30.09.2020 Ovi Team Ovi Story Ovi Guide Newsletter Submissions Partners Links Contact The Article Nobody Wants To Read

by Alexandra Pereira

Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author I know that I can be crucified for this article. But I don’t really care. It is my opinion, I have been thinking like that (and about that) for a long time. I think we should all consider it seriously and try to develop serious efforts in this sense. This is really about our balance as societies and individuals, and the prevalence of constructive and positive bonds over deception and global destruction.



We human beings know instinctively and through our life experiences that there are human beings among us who have moral holes, a moral vacuum, lack of empathy, extreme and destructive hate inside them, very cunning manipulative skills – all these characteristics harm both other individuals and the society, mining its long-term goals, destroying solidarity, spreading unseen or not witnessed crime and persecution, destroying bonds, potentials, dreams and lives. We cannot live deluded in wonderland saying to ourselves that such humans don’t exist. On the other hand, once we admit that such humans do exist, our knowledge brings responsibility with it: we have to recognize how harmful are the consequences of their actions and take serious measures to prevent those from happening.



Anybody who studied a bit of psychology or the functioning of the human mind knows that we can differentiate clearly several types of human personalities, and while many are constructive or innocuous, a few of them are extremely toxic, destructive by nature, cruel, unchangeable, extremely manipulative and harming to others. We know this is true, and the harm and pain that these personalities provoke in others, the destruction they leave behind them as well as their impunity, cannot be collectively ignored. It would be extremely irresponsible to do so.



Most people commit mistakes, are occasionally selfish, have flaws, have feelings, have guilt, have reparation needs, have dreams, have doubts, have occasional conflicts (and not extremely unsurpassable ones, as they also have a sense of negotiation, flexibility and empathy), mostly try to build positive relationships and bonds, they can lie occasionally about minor things with no greatly harming consequences, above all they love truth and its priceless outcomes for their lives, they have empathy, have feelings, have a sense of the right and wrong, have affective resonance and sensibility, have problems and dilemmas, suffer, have sense of humor, have creativity, have a sense of fidelity, a sense of community and a sense of responsibility, and a need to trust and bond in spite of anything.



We do know that the level of negative impact of the most harming personalities is profoundly and qualitatively different: they don’t feel guilt (but are experts in taking advantage of guilty feelings of others), they don’t have a sense of right and wrong (which allows any behaviour to be “legitimate”), they don’t feel or hardly feel anything (but can mimic human emotions masterfully), don’t have empathy and can’t feel true sadness, are unscrupulous, they hurt compulsively, emotionally blood-suck others, and have a deep love for lies and deception, a fatal attraction to power, they attack other humans’ self-esteem, self-confidence and reality perception in several ways, are sadistic, manipulate and cheat, and are driven by destruction impulses and death desires. They represent the dark side of humanity, where we don’t want to look in. And we know all those things about them also scientifically – it is not hard to understand, as it is part of everyone’s common experience.



Most people are in fact qualitatively different from psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists - and that is what allows the latter to so drastically harm, manipulate and influence others, because they know it too (and are masters of using it for their own purposes, which logics often escapes most humans). We know scientifically that common people have relatively few defences against this. This is proven and felt by many. And this is something we can’t ignore once we know it. It is extremely urgent that we develop clear diagnosis methods for such personalities.



We have personality tests but we know that such individuals usually lie/deceive during both interviews and tests. We have polygraphs (which are expensive, not easily accessible instruments and not 100% reliable) based on merely physiological signs, but we know that especially these harming individuals can cheat the polygraphs. We know that we just have to try a little bit harder, and such instruments can be available… if we want to! The answer will probably come from both genetics and neurosciences’ research. We have detected the structures in our brain responsible for empathy and morality that took us a little bit closer. We also know the typical brain patterns of common people when they are depressed, and we know that the most harmful personalities can’t get depressed (although they can mimic cry at times, specially to manipulate others into doing, feeling or thinking something “useful” for them).



We know that we will be able to find at least specific brain functioning patterns (areas of brain activation, electrical patterns) in given situations, specific of these individuals, and the genetic characteristics of these personalities (genetic proof would probably be found faster and more unmistakably). We’re just this close, and we just need a push! Above all, we need will! Once we can do it, it will have profound effects on the way we see ourselves and the ones surrounding us. Once we can do it, there’s no return – thank God – to the illusory innocence of perverse masks and deceiving realities, but there will be abundant space and protection for the kind at heart, and for goodness and solidarity and constructive goals to grow both socially and inside our homes.



The key seems to be not in “perfecting” human races’ phenotype through genetics, like the Nazis wanted to, but in identifying the genotype of the most harmful human beings. We have to have objective ways of identifying the most harming and deceiving personalities. It is a matter of protecting citizens, but also a matter of survival of our societies at large. These individuals can commit personal crimes, social crimes and crimes against humanity. More than that: it would lead to deep social changes. That is why it demands political courage and determination, not only research, to do this. We wouldn’t have paradise on earth, but we would surely have more pleasant and safe societies. States would save billions in expenses. Nonetheless, some State members wouldn’t feel safe, as they could be subjected to such instruments too. This can be one of the obstacles to the development of these instruments.



Let’s be clear. I am not talking here about many teenager delinquents who act out. I’m not even referring to people who live in extremely poor social conditions and are forced to steal food or do something which is not completely legal because otherwise they won’t survive. I am not talking about them simply because many of these people don’t have such personalities. I am talking about deeply democratic and truthful instruments. These instruments do not serve law and political control; they serve humans and the goals and dreams of our collective societies (making them more liveable) and our individuals.



Because I am talking about the most harming, dangerous and deceiving personalities among us - the ones justice cannot prove or does not find enough evidence of their crimes, and personality tests cannot clarify while interviews don’t work because of manipulation and incredible acting skills by these individuals. Because they are qualitatively different and unchangeable, I truly believe there is a genetic basis for these personalities. Brain patterns and functioning (especially when asked certain questions) would prove the activity of such genetic traits, its characteristics and answers to the surrounding environment. Human justice is based on facts. Facts always demand a more or less high level of concreteness or scientific certainty. There’s no way around it.



Of course we could always turn to God’s mercy and justice. But this not only isn’t satisfactory, as it allows fellow humans to keep suffering at the hands of other humans. Giving a recent example: I’m sure that many people asked God to have mercy (and apply divine justice) of all the Nazis, including Mengele. Human justice was not applied. The results we are starting to uncover reveal that Mengele, for example, continued to harm other human beings at least 20-35 years after the Holocaust – this included medical and genetic crimes against others, with consequences at all human levels, at least for the inhabitants of an entire city, the city of Cândido Godoi, in Brazil. And certainly his actions included more details we don’t even know about yet.



Mengele was one of these personalities, as was Hitler, but we can find them in everyday bastards who harm and lie compulsively, serial killers, domestic abusers, white-collar criminals, paedophiles, rapists, extremely manipulative personalities, harmful narcissists and many people who… did not commit their crimes yet. We should think about it and demand something – something fair which we can achieve scientifically, which can avoid a great slice of human suffering, spiritual hindering and the jeopardizing of social well-being at all levels. If we can identify such individuals, our justice can be much more effective, our prevention capabilities can be much more efficient, first of all.



The priority should be identifying the ones who seem healthy but are extremely poisonous. Many traditionally considered “mentally hill” people hardly represent any serious danger for others or the society – we keep them away because we don’t want to see them. But the most harmful personalities are often among us and apparently “over-adapted”, while surreptitiously or progressively provoking depression, anger, anxiety, pain, devastation, grief and desperation in others. And only after identifying them should we start thinking if science can bring empathy to individuals who don’t have empathy and remorse to someone who has no remorse. I have no doubts that this is much more pressing than finding a cure for schizophrenia. * * * * * * Psychopaths Among Us, by Robert Hercz Articles on Psychopaths and Narcissists



Resources on Narcissism



More on Narcissists



Narcissistic Mothers



Eight Ways To Spot Emotional Manipulation Psychopathy, Its Devastating And Broad Social Consequences



Twilight of the Psychopaths, by Dr. Kevin Barrett



psychopath sociopath narcissist Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author Comments(76) Get it off your chest Name: Comment: ( comments policy ) Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-14 14:51:17 Some musings on the cover image: in his The Painter of Modern Life and Other Essays, (where he introduced the very term “modernity” to the world) the famous poet and modern art theorist Charles Baudelaire describes the ideal artist as being essentially a narcissist. He does not seem to consider it a psychological disorder; rather, he adopts a Shakespearean-Freudian approach. It was Shakespeare that pointed out that without the mirror of art (or a pond, as the case may be) we would be the poorer in self-knowledge because we would not be able to see our own faces; and it was Freud, much later than Baudelaire, who had the insight that artists are better able than most people to bring to the surface the sub-conscious with its socially forbidden desires, thus sublimating them via art. The example he gives is that of Delacroix whom he eulogizes as a great hero of art. Indeed, a narcissist will do absolutely anything for narcissistic supply (attention, admiration, etc.), even benefit mankind, even create great works of art which surely beats sadism and masochism. Be that as it may, Dostoyevsky, another great artist, had a slightly different but equally intriguing viewpoint on creativity, crime, punishment, vis a vis freedom thus expressed: place man in a wholly deterministic universe and he will blow it up simply to prove that he remains free. Moreover, there is another side to the coin of the myth of Narcisus, and it is that of the myth of Echo. The former points to extreme loneliness, the latter to co-dependence. Food for thought! Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-14 15:12:03 P.S. The above musings lead one back to Aristotle and that great narcissist Nero. Rather than sublimating his repressed desires and achieve a catharsis via art as Aristotle suggests in his The Poetics, the pseudo-artist Nero, Mengele and Nazi like, preferred to have people murdered for real on the stage and thus achieve more of a sadistic satisfaction. Here too it is Dostoyevsky who via his novels gives us the insight that to deny love and go for manipulative power is to become a sado-masochist. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-14 17:03:32 P.S.S. It is also misguided to blame God for creating us free and refusing to stop the sado-masochist, for without that freedom no love is possible either, no repentance and no redemption either, there is only deterministic sado-masochism. That too can be gathered in any of Dostoyevsky's novels. AP 2009-02-14 17:05:40 Mr. Paparella: There is another very clinical distinction between "good" and "bad" Narcisssism. The Narcissist as we describe it in Psychopathology is not simply someone who needs narcissistic supply (everyone does, one way or another) nor what is often described as Narcissist in the common sense, it is actually someone very close to the Psychopath (DSM authors have thought about abolishing the distinction altogether). Other times they call one or the other "Anti-Social" (precisely because they hardly "benefit mankind", when we talk about being socially desirable or constructive). Let's say the point is not needing narcissistic supply or not - it is the way you get it, and a few other variables.

To answer the cover question: all specialists agree that they are qualitatively different, and many people know that intuitively. Others can't accept it because of "entire humankind goodness" delusions. As long as that doesn't change... hard luck will we have. AP 2009-02-14 17:10:50 errata - Narcissism

Works such as the one by the Polish psychologist Andrzej Lobaczewski go straight to the point. Otherwise, who really cares about pointing and knowing the reason for the most harming evil among us? As long as we don't face the beast, I am sorry for our destiny. AP 2009-02-14 17:23:10 Another last and very important note:

Only a small percentage of these individuals (narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths) commit crimes or murders, but that DOESN'T MEAN IN ANY WAY that their daily actions are less harmful. That's why their clear identification is so urgent. AP 2009-02-14 17:42:49 Also, these harmful personalities exist across all cultures, races and language groups. We know that there are non-humane fellows among us humans - and that's the only real distinction we should make. AP 2009-02-14 18:18:37 I should also add, Mr. Paparella, that I don't know if it is God's blame or not, the fact is that such people do exist and need to be clearly identified. And no, love doesn't need sadism to exist, actually such personalities can destroy love with a blink. I am sorry to say. But you should know it already. They are predators among us - and this is quite probably genetic. They harm families, colleagues and social groups. They have a group of faithful followers (estimated in 12-16% of a population) which sometimes are not pure psychopaths, but defend them because they have other characteropathies or are just too afraid of them. Although a minority, the social consequences are devastating. Even because these people are many times found in leading and managing positions.

If we leave hate free and unsupervised, it will feed on love in no instant. That's actually what has been happening for a long time. And that's also why all well-intentioned speeches about peace and love and redemption haven't worked in practical terms. Sorry. It's the truth. AP 2009-02-14 18:31:58 What is sado-masochist is to have the instruments to make our societies really democratic and prevent a lot of human suffering in the first place, still decide not to use them.

This doesn't mean denying love, no, it means protecting it and giving it space to grow. Love is fragile when faced with hate, hate is strong and deceiving as hell. Or maybe it is the opposite - or we wouldn't be on the brink of having such instruments. Mr. Paparella, there are evil humans among us: I mean truly evil, qualitatively different (quite probably genetically different, and different in terms of the brain functioning which allows guilt and empathy a AP 2009-02-14 18:36:55 and true feeling to happen). If we don't solve this and identify them clearly, our societies will continue to be hypocritical and full of lies, and these personalities will continue to rule over most of us (and sadly harm most of us, one way or another). AP 2009-02-14 18:47:43 I don't know if you understood me fully and the complete extent of the implications of this problem: these people "look" perfectly normal, sometimes even hyper-adapted. They never seek help, they never feel mentally sick (others around them are affected and sometimes seek help), but they somehow deep down feel that they are different from most of us (and try to hide it). They have two sides and hide their dark side very well. They cheat, manipulate, hurt and feed on the emotions of most of us. Literally.

So if we found the genetic problem with trisomy 21, why not the genetic problem of evilness with no remorse? We think we can and we will. And that is tremendly urgent. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-14 19:21:46 Ms. Pereira, I’m not sure you got Dostoyevsky’s point which is that to manipulate the genes in order to eliminate the evil ones, is ultimately not so different from the goal of the Nazi: to create the super-race or the perfect race, a race that being perfect could not make mistakes and had therefore a right to exterminate the inferior races. Talking of socio-pathologogy! What Dostoyevsky is saying is that without freedom you don’t have a human being but a robot parading as one. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-14 19:28:15 As for Baudelaire’s judgment that Delacroix was the touchstone of artistic greatness, here are a few excerpts from the above mentioned book by Baudelaire: “One of our painter?s [i.e., Delacroix?s] greatest concerns during his last years was the judgment of posterity and the uncertain durability of his works. One moment his ever-sensitive imagination would take fire at the idea of an immortal glory, and then he would speak with bitterness at the fragility of canvases and colors. At other times he would enviously cite the old masters who almost all of them had the good fortune to be translated by skilful engravers whose needle or burin had learnt to adapt itself to the nature of their talent, and he keenly regretted that he had not found his own translator…(continued below) Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-14 19:28:42 His works contain nothing but devastation, massacres, conflagrations; everything bears witness against the eternal and incorrigible barbarity of man. Burnt and smoking cities, slaughtered victims, ravished women, the very children cast beneath the hooves of horses or menaced by the dagger of a distracted mother?the whole body of this painter?s works, I say, is like a terrible hymn composed in honour of destiny and irremediable anguish… Delacroix was passionately in love with passion, and coldly determined to seek the means of expressing it in the most visible way…A hater of the masses, he really only thought of them as iconoclasts, and the acts of violence perpetrated upon several of his works in 1848 were ill-suited to convert him to the political sentimentalism of our times…For finally it must be said?since to me this seems but one more reason for praise?that Eugene Delacroix, for all that he was a man of genius, or because he was a man of complete genius, had much of the dandy about him. He himself used to admit that in his youth he had thrown himself with delight into the most material vanities of dandyism, and he used to tell with a smile, but not without a touch of conceit, how, with the collaboration of his friend Bonington, he had laboured energetically to introduce a taste for English cut in clothes and shoes among the youth of fashion. I take it that this will not seem to you an idle detail…Delacroix once sent for me to come and see him on purpose to rap me sharply over the knuckles about a disrespectful article that I had perpetrated on the subject of that spoiled child of chauvinism [the artist Charlet, who Delacroix enjoyed.] I vain did I try to explain to him that it was not the Charlet of the early days that I was censuring, but the Charlet of the decadence. But I never managed to win my pardon.” Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-14 19:30:02 (continued from above) What Baudelaire is doing here is describing the characteristic traits of the narcissist. Baudelaire would have been horrified at any suggestion that Delacroix’s feelings of artistic self-importance weren’t backed up by his actual performance with paint and canvas. Furthermore, Baudelaire never suggests in any way that Delacroix was a pathological exaggerator; in fact, he repeatedly emphasizes the artist’s aristocratic reserve in company. Nevertheless the essay in question is quite explicit about Delacroix’s feelings of grandiosity and self-importance. Which are the traits of a narcissist? Modern psychologists identify at least 9; possessing at least five makes one a narcissist but as Baudelaire, Shakespeare and Freud would suggest there is a positive kind of narcissism when it is sublimated via art. However, sublimation can only be accomplished by a free creature with free will; free to the point of even rejecting God and preferring to be a monster and a master in hell than a creature in Paradise, to paraphrase Milton. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-14 19:33:21 Delacroix clearly was obsessed with fantasies of a fearsome power or omnipotence.

In fact, what Baudelaire gently steps around is that a number of Delacroix's most famous canvases (including Sardanapalus, The Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople, and the Massacre of Chios) are explicit fantasies of sadism. Each shows a group of victims juxtaposed with an all-powerful male authority figure that looks on their sufferings with an arrogant contempt, calm indifference, or savage hostility. AP 2009-02-14 19:46:57 No one mentioned manipulating genes, first of all we would need to identify them. That identification alone would be a tremendous help for justice, but for our societies as well.

"Dostoyevsky is saying is that without freedom you don’t have a human being but a robot parading as one."

Well Mr. Paparella, first of all this only has to do with freedom in the sense that truly humane human beings are still not free from the chains of exploitation. They have natural predators. Second, yes: we can say that psychopaths, sociopaths and harmful narcissists are human robots, but much more intelligent than the robots we presently have. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-14 19:48:34 P.S. Modern psychologists identify nine traits of narcissists:

Narcissistic Trait #1: Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)?

Narcissistic Trait #2: Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion

Narcissistic Trait #3: Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions)?

Narcissistic Trait #4: Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation -or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply). Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-14 19:49:06 Narcissistic Trait # 5: Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her expectations.

Narcissistic Trait #6: Is interpersonally exploitative?, i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends

Narcissistic Trait #7: Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others.



Narcissistic Trait #8: Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her



Narcissistic Trait #9: Arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted"

A careful reading of Baudelaire would suggest that Delacroix possessed at least five of those nine traits and that certifies him as a narcissist. No narcissism, no Delacroix either. Delacroix freely chose to sublimate his narcissism into art. Only a human being with free will can do that. AP 2009-02-14 19:50:58 And leave Baudelaire and Delacroix alone. Psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists specially, they hardly ever even refer to their inner world (hopes, dreams, fears, etc.) or to memories ("you know, this reminded of something that happened to me a long time ago..." is a sentence you'll never hear from a narcissist's mouth). AP 2009-02-14 19:56:19 But Baudelaire was no psychologist, Mr. P. And if you read, for example, the link describing Narcissist mothers above, you'll have a much more correct picture of how they act on a daily basis. There are much more nuances to this than the ones described in DSM. Identifying (Delacroix or whoever) as a narcissist or a psychopath would not extinguish him, it would only protect others from him. But I have my deep doubts that he was a malignant Narcissist anyway. Still this is not about art nor Delacroix, it is about profound social concerns. AP 2009-02-14 20:01:25 Mr. Paparella, Psychopaths and Narcissists don't waste time fantasizing about sadism, they are sadistic full stop. Actually, they have a very poor inner life. Also, it was more than banal for painters to portrait battles in those days... AP 2009-02-14 20:12:18 What actually worries me is: the deep social implications of all this and all the lives destroyed (up until today) by malignant and harmful personalities.

You undertand the implications of someone having no guilt and using the guilt and emotions of others to feed from those? Or having no sense of shame, no conscience? The consequences are totally devastating.

AP 2009-02-14 20:16:49 errata - understand

Actually, they are so centered in immediate gains and benefits (with no morality involved whatsoever) that they hardly think about the past or the long-term future. Sometimes they can... invent dreams that they actually didn't have during the night, but they prove to be very poor in content, always related with immediate selfish satisfaction. AP 2009-02-14 20:24:48 Furthermore, I am fully convinced that sooner or later we will have to face this question - as a matter of collective survival. Do we identify them or not?

And to use your expressions, if God gave us genetics and brain scans it wasn't certainly for Mengele's experiments, but for something far more helpful, ethic and necessary. AP 2009-02-14 20:31:55 I mean, we can close our eyes and say "let them be anonymous, it's all part of the wonderful human diversity!", but:

1. well it isn't wonderful, it is totally scary and awful, and devastating for millions of us

2. that tactic of closing our eyes hasn't worked well up until now, has it?

3. it is even doubtful that it represents actual "human diversity" (as they don't feel guilt, remorse and many other qualities that we find typical of a human being), it is more like a genetic distortion, a very harmful one.

AP 2009-02-14 21:31:57 "Remember, most of them don't psychically hurt people, so this is about mental and emotional domination. To accomplish these objectives, they will use their mask of sanity to place themselves in positions within your community. These positions may include school boards, charitable organizations, churches, politics, law enforcement, or any position which they believe will offer them power over others. These are the places where most psychopaths end up, not jail.



Some researchers agree that the traits exhibited by these people produce a division stronger than age, race, and religion, which places them in a new category of people. In other words, these people are almost not human as we know it. The word antisocial does not describe someone who prefers to sit at home rather than attend gatherings. More accurately it means antihuman. Most people can't bring themselves to understand the mind-set of a psychopath. Dr. Hare explained, "Imagining the world as the psychopath experiences it is close to impossible."

From http://www.thehiddenevil.com/psychopathy.asp AP 2009-02-14 21:34:10 But I find interesting your own interest in Narcissist personalities, Mr. Paparella :) Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-14 21:47:21 Indeed, my interest began since I read Dostoyevsky's The Possessed. All the sociopathic negative characteristics you mention are superbly described there and their root cause too: nihilism parading as a fanatical ideology, supposedly the cure for everything that hails the world. That Dostoyevsky could have been so accurate before the actual advent of Bolshevism and Communism in Russia makes him a prophet. That's what prophets do: they don't predict the future as some surmise; rather, they warn of what's to come unless we change our misguided ways. The point of Delacroix is simple: he could have gone either way but decided to sublimate his tendencies into art. He could do that because he was a human being and had free will and was pre-determined by his genes. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-14 21:50:44 Errata: was not pre-determined by his genes. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-14 22:01:54 "But I find interesting your own interest in Narcissist personalities, Mr. Paparella :)"



Whatever the insinuation may be in such a statement let's remember that you brought up the subject which indeed seems to be of great interest to you, not I, and despite the fact that you predicted in the title that nobody would wish to read it, it was read and reflected upon by at least one person, probably many nore who don't wish to dare an opinion. That's too bad because that's what makes a magazine like Ovi interesting and even exciting: the free and civil exchange of opinions on various cultural phenomena. Again, what I attempted to do in my comments was simply to show the other side of the coin you showed the readers: narcissism too can be sublimated and in then it becomes a positive drive. It that was no understood, then I failed to explain myself well, and so be it. AP 2009-02-14 22:14:39 Mr. Paparella: malignant Narcissism is never sublimated, other humans are made targets of it.

The title comes from the fact that many humans don't want to face the reality of irreversibly evil humans among us - simple as that. They don't even want to think about it, some of us can't even conceive evil in our minds, coming from someone pretty much similar to us (we think). That's human. But we should get over it. If we don't think about it, we won't help to solve many problems in our world.

Sure it is of interest to me, I think people who have studied and had to deal with these personalities have an important educative role, and it should be of interest to anyone deeply concerned with solving irreversible evilness in our world, the digression on Delacroix and Narcissism was yours (trying to prove how it can "benefit" us - I don't agree at all!). Actually, I find your position very darkly ironic. Anyway, no, evil does not benefit anyone. Pretty obvious for most of us...

AP 2009-02-14 22:19:01 And it is because it does not benefit anyone (these personalities can be well adapted, the fact that they don't murder doesn't mean that they aren't toxic and damage others on a daily basis - that's actually the way they relate to others...) that such highly deceiving personalities should be identified. You don't agree? Well I expected that. AP 2009-02-14 22:23:26 I think it's beyond necessary, it is urgent. I am not alone.

You think it's okay "leave those interesting people anonymous and free". I think that's highly irresponsible, and can border the criminal too. Alexander Mikhaylov 2009-02-14 23:27:20 To Mrs. Pereira: I cannot imagine why you should be crucified for expressing such thoughts – in my humble opinion; some of them sound perfectly legitimate. I also believe there are plenty of individuals among us who masquerade themselves as humans, when in reality they are not. Of course, ‘genetic cleansing of psychopaths’ sounds like Nazi idea par excellence (I believe it was one of their aims, among others, to freed humanity from mentally unstable characters) on the other hand there are dangerous individuals who are roaming the Earth freely and… what can be done about them? Alexander Mikhaylov 2009-02-14 23:37:56 A weak point of your argumentation is however this: you sound rather vague when you outline good and bad (I know, you place great faith in psychology, for from that point of view everything seems quite clear), on the other hand, it sounds as if you wish to leave your statement open to wide interpretations. In the other words, - who is to decide what is good and what is bad, what is moral and what is not? Psychopath, or an army of psychopaths, or the whole state, ruled by psychopaths, armed with genetic technology and having sufficient power (military, religious etc), might just as well take an exception to certain norms and morals, proclaiming them as ‘outdated ones’ . Alexander Mikhaylov 2009-02-14 23:44:21 I believe modern psychology is not sufficient tool in defining moral norms and outlining consequent actions. For one thing, modern psychology (as well as the whole modern psychiatry at that) strives to become (or it has already become) a religion in itself, religion, that disregards spiritual, moral and cultural aspects altogether, a sort of religion without God… Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-15 00:50:03 "There are things which a man is afraid to tell even to himself, and every decent man has a number of such things stored away in his mind."



Ms. Pereira, that quote of Dostoyevsky means that either I failed in explaining the other side of the coin of narcissism which indeed in its negative aspects and by itself is an abomination, no one disputes that, or that Dostoyevsky is on target; there are things that one cannot possibly agree with because it would mean to reveal things that one will not reveal even to oneself. In Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground the underground man from St. Petersburgh is indeed corageous and honest enough to reveal terrible things about himself to himself. I highly reccomend reading those notes. After reading them one begins to have an inkling about free will vis a vis sado-masochism, and how and why the ability to make a u turn remains a potential of every human being, even alienated monsters such as the underground man and the ideological fanatics of The Possessed. I first read Notes from Underground in 1962 and have never stopped reading Dostoyevsky time and again. This is not a digression, far from it. Alexander Mikhaylov 2009-02-15 03:49:42 To Dr. Paparella: Just a foot note. The funny thing is that I was born in St. Petersburg (back then Leningrad) but in any case, to understand Dostoevsky fully one must see and feel an aura of that city AP 2009-02-15 05:09:45 Mr. Mikhaylov, I thought I had made it clear that psychology can't help much in this from now on, it could provide the first frames of understanding (it helped understanding what was wrong with psychopaths, in what way were they different and how that has disastrous consequences... so it actually helped a lot!) but it really can't solve the problem (don't agree that it is a religion either - and I don't think it's psychology that defines what's good and bad around the world, but much more common sense and the normal functioning of a human being with the whole palette of feelings inside him). It's more a problem of neurosciences and genetics now. Actually, for example you can already spot a psychopath pretty accurately with a brain scan - everyone else has particular brain scan patterns when given emotionally charged words to read... everyone except psychopaths, but you can't force them to undergo such tests. Anyway, many researchers now agree that the condition must be genetic in origin (as all the conditions which imply that one doesn't have common feelings), and if we can already know who are the sex offenders living in our neighbourhood, I think it would be pretty advisable to know for sure who are the psychopaths and narcissists among us too. Believe me. AP 2009-02-15 05:21:43 "why the ability to make a u turn remains a potential of every human being"

Mr. Paparella, I appreciate your optimism, but trust me, if you can make a psychopath or a narcissist make that u turn and know more than all the specialists who have tried it before, I wish you very good luck and I suppose you deserve a Nobel then... You want to know why there is no u turn with these personalities? It's quite simple actually. To make u turns you need emotions. There's no repairment nor regret nor guilt nor self-responsibility with them. Actually, there's no conscience in the way we understand it. All constructive things are born from our deep need to repair and our ability to feel. If one doesn't feel, there's no u turn Mr. Paparella. Not that we know of. What's incredible is that we didn't even manage to protect ourselves from them yet, I mean collectively, even less find the u turn. And believe me - we should first protect ourselves, only after that try to discover if there's any u turn for that. AP 2009-02-15 05:34:14 And protecting ourselves doesn't mean genetic cleansing of psychopaths, not even genetic manipulation (though it would be highly advisable, if we try to prevent other much harmless genetic conditions too, to prevent psychopathy if we could... sorry to say that not all of God's creation is good or useful in any way!). Protecting ourselves means identifying clearly such individuals - it would not only help courts in many cases, but also most of us daily, as we would be prepared to deal with them and protect ourselves better - still I must be honest and say that I'm not sure if a healthy human can ever be prepared to deal with such personalities. Not even professionals are. AP 2009-02-15 05:42:43 First of all, they Never ask for help (often their victims do). Second, most professionals run away from having to deal with them because they end up... harmed by them! One contradictory thing about them is that while they don't have feelings (or precisely because of that), they're incredibly aware of the feelings of others - most often they will end up miming issues of the professional himself, or then "pretending to feel something positive/feel better" just to please him.

There's no one about whom this sentence is more true than these personalities:

"They always know more about yourself than you do, they know things about you that you're not even aware of"

Summing up: they are natural predators inside our species, and always (I mean always) behave as such. AP 2009-02-15 05:49:52 And we have to solve this issue, as it is connected with many problems we face on our globe. If we keep thinking that "all humans are essentially good" and can recover by magical means, I'm afraid that can be our collective death sentence. AP 2009-02-15 05:57:41 We have this deep need to trust and bond, but that's different from being totally irresponsible towards our species and our societies. Since we have the knowledge about these conditions, their mechanisms and devastating consequences, we can't close our eyes. Only if we are totally irresponsible. That's what I think. AP 2009-02-15 06:03:59 Love and faith can't solve anything of this, I'm sorry to say - except love for humane humans. Otherwise, we'll sacrifice generations after generations, and such personalities quite likely will lead us collectively to destruction - if not to complete destruction, to much avoidable suffering and millions of destroyed lives and potentials, that's for sure. AP 2009-02-15 06:10:12 Some reports indicate that the number of these personalities has been growing consistently. If the problem is genetic, it can be out of our hands by now. Something we should think seriously about. N. L. Wilbur 2009-02-15 11:04:01 Hmmmm. Use genetics to figure out who is a psycho... Great idea.

But really, I totally thought, with all the build-up, that you were about to launch into an analysis about genocidal dictators or rapists or Wall Street CEOs. Instead, you included all of these -- pretty much anyone who fits that general category "bad." I'm disappointed. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-15 15:55:13 In 1970, Otto Kernberg coined the term, "malignant narcissism" to distinguish it from the sublimated narcisism of artists; he pointed out that the antisocial personality was fundamentally narcissistic and without morality. Malignant narcissism includes a sadistic element, creating, in essence, a sadistic psychopath.



Enter Freud who believed that without sublimation of this inherent deviant narcissism civilization as we know it is done for. Enter Michelangelo who has the origin of it all on the Sistine Chapel. Enter Dostoyevsky who in his Crime and Punishment has the same analysis of the sado-masochistic sociopath fully described but he remains a human being despite it all because created in the image of God. The principal anomaly consists in losing that image or having no mirror to compare it with what ought to be normal. Enter Voltaire who avers that even if there were no God we'd have to invent one or sooner or later we'd be treating human beings as nothing else but complicated machines whose negative featured can be manipulated and fixed in a deterministic universe. Enter Descartes and his rationalism. Enough material here for a narcissistic little article in which we can discuss the narcisism of everybody else but the author of the article. Jung called it projection. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-15 20:00:22 P.S. Enter professor of psychology John Teske who in his lecture on Neuromythology: Brains and Stories has this insight to share: "Ultimately it is our engagement with the metanarratives

of religious imagination by which we address a set of existentially necessary but

ontologically unanswerable metaphysical questions that ultimately form the basis of

religious belief. How might we form a more integrated sense of how a multi-leveled understanding of evolutionary biology, history, neuroscience, psychology, narrative, and mythology might actually form a coherent picture of the human spirit? Neuropsychological functions involved in constructing and responding to the narratives by which we form our identities and build meaningful lives include memory, attention,

emotional marking, and temporal sequencing. It is the neural substrate, the emotional shaping, and the narrative structuring of higher cognitive function that provide the sine

qua non for the construction of meaning, relationship, morality, and purpose that extend beyond our personal boundaries, both spatial and temporal. These provide a contingent solution to disunities of mind, the construction of self and identity, and the alienation and fragmentation of personhood, relationship and community, but a solution that is likely only accomplished with widely varying degrees of success, and may include a range of

fictionalization and self-deception in all of us." AP 2009-02-15 20:59:30 I'm afraid, Mr. Paparella, that the fact that someone has morality and feelings (or not) can be genetically determined, not determined by "narratives" (pretty much like how many toes you're born with or the colour of your hair). More and more clues point that way.

Mr. Wilbur: Of course those you mentioned are included in the category, but there are many more. The more powerful their position in a society, the more harmful they can be (affecting more people), but they can be equally harmful inside families and smaller groups. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-15 22:30:00 And that is why Charles Manson does not understand why he has been in jail for forty years or so. To those who come to interview him he says that he was born a monster, it is in his genes and if there is any responsibility it belongs to society who failed to fix those bad genes. What he is presenting is the other side of Rousseau's "we are all born innocent and then society corrupts us." Misguided but logical! AP 2009-02-16 00:34:10 Misguided only in the sense that it serves his purposes: defend that he should be released. The fact that it can be in his genes doesn't directly mean that he should be released, because he commited crimes anyway. But we find more and more plausible that it can in fact be in his genes, it can result from a sort of mutation. In brain scans for instance there's no electrical connection between the part of the brain which processes words and the one which should be responsible for affection and feelings. And they are probably born that way. But they are aware of it, they know that they can easily hurt other people. If they can control it or not? To say the truth, evil in these personalities seems to be compulsive. AP 2009-02-16 00:37:19 Evil, manipulation, distortion and projection in others (in this case he projected his inadequacy in the society at large) are their "normal" modus operandi. There's no news in such reaction, it's their expected answer. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-16 00:53:13 But the point, Ms. Pereira, is that the only rational and legitimate reason for keeping Charles Manson in jail is that there is an operating assumption: that he committed those crimes with a free will and he therefore ought to be held accountable for them. So the question turns out ultimately to be this: if, in what some call a trans-human world science should discover that we are all determined by our genes and our brains, will we keep Charles Manson in jail?



Perhaps a recent book that everybody should want to read is this:



Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary, The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist’s case for the existence of the soul. New York: Harper One, 2007. 384 pages. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-16 01:01:05 P.S. http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/10605/Default.aspx



The link above will take the interested reader to a perceptive review of the book. AP 2009-02-16 04:47:58 Yes, Mr. Paparella, because it's too dangerous to release him until we can solve it. Only a small percentage of psychopaths kill, but they're all predators. Killing or not might be their choice, or then it might just be the ultimate expression of their whole nature (which I really think it is - if they don't kill you physically, they kill you in other perverse ways, full stop). You cannot face people like this by using the same premises you use for people with feelings, and free choice is pretty much a concept coined by the latter. Someone with this kind of personality will smash not only the free choice of others, but their lives, ego and rights entirely. That's where the limits to free choice come in. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-16 09:00:30 The question is still unanswered and it is this: if, in what some call a trans-human world, science should discover that we are all determined by our genes and our brains, will we keep Charles Manson in jail? We do not punish predators such as lions and tigers since we assume that they are determined by their genes and instincts, albeit we place them in zoo's cages, which reveals more about us as human beings than about the predators we place in cages; neverthless we do not impute moral choices to them. Another question which I suspect will also go unanswered: does that term "trans-human" sends trouble you in any way or do you think that there too we are preditermined; that becoming robot or humbots as some say, is the only way we will survive as a species. And if so, is survival worth the candle?



Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-16 09:15:04 P.S. To be more specific and to the point, should you wish to answer the question, if nothing else to yourself, you may wish to read Mark Walker's article titled: Sheep of Fools: Transhumanism as the best hope of preventing the exctinction of civilization. One of its sections is titled: Transhumanism as the most dangerous experiment possible, except all the others. Here is the link to the article.



http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10682/Default.aspx



I tell my colleagues with whom I discuss those kinds of ideas that if they are not troubled by them, perhaps they ought to consider that they also are a bit of a sociopath; which is to say, sociopathology as a spiritual illness affects and infects us all; nobody saves himself by winning the lotto as a mere individual. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-16 09:19:53 Errata: Ship of fools. AP 2009-02-16 19:11:21 Or then they might not be interested simply because they don't consider such questions relevant to the point they're discussing. A few mistakes you commited, which seem to derive from an impaired sensitivity for these issues.

1. No, we are not "all affected and infected" sociopaths. And answering or not to your questions certainly does not constitute an admeasurement for that.

2. To compare jailing Manson with jailing lions and tigers is ridiculous. First two reasons why: 1. lions and tigers are not often jailed for safety reasons anymore 2. we know how/can protect ourselves from lions and tigers, not the case with personalities like Manson AP 2009-02-16 19:13:59 3. if anyone wins the lotto with the way things are presently, the lotto winners are certainly these personalities. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-16 21:18:51 The question is not that complicated but the answer may indicate a mind-set of sort, as Dostoyevsky surely knew when he wrote Crime and Punishment. To repeat, the question is this: is the moral reprobate Charles Manson in jail to be punished for his crimes or is he there to protect society from his predatory habits? If the former is the case, then he is not determined but has a free will and as a free agent he deserves his just desserts; if the latter is the case then he may be determined by his genes and his brain and in that case his argument that he does not understand why he is in jail has some compelling validity. The way one answers says something of one’s view of human nature in general, for the monsters among us do not have the nature of a lion or a tiger but that of a human being. We know how Dostoyevsky would have answered the question because in Crime and Punishment he never takes away the possibility, as remote as it might be for certain people, of repentance and redemption, beyond mere revenge and punishment. After all isn’t that why some of us refuse to accept capital punishment, even for moral reprobates and in the process feel so smugly superior to those who condone it? NS 2009-02-16 23:48:13 Any particular reason you are dissatisfied with the logic of "if you commit a crime, then you suffer the consequences", and are instead jumping two steps to punishing people not even for thought crimes but "crimes" of *personality*? AP 2009-02-17 00:07:16 "is the moral reprobate Charles Manson in jail to be punished for his crimes or is he there to protect society from his predatory habits?"

both things, as they are not mutually exclusive.



NS:

Identifying people is not punishing them, it is just identifying people. And we have pretty good reasons for that. Actually, we would even have pretty good reasons to do genetic selection and prevent sociopaths, psychopaths and narcissists from being born. wow!!! shocking? ask their victims. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-17 05:39:52 So it is genetic selection, after all. I fail to understand how that is different from what the Nazis attempted to do. So, we start with the sociopath, and then on suh slippery moral slopte we may prpceed to the mentally defective, or the physically defective, and then proceed to gender or color of eyes and hair or skin till se have the "transhuman" species, the super race which decides God-like who lives and who dies as per its utilitarian or even epicurian criteria. It is indeed a brave new world! Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-17 05:42:28 Errata: such, proceed. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-17 05:54:31 Since you would not allow a Charles Manson from being born based on the genes he exhibits, it logically means that Charles Manson has no free will. So the question he raises persists: why is he in jail since he had nothing to do with the genes he was born with? Moreover, since you would not allow him to be born, would you execute him should he be born? What about the alleged moral superiority of those countries which do not execute any human being no matter how despicable they may be? Or are sociopaths only two thirds humans. Isn't that the excuse given for the retention of slaves in pre-civil war US? Plenty of food for thought here. Peter Francis Cerrato 2009-02-17 12:12:13 The best protection against psychopaths amoung us is empowered collective wisdom. What I mean by that is : more dangerous than the individual psychopath is the persistance of bad dis-empowering ideas. Think about it : we live in societies where a large percentage of the population abdigates true social responsibility to a "high power" be that in transcendant or immanent form. This makes them ripe for manipulation. There have always been and will always be "demons" amoung us - meaning humans with access to power and a deep disconnection from what makes us truly human. In a way, their existance tells us more about our own freedom to choose connection than is does about our impotence. For one example of the kind of critique of dangerous ideas see Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad's "The Guru Papers". Peter Francis Cerrato 2009-02-17 12:22:42 Another thought : the best instrument we will ever have for detecting psychopaths will always be self-empowered individuals and responsive communities. When humans lived in small collections the answer was emphatically ostracism. In todays world we are faced with two problems : the isolation of the individual one the one hand and the diffusion of responsibility on the other hand. Our social structures are at once too loose and too broad. This layered with the previously mentioned problem of the "submission" model rather than a "deference" model is a recipe for small (friendly serial killers) and large scale (genocide, ethnic cleansing) disasters. Empowerment in education is the answer. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-17 18:54:29 http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10684/Default.aspx



Mr. Cerrato, the link above will take you to an article exploring your proposals and arriving at misguided conclusions as the comment to it hints at. I would also suggest reading Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind. AP 2009-02-18 00:06:46 I think empowerment through education is very needed, but there are two problems: 1. it will take dozens and dozens of years, and thousands/millions of victims more 2. it doesn't prevent psychopathic and narcissistic actions from happening anyway AP 2009-02-18 00:13:14 "Moreover, since you would not allow him to be born, would you execute him should he be born? What about the alleged moral superiority of those countries which do not execute any human being no matter how despicable they may be? Or are sociopaths only two thirds humans. Isn't that the excuse given for the retention of slaves in pre-civil war US? Plenty of food for thought here."

I would say no food for thought and nothing new under the sun regarding your speculative questions, very morally concerned but in the end making suggestions where no one else made them.

I don't know what to say about your imagined executions... you deal with them.

AP 2009-02-18 00:16:05 ps - and the slaves' comment is even funnier, after I wrote 3 articles against slavery. give me a break, Mr. Paparella. you are either able to discuss things seriously, or then you're just able to speculate and defame. sadly, this seems to be the case. Emanuel Paparella 2009-02-18 07:15:52 Sadly indeed, rather than forthrightly answer some simple questions which beg for an answer, you have returned to the argument of last resort, the argumentum ad hominem, which is counter-productive in the search for the honest truth and which I will therefore not dignify with a response, as previously pointed out. stacy 2009-02-19 21:22:31 Very intense personal experience with this one. Again and again and again and again. Please tell me when the cure becomes known.