![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 14 of 14. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2000, at 13:05:18
Hi, everyone,
I came up with an idea. Instead of straight-out blocking suspect posts, it turns out there's a relatively easy way to save them and to post them later. So I'll screen those specific posts, and if you've been blocked by mistake, you shouldn't be any longer, or at least not completely.
In Internet-lingo, you might call this being "partially moderated".
BTW, a registration process would be an even better solution, because a block could automatically let you through if you were registered (and not being disruptive).
Thanks again for your patience,
Bob
Posted by CarolAnn on April 15, 2000, at 16:25:31
In reply to unblocking, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2000, at 13:05:18
Hello Dr. Bob, I posted a note,to you, called, "blocking posts, and group dynamics study?". It's up there in the "registration" and "charging" thread. I neglected to put your name in the subject line. I hope you will read it. Thanks, CarolAnn
Posted by Cass on April 15, 2000, at 17:06:09
In reply to unblocking, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2000, at 13:05:18
I'm so happy to be able to post. Thanks!
Posted by 166.102.***.*** on April 16, 2000, at 6:17:37
In reply to unblocking, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2000, at 13:05:18
Thank you for unblocking me. I see some possible problems with some of the above ideas. A large percentage of people coming here have mental problems. So to expect them to be civil at all times seems unrealistic. Some people may be coming here to offer support out of good will and are not likely to pay so they can do volunteer work. Anybody can have a bad day and come off in a negative way. Sociopathy is also a mental illness isn't it? Some of these disruptive posters may just be kids causing trouble, but it is also possible that they are people having a psychotic episode, who knows? I don't like the idea of being stuck with one username. Supposing I have viewpoints that seem to other people to be very inconsistent. If I stated all these viewpoints as one alias or whatever, wouldn't that reflect badly on my credibility? It seems more reasonable to me to use more than one alias so that if I state apparently conflicting viewpoints hopefully the consistent ones will belong to one (or more) alias. Also, to some degree, computers are used to collect various data from internet users for what ever purpose often without their knowledge. This irks me and I would not be inclined to make this any easier for these unknown interests and consider it an invasion of privacy. Does anyone think that this data collection has the users interests at heart? I recently visited a website and it downloaded a fair sized program without asking me or telling me. I later saw the program and noticed it didn't look familiar. I then had considerable difficulty removing it from my computer. I think this has happened more that once. I may have downloaded a program and embedded in it was a "mole" program that would collect data about the user and then send it back to some party when I was connected to the internet. This is partly conjecture, but I am reasonably sure it is true. Given all this, I think a certain amount of paranoia is justified. I thought you might consider breaking the chat site into different compatible groups, but I don't know if this would work or be feasible.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 16, 2000, at 8:07:45
In reply to Re: unblocking, posted by 166.102.***.*** on April 16, 2000, at 6:17:37
> Sociopathy is also a mental illness isn't it? Some of these disruptive posters may just be kids causing trouble, but it is also possible that they are people having a psychotic episode, who knows?
I agree. But it's not that they shouldn't receive support, too, but that their behaviors can detract from how helpful this board can be to others.
> I don't like the idea of being stuck with one username.
The short answer is, I don't see why people couldn't register under multiple usernames if they wanted...
> Also, to some degree, computers are used to collect various data from internet users for what ever purpose often without their knowledge.
Yes, trust is an issue.
Bob
Posted by 297.3 on April 16, 2000, at 21:24:52
In reply to Re: unblocking, posted by 166.102.***.*** on April 16, 2000, at 6:17:37
> Thank you for unblocking me. I see some possible problems with some of the above ideas. A large percentage of people coming here have mental problems. So to expect them to be civil at all times seems unrealistic. Some people may be coming here to offer support out of good will and are not likely to pay so they can do volunteer work. Anybody can have a bad day and come off in a negative way. Sociopathy is also a mental illness isn't it? Some of these disruptive posters may just be kids causing trouble, but it is also possible that they are people having a psychotic episode, who knows? I don't like the idea of being stuck with one username. Supposing I have viewpoints that seem to other people to be very inconsistent. If I stated all these viewpoints as one alias or whatever, wouldn't that reflect badly on my credibility? It seems more reasonable to me to use more than one alias so that if I state apparently conflicting viewpoints hopefully the consistent ones will belong to one (or more) alias. Also, to some degree, computers are used to collect various data from internet users for what ever purpose often without their knowledge. This irks me and I would not be inclined to make this any easier for these unknown interests and consider it an invasion of privacy. Does anyone think that this data collection has the users interests at heart? I recently visited a website and it downloaded a fair sized program without asking me or telling me. I later saw the program and noticed it didn't look familiar. I then had considerable difficulty removing it from my computer. I think this has happened more that once. I may have downloaded a program and embedded in it was a "mole" program that would collect data about the user and then send it back to some party when I was connected to the internet. This is partly conjecture, but I am reasonably sure it is true. Given all this, I think a certain amount of paranoia is justified. I thought you might consider breaking the chat site into different compatible groups, but I don't know if this would work or be feasible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Your right (of course). I always turn napster off as soon as they start pulling things out of my computer too. I just take what I want and they can keep their little cyber fingers out of my computer. We don't think that's greedy, do we?
oops think you answered that above-sociopathy.About the aliases your right also (of course) but wouldn't it reflect more on your consistency than your credibility if you posted conflicting viewpoints? Might not people even find you charmingly human?
It IS unreasonable to expect the mentally ill to be civil. (right again) But since the reasonable approach is to call them consumers and ship them off to Godforsaken NAMI Clubhouses,isn't unreasonable kind of appealing?
I hope you realize I'm teasing you because I can't figure out what the numbers are supposed to mean and it's driving me crazy (excuse the technical term). I remain confident that you and I are among the small percentage who come here without mental problems.
297.3
Posted by boB on April 16, 2000, at 21:30:37
In reply to Re: unblocking, posted by 166.102.***.*** on April 16, 2000, at 6:17:37
No. Sociopathy is not a mental illness, at least as considered under McNaughten (sp) test for mental illness used in most courts.
I am not sure about DSM-IV - I did not think it classified sociopathy as a mental illness, but I am working way beyond my informed recollection with that guess. I think sociopathy is more like a personality trait than a classified illness. My general recollection of my readings is that sociopathy is basicly badness, in the eyes of a court. Mental illness, to a court, is the inability to perceive or anticipate the consequences of ones actions, and a lack of moral judgement. Sociopathy is the choice to make the wrong moral decision. At least this is my paraphrase of what I recall about this.
Regardless the definition, I consider it important to realize that the nomenclature was created for the convienience of the legal or medical institions that use it. You personal understanding of sociopathy as a mental illness likely reflects sound judgement and understanding beyond the published definitions.
Posted by forthfore on April 17, 2000, at 21:17:37
In reply to Sociopathy - a mental illness?, posted by boB on April 16, 2000, at 21:30:37
There's a difference between mental illness and incompetence - which is the legal consideration with mental illness. That is you can be mentally ill by anyone's standards yet still legally competent - perfectly responsible for your actions.
What you're calling sociopathy is now defined by the DSM as "antisocial personality disorder." Legally, having the disorder is not going to get anyone classified as incompetent. But it is a a "mental illness" (or disorder anyway) as far as the APA is concerned.
On the other hand, I'm hard put to think of a human characteristic that isn't a disorder as far as the APA is concerned.
> No. Sociopathy is not a mental illness, at least as considered under McNaughten (sp) test for mental illness used in most courts.
>
> I am not sure about DSM-IV - I did not think it classified sociopathy as a mental illness, but I am working way beyond my informed recollection with that guess. I think sociopathy is more like a personality trait than a classified illness. My general recollection of my readings is that sociopathy is basicly badness, in the eyes of a court. Mental illness, to a court, is the inability to perceive or anticipate the consequences of ones actions, and a lack of moral judgement. Sociopathy is the choice to make the wrong moral decision. At least this is my paraphrase of what I recall about this.
>
> Regardless the definition, I consider it important to realize that the nomenclature was created for the convienience of the legal or medical institions that use it. You personal understanding of sociopathy as a mental illness likely reflects sound judgement and understanding beyond the published definitions.
Posted by 166.102.***.*** on April 17, 2000, at 2:52:06
In reply to Re 166.102.***.***, posted by 297.3 on April 16, 2000, at 21:24:52
> > Thank you for unblocking me. I see some possible problems with some of the above ideas. A large percentage of people coming here have mental problems. So to expect them to be civil at all times seems unrealistic. Some people may be coming here to offer support out of good will and are not likely to pay so they can do volunteer work. Anybody can have a bad day and come off in a negative way. Sociopathy is also a mental illness isn't it? Some of these disruptive posters may just be kids causing trouble, but it is also possible that they are people having a psychotic episode, who knows? I don't like the idea of being stuck with one username. Supposing I have viewpoints that seem to other people to be very inconsistent. If I stated all these viewpoints as one alias or whatever, wouldn't that reflect badly on my credibility? It seems more reasonable to me to use more than one alias so that if I state apparently conflicting viewpoints hopefully the consistent ones will belong to one (or more) alias. Also, to some degree, computers are used to collect various data from internet users for what ever purpose often without their knowledge. This irks me and I would not be inclined to make this any easier for these unknown interests and consider it an invasion of privacy. Does anyone think that this data collection has the users interests at heart? I recently visited a website and it downloaded a fair sized program without asking me or telling me. I later saw the program and noticed it didn't look familiar. I then had considerable difficulty removing it from my computer. I think this has happened more that once. I may have downloaded a program and embedded in it was a "mole" program that would collect data about the user and then send it back to some party when I was connected to the internet. This is partly conjecture, but I am reasonably sure it is true. Given all this, I think a certain amount of paranoia is justified. I thought you might consider breaking the chat site into different compatible groups, but I don't know if this would work or be feasible.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Your right (of course). I always turn napster off as soon as they start pulling things out of my computer too. I just take what I want and they can keep their little cyber fingers out of my computer. We don't think that's greedy, do we?
> oops think you answered that above-sociopathy.
>
> About the aliases your right also (of course) but wouldn't it reflect more on your consistency than your credibility if you posted conflicting viewpoints? Might not people even find you charmingly human?
>
> It IS unreasonable to expect the mentally ill to be civil. (right again) But since the reasonable approach is to call them consumers and ship them off to Godforsaken NAMI Clubhouses,isn't unreasonable kind of appealing?
>
> I hope you realize I'm teasing you because I can't figure out what the numbers are supposed to mean and it's driving me crazy (excuse the technical term). I remain confident that you and I are among the small percentage who come here without mental problems.
>
> 297.3
I don't know if I should laugh or feel insulted? What is "napster"?"I just take what I want and they can keep their little cyber fingers
out of my computer. We don't think that's greedy, do we?If you want to further the interests of Big Brother and Little Brother in a sort of 1984 scenario thats your prerogative. I would just assume not help them.
"About the aliases your right also (of course) but wouldn't it reflect more on your
consistency than your credibility if you posted conflicting viewpoints? Might not people
even find you charmingly human?"I like my approach better.
"isn't unreasonable kind of appealing?"
It depends on who you are and what your needs are. Can you find a more effective way of communicating than sarcasm? Maybe you could try something constructive? Oops, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Can you explain what this phrase means?
Also, I am sure some of you people are familiar with the phenomenon of addiction to internet chat etc.. I have been through this before. Say, hypothetically, you have a person who is addicted to internet chat and also has OCD. Pulling the plug on them and then making demands on them is not a nice thing to do. Maybe its time to go to internet addiction rehab?
Posted by Lunatic on April 17, 2000, at 3:22:11
In reply to Sociopathy - a mental illness?, posted by boB on April 16, 2000, at 21:30:37
Mental illness, to a court, is the inability to perceive or anticipate the consequences of
ones actions, and a lack of moral judgement. Sociopathy is the choice to make the
wrong moral decision.It might be constructive to consider sociopathy a mental illness. The system as is isn't working very well is it? Maybe these undesirable behaviors could be controlled with psychotropic drugs? How many criminals do you know of who have been rehabilitated by the present system? When the courts declared that Jeffrey Dalmer was sane this struck me as absolute stupidity. He is sane?! I think he should represent one of the worst possible cases of insanity. What the courts say is irrelevant to psychology anyway, isn't it? What if you have different groups of people who don't share a common morality? What do the courts say, except our morality and our interests or you'll be sorry? Is this likely to work?
Posted by Cindy W on April 18, 2000, at 23:28:45
In reply to Re: Sociopathy - a mental illness?, posted by Lunatic on April 17, 2000, at 3:22:11
> Mental illness, to a court, is the inability to perceive or anticipate the consequences of
> ones actions, and a lack of moral judgement. Sociopathy is the choice to make the
> wrong moral decision.
>
> It might be constructive to consider sociopathy a mental illness. The system as is isn't working very well is it? Maybe these undesirable behaviors could be controlled with psychotropic drugs? How many criminals do you know of who have been rehabilitated by the present system? When the courts declared that Jeffrey Dalmer was sane this struck me as absolute stupidity. He is sane?! I think he should represent one of the worst possible cases of insanity. What the courts say is irrelevant to psychology anyway, isn't it? What if you have different groups of people who don't share a common morality? What do the courts say, except our morality and our interests or you'll be sorry? Is this likely to work?Having worked at a prison for three years now, I am starting to think that sociopathy is almost like a different breed. They just aren't "wired" like most people. Somehow, where their feelings and empathy should be, there's something missing, if that makes sense. I don't think it is a mental illness, so much as a form of "alien species" or something. That probably sounds cold, but the calculated, cold-blooded lack of moral judgment i have seen makes me feel this way.
Posted by Lunatic on April 19, 2000, at 1:25:27
In reply to Re: Sociopathy - a mental illness?, posted by Cindy W on April 18, 2000, at 23:28:45
"Having worked at a prison for three years now, I am starting to think that sociopathy
is almost like a different breed. They just aren't "wired" like most people. Somehow,
where their feelings and empathy should be, there's something missing, if that makes
sense. I don't think it is a mental illness, so much as a form of "alien species" or
something. That probably sounds cold, but the calculated, cold-blooded lack of
moral judgment i have seen makes me feel this way. "I would venture it is largely enviromental, and you also have your XYY. Also, their behavoir is probably reinforced by a prison enviroment. A lot of them probably come from impoverished and abusive upbringings. If the current system is not working then maybe alternatives should be considered. Because they are different from you does not make them not human. It could be possible that there is a difference in the physiology of a sociopathic brain.
Posted by Cindy W on April 19, 2000, at 9:31:53
In reply to Re: Sociopathy - a mental illness?, posted by Lunatic on April 19, 2000, at 1:25:27
> "Having worked at a prison for three years now, I am starting to think that sociopathy
> is almost like a different breed. They just aren't "wired" like most people. Somehow,
> where their feelings and empathy should be, there's something missing, if that makes
> sense. I don't think it is a mental illness, so much as a form of "alien species" or
> something. That probably sounds cold, but the calculated, cold-blooded lack of
> moral judgment i have seen makes me feel this way. "
>
> I would venture it is largely enviromental, and you also have your XYY. Also, their behavoir is probably reinforced by a prison enviroment. A lot of them probably come from impoverished and abusive upbringings. If the current system is not working then maybe alternatives should be considered. Because they are different from you does not make them not human. It could be possible that there is a difference in the physiology of a sociopathic brain.
Lunatic, I agree that there are environmental factors, but some people seem to start out with different physiology as well. The current system (prison environment) definitely exacerbates the problem. However, therapy does not seem to really change really sociopathic or psychopathic people (they just get better at what they do). A lot of the people I work with do come from abusive and impoverished backgrounds. It's very frustrating to go there everyday and see more and more come and go without any real changes. I'm not saying they're not human; I'm just saying they're not the same (something seems to be missing--sense of moral judgment, empathy, whatever).
Posted by boB on April 19, 2000, at 19:32:33
In reply to Re: Sociopathy - a mental illness?, posted by Cindy W on April 19, 2000, at 9:31:53
Criminologists are reaching a concensus that there is clearly a cycle of abuse. Police exectutives and attorney's general are keenly awarr of the cycle. In a book "Why they kill" a renegade criminologist, now teaching at some east coast catholic school,(it is sort of a biographical account of the sources studies, written by a pulitzer prize winning writer) the source guy posits that ALL violent, sociopathic behavior results from the following:
• Victimization (being beat up)
• Personal horification (seeing others beat up when you are powerless to help)
• Violent training (being taught that if your come home with a black eye but did't throw a punch you will get it again at home)
• violent performances (trying violence for yourself - if it works, and one wins social approval for their performance, and especially if one stands up to their abuser, they are well on their way to your prison nightmare, which is:)
• Virulance (uncontrolable violence)The writer said the source (sorry I don't recall the name, and my efforts on this site are fast and free) had interviewed hundreds of prisoners about their history of violence and found the pattern to be very consistent. He said it is important to stop bullying and abuse at an early age before it escalates into irreperable violent training. But the scholar in question says the process (he calls it "violentization") can occur at anytime, such as in a gang intitiation, in a prison environment, or in military training.
There likely are physiological signs of a sociopathic mind, but this gets to the heart of that nature/nurture, biology/pscyhology argument. For many people, "weird hangups" such as guilt and penis envy, that were the stock and trade of psychoanalysis in its 20th century heydey are now nothing but superstition. Scholars and amature fans of psychology are having a hard time grasping that life experiences leave a biological, physiological imprint, and that the imprinting mechanisms are suspended in social conditions. There are drugs to treat sociaopathy - cyanide comes to mind. Just a joke. There are diseases, if you want to call them that, that we will best treat socially and systematically.
The war on drugs is serving to insure that otherwise non-violent people are housed with the most sociopathic elements of our society, so that otherwise non-violent people are being trained in the Prison University of Sociopathy. This will insure that they continue to teach their contagious illness to their children, along with such wonderful skills as promiscuous homosexuality. The war is counterproductive because it creates injuries that will inspire well-meaning pdocs to try to prescribe legal drugs that can never repair the damage done by the process of violent training. The only lasting cure for socoiopathy is a systematic effort to counter the training processes that create sociopathy. In my thinking, it is either a sickness or a criminal act for a scholar to take a position that society cannot address the root causes of sociopathy.
(see also the national association of attorney's general report on youth violence, Bruised Inside)
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.