a fast choice. start thinking about how life, and society works, and loose the "momentum" or just act quickly and think "***K, who cares!!, this is my reality!"
of course this requires social and emotional intelligence, you can´t just go to the war without a gun.
Daniel Birdick
Jan 1st, 2010 - 7:57 AM
Re: Confessions about love, relationships guilt and the world from a young sociopath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diego
But what´s a conscience?
To
go ahead and answer your rhetorical question, especially since I
devoted a thread on this forum to a related issue, I like Martha
Stout's definition.
Quote:
for me, having conscience is just distinguish between whats wrong or good for most of the people. that´s it. you decide at the end what path you are going to follow depending on your genes and the social circle where you grew.
If ones genes and their social circle (family of origin, ethnic group, nationality at birth and so on) are such powerful determinative factors, then one's power to "decide" is greatly reduced, no? After all, no one chooses their genes or the social circle they were originally born into, which determines the social circle a child is most likely to have to learn to navigate while growing up, which in turn greatly affects one's later personality, if you believe Judith Harris that is.
Quote:
it´s like "re-programming my brain" i use it to quit all stupid things that society told me... of course this requires social and emotional intelligence, you can´t just go to the war without a gun.
Impressive. What you call social and emotional intelligence, I call self awareness and I've noticed that most people don't have much of it. They fail to grasp that a lack of emotional intelligence/self awareness is the real reason they are so easy to manipulate.
dr. robert
Jan 1st, 2010 - 10:40 AM
Re: Confessions about love, relationships guilt and the world from a young sociopath.
The state of mind called "compassion" probably relies on more than one element to provide a foundation for its support in an individual human awareness, but one of those elements must certainly be an intelligent recognition of a fact to which Daniel has just alluded in his clear, cogent, and thoughtful post.
Daniel makes a important argument—one which is vital to grasp if one is to understand anything at all about human behavior and psychology. As he explained it, each of us is born with a certain genetic endowment which, obviously, is unchosen by the newborn who now finds himself or herself completely immersed a family and social environment equally unchosen. But if heredity and environment are such powerful determinants of personality (I can think of only one other—intrauterine experience, which also is unchosen), then perhaps the vaunted power of so-called "free will" is greatly exaggerated.
Actually, a strong argument can be made for the proposition that free will is entirely fictional, entirely imaginary, being not an actual human attribute at all, but only, in the words of the poet Anne Valley Fox, "a story I tell myself."
Recent brain scan technology has enabled studies of the timing of what is called "volition," or will, versus the timing of associated movement—in other words, studies of the timing of the experience of deciding to move versus actually doing so—which lead to the surprising result that the the neural preparations for moving occur prior to the experience of choosing, deciding, or willing to move, perhaps even ten seconds earlier.
This implies that most if not all people live in a world of fantasy which imagines powers which do not exist at all. Free will may be one of those imagined powers. "God" may be another.
To put this another way, most us live entire lives imagining that we are making our way through a series of choices, tests, and challenges of some kind, when quite possibly--perhaps even probably, given the brain scan timing data--decisions about these things arise automatically, and totally unchosen by anyone. These decisions arise, that is, within a mind/body system which itself arose unchosen, and which was programmed during the crucial first years of life according to a values scheme, and a social situation which also were totally unchosen, but existed already, fait accompli, comprising the "world" which the infant "came into" through no choice of his or her own.
Speaking personally, when I became aware of that idea—that in reality we may be incapable of choosing anything--I felt the dawning of compassionate intelligence within my own comprehension. Perhaps this is the meaning of the words attributed to the crucified Jesus: "Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do."
Recently, I have received a number of letters—such as this one--from self-described psychopaths asking if they can be helped to change, and if so, what do I think might help. In searching for a reply, I keep returning to this very point. If an intelligent person—psychopath or not—comes to understand that in this moment everything is as it is, and, since nothing was consciously chosen, nothing in this moment can be any different from exactly the way it is, would that not provide better basis for comprehending the strange situation in which each of us finds ourselves? And, learning that all, or at least most of us, must wander around in confusion, spending entire lives lost in a kind of misty fantasy world, only imagining powers we really do not possess—would this not provide a basis for self-forgiveness and for giving everyone else a break? This is quite beyond morality.
If any contributors to this forum can devise a good reply to the still unanswered question from the young psychopath asking for help, please post it here, and I will pleased to publish it also on my website with full credit to the writer.
Best wishes for 2010,
RS
Re: Confessions about love, relationships guilt and the world from a young sociopath.
Dr. Saltzman,
Thank you for your kind words. I'm going to go ahead and take a stab at responding to the question from the "young psychopath", as surely you knew I would when you appealed to my vanity, you sly devil you. ;-) You'll notice that my response does not include anything you've said about the non-existence of free will. Although I am in complete agreement with your thoughts on the subject, in the end, I don't know how practical it is. I have had some, shall we say, interesting epiphanies which lead me to believe that the self as it is normally understood, (and thus free will) are fantasies. But I also saw that there was nothing to be done about it after you see a "truth" like that yourself. I just had to get on with it, know what I mean? As they say in Zen, "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water." I think you get what I'm saying.
And now, without further ado:
Dear Young Psychopath,
First of all, I am hesitant to call you a psychopath. A lot of people believe it it's not a good idea to label someone as young as you are that way for a variety of reasons. Also, I'm leery of using labels like sociopath and psychopath as descriptors because I think that outside of strictly clinical settings, they can be more confusing than helpful. You have to be particularly discerning to determine how useful these labels are on your own journey towards greater self understanding. Having said all of that, we are guests at Dr. Robert's site, and since for his own reasons he makes use of the term psychopath to describe people with little to no conscience, we will just go with it for conversational purposes and call it a day.
You sound like an intelligent and self aware young man. I've always been intelligent myself and I've known for as long as I could remember that I've been "different", but I didn't know how or why I was different when I was your age. Also, you are brave to ask for the unvarnished truth. I know people three times your age who "can't handle the truth" about almost anything. I could be wrong, but I think you may be underestimating yourself. You are far stronger than you think you are.
And now to get to your main question which was how to become "more human" and avoid hurting people. Let me ask you this. Have you hurt any animals yet? If you have, I'd say you definitely have reason to worry about possibly "moving up" to harming a human animal. Let me give you a warning. Once you have experienced sexual release as a result of killing an animal, it would probably only be a matter of time before you felt compelled to up the ante by taking a human life. I imagine (since I've never done this myself) that it's akin to trapping yourself in an obsessive loop of needing more and more sadistic pleasure. It would be like becoming an addict. Addicts have given their personal power away to their need to obtain their next fix. That is what you'd become. You would be no better than a crack wh~re. You are insightful. Surely you can see that giving in to the desire to physically hurt an animal, even once, greatly increases the likelihood that you will become a slave to your impulses, which would in turn make you weak, vulnerable and powerless. You also greatly increase the likelihood of spending your life in prison. All of which is why you must never kill an animal if you wish to maintain your autonomy, both personally as well as socially. If you haven't harmed an animal, then I'd say you've been successful in reigning in your more destructive impulses. Keep doing what you're doing.
I'd also add, since you seem to be concerned about becoming a serial killer (because that's what this is about, isn't it?) that you practice some kind of what I call down and dirty cognitive therapy on yourself. It requires vigilance, but you sound capable of it. By cognitive therapy, I simply mean that you watch for "triggers", events in your environment that are like an invitation to certain parts of your brain to generate thoughts that in turn lead to sadistic fantasies. If you haven't tried this already, you might want to start off with just noticing those thoughts as they appear in your mind. Don't resist them or argue with them in any way. But don't act on them either. Just take notice. Watch them as they appear and watch as they disappear within your consciousness. The act of merely observing the sadistic thoughts will detach you from them. This detachment will return your internal power back to you as you realize that you are not merely your thoughts or your fantasies. (What I've just suggested is a meditative technique of sorts. Trying meditation itself might be something you can look into as well.) Next, if you feel this is wise or safe, try writing down or typing some of the specific thoughts surrounding your desire to harm others. After doing that, question the truthfulness of those thoughts. For example, say you write down a thought like, "Killing that woman would give me great ecstasy and bliss." After writing that thought down, ask yourself if it's true. Is it true that killing that woman would give you ecstasy? If your mind says yes, continue to challenge it with questions like these: Are you sure? How long would the ecstasy last, realistically speaking? What happens after the "thrill is gone?" What happens to you after you have to pick the pieces and clean up your mess? What would acting on your impulse to kill make you and do you really want to be that? Would killing that woman be in your long term best interests? And so on. In a sense, the idea is to cross examine yourself. Then you could try following the thought you have just questioned with more productive ones, like "Killing that woman might lead to all sorts of consequences that I do not wish to experience." Perhaps you might even take a few moments to visualize what those consequences might be like for you. And if none of the above resonates with you, use it as a means of spurring on your own research into various ways you can perform what I call mental hygiene, which is nothing more than a cutesy label for thought regulation.
Another option is to develop an ethical code that you will adhere to no matter what. Granted, it might be harder for you if you have no strong innate moral emotion, but if you're truly afraid of what you might do, then strictly following a code of ethics as a behavior management technique can't hurt. I am not the best one to advise anyone on ethics mind you, but it could work in your case.
Yet another option is telling your parents the truth and asking them to get you professional help, especially if you think you really are on the verge of doing something you'll regret. Obsession thrives in the dark of secrecy after all.
Also, consider the possibility that this is just a phase. You might resent the idea of some anonymous adult suggesting that to you. But, as a smart and self aware young man, surely you understand that it might be true nevertheless. Perhaps your sadistic desires will level off with time. There is such a thing as simply "growing out of" something.
Finally, a few thoughts about striving for normality. First, you can never be like other people, whether you're a psychopath or not. You can only be yourself and that is definitely a good thing. Believe me, "being normal" is not a worthy aspiration in any event. That is something that a little casual observation will make abundantly clear to you, if it hasn't already. I don't even know if such a place called "normal" exists anyway. Second, although being relatively conscienceless does indeed separate you from most people, you would be surprised to discover that many so called normal folk feel alien also. A lot people your age in particular have felt alienated from their peers in one way or the other. You can take some solace in that. What normal folk call growing up so often really means learning to become comfortable wearing a mask in order to blend in with other inauthentic mask wearers. As you will see for yourself, it's all absurd, hence the widespread sense of alienation. Third, if by "becoming more human" you mean something like developing a conscience where none currently exists or enabling yourself to experience deep and complex emotions in the way that other people appear to, then I'm afraid you're out of luck. If you are telling the truth about all of this, then I would advise you to accept that you will not change. You are not going to grow a conscience if you haven't grown one by now and because of that, you will always be apart. You will live and die knowing that you were not quite human, at least not as "being human" is popularly defined. But if you can accept this now, you will save yourself loads of confusion and hassle later. Resisting what you are might in fact make what you're resisting stronger. As the cliché goes, what you resist persists. Accept yourself as you are and then learn to manage your thoughts and behavior. That's my advice. And again, judging by the tone and quality of your email, I'd say that you have an excellent chance of refraining from doing other people bodily harm and of playing the role of productive adult, only as you define productive.
As much as I do not mind being called "sly," or being called "devil" for that matter
(and knowing full well that occasionally a therapy will require
something of both roles from the therapist), in this case it was not
specifically your vanity to which I meant to appeal, but only
the vanity, and possible good thinking, of some reader or another.
Nevertheless, it was you who replied, and your reply is, I believe,
another well-thought out and useful one. Thanks for it. I will add it
to the dr-robert website as a reply to the "young sociopath."
Regarding my use of the term
"psychopath," I agree that labeling people is not a good
idea—indeed, I have said as much at many places in my dr-robert
writing—and this goes double for young people. I use the
word because psychopathy is still a term of art for psychiatrists and
psychologists, and because the meaning of that term has become
increasingly burdened by connotations of behavior instead of a
pertinent focus on psychological tendencies.
As a psychologist, my essential stance
towards any behavior is to try to understand what underlies it
prior to judging or condemning it in any way, and certainly
prior to explaining it away by pasting a label on it. My method of
fostering that non-judgmental approach to psychopathy (or sociopathy
if you prefer that word) involves using the word (which I
agree is a loaded word which carries negative connotations
inevitably, and for which a substitute should be devised), but then
unpacking the psychology behind the word to try to rescue it
insofar as possible both from the largely incorrect public
imagination, as well as from the forces of social control who want to
redefine every psychological category in terms only of
behavior.
As I have explained often, the same
action might be carried out by two different people, and appear as
similar or even identical behaviors, while the psychology
behind the action is very different. For example, two men rob a 7-11.
In the course of the crime, the clerk is murdered. Back at their
hideout, one man thinks, "What have I done? Suppose there really
is a hell?," while the second says to himself, "It was his
fault. If he hadn't resisted he would still be alive, the fool."
In my understanding, the second man is psychopathic; the first is
not. If we pervert all the psychological terminology by morphing
their original meanings into new meanings defined only by
behavior, we will have taken the focus of "psychology" away
from the psyche, and put it simply on law-enforcement and
social regulation.
As for "chop wood, carry water,"
yes, simply noticing something doesn't exempt one from having to
carry on living, but my speculation is that a first look at the
idea that free will is a chimera—a first look into the void,
so to speak—might engender in someone a new appreciation of the
need for what you call "ethics." It certainly did in me. By
the way, you and I agree on that point too: that "strictly
following a code of ethics" could help the young man. I have a
draft of a reply to his question which suggests that specifically. I
was not fully satisfied with that letter, so it is still sitting on
my desktop, but your reply to him covers the point well enough, so it
will become the "official" one.
Be well.
Re: Confessions about love, relationships guilt and the world from a young sociopath.
Interesting. You say compassion dawned in your own awareness when you saw that we’re all doing the best we can under the peculiar circumstances we happen to find ourselves in. (I’m obviously paraphrasing your last two comments.) Can you tell me if you feel compassion, as in, is it an emotion as well as a kind of behavior for you?
You know, it sounds to me as if we’ve had similar “insights” into the nature of subjective experience. But it also sounds like our differing genetic endowments lead us to dissimilar interpretations of those “insights”. For instance, you say that compassionate intelligence, self forgiveness and giving others a break were for you the direct results of seeing things more deeply than most. I completely understand that. It makes sense even. As you can imagine however, I have a colder and more arid view. These “insights” also gave much more credence to my instinctively nihilistic world view. I’m inclined to believe that of the two, my cynical view is more likely to be accurate and reliable than your kinder vision. Would you agree, or is there in your opinion, a “truth of the matter”? Doesn’t your “insight” lead you to amorality? If not, why not?
Various traditions have posited
compassion as a basic human endowment. For example, the Buddhist
teacher, Chogyam Trungpa maintained that the deepest ground of our
being is characterized by what he called "fundamental sanity,"
by which he meant that beneath all the fantasy and the endless
internal chatter lies a calm center which exists prior to and apart
from the endless stream of thoughts, fears, desires, etc. In this
view, through intentional effort one can shift attention away from
the chatter and self-centered striving and so make contact with the
"original mind"--an awareness free from seeking, free from
self-aggrandizement--a mind which naturally, according to this view,
feels kinship with all sentient beings.
For many people, this is a comfortable
idea, but it might be mistaken. Perhaps someone like yourself who has
"a colder and more arid view" is also in touch with some
kind of fundamental sanity, and that sanity—a psychopathic
sanity (I know you dislike the term, but at present there is no
substitute)—sees the world differently from Trungpa or Dr. Robert,
but perhaps not less meaningfully or less realistically. In fact, you
believe that your view is more accurate than mine, which
implies, in a way, that you believe it to be more sane.
I think the lesson here is that
probably the matter at hand will never be resolved. After all, the
human brain evolved to hunt, gather, and procreate, not to fathom
ultimate matters, so why would anyone believe that such a brain could
ever understand its own nature as a "mind." Anyway, I do
not necessarily agree with Trungpa. I think it more reasonable to
suppose that human evolution has provided for various kinds of
minds—some compassionate and some not—all of which were helpful
in the struggle for survival of the species, which is why those same
traits have perdured into the present. This is why I continue, unlike
most of my colleagues, to try to understand psychopathy as a natural
state of mind and not a "disease" or mental illness.
To answer your questions directly:
1. Like love (which perhaps you also
have never felt), for me compassion is both a feeling and
something I do in the world—a way of being with others, let's say.
For example, if I see a hungry person sitting alone in an alley, I am
quite likely to buy some food and present him with it. Why? Because,
requiring food myself, I understand hunger, and feel the suffering of
someone who is hungry. If I come across an animal with a thorn in its
foot, I will try to remove it—just as I would want someone to
remove a thorn from my foot.
2. As my behavior is not guided—not
consciously anyway--by any tradition, rule book, or statement of
religious principles, I would say that I am amoral. In fact, I
view conventional morality as a mode of social control aimed at
people who do not have sufficient intelligence to think for
themselves, just as I view doctrinal religion as a mode of social
control aimed a people who lack sufficient imagination to search for
meaning in life without requiring fairy tales to sustain that search.
I do, however, feel myself influenced by an ethical understanding
which is finds its roots in my awareness of the fragility of living
beings and their capacity for suffering.
Daniel, you have added a great deal to
this forum. Your questions are good ones, and go to show that one
does not require a capacity for remorse in order to think deeply.
Be well.
Re: Confessions about love, relationships guilt and the world from a young sociopath.
Good doctor:
Quote:
Various traditions have posited compassion as a basic human endowment. For example, the Buddhist teacher, Chogyam Trungpa maintained that the deepest ground of our being is characterized by what he called "fundamental sanity," by which he meant that beneath all the fantasy and the endless internal chatter lies a calm center which exists prior to and apart from the endless stream of thoughts, fears, desires, etc. In this view, through intentional effort one can shift attention away from the chatter and self-centered striving and so make contact with the "original mind"--an awareness free from seeking, free from self-aggrandizement--a mind which naturally, according to this view, feels kinship with all sentient beings.
Original mind… I know exactly what that is, and naturally, my interpretation of it is just bare awareness. Everything appears and disappears within it, as it. There’s no compassion that is fundamental to it and neither is hatred. All of it is that. In my experience anyway. Again, not being argumentative. I’m merely exchanging my own view with yours.
Quote:
…probably the matter at hand will never be resolved.
Again, I can see what you’re saying and you’re probably right. Yet… a possible alternative theory is that the reason questions of ultimate concern remain unresolved is because they simply don’t exist outside of the human brain. The universe simply is. That’s it. Our science tells us the whats, but the meaning factory that sits atop our shoulders constantly beguiles and bedazzles us with imaginary whys. Those whys appear to have no correlates in the natural world. And I’ve seen no reason to suppose that compassion is any more fundamental to… anything. (But then again, how much “crazy wisdom” can we expect from a drunken master like Chogyam was? You’ll have to excuse me doctor, but I’ve got a major case of snark that I’ve never quite been able to get rid of. It runs in the family.) Like you, I lean towards a more naturalistic explanation of things as it makes the most sense out of what I’ve observed, both in my personal experience and in my perusal of history. Still, I admit I could be wrong and I have no problem acknowledging that.
Thank you for answering my questions, btw. So, did my previous sarcasm (admittedly so) about that picture annoy you at all? I ask because of your comments here about compassion. If you are moved to help a hungry person on the street the way you say you are (and I have no reason to doubt you at this point), then I can only imagine that you find people like me difficult to empathize with. After all, you looked at the picture and was moved by it. I looked at it and… well, you know how I saw it. Also, most of the time I’m annoyed when I see people out and about with their little cups up in the air, waiting for me to drop a little something into them.
Quote:
I think it more reasonable to suppose that human evolution has provided for various kinds of minds—some compassionate and some not—all of which were necessary for survival of the species, which is why those same traits have perdured into the present. That is why I continue, unlike most of my colleagues, to try to understand psychopathy as a natural state of mind and not a "disease" or mental illness.
I can really appreciate the open mindedness doc. I for one don’t consider my own somewhat idiosyncratic world view pathological. I don’t see myself as having some kind of “disorder” just because I don’t have much of conscience. I imagine this expansive way of looking at the world makes it very easy for you to help those who come to you seeking guidance. It must also put you at odds with some of your fellow therapists.
And I’m glad I can contribute something to your forum. And I'm glad you to hear you say that remorse isn't necessary to introspection. I've never understood why people claimed otherwise though.
Hello again, Daniel--
Yes of course questions about ultimate matters don’t exist outside of the human brain, and, because questions of any stripe are a human experience, neither does any other category of question, nor does compassion, which also is a human experience. That seems clear enough, so we agree.
In my own life, compassion was not something learned—morality or ethics can be taught and learned, but not compassion--but arose when I felt the full implications of ones absolute aloneness as a ego. I am quite willing to admit that such an experience may not be universal. Evidently just from reading some of the posts on this forum it is clearly and emphatically not universal. But that does not make it imaginary unless you want to torture the word "imaginary" by using it to characterize any thought or emotion whatsoever.
In other words, to feel compassion, like feeling love, is a human possibility, but perhaps not one which is available to each and every human being.
My argument about so-called "psychopathy" is simply that those to whom such experiences are not available are not necessarily somehow deficient—at least not all of them--but perhaps just different, and that as long as a psychologist insists on defining such differences as pathological, he or she will never fully appreciate or comprehend the psychological details behind them.
Empathy is a strong suit of mine, but I do find people like yourself a bit difficult to understand empathically, so I am forced to use whatever intellect I can bring to bear instead. I leave it to you and others like you to judge how I am doing in that regard. However, your sarcastic comments about the picture did not annoy me at all. I took your experience of the picture at face value—as a true reflection of what you felt when you looked at it. Everyone is different, and I am rarely—almost never--annoyed when confronted by such differences. In fact, appreciating the differences between one person and another, and seeking to explore them as deeply as possible is the sine qua non of the work I do.
Yes, I have gotten some nasty feedback from fellow psychologists, but the worst abuse comes from people who imagine that anyone who lacks compassion is automatically a criminal, and that I, by refusing to condemn such people wholesale, am simply encouraging them.
Be well.
Re: Confessions about love, relationships guilt and the world from a young sociopath.
I think your open minded approach to colder fishes like me is refreshing. I imagine you get a lot of questions from so called socio/psychopaths for precisely this reason. Also your definition is simple and clear (if a person lacks what is thought of as a conscience, you consider them psychopaths) which is nice for those of us who can’t put an affirmative checkmark next to every item on Hare’s famous list. And you don’t consider people like me to be evil incarnate, which is always a plus. :-) I think you’re doing just fine in the psychopath empathy category.
Thank you for taking my response to that picture at face value. Again, really noticing my lack of instinctive empathy is new to me, so for a while after that initial interaction, I looked up a variety of pictures and videos online of human and animal violence just to see if I could generate feelings of disgust or righteous indignation or sadness or fear, etc. I did find some of it intriguing to watch, but no, even the infamous 3 Guys 1 Hammer video didn’t stir any great feelings of sympathy within me, although I didn’t like the gurgling sounds the victim made. The closest I could come to something resembling pity was wishing they’d go ahead and finish it already.
So for you, seeing absolute aloneness lead to a growth in compassion, while for me it did not. Fascinating. I don’t think compassion is imaginary per se. It’s no more imaginary than any other emotion. If you feel it, you feel it. And in modern society, compassionate action is made easier. Even so, I think compassion, like so many other emotions normals report feeling, especially love, can be a blinder if one isn’t careful. I imagine that outside of the safeguards of modernity, compassionate and love inspired action can be maladaptive in an environment composed of other selfish individuals.
Speaking of, you asked in one of your previous comments if I’d experienced love. I know I don’t I have to make any arguments with you about the subjective nature of love and how the definitions of said emotion differ among various groups and blah, blah, blah. You obviously get all of that already. I could say yes I have loved, but I gather that my experience of love would seem rather paltry comparatively speaking. I mean, I have what I think of as affection for a few people, especially my nieces and nephews when they were young. (Once they became teenagers they also became tedious in all of their never ending, hormonally driven drama.) But I can hear about folks dying or being gravely ill and not feel a thing for instance, family included. I of course change my facial expression and tone of voice to mimic concern since I understand this greases the wheels of social interaction. In fact, my family and friends consider me to be one of the kindest and most understanding people they know. Only my niece has seen a truer version of myself in recent years. She’s in her late teens and seems to fit the profile for what they call Oppositional Defiance Disorder to a tee. Unfortunately for her, she wears her aggressive feelings on her sleeves, which makes life difficult for her and almost all who have to deal with her. Except me. She never gives me the problems she gives others because I understand her and she knows that. I am relatively honest with her in a way that I’m not with most other people. Does that mean I love her? (That question is half rhetorical, half not.)
I’m also being uncharacteristically honest here on these forums because it’s anonymous and it costs me nothing. Everyone else in my life interacts with a series of masks I’ve honed since I was a teenager myself. And recently I’ve increased my deception quotient considerably as I considered implementing several ideas I’ve been mulling over. Don’t worry. I’m not suggesting here that I’m planning anything violent or even illegal. I just figured it was time for certain folks in my life to serve me, so I used the lies they live their lives by to my advantage. They’ll give me what I want without them ever knowing it. You might even say that they’re using my lies as an excuse to generate happy feelings within themselves. It was all too easy, absurdly so even. Some of these people are members of my family. Do I love them, these people I’ve lied to? I’d like to think I care for my mother, even though she’s one of the people I’ve deceived. I do care for her. I’d also like to think that I’d be upset if she died. But do I love her? I could say yes since there is no objective definition of the term. Maybe that means love is whatever we want it to be, like any other nonsense term. But like I said, when I compare my experience with what other people report when they talk about loving someone, perhaps I don’t. Perhaps I’ve never actually loved anyone else. I don’t really know. How would I know?
How do you know when you love someone? I don’t just mean romantically either of course.
Daniel--
For me, loving someone means that you wish the best for that person (or other species of animal, for that matter), and that you hope for him or her to find contentment and happiness even if that means that you end up losing out somehow. For example, a mother goes hungry so that her child can have something to eat.
The excellent British film, "Separate Lies" deals with just this theme, and I commend it to you if you can find it. If you do, let me know what you make of it.
However, as you rightly point out, love may mean something different to someone else--it is one of those words which defy exact definition. Much easier to say what it is not: not desire, not sexual heat, not need to possess, etc.
Be well.
Re: Confessions about love, relationships guilt and the world from a young sociopath.
Good doctor:
Quote:
Much easier to say what it is not: not desire, not sexual heat, not need to possess, etc.
How can we say what it’s not if we can’t say what it is? Maybe love is so hard to define because we try using philosophical and pseudo-profound language to talk about it rather than using operational language. I’ve been reading a few articles online about evolutionary psychology’s and neuroscience’s take on love and I’ve found them interesting and informative. I love how reason and science sweeps away the cobwebs of mythology whenever they turn their piercing gaze on any subject, especially ones like religion, human origins, and love.
Quote:
For me, loving someone means that you wish the best for that person (or other species of animal, for that matter), and that you hope for him or her to find contentment and happiness even if that means that you end up losing out somehow.
Is this wish merely cognitive in nature? If that’s the case, then I can say that I love and have loved since I’ve wished the best for people plenty of times. There weren’t any emotions attached to it, but I’ve been sincere too, meaning I wasn’t consciously lying. Of course, those instances weren’t attached to times where I “lose” while the other person “wins” either.
Which brings me to Separate Lies. I got a chance to watch it last night. I thought it was well done. I’m a big fan of movies so I have definite opinions about what does and does not make for a good movie. SL has great acting (and with Tom Wilkinson, Emily Watson and Rupert Everett that’s to be expected) and for the most part effective directing. I say for the most part because of the incongruity between what was essentially a character study and a suspense story. Fellowes seemed to be more interested in the character study part of the film rather than the suspense part I thought, but he did such a good job with the actors that this is a minor quibble. One of the major themes of this movie was the moral conundrum. I usually find movies that feature people struggling with moral issues boring or frustrating to watch. I especially hate those characters that stand in the way of the protagonist’s progress because of their ethical qualms. But in SL, all of the characters, even Wilkinson’s upstanding James, were conflicted and even hypocritical when it came to doing the “right thing”, and I found that refreshing because I think it’s realistic. I think most people who care about acting moral are often conflicted and fail to do what they think is “right” more often than not. Naturally, I identified with Everett’s character the most for all of the obvious reasons. I also thought it was nice that Watson’s Anne was able to feel so much for Everett’s Bill knowing full well he didn’t feel as deeply for her. Again, the honest portrayal here was refreshing. Not one of the 3 leads gets to be the morally superior person until the end, when James genuinely wishes Anne well, regardless of what’s transpired before, which brings me back to the point you were making. Again, I’d repeat my question. Was James's wish for Anne an emotional as well as cognitive thing? Is that love? It makes as much sense as any other definition I suppose. If it is, then no, I don’t think I’ve ever loved. Hypotheticals are sometimes difficult, especially for people like me since context determines which actions are and aren’t necessary, but if I were in James’s shoes, I know I couldn’t wish my ex-wife happiness under those particular circumstances. I’d be more tempted to kill her than anything else. But that’s just me.
Daniel--
Thanks for making the effort to see the
film. I am glad you enjoyed it. And, yes, the movie was a classic
character study which was why I recommended it to you as part of our
conversation about differences in human character.
You wrote, "I love how reason and
science sweeps away the cobwebs of mythology whenever they turn their
piercing gaze on any subject, especially ones like religion, human
origins, and love."
Yes, science has great explanatory
value, but also has its limitations. Reducing all human experience to
mechanics fails to explain many things, and the best scientific minds
avoid such reductionism. This is particularly true in areas such as
beauty, poetry, love, etc. Evolutionary psychology is an interesting
field, but, in my opinion, falls very far short of elucidating the
origins of love and compassion. Speculation--even very intelligent
speculation--is not evidence.
I understand that it might be
comforting to someone who does not feel love or compassion to reduce
such experiences to mere operations of the brain--and in a way they are,
as I said in my last post--but human experience comprises enigmas
which the best science understands are unfathomable. For example, Max
Planck. 1932: "Every advance in knowledge brings us face to face
with the mystery of our own being." Or Sir Arthur Eddington.
1929: "We have learned that the exploration of the external
world by the methods of the physical sciences leads not to a concrete
reality but to a shadow world of symbols, beneath which those methods
are unadapted for penetrating."
This is because the brief of science is
to understand things which are quantifiable, but love and
compassion, when truly experienced, are quite beyond measure. This is
why universities have faculties of science and faculties of
arts and letters. This, by the way, does not imply anything
"supernatural." It simply means that science has no way to
explain our internal experience of the world, which might be quite
natural but also inexplicable.
chemistry of an apple, and can pinpoint the areas of the brain which
are activated when one bites into an apple, but science has no way to
explain the subjective taste of an apple. To put this in generalized
formal terms: qualia are beyond scientific interpretation.
Now this is the very point you miss
when you ask, "How can we say what it's not if we can't say
what it is?" Let me explain. Suppose you were blind to the color
red, as many people in fact are, but you could see other colors. If
you came to me, who can see red, and asked me what red is like, I
would have absolutely no way to explain that to you. Speaking of the
wavelength of red or the receptors in the retina or the brain
(science) would avail not at all. The best I could do would be to
say, "Well, Daniel, red is a color but it isn't blue, it isn't
green, and it isn't yellow." This is what happens when a
psychopath (sorry, I know you hate that term, and I don't like it
much either, but have no other) asks me to explain love or elucidate
compassion. In fact, this happens sometimes in my practice. I am
reduced to saying what those experiences are not, which is,
basically, that they are not about getting your way, or achieving
your goals, or being satisfied, or coming out ahead.
I stress this point because while it is
true that fallacious cobwebs need sweeping away, and that good
science often serves as the broom, that does not mean that
love, compassion, beauty, poetry, etc. are fallacies, or can be
explained away by science. That is why I emphasized in my last post
that such experiences are not imaginary. A self-described
"cold fish" such as yourself might want to reduce
everything to science and logic, but doing that is like wearing
blinders which will screen your view from much of human experience, even if it is not your experience.
No, love certainly is NOT simply
cognitive in nature. That is the entire point. Love is a mystery
which is quite beyond explaining. That mystery has a particular
flavor which, once tasted, can never be forgotten. It cannot be
taught. It cannot be learned. It can only be felt and experienced (or
not).
In the film, Bill felt no love at all.
He cared only for himself. But James truly loved Anne, and his last
gesture in the story demonstrated that love. His concern was not that
he had somehow been cheated, but that she might feel guilty for
having abandoned him, and he wished, motivated by his love for her,
to assuage her guilt and leave her happy even if he was not. Clearly,
as you stated, you would not be capable of such a gesture since, like
Bill, you care only for yourself, and would be more attracted to
vengeance than tenderness. Please understand that in saying that I
mean no disrespect at all. Having taken my measure by reading my
website and my replies to you, I think you already know that. I just
like to see things as they are without judgment either pro or con.
Re: Confessions about love, relationships guilt and the world from a young sociopath.
Good doctor—
It seems to me that what you have said can be “reduced” (sorry, I couldn’t resist) to two appeals: one to ignorance and the other to mystery. You are basically suggesting that because we do not know everything there is to know about the content of subjective experience (ignorance), said content must forever be outside of the realm of scientific explanation (mystery). When stated this way, it should be clear that these two appeals are fallacious. Some parts of human experience do appear unfathomable. But appearances are often deceiving. Present ignorance does not equal ongoing mystery. You have presented no reason for me to believe that the former must inexorably lead to the latter.
Which leads to my first question: how do you know that “love is a mystery which is quite beyond explaining?” How can you be so certain? Why is this true? Your comments about the nature of subjectivity does not by itself prove that love is by definition a “profound unknown” that science can never adequately elucidate. Why should love, or any other aspect of our subjective experience, be an ontological mystery? It could be. But it could also be true that an emotion is just that and nothing more.
Appeals to ignorance and mystery are very often rhetorical tactics used by theists to disarm rational inquiry before it even begins. Fortunately, there are many scientists out there who refuse to let such devices stop them from doing that kind of research that will break through the false partition separating questions of human subjectivity and science. I know you’re all for that, although you couldn’t tell it by your previous comment.
Moving on, you either misunderstood or mischaracterized my comments. Nothing that I have said means that I think arts and humanities in colleges should be done away with and replaced by hard sciences. Those were your words, not mine. You conflated what I think of as two different types of reductionism, the silly kind and the sensible kind. Silly reductionism is the kind that tries to understand epiphenomenon at the basest of levels only, while sensible reductionism is hierarchical and holonic, where the most fundamental levels of knowledge compliment(not replace) the epiphenomenal levels. Or to say it another way, where our knowledge of the ingredients of chocolate cake and gustation harmonize with (again, not replace) our appreciation and experience of said cake. I love chocolate cake. I think it is scrumptious with vanilla ice cream. But that doesn’t necessarily make my enjoyment of the cake some ineluctable and intractable unknown. I can enjoy the experience of the cake while also knowing a bit about its ingredients and how the taste buds work. I don’t have to choose between knowledge and enjoyment. I certainly don’t have to turn that pleasure into some insoluble mystery that it isn’t.
Having said that, reason and science are mankind’s best tools for understanding the world. They have proven their worth, as the medium through which we are having this conversation aptly demonstrates. We can certainly talk about things that are supposed to be beyond science’s explanatory reach, but lots of things fall into that foggy nether world don’t they? And in those nebulous realms where feelings decide what is and is not accurate, why should one person’s feelings about, say love, be any more valid than anyone else’s?
I freely acknowledge that there is a world of emotional experience that I apparently do not and have never had access to. But so what? Emotion is no more a guarantor of fact than faith is. Love and compassion are real enough as emotions and as behavioral motivators… but again, so what? They tell us nothing objective about the world, as we both agree with. Also, I don’t think and have never said that emotions in and of themselves are fallacious. What I have implied is that emotions like love can muddy the waters of understanding (they don’t say love is blind for nothing), but they can’t by definition be fallacious, can they? And my emotional detachment does not stop me from knowing that there is a difference between explaining and explaining away.
Our reason and our science are both very good at combating our tendency toward self delusion. And we are a notoriously self deluded species, as you know judging by your thoughts on free will. Come to think of it, if you have no problem acknowledging free will as the cognitive illusion that it is, why should love, in the “great mystery” sense the way you’re using it, be any different?
Back to the movie, I am indeed like Bill. To my way of thinking, all three players in the triangle used each other in various ways and for various reasons. Bill was the least self deluded of the group. He knew who and what he was and he didn’t dress up his motivations with flowery language or elaborate justifications. He was even honest enough to communicate with Anne that he didn’t love her in the same way she loved him and she knew it. I respect that. Also, I chose not to be played for a fool the way James was. Sorry, but it’s just my preference not to be used and discarded the way James was by Anne.
Feel free to suggest any more movies you think I’d find enlightening and entertaining. Like I said, I “love” movies! And like you, I hope my comments are taken in the overbloated but still respectful way that they were meant. And by overbloated, I mean it was long winded. But what can I say doc? I'm the son of a preacherman. Talking lots and lots runs in the family.
Daniel--
Well yes, that was a barrage of words, particularly of the high-flown variety, but I suppose I started it with "qualia."
In any case, it does seem that we are having trouble understanding one another at this juncture. Perhaps that stems largely from the unworkability of words of any kind to deal with certain ineffable realms of experience, or it could be that the nature of what we have been calling psychopathy--("there is a world of emotional experience that I apparently do not and have never had access to")--includes a tendency, not just not to have access, but to discount and deprecate the feeling/emotional realms of experience, which is where I say the mystery resides.
By the way, it is not just that I say it, which is why I quoted two of the most preeminent scientists of the twentieth century who were at pains to point out the limitations of their life's work. In their view, and in mine, there are realms of experience which are simply invisible to scientific inquiry. This is not because the scientific method is faulty or not a good tool. It is a wonderful tool--the best we have for understanding the physical realities of our world, and, as you point out, for debunking poppycock and some kinds of self--delusion. But the scientific method, as Plank and Eddington both said quite explicitly, does have its shortcomings. I think you know that logically, but because you do not feel it, you struggle to accept it, and then have become—in my opinion--embroiled in a classic logical error in attempting to refute it.
When I say "logical error," I mean what is usually called a "category mistake" in which things which really belong on separate levels of being are treated as if they belonged on the same level. To take your example: ones enjoyment of chocolate cake takes place on two separate levels which cannot be compared in any meaningful way. The first has to do with, for example, how chocolate stimulates certain receptors in the brain. That is science. But enjoyment is an emotional experience which cannot be elucidated by reference to brain chemistry alone. You may argue that all of this takes place within the brain, but, even if that is true, that does not explain anything about what enjoyment feels like, or what it means to the person who is doing the enjoying.
Science can say everything about the ingredients and the taste buds (and can even create a faux-chocolate cake which might fool the taste buds), and science can map the parts of the brain which are stimulated when you eat cake, but the taste of the cake is an internal experience which is both indescribable and inexplicable.
Here is the crux, Daniel: You wrote, "Why should love, or any other aspect of our subjective experience, be an ontological mystery? It could be. But it could also be true that an emotion is just that and nothing more." Yes, logically quite right. However, when you say "nothing more," you are belittling just that category of experience that to many people is what gives all the flavor to life. You said, "I can enjoy the experience of the cake while also knowing a bit about its ingredients and how the taste buds work." Yes, of course. But knowing about taste buds has nothing to do with tasting a cake or comprehending what cake tastes like. That is the category error. Knowing, logically or intellectually, is one thing, and tasting is another entirely. The two are not related on any logical level whatsoever.
I never tried to say that feeling an emotion proves anything factual, except, of course, that one has felt something. What I am saying is that for the majority of humans love and all of the pain and joy involved in that realm of experience is real--real on the level of felt awareness, just as eating a cake provides a kind of pleasure and awareness that reading the menu or learning about taste buds does not provide and never could.
I (along with Einstein, Eddington, Plank, and millions of other intelligent people) say that love is real and mysterious not because anyone can prove logically that love exists prior to thought or outside the brain (although it might, and might be, as some think, the entire energetic basis for everything that we see as "the world"), but because the experience we call "loving" exists and perdures throughout the generations, even if some people--yourself, Rupert Everett in Separate Lies," and Deigo, who started this thread, for example--cannot feel it, and might even, as Diego explicitly stated, imagine loving to be a kind of delusion or perhaps a weakness born of guilt which can be used a a lever to get what one wants.
I do understand, Daniel, that you are self-admittedly
"colorblind" in the love department, and so perhaps I am asking too much when I suggest that you try to
see beyond the reductionistic logical approach. I call it "reductionistic", by the way, because via the category error you seem to have reduced the feeling/emotional levels of experience to a domain which you imagine can be accessed by means of logic, and so "understood" and known. In my view, experience on those levels must be felt to be known at all, and never will be, as Eddington said, fully "understood"). If you could see beyond pure logic, you might be able to see that love exists beyond a doubt on the feeling level (which makes
it important and real). If that won't work for you--and I suspect it won't--then remain open and defenseless on the logical level, and ask yourself this:
How is it that countless
bright and accomplished people are willing to act, like James in the
movie, in ways that seem clearly against self-interest?
Using Ockham's Razor: which is more likely:
1. All those countless individuals are simply deluded,
guilt-ridden, masochistic, or involved in some kind of mass
hysteria?
or,
2. Daniel has a kind of color blindness and wishes to
compensate for it by arguing logically that seeing the full spectrum doesn't
mean anything much anyway?
I don't know if any of this matters very much to you at all, or if it does matter, I don't know in what way this kind of discussion might be important or valuable to you. Perhaps you are one of those who suspect that they are missing something in life and hope that discussing that missing something with someone like me might open doors--at least ethical ones. For all I know, you may even see our conversation as a form of amusement, or a competition: let's see if I can outwit the doc. For my part, I appreciate the opportunity to interact with a different kind of mind, and perhaps to influence that mind in ethical directions based on our shared humanity regardless of our particular different strengths and limitations.
Be well.