Originally posted by Psyshell
What exactly is the difference between someone with extreme autism and someone with psychopathy? Don't they both view people as objects?
Not at all. Those within the Autistic Spectrum do experience and exhibit empathy. They lack the capacity to understand the immediacy of emotional content - in a conversation for instance - and may react inappropriately. Although it may be callous (e.g. telling someone they have bad breath while asking for directions) it's actually meant to be helpful. Psychopaths, on the other hand, understand and utilize emotional content to be able to manipulate others. A psychopath would tell someone they have bad breath in order to trigger or exacerbate a person's insecurity.
An Asperger will sympathize with someone who is disabled and try to help them if they are having trouble. A psychopath won't sympathize with the disabled but are also quick to see that assisting a disabled person may elevate how they are perceived by others. The Asperger doesn't understand the emotional implications of bad breath. To them, it is just an ugly fact that should be taken care of; not a reflection on the person with halitosis. The psychopath understands the unflattering social implications and uses that to his advantage.
Psyshell
I thought that was how it worked, thanks for the clarification though. So if someone is deliberately emotionally manipulative for positive ends is there even a word for that? If for example someone always senses when their best friend is feeling insecure about their looks and then flirts with them (despite not actually having an interest in them).
Silky Johnson
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Not a neuroscientist, but I do have to study some neurostuffs in my field.
Now, you can "shut the emotional centre off" in the sense you do something opposed to what your feelings would otherwise tell you to (so you're not shutting it off completely, you're just overriding it). That wouldn't make you a psychopath - some people do choose to push the fat guy in the trolley problem anyway. What would be troublesome, and raise some red flags, is if your emotional centre (let's call it that way) didn't even activate. In this case, you wouldn't even have anything to shut off, a symptom of psychopathology.
This being said, I suspect the weight of the pushee may be influencing your answer (I remember you hate fat people), and your emotional centre would light up all the same. Imagine Jimmy was next to the rail tracks, and the trolley was en route to killing some important people who you know would reward you if you saved their lives. Would you push him onto the tracks so you could get the reward?
I suspect you wouldn't. A psychopath most likely would.
Bahaha actually I didn't catch the part about him being fat. :stongue:
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by Psyshell
If someone is deliberately emotionally manipulative for positive ends is there even a word for that? If for example someone always senses when their best friend is feeling insecure about their looks and then flirts with them (despite not actually having an interest in them).
Dysfunctional.
Honestly, any manipulation, however it is rationalized, is dysfunctional; manipulation being the key word, here. There are obviously distinctions between care-taking and interpersonal manipulation. Flirtation, in and of itself, isn't necessarily dysfunctional. Wanting to help someone feel better about themselves isn't dysfunctional, either.
Manipulation, on the other hand, indicates that there is some level of dishonesty at play. Is the manipulation coercively motivated or is it the response to walking on egg-shells around someone who is emotionally volatile? Without more of a context that's the only answer I can think to provide.
BTG
I for some reason have a harder time flicking the switch to save the five lives...but have little problem throwing the guy over.
Something weird is going on in my brain..hold on. going to murder somebody. brb
Jon_Snow
You realize the fat guy is going to derail the train and kill everyone on it. and this...
Looney4Clooney
my condition is now out of the DSM IV. I'm now normal. Just like that.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by BTG
I for some reason have a harder time flicking the switch to save the five lives...but have little problem throwing the guy over.
Yeah, the expected pattern is the exact opposite :p
By the way, I wouldn't do either. I agree with Bernard Williams when he says that, from a utilitarian point of view, people would better not believe in utilitarianism.
Evolve140
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
You are so clueless that it is almost pointless to explain to you how clueless you are. It's staggering. I had problems with the video's over-simplification of psychopathy but he pretty much gets the gist of it down which, in essence, was the point of over-simplifying it. To suggest that questions regarding psychopathy are only resolved philosophically is vaguely relevant absurdity when there is abundant research indicating its neurobiological features.
Furthermore, this suggestion that anyone is capable of pushing Fatboy onto the tracks to save the lives of five strangers is only answerable in the academic sense. Would you (or anyone) be able to do that in the heat of the moment? The suggestion that the psychopath could push the person onto the tracks of an oncoming train does not indicate that the psychopath would (another problem I had with the video).
The purpose of the ethics hypothetical is to provide a rough analogy for how the psychopath lacks empathy; a capacity that, for a normal, well-adjusted human-being, will intervene in the impulse to push someone in the path of an oncoming train. If one of the five people were the psychopath's wife, who he'd just taken out a $1,000,000 insurance policy out on, chances are the he is perfectly willing to let the train run on without any "heavy-weight" intervention.
But , you are one ed-up individual.
Your conclusions from the video are so off-base because you don't know jack about psychopathy and yet you presume to know an awful lot. You really don't. You see this very small amount of information and, out of complete ignorance as to the totality of its origins, make absolutely asinine inferences concerning its legitimacy.
Hell yeah, EZ.
Zharen
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
You are so clueless that it is almost pointless to explain to you how clueless you are. It's staggering. I had problems with the video's over-simplification of psychopathy but he pretty much gets the gist of it down which, in essence, was the point of over-simplifying it. To suggest that questions regarding psychopathy are only resolved philosophically is vaguely relevant absurdity when there is abundant research indicating its neurobiological features.
Furthermore, this suggestion that anyone is capable of pushing Fatboy onto the tracks to save the lives of five strangers is only answerable in the academic sense. Would you (or anyone) be able to do that in the heat of the moment? The suggestion that the psychopath could push the person onto the tracks of an oncoming train does not indicate that the psychopath would (another problem I had with the video).
The purpose of the ethics hypothetical is to provide a rough analogy for how the psychopath lacks empathy; a capacity that, for a normal, well-adjusted human-being, will intervene in the impulse to push someone in the path of an oncoming train. If one of the five people were the psychopath's wife, who he'd just taken out a $1,000,000 insurance policy out on, chances are the he is perfectly willing to let the train run on without any "heavy-weight" intervention.
But , you are one ed-up individual.
Your conclusions from the video are so off-base because you don't know jack about psychopathy and yet you presume to know an awful lot. You really don't. You see this very small amount of information and, out of complete ignorance as to the totality of its origins, make absolutely asinine inferences concerning its legitimacy.
Jon_Snow
mind ing :stongue:
Psyshell
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
Manipulation, on the other hand, indicates that there is some level of dishonesty at play. Is the manipulation coercively motivated or is it the response to walking on egg-shells around someone who is emotionally volatile? Without more of a context that's the only answer I can think to provide.
So basically, if the manipulation and deception's cause doesn't matter... then there's no difference between a psychopath and an undercover cop besides a bureaucrat giving it a rubber stamp.
Also, I guess this kind've implies that short term paternalism (as in deceptive for someone else's own good and dishonesty about it) is far less likely to be concidered dysfunctional than long term paternalism. Although in the case of never telling your fat friend she's fat no matter what for years is just considered a normal part of human behavior... so it just depends on what's concidered societal norms.
quote:
Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
my condition is now out of the DSM IV. I'm now normal. Just like that.
