buybuydandavis comments on Notes on Psychopathy - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (98)
Maybe they need better treatments. Has anyone asked psychopaths - "How would you convince a psychopath like you to stop doing X?" Has anyone let psychopaths try? Aren't they the master manipulators? They even have a readily available model of a psychopath to test out the theory on. How convenient! Sufficiently motivating a psychopath with rewards for changing the mind of another psychopath might be an effective treatment for the first psychopath. Did they try that treatment?
I don't mean to be pissy, but "resistance to all treatments and attempts to change their mind" strikes me as a huge claim. Ruling out the "it's something I didn't think of" theory is one of the worst cognitive biases.
Something like it was tried in Canada, in the sixties, with LSD, in a four year experiment where a group of 30 psychopaths were, at least apparently, temporarily reformed through unconventional means.
This strange and unique program was obliquely referenced in the top post:
The Insane Criminal as Therapist
E.T. Barker, M. H. Mason, The Canadian Journal of Corrections, Oct. 1968.
Here's an account from a recent pop-psychology book, The Psychopath Test:
Several of the 30 participants of the experiment went on to commit violent homicides some years after release.
An internal memo from the experiment: "LSD in a Coercive Milieu Therapy Program" (E.T Barker)
Intriguing.
Cool.
But in case it wasn't clear, I wasn't proposing that as a guaranteed cure, only as an example of a treatment they may not have tried.
The researchers concluded:
It's the OP's jump from "nothing we tried works" to "resistance to all treatments don't work" that I objected to.
I don't see why you would interpret "it's untreatable" as "gasp! how dare he claim that there is no possible treatment and never will be a treatment and they've thought of everything!"
They have demonstrated resistance to all treatment and attempts to change their mind. That is simply the case. And that's when the treatment doesn't backfire...
Because I find that people use "can't be treated" not as a cue to search for a treatment, but as a claim that such a search will be fruitless. "Can't be done", not "we don't know how to do it yet".
And again, they haven't "demonstrated resistance to all treatment", they've "demonstrated resistance to a very finite list of treatments".
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...)
Not every psychopath is in prison. I would expect that some of psychopaths work as psychologists and do treat other psychopaths.
They'd probably be good at it if they had the motivation to help people, but I wouldn't expect them to have that motivation. And if they did enter the profession, it would be to fully exploit their patients. How could they resist?
Why? Having empathy with someone else isn't the only reason to be motivated to help someone. Proving to yourself that you are powerful enough to cure the patient is also a reason that motivates you to help.
I don't think psychopaths feel the need to prove themselves. I would expect a psychopath to gravitate toward situations where their manipulation of others yielded a direct benefit.
What does "direct benefit" mean?
This sounds like a wonderful idea for a novel, at least.