Does it make more sense than asking a depressed person how to treat depression, an anxious person how to treat anxiety, or even a politically conservative person how to convert her to liberalism?
I wouldn’t expect particular insight from any of these classes. I would expect to gain insight by talking to them extensively while I was trying various therapies, which I would view as similar to measuring blood sugar levels in people I was trying to treat for diabetes.
Are depressed people believed to be master manipulators? Anxious people? Are either of them believed to have no problems with brain function?
I’ll give another reason to believe that psychopaths might be better able to help themselves, this time from the summary conclusions:
We believe that the reason for these findings is that psychopaths are fundamentally different from other offenders and that there is nothing “wrong” with them in the manner of a deficit or impairment that therapy can “fix.” Instead, they exhibit an evolutionarily viable life strategy that involves lying, cheating, and manipulating others.
Psychopaths are different in the head. The usual appeals are crafted for the usual heads, by the usual heads.
But I’d refine the summary, noting that while psychopathy may succeed in evolutionary terms, something has not succeeded for their sample of psychopaths because they’re in prison, and unlikely to wish to be there.
Has anyone tried to make them better, and more effective psychopaths, psychopaths that wouldn’t end up in prison?
I would guess that there are few therapists with a willingness to do that, with the psychological and intellectual capabilities to pull it off. I find the “usual head” quite crazy myself, not very convincing, and likely largely incapable of understanding a paper clip maximizer.
Has anyone tried to make them better, and more effective psychopaths, psychopaths that wouldn’t end up in prison?
Yes, because that sounds like a great idea...
After short-term anger management and social skills training, 24-month reconviction rates for 278 treated and untreated offenders yielded an interaction between psychopathy and treatment outcome similar to that reported by Rice and colleagues (1992). Whereas the program had no demonstrable effect on non-psychopaths, treated offenders who scored high on Factor 1 of the PCL-R had significantly higher rates of recidivism than high-scoring but untreated offenders.
I see no indication there that they were trying to make them better and more effective psychopaths, as opposed to less psychopathic.
As part of their treatment, were they told “we’re going to make you the best psychopath you can be”? I doubt it. And I doubt the psychopaths perceived that either.
That’s not saying much, though. “Had no demonstrable effect on non-psychopaths” = the program was no good. Aren’t “anger management” programs widely stereotyped as useless?
“Had no demonstrable effect on non-psychopaths” = the program was no good. Aren’t “anger management” programs widely stereotyped as useless?
Dunno. But how else are you going to find out whether it works but by trying it? In which case you are morally responsible for the consequences, in this case, the rather bloodless description ‘significantly higher rates of recidivism’. (Many Bothans died to bring us this information...)
Does it make more sense than asking a depressed person how to treat depression, an anxious person how to treat anxiety, or even a politically conservative person how to convert her to liberalism?
I wouldn’t expect particular insight from any of these classes. I would expect to gain insight by talking to them extensively while I was trying various therapies, which I would view as similar to measuring blood sugar levels in people I was trying to treat for diabetes.
Are depressed people believed to be master manipulators? Anxious people? Are either of them believed to have no problems with brain function?
I’ll give another reason to believe that psychopaths might be better able to help themselves, this time from the summary conclusions:
Psychopaths are different in the head. The usual appeals are crafted for the usual heads, by the usual heads.
But I’d refine the summary, noting that while psychopathy may succeed in evolutionary terms, something has not succeeded for their sample of psychopaths because they’re in prison, and unlikely to wish to be there.
Has anyone tried to make them better, and more effective psychopaths, psychopaths that wouldn’t end up in prison?
I would guess that there are few therapists with a willingness to do that, with the psychological and intellectual capabilities to pull it off. I find the “usual head” quite crazy myself, not very convincing, and likely largely incapable of understanding a paper clip maximizer.
Yes, because that sounds like a great idea...
I see no indication there that they were trying to make them better and more effective psychopaths, as opposed to less psychopathic.
As part of their treatment, were they told “we’re going to make you the best psychopath you can be”? I doubt it. And I doubt the psychopaths perceived that either.
How are better social skills and better anger management not making them more effective (if indeed they can be trained at all)?
“Better” according to a psychopath? Or better according to the people trying to “fix” the psychopaths?
They don’t want to be in prison either.
That’s not saying much, though. “Had no demonstrable effect on non-psychopaths” = the program was no good. Aren’t “anger management” programs widely stereotyped as useless?
Dunno. But how else are you going to find out whether it works but by trying it? In which case you are morally responsible for the consequences, in this case, the rather bloodless description ‘significantly higher rates of recidivism’. (Many Bothans died to bring us this information...)