Easy A+

 

Written by MRSS

 

 

What makes a Psychopath?

Theoretical Views and Characteristic Behaviors:

Can they be judged just like US?

 

 

Psychopathy and other Mental Disorders

 

One of the first persons to theorize on psychopathy as a personality disorder in relation to other factors including anxiety was Hervey Cleckley (1941). His theory outlined that individuals with psychopathy are in fact neurotic individuals with conflicting anxiety. He asserted that “if in the whole of medicine any other two reactions stand out in clear contrast” it would be psychopathy personality disorder in relation to anxiety disorders (p. 259). This exemplifies the current efforts made by the psychological and medicinal associations to relate the personality disorder of psychopathy with other current, more common disorders that we experience on a daily basis, in order to be able to accommodate for the highs and lows that this branch of the anxiety disorder, or any other disorder like depression or antisocial behavioral problems, can cause onto the personality disorder and, hence, intensify its affects onto the individual.

 

Essentially, the focus of this essay is to present psychopathy in relation to other disorders and to understand what the opposed effect of this disorder is on the individual. Psychopaths are basically judged on their irrationality since they are labeled as psychopaths, however, on the other end of the spectrum, we can value that they also enjoy of a rational thought that would be consistent with their own personal, social values and morals as they do interact with the outside world but in a neurotic fashion. Many psychologists, philosophers and clinicians deal with the disorder as though it is an all-or-none disorder, one that only presents specific characteristics to the disorder and that there is no other way that the person may act, react, relate or behave with others but in an irrational manner. But, does a psychopath portray a sense of responsibility as  lives or are they all hospitalized as a result of their condition?

 

Unlike the extreme cases where the individuals are hospitalized as a result of their irrational and dangerous behavior, most people with psychopathy have high levels of performance and can live adequately in society. Hence, psychopaths are making decisions, they are cognitively transcribing information in their brain and making sense of authoritative figures, hence, they can be rational individuals. However, often we hear that individuals with such disorders are irrational creatures and exempt from criminal offenses as a result of their cognitive condition, nevertheless, they were able to function in society adequately prior to ever committing an act, is this the disorder motivating them to act in a criminal or careless manner or is it their own exemption and thus ability to commit crimes?

 

Durham vs. The United States, a “psychiatric diagnosis of mental illness…served as the criterion of responsibility independent of the defendant’s cognition regarding right and wrong” (Smith, 1984)This example is given to demonstrate the possibility that an individual with a psychopath diagnosis may in fact be charged with a crime as a result of their ability to lead otherwise normal lives prior to committing a criminal act. However, are psychopaths really sick or are they competent enough to be charged with the actual committing of a crime that may have occurred as a result, and only as a result of the disorder?

 

One reason the psychopaths are charged with intentionally and voluntarily committing a criminal act may be because society wants to protect itself and the psychopaths themselves from the crimes that they may be urged to commit, as a result of their disorder. So, they basically jail them so they are not lose in society committing fraudulent and violent acts. This could be the explanation why a person with psychopathy is not considered mentally ill enough to be set free as a result of their mental illness.  

 

One of the problems that the psychopath encounters being free in society is the fact that after a loss they are unable to really deal with their emotions in manners that would otherwise calm the regular person down. Hence, there remains this need for the psychopath to counter act or act impulsively harming others on their way. There are “psychodynamic, neurological, psychophysiological and genetic” factors all involved in this one individual’s response and choice of action (William, 1978)

 

Further on the discussion of this behavior being part of the disorder or simply the choice of a person, the issue of responsibility may in fact lead us to an answer. The psychopath is able to relate cause and effect to determined circumstances throughout its life; hence, being “intelligent, knowledgeable and logically acute” is nothing strange or rare for the psychopath (Smith, 1984)

 

The matter of rationality comes in a two-fold since it is opposed to their compulsion practices but yet adequate for their mental abilities. Arrington says that the dilemma of the psychopath appearing irrational yet being intelligent is “not under inner compulsion nor external constraint”, it is the act of its personality, therefore, the laboring of the psychopath to impulsively act yet be able to resist the impulse makes the psychopath responsible for its actions and hence a rational being (Arrington, 1979).

 

In fact, Duff says that because of the “inadequacies of traditional empiricist accounts of the notions of understanding and rationality in moral and emotional contexts may hinder the recognition of this kind of disorder” (Duff, 1977). Hence, there is an intellectual ability to the psychopath that is featured in its environment through its actions and with the consequences that later come. The psychopath, then, is able to decipher between acting on an impulse and resisting the impulse as it values the decision appropriately. Although a psychopath may be a rebel by nature, the psychopath is led to believe that it is acting on an irrational impulse by the disorder and hence exempt from the responsibility of its actions, the system is the one making it a rebel per say.  But, if the psychopath were given the option to take responsibility for its actions then the label would no longer be a viable excuse and the disorder may be somewhat controlled.

 

MAJOR ETIOLOGICAL THEORIES

 

Among the major theoretical approaches as to the development of psychopathy in individuals, the frontal lobe has been correlated. It seems that the “enlargement of the frontal cortex” is a distinct and unique characteristic of individuals with psychopathy.  Psychopathy is related to the “lesions of the septum, hippocampus, and frontal cortex” that are correlated with disorders without “impulse control” (Gorenstein, 1982). In fact, rats tested showed that their deficit in these areas results in a deficiency in the regulation of responses and a decrease in their ability to organize themselves around complex tasks (Gorenstein, 1982).

 

This part of the brain is in fact responsible for the activities that are goal-directed and impulsive behaviors as well. Hence, it plays a critical role in the brain and in the definition of psychopath in relation to their sense of responsibility. Altman et al. constructed their own hypothesis and said that “cells in the dentate gyros continue to grow through the juvenile period, suggesting that maturation of the hippocampus is responsible for the emergence of adult behavioral control” (J., 1973).

 

Therefore, the hippocampus is responsible for the likelihood of an action to be impulsive or to be made with determination. As the frontal cortex continues to grow, this inhibits the ability for the person to make rational decisions as this area of the brain begins to decrease in capability. Of course, psychopathy is not the only disorder that occurs during a frontal cortex deregulation, there are other disorders as well that can arise such as antisocial disorder in children and adolescents, “hyperactivity in children” and impulsive criminal behaviors in adults (J., 1973). 

 

Other theories include Cleckley’s which describes psychopathic individuals as “unable to experience anxiety of virtually any kind” and this is across the population of psychopaths (F. & Randall, 2009). Then, there is the theory of Lykken (1957) that suggests that there is a connection between psychopaths and “fearlessness” (Lykken, 1957). Another theory is that abuse during childhood prompting trauma and abuse can lead to psychopathic tendencies in adulthood (Frick, 1999). Also, anxiety is built within the individual with psychopathic tendencies but it is not an “inherited trait” but a trait that is built by the neurotic thinking of the psychopath (Lilienfeld & Penna, 2001)

 

Characteristics of a Psychopath

 

Psychopaths are generally manipulative and conning. They rarely ever recognize their own mistakes; instead they demand their rights from others and see themselves as deserving of all praise and noteworthiness. They can be openly hostile towards people and demeaning of others, they use people as victims and tools to make others victims. They dominate their victims because they are smarter than their victims. Psychopaths feel grandiose love for themselves, they see everything they do as correct and never assume guilt or responsibility over their covert actions. They are liars and have no problem lying openly to people, having others fooled completely by their tactics. They are creative in that they are prepared with plans to scam and crook others. They are very convincing and can even pass lie detectors. 

 

 

They lack any feeling of guilt; they feel no shame and take no responsibility for their actions. They are often repressed by their values as human beings and their impulse to lie and/or scam others. They often say they are the victims and this is used as a tactic to have others feel sorry for them and get what they want out of the people, making the people their victims. They never stick to their promises and are never genuine; their actions would upset a normal person as they can be very unmoved by emotions from others and very cold.

 

Psychopaths are unable to love others; they need stimulation constantly and never cease the opportunity to be stimulated. They live on the edge and constantly have bursts of anger and punish themselves and others for their bad mood. They are very promiscuous and often are common gamblers. They have no apathy or feel any empathy for others; they are unable to see others’ pain and do not feel sorry for their victim. They are always in distress and love to make others behave in that manner. They always take advantage of people and often abuse those that surround them intimately.

 

At the very least, psychopaths are unable to control their behavior and naturally act impulsively; they have a lot of behavioral problems as they often are unaware of their strength. They alternatively to loving, creating a feeling of hopelessness for anyone around them.  They believe to be all-powerful and know-it-all, they seem to deserve and wish to have no limitations or boundaries, and they have no concern for their impact on others. They usually have a history of conflict; they barely get by in school and often are incarcerated. They are known to be cruel to animals and are often criminals by nature. They are very irresponsible and devious and do not ever accept the blame for themselves but always blame others for the acts they have committed.

 

Psychopaths are also known for being child abusers and for having raped one or more people in their lifetimes. They lack touch with the real world and live in a parasitic life only absorbing out of others while moving themselves towards a better condition. They tend to be self-absorbed and exploit others. Among other qualities, they are contemptuous of those who seek to understand them, do not perceive that anything is wrong with them, authoritarian, secretive, paranoid, only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned or admired, conventional appearance, goal of enslavement of their victims, exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life, has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim’s affirmation (respect, gratitude and love), ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim, incapable of real human attachment to another, unable to feel remorse or guilt, extreme narcissism and grandiose, may state readily that their goal is to rule the world (http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html).

           

From this description or characteristics, we may then infer than the psychopath is actually acting on its own terms when it commits a criminal act yet it is seen as out of his range.  For this type of theoretical assumption we must verify it with academic research. Hence, I have decided to use the theory of Jaspers that notes that psychopathological behavior is only different from regular or normal behavior in that it is driven mostly by compulsions, hence, the manifestations of the thoughts are different in action as the actions are different in thought, the basic of their thoughts is what manifests into reality and hence action. The behavior in the psychopath is exaggerated and is extended out of their normal character (Jaspers, 1967).

 

Recognizing these behaviors makes more sense than simple looking for symptoms. However, clinician Karpman notes that the psychopath in truth has no conflict within him, their thoughts are regulated by their own emotions, and they are simply not in conflict with the impulsive ideas that are brought forth in their mouth (Karpman, 1984). They have no desire to change as we can infer from the description above, hence, they are constantly in the struggle of finding an accurate solution to their mental problem. Hence, there is no specific type of psychopath; there is only the condition of acting like one.  For instance, if we take brain wave patterns, there is never really a specific wave that determines the existence of psychopathy in people.

 

So, the question remains: are they like us or just acting like us? Do they hold the same values as us or are they socio-culturally inclined to be the same yet be different mentally from us?  To make a certain distinction we need to take into account the values of the society in which they live in and the way they think and how they practice their lifestyle and their values.  For instance, a society were certain values are significant and important, say treating humanity not as a means but as an end, would view the psychopath as ultimately different from them since the psychopath would not be acting according to these set of rules and morals. However, in a society where the individual is not unique or rare, where the psychopath is normal because everyone around them is eccentric as the psychopath, then the psychopath would be more accepted and less diagnosed as different.

 

The idea of psychopathy being normal in a society is hard to swallow, yet it is a valid point. Take a look at the way we have been transformed into labour-ready robots, or the way students have being given this sense of superiority for which to enslave themselves for eight years, or the way corporations have made the obsession of attainment of capital a priority and told students that this is the way they need to be, crooked, intimidating and abusing of others, in order to be rich and achieve the all dreamed American Dream.  

 

The student population seems to be forced into this mentality that we ought to be educated in order to go out there and become classic people, namely psychopaths. A study was conducted that studied the amount of psychopaths in a university and the classes they were taking or the majors they had chosen to take. There were significant effects in the relationship between psychopaths and studies in business and commerce as well as any other “organisational careers” (Smith, 1984).

 

This would lead to think that they psychopathic traits that these students showed were most common among those who were studying business, their traits drove them in that direction of the societal world. In this society, that is something to be proud of, something to look forward to. To be educated in business, to be aggressive, to use others as means, this is all particular to the business world, as common knowledge would have us infer, hence, we are motivating this type of behavior to continue, a behavior, a major and a attitude of a psychopath. Smith says “successful psychopaths have been described as ruthless, without a sense of personal responsibility, manipulating others for their own personal gain in order to get to the top in an organisation” (Smith, 1984).  

 

Smith also suggests that students in the “banking, finance, and media sectors were particularly prone to psychopaths and they generally rose to management in any sector” (Smith, 1984). Hence, we have raised our children believing this story of success while it is only through a psychopathic mannerism in dealing with life that we can achieve such grandiose success while still maintaining our mental health. Children and adolescents seem to use a matter of interpersonal conflicts that include deceit and an unemotional style of being that represents a probability to being a psychopath in the future. They tend to be impulsive, short tempered, irresponsible and very criminally oriented, although they rarely get caught.

 

In sum, we can conclude that at the end of the end, psychopaths are acting out their impulses and that they are in constant anxiety about their own actions. Even though they do not accept responsibility for their actions, they do remind themselves of their errors and their acts of manipulation and stealing from others, to the point that they are constantly neurotically anxious and paranoid. They are constantly acting out and can never be trusted and therefore they are very isolated from the world. Psychopaths can take responsibility for their actions and this is why they are not treated as mentally ill individuals but as criminals who have to be punished for their actions. They are not exempted from their acts because they can think about what they are doing and can be labeled responsible for their actions.

 

We can also conclude that we as a society have become more and more psychopath like; we have become accepting of individuals who do not care about others and only use people as a means to an end, of individuals who manipulate and drag others into their world of power, their world where everyone else has to be serving them, where the money is theirs and their ego is up too high. We have become accustomed to individuals with the need to achieve their goals regardless of the conditions in which they put others through. We have raised children to be value-less and moral-less, to be without any sense of human commitment. We have taught our children that to reach the top, everything is allowed, especially if it’s making you a lot of money.  Since psychopaths are rarely ever in the criminal system, they tend to be smart about their dealings and slowly get away with things, in fact, they persuade a judge if they had to.

 

 

Bibliography

 

Arrington, R. L. (1979). Practical reason, responsability and the psychopath. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 9, 73.

Duff, A. (1977). Psychopathy and Moral Understanding. The American Philosophical Quarterly, 14, 190.

F., K., & Randall, S. (2009). Psychopathy and anxiety in children and adolescents: New insights on developmental pathways to offending. Journal of Psychopathology Behavioral Assessments, 31, 271-284.

Frick, P. (1999). Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems: Applying the two factor model of psychopathy to children. Psychopathy, 187-205.

Gorenstein, E. E. (1982). Frontal Lobe Functions in Psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91(5), 368-379.

J., A. (1973). The Hippocampus and behavioral maturation. Behavioral Biology, 8, 557-596.

Jaspers, k. (1967). Classification of the behavior disorders. Annual Review of Psychology.

Karpman, B. (1984). The Myth of the Psychopathic Personality. American Journal of Psychiatry, 104, 525.

Lilienfeld, S., & Penna, S. (2001). Anxiety sensitivity: relations to psychopathy, DSM-IV personality disorder features and personality trains. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 15, 367--393.

Lykken, D. (1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 6-10.

Smith, R. (1984). The Psychopath as a moral agent. International Phenomenological Society, 45(2), 177-193.

William, R. (1978). The Psychopath. New York: Brunner and Mazel.