| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Phil Roberts, Jr.
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: [Fwd: Re: [evol-psych] The Unnerving World Of Psychopaths]] |
 |
|
Mark Hubey wrote:
[quote]
Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
*RKS:*
Psychopaths are not identified by behaviour, though this can be a
strong indication, but by the lack of normal feelings of guilt,
remorse, empathy and of understanding other people>s feelings in general.
Mark Hubey wrote:
That>s the whole point. Why should they have feelings of remorse?
[/quote]
My two cents worth.
Conscience (a capacity for guilt) is a part of the price we humans have
had to pay for having become a little too rational/objective for our own
good -- a maladaptive (from the standpoint of the individual or "gene")
byproduct of the evolution of rationality/objectivity itself.
"We are nicer than what is good for our selfish genes"
(Dawkins).
[quote]They
do not believe they are
doing anything wrong. They are being quite rational in thinking that
lying to gain advantage is
a great negotiation trick.
Isn>t deception a large part of
Darwinism/evolution?
[/quote]
Yes. But why assume that what is natural is synonymous with
what is rational?
Special concern for one>s own future would be selected by
evolution: Animals without such concern would be more likely
to die before passing on their genes. Such concern would
remain, as a natural fact, even if we decided that it was not
justified. By thinking hard about the arguments, we might
be able briefly to stun this natural concern. But it would
soon revive... The fact that we have this attitude cannot
therefore be a reason for thinking it justified. Whether
it is justified [i.e. rational] is an open question, waiting
to be answered (Derek Parfit, 'Reasons and Persons').
[quote]
Why should they feel guilty under these circumstances. Why remorse? And
what if they
understood others' feelings. We see poor people all the time and
understand their
feelings. What do we do about it?
[/quote]
I suspect it is because, as rational creatures, we do not survive
automatically and unquestioningly, but are to various degrees in
need of some sort of justification for the value we attach to
our existence. And, given a suitably evolved culture and a
properly functioning prefrontal cortex, a significant component
of this justification is the need to perceive one>s self as
objective, not only cognitively, but valuatively as well as in
'Love (intrinsically value) your neighbor as you love (intrinsically
value) yourself'. Although none of us can actually measure up to this
standard (valuative objectivity), we nonetheless come to experience
feelings of worthlessness (guilt) along with a reduction in the will to
survive (depression) when we deviate from the standard to an
unreasonable degree.
[quote]It seems that there is probably some deficit in their mirror neuron
system and/or in the development of their theory-of-mind.
[/quote]
Cognitive Deficit:
One way might be that such a deficiency would be attributed to
an ability to know about the suffering of others or one>s
future self but without the capacity to REALIZE the suffering
of others or one>s future self.
Valuative Deficit:
Or it might simply be because these individuals lack any
sense of fear or pain.
[quote]
So then the only thing that rational calculators like them should
calculate is going to jail.
[/quote]
Rational calculators that presuppose the veracity of the means/end
theory of rationality. Unfortnately, the means/end theory is
demonstrably self-defeating, i.e., can be shown to sanction
rational irrationality (e.g. Parfit, p 12).
They would only feel
[quote]sorry because they got caught. Why else would there be remorse?
[/quote]
How about because one has fallen below a self-imposed standard
of objectivity by which one measure>s one>s worth which, once
understood and accepted is all but impossible to ignore without
incurring damage to one>s will to survive, i.e., one>s self-
worth:
There is no value-judgment more important to man -- no factor
more decisive in his psychological development and motivation --
than the estimate he passes on himself. This estimate is
ordinarily experienced by him, not in the form of a conscious,
verbalized judgment, but in the form of a feeling, a feeling
that can be hard to isolate and identify because he experiences
it constantly: it is part of every other feeling, it is involved
in his every emotional response. ... it is the single most
significant key to his behavior. (Nathaniel Branden).
Phil Roberts, Jr.
http://www.rationology.net
.... |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Michael
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: Re: The Unnerving World Of Psychopaths]] |
|
|
On Jul 7, 10:52 pm, "Phil Roberts, Jr." <phil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[quote]Mark Hubey wrote:
Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
*RKS:*
Psychopaths are not identified by behaviour, though this can be a
strong indication, but by the lack of normal feelings of guilt,
remorse, empathy and of understanding other people>s feelings in general.
Mark Hubey wrote:
That>s the whole point. Why should they have feelings of remorse?
My two cents worth.
Conscience (a capacity for guilt) is a part of the price we humans have
had to pay for having become a little too rational/objective for our own
good -- a maladaptive (from the standpoint of the individual or "gene")
byproduct of the evolution of rationality/objectivity itself.
"We are nicer than what is good for our selfish genes"
(Dawkins).
They
do not believe they are
doing anything wrong. They are being quite rational in thinking that
lying to gain advantage is
a great negotiation trick.
Isn>t deception a large part of
Darwinism/evolution?
Yes. But why assume that what is natural is synonymous with
what is rational?
Special concern for one>s own future would be selected by
evolution: Animals without such concern would be more likely
to die before passing on their genes. Such concern would
remain, as a natural fact, even if we decided that it was not
justified. By thinking hard about the arguments, we might
be able briefly to stun this natural concern. But it would
soon revive... The fact that we have this attitude cannot
therefore be a reason for thinking it justified. Whether
it is justified [i.e. rational] is an open question, waiting
to be answered (Derek Parfit, 'Reasons and Persons').
Why should they feel guilty under these circumstances. Why remorse? And
what if they
understood others' feelings. We see poor people all the time and
understand their
feelings. What do we do about it?
I suspect it is because, as rational creatures, we do not survive
automatically and unquestioningly, but are to various degrees in
need of some sort of justification for the value we attach to
our existence. And, given a suitably evolved culture and a
properly functioning prefrontal cortex, a significant component
of this justification is the need to perceive one>s self as
objective, not only cognitively, but valuatively as well as in
'Love (intrinsically value) your neighbor as you love (intrinsically
value) yourself'. Although none of us can actually measure up to this
standard (valuative objectivity), we nonetheless come to experience
feelings of worthlessness (guilt) along with a reduction in the will to
survive (depression) when we deviate from the standard to an
unreasonable degree.
It seems that there is probably some deficit in their mirror neuron
system and/or in the development of their theory-of-mind.
Cognitive Deficit:
One way might be that such a deficiency would be attributed to
an ability to know about the suffering of others or one>s
future self but without the capacity to REALIZE the suffering
of others or one>s future self.
Valuative Deficit:
Or it might simply be because these individuals lack any
sense of fear or pain.
So then the only thing that rational calculators like them should
calculate is going to jail.
Rational calculators that presuppose the veracity of the means/end
theory of rationality. Unfortnately, the means/end theory is
demonstrably self-defeating, i.e., can be shown to sanction
rational irrationality (e.g. Parfit, p 12).
They would only feel
sorry because they got caught. Why else would there be remorse?
How about because one has fallen below a self-imposed standard
of objectivity by which one measure>s one>s worth which, once
understood and accepted is all but impossible to ignore without
incurring damage to one>s will to survive, i.e., one>s self-
worth:
There is no value-judgment more important to man -- no factor
more decisive in his psychological development and motivation --
than the estimate he passes on himself. This estimate is
ordinarily experienced by him, not in the form of a conscious,
verbalized judgment, but in the form of a feeling, a feeling
that can be hard to isolate and identify because he experiences
it constantly: it is part of every other feeling, it is involved
in his every emotional response. ... it is the single most
significant key to his behavior. (Nathaniel Branden).
Phil Roberts, Jr.http://www.rationology.net
...
[/quote]
Whatever genetic component may be involved environmental factors also
play a role in creating a sociopath or psychopath.
Michael R. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
