Identifying Sociopaths

[Jeremi]

Based upon the video Stef made on the topic 

 I was wondering if people here think there is such a thing as being sociopathic in degrees? In other words, someone who exhibits primarily a lack of conscience but it is not abundantly clear they completely lack it? If someone says they want to avoid hurting other people but still don't care to learn empathy for them in any case, is that a sociopath or just a sociopathic tendency?

 

I understand that sociopaths can be quite adept at demonstrating sympathy for others and speak the language of virtue without actually believing in them, but I wonder if it's possible you might have some who are not entirely saying such things as a tool for manipulation but rather a part of them, maybe suppressed from their childhood, is redeemable there and actually believes in the principles they are championing? 

The reason I think it's possible that sociopathy is not an absolute is because it does not make sense to me that sociopathy only occurs in 4% of the population as Stef claims, based upon the amount of people I've interacted with in my life, I'd say there was a much larger percentage than that that exhibited at least some degree of sociopathic behavior.

I would appreciate any thoughts you have on the matter.

[Metric]

Yes, I have a feeling that most "lack of conscience" and "lack of empathy" out there is due to deliberate suppression of conscience and empathy, rather than a fundamental biological inability.  And the drive to do so comes from adopting some kind of meme that it's good or necessary to suppress empathy. 

As an example, imagine a kid who is fascinated by animals his whole childhood and grows up to be a biological researcher who kills animals regularly in his lab.  At some point, there had to be some crowding out of his natural empathy for that to happen -- and he was driven to do so by the idea (a meme) that information about biology is more important than the lives of individual lab animals.

Of course you don't have to look very far to see these kind of memes (and droves of people who have adopted them) aimed at humans rather than lab animals.  If they can be convinced that the meme is evil, I suspect they can regain their natural empathy -- though it may be very hard indeed to break them out of their meme, depending on how much of their life and identity they have invested in it.

[Jeremi]

 

Yes, I have a feeling that most "lack of conscience" and "lack of empathy" out there is due to deliberate suppression of conscience and empathy, rather than a fundamental biological inability.  And the drive to do so comes from adopting some kind of meme that it's good or necessary to suppress empathy. 

As an example, imagine a kid who is fascinated by animals his whole childhood and grows up to be a biological researcher who kills animals regularly in his lab.  At some point, there had to be some crowding out of his natural empathy for that to happen -- and he was driven to do so by the idea (a meme) that information about biology is more important than the lives of individual lab animals.

Of course you don't have to look very far to see these kind of memes (and droves of people who have adopted them) aimed at humans rather than lab animals.  If they can be convinced that the meme is evil, I suspect they can regain their natural empathy -- though it may be very hard indeed to break them out of their meme, depending on how much of their life and identity they have invested in it.

 

 

Thanks a lot for your input but I'm not quite able to ascertain whether you fall in the category of believing sociopathy comes in degrees or is a clear cut thing?

[Metric]

 

 

Yes, I have a feeling that most "lack of conscience" and "lack of empathy" out there is due to deliberate suppression of conscience and empathy, rather than a fundamental biological inability.  And the drive to do so comes from adopting some kind of meme that it's good or necessary to suppress empathy. 

As an example, imagine a kid who is fascinated by animals his whole childhood and grows up to be a biological researcher who kills animals regularly in his lab.  At some point, there had to be some crowding out of his natural empathy for that to happen -- and he was driven to do so by the idea (a meme) that information about biology is more important than the lives of individual lab animals.

Of course you don't have to look very far to see these kind of memes (and droves of people who have adopted them) aimed at humans rather than lab animals.  If they can be convinced that the meme is evil, I suspect they can regain their natural empathy -- though it may be very hard indeed to break them out of their meme, depending on how much of their life and identity they have invested in it.

 

 

Thanks a lot for your input but I'm not quite able to ascertain whether you fall in the category of believing sociopathy comes in degrees or is a clear cut thing?

 

Not that I'm any expert on the subject, but I guess I imagine that sociopathic behavior comes from two types of people:

1)  Those people who never developed empathy or conscience in the course of their childhood.  These would be the "clear cut" cases.

2)  Those people who have deliberately shut down their empathy and conscience by adopting some kind of identity or meme.  These would be the less clear cut cases -- sociopathic only in certain specific ways, though they greatly outnumber type #1.

[Lowe D]

How does anyone know there is such a thing as type 1?  Are there some brain pictures which show atrophied empathy centers, or something like that?

[STer]

You might be interested in this piece about a news segment regarding "almost psychopaths"

 

[Livemike]

 

Based upon the video Stef made on the topic 

 I was wondering if people here think there is such a thing as being sociopathic in degrees? In other words, someone who exhibits primarily a lack of conscience but it is not abundantly clear they completely lack it? If someone says they want to avoid hurting other people but still don't care to learn empathy for them in any case, is that a sociopath or just a sociopathic tendency?

 

I understand that sociopaths can be quite adept at demonstrating sympathy for others and speak the language of virtue without actually believing in them, but I wonder if it's possible you might have some who are not entirely saying such things as a tool for manipulation but rather a part of them, maybe suppressed from their childhood, is redeemable there and actually believes in the principles they are championing? 

The reason I think it's possible that sociopathy is not an absolute is because it does not make sense to me that sociopathy only occurs in 4% of the population as Stef claims, based upon the amount of people I've interacted with in my life, I'd say there was a much larger percentage than that that exhibited at least some degree of sociopathic behavior.

I would appreciate any thoughts you have on the matter.

 

 

Hell yes there are degrees of sociopathic personality.  Even some death camp guards had SOME empathy.  That's why so many of them were drunk all the time, they were trying to beat the last remnants of their conscience/empathy into submission/death with a bottle of schnapps.  Most soldiers have to be propagandised into thinking of their foes as not human.  They don't then lack the reluctance to kill people on their own side (mostly obviously some do).  People who will make decisions that lead to thousands of deaths (e.g. building unsafe factories like the ones in Bangladesh) can't necessarily kill people they can see in front of them.  Take someone who wants to bomb Iran flat and votes for the politician they think is most likely to do that.  Do you think that person could shoot. a 7 year old right in front of them?

 

The more sociopathic the person the more obvious the spin and suffering they inflict has to get before they stop doing it.

 

[Jose Perez]

The true self cannot die, so there is always some empathy left. Still, I think choice is what determines if you are a sociopath – same as your moral nature. The choice to do or intend evil and the consent required to split the personality to allow this to happen.

[STer]

 

The true self cannot die, so there is always some empathy left. Still, I think choice is what determines if you are a sociopath – same as your moral nature. The choice to do or intend evil and the consent required to split the personality to allow this to happen.

 

This comment is full of assumptions and cries out for supporting citations of any kind.

[Jose Perez]

 

 

The true self cannot die, so there is always some empathy left. Still, I think choice is what determines if you are a sociopath – same as your moral nature. The choice to do or intend evil and the consent required to split the personality to allow this to happen.

 

This comment is full of assumptions and cries out for supporting citations of any kind.

 

www.freedomainradio.com

[Andersfilosof]

 

Based upon the video Stef made on the topic 

 I was wondering if people here think there is such a thing as being sociopathic in degrees? In other words, someone who exhibits primarily a lack of conscience but it is not abundantly clear they completely lack it?

 

 

It's an interesting question because it can be hard to differentiate between someone restraining the imposition of their will on others for fear of punishment and restraining the imposition of their will on others for reasons of conscience.

I does make sense to me that there are degrees of sociopathy, or selective sociopathy.  I can remember a few times going to the playground at a young age (6 or 7 maybe?) and the top level of the playground/slide structure had numerous small holes which would allow you to see down at the kids playing below you.  I used to spit in the sand, make a spit-sand ball and drop it on the kids below me.  I remember someone's mom at some point reprimanded me for doing it, but I remember seeing her as another "generic rule-enforcer." - i.e. "not a real threat to me" probably because she was not an authority figure able to punish me.  This was clearly a sociopathic tendency - to act out my anger on innocent people in some way, at a level I thought I could get away with (and did).  I think the only difference between me as a kid and a full-blown sociopath is, I experienced at least some warm and loving emotions from my mother, and my opportunities for acting out my anger (physically) were limited because of my small stature. 

I think if I hadn't had that connection at some level with my mother, and if it had been easier for me to act out my anger in my childhood environments, I could have become a sociopath.  I recently watched a long interview with Jeffrey Dahmer and he said that the acting out of his dominating fantasies progressed little by little - and without externally imposed negative consequences and without a conscience or conscienable people getting involved in his life, there's very little to hold the sociopathic person back from accepting his fantasies as a part of his identity.

[Rob_Ilir]

 fromSam Vaknin is an interesting test. 


Maybe I am old fashioned, but I consider all mental illnesses as reactionary false selfs, and I can empathise with those who have not lived a single day of life yet without all the harlequin masks. 

[STer]

 

 fromSam Vaknin is an interesting test. 


Maybe I am old fashioned, but I consider all mental illnesses as reactionary false selfs, and I can empathise with those who have not lived a single day of life yet without all the harlequin masks. 

 

There is debate though over whether psychopathy, especially, is exactly a "mental illness" at all vs. simply a co-evolved evolutionary strategy. Why do you assume that any sinister personality is a false self? Can't there be some whose sinister personality is their true self and it is when they are keeping that in check and covering it up that they are in their false self?

I guess it goes back to the old debate over whether everyone is inherently "good" at their core. I think we have enough evidence to suggest that that is not the case.

[Livemike]

 

 fromSam Vaknin is an interesting test. 


Maybe I am old fashioned, but I consider all mental illnesses as reactionary false selfs, and I can empathise with those who have not lived a single day of life yet without all the harlequin masks. 

 

 

I'm not sure the terms "false self" and "mental illness" are actually useful.  If you do something that's you doing it noisome "ghost in the machine".  Now you might do something to hide facts about yourself (say denigrate others to avoid the appearance of weakness) but that's you doing it.  You are the person who responds to the situation that way.

"mental illness" assumes that one way of living is "healthy" but that depends on what values you want to pursue.  Even if we assume your own happiness is the goal of a "healthy" psyche an "unhealthy" one could be evolutionarily beneficial.  Evolution doesn't care if you're a happy parent only if you're a grandparent.

[Rob_Ilir]

°°Why do you assume that any sinister personality is a false self? °°

If they intentionally do it, than yes it could be sinister, but not many people know what the true self is, out of the fdr circle. 

°°Can't there be some whose sinister personality is their true self and it is when they are keeping that in check and covering it up that they are in their false self?°°

A true self could not be curropted without a physical problem in the brain, if not than they have a way to get better: 

 

 

°°I'm not sure the terms "false self" and "mental illness" are actually useful.°°

I totally agree, as most of the names get stuck by kids, and the kids mold around it and think it is irreversable.


°°"mental illness" assumes that one way of living is "healthy" but that depends on what values you want to pursue.°° 

I would argue that you also have to have the options of values to take too. And in my observations the false selfs do not even want to open up that can of worms, or even know about it. 

 

 

°°Evolution doesn't care if you're a happy parent only if you're a grandparent.°°

Wouldnt a happy grandparent have more value evolutionary than a non happy grandparent? And the fake self would just project others happiness without actually living it.