Rehabilitating Very Violent People (not always a lost cause)

[LovePrevails]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rSYiy420B0

 

James Gilligan understands violence very well, what causes violence, and how to start changing the beliefs which people have which cause them to be violent.

[STer]

Did you decide to pick up where we left off with the Gilligan/Robert Hare comparison in that old thread and start it up in a new thread?

[Marc Moini]

Thanks for posting this. I'm only at the beginning and I'll probably need to watch again to get things I'm not noticing this first time I'm watching, but at around 18 minutes in I find it interesting when he explains how for someone who has lived all their life without getting any respect from anyone, it can be very liberating and a great relief to instantly get a lot of respect from others simply by pointing a gun at them.

 

I like that he doesn't stop at blaming these people for the violence they use and that he tries instead to see them as human beings who are suffering very much as a result of what was done to them, since from what he says they all have had horrific childhoods, and he tries to understand their motivations and aspirations.

 

Because I think that to stop violence, it won't work to use violence (emotional or physical) against people who use violence (emotional or physical). It's a difficult challenge, because at the same time we need to protect ourselves from their violence.

[LovePrevails]

It's a different video! I don't mind them being merged if need be - the other one is on moralistic thinking, this isn't

 

In this James Gilligan says that violent people often have a thought like "I'll show them," or "I have to do this to prove I'm a man"

and by deconstructing that role they can be rehabilitated

 

the funny thing is this is totally analoagous to the argument I hear from people who support the death sentence or punitive public policy "For some people anything less than tough justice is seen as weakness, you have to show them"

ahahahahah which is so funny because they are saying "the only language they know how to use is violence" but actually talking about themselves the whole time because violence is the only language they know how to use

 

not saying you are one of them STer, 

[STer]

I haven't looked deeply at a lot of Gilligan's work. So perhaps he addresses this. But violent people don't all fall into one category. I'm sure there are some who are driven mostly by the cognitive role and if you deconstruct that you can rehabilitate them. But does Gilligan address cases where that cognitive role is just a rationalization of deeper biological issues and therefore not a leverage point?

 

I remain very open to seeing evidence that actual psychopaths, with all the neurological markers we see with that and with a history of violence, can be rehabilitated. It would be one of the most important findings in that field. But I haven't seen it from Gilligan or anyone else. The consensus I see in the field is that we still have no way of really rehabilitating such people - only trying to convince them that it's in their own self-interest not to aggress.

[LovePrevails]

You are right there are many reasons why violent people might be violent!

 

I think another point might be that people in prison may be easier to rehabilitate because they have sort of "hit bottom" -

in other words their violent behaviours are no longer working for them

 

Gilligan does not see these behaviours as a rationalization of biological issues, but of cognitive issues, which are a gordion knot that can be untangled.

 

I doon't know about psychopaths being rehabilitated, Hare seems very against it, but Gilligan has said he "would not lose hope on anyone" because he has seen the most violent people he has ever seen rehabilitated.

 

What would you do with psychopaths who could not be rehabilitated if you were in charge?

[STer]

Gilligan does not see these behaviours as a rationalization of biological issues, but of cognitive issues, which are a gordion knot that can be untangled.

But my point is that it doesn't make sense to judge these behaviors in all people the same way. Different people may have the same behaviors for different reasons. We know with certainty that some people have biological conditions that lead them to act violently. When the biological condition is remedied, their violence is reduced again. And in plenty of these cases, the biological condition comes along with a cognitive component. The person may feel they are acting due to the cognitive component, but it all is emerging from the underlying organic condition.

 

My point is Gilligan needs to have an accurate diagnosis of a person before he can make claims about their prognosis. Treating everyone as if their behavior stems from the same cause is misguided.

 

Gilligan should not be judging someone's prognosis based on how violent they are but on what their diagnosis is and whether it is one we have any success at treating.

 

If I were in charge, my main concern when it comes to psychopaths who cannot be rehabilitated would be to protect those around them. If they act violently and cannot be prevented from this, then I think it's reasonable to keep them locked away from the public.

[LovePrevails]

1) We know with certainty that some people have biological conditions that lead them to act violently. When the biological condition is remedied, their violence is reduced again. And in plenty of these cases, the biological condition comes along with a cognitive component.

 

 

 

 

2) Gilligan should not be judging someone's prognosis based on how violent they are but on what their diagnosis is and whether it is one we have any success at treating.

 

1) Can you say "certainty" ? could this not be a chicken and egg situation where the cognitive element is creating the biological manifestation and vice versa in a feedback loop? just asking

 

2) Gilligan is judging based on decades of experience, I am not appealing to authority, but those are obviously the conclusions he has reached in his study!

[MrCapitalism]

deleted post

[STer]

1) Can you say "certainty" ? could this not be a chicken and egg situation where the cognitive element is creating the biological manifestation and vice versa in a feedback loop? just asking

 

Yes we know with certainty. We have many documented cases of people getting brain tumors, for instance, their behavior changing very drastically and then, when the tumor is removed, changing back to normal. While they have the tumor, do you think if you ask why they're doing what they're doing their answer is "Because I have a tumor"? No. They simply begin to desire to do those things, have the drives that go along with them and feel excited by them. Just like when one is heavily drugged and acts differently, that comes along with changes in thinking that justify what they're doing much of the time (if they are still thinking very much). But in both cases, the biological changes in the brain are the origin.

 

2) Gilligan is judging based on decades of experience, I am not appealing to authority, but those are obviously the conclusions he has reached in his study!

 

That's not a very fruitful angle to take since Robert Hare and many others also have decades of experience and far more studies than Gilligan. And, unlike Gilligan (at least what I've seen of his work, which is admittedly limited), they actually bother to look at the underlying biology and ask what is causing what. Does Gilligan actually look at both the cognitive issues and the biology and systematically rule out the biology as the origin? I'm not familiar enough with his work to know, but I'd be very curious to know on what basis he rules out biological causes. If all he does is say "Well when I interview them they claim they are doing it due to non-biological reasons" that's a very weak argument. There is a litany of studies in psychology, some of them very clever, showing that people very often don't accurately report the causes of their decisions, even when in their normal state of mind. Gilligan could literally be working with a person with a serious brain tumor causing violent behavior, ask them why they are doing it, take their rationalization at face value and never bother to look any deeper into it. I hope that's not his approach and please show me if I'm wrong.

[Marc Moini]

Yes we know with certainty. We have many documented cases of people getting brain tumors, for instance, their behavior changing very drastically and then, when the tumor is removed, changing back to normal. While they have the tumor, do you think if you ask why they're doing what they're doing their answer is "Because I have a tumor"? No. They simply begin to desire to do those things, have the drives that go along with them and feel excited by them. Just like when one is heavily drugged and acts differently, that comes along with changes in thinking that justify what they're doing much of the time (if they are still thinking very much). But in both cases, the biological changes in the brain are the origin.

 

If I remember correctly, your claim (in other threads, To Judge Or Not To Judge [moralistically] and Stef's Mother's Table) is that 1 in 20 people are what you call psychopaths or sociopaths. It seems doubtful to me that 1 in 20 people has a brain tumor, or in other words that all (or a vast majority of) the people you claim have reduced biological capacity for empathy are suffering from a brain tumor or some other ailment that cannot possibly be healed by simply giving these people empathy and maybe also some information they haven't encountered yet.

 

So what you claim to know with certainty about the possible effects of a brain tumor (and only some of them, as far as I know not all brain tumors have this sort of effect) is not what you actually claim in the threads you reference above, as far as I can tell. I find this frustrating, because I've noticed you make this sort of mistake a few times already, and since you haven't recognized them or explained to me that they are my mistakes, it makes it difficult for me to have with you the sort of conversation I enjoy having with people and that I would like to have with you.

[STer]

If I remember correctly, your claim (in other threads, To Judge Or Not To Judge [moralistically] and Stef's Mother's Table) is that 1 in 20 people are what you call psychopaths or sociopaths. It seems doubtful to me that 1 in 20 people has a brain tumor, or in other words that all (or a vast majority of) the people you claim have reduced biological capacity for empathy are suffering from a brain tumor or some other ailment that cannot possibly be healed by simply giving these people empathy and maybe also some information they haven't encountered yet.

 

So what you claim to know with certainty about the possible effects of a brain tumor (and only some of them, as far as I know not all brain tumors have this sort of effect) is not what you actually claim in the threads you reference above, as far as I can tell. I find this frustrating, because I've noticed you make this sort of mistake a few times already, and since you haven't recognized them or explained to me that they are my mistakes, it makes it difficult for me to have with you the sort of conversation I enjoy having with people and that I would like to have with you.

It's almost hard to believe how many times you've misunderstood the same statements over and over. I've already responded multiple times, specifically clearing up this "1 in 20" thing you keep bringing up inaccurately, as well as the purpose of the tumor example as being emblematic of a larger point. You remain apparently incapable of understanding these messages. I'm not going to go through it again ad nauseam. Feel free to re-read my previous responses to you on these matters. If you still continue to misunderstand to the extent you seem to, I fear I cannot help you.

[LovePrevails]

I think STer is saying the same biological reactions can be provoked by biological phenomenon which are  not tumours.

[STer]

I think STer is saying the same biological reactions can be provoked by biological phenomenon which are  not tumours.

Yes, the tumor example is only the most clear cut of an entire category of phenomena. The tumor example shows that we all agree biological origins can underlie violent behavior. The only remaining question is how many and what kinds of biological origins can underlie violent behavior. We're only debating degree here.

[Marc Moini]

It's almost hard to believe how many times you've misunderstood the same statements over and over. I've already responded multiple times, specifically clearing up this "1 in 20" thing you keep bringing up inaccurately, as well as the purpose of the tumor example as being emblematic of a larger point. You remain apparently incapable of understanding these messages. I'm not going to go through it again ad nauseam. Feel free to re-read my previous responses to you on these matters. If you still continue to misunderstand to the extent you seem to, I fear I cannot help you.

 

This is roughly similar to my opinion of how you have responded so far, and it is why I offered to talk on video, in order that we may move forward.

 

Yes, the tumor example is only the most clear cut of an entire category of phenomena. The tumor example shows that we all agree biological origins can underlie violent behavior. The only remaining question is how many and what kinds of biological origins can underlie violent behavior. We're only debating degree here.

 

Would you please list more examples in this category then?

[STer]

Would you please list more examples in this category then?

As far as the basic organic examples upon which I doubt there is much, if any, disagreement are included anything that diminishes function in areas that are inhibitory of violent behavior or that throw off kilter areas controlling emotion.

 

So this could include:

 

Infections

Strokes

Traumatic injuries to the head (which can create what is known as pseudopsychopathy)

 

Really any type of process that can damage the normal function of areas like the frontal cortex or amygdala. And a number of these, like the tumor or infection or closed-head injury can be creating symptoms without the person or those around them even realizing the process is there.

 

The only thing that has to be added to this list to complete the story is that people can have abnormal functioning in these areas simply due to genetic mutations (there are genes coding for these areas of the brain and they can, like any other genes, become mutated) or even in utero events. How could anyone seriously argue that the genes coding for these areas are immune to the same problems that can happen to any genes?

 

On top of this add on the fact that many believe traits like those seen in psychopathy actually have an evolutionary role, which would mean that they are selected for and passed along due to their benefits for survival and reproduction, not even only as detrimental mutations. So the abnormal functioning of these brain areas involved in violence may even be, for those individuals, a feature, not a bug.

[Marc Moini]

This is not convincing to me at all. Sure, these things happen and there is a possibility that they could have the effect of reducing someone's capacity for empathy enough that it would be noticeable, but seriously STer, isn't it just as likely that instead of impairing the capacity for empathy they would impair someone's sight, or speech, or comprehension, or memory, or sense of touch, or any number of other brain functions instead? Are you familiar with Oliver Sacks work, where he describes the weird effects that strokes and various accidents cause sometimes? What percentage of the population is affected by all of these, 0.01% or less? And empathy impairment cases are then only a fraction of that fraction, isn't it? Are you going to count senile people next to pump up the number?

 

If you're worried that such a small number of people are going to ruin everybody's life, this doesn't seem like a realistic fear to me. I'm not saying you don't have that fear, from what I understand of what you've written so far I think you do, and I feel for you. Not everyone goes and writes the page on "the science of evil" you have on your site, this to me shows that this is an important part of your mental landscape, and if I believed the world to be populated by so many people determined to get me, I'd be scared to death too.

 

Your argument about mutations falls for the same reason, as far as I can tell. Because if mutations caused a significant number of empathy-impaired people, then they would also cause a similar proportion of other brain (not rest-of-body) impairments that affect the capacity for speech or comprehension or memory or coordination or music appreciation, etc., and as far as I know these are extremely rare.

 

"many believe traits like those seen in psychopathy actually have an evolutionary role" is a bit vague, I find. If you have scientific evidence for this I'm open to it. As far as I know this would qualify as a distinction similar to Cro-Magnon vs Neanderthal, and look at what happened there, one caused the disappearance of the other. So if these non-empathic monsters existed as a distinct population, it seems logical to me to deduce that they would either have disappeared long ago too, or that we wouldn't be here anymore. Plus, this argument of yours, which to me is the only one with any potential for being shown valid, does not take into account the counter arguments I've given you on the table thread, to which you haven't replied yet, nor what LovePrevails is saying (from what I understand) based on the work of James Gilligan, and others such as Marshall Rosenberg.

 

Half in joking, if you called in to the sunday show with this worldview of yours, and if Stef didn't agree with you in large part (from what I can tell), can you venture a guess for what his first question to you would be?   Personally, and I say this because believe it or not I care about you, I think a more productive way for you of getting your need for safety (my guess) met so that you can carry on with your life and be happier is to talk with people who will give you the empathy I believe you need in order to free yourself from this worry.

[STer]

Well Marc, between all the posts I've done here, my other writings which you are aware of, I believe I've addressed everything you've asked and more multiple times (and then you just ask them again). There are also many books I've referred to here and on my sites which offer a lot more. I have nothing more to say on it at this point with you. If you are unconvinced, then you are unconvinced.

 

Personally, I don't even think the point is that you need to be convinced of "my side." The point is really more that you shouldn't be convinced, at this point, of "your side" either. This is an area where we really need more study. To claim to be confident there are not biological underlying causes in a significant number of these cases is, I believe, unfounded. The evidence is mounting that there are such factors in many cases. I think a reasonable person would say that there is enough to give us pause and to require a lot more study before making up our minds. What I've always said is that my view is that there is reason to demand much greater study to determine these answers because the stakes are very high.

[Marc Moini]

Hm, I see how my last response to you was not favorable to continuing communication, which is what I would like. At the same time, I don't know how to get to a more satisfactory communication on this text forum. Anybody has any ideas?

[Marc Moini]

I'm now watching the part that starts at 56 minutes, and it's really powerful. Thanks Antony! There were a few thing I found interesting before too, but I see very important consequences in this idea of hidden rules.

I remember there's other interesting accounts of violent people, sorry people who have committed violent acts, changing after receiving empathy, in the interview of Jorge Rubio by Stephanie Bachman Mattei on this page: http://nvctraining.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=latest&layout=latest&Itemid=1342

[Marc Moini]

BayNVC's Safer Communities Project

 

[LovePrevails]

Hey STer, do you not agree that in a free society where there was appropriate incentives for rehabilitating very violent people that optimised ways would come to the fore

 

we know some things work for some people, like Gilligans programs, getting a masters degree in prison seems to halt recidivism but they cancelled this program because the politicians said people would deliberately go to jail to get a free degree, then teaching transindental or vipassana meditation works for others, teaching prisonsers NVC works for some people, then there are trauma release exercises and brain state technologies which can work with other people

 

we have so many prisons and so many violent people - no end of people to try these things on  - but there is no way of knowing who can and cannot be rehabilitated until we have some of these approaches rolled out on a massive scale and see what the results are on huge sample sets. In time we could have several approaches and assess people for which approaches the experts thought suited them best or some combination of many of them. At that point, where the people who could be rehabilitated were given the best chance available, we would be able to clearly see what people were exceedingly tough nuts to crack, or maybe just irreversibly nuts.

 

What would you do with them? I'd give them an island if they weren't willing to earn their own way in prison because I don't think anyone should have pay to feed and support people who refuse to reciprocate in any way period, but we can give them the means to provide for themselves and they can take it or leave it.

[STer]

Hey STer, do you not agree that in a free society where there was appropriate incentives for rehabilitating very violent people that optimised ways would come to the fore

The question is whether there is any way - short of extremely invasive measures - to rehabilitate full-fledged psychopaths, for example. That is simply a scientific/medical question. I hope there is. But so far I'm not aware of one.

In cases where violent people can be rehabilitated, I am all for us finding ways to do so. What I am against is just assuming that is always the case. 

we know some things work for some people, like Gilligans programs, getting a masters degree in prison seems to halt recidivism but they cancelled this program because the politicians said people would deliberately go to jail to get a free degree, then teaching transindental or vipassana meditation works for others, teaching prisonsers NVC works for some people, then there are trauma release exercises and brain state technologies which can work with other people

Whatever measures work - and by work I mean that we can replicate the results in a reliable way - should of course be used. Again, my only concern is that we shouldn't assume that the same measures work for everybody. If there are a proportion of cases where none of the measures we've found work, we must address what to do in those cases. 

we have so many prisons and so many violent people - no end of people to try these things on  - but there is no way of knowing who can and cannot be rehabilitated until we have some of these approaches rolled out on a massive scale and see what the results are on huge sample sets. In time we could have several approaches and assess people for which approaches the experts thought suited them best or some combination of many of them. At that point, where the people who could be rehabilitated were given the best chance available, we would be able to clearly see what people were exceedingly tough nuts to crack, or maybe just irreversibly nuts.

It sounds like you're calling for experimentation and research to find what works and does not work for different types of violent people. We certainly agree on that. We simply must do this work in a way that is not biased and go from there.My understanding from Robert Hare, however, is that some very compassionate, alternative types of measures like these were indeed being used in Canada and psychopaths were actually being made worse by them. That's why he started advocating so hard that they stop using those measures that help other prisoners when working with psychopaths who require a different approach. The important point is that violent people are not all the same. Different people have different dynamics going on that may require different approaches. What works with one type of violent person may even make a different kind of violent person worse. 

What would you do with them? I'd give them an island if they weren't willing to earn their own way in prison because I don't think anyone should have pay to feed and support people who refuse to reciprocate in any way period, but we can give them the means to provide for themselves and they can take it or leave it.

My first priority when it comes to violent people who can't be rehabilitated is protecting others from them. That, of course, starts with keeping them physically away from people or situations in which they pose an unreasonable risk. I don't like that we live in a world where that is sometimes necessary. But sadly we do.