Sunday, June 16, 2013

Not as good as you think you are

To be filed in our ever expanding good-people-aren't-as-good-as-they-think-they-are file, Adam Alter, author of the book "Drunk Tank Pink: And Other Unexpected Forces That Shape How We Think, Feel, and Behave" writes for the NY Times about how people's behavior often depends on context, "Where We Are Shapes Who We Are". First he explains research from the 1970s about whether people would go out of their way to post an already stamped and addressed envelope that they had found on the ground. Even though only 6 out of 10 students in crowded dorms posted the letter, "when the researchers asked a different collection of students to imagine how they might have responded had they come across a lost letter, 95 percent of them said they would have posted it regardless of where they were living." Alter continues:

Most people, in fact, think of themselves as generous. In self-assessment studies, people generally see themselves as kind, friendly and honest, too. We imagine that these traits are a set of enduring attributes that sum up who we really are. But in truth, we’re more like chameleons who instinctively and unintentionally change how we behave based on our surroundings.
***
For example, people behave more honestly in locations that give them the sense they’re being watched. A group of psychologists at Newcastle University in northeast England found that university workers were far more likely to pay for tea and coffee in a small kitchen when the honor-system collection box sat directly below a price list featuring an image of a pair of eyes, versus one with flowers. The researchers alternated the pictures of eyes and flowers each week during their 10-week experiment, using eyes from both men and women, to make sure that no single image affected the outcome. In every week featuring the eyes, the “honesty box” ended up with more money.
***
Other environmental cues shape our actions because they subtly license us to behave badly. According to the heavily debated broken windows theory, people who are otherwise well behaved are more likely to commit crimes in neighborhoods with broken windows, which suggests that the area’s residents don’t care enough to maintain their property.

What does this mean in terms of whether people are inherently good or evil?

These studies tell us something profound, and perhaps a bit disturbing, about what makes us who we are: there isn’t a single version of “you” and “me.” Though we’re all anchored to our own distinct personalities, contextual cues sometimes drag us so far from those anchors that it’s difficult to know who we really are — or at least what we’re likely to do in a given circumstance.

It’s comforting to believe that there’s an essential version of each of us — that good people behave well, bad people behave badly, and those tendencies reside within us.

But the growing evidence suggests that, on some level, who we are — litterbug or good citizen, for example — changes from moment to moment, depending on where we happen to be.

These environmental cues can shape and reshape us as quickly as we walk from one part of the city to another.

These studies are not unusual and they are not isolated. There are myriad examples of incredibly bad behavior from people who never would have predicted (or later admit) they would act that way, both experimental and historical (see also here and here and here and here, and for the limitations of good behavior here and here, and why despite all of this evidence, people still think that they are good people who could never do any real wrong, and that their definition of good is an expression of objective truth). Maybe the best common example of normal people behaving badly is what happens during a riot. Riots are not populated entirely of sociopaths, not hardly. They are ordinary people who either have let their emotions get the best of them or are using a breakdown in the social fabric to act reprehensibly. Taking advantage of a devastating national disaster and the ensuing chaos to rape 7 and 2 year-old children? Football fans killing each other? Riots to me are a good indication that ordinary people absolutely love to act out when everyone else is doing it or when they think they won't get caught.

Empaths like to pretend that they are immune to any bad thoughts or impulses, and sometimes I almost find myself believing them, so adamant and unyielding are their assertions. But the data doesn't support their self-assessments. Not only that, but they must be either lying on the self-assessments to make themselves look better than they are or they are lying to themselves to make themselves feel like they're better than they are. So... they're also hypocrites.

This is probably what I'm most worried about when people talk about rounding up all of the sociopaths and putting them on an island somewhere. Will we even make it there safely if the boat is being run by hypocritical and situationally exploitative empaths who are prone to emotional outbursts that may lead to murder? Empaths sound pretty dangerous to me.

106 comments:

  1. I am repetitive because this is becoming repetitive. So, once again, now comparing " whether people would go out of their way to post an already stamped and addressed envelope that they had found on the ground" with scamming and abusing.

    Nobody dislikes sociopaths for not being self-sacrificing generous people, we dislike sociopaths for consciously abusing others. But this has become constantly equalizing not helping the old lady crossing the street with pushing her to the floor to pick her jewels.

    So good-people-aren't-as-good-as-they-think-they-are and apparently evil-people-are-more-evil-than-they-think-they-are.

    It is not a bad idea the island idea, but with all evil people there, and which are them? The ones who engage in selfish antisocial behavior? The island will be just more crowed with sociopaths than empaths, but they will deserve each others company.

    Jessi

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hear hear!

      Actually this headline sums up my reaction on browsing ME's book in a bookshop. She overestimates her intelligence. That could be a sociopathic trait or she could be just a by-product of the self-esteem movement.

      Delete
    2. You are repetitive because you're like a broken record, never being able to sing any song that wasn't etched into you. The only change you experience is that you're capable of making less and less sense as you wend around and around, making leaps of logic from thin air.

      Jessi, you use and abuse people as well, but you tell yourself lies to justify your actions to your conscience. I know that you will never listen to me, and never change, but you should know that you are wrong anyways :)

      Delete
    3. Maybe, Andy, for someone like you, it is hard to believe that there are people who don't use and abuse people like sociopaths do, but WE do exist.

      Jessi

      Delete
    4. Jessi-

      You piss me off. I thought it might be a cultural thing, and that it was important to give you a chance because some things might be lost in translation.
      But time is not your friend here. You keep digging a deeper hole with your unrelenting self righteousness. There is NOTHING empathic about your behavior. It's quite possible that the supposed sociopath in your life was quite evolved in choosing to not end your relationship by allowing you to swim with the fishes (although, I'm sure the thought crossed his mind).

      I'm going to guess that now you will accuse me of being a sociopath. Go for it. But I ask you to consider that it's possible that I might just really dislike you and your methods, and have no problem telling you so.

      Delete
    5. I disagree with you many times too, Mach.

      Jessi

      Delete
  2. imho ll ppl are assholes a psychopath is the only one that doesn't need to lie to himself and knows he is (and doesn't have a problem with it ofc)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Any esoteric teaching will tell you that human personality is unstable.
    There are many "selves" (faces) that we wear depending who we are with
    and what our activities are.
    A person could be married to a person for 50 years and not have an inkling
    of who they are married to. We don't see the REAL person. We see them only
    through our biased filter.
    So in any relationship we've got four person's. The two "true" people
    and the two constructed people. No wonder relationships don't last long.
    Awareness is the only answer. That way, when the power grid goes down as
    it eventually must, less two and seven year-olds will get raped.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Emmie, I'm not sure what more I can say besides the fact that I agree with you and the point you're making here.

    I am becoming more and more curious about what an isolated population of sociopaths would do, though. Sociopaths tend to be highly individual, so it would be difficult for a leader to emerge. Even the strongest and smartest wolf would still find him/herself leading a pack of wolves. Sociopaths see people for their value, so unless someone was a complete leech that was not worth the effort necessary to feed them, most everyone would be seen as a valuable resource. Cooperation is self-serving, so everyone would probably work to impress the others, to demonstrate their value and forge alliances.

    With no sheep to blindly follow a false shepherd, it could turn out quite the opposite of the Lord of the Flies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More likely they would beat the lard out of one another :)

      Delete
    2. I'm going to play this hypothetical situation out, because it's amusing :)

      Picking a fight is an incredibly stupid thing to do. Even if you win, you come out weaker than if you had attempted to use diplomacy to resolve your conflict. Resorting to violence in itself demonstrates poor intellect and control, which are obvious weaknesses for a sociopath. The only way to truly come out ahead in a fight is to have extensive combat training, such that you can effortlessly subdue your opponent. In that case, though, you had better kill him, or you probably will die to a knife in the dark. And even then, such an effortless murder will make your peers regard you as dangerous, perhaps too dangerous to be allowed to survive.

      Delete
    3. I suspect that a world full of sociopaths would look a lot like a hunter gatherer culture, with small kinship groups because sociopaths lack a herd mentality and have little tolerance of organizations/groupthink environments.
      If there was a community of sociopaths existing in the larger world, it would probably look like one of the better run organized crime families. While the rules within that group would no doubt be different than those of a larger society, norms would likely emerge because sociopaths are smart and understand that being able to predict each other's behavior would be very valuable from a strategic standpoint. "Trust" would develop- not in a sentimental way, but in an "honor among thieves" way that would serve the community well in terms of utilitarian ethics. The best part? No one would run around sulking or gossiping because "so and so hurt my feelings". It would simply be "business, not personal" so holding onto grudges would be discouraged as a waste of energy.

      Delete
    4. In "business, not personal" sociopaths also scam.

      Jessi

      Delete
    5. not debating that. simply describing how transactions within that community would likely work.

      Delete
    6. All this is pure fictional, but I don't think there would be any kind of community even if left alone and it would not work. They will kill each other till there will be so few that they will agree in dividing the territory and live independently (like the idea of the cabin in the wild). Not even this would be an stable situation since at any point any of them could take down the other one if he was able to make a better spot. The last one would die happy knowing he was the winner...

      Jessi

      Delete
    7. I used to play this game, Avalon Hill's Diplomacy. I was quite good at it. In this game you cannot win alone, so you have to pick allies, gain their trust, but in the end, you have to position them to a lethal backstab, so you can get away with a solo victory. But not too soon as to let your adversaries take adventage of your momentary weakness. Finally, I stop playing because the frequent event of backstabbed players quitting the game in anger (some would have kick the table if they could) :D ruining the fun.

      Delete
    8. Ha, I would love to play a game like that! I'm a fan of tabletop strategy games where there is only one winner, but diplomacy is absolutely essential. Just yesterday I played a game, 'Settlers of Catan' for the first time. There were two other new players, but also three experienced ones. I won, and it felt fantastic!

      Delete
    9. In my opinion an isolated society of sociopaths would develop in one of two ways.

      The first possibility is that everyone is to busy trying to outmaneuver everyone else to get anything done and things really don't work.

      The other possibility is that because everyone wants to be boss but not take any blame for failures a collective democracy would start. There would still be a lot of social backstabbing but things could potentially get done.

      In the end however, I see a mixed society of many empaths and a few sociopaths working better all around. It would be a fascinating social experiment to put a bunch of high functioning-socios on one island, a bunch of low-functioning socios on a different island and a bunch of empaths on a third island as a control. Then you watch how they behave.

      Delete
    10. "It would be a fascinating social experiment to put a bunch of high functioning-socios on one island, a bunch of low-functioning socios on a different island and a bunch of empaths on a third island as a control. Then you watch how they behave."

      I could not agree more. But, to be fair, there should also be 2 islands for empaths, the high-functioning ones, and the low-functioning ones (adept and not adept) When people talk here about socios they talk mainly about the high-functioning ones and unfairly compare them to empaths as a whole.

      Delete
  5. Classic Theme for a Classic Person

    Theme for Zoe

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think the island sounds great! The only socios that will be shipped there are the dumb ones and I could do with out them anyhow. How would the calculated, conniving, charming, intelligent ones be ousted? I don't believe environmental cues shape or reshape anyone. It's more likely that we calculate our surroundings and choose our behavior accordingly. I do not have a number of "feelings" one of which is impulsivity. Do I make bad deductions? All the time - only because I have underestimated the outcome of said decision. Even when I tell someone what I am they don't believe me.... They won't know until they are dead and I don't shed a tear and likly not attent the funeral.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Andy - here you say: "Sociopaths see people for their value, so unless someone was a complete leech that was not worth the effort necessary to feed them, most everyone would be seen as a valuable resource." - yet on many of the blogs/comments here many of the Socios admit that one minute a target/victim/exploit can be seen as valuable and worthy and the next through no action or change in behavior of the T/V/E, they are judged to be boring and useless (a leech?) needing to be discarded.
    If this is the case, how long would it be before all the "resources" are used up and tossed away?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're asking a couple questions here. How long does it take for a sociopath to get bored of someone? That depends on the person's capacity for change. Take Jessi for example. She is absolutely incapable of spouting anything but her repetitive, useless diatribes. If I had a conversation with her in person, it would probably be the first and last. Other people here, such as those who realize that morality is subjective, seek change because they recognize that so long as they live, they will never encounter absolute truth. What drives them to change is that they never stop reaching. The 'resources' of such people, their capacity to hold interest, is thus constantly growing and in flux.

      Most people are afraid of others who are unpredictable and unstable, but sociopaths see predictable, stable people only for their material resources, or their ability to satisfy base desires such as lust. Once someone is no longer able to satisfy any desires of the sociopath, be they base or intellectual, that person is simply no longer interesting or useful, and is thus a waste of time and effort. And naturally, waste gets thrown away.

      Delete
    2. I have to repeat myself again.... It is not a question of morality, which can be subjective and culturally related, it is about using and abusing people. It is not a problem that a person gets bored by another one, people have more affinities with some people and less with others, but the exploitation and the fraud.

      Jessi

      Delete
    3. Andy - Until lately, I have never bothered to examine how I treat the people that have come and gone from my life. How do I behave? When does someone lose their "value" to me? And then throw in this blog, and hearing how Socios process (?)relationships, I find it all so intriguing. I have 2 questions:

      When a Socio picks/finds a T/V/E, are they mostly zeroing in on 1 attribute that they find of value in that person?

      What all do you mean by "a waste of time and effort"? I find if I enjoy someone's company (for whatever reason), there is no waste or effort involved in being with them. What makes it such an effort?

      TR1

      Delete
    4. know what andy?

      I am NOT a sociopath and i can relate to how you say a sociopath feels about a person once boredom sets in.

      Idk what is the matter, but i have major aversion to spending more than 2 days per week with a s.o. Idk if i am in love with newness, or the illusion of it. I fear i will be bored, and also i am glad to be all absorbed in their world when i am with them, but I lose my self in them . I get devoted to them but not for love or needing THEM. I do not want to get left, and if I feel they NEED more of my time, I want to give it, but because I am fearful they will be dissatisfied with the lack of time spent with them

      I do not understand why this happens to me . I do not understand why i cannot have my 5 days to myself so i can let my hair down with my S E L F and not feel i am tethered.

      But I want to be tethered. I do not want to be alone . I miss the person and i also feel angry i have to show up all the fucking time. what the fuck is that? can someone please fucking tell me what that is?

      Delete
    5. @2:59 You just said it yourself. If you enjoy someone's company, it's worth the effort to maintain a relationship. I find that if I don't like someone's company, I can't be bothered to pretend I'm friendly and interested in them. Pleasant company is a valuable thing in itself.

      @3:49 I didn't say I was a sociopath, but I think that I understand much of the sociopath perspective. Also, I can choose to behave like a sociopath, which is essentially being cunning, observant, and treating people in such a way that they give me what I want. I guess you could call that manipulation.

      I'm always afraid that I will 'get used to' someone I like. Just as you say, once the newness is gone and being with someone becomes routine, boredom sets in. I think 2 days a week or so would probably be ideal. You have plenty of time to yourself, but you have someone available when you need/want company. Spending all your time with someone is a great way to come to hate them. I feel the same way about my family. Now that I see them infrequently, I really enjoy spending time with them. When I was still living with my parents and siblings, I didn't find them very interesting at all.

      Strike a balance, and talk about it with your S.O. Find a way to avoid feeling both smothered and lonely.

      Delete
    6. THanks, Andy. :)
      You seem older/wiser than your years.

      Delete
    7. I've never found it very difficult to seem wise.

      If something strikes true with you, consider it, but don't ever accept it outright. I'm trying to rebuild a pie from a thin slice, so if I miss the pattern the big picture could be completely wrong.

      Delete
  8. Jessi is as annoying as Erin and that is a high bar ~

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't agree more...

      Delete
    2. Do you think Erin could lose her title as the most annoying SW member ever and we could crown Jessi?

      Delete
    3. Definitely not.

      Delete
    4. Which were Erin's ideas?

      Jessi

      Delete
    5. Erin would say:

      'would you make fun of a parapalegic who was your child? How about if you had a retarded grandchild and it was beaten on the playground ? . would you laugh?

      Would you ? well?

      .....waiting.

      Delete
    6. Monica is Erin and she's infatuated with m.e. and sociopathy in general. She's baiting you, in her aspiration to win favor and sociopathy points.

      Delete
    7. Ah, ok, so Erin was an attention seeker type of person according to you.

      Delete
  9. I second the motion, Monica!

    ReplyDelete
  10. perfection is the absence of all delusion

    but i think for the uber empaths it's feelings that make a thing real, and i suppose what isn't felt does not exist. including their bad thoughts, your pain. and any logic that does not support what their feelings tell them is undeniable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, and evil people are more evil - than they think they are.

      Delete
    2. Zoe are you saying that if an uber empath cannot relate to another's pain that it does not exist for the uber-empath, and therefore it is not acknowledged as "important" ?

      Delete
    3. i'm proposing the possibility.

      if you're so completely wrapped up in what you feel to the point that reality is only ever an extension of it, where is the room for the other person's feelings and reality?

      i'm playing devil's advocate here.. because i mainly approach life through intuition and feeling. i have to work hard to detach, to not be at the mercy of what i feel. if you can detach you can get rid of a lot of delusion.

      Delete
    4. I only know one uber-empath but she cannot relate to most others at all. Everything is centered around her feelings but not in a self centered sort of way. I'm doing a terrible job of describing her but she is utterly selfless and yet has no concept of any other persons feelings unless they relate to her own. She also cries if she sees animal pelts or watches horror movies etc. due to vicariously experiencing their pain.

      Delete
    5. oh.

      is it scary for an empath to detach? I mean, if you detach from emotions then do you not detach from "love"

      Delete
    6. how can you tell she is an uber-empath? Because she is selfless? How can you be an uber empath and also have no concept of other's feelings. dont you mean she ignores what they are feeling?

      Delete
    7. Its hard to tell without knowing her and I lack Mach or Andys articulate well thought out ability in speech. Its evidently apparent to both myself and those around her, including her mildly autistic boyfriend, that she feels far more then your avarage human being. By my definition that makes her an uber-empath but my definition may not match yours or the standard one.

      And she never ignores what people are feeling if she realizes that they are feeling something, its more that she frequently just gets wrapped up in her feelings. She reminds me of some sort of autistic who cares deeply about what others feel but is to naive to pick up on it. Its also stupidly easy to be cruel to her and make her cry.

      I don't know if she really is an uber-empath, she just reminds me of one.

      Delete
    8. You think you have unresolved anger?

      Delete
    9. sorry, that comment was meant as a reply to your reply to mach @11:19

      Delete
    10. She sounds detestable.

      Delete
    11. an autistic who cares deeply about what others feel, or an autistic who cares deeply about the way others feel about her?

      Delete
    12. The way others feel, and I do find her detestable. But her mildly autistic boyfriend is one of my oldest friends and the only one who I can relate to intellectually and emotionally even a little bit so I'm forced to keep her around for now.

      @11:57
      I might have unresolved anger but I don't know about what. I've had these fantasy's in one form or another since I was 12, maybe younger. Violent fantasy's since I was 8, grade three is when I had my first rape fantasy.

      My family life is quite stable however, I've never been a victim of abuse from either parent and they always supported me without controlling or spoiling me. So its not their fault I'm a bit screwed up.

      Delete
    13. I was/am like she is. I do not like to be a detestable person to anyone, but it is unavoidable. Some people do not like you, that's all .

      I fear people who i want to like me will see me doing self reference all the time.It is a compulsion, you know. I'm not sure if it is narcissism or what, but i just looked up things on empaths, and one site says they get very distracted with all emotional stimulation coming at once that they need to focus down. They say often the distraction can look like add. Idk. I think there is narcissism with me.

      i am so sorry i am so hateful to you. But I think there are more detestable things i could be than self referential.

      You indirectly try to make me feel bad all the time. It is quite a nuisance not telling you the truth..

      iI think you are a narcissist when you do that. I feel it in my body every time. But i dont feel you are detestable. I feel you are angry and i feel the anger weakens you.





      Delete
    14. @1:21
      I've never met anyone like her other then her so I honestly can't say whether or not you'd all irritate me to the same degree. And it's not so much the self referencing that gets me as the incredible naivety, and the seeming total inability to pick up on my dislike unless I am flagrant about it, and I prefer subtlety. Honestly I'd enjoy her more if she was a bit less obtuse.

      Delete
    15. For me, being obtuse and displaying a sort of naivety is related.

      I think it is a way to annoy people like you. I have an NPD friend who gets enraged when i play that game with him..

      Delete
    16. how different is obtuseness from subtlety, Sevvack Kahn?

      ( I don't mean to irritate you. That was yesterday.)

      Delete
    17. subtlety is intentional, the way she is behaving is not.

      Delete
  11. Happy Father's Day, Mutherfuckers!

    Enjoy these nice quotes, all you daddies who don't molest your kids!



    "I want my son to wear a helmet 24 hours a day."
    ~Will Arnett

    "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years."
    ~Mark Twain

    "It is admirable for a father to take his son fishing, but there is a special place in heaven for the father who takes his daughter shopping."
    ~John Sinor

    ReplyDelete
  12. While I'm no mind reader, I have to wonder if part of Jamie's motivation in outing herself was calling out her father. If so, well played. It was interesting to see the man who stuck his head through the door after beating a hole into it chasing her down. Happy Father's Day, JL.

    And for Jamie, from this weeks Brain Pickings:

    "Identity politics refutes the idea of illness, while medicine shortchanges identity. Both are diminished by this narrowness... Similarly, we have to examine illness and identity, understand that observation will usually happen in one domain or the other, and come up with a syncretic mechanics. We need a vocabulary in which the two concepts are not opposites, but compatible aspects of a condition. The problem is to change how we assess the value of individuals and of lives, to reach for a more ecumenical take on healthy."

    Wouldn't this argument get you further than provocation if your objective is to inform the public and have your rights recognized? Or is that not the point?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most people (I love to use Jessi as an example) are absolutely incapable of changing their minds. The ones who come here with an ounce of insight can see that the vilification of non-criminal sociopaths is a product of scapegoating and stereotyping. She urges people to examine their own character and recognize that there is both darkness and light within them, and to be a successful sociopath is to embrace both. Thus, empaths and sociopaths think differently, but act similarly. The recognition of others in yourself is an essential step towards dispelling falsehoods and restoring equality and humanity to sociopaths.

      Why would someone be provoked by her post? Everyone is capable of doing despicable things, provided they find themselves in the right (or rather wrong) circumstances. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of that observation, such that it nearly constitutes an objective truth regarding human nature. To reject that is to reject reason, and there's no use trying to reach those who reject reason.

      Delete
    2. yah but you can appeal to their fears and vanity and sell them stuff, and reason won't get in the way. ;-)

      good points

      Delete
    3. As I see it the major difference between socios and empaths is simply in how they view the world and the people in it. They can and often do act in very similar or identical manners otherwise. Which is basically what you said above Andy, I'm just rephrasing and agreeing with you.

      Delete
    4. how do you see yourself, sevvack? Sociopath? Empath?

      Delete
    5. For the most part I find myself identifying far more closely with sociopathy then empathy. I believe I very well could be a sociopath. However I am also a terrifically flawed human being and could be terribly mistaken. I could also be a narcissist, though my dislike of being the center of attention argues against that.

      Delete
    6. do you use people like toilet paper?

      Delete
    7. I prefer to keep my people around. They amuse me and I've sculpted them enough over the years that they are all very loyal.

      Delete
    8. what have you sculpted them to be?

      Delete
    9. @ sevvack khan

      "I could also be a narcissist, though my dislike of being the center of attention argues against that."

      Apparantly there's a category of narcissist who is shy and dislikes the spotlight so you could indeed be a narcissist.

      I don't think it tallies with the murder fantasies though. You're more likely a psychopath.

      Delete
    10. People that amuse me and who I can use for whatever I need whenever I need it. They would forgive me anything and I can make them dance when I'm bored. I don't hurt them though, unless I'm in pain/severely distracted/drunk, then I sometimes screw up and do something that upsets one of them. Again though, they forgive me anything so it always works out.

      Delete
    11. @1:05
      I was not aware of that category of narcissist, however I'm personally inclined to believing myself a socio rather then a narcissist. Of course that could just be my narcissism.

      Delete
    12. It's your narcissism.

      You're soaking in it right now, Madge.

      Delete
    13. Madge?? I'm not sure I know what that means. And I very well could be a narcissist, however socios and narcissists have so much in common its not a big enough difference to matter to me. And as I am starting to get uncomfortable with the amount I have involved myself in this thread I will bid you all adieu.

      Delete
    14. no, dont go away, sevvack khan. Madge is the manicurist on the palmolive commercial.. it is a small joke from a person with a sense of humour quite lacking

      Delete
    15. @Andy, “Most people (I love to use Jessi as an example) are absolutely incapable of changing their minds.”

      Oh! So, you say I am incapable of changing my mind, does this mean that you have changed yours and you think now more like myself? ;)

      “The ones who come here with an ounce of insight can see that the vilification of non-criminal sociopaths is a product of scapegoating and stereotyping.”

      I think that to use and abuse people is criminal though not legally punishable (yet) in many cases. (I recall the rape by fraud)

      “Thus, empaths and sociopaths think differently, but act similarly.”

      They don’t act similarly.

      “The recognition of others in yourself is an essential step towards dispelling falsehoods and restoring equality and humanity to sociopaths.”

      The humanity of sociopaths is recognized that´s why they are evalued according to their actions, their motives and their free will, as it is done with any other human.

      “Everyone is capable of doing despicable things, provided they find themselves in the right (or rather wrong) circumstances.”

      No, not everyone is capable of doing despicable things. Under some circumstances some actions are not despicable anymore.






      Delete
    16. I knew it! You got the stupid idea into your head that the 'adept neurotypical' is some kind of ideal state for an empath. Can you not see that you come off as pigheaded, stupid, and unlikable? Some random internet retard who was well-spoken came along and gave you your definition of self.

      You're the sheep that leaves the flock to follow the village idiot.

      Delete
    17. A person expresses his ideas (by the way, I don't have any reason to think that he is more of an internet retard than anyone else) and uses a term. I like the term, everybody else has read the meaning, so I consider it's a fine term to use and be understood. What is the problem you see in that? and what makes you think that it is not you the village idiot?

      Delete
    18. what is this? : "adept neurotypical' is some kind of ideal state for an empath".

      (i am entering an ongoing debate midway, so please forgive,but i want to listen well.)

      Delete
    19. Adept Neurotypicals unflinchingly hold to their opinions, even in the face of new information that soundly refutes their claims.

      Delete
    20. Andy, don't you find suspicious to consider that the ones who don't share your point of view are the ones that according to you "unflinchingly hold to their opinions, even in the face of new information that soundly refutes their claims"?

      anon, there was an entry that used the term "adept neurotypical" http://www.sociopathworld.com/2013/05/what-you-can-learn-from-sociopaths-part.html

      Delete
    21. Someone who agrees with everything I say is as useless as someone who always disagrees with me. I appreciate people who think for themselves. Most of the time, Jessi, you refuse to consider even the possibility that you might be mistaken. I just want some uncertainty from you, some struggle, some internal dialogue to demonstrate that you are capable of thought. Your opinions, like mine, are not objective fact. If we both understand that, we can share a meaningful conversation without resorting to abide remarks and namecalling.

      Delete
    22. This conclusion might be taken due to your habit of being fraudulent, but there is no reason to consider someone useless if they genuinely disagree/agree with you. Both things can be compatible with thinking by themselves. Why would someone who reaches your conclusions not think by himself? Don't you think by yourself too?

      Namecalling is not my thing, yours a little. I haven't seen the uncertainty you are talking about in you, so it is particular that you request it in others. Nevertheless, this is not about being certain, the respect you give to another human being is a matter of justice.

      Jessi

      Delete
  13. @Machiavellianempath

    I'm horrendously late in replying to this and I apologize, I had company and didn't see your question until I was reviewing what I missed. You said:

    "I'm curious Khan, is it an internal state that makes you want to kill? Or do certain individuals set you off? Or is it the sense of power that would come from being in control of someone else's destiny?

    Because I'm wired differently it's hard for me to see how that would be rewarding. I try to think about how that could be a positive experience and the only similarity I can come up with is how some people like the thrill of seducing people and then walking away with no strings/obligations. Is it something like that?"

    For me its largely a power thing. I'm mainly set off by seeing a stranger of any gender, ethnicity, or culture, in a dark secluded area where I am the only other person around.

    I never actually fantasize about killing those I know, regardless of how I feel about them personally, its exclusively strangers.

    In my past I have had a severe, violent, temper. I find physical violence to be a crude and ineffective way of controlling your immediate surroundings and I now have control over my temper.

    However, I have never forgotten the look of absolute terror and fear on the faces of those I have beaten and the feeling of invincible, absolute power I held over them. Crude as it may be violence has an incredible appeal for me, I would kill to experience that same feeling of power magnified.

    However as I mentioned in my original post its not likely I will ever follow through on these fantasy's as it would be far to easy to get caught and I am far to much of a forward thinker to risk it.

    Again I apologize for how late I was in replying to this and I hope I gave satisfactory answers to your questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. most people like the feeling anger rather than anything else related. it is easy, it is quick, it is definable, it is not passive, it is satisfyig, and it doesn't feel weak, which, imo, is the draw.

      Delete
    2. I agree with all of that. Its also a bit to messy for my tastes however so I try to keep away from it. My murder fantasy's come more from a love of power then from rage though, I always think them through quite coldly.

      Delete
    3. huh. when i am feeling disempowered I am feeling angry.

      Delete
    4. I just like to watch people hurt.

      Delete
    5. For all this "I am wired differently" statements, think a little about brain plasticity.

      Delete
    6. @ Khan -That's enlightening. Thanks for responding.
      The power thing makes sense- who doesn't want to feel omnipotent or completely in control of a situation, after all?
      The fact that you want to kill strangers is an interesting piece of it. I'm curious why strangers would have an appeal over people you already know and dislike.

      Delete
    7. I really couldn't say why I only think about strangers. I find it an interesting piece myself. I think part of it is that the police target known enemies in their investigations first, but that not all of it. I'm genuinely just not interested in killing people I know.

      Delete
    8. I responded below- because your studying medicine is really interesting (to me, anyway) in light of this dynamic.

      Delete
  14. I can relate in part. However I am a sadist who is an empath. I also work as a healer of sorts and enjoy helping people as much as I enjoy hurting others...both consensually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what is this? : "adept neurotypical' is some kind of ideal state for an empath".

      (i am entering an ongoing debate midway, so please forgive,but i want to listen well.)

      Delete
    2. anon 2:39

      are there specific types you pick to heal?

      are there types you do not want to heal?

      Delete
    3. That's interesting, I'm in school for medicine, also despite my enjoyment of inflicting pain on others.

      Delete
    4. Makes sense. Medicine is full of sadists - and charlatans.

      Delete
    5. @ Khan-

      Doctors are often accused of wanting to "play God"
      Killers do play God, in choosing to end lives.
      I wonder if you will have a similar lack of desire to treat a patient that is known to you personally.

      I feel like all motivations (even if they are foreign to me) do have an inherent logic, and I am grateful for your response because I am trying to decipher yours.

      If your preferences about who your patients are is connected to a desire to "play God" (My using that phrase is not a moral judgement-rather, I'm using a common colloquial expression that is shorthand for "exercising mastery over an environment" because from the things you have written I can see that control is an important theme for you. First and
      foremost, you control your own impulses, so as not to engage in self sabotage.

      This brings up an interesting question: is it the sense of power that is more thrilling to you or is it the destruction of life that thrills you?

      If it is the former, I think going into medicine is a wise method of sublimating your need for power. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit that if it is the latter, you scare me. But in either case- I find you fascinating, and appreciate your candor.


      Delete
    6. @ Khan- sorry- third paragraph a jumble- it should read:


      If your preferences about who your patients are is connected to a desire to "play God" (My using that phrase is not a moral judgement-rather, I'm using a common colloquial expression that is shorthand for "exercising mastery over an environment") then that might explain why medicine and killing are both attractive to you. Both situations put you in a dominant role, and the other party at your mercy. From the things you have written I can see that control is an important theme for you. I wonder if the power to grant mercy is the mirror image of wanting to annihilate someone. One thing is certain: you like to be in control. Exhibit A: you control your own impulses, so as not to engage in self sabotage.

      Delete
    7. To be an MD is an attractive job for sociopaths. What happens in hospitals it is very scary. Some let the patients die if they are bored with their case.

      Delete
  15. You would call me an empath, but I am not outstandingly empathetic or "thoughtful" in the sense of intuiting people's wants and needs and trying to fulfill them. In other words, I am not a "people person." An example: I forget to acknowledge people's birthdays, then feel guilty about it later.

    I learned some things relatively late in life -- for example, that most people expect to exchange niceties on the phone before getting to the purpose of the call. When it dawned on me, I was surprised that it took me so long to realize it!

    There have been only a couple of times I wanted to kill somebody, and both times it was because the intended victim was malicious. One time was when I worked in a restaurant with a cook who liked to fling hot grease from the grill onto the backs of the girls' legs. I happened to be standing behind him with a large knife in my hand when I saw him do it, and I remember thinking "if I turn the knife on its side, it will slide in between his ribs."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that is a nice , you 2 anons. I would like to have you in my corner. I would return the favour and kill like a knight for a person who wanted to kill for me even if it wasn't about me. I love people with bloodlust. All my bfs have been murderous and it is very attractive to me lol.

      Rage enlivens the dullest people. When I feel like slitting a throat i feel blood in my throat. I like going peaceful and then murderous (in mind only!!!). Maybe it makes me more alive.

      A long time ago we talked bout being primal here. I love it.

      Delete
  16. Anon 8:23

    Nothing as nefarious as that..I have my own practice in the field of health care. Those I hurt and bring mental and physical extremes to are erotic partners who I have a close connection with. It doesnt please me sexually though, it feels powerful and like a release in such a natural way for me.

    ReplyDelete

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.