Most realistic depiction of a psychopath

I would imagine so.

I addended that post significantly, go back and take a look for me, if you will.

ah! I looked it up, and i do know who that is. He's certainly pretty dead-eyed in the movie which i think is what jumped out to the psychiatrist in question. Marlo from The Wire [not a movie] is very similar to Chigurh, those shooters from Elephant also emobody Chirgurh's characteristics.



The funny thing about some real psychiatric professional commenting on this, is that they are suspending the notion that these actors were acting. When I was all excited about the sopranos, i started doing research on professional takes on the series, i found one supposedly real psychologist who said something to the tune of:


"...people who say they could have done a better job than the psychiatrist from the series are probably wrong!"

WHICH LEAVES ME TO THINK: Wow, a real narcissist might say something like this, or maybe this "expert on sociopaths" is autistic! Way to dismiss your real colleagues to prop up some fictional character on a television show! As a diehard sopranos fan, and borderline psychiatric patient, here are more reasons why i find this level of confidence in Dr. Melfi's credentials to be absurd:





...plus, last thing to chew on: is an actor who plays a psychopath guaranteed to have experience with the criminal/clinical aspects of a psychopath? I think it's harder to pretend that you don't have emotions than it is to pretend that you have emotions.

Just corrected that for you and think you are probably right there.

On god. That really sounds like me & my team. I do buy them drinks though! Often! Many drinks! And lunch! And yes, I do throw them under the bus “again and again”. It’s been discussed that most CEOs are psychopaths as it’s easier for them to get & retain the position. I’m never becoming a CEO as I just don’t care - I have 0 attachment to my job, it’s just money. But I think it’s part of the success factor to be able to sacrifice people in pursuit of profit (within reason & with many caveats).

In terms of “sweeping change”, no one likes change. Not psychopaths, not anyone. People will always be resistant to change. In my lifelong corporate experience, “bosses” (and god knows I’m not really including myself there) rarely make changes that make no business sense and most of the changes that are made do have a rationale behind them, which not everyone on the team can unfortunately always appreciate, at least not immediately.

Ah, so you post on other forums too?

True, but this assumes that profit is more important than human well-being. Which I think is easy for a psychopath or executive to say, but is not consistent with anything good in this world. Of course, I'm kind of the opposite of a psychopath, I'm a pathological empath.

This is the sort of thing that makes me wonder if I am one again, heh. I see your point, but I guess to me a business = profit, as long as it doesn’t actively harm anyone etc. imo if a business ≠ profit, then something is broken in the system. That’s why we call it a business, because it makes money (or tries to).

My mother is a pathological empath, or so she says. Recently we’ve been having an increasingly hard time relating to each other. If she’s an empath, I don’t notice it. I can’t relate to her at all (but I somewhat relate to Chigurh )What the hell. One thing I’ll agree with is that these terms aren’t fit for purpose.

Right. These characters are more about us than actual representations of killer or psychopathy. The HULK is a representation of defecting with the skin of the Lion. What if you had FU strength? What if you could take what you want or destroy what you pleased to by force? Wouldn't that be fun? Smash it again, HULK. Smash it again.



Lector is the skin of the Fox. What if you had FU intelligence? What if you were so much smarter than everyone else that you could get away with killing the impolite, unbound morality, mercy, pity? What if you could move around the strictures and enforces of societies rules like a track star running around toddlers? Kill him again, Hannibal. Kill 'em again.



Our villains and anti-heroes are masks we can wear for an hour and relieve our frustration. We are not clever, powerful, superior. We are schlubs just getting along like the rest of the human race. The attractive villain attracts us by doing what we cannot do.



The repellent villain, on the other hand, threatens our sense of well-being and makes us feel weak. What if someone used force against us? That would not be nice. What if someone manipulated us? Dastardly liar!



The repellent villain affirms norms and is "pro-social" in function by affirming that do not like people who break the rules. The attractive villain is "anti-social" in that we are seduced, just for a moment, by the idea of breaking the rules (a safety valve for frustration).

Partly, perhaps, but I also think everyone does such supposedly evil antisocial things when it benefits them, whether or not they admit it. The “us and them”aspect is a bit of an illusion. True, most of us haven’t gnawed anyone’s face off (or so I suppose anyway), but there are milder transgressions which are equally evil/antisocial that don’t look/feel as unseemly.

It is also scientifically proven that the “powerful” are less likely to be empathetic and actually lose the ability to empathise with others as they advance up the social hierarchy. So I think powerful people very much can and do get away with antisocial/“evil” things, it doesn’t have to be as nefarious as murder, but assuming people “cannot do” this is an oversimplification to me.

If we were naturally good all the time, we would not have to "code" for good behavior with ethical norms.





And that is part of what attracts us to evil. It looks like fun.




Right, which is why art also re-trains our empathy by reminding us that war is hell, the villains hurt people, that the quick and easy path really isn't the one we want to take. Art is always doing politics and ethics.




I think of it less as a "cannot" and more of a "should not." And most of us do not want to be 100% evil. Rather, we want to enjoy moments where we vent our frustrations by watching a surrogate for our frustrations deal damage to our sources of irritation. That and we accept our lot in life by affirming a vision in which the evil are punished and which we are good (even if flawed) and which our efforts to be good are worth it.

I saw this from the first viewing really this movie dosnt have to be about the joker that just seems like something somebody added on, Too me at least.

But does it have to make ALL the money, when making more money when already profitable comes about by making the employees lives significantly worse?
That's what I deal with all the time, it's what so many employees around the country deal with, from Amazon's people being expected to work 80-hour weeks and be on call essentially when not working to waiters still getting paid $2.13 an hour and relying on the capriciousness of diners to make their rent.
When is enough enough for the business when the psychological and emotional toll on the workers is untenable... but they have to ten it in order to survive. Business, the way it has been run for about the last 40 years, is simply unethical.

No, of course not. Besides, that results in burnout which is not profitable at all. I don’t disagree that business is rather unethical.

Exactly, just latched on the popularity of this character to tell this movie

This is crazy... everything this doctor says is almost exactly what I said in my previous post

__________________

I've seen a few of those.

I wonder what the overlap is, if any, with the so-called "warrior gene."

If I were picking a team of people I needed to be resistant to social-hacking/engineering, a team of psychopaths would seem to be a good fit.

Theres no warrior gene because Gene's interact with environment, in other words one might turn out to be a "psychopath" based on situation

I remember watching a documentary on the Warrior Gene (and this is all I know about it, full disclosure) which stated that Warrior Gene + abuse = special kind of monster/aggro and that Warrior Gene + nurturing childhood = basically typical person. That is, there is a literal gene which has uniquely extreme outcomes, but only when paired with an unfortunate childhood.

I Approve.