Saturday, July 29, 2006

ANOTHER BOOK REVIEW: "THE CRIMINAL PERSONALITY"

I thought I'd take some time out to explain why I like one of the books in my profile. I picked this one because it's the title most likely to be misunderstood. I'm not really interested in criminology per se. What I like about this book is that it's a work of practical philosophy.

The author, Stanton Samenow, is a prison psychologist. When he wrote the book he'd been working with prisoners for over twenty years. He definitely believes there's such a thing as a criminal type, someone who likes the excitement of crime and would rather die than lead a normal life. This condition is generally regarded as incurable but that's not how Samenow sees it. He came up with a therapy for it.

According to Samenow (above) the natural criminal doesn't reject the way ordinary people think, his problem is that he can't even imagine it. Not in the least. The natural criminal is a manipulator. He can't imagine any other way of thinking. He believes everybody else are manipulators too, he's just better at it. The first time you tell him him that ordinary people are not manipulators he's genuinely shocked because he's never even considered the possibility. He thinks you're putting him on.

Therapy for this type of person consists of asking him to keep a detailed record of everything he said and did with other prisoners, with an emphasis on the small things. The therapist listens to the criminal read the record and he stops the reading whenever some oddball manipulation comes up.

For example, the criminal says he asked another prisoner for a cigarette. The therapist stops him and asks if the criminal really needed the cigarette. The criminal matter-of-factly says he didn't but it was an opportunity to mess with the other guy's mind. The therapist replies that an ordinary person wouldn't ask for the cigarette unless he really wanted it. The criminal is dumbfounded and doesn't believe it. They talk about it for awhile then go on.

The criminal says he asked for a light and held the other guys arm steady when he held the match. The therapist asks why he held the arm and the criminal says it was to show the other guy who's boss. The therapist says ordinary people wouldn't have held the arm unless the light was in danger of going out. Once again the criminal is dumbfounded. It goes on like that. Over a period of two or three years the criminal gradually learns how ordinary people think. He has to learn it, just like learning a subject in school, and when he's learned it his behavior changes because people naturally adapt to new enviornments once they comprehend them.

Now I haven't the slightest idea if this if this therapy really works. What interested me about it is that it made me wonder if some people, including fairly ordinary and intelligent people, might think so differently than myself that we almost inhabit different worlds. When someone vigorously disagrees with me but seems to have a weak argument, we might be at an impasse based on completely different assumptions about life. These assumptions are often hard to articulate and the person holding them might not even be aware of them. The same goes for me.

After reading this book I decided to make an effort to get over these impasses by arguing to what I assume are the unspoken assumptions. I also decided to assume the other person was as rational as myself and had no secret animosity or evil intent in their make-up. I've been doing this to some extent ever since I read this book and I think it's worked, or at least it works half the time, which is a lot. Of course there are genuinely crazy and evil people and this technique won't work with them, but most people aren't like that.

15 comments:

I.D.R.C. said...

I find there are lots of very rational people who I consider to be dead wrong about many things, due to highly challengable assumptions that they make. They are not prepared to have these assumptions challenged, nor do I have years to work on them, but I would not mind if they could be locked up and forced to see a psychologist.

Kali Fontecchio said...

I love how that thought of how does the other person see things can traverse a number of topics. How does that peron's mind process the same quarrel? Do they think they're infallible, do they think I think that? What do they interpret when looking at the same picture? How does that effect the argument if there is one? If one tells the other what they see and the other disagrees, is it they don't understand or it is not a worthy point in their perception?

Understanding the person you're arguing with is half the battle- maybe that is why internet blogging discords are fruitless.

Anonymous said...

Who's to say the field of psychology isn't actually a manipulative racket itself, with it's own hidden agendas?

Prozac anyone?

katzenjammer studios said...

eddie,

he sure has the face for a prison psychologist, doesn't he?

Anonymous said...

$cientology, anyone?

Anonymous said...

Gravy train for the drug lobby!

kp said...

It's interesting to see how people think. If, to use the saying, "your perception is your reality", then we do indeed live in our own particular realities. It just depends how much they will clash with others' realities that will either cause dissent or the possibility of enrichment.

Daniel said...

I have struggled with similar concepts my entire life. At one point I had argued myself into near insanity by coming to the conclusion that it is impossible to really understand another person's thought process because everyone is influenced by their unique circumstances while growing up and are therefor impossible to relate to in any meaningful way. I have since discarded this for the more healthy assumption that it is these differences that make interpersonal relationships worth it in the first place. If we all thought the same stuff there'd be no reason to meet new people or learn anything about anyone.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Louisa: I wish I could write a book or at least a thick pamphlet about religion because there's so much to say about it that's never discussed.

It's a shame that the era of pamphlets (1920s and 30s) passed away. Book stores had whole sections on pamhlets. They were cheaper than books, got to the point faster, and were easier to get published. We should bring pamphlets back!

Kali: That's true, now that I think of it. It's hard to change peoples' minds on the net. It's better for re-inforcing what you already believe. Maybe its for the reason you said.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Daniel: Good point! It reminds me of what somebody said about a popular photo exhibit called "The Family of Man." According to the critic the exhibit said in effect that we should like other cultures because they're just like us. He said a better point would have been that we should like them for their differences.

Cable: I love it when people say things to me like, "You're not really going to eat that are you!?" It's the collision of two worlds made funny.

Craig D said...

This thread's kinda "stale" so maybe you won't see this, but Scott Adams had a posting on his BLOG about something called "Confirmation Bias."

Here's a taste:

"Have you heard of something called the confirmation bias? Researchers discovered that when people hear an argument that opposes their viewpoint, the rational part of the brain takes a coffee break and the emotional side takes over. The irrational part of your brain then reinterprets reality in a way that lets you keep your dumb viewpoint against all common sense and evidence."

Fun & interesting reading! Talk about your synchronicity...

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Craig: Son of a gun! Maybe he's right. I have a feeling I'll remember that name, "confirmation bias."

I.D.R.C. said...

Researchers discovered that when people hear an argument that opposes their viewpoint, the rational part of the brain takes a coffee break and the emotional side takes over.

Maybe the problem is that many people live in a fan-based universe. People are fans of what they believe, as if there beliefs were sports teams. You knock one of their favorite teams, and you get into a fight.

Anonymous said...

It's a crying shame that David Lean passed away before he gave the world "Jack T. Chick: the Motion Picture"

I.D.R.C. said...

But pamphlets make me think of Chick tracts,

Funny, I think of Thomas Paine.