The article states from the outset that we can better understand the value of guilt through its (negative) relationship with psychopathy. It can be a strange way of tying and knotting concepts. It is the same as relating the color red to electromagnetic radiation to discover its "value". Here you have? Surely, I am more narrow-minded and cannot understand what the poet wanted. In bold he says that psychopathy would mean not experiencing, in variable proportions, the feeling of guilt. (How not to experience something in different proportions?! Please, details). To support this idea (and others) he cites five cases. A documented essay.
I have a hard time tolerating ignorance in the field of psychology on the part of so-called professionals. I can understand the passion for literature and essay. I don't agree with her when psychologizing explanations based on personal experiences and anecdotal evidence roll in her essays.
Psychology is an empirical science. (I know, you don't really learn this way through lousy faculties.) While anyone can develop theories in this area of science, they must be subjected to critical scrutiny. It starts with admitting that the theory is yours. Your own brain invented it and you express yourself in relative (and subjective) terms, not absolute ones.
According to the specialized literature (not me then, the author with a brain full of revelations), guilt is not the defining mark of psychopathy. There is not a single note, but several. Psychopathy is a compound disorder. However, if we had to pick one, then I'd go for insensitivity . Cruelty seems to be at the center of psychopathic personality (and antisocial disorder) and can be seen from childhood.
Without confusing the part with the whole, we know that cruelty (the whole) involves several traits (the parts), such as a lack (or deficiency) of guilt and remorse, sadism, insensitivity and, in general, a poor emotional response. along with moral reasoning. care, commitment That is, the psycho island (with some schooling) can justify harming another person (or animal) in such a way that it seems to him a morally correct action.
The little boy who gently calls a pretend cat and then tortures it is obviously cruelty, the core of psychopathy. As if a cat was a toy for him and he tried to change the battery. And even if he understands that torturing a cat is wrong and deserves punishment, it doesn't mean he feels remorse. He can pretend that he feels. I mean he's acting like he 's feeling guilty and he's cheating on you. And the adult is even more skilled in the theater of victimization and simulation.
But shirking blame (and when it comes to the associated responsibility) is not typical behavior .psychopathic. But typical human. We all seek to avoid guilt once we make a mistake. In fact, within certain limits, it is somewhat healthy. Guilt is an unpleasant social emotion. It appears as a sign when we break a rule. When it does not appear, it does not necessarily mean that we are showing psychopathy. But I haven't internalized that rule. For example, the driver who believes that the speed limit is optional based on rushing, social status and engine power. Or, the politician who steals public money (often through intermediaries and various methods), but does not believe that it is a crime that justifies that he is a victim of the system. I have never heard of anyone capable of being honest. As we know, they all plead not guilty, victims of abusive justice.
We justify ourselves and the emotion of guilt tends to disappear with responsibility. Responsibility for our actions and decisions comes from social learning. How do we regulate each other based on norms? How well are we able to negotiate our differences, prejudices and solve our problems? Along with the appropriation of the rules comes the emotion of guilt when we deviate from them.
All people show the need to justify their actions and decisions, especially the wrong ones. Its engine is an unpleasant sensation, which Leon Festinger, a famous researcher, called "cognitive dissonance." Guilt also usually appears, a social emotion that helps us (except when it blocks us) to regulate our relationships with other people around certain rules.
Can you imagine what it would be like not to feel guilty? Regardless of how you act or even intend, the guilt no longer appears. Does it still matter if you break or follow rules of any kind? Also added to this scenario is a reckless audacity. You act fearlessly as you please and stubbornly insist on achieving your goal no matter the damage. Although you know the legal consequences, you dare to do what you like. Well, if you can imagine yourself in this scenario, you are approaching the psychological functioning of a psychopath. It's good to know that there are many shades of psychopathy. Psychopaths who can function socially are obviously not those individuals with criminal potential who sooner or later end up in prison for violence and murder.
The author also writes, also in bold, that the psychopath cannot authentically experience (that is, pretend?) guilt, because it is complex. I have not found anywhere in the specialized literature an association between "complex" and psychopathy. In the context of psychology, the complex is a Freudian term and transformed into a therapy topic by Alfred Adler. But the author seems to have her own theory of "complexes and psychopathy." Something about self-inadequacy and how the "complex" cannot lucidly address its own inadequacy. I stop because I can feel my few parsley connections, sorry neurons tangle.
For fun, I propose a test to find out if you think like a psychopath. With this test, Kevin Dutton, psychological researcher and professor at the University of Oxford, begins chapter 2 of his famous book on the wisdom of psychopaths. I am reproducing it here in a version modified by myself.
During his mother's funeral, a man meets a woman he has never seen before and is mysteriously attracted to her. He thought that she was her soul mate and fell in love with her instantly. The funeral was over and the woman disappeared before the man asked for her phone number. A few days later, the man killed his sister. Because? What motive could he have for killing his sister?
Had his sister threatened him because they disagreed about the inheritance? That she doesn't want to tell him who the mystery woman is and in a moment of blind rage she kills her? Whoever thinks like a psychopath will give the following answer. He expected the woman to show up again at her sister's funeral.
However, if you are wondering, as in the title of this article, it is quite likely that you are not manifesting a psychopathic personality. (To find out why, you can read in a previous article).