Sociopaths in the news: branding humans

This is totally something I would think is a good idea:

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - A Swaziland parliamentarian has apologized after calling for HIV-positive people to be branded on the buttocks to stop the spread of the virus ravaging the country.

Timothy Myeni drew widespread criticism after telling a parliamentarians' workshop in Swaziland that the move would enable people to check partners for a warning stamp before sex.

"I'm very sorry. If you need me to show a sign of how sorry I am, I'm ready," SAPA news agency quoted Myeni as telling a news conference in Johannesburg on Thursday.

Animals have a sense of morality?

According to one scientist at least:

Scientists studying animal behaviour believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans.

Until recently, humans were thought to be the only species to experience complex emotions and have a sense of morality.

But Prof Marc Bekoff, an ecologist at University of Colorado, Boulder, believes that morals are "hard-wired" into the brains of all mammals and provide the "social glue" that allow often aggressive and competitive animals to live together in groups.

He has compiled evidence from around the world that shows how different species of animals appear to have an innate sense of fairness, display empathy and help other animals that are in distress.

I don't get what is so special about moral compasses if they are all relative to the particular culture one is raised in and do not necessarily include those perceived as outsiders:

"Just as in humans, the moral nuances of a particular culture or group will be different from another, but they are certainly there. Moral codes are species specific, so they can be difficult to compare with each other or with humans."

Looks like we sociopaths are more alone than we thought. But at least no one will ever be able to call us filthy animals anymore.

Your sociopath questions answered

From a reader's comment, my responses are in bold:

It's strange to me that sociopaths are supposedly not capable of empathy, not "love", but can you have affectionate feelings toward other people? Yes. Many sociopaths express love for family and other "favorites." Their "love" means whatever it means, maybe the love you have for a favorite pet, or a child, or a favorite band, or an old comfortable pair of jeans. And can you really tell if you do or don't? Can anyone? Can you Hate? Do you get angry? Is there a difference between anger and hate other than permanence? If there is a difference besides permanence, then i don't think I experience hate, just anger.

I have watched Dexter, and to me he hasn't fit the profile of what I have thought of as a sociopath, other than that he kills without remorse. But he only kills BAD people. I am not a killer, but when I hate someone I think if I COULD kill them without anyone ever knowing, and there were NO chance I would be caught, I would. And I wouldn't feel bad about it. But I can't be sure of that, cause I'm not going to try it. Do you think Dexter would feel bad if he killed only good people? Are sociopaths defined by their actions? Or how they feel about their actions?

Dexter also SEEMS to care about that stupid, annoying simpering girlfriend of his. I have read that sociopaths like to play with and torment people that they have relationships with, and man, not even being a sociopath, I would be tempted to squash HER. Maybe you are also a sociopath. He seems to care about her children, too. I think it is easier for sociopaths to be fond of children than adults. They have similar views of the world, in certain ways, and children seem so guileless compared to the typical hypocrite that is the adult empath. So.. you guys are confusing! Not really.

I also don't think Jeffrey dahmer was a sociopath.. He seemed to feel bad about what he did. I Do think our ex president was, and maybe ones before him. Not sure if you have to be drawn to "bad" things if you have no conscience? No, not necessarily. It is common misconception that just because you do not have a conscience, you would just indulge in every "bad" thing available to you. There are other motivating factors behind human decisions besides consciences. For instance, you claim to have a conscience, and yet you would readily kill "bad" people if you could be certain you would not be caught. Consciences are overrated and flawed anyway. Are you necessarily drawn to pulling the wings of flies and torturing puppies? Why that and not curiosity about other things? Or is there? Not torture and mayhem for all sociopaths, everyone has their own personal preferences. Imagine stroke victims or other brain damaged people who lose their inhibitions. They don't act crazy so much as act like an unfiltered, unadulterated version of themselves. Each sociopaths is still a unique individual, what sets us apart collectively from empaths is that we have different ways of interacting with the world. Ok, that's all. IF you can make out any coherent questions in that that you feel like answering... And then I have to try to determine whether you're BSing me! Oh, and what's this with COMRADERIE with other sociopaths? Having this blog... Dexter wanting a friend, companion, not wanting to be alone? I would think that sort of thing would be ant psychopathological. So what do I know? Human beings are social animals. Isolation drives us crazy. There is nothing about sociopathy that would prevent us from wanting human contact, to avoid loneliness, to be deeply understood and appreciated.

Sexuality and sociopathy

Sociopathy is a personality disorder. We are unusually impressionable, very flexible with our sense of self, and with our defining characteristics. Because we don't have a rigid self-image or worldview, we don't observe social norms, we don't have a moral compass, and we have a fluid definition of right and wrong. We can also be shapeshifters, smooth-talking, and charming. We can become your ideal mate, in a way described here and here. We do not have an established default position on anything. This extends, at least in some degree, to our sexuality.

The original diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM), released in 1952, listed homosexuality as a sociopathic personality disturbance. The connection between the two was subsequently removed due to protests from the gay community that homosexuality was being equated with sociopathy. Many have commented since that sociopaths seem to have no particular sexual identity, that even the term bisexual is misleading as it implies some sort of a preference, albeit a shared one, and that "equal opportunity" is a more apt label. In fact, the sociopath seems to be the bonobo of the human world -- frequent, casual, utilitarian sex. As one person reasoned, "such an individual, in their quest for dominance and power would not feel the need to discriminate according to gender."

We see fictional examples of the sociopathic "bisexual" with the talented Mr. Ripley, Joker from Batman (depending on who writes him), and real life examples with Leopold and Loeb and others listed here. If I had to speculate about current celebrities, I would also include Angelina Jolie, Tom Cruise, and Lindsay Lohan, although narcissism could apply equally well for some of those.

I was thinking about all of this while reading an article on Sir Laurence Olivier's sexual predilections. Although married three times, he apparently also had many male interests, one of whom explained it as follows:

"He's like a blank page and he'll be whatever you want him to be. He'll wait for you to give him a cue, and then he'll try to be that sort of person."

Maybe larry wasn't a sociopath, maybe he was, but he shared with sociopaths the common characteristic of a weak sense of self, and he illustrates well how that might play out with one's sexual identity. In any case, the lesson learned here is not only does being a sociopath potentially make you a great thespian, it also gives new meaning to the old consolation, "there are plenty more fish in the sea."

Reader feedback

On an anti-socio site:

I previously posted a site that I’ve been watching that may help all of us quit swimmin in River De-Nile.

IT’s Sociopathworld.com REALLY BIZARRE stuff,

I am paraphrasing a new exact post of a self proclaimed S-
” As a N. I also memorize other peoples emotions , its the easiest way to seem human. Because I have No idea how to feel them myself. I’d be easy to spot….. Normal people may sense or feel the presence of evil.. It permeates from the P.”

Caution: For what its worth, someone also posted: “Warning this site is dangerous, Do NOT BLOG just read & leave!! IT IS A VIEW INTO THE MIND OF EVIL.”
Maybe a joke (?) but I tend to agree with the no posting. No winning in a war of words with a P. Crazy trumps ANYTHING we got!

When you guys have time to check into it- lots of info to sift thru- let me know what you think. I said before its good to ‘Know Thy Enemy”. THis may be benefical.

Ah, Sabrina, I am so glad that you found the site to be helpful. But "know they enemy"? Naw, let's be friends, shall we?

Sociopaths and poker

In the general public's mind the difference between a good sociopath and a bad sociopath is not who they are, but how they channel who they are -- e.g., what they do and accomplish. For instance, what is the difference between the fictional character Dexter and a typical serial killer? Dexter only kills other serial killers, people whom the public would consider "guilty" or "deserving" of dexter's treatment, perhaps in a brutal nod to an ancient eye-for-an-eye mentality, whereas most other serial killers target the "innocent." Even more clear cut than Dexter is when empaths color sociopaths' actions with something like a uniform, a badge, or political authority and reward the sociopath with medals and honors. Some empaths feel that a death is a death, but not the majority of them. High-functioning sociopaths understand these vagaries of the empathic mind and capitalize off of them by using their skills in more socially acceptable ways: politics, theatre, law enforcement... and poker?

The New Yorker published an article recently on the psychology and strategies of poker, "What Would Jesus bet?":

Poker played poorly is purely a gambler's game. Losers tend to think that they didn't get the cards, and not that they were beaten by someone who played better than they did. They return to the table and wait for big hands and lose more. Accomplished players strive to diminish the effects of luck. From the pattern of their opponents' bets and behaviors, they work like detectives to determine their cards. They play opportune hands deceptively, and feckless ones, too, and shed unpromising ones before the cards cause them too much harm. They know that some hands that seem auspicious are not, and that others are stronger than they appear.

As Chris "Jesus" Ferguson says, "you might get lucky and beat me, but you'll never outplay me."

I had recommended that our friend Chris study decisionmaking and game theory, skills that dominate poker strategy:

A player using optimal strategy assumes that his opponents know he is doing so--in other words, that his strategy has been found out. He can announce, for example, that a third of his bets will be bluffs, and then construct the game in such a way that his opponent still can't tell whether it is better to fold or call. If two players have each put fifty dollars into the pot, and the optimal-strategy player is bluffing, and two-thirds of the time he will lose, because the optimal-stratgy player is betting a hand that is strong enough to win. The opponent now has no means of knowing when it is better to call than to fold. This is described as making the opponent "indifferent." He might as well flip a coin. "Now it's a mind game," Ferguson said.

Apart from highlighting how sociopaths might be particularly well-suited to playing poker, I think the connection of game theory to poker strategy is interesting because in game theory, all outcomes for all possible choices are known, but there is still room for gamesmanship. I think this highlights my particular approach to my sociopathy, as illustrated in a favorite quote:

The art of life is to show your hand. There is no diplomacy like candor. You may lose by it now and then, but it will be a loss well gained if you do. Nothing is so boring as having to keep up a deception.
-- E. V. Lucas

And that is why I have the urge to out myself as a sociopath -- nothing is so boring as a deception that you must constantly keep up and from which the game can be played just as well without.

Sociopaths, loss, and fungibility

I have been thinking about loss recently. I have always thought that I treat people as being more fungible than they are used to being treated. I once warned a friend that i was likely to use her up like a paper napkin and dispose of her. I have always understood what a "friend of convenience" meant to me, and treated those people accordingly. I am unable to care for those people unconditionally. The kindness I show them is directly proportional to the value they have to me.

When I was younger, I was as quick to make "friends" with inanimate objects as they were real people. One particular "friend" has stuck with me through the years. He is as valuable to me as most actual friends, and perhaps even some family members. I lost him once and was able to reclaim him only through hard work, brilliant problem solving, and luck. Since then I have been very careful with him, until recently. I was scheduled for a long trip and wanted my friend to come along, but was worried for his safety. I started searching for a substitute on the internet and chanced upon his twin available for sale. When substitute friend came in the post, he looked different, and I still favored my old friend. Quickly, though, the two have become surprisingly interchangeable. Whatever my faults, I have always considered myself a rather loyal person by nature (Cancerian?), but here I was discarding a lifelong friend for someone who just fit nicely into the mold. But am I so different from empaths? One of the empaths in my life said the following about loss:

"One of the saddest things about death is that the world does go on, and you feel like that devalues the person that they were. Eventually even we move on, we fill the void that was left with other people. We have to, it's human nature."

However, she admits that void fillers won't ever be perfect. She remembers particularly her mother losing her parents, how painful that was, and how she was never able to find that type of relationship again, not like she expected to.

"People come in and out of our lives a lot. That's the nature of the beast. For some reason in our culture, only family sticks around, and even then certain family members will drift apart."

Death has never made me sad, maybe I because I've never cared that much about anyone who has died. I have lost people in other ways and been sad, but am I really sad for their loss? Or am I upset that they have left me? Angry at myself for failing to keep them around?

Not Chris Brown, another one

I have been corresponding with one reader who (atypically) does not want to remain anonymous. The first i heard from Chris was this comment on a post:

I was diagnosed with ASPD (sociopathy) although I think it's more likely I have NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder). I've hurt a lot of people, but never intentionally (as with a plan), and always it's been due to feelings of powerlessness, fear or being taken advantage of. My emotional core is more comprised of feelings of inadequacy than of maliciousness. In fact, I care a lot about other people and do a lot of good things for my community. I also feel remorse and empathy. But at the same time I think in very selfish ways sometimes and have hurt a lot of people.

When I read the comment, I was struck with what an accurate and sympathetic description of a narcissist it was, or at least the narcissists I know well. Chris later emailed me about how he had been diagnosed as a sociopath after he punched his then girlfriend in a violent outburst, for which he served a year in jail. To read about his experience, check out ablessingindisguise.org. I replied:

Interesting blog. I particularly thought this post was interesting. Even before I read that post, though, I didn't think you were a sociopath. Before I read your self-assessment of NPD, I actually thought that maybe you might be on the autism spectrum, particularly because of your lack of conforming to social norms in odd ways, e.g. making eye contact with strangers and picking your nose. Those with sociopathy and NPD also have difficulties with social norms, but usually the big stuff, if that makes any sense -- stealing, lying, cheating. They (sociopaths at least) may also have difficulty with the smaller social norms at first because they don't have a natural instinct for them, but they are usually able to overcome those difficulties and be very adept socially, some say charming. I would look into asperger's and autism in addition to your research on personality disorders. The type of bursts of anger/rage you describe seem to be more typical of the sometimes violent symptoms of autism. I wrote about it here.

Unfortunately for you, if you were on the autism spectrum and the condition manifested itself as violence, I don't think there are very good treatments for it. If the violence is truly an uncontrollable impulse, then it seems like the only options available to you would be to condition the subconscious to react differently, perhaps via shock therapy? I assume you are already being treated for the basic anger management stuff, without much progress.

Cont.

Neurodiversity backlash?

Special Boy With Freakishly Large Brain Wins Spelling Bee

Different moral universes

A psychologist argues that American conservatives and liberals come from different moral universes:

Jonathan Haidt is hardly a road-rage kind of guy, but he does get irritated by self-righteous bumper stickers. The soft-spoken psychologist is acutely annoyed by certain smug slogans that adorn the cars of fellow liberals: "Support our troops: Bring them home" and "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

"No conservative reads those bumper stickers and thinks, 'Hmm — so liberals are patriotic!'" he says, in a sarcastic tone of voice that jarringly contrasts with his usual subdued sincerity. "We liberals are universalists and humanists; it's not part of our morality to highly value nations. So to claim dissent is patriotic — or that we're supporting the troops, when in fact we're opposing the war — is disingenuous.

"It just pisses people off."

The University of Virginia scholar views such slogans as clumsy attempts to insist we all share the same values. In his view, these catch phrases are not only insincere — they're also fundamentally wrong. Liberals and conservatives, he insists, inhabit different moral universes. There is some overlap in belief systems, but huge differences in emphasis.
. . .
As part of . . . early research, Haidt and a colleague, Brazilian psychologist Silvia Koller, posed a series of provocative questions to people in both Brazil and the U.S. One of the most revealing was: How would you react if a family ate the body of its pet dog, which had been accidentally run over that morning?

"There were differences between nations, but the biggest differences were across social classes within each nation," Haidt recalls. "Students at a private school in Philadelphia thought it was just as gross, but it wasn't harming anyone; their attitude was rationalist and harm-based. But when you moved down in social class or into Brazil, morality is based not on just harm. It's also about loyalty and family and authority and respect and purity. That was an important early finding."
. . .
Haidt went to work for Richard Shweder, a cultural anthropologist at the University of Chicago who arranged for his postdoc fellow to spend three months in India. Haidt refers to his time in Bhubaneshwar — an ancient city full of Hindu temples that retains a traditional form of morality with rigid cast and gender roles — as transformative.

"I found there is not really a way to say 'thank you' or 'you're welcome' (in the local language)," he recalls. "There are ways of acknowledging appreciation, but saying 'thank you' and 'you're welcome' didn't make any emotional sense to them. Your stomach doesn't say 'thank you' to your esophagus for passing the food to it! What I finally came to understand was to stop acting as if everybody was equal. Rather, each person had a job to do, and that made the social system run smoothly."

Gradually getting past his reflexive Western attitudes, he realized that "the Confucian/Hindu traditional value structure is very good for maintaining order and continuity and stability, which is very important in the absence of good central governance. But if the goal is creativity, scientific insight and artistic achievement, these traditional societies pretty well squelch it. Modern liberalism, with its support for self-expression, is much more effective. I really saw the yin-yang."
. . .
[A] range of ethical systems have always coexisted and most likely always will.
. . .
Haidt . . . concluded that any full view of the origins of human morality would have to take into account not only culture (as analyzed by anthropologists) but also evolution. He reasoned it was highly unlikely humans would care so much about morality unless moral instincts and emotions had become a part of human nature. He began to suspect that morality evolved not just to help individuals as they competed and cooperated with other individuals, but also to help groups as they competed and cooperated with other groups.

"Morality is not just about how we treat each other, as most liberals think," he argues. "It is also about binding groups together and supporting essential institutions."
. . .
"I think this is terribly important," he says. "People are not going to converge on their judgments of what's good or bad, or right and wrong. Diversity is inherent in our species. And in a globalized world, we're going to be bumping into each other a lot."

So are sociopaths weird because we have no moral compass while everyone else has some kind of different moral compasses? Or are we just weird because we do have a sense of "morality," but we would just never think to call it that, associate it with random emotions, and/or try to enforce it on everyone else...

Tips on lying effectively

In a New York Times article on lying, scientists suggest that excessive detail and meandering narratives help liars avoid detection:

The new work focuses on what people say, not how they act. It has already changed police work in other countries, and some new techniques are making their way into interrogations in the United States.

In part, the work grows out of a frustration with other methods. Liars do not avert their eyes in an interview on average any more than people telling the truth do, researchers report; they do not fidget, sweat or slump in a chair any more often. They may produce distinct, fleeting changes in expression, experts say, but it is not clear yet how useful it is to analyze those.
* * *
Kevin Colwell, a psychologist at Southern Connecticut State University, has advised police departments, Pentagon officials and child protection workers, who need to check the veracity of conflicting accounts from parents and children. He says that people concocting a story prepare a script that is tight and lacking in detail.

“It’s like when your mom busted you as a kid, and you made really obvious mistakes,” Dr. Colwell said. “Well, now you’re working to avoid those.”

By contrast, people telling the truth have no script, and tend to recall more extraneous details and may even make mistakes. They are sloppier.
* * *
In several studies, Dr. Colwell and Dr. Hiscock-Anisman have reported one consistent difference: People telling the truth tend to add 20 to 30 percent more external detail than do those who are lying. “This is how memory works, by association,” Dr. Hiscock-Anisman said. “If you’re telling the truth, this mental reinstatement of contexts triggers more and more external details.”

Not so if you’ve got a concocted story and you’re sticking to it. “It’s the difference between a tree in full flower in the summer and a barren stick in winter,” said Dr. Charles Morgan, a psychiatrist at the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, who has tested it for trauma claims and among special-operations soldiers.

They are also training police to gradually introduce known facts during interrogations, however, which makes it tricky because if you are purposefully trying to embellish to hide a lie, you need to be extra careful that the embellishment is not about something easily ascertainable. Embellishments should be about things no one could possibly know about, like your feelings, the underwear you wore, how you slept the night before, etc. The worst would be for people to say random things like "it was a full moon" when there was no moon at all, etc. Check yourselves, fellow sociopaths.

Can sociopaths be religious?

The easy answer is yes. Look at all the crazy things people have done in the name of religion. Of course people have often used the pretense of religious belief to magnify their own power or influence, but I think that many sociopaths are actually capable of religious/spiritual beliefs independent of the motives of trying to fit in or manipulate others. At least many famous sociopaths have expressed such beliefs at one point or another.

I'm religious/spiritual. I guess that might seem surprising. I was grateful to be raised religiously because it provided me with a standard of morality that I could follow and use to fit in perfectly with my community. As much as people try to argue otherwise, legal systems and social norms are very closely linked with religious concepts of morality, so learning a religious code taught me a lot about what was expected of me in society. Being religious also gave me a built-in excuse for any eccentricities in behavior. I am still religious, I think, because I like the idea of there being a creator of all things, including sociopaths. I like having a check on my behavior, a reason for being a good sociopath. And I like the reward for good behavior -- the feeling of elation and other-worldness inherent in religious devotion.

But I do not allow my religious devotion to confuse me or to make me feel conflicted about who I am. Like one of the brothers Karamzov said:

I'm a Karamazov... when I fall into the abyss, I go straight into it, head down and heels up, and I'm even pleased that I'm falling in such a humiliating position, and for me I find it beautiful. And so in that very shame I suddenly begin a hymn. Let me be cursed, let me be base and vile, but let me also kiss the hem of that garment in which my God is clothed; let me be following the devil at the same time, but still I am also your son, Lord, and I love you, and I feel a joy without which the world cannot stand and be.

- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Sociopath quotes: Mob mentality

Man has much more to fear from the passions of his fellow creatures than from the convulsions of the elements.

--Edward Gibbon

"Psycho and proud"?

Newsweek reports on the neurodiversity "craze":

I met [Will] Hall one night at the offices of the Icarus Project in Manhattan. He became a leader of the group--a "mad pride" collective--in 2005 as a way to promote the idea that mental-health diagnoses like bipolar disorder are "dangerous gifts" rather than illnesses. While we talked, members of the group--Icaristas, as they call themselves--scurried around in the purple-painted office, collating mad-pride fliers. Hall explained how the medical establishment has for too long relied heavily on medication and repression of behavior of those deemed "not normal." Icarus and groups like it are challenging the science that psychiatry says is on its side. Hall believes that psychiatrists are prone to making arbitrary distinctions between "crazy" and "healthy," and to using medication as tranquilizers. . . .

Just as some deaf activists prefer to embrace their inability to hear rather than "cure" it with cochlear implants, members of Icarus reject the notion that the things that are called mental illness are simply something to be rid of.

Too true.

Losing a sociopath (part II)

My response (cont.)

Empaths look at the amount of hurt caused by loss and say, "This is what this meant to me, this is how much I valued that thing and now I am grieving in equal amounts." Empaths examine their own grief that way, and they also take cues from others about how much something meant to them: "He seems to be handling this well, he must not have cared very much." But sociopaths experience grief in a much different way; it's like comparing apples to oranges. You will never know how much your sociopath cared about you or your relationship because you have absolutely no context for the amount. It would be like me telling you that he cared for you 10 martian kroners worth, or 10 billion solar pesos. There is no reference point for you to understand, no known exchange rate. And I think that is what you are really asking, right? Not does he feel sad, because I am sure if you were together with him for a year you would know that yes he does feel sad. What you are really asking is how sad does he feel, how does he feel sadness, and what makes him sad, and particularly whether he is sad about the prospect of your leaving him?

But more than just that, what you want is meaning. You want an explanation for everything that happened in the relationship, everything he said, everything you did together. I understand this about empaths -- it is not so much what happens to them but how/why that matters. Take hypothetical situation: an empath starts out with $100 in the morning, gives $50 to a homeless guy, and then gets mugged for the other $50. Or they lose the other $50 in a storm drain. They feel good about the $50 to the homeless guy and feel bad about the other $50. That is very strange to the sociopath, because both are arguably just a loss of $50. But here is the weirdest part! Empaths would rather have lost the other $50 in a storm drain than have been mugged for it. Why?! As a sociopath I see the justification for giving the homeless man the money -- you are transferring wealth to someone who will value the money more than you. But the same applies to the mugging! The money goes to someone who probably needs/values it more. The only arguably bad outcome is losing the $50 in the storm drain, which empaths feel fine about. But that's because to the empaths it is not the fact that $50 was lost in these various ways, but how it happened.

Similarly, because you are an empath, you will concoct a huge story for the relationship, an explanation for everything you were, everything that happened. You will rehash every memory, relive every conversation, even reread past correspondence searching for "answers." You will try to find meaning in this story that you piece together of what "really happened." You will look for motives, you will question everything you thought you knew about him and the relationship, and it will be very very painful. Your sociopath will not do any of this. He only knows that the relationship failed. He will only see the result, perhaps the most immediate cause. He will not suffer this rehashing pain, but it is not because he cared any more or less. He just cared differently, and he is emotionally evolutionarily advanced enough to not indulge in an elaborate investigation and revisionist history. He will grieve, and he will move on. And there is no reason at all to fault him for that. In fact, when you look at things this way, is he really the one that is causing you so much pain? You are devastated because the relationship failed and you are suffering loss. But you are in pain because you are a reactionary empath and you are making things worse by reliving and rethinking every tiny detail. You are overreacting and focusing on things that don't matter, like the whys and hows while he is focused on the true measure of success, failure, loss -- the what. I think if you are honest with yourself, you will see that your pain/disease is more autoimmune than viral. So no, I don't think he gets what "he has done" to you. I bet he doesn't attribute any of your self-inflicted pain to himself, and for good reason.

With all of this said, I realize that pain is pain no matter what the cause, and you are an empath so you probably can't be expected to do better than you're doing, and I understand that sociopaths are very difficult to deal with and that you have probably suffered a lot of frustration over the past year with him. I hope that you are able to quickly find peace and wish you all the best in your time of grief.

Losing a sociopath (part I)

From a reader:

HI I'm getting out or a least trying to get out of a relationship with a sociopath. I'm devastated and in so much pain. doing some research i found out your bog that i find very interesting.
My question today is, do you feel pain? are sociopaths understand the pain that inflict on the people the say they love? because reading you and looking for information, i would have to think that he of course doesn't love me or care about me. Does a sociopath cares about anything? does he ever feel sad?
I'm so in love with this guy but it has been a year long painful relationship i cant do this to myself anymore. Do you think he gets what he has done to me?

My response:

We feel pain, but over different types of things, which doesn't necessarily guarantee that your sociopath is currently feeling pain. But he said he loved you, and if you feel like he had no reason to lie, he was probably telling the truth -- whatever "love" might mean to him. This is all assuming he is a sociopath, which unless he has admitted to being a sociopath, he very well may not be.

I've mentioned this before, but in love relationships, if sociopaths are truly committed/invested in the relationship (i.e. not just seducing, ruining, or gaming), they are very childlike. They love seflishly like a child, they can by petty like a child, they are emotionally superficial like a child, they are self-centered like a child. They are very focused on having their own needs met, and they are quick to forget you. What do people always say when children's parents die? That it is sad, but luckily they are young and they'll get over it quickly. Sociopaths can be extremely disappointed at the end of a relationship for lots of reasons -- feelings of failure, loneliness, and loss (not necessarily upset at losing you or your love, but losing at least whatever happiness you brought him, whatever role you filled). They are also easily assuaged, quick to move on.

(cont.)

I am in love with a sociopath

So begins molly young, writing for moreintelligentlife.com about Showtime's television show Dexter, a sympathetic portrayal of a sociopath/pseudo-vigilante. The portrayal of Dexter is so sympathetic, in fact, that Young thinks that he is a little too good to be sociopath true:

Dexter makes for a fine host and protagonist: he’s charming and intelligent, with the striking good looks of a handsomely-built monkey. In voiceover narration, he attempts to explain his murderous actions to the viewer, insisting that he is an empty shell of a person. "I love Halloween,” he indulges. “The one time of year when everyone wears a mask, not just me.” The voiceover device allows Dexter to explain his bloody motivations with illuminating introspection. The sociopath, it turns out, is humble and has regrets. He is self-searching and self-questioning. He is, in other words, a really unconvincing sociopath.

Here’s the thing: as viewers, we have to believe that Dexter is an aberration––a man totally unlike us––in order to accept his dubious activities. And yet the very qualities that would designate him a sociopath would surely alienate him as a protagonist. The solution? A character who acts in thoroughly lovable ways while telling us that it’s all pretence. If Humbert Humbert's narration was all about providing a beguiling justification of his misdeeds, Dexter's is about convincing us that he’s bad and empty inside, despite evidence that he's really a mensch.

In typical empath fashion, she continues by suggesting that Dexter is really just a caricature of Joe Anybody:

Plus, we want to like Dexter. He’s a caricature of how most of us feel ourselves to be: outsiders some of the time, morally correct most of the time, doing the best we can with the cards we were dealt. Dexter explains that he fakes his likeability in the voiceovers, but the explanations themselves––with their introspection and self-deprecating tone –– don't jibe with the hollow killer he claims to be.

This is some interesting faulty reasoning -- this man can't be a sociopath because I love him. And yet there are literally millions of people who love sociopaths. Sociopaths are in a lot of ways very easy to love, at least at first. What Young is demonstrating in her article is the folly of many an individual ensnared in the sociopath's charms -- he can't possibly be a sociopath, can he? He can and he is. In this way, Dexter is one of the most accurate, un-caricatured media portrayals of a sociopath.

Your friendly neighborhood sociopath

Again from "R":

Another question, Do most sociopaths know they are sociopaths, do narcissists know they are narcissists? Under what circumstances would a sociopath reveal himself? same question as to narcissists?

My response:

Sociopaths know that they are different, though they may not necessarily be familiar that the label "sociopath" applies to them. Narcissists tend to be self-deceived, so they think that they are the same as everyone else, just better.

When I was told by a friend that there was a label for people like me and it was called "sociopath," I actually willingly accepted the diagnosis. I knew I didn't have the same emotions as everyone else, I knew I had a weak sense of empathy, I knew I was different, and it wasn't something that I struggled with ever. I feel like narcissists deny deny deny when they are confronted with their identity. They are so self-deceived, though, that it is probable that they don't even recognize the signs of narcissism in themselves.

I don't think a narcissist would ever reveal himself, mainly because he probably doesn't think there is anything to reveal. For sociopaths I think revealing oneself is sort of like revealing a secret identity for a superhero -- generally not a good idea, but sometimes unavoidable. I have revealed myself to close friends (not all, only the ones who would be accepting), and on rare occasions to people whom I suspect to be sociopaths themselves. For instance, I have only once revealed myself to someone I had just met, but it was obvious from our conversational topics that if he weren't a sociopath, he was something akin to it. Even so it was a delicate dance of "how much do you think you empathize with others?" "Do you think manipulation is an appropriate tool for social encounters?" "Does anyone ever ask you if you are a sociopath?" Even from the people who are accepting of who I am, a lot of them can't believe that I am a sociopath, or they sort of pretend I'm not by imagining emotions or empathy where there are none. My parents are that way. I am high-functioning and take pleasure in being exceptionally considerate, so it is not too difficult to believe that I am normal. Bjust because most of me seems good doesn't mean I don't have any sociopath-flavoured bad in me.

There's another good response here:

I'm sure a sociopath realizes that they are "different" from normal people, in the sense that they do not comprehend normal emotional responses and connections. I would assume they don't understand why this is unless they recognize the signs through their own research or if someone tells them.

The show "Dexter" is a pretty good insight into the life of a sociopath.

Desperately seeking sociopath

More from reader "R":

I realized part of my bitter disappointment was that [the man i was dating] was only a narcissist [not a sociopath]. I am a person that is highly sensitive and I do think that I have an almost debilitating capacity to understand and at times feel what other feel. Is seems that just because you are emotional does not necessarily make you good. It has however after a lot of time of introspection made me realize that I can understand people's motives pretty easily. I'm distressed because they are usually, well... So I oscillate between thinking I 'm a crazy narcissist or I'm doomed to be lonely, because I'm afraid I'm on to something. Anyway, I think I was trying to find a sociopath, 1) for relief from having to feel all the time and 2) so I could objectively share information. What do you think?

My response:

I think your reasons for seeking out a sociopath make perfect sense. From what you are describing, you sound like what I call an "uber-empath," someone who is on the opposite extreme of the empathy spectrum as the sociopath. Like many extremes, sociopaths and uber-empaths actually seem to get along quite well. I have had many friends and relationships with uber empaths. In this post I say the following with an uber-empath friend:

Uber-empaths and sociopaths actually make okay friends because the empath is constantly emoting all the time, like kryptonite killing off lesser things, but the sociopaths are unfazed, immune. And sociopaths rarely get to show off to people who really appreciate them, but uber-empaths can understand and appreciate.
So I think there can be a healthy, symbiotic relationship between the two.