It’s become obvious to me that Psychopaths are everywhere.
Some are allowed to thrive because they are surrounded by people who aren’t as bat shit crazy , but ultimately want the same goal as the Psycho. So they allow them to do what they do. Think wall street bankers. No, that guy in accounting might not want to kick grandma out of her house, but, he does like money and Jim has no prob doing the dirty work.
So I’m reading up on the Rutgers University Mike Rice thing. After watching video and seeing the eyes in his pictures and interview it is clear that he is a Psychopath. This became apparent to the school admin earlier and he was sent to “treatment”. The number one thing the guy said was “he thought he could be rehabiliated”. Keep in mind “rehabilitation” is a strong word. In fact that’s what prison is for (supposedly). Also, the Rutger’s team wasn’t even winning.
It reminded me of my pyscho coach in highschool. Though a lot of us stopped playing, and lawyers were even called on this guy. It wasn’t until he hurled a racial slur at a guys mother (by this time it was the second sport he was coaching)- and was about to get beat to a pulp - that the administration thought “ohhh maybe we should fire him”.
So, I know Psychos are supposed to be charming and manipulative etc. But, are the ones who get caught time and time again , thus meaning they are not as smooth as they think, really allowed to thrive because other people feel the need to adopt them as pet projects?
You know, “oh look at this guy, he was kicking the players in the shins and punching them in the face , and now he’s just doing his job like I pay him to do. Yayyy Me!”
People are people. If someone’s got the personality that allows him to execute an unpleasant job, then he’s a good fit for the position. Other times, unpleasant people are not fired simply because nobody’s got the stones to fire them.
PS: Looking at someone’s eyes only gives you an idea about the color of the eyes and possibly what kind of mood they are in or want to project. Whether or not they have an empathy deficiency is not readily apparent.
Hmmm regarding telling things by the eyes, that up for debate: http://www.magazine.tcu.edu/Magazine/Article.aspx?ArticleId=513
But anyway…so..abusive/psychopaths that are NOT effective at their jobs are enabled by cowards who often times are above them in rank…Makes sense. still sad for the human race.
I’ve been accused of being a sociopath, which is similar to a psychopath, but I’m not. Not a sociopath or a psychopath, that is. (And no, I’m not just lying about it.)
Is it? If you’ve been called a sociopath, or psychopath for that matter, on more than one occasion by different people (if that was the case) then perhaps you ..might want to look into it.
Anyway, once people reveal themselves to be psychopaths - in need of rehabilitation - that pretty much closes the case.
Ahhh I get it now. lol.. This place is so funny. From the little time I’ve been here , a common theme is to announce: “ohhh wait to the other’s guys get here! boy are you in for it” lol… it’s cute.
So, did *you * specifically want to talk about face recognition? Or were you just doing the “wait to the rest of the guys hear this” ..ala grade school move?
Just because people do bad, violent or anti-social things (or because **you ** perceive their actions as bad, violent or anti-social) doesn’t make them a psychopath. Sometimes they’re just bad people and somethings they’re just assholes.
Seriously, the only thing physiognomy can tell you about someone is whether they like tattoos, whether they get beat up a lot, whether they spend time in the sun, etc. Thoughts and feelings take place well behind and a little above the eyes in a seperate organ. Physiognomy & phrenology are pseudoscientific BS.
I heard Wayne LaPierre in a mini-debate on the radio a few years ago, at which time I became convinced that he is a psychopath. His recent mad ravings are only consistent with that. Yet, he’s been prominent in the NRA scene for many years and remains so. Somehow, he’s managing to get along unchecked.
MMMmmm. But isn’t this enabling that I’m talking about? The main example I gave was a coach who kicked, pushed, emotionally abused, and threw things at his players heads. All comments provided in response while not in favor, where not against the behavior…
There’s a difference between an asshole and someone who violently punishes people that are under their authority at a moment’s whim.
Several ancient practices can be neither “debunked” or “proven” by modern westernized medicine.
The debate would be cyclical, as I’m not one to believe that westernized medicine knows everything. And there’s enough evidence to prove that this is a fact.
This kind of coaching used to be more common. This guy probably grew up with coaches like that. It doesn’t make him a psychopath. Maybe he is anyway, but you can’t tell just from that kind of coaching.
Times and expectations change. I’m guessing you’re pretty young. Have you ever seen films with drill sergeants who basically did the same with recruits? It was expected, and sort of bragged about after Basic. (“You think your drill sergeant was tough? Mine made us eat live kittens while going on a 50 mile hike carrying two field packs!”) Nuns used to hit kids with rulers. Emotional abuse? Give me a break.
People these days expect to be treated with respect, to be nurtured. Not a bad thing, but there was a time when achieving the goal was more important, and what it took to get there was incidental. People deserve to be treated with respect. However, people are a product of their environment, and I wouldn’t be surprised that as a player, Rice wasn’t subject to the same treatment as he gave.
I don’t think the term psychopath is used clinically anymore, and the more-or-less replacement term sociopath is thrown around so often that it barely means anything at all. (From a lay perspective, at least. I don’t mean that it means nothing to therapists.) I think it’s better to keep things simple: I don’t know that Mike Rice is a sociopath and at first blush I think that term is much too grandiose. He’s a bully and a selfish asshole.
If she actually had antisocial personality disorder, she probably wouldn’t care.
Hmm. Why is it all angry coaches who abuse their players talk about it as a different approach despite results. Mike Rice is no Bobby Knight.
it also seems as if this guy is a (male - anger) apologist. Coaches are not taught to coach he provides as a reasoning? Well, they are adults, so maybe they should learn how to win without abusing our children. I mean that HAS to be an option, hasn’t it?
Wanting to win at all costs does not a psychopath make and I’ll put my trust in someone with a Doctorate of Psychology rather than some random goof on a message board.
