I wonder if psychopaths are actually charming and manipulative in general, or if this is survivorship bias; any psychopaths that aren’t would get immediately caught and destroyed, either literally or figuratively.
In our society we have few lynch mobs that kill psychopaths.
To the extend that we succeed in catching psychopaths, those people that get caught are the basis for psychologists who study the traits of psychopaths.
Consider what’s going to happen to a psychopath who isn’t charming and manipulative. He’s going to try to take advantage of people, but without the traits that make him able to do so successfully, he’s going to constantly get caught doing it, fail, and burn through all his social capital. Constantly trying to take advantage of people and failing has a good chance of leaving you dead, in jail, in poverty, or homeless.
You may be right in the sense that nobody diagnoses him with psychopathy, but being caught doing bad things without a diagnosis is still being caught doing bad things, and still has a pretty negative effect.
The best he’s going to be able to do is recognize that he doesn’t have the skills to take advantage of people and not do it, in which case he’ll be mostly indistinguishable from a normal person.
You seem to be assuming a particularly stupid psychopath, one who doesn’t realize in which way he is different from neurotypicals.
Let me offer you some alternatives. A “psychopath who isn’t charming and manipulative” can enlist into the armed forces (or become a prison guard, a cop, etc.). He can lead an entirely normal life faking socially-acceptable amount of interaction and be considered just an introvert. He can become an extremist for a cause.
Constantly trying to take advantage of people and failing has a good chance of leaving you dead, in jail, in poverty, or homeless.
Studying psychopaths who are in prison is easier for psychologists than studying psychopaths who aren’t in prison.
Being in prison doesn’t get one out of the reference category but more likely to be in the reference category.
The best he’s going to be able to do is recognize that he doesn’t have the skills to take advantage of people and not do it, in which case he’ll be mostly indistinguishable from a normal person.
If you go throw the Hare checklist, how many of the points only apply when a person actively tries to take advantage of others? Maybe the point about “Cunning/manipulative” and “Parasitic lifestyle” but most of the items don’t.
It seems to me that you argue against a concept of psychopathy that doesn’t have much to do with it’s clinical definition.
If you go throw the Hare checklist, how many of the points only apply when a person actively tries to take advantage of others?
Of course you are correct. So change that to “The best he’s going to do is hide it, because he doesn’t have the skills to take advantage of it and not hiding it will get him into trouble.”
I wonder if psychopaths are actually charming and manipulative in general, or if this is survivorship bias; any psychopaths that aren’t would get immediately caught and destroyed, either literally or figuratively.
In our society we have few lynch mobs that kill psychopaths.
To the extend that we succeed in catching psychopaths, those people that get caught are the basis for psychologists who study the traits of psychopaths.
Consider what’s going to happen to a psychopath who isn’t charming and manipulative. He’s going to try to take advantage of people, but without the traits that make him able to do so successfully, he’s going to constantly get caught doing it, fail, and burn through all his social capital. Constantly trying to take advantage of people and failing has a good chance of leaving you dead, in jail, in poverty, or homeless.
You may be right in the sense that nobody diagnoses him with psychopathy, but being caught doing bad things without a diagnosis is still being caught doing bad things, and still has a pretty negative effect.
The best he’s going to be able to do is recognize that he doesn’t have the skills to take advantage of people and not do it, in which case he’ll be mostly indistinguishable from a normal person.
You seem to be assuming a particularly stupid psychopath, one who doesn’t realize in which way he is different from neurotypicals.
Let me offer you some alternatives. A “psychopath who isn’t charming and manipulative” can enlist into the armed forces (or become a prison guard, a cop, etc.). He can lead an entirely normal life faking socially-acceptable amount of interaction and be considered just an introvert. He can become an extremist for a cause.
Studying psychopaths who are in prison is easier for psychologists than studying psychopaths who aren’t in prison. Being in prison doesn’t get one out of the reference category but more likely to be in the reference category.
If you go throw the Hare checklist, how many of the points only apply when a person actively tries to take advantage of others? Maybe the point about “Cunning/manipulative” and “Parasitic lifestyle” but most of the items don’t.
It seems to me that you argue against a concept of psychopathy that doesn’t have much to do with it’s clinical definition.
Of course you are correct. So change that to “The best he’s going to do is hide it, because he doesn’t have the skills to take advantage of it and not hiding it will get him into trouble.”