New Year

Christmas break was good; I tended to lie in bed until it got dark, then got on with my day.   My gf was around a lot, so I haven't had as much time alone as I'd have liked, but I still went on a couple of nice middle-of-the-night excursions.  The whole family thing and "get in the xmas spirit" pressure was less tiresome than I expected it would be, and I got away with the bare minimum of effort buying presents.

I fucking hate shopping: online is bearable and over quickly, but physically going into shops filled with imbecilic sheep is something I have little patience for. I barged deliberately rudely through a gaggle of women standing in a doorway... snarling something to myself I didn't expect them to hear.

The break is over and I've gone from late nights of booze and weed to the respected senior professional at work seamlessly.  I'm waiting for the backlash.

I've been thinking a bit about whether I should settle down... part of me knows my life would be easier if I was in a normal couple – I'd eat better, do more, go places, meet people... but I also know I enjoy living alone and having time to myself to pursue my interests. 

I've lived my life making friends in different circles when I wanted to, and staying alone when I wanted to.  With a 'life partner' there is less scope to choose my own state and I tend to get frustrated that whoever I'm with can't change themselves to be the perfect gf the way I can easily slip into a perfect bf persona.

My gf has a 1^st in psychology and knows I... well... we were scoring someone we know on the PCL and she asked me what I scored. I said 10 (I think actually between 16 and 22 depending on whether I score questions erring on the side of being conservative).  She was OK with that and she also asked me during a Dexter episode whether I was “dead inside” and I said “I guess I am what many would call flat affect”.

So maybe I could carve out an acceptable long term relationship with her, though she obviously lets her heart tell her I'm all good even though she knows a lot of how I behave must be an act.

Moral Dilemmas and PDs

I've written before about a typical and famous moral dilemma (click here).  There has been a recent paper published called "The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas".  In this paper, the authors argue that instead of wondering why 90% of people make illogical decisions in moral dilemmas (choosing to let 5 people die instead of killing 1), we should be wondering why that 10% of people don't get drawn into an emotional decision.

They gave personality tests to a group of people and then gave them dilemmas and correlated their answers with their personalities.

The conclusion was stark; to quote the paper: "those individuals who are least prone to moral errors also possess a set of psychological characteristics that many would consider prototypically immoral".

This should not really surprise anyone, and I'm dumbfounded as to why the paper has become as well known as it has.

The addendum to the paper that they should have written is the further correlation between people who take logical decisions, and people in positions of power in politics and the military.  If an airplane over the ocean, heading towards a city, cuts communications and ignores emergency protocols then I hope the person who decides whether or not to shoot it down before it reaches land has 'immoral' psychological characteristics.

Left Brain Vs Right Brain

The brain is far from understood, if it were simple enough for us to understand then we would be too dumb to understand it.  However, we do know a lot about it.  Only quite recently the plasticity of the brain has become accepted - it used to be thought that the brain structures were fixed and that they filled up with knowledge and experience, much like a computer.  I remember as a boy being taught that the number of neurons in the brain grew until adulthood and then they just started dying off with no new ones replacing them.  The truth is more complicated - our brains form new connections all the time and can become rewired dramatically through necessity if one area becomes damaged, but generally there are structures in the brain that perform [more-or-less] specific functions.

People sometimes talk about being left or right brained, i.e. more dominant in the left / right hemisphere.

The left hemisphere contains the structures strongly associated with: grammar and vocabulary; logically structured thinking; analysing and controlling feelings; reality.

The right hemisphere contains the structures strongly associated with: intonation of speech; an unstructured approach to tasks (they call it 'multitasking' which has been shown to be less efficient in tests); emotional responses; fantasy.

To summarise, the left brain is rational, and the right brain is a hippy.

No prizes which side I'd be associated with, although actually I'd say I am much better than average at seeing the big picture - the less immediate consequences of actions - which is a right-brain trait.

The 2 hemispheres communicate by little roads called commissures, and one superhighway called the corpus callosum.

For severe epilepsy this superhighway of communication is sometimes severed, leading to some fascinating discoveries.  The two halves of the brain can be thought of as having separate consciousnesses!  Imagine being trapped inside someone else's head, much like in the film 'Being John Malkovic', able to see everything but only able to have a slight influence on his behaviour.  That may be happening inside you right now!  With some subjects who have had their corpus callosum severed, a written command can be flashed up visible only to the eye without the subject being consciously aware of it.  For example, if the word "LEAVE" is flashed up, the subject may get up and start to leave the room - when asked why they are leaving they reply something like "I'm thirsty, I want to go get a soda".  The right brain has invented a story for the the conscious mind that is coherent with the action demanded by the subconscious.

Some of these patients also experience 'alien hand syndrome' in which one arm is under the control of the 2nd hidden consciousness.  Freaky.

I wonder if the religious doctors see these patients as having 2 souls?

Most people invent stories for their lives that fit with their actions.  Most people believe they have rational reasons for their actions, but actually it is just lies told to them by the ultimate manipulating puppet master - their own subconscious.

Stroop test

1.  Time how long it takes for you to read the black words at a normal pace - this is the control time.

2.  Time yourself saying the colours of the coloured words, not the words themselves.  e.g. for 'Red' say "Blue". 
3.  If you take more than 10s longer than the control time you may have an attention deficit problem.

notes

If you make a mistake have another go at that word.  If you make more than a couple in total you are going too fast - start over and take enough care over it to get them all right.  If you have so many do-overs that you start to remember the sequence, change the order - row by row / column by column / left to right / right to left / down / up.

 scroll down
                     |
                     |
                     |
                     |
                     |
                     |
                     |
                     |
                     |
                     |
                \    |    /
                  \  |  /
                    \/

Heros

Perhaps you are familiar with 2 quite famous experiments in psychology: the Stanford Prison Experiment, and the Millgram experiment.  If not, the summary is that when people are cast in a role, they change their behaviour to be more congruent with the behaviours expected of that role.  A film was made based on the Stanford Prison Experiment that is well worth watching (imdb=7.9), called "Das Experiment" (German - make sure you download the English subtitled version!).

This effect is part of what is known as Attribution Theory in psychology.  An everyday example of the application of this was discussed briefly in my post on persuasion - calling someone "mate" or "buddy" will help elicit trusting and loyal behaviour.

The effect also must be borne in mind when explaining how whole groups of people performed acts considered 'evil' such as all the Nazi guards herding the Jews to their deaths.  Humans seem to readily accept that there are psychological reasons excusing bad behaviour, but conveniently forget the other side of the mirror, that the same forces are at play in the other direction as well.

Soldiers, police, and firefighters are all called 'Heroes' if they go into a dangerous situation and get killed.  It is much more often when they are killed, possibly because you can't speak ill of the dead - so no-one is allowed to bring any evidence forward opposing the moniker.

After the 9/11 attacks the firemen (and women) who responded were called heroes.  I think most of the population, if they had worked in the fireservice for long enough to hold it close to their personal identity, would have done the same thing - in which case are most of the population heroes who just haven't had the circumstances to demonstrate it?

I think it's great people like that are publicly called heroes - they put themselves in harms way for my benefit, and if we didn't impose the expectation of them being heroes perhaps they wouldn't.  It is in society's interests to call them heroes (and mean it!) - and that is why that meme has evolved.

Sure, some may join up as a vocation, but I think most are probably sheep just acting out a role thrust upon them.

Swearing

So I tried out the Cleanmeter I saw linked on LostInIdaho's blog.

I was very disappointed!  Apart from the obvious fact that the cleanmeter's algorithm leaves a lot to be desired if it only picked up ONE mature theme and ONE reference to a deity, I realised that I simply don't swear enough.

As Stephen Fry said:

Swearing is a really important part of one's life. It would be impossible to imagine going through life without swearing and without enjoying swearing... There used to be mad, silly, prissy people who used to say swearing was a sign of a poor vocabulary -such utter nonsense. The people I know who swear the most tend to have the widest vocabularies and the kind of person who says swearing is a sign of a poor vocabulary usually have a pretty poor vocabulary themselves... The sort of twee person who thinks swearing is in any way a sign of a lack of education or a lack of verbal interest or -is just a fucking lunatic... I haven't met anybody who's truly shocked at swearing, really, they're only shocked on behalf of other people. Well, you know, that's preposterous... or they say 'it's not necessary'. As if that should stop one doing it! It's not necessary to have coloured socks, it's not necessary for this cushion to be here, but is anyone going to write in and say 'I was shocked to see that cushion there, it really wasn't necessary'? No, things not being necessary is what makes life interesting -the little extras in life. 

And aside from that, swearing like a fuck-cunt is actually good for you!  So, for the love of wank-shit why haven't I been swearing my shaven bollocks off?

The person I've wanted to be has always been someone who isn't driven by periodic outbursts of limbic emotion, such as anger, and therefore it has become habitual to restrain myself.  I take a mental step back and a deep breath and present a reasoned mask to the world anytime I am provoked when there is a recurring character in my life present.

That's part of the reason why I've really enjoyed the two long holidays I've taken alone, far away from anyone that knows me.

Motivation

In the NY Times a couple of days ago, there was an article written by an economist explaining why people sometime make bad decisions.  He obviously understands that evolutionary pressures have shaped our minds - shaped them to survive long enough to pass their genes on to the next generation, not shaped them to be happy.  He posits that happiness is usually only fleeting, and its allure is held in front of the mind like a carrot; he suggests that our minds are wired to be anxious and unhappy as the prime motivating factor in people's lives.

There is a lot wrong with his article, but the things it got right got me thinking.  I agree that happiness for most people lasts a much shorter time than being anxious or unhappy, and I know that most people instinctively move towards carrots and away from sticks.  Most people.  What about those who aren't neuro-typical?  People with flat affect, a smaller than average amygdala, a low fear response, have been shown conclusively to not react (not nearly as much anyway) to metaphorical sticks.  It is no use using punishment as a means of changing the behaviour of someone with an antisocial personality disorder - there has to be a carrot dangling somewhere.  Those with BPD and other disorders associated with anxiety do experience the stick, but it is beating them in every direction depending on which way the wind is blowing.

So is the reason that those with flat affect, and those who are overanxious, have difficulty with long term objectives simply that the motivation is too low or the direction the motivation is never in the same direction for more than 5 minutes?

The Eyes

The eyes are the window to the soul, so they say. 

A massive part of our brain is dedicated to the visual analysis of our world, which is probably why we feel that the centre of our being is in our head – I think this feeling is more related to the location of our most important sense than to the actual location of our brain.  A hippy friend once said to me after he'd bumped his head on a short doorframe, "I always forget I have a body above my eyes".  he was stoned at the time though.

The reason we need a lot of brainspace for our vision is that it is a very complex mathematical problem to solve. 

If you have only one eye then it is presented with a 2D image with no depth information – your depth perception is certainly much reduced with only one eye, but you can navigate your way around day to day life without difficulty. 

This is something that is not to be sniffed at – your brain has to make many many assumptions about what an object's shape actually is and some shading information to then turn this into a sensible image presented to your conscious mind. For example, you know a TV screen is a rectangle, but if you see it from an angle it will form an image of a parallelogram onto your retina. It seems reasonable to assume it should actually be a rectangle and therefore is interpreted as a rectangle at an angle. What if it isn't an object you've seen before... a lot of processing is needed and optical illusions show some of the limitations of that processing.

When you have 2 eyes depth perception becomes easier, because each eye sees a slightly different image due to parallax. However, turning these 2 images into a coherent 3D world is nothing to be sneezed at either, and even the very best computer systems with artificial vision (2 camera 'eyes') are very slow and have a high failure rate compared to a human being.

The computational theory of mind is still the best theory to explain how we do things, and the current limitations on artificial vision are not evidence against it, but merely highlight what a massively complex calculation it is, and that it does require some reasonable assumptions – vision is an incomplete information problem.

One interesting validation of the computational theory of mind to do with vision that I read about recently concerned the reaction times of recognising shapes. Someone is asked to memorise a list of a few strange symbols, and then shapes are flashed onto a screen. When one of the ones in the list appears the subject presses a button. If the shapes are rotated when they are flashed up then the time it takes to recognise it is linearly proportional to the angle it was rotated by. This seems reasonable if the brain has a 'module' that rotates shapes. If the shape is a mirror image and rotated then the reaction time is exactly the same no matter what the rotation. At first this puzzled the researchers but a mathematician pointed out to them that for a rotated mirror image there is always a single axis to flip it about to get it back to the original image – all the shapes only required one flip in the mind's eye. How it determines where this axis is was not explained...

So in conclusion, the world you see is not the actual world – it is blemish corrected, your blind spot (where the optic nerve comes out of the retina) is filled in with guesswork, and is heavily image processed. Our heavy reliance on vision has shaped our thoughts and metaphors in our language.

And yes, that is my eye.

Persuasion

I was tempted to call this post "manipulation"; but these are things that many people do instinctively, or perhaps simply due to subconsciously copying someone. I seem to be more consciously aware of behaviours and I choose the appropriate behaviour for the situation – this means I will use the best behaviour I know to achieve what I want. In which case, is it really fair to say I am manipulative?

I distinctly remember when I was about 14 I read that people with more animated faces were trusted and liked more. This ties in with the theory I've touched on in emotions1 and emotions2 that a show of emotion is trusted for evolved reasons because it is hard to fake – and an animated face is more emotionally expressive. Any time I have come across other actual scientific studies that I can incorporate into my behaviour I have tried to do so – I will choose the appropriate facial animation, vocal inflections, and general body language to appear open. Body language is a big topic and requires practice to be able to [apparently] naturally pace with the person you are talking to in order to create a rapport. There are some general things even beginners should look to do such as leg crossing direction, showing the palms of hands when making a point, and awareness of personal space.

The way we use language is also incredibly powerful, as evidenced most obviously by hypnosis and the sort of persuasion skill shown by Derren Brown.

You don't have to hypnotise someone to get them to do something, and here are some of the ways to change people's behaviour that have been proven to work and I think are most common or easy to incorporate into your everyday life:

1. Double binds – create the illusion of giving someone a choice whereas both options you have given elicit the desired behaviour. For example, a mother may say to her child, "would you like to tidy your room before or after your dinner?"
2. Barnem statements are seemingly specific (personal) but actually apply to nearly everyone, e.g. "you have a creative streak that you aren't always able to indulge in". You can use the same types of statements to create a fast rapport with someone you've just met.
3. As discussed on another blog recently, calling someone by their desired status elicits behaviour to reinforce it. E.g. referring to someone as 'friend/buddy' will enforce their perception of you as a friend. Calling your boss 'boss/chief' will give them a bit of an ego boost and help them to feel like you are a compliant employee even if the evidence suggests otherwise.
4. Providing a reason for a request will vastly increase the compliance rate even if the reason is complete rubbish. For example, when trying to push in at a queue for a photocopier with "Excuse me, could I jump the line?" you will be let in approx 24% of the time. Changing it to "Excuse me, could I jump the line because I need to make copies?" increases this to 93%.  Always add "...because xxx" to every request you make.
5. Don't just request someone do something, get them to declare they will do it.  A restaurant that had a 30% no-show rate for bookings reduced this to 10% by changing from "...let us know if you can't make the booking" to "...you will let us know if you can't make the booking, won't you?" and getting the response "yes".

There are also a few more subtle techniques that aren't purely bodylanguage or verbal. 

One I've been practicing recently was referred to as compensatory ethics by TNP, and is essentially the idea that people have a moral view of themselves that they like to remain balanced. If they do something they aren't particularly proud of then they become much more likely to do a good deed soon after. Looking out for a good time to ask a favour, or creating it by subtly reminding someone of their less than perfect behaviour, will vastly increase your compliance rate.

Asking for a small action that creates the right way of someone viewing themselves will make them then more likely to agree to a much larger request – because they have already thought of themselves as that sort of person. E.g. If you want someone to organise a holiday, then get them to organise a small night out. Soon after suggest to them to organise the holiday – they think of themselves as an organisor and will be much more receptive.

There are many many more little techniques to change people's behaviour/response, but this post is already too long and I don't wanna give away all my secrets! :)

Always be aware of the language and techniques used by other people, religions, and advertisers.  There is always more to learn, and books on body language and neuro-linguistic programming are good places to start.

The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma

Critical to fully understanding the evolution of behavioural traits is understanding some basic game theory, such as the iterated prisoner's dilemma.

The basic prisoner's dilemma is as follows: two criminals are taken to the police station and interviewed separately. They went on a crime spree together and there is enough evidence to convict them of some of the minor offences. Imagine you are one of the prisoners and you are given a choice, which you assume your partner in crime has also been given: confess to everything and thereby grass up your partner for the major charges [defect]; or keep your mouth shut [cooperate]. If you talk and your partner doesn't, then you get a reduced sentence of 2 years in prison because of helping to convict your partner; and he gets 10 years. If he talks and you don't then obviously the reverse happens. If you both give a full confession then you both get 8 years, and if neither of you talk you both get 4 years. What do you do?

Now imagine that you and your partner can both live forever, and any time either of you are not in prison you go on another crime spree together and each time you get caught and face the same decision. You know your partner's previous responses, so this will obviously affect whether you cooperate or defect in the latest interview with the police. This situation is the iterated prisoner's dilemma, and occurs (in other forms!) every day in societal life (the social contract).

The various consequences to the options can be formalised into a pay-off matrix, and different weightings given to the possible outcomes. So long as all the options are sensible, for example the benefit to you for defecting when your partner cooperates should always be more than the benefit to you for cooperating when your partner cooperates, then it is possible to make some firm conclusions about the worth of different strategies.

Axelrod created a tournament in which different programs played against each other (200 iterations for one game) and then each program's total score was added up. Some of these programs had very sophisticated algorithms to predict whether the opponent would cooperate or defect, however the overall winner was a program called tit-for-tat which simply started out cooperating and then did whatever the opponent had done the previous move. In the second tournament the winner was called tit-for-2-tats, I don't think I need to explain that one's tactics!

It is important to note that in a population it isn't as simple as there being an optimum strategy that everyone should abide by. One of the founders of modern game theory, John Nash (of “A Beautiful Mind”), showed that strategies of cooperation and defection settle to a balance (the Nash equilibrium) – so long as the frequency of defection is low, then on average the cooperators gain by continuing to cooperate and the small number of defectors can take advantage.

Arguing with People

I like arguing with people.  Sometimes I'll act dumb and use the Socratic method of asking seemingly innocuous questions that tease apart the person's position.  Sometimes I'll be aggressive in pointing out the inconsistency of their position and condescendingly laugh at them as I do it.  Either way can be entertaining and fun; and more to the point of this post - it is usually extremely easy.

99.9% of the opinions of 99.9% of the people are arrived at through instinct not logic.  The person then mentally commits to that opinion and looks for arguments to justify their position.  I have encountered very few well thought out, consistent, opinions.

I cannot emphasise enough the truth of this observation; it seems to simply be how the human mind works.  It takes self knowledge and a willingness to re-evaluate every opinion you hold dear to not fall into the same trap.

So if you want to stop talking out your ass, bring a little logic to your thoughts.  Think about it and then arrive at a conclusion, don't have an opinion and then think about it.

Risk

Primates other than humans have been studied when there is voluntary alcohol consumption, and the proportions of non-human primates that:

1. develop alcoholism

2. get drunk occasionally but are generally sensible

3. always drink in moderation

4. choose to be teetotal

have been found to be approximately the same proportions that are observed in humans.

Much of our predisposition towards level of personal control, and risk taking, seems to be genetic.  Upbringing may play a part, but it would seem to be a function of brain structure.  In life there is usually a trade-off between risk and potential reward; it makes sense for some members of a population to be more adventurous, and for some to be more risk-averse.

I'd like to share with you two things relating to risk that I find interesting:

1.  Drivers tend to drive to a level of risk that [at least partially] compensates for any safety measure.  For example, if you wear a seatbelt you drive slightly more recklessly and therefore you are more likely to kill someone else (protection afforded to you still far outweighs the extra risk to others - it is mainly pedestrians and cyclists that bear the brunt of the extra risk).

This thinking is obvious if taken to extremes – imagine if there were no seatbelts and a big spike in the middle of the steering wheel... there would be a lot of very careful drivers out there!

2.  The parasitic protozoa toxoplasma gondii's primary life cycle involves passing through a rat/mouse and a cat. Experiments have shown conclusively that this infection causes a rat to become less risk averse.  It becomes much more likely to forage out in the open rather than skulking in the shadows, and therefore more likely to be caught by a cat and continue TG's life cycle.  It may come as little surprise to some readers that toxoplasma gondii sets up residence in the amygdala.  Although rats and cats are the primary life cycle hosts for TG, human infection in USA is estimated at 22.5% (much higher for cat owners!) and worldwide it is estimated at 25 - 75 % (those are some big error bars, eh?).  Infection normally poses no obvious effects, very few people are struck with acute toxoplasmosis, but studies have shown effects on human risk taking and personality.  People infected are more likely to be involved in traffic accidents, and less likely to accept group moral standards. 

So perhaps the local crazy cat-lady has good reason...

OCD

Let me be clear - I do not have OCD.  However, there are some things I do that may be construed as compulsive behaviours and I thought I would share a couple of them with you.

There is often a right way to do something; if you realise that, and are not particularly time-constrained, then why would you do it the wrong way? 

For example, when making a sandwich the fillings should be spread evenly through the bread.  Therefore, I cut the cheese, tomato, cucumber, ham, etc to fit the bread exactly - like a food jigsaw.  Cucumber is a bitch.  Not too long ago I ate at a sandwich bar and when my sandwich arrived I found that the PROFESSIONAL sandwich-maker had put the top slice on in the reverse orientation to the bottom slice - this should be a sacking offence in my opinion.

The picture above annoys me; it was obviously not done by anyone obsessive, or even vaguely observant.  It is neither neatly done, nor consistent in use of lower case / capitals.

When I need to do a shit, I always check there is toilet paper there before I sit down.  In public places, such as in work, the 2-ply toilet paper often has the top ply separated and wrapped around an extra time so that the perforations don't match up - how does this happen and why doesn't anyone else fix it!?  And, of course, folding 2 sheets in half and half again doesn't yield the optimum width, so I either fold 2 sheets into 3, or 3 sheets into 4 (depending on quality).

As you may know, I can be a bit of a grammar nazi and TBH it often interrupts the flow of what I am reading.  Any time I read  a commonly wrong word, such as its/it's or your /you're, I do a double take to check it is right.  Also, as I pointed out to Notme earlier today, it should be !?, not ?! because the question mark is curved like a bracket and therefore the exclamation mark should be contained within it.

As I said, I am not OCD (though maybe I have a dash of Aspie in my comorbid cocktail!), and if I cannot do things the way I would prefer to, for whatever reason, I do not get anxious - I just move on and forget about it.  I think my little quirks are simply related to conscientiousness, an attention to detail, never assuming the traditional way of doing something is the best way, being generally more aware of things around me than most, and a frustration at how other people (imbeciles!) can get the simplest things wrong.

These are all the traits that make me good at my job - I see problems,  potential problems, and how things should be done.  Then I fix them.

False Modesty

I'm a good actor.  All the world's a stage and it is necessary to be a good actor to fit into social situations when you don't have a normal emotional response.  I have learned how to be superficially charming, and to adapt my personality to elicit the desired response from the target audience.  I usually have no trouble acting as the exuberant, sensitive, interested, geeky, arrogant, caring, or considerate guy, as the situation demands.  I do however have some trouble with the roles of being modest or stupid.

I used to justify never using these two masks by telling myself that they weren't necessary; another mask would do just as well to achieve the same, or equally desirable, ends.  But I realised several years ago that I was just telling myself what I wanted to hear, and since then have worked on them.

I've worked on modesty quite a lot, and even though it was extremely difficult at times, there was a period when it even became one of my favourite go-to masks - people (in the UK anyway) like self depreciation and do not like someone who has let on that they have achieved something impressive.  To pretend to an imbecile that I am not superior to them certainly did not come naturally, but I just had to remember that it is just a game which has an objective; it is just an act, and achieving the end by the most efficient route has its own satisfaction.

Acting stupid... I'm still working on that.  I've practiced looking stupid: relaxed and defocused eyes, combined with a slackening of the jaw muscles works extremely well.  Normally I consciously decide to intonate my voice, use facial expressions, and gesticulate, so it is easy to just use my natural monotone, speak a little slower, and not be as expressive to complete the main construction of the mask.
I still struggle to not say something intelligent, but I've found that coming across as initially stupid (non-threatening) but actually intelligent is one of the most disarming and useful personas to wear in some situations.  It comes across as wise rather than intelligent.

Laughter

Laughter is a funny thing.  Pun intended, sorry.  Although it is possible to have a good laugh on your own, it is generally a social thing.  I am certainly capable of having a proper giggle fit, but am aware when I do so that I am capable of stopping if I choose to.  The purpose of laughter would seem to be social, and I have never had a giggle fit on my own, have you?

The last giggle fit I had was when I showed my bro-in-law the encyclopedia dramatica 'offended' page (link is to old version - they seem to have taken down all the images).  He scrolled down through the images, mostly unpurterbed (he's prob not NT either!) and then stopped at this one:

We both started giggling...

What is a Psychopath?

Psychopaths are a natural phenomenon that exists at a frequency that confers an evolutionary advantage.  There are various definitions of a psychopath, and some attempts to separate the terms psychopath and sociopath.  I use both terms interchangeably.  The trouble I have with any definition is that it is heavily weighted by the context in which the diagnostic criteria have been arrived at.  Dr Robert Hare is perhaps the most famous clinician associated with the diagnosis and his experience is typical - the psychopaths that sparked his interest and, more importantly, informed his diagnostic criteria, were all in prison.

I haven't read of any weighty criticism of this - basing criteria for a psychological diagnosis on a very obviously skewed sample.  I guess it is understandable because society only really has motivation to diagnose and understand people who are different when they impact society - and most diagnoses are court-ordered for offenders.

I see psychopathy as being a spectrum (of thought pattern), and for the diagnosis and understanding of it to be critically based on criminal behaviour is disingenuous at best.

The definitive traits of the psychopath certainly make them more likely to be a criminal, but that is hardly the full story, just as not all young black men in ghettos are criminals.  We live in a scientific age where we can analyse genes and image brains as they function - more research is needed to catch budding psychopaths when they are young so that behavioral treatments can be given as soon as possible.  The evidence so far is that genes and environment play a part in the development of a psychopathic personality.  Given the right environment, I have no doubt that those with psychopathic tendencies have the potential to be not just honest and productive members of society, but valued for contributions that an empath simply couldn't provide.

So what are the diagnostic criteria I consider essential?  At a neurological level, there are noted differences in the brain structure of psychopaths - though care should be taken that physical criteria like this are also not simply associated with criminal tendencies, such as low impulse control.  I think essential to a diagnosis would be a lack of empathy and remorse/guilt.  There is also a lack of normal physiological response to usually emotive words - a psychopath would likely fail the Voight-Kampff test.

Further than that, it seems to me that there is also a lack of societal bonds - social situations are learned and used to form consciously decided impressions, and there is an instinctive feeling that the rules of society do not apply to them.

I expect to still be alive when genome sequencing and neurophysiology scans become routine for the richer half of the populations of the western world.  This will advance the understanding of many psychological diagnoses to a level we can only dream of today.  The only question is whether society will see it as a manageable neurodiversity, or as a disorder that needs to be eradicated (strong genetic tendency = abortion?).

Who am I?

I am not neurotypical (NT). However I am not easily put into any particular box. Below I will try to explain how I think and the various boxes that I have researched.

1. I don't have a conscience

skype chat recently with a friend I've come 'out' to:

GB: so you never feel guilty?

Res: nope

GB: weird, as an overly emotional person in a negative sense, this intrigues me

Res: i experimented when i was younger

GB: by doing what?!

GB: !?

GB: ahhh

Res: torturing and killing a frog

GB: aw, that's mean!!

Res: then a bird

Res: then a cat

GB: noooooo, i have a cat!

Res: then i stopped...

GB: my cat is awesome

GB: how the fuck did you catch a bird?

Res: i figured i'd move up the evolved sentience scale in case my guilt only kicked in at some point...

Res: i shot it with a catapult. fucking awesome shot

[p.s. I kept the cat's collar for a couple of years as a reminder/trophy, then threw it out one day on impulse]

2. I lack empathy and emotion

In fMRI scans, the same area of a normal brain is activated when a person watches someone being hurt as when they themselves are hurt. The response is demonstrably different in certain disorders and people with damage to particular areas of their brain (due to a cancer exorcism or an accident). I do sometimes wince slightly when I see someone hit in the crotch, but I am unaffected at seeing someone else's emotional pain – can someone empathise with an emotion they have not felt?

Another skype chat:

Res: I'm not sure I feel love, the way other people do anyway, but i can feel in-love. raised heart rate. lightness in my chest. thinking about them all the time.

Res: but that's all physiological associated with hormones etc.

GB: i think that too!

GB: i only enjoy being with someone at the start

Res: if my parents died in a car crash my first thought would be what a pain it would make my life organising the funeral and dealing with people trying to be sympathetic

GB: that makes me sad!

Res: pros and cons...

GB: sad for them too

Res: they'd be dead. so why/how would they care ;)

GB: no, now!

Res: well i'm not gonna tell them am i !

Res: lol

GB: but the fact that you think this behind their back!

Res: but if they never know what is the difference?

3. I am intelligent and self aware

I excelled at school with little/no effort. I graduated top of the class in a physics masters. I studied physics because I wanted to know how the world worked – as if perhaps it would lead to an understanding of 'why?'. I also read a lot of philosophy, but quickly discovered only the ignorant worship the famous philosophers – some good ideas but only interspersed into embarrassingly stupid ones. I've been an amateur psychologist all my life; due to lack of emotion I needed to understand how to fit in and act normal. Only relatively recently have I actively researched aspects of psychology.

4. All social interactions are learned and driven by an objective

Not just what I say and my general demeanor, but all aspects of body language – stance, facial movements, voice inflections, gesticulations, etc are all conscious decisions. Of course, I am also constantly aware of others around me.  This can become very tiring.

With certain groups of people (I am careful that they don't overlap) I am seen as the life of the group, with others I am the introverted shy physicist. With new people that are meaningless to me I will most likely either charm them because we have a mutual friend I need to maintain a mask for, or I will treat them as a plaything to entertain me – saying or asking something that takes them out of their comfort zone so I see them either squirm or demonstrate their lack of intelligence.  I especially like to play with the religious.

5. I have a lot of self control

I took up cigarettes at school to test my will power. I smoked ~10 a day for 6 months then gave up. I honestly don't think it possible for me to be addicted to anything (other drugs tried, not just cigs!).

6. Everything is a conscious cost/benefit analysis

I think NTs have this calculation in their unconscious and then the result is passed to the conscious mind as a feeling. I think that my neural wiring gives access to the raw calculation process instead of the feeling.

For example, I have friends that I value. I mean this literally. They not only provide interest to me, or partake in activities I find interesting, or provide a safety net that I know I could rely on should I need it, but they also provide a means for me to appear normal. I cultivate these relationships in a conscious manner but if the demands on me (the cost) look like they will outweigh the benefits to me in the long term then I will engineer a separation of our friendship.

7. I would prefer to be 'good' than 'bad'

Part of my [slightly narcissistic] self image is that I am more worthy of life than most people – I do good things because I choose to, not because it is my instinct, not because I would feel guilty if I didn't, and not because my religion demands it of me. I believe this makes me a better person than others. I am more alive. It is hard to tie down this definition of 'better' – and I am aware that any definition I come up with would be self fulfilling to suit my needs...

I am always quick to be helpful - it is a good strategy because not only do I feed/reinforce my superior self-image, but because the help I give usually costs me very little (emotionally nothing!), but the cost to an NT would be large – thus the potential reciprocal benefit to me (directly, or indirectly by others finding out about my 'selfless' act) far outweighs my cost.

The DSM-IV defines:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g. exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
I am more important than most people, who are but sheep following their instincts and who get excited about shoe shopping. Is this not simply reasonable rather than delusional? I do not need to exaggerate achievements to impress.

Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
No, no, no, no, and yes – of course I seek ideal love...

Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
I am certainly special, and NTs cannot hope to understand my thought process. However that is due to their neurophysiology, not anything to do with their status.

Requires excessive admiration
No. I really don't need attention or admiration.

Has a sense of entitlement, i.e. unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
This ties in with 1. and 3. and instinctively I do not feel rules apply to me.

Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
Yes.  But everyone does, I am just conscious of it.

Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
Yes... but I'm not unwilling to identify with the feelings of others – I can recognise the signs very well and behave taking them into account.

Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
No.

Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Yes.

I do not live in the grandiose fantasy world that NPDs construct. I do not feel the need for admiration. However some of the other traits certainly strike a chord, and I do place great value on myself.

Sociopathic Antisocial Personality Disorder

Characteristics of people with antisocial personality disorder may include:

• Apparent lack of remorse or empathy for others
  Yes
• Persistent lying or stealing
  No... it is rarely necessary to lie to achieve what I want and if I lie there is a chance of being caught in it. If I need to create a rapport with someone in a one-off situation I will not hesitate to lie to create the rapport. I don't habitually steal, though have done on occasion.
• Cruelty to animals
  Certainly capable. But I don't gain pleasure from it so don't tend to. Perhaps if I'm in a bad mood and bored and there is opportunity.
  
• Poor behavioral controls — expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper
  No.
• A history of childhood conduct disorder
  No.
• Recurring difficulties with the law
  No.  Arrested twice, but nothing major.
• Promiscuity
  Until the past few years above average, due more to being considered handsome and thus having more opportunity presented than to my seeking it out.
• Tendency to violate the boundaries and rights of others
  Boundaries, yes – to provoke an interesting response.
• Aggressive, often violent behavior; prone to getting involved in fights
  No. Though I partake in mixed martial arts training.
• Inability to tolerate boredom
  Inability? Too poorly defined.
• Poor or abusive relationships
  No.  Unless you count the one with a BPD girl.
• Irresponsible work behavior
  No.  Though there is a temporal element to this.  After ~4 years it becomes very difficult to maintain the veneer of responsibility.
• Disregard for safety
  Yes. I don't wear a seatbelt, have crashed a hang-glider, pushed dangerous snowboarding limits...

Other common characteristics of those with Antisocial Personality Disorder include superficial charm [Yes], shallow emotions [Yes], a distorted sense of self [By definition I cannot judge this], a constant search for new sensations (which can have bizarre consequences) [Yes], a tendency to physically or verbally abuse peers or relatives [No], and manipulation of others without remorse or empathy for the victim [Yes]. Egocentrism [Yes], megalomania [No], lack of responsibility [Lack of feeling responsible], extroversion [Apparent, but I'm really an introvert], excessive hedonism [it's not excessive if I'm still alive and have kept my life together], high impulsivity [Yes and no... instinct is to be impulsive, self control mostly stops my being so], and the desire to experience sensations of control and power can also be present. [umm better than feeling powerless and under someone else's control...]

The problem is the people diagnosed with a disorder are the ones with no self-control (usually an assessment before their trial...). Therefore lack of self control becomes part of the diagnosis. The parts of sociopathy that do not apply to me are the parts that are due to lack of self control; the thoughts and thought processes fit me pretty well.

Schizoid Personality Disorder (SPD)
The World Health Organization's ICD-10 lists schizoid personality disorder as characterized by at least four of the following criteria:

1. Emotional coldness, detachment or reduced affection.
   Shallow affect... so yep.
2. Limited capacity to express either positive or negative emotions towards others.
   Not really, if I do feel positive or negative to someone I have no problem letting them know.
3. Consistent preference for solitary activities.I do like my alone time, but as I spend time with friends/family perhaps 5 out of 7 days a week I don't think this can apply to me.
4. Very few, if any, close friends or relationships and a lack of desire for such.I have a few close friends, close enough to discuss shit like this with.  I am in a healthy loving relationship.
5. Indifference to either praise or criticism.
   No.  I see praise/criticism more from the point of view of my narcissistic side - if someone praises me I'm thinking I deserve it and that person did well to recognise it.  If someone criticises me it bounces off because they are inferior and don't know what they are talking about.
6. Taking pleasure in few, if any, activities.
   Shallow affect will do that...
7. Indifference to social norms and conventions.Not a simple answer.  I don't feel like I am part of mainstream society and I don't feel rules apply to me.  I adhere to social norms and conventions most of the time because I have to to appear normal!
8. Preoccupation with fantasy and introspection.
   No.
9. Lack of desire for sexual experiences with another person.
   No.

Autism Spectrum Disorder

http://aq.server8.org/

I am a physicist, and have non-typical emotions, so of course I must suspect e.g. Aspergers. However, I have no trouble reading other people's emotions and no trouble imagining what another person's response to a situation will be when they are given different information to work from than me. The questions in the AQ test mostly don't have a simple answer so it's hard to score it. However, I do like rocking sometimes :)

I'm also co-morbid with Cyclothymia which is essentially a lower amplitude bipolar disorder:

Dysthymic phase [yes yes yes... apart from the guilt obviously]

Difficulty making decisions; problems concentrating; poor memory recall; guilt; self-criticism; low self-esteem; pessimism; self-destructive thinking; continuously feeling sad; apathy; hopelessness; helplessness; irritability; quick temper; lack of motivation; social withdrawal; appetite change; lack of sexual desire; self-neglect; fatigue or insomnia.

Euphoric phase [yes yes yes... except it's more aggressive thoughts than behaviour]

Unusually good mood or cheerfulness (euphoria); Extreme optimism; Inflated self-esteem; Poor judgment; Rapid speech; Racing Thoughts; Aggressive or hostile behavior; Being inconsiderate of others; Agitation; Increased physical activity; Risky behavior; Spending sprees; Increased drive to perform or achieve goals; Increased sexual drive; Decreased need for sleep; Tendency to be easily distracted; Inability to concentrate

Both phases involve difficulty sleeping, which is the bane of my life. I certainly notice things like my speech and thought speed changing drastically in different moods.

I exercise a lot, and exercise is the best treatment for any depressive mood disorder. In a typical week I would do >6 hours' strenuous exercise. If I don't do this for whatever reason (e.g. Injury) I go downhill. That is why I often push on with exercise even when injured, when physically I should give it time to heal. Last May I had my collarbone broken during a brazillian ju-jitsu match and by not letting it heal properly it was still a little sore for months after.

So in conclusion, if forced to define the complicated cocktail of co-morbidity that is me, I would say that my thought processes are mostly sociopath, with a generous dollop of NPD, and just a dash of Aspie and SPD; baked in with some cyclothymia.  
My high self control precludes me from ever being diagnosed as a sociopath, and that combined with being non-delusional precludes an NPD diagnosis.  I can identify a little with aspies but I am not one.  I am still romantically idealistic, even though this post and my previous one on love may not give that impression.

I am a special snowflake and I don't need a label.