Norway: terrorist or nutter?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

No. Flinching at someone's pain (metaphorically or literally) is not the same as knowing you should feel like flinching, and wishing you did. They might be able to reason that they should feel something, but they're unable to feel it.

It's like Data from Star Trek without his emotion chip.

With soldiers, I'd assume some of them are probably desensitised rather than psychopathic, in much the way surgeons get.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Rufus Gwertigan

[feral chile]

I am not arguing, but what about someone that has felt an amount of pain (like labour) and puts their emotions on someone (like someone else in labour) i.e their pain was worse.

My point is that many "psychopaths" have 'become' due their upbringing, as with many personality disorders. I think that "empathy" is a very difficult diagnostic tool.

Edited August 4, 2011 by feral chile

[worm]

Do you believe that 'nutter' and 'terrorist' can exist as concepts outside the notion of the norm?

[worm]

But firstly someone has to decide *IF* someone should be emotional or empathise with another's emotion - an idea that comes out of the idea of 'normal', a worthless idea in itself.

[worm]

Bullshit.

Whether a person feels something about their mother being shot dead is dependent on what they felt for their mother before she was shot.

And while it's 'normal' for people to have some sort of feeling about their mother, there's an infinite number of 'normal' reasons why they might not.

The whole idea of sociopath is derived from an idea of what is normal - and yet there is no such thing as normal. One person's response does not have to mirror another's, and it does not make them 'mentally-less' if they don't.

[eFestivals]

It's got nothing to do with 'should'. It's got to do with them not having an emotional response. That's what the word refers to.

the word gives only a negative context - after all, no one says that being a sociopath can be a good thing as well as bad thing, do they?

And so it's an idea that's definable only from first referring to an idea of what is 'normal' ... and yet that 'normal' cannot be defined (apart from by people who wrongly think they know it all), so the idea of what is a sociopath is an even less definable thing than the 'normal' it uses as its basis.

FFS, if you can't get that then you've understood nothing of what you've learnt of what a sociopath might be.

How does this apply to the term 'nutter'? Following your example there is no such thing as being 'nutty' because there is no idea of 'normal'.

You brought up the concept of nutter. I just defined it in more precise terms. You're arguing against your own distinction.

How does it apply? It doesn't apply, at least not how you're doing it. As I said a while back, you presume far too much.

If someone is a nutter then they or their actions might be beyond another person's rational understanding. You are giving (or at least, trying to give) a rationale for those actions, yet the common use of 'nutter' does not have to have any such understanding.

[eFestivals]

Or didn't feel. You'd usually feel something though, so you'd have an emotional reaction to her death, even if it was a positive one.

Psychopaths are devoid of feelings, so from their point of view, all their relationships are superficial. And without empathy, where's your moral compass?

"usually" - a word that destroys the idea of what a sociopath is. Without any solid basis for the idea, the idea becomes worthless.

As I said: some people cry over spilt milk, while others know there's no point crying over spilt milk.

Neither of those ideas is wrong, and therefore the idea that being devoid of feeling about something is a bad thing is also proven as wrong.

Lack of feeling can be an indicator of a deeper problem. It is not by default very definitely a symptom of a problem.

[eFestivals]

Do you believe that 'nutter' and 'terrorist' can exist as concepts outside the notion of the norm?

"terrorist", not necessarily. "nutter", definitely yes (see the loose definition I've just given in reply to worm).

Mental health is a continuum, rather than one thing or the other, and we're all along that continuum, moving back and forth it all the time. It's not 'them nutters' and 'us normal people'.

I agree entirely - which is why I find the idea of a sociopath so laughable. It has no real life meaning or application when put alongside the idea you've laid out there.

[eFestivals]

Firstly, apply this to your notions of nutter and terrorist and see how you're contradicting yourself.

I have from the start, and the only contradictions I'm seeing are your own.

You've arrived at that conclusion by presumption, and by the application of ideas that cannot be meaningfully applied.

Secondly, all you're showing here is that you have no idea of what sociopathic entails or what sociopath means. There is no assumption that people should respond in the same way. A sociopathic condition is defined by the lack of response. If there is no response then the condition is called sociopathic. That's what the word refers to.

Bullshit. Sociopath is by definition a word of only negative context, as in "to be a sociopath is a bad thing".

It has as its basis the idea that there is some sort of 'normal' response that a person should make, and if they don't make it then they must be somehow mentally or emotionally deficient.

There is no substance behind this idea. There is no 'right' emotional response to any situation, we are all different.

[feral chile]

I have from the start, and the only contradictions I'm seeing are your own.

You've arrived at that conclusion by presumption, and by the application of ideas that cannot be meaningfully applied.

Bullshit. Sociopath is by definition a word of only negative context, as in "to be a sociopath is a bad thing".

It has as its basis the idea that there is some sort of 'normal' response that a person should make, and if they don't make it then they must be somehow mentally or emotionally deficient.

There is no substance behind this idea. There is no 'right' emotional response to any situation, we are all different.

[eFestivals]

Of course, there are lots of reasons why non-psychopaths could have lack of emotions, depression etc.

You - like worm - are so fixated by what you've been erroneously taught that you're failing to see much at all.

A lack of emotion does NOT have to be an emotional or mental deficiency, which you've implied it always is by linking it to depression.

People can perfectly rationally simply just not give a f**k.

For example, an ex of mine used to work herself up into a lather over her sister's perceived problems that she had no ability to influence or change (nor her sister either). I didn't give a f**k about them, because there was nothing I could do however much I might have wanted to.

She - 'trained' much the same as you and worm - used to see this as an emotional deficiency, a deliberate or unconsciously-led choice to not care about something she felt I should do. To me it was simply common sense; it wasn't that I didn't give a f**k about her sister, but I don't give a f**k about things that are out of my hands (and in this instance, out of her sister's hands too). They are not something to get emotional about, they 'just are'.

Despite my earlier use of 'worthless' I'm not trying to say that everything about psychology is worthless from every angle, but I am saying it has far less relevance in any real applicable sense than those who have sucked up psychology whole like to give it. While it calls itself a science it's still centuries away from being that. It's pre-enlightenment stuff.

[feral chile]

You - like worm - are so fixated by what you've been erroneously taught that you're failing to see much at all.

A lack of emotion does NOT have to be an emotional or mental deficiency, which you've implied it always is by linking it to depression.

People can perfectly rationally simply just not give a f**k.

For example, an ex of mine used to work herself up into a lather over her sister's perceived problems that she had no ability to influence or change (nor her sister either). I didn't give a f**k about them, because there was nothing I could do however much I might have wanted to.

She - 'trained' much the same as you and worm - used to see this as an emotional deficiency, a deliberate or unconsciously-led choice to not care about something she felt I should do. To me it was simply common sense; it wasn't that I didn't give a f**k about her sister, but I don't give a f**k about things that are out of my hands (and in this instance, out of her sister's hands too). They are not something to get emotional about, they 'just are'.

Despite my earlier use of 'worthless' I'm not trying to say that everything about psychology is worthless from every angle, but I am saying it has far less relevance in any real applicable sense than those who have sucked up psychology whole like to give it. While it calls itself a science it's still centuries away from being that. It's pre-enlightenment stuff.

Edited August 7, 2011 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I'm not saying I believe in the labelling - and I agree entirely with you - what affects one person may have no effect on another - but the definition of a psychopath is that nobody has an effect on them. nothing moves them except self interest. They're incapable of forming emotional attachments, never mind feeling any compassion.

In which case you can surely see that it's an idiot idea, because it applies to no one.

It's not just that someone thinks you're not giving the appropriate emotional reaction in a given situation, it's that you never do.

There is no person who doesn't have some emotion for something. Even if this Norwegian nutter fitted entirely the "self interest" you say above, it's still an emotional response to the situation as he sees it.

And so it DOES come down to an idea of their being a correct and appropriate emotional reaction, because there is always an emotional reaction of some sort

And that's just one 'symptom' in a very long list.

it's a 'symptom' that has NEVER been identified as existing - at least, not in the way as you've said. It's only ever been identified as a "not appropriate" emotional reaction.

There are differences in the brains of psychopaths and non-psychopaths.

Really? For that to be true their first needs to be an unshakable and recognisable idea of what is a psychopath - and there isn't. The ideas that are applied are not good enough to work from on any sort of scientific basis, which means that ideas derived off the back of them are weaker still.

(real) science only came into its own once the vacuous ideas had been expelled, and there was a solid basis to start working up from. The 'sciences of the mind' are still a VERY long way from having a basis to work up other ideas from - the world is still flat.

[worm]

I have from the start.

[worm]

In which case you can surely see that it's an idiot idea, because it applies to no one.

[eFestivals]

You cearly don't get irony.

Oh what a brilliant kop-out for your constantly displayed idiocy.

You've asked whether the guy is a nutter. My opinion is that he's a nutter if they can establish whether he has psychopathic or sociopathic tendancies. Conversely, if he did it for political or emotional reasons then I don't believe that he was being a nutter.

Yes, I know that - your opinion is that he's a nutter if they can establish whether he has psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies.

Unfortunately for you, you're completely unable to give any meaningful - real-life applicable - definition of what any psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies might be, because they're ideas without any basis ... unless you can tell me what 'nortmal' is?

You've then gone on about there being no such thing as normal therefore no such thing as different (i.e. sociopathic or psychopathic). Meaning also that there's no such thing as nutty. In other words, you're playing the semantic card.

So what's your point exactly?

Whooooosh!!

I bow down to you, the man who clearly believes that nothing is beyond his own understanding.

[worm]

...

[eFestivals]

Yes it does apply to some people. Are you seriously suggesting that there are no people that fit the definition of a psychopath or sociopath? If so, you're simply wrong.

then please do tell me who these wonders of mind-science are, who are - to fit your own definition - proven to be wholely lacking all emotion about all things.

The name of just one person will do, along with what proof there is for their complete absence of all emotion.

What's that? You can't give a name and proof of zero emotion after all? I wonder why?

There are people that, for whatever reason, cannot emotionally engage with others.

Yes, there are. There's me for example, who cannot emotionally engage with morons spouting bollocks, like right here.

But that's not no emotion ever, which you have claimed is necessary to fit the definition you gave.

And even with those you might identify as "cannot emotionally engage with [some] others" are merely operating emotion in a different way (one that must be outside of your comprehension if you believe it does not exist at all) - and so only "not appropriate" can apply, which first requires someone to decide what is an appropriate display of emotion.

Psychologists, on the other hand, generally turn to bollocks through creating elaborate and exciting fantasies based upon power.

corrected for you.

Edited August 8, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

Unfortunately for you, you're completely unable to give any meaningful - real-life applicable - definition of what any psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies might be, because they're ideas without any basis ... unless you can tell me what 'nortmal' is?

Edited August 8, 2011 by worm

[worm]

then please do tell me who these wonders of mind-science are, who are - to fit your own definition - proven to be wholely lacking all emotion about all things.

Edited August 8, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

I have given a definition, it's just that you won't accept it.

Oh dear - the words "real life applicable" seem to have passed you by yet again.

A definition which cannot be applied to anything - which is the case with the definition you've given - is useful for what exactly?

But here's the irony I'm on about:

'Unfortunately for you, you're completely unable to give any meaningful - real-life applicable - definition of what any nutty tendencies might be, because they're ideas without any basis, unless you can tell me what 'normal' is?'

So it's one rule for one and another for another. That's your perogative, but it isn't going to get us very far in a discussion is it.

It's not irony you're seeing but your own stupidity.

Even psychology has the same take on 'nutty' as I'm using here - it's its very starting point. If you've failed to understand that then you've failed to understand anything at all about psychology.

I can't be bothered to repeat what I've said which five year olds can grasp. I'll see if you're able to work it out while I'm away from my desk.

Also, I disagree that you need a definition of normal and abnormal. Sociopathic doesn't mean abnormal. It comes from the terms social and pathos. You know fine well what social means, while pathos refers to an internal drive that leads towards nothingness/ death. Being sociopathic means to have your psychological processess driven towards nothingness. Being motivated by a dangerous or painful emotional conflict that leads to destroying your social relationships is quite the opposite of being sociopathic. The destruction will stop once the emotional process has subsided, but there is no emotion driving the sociopathic psychological drive.

Yes, I know what 'social' is - it's an idea, again an idea without a solid basis, that nothing meaningful can be worked from. Or are you saying that there's a 'normal' social response for any situation? PMSL.

I see that you've moved the goalposts again. Anyone following this thread might somehow end up with the idea that you're making it up as you go along. And they wouldn't be wrong.

[worm]

I see that you've moved the goalposts again.

Edited August 8, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

No, I'm repeatedly explaining what a sociopath is with absolute consistency to someone who hasn't the faintest clue.

I have far more than "hasn't the faintest clue".

It's far more fun to work precisely of your own words - words that have none of the consistency you claim for them. You've said that a sociopath has no emotion about anything, and now you're back to no emotion about just some particular things: even in your own rather dull mind it can't be both of those unless you've suddenly suffered brain death, can it?

No school of psychology uses the term 'nutty' because its idiosyncratic rubbish.

I didn't say it did, did I?

And yet the very basis of psychology has evolved from that idea. Without an idea of 'nutty' there could and would be no psychology.

They all understand the terms psychopathic and sociopatic though as they are legitimate, distinct and well established thought processes.

Yes, and right wing nutters who go around issuing death also have legitimate, distinct and well established thought processes. It's no basis for the establishment of what are good thought processes.

They have been evidenced and verified.

oh yes, so well evidenced that you can't reference a single person to whom those ideas as you've explained them apply. Why is that?

So again, what is this 'normal' from which the meaning of 'nutty' can be derived?

Who knows? Who even cares?

'Nutty' is there all the same, and doesn't derive from 'normal' - it's only your stupidity which has you thinking it does.

But were you lying to yourself when you've posted "that's nuts" (as you have done in the past)?

Now, do I have to give you the first 10 seconds of any worthwhile (as worthwhile as they get, anyway) psychology course, so you can for the first time start to get to grips with what this thread is actually about, rather than what your very limited intellectual processes are currently telling you it's about?

[worm]

You've said that a sociopath has no emotion about anything

Edited August 8, 2011 by worm

[worm]

'Nutty' is there all the same, and doesn't derive from 'normal' - it's only your stupidity which has you thinking it does.