Does low levels of psychopathy can be treatable?

Hello

I was read about Personality Disorder in the DSM IV (free downloaded):

-Psychopathy have prevalence in lower classes
-Constitutes the 3% of male population.

If it is true; in a group of 300 males, 9 are psychopaths

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Surely not all of them are dangerous criminals,... then, maybe 6 guys could be only harassers (bully, mobbing...)?

Any treatment can work for them?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Depends upon their age when they are diagnosed I'd think. But when they are say 15 or older I don't think they can ever get back to what we consider normal.

Although psychopathy is not currently listed as a personality disorder in the official psychiatric taxonomy (the DSM-IV), it is comprised of enduring affective, behavioral, and interpersonal components and may be conceptualized as a personality disorder. (In fact, some preliminary criteria for psychopathy are likely to be listed as a personality disorder in the DSM-V.) Although there are no medications specifically designed to treat psychopathy, there are medications that can treat some of the associated symptoms. For example, it is possible antidepressants, antipsychotics, and mood stabilizers may help address the irritability, aggression, and impulsivity associated with the disorder. As more is learned about the neural substrates underlying psychopathy, the prospects for effective pharmacotherapy of the disorder are likely to improve.

Aside from medication, there is some evidence for the effectiveness of treatment in those with psychopathic traits, although findings have been conflicting. A study by Caldwell and colleagues (2007) showed that adolescents rated high in psychopathic features showed improvement following a forensic inpatient treatment which emphasized the development of appropriate interpersonal skills and relationships. Although youth who scored higher in psychopathic traits exhibited poorer behavior during the baseline period and at the time of release than youth low on psychopathy, all of the youth exhibited improved behavior during treatment, regardless of their level of psychopathy. Furthermore, psychopathy scores did not have a significant effect on treatment response, and youth who spent substantial time in treatment were less likely to commit additional violent offenses following release (assessed over a period of four years).

More.......

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...8ICgDw&usg=AFQjCNFxATKT0dQkPwGFxK6r_FsaBb8lzw

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The mental health system isn't allowed to give an official diagnoses of psychopathy to children or even teenagers even if they fill the criteria. Society isn't ready to right-off the young in such a way. There is no comprehensive treatment for psychopathy at this point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that it's relegated to the lower classes. I assume you mean poor and less educated people.

I recall that one of the applications of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCLR) was with a wealthy person - I've forgotten but I think he may have been a celebrity or perhaps a person who might be on par with Donald Trump. It turned out that this person scored very badly. One of the conclusions of this exercise, as I recall, was that psychopathy is rewarded in the free enterprise system, and it explains the reason that many types of careers such as corporate executives and lawyers are populated with a large number of self-serving manipulators who lack empathy and who will routinely victimize others for personal gain.

I do think there is treatment for some psychopaths, though most are in denial and will reject it, and some percentage may be suffering from psychosis, which complicates treatment greatly. Psychopathy may be only one of many syndromes psychotics may be presenting.

An entirely different -- but related -- question: are the poor more likely to develop psychoses?

I would go further to say that I think psychopathy is probably one of the most destructive and least recognized disorders of our era. Political leaders - from sadistic dictators to manipulative elected officials - may be symptomatic and may do poorly on the PCLR. Yet ultimately they are deciding the fate of the world. The issue with children is also disturbing, but think it may give us pause to question whether this is preferential in the lower class. For example, the rich spoiled child may be more prone to develop a narcissistic persona than a child raised in a more humble setting.

 

I think there is a bit of confusion here. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say all psychopaths started out as sociopaths that graduated to murder. That being the case, there is no cure as sociopaths are born that way and it's not something that can be cured. However it can be mitigated by proper education and training. Not all sociopaths become criminal, but they are still sociopaths that lack empathy for other humans and will be very hard on any type relationships they may get into.

Not all murderers are psychopaths but all psychopaths are killers. It's the killing that crosses the line from sociopath to psychopath. Also, the percentage of all types of personality disorder in prisons is much higher than in the general population, which can also be said about the disadvantaged. It just means if you have education and money, you are less likely to find yourself in prison even if you are a sociopath.

 

I'm not qualified to say this but what the heck . . .

Using your definitions, I believe that in every psychopath's past there was a time (or times) where the young sociopath could have been steered in the right (or better) direction by parents, family, and/or friends. The conclusion from this is that I believe every psychopath could have been prevented. Of course what do I know? I still believe that every war could have been prevented. So that shows you how I think.

 

I still (ignorantly?) cling to the idea that there is a little bit of good in the worst people and a little bit of bad in the best people. But I cling to all sorts of crazy notions. Most of the time I think that people like me, even when they don't. Sort of the opposite of paranoid.

 

Look at it like this, if a sociopath is born into a very bad situation. Unwanted and maybe to a mother who is a drug addicted whore and he grows up mistreated not only by the mother but by the men in her life. What chance does this sociopath have of becoming a full on psychopath? I'd say very good. As far as preventing war, I'd say not much chance there unless you have time travel. Most sociopaths do not get diagnosed until their late teens or early 20's and many never get diagnosed at all. At our current level of knowledge there's very little chance of identifying all the future sociopaths in time to make much of a difference. Also, intelligent well educated sociopaths lend themselves to leadership type jobs as they can make the hard decisions that will cause harm to a lot of people, such as a layoff. Or military commanders that have to send solders to their deaths. If one of these types gets to a high enough level, it sure could have an impact on going to war or not going to war. In the current structure of democratic republics it's not as likely that a sociopath will ever get elected to president, but I'm not ready to say it would be impossible.

 

I think either case may be true. There do seem to be people who were traumatized who turn evil. There are often "nice" people who go off to war become brutalized, and go bad. My guess is that there may be some percentage of kids who have psychopathic tendencies, but then grow out of it, and without a doubt there are nice kids who grow into it.

 

I said I believe most wars could have been prevented. If better decisions were made, better people in charge of governments (no psychopaths), better people in charge of militaries (no psychopaths), eradication of religion, smaller gulf between rich and poor, etc., etc.. These are things that are possible. Probable? No.

 

Maybe, but a lot of leaders never show their true colors, until they get in a position of power. After all, the saying "power corrupts" came from real life situations. However I do think we can do a lot better in filtering out the bad apples. But there are regions of the world we have very little influence over that can still have some very nasty leaders. What do we do about that?

 

Yes. I believe in the saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". That's why our government has three branches, each keeping the other in check (hopefully). Also, by the time a person reaches the top of the pyramid of politics, be it civilian, corporate, or military, they owe too many people to make their own decisions. Not sure what to do about the nasty leaders of other countries after they are in power. It's too late then. But maybe these bad dictators might not have been bad people if raised differently. That's what I mean when I say most or all wars could have been prevented. But the prevention has to be early enough to make a difference. Take WWII for example. If the victorious allies had been a bit easier on defeated Germany after WWI, maybe Hitler wouldn't have had the opportunity to come to power. Also, maybe Hitler might not have been so evil if raised differently. I realize these are improbable and simplistic ideas but they are possible. Were possible.

And don't get me started about WWI, That was a really stupid war.

 

I concur and add Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, for they were only started because of lies.

 

Without discipline in public schools many times children who use to try and get away with trying to molest or bully others now a days get by with anything including murdering teachers for the fun of it. I would think that more discipline should be used in public schools that would help children to learn that they can't get away with antagonizing others in any respect.

 

You got that right! Heck, in Vietnam we fought on the wrong side. Ho Chi Minh pretty much asked the US to support him in his battle with the French Imperialists. What we did there was shameful.

But we're getting off the subject here, partly my bad. My apologies to the OP.

 

Well that wasn't my objection to the Vietnam war, I just thought that if the French were leaving there then why should America go into that place seeing as how the French gave up on it. Why should Americans go there and fight for Vietnamese if they were having a civil war between themselves? Just as now there's a civil war between the people of Syria and why should Americans use their power to fight for them if they are fighting each other? It seems that it's a dictator fighting Al Quida or other terrorists

 

The civil war started when the French imperialists, and then the US, tried to set up their puppet governments in the South. The "South" Vietnamese would have elected Minh in a heartbeat over any foreign supported candidate. Besides, it was our national policy at the time to "stop the flood of Communism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

The French were bastards there, in their typical mode (at the time) of colonizing from the 1860s onward.

 

The point is An effective treatment exist?
Families who lives in countryside and have no access to modern hospitals, could live dangerously menaced by sociopaths. Considering they are smart and manipulative, it could became a hell inside homes. Maybe the case of Christina Aguilera's father?

How countrysiders could access to an effective anti-sociopath treatment?