'Dark patch' visible in brain scans of killers and rapists, neurologist claims

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Evil_Santa

 

I worked in a mental hospital for about 5 years. While I worked admissions, I often would get pulled to one of the 3 behavioral modificaiton units we had. In behavioral mod, you basically have more strict interaction protocols that reinforce specific behaviors while stifling other, less desirable behaviors.

What always struck me as odd was that the programs were meant to push people more towards a standarized notion of "normal". I bristled at the notion that I was attempting to modify someones behavior by with holding things from them, or by rewarding them with something they treasured (like candy, or a cigarette). Rarely did they treasure something beneficial to them....which kind of bothered me.

In the process I noticed the above flaw (motivating the notion of behavior = unhealthy habit) along with the obvious flaw: front line staff often are not trained, nor screened appropriately, to do this type of work.

The notion of an entire science of behavioral modification should give us all a moment of pause.

You didn't happen to work in the north DFW area, at a privately owned facility, in the last 5 years by chance? (U2U me if you're curious about the facilities specific name) If so there's a good chance we met. I was on the patient side of things, and completely agree with your assessment of trying to change a person's behavior through interaction modification, because you're not targeting specific regions of the brain for change. I believe there's a blowback effect on the brain that occurs when the therapy you mentioned is applied -- which is why personality disorders are so difficult to treat.

reply to post by Evil_Santa


It was in the mid 90s at a state run facility in West Texas.

personality disorders are obnoxious to me. While i understand the illness side of it, it generally boils down to impulse control.

Either you have it, or you don't. If you don't, you are considered psychotic or sociopathic.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Evil_Santa

 

It was in the mid 90s at a state run facility in West Texas.

personality disorders are obnoxious to me. While i understand the illness side of it, it generally boils down to impulse control.

Either you have it, or you don't. If you don't, you are considered psychotic or sociopathic.

And as you used the analogy of firmware in a previous post - if the persons firmware is coded to have poor impulse control... you get where i'm going with this.

Also - depending on the personality disorder - it's pretty easy for behavioral diagnosticians to misdiagnose people who are, by their own nature, deceptive as being psychopathic/sociopathic. Even the DSM doesn't have codes for those two conditions and considers them apart of anti-social personality disorder.

reply to post by dominicus


Good one so in a society populated by mostly intelligent people wouldnt you think they would want to have their politcial leaders tested first to make sure theirs no socio, psycho - paths in the mix of making descisions that affect society at large.

reply to post by Evil_Santa



Exactly regarding the "firmware".

Another concept I have enjoyed is Ingo Swann's "Mental Information Processing Grids". While the firmware may impose some limitation (or bestow a gift) on the ability of the mind to control the brain, there are a series of mental constructs that people have that help them understand the world around them.

Like I used an analogy....that is how humans cope with that which they don't have context. Once a context is had (i.e., you can compare something to another thing which is known), you can then begin processing information regarding it. If you do not gain a context, it is all Greek to you ("noise"), and you ignore it via the GIGO function.

Behavioral modification generally tends towards installing a new mental information processing grid from which to process information. An example is how people tend to smoke while drinking (if they are smokers). Breaking that bond is key for some people to stop smoking (and often cited as a reason for failure). In the context of what you do while drinking, smoking is part of that context.

But when applied to behaviors that emanate less from mental information processing and more from a deviation in the processing of the mind signal (for lack of the better term at the moment), the effect is diminished. You can sometimes softwire the brain to account for shortcomings in hardwiring. But it is a brute force methodology requiring enormous energy and focus on the part of the clinician.

If I may, I want to point out that Prof. Dr. Gerhard Roth does have indeed a little bit tarnished kind of CV.

He is biased on this, his prior statements about criminals indicate that he is a kind of modern successor to the old believe in phrenology (the pseudoscience of measurements of the human head to determine the mental faculties of any person).

He thinks that the mental facilities of everybody are pre-determined and cannot be changed, so that one might say that a baby is guilty of its future misdoings and can therefore be jailed away (okay, he spoke of children or juveniles), ignoring that there are legal, ethical and moral problems which make his point of view like the pseudo-Orwellian "pre-cognition" movie "Minority Report".

You just can't jail someone up who didn't do anything yet. There are things like "innocent until proven guilty" and "non bis in idem" law.


This professor has some very strange and dark ideas himself.

I like the article implication that all criminals are evil individuals. Straight out the USA textbook of bull#.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


And neurofeedback gradually flashes new firmware to the ROM. It's not traditional "let's talk about your feelings" therapy. In fact, beyond the therapist asking the person how they've been feeling to ensure no negative effects of therapy are occurring, there's no talking. Go do some research on it, it seems to me that you would fine it very informative.

I'm a living case that neurofeedback works. Avoidant Personality Disorder diagnosis right here. Not having to brute-force my software to change the way the hardware works. I changed how my hardware works through neurofeedback, and that's over-spilled into software working properly.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
If I may, I want to point out that Prof. Dr. Gerhard Roth does have indeed a little bit tarnished kind of CV.

He is biased on this, his prior statements about criminals indicate that he is a kind of modern successor to the old believe in phrenology (the pseudoscience of measurements of the human head to determine the mental faculties of any person).
He thinks that the mental facilities of everybody are pre-determined and cannot be changed, so that one might say that a baby is guilty of its future misdoings and can therefore be jailed away (okay, he spoke of children or juveniles), ignoring that there are legal, ethical and moral problems which make his point of view like the pseudo-Orwellian "pre-cognition" movie "Minority Report".

You just can't jail someone up who didn't do anything yet. There are things like "innocent until proven guilty" and "non bis in idem" law.


This professor has some very strange and dark ideas himself.

I bolded the statement that if he has made, he needs to be shut out of the industry for making such claims. There is plenty of evidence that people can change neurological processes - even if they're over 50 years old. It sounds to me like he's of the mindset that came out of the 70's in psychology, where a person's brain is done baking by the time they're 30 years old, and after that, they can't change. It's a total BS theory though.

Well...there goes free-will.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by dominicus

 

Good one so in a society populated by mostly intelligent people wouldnt you think they would want to have their politcial leaders tested first to make sure theirs no socio, psycho - paths in the mix of making descisions that affect society at large.

Oh I'm sure they'd think of some excuse to make themselves exempt.

reply to post by Evil_Santa

I bolded the statement that if he has made, he needs to be shut out of the industry for making such claims. There is plenty of evidence that people can change neurological processes - even if they're over 50 years old. It sounds to me like he's of the mindset that came out of the 70's in psychology, where a person's brain is done baking by the time they're 30 years old, and after that, they can't change. It's a total BS theory though.

Yea I'm sure a Psychopath Neurotic will be willingly signing up to change themselves vie neurofeedback, considering the top 10 Psychopaths in the work force (a recent study confirmed) are the bankers, GOV officials, law enforcement agencies, and so forth.

Also I believe a lot of these things are genetic. For example I'm of Eastern Euro origin Russia/Ukraine/Poland , and I have a strong pull towards drinking, which through free will, I simply avoid.

Originally posted by Abstruse
Eugenics is alive and well. I'd like to find out what the results would be if he scanned many government/religious officials. Although, I don't have much faith in this 'test'; it would be a fun experiment.

I wish I could give 50 stars. A scan of the last 4 US administrations would probably be *very* revealing.

I have many reasons for believing this, most convincing of which is the result of hemispherectomies. One kid actually went on to complete high school and graduate college after having half his brain removed.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I watched a show with a few that had undergone this procedure and are perfectly fine. This is the closest to evidence for an external consciousness I have ever read.

However, there's a little problem with this particular evidence. There have been cases where someone has had the left hemisphere removed, and others had the right side removed. If a piece of the brain is designed to receive external information, where is this receiver?

reply to post by dominicus


Where is a link to this study on psychopaths in the workplace. I would be curious to read it and you're right - they don't have to go through any type of therapy.

Were you raised in a culture that promotes heavy drinking, or do you sincerely believe that it's "in your genes"?

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
reply to post by dominicus

 

Where is a link to this study on psychopaths in the workplace. I would be curious to read it and you're right - they don't have to go through any type of therapy.

Professions with the most Psychopaths and how it effects our world
thread

think this may also be relevant:
Stereotypes True? Linked to Genes? Study shows Genes tell mice how to build burrows..
thread

Were you raised in a culture that promotes heavy drinking, or do you sincerely believe that it's "in your genes"?

yes raised in that type of culture, but even as a child, I always remember concluding that drinking is dumb and makes you act like an idiot. All the disgusting, egotistical, violent acts I've ever seen from my old man, uncles, family members ....was while they were drunk. So I always had a sub-conscious tendency to avoid alcohol and events where there will be lots of drinking.

I've taken a whole year off, just to shake the urge. But it's always there, comes and goes. It's like a bodily urge for the drink

reply to post by jiggerj



Yet another interesting question. Usually your questions are not something I have thought much about before you asked. This one has been on my mind off and on for many years. And you know what? I got nothing.

Well, nothing substantial. We can wax philosophical for sure. But if I could pinpoint a part of the brain that receives external signals, then I could also pinpoint where the signal was from and what it said. That would be proving out "the other side", and it just ain't likely to happen (at least, not in our lifetime).

But I do have some ideas around where it may be.

Ingo Swann (i cite him a lot....he really was a brilliant man) talked about the multiple sensory organs that we have. While I didn't delve deeply into all of them, I can cite at least 1 that is irrefutable and well known: the VNO. It is a small channel that connects a nerve directly into the brain. It is a pheremone receptor that is not proven nor disproven to be "active" in humans.

Other concepts of senses are hot, cold (yes, they are two different sensations enacting separate biological responses), magnetic (in the hands/feet), even your field of vision (you have cones and rods, each doing different tasks).

The thing about the 5 senses, however, is that they are powerful. They are always on, very loud, often creating noise. I use the term "noise" less as in audible sound and more as in an interruption of meaningful signal. All that sound going on, the bright lights, that throbbing toothache, or the bitter taste in the back of your mouth. All these senses are so powerful that conscious perception of the more sublime senses is drowned out in a field of blaring noise.

There are many who practice various meditations in order to isolate and identify things such as more sublime senses. Some people just naturally are more attuned to them than others, just like some are faster, and some are stronger. Those who are tend to be considered psychic, or just weird (can you imagine living in a reality where you could sense magnetic fields, and think it a normal ability?)

A cornerstone of my thoughts on this are that what Dr Hal Puthoff did at SRI is absolutely true as told by Ingo Swann (which Puthoff has supported as truth...Puthoff, himself, is no small figure in science). Swann had the natural ability for whatever perceptions were required for remote viewing. As well, he had a degree in biology and a love for science. Due to this interesting mix of talents/interests, he spent quite a bit of time trying to analyze, from a scientific point of view, what was happening in the SRI studies on remote viewing. His points seem to be very salient, and his presentation very articulate, well thought, and rational. Of course, he is wordy, but if you can wade through the words that he uses ("Mental Information Processing Grid", for example, is repeated ad nauseum in his "database") it is very informative

One of the things that he noticed was that the "communication" happened instantaneously over any distance. There was no "upload" time. Whatever time differences may exist were irrelevant to what he was viewing. So it was instantaneous, and disregarded time. This, to me, would appear to be a quantum, or possibly supraquantum or subquantum level communication. Or maybe something even more exotic, who knows. There has been talk of monatomic elements also having some role to play, as well as constructs known as "microtubules".(if you look at the bottom of the Wiki, it will reference some material as well as its controversy).

Something else that Ingo discussed that has made me consider....muscle memory. In my younger years I was an all state football player. My high school coach used to scream at us, "DON'T THINK, REACT!!!". It seems like a stupid command until you witness karate experts reacting to movements of their opponents faster than you can even perceive that an attack is underway. Or, even the unease you hear people get that keeps them from boarding a plane that ends up crashing.

But to not think, and instead allow reactions to just happen....what is controlling those reactions? The flinch that you catch and stop (after looking like a moron)....what made that motion happen? If you aren't consciously controlling such a massive action (it isn't like breathing, or the hearbeating, which happens non stop from birth to death), then what is controlling it?

Could there be another "self" that exists beneath the conscious? Lobsang Rampa, be he a quack or not, used the term "overself" to describe this, whatever it is. Call it your soul, or like Ingo Swann did, call it your subconscious. But something has the ability to usurp control of your body in emergencies, and it isn't Jesus taking the wheel.

Since i am at my character limit, I will stop there and see what you have to say.

Scientists should hit the dark patch with UV Light.


UV Light makes the demons go away. Flash the brain with UV Light.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Could there be another "self" that exists beneath the conscious? Lobsang Rampa, be he a quack or not, used the term "overself" to describe this, whatever it is. Call it your soul, or like Ingo Swann did, call it your subconscious. But something has the ability to usurp control of your body in emergencies, and it isn't Jesus taking the wheel. Since i am at my character limit, I will stop there and see what you have to say.

Throughout your post I tried denying memories of when I didn't 'think, but reacted' to events where I shouldn't have been able to do what I did. In one such memory I was on lunch break at work. In the lunch room, a bunch of other workers were fooling around while I read the newspaper. Back then we were allowed to smoke inside. Anyway, I happened to look up from the paper and reacted to this flat ashtray flying right at my head. The guys were playing frisbie with it. I caught the thing just an inch from my forehead. What I mean by caught is that my hand was on the table and then it was holding the ashtray at eye level with no apparent thought to do so. I can't emphasize enough the impossible speed of which this was done. Overself? Coincedence? Who knows?

I think what most people are missing out in this thread, is the fact that trauma can actually affect your brain physically and mentally.

In other words, you can not X-Ray a baby at birth and check if it will become a murderer or not.
Of all people, here on ATS everyone should know this as there are dozens of threads about how the brain can be affacted by drugs/trauma/injuries.
That is why the legal system even has a mental evaluation of criminals. Don't get strain on the subject regarding the ethics and morals. Nothing new here, and this scientist will be criticized to hell for not using basic common sense around his field.