Is hate a Choice?

windovervocalcords said:

Due some reading and attend to brain differences in psychopaths. I hope you never run into them. They thrive on the naive and are great manipulators.

Click to expand...

You asked me to provide a link for what I argued. This I did and also questioned on what basis you could believe a person could be born in the way you described.

You totally ignored the material in the link and gave this somewhat rude reply.

If you expect me to back up what I say then I suggest that you do the same yourself.

And please do not be so patronising. I have indeed known at least one psychopath.

My instincitve reaction is "Yes, it's a choice. It's a choice which I do not often make."

However, further thought on the issue has changed my view slightly. Yes, hate would be a choice for me. I was raised that hate (as defined as hatred or judgment towards someone which disagrees with me or promotes things I find repulsive) isn't really a valid option. I was taught to embrace and at least accept people and lifestyles, even if I don't like them or agree with them.

Someone raised in a very different way may know no better than to blindly hate and alienate those who disagree with him. For that person, hate may not be the only option he knows, which makes it less of a choice and more of a natural response.

Even when I come across the most opposite person to me, whom I cannot relate to nearly at all, I try REALLY hard to learn where and from what this person came, and to understand his views, and reach a middle ground. If I cannot reach a middle ground, I at least aim for mutual respect. It's not always easy, but it's always worth a shot.

I do not take pleasure in the misfortune of others, even of people I am not fond of. I might be happy, for example, if someone I support wins an election, but I don't get pleasure out of the disappointment the loser must be feeling. I was actually genuinely sad for McCain, for example, when he lost. I certainly would not get pleasure out of knowing someone in my personal life was suffering, even if it was someone I don't care for, or who had wronged me. For the record, my self esteem is probably mediocre. High in ways, and tragically low in others, so I'm not sure the two are related.

Slithering Rainbow said:

I do not take pleasure in the misfortune of others, even of people I am not fond of. I might be happy, for example, if someone I support wins an election, but I don't get pleasure out of the disappointment the loser must be feeling. I was actually genuinely sad for McCain, for example, when he lost. I certainly would not get pleasure out of knowing someone in my personal life was suffering, even if it was someone I don't care for, or who had wronged me. For the record, my self esteem is probably mediocre. High in ways, and tragically low in others, so I'm not sure the two are related.

Click to expand...

The pleasure is in seeing someone get their's, not in random misfortune. Even random misfortune for someone you dislike may not fit the bill. Unless, of course, you dislike them because they are a thief and their car is stolen. That would rock. McCain lied during his campaign and ran awful campaign, but he's basically a good guy. So no matter who you supported it would seem odd to revel in his defeat. Watching Michael Vick lose his fortune for torturing innocent dogs was a pleasure for me. He got his. And if he turns his life around I hope he gets his back.

A lot of people are really blinded by hatred. I think that hatred can be a choice, but in many cases it isn't, where someone does or says something that they normally wouldn't do thinking clearly, and then regret it.

alexa said:

You asked me to provide a link for what I argued. This I did and also questioned on what basis you could believe a person could be born in the way you described.

You totally ignored the material in the link and gave this somewhat rude reply.

If you expect me to back up what I say then I suggest that you do the same yourself.

And please do not be so patronising. I have indeed known at least one psychopath.

Click to expand...

I did not mean to offend you, be rude or patronize you. I come to my understanding of psychopaths by studying the work of Dr Robert Hare, an expert in the field. I asked you to read his work, and I wish you never run into another psychopath.

stekim said:

But people with normal to high self esteem also experience it, right? So BFD. My self esteem is quite high and I love when someone gets their's. It's one of the great pleasures in life, actually.

Click to expand...

Enjoy it then. If getting pleasure comes from the misfortune of others, enjoy it. Exactly what kind of suffering of others do you most get off on?

Lack of empathy is by definition one of the signs of psychopathy. Glibness, superficial charm and deceit are others.

I find the idea of enjoying the suffering of others repulsive; that's just my opinon. I don't enjoy the misfortune of others, not even my enemies.

windovervocalcords said:

I did not mean to offend you, be rude or patronize you. I come to my understanding of psychopaths by studying the work of Dr Robert Hare, an expert in the field. I asked you to read his work, and I wish you never run into another psychopath.

Click to expand...

Thanks

I appreciate that you have read the work of Dr Robert Hare and this makes you believe that people are born psychopaths. However as I do not have the book and no real wish to read it, I want to know how he can possible state that people are born psychopaths.

As you have read the book and are saying this is the case please me know how he validates this claim.

The link I presented to you illustrates someone who worked with psychopaths and if you had read the link you would have found that he did indeed believe he had cured them by forming a relationship and being there with them as they very gradually over a period of years gained trust towards him and were able to relive the traumas or as he put it frozen terror they had experienced which had caused them to lose their ability to feel and become psychopaths. This clearly contradicts what you said.

Please let me know how Dr Rober Hare justifies his assertation that people are born psychopathic. I believe the work I illustrated is proof this is not true.

alexa said:

Thanks

I appreciate that you have read the work of Dr Robert Hare and this makes you believe that people are born psychopaths. However as I do not have the book and no real wish to read it, I want to know how he can possible state that people are born psychopaths.

As you have read the book and are saying this is the case please me know how he validates this claim.

The link I presented to you illustrates someone who worked with psychopaths and if you had read the link you would have found that he did indeed believe he had cured them by forming a relationship and being there with them as they very gradually over a period of years gained trust towards him and were able to relive the traumas or as he put it frozen terror they had experienced which had caused them to lose their ability to feel and become psychopaths. This clearly contradicts what you said.

Please let me know how Dr Rober Hare justifies his assertation that people are born psychopathic. I believe the work I illustrated is proof this is not true.

Click to expand...

Since you are not willing to read his work we have nothing further to discuss. I'm keeping an open mind because the answer is not clear yet.
Nice meeting you though.

I have included numerous links to Robert Hare research and articles. Here is one:
Fraud Magazine Cover Article - July-August 2008
and here is another;
A Reporter at Large: Suffering Souls : The New Yorker

Here is another worth taking a look at for any interested poster;
So says a new study carried out by Dr. Essi Viding of Kings College, London. Dr. Viding carried out his research using twins and found that psychopathic tendencies are highly heritable.
New research on the origins of antisocial behaviour, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, suggests that early-onset antisocial behaviour in children with psychopathic tendencies is largely inherited.

The findings are the result of extensive research funded by the Medical Research Council, the Department of Health and the Home Office, and carried out by Dr. Essi Viding of the MRC Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, within the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London.

Past research has shown that children with early-onset antisocial behaviour show problem behaviours for a variety of different reasons. One warning sign of vulnerability for antisocial behaviour is psychopathic tendencies, i.e. lack of empathy and remorse. Dr Viding's research looked into the factors that contribute to antisocial behaviour in children with and without psychopathic tendencies. By studying sets of 7-year-old twins, Dr. Viding and her colleagues were able to pinpoint to what extent antisocial behaviour in these two groups was caused by genetic and/or environmental risk factors.

Mangan's: Psychopaths Born, Not Made

stekim said:

The pleasure is in seeing someone get their's, not in random misfortune. Even random misfortune for someone you dislike may not fit the bill. Unless, of course, you dislike them because they are a thief and their car is stolen. That would rock. McCain lied during his campaign and ran awful campaign, but he's basically a good guy. So no matter who you supported it would seem odd to revel in his defeat. Watching Michael Vick lose his fortune for torturing innocent dogs was a pleasure for me. He got his. And if he turns his life around I hope he gets his back.

Click to expand...

Good point! I'll agree there is a distinct difference. I don't see Vick losing everything as misfortune, though. It was simple cause and effect. Losing your status after torturing dogs isn't misfortune- it's just the way it goes if you are a criminal and you get caught. Losing your fortune because a hurricane hits your house or something would be a whole other situation.

I'll admit that since dogs are pretty much my world (except for my kid) that's a huge hot button with me. I don't hate the man, but I don't think he should ever be looked up to or given a chance to be a public symbol ever again. But, again, you're talking to possibly the biggest dog person you'll ever run across, here! I have lived and breathed dogs since childhood- I am obsessed, and have had and rescued and shown and raised and trained hundreds of them, and sacrificed just about everything to care for dogs. I probably can't be 100% objective here

Gwendoline said:

It's interesting that some get through that "taught hatred" to go over to the other side, while some others seem to remain in a state of "hating" and do not seem to get past it. Unlike having chosen it, it seems more like something they get "stuck" in.

Click to expand...

That makes them sound like victims when they have a choice--to work energetically to let go of malice and hatred instead of holding on to it.

windovervocalcords said:

Since you are not willing to read his books we can't really discuss his work. Nice meeting you though.

I have included numerous links to Robert Hare research and articles. Here is one:
Fraud Magazine Cover Article - July-August 2008
and here is another;
A Reporter at Large: Suffering Souls : The New Yorker

Here is another worth taking a look at for any interested poster;
So says a new study carried out by Dr. Essi Viding of Kings College, London. Dr. Viding carried out his research using twins and found that psychopathic tendencies are highly heritable.
New research on the origins of antisocial behaviour, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, suggests that early-onset antisocial behaviour in children with psychopathic tendencies is largely inherited.

The findings are the result of extensive research funded by the Medical Research Council, the Department of Health and the Home Office, and carried out by Dr. Essi Viding of the MRC Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, within the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London.

Past research has shown that children with early-onset antisocial behaviour show problem behaviours for a variety of different reasons. One warning sign of vulnerability for antisocial behaviour is psychopathic tendencies, i.e. lack of empathy and remorse. Dr Viding's research looked into the factors that contribute to antisocial behaviour in children with and without psychopathic tendencies. By studying sets of 7-year-old twins, Dr. Viding and her colleagues were able to pinpoint to what extent antisocial behaviour in these two groups was caused by genetic and/or environmental risk factors.

Mangan's: Psychopaths Born, Not Made

Click to expand...

I'm keeping an open mind because the answer is not clear yet. This post was meant to edit my post, not comment on my own post.

windovervocalcords said:

Babies come in brain damaged too. You are stuck on thinking in all cases, parents are to blame. Not with a psychopath.

I am interested in the ethics of labelling you point out is dangerous.

I do not use the label lightly.

Click to expand...

I am stuck on my thinking? Well, you seem to have a particular bent of thinking there, yourself. I said earlier that the subject of psychopaths would easily warrant an entire thread of its own, and since you have a strong interest in the subject, I suggest you start a thread for the sole benefit of discussing psychopaths.

This is NOT a thread about psychopaths exclusively. I can understand your interest in the subject, and that's why I encourage you to start a thread about psychopaths, exclusively. It is a big subject, you obviously have many links to psychopathic bevaviour, etc... so an entire new thread discussing psychopaths would do justice to that.

I think its somehow a kind of controlled "instincs" ..

Re: Is Hate a Choice?

I thought I'd post a couple of quite divergent ideas / premises around the subject / area of hate.

The first, I think, is quite an interesting explanation / perspective of a look into the mind of a racist.

The second is quite a polemic piece on the question of "choice" and of its implications:


Interview with Ruth Williams and Andrew Samuels:

On Racism


RW: In Chapter 10 * you say that "racists actually want to eliminate themselves". I didn't understand that. What do you mean by that?

AS: This came out of one of those political clinics. I have developed a method of finding out people's private reactions to political issues by encouraging them to imagine themselves as if they were therapists and to regard the political issue - racism in this case - as a client. The images that came up – which were spontaneous although there was a group associative process of course – were very much of completely empty landscapes, as if the racist does not want anyone to exist at all. So there was a great deal of what you might call self-loathing and self-annihilation involved in racism which I had not expected to find. And the audience – people from groups concerned with ethnic minorities (I was very daunted because of course I'm not a specialist in anything) - they joined in on this and were quite shocked because their way of thinking was that the racist wants his country back, or he wants to own the land, repopulate it with his own type, not being able to cope with difference. So it was very revealing to see that the racist was actually totally self-annihilating as well.

RW: I don't quite understand that.

AS: I don't really understand it either.

RW: I can understand the empty landscape with no one but the person of "pure race".

AS: That's what I would have expected. That's what I thought we might find. But no. No one at all. Polar. Tundra. Nobody. Nobody. I can't explain it. We couldn't. But what it lead to was a very deep and fascinating discussion about racism that felt a bit new.


* Politics on the Couch: Citizenship and the Internal Life - Andrew Samuels


***


Isaac Beshevis Singer in an interview for Parabola Magazine.

Singer remarks:

I would say that behind all my ideas... is the freedom of choice. I feel that the freedom of choice is the very essence of life. We have one great gift from God and this is to choose. And we always indulge in choosing. If we pay attention to one thing, we have chosen to pay attention to it. If we love somebody, we have chosen this person for love. This is in every act of humanity. To me, God is freedom. And nature, to me, is necessity... When people leave free choice, the demons appear. The demons are in a way the dark side of nature which we choose. If we stop completely believing in our power [of choice], then other powers can come upon us. In other words, the demon to me is a negative side of free choice. Demons come when people resign themselves... when people say to themselves, "I'm not going to make any choices anymore. I will just let the powers work for themselves." It is then that the demon is bound to appear. The danger is always there - like a medical doctor who will tell you that the microbes are always there in your mouth and in your stomach, and if you become weak, they begin to multiply and become strong... Just as we are medically surrounded by dangerous microbes, so our spirit has always to fight melancholy and disbelief and viciousness and cruelty and all kinds of things.

windovervocalcords said:

Since you are not willing to read his work we have nothing further to discuss.

Click to expand...

There you go again, getting on your high horse. Have you as yet read the link I provided?

windovervocalcords said:

I'm keeping an open mind because the answer is not clear yet.
Nice meeting you though.

Click to expand...

A an open mind, this is something new.

windovervocalcords said:

I have included numerous links to Robert Hare research and articles. Here is one:
Fraud Magazine Cover Article - July-August 2008
and here is another;
A Reporter at Large: Suffering Souls : The New Yorker

Here is another worth taking a look at for any interested poster;
So says a new study carried out by Dr. Essi Viding of Kings College, London. Dr. Viding carried out his research using twins and found that psychopathic tendencies are highly heritable.
New research on the origins of antisocial behaviour, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, suggests that early-onset antisocial behaviour in children with psychopathic tendencies is largely inherited.

The findings are the result of extensive research funded by the Medical Research Council, the Department of Health and the Home Office, and carried out by Dr. Essi Viding of the MRC Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, within the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London.

Past research has shown that children with early-onset antisocial behaviour show problem behaviours for a variety of different reasons. One warning sign of vulnerability for antisocial behaviour is psychopathic tendencies, i.e. lack of empathy and remorse. Dr Viding's research looked into the factors that contribute to antisocial behaviour in children with and without psychopathic tendencies. By studying sets of 7-year-old twins, Dr. Viding and her colleagues were able to pinpoint to what extent antisocial behaviour in these two groups was caused by genetic and/or environmental risk factors.

Mangan's: Psychopaths Born, Not Made

Click to expand...

I haven't had time to read all the threads. When I asked for a link you didn't provide one.

I wanted to know on what evidence people were deciding to come to the conclusion that people were born psychopaths. It is a very dangerous decision to come to as it could result in treating children as something 'evil'. It gives a sort of conception of the child not dissimilar to the ideas which were about wher eugenics was in it's hey day - that led to all sorts of anti social behaviour by the rest of society towards some people within society including sterialising and at it's worst the Nazi 'final solution'

To come to such a decision would demand proof.

As you were unable or unwilling yourself to say on what criteria people were coming to this decision I looked at your last link.

Study of 7 year olds is absolutely no evidence that any behaviour within them is genetic. None whatsoever. The first three years of life are the most important in determing how people will develop and the younger the baby is the more important it is how that child is treated. The child will not remember what happened at that time but it is during this time that the child's image of the world is created.

People come up with theories - and it seems this concept of people being born psychopathic is simply that, based on their own life view including their own state of consciousness.

Dr Bob Johnson was clearly a very gifted psychiatrist and due to that he was able to form relationships with these psychopaths and gain their trust. Not everyone could have done that. I would imagine the reason he managed it was because of the quality of his own consciousness.

Jung recognised that in any therapeutic situation the quality of the relationship between therapist and client was crucial for the outcome and it is the therapist who is responsible for creating that quality.

Dr Bob Johnson had success. It certainly is not proved that people are genetically born that way but it has been shown that they can be healed. If it were genetic this would be impossible.

As Gwendolin has said this is not the topic of the thread - maybe at some furure time you will want to as she said make a thread on this subject. I guess if you want to talk more that is what to do.

I am though glad to hear you have become open on the subject.

Re: Is Hate a Choice?

Gwendoline said:

I thought I'd post a couple of quite divergent ideas / premises around the subject / area of hate.

The first, I think, is quite an interesting explanation / perspective of a look into the mind of a racist.

The second is quite a polemic piece on the question of "choice" and of its implications:


Interview with Ruth Williams and Andrew Samuels:

On Racism


RW: In Chapter 10 * you say that "racists actually want to eliminate themselves". I didn't understand that. What do you mean by that?

AS: This came out of one of those political clinics. I have developed a method of finding out people's private reactions to political issues by encouraging them to imagine themselves as if they were therapists and to regard the political issue - racism in this case - as a client. The images that came up – which were spontaneous although there was a group associative process of course – were very much of completely empty landscapes, as if the racist does not want anyone to exist at all. So there was a great deal of what you might call self-loathing and self-annihilation involved in racism which I had not expected to find. And the audience – people from groups concerned with ethnic minorities (I was very daunted because of course I'm not a specialist in anything) - they joined in on this and were quite shocked because their way of thinking was that the racist wants his country back, or he wants to own the land, repopulate it with his own type, not being able to cope with difference. So it was very revealing to see that the racist was actually totally self-annihilating as well.

RW: I don't quite understand that.

AS: I don't really understand it either.

RW: I can understand the empty landscape with no one but the person of "pure race".

AS: That's what I would have expected. That's what I thought we might find. But no. No one at all. Polar. Tundra. Nobody. Nobody. I can't explain it. We couldn't. But what it lead to was a very deep and fascinating discussion about racism that felt a bit new.


* Politics on the Couch: Citizenship and the Internal Life - Andrew Samuels

Click to expand...

No surprise at all.


***

Gwendoline said:

Isaac Beshevis Singer in an interview for Parabola Magazine.

Singer remarks:

I would say that behind all my ideas... is the freedom of choice. I feel that the freedom of choice is the very essence of life. We have one great gift from God and this is to choose. And we always indulge in choosing. If we pay attention to one thing, we have chosen to pay attention to it. If we love somebody, we have chosen this person for love. This is in every act of humanity. To me, God is freedom. And nature, to me, is necessity... When people leave free choice, the demons appear. The demons are in a way the dark side of nature which we choose. If we stop completely believing in our power [of choice], then other powers can come upon us. In other words, the demon to me is a negative side of free choice. Demons come when people resign themselves... when people say to themselves, "I'm not going to make any choices anymore. I will just let the powers work for themselves." It is then that the demon is bound to appear. The danger is always there - like a medical doctor who will tell you that the microbes are always there in your mouth and in your stomach, and if you become weak, they begin to multiply and become strong... Just as we are medically surrounded by dangerous microbes, so our spirit has always to fight melancholy and disbelief and viciousness and cruelty and all kinds of things.

Click to expand...

I think that this moves over to the spiritual - that is that as we become able to be more fully the author of our own destiny, we become more in touch with our authenticty. Yes, self empowerment is the way out. You do not need to use the word God. You could say your authenticity, your genuiness, the person you were born to be, your potential.

I think it is impossible for any of us to survive childhood without some damage, even those of us who are born to the most loving people but freedom of choice which requires self empowerment is the way out. Genuine self empowerment not the false empowment of the person who is so scared they have a need to control others. Being in control of ourselves but allowing others freedom to also be in control of themselves.

How true that when we let go of that genuine responsibility for ouselves, when we for whatever reason are unable to make our own free choices, we leave ourselves open to other forces.

Of course some people, indeed I suspect many people, perhaps even most of us are damaged so much that we need some help to get our control back. Your first illustration of the racists illustrates that. I accept that this was role play but imagining it was indeed a therapeutic situation - they were not conscious at first of what was the reason for their thoughts. Once they became conscious and only once they became conscious they were in a position to heal and have again free choice, becoming the authors of their own lives.

Demons may be another word that makes people think this is just Christian terminology or in some way superstition, but what is said is true. To the extent we do not take ownership of our lives we are at the mercy of outside forces. To the extent we are not in touch with ourselves, we lack genuine self empowerment.

I think that self empowerment is a process. Non of us escapes childhood with no harm. It is a road with blocks on the way which we need to address and heal - when all is well helping each other along the road - when all is not well, becoming vulnerable to outside forces.

so I believe hate is learned and we forget why we are hating so choose objects that seem justifable to hate but when we heal, we lose the self loathing you brought up in your first quote and do not need to hate.

Sanitas said:

A lot of people are really blinded by hatred. I think that hatred can be a choice, but in many cases it isn't, where someone does or says something that they normally wouldn't do thinking clearly, and then regret it.

Click to expand...

People are more often blinded by love.... This does not say much. :shrug:

windovervocalcords said:

Enjoy it then. If getting pleasure comes from the misfortune of others, enjoy it. Exactly what kind of suffering of others do you most get off on?

Click to expand...

The kind that is deserved. But I already said that.

Lack of empathy is by definition one of the signs of psychopathy. Glibness, superficial charm and deceit are others.

Click to expand...

Not sure how this applies to me, but I appreciate the information.

I find the idea of enjoying the suffering of others repulsive; that's just my opinon. I don't enjoy the misfortune of others, not even my enemies.

Click to expand...

Depends on who is suffering and why. And I don't have enemies, so that part doesn't apply.

windovervocalcords said:

Schadenfreude is pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. Researchers have found that people with low self-esteem are more likely to feel schadenfreude than are people who have high self-esteem.

Schadenfreude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say my esteem is low. In fact, I'd say it was above average.

Slithering Rainbow said:

Good point! I'll agree there is a distinct difference. I don't see Vick losing everything as misfortune, though. It was simple cause and effect. Losing your status after torturing dogs isn't misfortune- it's just the way it goes if you are a criminal and you get caught. Losing your fortune because a hurricane hits your house or something would be a whole other situation.

Click to expand...

Either way would have worked for me. But a hurricane would not have cost him much. Jail cost him his entire life. He has a chance to earn it back and I wish him well there. There is something to be said about turning one's life around. But as for his past he got what he had coming to him.

windovervocalcords said:

Enjoy it then. If getting pleasure comes from the misfortune of others, enjoy it. Exactly what kind of suffering of others do you most get off on?

Click to expand...

The well-deserved.

Lack of empathy is by definition one of the signs of psychopathy. Glibness, superficial charm and deceit are others.

Click to expand...

Really. Are you accusing Stekim of being a psychopath?

find the idea of enjoying the suffering of others repulsive; that's just my opinon. I don't enjoy the misfortune of others, not even my enemies.

Click to expand...

Not all of us can hold to your superior values.

Catz Part Deux said:

I wouldn't say my esteem is low. In fact, I'd say it was above average.

Click to expand...

but do you exhibit schadenfreude?

If not, then any issues as far as self esteem one way or the other are pretty irrelevant.

Hate is just another form of love. For example, many hate the Good Reverend's awesomeness because they love him so much....


I simply can't help it..... :thumbs:

Catz Part Deux said:

Really. Are you accusing Stekim of being a psychopath?

Click to expand...

The issue with that being it would also make you a psychopath because we are the same person. But for me personally, I can't say I care if I am or I'm not. Whatever.