Are people with autism borderline sociopaths?

Post Reply New Topic

I used to think I was borderline sociopath, but that was not because I had antisocial behavior. I never lied or cheated or tried to manipulate people. More it was because of my Aspie-ness, like not being able to relate to other people in certain situations. The other half was probably because I sometimes feel emotionally disconnected or have trouble understanding my emotions.

I define it differently, each to their own though

I've always questioned that motive, personally. Although I do "help people for the sake of helping people," I believe charity to be inherently selfish.

The selfish motive being that a person feels good or needed after helping someone else. How is seeking emotional rewards for behavior morally different (better, more virtuous) from seeking material rewards? I have never understood this paradox. [this is one of those "weird" ideas that make people disown me as a friend after learning]

But, I digress...

Ha, I posted that before I read DemonAbyss' identical argument.

I developed that idea as an Atheist in Catholic School, aged 14. I was trying to address the paradox of the incredibly mean yet devoutly religious people I knew who did "good works."

I seem to digress from Demon, however, in that I unerringly veer towards taking the emotional reward over the material reward. For me, it was a "selfishness is ok" theory, not a "screwing over people you hate is ok" theory.

when material rewards are involved, you are taking something from someone else in exchange for the work. when you do something for the sake of helping, the good feeling is self-generated with no cost to others. one situation is an exchange of goods/labour and the other is a no-cost gift. it is very, very different.

and not everyone makes a big deal internally when they do good works. some might puff themselves up and even tell everyone in sight about the good thing they did, but others might do good things with hardly even a blip in the radar.

when i was a teacher, i would try to teach students to reward themselves because then they are more responsible for their own behaviour. they can always pat themselves on the back even if nobody else notices their good deed, so they have a steady supply of reinforcement at-the-ready inside themselves. but as soon as it becomes contingent on other people to exchange money for the good deed, then the good deed can't happen spontaneously and the internal motivation to do the good work is gone - the work depends on other people reciprocating.

with no exchange, the work doesn't happen, so a poor starving child (for example) could go unfed because the charity worker won't cook for free. or the person who broke their leg would not get first aid because the passerby is not a paid ambulance worker.

Well, i used the dictionary.

It isn't simply feelings but the feelings would come from following, or failing, a value system.

So if one has an internalized value system of love, meaning will to the good of the other, or goodwill, then failing that you would feel bad. Accomplishing or following that would possibly feel goonod.
But this does not mean that it is necessarily the same selfishness as the gains from only thinking of ones own regard such as a thief.
The difference is in what is valued. Values in pinciples or simply self interest for yourself without regard for others.

You feel good or bad in regards to the intial value system.

Someone feeling bad for hurting another feels bad because what they hurt was valued.

Last edited by Jediscraps on 19 Nov 2011, 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

I like your analysis, hyperlexian.

If I processed that correctly, are you saying that emotional selfishness is morally good because without it, people in need would not get the help they require?

Sociopaths who either don't know they're sociopaths or don't know I'm autistic always seem to think we're the same. I suggest there's a particular 'not part of the herd' vibe we share with them. Otherwise the similarities are superficial.

i don't really know what emotional selfishness is. every person has an internal reward system, reinforced with hormones and other brain chemicals, which is neither good nor bad but universal. people who do stuff in exchange for payment are not exempt from receiving the same chemical reinforcement - it just might not be enough of a reward.

I'm using the term "emotional selfishness" as taking action with the desire to trigger your chemical emotional reward system, whether that desire be conscious or subconscious.

And likewise, I also believe that desire to be neither good nor bad, but amoral.

This is why they need to quit pegging us with lack of empathy and state the actual truth which is lack of theory of mind. Sociopaths have advanced theory of mind but lacks care of others feelings. Often pretending to care but not really.

Stop trying to lump us in with sociopaths.

This topic comes up alot from people who don't really know much about autism but have just read about it yet wouldn't dare be caught with someone who has autism.

yeah, i don't think that people who decide to do good things without external reward are necessarily desiring the chemical reward system any more than people who also get monetary reward.

It's possible to deconstruct everything people do if actions are ultimately deterministic (i.e. we are nothing more than walking chemical reactions). From that perspective neither selfishness or selflessness even exist. People just do what they are programmed to do.

However, I can't just disregard my value system based on this. I'm still going to hold altruism in higher regard, even if it is based on an emotional reward or programmed behavior. I'm human. I have emotions. I can't operate any other way.

I saw on someone psoting on anotger site. What i think i understood him saying is that the feeling of love is a genetic programed response and what i could understand was that he was then skeptical of caring for others if it put his life in any sort of danger, risk, detriment, or altruism.

At least, that isbhow i understood it.

Reducing everything down to chemicals. I've seen it argued that reductionism could be to control phenomena by reducing and sort of dismissing. I cannot do that argument. But i think about it.

Also, then there is the theory that thoughts effect feelings. I don't fummy agree with that because i could see how that coukd be used to control dissidents that there's something wrong with their thoughts so they need to change them. But i also can see how thoughts can effect ones feelings. So then, if you feel deprrssed, and you look at your thouggts to see why, and it is because of guilt for hurting others in some way, isn't that saying it is a value system that actually caused the bad feelings?

If you reduce that down to chemicals or genes is the argument that chemicals and genes express worldviews and values?

basically how I view it. I know what hyperlexians been saying though. But then I also hold the beliefs that morals are in and of themselves subjective. There is no universal ruleset, it is all subjectivism at its finest. I can really twist it around on its head but I wont. Lets just say it involves that good and evil/right and wrong are completely subjective. Need I bring up the phrase Well-intentioned Extremist?

Yeah, sorry, that's me. Overly pragmatic, systematic and rational. So rational that I developed a "rational refutation of rationality" to justify trusting your instincts.

Sorry about taking everyone on this red herring. I feel like I totally derailed this topic.