![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Squiggles on October 15, 2007, at 13:59:35
Do you believe that medication covers up
a character which is "real"? For example,
do you think that a psychopath is inherently
a psychopath without the drugs, but is
civilized with the drugs? If the drugs are
removed, does the real character as it was
at birth, reveal itself? Or do the drugs
change the character?I am thinking about this-- it's related to
genetics maybe, but the old nature-nurture
controversy clouds the issue.Squiggles
Posted by Phillipa on October 15, 2007, at 16:44:51
In reply to Designing drugs, posted by Squiggles on October 15, 2007, at 13:59:35
Squggles example of a psychopath usually they think nothing is wrong with them they have no conscience so unless arrested and jail not sure if they would be on meds? Phillipa
Posted by Squiggles on October 15, 2007, at 17:04:44
In reply to Re: Designing drugs » Squiggles, posted by Phillipa on October 15, 2007, at 16:44:51
> Squggles example of a psychopath usually they think nothing is wrong with them they have no conscience so unless arrested and jail not sure if they would be on meds? Phillipa
Interesting that you should say that;
it's a very complex issue, touching on
many areas of knowledge. It would take
a very good philosopher/logician to figure
it out.Squiggles
Posted by Phillipa on October 15, 2007, at 20:13:41
In reply to Re: Designing drugs » Phillipa, posted by Squiggles on October 15, 2007, at 17:04:44
Squiggles another view of the above. Phillipa
March 16, 2004
Brain Scans Show Abnormalities In Psychopaths
A USC professor used MRI brain scans, a battery of cognitive function tests, and criminal histories to compare normal people with psychopaths and also to compare psychopaths who manage to avoid getting caught with psychopaths who get arrested for committing crimes.Adrian Raine, a professor of psychology and neuroscience in the USC College of Letters, Arts & Sciences, focused his research on two parts of the brain: the hippocampus, a portion of the temporal lobe that regulates aggression and transfers information into memory; and the corpus callosum, a bridge of nerve fibers that connects the cerebral hemispheres.
One type of psychopath is adept at avoiding getting caught committing crimes but another type is not.
To explore the physical roots to psychopathic behavior, Raine and his colleagues recruited 91 men from Los Angeles’ temporary employment pool and gave them a battery of tests to assess cognitive ability, information processing skills and criminal history. They also were given MRIs, or brain scans.
In the study of the hippocampus, the research team expanded the scope of previous studies by comparing the brains of two groups for the first time: “successful” psychopaths - those who had committed crimes but had never been caught - and “unsuccessful” psychopaths - those who had been caught.
The hippocampus plays a critical role in regulating aggression and in learning which situations one should be afraid of - a process called contextual fear conditioning.
With psychopaths, contextual fear conditioning plays a part in learning the concept of what to do and what not to do, Raine said. It has been theorized that the disruption of the circuit linking the hippocampus with the prefrontal cortex could contribute to the impulsiveness, lack of control and emotional abnormalities observed in psychopaths.
“It is learning what is right and what is wrong in a certain situation,” he said.
The difference between successful psychopaths (those who avoid getting arrested) and unsuccessful psychopaths is that the more successful ones have a greater ability to learn fear of getting caught and to therefore guide their own behavior to minimize the chances of getting caught.
He tested the theory that psychopaths with hippocampal impairments could become insensitive to cues that predicted punishment and capture. As a result, he said, these “impaired’ psychopaths were more likely to be apprehended than psychopaths without that deficit.
Fewer than half of both the control subjects and the “successful” psychopaths had an asymmetrical hippocampus.
Ninety-four percent of the unsuccessful psychopaths had that same abnormality, with the right side of the hippocampus larger than the left.
The successful and unsuccessful psychopaths share in common a different form of faulty brain wiring that causes them to lack empathy and consideration for other people.
These findings were bolstered by the results of the second study, which focused on the corpus callosum.
The corpus callosum is a bundle of nerve fibers that connects the two hemispheres of the brain, enabling them to work together to process information and regulate autonomic function. Raine explored its role in psychopathy for the first time.
“There’s faulty wiring going on in psychopaths. They’re wired differently than other people,” Raine said. “In a way, it’s literally true in this case.”
He found that the psychopaths’ corpus callosums were an average of 23 percent larger and 7 percent longer than the control groups’.
“The corpus callosum is bigger, but it’s also thinner. That suggests that it developed abnormally,” Raine said.
The rate that the psychopaths transmitted information from one hemisphere to the other through the corpus callosum also was abnormally high, Raine said.
But that didn’t mean things worked better.
With an increased corpus callosum came less remorse, fewer emotions and less social connectedness - the classic hallmarks of a psychopath, he said.
“These people don’t react. They don’t care,” Raine said. “Why that occurs, we don’t fully know, but we are beginning to get important clues from neuro-imaging research.”
When it comes possible to diagnose psychopaths should they be placed under greater sustained law enforcement scrutiny? The better adapted psychopaths who feel a great deal of fear of getting caught are currently getting away with many crimes. If we can identify who they are should they be treated differently?
Also, if a psychopath can be diagnosed in advance as extremely dangerous should it be permitted to lock such a person up in an institution before they rape or kill or do other harm to people? What if a person could be identified as a psychopath at the age of 14? Should such a person be removed from normal society?
Suppose it became possible to treat the brains of psychopaths to cause them to have greater empathy, greater remorse, and less impulsiveness. Should the government have the power to compel psychopaths to accept treatment that will change the wiring of their brains?
Also, if there is a genetic basis for psychopathy and it becomes possible to test for it then should people who have the genetic variations for psychopathic brain wiring be allowed to reproduce? Should they be allowed to reproduce if only they submit to genetic engineering of their developing offspring?
I predict that most of these hypothetical questions will become real questions that will be debated in many countries around the world. I also predict that most populations will support either preemptive restraint of psychopaths or forced treatment to change the brains of psychopaths to make them less dangerous.
Posted by Squiggles on October 15, 2007, at 20:24:46
In reply to Re: Designing drugs » Squiggles, posted by Phillipa on October 15, 2007, at 20:13:41
Well, this is a hot topic. I do have Robert
Hare's book-- the genre is a tad popular, though
there is no doubt that brain malfunction contribute
or may be direct causes of psychophathology of
all kinds.But regarding the "psychopath" personality...
uhmmm; i did go out with someone when i was
young who was indubitably a psychopath-- brilliant.
But i can't say that is a distinct catergorization for the DSM because personalities
are like kaleidoscopes, always changing, always
open to influences. But i am not sure-- could
be that i am attracted to intense, and colourful
personalities. It's just that i think there
is a spectrum of sociopathy and psychopathy in all the diagnoses, even the very standard ones
like depression, and anxiety.Words are static
but what they represent is not,
subjectively or neurologically.
Squiggles
Posted by unbottled on October 16, 2007, at 0:43:25
In reply to Re: Designing drugs » Phillipa, posted by Squiggles on October 15, 2007, at 20:24:46
> Words are static
Descriptions, per se, are wrong, for that reason.
The "live" thing being described is always so much
more complex. etc.What exactly is underbeneath of the drugs, begs
the question. Because (an extreme example) isn't
the deformation that your childhood consisted of
a kind of "foreign" addition to whatever you
started with? Isn't everything?Your real personality, I'm afraid, is just
"what you get"."What you get" is whatever shows up, whatever
response the observer notices, the summation of a
load of things: what he/she seems to be - through
the prism of the drugs and whatever else is
happening at that and at previous moments, etc.
etc. etc.But yes, it's troubling. Am I cheating when
I'm mingling with people (not something I would
want to do ordinarily) whilst on my Deprenyl /
Moclobemide combo?Only his psychiatrist knows for sure.
> Words are static
> but what they represent is not,
> subjectively or neurologically.
>
>
> Squiggles
>
Posted by Squiggles on October 16, 2007, at 9:15:39
In reply to Re: Designing drugs, posted by unbottled on October 16, 2007, at 0:43:25
> > Words are static
>
> Descriptions, per se, are wrong, for that reason.
> The "live" thing being described is always so much
> more complex. etc.Yes, i think that words act like signs or
postings; in philosophy they call that
"referential" use of language. So, when
you call "depression" a chemical imbalance,
the meaning of the word "depression" is
a pointer to the corresponding physical state.
But you can also call something "depression"
when what you mean is the symptoms observed,
in comparison to what the person used to be.
Of course, it could be both and more, like
circumstances. So, imagine how far more
ambiguous the reference for the word "personality" must be. It actually refers
to a history.>
> What exactly is underbeneath of the drugs, begs
> the question. Because (an extreme example) isn't
> the deformation that your childhood consisted of
> a kind of "foreign" addition to whatever you
> started with? Isn't everything?I suppose, if i understand you correctly. I would like to make a distinction between
temperament and personality. Because you
may be born with a genetically or embryonically
caused temperament with definite qualities.
For example, if your mother was taking meds
while pregnant, instead of being born "easy-
going", you may be born anxious. Add to that
the genetic predisposition for temperament, such
as aggressiveness, or lazy, etc. and then add
to that the effect of upbringing, and you have
quite a complex product to unravel.So, "personality" is very complex and hard to say
whether you are born with it. I think not. I think at most, you are born with a temperament
upon which other factors i mentioned build the
final result. But once that *is* completed, i
think it doesn't change, barring things like stroke. As for medications, that's a tough one, because personality is a global interaction of the brain, whereas medications touch only certain areas. So, it may *appear* as if a person has changed on say, steroids, but actually it is only a certain part of his personality that has changed; not his values, not his beliefs, his memories, his tastes, his language, his skills, etc.
>
> Your real personality, I'm afraid, is just
> "what you get".See above babbling on this.
>
> "What you get" is whatever shows up, whatever
> response the observer notices, the summation of a
> load of things: what he/she seems to be - through
> the prism of the drugs and whatever else is
> happening at that and at previous moments, etc.
> etc. etc.
>
> But yes, it's troubling. Am I cheating when
> I'm mingling with people (not something I would
> want to do ordinarily) whilst on my Deprenyl /
> Moclobemide combo?I am not sure what you mean by the above. I think that changes in relations to other people may be a result of many things-- drugs, mania, anxiety, anger, hormonal changes..... but not necessarily the personality, just a trait of it.
>
> Only his psychiatrist knows for sure.I'm not sure they know anything for sure. :-)
>
>>
> > Squiggles
> >
>
>
Posted by Squiggles on October 16, 2007, at 11:09:02
In reply to Re: Designing drugs » unbottled, posted by Squiggles on October 16, 2007, at 9:15:39
David Hume's analogy of the personality to a ship:
"II. Self
What is a self, an identity, a mind, and where does the idea of such a thing even come from? Locke believed in the existence of minds, and so did Berkeley. Now Hume is going to wonder what a mind, or self, is.
This question was not new even in Hume's time. The ancients had raised the question in the following way:.
In ancient Greece there was a famous ship tied up in the harbor so that people could come see it and could bring their children to walk on its decks (much like today people want to walk on the USS Missouri, or on the ship on which their father fought in WWII, etc). This ship was famous because it had fought in an important battle. Over the years, however, as the ship aged, its rigging had to be replaced, and then its masts had to be replaced. Through the years it's deck and hull planking had all been replaced too, so that eventually every single item on the entire ship had been replaced. There was nothing left from the original ship. And yet during all those years and afterwards the sign on the dock still said "This is the ship that fought in the famous battle," and all the parents still brought their children and told them "This is the ship that fought in the famous battle."
Here's the question: Is it actually the same ship or not? Are the parents telling their children the truth or not? If there is not one molecule of material from the original ship remaining because everything has been slowly replaced, should the sign in front of it still say "This is the famous ship," or should it say "This is a replica of the famous ship?"-"
Posted by unbottled on October 16, 2007, at 12:41:32
In reply to Re: Designing drugs » unbottled, posted by Squiggles on October 16, 2007, at 9:15:39
> > Only his psychiatrist knows for sure.
>
> I'm not sure they know anything for sure. :-)Joking aside, you've answered your own
question well - you believe that you start with
something. I think that myself, even though
there could be different opinions of "you"
according to what drug you're on, whether your
father was a tyrant, how long ago, etc. etc.At least we're not worrying about whether there's
anyone else out there. Yet. %^)Walt Kelly used to joke about Soviet propaganda
that "you must word the question so as not to
spoil the answer". Philosophy tends to do
the opposite: it puts questions to us so clearly
and pointedly that an answer requires footwork
that's likely (and sometimes is calculated)
to make you stumble.Anyway, thanks.
> > > Words are static
> >
> > Descriptions, per se, are wrong, for that reason.
> > The "live" thing being described is always so much
> > more complex. etc.
>
> Yes, i think that words act like signs or
> postings; in philosophy they call that
> "referential" use of language. So, when
> you call "depression" a chemical imbalance,
> the meaning of the word "depression" is
> a pointer to the corresponding physical state.
> But you can also call something "depression"
> when what you mean is the symptoms observed,
> in comparison to what the person used to be.
> Of course, it could be both and more, like
> circumstances. So, imagine how far more
> ambiguous the reference for the word "personality" must be. It actually refers
> to a history.
>
>
>
> >
> > What exactly is underbeneath of the drugs, begs
> > the question. Because (an extreme example) isn't
> > the deformation that your childhood consisted of
> > a kind of "foreign" addition to whatever you
> > started with? Isn't everything?
>
> I suppose, if i understand you correctly. I would like to make a distinction between
> temperament and personality. Because you
> may be born with a genetically or embryonically
> caused temperament with definite qualities.
> For example, if your mother was taking meds
> while pregnant, instead of being born "easy-
> going", you may be born anxious. Add to that
> the genetic predisposition for temperament, such
> as aggressiveness, or lazy, etc. and then add
> to that the effect of upbringing, and you have
> quite a complex product to unravel.
>
> So, "personality" is very complex and hard to say
> whether you are born with it. I think not. I think at most, you are born with a temperament
> upon which other factors i mentioned build the
> final result. But once that *is* completed, i
> think it doesn't change, barring things like stroke. As for medications, that's a tough one, because personality is a global interaction of the brain, whereas medications touch only certain areas. So, it may *appear* as if a person has changed on say, steroids, but actually it is only a certain part of his personality that has changed; not his values, not his beliefs, his memories, his tastes, his language, his skills, etc.
>
>
> >
> > Your real personality, I'm afraid, is just
> > "what you get".
>
> See above babbling on this.
> >
> > "What you get" is whatever shows up, whatever
> > response the observer notices, the summation of a
> > load of things: what he/she seems to be - through
> > the prism of the drugs and whatever else is
> > happening at that and at previous moments, etc.
> > etc. etc.
> >
> > But yes, it's troubling. Am I cheating when
> > I'm mingling with people (not something I would
> > want to do ordinarily) whilst on my Deprenyl /
> > Moclobemide combo?
>
> I am not sure what you mean by the above. I think that changes in relations to other people may be a result of many things-- drugs, mania, anxiety, anger, hormonal changes..... but not necessarily the personality, just a trait of it.
>
>
> >
> > Only his psychiatrist knows for sure.
>
> I'm not sure they know anything for sure. :-)
>
>
> >
> >>
> > > Squiggles
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by unbottled on October 16, 2007, at 12:56:09
In reply to Re: Designing drugs and Hume's Analogy, posted by Squiggles on October 16, 2007, at 11:09:02
It's entirely a matter of definition. One could
say, for instance, that the ship is a bunch of
things including molecules that are designed to
be replaced bit-by-bit. So it *is* a ship.
One could also say that a ship is not a ship once
it's permanently docked on display. Not a ship.Now. If we could only figure out whether taking
Nardil is really cheating ..
Posted by Squiggles on October 16, 2007, at 13:40:32
In reply to Re: Designing drugs and Hume's Analogy, posted by unbottled on October 16, 2007, at 12:56:09
> It's entirely a matter of definition. One could
> say, for instance, that the ship is a bunch of
> things including molecules that are designed to
> be replaced bit-by-bit. So it *is* a ship.
> One could also say that a ship is not a ship once
> it's permanently docked on display. Not a ship.
>
> Now. If we could only figure out whether taking
> Nardil is really cheating ..There is no question that it *is* a ship;
the question is, is it the same ship? Of
course it may not matter from a utility
point of view-- e.g. knock-off products that
look, smell, and work identically, the only
distinguishing mark being the original patent.
I think generic drugs aspire to that, but i
offered an argument in a previous post where
they fail to meet the mark due to different tests.With regard to personalities, i think that
memories are the most significant tests for
change in "global" personality; but there
are other traits where parts of a personality
may change permanently, or transiently due
to the causes discussed. If a brain were
entirely replaced with another of different
"hardware" but identical "software" you would
not be able to tell the difference. Nor would
the person be different. But if significant
aspects of the personality were changed, those
observing the person they knew, would detect
the change. The person himself, would not I think, as that would require either two memories,
or two brains. If confronted with "what has
happened to you, you're not the same person anymore", chances are rationalizations and
fabrications would be the defensive response to
a threatening question.Sorry to go on about this -- it's really curious.
Squiggles
Posted by unbottled on October 16, 2007, at 15:09:43
In reply to Re: Designing drugs and Hume's Analogy » unbottled, posted by Squiggles on October 16, 2007, at 13:40:32
I desperately have to vent about PayPal instead -
so writing this stuff is handy. %^) But, maybe
better done on Babblemail?>If a brain were
> entirely replaced with another of different
> "hardware" but identical "software" you would
> not be able to tell the difference.Not possible. Hardware = software, as I
understand it. Hardware is plastic, not only
that but software a) could be said to consist
of hardware "artifacts", b) software becomes
hardware in time anyway.Also, if I'm grouchy old me sans MAOi, that's
at five o'clock. By seven, I'm friendly, forward
MAOi-enhanced "Mr. Hyde" me.So, the five o'clock me *will* make
rationalizations and so on about Hyde, whereas
Mr. Hyde himself, at seven-thirty, can laugh
about that prissy Mr. Jekyl with his
childish inhibitions.So. All memories are there, all behaviours are
understood. I know, in other words, when I've
been cheating %^)Yes?
> the person be different. But if significant
> aspects of the personality were changed, those
> observing the person they knew, would detect
> the change. The person himself, would not I think, as that would require either two memories,
> or two brains. If confronted with "what has
> happened to you, you're not the same person anymore", chances are rationalizations and
> fabrications would be the defensive response to
> a threatening question.
>
> Sorry to go on about this -- it's really curious.
>
> Squiggles
>
Posted by Squiggles on October 16, 2007, at 15:56:21
In reply to Re: Designing drugs and Hume's Analogy, posted by unbottled on October 16, 2007, at 15:09:43
I don't understand the Pay Pal reference;
would like to continue the conversation
on Babblemail-- are the two related? sorry,
i don't understand.You can write to me on babblemail if the
topic is too long/irrelevant?Squiggles
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.