Super interesting. I can recognize this behavior with people playing multiplayer games. When there are no stakes, and everything is a game, people mess around – especially when they’re bored. If it’s just a game, who cares?
People with extremely low “emotional reactivity” appear unlikely to share with others (why would they, most of us share stuff for empathy - and they may not see the point - or lose out socially). According to the Gervais principle, they are rewarded for their excellence of social deception in institutions like corporations. Then there are the worse, hardened criminals as well, taking assignments nobody else would, or for their own sadistic maladaption.
The best fit in a healthy society, I think, is doing things that others can’t, like extreme sport type of stuff, or astronaut, brain surgeon - sound decision making under immense pressure. Alex Hannold for instance, has an almost non-existing amygdala response even compared to other extreme sporters, iirc. He apppears deeply aware of this, and seems to channel everything into his climbing, which overall seems really healthy.
Reading this reminds me of someone I was friends with in high school who quickly turned out to be absolutely insufferable to play any sort of cooperative game with.
They would take absolutely _everything_ that could be shared, and calmly and with complete conviction explain it was better off with them. They were blind to the bigger picture of quickly having nobody who would ever play with them.
Magic the Gathering at lunch was also a terrible experience with this person...
Teenagers are also experimenting with many philosophies and personas that don’t strictly align with personality disorders… unless you just want to call all of adolescence a personality disorder, which might not be far off…
Yeah, that's certainly something to consider. If the case, it's kind of interesting to look back and watch a teenager so heavily blacklist themselves from all social activities every chance they got. My experience with and as a teenager is that they're overwhelmingly focused on fitting in to whatever groups they identify with.
> They would take absolutely _everything_ that could be shared, and calmly and with complete conviction
How do you call this ? this kind of shameless self interested bullshit ?
I work with someone who has an uncanny ability to talk like this and say vaporous stuff with a strange blend of belief and weight.
I don't know how this is called .. but it stumps me every time he does it. He can fail at the most basic thing or refuse to actually share the workload and at the next meeting come up explaining to everybody how things should go because of <buzzword> and <more buzzword>. And he manages to tap deep into your brain on ideas that you will never go against (team spirit, dignity, mission, whatever) so it disengages any critical thinking reflex you might have.
Reminds me of something I learned about other cultures while playing DOTA 2 on ranked ladder.
For reference: This is a 5 vs 5 team game where each player character has a loosely defined role, such as "healer", "lead combat", or whatever. The most effective play style is for four of the players to support the strongest attacker-class player, to the point of self-sacrifice.
In Australia we would get random south-east asian players joining our servers, and generally we wouldn't even notice other than the alternative scripts in their usernames.
Philippinos we would always notice, because they're all acted like sociopaths. Even if they were mute, and had an English alias, we could pick them out reliably. They'd be selfish to a point of absurdity, taking in-game gold away from desperate team-mates even when they couldn't possibly spend the gold themselves. As in, even when they had all item slots full with the best possible item, so they were "maxed out", they would cut off their own support players to take gold at any cost.
I just couldn't wrap my head around why they were behaving this way. Also, why just that one country? Why not other countries in the area, like Singapore?
Someone from the Phillipenes explained online: They had experienced sudden population growth and now there's too many young people with basically no job prospects. It's a dog-eat-dog world in their country, with fierce competition in every aspect of life. E.g.: There's no "study groups" in school, because why would you help someone else pass their exams? That would just enable them to steal the job you're competing for! So these kids while away their time playing competitive games in internet cafes, and this "stepping on others to get to the top of the pile" element of their lives is made manifest in the crystal clear simulated environment of a game.
It made me think: Cooperation, social norms, collaboration, and all of the non-sociopath behaviours we're accustomed to aren't necessarily the norm, with only mentally-ill individuals deviating from it. Instead, it's possible for entire cultures to be sociopathic! Stress, poor job prospects, increased competition, etc... can push everyone towards these behaviours, all at once. In a situation like that, the natural sociopaths might prosper, and the "supports" might end up being horribly exploited or even starve to death.
Astronauts in the last 50 years spending a lot of time together in a small group in an aluminium can, on the ISS for six month, sometimes for a year. Assuming the ideas of longer Moon and Mars mission will happen, that reality will be far more longer. Split-second decisions may be a thing, but mostly rare.
For long term small groups who won’t drive each other insane, I'd rather select for agreeableness and conscientiousness than low emotional reactivity.
> The best fit in a healthy society, I think, is doing things that others can’t, like extreme sport type of stuff, or astronaut, brain surgeon
Reminds me of the Bill Burr bit on Lance Armstrong[1]
> The guy was a sociopath on a bicycle. As far as I'm concerned we got off easy. If that guy was working for a corporation he would have been pouring stuff in the water supply, doing god knows what. Just keep him on the bike. Let him go up and down hills. He's not hurting anybody.
The idea that consent is both necessary AND sufficient needs to be laid to rest.
Consent may be necessary (there can be discussions when and where it is necessary and what that means, for example "consenting" to taxes, etc) but it is not sufficient in all cases.
Do anything? Doping has been a "problem" in cycling since the start of the sport. It's not like Lance Armstrong was the first or last person to cheat like that. He was just the best and I find it admirable.
I dunno man, I have no idea what lance Armstrong did i was just responding to the philosophical point that it is possible to intimidate and manipulate people into giving consent.
He's hurting all the other players who do not dope, and hurting the sport in general by creating an incentive for most people to dope, tarnishing the reputation.
Wrong. His doping and his coordination of doping across his team pushed other teams to dope to compete with his team. There was no obvious suspicion of doping prior to his team and that is clear that Lance and his team were performing far above the level of the other teams in his early doping days.
Your statement is only true after the doping snowball exists within many teams of that sport. If the athletes didn’t lie or if they were caught in a reasonable amount of time, then there is no need for doping.
I’m guessing you are making unstated assumptions because of your wording when you say “pretty much demand”. Are there any non-obvious assumptions that might be interesting to discuss?
what does "pretty much demand" mean? You mean literally no human is capable of completing the event because they will drop to the ground of exhaustion? Of course not, you'll leave a vague comment that leaves you wiggle room instead of taking a precise position on the matter.
Here's Lance chasing down another rider and publicly threatening them to "zip their lips" when they were trying to go public about the doping in the peloton.
Not to conflate it with him not feeling fear though, here is a TV show episode with him talking about the subject, hard to timestamp but 14:10 for the busy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4OGs1DehzA
Stewart Lee's impression of Ricky Gervais ("the Boris Johnson of stand up") literally saying what cannot be said because of political correctness and the woke brigade:
As far as I can tell from this reddit thread she is accused of this, but I don’t see 100% conclusive evidence of anything at all, am I missing something?
You've posted this a couple times here, but it's just unsubstantiated accusations on reddit. There are also several, equally unsubstantiated, claims to have found information that she is who she says she is.
That thread is very weird, it's really old and there are some users actively spinning different narratives across a long period of time.
Criminal justice researcher/licensed California therapist here.
Here is "Patric Gagne's" real personal and professional identify as far as can be gleaned. Her real name is Patricia J Cagle (if anything about her is verifiably real) not Dr. Patricia Gagne. Notably, she did not file a "fictitious business name" in California to operate her clinical practice under a fictitious name. She wrote both her her Modern Love and memoir under a fictitious name and identity. She has conflicting explanations for why her name is "Patric" not Patricia. Clever but deceptive.
She told the highly credulous NYT David Marchese that she she shortened her name to appear more "masculine than feminine." Her actual performer website states that she changed her name to prevent her clients from knowing who she really is. Her acting profile states that her false identity is "so far working:"
"Patric" is also -looking at real information- an Improve theatre performer and claims that she hides her real identity so that her, presumably vulnerable psychotherapy clients, cannot find out anything about her real, private life. Her photos verify the actor and the author are the same woman
She may or may not have graduated from UCLA and received a BA, but records cannot be found. (I have an undergraduate degree from Yale-easily located as are my graduate degrees from University of San Francisco). Her graduate degree, is a PsyD, not a Phd. It was granted from a sketch graduate school in LA. She does appear to have a provider number but not under her name or identity and it may or may not be as a MA counselor or PsyD.
It is critical to state that the REAL Dr. Gagne is a much older, eminent Dr. of Sociology with 72 major peer reviewed articles in gender studies and interesting subjects like motorcyclists. I wrote her to alert her.
Other than Modern Love, I could not find a single reference to any articles, studies or any-general readership article/study/ essay or any evidence of advocacy. Lies.
I don’t see where it says it offered a phd, the website does mention a PsyD program. PsyD is also a psychology doctoral program but based in clinical skills not research and meant to be more of a professional program than academic. A lot of these predatory grad schools did/do PsyD programs instead as they are generally not as competitive as a phd, and are generally paid doctoral degrees as opposed to a phd which is normally funded.
Tantalising. It could be anything from a mostly truthful tale with a few deceptions to preserve the career of phycologist with a difficult personality to almost total bullshit. "Almost" because it would be an excellent example of what psychopathy can deliver.
I had the experience of dealing with clinically diagnosed pshycopaths. One of them was in my school, a kid that was very smart but too rational, you could feel there was something wrong with him. He did not have real friends so he tried threaten people into becoming his friend or else...
He was not using physical force, but using his mind in order to plan punishing people rationally.
He just could not understand the concept of friendship, as he could not feel it. He believed everybody else was faking it. He was a cynic.
People who don't feel want to have what they observe, but don't understand it. So they develop their own reasons. Normal people get an emotional reward from human contact.
Something similar is common in victims of trauma as well. The trope is the woman with "daddy issues", which are more complex, who try to fill a void they have with sexual relationships. Instead of seeking an absent male relationship, they manipulate to get a "friendship", and are often very skilled at meticulously building this friendship, without the emotional connection that governs our behavior. They are seeking a means to an end - which may include just feeling something.
I had an acquaintance like this, who became a very scary individual as he became an older teen. I cut him out completely at 13 when I suspected he harmed a neighbor's cat.
As the author of the article stated, it doesn't make her evil. But she is dangerous, as her motivations are different her behavior is probably governed more by her executive control part of the brain, which is high labor and highly rational. "Rational" sounds great to engineers, but people make very disturbing rational decisions when they build a system of unusual assumptions.
By going about it on a very analytical and methodical and rational way. Rationality is about the mechanism, not some particular moral or value content.
You might be asking "but if he was rational, couldn't he see that blackmailing is incompatible with friendship?". Well, if he wanted the trappings of friendship (having a friend group, playmates, hanging out and so on), and not some "genuine bonding", it's not that incompatible.
> By going about it on a very analytical and methodical and rational way.
If the kid was so calculating he would have to ask himself what exactly could he do to force other kids to hand out with him? And he would understand that he has no power of coercion. So he wasn't rational at all, it was just hopeless 'last ditch effort'
Hypothetically if this was rephrased as "he was very rational and threatened other children to play with him and treat him like a friend" does that make sense to you?
Not really to be honest. Rational person would know that you can't force someone to like you. Forcing 'friendship' looks more like something an autistic would do.
I think you misread the comment you’re replying to -
> he was very rational and threatened other children to play with him and treat him like a friend
My emphasis. He’s not forcing people like him, because you’re right, you can’t force that, he’s coercing people into acting like they like him.
The point is that since he (supposedly) can’t feel the feeling himself, or can’t understand it, all he has to go off of is what he observes - i.e. the behavior - and you can absolutely force a behavior.
No matter how you try to explain it, trying to force other kids to play with you is not a rational behavior. Rational behavior would be trying to find out why they don't want to play with you and try to do something about it. Would you say that if a girl doesn't want to date you then forcing her to date you is a rational behavior?
You wouldn't force a girl to date you because you know it's not rational. You wouldn't force kids to play with you because it's not rational either. Simple as that. Just because somebody thinks it is actually rational doesn't make it so. The kid wasn't rational at all, if anything his behavior was completely irrational
Yeah we wouldn't, because we have empathy and understand other people. If you can't conceive that people can even like each other at all then all their behavior just looks like some complex status game to you. There's nothing irrational then, with your limited understanding, about coercing a behaviour that you want, any more than it would be irrational to force an exchange in chess because the Knight didn't "want to" move.
>>Rational person would know that you can't force someone to like you.
True, but TBF, it takes experience to realize that, and the psychopathy kind of hinders getting that experience? (Reading could also help, but not in the same way)
Well, don't you see? He simply had too much rationality. When you have rationality up the wazoo, coming out the ears, you just start manipulating people!
I thought this fad of building identity on labels was dying down ? I have no idea if her diagnosis is right - doesn't sound pathological/needing a diagnosis.
Reading trough the article I don't feel I've gained any practical insights - just reads like someone trying to sound interesting by putting a label on themselves and explaining how it fits them.
I agree. We really need pop-identity-politics to die. It's like a race to find the most obscure and irrelevant form of oppression made to distract us from actual oppression.
Actually it's becoming much more common for teenagers to label every single thing about themselves. There are certain boxes they have to fit in, and if they do fit, they have to fill the box entirely. You can have multiple labels, but there's no room for unlabeled activities, and if you participate in any label, you must do so entirely.
Fascinating article. I wonder what made her do the steps in finding what's "different" with her, and most of all, why the need to fix it arose. Is it to "fit in", understandably? It somehow felt alien to me, and this shows my ignorance on the topic, that people lacking in empathy department would attempt to understand the reasons and act "good" towards others even if this feeling is only understood intellectually.
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is good advice and a rational strategy without emotion or empathy.
The practical problem is figuring out that "others would have" something different than you would like, because they're emotional and irrational (as far as you can tell).
I think it’s easy enough to explain. I’m asexual and don’t feel sexual attraction. In fact I’m completely blind to it.
I definitely noticed something was wrong with me once I started school. Since then, I am constantly reminded of that by everyone around me. They have something I’m expected to have.
Just imagine if you were the weird one because you were the only person with emotions. You can’t escape it. You can’t fix it. Some people try to be “helpful” and “understand” but the entire time, they are pointing out you are beyond their comprehension.
It cause enormous anxiety to know you need to be something you are not. You have to learn to cope with it.
that's very difficult when you have a trait that others can't see, and therefore can't be aware of or understand, and much less empathize with. it feels wrong because you keep getting confronted with expectations that you can't fulfill. and you can't see others that have the same experience. so you end up feeling you are the only one.
Yeah, and people say "being different is fine", "you're not wrong, you're you" and so on, but in the end unless you're one of socially accepted forms of different that are celebrated, they still shun you.
I hope you can find your tribe, so to speak. My best friend is ace and has a large and supportive ace friend group. It is not a cure-all but it sure goes a long way....
i haven't, but thanks for your thought. i have only recently begun to understand what the difficulties i am facing are and how they affect me, and how they were caused growing up, so i haven't been searching. i have also been coping reasonably well, in part because for a long time i was not even aware, which kept me from wondering to much. the only thing i noticed was that i had difficulties making friends, like some others here. so in a way HN is my tribe so far.
as for the challenge of making friends, for some reason, growing up, i didn't feel the need, but saw the benefit of not being submitted to peer pressure. i took my outsider status and relished in it, doing things that few others of my classmates did. i distanced myself and sought friends in after school activities. and as i was able to make a few friends once i joined university i felt that, given the circumstances, things didn't go that bad.
the making friends problem i am addressing by moving out of europe and living among people who are more welcoming than the average europeans, and also by applying this key understanding:
being a friend means to care about someone.
you make friends by showing that you care.
i show that care to everyone who crosses my path, and with repeated interaction some of these people become friends.
Wrong !== Different. This is by design. I can imagine all the birds in the dinosaur times felt wrong because they weren't t-rexes. Well, that's what saved them in the end.
>I can imagine all the birds in the dinosaur times felt wrong because they weren't t-rexes. Well, that's what saved them in the end
It's not about birds in dinosaur times though - as an analogy I mean.
It's more about a particular bird being different from others of its species of bird.
This could be an advantage to their life and acceptance (e.g. they might be too pretty or stronger) or usually a big detriment to their life and the acceptance they get from their peers.
And given that "wrong" is basically socially defined as "the opposite on the majority is like and agrees to", being different in that sense is as good as being wrong.
Additionally, being asexual is 'wrong' in a life / procreation sense. It's a kind of dead-end personality trait.
(I'm specifically not saying 'wrong' for existing in society or having value to offer the world and, actually, if environmental factors make a difference to this sort of thing, then asexuality could well be increasingly common as a response to the state of the world vis-a-vis climate change and resource usage and all the other bad things humanity hath wrought)
> Additionally, being asexual is 'wrong' in a life / procreation sense. It's a kind of dead-end personality trait.
I think that's a bit too reductive: asexuality ≠ not having kids. Even people who dislike the dentist won't mind going if it benefits them.
However, there might indeed be an issue in finding a properly fitting other half, but it seems[0] that the trait is not that uncommon either (order of magnitude seems to be about 1%).
is it seeing someone and wanting to have sex with them? it never occurred to me that not wanting to have sex with everyone i find otherwise attractive is something unusual.
if anything i think many problems today come from people wanting to have sex with anyone they feel attracted to, or choosing a partner only because they are sexually attracted.
instead of choosing a partner because they love them and only wanting to have sex with them because of that love.
seems to me that being able to enjoy sex in the way you say is the better and healthier approach.
i think i feel similar to you and i always felt that this is normal and that sexual attraction is a concept sold by media and advertising. i never considered myself asexual because of it. i don't think sexual attraction mattered much in choosing a partner at least until a century ago or so.
The best way I can describe sexual attraction is having an emotional level awareness of sex as a category. It's not limited to physical appearance. There is something would make you want to have sex with another person.
> instead of choosing a partner because they love them and only wanting to have sex with them because of that love.
Given what you already said, this isn't a question an asexual person is likely to ask. They would already know the answer. :)
> seems to me that being able to enjoy sex in the way you say is the better and healthier approach.
Not really. I don't understand why sex is important. I don't understand why anyone would want to go out of their way to have it.
Sure, it's fun, but not enough to justify all the hype about it. If you want to get hot and sweaty, can we go play laser tag and gang up on some over-confident teenagers instead?
Why the heck does the entire history of human society care about this?
What would get me to want sex? When it's an add-on to another fun activity. Cuddling and sex! I'm listening. (Note to self, never suggest naked laser tag again.)
There is something would make you want to have sex with another person.
i have never felt anything like that.
Given what you already said, this isn't a question an asexual person is likely to ask. They would already know the answer. :)
i wasn't actually asking a question but making a statement.
i think my understanding and my feelings about this are much closer to yours than i am comfortable describing in detail in a public post here. (but i am open to continue this conversation in private, as i am very interested in getting a better understanding about this question.)
I don't understand why sex is important.
i understand it about as well as i understand why people want to have a car. (i don't have a car, and i don't drive). more specifically, i see sex as just one of the many ways that one can show affection to someone else. the trouble is that it has been overloaded with taboos and expectations unlike most other forms of showing affection. and i agree it is overhyped.
Sure they can. Mine is just variation of the traditional furry fandom [adjective][species] username. Plenty of furry writers have much cooler names than me.
I'll leave figuring out which species as an exercise for the reader. Hint: highly-gregarious African canid with the same initials as All-Wheel Drive.
Kayodé is the approximate spelling from the syllables. I was playing around with sounds for a constructed language and ended up with combination I liked.
It's fascinating. I've read a fair bit about sociopaths (but I'm no expert, obviously) and her compulsions feel pretty unique to me. It's not something I have really seen mentioned with sociopaths too often.
A lot of sociopaths lead pretty normal lives. Pro-social behavior is generally pretty beneficial, even if you are doing it for practical reasons and not out of empathy.
It would be interesting to know if this is a common experience among sociopaths. I had always thought that behaviors like theft resulted more simply from the lack of empathy (and desire for the stolen item), rather than resolving some kind of internal tension.
Yes. She says "I was sorry I had to steal to stop fantasizing about violence" - it seems there is something else going on here, not just being a sociopath.
I would say not necessarily. Attempting to understand someone that totally lacks a personality trait means that their motivation pathways could be entirely different. Un-understandable by those who do have the trait.
In this case, do something minor (stealing) to scratch the itch that, if left unscratched for long enough, could result in doing something major (violence).
It feels like a reaction to societal rules that don't make sense in their experience of the world, and so maybe the itch exists because the rule(s) seem irrational and arbitrary to them.
Or maybe the lack of empathy leaves a hole to be filled with mischief.
Special books for special children did an interview with a self identified sociopath that shows the same level of self awareness and openness to discuss the problem[1].
I think it is always difficult to analyse why someones does something. In Psychology, behaviour is like a Feynman diagram, you can always rotate the picture and get a valid particle interaction. What is cause and what is effect is hard to tell, but yes some people steal out of a sense of justice if you can call it that.
She seems to be a bit of an intriguing character. I remember googling her when that thread from 18 days ago popped up and couldn't figure out whether she was genuine or simply a very good self-publicist chasing a literary niche.
It raises a few interesting concerns, for example:
* You'd expect someone with a degree in psychology to be unlikely to use the term "sociopath" so freely and without qualification or clarification.
* Her credentials seem questionable. There's no record of her actually having a PhD and no record of a dissertation in proquest. It's possible she did a "PsyD" program at California Graduate Institute.
* She appears to use clinical terminology incorrectly and make claims on her (now disappeared) blog that aren't backed up by research.
* Her real name appears to be Patricia Cagle, however she wrote articles under the name "Patric Gagne" for a column called Modern Love in NYT which apparently does not permit pseudonyms.
This is an area where we don't know the answers yet, but we're fumbling along. The main question that is still up for debate is this:
Are people really completely set in their personalities, so that we can say that this person IS a psychopath, that person IS a liar, I AM an upstanding citizen etc. The tendency for claiming such clearly comes from our current zeitgeist with its propensity for fixing labels to people, but to what extent has such fixed characteristics factually been true, and for what categories of labels, regardless of epoch?
I’m really worried that there’s a trend to normalize narcissistic and sociopathic behavior simply because “they are self aware”
There are a few ASPD, NPD or narcissist Instagram pages which are clearly sociopaths getting their attention fix by acknowledging and describing these behaviors - this isn’t the same as recovery groups or serious interventions because ASPD has been seen as impossible to treat (though that’s slowly changing by viewing it as a basket of disorders)
So it seems like we have basically birthed an entirely new class of advanced sociopaths who can recognize their behaviors, pretend like they’re actually working towards fixing them, even warning people that they aren’t safe so they get a free pass on their behavior. In the meantime, they just continue to act in only their own best interest, while shrugging their shoulders, and throwing their hands up, saying “what can I do? I’m working on it.”
Sociopath awareness pins coming soon?
So let’s not get confused here. Self reported non clinically observed sociopaths don’t meet the DSM definition for ASPD because lack of guilt, not simply the awareness of antisocial behavior.
One can certainly argue about definitions, but experience in narcissistic abuse survivors groups (many of which I am in) is consistent and robust in identifying major behavioral patterns including self-aggrandizement.
This isn’t a disability, sociopathy is a self-propelled toxic character trait, typically resulting from deep childhood trauma that our society rewards structurally.
Numerous studies indicate high correlation with aspd and powerful positions so it’s not like this group needs a leg up. Mostly we just need to identify and isolate people with ASPD as quickly as possible.
I’m unaware of anything more destructive than a smart sociopath and it seems the acceptance of them is growing.
So what is your proposed solution? I'd rather have a sociopath that is upfront about being one to me than figuring that fact out by myself.
Shunning those people from society seems like not an option to me, they are people after all.
I think normalizing sociopathic behaviour is something to be worried about, but I personally don't see that happening anywhere so I am unsure what your point is.
> I think normalizing sociopathic behaviour is something to be worried about, but I personally don't see that happening anywhere so I am unsure what your point is.
The normalization of sociopathic behavior is pretty clear to see in politics and celebrity culture. If you don't see it you have had your eyes willfully closed to it for 10+ yrs.
Maybe you have or are currently engaged in some of these behaviors and you "can't see" them because it would damage your ego's view of yourself as a good person who deserves the success they have experienced.
> Shunning those people from society seems like not an option to me, they are people after all
This is effectively what happens to the victims of the sociopaths. They are driven out from the margins. The way I read this is "sociopaths can do whatever they want, but when others complain they are the problem".
I cannot stress how wrong that last statement is. So much suffering and therapy to recover from people who behaved this way. People at the top. Bosses. Managers.
People who were supposed to be looking out for the group and were not.
Let's genetically profile for it, and if there's a link, screen for embryos that don't have it. This would require a bit more technological advancement of course. But imagine, a world without sociopaths! It would be the biggest generational improvement in the world in history.
> This isn’t a disability, sociopathy is a self-propelled toxic character trait, typically resulting from deep childhood trauma that our society rewards structurally.
> Mostly we just need to identify and isolate people with ASPD as quickly as possible.
I find this interesting as it relates to the autism spectrum... there is pretty universal resistance to accommodating / understanding the difficulties people face. It seems like a really uphill battle to get people who benefit from their toxicity to voluntarily take a "more difficult" route than they otherwise can.
I suggest that we don't need to do anything with the APSD folks, what we need to do is normalize the idea that their behavior is abusive and support folks who are structurally disadvantaged via their behaviors.
If enough of regular society gets tired of their shit they will take corrective action... until their behavior "looks bad" to others they have no incentive to cooperate.
Fully concur and I think you describe better what I mean by isolate
The idea of isolating those people is that we actively reject abusive narcissistic behavior with no qualifications. That means it’s a one strike you’re out rule socially for toxic behavior
> actively reject abusive narcissistic behavior with no qualifications.
There is an inherently difficult task in this. To combat manipulators, we must ourselves engage in manipulation of others whether we like it or not. Depending on how skillful the ASPD person is, trying to call them out on their behavior may actually simply be "outing" yourself to a group that has no interest in hearing what your saying.
This can be INCREDIBLY stressful in work or school settings where removing yourself from the social situation is impossible. Eventually the only way to "win" is to walk away, and in doing so at times cut yourself off from social groups. This just allows the ASPD person to tar your name and further manipulate others to isolate you. "Living your best life is the best revenge" yeah sure but it's hard to do this with less of a social group... it doesn't feel good to lose friends even if the reason you are "losing" them is a choice to not tolerate their behavior.
I said this in another post, but the real challenge is convincing general society that the awful behavior of psychopaths and sociopaths is in fact bad. That not having or even making an attempt to practice empathy does in fact make you a bad person.
The cheerleaders of the sociopaths have been duped, manipulated and controlled into submission by people who have no regard for their wellbeing. In my experience most people are unable to accept this reality. The ones who at least can accept part of it, or agree and have seen the unfairness are the type of people NT or ND that are worth interacting with and need to be seen as advocates and beacons of hope.
> This isn’t a disability, sociopathy is a self-propelled toxic character trait, typically resulting from deep childhood trauma that our society rewards structurally
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here. If this is a result of deep childhood trauma, in what way is it self propelled?
> Mostly we just need to identify and isolate people with ASPD as quickly as possible.
This seems pretty horrific to me. Assuming ASPD exists on a spectrum, and assuming it’s possible to treat it or at least manage it, it seems like the absolute worst option is to isolate people, the realities of which would almost certainly mean grouping people with these traits together.
Furthermore, if indeed trauma is the cause, it seems even more horrific to categorically discard people who have undergone this kind of hardship through no fault of their own.
I’m not saying people who cause harm to others should get a free pass. But what you’re describing seems untenable from a moral/ethical standpoint, to say nothing of the practical implications.
I’d make a strong argument that the vast majority of the world’s ills are a result of narcissists being in charge of most of the organizations worldwide
You seem to have in mind some poor beaten down person struggling to survive
If you’re not actively working on stopping narcissistic behavior - even if it is your instinct - you are actively continuing to choose narcissistic behavior
#2 is unequivocally true - it also doesn’t matter if it’s a spectrum - neither negligent manslaughter nor mass murder are acceptable
So what would you tell a "smart sociopath" to do? Someone who wants to live and pursue their own happiness without diminishing that of others?
Should they just cease to exist? Retreat somewhere they can't hurt others and live apart from society because society has no place for their disability? Or is it possible to fit in and be useful even if you're neuro divergent?
I've got a lonely mountain in the woods, way out with few neighbors. me and my hounds can hunt and not bother nobody.
I find it difficult for numerous reasons to interact with people in social situations, not least being that people smell tasty. My awareness of this fact is something that people pick up on. it snowballs.
It'd be nice if I could contribute to society but there's not that many ways I've found, and i've mostly given up trying. now i settle for Socratic snark.
some of the biggest names in history were almost certainly sociopaths. And they were sometimes quite a positive net force. Just about everyone can be put to productive use in the right place, i'm not sure we need to isolate (?) anyone.
I agree that people should be given the opportunity for their natural gifts being used effectively.
I do NOT think "I'm a sociopath, sorry that doesn't bother me" is ever an acceptable resolution to the damage, pain and suffering they cause.
If you help 100 but you have to destroy 5 to get there, was it worth it? I do not think people deserve the benefit of the doubt to make this ethical call. The problem with sociopaths is they HAVE NO ETHICS OR MORALS.
You cannot "teach them to feel"... it's like trying to teach a starfish to speak. The only thing you can do is give them negative consequences to their actions. If their actions worked in the past they will repeat them. If those are negative behaviors, they don't see / care that they had to "step on some toes this time".... it simply becomes that toe stepping is now a normal point along an ever-escalating path of social violence and disregard for others.
The whole "we can't pathologies it because the sociopath doesn't think they have a problem" point is the main issue for me. If someone was smoking in an enclosed room... and others asked them to stop it would be cut and dry. But because the person is being socially manipulative instead of breathing toxic carcinogens it's acceptable? Bad words ok, bad oxygen BAD! Why is this so hard to understand that the bad social behavior is JUST AS TOXIC.
I completely reject this. Socially manipulative behavior is wrong and destructive. I don't care how bad your childhood was your sociopathic manipulation is not justified in any way.
sometimes (maybe even most of the time) socially manipulative behavior is destructive. but surely not all the time. for example, it might enable you to build a world leading ai company
> it might enable you to build a world leading ai company
Sure I had to ruin a few careers, but look at all the shareholder value I created.
There is a level of whitewashing, gaslighting or to put it very gently "less than truthful accounting" of what actual success takes in the whole "gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette" argument.
It's a choice, not a necessity and people need to stop acting like their hand was forced to make unnecessary or unpopular decisions. It's not illegal to be a shitty person, but you can't just Dj Khalid yourself out of backlash by proclaiming "that ain't me / no I didn't" and expecting the people around you to agree.
Sociopaths are important. There are lots of cases where no having an emotional response can be extremely valuable - emergency response, front line armed combat, extreme sports, executive leadership, the list goes on. Sociopaths are an important ingredient in the human soup, they just need the right conditions to be useful. All minds can be used productively, if you apply them correctly.
> After years of study, intensive therapy and earning a Ph.D. in psychology
I wonder what the percentage of psychologists get their degrees to figure out what the hell is wrong with them. I bet it is pretty large.
Also her gaze in the picture is quite unnerving. I wonder if it is because I know she is a sociopath or would I find it just as unnerving if I did not.
I'd say you're right. The lighting draws a line down the middle of her face; our brains don't like asymmetry so arranging the lighting and expression like that has intent.
No photographer trying to capture a regular image would have the light fall like that, and it would be very hard/lucky to get it to do it "by accident"
i think this is positive. because it means therapists can empathize when people feel that there is something wrong with them. there is nothing worse than a therapist who doesn't take your feelings seriously.
also, when you do need therapy yourself, depending on what kind of therapist you get, you can end up spending a lot of time learning just for your own sake. my brother did that, and at some point he was able to explain his issues better than the therapists he talked to.
did you ask your wife about her reasons to become a therapist?
>i think this is positive. because it means therapists can empathize when people feel that there is something wrong with them. there is nothing worse than a therapist who doesn't take your feelings seriously.
On the other hand if you happen to have a condition that doesn't respond well to therapy it seems kind of horrific to me to become a therapist just to learn that.
I don't want therapists to empathize and feel my emotions, I want them to sympathize and understand why I feel that way. You don't want doctors who have compromised their judgment by being in emotional states from self inflicted empathy when trying to treat people in a judgment free and rational way. Taking my feelings seriously as another input to the question of my mental state is different than feeling a personal empathetic connection with someone who is supposed to be their patient.
I want them to sympathize and understand why I feel that way
yes, exactly. english is not my first language, so maybe i am not applying the right terms. either way i think is easier for the therapist to understand their patients if they themselves feel that there is something different about them.
If nothing else, the comments here show me that we need a new word to describe people on the "sociopath spectrum" who intellectually decide to not be evil.
There is a reason ASPD requires the anti-social element to be diagnosable, but it seems we lack a popular word to describe ASPD without the AS. Psychopathy and sociopathy have too much cultural baggage because everyone thinks of extreme cases like American Psycho, or the most overt narcissistic sociopaths they've personally interacted with.
There is a whole class of people on the sociopath spectrum who go unnoticed because they're just better at hiding it and living normal lives, even if they don't feel emotions as strongly (or at all) compared to most people, they can decide to intellectually value other peoples experiences and simulate it.
I suspect there's also a lot of overlap with high functioning autism, where intellect and desire to model people accurately can make up for emotional hardware / mirror neuron deficiencies.
If we had less polarizing language to describe the spectrum of non-evil sociopathy, more people in this category would feel safe publicly describing their experiences, and the discourse wouldn't be dominated by grifters and subsequent backlash.
I think it's good to accept people on this spectrum as long as they chose to not be evil (and succeed at it), it is pointless judge people on their own internal experience of the world if it's not affecting others! They have every right to find community and support structures, and work towards integrating healthily with society, just like those with BPD, autism, bipolar, etc.
The subject has always fascinated me, largely to understand this character type when I encounter it. I've worked for a couple of sociopaths, it was extremely confusing and difficult.
I find it interesting that the author understands that the way she behaves can have negative impacts on people around her. In my experience this is unusual, sociopaths I've met either don't get this, or if they do, don't care, and in some cases use it as a 'special power' to advance themselves, especially in business. If you're not hampered by feelings of guilt or unfairness a lot of social barriers fall away.
In my experience this is unusual, sociopaths I've met either
don't get this
Wow, that doesn't jive with my personal experiences or what I've ever read about sociopathy. It sounds more like you're describing folks on the autism spectrum.
Sociopaths (which I realize is a somewhat deprecated term) tend to be skilled manipulators because they do understand how they effect others, but don't particularly feel much guilt about it.
They also behaved pretty scrupulously most of the time, because even if you have little empathy, behaving like a creepy scumbag is generally not going to be beneficial in the long run. If you are a sociopath, you might not feel "guilty" about being a shitty neighbor or even murdering somebody, but on a purely practical level, your life will still be much more pleasant if you're friendly with the neighbors and the cops aren't busting down your door to arrest you for murder.
Or at least that's how it seemed to me. I'm just curious observer, not somebody really qualified to have an opinion...
> Wow, that doesn't jive with my personal experiences or what I've ever read about sociopathy. It sounds more like you're describing folks on the autism spectrum.
The amount of undue hate that people on the spectrum get for being sociopaths or narcissist is awful. You are correct that they may misunderstand or "not get" social situations. You are incorrect in that they don't care / can't feel the emotion of a situation. Often they are overwhelmed by this and it's what makes "dealing" (passing as NT) difficult.
The amount of times I have had people socially manipulate situations against me is difficult to count. Any time you speak up about this you are the "crazy" one. These have mostly been situations where sociopaths are abusing me for the entertainment / social benefit reason.
They DO NOT CARE about the pain / suffering they cause. This has been a source of extreme stress, pain and suffering in my life. YMMV obviously but the amount of time I have to spend explaining this to people is disheartening. It's like nobody wants to believe that people can be so awful... and this belief can hand wave away any bad behavior being described.
> because even if you have little empathy, behaving like a creepy scumbag is generally not going to be beneficial in the long run.
I think you significantly underestimate the benefit to risk ratio. There are a lot more terrible, manipulative, sadistic people out there than "kind but misunderstood" people. The averages are not in our favor.
The amount of undue hate that people on the spectrum
get for being sociopaths or narcissist is awful. You
are correct that they may misunderstand or "not get"
social situations. You are incorrect in that they
don't care / can't feel the emotion of a situation.
Often they are overwhelmed by this and it's what makes
"dealing" (passing as NT) difficult.
I absolutely agree.
When I said the parent's post sounded more like they were describing autism, I strictly meant the part about struggling to understand social dynamics.
I might have been able express that better, not quite sure. But more importantly yes, absolutely agree with what you wrote there.
> When I said the parent's post sounded more like they were describing autism
I have a feeling that the venn diagram between autism and the ASPD stuff is more than we realize. Same spectrum, just extreme dysfunction at polar ends.
> I strictly meant the part about struggling to understand social dynamics.
One thing that's been amazing for me (re: autism spectrum) is understanding the difference between "not seeing" the social dynamics and simply not feeling the same way the rest of society does... which is interpreted as "doesn't respect authority". To me it's stunning how groups completely lack any critical thinking. It's scary like falling asleep behind the wheel when driving, not a thing to be proud of and wear like a badge of honor.
This introspection makes it easier to (attempt to) comprehend how ASPD people don't feel empathy. I don't feel any respect for people in positions of power who do not treat their subordinates (or customers) with respect. If I see it, I respect them... if not... I don't. I can only guess how ASPD folks feel like "well if I can take advantage of this person I will. If I don't someone else will, so I deserve it because it will happen."
For me I think the issue is ASPD people do not see themselves as a problem, when they clearly are harmful to society. Somehow bringing them in line with the expectations of everybody else is a grave attack on their personal character. They are such effective manipulators that they can get away with it.
They are like drunk drivers with a pass to DUI and cause as much wreckage as they please, because the cops like them and they have fun whenever they pull this person over. The victim the drunk driver injured has to "deal with it" on their own both financially and emotionally. Any complaining from the person who suffered the consequences is just "playing the victim" when the drunk who caused the crash faces no consequences.
I don't feel any respect for people in positions of
power who do not treat their subordinates
I'm not particularly on the autism spectrum (possibly on the shallow end) but I can absolutely assure you this is not an autism spectrum-specific trait.
Clearly, folks on the spectrum are going to tend to value different things than folks on the spectrum.
I'm not sure if you are venturing into "normies are sheeple, but us aspies think for ourselves!" territory but if so, I would tell you that you are wrong in the strongest possible terms.
Why would [a person with ASPD] person ever change?
Because there are a lot of downsides to constantly clashing with society, and a lot of upsides to living harmoniously/synergistically with society. If your neighbors don't loathe you, you can probably ask them to feed your cat while you're on vacation.
I mean, on a micro scale, yeah. If a person with ASPD feels no guilt whatsoever, obviously they can maximize personal gain from every interaction.
But things like reputation matter. If a person with ASPD has a reputation of exploiting and cheating everybody they interact with, people will avoid them. They can constantly seek out new people, and some do, but that is "expensive" in terms of time and effort and not necessarily going to be worth it to a lot of individuals even from a purely objective, amoral perspective.
It's tangential, but, on the macro scale. A lot of people are liberal/progressive for reasons of empathy, or at least that is the stereotype -- ie, the "bleeding heart liberal." I think that's true to an extent but I also think there are a lot of purely selfish and amoral reasons to favor a more collective approach to society. I think that even if you surgically removed my ability to empathize with others I'd still be super liberal.
I think it's more likely that she's lying for attention (and a book deal) than it is that she's actually a sociopath. Since we're talking about subjective feelings, it's not like there's any way to knwo for sure.
I suppose if she killed someone and was managing this publicity blitz from jail it would add some credence.
> After years of study, intensive therapy and earning a Ph.D. in psychology, I can say that sociopaths aren’t “bad” or “evil” or “crazy.” We simply have ...
Holy moral vacuum, Batman. That is not true, at all. First, psychology doesn't do ethics. It tries (not very well, I may add) to find causes for behavior, emotions, feelings, and social and cognitive processes. But it doesn't justify nor condemn those. Second, stabbing someone with a pencil is bad. The person who does that is bad. Sure, they can redeem themselves, but then they still were bad when they did so.
The "we simply have..." part of the sentence is like saying "people with a low iq aren't dumb, they only have a harder time understanding complex issues". It's self-absolving bollocks.
I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok = all lumberjacks are ok.
The fact they're attempting to speak on behalf of all is really starting on the wrong foot. Painting with a brush with the broadness of stereotypes.
Don't call me evil, I'm just misunderstood.
Without empathy I'd call into question their ability to judge bad, evil, or crazy for the rest of society that do feel empathy. It's like someone who is red/green colourblind defining what red is for the non-colourblind.
And 'crazy' is just 'we don't have a name for that particular thing yet': I'm not crazy, we call it antisocial personality disorder now, there's questions and a scale and everything. Not crazy.
What I get from that comment is sociopaths are not motivated by evil behaviors. And so the comment aims to differentiate sociopaths from those who are out to kill and destroy.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. First, behavior is not motivation. Second, if someone is evil is a moral judgement of behavior and intentions, not a clinical diagnosis. Third, there may be different "levels" of sociopathology, a spectrum if you will, but that doesn't excuse all of them.
This doesn't sound like the conventional definition of sociopathy (you still have empathy but act against it, feel guilty) but psychopathy (innate, lack of empathy)
First, I've heard about these unstoppable "impulses", it's more about being less risk averse, not caring about damage done to others, thinking you'll get through it successfully.
I’ve seen this narcissist in the New York Times with a similar article promoting her shitty book. Yawn. Personally I blame the journos for promoting this loser. Not believing any of this until I can sit down with her mother, etc. and see more proof and verify these stories. Though if she lies about a significant part of her life story that may be another sign she’s a sociopath. Still lame.
Seriously. I’m getting so sick of this “yeah I’m a sociopath look at how groundbreaking this is, we are so edgy and journalistic and insightful” trend going around, when no, you are just annoying and weird. No one is going to buy your pseudo introspective book no matter how many cinematic cover photos you take. These articles need to stop.
There was another article that came across the same way, with this guy claiming humans don’t have “free will” but if you wanted to see any of his scientific “research” it just so happened that you also had to buy his book. Publications need to stop giving these attention seeking narcissists their supply for the love of god it’s becoming unbearable.
Geee... I thought it was crystal clear that when I stated 'a sociopath would never admit to being a sociopath' it was about a confession where you genuinely admit you are behaving badly out of your sense of remorse. Any kind of 'tactical' admissions simply don't count. It's like with pathological liars, they too, can sometimes admit to some lies but still maintain that they are 'generally' honest.
Why would sociopath think that being sociopath is bad or wrong? They could very well think that it is what makes them better than others. If they lack remorse they can admit that they are sociopaths without any remorse or regret.
Because they understand that being a sociopath is considered to be 'bad' by the society. What's so difficult to understand? Liars and pretty everybody also think that being good at lying is an advantage but admitting to being a liar is simply a bad tactic
Right, admitting you behave a certain way isn't the same as "admitting you are wrong". Hell it is a useful tool for either fitting in or when you get in trouble.
The biggest thing you seem to miss, is that being a sociopath is a lack of intuition and instincts, not what choices they make. Our entire society and economic structure is about convincing sociopaths to contribute despite the disability.
Oh! Glad to see you are so well educated and experienced in mental health treatment, that you can speak for what every single person that medical condition would ever conceivably do.
