Friday, December 20, 2013

Sociopath treatment

There is no "cure" for sociopathy, but it can be managed well or it can be managed poorly. Sociopaths don't respond very well to punishment, but they do respond to incentives. As discussed in this little blurb, referencing the successful treatment of teenage sociopaths:
Psychopaths aren’t murderers and criminals by their nature, they’re simply people without compunction. Naturally this can make them callous and cold, but it doesn’t automatically make them dangerous. In fact, in cases where it has been demonstrated and proven to psychopaths that they will personally benefit from abiding by rules, then it is possible they can become relatively well assimilated into society. Let me explain, where traditional treatment is used, (like psychotherapy or counseling), the sessions merely act as a kind of unintentional specialized training to help psychopaths more effectively mimic healthy emotional behavior. They are not treated or helped by traditional therapy as any insane (or sane) person might be. But Dr. Robert Hare developed a system whereby by accepting that the psychopath may never be anything but rational and uncaring, and used logical process to demonstrate that it is in their own interest to behave appropriately. Apparently there are criminal rehabilitation systems which are testing out this process, offering instant rewards for psychopathic subjects who follow the rules, appealing to their need for instant gratification and it is shown to be relatively effective. This is the first treatment in the history of psychopathy that has been been effective at all.
What is the difference between a successful sociopath and a less successful one? Sometimes I wonder if it's a matter of chancing upon a good thing first and sticking with it rather than a bad one -- like we're monkeys in an experiment, and if you press one button you get heroin, if you press another you get food, and if you press another you somehow get sexual pleasure. Once you find a good thing, you'll probably just stick with it, right? I always got good results being legit, ever since I was little, but if I didn't, or if my first good results came from being less legit, I'm sure I would have gone that way.

But if you want to "manage" yourself or someone else, I do think the key is incentives and immediate gratification. The caveats are that the incentive cannot be discretionary (because sociopaths will see it as arbitrary and not actually associate it with their own behavior) and the reward can't seem too good or the task too hard, otherwise he will spend all of his time trying to figure out how to trick you into giving him the reward without actually completing the task.

165 comments:

  1. That last paragraph is absolutely true- I couldn't agree more. As a child, my punishments and rewards seemed random and based on my mother's moods(she is bipolar), so the reward/punishment system never really worked for me. She (my empath mother) always explained things in cost/benefit or action/reaction terms because that is what was effective.

    "Go ahead, but if you are thrown in jail I won't bail you out. You'll have to stay. It's your choice, but consider whether or not it is worth it."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems to me like your playing the blame game Pythias, your blaming your Mother for your behavior, She bi-polar?, yeah right!, you like manipulating people, preying on them so that they feel guilty and you somehow feel like the victim. Everything is about your troubles, your problems, your lack of success and you point the finger at someone to blame. You are a sick individual and unfortunately, apparently there is no help for people like you. But do your poor parents a favor and leave them the hell alone. Stop being so co-dependent, stop being a loser, learn to stand on your own two feet. They enable you because you play the victim card all too often and very well...disgusting.

      Delete
    2. Look at the big man attacking a six year old post. Lol what a moron. Obvious troll is obvious.

      Delete
  2. In regard to children, this reminds me of a program that I was introduced to when my son was five years old. The program is called Parent Effectiveness Training (PET). The premise of it is that you teach children that there are logical consequences for their behavior. For example, if a child does not wish to come to the table when it's dinnertime and they miss dinner being served, then they go to bed hungry. An example reinforcing positive behavior would be something like if they help with the cleaning there will be time to go to the swimming pool.
    I found it to be helpful in raising my children. It gives the child power and teaches them to make decisions for favorable outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It gives the child power and teaches them to make decisions for favorable outcomes.

    If only all parents were as wise Aerianne.

    I agree Pythias. Arbitrary rules were so annoying when I was a kid. It was obvious to me early on that the rules were only ever about adult convenience and less about real world consequences. There was no logic to it. Either that, or they were about the mindless attempt to transmit societal tradition. It was all so much blah, blah, fucking blah. It’s funny, how little respect I had for ANY adults/rules growing up. There were a handful of adults I can think of that I liked because they were either consistent or went out of their way to attempt to understand me. But I can’t think of any that I respected. I certainly didn’t respect the institutions they represented. I suspect that somehow bridging that respect gap is crucial to building and maintaining a pro-social stance in a child.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Daniel: I had the somewhat odd leisure of befriending a lot of adults as a child. I moved a lot with my pops, and his friends became my friends, sometimes. Learning to respect others would seem very important during that time, and it is not with an iron fist that the respect is won.

    As does Pythias, I agree that the last paragraph is absolutely true. I've always reacted quite well to reward systems, especially reading and conduct rewards at several schools I attended.

    If only life as an adult had such reward systems available.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was issued a "reward based system" in therapy as a child, and this was the early 90's. I can't really say it worked because I tricked my parents into admitting why everything suddenly changed, but it was surely preferable to a punishment based system. I was also instructed how I should "feel" under certain circumstances and events. I guess I wasn't buying it. This article made me wonder if I'd be higher-functioning if I had tried, but I didn't really see the connection back then and thought everyone was full of shit and wow, I ended up being correct anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I find it comical that the program is called PET. This treatment is relatively close, if not exactly, like how one would condition an animal (pet) into behaving with the punishment and rewards system.

    To Aerianne, would it bother you to find out that your child may have behaved accordingly due to rewards, not because he was actually learning? Or are his true intentions irrelevant so long as he's behaving. I don't comprehend the whole concept of punishment and rewards. I come from a household where I was never rewarded for anything, and when punished it did nothing for me. Eventually the punishments just seized, and I was left to raise myself, my mother supplying the food, and a roof over my head and clothing. I can not say whether or not punishment and rewards would have made me a better person, but the idea of any form of discipline would have been sufficient, even if I took that discipline and created a game of play nice for manipulation purposes. How positive are the outcomes of such teachings when it comes to character other than gaining power and making "proper" decisions? When I hear the terms "Punishment and Rewards" it translates to "Power and Manipulation". I'm just trying to understand the point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are natural rewards and consequences in life. Every time you get a paycheck you are getting a reward. Every time you fill your car up with gas you are doing so, so as not to run out of gas on the road and then have the negative consequence of having to wait for help or walk for gas. Consequences and rewards are just naturally occurring within our environment all of the time. It just so happens that you are conditioned to them without realizing it. What seems to not work for many are consequences put forth by other individuals, because they seem like a tool for "control." Even though they may also be natural. Such as you treat me poorly I distance myself, you then feel like I'm ignoring you to hurt you and control you, versus the empathic understanding that I am trying to protect myself, and not be hurt again. Even though it is a completely natural response, when it comes from another human (or living creature), it is viewed as a control mechanism, and a way to manipulate you, when it is isn't, it's all about the other person. There is also an underlying misunderstanding that any person/human can even be controlled. No one can be controlled. I cannot force any other human being to do something. Nor can I force an animal to do so. Everyone makes their own choices. You always have the power to chose. Consequences and rewards "influence" your choice, in other words you way out what is worth it when making a choice, but ultimately you are the one always in control over everything you do and say, and even think.

      Delete
    2. Thats rubbish Jackafeather! People can control you if they only put forward half a story, in their best intrests, or Indeed makes a very convincing false allegation and this is a close friend or your darling other half. I was controled into their line of thinking: they need plenty ot TLA tender loving attention
      and the culprit must be bought to justice
      as they are a very bad person. I was controlled into running around after them A+E, calling out special officers who specialise in these scenarios, chasi g up the case and supplying TLA in multitudes whilst holding down 10-12 hr
      day and night shifts five days a wk and including a wkend day shift.

      Delete
    3. The control is Karis getting them to think in line with their thinking, benefiting only them. They took away your choices by with holding the whole truth. I know Karis some people do mot like to admit they were controled in this manner, but do not allow a person to 'make it up to you, can we meet up i can explain?' Stay away! Get rid 4 LIFE!

      Delete
    4. When you say 'them' thats you the support right, right! That realy is a messed up thing to do, but you as i n the very very 'misled, doing the supportive thing them' win in the end. When the 'hideous desperate TLA trouble maker is exposed!'

      Delete
  7. Justice, the PET method was not about punishment and reward. It was about logical consequences for actions you choose. A child does learn when that is taught.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Justice, it does not go like this:

    "You did not do your reading last night so you can't ride your bike after school today."

    It goes more like this:

    "You did not do your reading last night and when the teacher asked you questions about it in class today, you were embarrassed to not have the answers and you also did not like staying in to do the reading while the other kids went out for recess. If you don't want to feel badly in class and miss recess tomorrow, the way to avoid that would be to do your assigned reading tonight. The choice is yours."

    Those are the logical consequences for the actions the child chooses.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ^^^ Oh okay, I misunderstood the PET method. It sounded more like programming, or perhaps that's the way I see it.

    Logic does aide in creating the more functional person. Wish I had you as a mother...

    ReplyDelete
  10. I come from a household where I was never rewarded for anything, and when punished it did nothing for me.

    Pretty much the same here. No rewards, and the punishments were arbitrary. I think it had some effect on my sense of discipline and motivation.

    My sister is much more deliberate in raising her kids than our parents were. The kids understand exactly why they are being rewarded or punished, and while one kid is gifted and semi-autistic and the other is gifted in a sort of charm/manipulative/social sort of way, I think they will both turn out fine.

    ReplyDelete
  11. All I can say for now is damn, damn it all. Some families are so fucked up and ignorant What options does anyone have as a child? What kind of russian roulete are young parents playing with their kids futures with their own underdeveloped awareness and whatever regressions? What, they think having kids are just the proper and fun thing to do to show that they have achieved their perceived life goals or play at being adults? I just don't see how an incomplete person can handle bringing up children who are less than normal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i could not agree with this more

      Delete
  12. "What, they think having kids are just the proper and fun thing to do to show that they have achieved their perceived life goals or play at being adults?"

    Exactly so, in many cases, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  13. i don't know why but sometimes when i enter a URL name my comment doesn't post. it's annoying.

    what i was trying to say is that people always learn the hard way, if they learn at all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well put your name in the name field, not the URL field. That might help.

    ReplyDelete
  15. When I was younger, reward systems never really worked for me as no matter what I was rewarded with, it never felt like enough, it never gave me the joy and plesure which I was hoping for and I always felt(and still feel) as though I deserved, and should have been rewarded with more. I have also never truley understood the point of reward systems. I didn't see why I should even bother meeting other peoples expectations, and working towards a reward when technically, they could either just give me the reward no matter how I behaved, or I could just take.

    Actually, I still feel the same way today, eg I don't truley see why I must work for my money when technically it could just be given to me or I could just take it. The only difference is that I'm now mature enough to relise that behaving in accordance with these thoughts can land me in alot of trouble if I'm caught.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. recently diagnosed as a sociopath and you just described my life. however, I reject all labels and am struggling with how I go about cashing out of this lame fitting game. all cures and perceived benefits are focused on rationalising me to a dysfunctional society that I loathe so all help must come from within and escape is the only sane option.

      Delete
  16. The only difference is that I'm now mature enough to relise that behaving in accordance with these thoughts can land me in alot of trouble if I'm caught.

    And therein lies your 'reward': no time in jail. Don't you love it?

    ReplyDelete
  17. misanthrope kinda echoes what i was thinking when i read daniel birdick's comment up there.

    surely, even if you can learn to 'stay within the system' through having a logical explanation of action/consequence, won't you still, by the nature of what you are, feel the need to overrule it in some way, eventually?

    it may contain you to a degree, but don't you still feel frustrated that you have to play within the system? that you aren't being your 'take, take, take' self?

    is that frustration one of the main things you have to manage throughout your life?


    human

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anon@ 12.32

    They didn't think, period. Go take a psycho-analysis chart and start diagnosing them all. I think you'll find everyone's a psychopath in some way or another. If you're truly guilty of thought, you're labeled Anti social. If you choose to share their guilt, you're labeled a sociopath when caught and that's because they want you to feel guilty for trying to blend in with them. You don't deserve their "entitlement", and if you listen to their reasons why you'll probably find they haven't got a clue as to what exactly that is anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Those last two comments made no sense, but thanks anyway for your input.

    ReplyDelete
  20. medusa

    are you refering to my comment?

    human

    ReplyDelete
  21. the world is full of people who behave badly. what a lot of people seem to be saying without actually saying it is: the problem isn't socios needing some sort of treatment, the problem is that in general society children need good parents and a lot simply aren't up to the task. but what do you do about it - compulsory parenting classes to get any child benefits? i'd vote for that. although where do you draw the line... put the children of the religious fundies into care?
    too many parents try to be their kids' friend instead of their PARENT!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon

    Yes I do feel very fustraited that I have to follow society's rules and play within the system, especially considering the fact that most of these rules don't make a great deal of sense to me and I don't understand why most others seem to follow them so willingly. That said, following a few nonsensical rules is a small price to pay for my freedom.

    As for overuling the system, my dream is to actually one day live completely above the law. I want the ability to do exactly as I please whenever I please without consequences, while everyone else sticks rigidly to the pointless rules and laws which they have imposed on themselves. I basically just want live my life out in the open without having to hide away from everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Misanthrope, apparently you haven't read Crime and Punishment :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Romanovich RaskolnikovNovember 5, 2010 at 6:04 PM

    That's for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  25. don't you still feel frustrated that you have to play within the system?

    Sometimes, sure. There is a part of me that would love to do a great deal more 'damage' to people than I allow myself. Then again, isn't that true of most people?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I wrote [this chapter] with genuine inspiration, but perhaps it is no good; but for them the question is not its literary worth, they are worried about its morality. Here I was in the right — nothing was against morality, and even quite the contrary, but they saw otherwise and, what's more, saw traces of nihilism ..."

    — Dostoevsky's letter to A.P. Milyukov

    ReplyDelete
  27. i was just on youtube and i was viewing some news footage of past young offenders in the US, and by offenders, i mean teenage boys who have murdered their own mothers and sisters etc.

    do you really think that this is because of negligent parents and the lack of a reward system as this post explains?

    is the line between 'blending in' sociopaths and killer sociopaths really so thin? i'm interested, not judging.

    ReplyDelete
  28. sorry, that anon at 6.53
    was me


    human

    this url thing is messing with me.

    ReplyDelete
  29. do you really think that this is because of negligent parents and the lack of a reward system as this post explains?

    In some cases probably yes, in some cases probably no.

    is the line between 'blending in' sociopaths and killer sociopaths really so thin?

    That's one of the tougher questions to answer 'round these parts. Anyone who thinks they have an answer are probably wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Okay.

    Instructions:

    1. Click radio button next to "Name/URL"

    2. Put name in "Name" field.

    3. Leave URL blank.

    ReplyDelete
  31. hey it's human with a new name.

    ReplyDelete
  32. thanks medusa. its temperamental that thing. i'm blaming the tools.

    ReplyDelete
  33. To Daniel, was it something their parents could have prevented?

    ReplyDelete
  34. this i know, whose parents?

    If you are talking about the story anonymous referred to at 6:53, then my answer is I have no idea. Your question is too vague anyway. Be more specific.

    ReplyDelete
  35. if you are refering to my question, i don't know how i can get more specific than

    'is the line between 'blending in' sociopaths and killer sociopaths really so thin?'

    i'm just wondering what does it take to cause someone to go over that line? i mean, a young man killing his own sisters and mother. why? is it dependent on level of intelligence, out of control rage or what?

    and the first part of my question was regarding whether the best parenting is enough for all sociopath youths, and if not, why?

    i understand it's a big subject that probably has no quick answer, but it is important to address.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Notme, thank you

    ReplyDelete
  37. why does a child destroy his/her own toys?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Have you ever heard a child say "I broke my toy?"

    No. Self-blame does not come into it. "It broke." "They broke it."

    ReplyDelete
  39. @Notme:

    I was asking this i know (tik), since that person addressed me specifically. But since it would appear that tik thinks your comment answers my request, I'll address your comments instead notme.

    'is the line between 'blending in' sociopaths and killer sociopaths really so thin?'

    I cannot give a precise answer to a question like that. The are several variables that have to be taken into consideration, if accuracy is what you are interested in: genetic inheritance, upbringing, economic/social stratum one is reared in, the peer groups one gravitates to, if any, opportunities one has access to as an early adult, education and intelligence levels, and of course the definition of sociopath we happen to be using at the moment. You see? You are right when you sugggest that your questions do not lend themselves to easy, 30 second sound bite answers.

    Now if we were to zero in on one particular person and case, we could hazard a few educated and specific guesses, depending on the background information available.

    Now if I'm just shootin the shit, well that's different.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Daniel

    ok. i appreciate the feedback.
    food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Posmo; Interesting - "They died", "Just died",

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'll just shoot the shit then. Some have better self control than others, they're not identical like the brand. When and where, and IF, that begins in one's life is a different story for us all regardless of label.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "They died."

    That is the primary human function, after all. That's what people do. They just die.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Psycopath = Murderer

    Sociopath = Conman

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hmm... powerful implications here. "Outrage, disgust, rejection of death being just reasons to justify a phobia

    ReplyDelete
  46. Psychopath = Whatever I want it to.

    Sociopath = Whatever I want it to.

    The only way to refute me anonymous 9:07 is to mirror back my assertion.

    Or back your theory up with reason.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Birdick beats me to the punch again. Sigh.~

    ReplyDelete
  48. It is what I THINK Daniel Birdick,and if you don't like it thats your problem.

    ReplyDelete
  49. We don't like it because you present these things with no attempt to justify them. If you had elaborated even slightly, it would have been preferable.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Its all just plain fucking Bullshit! If it's anything like what the more in depth analysis/topics here says, then "parenting" (today?) is nothing more than overgrown kids playing with toys. "Hey check out this one I found on the internet, its from Africa!", "Oh look this is the one I made myself with...ummm", "I know I have to keep it, but it's soooo boring and stupid", "Mine will have a deep love of nature and the environment"...
    On another topic somewhere else, someone said something like "Some take care of their toys, some just don't." Just completely clueless and absolute randomness as to why, without/apart from the pavlovian conditioning from whatever sources that tells them its right or wrong, heaven or hell blah blah blah. May "God" or Ubermensch have mercy on helpless children!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Well Hippononomous 9:07, I guess you told me.

    PoMo is right though. It's always nice when someone can at minimum explain why they believe what they believe. It's nice (to me anyway) because it's relatively rare. Most people are clueless. Their beliefs are half formed and half baked and based on nothing more substantial than their current emotion and their upbringing. And they wonder why some of us think so little of them...

    Do my words describe you, Hippo? Who knows, who cares? I guess this means I'm in shootin the shit mode now.

    ReplyDelete
  52. is the line between 'blending in' sociopaths and killer sociopaths really so thin? i'm interested, not judging.

    I wonder if your query is about actual Serial Killers, or just murderers (not specified). Serial Killers are pretty cut and dry in definition, and there aren't a whole lot of them compared to simple, violent offenders (including murderers).

    A lot of loose terminology gets thrown around here, so my apologies if you specifically meant ritualistic murderers, not just whacked out thugs chopping up mum and sis.

    As far as I'm concerned, in the borad sense (not just Serial Killers), there isn't a line. To define the line is to assume there is one, and when I really think about it, I don't think there ever has been one.

    I'm not discounting proclivity to certain actions after repetition, just simply that I don't think there is a snapping point, or as you say, a line.

    A lot of the 'paths that frequent here are the ones able to stay out of prison, or who have found ways to not go back. I think a lot of it boils down to self-preservation. Sometimes I throw caution to the wind, but usually I don't. Do I think I'd have difficulty killing someone on a conscious level, not counting possible consequences? Absolutely not.

    ReplyDelete
  53. You consider yourself to be intelegent Daniel Birdick, yet you behave like an imbecile.

    ReplyDelete
  54. We live and die with our delusions. Hence nuture and protect your delusions at all cost for it is the most precious and closest you will ever get to have "meaning" in your existence

    ReplyDelete
  55. Man, why is it always the people who try to tell intelligent people that they are not intelligent can never spell "intelligent" correctly?

    If you spell one word in life correctly....

    ReplyDelete
  56. I wonder if that is on purpose, though, because I can't for the life of me figure out how someone can spell "imbecile" yet not be able to spell "intelligent".

    I call bait.

    ReplyDelete
  57. We live and die with our delusions. Hence nuture and protect your delusions at all cost for it is the most precious and closest you will ever get to have "meaning" in your existence

    If it's true that we are forever stuck in delusion, I wouldn't spend so much energy trying to protect them. Because they can always change if you allow them to.

    If you hold on to them for dear life, you might as well tattoo "prey" on your forehead, for you will be as easy to destroy as a pillar of salt.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I wonder if any other 'paths here shall comment on the so-called existence of this line. I'd be interested to hear their points of view on the subject matter.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I don't think your's and Daniel's answers can be improved upon... but I suppose I'd be interested as well.

    Though sometimes I wonder if people confuse highly intelligent, and therefore detached, people for sociopaths.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Hey, everyone. Nothing to add, but I am reading along.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Sorry, I can't seem to get all my thoughts in one comment. They come fast.

    Anyhow...

    I think a line can indeed be drawn if you label a sociopath based on clearly defined behavior and not intentions.

    Thus one can sieve the hard science from the ontology.

    ReplyDelete
  62. But if it is based off behavior and not intentions, why should it be exclusive to sociopaths? Intent I would think would be the line that the reader was commenting on, as actions speak for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  63. i will say that i'm positively gleeful at the fact we're back to discussing sociopathy on sociopathworld.

    who said miracles don't happen?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Are we talking about delusions/meaning?

    The problem: were we to hit upon meaning, we would have no way of knowing, because meaning would be filtered through our limited apparati. How would we recognize it?

    The incomprehensibility of meaning, taken with a grain of salt, does not need to be a tragedy.

    ReplyDelete
  65. From my own, limited understanding, the concept of a line, in this contextual sense, seems arbitrary to someone without a conscience, be it sociopaths, or some other PD.

    The reason for the line to exist in previous instances would be for that breaking point, that snap, that fall, for a normal person who was inclined to breach it in the first place because there was hesitancy.

    I feel like I've never had this hesitancy other than simple self-preservation, meaning, if I can get away with it, what's there to stop me? Certainly not a line.

    ReplyDelete
  66. @Medusa, Nov 5, 2010 10:55 PM;
    Yes yes, everything is fragile. So we try mirrors instead. Very clever, but even that has its limits to satisfy. Because it's always there eating at our very core, telling us that there must be something unique that makes us "us". That so called self defining intrinsic essence, more well known by a whole plethora of descriptions. "My beliefs", "My true self", " The real me", "my compass"....Really? Am wondering if there's any philosophical allegories for those so inclined, in numbskull captain obvious statements like "even mirrors can also be broken".

    ReplyDelete
  67. Makes a lot of sense to me TNP.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Us = our desires at the moment

    Us time^0 (imagine subscript here) + time1 etc = Hume

    But what's the big deal about meaning and essence? You'll never solve it, or if you do, you'll never know. Just a matter of making do with what you've got. in my humble opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  69. But if it is based off behavior and not intentions, why should it be exclusive to sociopaths?

    It wouldn't and shouldn't. Though I guess conducing things in such a manner would preclude a need for a cure. Do the crime, do the time, fuck therapy. Back to savage law.

    Intent I would think would be the line that the reader was commenting on, as actions speak for themselves.

    Yes, but you cannot draw a line through intent, as it stinks of morality, so the question is moot.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Us = our desires at the moment

    If we accept that, what would be the reason then for order to co-exist with fellow beings? Say for example;(if we use the archetypes here) Should a socio parent feel pride and acceptance for his favorite toy (offspring) even as he's being stabbed to death by the child "who very much desires to do just that at the moment"? And by extension likewise for a society whose meaning and essence is defined as per above. If that fine definition is the final word, why bother trying to define PDs at all?

    ReplyDelete
  71. That is exactly why most of the talk here is nothing more than masturbation, Anon.

    Feels good, but is useless, as nothing is borne from it.

    Mental birth-control.

    ReplyDelete
  72. in some cases this would be beneficial, however, in cases where sociopaths have a poor upbringing what benefit to being 'good' would you give him? I would never go back to being poor to avoid prison. Unless a lot of countries change their policies on crime, and the entire global job market shifts it would be difficult to do anything. All you could do is theorize what a sociopath could be doing instead of making money causing trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Thank you I lost it somewhere. How did you find it?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Daniel, I thanked Notme for refining my question to you not for answering it.
    Thank you for your answer.

    My intrest in this post stems from my intention to take in Foster children again. I had 16 teenagers live with me over a couse of years but would now prefer to have younger ones.

    I knew nothing about sociopathy so now that I'm aware I'd like to know the signs to look for and the way to care for them if they exhibit any.

    It's not far fetched to think that I will come across a child who needs an aware caregiver.

    ReplyDelete
  75. of course there is no easy answer to whether there is a line or, if so, where the line is, but research has shown that 'paths don't learn as easily from sticks as NTs but do learn from carrots.
    so a reasonable question may be to ask - did the parents/society of violent criminal 'paths simply punish bad behaviour in their formative years, whereas the more stable 'paths had positive reinforcement and encouragement growing up?

    ReplyDelete
  76. @TIK

    Ah, that’s better. It’s more precise which makes it easier for me to respond to. Since I don’t have much time, I won’t bother with writing a long ass response. Instead, I’ll refer you to a summary of psychopathy as it relates to children here and to a longer pdf file on oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder here. You might also consider Googling the term ‘Macdonald Triad’ as well.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I would like to ask the question: What IS exclusive to sociopathy other than his or her own thoughts and ideals?

    ReplyDelete
  78. how they treat other people.

    Grace:)

    ReplyDelete
  79. At what age does viewing other's as pets, toys or pocessions usally start at?

    ReplyDelete
  80. as soon as they learn that people can become such things. depends on the age of interacting, learning, gathering data, etcetera... no specific age is required. no sociopath is the same, so if there were an age, it wouldn't apply to all.

    ReplyDelete
  81. did the parents/society of violent criminal 'paths simply punish bad behaviour in their formative years, whereas the more stable 'paths had positive reinforcement and encouragement growing up?

    I don't think so. I didn't receive much positive reinforcement from my family whenever I did something good, but I certainly knew when I screwed up. It didn't stop me though.

    Threat of jail did when I got older. It's a bit of a an odd thing to say, that prison is my motivation in life to not be a total bastard.

    ReplyDelete
  82. ^^^no it isn't, it's motivation for most.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Was there anything that could have or did work as a motivator when you were younger?

    ReplyDelete
  84. This I know, are you speaking to the anonymous poster 10:23?

    ReplyDelete
  85. How about you and TNP. I don't know if theres more then one Anon on right now.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I don't see how treating others a certain way is exclusive to sociopathy Grace, however % wise you might be closer to correct when looking from a negative perspective. What I mean to say is, there is no such thing as perfectly good. Sociopathy isn't perfectly evil either. All there is is what exists inbetween. There are plenty of people with similar outlooks and interests on every spectrum.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Is it me or does this article show that sociopaths and psychopaths make the best informants? No conscience, ability to follow the rules no matter who gets hurt, instant rewards. Sociopaths probably make excellent spies and informants.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Savagelight

    except they are unpredictable and erratic too, so not reliable enough.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I don't know if any one thing in any perosonality is exclusive, even lack of empathy. Its the combination of personality traits that makes up a sociopath and it is scored on the PCL-R. I would suggest looking at that list. Some people will mistake everyone for sociopath when they first hear the definition of the word. Everyone knows a arsehole, but the truth is that actual sociopaths are a very small minority.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Thats not true in my experience with psychopaths. Some are very reliable and are actually more predictable than empaths because their morals wont get in the way.
    @notme

    I'm not saying that empaths can't do certain things also, I'm just saying for certain roles it's actually easier for a sociopath to do it because it's more natural for the sociopath. An empath is not naturally going to be good at lying, or being fake, or being a con artist, or spy, or assassin for example.

    An empath can do these things, but an empath would not be happy to do it. An empath would hate every minute of their job while a sociopath would be at home in that environment. It makes no sense to make an empath act like a sociopath when you can just let a sociopath act like a sociopath and get paid for the privilege.

    An empath can do anything a sociopath can, but an empath can be expected to suffer PTSD or some side effects over time which are unpredictable.

    Basically an empath who hates their job wouldn't be as effective as a sociopath who loves their job.

    ReplyDelete
  91. @Savagelight: I think the only thing that would trouble an NT with those lines of work would be possible guilt. Some people just don't care about others, and not because they are sociopaths, but because they don't have a reason to.

    If Don Vito tells you to whack Smalls, some little greasy guido down in Jersey, that's one thing. Anxiety might play a factor, but probably not guilt.

    If he tells you to murder Smalls, his wife, kids and his mother, then I'd say a sociopath would be better suited for the task.

    As far as ideal for being an informant/spy, I don't know if being a 'path would give you a large edge in the task, simply the comfort level and lack of guilt, and emotional turmoil in masking yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  92. @All, I have said it before the problem with society is society's so called justice system is based entirely around punishment. People who do good deeds aren't rewarded at all, and in most cases arent even given recognition, they just get exploited by the system.

    Rewards need to be given to people who follow the rules to encourage following the rules.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Savage you're on the right track with the spy theory.

    ReplyDelete
  94. As Daniel said yesterday, the reward for following the rules is staying out of jail. I suppose thats the only reward system that I've come to understand and appreciate.


    Whenever I perform a good deed, I do expect rewards and recognition. It's really just a form of attention seeking on my part. I used to think that this was everyone's motivation for performing selfless acts, but I now realise that most people who do good deeds don't expect to be rewarded. They simply do it because it feels right, and because they feel better about themselves for helping others. Of course these people will be exploited by the system because in the end, nice guys do finish last.

    ReplyDelete
  95. ...now realise that most people who do good deeds don't expect to be rewarded. They simply do it because it feels right, and because they feel better about themselves for helping others.

    I think this is true for maybe a infinitesimally small minority. Ghandi and Mother Theresa type people. If even them. As many of these folks expect to be rewarded in Heaven or by karma or reincarnation or something equivalent.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Mabye your right Medusa, but I was also talking about good deeds on a much smaller scale than those performed by the likes of the Ghandi and Mother Theresa. For example I only ever give my spare change to tramps in the street if I'm with someone else and I'm sure that their watching. Otherwise, I'll pretty much just glare at the the tramp until s/he leaves me the fuck alone. Would a regular empathic person give their spair change away to a tramp out of the kindness of their own hearts? or would they do so for the same reasons as me? or any other given reason.

    I'm really not completely sure on what motivates normal people to perform good deeds, large or small. Is their such a thing as a selfless act? What motivates you?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Interesting. I usually only give them spare change when I'm by myself. I guess I'm too paranoid that my act of kindness will be regarded as blatant face service.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Misanthrope

    you were right. there are people that do things without expecting reward. i think that the expectation of appreciation (and possibly) reciprocation for your action is innate, but when we realise this is not always fulfilled in reality, many simply accept that kindness is it's own reward.

    it can be frustrating, the disillusionment of this expectation, but the truth is, you don't stop doing selfless things, you just may get more selective about it, and less self-critical when you abstain from an act.

    a true empath cannot stop themselves completely from doing selfless things as it's what i call, the overflow of our basic survival apparatus.

    in the cold face of reality, we just become as selective as we can, saving our energy. but sometimes, we act if the situation calls for it.

    we (empaths) are emotional creatures for a reason. if we rationalised every single thing we did before we did it, and did not have the drive to act on impulse, the world would be an ever colder, harder place than it is.

    sometimes, NOT weighing in our minds whether something is of benefit to ourselves before acting upon it, is what saves people in danger for example. this IS the empath premise, biologically speaking.


    as for the homeless people thing, I went through a phase where i wanted to fill my house up with rounded-up homeless people. lol i didn't do it. it was just something i felt like doing.

    i sometimes ignore beggars completely, or just acknowledge them. i quite often buy them a coffee or a sandwich, and talk with them. it depends on my mood, state of mind, change in my pocket. i can be quite tight too. it's a constant ebbing and flowing.

    i will give whether people are watching or not. when you wise up about life, you realise the ego aspect is irrelevant, although it feels nice that others may go,'aww look at the lovely lady being nice'. it's fleeting for me. it's really not a conscious ego-driven decision, that's just a bonus.
    the empathy rises up first.


    as a young empath, selfless giving comes full circle; innocence, bitterness, innocence again. kindness for it's own sake. what comes back, is a bonus. (often a bonus you feel you want to return back again and thus the cycle continues). let's call it, the empathy circle, it has no end, so don't bother looking for one.

    i'm just attempting to explain a little, as the mechanisms behind it are not always clearly obvious to us, which is the point of the instinct i do believe; it takes a short-cut route to helpful (whether for ourselves or others is irrelevant) actions.

    deanna

    ReplyDelete
  99. Misanthrope

    you were right. there are people that do things without expecting reward. i think that the expectation of appreciation (and possibly) reciprocation for your action is innate, but when we realise this is not always fulfilled in reality, many simply accept that kindness is it's own reward.

    it can be frustrating, the disillusionment of this expectation, but the truth is, you don't stop doing selfless things, you just may get more selective about it, and less self-critical when you abstain from an act.

    a true empath cannot stop themselves completely from doing selfless things as it's what i call, the overflow of our basic survival apparatus.

    in the cold face of reality, we just become as selective as we can, saving our energy. but sometimes, we act if the situation calls for it.

    we (empaths) are emotional creatures for a reason. if we rationalised every single thing we did before we did it, and did not have the drive to act on impulse, the world would be an ever colder, harder place than it is.

    sometimes, NOT weighing in our minds whether something is of benefit to ourselves before acting upon it, is what saves people in danger for example. this IS the empath premise, biologically speaking.


    as for the homeless people thing, I went through a phase where i wanted to fill my house up with rounded-up homeless people. lol i didn't do it. it was just something i felt like doing.

    i sometimes ignore beggars completely, or just acknowledge them. i quite often buy them a coffee or a sandwich, and talk with them. it depends on my mood, state of mind, change in my pocket. i can be quite tight too. it's a constant ebbing and flowing.

    i will give whether people are watching or not. when you wise up about life, you realise the ego aspect is irrelevant, although it feels nice that others may go,'aww look at the lovely lady being nice'. it's fleeting for me. it's really not a conscious ego-driven decision, that's just a bonus.
    the empathy rises up first.


    as a young empath, selfless giving comes full circle; innocence, bitterness, innocence again. kindness for it's own sake. what comes back, is a bonus. (often a bonus you feel you want to return back again and thus the cycle continues). let's call it, the empathy circle, it has no end, so don't bother looking for one.

    i'm just attempting to explain a little, as the mechanisms behind it are not always clearly obvious to us, which is the point of the instinct i do believe; it takes a short-cut route to helpful (whether for ourselves or others is irrelevant) actions.

    deanna

    ReplyDelete
  100. Misanthrope

    you were right. there are people that do things without expecting reward. i think that the expectation of appreciation (and possibly) reciprocation for your action is innate, but when we realise this is not always fulfilled in reality, many simply accept that kindness is it's own reward.

    it can be frustrating, the disillusionment of this expectation, but the truth is, you don't stop doing selfless things, you just may get more selective about it, and less self-critical when you abstain from an act.

    a true empath cannot stop themselves completely from doing selfless things as it's what i call, the overflow of our basic survival apparatus.

    in the cold face of reality, we just become as selective as we can, saving our energy. but sometimes, we act if the situation calls for it.

    we (empaths) are emotional creatures for a reason. if we rationalised every single thing we did before we did it, and did not have the drive to act on impulse, the world would be an ever colder, harder place than it is.

    sometimes, NOT weighing in our minds whether something is of benefit to ourselves before acting upon it, is what saves people in danger for example. this IS the empath premise, biologically speaking.


    as for the homeless people thing, I went through a phase where i wanted to fill my house up with rounded-up homeless people. lol i didn't do it. it was just something i felt like doing.

    i sometimes ignore beggars completely, or just acknowledge them. i quite often buy them a coffee or a sandwich, and talk with them. it depends on my mood, state of mind, change in my pocket. i can be quite tight too. it's a constant ebbing and flowing.

    i will give whether people are watching or not. when you wise up about life, you realise the ego aspect is irrelevant, although it feels nice that others may go,'aww look at the lovely lady being nice'. it's fleeting for me. it's really not a conscious ego-driven decision, that's just a bonus.
    the empathy rises up first.


    as a young empath, selfless giving comes full circle; innocence, bitterness, innocence again. kindness for it's own sake. what comes back, is a bonus. (often a bonus you feel you want to return back again and thus the cycle continues). let's call it, the empathy circle, it has no end, so don't bother looking for one.

    i'm just attempting to explain a little, as the mechanisms behind it are not always clearly obvious to us, which is the point of the instinct i do believe; it takes a short-cut route to helpful (whether for ourselves or others is irrelevant) actions.

    deanna

    ReplyDelete
  101. lmao

    sorry for the long ass message!!! and twice.

    well, enjoy.

    deanna

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't remember the name of the book, but it's been proven that intuition overrides logical/rational thinking when someone is in a dangerous situation.(about to be robbed,raped,killed.) A natural instinct just kicks in and guides the individual to correct action to save themself from the bad situation. This has been documented hundreds of times.

      Can sociopaths ever tap into that instinctive resource? I'm hearing the answer is no, but i know a sociopath who does attempt to tap into higher sources??

      Delete
  102. Some tramp came up to me with the tomatoes that some do gooder gave him and put them in my basket and said in could have them. He then asked if he could put the groceries in my car. I allowed him too. He then asked me if I could spare anything for the tomatoes and helping and I told him he fucked himself. I took his tomatoes and left.
    People give because it is harder for people to say no. I use it against people all the time. There is a actual study on the fact that people like to say yes more than they do no.
    If you want to stop someone from hassling you tell them rudely to step off. I walk through streets of addicts that ask me everyday the same question. I completely ignore them.

    ReplyDelete
  103. People give because it is harder for people to say no. I use it against people all the time. There is a actual study on the fact that people like to say yes more than they do no.

    Very true. I capitalize on this at the workplace a lot, just not enough to wear the effect down.

    ReplyDelete
  104. There is a spot in town where I sometimes go to see bands. It's got all the little shops and tons of street beggars. They will insult you if they ask you for a cigarette and you don't give them one. I made one of them really angry one day. I told him that I did not have a cigarette to spare, but that since I was going in the next store he could finish the one I was smoking. I held it out to him and he was offended and wouldn't take it. LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  105. Anyone care to examine this statement? "Warmth of Human Society has an inverse correlation with Global Warming".

    ReplyDelete
  106. My examination: There is correlation present, though inverse to your intent, as both concepts are products of trickery with screaming ulterior motives present.

    ReplyDelete
  107. I've bought food and drink for a homeless person several times. The reason for doing this is both symbolic gesture, but it's also rational. Someday I could be that person, or somebody in my family could be that person.

    I don't feel anything when I do good deeds, I just think it's smart to support your community because you never know who you might need in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Savagelight.

    that's the premise of empathy. it's not illogical, as you've just demonstrated.

    ReplyDelete
  109. @notme

    Definition of a informant:"a snitch is the person who entices you to commit a crime so they can inform on you, or who commits the crime with you and then informs on you"

    "Snitching is being used to destroy the moral fibers of society. It’s being used to put criminals on the street with full immunity from crimes they might commit or have committed, because they are snitching on others. It’s a devious dragnet that is creating and endless army of slave informants for the law enforcement community. It’s causing devastation in some communities, and it’s doing more harm than good."

    "When a society sees that criminals can be put back on the street and protected for their past crimes and future crimes, it erodes the morals of that society. People learn to not trust or respect law enforcement and they also learn to not corporate with law enforcement, cause how can you trust someone who employs the services of paid criminals?"

    "Witnessing is all about liberation and being free, snitching is mental slavery that leaves individuals owned and trapped in a perpetual cycle that hurts society at large. Cases are being solved, but at what cost to the society, morally and ethically?"

    It should be obvious that an empath wrote this article. What I am wondering is how many people other than myself believe that sociopaths/psychopaths typically are the first persons to become informants/snitches? They'd have no moral or ethical hesitation, and they'd be given the power to commit as many crimes as they like and hurt as many people as they want, they'd even get paid to destroy peoples lives and in some cases get innocent people convicted of crimes. They'd get to make money being a criminal and entrapping others.

    Logically why wouldn't a sociopath want to live this way?If you don't have a conscience and don't care about society, why not get paid to ruin people?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Logic itself my dear Savagelight. I'll tell you what though, I'm going to place all psychopaths over here *points* because I alone have figured out the common denominator to which they are ALL predisposed. At least you will all be in one safe place and working together for the greater good. This is kosher, no?

    ReplyDelete
  111. "I'm going to place all psychopaths over here *points* because I alone have figured out the common denominator to which they are ALL predisposed."

    And what would that be Anon? I missed that:/

    "I don't see how treating others a certain way is exclusive to sociopathy Grace, however % wise you might be closer to correct when looking from a negative perspective"

    I meant that from an observer point of view and yes I was referring to negative behavior..or what I would consider negative behavior. It's not just my perspective...some, or hell most, people would have the same conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  112. above from Grace:)

    ReplyDelete
  113. Grace, I was speaking to Savagelight in your first set of quotations. However, the other post was mine as well. What I mean is two things. 1. Touch someone's emotions the wrong way and observe how they treat you afterwards. 2. Long ago (in school) I was bullied by groups but never one on one. I would be a fool to assume all seven were sociopaths, and I'd be considerably less of a fool to assume there'd be only one in the seven.

    ReplyDelete
  114. What do you think about attachment therapy? I've heard that it works in certain cases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It might work for children, however requires a lot of work it seems.
      Its likely it may be worthless for adults unless you are able to brainwash them into it somehow.

      Delete
  115. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  116. happened to press the HEROIN button first, and it has controlled my behaviour up to a point, managed to use fraud to support my habit and as a result kept a relativley low, if somewhat parasitic life style profile. I believe the method mentioned in the post was posited by (the recently late) Colin Wilson in one of his books, (SERIAL KILLERS or WRITTEN IN BLOOD maybe.), and his ideas on the soul of the criminal and the new existentialism are of interest to all with an interest in the psychopathological. The point being that we are fairly intractable characters but we may be able to ameliorate some of our darker excesses if it is framed suitably to appeal

    ReplyDelete
  117. "What is the difference between a successful sociopath and a less successful one? Sometimes I wonder if it's a matter of chancing upon a good thing first and sticking with it. . ."

    This is probably true of anyone who is successful, psychopath or not.

    ReplyDelete
  118. M.E. is a "functional" sociopath simply by the luck of the draw.
    Everything in life is timing. Another time, another place, and M.E.
    would be behind bars, or under the ground.

    ReplyDelete
  119. I am looking for feedback from the SW community. Later this month I will be pitching a potential study to a research team I would not head up (I have a political science degree, not abnormal psych) but would serve as a researcher. My goal would be to write a book about the experience of examining how the sociopathic personality is formed.

    I very much subscribe to James Fallon's "three legged stool" approach to understanding what makes a psychopath. Bearing that in mind- the one part of the stool that can be influenced is the environmental piece. I'm interested in getting a group of 8-18 year olds who have been diagnosed with conduct disorder and are on the radar of the Department of Youth services (ideally in a residential program) to form a sample population to tell us more about the backgrounds of people who go on to develop antisocial personality disorder.

    My theory is that there is a genetic vulnerability to sociopathy that has more to do with the will than a deficit in brain functioning that you might see in the autistic population. While both autistic individuals and sociopaths lack empathy, my theory is that a specific series of interactions with caregivers/authority figures happens between birth and 5 years that convinces a child who grows up to be a sociopath to "split off" their emotions from consciousness. But the emotions still exist even if there is no awareness of those emotions, unlike with the autistic individual who lacks the capacity entirely. My current hunch is that the genetic part of sociopathy is simply an extremely strong will and a capacity for compartmentalization of brain function, and this brain is morally neutral. Environment is what "switches on" the pathology.
    I'd like my study to determine if that pathology is the result of a particularly strong willed/dominant child being forced to conform to the wishes of an authority figure/caregiver who mercilessly and repeatedly forced the very young child into a position of complete subjugation of will. The chances of a potentially sociopathic child being a bad fit with an authoritarian figure is high which predicts that a willful/sociopathic child is more likely than most to experience traumatic abuse. They experience more painful and negative interactions than other children would in that environment.

    Pop culture tells us that child abuse is linked to sociopathy, but the stereotype has trouble accounting for psychopaths that come from supposedly "good" homes. My theory is that in those "good" homes there was a narcissistic/cult of personality type figure who demanded absolute conformity. (Conservative religious homes come to mind) Most kids submit and form some sort of trauma bond with a figure like this. The sociopathic child, however, has a stronger sense of self and learns to "play the game" by splitting off the emotions that abusive control generates. The cognitive dissonance of loving an abuser is never resolved so the child is aware of a "false self" and a "true self" in a way that children who go on to develop narcissism and other personality disorders are never conscious of.

    ReplyDelete
  120. continued from above...


    While most children strive desperately for the approval of an authority figure/caregiver- the sociopathic child has "checked out" emotionally and only pretends to conform when they are aware of being observed. This capacity explains the unusually prominent sense of self and lack of need for validation in the adult personality.

    Where things get tricky is that the emotions that have been split off still exist in a very primitive way. They get stuck at the developmental stage they were split from consciousness. Though cognitive understanding of feeling may progress, emotional maturity does not take place, leading to sociopathic children experiencing increasing disconnects with peers until they craft an effective persona to be accepted.

    Dr Ginger has mentioned something I've encountered frequently- that borderlines often have transient sociopathic states and vice versa, which seems to make little sense because one disorder stems from a deficit of emotion where the other is related to over emotionality. My theory is that the destructive energy that surfaces in the sociopathic personality is related to the emotions that have been split from consciousness- and that a borderline type rage exists beneath the awareness of the sociopath, but provides the motivation for antisocial defenses to be maintained.

    The reason that sociopaths must "win or die" is to keep extremely painful, infantile feelings of abandonment, rage, and grief over having their true self effectively annihilated by a caregiver from surfacing. Sociopaths learn early that might makes right and that domination in all relationships is the only thing that keeps those infantile traumatic experiences split from consciousness.

    So- the study would be to explore a specific question: was there a figure in each conduct disordered child's past who demanded complete submission (even temporarily) or was the need for the antisocial defenses generated from a different source?

    I welcome all feedback- I will be submitting a research proposal the last week of December and am in the process of editing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. That would be an interesting read. Personally, in my family I am the only empathy deficient, among highly compassionate empaths. I have had a relatively good childhood, not wealthy, but I wasn't abused, neglected etc.

      Perhaps I have received this from my bio fathers side (never met the man or family.) Without knowing that side it would be impossible to tell for sure if it's a genetic predisposition. From my earliest memory I was aware.

      Nevertheless, I would read the study (if accepted) once it is complete whether if it's relevant to myself or not. I would also like to know where sadism and malevolent intent stem from, as it seems sociopaths/psychopaths are inherently indifferent.

      Delete
    3. id read yr book. i enjoy the distinctive manner in which you put your written words together and the way you organize the reflection of yr thinking,
      mach, your delivery technique is fab! you're a gifted writer. the wealth of information you provide is informative and well put forth. id love to read a copy as well.
      I must order a copy of m.e.'s book too. hopefully, after the holidays.

      Delete
    4. My theory is that in those "good" homes there was a narcissistic/cult of personality type figure who demanded absolute conformity. (Conservative religious homes come to mind)...

      MachEmp, it's scary how much that describes my psychopath's home life. Distant mother, charismatic minister father. My path's sister turned out fine, though.

      your theory is definitely worth exploring. i am reminded, however, of early theories on the "cause" of autism. lot of "distant mother" explanations, etc. they found that, while certain types of parenting couldn't cause autism, modifications in home life ameliorated symptoms of autism.

      anyway, good luck in your research. i would like to believe that psychopaths actually have deep emotions, so i hope your theory proves correct...

      Delete
  121. Fascinating work. From my observations personality disorders (sociopathy,borderlines,etc.) due originate from extremely deep wounding during the first 5 years of life. The damage done then can never be truly repaired, but, yes, some individuals are able to construct a descent life for themselves.(even though they'll always have that wound. (I'm speaking from personal experience and observation for many, many years of different types of human behavior.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I argue that it forms in the first 5 years of someone ‘life. It can form any time in someone’s life. Whenever, they come to the understanding that as an “individual”, they have the “choice” to think for themselves. Look what postmodern sociopath said up there “Have you ever heard a child say "I broke my toy? No they say "It broke." "They broke it.". And I think he is right, most of kids don’t see the cause and effect between themselves and their surroundings- unless, they are in an environment that enforces some kind of extreme survivalist mentality.

      Delete
    2. Kids blame others regardless.

      Delete
    3. ^well said. i'm high-functioning bpd. suffered incest at an early age. the damage never really repairs, because you encounter a lot of the same shit (different story, same theme throughout life); but it does mend somewhat with different outlooks and approaches as to how handle the triggers when it roars its ugly face. i guess my neurotransmitters have managed to make new pathways in my brain, and I'm immune to the pain. I do return to baseline quicker. the brain is remarkable, pliable and flexible I did manage to construct a good life for myself nonetheless. I fought for myself.

      Delete
    4. I’m detouring some of my pathways these days too.

      Delete
    5. it's very interesting. new neural pathways begin to be form when we choose to acquire the things that where targeted with -- with various interpretations and healthier coping approaches. these new pathways become stronger the more we use them. repetition is the key - causing the likelihood of new long-term connections, and of course healthy memories will begin to form and begin to engrave. acceptance gets one out of the rut quite nicely.

      Delete
    6. Oh, I was kidding. I’m really really guilty of playing the boogieman here. I think I played my role too well but in real life I am not a socio. I do have a healthy life style and a good family with tons of good memories. Last year was emotionally very draining for me. I had to deal with bunch of wackos. So, I was refreshing for a while. But I admit, I’m a survivalist.

      Delete
  122. Yeah, fighting for ourselves. And maybe helping others who aren't capable of fighting for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's the kind of research ME is talking about doing.

      Delete
  123. Certain psychos surely are criminal due to their nature? They don´t accept boundaries, they see no man-written limits & have taste for unsavory/expensive things which cannot be satisfied by working as a janitor. And they shrug when somebody gives them moral speeches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, because you should take care of people who do not respect “man-written limits” with “man-written limits”, not with “moral speeches”, unless you are craving self-righteousness.

      Delete
    2. yeah i get it. we're all a different. i respect that.

      Delete
    3. nature vs. nurture. some things can't be changed.

      Delete
    4. It's not always that they don't just understand written rules...it's any rules. They have no sense of boundries. My step daught becomes even worse with rewards, because when you take them away as a punishment, or push her to do better next time explaining everything to her, she becomes violent and unstable. Once more she is a sexual preditor and molested her mentally and physically challenged brother and my daughter. My daughter would deficate and urinate on herself when we would tuck her in at night. Our home was a nightmare, and even with her gone the last three years I live in constant fear of her. Especially the last time she pulled a knife on me and said she already sees it in me. I still get nightmares and can't sleep. I had a deep love for her in the beggining and tried everything to help her. It only made it worse because I became a push over. I hate to say it but the good son is the only way I can describe a good portion of her. I just wish me and my family didn't have to sleep with one eye open all the time, and I wish the law would do something with children like them. Taking the clinical route was the dumbest thing we ever did. All we can do now is hope and pray something changes....

      Delete
  124. really want to see a post about American Hustle...

    ReplyDelete
  125. I was influenced with drugs as a child due to my mother, and as such i have obtained sociopathy.

    I am 15 as to date and am wondering how i can be helped.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Rewards and consequences? That's interesting when you consider that most true psychopaths like myself are highly intelligent, unbelievably well educated, and have a tendency to calculate every possible senerio to fit the situation. This coupled with our inability to feel any real emotion including fear, remorse, guilt, empathy, ect... and years of quietly sitting in a conner invisible to pretty much everyone, watching and learning human behavior...the point is, there are no consequences to our actions only rewards because a true psychopath does NOT get caught even by those who have been trained to spot us a mile a way. However, sociopaths tend to be reckless and usually do get caught and suffer the consequences. For those who see no real distinction between the two...there lies your difference. Just food for thought.

    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.