Psychology Articles

Do you know what a psychopath is? Ever met one? Worse still, have you ever been a psychopath’s victim? Actually, I hate to say it, but the answer to the last two questions may well be ‘yes,’ although you probably wouldn’t realize it.

The research scientists tell us that one person out of a hundred is afflicted with the condition, and it breaks down evenly between men and women.

What image springs into your mind when you think of the word ‘psychopath?’ A figure in a cloak, laughing maniacally as he bears down on you with a huge, blood-soaked knife?

That man you and your spouse met last night at the party. Your spouse mentioned what dead, humourless eyes he had. Well, even deadeye Dick doesn’t fit the bill, I’m afraid, and certainly not the knife wielder.

Naturally enough, they’re Hollywood’s favourite bad chaps and chapesses! The problem with Hollywood, well one of them, anyway, is that they regularly confuse the psychopath with the psychotic.

Probably the most famous, or infamous, mad bad man of all time was Norman Bates in ‘Psycho.’ I wouldn’t mind betting that if you asked a dozen people on the street what he was, everyone would say he was a raving psychopath. Wrong! In fact, he was your garden variety delusional psychotic.

This splendidly dramatic business of ‘hearing voices’ telling him or her to kill someone, or seeing skeletal visions of the long dead telling you to do the same thing, makes for great storytelling, but the chances are that they’re symptoms of a psychotic illness like schizophrenia.

This latter condition, by the way, is another Hollywood blunder that makes for a good storyline. They will insist that because the baddy has a split personality, he’s schizophrenic. It has nothing whatever to do with schizophrenia.

A more accurate depiction of a psychopath would be ‘The Jackal’ in the film ‘Day of the Jackal.’ I believe another excellent example would be Tom Ripley in ‘The Talented Mr. Ripley.’

In real life, while many criminals are psychopaths, most psychopaths aren’t criminals, but they are amoral. The vast majority aren’t murderers, but they’re not the type to seek out as your best friend. They’re bad, but not mad.

So, do you know what a psychopath is? Have you been nursing one to your bosom? To begin with, they’re usually extremely bright, far too bright to end up in prison. They’re not easy to spot, either. You’d have to know one really well and have considerable insight yourself before recognizing the fact that Fred, that charming chap you’ve known for three years, is a psychopath.

They can be charming and delightful company, but they only do what they choose to do. It’s their way or the highway!

Thought I might write something to frighten the life out of you! Mike Bond again, this time on the subject of psychopaths. Seriously, though, it’s a very interesting psychological study and you’ll find lots more of interest if you look in on my site. Really. It’s well worth the trouble. While you’re there, don’t forget the downloads, which you can grab simply by clicking on http://www.wealthyoldman.com

So, how do you treat a psychopath? Very, very carefully! No, psychopaths have only been ‘treated’ when caught in a criminal endeavour. Then the treatment has consisted simply of punishment. Of course, it’s no more ‘treatment’ than the rest of the prison population receives.

Psychopathy is considered a personality disorder and because of this, it’s virtually impossible to treat. In any case, psychopaths are probably very happy indeed with the way they are. Indeed, evidence has been found that their brains work quite differently from other people’s in some respects.

At the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College, London, a very interesting bit of research was carried out when scientists took six psychopaths and nine normal people and showed them pictures of faces. These faces displayed various emotions.

First, they showed them photos of happy, smiling people. Increased activity was observed in the brains of both groups in the areas involved with recognizing facial expressions. However, in the psychopathic group, the increase was smaller.

Then the groups were shown photos of fearful faces, people obviously terrified of something. By the way, both the smiling faces and the fearful faces were compared to neutral faces, hence the researchers were able to gauge the increased or decreased brain activity.

When the fearful faces were shown to the normal people, as compared to the neutral faces, their brain activity increased, whereas the psychopaths showed considerably less activation.

Psychopaths are much less concerned with the emotions of others, except as a way of manipulating them. However, if their plans are thwarted, they can become decidedly emotional. It is, really, all about ’self.’

I hate to say this, but we can all behave psychopathically on occasion, especially when the circumstances are extreme enough. Whole cultures, even, can become psychopathic, at least more so than others.

When a society encourages individuality and material gain, together with organized violence as was seen in Ancient Rome in gladiatorial combat, then psychopathy can descend upon the nation like a disease.

Human hurt and suffering, they feel, are there purely for their entertainment and when human life is held so cheaply, then who can wonder that the individual who’s a member of that culture takes on at least some of those psychopathic tendencies?

Even so, the great majority of people would still be capable of genuine empathy and consideration towards others.

In fact, the vast majority of people today really do care about others, and are genuinely shocked and upset when disasters strike their fellow man.

But the psychopath continues to tread his lonely, cold and dispassionate path

I do hope you’ve found this series on psychopaths both useful and instructive. There’s so much more that you’ll find useful on my Website. I’m Mike Bond, and I specialize in mental illness, having been subject to it for a lot of my life. No, I’m not a psychopath! Simply click on http://www.wealthyoldman.com and don’t forget your free downloads

Television shows are suddenly very interested in people with Bipolar mood disorder with an emphasis on the inability of people with bipolar disorder to function in the world or as crazed killers. How can people who have the disorder protect themselves from being labeled as criminally, mentally ill? The answer is to arm themselves with information and share it where appropriate.

Bipolar disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a category of mood disorders that is determined by the presence of one or more episodes of abnormally high energy levels and one or more depressive episodes. The high energy levels are called mania unless they are not as severe and then they are called hypomania. Some people have these episodes separately and some have them both at the same time.

Extreme episodes of mania can lead to psychotic symptoms like hallucinations or delusions. When this occurs or when a person becomes so depressed as to be suicidal, the person may need care in a controlled hospital setting. On the other hand many people associate their time as manic or hypomanic as times of positive achievements, creativity and goal striving. It has been suggested that many creative people suffer from some form of Bipolar disorder. Much more study is needed on the disorder and creativity.

The incidence of bipolar disorder is not clear. Some research suggests the number of those suffering the disorder may be one in 45 while other researchers conclude the number is one in 70 or so. Researchers believe that Bipolar disorder might be caused by events in childhood or genetic. They are divided in what they think. There is evidence of several people within a family having mood disorders including Bipolar disorder that points toward genetics.

There are 3 classifications of the symptoms of Bipolar Mood disorder.

First bullet
Bipolar Disorder Type I includes one or more manic episodes. These are severe enough to be considered psychotic in nature going from an elevated or irritable mood state to spending or sexual sprees and finally breaking totally with reality including delusions and hallucinations. People can also suffer depressive episodes that can again become psychotic with thoughts and incidences of suicide.

Second bullet
Bipolar Disorder Type II is less severe. Instead of becoming completely manic, the person becomes hypomanic, a condition characterized by creativity, optimism, decreased need for sleep and more energy. People in the hypomanic phase often don’t realize that anything is wrong and they feel wonderful. There are no delusions or hallucinations. Depressive moods are just like that of all other Bipolar depressions and can lead to chronic pain with or without a known cause, lack of desire to do anything, anxiety and guilt.

Third bullet
The third type in this classification is called Cyclothymia or Mixed Affective. This is a condition during which symptoms of both depression and mania occur simultaneously or cycle often during the year.

With the sudden interest in Bipolar disorder on television and its emphasis on the inability of people with bipolar disorder to function in the world, people who have this disorder must learn all they can about their problem. Places where information can be found include self-help books, articles on the internet and information from their health professional. Armed with information people with Bipolar mood disorder can prevent others from misinformation.

Ann Mullen is a woman of a certain age who has been writing for two decades. Her website Self-Help Discovery covers self-help reviews on a wide range of topics, including information on Bipolar Mood disorder.

Television shows are suddenly very interested in people with Bipolar disorder with an emphasis on the inability of such people to function in the world or as serial rapists or crazed killers. How can people who have the disorder protect themselves from being labeled as criminally, mentally ill? The answer is to arm themselves with information and share it where appropriate.

It is true that people with Bipolar disorder have continual changes in thought, energy, mood, sleep and activity particularly before they are on the proper medications. But in spite of shifting states most people, even those who do not have their disorder under control with medication, are not usually going to commit murder or be serial rapists.

Here is some of that good information:

Those who take their medications have a very good prognosis. There are a number of drug and therapy techniques used to treat people with Bipolar disorder. Often it takes a combination in order to be effective.
Bipolar mood disorder medications include mood stabilizers like lithium, antidepressants, Lamictal and otheranticonvulsants, atypical antipsychotics (hence the misinformation) like Seroquel and even Omega 3. Antipsychotics act one way with psychotics and a different way with people with Bipolar disorder.
Because medicine can cause a reduction in symptoms or complete remission, it is important that the person with Bipolar disorder understand that he or she must continue taking the medications or there will be a relapse. While it is up to the individual to make the decision, there definitely will be a relapse without the medication. Many people can live full and satisfying lives despite the disorder, a fact that television seems to forget.
Some things within the control of the person can help or hurt the results, such as taking the medicine as directed, understanding the disorder, having a good relationship with medical personnel and good health practices, including exercise, nutrition and a regulated stress level.
Other factors that keep the person well include noticing small changes in one’s energy, mood, sleep and eating behaviors, as well as having a plan worked out with the doctor on how to manage these small changes before they become big ones. A person can keep a mood log to chart any changes that need to be discussed with the physician.
Another way is to enlist the help of a close friend or family member. This person can help detect mood changes or changes in activities or behaviors that can trigger a manic episode.

With the sudden interest in Bipolar disorder on television and its emphasis on the inability of people with bipolar disorder to function in the world, people who have this disorder must learn all they can about their problem. Places where information can be found include self-help books, articles on the internet and information from their health professional. Armed with information they can prevent others from misunderstandings.

Ann Mullen is a woman of a certain age who has been writing for two decades. Her website Self-Help Discovery covers self-help reviews on a wide range of topics, including information on Bipolar Mood disorder.

What makes one human being brutalize another human being under the guise or rule of law? Lord Acton in 1887 wrote a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton and said “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Is this part of the answer?

Those who have studies excessive use of force have identified 6 conditions that make an organization ripe for loss of discipline and control of employees.

1. Weak or absent leadership
2. Seeing others as less than human
3. Lack of discipline and training
4. Not having oversight by an outside entity. Secrecy.
5. Being exposed to brutality
6. Being part of a group with similar beliefs about the legitimacy of using violence in certain situations as a means to an end.

Let’s evaluate some well known situations.

Mei Lai Massacre.
March 16, 1968, in the time span of about 20 minutes, 347 to 504 South Vietnamese citizens were murdered by 60-70 US soldiers in the village of Mei Lai. The victims were mostly women, children and the elderly. They were beaten, raped, and tortured. Three soldiers tried to stop the massacre. About 25 people escaped by hiding under the bodies of the dead.

Charlie Company had suffered significant casualties since arriving in Vietnam. The company was sent into Mei Lai because it was thought to be an enemy stronghold. They were reportedly told by Captain Ernest Medina (accounts vary) to kill everyone, slaughter livestock, and burn down the village. At first there was a cover up of the incident, but a soldier, Richard Ridenour sent letters to the President, Congress, and other Washington officials. Twenty six soldiers were eventually charged. Only William Calley was convicted. He served three years on a life sentence. William was diminutive in stature and a college drop out when he entered the Army.

Weak leadership and lack of training were cited as contributors to these events, as well as the Army’s insistence on following orders. Additionally, it was said that many soldiers did not think of the Vietnamese as human. Isolation from the outside world can skew one’s view of what is right and wrong. Not until additional soldiers entered the village did the killing stop. Not until exposed to the outside world, was the atrociousness of the soldier’s acts realized. The larger world had not lost their moral compass. So, when the standards of the larger world were applied, what was done was seen as wrong.

Zimbardo Prison Experiment
In 1971 at Stanford University, Dr. Zimbardo began the, now infamous, prison experiment. He divided a group of students into prisoners and guards and set up a makeshift prison in the basement of one of the University buildings. Everyone knew that this was an experiment. The experiment was planned for two weeks, but was stopped after 6 days because the “guards” became too sadistic and the “prisoners” became too depressed. However, some guards did not participate in humiliating prisoners, but did not stop others. The students were caught in a time warp where they thought what they were doing was acceptable because there were no outside influences to say, “No, that is not OK.” Finally, another professor reported what was going on as unacceptable and the experiment was stopped.

Dr. Stanley Milgram’s Experiment in 1961.
Dr. Milgram wanted to know what kinds of people yielded to the pressure of the Nazi culture. In his experiment, researchers in lab coats at Yale University instructed participants to deliver increasingly painful electric shocks to other “participants” to “teach them through punishment.” Sixty-five percent of the participants continued to deliver what they thought was electric shocks for incorrect answers despite the screams from the “fake” participants. Replications of Dr. Milgram’s experiment have found that about 65% of ordinary people yield to the pressure of the authority figure even when it is contrary to their morals and 35% do not. Which group would you be in?

Abu Ghraib
In the San Francisco Chronicle, Saturday, May 8, 2004, Dr. Zimbardo analyzed the Abu Ghraib abuses and found that the prison environment was ripe for mistreatment to happen (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/05/08/MNGN76IG761.DTL). The prison had a weak leader, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski. The prison within the prison was a “secret place” that was not visited often by administrators. The prison was understaffed and undertrained and lacked basic services for staff. They were under the stress of fearing insurgent attacks constantly. They lacked discipline and standard operating procedures. The situation continued to worsen until a soldier pointed out the egregious nature of the activities within the prison. Zimbardo commented that what happened was inevitable. Prisons where the balance of power is so unequal are very likely to become abusive. In the New York Times, May 6, 2004, Craig Haney, a psychology professor at the University of California, stated that preventing problems like those found at Abu Ghraib requires discipline, training, and outside monitoring (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/international/middleeast/06PSYC.html?ex=1399262400&en=91f8144cdf7dd44a&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND).

Conclusion
There appear to be environmental and organizational, as well as individual contributors to excessive use of force in institutions or organizations. Further examination of these factors will teach us how to monitor organizations to prevent such things from happening in the future. The key features appear to be lack of training and discipline, weak leadership, and lack of outside oversight. It would also be important to look at the organizational characteristics of agencies where excessive use of force does not occur. It is an important area to study.

We’ve all experienced the shock of watching stories like these on TV, but have you ever wondered why some seemingly ordinary people commit violent crimes? Would you be amazed to know that many of them could have been predicted and prevented if someone had seen the warning signs and intervened before it was too late? Would you like to know how you can protect your children from becoming either the victims or perpetrators of a violent crime? Do you need some way to measure youth violence risk?

Dr. Kathryn Seifert is a psychotherapist with over 30 years experience in mental health, addictions, and criminal justice work. Dr. Seifert has authored the CARE 2 and a parent and professional version of “How Children Become Violent.” The parent version has an orange cover and a kindle book on Amazon. She speaks nationally on mental health related topics and youth violence. She is an expert witness in the areas of youth and adult violence and sexual offending. Get her free email newsletter at http://www.drkathyseifert.com
She has appeared on EBRU TV’s Bullying in America and will appear on the Discovery Channel ID Program, Wicked Attractions, soon.

Psychological counselling is supposed to be a private and confidential exercise with an independent and objective person. The vast majority of counsellors know that and respect it utterly. But for the person being counselled, that’s difficult to keep in mind. Yet, for him or her, is that all there is to it? I don’t think so.

Contemplating the counselling session and maybe the first one at that, sufferers can be in torment inside. They try telling themselves that their turmoil is all about their fear of what the counsellor might think of them when a clean-breast of it has been made. Will the counsellor believe them?

I believe two truths need to be exposed here.

Imagine that it is you or me planning to go through counselling.

First we would need to ask whether we ourselves, not the counsellor, are ready to hear aloud what we have to tell. Having maintained the secrecy so long, haven’t we been protected and insulated from our own memories.

Don’t we sense a real inner reluctance and reticence about exhaling the emotional stench that has been buried deep inside us?
Strong words, intentionally, but isn’t that how we can sense it?
Also the worse the buried memories and the longer they have been hidden, don’t those words need to be stronger? Aren’t our answers: Yes. Yes and Yes?

Should this stop us in our tracks? Good Gracious! No! We just need to admit in our minds that this is much more about admitting all this aloud to ourselves than about telling others.

Doesn’t this evoke awareness of a second truth – and anxiety?

Won’t we collapse emotionally in the face of all this? We can feel the emergence of fear from our sub-conscious. Somehow over all the years, we have managed to keep a semblance of emotional self-control, despite it all. The fiercest feelings deep within us have been suppressed to enable us to try to live ordinary, if strained lives.

So, as we face this potential out-pouring, we are inevitably anxious, even in a sudden panic as questions race through our minds:

If we let all this out now, exhale it, disgorge it, will we lose emotional control?.
Will it mean we can’t work because of emotional upset?
That we can’t face our family or our friends?

The answer to that is that there may be some unpredictable and unaccountable moments if and when we lose it emotionally. But if we ask ourselves what is worse: that or continuing to burden ourselves with hideous secrets inside, what must be our response? Surely, it has to be OK to lose it occasionally?

And one final point: the abuse from which we suffered can indeed have been criminal in its nature at the time. But do remember the cause of the problem can have been entirely unintended by those we now see as responsible, nevertheless.

Key here is how we framed in our minds at the time what happened and what it has caused to us since.

And a tip: if initially the thought of trying to vocalise it all to the counsellor is going to be just too much for you, then try writing out your whole story in your own time and giving or sending it to the counsellor before the psychological counselling starts. This will help them and will have a cathartic impact on you too.

Good luck and do take on board that the emotional gain and release from the process is worth 100 times the pain of getting started. And if you have read this, knowing someone close to you is thinking about counselling, I hope sincerely that these thoughts will enable you to empathise with them more

Sir Gerry Neale has lectured and trained under-graduates and post graduates at the University of Westminster in cognitive thinking. He has mentored courses for corporate strategic planning and how to position the organisation’s and the individual’s thinking in relation to them. He has conducted counselling and life coaching programmes with individuals in person and on-line.

He can be reached on http://cognitivementors.blogspot.com and http://psychologysimplified.blogspot.com.

One morning on the radio I heard a news story about a local company recalling ink jet cartridges that were not properly labeled as dangerous for children. While I am a supporter of labeling, I can’t help but wonder whether things have gone too far. This seems to be yet another indicator that individuals in our society do not accept responsibility for themselves. I don’t think that labeling is necessary to tell me that a child should not ingest ink. I already knew that, didn’t you?

What are the costs associated with our failure to be responsible for ourselves and our own decisions? One cost is economic. Labels, recalls, and law suits cost money. The consumer eventually pays those costs, not the companies or manufacturers. It is passed along to us. I don’t really want to pay a higher cost for my ink jet cartridge just because someone else isn’t responsible enough to supervise their children.

Psychologically there is a cost as well. In very subtle ways, allowing some company to be responsible for our own decision making puts people into a victim role. They no longer feel like change agents in their own lives and eventually forget how to think for themselves. How many times have you heard someone that has committed a crime that blamed others for their own actions? How many times have you done it? While it may seem to some people to be quite a leap from labeling to criminal action, I don’t really think so. Both are examples of our failure to accept responsibility for ourselves.

It is time that each individual accepts responsibility for their own decisions, their own behaviors, and their own futures. It is my belief that our failure to do so contributes greatly to the mental health concerns of many people and the dangerousness of our society.

Where to begin? Here are several ways to change the current “it’s not my responsibility” trend.

1. Parents, don’t rescue your children from their mistakes. If they are caught cheating at school, don’t do anything to minimize their consequences. No form of explanation or plea-bargaining should be accepted. This doesn’t mean being judgmental or cruel. Just allow the consequences to unfold.
2. Employees, don’t blame your boss for your own unhappiness or financial situation. You are responsible for your employment situation. If you choose to stay in a job that does not satisfy you or meet your needs, it is not because you have to. You choose to stay there, perhaps to avoid even more unpleasant consequences. Nonetheless, you are responsible for remaining employed.
3. Wives, husbands, and partners, don’t blame your unhappiness on your mate. No one is responsible for your happiness but you. Take responsibility and create a happy life, with or without your spouse.
4. Consumers, stop blaming businesses for our economic situation. Businesses could not create this situation by themselves. We are responsible when we buy poorly priced consumer goods. We are co-conspirators in our own problem.
5. In your daily living, try to “catch” yourself putting your own responsibility onto others. When you find yourself blaming someone or something else, take a closer look to find at least some way that you can take responsibility for yourself. I think you will be happier in the long run.

Dr. Leanna Manuel is the director and supervising psychologist for CCA Companies, LLC. Dr. Manuel is a graduate of Wright State University School of Professional Psychology and has experience in medical and mental health care settings. She was a featured psychologist on MTV: True Life.

Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you represents determinism; the way you play it is free will. – Jawaharlal Nehru, former Prime Minister of India.

Much has been written and debated about what determines the behaviour of a person, genes or environment? Are our genes responsible for what we do in our day to day life? Or does environment play a dominant role in shaping our behaviour? This “nature – nurture” theory is a perennial topic of discussion.

The basic unit of heredity in an organism is its gene. Genes are responsible for passing genetic traits to the next generation. The coding sequence of genes decides what the gene does for construction and maintenance of an organism’s cells while the non- coding sequence decides when the gene is active.

The Nature Theory

Scientists of Nature Theory think that people behave as they do because of their genetic predisposition. Physical qualities like eye, hair, or skin color, body structure, diseases and characteristics like interest, personality, temperament and sexual habits are also encoded in the genes. Human behavior is less controlled by the environment of free will but more by the genes they carry. Whatever incidents occur and traits that are practiced generation after generation get imprinted on the genes and are passed on to some extent to the next generation.

The Nurture Theory

Some scientists conclude that genetic tendencies do exist, but they ultimately don’t matter because the environmental factors and their upbringing that determine people’s behaviour. A gene may increase the inclination towards a particular behaviour but it does not make people do things unless a favourable environment is provided. If an environment resisting of their genetic tendencies is provided to people, they are most likely to behave according to their upbringing.

Nature or Nurture?

Issues like criminal behavior, infidelity, sexual preferences have been ascribed by Nature theorists to genes.

“We are survival machines,” Richard Dawkins writes in The Selfish Gene, “robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.” And “… genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs..”

If we believe this, and people are no longer held accountable for their actions, how will society be possible? On the other hand can we justify criminal behavior by simply saying that increasing summer heat or solar flare leads to increasing levels of assaults and rapes, as some psychologists claim?

It is believed that as we go higher orders in species like mammals that there is a smaller role of instincts and better environmental and behavioural adaptability in the constant process of survival. Human beings have the least instincts. We have instead a great influence of our surroundings and environment substantially determines our behavior.

A study at the University of Minnesota of behaviours of identical twins reared in different homes claims that approximately seventy percent of the variation in IQ is due to genes. Others believe that isolation of twins could never be complete as they would have some social or cultural commonality and communication in their environment in this world fast becoming socially and culturally uniform.

There is increasing evidence of the interactions between nature and nurture. Genes by themselves do not ensure that a particular trait will prevail. Genes are said to be switched on or off by environmental interaction with our brain which is why yoga and meditation are said to be able to control diseases and even control or reverse some physical processes in the body.

We cannot, with the present evidence before us, conclude one way or the other on the nature vs. nurture debate. We have to try to understand the interactions between the two. There are complex relationships among genes, proteins, hormones, food, and our experiences and only further research in future will reveal the truth.

In the context of the human search for development and success, we cannot rest our future on the thesis that genes have a major role to play and our efforts will contribute little. Life coaches and business coaches who are more in favor of the nurture theory believe that the events that the individual passes through in his life time shape his perceptions, lifestyle, personality and habits. Their stand is that if freewill and strong determination is exercised, people are sure to control their genes and nurture their personality to happiness, self confidence and success.

All the best,

Natalie Dee

London Life Coach and Business Coach

Natalie Dee is a specialist in life coaching and business coaching with clients throughout the UK and worldwide. To find out more, visit http://www.natalie-dee.com

Natalie Dee is also the co-author of an ebook on self confidence, for more details visit her website (as above).

We’ve all come across people who just seem incapable of modifying their perspective based on new data being presented. Most of us still mouth the words that additional education (or indoctrination/propaganda as is often the case) is what is needed since surely this person will turn around if his/her consciousness is sufficiently expanded with additional data backing your perspective. However, all too often deep inside we know that some people are “hopeless”. This conclusion concerning failure of propaganda is reached from all over the political, cultural, and religious spectrum at one point or another. It thus becomes fashionable to outright dismiss “inconvertible” individuals and opposing zealots (on political and religious fringes of any given population) as nuts and crazies.

Personality theory in psychology allows us to better categorize individuals in society without resorting to name calling. Myers-Briggs typology in particular offers a better construct (compared to useless terms like conservative and liberal for example) to predict how an individual will act politically and socially. Myers-Briggs research combined with biology and brain scan techniques also offers us hints at understanding the underlining anatomical basis that predisposes a person to be either a disagreeable radical or a gentle follower.

There’s been little relative popular attempts to scientifically explain why the bulk of the population is always a warzone between the extreme fringes. It’s just assumed that it will always be this way just like there will always be criminals and extremely altruistic self-sacrificing givers. This assumption seems reasonable and obvious but gives rise to two other creeping and unsettling assumptions:

1) The human population is relatively fixed along a bell curve type continuum. Perhaps this is better visually represented by a sphere with a number of spikes extending from it. The moderate population is the bulk of the sphere and the zealous “radical” factions (whose opinions differ dramatically from the statistical average) are the spikes extending from the sphere’s surface (as well as into the interior to some degree which would represent silent sympathizers). It is irrelevant to label the spikes as extreme left, right, etc. All that is important is that a relatively fixed minority of the population (lets say 10-20% range) will be:

a) prone to modes of thought that are tangibly different from majority’s

b) prone to action and lifestyle based on these thoughts

Authors like Friedrich Hayek for instance, observed that in 1920s Germany roughly a million workers swung their support between communists and Nazis based on who was winning. It was noted that the two seemingly opposing ideological parties clashed with one another the most because they were very often competing for recruits in the same psychological pool of young people. Considering how many overexcited Americans called both Bush and Obama the new “Hitler” in recent years, we can easily imagine how an aggressive drooling at the mouth anti-war protestor from a big city could have been an equally excitable protester at a teabag rally if only he was born in a small town and into a different culture.

2) Since the ratio of intensely active people (prone to being perceived by population at large as “wingnuts”or criminals or radicals or genuinely informed and committed activists, etc) to more relaxed apathetic majority seems to be roughly fixed across all societies and globally as a whole, the explanatory basis for such a dynamic can only be biological. Just like there exist (and can further be bred) aggressive dogs and peaceful friendly dogs, there exist aggressive people, natural Buddhist-esque peaceful people, etc. A person who is an aggressive pit bull equivalent (and who wants to impose his views of the world onto others the most) would differ in his relatively extreme ideology depending on what part of the world he was socialized in. Psychiatry has shown us that people are born with different ratios of neurotransmitter production and quantitative as well as qualitative differences in the types of chemicals that affect their mood and cognition. We now understand that people differ a lot more in terms of brain architecture than they differ in terms of things like body type, skin color, fast twitch/slow twitch muscle ratio, etc.

The reason why these assumptions are unsettling is not because there is a degree of fatalism involved (“he will be a radical of one stripe or another no matter what” or “he will be socially lazy, shallow, apathetic, and uninvolved no matter what). Obviously with modern socialization methods and pharmaceutical modification (with psychological genetic and cybernetic modification to follow in near future), an individual can be shaped more than ever before by society and by himself. The assumptions are unsettling because if the broad direction of our views, opinions, and political/cultural/religious affiliations are largely physiologically determined at birth, then societal progress becomes enormously more difficult. Societal progress can be defined here as one zealot faction (that is seen by majority as the most “correct” in its socioeconomic policy perspectives and formulations of what humans should do next) dragging everybody else along behind it as has always occurred throughout history.

Obviously people will disagree on what constitutes progress (some actually thought arrival of Reagan was progress) but if majority of people are physiologically predisposed towards the status quo, progress of any sort becomes a lot harder in a democratic society. In the past, one intense dedicated fringe of the aristocratic elites dragged the other nobility along behind it (since majority of nobility would also have a soft apathetic bulk) and thus dragged the rest of the population behind it as well. We also had scenarios of power vacuum developing and one intense fringe political faction overpowering the others (as in the case of Bolshevik and French revolutions) and filling the leadership position to then drag the rest of the serfs behind it.

In today’s democratic structure however, protection of the status quo is a lot more preserved since the moderate bulk of the population has a political voice and thus a way to provide the ruling elites with legitimacy. The moderate bulk of the elites now also has ever more sophisticated consent and perception manufacturing methods to influence the newfound voice of the majority. For a small number of dedicated activists, pushing society along towards desired version of progress against the forces of social inertia is now harder than ever. The powerful activists now need to sway both the fellow elites and the people simultaneously.

Let’s finally get to the Myers-Briggs part of the article to see what we are now dealing with.

The most widely used way to get a glimpse of people’s underlining neural physiology has been the Myers-Briggs psychological questionnaire (one of the better versions found online for free can be found here). Over the past few decades, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been utilized to collect enormous amounts of statistical data on personality types found within the human population. The statistical type breakdown (I am using a combination of 3 different sources on the %. Don’t mind the catchy positive nicknames each type and group cluster has been given. What matters here is the number within a population.) so far has been as follows,

Protectors (SJ)

ESTJ – Overseer, supervisor = 11.8%
ESFJ – Supporter, provider = 11.7%
ISTJ – Examiner, inspector = 9.8%
ISFJ – Defender, protector = 9.9%
All SJs = 43.2%

Creators (SP)

ESTP – Persuader, promoter = 8.4%
ESFP – Entertainer, performer = 10.3%
ISTP – Craftsman, mechanic = 6.4%
ISFP – Artist, composer = 7.9%
All SPs = 33%

Intellectuals (NT)

ENTJ – Chief, fieldmarshal = 3.2%
ENTP – Originator, inventor = 3.7%
INTJ – Strategist, mastermind = 1.5%
INTP – Engineer, architect = 2.2%
All NTs = 10.6%

Visionaries (NF)

ENFJ – Mentor, teacher = 3.4%
ENFP – Advocate, idealist = 4.2%
INFJ – Confidant, empath = 1.2%
INFP – Dreamer, healer = 2.4%
All NFs = 11.2%

Each of the personality types (the well defined strong ones at least who haven’t self reported to be a mutt of 2 or more different personalities) can be seen as a specific brain type. As mentioned above, the physiological neural difference between 2 people of vastly dissimilar brain types is a lot more significant than how a person looks on the outside. That is because the brain type determines a mental and emotional predisposition of a person for the rest of his life. People classified as “bipolar” or “anti-social/sociopathic” for instance, have neural structures that will make them lean towards some things more than others during their entire lives.

We can see from the statistical breakdown that SJ (left-brained people with parietal lobe strength) predominate in the overall population. The second biggest group are the SP (right-brained with parietal lobe strength). Together they are almost 80% of the population. The SJs tend to be conservative, authoritarian in outlook, conventional, focused on concrete “what is”, and protective of the general society. They don’t rock the boat too much and defer to tradition. The SPs tend to be fun loving, crafty, entertaining, and have uncanny ability to focus on “what is” (with their parietal lobe) in order to fix and modify it.

If you look at the cute nicknames given to different brain types, you can see that the human herd pretty much needs all of them if it is to evolve and survive. Some types are needed more than others in the great scheme of things. The SJ and SP groups for example are conveniently numerous. SJ population provides a great amount of soldiers, policemen, social workers, self sacrificing charity givers, accountants, and status quo protectors. In other words they keep the herd safe even if it means stagnating the herd through using their positions in the executive to slow down rapid change. SP group provides us with artisans who improve quality of life for the herd through provision of entertainers, artists, dancers, singers, and resourceful improvising mechanics. SPs can be said to exist to entertain SJs and keep them on their toes by having more fun than them.

It’s easy to see how SJs lean republican and SPs lean democrat overall. The jokes that democrats have better sex lives than republicans begin to acquire an element of truth (considering the different approach left and right sides of the brain take in deciding on how to deal with the here and now). However, the two large groups are united by their concern with all things as they are in the now. That makes the two groups friendly and status quo leaning by default. An ESTJ born in Brooklyn may identify as a traditionalist democrat whereas an ESTJ born in West Virginia may identify as a traditionalist republican, but both are more likely to seek similar professions and get along if they hang out together. Brain type identification provides a lot more material to predict a person’s behavior and views on the world than simple political identification.

The overall theme emerges that people with neural computers that predispose them to either protect the status quo or be apathetic about it (since they are busy pursuing hedonistic adventures) are the supermajority that are not as interested in “what can be” (as the less numerous NP and NJ groups tend to be). A point must be made here that not one group is more important than another and that even their numerical breakdowns seem amazingly appropriate. It would be turbulent for the herd to have for example, more ENTJs/INTJs than ISTJs/ESTJs since the problem with authority that NJs have (due to their desire to be the authority themselves) would create unsustainable infighting and not allow enough people who follow orders. Each brain type has a very key social niche and function and over thousands of years there evolved an intricate genetic balance and ratio. There are of course also multitudes of physiological “mutts” who are a hybrid of all and can’t be “pigeonholed” (the most common complaint brought against psychological typology in general).

Interestingly enough, the Hindus have spent thousands of years evolving classification of human beings into 4 broad psychological varnas or classes. Each was considered as important as the other (all parts of the same body) with their own particular temperaments and duties.

Some brain types are literally made to create new theoretical constructs on how society should be organized and which steps it should take next (INTPs, ENTPs,). When balanced by the emotional consideration and input of INFPs and ENFPs (since strong T theorists are prone to being too rigidly rational and thus not take into consideration the emotional impact of their constructs) new paths for society can be developed that would be acceptable to SJs and SPs combined. However, as explained above, these people will always be outvoted and marginalized by politicians who mobilize the other more numerous groups. “Think of the children!” is a call to arms for ESFJs and ISFJs for instance whereas being tough on crime, national strength, and defeating foreign enemies is the bread and butter of ESTJs and ISTJs.

This dynamic reinforces the need for proportional representation in our system of governance. Proportional representation is practiced in most European Union countries to great effect. This way each brain type cluster can get a political party of their own. The marginalized 20% of the population can get representation and even serve as coalition kingmakers. New voices can be heard in the discourse. Today the 20% of population has to either join the big parties they don’t like and “radicalize” them (seen by the tail wagging the dog phenomenon of militants dominating today’s Republican party and driving moderates out of it) or abstain from the process thus depriving society of valuable input. In proportional representation, each batch of brain types seen as “radicals” can find a party to call home and really support. They would also have more political representation to vent out their frustration and to institutionalize their presence and views. Citizens can then pick and choose which vision of progress to support and which to leave behind.

The year is 2009 and it has been over a century since popular consciousness has widely accepted the fact that humans are just another type of animal. Curiously, even as humans are increasingly accepting of political and cultural pluralism, there is still insufficient focus on how pluralism in general arises from differences in breeds of humans. Populous mammals like dogs and cats have a number of breeds that cluster by physiological external differences like size and internal neural differences like aggressiveness, friendliness, and task specialization. Humans of course are no different (even if their neural computers are able to run remarkably advanced virtual simulation and symbol manipulation programs).

The implications stand to improve the psychological quality of life and raise consciousness for billions of people. Although short sighted knee jerk idiots may think implications will automatically cause a return to forced eugenics (as practiced by countries like Sweden, USA, and Germany in the first half of the 20th century) or measurement of skulls to filter potential criminals, such proclamations point more to the pessimistic nature of those who make them. Scientific inquiry and further development of concepts known to be true have historically brought more net positives (raised the living standard of the human herd by allowing them to live longer and do less labor through technology) than net negatives such as destructive wars (brought on more by non-democratic political arrangements than technology used to wage them). Advancing study of implications from humanity being comprised of numerous unequally distributed breeds is worth the risks. Treatment of different breeds and self esteem of individuals within each breed stand to improve if there is strong emphasis that each breed is logically as important as the other in its social usefulness (although social usefulness should never be the only or even main criteria in social sciences or policy).

Right now we have a world where the German Shepards, the Pitbulls, the Poodles, the Border Collies, and the Golden Retrievers are all rightfully treated the same but they suffer from the problem of more numerous breeds (as well as the most vicious/cunning ones) determining what breed is the universal ideal for a human. Each person judges all others based on what the one judging is good at physiologically. A very empathic person judges others based on empathy. A conservative one judges the rest on how good of a conservative they are. Same applies to all the others be they a partying hedonist, an introverted scientist, an artist, an athlete, or a social butterfly with highly developed taste buds (“how can others eat that crap!?”).

This is a very natural problem to have for humanity. Since every person subconsciously wants to expand personal power in all directions, for thousands of years, the strongest or more numerous breeds have tended to not just make their personalities and ideas into universal law for others but to actually buy into their own lies that everybody else should strive to be like the rulers. Even societies with caste systems were not immune as seen by India’s inegalitarian caste valuation (warriors over farmers) and transformation from a caste system with social mobility to the entrenched stagnant system we now mentally associate it with.

A previous article touched on how Myers-Briggs personality test is a good quick way to get a glimpse of what neural breed a person is, how numerical predominance of some breeds helps preserve status quo, and how the differences in neural architecture split and unite people a lot more than externally visible characteristics like skin and hair color. If we use a typology system like Myers-Briggs, it soon becomes obvious that although breeds can form natural dominant coalitions (SJs) and (SPs), there will still be a lot of socially tangible differences within each coalition. That is enough to pose a serious problem not just for rare breeds like INTJs but common ones as well.

That problem is depressed self esteem from comparison of one self to those breeds that thrive in whatever socioeconomic system exists at the time (and whose mode of being are widely emulated for this reason) and from feeling alone and excluded since no breed exceeds 15% numerically. Whether it is an athlete, an artist, or a scientist, they are always outnumbered which leads to wishing that everybody else or themselves was different. Even within dominant pro status quo coalitions of SJs and SPs, a difference, between an ISTJ and an ESFJ for example, can be so great as to make them not get along well at all. This problem is heightened for NF and NT coalitions. Depression and various neurotic behavior thus results on a large scale. When a person says that nobody understands them, the case often is that vast majority (90%+ people) really don’t fundamentally understand them. How can a German Shepherd understand a Chiwawa and vice versa? Only mutts provide the imperfect understanding bridge.

The often failed emulation of the most able to “make it” (or seen as more able) may be a more serious threat to the health of people’s ego, their self respect, and their pride. Just as an emotionally cold and aggressive person may feel distressed when living in a hippy commune, a naturally empathic and kind Golden Retriever will feel distressed and alone in a society that values warrior Pitbulls. Similarly, when the types who make it in United States financial sector (children of the rich, psychopaths, and some of the more cunning SPs and NTs), a vast social pressure is created to pound in square pegs in round holes and be more like what is deemed “successful”. It is no different than if soldiers were in charge and we all had to admire wars and go to bootcamps to be seen as having the right stuff.

As for psychopaths, their natural ability to blend in (so they can live off the herd better) makes them strong candidates to make it in any system. A super inegalitarian monetarist imperial system like our own is an extra juicy jungle to thrive in. Proportionally to psychopaths’ population (1% for the true clinical ones and up to 6% for the subclinical ones), they are overrepresented on Wall Street and in prison (8% and 20% respectively for clinical ones).

Subclinical psychopaths can just be some breeds backgrounds seem like good general prerequistives whose T function and lack of empathy is so high as to make them exploit the herd (rather than improving it as has been the trait most admired in leadership by history) without a second thought. In fact it may be unfair to even have the concept of a “psychopath” as it represents just another breed of human that is adept at preying on fellow humans with elaborate disguises. Psychological pathology after all, represents mental “sickness” and mental “sickness” is just majority’s flawed way to single out and focus on fringe breeds and individuals whose backgrounds make it extra difficult for them to make it. Not one breed is logically and generally more normal/abnormal or maladaptive/adaptive than the other since “normal” and “adaptive” is the bell curve average for a particular society.

Understanding these physiological differences can allow people to have more pride in who they are and develop towards a truly pluralistic and more compassionate society. Human breed science doesn’t have to be a nightmare world. People like Foucault, Rousseau, and Kaczynski have made strong and effective arguments on how the more technologically advanced society becomes the less free we are. We need to understand these concerns and consequences of progress in social sciences but we can’t turn the clock back since luddite solutions are not just impractical but inhumane.

Understanding that there are different breeds of Homo Sapiens (with often different needs and modes of thought) can allow society to:

1) Treat, help, and nurture each type better so as to make healthier hyperspecialized types. We can have healthier and better artists, cops, scientists, etc.

2) Treat, help, and nurture mutts better so as to have better ambassadors and communicators between the strongly specialized breeds

3) Develop better science as to which breeds work best with each other so as to prevent, mediate, and solve social conflicts

4) Help identify and isolate predatory humans better so as to lessen their abuses, reduce the number of their victims, and integrate them into society more productively

5) Strengthen proportional representation democracy and bring more harmony to the herd while preventing unhealthy caste structures from reemerging

6) Increase efficiency, productivity, and general happiness of society by allowing individuals to make full use of their strengths and be more proud of their neural architecture

Lets fully embrace what science has been telling us so we can graze on this planet with less confusion. A confused herd will make a poor recipient for when the singularity arrives. Lets end with a pro-mutt quote to balance the article and emphasize perils of too much specialization.

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” -Robert A. Heinlein