What's your opinion on sociopaths? | Page 7 | INFJ Forum

What's your opinion on sociopaths?

Ok, so my sister in law taking medication which takes away her delusions is what? Do you think she is pretending to not have them anymore? or that she was pretending to have them in the first place? Granted, the side effects of the drugs are unfortunate and I wish she could function without them but she is still better than if she didn't take them.

I'm not sure what is shaping your opinions but it doesn't seem to be from first-hand experience.
Why are you trying to get a specific answer from me? So you can readily accuse me?
Why aren't you reading this guy's book to find out more on what is his theory of supposed mental illness?
I'm not sure what is shaping your opinions but it doesn't seem to be from first-hand experience.
Certainly the ones who are psychiatrists and have written against mental illness have plenty of first hand experiences.
 
How did you come to this conclusion? The many years of study you have put forth on the subject?
Why are you asking me this if you already know the answer? No, I didn't had "many years of study".
Do you had many years of study to think that Schizophrenia is a mental illness, or to agree with the general view?
 
I've only ever met one person I would call a sociopath. She was very emotionally manipulative, every sentence she spoke felt disingenuous, and she carried this cold stare that never seemed contiguous to the rest of her face (this was probably the most eerie thing about her.)
 
The second premise is that the mind is a manifestation of brain function. Our thoughts, mood, and behaviors are, in fact, the biological function of the brain. There is no spirit, magic, life force, or quantum woo hiding inside our heads. Further, many specific mental activities (even those that we are not consciously aware of) correlate to specific areas of the brain — brain structures that evolved to create a particular mental function.
Man, no wonder they shock them...
"Its in your brain, I know is there. I'm gone shock you a bit, to see if anything is happen. Fire in the hole!!!" - maaaaad doctors!
 
Why are you trying to get a specific answer from me? So you can readily accuse me?
Why aren't you reading this guy's book to find out more on what is his theory of supposed mental illness?

Certainly the ones who are psychiatrists and have written against mental illness have plenty of first hand experiences.

I'm not accusing you of anything I'm asking you a question about what you think my personal observations would be according to your theory of mental illness and psychiatry. I'm sincerely curious as to how you would explain the results that I see. If you're going to make such a claim shouldn't you be able to back it up somehow?

I was commenting on what looked like you sharing your opinion and not a quote from Szasz' book. For the record I have read an essay by him in one of my psychology classes but I am not likely to read his book as he has been mostly discredited.

I don't believe that there are too many psychiatrists who have written against mental illness. Szasz himself has not provided any more proof of his theory than the proof used for any other theory in psychiatry.
 
I'm not accusing you of anything I'm asking you a question about what you think my personal observations would be according to your theory of mental illness and psychiatry. I'm sincerely curious as to how you would explain the results that I see. If you're going to make such a claim shouldn't you be able to back it up somehow?
Yes, I could, but I won't. I'm sory for that.
Just to explain why, the reaction I got so far tells me clearly not to go any further.
And I'm really tired of all this.

I was commenting on what looked like you sharing your opinion and not a quote from Szasz' book. For the record I have read an essay by him in one of my psychology classes but I am not likely to read his book as he has been mostly discredited.

I don't believe that there are too many psychiatrists who have written against mental illness. Szasz himself has not provided any more proof of his theory than the proof used for any other theory in psychiatry.
I chose to believe Dr. Szasz for many reasons. That is my opinion.
 
Thankfully society in general has moved forward, including psychiatry:

The Denial of Mental Illness is Alive and Well
Thomas Szasz, the father of the anti-psychiatry movement, has died, but his legacy lives on

Earlier this week, I had dinner with a recently retired lawyer who has spent the past 40-odd years working to protect the rights of people with mental illness. She shared with me an anecdote that, she said, had set the course of her entire career:

One day in the summer of 1970, she was working at a St. Louis legal clinic on her law school break, when a 17-year-old girl walked in with her boyfriend. The boyfriend was black. The girl was white — and pregnant. The couple wanted to stay together and raise their baby. The girls’ parents were hell-bent on splitting them apart — and on making sure that they wouldn’t have a mixed-race grandchild. And so, they were having the teenager committed to a mental hospital where they could force her to have an abortion. “There was nothing we could do,” the lawyer told me. “There were no laws we could use to protect her.”

This kind of awful story, in which coercive psychiatric “treatment” was used to punish a wayward teenager, wasn’t so rare when Dr. Thomas Szasz, a professor of psychiatry at SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, who died last weekend at the age of 92, began to publish books that accused colleagues in his profession of committing crimes against humanity. Psychiatry, Szasz said in books like The Myth of Mental Illness and Ideology and Insanity, was a “pseudomedical form of control.”

“There can be no such thing as mental illness,” he even declared.

In so doing, the Hungarian-born Szasz became the founding father of the American Antipsychiatry Movement, and a hero to many who deplored psychiatry’s often-abusive mid-twentieth century practices. (Among his admirers: the Church of Scientology, with whom Szasz founded the anti-psychiatry Citizens Commission on Human Rights in 1969.) His work inspired the highly influential patients’ rights movement to put an end to the most egregious practices once common in state mental hospitals and remake the entire legal framework around involuntary psychiatric treatment. But he also left behind a legacy of denial of the seriousness of mental illness that has done more damage than good.

(MORE: The Latest Trend: Blaming Brain Science)


In 1992, Szasz was sued by the widow of another psychiatrist who killed himself while in treatment with Szasz, after Szasz advised him to stop taking the medication he’d been prescribed for bipolar disorder. (The Syracuse Post-Standard later reported that the lawsuit had been settled for an undisclosed sum in April 1994, shortly before it was to be tried in state Supreme Court.)

And in the decades since that event, the Szasz school of thought — which maintains that the extreme distress we see in people labeled mentally ill is nothing more than a form of social protest against unbearable situations—has had an insidious and wide-ranging effect. It has left us with a cultural tendency to both question and romanticize some forms of mental illness — such as depression and ADHD — as higher, more “authentic” states of being. This trick of mind, which denies the reality of suffering and impairment, has kept countless people from seeking help, including innumerable parents who fear that taking their child to a psychiatrist will inevitably lead to his or her being “put in a box” or denatured with drugs.

In addition, the anti-treatment movement Szasz intellectually inspired facilitated the release of tens of thousands of seriously ill mental patients who, when they relapsed, had nowhere to go and no one to help them, and often ended up in prison or living life on the streets. Many mental health advocates today are struggling against the less well-considered aspects of the patients rights movement: working to support families who can’t secure care for their loved ones unless they are dangerously violent or suicidal.


The profession of psychiatry has changed enormously since the time that Szasz began writing, mostly in good ways. Some stigma has abated; the sense of shame that once kept most people from ever speaking of seeing a “shrink” has greatly lessened. But casting doubt on the lived reality of mental illness continues. It’s a newer form of stigma that presents itself as intellectual sophistication. It permeates journalism, in particular, and speaks itself every time we write stories that parse “true” depression (the suicidal kind) from the whiny, self-indulgent, unjustifiably overmedicated, “mild” kind. It comes up every time we trivialize ADHD as a pseudo-affliction of “wiggly boys” or ambitious high school students who want to drug themselves up to get better grades.

This pernicious form of stigma has become second nature for many right-minded people eager to prove their independence from the machinations of the hand-over-fist-money-making drug companies. Yet it’s a form of social protest that, long removed from its valid historical roots, has become simplistic and sometimes even harmful.

It’s time to give Szasz his place in history. And then to move on.
 
[MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION]
I would respectfuly plead with you to watch this documentary, and you will understand more what is about psychiatry that is dangerous.
[video=youtube;II96QkZaz1E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II96QkZaz1E[/video]
 
Yes, I could, but I won't. I'm sory for that.
Just to explain why, the reaction I got so far tells me clearly not to go any further.
And I'm really tired of all this.

I chose to believe Dr. Szasz for many reasons. That is my opinion.

Really? Well, you are entitled to believe whatever you want but if you are to make categorical statements that contradict many people's personal experiences or well-accepted science than I would suggest that you be ready to have people ask you for some information to back up your statements. When you say that you won't explain yourself it gives the impression that you don't have an explanation, whether that is true or not. If you do have an explanation then there should be no harm in sharing it since this is the internet and nobody can do anything to harm you, we can just comment on our own opinions.

By the way, I do believe that mental illness is real and I believe that in some cases medication can be a life-saver. I also believe in God, even though there is not categorical proof of His existence (you can disagree with me on that too).
 
[MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION]
I would respectfuly plead with you to watch this documentary, and you will understand more what is about psychiatry that is dangerous.
[video=youtube;II96QkZaz1E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II96QkZaz1E[/video]

It's a little long for me to watch now but I have no doubt there has been some great harm done by psychiatrists. That does not mean that mental illness doesn't exist and that psychiatrists sometimes are the people that do help those suffering from mental illness. Some of us have been witnesses to this. My own personal experience will trump any documentary for me forming a judgement.
 
Why are you asking me this if you already know the answer? No, I didn't had "many years of study".
Do you had many years of study to think that Schizophrenia is a mental illness, or to agree with the general view?

Not at all. I leave that to the folks who have and who seem to think its real. I have my own personal experience where my mind currently works different than it did a few years ago. I have a brother who is fine one second, then next hes off on some tirade about how people are coming after him.

I did not already know the answer to the question. The answer to the question came from you.
 
Not at all. I leave that to the folks who have and who seem to think its real. I have my own personal experience where my mind currently works different than it did a few years ago. I have a brother who is fine one second, then next hes off on some tirade about how people are coming after him.

I did not already know the answer to the question. The answer to the question came from you.
What question and what answer?
 
I've reading this thread for a while. Different perspectives are always interesting, but i honestly think the idea of most of mental diseases as not real is a very disrespectful for the ones who have it.
Schizophrenia is a real disease, and really painful to watch from outside when it happens, you just simply don't know where the nice person that you used to know went. I don't have a good opinion of psychiatry, and but there are some who are fighting the good fight, if not by finding a cure, at least supporting them. Bipolars are also real, and they also suffer a lot, i know one very well, and without going too much into details, she feels guilty, she genuinely wants to get better, among other things, she is just a wonderful person, takes responsibility for how much she made others suffer, and wants to find a cure.
That leads me to another point... Labeling oneself as mentally ill just because is glamorous is just stupid, just a very uninteligent way of getting attention, caring about this attitudes seems silly to me too, and dangerous, since leads to generalizations, and also because, who cares, if they're getting what they want (attention) fine by me, i just hope they're treated by someone who's intelligent and understanding... But there are people who are genuinely suffering because of it, and labeling what's wrong in them is helpful, because it gives them a target, a definition, they're no longer confused, this is a very complicated subject for me to write in lenght, but by the end it gives them control and understanding.
Honestly i think Thomas Szazs was really misguided in his opinions, and it shows a mentality that personally don't like, nor respect, don't care if he is an expert on the subject, it just shows me how stubborn people can be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: invisible
What question and what answer?

"The many years of study you have put forth on the subject?" To which you said, you had none.

It was a question, one of many I have asked. For what its worth I have not accused you or anyone of anything. I have simply asked questions. I think the response to your "statement" was a bit extreme but its clear you touched a raw nerve with many.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
one thing i have learned about the experience of severe mental illness is that it is something that can never be described or communicated in any meaningful way. its something that is impossible for people to understand, even when their minds are open to it. people see me now and they have no concept of how deeply mentally ill i have been in my life, what depression means to me, and theres no way i can communicate it to them. i can say i weighed 48 kgs at 179 cm, or i can say that i could only sleep for 3 hours a night, or that i thought that there were messages for me that were encoded in radio broadcasts, or there were mysterious disembodied voices in my environment calling out my name and swearing at me or whatever. but the reality of that experience is something that people can never grasp, unless they have gone through something similar themselves, like needing to be hospitalised as a psychiatric emergency. they cant know how much it consumes your life and how control of it just slips away. even people very close to you dont really understand. only recently my mother has gone through a few hospitalisations for chronic PTSD and has said to me that she has met a number of people who have not been as acutely or chronically depressed as i was but appear to show no signs of moving towards recovery, so that she has achieved a new level of understanding about what my illness has meant - and she was there the whole time. the reality for me is that without the psychiatric treatments that were available to me, i would no longer be alive. that is just simple reality to me and as factually plain as night and day. depression has had a profound impact on my life and the development of my mind, my mind will never be able to do the things it could have done if this had not happened to me, because my brain has been damaged. people who never have to come to terms with things like this are very lucky, and they cant know how lucky they are.
 
Last edited:
Am I a sociopath?

I've been a creeper on this thread for a while.

The other day I went through the Hare Psychopathy checklist and came out as a "high risk" for being a psychopath.

I don't do guilt or remorse. As a child I enjoyed lying, not necessarily to better my situation, but because I found it genuinely amusing that reality could be warped by words.

I have an uncanny insight into people and situations. I am a master at manipulation. When I was a tween, I would routinely mobilize an army of girls to isolate someone until she collapsed into a pool of tears. I would switch targets often, making one of the bullies into a victim. It was a little experiment of mine. But I outgrew it and haven't done anything of that sort since.

I don't think I lack in empathy. The sight of my loved ones in pain troubles me immensely, so much so that I usually do everything within my power to alleviate it.

The trouble is there are only a handful of people I genuinely care for, and the rest of the world in pain doesn't effect me. I might be interested on an intellectual level, and could even act charitable. But it does not move me emotionally. Having said that, I can certainly understand what others are going through and have no trouble reacting appropriately. In fact, I do so with grace.

I was not a victim of child abuse, and I am not a murderer or a criminal. I have never been arrested for a crime and intend to keep it that way, not due to any moral reasons but because I feel the risk outweighs the gain. I have a solid career and am a loving wife and mother.

Having said that, I have always had the tendency to engage in high risk sexual behavior. I suppose I'm a thrill seeker. I get bored easily.

People generally find me attractive. I have a hypnotic stare and a laser beam focus. Those who converse with me for some amount of time usually describe me as deep and complex.

Oh, I once did a D&D alignment test which came out as "True Neutral". That doesn't sound very evil now, does it?

Am I a sociopath? Maybe. Do they exist? Perhaps. Are they dangerous? Could be.

Oh, and I'm Asian. I think the fact that there's less of us in Asian countries is bullshit.
 
Last edited:
I've been a creeper on this thread for a while.

The other day I went through the Hare Psychopathy checklist and came out as a "high risk" for being a psychopath.

I don't do guilt or remorse. As a child I enjoyed lying, not necessarily to better my situation, but because I found it genuinely amusing that reality could be warped by words.
Well so are most of childrens. They like to lie sice they are little.
I have an uncanny insight into people and situations.
So am I and many other people.
I am a master at manipulation.
So are many manu other people. There are people who are much better at manipulation than you. People that get to run states, just by manipulation and intimidation. Nothing new here.

When I was a tween, I would routinely mobilize an army of girls to isolate someone until she collapsed into a pool of tears. I would switch targets often, making one of the bullies into a victim. It was a little experiment of mine. But I outgrew it and haven't done anything of that sort since.
My ESTP brother, which has 9 years, did this alot. It took me some time to deal with him and take care of him to make him stop.
Many kids to that. The ones that don't do it, is mostly because they can't.

I don't think I lack in empathy. The sight of my loved ones in pain troubles me immensely, so much so that I usually do everything within my power to alleviate it.
So are most people. Its the "we" vs "them" mentality. What did you think, that those who are empathic empathise with the whole planet? Rarely so.
The trouble is there are only a handful of people I genuinely care for, and the rest of the world in pain doesn't effect me. I might be interested on an intellectual level, and could even act charitable. But it does not move me emotionally. Having said that, I can certainly understand what others are going through and have no trouble reacting appropriately. In fact, I do so with grace.
Exactly like most people do.
I was not a victim of child abuse, and I am not a murderer or a criminal. I have never been arrested for a crime and intend to keep it that way, not due to any moral reasons but because I feel the risk outweighs the gain. I have a solid career and am a loving wife and mother.
Many people don't engage in illegal things because of the law, not because of moral reasons.
Having said that, I have always had the tendency to engage in high risk sexual behavior. I suppose I'm a thrill seeker. I get bored easily.
Just like most "modern" people. Nothing new again.
People generally find me attractive.
So are many other people.

I have a hypnotic stare and a laser beam focus.
So have many other people, and most of INFJs. (I don't have, for the record.)

Those who converse with me for some amount of time usually describe me as deep and complex.
Classic INFJ.
Am I a sociopath? Maybe. Do they exist? I'm here.
I don't think you are.
No, they don't exist. Its a myth born out of the stupidity of people.
All what there is: moraly disfunctional people. They come in all categories and sizes.

Are they dangerous? Could be.
Every man could be dangerous.
Oh, and I'm Asian. I think the fact that there's less of us in Asian countries is bullshit.
Probably. People who don't like rules, who live on their own are everywhere in this planet.
 
I don't think you are.
No, they don't exist. Its a myth born out of the stupidity of people.
All what there is: moraly disfunctional people. They come in all categories and sizes.

I'm not in disagreement with your statement, though I would describe myself as "morally ambivalent" rather than "morally dysfunctional".

I do think there is a fissure between those who regard morality as relative and those who regard it as absolute. It's a great divide and I feel the gaping mouth every time I casually scan through these posts.

There is a general consensus that it's normal for human beings to have some respect for moral code, whether innate or nurtured. Labels such as "psychopath" and "sociopath" are given to those who deviate from it. Personally I think my deviation is completely within normal range.
 
I'm not in disagreement with your statement, though I would describe myself as "morally ambivalent" rather than "morally dysfunctional".

I do think there is a fissure between those who regard morality as relative and those who regard it as absolute. It's a great divide and I feel the gaping mouth every time I casually scan through these posts.

There is a general consensus that it's normal for human beings to have some respect for moral code, whether innate or nurtured. Labels such as "psychopath" and "sociopath" are given to those who deviate from it. Personally I think my deviation is completely within normal range.

I think there's a huge difference between being amoral and being a sociopath.

Just like there's a huge difference between being simply bored with everything and anhedonia.
 
I'm not in disagreement with your statement, though I would describe myself as "morally ambivalent" rather than "morally dysfunctional".

I do think there is a fissure between those who regard morality as relative and those who regard it as absolute. It's a great divide and I feel the gaping mouth every time I casually scan through these posts.

There is a general consensus that it's normal for human beings to have some respect for moral code, whether innate or nurtured. Labels such as "psychopath" and "sociopath" are given to those who deviate from it. Personally I think my deviation is completely within normal range.
If we come frm the perspective of morality as being objective and something real, as I think morality is, then the so called "sociopaths" are nothing but evil people, "moraly disfunctional".
If we talk about morality as a consensus between people, something subjective, then nobody is really morality disfunctional. "Moraly ambivalent" would be a good term I guess, althought in my opinion completly meaningless. In one sense, if morality is a consensus, then we all are moraly ambivalent.