Showing posts with label psychopathy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychopathy. Show all posts

Saturday, December 1, 2012

War = sociopath breeding ground

On the topic of whether sociopaths are born or created, I just heard about the Japanese movie Battle Royale, in which a class of high school students is sent to an island to kill or be killed until there is one left standing. According to an imdb synopsis:
At the dawn of the new millennium, Japan is in a a state of near-collapse. Unemployment is at an all-time high, and violence among the nation's youth is spiraling out of control. With schoolchildren boycotting their classes and physically abusing their teachers, a beleaguered and near-defeated government decides to introduce a radical new measure: the Battle Royale Act Overseen by their former teacher Kitano and requiring that a randomly chosen school class is taken to a deserted island and forced to fight each other to the death, the Act dictates that only one pupil is allowed to survive the punishment. He or she will return, not as the victor, but as the ultimate proof of the lengths to which the government is prepared to go to curb the tide of juvenile disobedience.
The students have varied reactions:
Some of the kids immediately embrace the carnage, others reluctantly join in for self-preservation, others gather together into smaller groups that war with each other, still others seduce allies in, only to kill them in short order, and still others kill themselves in refusal to participate in the violence. The problems arise even in the groups of trusted souls as a greedy suspicion grasps them all. Those that don't succumb to this violent infidelity, surely risk falling victim to their external classmates' hunts.
When I first heard about the plot of the movie, I thought the island was meant to serve as an accelerant for natural selection. Of course if you are putting high school students on an island with weapons, the only thing you would be naturally selecting for is sociopaths. Under my revised-per-imdb understanding of the film, the island is not just naturally selecting out sociopaths, it is actually creating them out of normal empaths. Do I think this actually happens in war and other times of exigency? Yes, I do.

Friday, November 30, 2012

Sociopath quote of the day

There is nothing very odd about lambs disliking birds of prey, but this is no reason for holding it against large birds of prey that they carry off lambs. And when the lambs whisper among themselves, "These birds of prey are evil, and does this not give us a right to say that whatever is the opposite of a bird of prey must be good," there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such an argument--though the birds of prey will look somewhat quizzically and say, We have nothing against these good lambs; in fact, we love them; nothing tastes better than a tender lamb."

Friedrich Nietzsche

Friday, November 23, 2012

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Friday, November 16, 2012

On killing

This was interesting:

"There are no atheists in foxholes," the saying goes, but according to this important book there are many conscientious objectors. In World War II and before, only 15 to 20 percent of soldiers fired their weapons at enemy soldiers in view, even if their own lives were endangered. Lt. Col. (Ret.) Grossman, a military historian, psychologist and teacher at West Point, builds upon the findings of Gen. S. L. A. Marshall in Men Against Fire (1978) and confirmatory evidence from Napoleonic, Civil and other wars. "Throughout history the majority of men on the battlefield would not attempt to kill the enemy, even to save their own lives." (p. 4)

* * *

The compunction against killing occurs in close combat situations, including aerial dogfights where pilots can see each other. It does not prevail with killing at a distance by artillery or bombing from airplanes. Machine gun teams also boost the firing rate because individuals cannot simply pretend to fire or intentionally mis-aim. In aerial combat one percent of pilots made over thirty percent of kills; the majority of fighter pilots never shot down a plane, perhaps never tried to.

* * *

In the U.S. Civil War, well-trained soldiers fired over the enemy's heads, or only pretended to fire. Of 27,000 muzzle-loading muskets recovered at Gettysburg, 90 percent were loaded, almost half with multiple loads! That could not be inadvertent. Further evidence was the low kill rate in face-to-face battles. Like Marshall's assertion about World War II, "Secretly, quietly...these soldiers found themselves to be conscientious objectors who were unable to kill their fellow man." (p. 25) The secrets were well kept, in "a tangled web of individual and cultural forgetfulness, deception and lies tightly woven over thousands of years....the male ego has always justified selective memory, self-deception, and lying [about] two institutions, sex and combat." (p. 31)

* * *

About two percent of soldiers lack the killing inhibition; they score high on measures of "aggressive psychopath." Another one percent in this diagnostic category cannot endure military discipline. Grossman says the adaptable two percent serve well, return to civilian life and function as good citizens.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Sociopath quote: New eyes

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes."

-- Marcel Proust

Friday, November 9, 2012

More on loyalty

A reader asks:
How can you be loyal if you are a sociopath? I ask because I'm reading a lot about sociopaths and recovery from pathological relationships. And reading that being unfaithful is one characteristic.
My response:
Good question. I actually think it is very easy for a sociopath to be loyal. In some ways it's easier for them than it is for an empath to be loyal. To be truly loyal, you have to adopt a certain reality. For instance, to be patriotic you have to be "my country, right or wrong" (to take the popularly misquoted, and I think more accurate version). People loyal to Hitler had to drink the Kool-Aid, had to adopt his reality, his world view, his everything. If they didn't, then when the going got tough, they would betray him. Is that loyalty? I don't think so. But sociopaths can be this loyal if they choose. They have such a flexible sense of self and an ability to compartmentalize that together allow them to adopt your reality or Hitler's reality or really anything they want to believe. Why would we want to do it? I don't know, why not? For me, as I said, I use it when I am trying to maintain an interpersonal relationship.

I'm not saying empaths can't be loyal. There are probably more loyal empaths than sociopaths, even per capita. I'm just saying being a sociopath doesn't preclude the possibility of displaying incredible amounts of loyalty, particularly for the "favorites" that we have chosen. There's pretty much nothing I wouldn't do for some of my loved ones -- literally. I know empaths say that a lot, but I think it's obvious why that might be even more true for a sociopath friend.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Loyalty

I've said before that I use principles of economic efficiency to substitute for my pygmy moral compass. For interpersonal relationships, though, efficiency doesn't work as well. Instead I rely on loyalty. I am fiercely loyal. I am quick to adopt someone else's reality for the sake of the relationship. I never blame things on the other person when something goes wrong. I always assume that there was something I could have done better. It's why I can seem so devoted, a perfect mate. When the other person criticizes me, I am not offended, rather I gratefully welcome the feedback as additional information on which to base my behavior. I'm only as good as the information I receive.

I will, however, get very angry when I am not criticized, but rather rejected. It is one thing to say that I made a bad decision, or that you don't like it when I make certain jokes, or whatever it is that you find offensive about my behavior. It is quite another thing to think that I am a bad person, that you are disgusted with me, or appalled, or can't understand why I could ever think that my behavior was acceptable. If your feelings about me change from occasional annoyance or hurt to blanket disapproval, then you are no longer on my team. If you are no longer on my team, then there is nothing insulating you from my anger. And I am angry. If you have rejected who I am, I will have to fight back a white hot feeling of rage. I lose control in the rage.

The people who are able to talk me down from the rage and make things better, who watch after me and make sure I don't hurt myself or others -- those people are my inner circle. I don't really wish for fame, fortune, success, or whatever. But I do sometimes wish I could do more for those who show the same amount of loyalty to me that I show to them.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Perspectives on power

An "uber empath" friend writes:
I have been reading your sociopath blog and read the recent entry on power. I have a couple of thoughts.

When I was reading it, it made me think of a scene in Lords of the Rings. It's where Frodo and Sam end up "visiting" the wood elves. There is a scene with Galadriel, the queen of the wood elves. She is tested when Frodo offers to place the One Ring (the Ring of Power) in her keeping. In response to his offer, she presents an image of herself corrupted by the ring declaring; "And now it comes to it at last. You will give me the One Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night. Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain...all shall love me and despair!" But then, after appearing to Frodo both beautiful and terrible to behold, she fades and once again becomes Galadriel. Recalling the ambitions that had once brought her to Middle-earth, she declares, "I pass the test," and refuses the Ring, accepting her fate of diminishing (as the time of the dominion of men had come) and returning at last to Valinor (the Elf version of Valhalla).
You called me a super-empath once, but if I had power, this is kind of how I would envision myself. A seemingly benevolent but somewhat dark queen, who would demand that everyone love and be kind to one another (or else, of course, off with their heads!!).

With regard to your comments about power and communism/facism, I say this. The history of the world is essentially that of "the People," "the Fuhrer" and "the Poet." The People are the sheep. In order to function, they need to have the Fuhrer in place to direct them and tell them how to live their lives. Dictators and sociopaths achieve power because the People give it to them. They NEED the Fuhrer, for they secretly suspect they are incapable of living without him/her. Occasionally in history, a Poet figure comes along (Socrates, Jesus of Nazareth, etc. etc.). The Poet presents the People with the possibility of human freedom. He or she is initially greeted with enthusiasm and some of the People may even begin to embrace their freedom. But eventually, always, the People panic and reject the possibility of freedom. Then they turn on the Poet and destroy him/her, or turn the Poet over to the Fuhrer to imprison/destroy.

What do you think?

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Monday, October 22, 2012

Power


I love power. I'm fascinated by it. The power over self. The power over others. I think the power over self definitely should preceed the power over others. I've learned this over time of studying and practicing it.

It is interesting to read about world leaders in history who have started powerless and who had been thrust into a position of power without being prepared for it. They start off idealists, wanting only the best for mankind, only to be thrown on a downward spiral committing atrocities for what they perceived as the betterment of mankind or their country. I truly understand them.

I can't tell you that I'm partisan to any particular brand of ideology. I have studied all of them deeply. Communism and fascism are the most interesting when it comes to power, because it thrusts absolute power into the hands of a few people. Indeed capitalism does still keep power in the hands of a few, but not as little as you can count on two hands.

We don't have a lot of fascist leaders to compare, as the idea never gained enough popularity worldwide to have any long standing leaders. I have always found fascism to be power given to the impatent. It's guided by insecurity. As usual the theory actually makes a little sense to anyone who can look at it objectively: It's a structure of government that believes that people don't want freedom. It believes the strong should survive and the weak should perish. Individualism should be sacrificed for the state. Quoting Mussolini, "Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State...." Absolute power indeed. The fascists' insecurity, however, is written in their ideology from the gate. They reject liberalism and communism for the fact that they blame these ideologies for their losses in the first world war. This was the platform to which Mussolini and Hitler rose to power. It was the insecurity of the masses in these countries that propelled two insecure people into power.

The claim of supremacy of the Aryan race and throwbacks to a ancient civilization of glory were examples of this. The point the finger attitude of hating Jews, liberals, communists, France, etc. were yet another. I wouldn't claim Hitler a sociopath purely for the fact that his entire campaign and life rested on his insecurity and over-emotionalism. I won't delve deep into his life, as I'm not trying to write a biography on him, however those who have should throw a comment up on your opinion.

Communism is a doctrine that thrusts power into the hands of the powerless. I do believe the intentions of a majority of the leaders of communist revolutions to be genuine. Notice I said majority. People like Pol Pot I believe had no intention of furthering anything, but his lust for power and blood. Why do I think so? The foundation of communism is to create a egalitarian society. One where the workers who produce the products are in control. That's why they call it a dictatorship of the proletariat. For the sociopath at the top, this is a terrible idea. How then would they exploit the workers? For the powerless sociopath, this was a wonderful idea. What better way to gain popular support but to say that you would be giving everyone equality, and control over their own labor? I will use Stalin for a example.

If Stalin wasn't a sociopath I will hand over my control to this website to Love Fraud. Hands down. Stalin's rap sheet as a young revolutionary is long: Armed robbery, kidnapping, assassination, counterfeiting, extortion, racketeering, inciting riots, and finally insurrection. Stalin manipulated his way into power. Such as his alliance with Kamenev and Zinoviev, which he used to make sure that Lenin's testament (Which had orders not to let Stalin in power) would never be revealed. After Stalin's death he shifted his alliance to another party member and had them both ejected from the party. Stalin's path while in power was one of a heroin addict with a unlimited supply of junk. He started executing anyone who opposed him. Even to go as far as having a assassin stab Trotsky (Former party member in exile) to death with a ice pick. He had his armies throw themselves into the enemies' guns in WWII resulting in the largest amount of casualties in a country during the world war. He changed history books to the point of erasing people out of pictures who he deemed counter revolutionary. This would mean erasing people's entire existence for going against him. His own son tried to commit suicide after Stalin told him he was a failure. Upon receiving the news he said, "He can't even shoot straight." After being captured by the Germans Stalin refused to trade for him saying that if he did it would be special treatment and not fair to the rest of the "Sons of Russia." Stalin's son then succeeded in running himself into a electric fence in the concentration camp. I believe Stalin was a sociopath given a cause and as he grew more powerful he lost vision of what exactly that cause was. In the end his cause was staying in power. The funny thing is he died with his only possession being his uniform. His power.

Power is raw and uncut. Its lure is subtle, but its taste is explosive. You have a little and you keep wanting more. The more you have it, the more you will excuse using it vicariously. You'll justify your every callous action with vigour. Soon you are nothing but a embodiment of fear and manipulation. You still think you are fighting for what you were in the beginning, but you're only fighting to maintain your position. As all the threats real and perceived mount, you become more awful in your preservation of it. In the end it's easy to lose sight, or is the real intention deep down inside everyone of us power itself? Sometimes it's hard to know. Even for the person fighting it.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Dehumanization

I realized something about myself the other day. It was how I look at people. I have a tendency to break down someone's humanity one step at a time when I talk to them. Not to them of course. They are blabbering on, talking about their lives, while I sit there and smile. I like to ask people questions. They like to talk about themselves. I'm a networker of sorts.

I have one friend who I'm honest with. This person understands me, and doesn't judge me. So, recently I've been thinking out loud to this person, and it's been helping me understand myself a lot better. After I'm done talking to several people I'll go home and talk to my friend about them. Yesterday I came to a realization of the way I break all the negatives about each person down till I get to the point in the conversation of calling them something. I talk about how weak they are. I hate people who are victims. I talk about their addictive past on drugs. I hate addicts. I talk about their boyfriends or girlfriends controlling them. I hate pushovers. They talk about their meaningless boring lives, unfunny jokes, silly ideas, and their watered down opinions that can be changed at the drop of a hat. The most funny part about all of this is the fact that everybody thinks I'm the nicest and most honest person they've met, and as they are telling me that I'm smiling. Thinking. Scheming.

Next I'll go into how they will be useful for me. What they have that I want, or who they know (who I can get to through them) who has something I want. This is how I work. People are tools. They are sheep looking for a shepherd. Sometimes I dabble with the idea that some people were put on this earth to do me a favor. Everything before and after is just their pitiful meaningless life. It's my inside joke. It's actually what I tell people when they do me a favor and I'm done with them.

"You have now served your purpose."

They laugh. Nobody can tell when I'm serious, or whether I'm joking. Mostly because I think they are a joke and I'm laughing at them most of the time. People can't tell when they are the punchline.

I realize what this is. The disgust I have for most people makes me dehumanize them. When I dehumanize someone, their feelings, emotions, and lives are worthless to me. I have no respect for them at all. And they'll never know. They are nothing more than a tool to be used and thrown away. I know it sounds harsh, but that's how it goes. A lot of people want to be used. They seek us out. They find us and throw themselves on our railway track. I can't stop the train.

This is why sometimes I laugh at the comments page on this blog. It tickles me to see anti-sociopaths. Especially ones that are so scared of sociopaths that they comment anonymously. I meet people exactly like them off this blog all the time in my life day to day. I hear them talk about sociopaths sometimes. How they would never fall for their ploys. How they aren't human. Maybe we have more in common than I thought. I've dehumanized them too, only they don't know that yet.

I don't apologize for who I am, or how I feel about people in general. I never will. I think it's pitiful when people apologize for who they are when it can't be changed. Yes, I despise most of you. No, you will not know it. Yes, you will say you never get manipulated. No, it's not true. You are day to day. Hour to hour. You just justify it to yourselves just like we justify our manipulating you.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Know Thyself


Sometimes you can be your own worst enemy. I'm sure you've heard that before. As a sociopath we are met with a choice: Being aware of who we are or ignoring it and becoming a destructive force. Destruction is fun, but in the end we end up destroying ourselves along with anyone else who makes the mistake of helping us.

Many people out there have the opinion that sociopaths have no hope. Therapy doesn't work. Drugs don't work. Why is that? The fact is only you can help yourself. Throughout your life you have relied on yourself, so why would that change when it comes to personal growth.

I'm not here to tell people that they need to be 'good' sociopaths. What is good anyway? Rules and laws are meant to protect people too foolish to see why they are there. Sheep flock to obey them no matter what the cost. We have to develop our own individual principles that we hold ourselves accountable to. This is how you take yourself to a new level.

Several traits of a sociopath can be turned around and used for you or used against you. Ultimately it's up to you.

The fact that you are emotionally shallow can be used to excel you in taking emotions out of the equation and attacking problems at hand with logic. The fact that you are a narcissist can help you stay positive and never accept anything less than number one in any competitive environment. You can use the fact that you are impulsive to take action while others can't pull the trigger. I'm sure you can take this idea from here.

The doors are open for sociopaths. We either succeed highly or we fail dismally. It's up to you to decide where you want to be.

Friday, October 5, 2012

Cognitive diversity: the right to one's mind

This article discusses the ethical implications of treating those on the "diversity" side of neuro-diversity as if they have a sickness to be cured:
Our society has a rather poor track record when it comes to respecting the validity of certain "mind-types." We once tried to “cure” homosexuality with conversion therapy. Today there’s an effort to cure autism and Asperger’s syndrome—a development the autistic rights people have railed against. And in the future we may consider curing criminals of their anti-social or deviant behavior—a potentially thorny issue to be sure.

***

As this example shows, the process of altering a certain mind-type, whether it be homosexuality or autism, can be suppressive and harsh. But does the end justify the means? If we could “cure” autistics in a safe and ethical way and introduce them to the world of neurotypicality, should we do it? Many individuals in the autistic/Asperger’s camp would say no, but there’s clearly a large segment of the population who feel that these conditions are quite debilitating. Not an easy question to answer.

This is an issue of extreme complexity and sensitivity, particularly when considering other implications of neurological modification. Looking to the future, there will be opportunities to alter the minds of pedophiles and other criminals guilty of anti-social and harmful behaviors. Chemical castration may eventually make way to a nootropic or genetic procedure that removes tendencies deemed inappropriate or harmful by the state.

Is this an infringement of a person’s cognitive liberty?
This guy seems to be on the side of neurodiversity except (as always) for sociopaths:
So, if one applies a strict interpretation of cognitive liberty, a case can be made that a sociopath deserves the right to refuse a treatment that would for all intents-and-purposes replace their old self with a new one. On the other hand, a case can also be made that a sociopathic criminal has forgone their right to cognitive liberty (in essence the same argument that allows us to imprison criminals and strip them of their rights) and cannot refuse a treatment which is intended to be rehabilitative.

I am admittedly on the fence with this one. My instinct tells me that we should never alter a person’s mind against their will; my common sense tells me that removing sociopathic tendencies is a good thing and ultimately beneficial to that individual. I’m going to have to ruminate over this one a bit further…
He seems to be suggesting that pedophiles should be left alone, but sociopaths have given up the right to their mind by all being criminals at heart. Does that mean if I get caught shoplifting, I get my brain tweaked? What about if you just sort of "know" that since I am a sociopath I will eventually commit some horrific crime?

The author of this article "currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies and Humanity." Please feel free to email him your thoughts at: george@sentientdevelopments.com. Maybe you can inform his "ruminations" on the subject of denying us the right to our minds.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Telling it like it is

Empaths sometimes email me regarding relationships they have with sociopaths. This is one of the most enlightened, self-aware accounts from an empath that I've ever received in one of these exchanges:
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. They were helpful.

As much as it hurt me to go through this situation with my ex, it was fascinating, too.

My ex takes pleasure in becoming what his "victim" wants him to be, then systematically breaking them down, showing them their own hypocricy, and punishing them by mastering their value system, twisting it, and using it as a weapon.

I have to admit, that is pretty damn cool (even though it felt horrible).

In my mind, I just sort of hope he crosses more deserving individuals, because, hindsight, I like to see him as part of a balanced system of karma. haha.

You mentioned in your response how it angers you when someone starts crying during an argument. And, after my relationship, I'm really able to see how socios view emotions as tools for manipulation; changing the playing field, like you said. I never saw it that way – but, I get it, and I don't think I'll ever view emotions the same way again, haha.

I guess, as much as my ex destroyed me, he kind of enlightened me, as well.

I am no longer with him. And, you implied that it probably wasn't worth the hassle. But, the strange part was really, it was worth the hassle. That's why I returned to him so many times. He made me feel so alive, so stirred emotionally, and so mentally alert, trying to anticipate his next move, that I think I regained a lot of passion. I was constantly re-evaluating his actions and my own, trying to make sense of things, that I left having a stronger grasp on my concepts of love, empathy, morals, and fears. I saw them all in a new light, and left making new decisions regarding them.

Ultimately, staying with him wasn't worth the long-term, high risk investment. He took up too much of my time. He was much too possessive, too dangerous, and too capable of brilliant manipulation. I was too reactive, unable to buffer the effect he had on me of emotional highs and lows, with objective practicality and understanding of his nature.

I couldn't focus on being ME, anymore. I had become his host; the provider of durability, consistency and foundation. And, the entire world that I was once a fully participating member of was collapsing under his weight and manipulation. The life that we had together was diametrically opposed to the life and loved ones I was leaving behind. There were no rules there and no guidelines. He wouldn't allow it.

Staying with him would've been the most selfish decision I'd ever made. And, although he subliminally encouraged me towards giving over to being with him, I knew I would lose everything... as well as my identity.

I was more in love with him than I've ever been with anyone. And, I know I will not likely feel that intense love again, adding much to both my despair and relief. He is really a beautiful destroyer..

But, to wrap things up: I knew that once it suited him, once he found a better, stronger, more beautiful host, he could and would toss me aside, unprepared and unable to recover.

I would've been left alone, a stranger to my family and friends, and the betrayer of everything I ever worked towards, loved, and believed in.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Rope-a-Dope

I recently watched Fight Night Round 4. This had inspired me to go back and watch some classic fights. One of the fights I watched was the George Forman vs. Muhammed Ali.

Ali has always amazed me. Not just by the fact that he was a amazing boxer, or how he was socially conscious. It's the fact that he won his fights by getting in his opponents' heads. Before fights he would taunt and insult the other fighters that were big hitters. This way he could play against their strengths turning them into weaknesses.

In his fight against Foreman it was no different. Almost all of Foreman's fight were won by knocking out the opponent by the fourth round. Ali, however, can take it the distance round after round. His goal would have to be to tire his opponent out, and survive till then. Ali was also older and came out of retirement, and Foreman was in his prime as the World Champion.

Before the fight it was found out that the ropes were too long for the ring. The fighters agreed to fight anyway since everyone was already there. Now here's where things get interesting. Ali found himself getting hit hard and against the ropes. Only he found out he could lean against the rope steadily and Foreman's hits wouldn't hit as hard, and then he realized he could fire shots off of it. His corner screamed at him for spending round after round against the ropes. However, Ali continued. Meanwhile (Ref's account), Ali was tautning Foremen, calling him names, laughing at him, and telling him "Is that all you got?" This caused Foremen to hit even harder, much to the dismay of Ali's trainer.

Ali was able to expend all of Foremen's energy to the point where he was not even throwing punches anymore--he was just pawing slowly at him. They called his movement "Sleepwalking" because he was so slow and unfocused. Ali played with him for one more round and ended up knocking him out.

Now I'm sure you're wondering why I'm giving you a play-by-play on boxing. It reminded me of a strategy that I've always used in my life against others who try to bring me down. I portray my strengths as weakness and weaknesses as strengths. People take you for what you portray to be more times than not. You don't have to be a sociopath to get people to take you for face value (though it's easier for us since we do it constantly). People are keen on boasting their strengths only to brag. It's natural. Your key lies in playing your strengths off as a weaknesses, luring you opponent into a false sense of security where they fall into a trap of playing your game. In the same way you play your weaknesses off as strengths, deterring them from attacking you where you have no game. Know yourself and know your enemy.

Participation time: I want to know from the readers if you've used this strategy? How successful was it for you? How did you pull it off and when did you decide to strike?

Monday, September 24, 2012

Why I Am M.E.

I search articles on sociopaths all the time. Not just for this blog, but to try to examine the dangers lurking beneath my surface. Sometimes I can't even see them. Up to a few years ago I wasn't even aware they existed. I don't expect normal people to understand. Nor do I expect anything but loathing on their part for who I am. This is M.E.

I used to be self destructive. A daily ritual of thrill seeking. My parents would blame everything around me for it. My teachers. My environment. The police. My friends. How much more easier it was for me to continue the blame. I never fooled myself beyond what I need to in order to keep deceit believable. Like burying the truth deep inside. Just on the edge of self deceit. Only to pull the truth out when I just about believed my own bullshit. I reached a boundary.

This is how I've been able to function. Right on the edge. I've almost killed myself several times. Not by my own hand of course. I love myself far too much for that. Just by the consequences of my actions. The funny thing is I hate gambling, but I love risking everything and finding my way out of it. However I've never destroyed myself. Just when I was on the edge I caught myself and got out of it. I reached a boundary.

Through surviving it all I've learned to how to live in my own kind of balance. As cliche as it sounds, I live two lives. One normal. One not so normal. Almost two people. Sociopaths on this site understand this. The comments reflect what would happen if you don't keep the charade going. Sometimes I feel like telling people how I really feel about them and their petty morals. Throwing the mask into the water. I reached a boundary.

The only way I've made it is by recently developing my own boundaries. It isn't moral like a code of ethics, but more of something to survive my own tendencies. Keeping me alive and free. I think this is essential for sociopaths in their development and this blog can help sociopaths achieve that. It's not hard to see where others have failed and why. The horror stories you read of out-of-control sociopaths running amok. It's what has led normals to develop the term, and has led some (maybe hurt by our peers) to come on this site and criticize us. To justify who you are is pointless. They don't understand. They serve their purpose on knowing what they will view you as when you lose yourself. They don't know you. You know yourself. That is your boundary.

If you are to make it it will be because you learn how to keep the mask on. If you are to make it, it will be because you learned from your mistakes and others. If you are to make it, it is because you understand. Understanding is understanding your boundaries.The problem for sociopaths in the past has always been they can't learn from others mistakes because others are not like them. I had the luxury of living among people who are sociopaths. In the environment I lived it was about yourself. About me. And I can always relate to a narcissist.

I wont go into details about my own boundaries because I know better than to expect a sociopath to live by anyone elses boundaries but their own. I know the fact that most of you have no boundaries because I didn't. Some of you are successful. Some of you aren't. Some of you live among society. Some of you are criminals. All of you are trying with everything you can not to have the mask drop for everyone to see what they think is uglyness and you view as the only true beauty. Your boundaries are the mask. Those boundaries is what makes me M.E.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

The sociopath's 'due north'

It is often said that sociopaths have no moral compass. But what if there is no such thing as a moral compass? What if instead, there are multiple ‘due norths’?

That seems to be the unspoken implication of an article i read recently about morality. The article features Jonathan Haidt’s ‘Moral Foundations’ theory, which purports to explain why morality varies among different cultures on the one hand while still showing some striking similarities on the other hand. The theory suggests that there are five universal foundations. Each culture in turn 'selects' a few of those foundations and builds traditions, norms and rituals upon them to construct a commonly shared morality. The five foundations in brief are:

1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturing.

2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.

3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."

4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
Using the American political spectrum as a kind of case study, Haidt suggests that liberals tend to value harm/care and fairness above all else, while conservatives emphasize ingroup loyalty, authority and purity. He takes pains to suggest neither value grouping is objectively better than the other, merely different. I agree with him since there's no good evidence to suggest otherwise. What’s more, not only are values and moral biases at least in part, genetically heritable, the particular society a person is born into very often also plays an decisive role. What those two facts make clear is that conscious choice is not a relevant factor when it comes to generating most people’s sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ As one author puts it, since most people cannot see what comes before (genetics, history and culture), they assume what comes after (their beliefs, biases and morality) are freely chosen. It’s obvious they are not. Moreover, not only are the moral biases that many empaths swear, live and die by not freely chosen, they are not even rational. The evidence coming in from research on morality indicates that emotions, gut reactions, play a leading role in moral judgments and that rationalization of those judgments follow. The human brain is a belief factory, and part of its job is to rationally justify moral feelings.Iif people want to reach a conclusion, they usually find a way to do so that has little to do with anything resembling sound theory or evidence; in short, it has little to do with reality. This partly explains why sociopaths can see the hypocrisy and absurdity that often passes for moral debate.

Which brings us back to the subject. The sociopath is born with much less in the way of moral biases. We don’t need to justify our actions to ourselves, although we may go through the motions of justification with others because we know that’s what they expect and doing so is sometimes useful. More importantly, it’s clear to us in a way that it might not be for most empaths that when it comes to morality, there are as many ‘due norths’ as there are people. Until convincing evidence to the contrary comes in, there’s no reason to fix our so called broken moral compasses. We don’t need no stinkin' moral compass. Reality based thinking works just fine.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Sociopaths make friends

“We turned over the book together, and I endeavored to explain to him the purpose of the printing, and the meaning of a few pictures that were in it. Thus I soon engaged his interest; and from that we went to jabbering the best we could about the various outer sights to be seen in this famous town. Soon I proposed a social smoke; and producing his pouch and tomahawk, he quietly offered me a puff. And then we sat exchanging puffs from that wild pipe of his and keeping it regularly passing between us.

“If there yet lurked any ice of indifference towards me in the Pagan’s breast, this pleasant, genial smoke we had, soon thawed it out, and left us cronies. He seemed to take to me quite as naturally and unbiddenly as I to him; and when our smoke was over, he pressed his forehead against mine, clasped me around the waist, and said that henceforth we were married; meaning in the country’s phrase, that we were bosom friends; he would gladly die for me, if need should be. In a countryman, this sudden flame of friendship would have seemed far too premature, a thing to be much distrusted; but in the simple savage those old rules would not apply.”


-- from Melville's Moby Dick

I meet people every day who trust me from our first conversation forward. In the city, I meet three people a night on average who subject themselves to my whims with an enthusiasm unimaginable to me. This naivete and silliness, for obvious reasons, boosts my ego and sense of superiority. Not only does these people’s trust allow me complete control over them, but it destroys my respect for them and ironically makes it so that I would never really consider these people "friends." They have no idea what they might possibly subject themselves to when they hand a sociopath that kind of power over them. When empaths beg so hard to be used, how can anyone really resist?

And honestly, I will admit that I do resist. Not all of these people are useful anyways, so naturally you don’t always use them, but it isn’t because it’d be a difficult thing to do, I assure you. And when usefulness presents itself, I take it. Imagine salesmen put into this position. How many salesman have you put in this position of absolute trust because of a feeling you have that you can trust them? How many things have you easily been swayed and guided to buy because you felt a certain trust toward someone whose intention is to somehow gain a commission from you? Even in shopping malls, you’ve upgraded to certain cell phones because of the notable advantages of the more expensive model.

The cultural difference between savage and sophisticated in the passage from Moby Dick above can easily be used as a metaphor for the comparison of acting rationally versus acting emotionally, so for the sake of argument we’ll utilize such an advantageous comparison. Quequeg, the savage, illustrates a naivete to “the system” caused by his emotional dictation of his actions. He acts on a “gut feeling” when he accepts the author so willingly, having only known him for a day. The author’s thoughts preceding this are known, and show an indifference toward the savage, but also a civility, which was mistranslated by Quequeg’s emotions. Quequeg, following this new bond, proceeds to give the author half of his money and an embalmed head (one of his treasured possessions). The author even tries not to accept the gifts, but Quequeg forces them on him. Another beautiful illustration of empathic emotions making people do dumb things by refusing to consider logic. And again the idea of superiority is obviously pushed upon the functioning logical person because he's the one able to see such detrimental behavior for what it is.

If empaths could see their actions as being to their detriment, the idea of superiority would not come into play. But the sociopath seems isolated in his comprehension. In the above example, the characters struggle with language barriers and cultural differences, so the savage obviously hardly understands the man’s minute efforts to help him, and he translates them to friendship automatically. What sociopath has been offered such unconditional friendship to a smaller degree? And when having such opportunities consistently thrust upon you by people you do not respect, how do you continue to deny the uses these people present? The sociopath can hardly help who they are when people are so willing to subject themselves to their whims.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Are sociopaths psychologically dumb and blind?

It has been said repeatedly that by definition it is impossible for a sociopath to be introspective and insightful. Why is that so impossible? Very few people bother to answer that question, so I thought I’d share my own ideas about it.

First let’s look at the definitions. The operational definition of introspect is to examine and comprehend one’s own thoughts, emotions and actions. I’m broadly defining sociopaths as people who have little to no conscience, who have flexible personality structures and who are emotionally indifferent to social norms. And I’m defining insight as clear and deep perception. I think these definitions, taken separately, would be generally agreed upon by most people. What I don’t see is why any of them, taken together, must also mean that people without conscience have to, by definition, be incapable of introspection and insight. The very people who say that immediately contradict themselves when they go on to say, for instance, that sociopaths disdain those with consciences and are themselves master manipulators. How would a sociopath know that she doesn’t have a conscience without examining her own thoughts and emotions? And how else would a sociopath be able to so effortlessly manipulate people around him unless he had clear and in-depth perception of other people’s psyches? Also, if one needs to be an empath to be introspective and insightful, how do we explain the prevalence of denial, delusional thinking, neuroticism and self destructive behavior in the ‘normal’ population? It doesn’t take a scientific study to see that knowing one’s self isn’t on most empaths' to-do list.

There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark and it isn’t the herring. It’s the stereotype of the psychologically dumb and blind sociopath. It's spread by professionals and laymen alike and it is based on what they think a 'typical' sociopath says and does and not on how a sociopath sees and feels. The uninformed empath believes this stereotype because they can’t imagine that a sociopath could possibly examine his own thoughts and emotions, with depth and clarity, and not condemn himself. It is quite literally unthinkable for them.
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.