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

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

Objective

This page aims to provide tools to not be left helpless when problem solving does not work.

Summary

We propose a new method for classifying personality structures, based on the observation of the development of the decision-making process between two people.
The ability to clearly identify the different personality structures described here allows one to optimize the management of problems, thus ultimately improving the quality of life in a group, both at the family and professional level. In other words, you can see this document as an advanced level course in problem solving.

On the other hand, this classification is the product of an inverse approach to psychiatry. By that I mean that for each personality type, psychiatry tends to focus first on the most extreme cases because it is these that society entrusts to it. Conversely, we focus on the milder cases. These, who are the most numerous, also have social integration problems, and are rather poorly treated by current psychiatry, which applies to them weakly adapted diagnostic and therapeutic methods developed on the most severe cases.

Understanding the dynamics of decision-making between two people

The different decision-making modes

Two people who need to make a joint decision eventually choose one of the following three modalities:

1. Delegation of power.
One tells the other, 'Make the decision'

2. The confrontation of reasoning.
Each explains their reasoning, criticizes the other's, until a shared conclusion is reached.

3. The law of the stronger.
One imposes their decision on the other simply because the other is not able to or not willing to pay the price to oppose it.

Let us study in more detail the dynamics of the exchange preceding the decision, and what it can teach us about the personalities of the people involved.

The a priori choice of the 'delegation of power' modality

First, one of the two people may choose spontaneously for the 'delegation of power' modality.
In addition to giving up making the decision, they assert their principle agreement with the decision that will be made.

Their motivations can be various:

   •   

They may consider that the other is more competent to make this particular decision.

   •   

They may consider that the social status of the other justifies that he makes the decision.

   •   

They may consider that there is too much to lose in opposing.

   •   

They may consider that the low importance of the decision does not justify thinking it through.

Immediate force, protected by aversion towards an escalation of violence

This mainly occurs for decisions of little importance, and consists of getting ahead of the other and presenting them with a fait accompli. The option here is to leave them with only the choice to give up or to escalate the violence, being convinced that they will choose the first option.

This technique is learned in early childhood, at home or at school. At home and at school, what is forbidden is fisticuffs. An effective technique to unfairly appropriate a resource is therefore to occupy the position, that is to say to physically interpose oneself between the other and the resource, leaving them with only the alternatives of giving up or of physical confrontation, knowing that they will most probably be held responsible by adults for initiating a physical confrontation, regardless of the legitimacy or not of the initial obstruction. In childhood, the person who practices obstruction often doubles their act with a triumphant smile to the other, something that adults repeat when they resort to immediate force, leaving the other with only the alternative to give up or to escalate the violence.

The cognitive and cultural optimum of a human being: the 'confrontation of reasoning' modality

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

During this 'confrontation of reasoning' phase, the way the conversation is conducted reveals the person's relationship to truth.
Does what dominates in them is sincerity, or is it social ambition?
Is the objective to approach the truth, or to win and get their pre-chosen decision implemented?
Are they reasoning, or rhetoric?
Are facts, social conventions, beliefs, or particular interests being prioritized?

However, all these elements that can be observed during this 'confrontation of reasoning' phase are not so much revealing of the personality type, as of the ability to take into account facts and the questioning of beliefs that they imply. This ability requires a certain mental flexibility combined with a high level of sincerity. It is therefore not so much revealing of a particular psychological personality, but rather a reflection of the overall level of psychological maturity.

After the confrontation, a bad loser at the 'confrontation of reasoning' level can block the situation via one of the following biases:

   •   

claiming that all opinions are equal (the Monty Pythons would say 'Let's call it a draw')

   •   

rejecting facts with 'I don't believe it'

   •   

posing beliefs as uncontested facts

   •   

rejecting the substance on the pretext of the form: 'you said it wrong'

   •   

substituting anger for factual arguments

All these methods, once cornered on the level of arguments, oppose mental inertia. Their use testifies to a limit in terms of mental flexibility in people who may be otherwise sincere in the exchange.

The following bias is of a different nature:

   •   

derailing the reasoning by constantly opening new branches so that one can't conclude

It consists of actively sabotaging the confrontation. It is therefore the revealer of lack of sincerity.

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

   •   

trying to discredit the other as a person
The attack can be explicit, or hidden in double meanings (the literal meaning is objective, and the double meaning is destabilizing).

Give up, or returning to the 'delegation of power' modality

One of the protagonists can give up the matter and choose to withdraw by returning to the 'delegation of power' modality.
If it is the protagonist of lower social rank who chooses to return to the 'delegation of power' modality, then everything is socially normal: they assert that they accept the state of things.
In the exceptional case where it is the protagonist of higher social rank who chooses to withdraw, returning to the 'delegation of power' modality, it can be interpreted socially either as a sign of weakness or as a sign of trust or encouragement towards the other.

Imposing, or the resort to the 'law of the stronger' modality

Conversely, one of the protagonists can shorten the matter by adopting the 'law of the stronger' modality.
If it is the protagonist of lower rank who switches to the 'law of the stronger' modality, they are defying the other.
If it is the protagonist of higher rank, they are asserting a much greater social rank gap the shorter their passage through the 'confrontation of reasoning' modality has been.

There are different tricks to try to hide, mainly from oneself, the resort to the 'law of the stronger' modality. Their common point is to impose the decision, while possibly validating the legitimacy of the other's position, or showing empathy towards them. This aims to unload the responsibility associated with the strong move. It is enough to invoke something that surpasses us, such as for example the law, the regulation, or the state of the art.

As we will see later, when the decision is not ultimately made on the 'confrontation of reasoning' modality, but is the result of a return to the 'delegation of power' modality, or a switch to the 'law of the stronger' modality, the feeling of the person becomes just as significant as the modality of the final decision-making.

The (non) implementation

Finally, let us not forget to observe the behavior at the implementation stage.
Indeed, this is the only observation that really allows to detect insincerity effectively.

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 lack, psychological therapy (psychiatry and psychology) has organized itself in the following way:

   •   

At the diagnostic level, it relies heavily on the DSM.

   •   

At the level of therapies, it tends to select practices that scientifically prove their effectiveness against the placebo effect.

This approach has a certain advantage:

   •   

At the level of therapeutic practices, it allows to fight against quackery, that is to say the placebo effect in various forms.

However, this also poses multiple problems. At the diagnostic level first:

   •   

Due to the inability to base diagnoses on a satisfactory model of the human psyche, the DSM relies heavily on a methodology similar to that found in personality tests in beach magazines: a questionnaire, and if your answers are mainly B, then you have such a pathology (or disorder).
First, the evaluation of the answers does not take into account the ability of masking, that is to say the ability for children with high cognitive abilities, or benefiting from the experience of a parent in the same situation, to compensate very effectively to conform to social expectations, at the price of an excessive adaptation effort.
Then, the questions are often related to symptoms, themselves often related to stress and social conventions, and therefore not very specific to a personality structure. A century ago, in Education and sociology, Emile Durkheim already highlighted the arbitrary nature of social conventions.
Finally, the questions in the DSM diagnoses tend to present the bias of confusing dominant personality and normal personality. For example, specific interests in the context of the diagnosis of ASD are presented as an anomaly, in contrast to the superficial interests of neurotypical people which are implicitly presented as desirable.

   •   

As diagnoses are established on the basis of at least n answers B, it naturally measures more a threshold than a tendency, and therefore proves unsuitable for the diagnosis of mild cases where the ability to mask exceeds the gap between the tested individual and the median individual.
Lacking an alternative, this leads unfortunately the practitioners, in the case of ASD for example, to apply the standard tools ADI-R and ADOS outside the framework in which they have been scientifically validated:
'These statistical properties confirm that the combination of the two instruments is useful for avoiding false diagnoses, but that it does not allow the study of the mildest forms of the spectrum in adults and children alike' Antoine Frigaux, L’ADI-R et l’ADOS face au diagnostic différentiel des troubles du spectre autistique : intérêts, limites et ouvertures.
Hence the interest of this proposal for the diagnosis of mild cases.

At the level of therapies next:

   •   

While the placebo effect is easy to implement at the pharmacological level, on the other hand, at the level of interaction between a practitioner and their patient, it is anything but simple, especially because the practitioner knows whether they are applying the placebo effect or not, and it has been demonstrated that this alone is enough to potentially bias the results:
« Undergraduate students served as Es running supposedly 'bright' or 'dull' rats in a discrimination study. Actually all rats were from the same population. Learning was better in those animals the Es expected to be 'bright.' This finding did no appear to be due to intentional cheating on the part of the E. The mechanism for this effect as well as the relationship between this effect and the personality characteristics of the E are discussed. » Rosenthal, R., & Fode, K. L. (1963). The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat.

   •   

Proving superiority over the placebo effect is only an initial phase in the validation of a drug. The most complex part is the evaluation of potential side effects. However, in psychology, we largely choose to ignore them. In particular, in the face of suffering linked to a pathological social organization, there is a tendency to avoid political struggle, and to try at all costs to increase individual resilience, which ultimately leads victims to internalize the problem (seeing themselves as maladjusted), and degrades their self-image. See the question 'Ending the abusive use of psychotropics and psychotherapies'.

   •   

Treatments that scientifically demonstrate their effectiveness but were not developed under the guidance of a theory tend to be multiple and suboptimal:
« Long ago it was commonly believed that malaria was caused by “bad air”. Based on this theory, an effective intervention was devised: in order to stay healthy, one should keep doors and windows closed, in order to prevent the circulation of “bad air”. Not surprisingly, the intervention proved to be partially effective, as it prevented mosquitos – the transmitting agents of the disease – from coming into contact with humans. However, later it became evident that malaria was caused by a specific pathological agent, and not the “bad air”. As noted elsewhere (David & Montgomery, 2011), if scientists were satisfied with the “bad air theory” we might still be attempting to develop better windows to better control malaria. By contrast, knowing the true mechanism (i.e., why does the intervention work?) helps us to develop a better intervention (i.e., something that works far better). »

Conversely, the approach we have adopted starts from a model of the human being, presented in the question 'What is a human being?'. 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 the DSM, we start from a structuring model (a theory), which naturally leads us to problem-solving as the central optimal practice. This connects us to the field of Social Problem-Solving (SPS) in psychology. However, our approach remains original in that it claims that the transitions between the various stages of problem-solving provide the most relevant information about personality structure.

Objectives of our approach

It is important not to confuse the following different issues:

   •   

Ensuring the well-being of individuals in the group

   •   

Managing individuals who challenge the social order

   •   

Supporting individuals who are unable to integrate into their social environment

We aim to address the first issue.
The trio Police / Justice / Psychiatry addresses the second, although psychiatry often does so reluctantly.
Psychiatry tends to address the third issue, and in doing so, becomes largely subject to the bias of conditioning individuals to the vices of society, whether capitalist or communist.

What ultimately underpins our approach is the following double observation:

   •   

decision-making, whether satisfactory or not, is what most directly determines the flourishing or destructive nature of relationships between individuals, both at the family and professional level. It is therefore self-evident to define personality structures from their behavior in decision-making situations.

   •   

the observation of the decision-making process is what allows for effective diagnosis of mild forms of autism, and especially psychopathy, while other methods prove fragile.

This approach also has the advantage of consistency with the entire content of this website 'What to do with your life?'. Throughout the pages of this site, we establish the ability to effectively manage problem-solving as the central point of living well together.
We can now therefore define mature individuals as those who can naturally and informally lead this problem-solving.
At the other extreme, we can define pathology as the inability to constructively participate in problem-solving, regardless of the formalism adopted (the culture, social conventions, reasonable accommodations, if you prefer) to make it possible for the particular individual.
Finally, it is between these two extremes that the formalism described (the method described) in the second part of the book From Capital to Reason, aims to assist groups or organizations in the constructive and effective practice of problem-solving.

Being able to accurately identify different non-standard personality structures, as well as understanding their specificities in their involvement in problem-solving, is a key to effectively managing problem-solving, especially to avoid wasting time and energy. Indeed, a well-functioning problem-solving mechanism is the key to ensuring social harmony. After presenting the various personality structures and specifying how to identify them, we will therefore address in the last part of this document some guidelines for adapting the problem-solving method to non-standard personalities.

Notes on the diagnostic modalities

Note that a significant part of the observations we propose to make during the decision-making process can be done during a simple exchange of ideas, i.e., a conversation where the two protagonists disagree.

Conversely, the position of the therapist, psychologist or psychiatrist is generally unsuited to conducting the observations during decision-making that we have just discussed, as the material constraints of their profession often provide them with only one of the protagonists' testimony, as opposed to the direct observation of the exchanges in decision-making situations of the same protagonist. Hence the interest in provoking an exchange of ideas.
Conversely, the protocol we suggest for diagnosing a personality structure 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:

   •   

It is based on the direct observation of a precisely defined phenomenon, and not on an attempt to interpret the entire behavior of a person.

   •   

It is resistant to insincerity.

   •   

It is directly linked to what underpins the harmony of a group, namely the ability of its members to constructively solve problems (of which the decision-making process is the core).

   •   

It is practical to use in the family or professional context.

Disadvantages:

   •   

The therapist in their office is not in a good position to make the observations. The proposed protocol is a field protocol.

Overview of different personality structures

The observation of the course of decision-making leads us to propose the following classification:

   •   

normal (modulated by the possible gap between social ambition and cognitive skills)

   •   

over-achieving (or more precisely, over-learners)

   •   

autistic

   •   

psychopathic

   •   

psychotic

Note well from now on that we do not consider autism or psychopathy as psychiatric illnesses or pathologies, but as variations of the norm. A good metaphor is the concept of weight or height: being fat or tall is not a disease in itself. It becomes one only in extreme forms.
To recall, we have just defined mental pathology as the inability to participate in constructive problem-solving, regardless of the method used to help the person.

The implications of the denomination

When one says that someone is tall, one understands something more than the median height, but not something extreme, like 230 cm. This means that being tall in general implies being slightly tall. At 230 cm, one would no longer say he is tall, but he is 230 cm tall.
In the same way, saying of someone that he is autistic without further precision must be understood in the form that he is slightly autistic. If he is more clearly autistic, it is appropriate to specify that he is autistic as one in a hundred, one in a thousand, etc.
Furthermore, historically, people who had social interaction disorders and mental disability were qualified as autistic. We propose to reserve the term autistic to qualify the personality structure, and to more precisely qualify those who are autistic with mental disability as Kanner Autistic. Today, Asperger's Autistic are used to qualify autistics who do not show mental disabilities. Would one have the idea of qualifying hearing deaf as the deaf who are not deaf?
Naming the broadest class of individuals under the denomination autistic rather than restricting the denomination to the most extreme groups has a social interest of de-escalating the situation, and is essential for society to realize their social interest by opposing the confusion between norm and optimum, and thus associating difference with disability... which it is appropriate to correct. Conversely, no longer naming, as for example replacing blind with non-sighted, is a form of well-intentioned thinking that is ultimately counterproductive since, because of the prefix 'non' that we have added, it contributes to reinforce the dangerous association between norm and optimum in the collective imagination.

Likewise, we understand by psychopath the broadest class. In particular, we do not restrict ourselves to the small subgroup of social psychopaths, those who commit crimes, and who, being overrepresented at the top of newspaper headlines, are consequently overrepresented in the collective imagination.

The case of more than two people

Beyond two people, the individual tends to focus more on the social effect they produce on the group, at the expense of the interest for the coherence of the collective reasoning. In addition, the complexity of social interactions increases very quickly with the number of individuals involved.
What one can observe of an individual in the context of multiple interactions - or even simply multiple presences - tends to become more revealing of their social strategy, and of their diplomatic skills. It is therefore not an optimal context to study the structure of their personality.

The normal personality

We are not looking here for the characteristics that allow us to well identify the normal personality, which we prefer to define as the absence of a particular personality, but to set some benchmarks concerning normal behavior that will help us later better understand the specificities of other personalities.

The initial choice of the mode

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

(The) (non) implementation

Faced with a decision that displeases her, and that has been imposed by using the 'might makes right' mode, a normal person will mainly oppose inertia and bad will.

Social ambition

The level of social ambition varies greatly among individuals with a normal personality structure. Social ambition aims to occupy a high position in the social hierarchy. It manifests through dominant behavior and has an innate component, as well as a component acquired through education.  
What interests us more particularly here is that the level of social ambition influences the way in which the person approaches the decision-making process. In particular, the greater the disparity between their level of social ambition and their cognitive talents, the more they will be likely to use biases in order to avoid the reasoning confrontation mode. However, at the beginning of this document, we stated that a constructive decision-making process requires both protagonists to accept that the final decision is made through the reasoning confrontation mode. In other words, the source of disturbance to other group members is not so much the social ambition itself, but rather the discrepancy in the individual between social ambition and cognitive skills.

The level of social ambition can also be measured in the reasoning confrontation mode by the tendency of the person to confuse the strength of an argument with the social status of the person who made it.

The Psychotic Personality

The psychotic is the madman, i.e., the person who, generally for short periods only, has delusional perceptions.  
At the article Should one listen to one's emotions? we defined the human psychic functioning as the superposition of the system we called the cognitive-affective system, and reason, which supervises it, potentially. We then presented problem-solving as the optimal functioning of humans, where reason works without obstacles, but also observed that in daily life, it is much more often the cognitive-affective system that is in charge of making decisions. In normal individuals, the cognitive-affective system tends to take the lead over reason, but the senses (sight, hearing, etc.) remain even more powerful than thoughts from the cognitive-affective system. We now define the psychotic crisis as the moment when thoughts from the cognitive-affective system also take precedence over the senses.  
The psychotic individual, therefore, does not constitute a personality structure in the proper sense. Only the psychotic crisis exists, and it does not occur in all individuals.

The “Reasoning Confrontation” Mode

Obviously, the psychotic is easily identified by the completely irrational elements he or she takes into account to build his or her proposal for a decision.  
Another personality that can use completely off-topic arguments is the psychopath, but the psychopath's arguments are socially optimized for certain contexts or to destabilize his or her opponent, whereas those of the psychotic reflect his or her personal anxieties, or more precisely, the content of his or her cognitive-affective system.

The High-IQ (or more precisely, Highly Learnable) Personality

The highly gifted individual is one who loves to learn, whereas for a normal person, learning is an effort one undertakes only in exchange for a better social position.  
In practice, a normal person learns almost as much as the highly gifted person during their studies, although in a more superficial and utilitarian way (to obtain a good grade), but the gap widens thereafter, because the normal person mainly invests in forming alliances, whereas the highly gifted individual continues to intensely invest in learning throughout their life.

The 'Reasoning Confrontation' Mode

The highly gifted individual stands out for the exceptional mental flexibility they display during the 'reasoning confrontation' phase, especially in their ability to take into account their interlocutor's objections and to adjust accordingly.

The use of the “return to power delegation” mode or “might makes right” mode

The highly gifted individual feels dissatisfaction when leaving the “reasoning confrontation” mode when it does not lead to a shared vision. Indeed, their mental flexibility and high sincerity allow them to reach a consensus through the 'reasoning confrontation' mode almost every time, provided that the interlocutor is up to the task.

The Autistic Personality

The autistic is one for whom social ambition is not a cardinal value.  
In practice, he disrupts the group by misapplying social conventions, without being in rebellion. He can also be seen as a person with deficiencies in the instinctive social functioning (in what we call the cognitive-affective system).

Initial Mode Choice

An autistic person does not spontaneously shift to the 'power delegation' mode when his or her interlocutor is of higher social status.  
An autistic person often shifts to the 'reasoning confrontation' mode right away, without even testing whether his or her interlocutor would choose the 'power delegation' mode.

The “Reasoning Confrontation” Mode

The autistic person is noticeable by the lack of use of arguments based mainly on social order, unlike a normal person, for whom, for example, citing a Nobel laureate gives considerable weight to their argument.

Imposing, or the use of the “might makes right” mode

Like the highly gifted individual, the autistic person experiences great difficulty leaving the 'reasoning confrontation' mode when it does not lead to a shared vision. Indeed, the low value he places on social status makes the 'lower-ranking protagonist opts for the power delegation mode' exit impractical for him. Leaving this mode will eventually leave the autistic person with a more unpleasant impression than on a socially adapted individual.

(Non) Implementation

Finally, the autistic person will mainly experience stress, not just passive bad will as in the normal individual, in any situation where the 'reasoning confrontation' mode has not led to a joint decision.

Another diagnostic element of the autistic personality

The autistic person becomes exhausted during prolonged social interactions, the more so the larger the group is and the more the interactions occur in the 'salon conversation' mode (psychological games).

Another characteristic of the autistic personality

Autistic people are often attributed a certain lack of empathy, because they do not spontaneously synchronize their body language with that of others, and thus appear insensitive.  
This criticism ignores that the lack of empathy is general, because the standard personality only experiences empathy if the victim resembles them, if they can say 'it could be me'. In other words, their empathy is exercised mainly towards themselves, or more precisely within the limits of a nepotistic view of the world: in an 'us versus them' scenario, the other could be one of us. Therefore, human empathy generally does not go beyond caste solidarity.

The Psychopathic Personality

The psychopath is the person who does not access empathy. Behind a carefully maintained superficially respectful facade, only relationships of force, bargaining and manipulation exist.  
In practice, he is neither mad nor stupid, but one cannot practice problem-solving with him. Either one controls him or one suffers him. Keep in mind that the psychopath is a special type of bad person; not all bad people are psychopaths. One can also possibly see the psychopath as a person with deficiencies in the realm of reason, in contrast to the cognitive-affective system, or as a person for whom this system is so powerful that it limits its supervision by reason.

Initial Mode Choice

If a psychopathic person does not get his or her interlocutor to spontaneously shift to the 'power delegation' mode, he or she will shift to the 'reasoning confrontation' mode, but only superficially, as we will see.

Conduct of the 'Reasoning Confrontation' Mode

In a psychopathic person, the 'reasoning confrontation' mode is practiced in a peculiar and characteristic, even disorienting, way. The general pattern is to start from vaguely objective elements and then, sentence by sentence, drift completely off-topic, using pre-prepared arguments and abusive generalizations. There is no possible realignment of the discussion because the factual objections from the other party are not really taken into account except by insisting on shifting the confrontation toward off-topic arguments. Indeed, the goal of the psychopathic person is not to build a coherent demonstration, but only to provoke reactions in the other, to find weaknesses, and to exploit them. They function a bit like a judoka who is looking for the grip that will allow them to bring down their opponent in order to take control. The content does not interest them.

Moreover, when they are in difficulty in terms of arguments, the psychopathic person uses all the blocking and sabotage techniques we listed at the beginning of this document (all opinions are equal, I don't believe it, beliefs, derailing reasoning, discrediting the person).  
It is on this last technique that they stand out as being practically the only one to use it. Indeed, if they do not get the other person to shift to the 'power delegation' mode, they will completely forget the original issue and try to discredit the person who opposes them. This is a reflection of the fact that in their mental representation, the other person's disagreement is experienced as an aggression, which therefore justifies a retaliatory aggression.

Imposing, or the use of the 'might makes right' mode

Conversely, the use of the 'might makes right' mode does not pose any problem for the psychopath, because of his or her low ability to consider others, what is good for him or herself is perceived as good in general. The harm done to the other does not generate any problematic psychological consequences.

(Non) Implementation

Again, the psychopath stands out, by not implementing a decision that displeases him or her, even if he or she had freely accepted it via the 'reasoning confrontation' mode. Indeed, for him or her, the 'reasoning confrontation' mode is exercised in a theatrical way, and therefore does not commit to real life.

Other diagnostic elements of the psychopathic personality

The four other characteristic signs of the psychopath are:  
1. An imperfect sense of otherness. The psychopath tends to consider what is good for himself or herself as good in general.  
2. He or she does not feel guilt, does not recognize his or her mistakes.  
3. He or she seeks to prevent his or her interlocutors from talking directly to each other, and tells them a very different version of the same facts.  
4. He or she does not want to change; he or she promises to change when he or she needs to regain trust, and does not change.

Another characteristic of the psychopathic personality

In the psychopath, the generalized nepotism of the 'us against them' does not really exist. More precisely, the 'us' does not exist. There are simply people he or she considers above him or herself towards whom he or she will be envious and will seek their protection in a servile way, and people below, whom he or she will despise and humiliate without shame, and finally those at the same level with whom he or she will be in competition.

Other psychic traits influencing the shift between different decision-making modes

The following personality traits influence the decision-making mode. However, we have chosen not to present them as revealing other personality types.

Insecure Attachment

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

Depression

Depression, or simply a low mood, produces the same effect as insecure attachment, of leaving the 'reasoning confrontation' mode prematurely to return to the 'power delegation' mode.

In other words, leaving the 'reasoning confrontation' mode prematurely to return to the 'power delegation' mode is a sign of a suffering individual, and not the indicator of a particular personality structure.

Reasonable accommodations

Now that we have presented the different personality structures, and outlined a reliable method for identifying them in practice, let's now look at how it is wise to adapt the standard problem-solving process based on the personality structure of the people involved. Indeed, having a problem-solving process that works in a satisfactory manner remains our guiding principle to ensure social harmony.

Faced with a psychotic

Temporarily abandon problem-solving: arguments are of no use. One must simply focus on the emotional aspect to help the psychotic come out of their crisis.

When you are psychotic

When in a crisis, you have lost control of yourself and thus depend on the behavior of the other person. All the work is therefore what you can do when calm to learn how to avoid crises.

Faced with a gifted person (or more precisely, a super-learner)

The gifted person is a powerful cognitive mechanism upon which one can rely. One can therefore let them move quickly, build the analysis, then the solution, and be content to switch into a broad proofreading mode, or even let things go when one cannot keep up. Indeed, if one later discovers that the hasty and overly superficial proofreading done on the spot has led to an unsatisfactory solution, it will suffice to bring up new facts to question the decision. The gifted person will not resort to saying: 'We had decided, we don't go back on that.'

What not to do: if you perceive yourself as socially superior to the gifted person you're interacting with, do not let your social ambition take over and try at all costs to dominate, in order for the exchange to reflect the social hierarchy. I am the parent, the teacher, the professional, the N+1, etc.

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

When you are gifted

Accept to slow down your reasoning to allow the other person to follow, because if they fall behind, they will have less confidence in the final decision.

Do not forget that although, in the short term, it may be more productive to lead a less gifted person, in the long term, it is more productive to have helped them develop their abilities than to have given them the habit of passivity.

Faced with an autistic person

In the problem analysis phase, the autistic person is less biased by social habits. This makes them a valuable partner for problem-solving. One must fully understand that it is not the autistic person who is biased here, but rather the so-called normal personalities, who place excessive importance on social hierarchy at the expense of the facts—and thus of social harmony.

Avoid being normative. You should have said hello, you can't say it like that, etc.Bear in mind that the autistic person does not speak the same language, as the same words are based on a different perception of the world. It is therefore above all important to seek understanding, as one would with a foreigner making the effort to speak your language.

Also consider using your own higher social skills as a normal individual to ease the interaction. Without external help, the autistic person will follow an ascending stress curve that will both exhaust them and disturb the decision-making process, possibly even triggering an outburst of aggression.Conversely, avoid making sarcastic remarks or comments that one sees as social play (which are usually ambiguous to the person making them), as the autistic person may perceive them as aggressions.

If you want to help an autistic person, teach them problem-solving, just like everyone else. It is simply more beneficial to an autistic person.

When you are autistic

Learning to perfectly master the elements described in this document, i.e., identifying in the moment each technique used by the person in front of you to transition to another decision-making modality, block the advancement of reasoning to avoid reaching a conclusion that they dislike, or simply to mark their social status, is much more useful than practicing decoding nonverbal language.When you are trained to decode the decision-making process on the fly, you also quickly determine the personality structure of the person in front of you, and this contributes effectively to reducing the stress associated with the interaction.Also train yourself to distinguish problems whose unresolved nature is due to a lack of technique/skill from problems whose unresolved nature is due to lack of good will (which biases the analysis or implementation stage), to avoid being unnecessarily exhausted by the latter.

Choose your social environment carefully, as non-constructive problem-solving—psychological combat—costs more. Indeed, autistic people do not have access to the psychological games described in Transactional Analysis, which serve as conflict relief valves for individuals with a normal psychological structure, as well as pathways to intimacy.We remain social mammals, and as such, we have become accustomed during childhood to creating bonds via 'fights,' i.e., confrontations where one does not go as far as hurting the other. Autistic people are very uncomfortable with this type of activity, and are therefore considered asocial by individuals whose access to intimacy necessarily requires the repetition of these 'fights'.

When you are a psychopath

What I describe here is the psychopath for whom education has not taught to tame their nature, i.e., the four-year-old all-powerful child who never reaches the age of reason. The psychopath does not access shared pleasure; only their own pleasure exists, and the rule is that the strong dominate the weak. If this shocks you, refer to the numerous testimonies in the book The mask of sanity, which clearly show how psychopaths repeatedly deceive well-intentioned people. 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 problem-solving: the collective interest is nonsensical to them, and being interested in it is seen as a form of naivety. They therefore approach the decision-making process as a pure exercise in rhetoric combined with commercial negotiation. Reason is worthless; only the effect on the other person matters. In this sense, the psychopath is not only amoral, but also and above all irresponsible.

Faced with a psychopath

Being diplomatic with a psychopath is to take one's own dreams for reality, or more precisely, to be naive or cowardly.Faced with a psychopath, the least uncomfortable position is to be above them in their perception of the social hierarchy and to impose a rational and balanced solution. By balanced, I mean that a third party to whom you would present the problem would find the decision both relevant and fair. However, I emphasize 'impose.' Negotiation is illusory, because once a global agreement is reached through negotiation, the psychopath will apply only the parts that favor them and forget the counterbalances.An additional constraint when dealing with a psychopath is to formulate the solution to the problem in the form of a single proposal as previously suggested, or several proposals, but ensuring in all cases that one is in a position to impose the full implementation of one of them.

When a discussion about a decision to be made is initiated by the psychopath, and they propose a solution spontaneously, keep in mind that they may be trying to lead you into something dubious. Furthermore, they will prefer an oral agreement, and if things go wrong, they will not hesitate to cover their tracks by producing a written document that in no way corresponds to the initial oral agreement.

If you want to help a psychopath, teach them problem-solving, as you would with everyone else. It's just that with a psychopath, it will be less effective, possibly even completely ineffective.

Deepen

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

But above all, to better understand what we ideally mean by 'reasoning confrontation,' refer to the question 'What are the conditions to produce a serious reasoning? Problem-solving.'

To better understand autism as we define it here, refer to the book The Asperger Syndrome, by Tony Attwood. The diagnostic method we just presented is very different from the one proposed in the book and in the DSM, which correspond to the current state of the art. We simply claim that in the end, our method identifies a subgroup of people more reliably, these people ultimately being identified by the uniqueness of their personal stories as reported in the book. In particular, our method is more stable regarding the ability of autistic people with high intellectual capacities to compensate, the ability of women with stronger social skills to compensate, and finally the ability of older individuals who have acquired the knowledge to circumvent social obstacles to compensate.

Similarly, 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 a subgroup of people more reliably, those whose personal stories are described in great number and detail in the book. In particular, our method is more resistant to the specific concealment of psychopathic individuals.As a starting point to just get rid of clichés about psychopathy, and in particular the one of the serial killer psychopath, watch the report 'Is there a psychopath in us? 42 - The answer to almost everything' by Luise Donschen broadcast by Arte and likely available on Youtube.After that, you 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 attempt to divide the entire population into subgroups of similar people, and this has limited practical interest. Indeed, what is important from the perspective of the second major philosophical question (namely, 'How to get out of mutually destructive natural attitudes?') is: will two people manage to make a common decision that suits both? Our classification is more relevant with respect to such an objective and aligns better with psychiatric observations.

Premise for the 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

 

2024-02-08 14:22:01 Jacqueline Autistic: attribution of lack of empathy

Attribution du manque d’empathie aux autistes aussi parce que leur raisonnement ne se préoccupe pas des codes sociaux habituels, en particulier de l’impact affectif sur l’interlocuteur, du dérangement, de l’effet remise en cause= discrédit. Ils paraissent « sans pitié ». Alors qu’ils s’inscrivent dans une condition nécessaire à une bonne analyse des faits et à la prise d’une bonne décision : voir question « faut il écouter ses émotions » ?

2024-02-11 13:58:13 Hubert Re: Autistic: attribution of lack of empathy

Bien vu. J'ai complété le texte.

New comment

From:

Subject:

Message: