The Difference Between Psychopath and Sociopath + A Sociopath claims he is "gifted"

[ChocolateMoose123]

Though there are lots of people who expierenced trauma and abuse and don't become psychopaths, so the genetic influence must always be there. That's my opinion. I've read quite a lot of studies about PTSD and it's correlation with traumas and how not everyone develops PTSD. So, that just underlines my opinion.

I would be interested in these studies if you could send some my way or point me in the right direction.

 

[Mechnick]

They say:

"Mice with low MAO-A are also more aggressive in general and are more likely to start turf wars.

People and mice with low MAO-A are more impulsive and aggressive.

People with low MAO-A who are abused as kids show more aggressive behavior as an adult.

People with low MAO-A (3R) who ALSO have high testosterone, poor living standards and/or low IQ are more prone to violence.

So the perfect violence soup is low MAO-A, social isolation, high testosterone, being poor and having a low IQ."

Risk-taking: Do you have the Warrior Gene

 

[Mechnick]

Regardles of researches I still think psychopathy is inborn. You can beat a psychopath but he wouldnt feel it. He will smile, or be totally cold. There is a certain death stare wheñ you look in the eyes of a one. Signalizing something wrong, something is dead inside those individuals.

Bela Kiss, Hungarian serial killer

Bela Kiss - Wikipedia



I was doing a test once. Can you spot an offender in a row. I was 15/19. Results: you can spot one from a mile. And, those I cant spot over the internet with my smartpad with low resolution, and with myopia, i would detect face to face. Not all, but high majority.

 

[Lark]

I dont think that either of these things are as widespread as suggested and my reason for thinking that is biological evolution, I just dont see how it would benefit the species or wider eco-systems if there were more of the psychopathic or sociopathic types around, it seems to be exactly the contrary in fact.

A great deal of amorality and anti-social behaviour, perpetuated by the low down, impulsive sorts or the other charming, manipulative types, I still think can be explained by atrophied character development, humans grow and they continue to do so whether the normal channel of growth is blocked or not. There's simple analogies of this with plants, I'm sure everyone has seen the pictures of trees with bicycles or other vehicles lodged in their trunk but generally people dont imagine that this is a natural phenomenon.

When I've encountered the gross amorality and anti-social types, like the lying, double or triple life guy who was mentioned previously, I've consider there to be two likely reasons, the social character that is demanded of them has grated so much with them that the conflict between what the world thinks they ought to be and how they experience their drives gives rise to perversions of the drive to relate to others, either that or they do adapt well to the worldy requisites but take it to extremes, developing pathological versions of narcissism or selfishness which are quite normative for everyone.

The thing about most of these things is that they arent always perpetuated by sub-human morlock types but sometimes they are human, all too human behaviours taken to extraordinary lengths because of some kind of compulsive patterning, which I think can be explained by sociology as much or more than psychology.

I do think that there's a lot of people who given a free hand would be truly evil, the break down of law and order has illustrated that in war torn regions like the balkans or rwanda, which is why I think its got to be something that's there but kept in check or exercised with moderation (which can be truly horrible too) more usually.

 

[Lark]

Regardles of researches I still think psychopathy is inborn. You can beat a psychopath but he wouldnt feel it. He will smile, or be totally cold. There is a certain death stare wheñ you look in the eyes of a one. Signalizing something wrong, something is dead inside those individuals.

Bela Kiss, Hungarian serial killer

Bela Kiss - Wikipedia



I was doing a test once. Can you spot an offender in a row. I was 15/19. Results: you can spotbs one from a mile. And, those I cant spot over over the internet with my smartpad with low resolution, and with myiopia, i would detect face to face. Not all, but high majority.

I think that's Fromm's Necropilious personality type.

 

[PumpkinMayCare]

I would be interested in these studies if you could send some my way or point me in the right direction.

Studies about PTSD? Just google them I can't recommend any books here really, since the books I study with are in German, do use lots and lots of technical language, so much so that it most likely becomes impossible for non-psychologists (-students) to understand what's being talked about and aside from that I don't have access to a scanner at the moment.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Studies about PTSD? Just google them I can't recommend any books here really, since the books I study with are in German, do use lots and lots of technical language, so much so that it most likely becomes impossible for non-psychologists (-students) to understand what's being talked about and aside from that I don't have access to a scanner at the moment.

I have not seen anything yet that delves into that link of how trauma is processed specifically in terms of who has susceptibility and who is not based on undergoing trauma. Namely, who gets it and why someone else does not. I have the diagnosis of PTSD. So, I plenty understand the rote stuff. I'm asking for the technical studies, which I don't always have access to. If you can't provide, no worries.

 

[PumpkinMayCare]

They are not sexy at all. Only equally demented person can find them sexy.
Or masochist person.

I bet many from media are masochists.

Or story exploitng greedy vultures.

On a side-note: That's the impression I often get as well.

I must say from what I've percieved I also believe that most woman are still kind of passive and wish to have a man on their side that is a born leader, and whether the media exploits that desire by hyping psychopaths/sociopaths (since they are confrontal and often get their way) or they simply play along with that preference of women is up to debate. I think it's a mix of both.

But someone who is as selfish, manipulative and dangerous as a psychopath/narcissist, isn't a loyal partner you can or should put your trust in. Since most of them don't bond like non-disorderd people do, they don't think twice to target you or make you their puppet when they feel like it. And when psychopaths or narcissists turn on you, they turn. (Same goes for at least a half of the borderline personality disorderd.)

There's one series character that has been quite popular in the last years, starring: a so called high-functioning sociopath, Sherlock Holmes of the BBC series.

From my perspective and knowledge he isn't though. I think I searched the whole internet but couldn't find this one very professional article written by an Aspergers who diagnosed Sherlock, as seen in the BBC series (not the character in the books, they differ), as someone with a mild form of Aspergers.

The main points where, following: Sherlock hasn't had all that many friends or a family that pushed him to develop a better understanding of how the human moral frameworks function. Especially throughout the first series, Sherlock lets some very biting remarks about everyone around him slip and does not care and obviously so, but as the show goes on, Watson grows onto him and we get a glimpse into Sherlocks heart when he is challenged by "The Woman" (Irene Adler), who is beaten by Sherlocks power in deduction in the end but he keeps her phone as a memory. He does not tell but it's obvious he did fall for her at least a little bit. Sociopaths, high-functioning or not, are not sentimental that way. It's extremely unlikely.

There's a scene where Molly Hooper visits Sherlock and Watson in their appartement to celebrate christmas and Sherlocks power in deduction strikes once again and he, totally ignorant of the truth, reveals that Molly must be in love with someone and is serious about this man - because she is all dressed up and used red gift wrap paper on one of her gifts; and not only is it the only gift that's not wrapped slovenly but it's the exact same tone of color as her lipstick - "an unintentional association probably", he concludes. As the truth, that the only ostensibly wraped gift belongs to him, is revealed, Molly asks, sobbing a little, "why he always does things like this". He then apologizes sincerely and even gives her a kiss on the cheeks to make up, after he could see in everyone's face around him that he exposed her feelings and how messed up this action was.
It is not very likely he would've understood he did something wrong if Molly and the other guests hadn't shown him.
And that's a big clue to differentate if someone's a sociopath or suffers from Aspergers/Autism (or is just socially retarded): A sociopath always thinks of himself, a sociopath has only his agendas in mind. But seen in the previous cases: Sherlock doesn't have an ulterior agenda behind his actions (and if he does, he calculates his manipulations, so noone gets hurt - which is something a sociopath doesn't give two shits about). He's rather socially awkward and needs someone, especially throughout the first seasons, to show him what's right and wrong because he's simply oblivious to it. But the more it's shown to him, the better he excels at not being an a-hole, which is easy to see in the series. This is completely the opposite effect to the one we know through studies with sociopaths - telling them how to differentate between right and wrong backfires, because sociopaths/psychopathes mostly use that new knowledge to mimick fake emotions even better. They simply don't have the empathy in them to care about morals or social appropriate behaviour, while Sherlock's capable of falling in our out of love and feeling sorry when he hurt someone and learning what not to do so he doesn't hurt someone.

Don't forget it's a ficitional character though, so that makes him actually impossible to diagnose with all the details matching up.

This is probably full of typos; sorry, I wasted too much time searching for that article.

 

[PumpkinMayCare]

I have not seen anything yet that delves into that link of how trauma is processed specifically in terms of who has susceptibility and who is not based on undergoing trauma. Namely, who gets it and why someone else does not. I have the diagnosis of PTSD. So, I plenty understand the rote stuff. I'm asking for the technical studies, which I don't always have access to. If you can't provide, no worries.

I needed too long for my latest post - I actually wanted to add this article with a few words in my last reply to you.

I've checked this article and find it accurate and acceptable. NIMH >> Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
If it doesn't answer your questions, I'm sorry. I'd love to plaster you guys with pages of my study books but ...

Have you tried googling it? I tried but couldn't find something about it. We don't know all that much about the development of PTSD yet, though. Or why one develops it and others don't. The only thing I could think of and a few others psychologists assume, is, a part of the brain is different to those who don't respond with PTSD to traumatas, there's a stronger reaction to the action (trauma) going on.
I'll give you a tip. Try finding out what kind of books are taught in your country to psychology-students and search through them on amazon to see if you can find whatever you're interested in. Maybe you're lucky and they don't use enough of that technical language to let it become a hindrance. But if you are diagnosed with it, don't ask for the why's, rather ask for the how's. Find your way out of there and the why's will become stale.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aside from that, here's one documentary I found very authentic and telling. Check it out. Interview With A Serial Killer (Documentary) - Real Stories - YouTube

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

James Fallon describing the neurology of Psychopathy along with anecdotes about his experience as a "pro-social psychopath"

Life as a Nonviolent Psychopath - The Atlantic


As an interesting side note: Oxytocin irregularities affect levels of both psychopathy and empathy...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14789949.2013.773455

"Background: Cerebral levels of oxytocin, elevated by intranasal administration, can increase trust, empathy and altruism, and decrease fear. We hypothesised that low levels of these characteristics (found in some personality-disordered forensic patients), would be associated with reduced oxytocin levels. Aims: To assess whether patients, with psychopathic characteristics associated with selfishness, callousness and the remorseless use of others, plus a chronically unstable, antisocial and socially deviant lifestyle, would show depressed levels of oxytocin. Method: Basal urinary oxytocin levels (an indicator of cerebral oxytocin) were assessed in 47 forensic psychiatric patients. Levels were compared with those in 21 non-patient controls, and correlated with psychopathic characteristics. Results: Oxytocin levels were markedly elevated in the patient sample compared to controls. Levels were also strongly correlated with traits associated with a socially deviant lifestyle. Conclusions: The results point to oxytocin playing a role in antisocial, as well as prosocial behaviours."

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I dont think that either of these things are as widespread as suggested and my reason for thinking that is biological evolution, I just dont see how it would benefit the species or wider eco-systems if there were more of the psychopathic or sociopathic types around, it seems to be exactly the contrary in fact.

A great deal of amorality and anti-social behaviour, perpetuated by the low down, impulsive sorts or the other charming, manipulative types, I still think can be explained by atrophied character development, humans grow and they continue to do so whether the normal channel of growth is blocked or not. There's simple analogies of this with plants, I'm sure everyone has seen the pictures of trees with bicycles or other vehicles lodged in their trunk but generally people dont imagine that this is a natural phenomenon.

When I've encountered the gross amorality and anti-social types, like the lying, double or triple life guy who was mentioned previously, I've consider there to be two likely reasons, the social character that is demanded of them has grated so much with them that the conflict between what the world thinks they ought to be and how they experience their drives gives rise to perversions of the drive to relate to others, either that or they do adapt well to the worldy requisites but take it to extremes, developing pathological versions of narcissism or selfishness which are quite normative for everyone.

The thing about most of these things is that they arent always perpetuated by sub-human morlock types but sometimes they are human, all too human behaviours taken to extraordinary lengths because of some kind of compulsive patterning, which I think can be explained by sociology as much or more than psychology.

I do think that there's a lot of people who given a free hand would be truly evil, the break down of law and order has illustrated that in war torn regions like the balkans or rwanda, which is why I think its got to be something that's there but kept in check or exercised with moderation (which can be truly horrible too) more usually.

I've been googling the question of percentages. I'm not certain how James Fallon gets his numbers, but here is a quote:

on percentages of psychopaths
FALLON "Well, for the people who are - you know, go over the line - that is, they're really clinically psychopaths - there's about 1 to 2 percent. About 2 percent of men, about 1 percent of women, in most societies. Once you go to the borderline people, the people who don't quite get over the test scoring for a full-blown psychopath, then you start to get up to 5, 10, 15 percent of the population who may be near psychopath or prosocial psychopath that can navigate their way very well through society without ever being caught."

on defining the term, 'psychopath'
"FALLON: Well, one of the problems is there is no accepted definition. You know, the DSM-5, you know, that psychiatrists and psychologists use, it doesn't even recognize it as a syndrome. And that's true for a number of these personality disorders. They're not accepted by everybody because - for several reasons. Some is that the traits of, let's say, a psychopath overlap with the traits of somebody with malignant narcissism, or overlaps with somebody with these other - some other disorders.

So it's not a clean description. And so the physicians tend to reject it, even though it's used very - you know, in forensics, in law and in regular conversation.

FALLON: Well, the key things - I wouldn't include the criminality part of this, or, you know, the - you know, the fire-breathing, angry sort of psychopath that's portrayed that's so interesting in a two-hour film. It's more of somebody who really doesn't care about the other, the other person. And they will - almost all their actions are directed toward pleasing themselves. And so they don't have - they may perceive what may be the other person, but they end up acting like they don't care at all.

So they kind of look right through you, but they use you, and they will manipulate you either to play a game or to get money out of you or to get sex or whatever. So they're very manipulative, and they don't show this sort of manipulation, because they're quite clever about it. So they know how to model or mirror behaviors very well. They can look like they're normal. That's what's so insidious about it."

entire link: Uncovering the Brain of a Psychopath : NPR

 

[Z Buck McFate]

^So grateful you're posting that, all the James Fallon info.

"It's more of somebody who really doesn't care about the other, the other person. And they will - almost all their actions are directed toward pleasing themselves. And so they don't have - they may perceive what may be the other person, but they end up acting like they don't care at all.

So they kind of look right through you, but they use you, and they will manipulate you either to play a game or to get money out of you or to get sex or whatever. So they're very manipulative, and they don't show this sort of manipulation, because they're quite clever about it. So they know how to model or mirror behaviors very well. They can look like they're normal. That's what's so insidious about it."​

This is what I meant by 'necessarily predatory' behavior. When a person has practically no emotional empathy and high cognitive empathy- and they don't even know others have something called emotional empathy, or that all people don't simply use other people the way they do, and/or even if they find out they don't care(except for the fact it's something to observe and take into account)- I don't see any way around that being predatory.

I mean, if you know you're dealing with one (and you understand exactly what that means) then it's relatively safe, because you can trust them to act in their own self interest. For example, if he's a surgeon, you can trust he'll do a good job because it adds to his professional reputation. But if you don't know you're dealing with one (and that you can only trust them to act in their own interest), the manipulation is astounding. I'm almost certain someone I used to know was a (pro-social) psychopath. He flat out told me, on several occasions, that he could turn remorse off about anything, like a switch, he could simply decide not to feel bad about something. I didn't realize the extent to which he really, really could, until a few years later and other stories surfaced about him. He could talk circles around anything, and he always managed to get people to hand just about anything over to him. There are actually two people I've known that I suspect were pro-social psychopaths.

I find James Fallon's work on this fascinating. (So much about his book reminded me of the person I just described that I had goosebumps over and over again while reading it.) One of the criticisms in the other thread, because I kept mentioning him, is that his single experience isn't an adequate sample size to define all psychopathy. But it's not like he's only studying his own experience and publishing information about psychopathy based exclusively on his own experience. The man has done TED talks, written books and had several articles published over the years about psychopathy. My concept of psychopath has been largely influenced by him, and maybe that is shortsighted, but I'm still baffled at how I (felt like I) had people chasing after me with pitchforks in the other thread for pushing this 'unfair' depiction. It seems to me like he pulls in enough outside information about psychopath studies to know what's psychopathic about him (vs. something being 'just him').

 

[Mechnick]

Folks, whats your profession? I see you are all good at psychology.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Folks, whats your profession? I see you are all good at psychology.

It's entirely a matter of interest to me. I've long considered shifting my occupation in that direction, but- from what licensed counselors I know say about it- I think I'd get too disheartened. (Not because of the people, but because of how the whole profession is run, and how it's too one size fits all.)

 

[Mechnick]

It's entirely a matter of interest to me. I've long considered shifting my occupation in that direction, but- from what licensed counselors I know say about it- I think I'd get too disheartened. (Not because of the people, but because of how the whole profession is run, and how it's too one size fits all.)

Ah, I get it. You are out of the box potential psychologist. So, I d say the real one. While the profession is run by majority S types, who are not good as psychologists, nor psychiatrists. They are to materialistic, end empirical. And you cant approach the human psyche as you approach the engine. The best one are intuitives, as in the examples of Jung, Freud, Viktor Frankl (I guess, N), Dostoevsky (in literature), etc.

It sad that the best one are on the brinks of society, because they are minority.

And, thats the case in all professions. I bet intuitives are better in all professions requiring deep digging and diagnostics. But, they haven't oportunity. So, we end up creating our own jobs, or as freelance artists musicians...We are misunderstood.

Today's job/profession situation: It s a matter of political ties, nepothism, oportunism and the like.

We dont live in meritocracy, but in mercantilism. Suitability instead of competency.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

This video of Ted Bundy with James Dobson the day before Bundy's execution demonstrates the level of manipulation that a true psychopath is capable of enacting. I think if most of us are honest with ourselves, it would be difficult to identify Bundy as a serial killer based on his mannerism and way of speaking. An intuitive person might pick up on something being "off", but if you didn't know he was a psychopath, I don't think it would be that easy to detect.

Also, I will share an impression from watching this video. My gut feeling is that he does not know why he is violent, very possibly doesn't care to know why, but is constructing the most perfect description to tantalize his audience, James Dobson. He is telling James Dobson everything he wants to hear about the evils of pornography. I am not a supporter of pornography, but I am only describing that he is constructing the perfect scenario to control the internal responses of his listener who wants to blame this on the media in this way. This level of perception and manipulation is quite striking down to the absolute nuance of what his listener is hungry for hearing. Every time he states something in the negative, "I don't mean to..." he is doing exactly that. It's right up there with Oscar winners.

Psychopath Ted Bundy's Interview Before Execution Full - YouTube

 

[Mechnick]

This video of Ted Bundy with James Dobson the day before Bundy's execution demonstrates the level of manipulation that a true psychopath is capable of enacting. I think if most of us are honest with ourselves, it would be difficult to identify Bundy as a serial killer based on his mannerism and way of speaking. An intuitive person might pick up on something being "off", but if you didn't know he was a psychopath, I don't think it would be that easy to detect.

Also, I will share an impression from watching this video. My gut feeling is that he does not know why he is violent, very possibly doesn't care to know why, but is constructing the most perfect description to tantalize his audience, James Dobson. He is telling James Dobson everything he wants to hear about the evils of pornography. I am not a supporter of pornography, but I am only describing that he is constructing the perfect scenario to control the internal responses of his listener who wants to blame this on the media in this way. This level of perception and manipulation is quite striking down to the absolute nuance of what his listener is hungry for hearing. Every time he states something in the negative, "I don't mean to..." he is doing exactly that. It's right up there with Oscar winners.

[video=youtuve;]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh3rXV-uP9U&t=600s[/video[

I think he as a porn addict was addicted to the rush of sexual violence. It s well know ppl become desentisized while watching pornography. Bundy was addicted to the rush, because he was frigid. He did not have normal sex life, nor he manage to reach a normal orgasm. He was obsessive compulsive sex addict with desentisized frigid/impotent personality.

Hes agression is the result of the frustration with in urge/impotency.

It obvious to me that hes not sane as well. Hes monster. It s known that violent sexual offenders are often frigid and impotent.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Ah, I get it. You are out of the box potential psychologist. So, I d say the real one. While the profession is run by majority S types, who are not good as psychologists, nor psychiatrists. They are to materialistic, end empirical. And you cant approach the human psyche as you approach the engine. The best one are intuitives, as in the examples of Jung, Freud, Viktor Frankl (I guess, N), Dostoevsky (in literature), etc.

It sad that the best one are on the brinks of society, because they are minority.

And, thats the case in all professions. I bet intuitives are better in all professions requiring deep digging and diagnostics. But, they haven't oportunity. So, we end up creating our own jobs, or as freelance artists musicians...We are misunderstood.

Today's job/profession situation: It s a matter of political ties, nepothism, oportunism and the like.

We dont live in meritocracy, but in mercantilism. Suitability instead of competency.

I don't agree about S types not being good as psychologists. I think it's far more about the individual than it is about their type. But I agree about not approaching the human psyche as you would an engine, and that a big part of the problem is sorta assembly line style treatment.

 

[five sounds]

This is such a tired topic. There's plenty of research on it and I feel like the more attention it gets, the more it's romanticized. Obviously if someone in your life is possibly a sociopath or a psychopath, it's important for you to be informed so you can understand what you're dealing with. I just hate this pop culture phenomenon that seems to cast characters who have these characteristics in a positive light. These people a) are unhealthy and b) do real harm to people.

 

[Forever]

^^Idk if people already said this but without emotions, psychopaths and sociopaths cannot make decisions very well even with advanced logic and rational skills. Part of us what makes us human and adaptable or even "smart" is the attunement of our feelings and intuitions we have about things. People may value powerful rationale these days, but logic is really nothing without a direction.

TV loses the idea of reality of what these individuals are and some people may even choose to identify with these characters which imo do not even come close to a real psychopath or sociopath. Lisbeth Sanders was very in tune with her anger. Sherlock Holmes felt his intelligence was inadequate by both his brother and his arch nemisis. Dr. House overall had deep feelings for all his patients. None of those people even fit the real criteria of these labels. Normal people can make brash and risky decisions.

To attach it to some label really denies the common people that they can't have the credit and they need to remove their amygdala to be cool which is super absurd. Finally Sameen from POI really feels too and is actually more in tune with her feelings than the character herself she gives credit for. Really in essence without essential "feelings" these people would be very empty and lost. When they hear any event, nothing could change them.

There's an example of a psychopath murdering a guy after he complied from the things he stole and the police caught him long after he did crime still at victims house. That goes against all what pop culture made the phenomenon as.

The guy was a dumb ass. Read books. Stop watching tv and basing them off that.