Det kan være smart at have en nogenlunde klar definition af det diskuterede - alle fremhævelser er mine!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SociopathyCitat:
Antisocial personality disorder (APD or ASPD) is a psychiatric diagnosis that interprets antisocial and impulsive behaviors as symptoms of a personality disorder. Psychiatry defines only pathological antisocial behavior; it does not address potential benefits of positive antisocial behavior or define the meaning of 'social' in contrast to 'antisocial'.
Professional psychiatry generally compares APD to sociopathy and psychopathic disorders (not to be confused with psychosis). Approximately 3% of men and 1% of women are thought to have some form of antisocial personality disorder according to DSM-IV.
Central to understanding individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder is that they appear to experience a limited range of human emotions. This can explain the lack of empathy for the suffering of others, since they cannot experience emotion associated with either empathy or suffering. Risk-seeking behavior and substance abuse may be attempts to escape feeling empty or emotionally void. The rage exhibited by psychopaths and the anxiety associated with certain types of antisocial personality disorder may represent the limit of emotion experienced, or there may be physiological responses without analogy to emotion experienced by others.
.
.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PsychopathyCitat:
Psychopathy (pronounced [saɪˈkɑpəθi] in General American; [-ˈkɒp-] in RP) is a term derived from the Greek psych (soul) and pathos (suffering), and was once used to denote any form of mental illness. These days, psychopathy is defined in psychiatry as a condition characterised by lack of empathy or conscience, poor impulse control and manipulative behaviors. Though in widespread use as a psychiatric term, psychopathy has no precise equivalent[1] in either the DSM-IV-TR, where it is most strongly correlated with antisocial personality disorder, or the ICD-10, where it is correlated with dissocial personality disorder.
In current, clinical, use, psychopathy is most commonly diagnosed using Robert D. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Hare describes psychopaths as, "intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret."[2]
To the layperson, the term psychopathy can take on broader meanings, often being confused with psychosis, particularly by the use of the abbreviation psycho. People commonly take "psychopath" to be interchangeable with their personal perception of an evil person.
[...]
A psychopath is defined as having no concern for the feelings of others & a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation. They seem egocentric and lacking insight and any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative and incapable of forming lasting relationships, let alone of any kind of love. It is thought that any emotions which the true psychopath exhibits are the fruits of watching and mimicking other people's emotions. They show poor impulse control and a low tolerance for frustration and aggression. They have no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly are devoid of conscience.
Most studies of the psychopath have taken place among prison populations, though it has often been suggested that the psychopath is just as likely to sit on a Board of Directors as behind bars, concealing his true nature behind a well crafted "Mask of Sanity" (also the title of the one of the first definitive studies of psychopathy, written by Hervey M. Cleckley in 1941.)
.
.
.
Fra et
review af Damasios bog:
Citat:
An interesting idea that Damasio writes about is his somatic-marker hypothesis which closely connects brain and body. This is basically his technical way to describe gut feelings with which we are all familiar. He believes these feelings enable us to narrow down the number of possible choices of action in any given situation. The most important function of such a physical marker would be that it allows us to realize the future (positive or negative) outcomes of our immediate actions (positive or negative). He locates such a marker within the prefrontal cortices because he believes them to be ideally suited for such functions linking reasoning and deciding to body states that reflect emotion [Malkavian: markørerne har dog oprindelse i reptilhjernens kropslige følelsesregistre og rejser først herefter op til det præfrontale cortex, hvor de kan udnyttes til at træffe fornuftige beslutninger]. But he is also careful to acknowledge that sociocultural factors interact with biological ones to create many behaviors.
One of the most compelling pieces of evidence that Damasio uses to test his somatic-marker hypothesis involves physiological results. Patients with frontal damage failed to generate the normal skin conductance responses in response to emotional slides (209) while other patients with this damage showed no anticipatory responses to Damasio's gambling experiment (221) and never seemed able to avoid bad outcomes.
These marker ideas may have particular relevance to psychopaths who have plagued society with their impulsive and destructive behaviors and who seem to have no regard for their future when they commit such unfathomable crimes. Their behavior is quite similar to those patients with prefrontal damage. Improperly functioning somatic markers may be part of the psychopath's problem. Perhaps they do not have the physical signs/emotions that keep normal people from commiting crimes. If psychopaths, who are often criminals, were actually suffering from damage to some sort of biologically based somatic marker, the implications would be huge. In fact, our discussions included some debate as to how this would affect the treatment of criminals. [Malkavian: og chefer, politikere og politifolk!]
Så ja, måske bemærker man de sociopatiske træk i højere grad, når man lærer hvordan de ser ud, og det kan bestemt lede til overestimering. Alligevel er der forbløffende mange der har behandlet emnet professionelt.
Log ind
Tilmeld
OSS
Søg
