Re: Can you tell psychopaths by the way they speak?

[Guest guest]

The article says that using such speech patters would be far fetched, and I would agree. If using "so" and "um" means you're a psychopath, then most of my mother's friends must be. Add in talking about food and health issues and they must be criminal masterminds. Must tell the FBI about that senior citizen cabal before its too late.

Still, police probably will add it to their arsenal of criminal profiling techniques. You know, the ones that had the police looking for a lone, 40ish white male with possible military background in a white panel van during the DC sniper incident? That's the same reason I dislike the new behavioral recognition software in computers watching the CCTV cameras for suspicious behavior. Suppose someone is just really anxious about getting on a plane because it is a phobia or because they always get airsick or maybe they are just stressed about a meeting of family problems. Maybe they are getting off the plane so airsick they can barely walk? Maybe they are like some mildly retarded people I've known who are always fidgeting and looking over their shoulders?Those people would probably trip the software and get hauled away for questioning which would really freak them out.

But back to the point. I have been called odd because of my manner of speech sometimes. That's not because I use "because" a lot (though I do if I'm explaining how things work in a sequence) but because I use precise words, some of them large. That and I used to have a very monotone voice, though that isn't so much the case anymore mostly due to practice in adding inflection and so now doing so is "normal." Still I don't have the range most people do.

As for normal, that's pretty much the top of the bell curve in a statistical analysis. How wide of a range that is is up to debate, however. I could be pretty wide, meaning 90% plus, though I can't imagine it would be less than 50%. That doesn't mean much to those who are outside of that range.

Odd tangent here. This reminds me of a D & D book about golems. In it was description of two kinds of golem that were more or less self-aware, most are just automatons. This book had a few fictional passages written in it. A few of them were about one such golem. It was made to look like the creator's deceased daughter. Your comments reminded me of this because she was aware enough to know that she was different, aside from the knowledge that she was golem, but in the other ways as well. In other words, she knew what she was "missing" and was aware enough for that to bother her. Also, her mannerisms marked her as different. So, not unlike a lot of people on the AS spectrum, she was different, knew it, didn't entirely like it, but there was little she could do about it.

Kind of glad I not on facebook, would be worrying if I used the wrong words might end up accidently labelled a psychopath (sigh).

[Guest guest]

" The article says that using such speech patters would be far fetched, and I

would agree. If using " so " and " um " means you're a psychopath, then most of my

mother's friends must be. Add in talking about food and health issues and they

must be criminal masterminds. Must tell the FBI about that senior citizen cabal

before its too late. "

It may be that psychopaths are more concerned with what Maslow would call lower

order needs (food, water, shelter) and so think along those terms. The usage of

the words " so " and " because " may be because they are concerned with

justification rather than explanation and believe that by speaking in those

terms, other people will understand their motivations. Still, they may be

clueless as to their differences and how and why other people think the way they

do, which gives them away anyway.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

But now all the psychopaths can read that article and train themselves to talk like non-psychopaths ... On Thursday, November 3, 2011, environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote:

> >> " The article says that using such speech patters would be far fetched, and I would agree. If using " so " and " um " means you're a psychopath, then most of my mother's friends must be. Add in talking about food and health issues and they must be criminal masterminds. Must tell the FBI about that senior citizen cabal before its too late. "

>> It may be that psychopaths are more concerned with what Maslow would call lower order needs (food, water, shelter) and so think along those terms. The usage of the words " so " and " because " may be because they are concerned with justification rather than explanation and believe that by speaking in those terms, other people will understand their motivations. Still, they may be clueless as to their differences and how and why other people think the way they do, which gives them away anyway.

>> > Administrator>>>> ------------------------------------>> Fellowship of the Aspergian Miracle is the last series of message boards founded by an original Aspergia member to carry the Aspergia name with the www.aspergia.com website owner's permission. To contact the FAM forum administrator, use this e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner

>> Check the Links section for more FAM forums.>>

[Guest guest]

Only the one's that know they're psychopaths, what about the one's that don't

realise they are? scary thought :-)

>

> But now all the psychopaths can read that article and train themselves to

> talk like non-psychopaths ...

[Guest guest]

Good point. I've read that sociopaths are particularly good at this, being able to fake being "better" so they can get out of mental hospitals or the like.

But now all the psychopaths can read that article and train themselves to talk like non-psychopaths ...

[Guest guest]

That's possible.

Most people will try to justify their actions though, especially if they are put to the question by an authority figure. Make someone uncomfortable enough, especially if they have done nothing wrong, then certainly their speech patterns will change and they will try to explain why they are innocent, which with many unskilled liars makes them sound more guilty.

In a message dated 11/3/2011 2:55:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

It may be that psychopaths are more concerned with what Maslow would call lower order needs (food, water, shelter) and so think along those terms. The usage of the words "so" and "because" may be because they are concerned with justification rather than explanation and believe that by speaking in those terms, other people will understand their motivations. Still, they may be clueless as to their differences and how and why other people think the way they do, which gives them away anyway.Administrator

[Guest guest]

Not all psychopaths are dangerous. Its likely that each of us knows at least one or has encountered several in our lifetimes but they weren't dangerous. Its likely we didn't even notice.

Only the one's that know they're psychopaths, what about the one's that don't realise they are? scary thought :-)

[Guest guest]

I find crime dramas and some true crime books fascinating in a rather morbid way, am also intrigued by 'profiling' because charlatains, (and some sales people) excel at making fast and fairly accurate 'readings' of people whom they are going to 'con' (or try and sell something to.) Of course, people such as "social climbers' probably do the same thing.However, as a non-conformist and asocial person, I sometimes wonder if I were being interviewd by the police or some other law enforcement or security officials, would my 'different' responses lead them to conclude that I was guilty?I believe I am capable of empathy BUT do not believe I always need to show when I feel it nor always act on it. My belief is that emotions are

part of my human-ness but I don't want to be ruled by them. got to go and medicate cats.rl'My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God....'adapted from a poem by SmartTo: FAMSecretSociety Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2011 3:36:23 AMSubject: Can you tell

psychopaths by the way they speak?

I came across the below article this morning whilst I was looking up a word in the thesaurus. It is worth going to the link and reading some of the comments. Some are funny, however one was interesting, the person who commented about the Myer Briggs type indicator. Was interesting to me because I've started reading a book about the Myer Briggs indicator.

Regarding the article though and the mention of "Defined by psychologists, a psychopath is someone who does not forge the emotional bonds that normal people do and do not empathize with others." I've heard similar, if not the same said about those with Asperger's, not that I agree with such. Not so keen on the word 'normal' either, but that's just me - when you get right down to it, what is 'normal' anyway?

Also; "The real world application of these conclusions may seem far fetched, but police departments and investigators hope to use craigslist or facebook posts to determine psychological profiles of suspects or potential criminals."

Kind of glad I not on facebook, would be worrying if I used the wrong words might end up accidently labelled a psychopath (sigh).

http://hotword.dictionary.com/psychopaths/?fb_ref=hotword_activity

Can you tell psychopaths by the way they speak?

October 27, 2011 236 Comments Share Have you ever met someone and thought they were a little off? Just by the way someone speaks, we can pick up on social cues and emotional intelligence that give us certain impressions about them.

Communications researchers have taken this hunch to another level. They interviewed convicted murderers whose self-reported tests reveal them to be psychopaths and analyzed the specific language usage of their speech patterns. The research was led by Hancock, a communications professor at Cornell University, whose work focuses on two types of language phenomenon in particular: verbal irony and deception. Hancock and his team observed multiple specific abnormal speech patterns in the psychopaths they interviewed.

Defined by psychologists, a psychopath is someone who does not forge the emotional bonds that normal people do and do not empathize with others. They tend to see people as means to their own ends, rather than as individuals. These emotional abnormalities manifest in their speech patterns in a few interesting ways. The psychopaths who were interviewed tended to use a lot of causal phrases like "so" and "because." The researchers interpreted this to mean that they were explaining their crimes away as a "logical outcome of a plan (something that `had' to be done to achieve a goal).'" In contrast, other convicted criminals who are not psychopaths tend to use more language around religion and their own guilt when describing their crime. The researchers observed other aberrations in psychopaths' speech. Psychopaths in the study spoke of basic needs like food and money twice as much as the other subjects in the study, and they also use more disfluencies

(phrases like "uh" or "umm") to break up their speech. Learn more about disfluencies here.

The real world application of these conclusions may seem far fetched, but police departments and investigators hope to use craigslist or facebook posts to determine psychological profiles of suspects or potential criminals.

What do you think about linguistic profiles of criminals?

Author: Hot Word | Posted in Uncategorized

[Guest guest]

Another thought I had regarding psycopaths is to do with the Myer Briggs

personality type (I've been reading about such recently). I wonder about the

ratio of extravert to introverts among psychopaths (and even sociopaths).

According to what I have been reading the majority of the population is

extravert.

Also does anyone know the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath? (I've

not got around to looking such up as yet).

>

> Good point. I've read that sociopaths are particularly good at this, being

> able to fake being " better " so they can get out of mental hospitals or the

> like.

>

>

>

>

> In a message dated 11/3/2011 3:33:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> handwritingrepair@... writes:

>

> But now all the psychopaths can read that article and train themselves to

> talk like non-psychopaths ...

>

[Guest guest]

have read about the original experiment,It's scary that more people in the recent one went all the way; so much for the "age of Aquarious," our so called enlightenment, humanitarianism, and the glorification of individuality. rl 'My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God....'adapted from a poem by SmartTo: FAMSecretSociety Sent: Monday, November 7, 2011 11:09:47 PMSubject: Re: Can you tell psychopaths by the way they speak?

The Milgram Experiment was a test done to test the effect of authority on a person's morality. The test was one where if the "learner" gave wrong answers, the "teacher" would give them an electric shock. The learner was in separate room from the teacher and the "doctor" directing the experiment.

The original was done in the 1950's. I just watched a program with a new version just recently done.

In the original, 65% went past the danger point, even when the learner begged for mercy and mentioned heart pain.

The recent one: 77% went all the way.

Quite an interesting development. Interesting also that I saw this show at the same time we've been discussing psychopaths and the degradation of society.

[Guest guest]

:Much of how I speak is from what I have read, not being very 'social.'To know one's audience, and speak accordingly certainly makes sense!rl 'My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God....'adapted from a poem by SmartFrom:

"VISIGOTH@..." To: FAMSecretSociety Sent: Monday, November 7, 2011 7:10:42 PMSubject: Re: Can you tell psychopaths by the way they speak?

Or someone could just read a lot and/or have friends from other countries. It is possible they could pick up and use different words, slang and syntax every now and then.

Perhaps the person is just good at gauging their audience. You wouldn't speak to a group of 4th graders the same way you would graduate students. If you watch listen closely, you can hear politicians changing their manner of speech depending on their audience (as well as what they wear, how they gesture, etc).

Or, as General Patton once said: when talking to enlisted men, if he wants them to remember something, he gives it to them loud and dirty.

My feeling is that a change in type of words can also indictate some deep emotion in the speaker: sometimes when I get really angry I will use ostentatious ("big") words. Personally I prefer that to using 'gutter talk.'rl

[Guest guest]

Too much analysis of words or phrases could be misleading!rl 'My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God....'adapted from a poem by SmartTo: FAMSecretSociety Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2011 1:30:45 AMSubject: Re: Can you tell psychopaths by the way they speak?

I think trying to place too much emphasis on the words people use/choose, could be misleading.

"My feeling is that a change in type of words can also indictate some deep emotion in the speaker: sometimes when I get really angry I will use ostentatious ("big") words. Personally I prefer that to using 'gutter talk.'"

From observing people any change in their usual behaviour can be a sign that something has changed, or there is a problem. I talk more easily when I know people well, I find it harder to articulate (verbally) in situations and with people that are not familiar. I also realise that I sometimes have to 'dumb down' my speech for some people as my choice of words can confuse them and therefore the meaning I am trying to get across can be lost.

>

> Hi and all:

> Have had more time to think about linguistic profiles, just finished reading a crime/legal novel called Old City Hall.

> http://www.robertrotenberg.com/oldcityhall.html

>

> In the novel, a Crown Prosecutor (District Attorney in some countries),

> has learnt to listen to witnesses' choice of words,

> and IF they make a switch in their replies from Anglo Saxon English to Norman English, it can often mean they are lieing, or evading.

> He refers to Anglo Saxon English as plain words with one or two syllables and Norman words as longer words with several syllables.

>

> This fictional Prosecutor credits this insight to one of his professors who used Winston Churchill's speach about refusing to surrender as an example. This fictional prof reads the speach to his class, says all through it Churchill used Anglo Saxon words, until the very end, THEN he uses the word 'surrender.'

> The prof says 'surrender' is a Norman (foreign) word and that Churchill used it to indicate the concept of Britain surrendering to be 'foreign' not literally but figuratively......

> (The Normans were invaders of Britain many hundreds of years ago, and they influenced language etc in Britain)

>

> My feeling is that a change in type of words can also indictate some deep emotion in the speaker: sometimes when I get really angry I will use ostentatious ("big") words. Personally I prefer that to using 'gutter talk.'

>

> rl

>

> 'My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God....'

> adapted from a poem by Smart

>

[Guest guest]

The new experiment I mentioned wasn't quite the same as the original. The original experiment went a bit above 400 volts which is well in lethal territory. Indeed in the original, some people went beyond the point where the "learner" stopped screaming. This experiment ended at 150 volts for ethical reasons. The learner wasn't actually being hurt at all, mind you, but pre-recorded the screams and dialog so it would be the same for each experiment. So, the ethical concern was for the mental state of the teacher. Still, more did go past the 150 volt danger threshold than did in the original test.

There was a BBC recreation that may have gone all the way into lethal territory. However, when I saw the clips listed on youtube, I didn't watch them at the time and I can't right now because the high speed modem is down and I'm running dial up. It would probably take over an hour for each segment of that show to load and play. Once I get up and running again I'm going to watch them to see how far they went and if they went to over 400 volts.

have read about the original experiment,

It's scary that more people in the recent one went all the way; so much for the "age of Aquarious," our so called enlightenment, humanitarianism, and the glorification of individuality.

rl

[Guest guest]

This was something we were taught even in the leadership classes at military school. Who had to change your way of speaking based on who you were talking to and the given situation. For example: you wouldn't speak the same way to a depressed academically inclined student as you would to a jock raging because he'd gotten a bad call during a game. You had to address each situation quite differently. Those are extreme examples of course.

Most of the time this is only addressed in writing courses and some business courses. I think that's a shame. I would really like to see English courses redone so they are less about dissecting grammar and parts of speech, because no one remembers all of that for long, and shifting to communication and rhetoric in the old school meaning of the word. By that I mean the grammar and such would still be addressed of course, but less as rote memorization and more as a means of perfecting you message. The courses over the years would be designed to teach one to speak clearly and effectively, to which point literature and speeches would be read to demonstrate command of language.

This was done in my schooling but rather clumsily. We read stories that were said to demonstrate irony or foreshadowing, etc., but they were all kind of stand alones. While the point was made, it wasn't linked to anything, like how we could use irony or foreshadowing, etc., not just in creative writing but also in every day speaking. There wasn't really that attempt to put it all together to make the student a more articulate communicator.

That's what rhetoric used to be, making people more articulate and logical communicators. I think if we went back to that, society would see great benefits. I don't mean everyone would become a fine orator, that's not going to happen. What would happen is that everyone would be a little better able to order their thoughts and express those thoughts. It might even lead to more rational discussion and less violence in society as people can debate others and logically defend their positions without resorting to insults and violence. In the main of course because there will always be psychopathic jerks who enjoy baiting and tormenting others, but overall better communication skills would benefit everyone.

Much of how I speak is from what I have read, not being very 'social.'

To know one's audience, and speak accordingly certainly makes sense!

rl

[Guest guest]

I agree that teaching rhetoric would be of great benefit!I would have loved to study rhetoric!I think many of us were taught different styles of writintg BUT not so much different styles of speaking. (unless as an adult one joins a group such as Toastmasters!)http://www.toastmasters.org/A quote from the website"You’ve come to the right place. Since 1924, more than 4 million people around the world have become more confident speakers and leaders because

of their participation in Toastmasters."My husband was a member for some years, I occasionally visited a meeting with him.rl 'My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God....'adapted from a poem by SmartTo: FAMSecretSociety Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 6:42:45 AMSubject: Re: Can you tell psychopaths by the way they speak?

This was something we were taught even in the leadership classes at military school. Who had to change your way of speaking based on who you were talking to and the given situation. For example: you wouldn't speak the same way to a depressed academically inclined student as you would to a jock raging because he'd gotten a bad call during a game. You had to address each situation quite differently. Those are extreme examples of course.

Most of the time this is only addressed in writing courses and some business courses. I think that's a shame. I would really like to see English courses redone so they are less about dissecting grammar and parts of speech, because no one remembers all of that for long, and shifting to communication and rhetoric in the old school meaning of the word. By that I mean the grammar and such would still be addressed of course, but less as rote memorization and more as a means of perfecting you message. The courses over the years would be designed to teach one to speak clearly and effectively, to which point literature and speeches would be read to demonstrate command of language.

This was done in my schooling but rather clumsily. We read stories that were said to demonstrate irony or foreshadowing, etc., but they were all kind of stand alones. While the point was made, it wasn't linked to anything, like how we could use irony or foreshadowing, etc., not just in creative writing but also in every day speaking. There wasn't really that attempt to put it all together to make the student a more articulate communicator.

That's what rhetoric used to be, making people more articulate and logical communicators. I think if we went back to that, society would see great benefits. I don't mean everyone would become a fine orator, that's not going to happen. What would happen is that everyone would be a little better able to order their thoughts and express those thoughts. It might even lead to more rational discussion and less violence in society as people can debate others and logically defend their positions without resorting to insults and violence. In the main of course because there will always be psychopathic jerks who enjoy baiting and tormenting others, but overall better communication skills would benefit everyone.

[Guest guest]

I took a rhetoric class in graduate school. Enjoyed it very much.

Administrator

>

> I agree that teaching rhetoric would be of great benefit!

> I would have loved to study rhetoric!

> I think many of us were taught different styles of writintg BUT not so much

different styles of speaking. (unless as an adult one joins a group such as

Toastmasters!)

> http://www.toastmasters.org/

>

> A quote from the website

>

> " You’ve come to the right place. Since 1924, more than 4 million people

> around the world have become more confident speakers and leaders because of

their participation in Toastmasters. "

> My husband was a member for some years, I occasionally visited a meeting with

him.

>

>

> rl

>

>  

> 'My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God....'

> adapted from a poem by Smart

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

> To: FAMSecretSociety

> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 6:42:45 AM

> Subject: Re: Can you tell psychopaths by the way they

speak?

>

>

>  

> This was something we were taught even in the leadership classes at

> military school. Who had to change your way of speaking based on who you were

> talking to and the given situation. For example: you wouldn't speak the same

way

> to a depressed academically inclined student as you would to a jock raging

> because he'd gotten a bad call during a game. You had to address each

situation

> quite differently. Those are extreme examples of course.  

> Most of the time this is only addressed in writing courses and some

> business courses. I think that's a shame. I would really like to see English

> courses redone so they are less about dissecting grammar and parts of speech,

> because no one remembers all of that for long, and shifting to communication

and

> rhetoric in the old school meaning of the word. By that I mean the grammar and

> such would still be addressed of course, but less as rote memorization and

more

> as a means of perfecting you message. The courses over the years would be

> designed to teach one to speak clearly and effectively, to which point

> literature and speeches would be read to demonstrate command of language.

>  

> This was done in my schooling but rather clumsily. We read stories that

> were said to demonstrate irony or foreshadowing, etc., but they were all kind

of

> stand alones. While the point was made, it wasn't linked to anything, like

> how we could use irony or foreshadowing, etc., not just in creative writing

but

> also in every day speaking. There wasn't really that attempt to put it

> all together to make the student a more articulate communicator.

>

> That's what rhetoric used to be, making people more articulate and

> logical communicators. I think if we went back to that, society would see

> great benefits. I don't mean everyone would become a fine orator, that's

> not going to happen. What would happen is that everyone would be a little

better

> able to order their thoughts and express those thoughts. It might even

> lead to more rational discussion and less violence in society as

> people can debate others and logically defend their positions without

resorting

> to insults and violence. In the main of course because there will always

> be psychopathic jerks who enjoy baiting and tormenting others, but overall

> better communication skills would benefit everyone.

>  

>  

>