↖ Homepage of the site 'What to do with your life?'
      

Tell me how you make decisions, I'll tell you who you are

Objective

This page aims to provide tools so you don't find yourself helpless when problem solving doesn't work.

Summary

We propose a new method for classifying personality structures, based on the observation of the unfolding of the decision process between two people.
The ability to clearly identify the different personality structures described here makes it possible to optimize problem management, thus ultimately improving living well together in the group, both at a family and professional level. In other words, you can think of this document as the advanced level of a problem-solving course.

On the other hand, this classification is the product of an inverse approach to psychiatry. By this I mean that for each personality type, psychiatry tends to be primarily interested in the most extreme cases, because these are the ones that society entrusts to it. Conversely, we focus here on lighter cases. They, who are the most numerous, also have problems with social integration, and are rather poorly treated by current psychiatry, which applies to them in poorly adapted forms the diagnostic and therapeutic methods developed for the most serious cases.

Understand how the decision-making process works together

The different decision-making methods

Two people having to make a joint decision ultimately opt for one of the following three methods:

1. Delegation of power.
One says to the other “make the decision”

2. The confrontation of reasoning.
Each person presents their reasoning, criticizes that of the other, until we arrive at a shared conclusion.

3. The law of the strongest.
One imposes its decision on the other simply because the latter is not able to - or is not ready to pay the price to - oppose it.

Let's study in more detail the process of the exchange which precedes decision-making, and what it can teach us about the personalities of the people involved.

The a priori choice of the “delegation of power” modality

First of all, one of the two people can spontaneously opt for the “delegation of power” method.
In addition to giving up on making the decision, she thereby affirms her agreement in principle with the decision that will be taken.

Their motivations can be diverse:

Immediate force, protected by repugnance towards the escalation of violence

It is mainly carried out for decisions of little importance, and consists of overtaking the other person and presenting them with a fait accompli. The option taken here is to leave him only the choice between giving up, or escalating violence, being convinced that he will opt for the first option.

This technique is learned in early childhood, in the family, or at school. In the family and at school, what is prohibited is fistfighting. An effective technique for unduly appropriating a resource therefore consists of occupying the place, that is to say physically interposing oneself between the other and the resource, leaving abandonment or physical confrontation as the only alternative, by knowing that he will most likely be held responsible by adults for initiating a physical confrontation, regardless of whether the initial obstruction was justified or not. In childhood, the person who practices obstruction often doubles his act with a triumphant smile at the other, which adults repeat when they resort to an immediate forceful passage, leaving the other only the alternative of give in or escalate violence.

The cognitive and cultural optimum of a human: the “confrontation of reasoning” modality

Whatever the personalities of the people involved, the constructive mode of interaction is:
If neither of them spontaneously chooses the “delegation of power” modality, then the “confrontation of reasoning” modality should be applied.

During this “confrontation of reasoning” phase, in the way of conducting the exchange, the person reveals their relationship to the truth.
Is what dominates in her is sincerity, or is it social ambition?
Is the objective to approach the truth, or to win and obtain the implementation of one's chosen decision 'a priori'?
Is it an act of reasoning, or rhetoric?
Does it prioritize facts, social conventions, beliefs, or particular interests?

However, all these elements that can be observed during this “confrontation of reasoning” phase are not so much indicative of the personality type as of the ability to take into account the facts and the questioning of the beliefs that they imply. However, this ability requires combining a certain mental plasticity with a high level of sincerity. It is therefore not so much indicative of a particular psychological personality as it is a reflection of the level of overall psychological maturity.

At the end of the confrontation, a bad loser at the level of the “confrontation of reasoning” modality can block the situation via one of the following biases:

All these methods consist, once cornered at the level of arguments, of opposing mental inertia. Their use demonstrates a limit in terms of mental plasticity in people who may otherwise be sincere in the exchange.

The following bias is of a different nature:

It involves actively sabotaging the confrontation. It is therefore the indicator of insincerity.

Finally, the following bias, as we will see later, is more characteristic of a certain personality type:

Let it go, or return to the “delegation of power” modality

One of the protagonists can drop the matter and choose to exit by returning to the “delegation of power” modality.
If it is the protagonist of lower social rank who chooses the return to the “delegation of power” modality, then everything is socially normal: he affirms that he accepts the state of things.
In the exceptional case where it is the higher-ranking protagonist who chooses to exit, returning to the “delegation of power” modality, this can be interpreted socially either as a mark of weakness, or as a mark of confidence or encouragement towards towards the other.

Impose, or recourse to the “law of the strongest” modality

Conversely, one of the protagonists can shorten the affair by adopting the “law of the strongest” modality.
If it is the lower-ranking protagonist who switches to the “law of the strongest” modality, he challenges the other.
If it is the protagonist of higher rank, he affirms a gap in social rank that is all the greater the shorter his passage through the “confrontation of reasoning” modality.

There are different tricks to try to hide, mainly from yourself, the use of the “law of the strongest” modality. Their common point is to impose the decision, while possibly validating the merits of the other's position, or by showing empathy towards them. This aims to relieve oneself of the responsibility linked to the forced passage. To do this, it is enough to invoke something that is beyond us, such as the law, the regulation, or the state of the art.

As we will see later, when the decision is not ultimately taken on the “confrontation of reasoning” modality, but is the result of a return to the “delegation of power” modality, or a transition to the “the law of the strongest”, the person’s feelings become just as significant as the method of making the final decision.

The (non) implementation

Finally, let's not forget to observe the behavior at the time of implementation.
Indeed, it is the only observation that can truly effectively detect insincerity.

Presentation of our approach

The biases of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)

We do not currently have a satisfactory model of the functioning of the human psyche.

Faced with this deficiency, psychological therapy (psychiatry and psychology) was organized as follows:

This approach has a clear advantage:

On the other hand, this also poses multiple problems. First of all, at the diagnostic level:

Then in terms of therapies:

Conversely, the approach that we have adopted is based on a model of the human, presented in the question 'What is a human?'. This model can be described as behaviorist, in the sense that it explains the general behavior of humans without providing a model of their cognitive system.
In summary, unlike in DSM, we start from a structuring modeling (a theory), which naturally guides us towards problem solving as an optimum central practice. This ties us into the Social Problem-Solving (SPS) area of u200bu200bpsychology. However, our approach remains original in the sense that it affirms that it is the transitions between the different stages of problem solving which provide the most relevant information concerning the structure of the personality.

Objectives of our approach

The following different issues should not be confused:

We seek to address the first problem.
The Police / Justice / Psychiatry trio treats the second, even if psychiatry often does so reluctantly.
Psychiatry tends to treat the third problem, and in doing so, becomes largely subject to the bias of conditioning the individual to the vices of society, whether capitalist or communist.

What ultimately underlies our approach is the following double observation:

This approach also has the advantage of consistency with all the content of this site.What to do with your life?'. Throughout its pages, we place the ability to effectively solve problems as a central point of living well together.
We can now define mature people as those capable of carrying out this problem solving in a natural, informal way.
At the other end, we can define pathology as the inability to participate constructively in problem solving, regardless of the formalism adopted (culture, social conventions, reasonable accommodations, if you prefer) to make this possible. to the particular person concerned.
Finally, it is between these two extremes that the formalism described (the method described) in the second part of the book intervenes. From capital to reason, to assist groups or organizations in practicing constructive and effective problem solving.

Knowing how to identify the different non-standard personality structures, as well as understanding their particularities in their involvement in problem solving, is a key to successfully conducting problem solving, in particular to not wasting time and energy. However, a well-functioning problem-solving mechanism is the key to ensuring social harmony. After having exposed the different personality structures, and specified how to identify them, we will therefore discuss in the last part of this document some avenues for adapting the problem-solving method to non-standard personalities.

Notes regarding diagnostic methods

Note that a significant part of the observations that we propose to make during the decision-making process can be made during a simple confrontation of ideas, that is to say a conversation where the two protagonists are not All right.

On the other hand, the position of the therapist, psychologist or psychiatrist, is generally ill-suited to conducting the observations during the decision-making process that we have just spoken about, because the material constraints of the exercise of his profession often provide him with testimony as the only material. of one of the protagonists, as opposed to the direct observation of the exchanges in a decision-making situation of this same protagonist. Hence the interest for him in provoking a confrontation of ideas.
Conversely, the protocol that we suggest for diagnosing the structure of a personality is very practical to follow in the family or professional context.

Summary: advantages and disadvantages of the proposed classification

Advantages of the approach proposed here:

Disadvantages:

Overview of different personality structures

Observation of the decision-making process leads us to propose the following classification:

Please note now that we do not consider autism or psychopathy to be psychiatric illnesses or pathologies, but as variations of the normal. A good metaphor is the notion of weight, or size: being fat, or being tall, is not an illness in itself. This only becomes so in extreme forms.
For the record, we have just defined psychological pathology as the inability to engage in the constructive resolution of problems, whatever the method adopted to help the person.

The implications of the naming

When we say that someone is tall, we mean something more than the median height, but not something extreme like for example 2.30m. This means that large simply means slightly large. At 2m30, we would no longer say he is tall, but he measures 2m30.
In the same way, saying that someone is autistic without further clarification should be understood as saying that they are slightly autistic. If he is more clearly autistic, it should be clarified that he is autistic like one person in a hundred, in a thousand, etc.
In addition, historically, people who combine problems with social interactions with a mental deficiency have been described as autistic. We propose to reserve the term autistic to describe the personality structure, and more precisely to qualify autistic people with mental deficiency as Autistic Kanner. Today we call Asperger's autistic people who do not have mental deficiencies. Would we have the idea of u200bu200bqualifying blind people who are not deaf as hearing blind?
The fact of naming the broadest class of individuals under the autistic name instead of restricting the name to the most extreme groups presents a social interest in de-dramatization, and is essential for society to become aware of their social interest as opposed to to confuse norm and optimum, and therefore associate difference with deficiency... which must therefore be rectified. Conversely, no longer naming, such as replacing blind with blind, is a form of self-righteousness that is ultimately counterproductive since, because of the prefix 'no' that we added at the top, it still contributes to reinforce in the collective imagination the dangerous association between norm and optimum.

Likewise, by psychopath we mean the broadest class. In particular, we are not restricting ourselves to the small subgroup of associative psychopaths, those who commit crimes, and who, being overrepresented on the front pages of newspapers, are therefore overrepresented in the collective imagination.

The case of more than two people

Beyond two people, the individual tends to focus his attention more on the social effect he produces on the group, to the detriment of the interest in the coherence of collective reasoning. Furthermore, the complexity of social interactions increases very quickly with the number of individuals involved.
What we can observe of an individual in a context of multiple interactions - or even simply presences - therefore tends to become more revealing of his social strategy and his diplomatic capacities. It is therefore not an optimal context for studying the structure of one's personality.

The normal personality

We are not looking here for the characteristics allowing us to clearly identify the normal personality, which we prefer to define as the absence of a particular personality, but to establish some benchmarks concerning normal behavior which subsequently allow us to better understand the specificities of other personalities. .

The initial choice of modality

A normal person often chooses the “delegation of power” modality when he considers that his interlocutor is of higher social rank, or of superior competence in the field of the decision to be made.
She also often expects her interlocutor to choose the “delegation of power” method if he or she is of a lower rank.

The (non) implementation

Faced with a decision that he does not like, and which was imposed on him by recourse to the “law of the strongest” modality, a normal person will mainly respond with inertia and ill will.

Social ambition

The level of social ambition varies greatly among people with normal personality structures. Social ambition aims to occupy a high position in the social hierarchy. It manifests itself through the dominant character of the person, and presents a component innate to the person, and a component acquired through education.
What interests us more particularly here is that the level of social ambition shapes the way in which the person will approach the decision-making process. In particular, the more her level of social ambition exceeds her cognitive talents, the more she will be led to multiply biases to avoid the “confrontation of reasoning” modality. However, we said at the beginning of this document that a constructive decision process supposes that the two protagonists accept that the final decision is produced via the “confrontation of reasoning” modality. In other words, the problem of nuisance towards other members of the group comes not so much from the social ambition itself, but from the gap in the individual between social ambition and cognitive skills.

The level of social ambition is also measured at the level of the “confrontation of reasoning” modality by the person's tendency to confuse the strength of an argument with the social status of the person who made it.

The psychotic personality

Le psychotique est le fou, c'est à dire la personne qui, généralement par moments seulement, a des perceptions délirantes.
A l'article Faut-il écouter ses émotions ? nous avons défini le fonctionnement psychique de l'humain comme la superposition du système que nous avons appelé coginitivo-affectif, et de la raison qui le supervise, éventuellement. Nous avons alors présenté la résolution de problèmes comme le fonctionnement optimum des humains, où la raison travaille sans entraves, mais aussi constaté que dans la vie de tous les jours, c'est bien plus souvent le système-cognitivo affectif qui est à l'oeuvre pour prendre les décisions. Chez les individus normaux, le système cognitivo-affectif tend ainsi bien souvent à prendre la pas sur la raison, mais les sens (vue, ouïe, etc) restent encore plus puissants que les pensées issues du système cognitivo-affectif. Nous définissons maintenant la crise psychotique comme le moment où les pensées issues du système cognitivo-affectif prennent aussi le pas sur les sens.
Le psychotique ne constitue donc pas une structure de personnalité à proprement parler. Seule existe la crise psychotique, qui ne survient pas pour autant chez tous les individus.

The “confrontation of reasoning” modality

Obviously, the psychotic is identified, quite easily, by the perfectly irrational elements that he takes into account to construct his proposed decision.
L'autre personnalité qui peut utiliser des arguments complètement hors sujet est le psychopathe, mais les arguments du psychopathe sont socialement optimisés pour certains contextes ou pour déstabiliser son adversaire, alors que ceux du psychotique sont un reflet de ses angoisses personnelles, ou plus précisément du contenu de son système cognitivo-affectif.

The gifted (or more precisely over-learning) personality

The deaf person is one who likes to learn, whereas for the normal person, learning is an effort that one only makes in exchange for access to a better social rank.
In practice, the normal person learns almost as much as the gifted during their studies, although in a more superficial and utilitarian way (getting a good grade), but the gap then widens, because the normal person mainly invests in the game of alliances while the gifted continue to invest intensively in learning throughout their life.

The “confrontation of reasoning” modality

The gifted person is noted for the exceptional mental plasticity that he demonstrates during the “confrontation of reasoning” phase, particularly in his ability to take into account the objections of his interlocutor, and reposition himself accordingly.

The use of “return to the delegation of power” or “the law of the strongest” modalities

The gifted experience dissatisfaction in leaving the “confrontation of reasoning” modality when this does not lead to a common vision. Indeed, his mental plasticity and his great sincerity allow him to bring out the “confrontation of reasoning” modality almost every time, provided that the interlocutor is up to the task.

The autistic personality

The autistic is the one for whom social ambition is not a cardinal value.
Dans la pratique, il perturbe le groupe en appliquant mal les conventions sociales, sans pour autant être en rébellion. On peut aussi éventuellement le voir comme une personne présentant des défaillances au niveau du fonctionnement social instinctif (dans ce que nous dénommons le système cognitivo-affectif).

The initial choice of modality

An autistic person does not spontaneously switch to “delegation of power” mode when their interlocutor is of higher social rank.
An autistic person often switches to the “confrontation of reasoning” mode from the start, without even having tested whether their interlocutor would opt for the “delegation of power” mode.

The “confrontation of reasoning” modality

The autistic person is notable for his lack of use of arguments based mainly on the social order, unlike a normal person, for whom, for example, the fact of citing a Nobel Prize gives considerable weight to his argument.

Impose, or recourse to the “law of the strongest” modality

Like the gifted, the autistic person experiences great difficulty leaving the “confrontation of reasoning” modality when this does not lead to a common vision. In fact, the low credit he has for his social rank makes the door impassable for him: the protagonist of lower rank opts for the “delegation of power” modality. Taking it out will ultimately leave a more unpleasant impression on the autistic than on a socially adapted individual.

The (non) implementation

Finally, the autistic person will mainly show stress, and not just passive ill will like the normal individual, in all cases where the “confrontation of reasoning” modality has not resulted in a common decision.

Another element of diagnosis of autistic personality

Autistic people become exhausted during prolonged social relations, even more quickly when the group is large and the interactions take place in the “living room conversation” mode (psychological games).

Other characteristics of the autistic personality

Autistic people are attributed with a certain lack of empathy, because they do not spontaneously synchronize their bodily attitude with that of others, and therefore appear insensitive.
This criticism ignores that the lack of empathy is general, because the standard personality only feels empathy if the victim looks like them, if they can say to themselves 'that could be me'. In other words, his empathy is largely exercised towards himself, or more precisely within the limits of a nepotistic vision of the world: in an us against them, he could be one of us. In the general case, human empathy therefore does not go beyond caste solidarity.

The psychopathic personality

The psychopath is the one who does not have empathy. Behind a respectable superficial facade that he carefully maintains, only power relations, bargaining and manipulation exist.
Dans la pratique, il n'est ni fou, ni débile, mais avec lui on arrive pas à pratiquer la résolution de problèmes. Soit on le contrôle, soit on le subi. Garder aussi à l'esprit que le psychopathe est un type de salaud particulier ; tous les salauds ne sont pas des psychopathes. On peut aussi éventuellement voir le psychopathe comme une personne présentant des défaillances au niveau de la raison, par opposition au système cognitivo-affectif, ou une surpuissance de ce dernier limitant sa supervision par la raison.

The initial choice of modality

A psychopathic person, if he does not get his interlocutor to spontaneously pass the “delegation of power” modality, will pass into the “confrontation of reasoning” modality, but only at the level of appearances, as we will see.

Conduct of the “confrontation of reasoning” modality

In the psychopathic person, the “confrontation of reasoning” modality is practiced in a particular and characteristic way, confusing, even destabilizing. The general framework is to start with vaguely objective elements, then to drift from sentence to sentence towards something completely off-topic, based on ready-made arguments and abusive generalizations. There is no possible refocusing of the debate because the factual objections of the other are not really taken into account other than by insisting on moving the confrontation towards off-topic arguments. Indeed, the goal of the psychopathic person is not to construct a coherent demonstration, but only to provoke reactions in others, find points of weakness, and exploit them. It works a bit like a judoka who is looking for which grip will allow him to make his opponent fall in order to take control of him. He is not interested in the content.

Furthermore, when he or she is in difficulty with arguments, the psychopath uses all the blocking and sabotage techniques that we listed at the beginning of this document (all opinions are equal, I don't believe it, beliefs, derail the reasoning, discredit the person).
It is on this last technique that she stands out by being practically the only one to use it. Indeed, if she does not get the other to switch to “delegation of power” mode, then she will completely forget the substance of the initial question and seek to discredit the person who opposes her. This is a reflection of the fact that in one's mental representation, the other's non-agreement is experienced as aggression, which therefore justifies aggression in return.

Impose, or recourse to the “law of the strongest” modality

Conversely, resorting to the “law of the strongest” modality does not pose a problem for the psychopath, because due to his weak capacity to consider the other, what is good for himself is perceived as good in short. To the detriment of the other does not generate problematic psychological consequences.

The (non) implementation

Here again, the psychopath stands out by not putting into practice a decision that displeases him, even if he had freely accepted it via the “confrontation of reasoning” modality. Indeed, for him, the “confrontation of reasoning” modality is exercised in the theater mode, and therefore does not involve real life.

Other diagnostic elements of psychopathic personality

The four other characteristic signs of a psychopath are:
1. An imperfect sense of otherness. The psychopath tends to consider what is good for him as simply good.
2. He does not feel guilt, does not recognize his mistakes.
3. He seeks to avoid his interlocutors talking directly to each other, and tells them a very different version of the same facts.
4. He does not wish to change; he promises to change when he needs to regain trust, and doesn't change.

Other characteristics of the psychopathic personality

In the psychopath, generalized 'us versus them' nepotism does not really exist. More precisely, the 'we' does not exist. There are simply people he considers above him, towards whom he will be envious, and whose protection he will obsequiously seek, and people below him, whom he will despise, and whom he will shamelessly humiliate. , and finally those at the same level with whom he will be in struggle.

Other psychological traits influencing the switch between different decision-making modalities

The following personality traits influence the way you make decisions. However, we have chosen not to present them as revealing other types of personalities.

Emotional insecurity

It is noticeable during the “confrontation of reasoning” modality by the fact of returning more quickly than the exchange justifies to the “delegation of power” modality.

Depression

Depression, or simply depression, produces the same effect as emotional insecurity of prematurely leaving the “confrontation of reasoning” modality to return to the “delegation of power” modality.

In other words, the indicator prematurely leaving the “confrontation of reasoning” modality to return to the “delegation of power” modality is the sign of an individual in suffering, and not the indicator of a particular personality structure.

Reasonable accommodations

Now that we have outlined the different personality structures, and outlined a reliable method for identifying them in the field, let's finally see how it makes sense to adapt the standard problem-solving process based on the personality structure of the people involved. . Indeed, having a problem-solving process that works satisfactorily remains our common thread to ensure social harmony.

Facing a psychotic

Temporarily abandon problem solving: arguments are useless. You simply have to concentrate on the emotional aspect to help the psychotic come out of his crisis.

When you are psychotic

When we are in crisis, we have lost control of ourselves, so we depend on the behavior of others. All the work is therefore that which can be carried out cold to learn to avoid crises.

Facing a gifted person (or more precisely an over-learner)

Giftedness is a powerful brain mechanic that can be relied upon. We can therefore let it progress quickly, construct the analysis, then the solution, and simply put ourselves in rereading mode quite extensively, or even let it slip away when we can't follow. Indeed, if we discover later that the too approximate rereading that we made on the spot led to an unsatisfactory solution, it will be enough to bring forward the new facts to call the decision into question. The gifted person won't do the trick: we had decided, we're not going back.

What you should not do: if you consider yourself socially higher than your gifted interlocutor, you should definitely not allow yourself to be tamed by your own social ambition and seek to have the upper hand at all costs, so that the exchange is a reflection of respective social positions. I am the parent, I am the teacher, I am the professional, I am No. 1, etc.

If you want to help a gifted person, don't put obstacles in their way.

When you are gifted

Agree to slow down your reasoning to allow the other to follow, because if they stall, they will have less confidence in the final decision.

Don't forget that if in the short term, it is more productive to help someone who is less gifted, in the long term, it is more productive to have helped them develop their abilities than to have given them the habit of passivity.

Facing an autistic

In the analysis part of the problem, the autistic is less biased by social habits. It is therefore a valuable partner for problem solving. We must understand that it is not the autistic person who is biased here, but rather normal personalities who give excessive importance to the social hierarchy, to the detriment of facts, and therefore of social harmony.

Avoid being prescriptive. You should have said hello, we can't say it like that, etc.
Take into account that autistic people do not speak the same language, because the same words are not based on the same perception of the world. We must therefore above all seek to understand each other, as with a foreigner who makes the effort to speak our language.

Also think about using your own higher social skills as a normal individual to calm the exchange. Without external help, the autistic person will follow an upward stress curve which will on the one hand exhaust him, and on the other hand disrupt the decision-making process, or even provoke an eruption of aggressiveness.
Conversely, avoid barbs, seen by oneself as a social game (the ambiguity of which generally escapes the person throwing them), which are perceived by the autistic person as aggression.

If you want to help an autistic person, teach them problem solving, just like everyone else. It's just that for an autistic person, it will be even more beneficial.

When you are autistic

Learn to perfectly master the elements described in this document, that is to say identify in the moment each technique used by the person opposite to make the transition to another decision-making modality, block the progress of reasoning to avoid not come to a conclusion that displeases him, or simply mark his social status. This is much more useful than practicing decoding nonverbal language.
When we are trained to decode the decision-making process as we go, we also quickly determine the structure of the personality opposite, and all of this effectively contributes to reducing the stress linked to the exchange.
Also practice differentiating between problems whose non-resolution is due to a lack of technique/know-how, and problems whose non-resolution is linked to a lack of good will (which biases the analysis stage or the implementation stage). ), to avoid unnecessarily exhausting yourself against the latter.

Choose your social environment carefully, because problem solving conducted in a non-constructive manner - psychological struggle - costs more. Indeed, autistic people do not have access to the psychological games described in transactional analysis, which serve as a conflict valve for people with a normal psychological structure, as well as a path to intimacy.
We remain social mammals, and as such, we got into the habit during childhood of creating bonds through “bickering”, that is to say confrontations where we do not go so far as to hurt the other person. other. Autistic people are very uncomfortable in this type of activity, and are therefore considered associative by individuals whose access to intimacy necessarily involves the reproduction of these “bickering”.

When you are a psychopath

What I am describing here is the psychopath whose education did not teach him to tame his nature, that is to say who remained the all-powerful child of 4 years old, who does not reach the age of reason . The psychopath does not access shared pleasure; only his good pleasure exists, and the rule of the strong crushes the weak. If this shocks you, refer to the abundant testimonies in the book The mask of sanity which clearly show how psychopaths repeatedly fool people of good will. Also keep in mind that there is a continuum between normality and the marked psychopathy described here and in the book.

The psychopath is therefore simply not interested in solving problems: collective interest is nonsense for him, and being interested in it is seen as a form of naivety. He therefore approaches the decision-making process as a pure rhetorical exercise coupled with a commercial negotiation. Reason is worthless, all that matters is the effect it has on others. In this sense, the psychopath is not only amoral, but also and above all irresponsible.

Facing a psychopath

To be diplomatic in the face of a psychopath is to take one's own dreams for reality, or more precisely to demonstrate naivety or cowardice.
Faced with the psychopath, the least uncomfortable position is to be above him in his representation of the social hierarchy, and to impose a rational and balanced solution on him. By balanced, I mean that a third party to whom we would expose the problem would find the decision relevant, but also fair. On the other hand, I say impose. Negotiation is illusory, because once a global agreement is obtained through negotiation, the psychopath will only apply the parts that are favorable to him, and will forget the counterparts.
An additional constraint when faced with a psychopath is therefore to formulate the problem-solving solution in the form of either a single proposition as suggested previously, or several, but ensuring in all cases that one is in position to impose the full application of one of them.

When a discussion regarding a decision to be made is initiated by the psychopath, and he spontaneously proposes a solution, keep in mind that he may be trying to drag you into something messed up. In addition, he will favor an oral agreement, and if things go wrong, he will not hesitate to try to cover himself by producing a written document which absolutely does not correspond to the initial oral agreement.

If you want to help a psychopath, teach him problem solving, just like everyone else. It's just that with a psychopath, it will be less effective, or not effective at all.

Go deeper

Start with the fundamental question'What is a human?' which describes our common general behaviors resulting from our common genetic heritage.

But above all, to clearly understand what we ideally mean by “confrontation of reasoning”, refer to the question 'What conditions must be met to produce serious reasoning? Problem solving.'

To better understand autism as we understand it here, refer to the book Asperger's syndrome, by Tony Attwood. The diagnostic method that we have just presented is very different from that proposed in the book, and in the DSM, which correspond to the state of the art. We simply claim that in the end, our method more reliably identifies the same subgroup of people, these people being ultimately identified by the recounting of the singularities of their personal stories as reported in the book. In particular, our method is more stable with regard to the compensatory capacity of autistic people with significant intellectual faculties, the compensatory capacity linked to the greater social skills of women, and finally the compensatory capacity linked to circumvention knowledge. social obstacles acquired by the elderly.

In the same way, to better understand psychopathy, refer to the book The mask of sanity, by Hervey M. Cleckley. Here again, our diagnostic method is very different, but we claim to identify, in a more reliable way, the same subgroup of people as those whose unique personal stories are reported in number and detail in the book. In particular, our method is more resistant to concealment specific to psychopathic people.
As a starting point to just get rid of the clichés concerning psychopathy, and in particular that of the serial murdering psychopath, watch the report 'Is there a psychopath in us? 42 - The answer to almost everything' by Luise Donschen broadcast by Arte and probably available on YouTube.
Then, we can refer to the site:

  https://psychopathyis.org/

Finally, at a more general level, there are numerous proposals for classification by personality types or traits:

↣ Wikipedia article 'Personality type'

The problem with all these classifications is that they seek to divide all people into subgroups of people who are similar, and that this is not of much practical interest. Indeed, what is important from the point of view of the second great question of philosophy (namely 'How to escape from mutually destructive natural attitudes?') is: Will two people be able to make a joint decision that suits both? Our classification is more relevant to such an objective, and fits better with psychiatric observations.

Premise for validation of the proposed classification:
Is psychopathy associated with the use of impulsive social problem solving strategies? G.T.B Gerards, Bachelor Thesis, Tilburg University