inb4 >psychology I know I know just bear with me is the idea

All mental disorders are social constructs. Psychopathy exists as long as we all decide on certain biological or behavioral markers.

>>8367297
but does anything make it, in any way, not arbitrary?

if so, source?

>>8367274
I believe i saw an interview ith a neuroscientist claiming to have found strong correlation between certain brain-activities and risk for psychopathy.

Wierd thing is he had a psycho-brain HIMSELF wich was kinda cool.

He seemed pretty bent on severe psychopathy being a "real thing"

>>8367274

>>8367297 is right in the sense it is socially constructed. He is also right in saying that it only exists as long as we all decide on certain biological or behavioral markers.

However, regarding biological markers, we can know to some degree of certainty that when an fMRI scan shows us something we can predict (to some degree of certainty) that something will occur. "Schizophrenic" diagnosed patients learn differently, and you can just use your imagination to what possibilities this could lead. Their ability to learn nonsense syllables are not as present as compared to a nonpatient. Furthermore, their "procedural learning" capabilities are also, generally, inferior.

In no way am I comparing "schizophrenic" patients to the term "psychopath", just food for thought.

Ultimately, I think the diagnosis of these "conditions" are for the integration of the individual into society. By calling them a 'disorder' you create a paradigm in which the normal behavior or conditioned behavior is the acceptable behavior. Whether that is ethical or not is another venture and philosophical debate within itself.

However, to say that they diagnoses are arbitrary are a little intellectually dishonest. There are differences in someone's cognition who is "diagnosed" schizophrenic and one who is not.

This is just the tip of the iceberg (as I'm sure you know). Psychiatry and neurology are definitely unique forms of medical practice.

>>8367331

excuse my use of parentheses. "schizophrenia" in particular is a very hard mental phenomenon to discuss regarding it's pervasive ability to defy diagnosis and prognosis. along with its mostly unknown implications and philosophical ambivalence (if that even makes any sense), it's tricky.

>>8367324
the question is not "can we define psychopathy in an arbitrary way and then prove this behavior exists and find things that correlate with it?" but "should we care?" "why does this meme exist?" and "does it have any basis?"

>>8367274
Well when you're saying someone is mentally ill, you're simply saying that everyone else is mentally healthy. Psychiatry is general is very shaky, even the definition of mental illness is not satisfactory at all. Psychopathy can be both beneficial to the person who has it and the people around them, so if we define mental illness on the basis of the negative effects that it has I'd say that psychology and psychiatry is complete idiocy.

However I think even though that is the common definition most psychiatrists don't really care for it, clearly there are certain types extreme types of people, the mentally ill, and putting a specific label on them helps with the development of medication (which is terribly ineffective if compared to medicine for physical illnesses but that's another topic).

I'd say at the moment psychiatry is very pseudo-sciency, I know psychopathy, schizophrenia and a bunch of other disorders can be diagnosed based on MRI and such. But the overwhelming population of mentally ill people have been diagnosed 100% on the basis on behavior. This coupled with the fact that psychiatrists in the US only get paid if they diagnose the patient with something has created an artificial boom in mental illness.

>>8367364

Hopefully I don't come off as a nut (I'm not, I swear). You can read >>8367331 where I put in my two cents about this subject.


Ultimately, I believe psychiatry prescribes to a form of totality. The generally philosophy is that the term "mentally healthy" is, as I'm sure you know, is defined through society's operating standards. I'm sure psychiatrists in the US would be quick to diagnose someone from a tribe in South America. However, it's interesting to think where a somewhat hivemind mentality could lead us to. In praxis this has been foiled before we could have seen long term predicable results. I am referencing a little bit to Nazi Germany here, and I think it would be interesting to see where that would have gone, if they would have succeeded in their endeavors (in no way, shape, or form am I endorsing their views... but as a hypothetical situation I am intrigued).

The gateway into the diagnosis of psychological conditions shows its framework quick, as a considerable amount of it is self referential. That's not to say it absolutely has NO basis though.

idk mayne

>>8367331
This.

As far as personality disorders go, they describe absolutely everyone to varying degrees. This is by design, and pathology is defined by significant deviation from the norm. Usually there will be some "impairing quality of life for self or others" tacked on to try and grasp for the objective straws of the situation, but this is in practice mere formality.

Some conditions, dementia for instance, have specific, known pathophysiologies. Others like schizophrenia and autism have some known, objective factors, if not fully understood in themselves, as this anon says.

>>8367395
This too.

The standard "philosophy of science" arguments apply, and we may judge specific models on the extent to which they succeed or fail to establish robust, meaningful predictions

>>8367633

It's a shame that (from my experience in undergrad taking psych classes) that they barely talk a bout this.