Page 7 of 9 [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,051
Location: Australia

16 May 2020, 4:20 am

magz wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Sociopaths are damaged people.
Psychopaths are simply born without any degree of empathy.

That's consistent with how I understand the topic.
Sociopaths are people who developed antisocial personality disorder. They feel some irrational need to break law and cause harm. It's currently unerstood as a possible outcome of growing up in very abusive environment.
"Primary psychopathy" is a neurodiverse trait of shallow emotional life.
Combination of the two makes a "true psychopath".

From what I understand, a person with "psychopathic brain" can productively and peacefully function within the society, if they believes cooperation pays off.


Yup.

Sociopaths are said to be made through psychological abuse.
Psychopaths are neurologically diverse, without an inherent moral compass.

I have met a couple of anti-social personality types I would classify as being psychopaths.
One of the outstanding traits, I have found personally, is the enjoyment of them toying/brain-fracking people who are struggling with life. It is like "cheese" to a rat.
Personally, I wouldn't cry a river of tears if the "psychopathic trait" was removed from the human genome.


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,




Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 96,781
Location: the island of defective toy santas

16 May 2020, 5:32 am

i had a psycopathic nephew who caused a great deal of grief for his mother my aunt. but he was an excellent student [rotc] soldier when he wasn't finding ways to bully his officers around. he died from misadventure. i wonder if armies could exist without psychopaths to man/lead them.



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

16 May 2020, 6:03 am

auntblabby wrote:
i wonder if armies could exist without psychopaths to man/lead them.


Considering how much armies rely on teamwork and group cohesion, I think you'll find that being a psychopath is a huge detriment, and having one among a group you're leading would be a serious issue.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,678
Location: Poland

16 May 2020, 6:25 am

I had a friend who didn't seem much bothered by morals.
But he also didn't have much drive to abuse people.
He just instinctively looked for what would or wouldn't pay off - and as allies are more beneficial than enemies, he usually chose to be neutral-nice.
Yes, he was my real friend. We did quite a lot of good teamwork.
His dream job was to be a coroner.

I didn't hear from him for a long time, I'm awful in maintaining old friendships. Last time I heard from him, he was happily married, had two children and a job in a pharmacy.

I don't know what his neurology was but, apparently, lack of strong emotional reaction to morals does not automatically make one abusive - unless in abusive environment, I guess.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 96,781
Location: the island of defective toy santas

16 May 2020, 6:52 am

my experience in the military and in the uncivil service was that those places were vipers' dens of sociopathy. about every third person i'd have to seriously watch my back around. i am told the world of business is similar, lots of scorpions in that bottle. the most dangerous thing was that the sociopathic types were the ones most often promoted in positions over me.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,334
Location: Reading, England

16 May 2020, 8:57 am

Historically the military needed two types of people: those who had very little regard for other people and who had no trouble killing, and those who had huge regard for other people and would kill to protect them. Most people were unable to kill in cold blood.

These days our training methods are much better and most people can be conditioned out of their “don’t kill people” instinct.

Video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,179
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

16 May 2020, 1:20 pm

Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
There seems to be some different conclusions as to what is sociopath or a psychopath,from what I've read.

What seems to come is that a psychopath is more normal in presentation to the world.

Where as sociopaths have more trouble dealing with everyday life and have more issues with rage and anger.And present to the world as more disfuctional.

It still seems like a splitting of samantic hairs and it doesn't feel like these definitions will hold true in 30 years and psychology will redefine them.


Neither psychopath nor sociopath are in current use as diagnostic terms by any psychiatric or psychological organization, so it's just bickering over pop culture slang anyways; the terms aren't valid jargon anymore.


The colloquial terms of psychopathy and sociopathy are covered unter the umbrella of "anti-social personality disorder".
Most people who have studied psychology, these days, can understand where the terms can be applied.

Are you saying that, if an intellectual construct is not included in a "manual", it doesn't exist?
Rather, I would like to ask why these quirks of human psychology haven't been definitive, errr, defined. 8O


I'm saying there's no sense in arguing over the meaning of an obsolete term because there's correct jargon to use if you're trying to use the concept in it's traditional meaning and otherwise it's just bickering by non-experts over how they personally define a slang term which is about as valuable as a long monologue about how you categorize your belly button lint.


_________________
Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan was the devil and the government is lying about 9/11.


PhosphorusDecree
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 967
Location: Yorkshire, UK

16 May 2020, 4:05 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
I'm saying there's no sense in arguing over the meaning of an obsolete term because there's correct jargon to use if you're trying to use the concept in it's traditional meaning and otherwise it's just bickering by non-experts over how they personally define a slang term which is about as valuable as a long monologue about how you categorize your belly button lint.


Personally, I use a 2-axes grid of diagnostic criteria, "colour" and "fluffiness", though I have yet to get it accepted by the DSM-V. Let me explain further [continued on page 94]


_________________
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,179
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

16 May 2020, 4:36 pm

PhosphorusDecree wrote:
Personally, I use 2-axes...[continued on page 94]


I appreciate your dedication to the barbarian class. :mrgreen:


_________________
Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan was the devil and the government is lying about 9/11.


uncommondenominator
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 170

16 May 2020, 5:11 pm

While your question is phrased as "eliminating psychopathy" as in the condition, the reality is your actual intention is to "eliminate psychoPATHS", the people. So basically you're asking if we should murder anyone who (theoretically) tests positive for being a psychopath (if such a test even existed), even if they've never done anything wrong.

Your reasoning seems to be that all psychopaths are violent bullies, and if we killed them all the world would be safe. I've heard the phrase "the world would be better if we just got rid of all the (group of people)" far too many times to be ok with it. People say literally the same thing about autistic people. "They are dangerous, and we should just eliminate them". Even your excuse of "psychopaths aren't really even people, and they serve no purpose" has been said about autistics and other disabled and non-typical people. Deciding that groups of people aren't actually people, has been the excuse given for some of the worst treatment inflicted upon other human beings throughout history, from slavery to genocide. I can't help but feel that treading that path is a fairly universal mistake.

I don't think you actually know what a "psychopath" or a "socaiopath" are. I think you know what pop culture and movies and tv make them out to be, mixed with some personal bias. Most people don't actually know what the terms mean, or meant, since they don't really apply anymore. We (science) understand the underlying conditions a lot better than we used to.

I think you've been hurt, and are lashing out at what you see as an easy solution. But I think you'd be disappointed to find out that life isn't that simple, and neither are people. Being a "psychopath" is far from the only reason or factor when it comes to someone being a bully or having violent tendencies. And, being a "psychopath" does not mean someone has harmed, or ever will harm, another living thing.

The violent "psychopath" is just a sensationalized stereotype. A minority at best, along with all the other most extreme cases of things we see in movies, from the tourette person who won't stop screaming profanity and smacking people, the adhd person who acts like a speed freak and never stops talking, the ocd person who cant step on cracks and has to wash their hands every 5 minutes or they'll freak out, the schizophrenic with a colorful array of unique and amusing multiple personalities, the autistic person who can do calculus in their head but cant be trusted to live on their own without burning the house down, and every other cliche stereotype that's been distorted from reality in order to make a more entertaining "reality".

Plans like this inevitably devolve into "kill anyone who's different", and eventually swallow even those it was meant to protect. It's a fear reaction, and as it continues to not-solve the problem it was meant to, the atrocities get committed more and faster, in order to affect the desired change which continues to not come, and as the scapegoats get fewer, the blame intensifies, for surely these last few must be causing all of the remaining problems. Until finally they're all gone, and the problem still remains, so they turn to the next group to "eliminate".

Bad idea.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,124
Location: Brisbane, Australia

16 May 2020, 5:43 pm

I would rather help people who have mental problems that they cannot help. Allow them to live in a way that lets exist as close to being normal as possible.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 96,781
Location: the island of defective toy santas

17 May 2020, 12:54 am

if we can send blinkin' men to the blinkin' moon multiple times, we should long ago have been able to establish a treatment protocol that IDs the psychos early on and tailors education and counseling to suit them and steer them in a more positive direction.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,051
Location: Australia

17 May 2020, 7:08 am

magz wrote:
I had a friend who didn't seem much bothered by morals.
But he also didn't have much drive to abuse people.
He just instinctively looked for what would or wouldn't pay off - and as allies are more beneficial than enemies, he usually chose to be neutral-nice.
Yes, he was my real friend. We did quite a lot of good teamwork.
His dream job was to be a coroner.

I didn't hear from him for a long time, I'm awful in maintaining old friendships. Last time I heard from him, he was happily married, had two children and a job in a pharmacy.

I don't know what his neurology was but, apparently, lack of strong emotional reaction to morals does not automatically make one abusive - unless in abusive environment, I guess.


He sounds more like a pragmatist than amoral.

Morality, after all, is simply a quirk of the evolutionary process, coupled with social conditioning.
But knowing that doesn't make one amoral or immoral.
Intellectual enlightenment doesn't inherently change the emotional/conscience mechanism, within a person, though a desensitising program could, in theory, overcome that.
That is how sociopaths are made, generally, through psychological-abuse/brainwashing.

But in "normal" situations, there isn't a great motivation in neutering one's own moral compass, and that creates a situation where it is easier to work with one's inherent emotional sensitivities, rather than against them.
Simples. :wink:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,




Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,051
Location: Australia

17 May 2020, 7:14 am

funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
There seems to be some different conclusions as to what is sociopath or a psychopath,from what I've read.

What seems to come is that a psychopath is more normal in presentation to the world.

Where as sociopaths have more trouble dealing with everyday life and have more issues with rage and anger.And present to the world as more disfuctional.

It still seems like a splitting of samantic hairs and it doesn't feel like these definitions will hold true in 30 years and psychology will redefine them.


Neither psychopath nor sociopath are in current use as diagnostic terms by any psychiatric or psychological organization, so it's just bickering over pop culture slang anyways; the terms aren't valid jargon anymore.


The colloquial terms of psychopathy and sociopathy are covered unter the umbrella of "anti-social personality disorder".
Most people who have studied psychology, these days, can understand where the terms can be applied.

Are you saying that, if an intellectual construct is not included in a "manual", it doesn't exist?
Rather, I would like to ask why these quirks of human psychology haven't been definitive, errr, defined. 8O


I'm saying there's no sense in arguing over the meaning of an obsolete term because there's correct jargon to use if you're trying to use the concept in it's traditional meaning and otherwise it's just bickering by non-experts over how they personally define a slang term which is about as valuable as a long monologue about how you categorize your belly button lint.


I will continue to use both terms.
Call me a psycho-dinosaur. :mrgreen:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,




Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,678
Location: Poland

19 May 2020, 4:48 am

Something on the topic that I just encountered:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 190000.htm

They are trying to understand the difference between the "violent" and the "successful" psychopaths.
Apparently, it's one's ability (maybe also willingness?) to self-control.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 96,781
Location: the island of defective toy santas

19 May 2020, 6:46 am

^^^i wonder how much of that is nature, and how much is nurture or something else as yet unknown?