Travis,
Hey, Kenzi. These are great questions/observations. Here's some interesting insight. The checklist of traits listed are a diagnostic tool to determine where someone lies on the psychopathy spectrum. Not all psychopaths demonstrate the same set of traits. There are 20 traits in checklist. A person scores 2 points for each trait they match. If score is 30+ then diagnosis of psychopath is usually given.[Pschopathy Diagnoistic Checklist]
I don't think you need to identify with the feelings and needs of others to manipulate them.
In other words, you don't need to “feel” anything in order to closely observe someone's experience. In this way, sociopaths are very adept at putting themselves “into another person's shoes.” Because sociopaths don't experience emotions as intensely as others (at least emotions deemed positive), they become very skillful at observing emotional behavior and can mimic that behavior expertly in order to “fit in” or advance their agenda. When viewed from an apathetic distance, people can become quite predictable in their emotional responses. Sociopaths can easily use observed behavior to manipulate others for their gain.
As for behavior control issues, I don't think impulsiveness negates a calculating mind. Iago was quite impulsive when he ran in the middle of the night to harass Desdemona's father from his sleep. It could even be argued that the whole play, which only takes place over a day and a half, is the aftermath of Iago's impulsive reaction to just having been slighted by a Moor.
Oh yes, I agree with the assessment you shared with Dave. I think the “game” can be extremely intoxicating to a sociopath. I think the text harmonizes with that assessment. But I'm not sure he was giving “reasons” to justify himself. He has no need for anyone's approval or acceptance. We can also remember that this is a dramatic figure created by Shakespeare to arouse intense tragic emotions in his audience, which he succeeds at doing to great effect. So many of Iago's asides to the audience were to propel the drama. In any case, this is Shakespeare's brilliance. He puts his finger on the pulse of human nature, turns up the fire, and unleashes us upon ourselves.
Travis,
Kenzi, I'd make two points about Iago. First, I think there's a difference between identifying someone else's emotions and identifying with those emotions. Iago (and other psychopaths) could easily identify what other people were feeling. That's how he could twist and manipulate them. But to identify with other people means to put oneself in someone else's place and feel their emotions like one's own. That's what he didn't do. His feelings, even the tiny insult of his suspicions about Othello and his wife, meant everything. Other people's feelings were only important as weapons.
Second, about Iago justifying himself and giving reasons for his behavior. Yes, he knows that he's doing things other people would disapprove of and that are against the rules of his society, but that's not the same as believing what he does is objectively wrong. Bad guys always have justification for their actions, and that's part of what makes them scary. You can't reason with Iago or convince him he's doing something wrong because in his mind, he's justified. He knows he's breaking the rules, he just doesn't think those do or should apply to him.
Travis,
There are two areas in the DSM classification that I disagree Iago was. First, poor behavior control. He was very logical and even talked about using reason and seemed to for the most part have great control of what he was doing. That goes to the impulsive as well. He didn't seem impulsive, but rather very calculated. (Great example is Desdemona's handkerchief.) Second, he was willing to recognize and identify with the feelings and needs of others. If he didn't how could he manipulate so well? A person is manipulated when the person manipulating knows what they expects to hear and is able to say that at the most opportune time. Manipulation requires understanding emotion and people. Plus, the fact that he felt the need to justify, felt the need to give "reasons" to "play the game," give "reasons" for his actions, tells me that he does in fact know he is doing wrong. See my response to David. Do you agree with this assessment, or was he simply using those excuses/reasons to make the others still see him as a "honest." Was using the excuses for the benefit of others so they wouldn't see him in a bad light?
No comments:
Post a Comment