xx101010

Is it? Does not matter. It is a biased source.

I am constantly astonished at our human tendency to take what we damned well know are a biased sources and build that up into what we want to believe.

Best way to be: get sources from all angles. That includes moderate.

For me, FYI, "gamergate" and the "men's movement" crap is nothing more then a strange curiosity I have run across from time to time on more established technical forums.

Not something worth thinking about besides in terms of 'the weird things people will believe and become'.

One of the strangest cults out there.

It has has really bad results for the belongers. It guarantees disastrous relationships with women. And these are heterosexuals.

But, the reason why this has come up is obvious, as well: women are coming more and more into the tech workplace. I applaud that. Thankfully, most places I have worked had some female presence. The diversity is deeply welcomed.

Has a woman's name, could be a woman or not.

It is a snipe at a very, very tiny, extremely aberrant group. There are a lot on Reddit, sure. Reddit is where the movement was born and grown. Reddit works by rewarding 'group think' and discouraging critical, non-consensus opinions. Of course cults, very aberrant cultures will grow here.

I am not interested in debating, however. I will just point out every person who gets into that belief system is going to create tremendous problems for themselves in their dealings with women.

I can point out some 'outside viewpoints'. For one, there are some strong commonalities of the Believers: they tend to be techies, tend to be male, tend to be American, and tend to have very poor relationships with women.

There is nothing happy for them to take such beliefs. It is even more sad when they add to them the whole 'pick up artist' - lol - belief set which often accompanies the very absurd 'men's movement'.

FYI, I am a male and heterosexual, lol. I think your attempts to try and cast me as a ... what? Lol? Anti-Male?

Nazi level political correctness is simply not an admirable trait when you are not preaching to the choir.

If I were to be critical of 'why someone might join scientology' would that mean I am being critical of human beings? Or, 'why some guy in Idaho went and shit on the American flag', would that mean I am anti-male?

As for you, for all I know you can have posted this as satire or rhetoric. I do not know you. Maybe you are just pretending to belong to the movement.

But, if it is true... that you work in tech and feel threatened by women in the workplace... that you have severe problems creating and maintaining substantial relationships with women... that you are very sexually frustrated... that you do stick around 'yes men' and engage deeply in 'group think' where you do not consider alternative viewpoints of anything you believe deeply...

Then, I can only suggest you look at your self and get your self out of that mess.

The general argument is true, of course.

"And, as a fascinating new paper points out, this knowledge can produce "pseudo-placebo effects" in RCTs. That is to say, the expectation of receiving the treatment can cause people to modify their behaviors in a way that produces a significant "average treatment effect" even if the actual intervention in not particularly effective."

It is barely even "pseudo". This falls into my area of specialty, where suggestions and expectations are 'how you actually get anything done'. The more implicit and indirect, nearly, the more likely the suggestion is to take effect. If one discounts the all important 'confidence' and 'expectation' angle.

In a clinical trial there is going to be very heavy implications, however towards confidence. They invested these resources to do the testing, so that implies confidence and expectations.

Pretty much just clickbait for confirmation of bias for those certain male sorts who tend to be heterosexual, but are angry about their role displacement in recent years. (Whether that is perceived or real.)

Not sure what anyone gets from that very rigid belief set, besides more male friends and more difficult relations with females.

Are you going to find healthy, heterosexual males with this approach, mentally, to women? I do not think so. After all, this manner of conversation does not go over well with wives and girlfriends, now would it?

But, there is competition in the technical workplace which they are opposed to. And they are not feeling confident in their own capacities as an individual.

The same sort of little societies based around hate of groups grew up against blacks in America, for instance. And it found various points of resurgence. There was a strong resurgence after the Civil War, and there was a strong resurgence during and after the Civil Rights movement.

Thinking on 'why people do this', I have come to the conclusion that they are attempting to solidify a belief of theirs. Posting about it helps them to do this, because any suggestion (belief) is likely to die after being born if it can not stand future adversity.

And came up with this, for clarification purposes, albeit, it is specifically designed to be more about asking questions then providing answers. Less about the illusion of logic, and more about the reality is questions that do not want to be asked...

This article on [a consensus derogatory label] is invalid because [it goes against how I want to operate consciously]. There are no valid reasons for it, because [it does not offer any evidence, even if it cites a study, I will ignore the existence of that study]. It is also not the consensus opinion of the experts who, I admit, know more then me [even if that consensus opinion is actually explicitly and loudly argued in the argument to be contrary].

Say, a bunch of scientists you admire create an encyclopedia of definitions, of say, living beings. You won't find bigfoot there. You won't find Yeti there. Likewise, "sociopath" and "psychopath" are not in the DSM. And so, by definition, then, the meat of the article actually simply attempts to merely point this out.

If the article was "Bigfoot is a myth", it might be a little less heated. Because critics who disbelieve the bigfoot myth are less likely to be called bigfoot for doing so.

Everyone has their own language. Maybe they are not aware of the underlying etymology of the words "sociopath" or "psychopath". These words, by etymology are extremely generic. One is sick in their dealings with society. Or one is sick in their own mind. So, one could say every definition in the DSM is, actually, both sociopathic and psychopathic.

Is there sickness in their mind? Are there social angles to that sickness? It would be hard to find a single definition in the entire DSM which did not meet one or both of those criteria.

So, saying "sociopathy" or the equivalent people use "psychopathy" is "a myth", is just plain wrong.

Further, it is [not backed by my own standards which exclude the consensus book entirely] and it [does not help me pretend to understand others individually when I need a more generic, all inclusive term to understand them for my own reasons of depersonalizing them].

If you are of [a belief system most contrary to my own], or if you [state a belief I find not most useful to my own conscious purposes to believe], then you are wrong. And I will [attempt to produce a complex enough justification for that judgment to fool my own self and others]. And this is [exactly why I post, to try and create consensus opinion to come to a model I can use in the future and today which is less likely to be decimated by anyone else's model].

And [the problem with this sort of critical post] is that [even though it is obscure I get a strong sense it declothes me], so I will [feel a strong need to actually try and cut it apart].

The article did not tell me anything I did not know, and it is most assuredly 'pop psychology'. They did link to the recent study which pointed out even those considered "psychopaths" (anti-social personality disorder) actually are not entirely devoid of the capacity of empathy. As this is a recent study, I won't save people the time to link to it, you should figure this stuff out on your own. But, you should also already know of it, and have recognized it immediately. If you have been doing your homework in this area.

If you had not already heard of that study, then you should self-assess your self: why am I looking into this area? What motivates me? Am I truly 'doing my homework', or am I just like a tumbleweed, going from article to article, looking for more which confirms my already pre-existing biases?

I will give this link: the Psycopath Test, by Jon Ronson.

That is, also, enough to spend two seconds to google.

If you really, truly believe in the psychopathy label, then I would strongly encourage you folks who do so to challenge your beliefs" by reading that book. Ronson has a few books out there, and they are all excellent for challenging common conceptions on murky material.

I am not saying the article was not generally true. Fact is, it is. But, you can know that it is a myth merely because it is not even in the DSM. As this article points out, nor is anything even like it. It does not point out many important, related matters, however. Like the general public should not even be taking such labels - even if they were in the DSM - and going about doing their own diagnosis of others. And, if they are... why* are they doing this?

If you do not know why you are doing this, then isn't that a little more of a pressing mystery to solve... then playing doctor on people who are not even your patents, and whom you probably know little to nothing about?

My own interest in this thread, btw, is 'why do otherwise reasonable people believe truly unreasonable things', and 'why do otherwise intelligent people who have strict standards they say they adhere to, not actually use those standards and flagrantly so'.

That is very interesting, because it can tell you a lot about your own way of taking in information and help you find errors others have you, your own self, might also have.

"'Anyway, not sure why you would want to dabble in some other fields and expect the same results without equal level of efforts.' Nice fallacy and troll tactic given nobody said that. Unsurprising that this is also your first post. Goodbye, troll."

That is not a "troll" statement, nor a "psychopath" statement. I say the exact same thing to my own self, and it is very important for me to say to my own self.

That does not mean saying it to a stranger on a public forum is necessarily likely to help them come to better understanding. It can depend on who they are, and how they operate.

But, what you did there is an excellent example for a very serious flaw in 'how people think of others'. Taking a completely valid yet "critical" statement and dismissing the person making it (even if it were your own self) does what? It is depersonalizing the person.

You do not have to think about what they have to say, because you have closed off thinking by labeling them. In this case, your diagnosis is both as a "troll" (derogatory, listen to nothing they say)... and a "psychopath" (derogatory, listen to nothing they say).

You may not listen to this, but perhaps others would. And maybe, even some part of you could. This is not abnormal reaction, it is a normal, common reaction. People want to shut down sources that have anything challenging to say.

Truth is, my statement actually implies something positive about you. That you have done effective and strong research in your own area, which I am taking from your nick to be "security". As in computer security. With some consideration for the context, which is this forum.

So, someone says one good thing and one "bad" thing, and that causes an immediate - automatic - reaction to shut them down consciously... and depersonalize them with not just one emotionally laden label, but two.

That, btw, is how the unconscious interacts with the conscious. Automatic behavior. There are other ways, but you have to deprogram yourself, or better - debug yourself - in order to get closer access to your unconscious and make more informed judgments.

I may have been manipulative for another reason. I may have been pattern breaking, or trying to shut down your conscious facilities to get everything else in there. Benign, malicious... your conscious would have one view, your "unconscious" another.

FYI, I will be completely upfront: I am dual studied in these fields, but within very narrow scopes. And the reason why - besides general personal betterment - well, for psychology, it was to deal with madness. Not "sociopathy", not "psychopathy".

PTSD, paranoid schizophrenia, schizoaffective... are some of the meaningful labels there. Addictive Personality disorder. At times, depression, and other possible labels could be applied to myself by myself, or by professional psychiatrists. But, those are just labels. And while they have some value for my own self to help me find potential "cures", they are not names. They are not permanent labels. When you get into that kind of thinking, you are setting your own course for no change. It is destructive.

Conversely, I understand what I am prone to, and that can help me know how to steer the boat of my own self in the future.

A lot of the best advice I have ever gotten was challenging. Advice which has no challenge often is just 'what people want to hear'.

It is true, typically, what one wants to do to persuade someone is to be indirect and build up rapport. But, if it is always rapport, you end up doing nothing to lead them anywhere else. You might as well just be a monkey or parrot.

Even if, where you actually need to go is the wrong place you are being led to... it still is very likely... a place you have not even considered before. And so, then, you have another possible "here be sea monsters" or big rocks and low ground you can put on your map. And go somewhere else.

"Sure non-criminal, adults forgo emotions on the job after essentially being trained to do so. Probably learned it over time with other life experiences requiring the same thing. Yet, how did the younger one's learn to have no empathy or feelings? What exact path leads to other people's suffering exciting them or causing sexual arousal? What individual experience lead people to compulsively commit harm or deception against their own intentions?"

Asking the "how's" is very difficult, without extensively studying "such people". But, when you do study them, you discover while there may be commonalities, there is also individuality.

Freud/Fraud worked hard at pretending to study root causes, but the guy was just popularizing and bastardizing concepts which were already there. His own four or so patients he had, every single one was a failure.

You mention 'sexual sadism' in the same vein as really very common other "symptoms" or "indicators". But, 'sexual sadism' is extremely rare, very aberrant, very bizarre.

My point is: why do you need to understand psychology. This is important. Because people get good at what they need to do. And they constantly give themselves other reasons for other matters.

So, many in psychology just needed a job. Many needed to fix or maintain themselves. Often people just need some further understanding which they can then use to displace and put away matters they do not want to deliberate on, to think on.

In security, you may want to control some people. You definitely want to predict their behavior. But, normally, you are more interested in "economic" level factors, in terms of risk analysis.

Individual analysis is not much needed for most areas of comp sec. I have had to apply it, because I have worked with sources. Or perform security interviews. But, that is personal, individualistic.

Usually, I just have to consider wider range factors that involve such matters on a more economic level. Where economy may mean, directly, money. Or it may be economy of information. What is the value of what you are protecting by considering the value of it in various markets. That sort of thing.

And, FYI, I posted here, on this, first, because the psychological implications of security interest me the most. This is a specific area where I have seen those who are most at fault, are those who are the ones attempting to do the labelling. So, it intrigues me to see their ideas, their perspectives.

Woot. Yay. Mind bending. In the extreme.

So, on our way out, maybe we can toast this possibility. A beer with cancer or old age, on the possibility there might be alien microbes on earth.

Sarcasm, yes. Lack of imagination -- I clicked on this thinking I would find relevant expressions of daunting imagination. But, instead, unfortunately... when I enter this into my equation of (You are going to die + X = ?), unfortunately this remains zero'd out as entirely irrelevant.

It is almost as if the whole "you are going to die" factor in my equation is the equivalent to zero. And everything else is zeroed out. Except for those dare, rare - often very mad, surely, or genius - sons of bitches that do not actually like being zero'd out and actually expect not to be.

Well. Fuck them. Do not even try.

Nobody who actually uses psychology seriously takes, lol, "psychopathy" as a serious label. Even the name is obvious to them "ill mental". Not exactly byzatine etymology, lol... I use the term sometimes, and have approved of some others of using it sometimes. As a brief epitaph that quickly describes some assholes disposition, lol. But, besides it not being in the DSM, and nevermind the fact the DSM is its' self sketchy in many ways... lol... (I could list some of the newer ones they have come up with which are absurd, though I do not discount the value of the book)... the book, its' self, warns against taking these labels strictly. It works great for helping to consolidate observations and experiments, for medicating well understood and common conditions or treating them otherwise... but it the authors were never so stupid so as to even begin to suggest the book should be an encyclopedia of labels 'written in stone'. Not, anyway, since I have been looking at it, since, like 82. :/ FYI, it also starts right off citing a recent - and important - study showing the traditional classification of "psychopath" is inaccurate and they could get traditionally defined sociopaths shown as having the capacity of empathy. Just they are turning it off at the wrong times, and probably too much. Getting adrenaline to kick in with them is something besides the 'lack of empathy' aspect, and I bet such studies would show it is pretty trivial to get adrenaline to kick in even in the most hardened "psychopaths"...

You did not apply the same level of research to a different field. MRI studies, of, for instance, extraordinary criminals are going to show significant differences from ordinary people. That does not mean their brains are not trained that way.

And, they did provide evidence, citing at the very start of the blurbs from the book a recent study pointing out evidence that empathy parts of these "sociopath" brains did light up under certain conditions. They simply have more control over them then others. But, so do countless non-criminals who also have to forego ordinary emotions and adrenaline reactions as part of their very civil and very social jobs (like cops, surgeons, soldiers, etc).

Anyway, not sure why you would want to dabble in some other fields and expect the same results without equal level of efforts.

I have dual studied comp sec and psychology, and in both instances, been focused on theory, sure, but also results. (To stave insanity in one instance, and to make a living and have some fun in the other. Won't say which one is which.)

You have a point about their background, and maybe a point about their leaning towards "pure nurtue" (as in 'nurture versus nature'), though this is actually not said. I am not aware of anyone who does lean pure nurture. If they do, that is obviously in correct. But that also does not mean that there is a label "psychopath" that is anywhere taken seriously. "Sociopath" has some value. "Psychopath" has a little, in terms of slang for impact.

The later term is far, far too wide, though, to be of much material use for anyone, be they in security or social work or therapy or anywhere.

Trying to argue pure nature or pure nurture is probably, in general, a very bad idea. Usually, however, it is true, there are very specific events in aggressively criminal individual's background which are noteworthy to help understand 'who they are'.

It is reasonably best to actually be "sociopathic" or lacking emotional bias when dealing with such analysis. Just like how doctors go, "Okay, wound, fix", and non-doctors get grossed out.

They are blinded by their own overcoming emotionality. Emotion can be great for communication, but it can also get in the way and be entirely counter productive.

There's sociopathy, but there isn't even a DSM definition for "psychopath". That is a slang term (like sociopathy). Not that the DSM is even meant to be taken entirely literally, but having models for diagnosis and treatment for common classes of mental disorders can be useful.

People are themselves extremely varied, however, and a lot of the best methods for treatment and diagnosis take into account that. eg, Ericksonian therapy. (Which, sadly, most people will only hear of from some severely bastardized version, if at all.)

I think, a lot of what they mean is "psychopathy", often covered for the other slang term "sociopathy" which has more value for analysis. There has been a lot of pop psychology on the later, and while I do definitely believe it is an useful term one has to note there are "enlightened sociopaths" and ... not. The vast majority are not as people think, and surely not criminals.

A good list came out not long ago which pointed out that on an "empath" to "sociopath" scale, cops and surgeons score high on the sociopath side, while grade school teachers and social workers score high on the other side.

The article is very right in pointing out how anti-social personal disorder is very different from the model of the sociopath. Night and day different.

Behavior involved in severe criminal behavior is often very unique, unique in formation, and unique to the person, even if many commonalities or classes of definitions may be applied to some. The remaining question of any value is: do these labels actually help you help any of them to change?

In terms of comp sec, putting on that kind of label on people won't help you control them nor predict their behavior. You might do so from noting their past behavior, if you know enough about it. But that is based on observation of that particular individual, and would only give deceptive evidence in regards to the actual usefulness of the label. Which is a label, which is a way to shortcut thinking; and a way to shortcut dealing with individuals as individuals in creative ways taking into account their complexity. A pain to do, perhaps, definitely does not fit into tidy lists and written down procedures. But it is what is required.