Sociopathy

[Sinmara]

This is a big part of why people get away with sociopathic behavior. People actually believe crap like what you just said.

I was sociopathic for a while, and let me tell you, the intent to harm is there. Sociopaths know exactly what their doing, they just don't give a shit.

If you have an atheist belief system and survival of the fittest mentality, why the hell would you give a damn if something "hurts anothers feelings"? From that point of view, its down right stupid to care. It's only beneficial to care about someone if it somehow helps you, every thing is a business situation.

The fact that people justify shit like being a sociopath and being bipolar really pisses me off because it's so f&*&ing moronic.

It's adaptive behavior that people learn that they can get away with.

Be real with yourself. The whole "Poor dear, you can't feel empathy!" crap is the literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Wake up.

You were not a sociopath. You are a narcissist. It's in the same Cluster B group of personality disorders and a person with one disorder tends to share characteristics of another. Your behavior reeks of narcissism to the point that it's giving me an "ew, gross" reaction.

I was raised by a high functioning sociopath. I've studied this for years and I know what they look like. You either are a sociopath or you are not. Possessing some sociopathic behavior traits does not make you a sociopath. It can mean a number of things, but in your case, you're just a narcissist with a self-serving sadistic streak, which is pretty normal for that PD. Read up on it and do something about yourself before you inflict yourself on anyone else.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

While this might be useful to comfort us as the outside observers, it doesn't hold much merit as a well reasoned explanation. We don't really understand it well enough to define it by internal mechanisms. The best we know from neurological studies suggests that they can turn on and off emotional reactions, but as the slavery and crusades and wars and inquisitions and various examples of violent mob behavior have shown, under the right circumstances, so can the rest of us.

You're suggesting that sociopathy as a phenomenon is poorly understood, and might even function as a kind of smokescreen. I'm not entirely sure whether I agree, but I haven't done too much reading into the topic. The chief point is that it is apparent to me that the correlation between intelligence and sociopathy in the popular imagination is false; and I am glad that the article posted earlier provided me with empirical data to verify that.

You also make an interesting observation about group psychology. I certainly agree with these observations, and I admit to being more concerned about this aspect of human psychology than the individaul sociopaths. Undoubtedly, I have a variety of biases (because of personal history and other reasons) that make this almost an obsession of sorts, but can anyone truly deny it?

I wonder if modern psychology focuses on the individual to such an extent that it ignores the dynamics of group psychology. Often times, it seems like a group of people can take on a sort of personality of its own. This influence is something I have observed many times, in myself, and in others. I've often felt my emotional inclinations and thought patterns change as I've shifted between different groups. One excellent place to observe this is at political rallies and sporting events, if someone wishes to test this for themselves.

I suspect many people like to shove this malleability under the radar because it's not a very comforting thought. We like to assume that we are fully autonomous individuals, independent of what is going on around us, but it seems apparent to me that we act as part of a system.

I do think it is possible to insulate ourselves from this toxic malleability, though. In that respect, I have hope. I think perhaps this is what Jung was going on about when he spoke of individuation.

 

[Mane]

You're suggesting that sociopathy as a phenomenon is poorly understood, and might even function as a kind of smokescreen. I'm not entirely sure whether I agree, but I haven't done too much reading into the topic.

Don't get me wrong - if you will research it you will find a fully detailed theory about what it is and how it works, my point was a counter argument to the theoretical foundation behind that explanation. Frankly, I might think it's built on faulty reasoning, but thousands of well trained minds take it at face value and write their conclusions within the framework of the existing theory.

I wonder if modern psychology focuses on the individual to such an extent that it ignores the dynamics of group psychology. Often times, it seems like a group of people can take on a sort of personality of its own. This influence is something I have observed many times, in myself, and in others. I've often felt my emotional inclinations and thought patterns change as I've shifted between different groups. One excellent place to observe this is at political rallies and sporting events, if someone wishes to test this for themselves.

Social psychology is still in it's diapers. Given time, I think it has a lot of potential to provide tons of insight into human nature & make connections we've never thought about between the sort of dots we all see & never really thought much of, the same way personal psychology started doing slightly over a century ago. There is so much for us to learn within the context of "us"... I really hope I'll be around to see some of it's more developed fruits within our lifetimes.

You also make an interesting observation about group psychology. I certainly agree with these observations, and I admit to being more concerned about this aspect of human psychology than the individaul sociopaths. Undoubtedly, I have a variety of biases (because of personal history and other reasons) that make this almost an obsession of sorts, but can anyone truly deny it?

People deny it all the time. How many people do you know who have a moral ego? Who define their merits by their values and what they would never do? It's a pretty common way to view the self.
But there are unfortunate unlikely implications to ignoring the circumstances - the cultural values we were raised in, the social environment we exist in, our standing within it. To believe your morals are beyond it is to believe that raised in a society were slavery or killing or child sacrifice were the norm you would be the one innocent human being who'd know right from wrong, that it is you who are somehow fundamentally superior to them in morals, rather then thousands of years of ideas tinkled on you throughout the generations. If it was the case that people had such inherent morals enlightenment, as many as people have moral ego's, where were they throughout history? IMO this makes it very unlikely that human nature can ever be that disconnected. Not only will we not have had our morals back then, if we some how traveled back in time and did, we will not be moral by their standards, because they've done as much of a good job rationalizing their values as we do ours.

I suspect many people like to shove this malleability under the radar because it's not a very comforting thought. We like to assume that we are fully autonomous individuals, independent of what is going on around us, but it seems apparent to me that we act as part of a system.

Exactly.

 

[PerfectlyConfused]

Sociopathy is environment. Psychopathy is in born. (Although, I did think I heard/read something about changing the titles yesterday).

It IS a lack of concern for others, because they cannot connect, but they do typically recognise emotions in others, and since they lack a "conscience" and so they're not a person to them, they have no problem manipulating and using them.

People on the Autistic Spectrum are different in that they CAN connect - feel their pain etc, but do not understand, recognise or know how to respond to seeing them experiencing a negative feeling. (unless they make the effort to study things like body language and male-female dynamics and a whole bunch more)

Sherlock has Aspergers I believe, but they have removed Aspergers from the latest DSM.
I could continue talking about this.


There is more I want to say in response to the OP but no doubt what I want to say would result in everyone kicking off, but I also want to say a few things to everyone else as well, but it would get ugly with an ENTJ, INTP and ENTJ who went to ENFP, so using my Sherlock Holmes skills that I got off amazon for $27.99, and i'm going to go with, that's not a good idea.

 

[anastasiaromanova]

Delete

 

[aanule]

ENFP married to a sociopathic (by my estimation) ENTJ. It's ugly. We're the relationships that end up on the news because dude goes nuts and does something crazy. I'm still subject to stalking two months post restraining order.

He just has no conscious. None, whatsoever. He says what needs said to meet his needs. He doesn't truly care about me or our children, he only cares about the emotional support we can give him and the image of the "perfect family" that he needs for his ego.

He is incapable of producing true emotions for himself. He has to leech them from another person, or manufacture them via drama.

Emotional parasites is how I describe it. They NEED someone to feed off of and will do whatever necessary to keep their victim.

 

[Luke O]

ENFP married to a sociopathic (by my estimation) ENTJ. It's ugly. We're the relationships that end up on the news because dude goes nuts and does something crazy. I'm still subject to stalking two months post restraining order.

He just has no conscious. None, whatsoever. He says what needs said to meet his needs. He doesn't truly care about me or our children, he only cares about the emotional support we can give him and the image of the "perfect family" that he needs for his ego.

He is incapable of producing true emotions for himself. He has to leech them from another person, or manufacture them via drama.

Emotional parasites is how I describe it. They NEED someone to feed off of and will do whatever necessary to keep their victim.

I hope you manage to keep away from him.

 

[Frosty]

ENFP married to a sociopathic (by my estimation) ENTJ. It's ugly. We're the relationships that end up on the news because dude goes nuts and does something crazy. I'm still subject to stalking two months post restraining order.

He just has no conscious. None, whatsoever. He says what needs said to meet his needs. He doesn't truly care about me or our children, he only cares about the emotional support we can give him and the image of the "perfect family" that he needs for his ego.

He is incapable of producing true emotions for himself. He has to leech them from another person, or manufacture them via drama.

Emotional parasites is how I describe it. They NEED someone to feed off of and will do whatever necessary to keep their victim.

Oh wow yeah I'm so sorry that sounds rough. I've dealt with people before who I think have just absolutely no awareness of how to empathise with other people. It is like since they feel empty inside they set out to make others feel empty too. They rip and tear you apart. I really hope that he stops bothering you.

 

[aanule]

I hope you manage to keep away from him.

I'm definitely never going back to him. Unfortunately, because of the children, I do have to have contact with him.

 

[aanule]

Oh wow yeah I'm so sorry that sounds rough. I've dealt with people before who I think have just absolutely no awareness of how to empathise with other people. It is like since they feel empty inside they set out to make others feel empty too. They rip and tear you apart. I really hope that he stops bothering you.

Ripping and tearing apart is a very good description. I've learned to just ignore his words and not allow them to affect me. I know it's just his attempt to continue to control and hurt me.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Isn't it lack of empathy; which may be a biological issue or caused by external factors?

Lack of affective empathy, but they have plenty of theory of mind empathy which is necessary for ongoing manipulation.

Sociopathy is a personality disorder which is still under study. There are a list of traits you can look up online which have been gathered from analyzing prison populations. It includes everything from lack of empathy, to glib, superficial charm, high risk taking, the inability feel guilt, etc. These lists don't necessary describe the population of individuals skilled enough at their self-interest games to avoid prison.

1. There may be damage in the amygdala and frontal cortex since some research has shown this.
James Fallon, psychologist, pro-social sociopath
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=I12H7khht7o

2. There is also psychological theory that describes the anti-social personality disorders occurring during the infant/toddler process of moving from a concept of only Self to that of Self and Other. When infants are left isolated, neglected, and harmed, then they get stuck at a very early psychological age emotionally, but with the added abstract reasoning of an adult. If you can imagine the two-year-old rebellion of "MINE, MINE" "NO!" throws toys, screams, pulled mother's hair and kicks, then add pure, reasoned analysis and the ability to analyze and predict behavior and outcomes in other individuals, then you know what it is like to interact with someone with a personality disorder. I will add that some individual are sophisticated enough in their harm to not hit and scream, but rather use manipulation and passive aggression to cause harm and achieve their goals. Those are the ones who aren't in prison.

There is an entire category of these disorders that are based on extreme investment in Self with obliviousness to Others. These include sociopathy, narcissism, borderline personality disorder, and psychopathy (which is a term that hasn't been used as much recently from what I understand).

These are the two theories of this condition: one based on nature, and the other nurture. I suspect there is a lot of reciprocation between the two.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

One added note: Western culture has certain individualistic ideals that overlap with these disorders. We see these behavioral traits in many of our political and corporate leaders, and even have some "philosophical" underpinning to explain why we value these traits (with such writers as Ayn Rand).

This leads impressionable young people to see these behaviors as worth emulating, regardless of how irrational and destructive the outcomes. It is a kind of false "Objectivism", a false reasoning and logic that dismisses the negative consequences of valuing individual desire above all else. We exist within a system and to distort self will over all else is quite literally like a cancer cell reproducing itself indiscriminately within a biological system. That one distortion can lead to the death of the whole system. It is the same with the individual valuing self-interest above all else. Their presence functions in society like a cancer, and the ones with the most power are causing the same outcomes as a cancer.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It is a kind of false "Objectivism", a false reasoning and logic that dismisses the negative consequences of valuing individual desire above all else.

I had an interesting discussion with relatives at my family reunion about viruses. It was brought to me attention that the likelihood of a virus developing that could wipe out all of mankind (as many fear) is unlikely. The reason is that a virus that is extremely effective at killing off its host a tendency not to spread. The most successful viruses are usually nonlethal, like the common cold. The fact that they exist as a mere nuisance, and not something that kills their host, allows it to spread to other host organisms.

Humans aren't viruses, obviously (the theories of Agent Smith notwithstanding). But I think similar principles apply. Organisms are ultimately embedded in a system with other organisms, and often depend on maintaining the health of those other organisms to insure survival. Ultimately, pure self-interest is an unhealthy strategy for an individual organism to pursue. Ironically, it ends up being self-destructive, or at least cause self-harm. Individuals who follow this in the way it is traditionally understood often seem to have a desperation about them; it's as though they're constantly reaching for something that is always eluding their grasp. And for what? At the end of it all, they'll die just like the rest of us.

That being said, I do believe that focusing on human communities as systems and neglecting the health of the individual components of that system is a mistake. I worry that some people have moved the pendulum too far in the other direction, and that worries me. It reflects a profound ignorance of history (in many ways, this was the primary theme of the 20th century), or a faith that humankind has "evolved" more than it actually has. There are healthy and unhealthy groups just like there are healthy and unhealthy individuals. I don't think the solution is as simple as just making things more communal.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

That being said, I do believe that focusing on human communities as systems and neglecting the health of the individual components of that system is a mistake. I worry that some people have moved the pendulum too far in the other direction, and that worries me. It reflects a profound ignorance of history (in many ways, this was the primary theme of the 20th century), or a faith that humankind has "evolved" more than it actually has. There are healthy and unhealthy groups just like there are healthy and unhealthy individuals. I don't think the solution is as simple as just making things more communal.

It can certainly go too far in the other direction of subverting the individual to the group, and in the 20th century that happened politically in many contexts. Interestingly enough, that group tended to be beholden to an individual tyrant.

I think the healthy balance has to do with enlightenment over control. You can't force everyone to have empathy or it becomes the opposite. Individual will is not subverted by becoming aware and concerned about the needs of others. The most reasoned position can see the actual relationship between self and other which places value on both.

What contexts do you see the pendulum swinging too far this other direction now? There is a great deal of conformity, but to me it typically looks like groups are beholden to self-interested individuals in positions of power.

 

[TheCheeseBurgerKing]

[MENTION=24524]Luke O[/MENTION]

Dude a person's belief system is a formula for everything that they say and do. I figure you were just trying to be condescending, but if you honestly believe that a person beliefs have nothing to do with their actions, you're a total Hufflepuff.

 

[Luke O]

[MENTION=24524]Luke O[/MENTION]

Dude a person's belief system is a formula for everything that they say and do. I figure you were just trying to be condescending, but if you honestly believe that a person beliefs have nothing to do with their actions, you're a total Hufflepuff.

Not always.

BTW I forgive you for the earlier stuff in this thread.

 

[Opal]

if you honestly believe that a person beliefs have nothing to do with their actions, you're a total Hufflepuff.

[MENTION=19948]Showbread[/MENTION], what are you implying about Hufflepuff?

 

[Showbread]

[MENTION=19948]Showbread[/MENTION], what are you implying about Hufflepuff?

That they have a lot of faith in people to be good regardless of their actions at times? Just kidding. I have nothing against Hufflepuffs. *gestures to avatar* It was just the first silly sounding word that came to mind.

 

[Luke O]

That they have a lot of faith in people to be good regardless of their actions at times? Just kidding. I have nothing against Hufflepuffs. *gestures to avatar* It was just the first silly sounding word that came to mind.

I'm not offended btw *secretly panics about being in the wrong house*

 

[alcea rosea]

I think sociopathy is kind of like a spectrum.

I read from somewhere that sociopaths are the end of the spectrum and narcissistic is in the middle of the same spectrum. So, narcissistic is less "bad" than sociopath according to this interpretation.

Sosiopathy can also be traced when scanning the brain, so it is physical thing in the brain also (orbital cortex). I think it also had to do with the brain chemistry.

People with autism or aspergers can also be misjudged of being sociopaths if you only look for peculiar behavior in social setting or not responding to people's emotions or not understanding your behavior on other people. The difference there is that a narcissistic or sociopathic person quite probably understand but don't care and a person with austism/aspergers doesn't understand but is totally capable of caring.