I’ll reread your essay on the IQ tests a few times, it’s interesting but there’s not much I can comment on it.
Yeah, I got a bit carried away, didn’t I?
Don’t focus too much on the IQ test element though — it was just one example of what I was driving at … the gist of which I’m sure you will have got.
In my defence, I ‘cheated’ insofar as, although I cut it down to the one element (IQ, because you specifically mentioned it) of all the things that could be discussed re the issue in question … that of the validity, let alone reliability, of the tests used and, by extension, of the entire field of Psychology … I used pre-written material (there’s no point re-inventing the wheel, I say) but then tailored it a bit. Count yourself lucky I didn’t write a full-on report on the state of the field and go into any more detail than I did — not only would it have been about ten-to-fifty thousand words long but I’d’ve had to charge you for it too! (I get paid considerably more than a pretty penny for that kind of shit normally) 😉
I did see tony before you linked it. Twice I think. It’s an interesting premise, to be honest. But the guy presenting seemed a little bit too…I don’t know, too eager to declare Psychology bullshit, I suppose.
I don’t get the impression Ronson was declaring the field bullshit per se. I may be less inclined to do, having read the book and, therefore, unconsciously putting the ‘attention-grabbing highlights’ of the TED talk in that context though — I don’t know how I’d’ve responded had I not done … can’t unscramble that egg.
I’m … ‘ambivalent’ isn’t exactly the word, but it comes close to how feel about his stuff.
On the one hand, I appreciate the Theroux-like aspect of his reporting: he is very similar in his approach, insofar as, whilst not entirely uncritical, he does lean towards presenting a roundup of what he saw and heard during his investigations without necessarily outright telling you what to think as a result; he’s a reporter at the end of the day.
On the other, I often find it … again, I can’t think of the exact word; it’s not fair to say ‘lightweight’ nor ‘incoherent’ … but his ‘non-judgemental’ approach makes it more of a travelogue of experiences than an analysis, so, I fear that the average reader (irrespective of the particular topic) is unlikely to have even the tools with which to analyse the writing, let alone the field specific knowledge required to analyse the content in the context of the field in question. It oftentimes seems to have an almost whimsical quality to it … again, that’s not really the right word but there’s an element of it about what I’m driving at …which means I feel that the reader who knows nothing of the topic in question can all too easily come away with an appreciation of it that is, itself, whimsical … and that can be dangerous — if a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, what is an understanding of the World that is based upon your neighbour’s holiday snaps of their weeklong cruise with fourteen two-hour stops at tourist-traps along the way?
I feel his writing is really for those already in the know … anecdotal examples that can be used to illustrate more rigorously presented topics … rather than the naive reader — I have, for instance, found one or two examples in The Psychopath Test useful to illustrate things when discussing ASPD/Psychopathy/Sociopathy with those who aren’t knowledgeable in that area, but I would hesitate to suggest they read it with a view to understanding even the most basic foundations of the disorder
The criticism that The book’s findings have been rejected by The Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy and by Robert D. Hare, creator of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. Hare described the book as “frivolous, shallow, and professionally disconcerting” (Wikipedia) is not without merit, but I suspect it comes from an (over)zealous concern that the particular disorder really needs to be properly understood by everyone (a concern which, as you know, I wholeheartedly share) … but whilst Ronson’s work could, as I said, be regarded as lightweight and whimsical, it’s not entirely without merit — he’s not Dan Brown!
The fact that he was clued in to Tony by an activist group also rubbed me the wrong way. Because right off the bat, he’s not going in without pre-conceived notions and there’s a good amount of propoganda going on at any given time because this group would (I imagine) only go through the trouble with the feeling the outcome would be good to their agenda. Kudos to Jon Ronson for disclosing their involvement in a TED talk though.
The TED talk was basically ‘highlights from my book The Psychopath Test’. He makes it clear there too of the Scientologist being the one to encourage him to look at Tony’s case. But I don’t feel that he went in with any preconceptions so much as an open mind based upon the principle “I’m not an expert in the field, so I’ll listen to the guy’s story and then talk to people on both sides of the divide in opinion.” You’ll note that, at the end, although he didn’t state it outright, he does appear to to err on the side of “Yeah, I think Tony might be a psychopath really,” not only from his delivery (tone of voice, body language, facial expression) but also from the fact that he decided not to meet him for that drink.
Moreover, that critique on, their part, of the industry (and, in the US at least, mental health is an industry) isn’t entirely unjustified. It’s just that, with Infowars fan style fervour, instead of critiquing things in the context of “How can a society based upon rampant libertarian Capitalism be trusted to produce mental health practices/practitioners uninfluenced by the prospect of personal gain?” (which is, I think you’ll agree, a very valid question) they go all out, black-and-white “Psychiatry/Big Pharma BAAAAAD!!!” There’s no nuance in their take on it.
But I suspect Ronson would have been well-aware of the ‘war on Psychiatry’ declared by Scientology, given his tour with them prior to visiting Tony.
True, but I stated this detour with the admittance that narcissist only seek therapy on the insistence of 3rd parties and I do believe your question was why anyone in their right mind might want to seek such a diagnosis. I don’t consider narcissists to be in their right mind by default. Because they have a mental disorder.
The rest of us, in the end, we will always have to live with ourselves. So if we want to do “bad” things, an excuse will be a handy thing to have in our pocket.
Well, my question was rhetorical really, wasn’t it?
And I might equally question whether, when we do bad things for their own sake … in a self-serving manner rather than reluctantly, as the lesser (if not least) ‘evil’ … any of us could be said to be in our right mind.
Also as far as I know, a diagnosis as NPD won’t get you locked up. Perhaps it should.
When I’m feeling more passionately about it then, I’d agree they should be, yes.
But …
Whilst I have written, elsewhere, that the diagnosis of a Cluster B disorder is not on a scale but a binary chop … you either have the disorder or you don’t, there’s no such thing as a ‘hardcore psychopath’ … that isn’t entirely true but more of a ‘useful lie’ in an attempt to highlight how dangerously uninformed the rest of the thing I was commenting upon was.
Yes, there’s that element about it insofar as you are either driving over the speed-limit or you’re not, but there is actually a difference between driving at 35mph in a 30mph zone and driving at 60mph in the same zone — it’s not quite as simple as I made out.
So, whilst NPD is definitely suboptimal, there is still the question of its nature. There are those whose expression of the condition is more like Histrionic Personality Disorder (“Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! I am so great! I am so great! I am so great!”) and those who tend towards the more ‘malignant’ ¹ ASPD-like form.
Should someone who never advanced beyond the ‘terrible twos’ and is self-centred be locked up? Sure, they can be annoying (like the HPD types) but, so long as they don’t take advantage of others or do them down (like the ASPD types) then, what justification is there to say they represent such a danger to others that they ought to be incarcerated?
Had you not already endeared yourself to me, this would have done it :)
To the unthinking knuckledragger, it appears a frenzied and frenetic waste of time for the adrenaline addicted and ADHD sufferers.
To the enlightened, it is Existence encapsulated on a 1m x 0.5m board covered with glass, with all that is required to understand the nature of Life, the Universe and Everything contained within those bounds.
Had Hesse been just a little more enlightened, I feel sure he would have invented the pinball machine rather than written Das Glasperlenspiel (The Glass Bead Game).
In my experience they lie by default. So their answer would be meaningless to me.
Yes and no. It depends upon the ‘malignacy’ of the individual
On the one hand there’s the relatively benign aspect of exaggeration-to-fabrication in order to maintain superiority (one-upmanship) — the HPD-like aspect that, whilst exasperating, is relatively harmless really.
On the other, yes, there’s everything ranging up to hardcore ASPD-like gaslighting.
But they don’t always lie about everything — if there’s no overwhelming need to serve their agenda … be it simple protection of a fragile ego or to serve their advancement in some way … then they’ll happily tell the Truth.
But what I was really driving at was their self-absorption rendering them all but incapable of placing themselves in another’s shoes — when all that matters to you is “I, me, my mine”, there is little hope of your appreciating that there even is another perspective, let alone what it might be.
I have not had the pleasure to know any confirmed borderline people. Those I expect to be borderline would start a rant how everyone is either jealous of them, out to get them, or hates them for some arbitrary reason.
Those with BPD are emotionally labile. They find it difficult (impossible) to regulate their emotions and, as a result, are perhaps the closest thing there is to the popular misconception of ‘schizophrenic’ (one minute perfectly normal, the next a different person: hostile, or passive-aggressively defensively withdrawn, depending upon the individual).
Their perception of other’s motivation is influenced by that. The merest thing can be perceived as brutal character assassination and an all-out attack upon their very person. Likewise, they can misinterpret a friendly gesture as a declaration of undying love (think about how that can lead to stalking an object of desire).
Their thinking tends towards black-and-white with few, if any, shades of grey (a person of their acquaintance is either good or bad, nothing in between). And they tend towards a behavioural pattern known as ‘splitting’: one day you’re the love of their life, the next you are the Devil incarnate and they cannot understand what they ever saw in you … not infrequently ultimately leading to the ego-defending rationalisation that they never saw anything good in you, a denial of past feelings and a reinterpretation of everything in light of their new feelings (they never really liked that present you gave them, they only said they did because otherwise you’d have behaved unreasonably).
A relationship with someone with BPD can be a rollercoaster of emotional confusion because, one moment they’re loving and caring … the next they’re lashing out at you for no reason you can fathom or, if you can, is (as far as you are concerned) unreasonable (all you said was that you preferred the blue sweater to the red one).
So, what I was getting at was the unreliability of their interpretation of others’ motivations. It all depends upon how they’re feeling at the time. Yes, that’s true of all us, but the emotions of those with BPD cannot be relied upon and, hence, any assessment they might make of another’s behaviour equally doubtful.
They have no clue?
Again, yes and no … it depends upon the severity.
Those with high-functioning Autism … (what commonly used to be called Asperger’s Syndrome until it became questioned whether, despite the significance of his work, a man with close ties to Nazi medical experiments and programmes of euthanasia should be so honored) … aren’t necessarily altogether clueless but can have difficulty appreciating the nuances of others’ thoughts and feelings. It’s not so much that they’re incapable of appreciating them so much as it doesn’t occur to them to factor them in.
It could be considered mildly narcissistic insofar as, since they aren’t discomfitted by certain topics, they might blithely discuss their terrible diarrhea at the dinner table … or their partner’s sexual performance in front of the latter’s parents … because it doesn’t occur to them that others might feel uncomfortable as a result.
One of the best portrayals of a case of high-functioning Autism is that of the character Saga Norén by Sofia Helin in the series Bron|Broen (The Bridge) … which I highly recommend in the original Swedish/Danish (whatever you do, please don’t watch the US remake, watch the original with subtitles). She’s towards the more severe end of the spectrum (vis-à-vis h-f Autism, rather than Autism in the large) but, nevertheless, a good example in that it’s not that she’s clueless as such, she just doesn’t understand that people place the value they do on certain things because she doesn’t herself — so, yes, effectively, she’s clueless, but it’s more a case of her not putting a value on the same things as others rather than her nor understanding (she understands that they do, just not why, so it doesn’t cross her mind that those things might be a significant consideration).
To be perfectly frank, I wouldn’t be surprised to find I had a ‘mild case’ of h-f Autism myself — not full-blown, but I have always had a certain blind-spot to others sensibilities regarding a lot of things that I just place no value upon myself: so what if we’re at the dinner table, diarrhea is just a medical condition … no-one here can smell my shit and I’m not suggesting anyone try to imagine it, am I? I’m talking about it in the abstract. Sheesh! Equally, it took me a very long time indeed to realise that other people don’t always open up about things and … whilst I might enjoy being a shock-jock and making jokes about subjects that I myself recognise are taboo (that’s why I’m making them) and make even me wince as I do so … my joke about a paedophile in the video-rental store might touch a very frayed nerve and I maybe oughtn’t to do it in company I’m not intimately acquainted with (if even then).
And I have, on a number of occasions, been taken aside by people and warned that a person (frequently a child) I’m about to meet is severely autistic and I should, therefore, be aware that they might exhibit ‘difficult’ behaviours, only for my interaction with them to be no different to that which I might have with anyone else I meet. I have found communicating with them very easy because, like me, they don’t prevaricate with social niceties or anxieties but simply say what they mean without embellishing it with the distracting social convention that means you have to try and decipher what their true intent might be. Afterwards, people always impress upon me how astounding it was that the individual took to me so readily, because that’s utterly atypical and, I have to bite my tongue and demur rather than blurt out “Well try treating them with some fucking respect then … they’re autistic not an idiot; don’t behave as though they were, it’s insulting. I know they’re ‘only a child’ but try talking to them like an adult … you’ll get further”. But I have to comply with the social norms, lest I offend them (sigh). So, who knows … maybe I suffer from h-fA myself and that’s why I get on with them so well.
So, no, it’s not that they are entirely clueless so much as they can be so unconcerned about certain things that they are tactless as a result and, therefore, appear clueless.
I’m maybe discussing something that is effectively a distinction without a difference but that difference, whilst subtle, is significant — there is a definite difference between the cluelessness of those with (h-f)Autism (different concerns and values) and the cluelessness that is the result of NPD (lack of concern for others). It might be better thought of as a case of childlike innocence than cluelessness, if you see what I mean.
Isn’t that the first sign of the Autism Spectrum, they just can’t understand why people react the way they react?
No. There are many signs.
I have greatly (over)simplified matters in my elaboration on h-fA above for the sake of clarifying that it’s not as simple as not understanding why people react the way they do, nor simply a case of an almost narcissistic self-absorption.
I’m not about to go into all the details here lest this turn into a fifty-thousand-word dissertation — we’re both tired by now.
But whilst, yes, you’re right, that’s frequently seemingly a symptom, it’s not really a definitive indicator, nor even necessarily more than a perceived symptom — someone’s seeming difficulty interpreting others’ feelings or motivations could be down to many factors, including but not limited to, Autism, BPD (perception of others’ motivations is distorted), NPD (others’ motivations aren’t a consideration), Schizoid Personality Disorder (they understand but don’t particularly care to communicate that fact) … there are many potential reasons.
The Wikipedia article gives a good, albeit very basic, synopsis of classic Autism, which you should compare with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Suffice it to say that, yes, it’s a common characteristic of the exhibited behaviour but not really a defining one per se … there’s a lot more to it.
If you want an example of how Autism/ASD is more about neuro/cognitive processing (particularly with regard to communication) rather than comprehension necessarily … it is about comprehension as well, but that’s more a result of the condition rather than causal, if you see what I mean (again, I’m oversimplifying here, but I’m trying to keep this to the cogent points rather than delving into the depths of neurology and neurochemistry) … watch the episode (of House M.D.) Lines In The Sand. It’s not that the boy doesn’t understand what the team want from him (an explanation of what the issue is) but that he has difficulty in communicating the response to them — he understands their behaviour well enough, he just can’t respond to it in like manner.
Thank you :) I am very happy to read that […] But if you want to see the world through a strangers eyes and gain new perspectives, it’s just…blah.
So, what you’re saying is ‘Yes, you’re right, I have a talent for getting inside people’s heads and I exercise it almost constantly, but I have an excuse/it’s not what you think.” Not gainsaying my argument at all, just trying to convince me there’s nothing alarming about it.
I see.
I wonder what you’d come out with, if I caught you in bed with another man — or woman (or even both, for that matter). I’d love to see you try and talk your way out of that one — it’d no doubt be very creative!
My latest obsession is D&D and Critical Role.
Yes, I know — and I’ve been remarkably restrained about that, have I not? 😉
because this is 8 people — trained actors so they both know how to be entertaining and know about characters — telling one story together with all kinds of different personalities and issues to bring to the (literal) table. It’s honestly been one of the reasons I have been improving in my writing lately.
Whatever works for you, I suppose 😜
I’ll try not to gush too much
That’s a relief </sarc> 😜
but to see a character who has been described as the BGF (big friendly giant) of D&D, utter the line “We won’t leave enough of him to be identified”…Just thinking about how fucked this person is…magic!.
In what tone of voice was it said?
Yeah, I know I’ve stared rambling. I’ve had two beers, I’m going to leave it here. :)
Nothing wrong with expressing your thoughts about what you enjoy doing and why. I would add “so long as it doesn’t involve child abuse or torturing animals”, but I’m a psychologist, so it would be untrue to say I wouldn’t be fascinated to hear about it if it did — you’d just have to hope that I were of a mind to simply report you to the authorities afterwards rather than contemplating how to dispose of your corpse without getting caught⁵ (which it were it would depend upon my mood at the time).
—
¹ I dislike the term ‘malignant narcissist’ because:
- it inherently implies there is some, if not benign then at least inconsequential, form of NPD — which, whilst I’m not denying the possibility, there really isn’t in the large.
- it was popularised by Sam Vaknin … and I’m not entirely happy about him²
² Firstly, I can’t help wondering what his agenda is. Is it, as it seemingly is, benign and just (typically) coincidentally self-serving (“Look at me! Praise me! Buy my Books! Come to my seminars! I’m an expert, hang on my every gospel-true word! I am your guru … adore me!”) … or is there some darker aspect to it? ³. Secondly, there’s a lot of the anecdotal about it which, like Ronson’s work, means there’s far too much room for the naive ‘reader’ to misconstrue things ⁴ — it’s not that there’s no scientific rigor to it (he does know what he’s talking about in that regard) but it’s not sufficiently rigorous in its presentation for my liking. Finally, I can’t help but feel that the term might gloss over the fact that Cluster B disorders are not altogether infrequently found to be co-morbid with another and that it could all too frequently, therefore, result in someone being misdiagnosed as an exceptionally egregious case of NPD rather than, more significantly, as having both NPD and ASPD (for why that distinction is significant, C.f. Elizabeth Mika’s article Tyranny as a Triumph of Narcissism).
³ He was, after all, subsequently diagnosed as ASPD, not NPD and, furthermore, even if he were correct in his self-analysis and a narcissist (as well as a sociopath?), how correct is he in his determination that he is a ‘malignant’ one. After all, if he is one then, inevitably, he would have to be the best (i.e. most horrendous) kind, wouldn’t he? It goes with the territory. So, I’m unsure just how reliable his analysis of his condition is, even if it is technically accurate.
⁴ It’s bad enough when what they’re looking at is, in fact, strictly scientific!
It is a most extraordinary thing, but I never read a patent medicine advertisement without being impelled to the conclusion that I am suffering from the particular disease therein dealt with in its most virulent form. The diagnosis seems in every case to correspond exactly with all the sensations that I have ever felt.
I remember going to the British Museum one day to read up the treatment for some slight ailment of which I had a touch — hay fever, I fancy it was. I got down the book, and read all I came to read; and then, in an unthinking moment, I idly turned the leaves, and began to indolently study diseases, generally. I forget which was the first distemper I plunged into — some fearful, devastating scourge, I know — and, before I had glanced half down the list of “premonitory symptoms,” it was borne in upon me that I had fairly got it.
I sat for awhile, frozen with horror; and then, in the listlessness of despair, I again turned over the pages. I came to typhoid fever — read the symptoms — discovered that I had typhoid fever, must have had it for months without knowing it — wondered what else I had got; turned up St. Vitus’s Dance — found, as I expected, that I had that too, — began to get interested in my case, and determined to sift it to the bottom, and so started alphabetically — read up ague, and learnt that I was sickening for it, and that the acute stage would commence in about another fortnight. Bright’s disease, I was relieved to find, I had only in a modified form, and, so far as that was concerned, I might live for years. Cholera I had, with severe complications; and diphtheria I seemed to have been born with. I plodded conscientiously through the twenty-six letters, and the only malady I could conclude I had not got was housemaid’s knee.
I felt rather hurt about this at first; it seemed somehow to be a sort of slight. Why hadn’t I got housemaid’s knee? Why this invidious reservation? After a while, however, less grasping feelings prevailed. I reflected that I had every other known malady in the pharmacology, and I grew less selfish, and determined to do without housemaid’s knee. Gout, in its most malignant stage, it would appear, had seized me without my being aware of it; and zymosis I had evidently been suffering with from boyhood. There were no more diseases after zymosis, so I concluded there was nothing else the matter with me.
I sat and pondered. I thought what an interesting case I must be from a medical point of view, what an acquisition I should be to a class! Students would have no need to “walk the hospitals,” if they had me. I was a hospital in myself. All they need do would be to walk round me, and, after that, take their diploma.
Then I wondered how long I had to live. I tried to examine myself. I felt my pulse. I could not at first feel any pulse at all. Then, all of a sudden, it seemed to start off. I pulled out my watch and timed it. I made it a hundred and forty-seven to the minute. I tried to feel my heart. I could not feel my heart. It had stopped beating. I have since been induced to come to the opinion that it must have been there all the time, and must have been beating, but I cannot account for it. I patted myself all over my front, from what I call my waist up to my head, and I went a bit round each side, and a little way up the back. But I could not feel or hear anything. I tried to look at my tongue. I stuck it out as far as ever it would go, and I shut one eye, and tried to examine it with the other. I could only see the tip, and the only thing that I could gain from that was to feel more certain than before that I had scarlet fever.
I had walked into that reading-room a happy, healthy man. I crawled out a decrepit wreck.
I went to my medical man. He is an old chum of mine, and feels my pulse, and looks at my tongue, and talks about the weather, all for nothing, when I fancy I’m ill; so I thought I would do him a good turn by going to him now. “What a doctor wants,” I said, “is practice. He shall have me. He will get more practice out of me than out of seventeen hundred of your ordinary, commonplace patients, with only one or two diseases each.” So I went straight up and saw him, and he said:
“Well, what’s the matter with you?”
I said:
“I will not take up your time, dear boy, with telling you what is the matter with me. Life is brief, and you might pass away before I had finished. But I will tell you what is not the matter with me. I have not got housemaid’s knee. Why I have not got housemaid’s knee, I cannot tell you; but the fact remains that I have not got it. Everything else, however, I have got.”
And I told him how I came to discover it all.
Then he opened me and looked down me, and clutched hold of my wrist, and then he hit me over the chest when I wasn’t expecting it — a cowardly thing to do, I call it — and immediately afterwards butted me with the side of his head. After that, he sat down and wrote out a prescription, and folded it up and gave it me, and I put it in my pocket and went out.
I did not open it. I took it to the nearest chemist’s, and handed it in. The man read it, and then handed it back.
He said he didn’t keep it.
I said:
“You are a chemist?”
He said:
“I am a chemist. If I was a co-operative stores and family hotel combined, I might be able to oblige you. Being only a chemist hampers me.”
I read the prescription. It ran:
“1 lb. beefsteak, with
1 pt. bitter beerevery 6 hours.
1 ten-mile walk every morning.
1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
And don’t stuff up your head with things you don’t understand.”
⁵ Yeah … I sometimes have uncomfortable questions I might ask about myself too ⁶.
⁶ But I’m not sure I’d like the answers … so, I don’t — I just suppress it all and pretend I’m unconcerned ⁷.
⁷ Suppressing our thoughts and emotions is goooood, m’kay!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OidPPpNhoc
