Are You a Psychopath? Skip the Test; Researchers Say, "Yes!"

The Ten Commandments? Daddy, I was gone that night.
Yeah, yeah, I'm real sorry, like it's my fault.
Do whatever the hell you want. Think I care?
 Jesus Christ, I got a little high on mushrooms.
You're damn right I'm proud I got away with it.
I feel like tearing somebody's head off.

It's hard to believe the Village Voice would publish the following article, harder still to believe the researchers in question have yet to be fired by their employer (University of British Columbia) for posting nude photos of themselves between rounds of throwing dice for their "statistics," and hardest of all to believe I'm not quoting from The Onion. Still, this cloud has two silver linings. First, my financial inability to at least prove useless in an academic career won't go to the waste of an academic career. Second, I'm now honored the University of British Columbia rejected my MFA application. (Okay, okay, I applied; I was accepted, too, but I came to all five of my senses and wrote another version of my future, which at least wouldn't involve producing committee-approved "literature" while absorbing some buffoon's personal philosophy that would no doubt propose John Updike as America's greatest writer, at which point I would have pulled my brains from my anus and choked myself with my own contaminated neurons).

To understand the following, you must proceed to the following preceding. "Psychopath," despite being absent from the Bad News of Psychiatry's Diagnostic Bible, has become the next-generation diagnosis. Gradually, its definition has been broadened until now book after book and article after article will soon have everyone convinced that their bosses, coworkers, lovers, and anybody else, except themselves, are psychopaths. We've been through this with the continuing "knock on a psychiatrist's door and you're bipolar" trend. Being bipolar brings with it cache, for, according to modern folklore, every dead legend in every field sooner or later has mood swings attributed to their skeletons. The resulting logical fallacy: X was a bipolar genius; I'm bipolar; therefore, I'm a genius. First, X wasn't bipolar and, even if X was bipolar, it was of a form generated by force of emotion and intellect: An unintentionally but still self-created series of euphoric epiphanies and empty melancholies. You write Leaves of Grass and see if the explosion of all your fertility doesn't find you awakening to an empty garden.

Back to the latest diagnostic trend, which psychiatrists have chosen to define a number of different ways. I will present a definition from a usually-useless site I normally avoid because it narrowly defines the psychopath in the classic manner, rather than some new checklist guaranteed to have everyone fearing their evil when they would have been better left alone to their neutral robotic lives: "The study of the psychopath reveals an individual who is incapable of feeling guilt, remorse or empathy for their actions. They are generally cunning, manipulative and know the difference between right and wrong but dismiss it as applying to them."

The bolded phrase describes the cold cave of the psychopathic heart. And, no, I'm not a psychopath. Psychopaths attack; I have anxiety attacks. Psychopaths are free of guilt; I must have forgotten being raised by a Catholic-Jewish mother. True, I don't "believe" in ethics or morality, for whomsoever claims otherwise violates both far more than do I: Conviction shall be the death of us all. And from whence would these commandments come? Am I to take my morals from a madman on a mountain hyper-hallucinating from the mushrooms he just ate? I think not.

We're almost to the good part, but first, you must have a few questions, and here's your answers:

FAQ: PSYCHOPATHS & PSYCHIATRY 

Q: Why would psychiatrists broaden the definition of a diagnosis that doesn't exist in their own diagnostic manual, and why would they want to identify more people as being psychopaths when they claim psychopaths can't be treated no matter what you call them?

A: For once, they'll have an excuse.

Our Story Begins

Here's the kind of research that diagnostic trendiness encourages. Anything will take and usually does (your wallet, your trust, or both) when science apes religion and makes a monkey's ass of itself.

Excerpts from the following article have been indented, followed by my as-always correct analysis:

Researchers at University of British Columbia have been studying how convicted killers (including 18 "certified psychopaths") speak, in hopes of helping detectives identify suspects via social media, online postings, texts, and, of course, the traditional interrogative methods, too.

• Psychopaths tend to use the past tense more frequently, perhaps to suggest detachment from the crime.

OR... The suspect merely demonstrated proper use of verb tense. Correct Sherlock deduction: "This guy's innocent. By definition, a psychopath feels no guilt and would have no reason to distance himself from a crime. And he speaks English real good." Correct research conclusion: Use of the wrong tense would only prove someone is psychotic, not psychopathic, such as describing what happened yesterday as happening tomorrow.

• Look out for frequent "uhs" and "ums" -- they might indicate it's difficult to talk about an event -- or they might just indicate someone uncomfortable with speaking.

OR... A psychopath would not experience, much less express, discomfort since, by psychiatric definition, psychopaths experience absolutely no fear or anxiety. Correct Sherlock deduction: "Here, sir: I apologize for your arrest. I can't stand it all anymore. Take this gun and blow my head off." Correct research conclusion: "We don't understand the definition of a psychopath. Why are we studying them? Let's get jobs at Wal-mart."

• Psychopaths more frequently use "cause-and-effect words" like "so" and "because."

 OR... Proving that psychopaths, like anyone under interrogation, guilty or not, may use logic to explain what happened or "happened." Correct Sherlock deduction: None to be drawn. Correct research conclusion: "We don't understand the definition of a psychopath. Why are we studying them? Let's get jobs at Wal-mart."

• They also speak a lot about material needs -- what they ate, money, etc. -- instead of love, family, or other social needs.

OR... They're Americans. Correct Sherlock deduction: None to be drawn. Correct research conclusion: "We don't even understand the definition of a psychopath. Why are we studying them? Let's get jobs at Wal-mart."

To believe these idiots actually published such "results." By definition, a psychopath is too cunning to be "caught" off guard and online. The psychopath would be the first to watch what he posted online for that very reason. 

Anyone with a high school degree (GED's accepted) has already realized the way to identify psychopaths entails looking for what they never say or write. They never say, "Sorry." They never mumble, "I shouldn't have done that; my fault." They never ask, "How are you?" They never reply to a true psychopath, "Huh? No, I don't need a switchblade, handgun, pair of handcuffs, and a rope." They never post the following personal ad: "SWM searching for women in isolated locations. Prefer multiple partners and ladies with carpal tunnel syndrome and zero arm strength. No guns, dogs, burglar alarms, security cameras, knives, ex-husbands, ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends with shaved heads, large gay male friends who wear leather and work out twice a day. I like to go for long walks on the beach, have violent sex, and then strangle people. Call me on my Blackberry."