Aspergers Bringing Out The Worst In People

Post Reply New Topic

I am a magnet for strange stuff. I told my husband that before we were married and he told me it was my imagination. ANd now he shakes his head in disbelief at what happens to me from time to time.

As has been pointed out we arn't NTs and therefore we are different which equals bad. I have been accused of shoplifting and been followed around by floor personal which is rediculous, because if they really knew me they would laugh at their behavior. I can be OCD when it comes to following laws and feel guilty making the slightest infraction of a rule. At times I wish NTs could see HOw odd their behavior and actions really appear to Aspies. Lol

I have people tell me they do this or that to get around the powers that be on the job or in social gatherings. I understand it, but I wonder why one has to be so untrue to oneself to get what is needed or wanted. My first thought is the injustice needs to be righted and all should be fair. Yup all this makes me odd I don't doubt. sigh

I totally understand where people are coming from on the whole people using you type thing. I always had neighbors asking for money, my car, my internet, my phone, and free babysitting. Sometimes though, some of them would help me out in return. I had one neighbor always wanting me to babysit who I wouldn't trust watching my kids though she'd offer somewhere in a comment about how she wants to keep my kids forever. So, she didn't watch my kids not because she didn't want to but because I didn't want her to. Then I moved, and I had neighbors that watched my kids, just not as often as I would watch their kids. But I really didn't mind watching their kids because it kept my kids busy. They say the best thing for kids is to be around other kids, so really me watching other people's kids is good for my family. Plus, one of those kids loved to clean my house for me.

I did like the one post who writes down the rules. My friend does that with her own kids. She posts rules in writing all over her house. It's the easiest way to solve disputes between children and between parent/child because it's in writing. Kids often will argue about what you said, but if you have it in writing, they can't argue with you can they. That's probably why grown ups do that too

I'm really understanding this whole "testing" concept. I would almost put it as NT as the herding instinct to also have a testing instinct where they test other people to see what they can get away with. The Fugees once said, edited, that if you let a man kick you three times, he will kick you three times. If you let him kick you twice, he will kick you twice. If you let him kick you once, he will kick you once. But if you break off his freaking feet, there ain't going to be no more kicking going on. As awful as that sounds, it's true. People will only do to you what you allow them to.

Yeah, pretty much, some people just never grow up and are "king/queen crap" and they own everything in their own minds.



I wouldn't call psychopath's machines, that's giving them way to much credit, I really doubt a android with sophisticated AI but lacks AE would behave in a d-bagish manner. They have emotions, they just seem to lack other-centered emotions which explains the narcissistic d-baggishness. So far I've only heard of psychopaths displaying geniune emotions of fear, hate, anger, jealousy/envy and greed, all self-centered emotions.



True, many people don't realize this though, plus alot of babyish psychopathic imbeciles have polluted adult socialization with childish schoolyard idea's so some ASers/Autistics assume all NTs think in a psychopathic manner when they don't.



Correct.



Correct, Narcissism/Pyschopathy has levels, just like you though I don't know what they are thinking so I can't say for certain the details of what goes on inside their head as I'm not a mind reader.



Yeah pretty much, they're hustlers by heart, a conscience, other-centered feelings, sense of morality, ethics and honour, all of these things are just the feelings and idea's of "suckers" to them, they'll pay lip-service to them, but to a psychopath it's all a game and these things are just lip-service tools to use for "social status", it's pretty evident when you see the constant discrepancy in their words and actions.



Yeah, they're really nasty with that, that's why it's best not to take crap from people and call them on their crap. Alot of people have become to used to social games "I'm sure we all know this drill", putting narcissus on a pedastul "You can only love another by loving yourself idea" and pretending "Mask of Sanity", I think these idea's have caused abit of social corruption and have people think it's "cool" and "ok" to act like a psychopath because you know... life's a "game"..... except it's not. When you look at it, psychopathic behaviour is actually very juevenile and immature, it's like they're perpetually stuck in their early "I'm king/queen crap" teenager years.

I guess that would depend on the programming..
What I mean is that when someone has no conscience, everything they do is for their own benefit. If they seem to be showing morals, if they seem to be keeping a promise, it's a calculated maneuver to get something, probably with some measure of narcissism incorporated into it.
(OK, I'm kinda seeing what you mean about the machine thing.. like a machine would probably have a greater degree of enlightened self-interest and wouldn't have impatience, narcissism, etc, to get in the way. I guess I was thinking more in the way you have to think about people like that. You can't reason with them or relate to them. You can't explain how they hurt you, because they won't care. It gives them more leverage against you.)
If they seem to be listening to you, it's only for their own gain. If they're doing something for somebody else, it's because they get something out of it, it's because they get more out of it than the person it seems to be benefiting. There's no humanity.

I'm not sure how calculated psychopaths truly are, they are indeed out for generally themselves though and I think it depends on what type of psychopath you're talking about, a foolish narcissistic one or a machavellian one? I have an idea that some psychopaths might actually be two different "breeds" with only superficial similarities (apparent outward behaviour) with completely different internal mechanisms (motivators) for their bad behaviour.



Actually psychopathy is mainly pathological narcissism, Sammo Vaknin has done a great deal to screw with the word narcissism by trying to make it equal his exact persona which has heaping doses of pathological narcissism/psychopathy and histrionism, he mainly fiddled with the word to give it the meaning of "attention whore PD" which is actually more along the definition of Histrionic PD due to his combinational NPD/HPD. "Narcissistic Supply" doesn't really exist, it's more like "Histrionic Supply", as for the word "Narcissistic Injury" it mainly means "Ego Injury" or "butthurt" in internet slang and you don't have to be a rank and file Narcissist/Psychopath to have ego injury, normal people get it all the time.

The word Narcissism comes from the Greek mythological figure Narcissus, he fell in love with his own own reflection (himself) and ignored everyone (including the woman who loved him I believe) around him and died. Nothing about the implications and meaning of the word mean "attention whore", it means a person who's in-love with themself (ie. grandoise sense of self-worth, sense of entitledment, callousness, lack of empathy, ect.).

I wouldn't buy into what Sammo V says, he's a weird narcissistic histrionic hybrid resulting in a very strange and "unique" psychopathic individual.



Yeah pretty much, a machine wouldn't have to worry about pesky things such as human weakness and stupidity, but I'm not sure a Machine would go around pathologically lying and such either.

(bold added)
I didn't say everything they ever do is calculated. I said that if they seem to be doing something that isn't for themselves, it's a calculated effort in order to get something.



Antisocial Personality Disorder is not the same as Narcissistic Personality Disorder. "Psychopaths" or "sociopaths" generally refer to people with Antisocial Personality Disorder. Most of the personality disorders could be attributed to pathological narcissism. (You mentioned Histrionic Personality Disorder, as well.) However, somebody with NPD, or most of the other personality disorders, don't lack a conscience as antisocials do. Narcissists can come in many flavors. Narcissus didn't hurt anybody except, perhaps, Echo. (The woman who loved him.) In fact, as you pointed out, it was himself that he eventually harmed.

Sorry I offended you, it wasn't my intent.



ASPD is pretty much chronic criminality with narcissism added on and does not make a Psychopath, you have to have had conduct disorder as a juvenile to even rank for ASPD I believe, if you've met "Psychopaths" are you sure they are "Psychopaths" according to your logic? Do they actually have ASPD? Do they have a criminal record? If not, and they act like you say then they most likely have NPD, since ASPD pretty much requires you to have a record while NPD doesn't.

Anti-Social Personality Disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-socia ... y_disorder

Also psychopath is a psychological construct mean't to label the chronically amoral and unethical or "morally insane".

Pyschopathy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

The main factor of psychopathy is factor I which is Narcissism, followed by factor II which is socially-deviant lifestyle, some of the stuff on factor 2 doesn't make sense though like "proneness to boredom" which is kind of ADD/ADHD, then theres factor 3.



Ok....



NPD's usually do that's why they are "callous, lack empathy and remorse", the others yeah they don't lack a conscience and I never said they did, I was clearing up Sammo Vaknin's goofballery of the word narcissism.



Please explain?



Psychopaths eventually hurt themselves too you know, and most psychopaths don't hurt people for the sake of being evil, they do it because it benefits themself as you've said before or have you forgotten that?

The only offense was in being quoted out of context. You made it sound like I had said that everything done by someone without a conscience was calculated, while what I had said was that if someone without a conscience seemed to have a conscience, it was because of a calculated effort.


Actually I was responding to what you said about psychopaths. I originally used the term sociopath and made no mention of psychopaths, or even of specific disorders. The point was people without consciences.

You have mentioned three specific personality disorders, (antisocial, narcissistic, and histrionic) and attributed them all to narcissism. Of course, narcissism is a rather broad term.
There are many forms of self-centered-ness. Even paranoia could be considered self-centered, as it operate on the principle that others think about the person more than they actually do. In order to think the CIA is monitoring you, you'd have to think there was some reason why you're important enough for them to care.



I did say that, and I didn't contradict that. I don't know what point you're making here.

Well I didn't intend it that way and I apologized.



They pretty much mean the same thing, they are synonyms.



Ok.



No I didn't, I attributed ASPD and NPD with narcissism which they are infact attributed with, I stated Sam Vaknin tries make histrionic PD traits into narcissistic ones, I implied they were not the same.



Boom, I never said histrionia was narcissistic at all, I said Sam V, makes it sound that way and alot of people get their misinformation about narcissism from Sam V. I was infact arguing against Sam V's bastardization of the word narcissism to fit his own little persona.



That's not what is generally considered pathological narcissism in psychology.



Good to know we're on the same page on that one.

Apology accepted.


Ok, then, I will bastardize them. I see the sociopath as being more controlled than the psychopath. Neither has a conscience, but I think of a psychopath as more impulsive. The sociopath is more convincing, better at it.



You're right, I'm sorry.


Ok, well, I'll bastardize that one, too. I just don't see how somebody can believe they're being spied on without believing that they're important and interesting. Or, for that matter, if they're not doing anything interesting, why they'd care if they were being spied on. I imagine the jobs of fresh new NSA employees, having long dreamed of protecting the country, yadda yadda... getting stuck sitting there listening to reels and reels of meaningless conversations that set off triggered recording. There was something on the news awhile ago about a woman who found out from the Swiss government (I don't know why she found out from them, exactly... just remember my dad talking about it) that she had an NSA record for saying on the phone that her son had bombed in a school play. I'm not really sure to what extent that stuff actually is recorded.. but I feel quite sorry for whoever has to sift through all that. Point being that for somebody to be bothered because they think they're being spied on, they have to believe not only that they're being spied on, but that whoever might listen will actually be plotting against them. It takes a lot of effort to plot against somebody. It's not like government agencies are going to be plotting against Joe Nobody out of the blue.

Thanks for the clarification of your definitions, I generally refer to what you've defined as sociopath as the Machavellian, similiar behaviour to a psychopath but the Mach/Sociopath is more controlled, intelligent and calculated as you've said. I have to wonder what drives a Mach/Socio though, I don't think a deluded narcissistic psychopath would be capable of the same dangers due to their true blue narcissistic delusions of grandeur and impulsivity. I believe Hare refers to such people as "sucessful psychopaths", I believe it's been said that these types of people are fully aware and undeluded and understand the concepts of laws, morals and ethics but are somehow able to ignore them. If they're able to understand this concepts, yet do bad stuff, then I figure there must be some sort of rationalization behind their bad behaviour that allows them to nullify the conscience and feelings factor because an intellectual understanding generally leads to emotional attachment and internalization (making the idea part of oneself) and if this happens this should naturally lead to development of a conscience and other-centered feelings, so if they understand but can nullify it they would need a counter-rationalization to sever their previous attachment (Conscience and other-centered feelings).

Sorry to drone on, that was the idea I was refering to when I mentioned two different "breeds" of psychopath. That's just my thoughts on the subject of Sociopaths/Machavellians/"Successful" Psychopaths which I find a whole lot more interesting than idiot psychopaths because atleast the socio/mach is supposed to know better but for some reason still does asinine crap.



There's different degree's of narcissism, as many people say everyone has a little narcissus in them, it's just the degree of narcissism that determines whether it's pathological narcissism or not.

Would the Machiavellian be lacking a conscience, though? Wasn't Machiavelli's whole point leadership that produces a stable society? It was brutal, but mainly in the name of stability. The brutality used to keep order was supposed to be less than the brutality that would result from falling governments, civil wars, etc.

Well, that they find rationalization would actually fit the Machiavellian theory more accurately, then.
Lol, since not comprehending morals at all is considered "moral psychosis," perhaps understanding ethics but not actually feeling a conscience would be kinda like a "moral neurosis"? In the same way that a neurotic person doesn't have a logical break from reality, only an emotional one, the "moral neurotic" wouldn't actually have the feelings of conscience, just the logical knowledge of the principles of ethics.


It sounds like you're kinda operating on the theory that nobody is actually evil? Some people may very well want to do bad things. If they don't have a conscience, if they don't feel guilty no matter what they do, what motivation do they have not to do bad things? Their only motivation is not to get caught doing bad things--which may also involve blaming others.
Some people could be all about doing whatever they want to help themselves and not caring if they hurt other people, while others would actively want to hurt other people. (Like true sadists? Although I actually have this theory that some true sadists can actually justify it by hurting bad people. Sometimes they will "adopt" weaker people, and then go after the people who try to take advantage of the weaker person. It gives their sadism an outlet while doing something that might be considered constructive.) (BTW, I use the term "true sadist" to differentiate from the SM type sadist that hurts somebody who wants to be hurt. You know, as in "Masochist says 'hurt me,' what does a true sadist say?" "No.")


Is it a lesser degree of narcissism when someone who is paranoid thinks that everyone cares about them? (I'm applying that fine-line-between-love-and-hate theory here.. hating someone involves caring about them in a twisted way, and hate is certainly closer to love than indifference is, and hating someone and wanting bad things to happen to them certainly does involve caring what happens to them.)

I think some of Machiavelli's points centered around people are naturally evil, self-centered and untrustworthy so you have to take up a psychopathic nature to survive or atleast control the psychopathic mass'. Basically a "adopt the strategy of my enemy and out-do them at it" sort of thing or atleast that's my take on it.



Yep, pretty much, if you think everyone is a evil unredeemable psychopath and the only way to survive is to act like a psychopath yourself, you effectively have a counter-rationalization to nullify conscience and morality. Basically a "cheat the cheater" or "screw them before they screw you" philosophy.



I'm not sure about that, mind and emotions play in an interlinked manner, an intense emotional breakdown could have one casually breaking from logic due to the interlink between the two. Mind and emotions are complex and deeply interlinked with each other and can affect the other.



I wouldn't say they wouldn't have the feelings of conscience, if one truly understands the principles then they should clearly develop a real conscience through internalization because they will believe it to be so and understand why it is so, if it's just pretend, then it's not really logical knowledge or understanding of the principles but rote memorization. Here's an example of true understanding vs rote memorization using simple knowledge of addition as an example.

Person A knows how to add, Person B does not, you tell Person B that 2+2=4, he memorizes it but he doesn't know why 2+2=4.

You ask PA what 2+2=, he says 4, you ask PB what 2+2= and he says 4 as well, now you ask PA what 5+3= and he says 8, if PB has not heard PA's answer he will not know what 5+3=, this is because PB does not understand addition so he doesn't have the knowledge at his disposal to figure out the answer.

There's a vast difference between understanding and comprehending a subject and merely rotely memorizing something.



I don't think anyone is 100% evil persay, just like nobody is 100% good, even if a person is 75% evil they still are not completely evil. I also don't believe that people "can't change" because people can and do truly change, it takes work and effort though, just because some people just sit there and BS you saying "Yeah, yeah I change, I'll quit my drugs and everything" and keep on using drugs doesn't mean everyone who says they're going to change is BSing you. Some people use the "change" thing as lip-service to keep themselves out of trouble or to "save face" while others actually do change, it's a case by case thing. The number one thing about change of any sort as any counseler will tell you is the person has to want to change, if they don't want to change, they won't.

But you're reading me better than most "NTs" do Maggie and they are supposed to be the "mastas" at reading people, they usually assume I think people are 100% "pure ebil" then they tell me people are 100% "gewd", but from recent views into other topics it seems that the "NTs" on this board actually have a real opinion which is completely opposite, which I find funny since I thought we autistics were supposed to be the cynical misanthropes, well according to some "NTs" of course.



Yes but this doesn't make them 100% evil.



They don't except for threat of physical harm or social shunning, the problem is are they truly incapable of developing a conscience? or do they just not care for whatever reason?



I like your theory, a kind of bizarro bully or reversed-psychopath, a person who preys on bullies and psychopaths. Such a person would get a bullies panties in a bunch.



Perhaps, sadism itself probably comes in levels as well, most if not all personality/behaviour traits probably do.



That doesn't strike me as paranoid, paranoia generally is irrational fear, panic and suscpicion, that's more like... well I don't know what to call that, it is certainly a delusional type of thought though.



Well I agree that hate is closer to love than indifference or apathy, hate's an actual emotion, indifference/apathy is a lack of emotion.

That's part of it.. but evil is relative. Not everything that's bad is necessarily evil. And of course some evils are necessary or unavoidable, but I'm not sure than evil as a noun is the same as evil as an adjective.
I think that the point of much of the ruthlessness was not so much relating to evil as fickleness. Machiavelli thought that while it would be best to be loved and feared, love is fickle so if it's a choice between one or the other, it's better for the prince to be feared. (He also pointed out that he should NOT be hated.)
I haven't actually read The Prince, and even if I had, I couldn't really tell you for sure what was going on in the mind of a 16th century Italian writer anyways. My interpretation certainly has room for error.



Problem is that some people ARE evil. You don't have to believe everyone is in order to believe that you have to work on the assumption that everyone is in order to not fall victim to the ones that are.


I'm not sure that that's universally true. Logic and emotion have some kind of relationship, but it's perfectly possible to know something logically but not emotionally.


The problem with that example is that there's no emotion entering into it at all. The difference between knowing and understanding is not the same as the difference between understanding logically and understanding emotionally.


Maybe they're not completely evil, but someone can still be effectively evil. If they've demonstrated hurtfulness, and if they've made past claims of changing that were lies, you kinda just have to work on the assumption that they're not going to change, or you're going to get hurt.



NT communication is different than aspie communication, I don't think it has anything to do with reading people. (Obviously it has to do with reading, as I'm reading everything you're saying, but I'm reading what you're saying, not reading you. Actually, I think that that's exactly the difference.)
So, for emphasis, I'll repeat that: I'm not reading you, I'm reading what you're saying. This also means that I can adapt what I've read when you adapt what you've said, and the other way around. It's not personal, it's informational, and either of us can adapt what we've said, alter definitions, etc. I don't think NTs tend to think that way. In the past, when I've attempted to explain what I meant by something, people have been so stuck on what they thought I meant that it doesn't matter, and even if they did say they understood what I meant, the next time it came up, we'd be back at square one. I'm not sure if it's an NT thing or not, but some people have problems redefining things. I always thought that those redefining questions on IQ tests were just easy questions, but maybe it's something that a lot of people just can't do? It may be an aspie thing to have a mind like a style sheet where you can redefine something and make it make sense.
There was a discussion about this before on misunderstandings. I think that to NTs "misunderstanding" means something different. Possibly "didn't react the way I wanted them to." Misunderstanding, for some people, doesn't seem to hold that same element of realizing that the dispute didn't actually exist because it was misunderstood. Or perhaps they know it on a logical level but not on an emotional level. I don't think the ability to assimilate the root of a misunderstanding is so much an aspie thing, as something that develops from years and years of being misunderstood. When you realize that people have been reacting not to what you've actually said, but to what they thought you'd said, it motivates you to work out misunderstandings in a way that someone who hasn't been misunderstood can't really internalize. At the same time, it kinda leaves you open to manipulation. A lot of people will claim that something was a misunderstanding when it wasn't.



Right. But thread of harm or shunning is not motivation not to do something; it's motivation not to get caught.
I have no idea if it's possible for someone who doesn't have a conscience to develop one.



Yes.. but the "bizarro bully" would still be an example of a "true sadist" in that they do hurt people who don't want to be hurt. The person just [arguably] deserves it.
Different levels, but also different types/flavors. Not everything that is different is more/less or better/worse.



That was exactly my point about plotting against someone involving caring what happens to them. If you're suspicious and think people are out to get you, you must in some way believe that they give a crap about you; otherwise they'd be indifferent to you. Now someone might just be "paranoid" that, say someone was going to rip them off.. but a justified paranoia isn't really paranoia, or at least isn't pathological paranoia.

Can I ask you two to define conscience? Like beyond knowing right from wrong because what is right and what is wrong? How much of the conscience is a gray area? What motivates the conscience? God? People? Kharma?

To me the conscience is definately something that is spiritual and beyond the scope of man. I think the only reason it comes up in psychology is that Jung believed we were all born with this knowledge of good and evil. I assume he meant that it might be why we have God and Satan or some form of it because as I understand it, he came up with this concept based on many different civilizations' beliefs and pictures from ancient civilizations and some great Good as well as some great Bad always seemed to be consistent. There has to be some truth to it because that's where he came up with dream symbols, and dream dictionaries based on his studies seem to be the most accurate to me.

Either way, it's hard for me to read what you two mean by men being evil and good without any real definition of the words. Is this evil based on Christian belief of evil because if that's the case, Christianity has already kind of tapped in to your discussion on how that works with man. As I understand it, everybody is born to being evil yet they can choose to be good (a lot of the "sins" are really instinctive for us, and being good-according to the conscience- is fairly contradicting of instinct though it is an instinct to go against it I guess). Their conscience only tells them right from wrong, but it is their choice to do the right thing or do the wrong thing. So someone without a conscience then should be very capable of wanting to do the right thing and just lack the natural ability to figure out what that is (kind of like how someone with autism could very well want to fit in a social situation and just lack the natural ability to do just that).

In the end, IMO, most people are not psychopaths though they can very well behave like one on occassion. You give them too much credit when you say that they behave badly because they don't know better (like a psychopath). Well, they do. They know what they are doing and they don't care. Not all people are like that (though that theory of only 30 some thousand of the population are pre-selected for heaven sounds pretty accurate for the percentage of good people you see in this world). I think for some reason, people with autism seem to attract more people who work from their dark side more because we seem to have some social deficits and many of us are so willing to be nice. I still think in the end, people only do to you what you allow them to, and I think we get to a point where we aren't sure what to do about something that we end up allowing people to take advantage of us (inadvertently, and no it does not shift the blame on us because the jerk that takes advantage of us does in fact know better). And no, you don't have to have a form of autism to be taken advantage of. And no, you don't have to lack autism to take advantage of people.

I really think the "psychopaths" you guys are talking about more or less are the opposite of autistic. Like many autistic people won't do something wrong because they don't fully see the benefit of it (like many times we don't lie, not that we never lie, but many times when the opportunity is there, we lack the forsight on how that benefits us and tend to focus more on the negative consequences). I think what you guys mean by psychopath is someone who focuses more on the benefit of doing something wrong and is incapable of seeing the consequences of their actions maybe?

I believe some evils are relative while others are not, it really depends on numerous variables.




Well, they are unavoidable if you can't come with a better solution, I think there is always a third option, it's just finding the third option.



Well, fear can lead to be hated, it's pretty much unavoidable.



Neither have I, I've done online research into Machavellianism and I've read the 48 Laws of Power which is supposed to be a modern take on the Prince. My interpretation has just as much room for error.



Yeah but it's kind of difficult to label a person as evil immediately, you could mistakenly label someone as evil who isn't and doom them to a living hell which is pretty evil in it's own right.



Yeah you're correct, it's not universally true, but logic and emotion have a pretty strong inter-link, it's not an absolute thing though.



Problem noted, mathematics are a hard science so there's little emotional subjective understanding going into it.



Yes you are correct, but for something more subjective I would think one would need to understand emotionally as well, like different types of art (sketching, painting, sculpting, music ect.), if one were to listen to a certain type of music from a completely logical vantagepoint, one would just arrive at the conclusion that it's just meaningless systematic noise and wouldn't have a true appreciation for it because art is subjective.



Of course, if a person is mainly evil then they are pretty effectively evil despite the lack of being purely evil.



Yes, but how many times can we let them cry wolf before taking action? If they cry wolf chronically, then yes we can take it into assumption that they're most likely not going to change.



I don't believe that all NT communication is completely non-verbal though, it may be most, but I'm still not sure about that. I think communication is a combination of verbal and non-verbal for all humans, some people communicate more non-verbally and vice-versa.



Understood.



Well technically everything could be considered informational, it's just how one interprets the information. Personal readings to be anywhere near accurate you have the know the person well enough.



Some people just say they understand when they don't, I don't know particularly why though, but then again maybe they thought they understood but were still off-mark, I don't know, it again probably depends on the individual in question.



Well yeah, some people have trouble putting things into their own words, some people also have trouble understanding concepts like synonyms and homonyms ect. It's probably not a NT vs AS thing, but a reading/word comprehension thing.



Yeah, I believe that's part of the reading/word comprehension part of IQ tests, they aren't difficult at all, I didn't find the logical reasoning part hard either, my head math skills suck though, I have to do math problems on paper.



I don't know the percentage of Aspies with a high word/reading comprehension skills so I couldn't say, besides some Aspies are apparently good with head math and I'm completely terrible with it.



I'm not sure it does to all NTs though, maybe certain ones but definitely not all.



I have no clue, maybe for some, that train of thought seems manipulative, but then again there are manipulative controlling people out there.



Well that's what a misunderstanding is, thinking it's anything but such is kind of "bizarro".



That's a sound answer, someone who doesn't know what it's like to be misunderstood would'nt really be able to understand it.



It can and some people do that, I'm not sure they all do it for the same reason though which of course still isn't a justification, whether or not they say it to take advantage of a person or to "save face" because they're too immature to take responsibility doesn't really matter, but the merely immature person is probably more easily reachable than the user who won't really give a rip either way.



True, but for a impulsive psychopath they'll still get caught irregardless due to their stupidity and the sociopath will have it easier due to self-discipline and planning ahead, but both types of users would find it difficult to thrive in honest society anyway and of course you have to follow through on the punishment. Modern society is pretty much catered to these types of people, these types of people are one of the reasons you can't be nice all the time and social "masks", "games" and other loads of malarky are a bad idea, period.



But are they 100% sadistic? If they have no desire to harm the innocent, actually care about people and have a sense of justice, then are they truly evil? It's hard to fit people into neat little catagories with a 100% accuracy rating, people are very complex and may not fit the complete disorder, usually just having over 50% of a disorders traits makes one elligable for the disorder.



Lol, yeah, I like your signature by the way, you mentioned the love/hate relationship and your sig mentions the envy/admiration relationship.



Yes, a justified "paranoia" isn't paranoia, but when is it justified and not paranoia?