Friday, May 24, 2013

Book responses (part 4)

From a reader:

I have been following your blog for a while and I've found it fascinating, so naturally when I heard about your book I jumped at a change for a larger glimpse into your life. I preordered it as soon as I heard about it, and when it arrived on my kindle yesterday I spent the whole day lost in the rabbit hole I found myself in. Much of your book resonated very strongly with me, especially your description of ruining people and how often the potential for ruin is enough. I have always implicitly felt this but could never put a name to it. I always considered it a propensity to quit before the end, but when you consider the appreciation of potential as an end in itself, the subsequent ruination is just "busy work" and not worth my time. This is actually a great relief to me, because while I can tolerate moral ambiguity in myself, I absolutely cannot tolerate a weak mind that cannot follow through its projects to their end.

Although it is most likely too early to tell, I consider myself a sociopath, or at least highly sociopathic. As a child, I never really fit into social situations, neither with adults nor children. I always felt the
greatest contempt for what I viewed as adults trying to manipulate me with a sourceless moral code that I did not believe in. It shocked me when they expressed surprise that I would need a justification for morality. With children, I was exceedingly awkward, a trait that I mainly attribute to an upbringing by East Asian parents, but may also have been because I simply didn't care about the frivolities that others did and never made an attempt to pretend otherwise. However, that upbringing also protected me, as the cultural mandate on conformity effectively masked my deviant thoughts and behavior. However, occasionally my utilitarian value set still shone through, like when I kicked one of my best friends in the ribs to make him stop yelling at recess. Afterward, deciding on a whim that honesty was a value I should always observe, I freely admitted to having done so, absolutely enraging my teacher for my apparent stoicism and lack of regret. I suppose I should have shown more contrition, but the truth is I simply didn't care that my friend was injured. I got what I wanted, and there was no permanent damage done. Was I supposed to care further on such trivial, temporary effects?

Although you discussed a lack of emotional affect in mainly humorous terms (people taking your deadpanned threats as jokes), I have found a very practical use for it, pathological lying, A combination of Asian distaste for outward displays of emotion and my sociopathic inability to express emotion has given me the highly useful ability to lie in practically any situation, even to my closest friends, a skill that I hone and treasure. It's pathetically easy to lie to strangers who don't know anything about you and are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but lying to someone who intimately knows your mannerisms is absolutely beautiful. I have actually ruined someone's inherent trust in people; after talking to me for a few months she can no longer take peoples' statements at face value and always wonders if they are lying, even if said person has never had a history of lying. I'm not sure how an empath would react to something like that, but I personally find it hilarious.

Speaking of empaths, I have never had an "Ann" in my life. No empath has ever healed me or shown me how redeemable empaths are. Instead, I only have people who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge my inherent differences and strive to evoke in me the emotions that they believe me to have. My inability to feel emotions alien to me is only interpreted as further reason that I need this “therapy,” until I am completely overwhelmed and I disengage entirely. I have never met an empath I can deal with, and the people I identify with closest all share sociopathic traits with me. Often, interaction with me has brought those traits to the surface. I'm sure a normal person would watch in horror as I “corrupt” people, but I only feel pride in having so much influence, not just in peoples' actions, but their very philosophies on life.

Unlike you, I have no religious code whatsoever, and my ethics can easily be described as questionable. My morals are based entirely on my aesthetic sense, but, given the nature of my aesthetics, it keeps me out of trouble anyway. What I find most beautiful is predatory grace, which requires, to put it simply, perception and ability. My aesthetics drive me to eschew denial and constantly strive to improve in all areas, which ironically gives me a relatively normal sociopathic life. It also gives me a relatively normal life by empath standards, as evidence of actions is usually ugly, giving me incentive to always cover my tracts. Violence, likewise, if used because I have lost control of the situation and can only resort to brute strength, is disgustingly ugly. Is this a strange code to live by? Clearly it is strange for empaths, but I have gotten the impression that my lifestyle is strange for sociopaths as well. Am I truly deviant or am I just calling the same motivations by a different name? I personally think my aesthetic sense is just a different name for the inborn instincts that everybody has (the will to live, which requires one to improve as to not get eviscerated), but given the reactions I have gotten from sharing my views, I may really be different.

Reading the reviews of your book on Amazon, I was surprised at the number of reviews that criticized the excessive length of the book. I was entirely engrossed from start to finish, but that may be because I responded personally to the material in a way that an empath simply wouldn't. In any case, you specifically described the book as a memoir, not an academic work, something that these reviews seem to have overlooked. I did notice that you left out any accounts of interactions with other sociopaths, even though you vaguely referenced them. Given how thoroughly you accounted your interactions, the story seems one sided. I would love to hear those, but even without those anecdotes, your book elucidated many concepts that I felt but couldn't put to words, and that deserves gratitude, as well as respect.

62 comments:

  1. Firstly, Firsty McFirstington!!
    Secondly, "I have actually ruined someone's inherent trust in people; after talking to me for a few months she can no longer take peoples' statements at face value and always wonders if they are lying, even if said person has never had a history of lying." No you didn't ruin this person. You taught them a valuable life lesson. What kind of a mug takes everything at face value without even considering that there may be something else underlying it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are actually advantages to doing so (believing what is said at face value) as well, simply because liars often find a way of getting caught in a tangle too big to get out if the other party keeps assuming they are telling the truth. Also, when you believe a lying sociopath but are strong enough to base your actions on your self-obtained facts independently, the sociopath is quite shocked in his lack of affectiveness, and the empath realizes what happened quite sometime later and gets quite amused. When one has a strong sense of self and a strong moral code the lies of someone else are much harder to influence one's life.

      Delete
    2. I actually meant arbitrary lies for which there would be no consequence at all, positive or negative. Clearly a level of healthy skepticism is good but it got ridiculous. It crystallized when I told her I had to leave the conversation to take a shower and she didn't believe that I actually had to take a shower. Ridiculous.

      Delete
  2. "What I find most beautiful is predatory grace, which requires, to put it simply, perception and ability"

    An empath might add, "and lack of a soul".


    "Violence, likewise, if used because I have lost control of the situation and can only resort to brute strength, is disgustingly ugly" Is this a strange code to live by?

    I don't think it is that "strange". Clearly you are engaging in psychological and "emotional" violence and thoroughly enjoying it. This "art" is an easy and mostly clean process for you. At worst, you likely wont actually see the blood spilled as a result of your lying manipulative actions. A lot of the effects and spill on effects of what you have done are hidden from your view. That, and the increased risk that you might actually get your ass handed to you in the immediate if you went brute force on someone, instead of staying hidden and watching from the wings, I'm sure likely makes the consideration all less beautiful.

    "but lying to someone who intimately knows your mannerisms is absolutely beautiful. I have actually ruined someone's inherent trust in people; I personally find it hilarious."

    If you want to know what sociopathy is, in terms of what is the most important thing to know if you are a "normal" person, and the "motivation" and "thinking" behind it, that is it right there. All the logical posturing combined with telling you how dumb you are that you will hear in "defense" or as an explanation only needs to have one come back to the above to gain clarity. Honestly.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't entirely understand what you mean. Do you mean that sociopaths can be explained by the "predatory grace" as described by the reader?

      Delete
    2. it was in reference to the second quote

      Delete
    3. I should clarify then; having someone else call you out on your bullshit is beautiful too. The beauty lies in the display of ability and intelligence, whether it's my successful lie or the other person's successful perception of my lie. Seeing someone else beautiful does not diminish my appreciation of its beauty.

      Delete
  3. Miserable losers trying so hard to convince themselves and everyone else that really they're ok; that their lost and lonely existence has an upside.

    ReplyDelete
  4. i find the concept of an aesthetically based moral code fascinating and would like this individual to expand upon what that means to them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting comment. I can relate to a lot of what the reader wrote. He describes a lot of things perfectly, however our views of lying differ a little...
    For example, when I was younger, I used to avoid meeting new people, simply because I didn't want anymore 'pointless' relationships in my life. I just found people utterly meaningless and it was a waste of my time to hang out with them and they only made me angry. However, later I've discovered the beauty in the person that doesn't know you - they're pure, untainted by your lies, they believe you, they're absolutely helpless, because they believe every fu*king word you say. It's like an extasy. I can't blame them for believing me though.
    As for the people who are 'closer' to me, I usually go to such extent that it seems blatantly obvious that I'm lying (at least to me it looks like it), yet the person that should be more aware of who they are dealing with trusts me. It always disappoints me and makes me despise the person.
    There is a one person though who seems to distinct my lies from time to time, and I've grown a fascination for them.
    As for the moral codex, I think every intelligent sociopath has one, since they have to control their violent nature so they won't get into trouble. It doesn't matter what exactly is the matter of the codex.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lear said:

      "As for the people who are 'closer' to me, I usually go to such extent that it seems blatantly obvious that I'm lying (at least to me it looks like it), yet the person that should be more aware of who they are dealing with trusts me. It always disappoints me and makes me despise the person."


      I've always found this kind of thing a little tragically hilarious. Even when people know they are likely dealing with a sociopath, because of evidence or because the person even told them so, people will still entertain what they have to say and even believe it. So not only are they screwing you, but they are thinking you are an idiot for getting screwed. It is your fault.

      So basically, sociopaths often lie when they interact with people. By lie I don't mean they lie from time to time, or tell white lies, like everyone does. I mean they lie as a matter of course of functioning. They lie because they enjoy shaping objects (people), and watching their funny creations come to fruition, all made possible by their brilliant and subtly beautiful asthetically sensitive reverse and reconstuctive engineering.

      They lie in this fashion even with people close to them, people who may be privy to their true nature. When these people fall for their lies, they are especially detested because they should know better and are dumb. As are even the people who didn't know them who fell for their lies who should have noticed little things that were off. In short, it will always be in their view, your fault you were "victimized".

      So what's the lesson. Don't believe a word they say. Especially the ones that look particularly true.

      Delete
  6. Calm down on the ruining part. My worldview was totally twisted two years ago by a socioblabath. After the initial shock I was recovering for months. I that I could never experience joy again. In my following psychological quest for answers I became aware of things I was obnoxious to before. Before the path crossed my yellow brick road, my main concern were my looks. I made myself up before an exam as if I was going to Fashion Week. Histrionic. Promiscuous. Superficial. Attention-craving. Self-centered. The only thing I like about my former self that I, even then, felt happiest when making others feel good about themselves and their lives. But I was so busy trying to be a Kim Kardashian, that I hardly took the time to do so. At 24 I was behaving like a deluded child. Then I was hypnotized and drained by that 'thing'. In hindsight, what really broke my heart is that I failed to charm him. I thought I was a bonus in his life. I thought he was lucky to have me be infatuated by him. But the only time he felt good with me was in the end. When I looked at him in pure shock for witnessing the manifestation of evil. You could tell he loved that. And now, two years later? I appreciate my friends and family as never before, I hardly wear make up and it looks like I'm graduating cum laude for my masters. Instead of plotting my new headtwirling look, I'm busy helping my retired neighbours get money from their insurance company for their sinking floor. What I'm trying to say is: because of that asshole I realized I was heading in the wrong direction. Ruined?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely saved. His evil worked like a vaccination for you, instead of breaking you made you realize what was wrong with you in the way you were dealing with the world.

      You made my day. Nothing saddens me more than seeing women follow the Kardashian model, or women stuck in the victim mentality and choose to repeat how the npd or the spath parents or lovers or what not ruined them.

      You took a punch and you saw where you were open for punches like that and you closed it. Now, you'll enjoy future attempts at punching you and deliver some punches yourself.

      Delete
    2. Well, this is a nice case of "it is not what happens to us, but it is how we react to it" so be proud of yourself. Some people facing evil or other negative external circumstances get stronger, better and wiser, some get into a deeper hole and never get out. So, again, be proud of yourself, but don't thank the monster; he did nothing to deserve your gratitud, it was you who did it.

      Delete
    3. The thing is, the people who never get out are sometimes our friends, members of our families and loved ones.

      Delete
    4. I second this. My life too was enhanced by a psychopath. At first I thought he was my ideal man - tall, dark, handsome, rich and charming. I soon found out he was a self-obsessed user. These days I know a thing or two about evaluating a person's character quickly.

      I am happier and more joyful than I have ever been because I learned first-hand that all that glisters is not gold. I have re-aligned my values and my life is richer. Plus I can spot an asshole at a thousand paces. Wealth per se no longer impresses me. It's all been quite freeing. I wish I'd met him sooner.

      Delete
    5. At first I thought he was my ideal man - tall, dark, handsome, rich and charming

      Hahaha. You're one shallow bitch, you deserved every bit of it.

      Delete
    6. Past tense. Was shallow and superficial, though never a bitch :) We live in a narcissistic age. Open any magazine aimed at young girls and see what qualities are deemed admirable in a man.

      Delete
  7. Andy: “The sociopath isn't villified because of the crimes she commits, or those she's assumed to have committed, or even the trail of broken hearts she leaves in her wake. No, she is punished because she doesn't feel the right way about what she's done. She doesn't feel guilty!”

    You are talking about morals here, and that is a very private issue. Some victims forgive some don’t, it is up to them, society doesn’t act out of the victim’s morality or forgiveness, just takes care about the real damaging actions.

    Obviously, we dislike more someone who doesn't regret their evildoing, but is just because someone who doesn't regret will continue with the evildoing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But they are villified, feared and perhaps hated because of the crimes they commit.

      The fact that they have no remorse, that they enjoy doing it even, the reverse of remorse, that they can't help but do it and cannot be changed, that there is no rational argument to make with them that explains why this is wrong because they lack moral sanity, empathic concern and a conscience, makes them particularly reviled and feared.

      But even the person who kills in a crime of passion, where what they did maybe something quite understandable, is looked down upon (some may never forgive) and will get prison. The sociopath gets that and a little bonus.

      Delete
    2. I meant to include, "and expresses what appears to be genuine remorse", in the last paragraph above.

      Delete
    3. There was an episode of Law and Order that sort of dealt with this.

      It was about a 10 year old sociopath/psychopath who murders a neighbors son. The neighbor is a psychologist. The kid fools everybody at first but then is figured out by the cops. At first the psychologist sort of understands the kids actions and doesn't blame him because he believes he was abused at camp. The kid shows burn scars and bruises.

      It's then learned that the kid was actually abusing the other kids at camp, and the psychologist realizes he is a psychopath. During the trial, he confronts the boy in the court hall, and the boy gives him a sweet smile. The psychologist grabs a guards gun and blows the kid away, killing him instantly.

      He is put on trial for murder. The lawyers and he argue that he was in shock over his sons murder, and reacted the way he did because of grief and trauma. He can't even remember it. The cops suspect that it was planned. The psychologist is found not guilty, and is set free. Outside the courtroom, he is approached by the two cops who say to him essentially he played that very well. They say to him, words to the effect of, Do you think it is right to commit murder? What is the difference between you and him? He turns to them, admitting that he had in fact done that, faked the trauma and blown the kid away.

      He says, the difference is the kid would have kept on killing - he was a psychopath. I'll never kill again.

      Delete
    4. "He says, the difference is the kid would have kept on killing - he was a psychopath. I'll never kill again."

      And what if he gets involved again in a similar story? He will not kill again? The difference is not that he will never kill again, the difference is that he killed a murderer, and he will just kill another murderer. The difference is that was retributive justice.

      Delete
    5. I think he may have said "and I won't".

      Either way, it's not very likely he'll get in a similar story. He would need to have another son born murdered by a psychopath. And it was mostly retributive justice. His behavior also seemed to suggest that he felt he was doing the right thing for humanity getting rid of a killing machine. Because someone else could lose their son. Does that mean he will go dexter and start killing psychos?
      No, it means in a very specific situation, a very rare one, at that time, he killed a psycho who murdered his son. Very unlikely to happen again.

      Delete
    6. Not to belabor it, but even in the very rare event he has another member of his family killed by a genuine psychopath, as determined by him as a psychologist through direct experience, perhaps he wouldn't kill again for the simple fact that he was already involved in a killing with the last psychopath and given what the cops now know they could come at him much harder this time which could result in a very long prison sentence. So, I would argue very unlikely and probably as he says, never.

      Delete
    7. What if someone suggested a way of killing the next psychopath that murdered someone he loved that would not have him on the hook let alone be a suspect. In other words, if it was possible for him to "rid the world" of another child killing psychopath, would he do it? Of course.

      ~ CG

      Delete
    8. To rid the world of another child killing sociopath would require "the murdered someone he loved" be a child. The last time this happened, the child was his. Now if he no longer has any children, this is presently impossible and very unlikely if he does. In the event its a relative, now we are abandoning his pattern, which was killing the psychopath for murdering his son, his direct blood sharing the closest bond, revenge, and also killing the psychopath because he knows better than most as a psychologist with some background in psychopathy that this psychopath will continue killing and, in his view, in the context of the murder of his son, should be stopped.

      So, he has a sister whose daughter is murdered by a genuine psychopath, he is able to determine this, and he is going to do what? He is going to hire a hitman and have him killed in prison? What would he do?

      This is all unlikely but also, you are making an assumption that he will always do what he did. He may just be done with offspring revenge psychopath killing.

      Delete
    9. Don't forget, the psychopath that kills his next presently nonexistent child or immediate families child would need to be preteen to meet the required fact that he was concerned the psychopath being so young has a chance to get out and would kill again. That, in addition to anger and revenge, was part of his motive. So that's like a lot of things that need to happen assuming he would do the same thing. You know, before he hires the hitman.

      Delete
    10. Hopefully he snaps and kills the psychopaths if they do bother him again regardless of their age and he is able to escape the police and settle in some quiet peaceful town.

      Delete
    11. I agree. The odds of him being in the same situation are nil because even with an identical situation, there would be the additional unique variable of it being the second occurrence of the event.

      My point is that the shrink was pushed over the edge by a feeling (anger) and a concept (revenge), both of which turned him from a compassionate empath that was willing to forgive his son's murderer to a calculating killer, if only for a moment.

      In that moment, his selfish interest of pursuing justice, his need to have peace and closure, drove him to the arbitrary decision that the kid did not deserve to live. That was his real motivation. "Ridding the world" of a psychopath killer is an excuse because that kid was not only psychopath killer alive.

      On the other hand, If he genuinely believed the world would be better without a psychopath killer, why stop at one. Either way, it is clear that the shrink (as Nietzsche put it) become a monster (psychopath killer) in order to battle with the monster, the psychopath kid.

      - CG

      Delete
    12. No, I think your wrong. He killed out of revenge and anger because he killed his son and he knew the sociopath would get out and kill again. The kid was in a way unpunishable. I think if the killer had not been a psychopath, a personality he knew as a psychologist with a background in psychopathy as one not capable of rehab, and one that will get out being so young and that will kill again, he would not have killed him. The killer, who would likely be older, would go to jail, and he would have a rough time and suffer and be punished and maybe have a shot at learning something.

      The psychologist initially is angry but understanding because the kid makes a convincing case that he was terribly abused. He's a convincing angelic and innocent looking kid .. he a sociopath.. they are great actors. When he finds out that this kid was actually abusing the kids there, including threats of murder, he realizes in horror the kid is a sociopath. He also knew through his study of it that it was hopelessly unfixable, so all of this together, that the killer of his kid would not only be punished properly or rehabbed and maybe even fool people more like he had him, but would also get out and kill again, others children perhaps like his boy was the reason he killed. The psychopath part is important, but not the only reason. That is why he would not just kill all psychopaths.

      He is not going to kill a psychopath that did not kill his son. He would sit them down and interview then for study if anything. He is likely not going to kill the non sociopathic killer, because jail is going to be hell for him and just maybe the killer will be rehabbed.

      Delete
    13. And even if the non-s was not rehabbed, he may never get out again, and kill again.

      Delete
    14. He may not even have killed an older psychopath, an adult say, because that person would be looking at a very long time in prison and would have less opportunity to kill outside of the prison. It is the psychopaths very young age that is the key.

      Delete
    15. So to summarize, while a good part of his reason is retributive, some part of it is his concern that the kid will get out, and kill more innocent kids. An innocent kid just like his. He is not only getting instant justice against someone immune to punishment or rehabilitation, he is saving other kids lives, something he couldn't do unfortunately for his own son.

      Delete
  8. I'm with Jessi as far as the value of guilt in a sociopath. It's only valuable if it is instrumental in shaping future behavior. Narcissists have been known to be relentlessly self castigating after having their "nice person" persona blown. They express all sorts of remorse to the next victim about what they did to the last victim. It's almost as if they are receiving absolution given the compulsion to seek narcissistic supply in the form of reassurance that they are not a bad person. Of course, the new victim is only fed the facts that fit into a forgivable backstory that turns a "confession" into just one more version of narcissistic supply seeking behavior.
    After knowing so many Narcissists and having grown cynical about the guilt displays that are highly manipulative, I am disgusted by guilt that is a predictable part of a cycle and never changes the behavior. The lack of "poor me" self justification that looks like guilt is actually a plus, as far as I am concerned. The sociopath may do terrible things, but at least he doesn't ask others to absolve him of his "sins". This is actually a positive quality, as far as I'm concerned.
    As for genuine regret for wrongdoing- that can only be measured by a pattern of destructive callous actions being replaced by the sustained effort to make genuine amends, and that motivation is based on an understanding of the inherent value in constructive acts, not a need to publicly rehabilitate an image with uber-dramatic apologies. Talk is cheap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting, Mach. So, you suggest that guilt is not sufficient for someone to learn from their mistakes, and I say that it's not necessary. If it's neither necessary nor sufficient, then it is not important for learning.

      In my case, I don't like it when people are angry with me, so I work to avoid that. I don't like my mistakes being noticed, but if they are, I own up to them. If I'm not discovered though, I only feel relief, but the possibility of discovery, which is unpleasant, motivates me to avoid future mistakes. Getting away with something once means I'm lucky, I'm not stupid enough to think all future mistakes will go unnoticed.

      Functionally, that's guilt, isn't it? The only difference is that I don't feel bad, so I'll never reveal my mistakes.

      Delete
    2. No that isn't guilt. That;'s avoiding getting caught and doing the right thing so you get trusted (again).

      ANdy I have a question for ouy... when you've gotten caught in a lie or a betrayal and then need to re-prove your trustworthiness, do you ever feel like you're in jail? I mean, like you're being watched, walking on egg shells, or feel confined?

      Delete
    3. The useful part of guilt, as Mach says, is if it's followed by "a pattern of destructive callous actions being replaced by the sustained effort to make genuine amends, and that motivation is based on an understanding of the inherent value in constructive acts". It is rare to consider amend and posteriour constructive acts if there was no guilt. People do not change behaviour if they think what it was done was fine.

      In your case, Andy, you just care about the consequences on yourself, so the different it is not just that you don't feel bad, but that you will continue having antisocial behaviour if only others are damaged. So functionally that's not guilt, that's selfishness with good collaterals.




      Delete
    4. I personally think sociopathy is just a question of the degree of some common traits, like selfishness, egocentrism, hedonism, etc… I don’t consider it as a real difference.

      Speaking of guilt, for example, it is pretty human to a feel a reaction related to the damages we have indirectly caused to ourselves with our misconducts (like losing the trust of friend, being fired, etc…) and many empaths do have a “short lived guilt”, based on feeling really bad at the beginning and quickly forgetting about all the promises, amends, etc, they made when they were feeling guilty. And at the end, many, will behave just as sociopath will: doing nothing and doing the same thing again.

      I avoid those empaths too ;)

      Delete
    5. I'm really only talking about work environments. I don't feel like I'm being watched or anything.

      People really have three phases. In phase 1, they're angry, which means they still care and expect you to fix your mistake.

      Phase two is disappointment, in which they don't trust you to fix the mistake and will take care of it themselves.

      Phase three is when they've given up and don't care anymore. Each successive phase requires more drastic action to appease them.

      I get along fine with people in social situations. However, I'm extremely introverted, which could explain why I'm not some diabolical sociopath. I still think guilt is unnecessary. I usually don't repeat my mistakes. I don't betray people, and my lies are usually just me feigning ignorance of my errors if they are discovered.

      Delete
    6. What to you mean by "appease them" in the third phase?

      I don't know why you introduce the term "mistakes". To use and abuse people is not a mistake is a conscious decision. It is normal not to feel guilt for a mistake, by definition a mistake is an error or a misconception. Many times a mistake is unavoidable or depends on factors we could not know.

      Delete
    7. I neither use nor abuse anyone. I make errors due to carelessness or laziness at work. I have very little trouble in social situations, they just make me very uncomfortable, which I'm much too good at hiding. People ask me to come out more often, but I rarely comply. Only now after seven months of isolation am I peeking my head out of my shell.

      Empathy, guilt, remorse, or emotions in general are not required for someone to lead a normal life. Yes, I am capable of being cold and calculating, but I have no drive to hurt others, no need for it. If you met me and talked to me, you'd probably like me. If you liked me too much, the worst you'd feel is frustrated, because you'd perceive an emotional connection that I can't reciprocate. That's the extent of my 'evil'.

      Delete
    8. i frequently seek to create your "phase two" reactions andy. i find that i can charm a person into forgiving me despite having to do a job i was supposed to do for me. all it means is that i dont have to work as hard as those around me do because i can get them to work for me. convincing them of my sincere apology isnt so much an inconvenience as it is additional amusment

      Delete
  9. Todays' post:
    "No empath has ever healed me or shown me how redeemable empaths are. Instead, I only have people who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge my inherent differences and strive to evoke in me the emotions that they believe me to have. "

    Step over, we will scratch your back and put a water bowl out for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's simple reciprocity.

      Delete
  10. My interest in the inner workings of the mind particularly what makes people do what they do was sparked by watching the TV series Criminal Minds. I've also known for a long time know that I identify and sympathize with the villains (the ones that effectively mask their diabolical inclinations) in series and movies, and even love movies where the villain is victorious. I believe that in real life self awareness and social intelligence get a person ahead as opposed to a high IQ and just being plain nice.

    I also have a dark side that I feel I need to share with you guys here and get some of your views in order that I may reconcile with the fact that these thoughts are mine. Maybe I need someone to justify these thoughts with moral relativist rationale and assuage my guilt and distress.

    I compulsively masturbate and have developed an obsession with incestuous pornographic material as well as bizarre porn such as rape, BDSM, and bestiality among others. In a lot of instances I look at my mom, sister, aunts, and nieces among other female relatives as sexual objects and fantasize about them constantly. I also get aroused by gay porn but I don't think I'm gay. At first, all this caused me great discomfort but I'm beginning to slowly accept this part of me. And that scares me!

    In addition to that, I'm also a recovering alcoholic and have been to rehab about four times. I have lost good jobs as a result of my addiction. I'm clean. For now.

    I am very intelligent and my social skills are average. I want to know if there are people out there like me and if they constitute a large enough percentage of society for me to feel safe.

    ~ ConfusedGuilt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you a teen? all that might be normal...

      Delete
    2. I compulsively masturbate as well. Nothing wrong with that. How much actual sex do you have, if that isn't too personal? You may just need a good lay with some role playing.

      Delete
    3. Jessi, have you even read his whole post? Don't you think beeing in rehab four times and losing jobs seems like a too busy teen life?
      Anyway... the fact you sympathize with villains doesn't make you a psycho, they're often written well and a lot of them actually have motives and are very cunning and charismatic, so it's only natural to like them, I'd say.
      The fact you have these thought doesn't mean you're not normal either, I mean, as long as it stays only within your imagination...
      You might try some harder action in real life, it might as well help you, but in my case it looks only better as a vision, when it comes to the actual act, it doesn't feel that good.
      Besides, why do you want to feel 'safe'? Never really understood why people want to be 'normal'. It's boring. Come to the dark side! We have cookies (and much more).

      Delete
    4. I'm not a teen, Jessi. I'm 25. Chet, I haven't had sex in over a year. And I like your suggestion about the role playing. It might be fun, but it's not the real thing, is it? Jessi, I suppose your right, all this might be normal. Who's to say?

      A part of me tells me these thoughts are wrong. But a bigger part of me doesn't care that they're wrong. The pleasure is worth the guilt. I suppose I'm a hedonist.

      ~ ConfusedGuilt (CG)

      Delete
    5. Lear, you're right. My incest and rape fantasies hurt no one as long as they remain just that, fantasies. I just need to get laid. LOL.

      I find it disgusting that I am so driven by impulse and compulsion to the point that I will do anything, including hurt people I love, to sate my desires, be they drinking or whatever. I need to get a grip. Shit!

      ~ CG

      Delete
    6. This may be a dumb question, Chet, but what do you call compulsive?

      Delete
    7. Compulsion - No self control

      - CG

      Delete
    8. Can't necessarily repress myself even in public places/inappropriate scenarios. If I'm horny, I HAVE to do something about it. And I usually can't masturbate just once at a time. I've done it up to 5 times in a row.

      Delete
    9. What do you do? Like go into bathrooms or places where you could be discovered like a parked car(hopefully parked)

      Delete
    10. I do this thing where I jack off my right knee instead if I'm in a class or having dinner or something. I call it my "F-spot".

      Also, at the neighborhood pool one time I was insatiably horny. You know those jets midway in? Well I stood in front of it and...nuff said.

      Delete
  11. I haven't read the comments. I can't seem to get in the groove of them but I will pose a question for anyone who wants to talk about it.

    If you have all these messed up delusions, how do you deal with them? Addictions? Other Ways?

    How do you live day to day knowing your mind is not right and just filled up with all these distortions about who you are and what life is like. Even though you know you have them, you can't seem to get rid of them.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Monica,

      That's a bit like asking an only child, what's it like being an only child? They don't know any different. The ways of the sociopath don't seem 'messed up' to them, just different.

      Delete
    2. I've always considered neurotypical thought as "messed up," actually. Sociopaths are able to focus on truth and logical decision making to the exclusion of any denials about life, while an empath's emotions will skew his or her viewpoints in the direction of the strongest emotion.

      Delete
    3. How do you tell reality from illusion

      - CG

      Delete

Comments on posts over 14 days are SPAM filtered and may not show up right away or at all.

Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.