Alternative logic systems versus sociopathic traits.

[Park]

I've notished that the logic systems of some types seems to differ a lot more from society norm than value systems does in generel. In specific, alternative logic systems seems to be a more common phenonomen among NTs and STPs than other types. As a result, I feared, for a period of time that I was an anti-social persona. Silly perhaps but not when you look at how easy it is to confuse an alternative logic system with anti-social/sociopathic traits. And while the acts carried out by a anti-social person and a person with an alternative logic system may look similar – there are clear distinctions. A person with an alternative logicsystem just acts in accordence with an alternative set of rules (it is still rules though) where as the anti-social person have neither a functional value system or logic system to base their actions on and as such does not have the same limitations when it comes to satisfy desires/urges or act on impulses.

In this "Are You A Sociopath?" ladies magazine test, I ended up at 44% and were described like this: You're not a sociopath, but you're very prone to antisocial behavior. Other people's opinions matter little to you. You live your own fringe life - for better or worse.

The test is obviously insufficient when it comes to diagnose a sociopath but the questions reflects very well society's perceptions of bad character traits. However, I'm positive that a person with an alternative logic system much more extreme than mine could reach a much much higher score and still fit the frames of a non-criminal, relatively social, relatively harmless, lovable, productive and good citizen.

I've lined up some of the questions I replied yes to and tried to explain what lies behind my answers:

You don't have a problem lying to get what you want.
To me it's a matter of cost/benefit. To me, honesty can be a virtue but so can dishonesty. They are just opposites on a scale and where I place myself depends on the situation.

You have a love/hate relationship with your parents.
I love my parents but isn't blind to the fact that I carry around younger versions of myself who feels differently.

It's hard for you to be loyal.
Again, cost/benefit.

You don't think in terms of "right" and "wrong."
Not when it comes to human behaviour.

It's hard for you to empathize with people's problems.
I answered *no* to this, just wanted to comment that a well-functioning Fe is not uncommon for a sociopath Ted Bundy was a good example.

You break people's trust
Again, cost/benefit.

You are very good at manipulating people and situations.
Yes, but skill does not equal will.

You see people as your pawns.
Yes, and at the same time I see myself as other peoples pawn. I use and let myself be used – what's wrong with that anyway?

In other words, I am from time to time deliberately a lier, disloyal, untrustworthy and a person who uses other people for my own benefit but I still consider myself to fit the methaphor profile of a good citizen.

 

[ptgatsby]

Reminds me of a conversation I had early on in philosophy.

Is stealing wrong? Me: Yes
What if you are starving? Me: Yes
So you'd starve rather than steal? Me: No
So it is ok to steal if you are starving? Me: No

There is something intrinsic about morality that makes people believe they always act morally. I do not agree. I know what is right and wrong, but I don't try to justify it by shifting my view to make my actions right. I simply do wrong when I must.

I hated philosophy.

Course, this is different than your utilitarian/pragmatic/self serving approach Park, but it seems that there are certain assumptions made to layman's philosophy...

 

[Park]

Reminds me of a conversation I had early on in philosophy.

Is stealing wrong? Me: Yes
What if you are starving? Me: Yes
So you'd starve rather than steal? Me: No
So it is ok to steal if you are starving? Me: No

Hey, you were the one who made me try to remember to use bad and wrong in the right context :steam:. Stealing=bad but not wrong - remember?

There is something intrinsic about morality that makes people believe they always act morally. I do not agree. I know what is right and wrong, but I don't try to justify it by shifting my view to make my actions right. I simply do wrong when I must.

I hated philosophy.

Course, this is different than your utilitarian/pragmatic/self serving approach Park, but it seems that there are certain assumptions made to layman's philosophy...

I'm not sure understand the above pt? Once again for the slow Dane please.

 

[ptgatsby]

Hey, you were the one who made me try to remember to use bad and wrong in the right context :steam:. Stealing=bad but not wrong - remember?

Depends on context This was just for arguments in class, so you assume certain stances.

I'm not sure understand the above pt? Once again for the slow Dane please.

Two seperate things;

1) I hate that morality assumes that people act in accordance to their own morality (ie: if I steal, it is because I think stealing is ok). The act of making a decision defines your morality - it seems strangely difficult to convince people that one chose to act wrongly intentionally.

2) You have a very subjective view of morality which isn't all that accepted. You believe that the choices you make are about balancing costs versus benefits... Utilitarian views measure both sides (for example, if it will help the other person lots vs hurt you a little, you'll still hurt yourself a little to help them a lot).

I find that both cases confuse a good amount of people, that's all.

 

[Park]

Two seperate things;

1) I hate that morality assumes that people act in accordance to their own morality (ie: if I steal, it is because I think stealing is ok). The act of making a decision defines your morality - it seems strangely difficult to convince people that one chose to act wrongly intentionally.

Ah get it, yes it can be usefull to remember that the phase "to practice as we preach" can be bended as well and sometimes it makes little sense not to do so - makes me think about the rule obsessive Javert from Les Misérables.

2) You have a very subjective view of morality which isn't all that accepted. You believe that the choices you make are about balancing costs versus benefits... Utilitarian views measure both sides (for example, if it will help the other person lots vs hurt you a little, you'll still hurt yourself a little to help them a lot).

I really should take a philosophy class. I think there are a lot of views and angles towards life I would find amusing but yes, after hitting it on wiki that is very close to what I am (I did say all along I wasn't a sociopath didn't I ?).

 

[Xander]

Interesting..

Is being a sociopath necessarily bad? No.

If being a sociopath means that you don't know the difference between right and wrong then who decides on that ability to judge and who's rights and wrongs are used as the criteria?

If it is social norms of right and wrong then could not any true free thinker be a sociopath as they only opt to uphold ideas of right and wrong which happen to coincide with those upheld by society.
[admittedly that's probably me missing something out of the exacting symptoms attributed to a sociopath]

Also interesting is the thinking that you don't always do what you think is right.

Why would a person do something unless they thought it was right? Surely all acts are justified at the point when they are committed and only subject to self recrimination afterwards?

 

[Park]

Interesting..

Is being a sociopath necessarily bad? No.

If being a sociopath means that you don't know the difference between right and wrong then who decides on that ability to judge and who's rights and wrongs are used as the criteria?

I do think many sociopaths are aware of society norm when it comes to good and bad.

If it is social norms of right and wrong then could not any true free thinker be a sociopath as they only opt to uphold ideas of right and wrong which happen to coincide with those upheld by society.

I think there is a distinction to be made. We all have desires, urges and impulses but without an inner well-functional value or logic system to moderate our behaviour, everything becomes fair game.

Also interesting is the thinking that you don't always do what you think is right.

That wasn't me but ptgatsby. He thinks e.g. stealing is bad (i.e. the act of stealing has a negative value to begin with) but would under the right circumstances do it anyway.

I'm different, stealing has a neutral value to me but obtains either a negative or positive value depending on the situation the theft is carried out in.

Why would a person do something unless they thought it was right?

For e.g. Christians, stealing has a negative value to begin with but unless they are redicurlessly obsessed with text book rules - it doesn't mean that they wouldn't steal under the right circumstances.

 

[Park]

Is stealing wrong? Me: Yes
What if you are starving? Me: Yes
So you'd starve rather than steal? Me: No
So it is ok to steal if you are starving? Me: No

To make an example, my version of ptgatsby stealing questionary would look like this:
Is stealing wrong? Me: It can be.
What if you are starving? Me: It can be.
So you'd starve rather than steal? Me: Depends on the situation.
So it is ok to steal if you are starving? Me: Depends on the situation

 

[Xander]

I do think many sociopaths are aware of society norm when it comes to good and bad.

Are they aware of it as "the societies norm" or as a value which is desirable? It's a critical distinction I think.

I think there is a distinction to be made. We all have desires, urges and impulses but without an inner well-functional value or logic system to moderate our behaviour, everything becomes fair game.

I knew for many years that 2+2=4 but I only understood it a few years ago.
I studied maths in school and was taught that a minus multiplied by a minus is a plus but only once I'd reached university did it occur to me to ask why and then understood (thought I've forgotten it now).

Before understanding how can you say it's your value? Imposed values are not your own. A freethinking mind looks at why it may be bad to kill by disregarding the imposed values. Only after they have done this do they decide if killing is bad or not.

That's the difference I'm thinking of.

That wasn't me but ptgatsby. He thinks e.g. stealing is bad (i.e. the act of stealing has a negative value to begin with) but would under the right circumstances do it anyway.

What interests me is that if he can do it anyway then does he validate doing it? If he validates doing it then what is the difference between that and it being right? If the only difference is the period for which the validation stands then it still stands that at that instance it was evaluated as the right thing to do.

I'm different, stealing has a neutral value to me but obtains either a negative or positive value depending on the situation the theft is carried out in.

Is that different, more honest or just cynical though?

For e.g. Christians, stealing has a negative value to begin with but unless they are redicurlessly obsessed with text book rules - it doesn't mean that they wouldn't steal under the right circumstances.

Exterior values again. Are they the same thing?

(Oh and Park, you got Firefox? It spell checks. Oh and I'm not scoring points off you dear. That's partially why I use it )

 

[Xander]

Good idea.
My version.

Q. Is stealing wrong?
A. As a generalisation, yes.

Q. What if you are starving?
A. Again as a generalisation, yes but in terms of stealing food from someone who will not suffer unduly from it's absence then possibly not. In fact probably not as life is worth more than food in my opinion.

Q. So you'd starve rather than steal?
A. No. That'd be martyring myself for something I do not value that highly.

Q. So it is ok to steal if you are starving?
A. Absolutely it CAN be. Depending upon circumstances.

How'd I do?

Am I sociopath yet?

 

[Totenkindly]

Personally, I think psychological terms are thrown around with far too startling regularity. With the increase of private therapy for people and diagnoses being thrown around left and right so people can receive medication, many words have made it into the common vernacular that I think used to have more meaning. Many of the these "mental illnesses" should really be reserved for people who cannot function independently in society without treatment.

"Sociopath" happens to be a word I would not apply to general members of the population. I even bristle a bit when I hear it applied to people like Scott Peterson; I would not nearly place him on the same level as a Ted Bundy type. There needs to be some distinction in how words are used, or they lose meaning.

This was just a test created for a "lark" and to catch people's eye. (The "Oh look, my friend is a psycho!" curiosity.)

Am I sociopath yet?

Well, YOU are... but what's that have to do with anything?

 

[kuranes]

There is something intrinsic about morality that makes people believe they always act morally. I do not agree. I know what is right and wrong, but I don't try to justify it by shifting my view to make my actions right. I simply do wrong when I must.
..........
Course, this is different than your utilitarian/pragmatic/self serving approach Park, but it seems that there are certain assumptions made to layman's philosophy...

Good point.

I also think that the "decisions made under duress" applies in this discussion. Using an extreme example - if a camel caravan stopped after noticing you standing in a desert near death from having become stranded there somehow, they might make you an offer to join them to avoid dying of thirst etc., but tell you that in order to do so you must become a slave of theirs for life. They tell you that you can choose to stay there and die in the desert as a "free" person or willingly join the caravan as a slave. Would you be honest with them and say that you were choosing to stay in the desert ? Would you tell them "I'll join as a slave until my first opportunity to escape you?" or would you pretend to be a slave and act as though you accepted their reasoning ? Many situations in life seem less extreme examples of this. One accepts "offers" made ( situations ) and discards them when the time is right.

Such decisions are even easier to make or "justify" for someone who feels their very presence in the "desert" itself was compelled by circumstances beyond a reasonable amount of control. Of course this sort of thinking can be carried to an opposite extreme where people say ( in all sincerity ) "I didn't so much "steal" an item from X, as take advantage of X not following a default obligation level of protectiveness."

 

[Xander]

Personally, I think psychological terms are thrown around with far too startling regularity. With the increase of private therapy for people and diagnoses being thrown around left and right so people can receive medication, many words have made it into the common vernacular that I think used to have more meaning. Many of the these "mental illnesses" should really be reserved for people who cannot function independently in society without treatment.

Hypochondriac

"Sociopath" happens to be a word I would not apply to general members of the population. I even bristle a bit when I hear it applied to people like Scott Peterson; I would not nearly place him on the same level as a Ted Bundy type. There needs to be some distinction in how words are used, or they lose meaning.

In which case then the parameters need better defining.

This was just a test created for a "lark" and to catch people's eye. (The "Oh look, my friend is a psycho!" curiosity.)

Seriously, they ALL are. One man's joke is another man's truth.

Well, YOU are... but what's that have to do with anything?

Apple polisher.

 

[Xander]

Good point.

I also think that the "decisions made under duress" applies in this discussion. Using an extreme example - if a camel caravan stopped after noticing you standing in a desert near death from having become stranded there somehow, they might make you an offer to join them to avoid dying of thirst etc., but tell you that in order to do so you must become a slave of theirs for life. They tell you that you can choose to stay there and die in the desert as a "free" person or willingly join the caravan as a slave. Would you be honest with them and say that you were choosing to stay in the desert ? Would you tell them "I'll join as a slave until my first opportunity to escape you?" or would you pretend to be a slave and act as though you accepted their reasoning ? Many situations in life seem less extreme examples of this. One accepts "offers" made ( situations ) and discards them when the time is right.

Would it not be true to say though that the person who is dying of thirst is always in possession of the truth of what they mean though in that circumstance?

The point is not whether or not the offer is accepted but if it is validated and right, well aside from the bit about whether it's actually possible to do something deliberately which at that moment you think is wrong.

 

[Totenkindly]

Hypochondriac

Hey, it's not my fault I'm so sick all the time!

Apple polisher.

Chalkboard eraser duster.

Would you be honest with them and say that you were choosing to stay in the desert ? Would you tell them "I'll join as a slave until my first opportunity to escape you?" or would you pretend to be a slave and act as though you accepted their reasoning ? Many situations in life seem less extreme examples of this. One accepts "offers" made ( situations ) and discards them when the time is right.

Excellent point. So would this get one labeled as "amoral"? Or can one still be a "moral" person and behave this way?

 

[cafe]

Why would a person do something unless they thought it was right? Surely all acts are justified at the point when they are committed and only subject to self recrimination afterwards?

Because despite believing the act is wrong, I just want to do it or feel that it is the best of all the crappy options I have available at the time.

 

[Totenkindly]

Because despite believing the act is wrong, I just want to do it or feel that it is the best of all the crappy options I have available at the time.

What she said.

 

[Xander]

Because despite believing the act is wrong, I just want to do it or feel that it is the best of all the crappy options I have available at the time.

Have you not just validated it in reference to the circumstances though? Have you not just justified your choice?

Morals are often broad statements which are generic in terms of application and unspecified in terms of when they are to be applied. These are specific circumstances where you disregard such normal morals and go with what you will actually do.

Now without straying too far into depravity there are some things which a person will not do regardless of it being the best option present. These I'd say are higher than mere socially set morals.

Now I've forgotten the point... damn these people wanting me to work!!

Oh yeah.
Right the difference as I see it between the immoral and the moral is the level of persuasion necessary to break from what they hold as their values.

Sociopaths would not require much pressure (sociopaths as I understand the proper psychological condition that is).

A freethinker would be one who may or may not be moral but decides those morals based on their own thoughts and not necessarily the acceptance or rejection of commonly stated moral values as prescribed by "the system" which is society.

 

[Xander]

Chalkboard eraser duster.

I may not post whore enough but when I do I shall use this as my title. Never heard of it before but I like it

 

[cafe]

Have you not just validated it in reference to the circumstances though? Have you not just justified your choice?

I can believe something is wrong and that I should not do it but still have it win out in the cost/benefit analysis, at least for the moment it takes to do (or fail to do) it.

Morals are often broad statements which are generic in terms of application and unspecified in terms of when they are to be applied. These are specific circumstances where you disregard such normal morals and go with what you will actually do.

Now without straying too far into depravity there are some things which a person will not do regardless of it being the best option present. These I'd say are higher than mere socially set morals.

Now I've forgotten the point... damn these people wanting me to work!!

I think under the right circumstances everyone is capable of doing almost every good or evil thing imaginable and I am no exception. That doesn't mean that I think those things are right to do, though. It means this is not a perfect world and we are not perfect beings.