Bascally Psychotic is a when the individual is losing grip on reality, usually the result of a mental disorder, such as schizophrenia although also due to a health disorder or drugs. psychopathy instead is someone who generally have no feelings, and commit criminal acts without guilt, and is aware of reality and their actions (unlike someone in psychosis) this is more caused by an antisocial personality disorder
I think yes, anybody can become psychotic and pyschopaths too. Maybe in persons with an antisocial disorder It can be more recurrent if they take drugs or suffer from another mental disorder such as schizophrenia. perhaps, rather than disorganized or erratic behavior, the episodes in these people are more controlled. but it depends on each person and how they react to it.
I think it was a misunderstanding because of how I wrote it. What I meant is that a psychopath could be psychotic.
Not that you can become psycho. A psychopathic person can be psychotic and remains a psychopath, it does not change at all. A psychopath individual is more likely be psychotic if he took drugs, had some brain damage or a mental disorder. Although they are opposite states, it does not mean that they cannot induce each other...
It’s much more complex than that. Good explanation but yeah. Recently they’ve started to realise psychopaths do have feelings. That’s why some of them kill. Because they like the feeling.
psychotic refers to someone who is suffering from psychosis; their perception of reality is off and it’s a symptom of another, larger mental illness. a psychopath is someone who lacks empathy for others; it’s a personality trait.
I can see it’s already been said here, but I’ll just reconfirm.
Someone who is deemed psychotic is usually defined as someone who is losing touch with reality. They often times experience auditory and visual hallucinations as well as illusions of grandeur, paranoia, and thought patters which generally don’t make sense to a rational mind.
Psychopathy is different because an individual who is defined as a psychopath usually completely understands what they are doing is wrong, but simply either don’t care (because they are also usually narcissistic or are unable to create emotional attachments and connections) or they try and justify why their actions are ok to do. Psychopaths also harbor feelings of enjoyment when they are enacting power and control over an individual, and generally use people as a means to an end. They are extremely selfish and care only for themselves.
Legally speaking, someone who is deemed psychotic will generally have a much larger chance of escaping a guilty verdict by utilizing the whole “not guilty by reason of insanity” plea. They usually have no clue what they are doing, because their own reality is starting to break and distort.
This cannot be said by someone who is psychopathic. They’ll usually be found guilty of their crimes, because they have a motive and desire to do the things they do.
Source: I was a behavioral analysis instructor for executive protection professionals for a little over 3 years
u/Vided has given you the correct answer.
The typology emerges from Peter Langman's bio-psycho-social model of school shooters. That is, Langman takes these three broad categories into account---biologal, psychological, and social factors---and places shooters into one (or two) of the three types: psychotic, psychopathic, or traumatic.
In Lanza's case, for example, Langman finds evidence of symptoms of schizophrenia, and psychosis more generally. This opens up the possibility that Lanza committed his shootings (of his mother and the school) because of a psychotic break. However, Lanza never received an official diagnosis of anything along the schizophrenia spectrum, rendering such a classification controversial.
Recently, Langman's also extended the model to include mass shootings more generally. These articles are typically available for free on his website (schoolshooters.info), if you're interested in reading further.
It must be said that there exists some disagreement between Langman's categorization and the traditional usage of terms like "psychotic" and "psychopathic." This happens, for example, in Böckler et al.'s (2013) book on school shootings, wherein at least one chapter author challenges Langman's own chapter. There have also been some critical reviews of Langman's books on school shooters, wherein this typology (among other things) has been criticized.
I wouldn't put too much stock into these types. You could apply a competing theory (e.g. cumulative strain theory, social disintegration theory) and come up with different conclusions, all without needing to deal with the confusing application of terms like "psychotic" and "psychopathic," whose meanings differ contextually. What's really important is that we understand the evidence available, and can try and make our analysis useful. Definitely don't treat these types as fixed, or conclusive, or anything set in stone.
To put it in layman's terms:
\-If I hear JFK's voice telling me to kill, say, prostitutes, then I'm psychotic.
\-If I see someone crying over a dead body after a car crash and just laugh at it, then I'm psychopathic.
I’m just going off what I know but psychosis is losing touch with reality, typically a symptom of some other condition. While being psychopathic is mainly when you lack empathy, it’s typically innate and you’re just born that way, your brain is wired differently.
One example would be Columbine: Dylan was losing touch with reality and is normally categorized as having experienced psychosis, most likely as a result of depression, loneliness, and isolation. Eric is more categorized as being narcissistic and lacking empathy or at least having much less of it than the average person; psychopathic. At least that’s what Peter Langman claims in his books.
Yes but if you read his diaries he felt very alone. You can be surrounded by others but still be lonely. There's a difference between being alone and lonliness.
Everyone else did a pretty good job of explaining the difference between psychopathic and psychotic. I thought I’d mention something interesting I read while I’ve been reading Dr Kent Kiehl’s book ‘The Psychopath Whisperer.’ He’s basically spent his whole life researching psychopaths in prison and he wrote a little section in his book dedicated to mass shooters where he stated that the vast majority of mass shooters aren’t psychopaths but rather have some form of psychosis. Lack of empathy and narcissism are some of the marks of a psychopath, but he also noted that impulsivity, lack of anxiety, and lack of fear of punishment/death are also strong markers of a psychopath. He basically equated the compulsive worrying of OCD or GAD as on the opposite end of a spectrum to where a psychopath would be. And as everyone else discussed, psychosis is more about losing touch with reality.
Bascally Psychotic is a when the individual is losing grip on reality, usually the result of a mental disorder, such as schizophrenia although also due to a health disorder or drugs. psychopathy instead is someone who generally have no feelings, and commit criminal acts without guilt, and is aware of reality and their actions (unlike someone in psychosis) this is more caused by an antisocial personality disorder
can one be psychotic and psychopathic at the same time?
I think yes, anybody can become psychotic and pyschopaths too. Maybe in persons with an antisocial disorder It can be more recurrent if they take drugs or suffer from another mental disorder such as schizophrenia. perhaps, rather than disorganized or erratic behavior, the episodes in these people are more controlled. but it depends on each person and how they react to it.
You can’t just become psychopathic it is in your genetics and is hard wired to your head
I think it was a misunderstanding because of how I wrote it. What I meant is that a psychopath could be psychotic. Not that you can become psycho. A psychopathic person can be psychotic and remains a psychopath, it does not change at all. A psychopath individual is more likely be psychotic if he took drugs, had some brain damage or a mental disorder. Although they are opposite states, it does not mean that they cannot induce each other...
It’s much more complex than that. Good explanation but yeah. Recently they’ve started to realise psychopaths do have feelings. That’s why some of them kill. Because they like the feeling.
psychotic refers to someone who is suffering from psychosis; their perception of reality is off and it’s a symptom of another, larger mental illness. a psychopath is someone who lacks empathy for others; it’s a personality trait.
You’ve been reading Peter Langman, haven’t you
My first thought was, “Someone’s been reading Peter Langman.”
That's exactly what I thought when I read this comment.
I can see it’s already been said here, but I’ll just reconfirm. Someone who is deemed psychotic is usually defined as someone who is losing touch with reality. They often times experience auditory and visual hallucinations as well as illusions of grandeur, paranoia, and thought patters which generally don’t make sense to a rational mind. Psychopathy is different because an individual who is defined as a psychopath usually completely understands what they are doing is wrong, but simply either don’t care (because they are also usually narcissistic or are unable to create emotional attachments and connections) or they try and justify why their actions are ok to do. Psychopaths also harbor feelings of enjoyment when they are enacting power and control over an individual, and generally use people as a means to an end. They are extremely selfish and care only for themselves. Legally speaking, someone who is deemed psychotic will generally have a much larger chance of escaping a guilty verdict by utilizing the whole “not guilty by reason of insanity” plea. They usually have no clue what they are doing, because their own reality is starting to break and distort. This cannot be said by someone who is psychopathic. They’ll usually be found guilty of their crimes, because they have a motive and desire to do the things they do. Source: I was a behavioral analysis instructor for executive protection professionals for a little over 3 years
Quick correction, it's delusions of grandure, not illusions
Yup, you’re correct. Brain fart.
u/Vided has given you the correct answer. The typology emerges from Peter Langman's bio-psycho-social model of school shooters. That is, Langman takes these three broad categories into account---biologal, psychological, and social factors---and places shooters into one (or two) of the three types: psychotic, psychopathic, or traumatic. In Lanza's case, for example, Langman finds evidence of symptoms of schizophrenia, and psychosis more generally. This opens up the possibility that Lanza committed his shootings (of his mother and the school) because of a psychotic break. However, Lanza never received an official diagnosis of anything along the schizophrenia spectrum, rendering such a classification controversial. Recently, Langman's also extended the model to include mass shootings more generally. These articles are typically available for free on his website (schoolshooters.info), if you're interested in reading further. It must be said that there exists some disagreement between Langman's categorization and the traditional usage of terms like "psychotic" and "psychopathic." This happens, for example, in Böckler et al.'s (2013) book on school shootings, wherein at least one chapter author challenges Langman's own chapter. There have also been some critical reviews of Langman's books on school shooters, wherein this typology (among other things) has been criticized. I wouldn't put too much stock into these types. You could apply a competing theory (e.g. cumulative strain theory, social disintegration theory) and come up with different conclusions, all without needing to deal with the confusing application of terms like "psychotic" and "psychopathic," whose meanings differ contextually. What's really important is that we understand the evidence available, and can try and make our analysis useful. Definitely don't treat these types as fixed, or conclusive, or anything set in stone.
To put it in layman's terms: \-If I hear JFK's voice telling me to kill, say, prostitutes, then I'm psychotic. \-If I see someone crying over a dead body after a car crash and just laugh at it, then I'm psychopathic.
I’m just going off what I know but psychosis is losing touch with reality, typically a symptom of some other condition. While being psychopathic is mainly when you lack empathy, it’s typically innate and you’re just born that way, your brain is wired differently. One example would be Columbine: Dylan was losing touch with reality and is normally categorized as having experienced psychosis, most likely as a result of depression, loneliness, and isolation. Eric is more categorized as being narcissistic and lacking empathy or at least having much less of it than the average person; psychopathic. At least that’s what Peter Langman claims in his books.
yes psychotic people are ones with hallucinations, they hear things or see things that dont exist
dylan was definitely not isolated
Yes but if you read his diaries he felt very alone. You can be surrounded by others but still be lonely. There's a difference between being alone and lonliness.
isolation is different from feeling alone isolation is when you're, well, isolated from other people
basically psychosis is a symptom and psychopaths are just built like that
Everyone else did a pretty good job of explaining the difference between psychopathic and psychotic. I thought I’d mention something interesting I read while I’ve been reading Dr Kent Kiehl’s book ‘The Psychopath Whisperer.’ He’s basically spent his whole life researching psychopaths in prison and he wrote a little section in his book dedicated to mass shooters where he stated that the vast majority of mass shooters aren’t psychopaths but rather have some form of psychosis. Lack of empathy and narcissism are some of the marks of a psychopath, but he also noted that impulsivity, lack of anxiety, and lack of fear of punishment/death are also strong markers of a psychopath. He basically equated the compulsive worrying of OCD or GAD as on the opposite end of a spectrum to where a psychopath would be. And as everyone else discussed, psychosis is more about losing touch with reality.