Understanding Psychology: Naughty or Nice?

Exploring the Limitations of Classification and Character Diagnoses

Nasty business war, and not something to be romanticized.

Note: This essay was prepared with the research assistance and ghostwriting of ChatGPT 4.0.

Author’s Preface

Should I Put Someone in the Nice Box or the Naughty Box?

Should I put someone in the nice box or the naughty box? It is a question we must consider carefully. The simplicity of this dichotomy hides the complexity beneath the surface.

Recently I did an essay on diagnostic categories and putting people into diagnostic boxes. I found psychological diagnosis to be problematic. However, I have long thought and still think, we are well justified in classing various people as psychopaths. Look at any number of serial killers: Robert Picton, Paul Bernardo, Karla Homolka in Canada. They were monsters in my view and the view of most. It is not always so straightforward though. Did I mention any number of high-level politicians?

Somethings That We Need to Consider

Something that we need to consider is how subjective criteria influence our classifications. We need to consider subjective criteria, diagnosis, psychiatric and psychological, maybe sociological. These dimensions reveal that our judgments are often shaped by individual, psychological, and societal frameworks.

We need to consider individual perspective. Every person experiences the world differently, so what may seem nasty to one may be nice to another. We may have people who we consider quite nasty... it's quite possible their mothers thought they were fine.

Historical Perspectives

Take Genghis Khan, for instance. I'd say he was pretty nasty. But there are a few million Mongolians who think he was a hero. This example underscores the subjective nature of judgment. Even individuals seen as nasty by some may be revered by others.

What about Hitler? Well, reports go that he was pretty nice to his dog. Could be true. Figures like Hitler, often vilified for their heinous actions, may have had redeeming qualities in certain relationships. Did Eva Braun love him? Maybe, maybe not.

We May Agree. We May Disagree

I will have my views. You will have your views. We may agree. We may disagree. Judgment is subjective, shaped by personal experiences and values. So, many think a current candidate in the U.S. presidential election to be evil, if not psychopathic. The problem is, which one is the psychopath depends on the political persuasion of the person doing the evaluation. The situation is true anywhere that there are political differences of opinion. My own personal unnuanced take is that they are all scumbags — one of the less respectable diagnostic categories.

Look at Something Like Psychopathy

You look at something like psychopathy. Dr. Robert Hare at UBC has done some great work on that. The diagnostic work on psychopathy provides a framework, but it turns out, although he established a cutoff score, there's really not a cutoff. It's a continuum. And there is a subjective component to the diagnosis. He is a psychologist by the way, and not a clinician. That may be a good thing.

So, the characteristics attributed to psychopathy are outlined in Appendix A – Aspects of Psychopathy.

Aspects of the Psyche

We need to look at behavior of course, to make sense of a person's character, but the psyche has cognitive and emotional components. People have beliefs and values shaping behavior, cognition, and emotion. They are embedded in a cultural matrix, which may have very different mores from place to place, time to time. So, we need to take all into account when looking at which box to select. Maybe the whole enterprise is misguided. It certainly seems problematic.

A Continuum of Hyper-Dimensional Boxes

That leads us to the broader issue... nasty and nice... boxes. Instead of two rigid categories, It's a continuum of boxes, and more accurately, there's an infinite number of boxes along a continuum. People don't fit neatly into binary categories. And not only is there an overall continuum, there are really continua, more than one. If we assume that each trait can be described by bell curves, we have multiple intersecting curves, and they may or may not be independent. Gets complex, doesn’t it?

Behavior can be viewed from many dimensions: There's any number of dimensions that we could look at.

All of these things are imperfect measures at best. The diagnostic criteria, including Hare's criteria for psychopathy, remain imprecise. People are complex, and the tools used to measure that complexity are limited.

Introduction

In the realm of psychological diagnoses and character assessments, placing individuals into rigid categories like "nice" or "naughty" oversimplifies the complexities of human behavior. This essay builds on the author's preface by exploring the limitations of diagnostic criteria, the subjective nature of classification, and how psychopathy and moral judgments operate along a continuum rather than within binary categories.

Diagnostic Categories: Subjectivity and Challenges

Psychiatric and psychological diagnostic categories are essential for providing frameworks, but they remain limited by subjectivity. As the author points out, even widely accepted frameworks, such as Robert Hare's Psychopathy Checklist (Hare, 1991), are based on a continuum rather than rigid boundaries. The characteristics used to diagnose someone as a psychopath, such as lack of empathy or manipulativeness, can exist in varying degrees across individuals, making the classification less black-and-white than we might prefer.

Moreover, cultural and personal values significantly influence these diagnoses. For instance, Genghis Khan is viewed as a hero by many Mongolians despite his violent conquests, underscoring how societal perspectives shape moral judgments (Weatherford, 2004). This complexity suggests that even when behavior appears reprehensible from one viewpoint, it may be celebrated or understood differently in another cultural or historical context.

Psychopathy: A Continuum, Not a Box

One of the key examples used in the preface is psychopathy. Robert Hare’s diagnostic criteria, although widely respected, indicate a range of behaviors that fall along a continuum (Hare, 1999). Rather than placing individuals in "nice" or "naughty" boxes, psychopathy highlights how traits like narcissism, lack of guilt, or superficial charm may exist to different extents in people. Even among individuals deemed "psychopaths," the variation in how these traits manifest suggests we are dealing with complex, multi-dimensional human behavior.

A continuum approach offers more nuance, allowing us to recognize that people are rarely purely good or purely evil. As pointed out in the preface, even historical figures like Adolf Hitler, despite their atrocities, had personal relationships where they exhibited positive traits, such as affection for pets or romantic partners (Kershaw, 2000).

The Infinite Dimensions of Human Behavior

Classifying human behavior becomes even more complicated when considering that individuals exist across multiple continua of traits. Bell curves for different characteristics, such as empathy, aggressiveness, and conscientiousness, intersect and influence each other. Psychologists often refer to these as personality dimensions, drawing on models like the Big Five personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992), which emphasize that traits like agreeableness or neuroticism vary in degree across individuals.

Given this complexity, classifying someone as either "naughty" or "nice" neglects the underlying intersections of multiple psychological dimensions. The diagnostic process is inevitably limited by the tools and criteria used, which are, as the author mentions, imperfect measures of the full scope of human behavior.

Summary

The preface and the ensuing discussion demonstrate the pitfalls of reducing individuals to simple categories, such as "naughty" or "nice." Whether dealing with psychopathy or moral judgments in a historical context, people exhibit a broad spectrum of behaviors that defy easy classification. Diagnostic tools, while useful, should be understood as imperfect approximations, limited by subjective perspectives, cultural values, and the multi-dimensional nature of human traits. Therefore, judgments about human character require greater nuance, and we must be cautious of over-reliance on rigid classification systems.

References

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992).
Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240133762_Neo_PI-R_professional_manual
Authors’ Credentials:
Paul T. Costa and Robert R. McCrae are highly respected psychologists known for their work on personality theory. They developed the NEO Personality Inventory, one of the most widely used tools for assessing the Big Five personality traits.
Content Note:
This manual outlines the development and application of the NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI, instruments used to assess personality dimensions along five major factors: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. These tools are widely used in both research and clinical settings to understand personality variation in individuals.

Hare, R. D. (1991).
The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Multi-Health Systems.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318596156_Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist_PCL
Author’s Credentials:
Dr. Robert D. Hare is a world-renowned Canadian psychologist who has extensively studied criminal psychology and psychopathy. He is best known for creating the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R), a gold-standard tool in psychopathy assessment.
Content Note:
This book introduces the revised version of Hare’s famous checklist used to diagnose psychopathy. The PCL-R has become a critical tool in forensic settings, guiding risk assessment and criminal profiling by measuring traits associated with psychopathy, such as manipulativeness, lack of empathy, and antisocial behavior.

Hare, R. D. (1999).
Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. Guilford Press.

https://www.amazon.ca/Without-Conscience-Disturbing-World-Psychopaths/dp/1572304510
Author’s Credentials:
Robert D. Hare is an expert on psychopathy and professor emeritus of psychology at the University of British Columbia. He has spent decades studying psychopathy, specifically how to identify and understand individuals with psychopathic traits.
Content Note:
This book explores the disturbing reality of psychopathy, both in everyday life and in extreme criminal behavior. Hare provides insight into the nature of psychopaths, their behavior, and the threat they pose to society, drawing on years of research and case studies.

Kershaw, I. (2000).
Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris. W.W. Norton & Company.
Author’s Credentials:

https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1889-1936-Hubris-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393320359
Ian Kershaw is a British historian and one of the foremost authorities on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. He has written extensively on the Third Reich and is considered an expert in modern European history.
Content Note:
This biography of Adolf Hitler focuses on the dictator’s early years, tracing his rise to power from obscurity. Kershaw provides an in-depth analysis of Hitler's personality, political strategies, and the social and political conditions that allowed his ascent to power. The book is the first volume in a two-part series.

Weatherford, J. (2004).
Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. Crown.

https://www.amazon.ca/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644https://www.amazon.ca/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644
Author’s Credentials:
Jack Weatherford is an anthropologist and historian, specializing in the Mongol Empire and indigenous cultures. He is a professor emeritus at Macalester College and has written extensively on historical and cultural subjects.
Content Note:
This book offers a reevaluation of Genghis Khan’s role in world history, portraying him not only as a conqueror but also as a visionary leader who helped shape the modern world. Weatherford argues that Khan's innovations in governance, communication, and trade transformed civilizations across Asia and Europe.

Appendix A – Aspects of Psychopathy

Psychopathy is typically diagnosed using various behavioral, emotional, and cognitive characteristics. One of the most well-known tools for diagnosing psychopathy is the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) developed by psychologist Robert Hare. It includes the following characteristics, divided into two main factors:

Factor 1: Interpersonal/Affective Traits

These traits are related to how a psychopath interacts with others and their emotional responses (or lack thereof):

1. Glibness/Superficial Charm
   Psychopaths often appear charming and charismatic but in a shallow, insincere way.

2. Grandiose Sense of Self-Worth
   They have an inflated view of their importance and abilities, often displaying narcissistic traits.

3. Pathological Lying
   Frequent, habitual lying with no concern for the truth or consequences.

4. Conning/Manipulative Behavior
   They exploit others for personal gain, using deceit and manipulation to achieve their goals.

5. Lack of Remorse or Guilt
   Psychopaths show no regret or guilt for their harmful actions, even when confronted with their consequences.

6. Shallow Affect (Emotional Depth)
   They display a limited range of emotions, often faking feelings when necessary for manipulation.

7. Callousness and Lack of Empathy
   They are indifferent to the suffering of others and show no concern for the pain they cause.

8. Failure to Accept Responsibility for Own Actions
   Psychopaths often deflect blame and never take responsibility for their wrongdoings.

Factor 2: Socially Deviant Lifestyle Traits

These traits are linked to a person's lifestyle and behavior patterns, showing impulsivity and a lack of long-term planning.

1. Need for Stimulation/Proneness to Boredom
   Psychopaths are easily bored and constantly seek out excitement and risky behavior.

2. Parasitic Lifestyle
   They often rely on others for financial or social support, exploiting people without contributing themselves.

3. Poor Behavioral Controls
   They have difficulty regulating their emotions and behaviors, often showing anger or aggression impulsively.

4. Early Behavioral Problems
   Childhood behaviors such as delinquency, violence, or cruelty are common indicators.

5. Lack of Realistic Long-Term Goals
   They fail to plan for the future, leading to impulsive decisions with no regard for long-term consequences.

6. Impulsivity
   Acting without thinking through the consequences, driven by momentary desires.

7. Irresponsibility
   A general failure to follow through with obligations, whether in work, relationships, or other commitments.

8. Juvenile Delinquency
   Engagement in criminal behavior or antisocial activities starting in youth.

9. Revocation of Conditional Release
   Psychopaths frequently fail to adhere to parole or probation conditions, leading to re-incarceration.

10. Criminal Versatility
    They engage in a wide variety of criminal activities, not limited to a specific type of offense.

Additional Characteristics (Not in PCL-R but Sometimes Considered)

• Promiscuous Sexual Behavior

• Many Short-Term Marital Relationships

• Dishonesty and Manipulation in Relationships

These traits are scored in clinical settings to assess psychopathy, with higher scores on the PCL-R indicating a greater likelihood of psychopathy. It's important to note that psychopathy exists on a spectrum, and not all individuals with some psychopathic traits meet the full diagnostic criteria for the disorder.