What's your opinion on sociopaths?

[La Sagna]

Agree, that it makes more sense if they target the person who thinks they are smart. It's a challenge to them. They probably wouldn't waste much time on someone who is too transparent. I've noticed that they sometimes find the person who is too simple or easy to figure out a source of amusement. However, I know someone who was married to sociopath, and no offense to her, but she was really taken for a ride by her ex. She is a very genuine and nice person, and he turned their daughter against her, and made custody a nightmare. You could say, she was gaslighted. I think he did this to get the upper hand with their daughter. It apparently is a master of manipulation and wanted to get as much leverage as he could.

I believe that sociopaths come in lots of different shapes and sizes and that many of them have made up their own personal moral code that they will stand by. So, if their moral code includes not manipulating people that are simple and vulnerable they will not. I think often they like to humuliate people that they believe are 'too big for their britches' or that have somehow made them look stupid or done some perceived wrong to them. I really think most of them would consider themselves quite ethical. When you are incapable of putting yourself in somebody else's shoes it is quite easy to come up with reasons to bolster your reasoning for why the others deserve what they get.

When it comes to people who are married to sociopaths, I think they usually don't have any real clue about it until they have been married many years. If the marriage is working well for both and there is no big disagreement than things can run quite smoothly for a long time. When problems do occur though things can go downhill quite rapidly and the spouse will likely begin to see a side of the sociopath that they didn't know was there. Gaslighting is definitly somehing that sociopaths do.

Every story is different but I do think that the people that tend to be hurt most by a sociopath are people that are kind. You can be very bright but if you are kind you will be vulnerable to people that aren't.

I have known many people who aren't sociopaths but have turned quite mean and unreasonable in a divorce situation. Anger and resentment can make you very ugly. I can imagine that a sociopath would do anything to get the upper hand in a divorce and custody situation.

 

[LucyJr]

You're having a subject/object problem here.

1. I disagree. Taken to its logical conclusion, your affirmation "The only kind of nature there is - material nature. Having properties independent of thought, being itself no matter who, if anyone, looks at it." eliminate the difference between subject and object. That's why is so problematic, and not only.

2. Platon has argumented that there are some metaphysical truths, which are independent of matter. For example 2+2=4. This is a truth that is axiomatic independent of matter, independent of anything. This truth is axiomatic not only in our actual world, but in any possible worlds and in any potential worlds. Given this, these metaphysical truths are independend of matter, prior to matter, and caused by something outside of matter.

There has to be something that makes the impossible be impossible. Just saying it is so is not enough. In my opinion if you don't actually know why it isn't possible in a quantifiable sense, then you don't actually know anything.

3. This again is false because quantum phisycs can not explain methaphysical truths, like for example the existence of numbers.

 

[La Sagna]

This also makes me realize how ineffective emotional appeals are to someone who appears to be a sociopath. I now realize I've met a few along the way, and can now get why they had no sense of personal responsibility or care for what they do or how they treated others. It just hits me why expecting them to have a sense of right or wrong about what they do was unrealistic. It's almost like using feeler logic to appeal to a thinker.

I think that in a way that is what a sociopath can be is a person who uses only Thinking and uses no Feeling. You cannot appeal to their "feeling" of fairness or decency but if you can make a good logical argument about something (in their opinion) and they have enough respect for you to listen you can convince them to change some behaviour that they do. What you can't make them do is to feel bad or guilty about anything, they won't do that, because that is 'feeling' based.

I can see why in certain types of jobs that is a real asset, feelings never get in the way of making a logical decision.

 

[Gaze]

I can see why in certain types of jobs that is a real asset, feelings never get in the way of making a logical decision.

Yeah, because this way you don't have to worry about feelings, since it's about just getting the job done.

Edit: Which come to think of it, this way of thinking is actually the source of many human and civil rights abuses in the workplace.

 

[sprinkles]

1. I disagree. Taken to its logical conclusion, your affirmation "The only kind of nature there is - material nature. Having properties independent of thought, being itself no matter who, if anyone, looks at it." eliminate the difference between subject and object. That's why is so problematic, and not only.

There's no subject and no object because there's one universe. That's your problem.

You're reading me and I am an object. I'm reading you and you are an object. Subject doesn't actually get in anywhere.

2. Platon has argumented that there are some metaphysical truths, which are independent of matter. For example 2+2=4. This is a truth that is axiomatic independent of matter, independent of anything. This truth is axiomatic not only in our actual world, but in any possible worlds and in any potential worlds. Given this, these metaphysical truths are independend of matter, prior to matter, and caused by something outside of matter.

Plato was a smart man but he was still wrong.

3. This again is false because quantum phisycs can not explain methaphysical truths, like for example the existence of numbers.

Quantities are material properties and they exist. Numbers are material symbols which describe quantities and they exist.

Ideas exist. Your thoughts materially exist. But there IS NO property called metaphysical. There is no property called philosophy. If you're thinking about it, you're burning calories, it exists!!! You can't even think it indefinitely because of that!

When you hear people bickering in another language that you don't understand, they could be arguing philosophy for all you know. You still hear it, and it even sounds a certain way to you objectively because communication is made of physical properties. Their very ideas are made of physical properties. The same with monkeys chattering, birds chirping, so forth.

Even if you don't comprehend thought or symbol, it is there. Everything in the world you can conceive of is 'there' somehow.

You think my affirmations are metaphysical and just philosophy but this is a downfall on your part for not seeing what is very plain:
It's
All
In
Your
Head

 

[this is only temporary]

One more thing I'd like to point out, the potentially sociopathic people I have known may not themselves be terribly emotional, but they definitely know how to appeal to others' emotions, and will not hesitate to use things like character assassination and general gossip to manipulate other people.

So being lied to repeatedly is a sign you're dealing with a potential sociopath and witnessing a person lie to, or about, others, or witnessing a person making very negative claims about the personality traits or actions of other people, is a sign of potential sociopathy. I've seen people do this as a part of how they make themselves look better; they throw other people under the bus quite brutally and often untruthfully. Part of the whole gaslight and manipulation thing. Consider it a red flag if someone you know does this a lot.

 

[muir]

One more thing I'd like to point out, the potentially sociopathic people I have known may not themselves be terribly emotional, but they definitely know how to appeal to others' emotions, and will not hesitate to use things like character assassination and general gossip to manipulate other people.

So being lied to repeatedly is a sign you're dealing with a potential sociopath and witnessing a person lie to, or about, others, or witnessing a person making very negative claims about the personality traits or actions of other people, is a sign of potential sociopathy. I've seen people do this as a part of how they make themselves look better; they throw other people under the bus quite brutally and often untruthfully. Part of the whole gaslight and manipulation thing. Consider it a red flag if someone you know does this a lot.

Yeah the thing about gossipers is you know if they are gossiping to you, they are probably also doing it about you when your back is turned

 

[La Sagna]

I listened to a program on the radio some time ago in which a neuroscientist discovered that he is related to murderers and that his brain scan resembles that of a psychopath... Yet he's not actually a psychopath. It's a really interesting story about how his upbringing negated his becoming a psychopath.. Here's the link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976

Here's another article on the same neuroscientist. What is interesting is that his story of why he had his brain scanned and found out about his different brain pattern is completely different than the first article. That sounds like something a sociopath would do, change his story and stretch the truth.

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight...es_fallon_discovers_his_inner_psychopath.html

 

[acd]

Here's another article on the same neuroscientist. What is interesting is that his story of why he had his brain scanned and found out about his different brain pattern is completely different than the first article. That sounds like something a sociopath would do, change his story and stretch the truth.

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight...es_fallon_discovers_his_inner_psychopath.html

I don't think he changed his story. The same information is in each article, just written differently. It's most likely the writer emphasizing on or focusing more on different info in each article.

 

[acd]

Here's a pretty good interview with James Fallon: http://youtu.be/_4MEQRgJbfU

 

[LucyJr]

There's no subject and no object because there's one universe. That's your problem.

You're reading me and I am an object. I'm reading you and you are an object. Subject doesn't actually get in anywhere.


Plato was a smart man but he was still wrong.



Quantities are material properties and they exist. Numbers are material symbols which describe quantities and they exist.

Ideas exist. Your thoughts materially exist. But there IS NO property called metaphysical. There is no property called philosophy. If you're thinking about it, you're burning calories, it exists!!! You can't even think it indefinitely because of that!

When you hear people bickering in another language that you don't understand, they could be arguing philosophy for all you know. You still hear it, and it even sounds a certain way to you objectively because communication is made of physical properties. Their very ideas are made of physical properties. The same with monkeys chattering, birds chirping, so forth.

Even if you don't comprehend thought or symbol, it is there. Everything in the world you can conceive of is 'there' somehow.

You think my affirmations are metaphysical and just philosophy but this is a downfall on your part for not seeing what is very plain:
It's
All
In
Your
Head

Well, if I would say that you contradicted yourself at least 4 times, you'll probably say this:
"It's
All
In
Your
Head"

So I think I'll just leave it like that...

 

[sprinkles]

Well, if I would say that you contradicted yourself at least 4 times, you'll probably say this:
"It's
All
In
Your
Head"

So I think I'll just leave it like that...

I likely made some rhetorical contradictions and I have an idea of exactly where they are.

However this can only support my point. If you were not literate, you would not have noticed them as contradictions, but this doesn't get you off the hook with the subject/object problem because the universal object contains me making a hypothesis about what would happen if you couldn't read, while at the same time you are reading it.

In the holistic state of the world there are no subjects and objects existing by themselves. We only perceive the illusion of subject and object, just as I perceive myself perceiving it. And perceive myself talking about myself perceiving what I'm talking about.

I'm in one state regardless of how much I perceive it or talk about it, and I may not even perceive it or talk about it correctly, but even so, the superposition of the universe has me in it in such a way that it necessarily allows me to perceive it in the way that I do. Basically if the state of all things were not physically arranged as they are now, we'd not be having this discussion. We might be having another discussion instead. Or in another arrangement you might agree with me, or in another we might not be talking at all, and in yet another we might have been goats or something.

 

[Dohavior]

I think that in a way that is what a sociopath can be is a person who uses only Thinking and uses no Feeling. You cannot appeal to their "feeling" of fairness or decency but if you can make a good logical argument about something (in their opinion) and they have enough respect for you to listen you can convince them to change some behaviour that they do. What you can't make them do is to feel bad or guilty about anything, they won't do that, because that is 'feeling' based.

I can see why in certain types of jobs that is a real asset, feelings never get in the way of making a logical decision.

Thoughts and feelings are just notions in your head all the same. They are "logical" because they can all be "logged" and if they couldn't well then you are lying. After everything is said and done each person has their own mind, their own consent and sentience is withheld from any prying. Try to fool someone and you just might be fooling yourself.

 

[LucyJr]

Comming back here...its my thread so I can post whenever I want to

I made this thread sometime ago being fascinated and confused on what defines and what is a sociopath.
On internet there is almost a weird fetish, a kind of dirty fascination with the idea of sociopaths. There are even people who want to identify with them, to turn themselfs into sociopaths, to become like them. I saw some sites on "how to think like a sociopath", or how to "date like a sociopath".

Yep, there is always a fascination with the "evil side" in many of us, but we have to be rational and clearly define what is the essence of this. Otherwise, we would just call ourselfs "evil romanciers".

It is at this time that I find myself at a clearer perspective, and I understand much better I think the whole thing about sociopaths, and also people fantasising themselfs what is like to be a sociopath. I was being very naive with this, and now I think I'm out of the illusion of sociopaths.

So simply put, sociopaths aren't some kind of powerful and strong predators (this is how internet makes them). They are just moraly evil people, possibly nihilists, which honestly think "rules are made to be broken". They derive their satisfaction from this kind of life, of being always the joker, the manipulator, of evil doer who doesn't get caught. Their illusion I think, is in their satisfaction of grand ideas about themselfs, of being smarter than other people. Had they realise this idea is a illusion, they wouldn't
be so happy about themselfs.
There is also this false idea that sociopaths can not empathise, which is factualy not true. There has been studies made on people who are considered to be sociopaths, and they have discovered that after the subjects were repeatedly faced with images or videos of sufferings, sadness and so on, the subjects would answer, but not as powerful as it would be normaly preffered.

Also, it is not true that sociopaths have no values whatsoever. They do have values, they just don't have the right values. This is meaning their consciousness works just fine, but its aimed into the wrong direction.

People like to make things so big, to worship things, that are really not true. So is the problem with sociopaths. If sociopaths are people wo have no rules, who are determined to do anything for their desires, then history is full of sociopaths. No surprise here at all.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I took a test I found because of this site that suggested I have this sociopath trait. I think it effects people to varying degrees. I posted my test results here some place. Ill see if I can find them.

No, apparently not. Instead it was "Schizoid personality disorder". So my feeling on sociopaths is like anything else. The brain is complex and its possible some people are born without certain things or with things added. So yeah, its possible.

Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, emotional coldness, and apathy. Affected individuals may simultaneously demonstrate a rich, elaborate and exclusively internal fantasy world.[1]

SPD is not the same as schizophrenia, although they share such similar characteristics as detachment and blunted affect. There is, moreover, increased prevalence of the disorder in families with schizophrenia.

Something else to worry about.

 

[DonTaushMe]

I took a test I found because of this site that suggested I have this sociopath trait. I think it effects people to varying degrees. I posted my test results here some place. Ill see if I can find them.

No, apparently not. Instead it was "Schizoid personality disorder". So my feeling on sociopaths is like anything else. The brain is complex and its possible some people are born without certain things or with things added. So yeah, its possible.

Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, emotional coldness, and apathy. Affected individuals may simultaneously demonstrate a rich, elaborate and exclusively internal fantasy world.[1]

SPD is not the same as schizophrenia, although they share such similar characteristics as detachment and blunted affect. There is, moreover, increased prevalence of the disorder in families with schizophrenia.

Something else to worry about.

There are a lot of people who just really don't like other people, especially now a'days, this does not mean at all that you are a sociopath or a psychopath. The key difference in those two things aside from any other disorder someone may say they have, is that sociopaths and psychopaths LIKE to hurt other people, whether it be by manipulation or physical abuse, they enjoy it. The only time they have any remorse is when they are caught. It can range from little things like intentionally making someone want to kill themselves, and being remorseful when being called out on their crazy or actually killing someone and being put in jail. That is when they will cry about it, when they are suffering.

And I personally think being a narcissist and being a psychopath are two very different things, as I am a narcissist, but I am not out to hurt people; more often than not I try to protect them and end up getting the brunt from the psychopath that was hurting them in the first place. This happens often :/

Besides that this resonates with me completely: "-is that a narcissist is not aware that they are different than others they just think they are better-" I really don't think I am any different from anybody else, I just think I'm at my best but others can be at their best too, and apparently that's not normal thinking :/

But I still think it is *throws hands up* fuck it.

 

[LucyJr]

"Schizophrenia remains the paradigmatic metaphoric illness of modernity: a non-illness—generated by our bafflement by what the Other qua Madman says, authoritatively declared to be a disease (justifying his involuntary hospitalization and treatment). So important has schizophrenia become—not only in psychiatry but in modern society as a whole—that perhaps never before in history have so many educated people wasted so much time and money as have diverse professionals squandered on studying this nonexistent illness." (The Meaning of the Mind, Thomas Szasz, 1996 AD, p 121)

 

[Eventhorizon]

Its not that I dont like other people. I dont feel one way or the other about many people. There are 6 Billion people in the world, if I felt something for every person I met, I would likely be insane. This is why I dont have many friends though many think of me as a friend (much to my bewilderment). Of the friends I do have, I would die for any of them if I thought I was saving them from death themselves. I think many would do the same for me. I dont know that this is the best way to define a friend but it seems relevant. I dont like to see people suffer but then again, I dont feel any great connection to them either. I dont need to be around people just to be around people. In fact because of my introvert tendencies, I avoid people. I guess this makes me look a bit schizoid? Who knows.

 

[La Sagna]

"Schizophrenia remains the paradigmatic metaphoric illness of modernity: a non-illness–generated by our bafflement by what the Other qua Madman says, authoritatively declared to be a disease (justifying his involuntary hospitalization and treatment). So important has schizophrenia become–not only in psychiatry but in modern society as a whole–that perhaps never before in history have so many educated people wasted so much time and money as have diverse professionals squandered on studying this nonexistent illness." (The Meaning of the Mind, Thomas Szasz, 1996 AD, p 121)

I have to call total BS on this. I have a sister-in-law who has had delusional thoughts. She was imagining that she was being followed and that people who wore red clothing were going to harm her in some way. She was not making this up, who would? She now takes medication so she can maintain a job because who wants to work with somebody who starts yelling at people wearing red? If she wasn't on medication she would lose her job and have to stay locked in her house. She has three school aged kids, she can't afford to do that. I feel really sorry for her because her medication really numbs her feelings so she is not like her more bubbly self that she used to be but she is doing the responsible thing for her and her family to take the medication.

You have no idea the kind of harm the type of misinformation you are spreading can do.

You know, I hardly ever get mad, but you have my blood boiling over this.

 

[LucyJr]

I have to call total BS on this. I have a sister-in-law who has had delusional thoughts. She was imagining that she was being followed and that people who wore red clothing were going to harm her in some way. She was not making this up, who would? She now takes medication so she can maintain a job because who wants to work with somebody who starts yelling at people wearing red? If she wasn't on medication she would lose her job and have to stay locked in her house. She has three school aged kids, she can't afford to do that. I feel really sorry for her because her medication really numbs her feelings so she is not like her more bubbly self that she used to be but she is doing the responsible thing for her and her family to take the medication.

You have no idea the kind of harm the type of misinformation you are spreading can do.

You know, I hardly ever get mad, but you have my blood boiling over this.

I am doing harm? By what, by sharing a opinion I found in a book?
ITS FROM A BOOK, and you can read it yourself if you want!

I'm really sory for your sister, and I say this in all respect. I mean no harm but what I posted.