My own is essentially:
- I buy that the psychopath is not well supported as a construct in the sense that psychology cannot reliably identify the causes / nature of psychopathic behaviors generally.
- Likely this is a reflection of the challenges of psychology overall: it's seeking to provide simple explanations for an insanely complex and diverse system. It's like trying to categorize all software bugs into 100 causes. People don't display psychopathic behavior for only 100 "reasons" or "reasons" at all. Perhaps this is in the same sense that there are not "reasons" behind a specific answer you get from an LLM, or reasons why a specific hurricane formed. It's an irreducibly complex mess. Not to mention all the flaws in the current incentives / culture of science (replicability etc.).
- But...from the perspective of a layperson (me), which is what imho is most important, psychopaths do exist in that there are people who regularly and predictably exhibit "psychopathic" behaviors. Behaviors that are beyond the pale of our society's morality. Since such individuals behavior has a important impact on society (cough..."leaders"), I think it is a valid term and subject of research. This is true whether or not we can identify the etiology of such behavior, or if such a description is even possible.
psychopaths exist. we just can't put them all in a box.
marojejian•1h ago
Of course key to note the author is asserting his own theory. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262552202/psychopathy-unmasked/
I'd welcome some expert takes on this.
My own is essentially: - I buy that the psychopath is not well supported as a construct in the sense that psychology cannot reliably identify the causes / nature of psychopathic behaviors generally.
- Likely this is a reflection of the challenges of psychology overall: it's seeking to provide simple explanations for an insanely complex and diverse system. It's like trying to categorize all software bugs into 100 causes. People don't display psychopathic behavior for only 100 "reasons" or "reasons" at all. Perhaps this is in the same sense that there are not "reasons" behind a specific answer you get from an LLM, or reasons why a specific hurricane formed. It's an irreducibly complex mess. Not to mention all the flaws in the current incentives / culture of science (replicability etc.).
- But...from the perspective of a layperson (me), which is what imho is most important, psychopaths do exist in that there are people who regularly and predictably exhibit "psychopathic" behaviors. Behaviors that are beyond the pale of our society's morality. Since such individuals behavior has a important impact on society (cough..."leaders"), I think it is a valid term and subject of research. This is true whether or not we can identify the etiology of such behavior, or if such a description is even possible.
psychopaths exist. we just can't put them all in a box.