It seems anything that is unfavourable gets labelled as narcissistic, psychopathic or sadistic, but this is not truly accurate
Here’s an article that just caught my eye. After looking it over I half-jokingly reflected that I probably should have majored in deviance. That’s a category that social psychologists and especially sociologists use to describe their perception of all that doesn’t quite fit into the norm.
There are a lot of problems with the above-linked article. And that’s probably why I went on to study comparative religion in the Department of Philosophy and Religion (Visva Bharati) and then psychology and religion in the Department of Religious Studies (U Ottawa). These grad studies helped to provide the broader canvass I needed to keep growing, both personally and intellectually.
The above article does, however, paint a pretty good picture of how standard psychology sees things in the 21st century—as thin and ‘clinical’ as that may be.
For me, cold unemotional, and unethical behavior stems from a combination of influences ranging from the physiological, the psychological, the social, and the spiritual. To ignore any one of these factors would be a mistake. Sometimes in the past, I have minimized what psychiatry says in my enthusiasm to explore other avenues. But that’s no good either.
We need balance. A balanced approach to life. That means accepting the helpful aspects of any discipline yet rejecting those beliefs and practices that are potentially harmful.
For me, this combines art, science, philosophy, and spirituality.
Some folks think we should restrict ourselves to a particular line of thinking or approach.
But is life really like that?