Sociopaths = moral nihilists

Our friend Mr. Birdick on another site:

Let me give you a personal anecdote. Once upon a time, I was in the military. During one afternoon lunch period in boot camp, I remember having a small epiphany as I was standing in line waiting to reach the counter. I looked around and saw groups of my fellow inmates… I mean, recruits… sitting at their tables, following the rules handed down to us by our “superiors”. No talking, no horse play, eat quickly. I saw the recruits sneakily having whispered conversations, quietly disobeying those rules. I saw the officers in charge sitting at their table, talking loudly and raucously, enjoying themselves and seeming to revel in their “elevated” position in the hierarchy. I saw the differences in uniform. One group’s uniforms signifying their roles are superiors, the other group’s signifying their roles as inferiors, people who could and would be yelled at, disrespected and ordered about by the superiors. I saw that we all, officer and recruit alike, volunteered to put on these costumes and play these roles. And it hit me that it was all a joke. We were all playing a very elaborate game of make believe for adults. What’s more, I saw that this is how it is everywhere. It wasn’t just boot camp. It was Congress. It was corporate America. It was church. It was family. We are all playing these roles, and what’s more, I saw that we did not have to. It is our fear, among other, less potent motivations, that keeps us locked into the mass absurdity. We believe in rules that have no basis in any other space outside of the human brain. It’s like the rules of Monopoly, the board game. We agree to play by them, but once the game is done, we fold up the board, put the pieces and the cash away, and forget all about the rules that make the game possible. (Obviously I’m not original. This was long before I’d even heard of game theory.) But human society is one game that never, EVER ends. How would you feel if one morning you awoke, walked out of your home to face the day only to discover that everyone appears to be living and dying and killing by the rules of what you were raised to believe was only a board game? For me, the rules, the roles and the beliefs are all part of a game, one that is not real and is not important. But it appears that for most other people, the game is real. It’s all real to them and it all matters, including and especially who they believe themselves to be. Everything appears to hinge of their sense of identity (their roles). It’s so important in fact that they are willing to kill in the name of their rules and roles and make believe society. None of it has to cohere. It does not have to make sense even. It just has to be what they believe is true and right. It is the function of beliefs, not their veracity, that matters most.

That is my subjective experience of society around me. Again, I believe that most people are not being consciously disingenuous. To reiterate, I understand all too well that many people mean it from the depths of their being when they think, feel and believe certain things. All of the above is the very meaning of most people’s lives. But for me, these people I am referring to are like straw dogs, empty suits who confuse emotional depth with reality. They believe that what they think and what they feel is the be all to end all. They do not see the blind biology that makes their beliefs about themselves and their society possible. They most certainly refrain from any kind of sustained introspection. So naturally, they mistake their beliefs and feelings with fact and they surround themselves with others who will agree with them as a means of shoring up those beliefs, their yay-sayers. Why else would the average human ego be so fragile and so in need of constant validation if it were not comprised of mostly opinion, wish fulfillment and patterns of behavior acquired in childhood and repeated in what passes for adulthood? (In other words, hot air.) The smarter ones may see some of this in others but they can never see it in themselves because they believe that they and theirs, among all other groups, have somehow won the belief lottery: their beliefs are of course right and true and honorable! Their families, their religion, their country is what’s right and true and honorable. Their version of love is the real version, the right and true and honorable version. And what threatens a belief, a feeling, a sense of self in constant need of propping up? Other people, with their conflicting beliefs and feelings and senses of self of course, which explains the ubiquitous conflict of all types, found at all levels of society, from the nuclear family all the way up to the captains of industry and heads of state. In the name of love (of “soul mate”, family, country, god, capitalism, communism, etc) they have waged all kinds of war and invented the means with which to destroy every human being on this lovely but insignificant little planet of ours.

Then they have the nerve, the gall to label people who, for one reason or the other find themselves emotionally disconnected from all the above, as pathological. They say they are “chilled” when someone can kill without remorse, even as they support killing in the name of ~fill in the blank with a preposterous reason~. It is truly laughable. Why should I play by their rules when those rules are so often mind numbingly stupid and pointless? Why should I beat myself up or lose sleep at night because I fail to take what I see as one great big walloping delusion seriously?

The above may sound as if I am angry with society. That would be misleading. Right now, at this moment, the most I feel is slightly annoyed at the ludicrousness of it all and at the fact that I am forced to navigate through this miasma of BS just to survive. Otherwise, it is what it is. There is nothing to do but accept it, deal with it, and even from time to time, take advantage of it for my own gain.

Pitbull is not a crime

Seen on the back of an automobile.

Murderous children

This is an interesting article about the parents of one of the victims of the Columbine school massacre meeting with the parents of one of the shooters:

Approximately ten years and four months after Eric Harris murdered their child, Linda and Tom drove into Denver to greet his parents. The Harries declined to comment on the meeting. These are Linda’s impressions.
* * *
Wayne [Harris] was mystified by his son. Wayne and Kathy accepted that Eric was a psychopath. Where that came from, they didn’t know. But he fooled them, utterly.

He’d also fooled a slew of professionals. Wayne and Kathy clearly felt misled by the psychologist they sent him to. The doctor had brushed off Eric’s trademark duster as “only a coat.” He saw Eric’s problems as rather routine. At least that’s the impression he gave Wayne and Kathy.

They shared that perception with the Mausers. Other than the van break-in, Eric had never been in serious trouble, they said. He and Dylan were arrested in January 1998 and charged with three felonies. They eventually entered a juvenile diversion program, which involved close monitoring and various forms of restitution.

Eric rarely seemed angry, his parents said. There was one odd incident where he slammed his fist into a brick wall and scraped his knuckles. That was startling, but kids do weird things. It seemed like an aberration, not a pattern to be worried about.

Wayne and Kathy knew Eric had a Web site, but that didn’t seem odd. They never went online to look at it. “I found them kind of incurious,” Linda said.

From time to time, she wondered whether the Harrises were lying, or exaggerating. Her instincts said no. They did not strike her as calculating or devious; maybe a bit hapless. And Wayne was somewhat inscrutable. Honest, but not revealing. Linda believed them, but wondered whether the couple second-guessed themselves enough. “Honestly, if it were me this happened to, I think I’d still be questioning myself,” Linda said. “They did not seem to doubt themselves.”

But doubting oneself is only useful if there was another, better option available to you at the time given the information you had.

Gold star sociopath?

When people ask me for recommendations of what to read/watch to understand sociopaths better, I tell them, among other things, the film The Woodsmen with Kevin Bacon. In it he plays a "recovering" pedophile who struggles with his urges as he tries to form a "normal" romantic attachment with a woman and stumbles upon another predator like himself. Un-acted upon pedaphilia was recently addressed in a Dan Savage column. when I read it, for "pedophile," I substituted "sociopath," for "sexual attraction to children," I substituted ...

Let's say, theoretically, I'm a pedophile.

I'm not stupid or evil, so I'm not gonna DO anything. I'm not even gonna look at porn, because the production of it involves child exploitation. I don't even look at kids in public places.

So what the fuck should I do? Chemical castration? But I haven't DONE anything and I don't plan to. Am I obliged to tell anyone? Good way to lose friends. Can I keep babysitting my friends' kids when they need a hand? After all, if I were into adult women, people wouldn't see anything wrong with leaving me alone with a couple of those.

What the fuck do I do? Live alone and hope Japan starts producing affordable sexbots before I'm too old to care?

You know, theoretically. If I were a pedophile.

Knows It's Wrong

"My heart goes out to people to whom nature has given something as powerful and as distracting as a sex drive and no healthy way to express it," says Dr. James Cantor, a psychologist and the editor in chief of the research journal Sexual Abuse. "Pedophiles are not the only folks in this position, but they are by far the most demonized, regardless of whether they have ever actually caused anyone any kind of harm."

My heart is going out to you, too. As I've written before, we should acknowledge the existence of "good pedophiles," people like you, KIW, who are burdened with a sexual interest in children but who possess the moral sense to resist acting on that interest. It's a lifelong struggle for "good pedophiles," and most manage to succeed without any emotional support—to say nothing of credit—whatsoever.

Unfortunately, science doesn't know much about pedophiles like you, pedophiles who haven't done anything, because the social stigma is so great that most nonoffending pedophiles never seek treatment. And what research has been done, says Cantor, isn't very encouraging if you're looking to free yourself from your attraction to children.

"There is no known way of turning a pedophile into a nonpedophile," says Cantor. "The best we can do is help a person maximize their self-control and to help them build an otherwise happy and productive life."

"It is true that a regular heterosexual man is not going to commit an offense against every woman he finds attractive. However, most women are capable of recognizing when an interaction is just starting to go south and of getting out of the situation. Most children are not. So although there is every reason to believe that there exist cats that can successfully be in charge of the canary, it's not a very good idea for the cat to be the one making that call."

"I wish I had better news," concludes Cantor. "I also wish that more people did good research on this so that one day I could have better news to give."

The money quote for me: "Unfortunately, science doesn't know much about pedophiles like you, pedophiles who haven't done anything, because the social stigma is so great that most nonoffending pedophiles never seek treatment."

Sociopath = pet monster?

A reader relates why she wants to win back her sociopath ex, and asks how:

Looking back I realize in the beginning he was so attentive and "caring" He swept me off my feet with a broom of charm. I don't quite understand him b/c he would go out of his way to help me and he was even trusted by his family mysteriously to take care of his nephew. He was like my soulmate at first, he showed total romance and after awhile we started fighting. My ex made a point to let me know my flaws when we parted ways. The very same flaws my father always nit picked at me for. How strange? Very. It seems like he was quite like my father, he had this way about him that made me feel loved, safe, warm, the same way I felt around my father as a kid. My ex was strangely kind. He admitted he felt nothing at times but he told me he loved me. When we broke up the first time he threw a childlike tantrum childishly accusing my friends of ruining his chances of getting me back. He wanted to fight my male friend who is diagnosed a sociopath, but they had no clue that they were both sociopath. Ah the beautiful irony! They never did fight though. But he swears he hates him still. (I don't doubt it). Why is dating a sociopath like having a pet monster? I need answers! I want him back a year later I find myself wanting more. He's quite addictive. I read in one of your post on sociopathic love that they can become your soulmate and I realize he did just that and with me still waters run deep applies. There are many sides of me I think I discovered through him. I just want him back what should I do?

My response:

Have you ever been to a zoo during feeding time? Some animals are very willing to eat out of a trough like any domesticated animal would, fattening up for the slaughter. Other animals have to be fed in a way that simulates how they would eat in the wild, whether through scavenging or hunting. Sociopaths are like that. They don't like to be spoonfed, so to speak. They would rather starve. This instinct possibly reflects an evolutionary wariness and fear of traps -- if the prey seems too easy, the sociopath will naturally believe that he is being set up; he will not even want to eat, the same way you may be wary of overaggressive salesmen or food that smells off. What does this mean for you? Take a lesson from the zookeepers and figure out how to simulate a plausible hunting/scavenging scenario (whichever your particular sociopath seems to prefer) in which you are the target. How did he first get you? Try to tap into that person you were, try to replicate the feeling of the hunt for him. How you go about doing that will be very context specific to your sociopath, but it is theoretically possible.

Pet predators are like this too, aren't they? Like snakes? I guess that would make sociopaths pet monsters.

Sociopaths and climate change

Here's an interesting review of Superfreakonomics:

The whole conceit behind “SuperFreakonomics” and, before that, “Freakonomics,” which sold some four million copies, is that a dispassionate, statistically minded thinker can find patterns and answers in the data that those who are emotionally invested in the material will have missed. (The subtitle of “Freakonomics,” published in 2005, is “A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything.”) In this way, Levitt and Dubner claim to have solved the mystery of why crime, after soaring in the nineteen-eighties, dropped in the nineteen-nineties. (The explanation, they say, is the legalization of abortion, some eighteen years earlier.) They also have proved—at least to their own satisfaction—that names like Ansley and Philippa will be popular for girls in the coming decade, that reading to your kids doesn’t matter, and that drunks should be encouraged to drive rather than walk.

Their proposed climate-change solution:

“Once you eliminate the moralism and the angst, the task of reversing global warming boils down to a straightforward engineering problem,” Levitt and Dubner write. All we need to do is figure out a way to shoot huge quantities of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere on our own. This could be done, they say, by sending up an eighteen-mile-long hose: “For anyone who loves cheap and simple solutions, things don’t get much better."

A solution which causes this reviewer to seethe:

But what’s most troubling about “SuperFreakonomics” isn’t the authors’ many blunders; it’s the whole spirit of the enterprise. Though climate change is a grave problem, Levitt and Dubner treat it mainly as an opportunity to show how clever they are. Leaving aside the question of whether geoengineering, as it is known in scientific circles, is even possible—have you ever tried sending an eighteen-mile-long hose into the stratosphere?—their analysis is terrifyingly cavalier.
* * *
Though Levitt and Dubner . . . manage to anticipate [Al]Gore’s position. The two argue that his views are the ones that rest on magical thinking. “If you think like a cold-blooded economist instead of a warm-hearted humanist, Gore’s reasoning doesn’t track,” they write. “It’s not that we don’t know how to stop polluting the atmosphere. We don’t want to stop, or aren’t willing to pay the price.” Here the two have a point. By the end of [Gore's book] “Our Choice,” it may be clear that we possess the tools needed to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions, but the book has also shown—intentionally or not—that deploying them would require a lot from us. It would mean changing the way we eat, shop, manufacture, and get around, and, ultimately, how we see ourselves. It is the difficulty of imagining such changes that makes schemes like Levitt and Dubner’s at once so alluring and so dangerous.

"Alluring and dangerous"? Changing "how we see ourselves"? "terrifyingly cavalier"? When I first read this, I was surprised at how someone could react with such emotion to climate change -- and what a unique and interesting venue for taking the moral high ground! Kudos!

Full disclosure, I don't really believe the depth with which one feels emotions or the capacity for empathy actually improves logical analysis. I am actually a fan of dispassionate, statistically minded thinking. Maybe if we had more of that we would have nuclear power everywhere instead of pumping carbon into the air by burning gas and coal. But of course we wouldn't do that, because nuclear power is somehow wrong -- and not really the problem here! Stop distracting from the fact that big corporations killed the electric car! And people refuse to buy produce from local farmers! Demonize! Idealize! I do think we could stand to eat less meat and stop certain agricultural subsidies, but because it makes sense to me -- not because I think they are morally wrong. I guess this is just one of those moral outrage things I will never really get (see also Octomom).

Pop science

A reader recently sent this article. I have no way of confirming whether this is an actual newspaper, but I decided to dedicate a post to it because I think it's important to remember that although I'm sure most of us surround ourselves with well-informed, well-educated, and reasonable people, there is still a contingent of crazies out there that not only are clueless, but are also incredibly insistent that the rest of us are deluding ourselves. This irritates my libertarian self (perhaps contradictorily? or hypocritically?) more than anything else -- the only thing this has to do with sociopathy is the subject matter of the article. Under the headline "psychopaths are hard to spot," we are treated to such gems as:

The issue of the psychopath in popular culture is, unfortunately, muddied by TV shows like "Dexter." He's no psychopath, he's just Old Testament, as in justifying taking a life for the greater good. Closer to the reality, only through adept use of satire and irony, is the film version of American Psycho.

True psychopathy has no moral, nothing to redeem taking a life. It's ugly, evil and dark because of the absence of anything resembling any positive human quality. The true psychopath is a destroyed human who can do nothing other than maliciously spread his or her destructive nature.

We are invited to "contact reporter Paul Walton at PWalton@nanaimodailynews.com or call 250-729-4230." Just, you know, if you would like to hear some more of his pet theories.

Now I am sort of questioning publishing this. Who cares, right? It's obviously so stupid that no one would give this sort of thing credence, would they? Yeah, tell that to the next mob that has decided to target one of your personally defining characteristics.

"Don'ts" list for dealing with sociopaths

A reader asked for help in dealing with the domineering, allegedly sociopathic mother of his child, how to counteract her behavior, and how to keep his child out from under her dictatorial boot:

There are definitely things you can do to counteract her behavior, although there is a very real chance that you will just end up winning the battles but never the war. Maybe you're fine with that. The issue is that any counteraction measures would be very context specific -- sociopath specific -- and there are certain very effective counteraction measures I can suggest that you might not be good at or might not want to do because you're not that type of person (e.g. evil). It's tricky. I think the only general advice I can give is more about things to never do, because the only thing worse than not gaining ground is losing ground, non?

Things to never do:

1. Accusations. Sociopaths never respond well to accusations, it will always turn into a knockdown fight in which you will be bloodied much more than they ever will be.

2. Recriminations. (see accusations, above).

3. Emotions. Sociopaths generally don't want to hear about how what you feel if what you feel is negative towards them. If you are in anything remotely like a fight, accusation, or recrimination, do not under any circumstances get emotional. The limited exception, as another reader has pointed out, is when the sociopath is feeling wronged by you, is hurt, etc., in which you should show exactly the amount of normal empathy you would show an empath under those circumstances (more on that in another post).

4. Ultimatum or any other power plays. Sociopaths see ultimatums, artificial pressure (e.g. emotional pressure), power plays, etc. as being either threats or games. I don't think you will like the result of either approach.

5. Talk about being "right" or "wrong." Sociopaths don't really believe there is such thing as being right or wrong, there is only more or less powerful.

Don't worry about her hurting your child, she will probably want to alienate him/her from you more than she will want to have him/her trauma bond to you by her inflicting trauma on him. Your child is half her, so will probably grow up disrespecting you too, if you can't hold your own against your partner. If you want what is best for your child, you will get your crap together and become the type of person that demands respect by your very presence, your very being.

Sociopaths = communication skills

I was joking with friends the other night about seduction. We each took turns describing how we would seduce the other, if we wanted. I was impressed with some of the good ideas. For instance (caveat -- not too soon into a relationship or it will ruin the effect), take the person to an event or location, or participate in an activity in which the target is no longer in his/her comfort zone -- culturally, socially, or even related to their sense of physical safety and well-being. With the proper preparation, your target will be forced to rely on you, and will have to trust you to help them navigate the situation successfully. After instilling this sense of unease and reliance in your target and after successful completion of the task, let things take a turn for the very physical. Their adrenaline and fight or flight senses should still be up from the challenge, so things will seem very exciting and intense to them.

As we continued talking, though, it was clear that I differed from most people in thinking that a broken heart is its own reward, whereas other people use seduction more as a means to an end -- a happy, successful, intimate relationship. One person wondered at what would be the point of keeping up a charade indefinitely. What point, indeed. Although I derive a good deal of pleasure from playing games, I know that there are certain things, certain life experiences or levels of trust, that games cannot provide. That doesn't mean that my hard-won skills are useless, though. I like to use the analogy of hitting a golf ball with a strong lateral wind. Your first inclination, before you notice the wind, is to hit the golf ball essentially straight. When you take the wind into consideration, though, you realize that to hit the target you seek, you have to skew the trajectory from the start. The same can be true of good communication. If you know that your listener/audience has certain prejudices or sensitivities, it is foolish to not take these into account. If you are trying to communicate to someone in that situation, you must imagine what your listener is hearing, rather than what you are actually saying. Keep tweaking your intended speech until you have accomplished your true goal in communication -- communicating a particular idea to a particular person, rather than just saying what you mean to say. Yes that is manipulation, but it is also just good communication.

Sociopaths recognizing each other and manipulation

A reader asks whether sociopaths can recognize each other, and what's the deal with sociopath charm and knowing the right thing to say, etc.:

I think sociopaths can recognize each other. I imagine it's like con artists stumbling across each other -- there are so many shared tricks, that it's easy to see part of yourself in the other person. But not all sociopaths are the same, so that wouldn't be universally true, and I think some sociopaths are more open about manipulation, etc. than others. So it depends. But I have found other sociopaths by doing a delicate dance of disclosure and eliciting information before sharing my own. But there could be others that I have just never known about, so it is hard to say what percentage of sociopaths I am successfully able to detect.

Manipulation is a lot about reading the other people for their reactions in a trial and error sort of way. Imagine the best "yes men." They pretty much just throw out a lot of opinions, see which one their target seems to latch onto, and then reemphasize that particular one. Most people are expecting to see some things and not others, so you just watch for those signs in their face. If it seems like you are getting off, you'll see a look of confusion or disgust, after which you quickly backpedal and go the opposite way. Otherwise you'll see signs of apathy or approval. I imagine it is a lot like a blind man feeling his way through an unfamiliar room. I do the same thing in interviews or first dates, and I think everyone does it to a certain extent. We sort of give vague answers to feel people out and avoid committing on anything until the other person commits first.

Hmm, what are some of my favorite manipulation movies/books? Housesitter, Dangerous Liaisons, Being John Malkovich... also The Art of Seduction and The 48 Laws of Power are very good resources. I do categorize people, but don't really have standard lines the same way pick up artists or con artists seem to have. So I guess it is more intuitive, and by that I mean there is an excessive amount of data mining going on in a seemingly innocent conversation. Or if I'm feeling lazy, or am in a group, I put on a show for everyone, tell some charming story, or engage the group in the story of someone else there -- trying to be a curator of the interesting, the cultural, the entertaining. Actually I was just talking with a friend who knows what I am and she said she sometimes wishes she could be me in group settings -- always entertaining, charming, intoxicating. My gut tells me it can be taught, and those resources I mention above are starting points. The real thing keeping most people from being charming, I think, is that they are unwilling to devote their entire energy and attention to someone else. They remain afraid that they are not coming off well, or self conscious, or whatever else it is that keeps people from diving into a role, so they never can be as affective as someone who can keep the focus entirely on the other person. I don't know to what extent that can be learned...

Ch-ch -changes

A reader informs me that aspies aren't the only ones getting reshuffled in the proposed new DSM.

Interestingly, the new DSM, or at least the draft presented online, (1) renames ASPD to "Antisocial/Psychopathic PD" and (2) completely removes NPD. Narcissists now have "a core personality impairment with prominent traits such as callousness, manipulativeness, histrionism and narcissism." Sociopaths on the other hand have "callousness, aggression, manipulativeness, hostility, deceitfulness, narcissism, irresponsibility, recklessness and impulsivity." It seems that under the new definitions sociopaths are just malicious, foolhardy narcissists with a diminished emotional repertoire. This is really a new perspective and one that might or might not be as absurd as it seems at first glance.

Again, this shows how the definitions (such as DSM) are completely misleading as to the depth of experience and as to the diversity of different wirings out there.

All the world's a stage

From a reader:

In the "Handbook of Emotions," 3rd edition, chapter 3 (titled "The Sociology of Emotions") one can read under the section "Dramaturgical Approaches:"

"... These studies show how emotions are culturally scripted as to "when" to feel and "how" to express these feelings. Through the socialization process, individuals learn how to associate particular emotion vocabularies with specific eliciting situations, internal sensations, and expressive displays. [...] What makes this approach dramaturgical is that individuals are viewed as acting on a stage configured by social structure in front of an audience (of others). [...] However, individuals are more than dramatic actors manipulating emotions through expressive control in accordance with the feeling and display rules of culture. They are also strategists who present themselves to others, manipulating their forms of talk, role cues, bodies, staging props, and expressive display to their audience to realize their goals. [...] Various cognitive and behavioral strategies are available for managing emotions. [...] Cognitive strategies include invoking thoughts associated with the emotions demanded in the situation to shore up the emotions, using meditation to arouse the emotions dictated by the culture, or psychologically withdrawing from the situation to mask the incongruence between actual feelings and feelings expected in the situation..."

If that is the case, then the difference between neurotypical people and sociopaths seems to be one of degree, not quality.

New blow to aspies: sociopathy under umbrella of neurodiversity

A reader provides even more info on the changing face of neurodiversity:

I have had the chance to interact with lots of researchers who aim to help autistic people deal with their affective problems (and the resulting social ones). I must say that many of them are now aware of the "neurodiversity" principle. I have even had the chance to discuss sociopathy as a potential condition to be placed under the umbrella of neurodiversity with a specialist, and the response I got was surprisingly encouraging. The discussion concluded, among other things, that sociopaths ought to be allowed to think however they wish, as long as they don't break laws and harm others, and that no one has the right to impose a particular method of thinking to anybody else. Of course, ideas that emerge in select institutions of higher education take decades to spread among the general public, so that will be something for the following generations to witness I guess.

Ah aspies, when it rains it pours. Don't worry, though. You can stand under my umbrella.

Asperger's = Autism?

Oh no, aspies! I just heard the bad news that "the man" is basically trying to kick your unique diagnosis to the curb and lump you amongst the (relatively more) unwashed masses (i.e., auties). I hope this doesn't jeopardize your social status amongst your neurodiversity cohorts! A reader flagged this New York Times op-ed for me:

Many people with milder symptoms of autism have, for the past 20 years or so, received a diagnosis of Asperger’s disorder. Some autistic adults call themselves “Aspies” to celebrate their talents and differences. And many parents have embraced the label because they have found it less stigmatizing, and so it has eased their sense of loss.

This may soon change, however. The American Psychiatric Association, with its release this week of proposed revisions to its authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is recommending that Asperger’s be dropped. If this revision is adopted, the condition will be folded into the category of “autism spectrum disorder,” which will no longer contain any categories for distinct subtypes of autism like Asperger’s and “pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified” (a category for children with some traits of autism but not enough to warrant a diagnosis).

Wow, there goes your social life, right? It's just like when your rich parents got divorced and you had to move to the wrong side of the tracks with your mom and shop at flea markets for your black leather jacket and army boots that were so ugly and ill-fitting, they distracted anyone from seeing the pain/shame inside. But don't worry, aspies, I am diagnosis blind when it comes to personality disorders. I accept all empathy-challenged types here. Small comfort, you say? Yeah, I know that you have traditionally considered yourself too good for sociopaths, but this may be as good of an offer as you are going to get now.

Sociopath forum

From a reader, this link to a sociopath forum that is just starting (for both socios and neurotypicals, apparently): http://thepaths.webs.com/

Sociopath song of the day: highway exit

As recommended by a reader, a band whose lyricist seems to be a member of a very (s)pecial fan club.

Seduction update

Success on all fronts, I am pleased to announce. Apparently I was just too "intoxicating," "charming," or "enchanting" to resist. Or in all fairness, maybe I am the one being seduced, who knows. I am also pleased to say that the post-seduction bliss is just that, although it has been making me think about something I read once, that sociopath targeting consists of three phases: (1) the assessment phase, (2) the manipulation phase and (3) the abandonment phase. Where is the enjoy the fruits of your labor phase? Why bother planting a seed of seduction, nurturing it over the period of several months (or even years), and then abandoning it immediately? Why would anybody think that is accurate? Maybe there are sociopaths out there who do that, but I have never understood the point. When I build/grow something, it is meant to last.

I actually encourage bonding from my targets once they are hooked. In the initial stages part of the fun of seduction for both sides is the uncertainty -- the excitement of not knowing what will happen next. Once someone is hopelessly smitten, however, instilling a sense of unease in your target will only create emotional outbursts and other anxiety-related bad behavior. I do not get pleasure from seeing people cry, so this type of result does not appeal to me at all. To avoid this (and as a happy successful seduction gift to them), I always root out their biggest insecurity with regards to the relationship and alleviate it. It helps them to settle in, like changing out of cocktail attire and into sleepwear. I feel that it encourages the nesting instinct in the target. Interestingly, as they feel more secure in the relationship, my power over them increases. I have always thought that was a slightly perverse result, one on which sloppier seducers might never completely exploit. But I guess that is always the trade off from allowing yourself to be tamed by another human -- it's great to get steady meals and shelter, but you also come to depend on your master.

Lifetime learner

I sometimes post favorite comments (sometimes not, if it is hard to reduce it to a quotable quote), but there were two in particular that I have been thinking about recently. One was from a reader who said that he observes his own behavior in order to interpret his emotions. I found that to be very interesting, and very true of my life too. When I was in secondary school I got very/acutely sick for a while. To me life felt normal, apart from dealing with pain and other physical symptoms of being sick, but after about two weeks my friends all stopped talking to me. I got better, but they still stayed away. I didn't know what to make of it. Since then I have realized that when I am sick or otherwise not feeling well, I can be very mean, short-tempered, even irrational without knowing I am doing it. Now when people start acting offended around me or I otherwise struggle to maintain healthy interpersonal relationships, I often (correctly) assume that I am sick. The same applies for a lot of my other "feelings," particularly negative ones. Frequently I am unaware of them until I find myself engaging in some irrational behavior or another (always my red flag). Only then do I stop what I am doing and take time to reassess what's really going on in my world.

Another commenter (aspie?) remarked on the definition of love, saying that he believed love is basically gratitude. Coming from an aspie, I thought this was hilarious because I don't think any neurotypical would describe love that way. It is, however, exactly the sort of thing that someone would say who has never experienced love the way a neurotypical would. Yes, little aspie, to the sociopath as well love feels a lot like gratitude and loyalty.

House: Remorse

Thanks to a reader for flagging this for me, a recent episode of "House" features a sociopath. Worth watching, although (spoiler alert) I think the ending is a little too neatly packaged and happy.

On empaths controlling/manipulating sociopaths (part 3)

A reader writes (cont.):

That's essentially it in a nutshell. There are hundreds of subtleties that aren't worthy of discussion, but this is the basics of it. Of course, step 3 is the most important. It is the "bread and butter" of the beautiful process. I have made real hard gains off of this manipulation, and not just the pleasure of knowing I have his bidding at my fingertips. I have made cold hard cash - more so than he made off of me. Believe it or not, we empaths can and do get serious pleasure out of manipulation - we just aren't as controlled by the desire as you are. This is why I know, ultimately, empaths are more powerful than sociopaths - so long as they have the capacity to become aware of what they're dealing with.

On a fairly separate note, I have developed and fine-tuned the ability to point out sociopaths upon observing some of their behavior. I don't know if you too are capable of this, but I can see clearly just from videos that L Ron Hubbard, Rod Blagojevich (especially obvious), and many others are sociopaths. I came to the realization that Charlie Sheen was one even before I was aware of his spousal and drinking issues and his proclivity towards child porn. Here's a fun fact you might not know: I can tell Angelina Jolie is one.

That's all for now.

On empaths controlling/manipulating sociopaths (part 2)

A reader writes (cont.):

The method is quite simple. In fact, it employs many of the same methods that sociopaths use to manipulate empaths. The first key is to realize an essential fact: everything - and I mean absolutely every single thing - the sociopath says is suspect (particularly things of any significance regarding the future). (This is why I remain skeptical about your true nature, and extremely so of your supposed intentions regarding your site.) What do I mean by this? In short, I mean: I always figured his words were very likely total bullshit. I always had my guard up. I stopped believing in the authenticity of everything that came out of his mouth, of all his actions, of all his feigned emotions. I maintained the artificial pretense (sound familiar?) that I felt authenticity out of him and out of his supposed intentions. This actually required much less acting than I initially thought it would, because more than anything it simply required a "freeing up" of my typical emotional responses (which wasn't all that hard to do). I would have to feign an air of nervousness in his presence every now and then, because I knew this satisfied him and made him feel in control.

Step 2: I engaged in subtle, subtle, subtle forms of flattery. You sociopaths are more prone to flattery than you would like to believe (and no - he is not a narcissist...not worth my time explaining how I know, but I am quite certain). In fact when I came across a blog post on your site (I haven't read that many) where you stated that one way to control a sociopath might be through flattery, I literally laughed out loud.

Step 3 (the last step): I acted and planned constantly with the awareness that what he craves most is control and power. This awareness allowed me to devise situations that would appear to him as if they would lead to more power/control for him in his life (especially toward his peers), when in fact I engineered them to end up in him sacrificing something to me. You may notice that this is basically the same thing you do to empaths in relationships with them: you create a pretense of situations that will lead to more emotional security, fulfillment, sympathy, etc. because this is precisely what many empaths crave, whereas I create the pretense of situations leading to more power/control because this is what sociopaths crave.

On empaths controlling/manipulating sociopaths (part 1)

A reader writes:

Hello, m.e.,

I've been reading about sociopathy for many years now but only recently came across your site. I am an empath. In fact, I am perhaps a bit "more" empathetic than most empaths would be.

I believe I have developed a method for controlling, even manipulating, sociopaths: that is, beating them at their own game. I will not post my entire story yet because 1) I remain, and probably always will remain, unconvinced that you are a sociopath until I can observe you in person (this is my skeptical nature) and 2) I'm not sure that you would be interested in hearing many of the details. You'll have to respond to let me know.

The story, in brief: about six years ago I discovered the sociopathic nature of a male friend very close to me. In short, he briefly successfully conned me out of hundreds of dollars (not that serious, but unpleasant) to fund an affair (he had another long term girlfriend then) I had no idea he was having. Even though he was able to guilt me into not accusing him of failing to repay me, I quickly became very suspicious. I began to notice an almost inhuman detachment in his facial expressions. When he smiled, I would often notice that the smile was emotionally vacant. This may sound strange, but the smile felt subtly slower to me. I am very adept at picking up facial cues and intuitively knowing what people around me are thinking, how they're feeling - even what their true intentions are. It is nearly at the level of a psychic ability (though I am a strict materialist and do not believe in that). My Myers-Briggs personality type is INFJ (the same as Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, and supposedly/theoretically Jesus Christ) and is often attributed an uncanny ability to see straight through to what people are thinking/feeling.

Back to the story, I began researching sociopathy and similar disorders online. I was completely certain that what I had on my hands was a full blown sociopath - and certainly one of the more impulse controlling varieties (a college grad and actually quite motivated and hard working). At this point, I became really excited. I could not wait to see what I could do to him - in short, to see if I could actually beat him at his own game. (This statement may give you the impression that I might be a sociopath. I am not. I sometimes cry during those infomercials about feeding African children and so forth. I could not list the number of times I've cried on someone else's behalf.)

Haruhi Suzumiya: textbook sociopath

The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya Episode 1 English Sub

A reader recommended this "popular Japanese book/manga/anime starring a high-school aged girl named Haruhi Suzumiya who is a textbook sociopath." I watched it and liked it. There were a few things that are just eerily accurate for a sociopath in the character of Haruhi Suzumiya.