Blows My Mind
I'm beginning to see why there's resistence to the idea that narcissists and psychopaths aren't just good people from bad homes who can be talked into being nice if you give them a puppy, a musical instrument, and a little group therapy. There are a lot of sociologists, psychologists, mental healthcare workers and social workers heavilly invested in the staus quo. People who don't want to admit they're wrong. People who don't want to admit they've been conned. People who don't want to admit that they're doing more harm than good.
Dr. Grant Harris, Director of Research at Ontario's psychiatric hospital writes:
As you probably know, there was a special therapeutic community for mentally disordered offenders from the mid-1960's until 1978. The program was unique and many worldwide experts were impressed with its methods for psychopaths.
On the other hand, when we measured the results with a follow-up study, we found something different. The program seemed to make the psychopaths more dangerous rather than less. Psychopaths behaved much worse in the program but were just as likely to be made program leaders and get recommended for release. Experts’ impressions and the measurement of results gave exactly opposite conclusions.
New research by Michael Seto and Howard Barbaree adds to these data. They did a follow-up study of an up-to-date therapy for sex offenders in a Canadian prison. They compared psychopaths to other offenders and studied therapists’ ratings of how well the offenders had progressed in treatment. Clinicians’ ratings of progress were inversely related to recidivism -- offenders the clinicians rated as having done well were more likely to commit serious new offenses. And this was especially true among the psychopaths. Clincians’ impressions and measurement of outcome gave exactly opposite conclusions.
As he points out here in a more recent article, there is actually evidence that treatment makes psychopaths more likely to re-offend upon release!
Our follow-up research showed, however, that the program reduced recidivism among patients who were not psychopaths, but increased the violent recidivism of psychopaths (compared to prison). We think this research teaches some valuable lessons: Clinicians cannot assume that their efforts are beneficial; it is possible to do harm. This fact has been demonstrated elsewhere — some well-intentioned services actually increase the likelihood of crime.
The only way to know whether services are effective is to evaluate outcomes. Our research showed that psychopaths actually behaved more poorly in the program (compared to the other patients), but were as likely, or even more likely, to be trusted by the clinical staff.
He also points out that almost all data is gathered from the subjective impressions of staff evaluators instead of scientifically through objective measurements. Here again, we have psychology forgetting to be a science, folks!
Right, to find out how good a job these folks are doing, ask THEM to evaluate it, duh.
Nooooo, THEY won't get conned by somebody who says he suddenly found Jesus.
THAT is indefensible. I can hardly believe it. How is this establishment getting away with this? I smell goody-two-shoes social engineering by people who won't admit they're wrong no matter how many psychos get let free to prove them wrong by laughing out the door to kill and rape again. Is this establishment that held in lockstep by what's politically correct that nobody dares blow the whistle?
See more information here.