Showing posts with label sociopath. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sociopath. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Diagnosis sociopath: the hate

(cont.)
The appropriate designation for what is today known as psychopathy underwent several changes and iterations. In 1891, Koch used the term psychopathic inferiority to characterize individuals who engaged in abnormal behaviors due to heredity but who were not insane. They were determined to have moral defects, but these defects were not equated with viciousness or wickedness. This new terminology (i.e., psychopathic inferiority) described emotional and moral aberration based on congenital factors and found wide acceptance in Europe and America. However, notwithstanding Koch’s efforts, the meaning of psychopathy in subsequent years once again became something quite pejorative but also something more reflective of the internal world and personality traits of the individual.

Maudsley (1897/1977) was a British psychiatrist who asserted that persons prone to moral imbecility could not be rehabilitated in prisons. Maudsley argued that moral imbecility was caused by cerebral deficits. As such, he believed it was useless to punish those who could not control their actions and wrote the following as evidence of moral imbecility: "When we find young children, long before they can possibly know what vice and crime means, addicted to extreme vice, or committing great crimes, with an instinctive facility, and as if from an inherent proneness to criminal actions . . . and when experience proves that punishment has no reformatory effect upon them—that they cannot reform—it is made evident that moral imbecility is a fact, and that punishment is not the fittest treatment of it."

Krafft-Ebing (1904) was even less sympathetic toward those considered morally depraved[,] assert[ing] that such individuals were “without prospect of success” and commented that “these savages . . . must be kept in asylums for their own[good] and [for] the safety of society.” It was at this historical juncture that psychopathic individuals were regarded as impervious to rehabilitation and that chronic social deviance was equated with pathology.

By 1915, Kraepelin expanded Koch’s psychopathic inferiority terminology to contain categories essentially defined by the most vicious and wicked of disordered offenders. His psychopathic personalities described in detail the “born criminal . . . the excitable, shiftless, impulsive types, the liars, swindlers, antisocial and troublemaking types”. Clearly with these characterizations, Kraepelin moved the focus of psychopathy back to one of moral judgment and social condemnation.

Interestingly, as Millon et al. (1998, p. 19) note, his categories of psychopathic personalities more closely represent our conceptualization of psychopathy and ASPD today. He described these disordered individuals as "the enemies of society . . . characterized by a blunting of the moral elements. They are often destructive and threatening . . . there is a lack of deep emotional reaction; and of sympathy and affection they have little. They are apt to have been troublesome in school, given to truancy and running away. Early thievery is common among them and they commit crimes of various kinds."

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Diagnosis sociopath: origins

(cont.)
As previously stated, the psychopathy construct has a long history with changing personality patterns and clinical characteristics, dating back through the past two centuries.

Phillipe Pinel is generally credited with recognizing psychopathy as a specific mental disorder. Pinel advocated for appropriate, moral treatment rather than cruel interventions (e.g., bloodletting, cold baths) as the preferred method of intervention for the psychiatrically ill (Pinel, 1801/1962). Pinel’s contributions occurred in France shortly after the French Revolution. Prior to this time, France was ruled by a strict class structure and sanity was judged by the Old Testament of the Bible. In 1801, Pinel observed that some of his patients engaged in impulsive acts, had episodes of extreme violence, and caused self-harm. He noted that these individuals were able to comprehend the irrationality of what they were doing. There was no evidence of what is now considered psychosis, and their reasoning abilities did not appear to be impaired. He described these men as suffering from manie sans délire (insanity without delirium). As Pinel explained, “I was not a little surprised to find many maniacs who at no period gave evidence of any lesion of understanding, but who were under the dominion of instinctive and abstract fury, as if the faculties of affect alone had sustained injury” (p. 9). His observations were very controversial during this era, especially because a low intellect and symptoms of psychosis were the typical criteria for identifying mental illness (Stevens, 1993).

In the early 1800s, Benjamin Rush, an American psychiatrist, also documented confusing cases that were described by clarity of thought along with moral depravity in behavior. However, Rush (1812) went beyond Pinel’s more affectively based description and maintained that moral derangement was either a birth defect or was caused by disease. Rush believed this condition was primarily congenital. As he stated, “There is probably an original defective organization in those parts of the body which are preoccupied by the moral faculties of the mind”. In addition, Rush held that “it is the business of medicine to aid both religion and law, in preventing and curing their moral alienation of the mind”. The American psychiatrist maintained that the lack of morality was primarily hereditary, yet unstable environments were largely responsible for fostering its growth. Rush further claimed that offenders with mental defects were best treated in medical rather than custodial institutions. Benjamin Rush is recognized as one of the first to begin what has since become a long-standing practice of social condemnation toward individuals labeled psychopathic.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Diagnosis sociopath: overview

This week I want to talk about the origin of and continuing confusion over sociopathy as a psychiatric diagnosis. Unless otherwise indicated, the material/information is taken (edited for length) from "The Confusion Over Psychopathy (I): Historical Considerations," a paper by Bruce A. Arrigo and Stacey Shipley, printed in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(3), 2001 325-344.
Notwithstanding its extensive heritage, psychopathy has been plagued by changing and uncertain diagnostic nomenclature. For example, a great deal of confusion currently exists regarding the relationship between Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), as identified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) (DSM–IV), and the modern construct of psychopathy as explained by Cleckley (1941) and further refined and empirically validated by Hare (1985, 1991). Although contemporary research supporting the diagnosis of psychopathy is at its strongest, mental health professionals remain perplexed when diagnosing, treating, or making recommendations to the court system about these individuals.

In general, we note that the psychopathic label (i.e., explanation) has changed from the morally neutral view of Pinel (1801/1962) to the more truculent and disparaging characterization described by Kraepelin (1915). In addition, the designation itself has evolved from the unpopular term insanity, to the controversial expression moral, to the present moniker psychopathic. The elusiveness of the psychopathic construct and its meaning is further confounded by the theoretical basis out of which social scientists approach and investigate this mental disorder. Indeed, some researchers invoke descriptors for psychopathy, implying that the individual experiences morality problems that are solely personality based, exclusively congenitally or biologically derived (Ellard, 1988; Schneider, 1958; Smith, 1978), or principally behaviorally grounded (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Moreover, notwithstanding these interpretations, Hare’s (1996) empirical and qualitative findings consistently demonstrate that the psychopath has distinctive affective, interpersonal, and behavioral attributes.

Psychopathic individuals historically and at present are almost uniformly considered difficult, if not impossible, to treat. We submit that the diagnostic confusion surrounding psychopathy (i.e., the label and its meaning) and the adverse consequences persons in the mental health and criminal justice systems (potentially) experience in the wake of such a determination, warrant closer scrutiny. Although clearly not exhaustive, this overview will provide an important backdrop, making it possible to assess provisionally how psychopathy evolved into a mental disorder and a pejorative label.

In particular, we will consider the logic of linking psychopathy, as applied to forensic clients, with the behavioral diagnosis of ASPD. This notwithstanding, the progression of thought contained within each of the components or categories demonstrates the course of psychopathy’s development and demonstrates how each has ostensibly functioned along a continuum (e.g., social condemnation as morally neutral to morally reprehensible, the disorder’s description based on personality to behavioral traits, and the locus of treatment from asylums to prisons).

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Can a child be a sociopath?

A mother sends her adopted son back to Russia with the note: "I am sorry to say that for the safety of my family, friends, and myself. I no longer wish to parent this child. As he is a Russian national, I am returning him to your guardianship. . . . He is violent and has severe psychopathic issues."

There are a few fun things about this piece of news. First, like Octomom, this is a subject on which everyone seems to have an opinion, from those that think that this is part of a plot by Russia to export its sociopaths to the U.S., to those that think that all you need is love to make him turn good. Second, the kid's life is probably ruined now that he is outted for eternity as a psychopath, but it is a good cautionary tale for other misbehaving child sociopaths, particularly those with foreign citizenship. Third, this video:


Friday, April 9, 2010

Portait of a sociopath -- Paul Harvey style

An anonymous reader writes:
Lisa Druck was born the daughter of a rich insurance lawyer. When she was a teenager, her father bought her a $150,000 show horse named Henry the Hawk. Lisa and Henry won a number equestrian jumping prizes together, but when a recession came along, Lisa's rich father was temporarily short on cash and decided to sell Henry.

Because of the recession, the best offer for Henry was $125,000, even though the horse had been purchased and insured for $150,000. Lisa's father decided that the best way to get the extra $25,000 would be to arrange an accident for the horse. So he hired and trained a man to electrocute Henry. The man Lisa's father hired went on to become a serial killer of horses, and years later an informant for the FBI in the ‘horse murders‘ insurance scandal.

Lisa stopped riding horses entirely after Henry was killed. She left home at 18 and went to school in New York City, but dropped out after two years. Lisa dated brat pack novelist Jay McInerney who wrote a Roman à clef called "Story of my Life" about `Alison Poole` "an ostensibly jaded, cocaine-addled, sexually voracious 20-year old", who moved to New York City after her father killed her horse for insurance money. It would be years before anyone tried to figure out who `Alison Poole` was, because the horse murders scandal hadn't broken yet.

Alison Poole appeared in some of Jay McInerney's other novels. She also appeared in novels by Jay's friend, Bret Easton Ellis. She's in the novel "American Psycho", and even makes it into the film adaptation where someone mentions seeing Patrick Bateman and Alison Poole together at the Kentucky Derby.

The real Alison Poole, Lisa Druck married a high power lawyer in 1991, changed her name in 1994, and divorced in 2000. What's she up to these days? You may know her as Rielle Hunter, mistress of Jonathan Edwards the insurance lawyer turned presidential candidate who's been in the news for getting her pregnant while his wife had cancer, and then paying off a top staffer help cover it up.

And now you know, the rest of the story.

Paul Harvey

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Defining conscience

I've been thinking recently about the definition and imagery behind the concept "conscience." Martha Stout in The Sociopath Next Door defines conscience as necessarily having an emotional component:
Psychologically speaking, conscience is a sense of obligation ultimately based in an emotional attachment to another living creature (often but not always a human being), or to a group of human beings, or even in some cases to humanity as a whole. Conscience does not exist without an emotional bond to someone or something, and in this way conscience is closely allied with the spectrum of emotions we call "love." This alliance is what gives true conscience its resilience and its astonishing authority over those who have it, and probably also its confusing and frustrating quality.
I don't know if I agree with that definition, but maybe my opinion doesn't count for much. I do find it interesting that there are basically two types of imagery used to portray conscience: (1) the devil and the angel on the shoulder and (2) a separate entity telling you to do the right thing, e.g. Jiminy Cricket. The origin of the devil and angel is obvious -- Judeo Christian beliefs include the concept of the "holy spirit" and guardian angels, and even God telling you what to do, and there is also a fallen angel, the devil, tempting you to do wrong things. The origin of Jiminy is less clear, but I would imagine that most non religious people would associate their conscience with this type instead of the angel/devil. When I asked my friend which he thought was most accurate, he said:
Friend: Jiminy Cricket

M.E.: Yeah, interesting. So it is a separate person? eparate little part of you?

Friend: I don't know, you can "tap into" your conscience, or suspend it, push it aside...

M.E.: So sort of separate, right?

Friend: I guess so, right?

M.E.: Hard to know. I guess it has to feel separate from us, otherwise we wouldn't come up with a separate name for him.

Friend: I feel like it doesn't feel separate most of the time until you feel fractured about it, when something disturbs it.

M.E.: Like a bone or your kidney?

Friend: Yeah, exactly.
Is a conscience like other organs in our body? We never notice it until we hurt it? And if so, is it more like the heart? The lungs? Or the appendix? The gall bladder? Is it something else? If we're defining sociopaths based partially on a lack of conscience (e.g. Robert Hare's book, Without Conscience), what is it that other people have that sociopaths lack?

Monday, April 5, 2010

Survival of the fittest

A sociopath talks about teaching children empathy and growing up.
I went to catholic grade school. I remember being "taught" do unto others as you would have done unto you. I remember thinking I get it but what's that mean? When I was maybe 23, 24? I remember hearing the word empathy, or empathetic fools or something like that in a nirvana song and saying to myself hmmm, what's that mean? I looked it up. After further research I came along a short story on how to teach preschoolers empathy and so I began doing so with my daughter. But I also remember thinking damnit! Why didn't anyone teach me this when I was in grade school, could I have been different? It was nice to learn what the golden rule real REALLY means, to this day I can't say I believe or practice it (lol) I treat people close to me very good, I treat people I may need something from with my chraming gift giving self, I treat people I could careless about like just that, and the people close to me can see the quick switch flip, they say oh I see "you" coming oh no... They say the transition in persona's takes 2 mild agitations and I switch. Let's say like the incredible hulk, only cooler, and more able to communicate clearly. Because I then become brutally honest, far from charming, and very demanding. Its almost a shame. Its a decent skill, it should be valued.

[On the application of the law of the jungle or everyone is equal] I can't say I enjoyed here's your turn now... I became resentful of those terms almost like people should earn their places. When I was in gym class I was often picked by the teacher to be a captain then being able to choose my teammates, the teachers picked me because they saw me as a good sport who always picked the lousy players first so they didn't feel left out. And I would pick the crappiest volley players first, the shy awkward unpopular kids, but not to make them "feel" good... I did it for several reasons... 1st reason: dorky kids, bad at sports probably smart, I could probably use an ally in my AP chem class or in case I found myself in a situation where having these ppl like me may be good (ace in my back pocket) cheating on a test copying homework etc... 2nd reason: the teachers LOVED the idea that I gave the overlooked kids a centerstage feeling even if just for 5 minutes during gym class. So I liked that it made me look good to the teachers, who then viewed me as mature and reasonable, SO if I needed to be a few minutes late I wouldn't get written up or they'd let me slide on dress code etc... 3rd reason: this is probably my favorite, most pleasurable at least to me... To see the frustration on the other teams girls faces. They'd arm their team with the best players high fiving each other and playing so serious and they'd get so frustrated with how poorly our team was as an opponent. They'd actually get angry. And I'd say aw good job you'll get the serve over the net this time cmon try again, while those girls opposite us groaned and sighed because they wanted to play and win... I loved the angry looks on their faces, screw them, who cares about high school gym... I'll tell u who did, my awkward unpopular teammates because for 5 mins they were special, who made them feel special? Me.

The means for "teaching"(because really its society saying this is how you SHOULD behave feel etc) empathy in brief goes as follows... Two small children around your age(in order to teach the lesson its tailored to the pupils age) are riding bikes in the street in front of their home. The first child loses control and goes in the path of a car that slams on the breaks in a panic. Tires screech! The small child lays in the street, his bike wheel bent, the pedal broken off. When the second child runs up to his friend after the dust clears he sees his friend scraped from the road, blood coming from his scratches NOW u child imagine yourself laying on the road and feel the pain of the scratches and scrapes, and feel the throbbing headache and the burning blood coming from your cuts... Imagine how upset you would be if that was you laying in the street, feeling all that pain and having a ruined bike...suffering. NOW that's how u know how someone feels in a situation... So the question you have to ask yourself is "HOW" would you like your friends to react to your injuries, and your family to aid you with repairing your bike, and the ppl to help you off the street. That's how to understand how to do unto others as you would unto you... In a sense empathy, imagine yourself in that situation and how would you feel and want people to react to you, that's how you know how to behave... Or some nice crap like that... It makes sense if you take it back to childhood we can all remember and imagine pain, so its easy to relate to the hurt child... for me its just react as society wants me to, or how I want to? A personal dilemma... Truly, depends on the kid! If its a kid I like guess I'd give him a hand, however if its say my friends daughter who is 11 and just fowl mouthed and disrespectful to her mother would I help her no, I'd probably look at the car to see if she damaged the car... That's about it... Funny thing is I'm ok with not having any feelings if I were to witness something like that... I'd probably see it more as a traffic issue than much else, and Really who cares?

Incredible hulk, perhaps we(socios) all have him inside of us...I'm fine with mine.

Friday, April 2, 2010

Hungry like a wolf?

A sociopath reader questions why sociopaths are seen as wolves:
Don't get me wrong, wolves are cool. If I could be any animal, it would be a predator. If I had to choose, my decision would be between an Alaskan Wolf and a Harpy Eagle. However, people actually looking at a sociopath as some type of predator disgusts me to the point of wanting to hurt the fucking idiots who label anyone as such. Now, I have no doubt that there are some people who actually are predators in some way. Some people may actually fit the bill. However, labeling a group of people as so is just ridiculous. When I meet someone, I don't look for their weaknesses and attack them for it. Knowing someone over a period of time, it is only natural that you discover their weaknesses and strengths, everyone does. Sociopaths and psychopaths may use this to their advantage, but does that make them a predator?

These "empaths" as they are called on your website are nothing but pieces of shit. I constantly read about them trying to "observe and understand" or "beat sociopaths at their own game". When I read about an "empath" creating some story of "beating a sociopath at his own game" I just want to punch my computer screen. Nearly every comment area on your website has some bullshit "empath" recalling some bullshit story about how they are super duper fucking awesome for being stupid fucking hypocrites. The fact that they call themselves empaths and then go and "play the sociopath game" is more twisted then anything a sociopath can ever do.

"I started giving the sociopath that works with me exactly the same treatment he gave me and other unsuspecting women, including exposing him to colleagues. He is running around complaining that he is so hurt and disappointed yet he had no problem doing this to me! what is with that? it seems to me that they are good at dishing it out but they can handle it themselves?"

See?

You've gone and attracted every fucked up person with self-esteem issues, thrown them into a tank full of wanna-be sociopaths, and have passed popcorn out to those smart enough to just sit in the stands and watch. Thanks for the popcorn, but the show is starting to piss me off.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Good idea?

From an article about using brain scans to detect sociopaths:
But what could be even more interesting is what the future holds. If we can detect such abnormalities in childhood or adolescence, perhaps we could prevent the individual from actually “turning into” a psychopath through a specific treatment program. Instead of locking people up after the fact, we could turn a societal eye toward prevention and help people long before they become a burden on the criminal justice system.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Successful relationship with a sociopath?

It probably depends on your definition of success. From a reader:
Thank you for your site. Every other website about sociopathy I have read describes the sociopath as an evil unfeeling predatory monster out to steal your life, money, and children while raping your mother and pouring sugar in your gas tank.

My boyfriend is a sociopath. He told me that towards the beginning of our relationship. While that has resulted in problems in the relationship (understandably, mostly MY problems-he didn't see anything wrong), I have found that communication and understanding has made the relationship possible. We know that there are just some things about each other that we will never understand. He doesn't get how I can be so upset over something like a relative getting cancer ("he's smoked for years, WTF were you expecting?), and I don't get that he can't see that that response out of him doesn't help at all, and can't "feel my pain" as it were.

I know when to back off and let him have his temper tantrums when he gets frustrated or whatever it is that sets him off on a yelling spree.

I know that if I were to loan him a chunk of money, I would never see it again. Even if he said I would. So I don't.

I've learned to expect the unexpected from him.

I've learned when to ask him for something he doesn't like doing (putting on his "normal person" mask and hauling him off to visit my mother, for example), and when to just drop it and go see mom by myself because it will be more pleasant for everyone involved.

I've learned that when he says he loves me, he can't mean it in the same way that I love him; but that doesn't make whatever he is experiencing insincere or false.

Back to you, m.e. Reading more insights in to how sociopaths think has been extremely helpful in trying to understand what I should expect, what I should ask for, and what I need to accept is simply him- unchangeable, undeniable, just like his eye color or height.

Friday, March 26, 2010

You're just full of surprises

A sentence that I have probably heard more times in my life than I can count, coming in third place only after "I love you" and "I'm hungry."

Sociopaths = the good stuff

I posted this a while ago about a study suggesting that sociopaths have excessive amounts of dopamine. Another recent study done at Vanderbilt University has linked the excess dopamine in sociopaths to a hypersensitive reward system that releases as much as four times the normal amount of dopamine in response to either a perceived gain of money upon the successful completion of a task, or to chemical stimulants.

The researchers then suggest that the overactive reward system is to blame for a sociopath's impulsive, risk seeking behavior because "[t]hese individuals appear to have such a strong draw to reward to the carrot that it overwhelms the sense of risk or concern about the stick."

Really?

Apart from this conclusion seeming like a huge stretch, a blatant attempt to try to shoehorn scientific findings into one of the "known" "universal" "traits" of a "sociopath," this just seems wrong. From personal experience, I feel like my risk-seeking behavior stems from a low fear response, or a lack of natural anxiety in potentially dangerous, traumatic, or stressful situations. If I am not afraid of something, I am probably going to take more risks, just like those children who can't feel pain so end up shoving fingers in their eyes.

A hypersensitive reward system could explain why sociopaths are allegedly sex fiends, at least compared to the rest of the population. It could also explain why you'll see them at the top of their field, professionally speaking. Sociopaths are probably contributing to society in all sorts of random ways in order to trigger an enormous amount of dopamine flooding through their brain. Risk takers, though? Maybe we are, but I don't think because of this, particularly because an earlier study at Vanderbilt showed that low amounts of dopamine were highly correlated with risk taking and drug abuse. Or maybe we have to be goldilocks-esque about this and make sure dopamine levels are just right?

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Conversation with a sociopath (?) (part 4)

D.R.: On loyalty...I remain loyal to a certain degree. At some point, betrayal can become too much for me to trust someone again. Trust does not come easily to me. Someone always has a motive; what it is and how pure are the questions I try to answer when putting "trust" into someone.

M.E.: Hmm, jaded.

D.R.: That being said, when I do decide to trust someone, I expect that they don't break it. It's a privilige, not a right. The more I trust someone, the more I'll invest into the relationship.

M.E.: A very utilitarian view of things.

D.R.: This may result into higher trust and higher investment, until I consider that person a part of my life.

M.E.: A part of your life, or a part of you?

D.R.
: I would say more a part of me. Someone in whom I place or find a piece of my identity. For instance, my best friend and I have been friends for many years. At first, we were not very close. But as I saw more of myself in her, she became more important to me. This is how I've always viewed love, both sexual and platonic. The only difference is the fucking. I call it "giving myself to them." This bond goes as so: I decide I like you, I will take you for a test run. You drive nicely, a fast ride, rough at times, smooth at others, but I do the steering. I "buy" you with favors, flattery, and give you want you want in a relationship.

M.E.: You don't mind this because it appeals to your risk-seeking, unemotional nature? Socios (allegedly) have difficulties fully integrating their sex life in the rest of their life.

D.R.: I have a hard time seeing how sex is the end-all, be all in relationships other than the trump card. I find I hold out on it because I want to keep the person around. Other times I give in a bit so they don't think they are wasting their time. In return, you are there when I need you, you do not cheat on me, and you don't act like a doormat. Obviously my friends can have other friends, but when I have a sexual/"romantic" relationship with someone, I do not tolerate them doing the same with someone else.

M.E.: Obviously.

D.R.: All my life, I've always thought I'd be something special. As a kid, I was Lara Croft, saving the world from mystical objects and the evil people that would use them to destroy everything. Then I was a spy...I'd single-handedly take down a terrorist organization, or maybe a corrupt government. Always, it seemed my version of justice was "vigilante," because, of course, police officers are easily bought and sold. So are judges and juries. The whole damn system is corrupt...I wanted to save it. Salvage it. Maybe start a revolution. But I have no set career...just a desire to play the hero. My last boyfriend understood this; he wanted to be a spy too, lol.

M.E.: Again, I have posted about this. Delusions of grandeur are very common among sociopaths. We all think that we were destined for something great, and it's quite possible that we are.

D.R.: I think I would make a fantastic spy. But I think I would also have a problem with taking blind direction if I can't fit it into my own agenda, so maybe not... I'm very good in social settings, and people often think they are learning much about me, but it's all very vague. They just make conclusions I don't bother to correct. I don't lie much, not in a harmful way. Little white lies that don't hurt anyone and probably make everyone better off, yes...but I don't lie specifically to make someone feel bad. Usually I don't have to lie to make them feel bad. Conversely, I don't have to do much to make them want to help me, either. People readily do things for me, even small things. I can be sitting on my ass typing away on my computer and get one of my parents to walk my dog, even if they're in their pj's. My friend drives an hour to see me every week and then an hour back, but I don't ever drive down there unless I must. She's more than happy to do it (which is great, 'cause I hate filling up my gas tank).

M.E.: I sometimes wonder why people adore me so much, too. Particularly in my family, I am a huge crowd favorite. Maybe they appreciate an unusual viewpoint, or maybe they just want to make sure that I'll always be on their side.

D.R.: I am the star of my family. The first in my direct line to go to college, quickly promoted at work, always engaging. I seem like a real go-getter, especially compared to other low-performing relatives (whom I really believe are just acting that way because they see it gets them out of responsibilities).

D.R.: If you decide to post this on your blog (despite how lengthy it is), you are more than welcome to do so. If you must attach a name to it, you may use D.R. It is short for the name of a character in a story I wrote in high school (I loved writing; my stories had very dark or very ironic themes). She was a murderer and a thief, and the entire story was written in her point of view. I've never murdered and I've never stolen (well, not since I was too young to know what stealing is), but they all agreed she reminded them of me. So, you may call me that. :)

M.E.: Yeah, I may, I think people enjoy reading portraits of sociopathy.

D.R.: It’s the villain/antihero that everyone loves to hate.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Conversation with a sociopath (?) (part 3)

D.R.: When it comes to interpersonal relationships, my closest friends will tell you I am not like other people. I don't consider this a bad thing as most other people are overdramatic dumbasses. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy the interaction. My friends, are not in this category. There are times when I feel they are being irrational, and sometimes I feel they are selfish when they refuse to help me (how often do I go out on a limb for them?), but usually sarcastic comments like "isn't that sweet of you" are just made in passing so that they will see themselves for who they really are and not who they want to be. I love sarcasm, even if it is the most base form of irony. Although, I have to admit, I'm not always on the ball when it comes to being on the receiving end. I can take it when I recognize it, but often I don't.

M.E.: I don't understand sarcasm well either. I can tell that you use manipulation as a major communication tool with those in your "inner circle."

D.R.: It would seem so. But I also make sure they feel comfortable around me and get something in return. Did you feel as if you were helping them in a "tough love" sort of way? A way to encourage introspection?

M.E.: Yeah, I used to think that I was just giving my friends "tough love." And it sounds like your friends like you and that you're not tweaking with them too much, so maybe you are fine. But I sense that this will be a constant source of difficulty in your life, at least if you are even remotely interested in maintaining interpersonal relationships and not burning bridges.

D.R.: My father always told me I take things too personally. I genuinely felt like he was trying to be an asshole. But I can sure as hell dish it when I want to. My friends, however, are all very intelligent. They (usually) are very understanding of how I see the world, or at least, accept that I see it differently. My dearest friend (and probably my mother too), is what I believe you call an "uber empath." She relates to everybody. It has led her to associate with people who I call "vampires" (emotional leeches who crave attention so badly, they fuck up their lives).

M.E.: And you, an emotional vampire.

D.R.: I'd like to think I'm more sauve about it though. I guess the difference is how they are all about themselves and I am about the other person. I love her as if she were myself (nothing sexual, nothing romantic), and naturally I want to protect her.

M.E.: This is a very interesting description of your love for her. I think for socios more than normals, we love and hate in others what we love and hate in ourselves, i.e. we see everyone as a reflection of ourselves.

D.R.: Yes, this is an accurate description of it. Especially for my last attempt at-for lack of a better word-an intimate relationship. He reminded me very much of myself. I find I'm more attracted to those that do. The same goes for all my friends in accordance to the loyalty I feel to them.

M.E.: Maintenance is really hard. You're young, so you probably are starting to realize that. It's hard to keep a relationship going. It's hard to keep a job going. It's hard not to get bored and selfish and just want to escape. All my life has been one escape after enough, with never much more than a few years in between each escape. When I was young it came more naturally -- everyone was moving from one thing to another, changing what they were studying in school, changing schools, matriculating and going to different schools, starter jobs, secondary climbing the ladder jobs. I don't know, I guess it's just good to be aware that escape is not always possible, or it shouldn't always be what you resort to first.

D.R.: Funny you should mention escaping. I used that exact term to tell one of my closer friends why I seemed so flighty lately. I get bored very easily, so I'm constantly looking for a change in pace or scenery. I know all too well that escape isn't always possible, especially in the financial situation I'm in. I keep telling myself that when I get to where I need to be I can pack up and haul off to start over.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Coversation with a sociopath (?) (part 2)

D.R.: I have always considered myself different from others. Not weird, just advanced. I see the consequences of their actions before they do, and while they often ignore the advice they ask me for, I find I'm usually a good predictor at how things will turn out. I never got enraged when things turned out negatively because I saw it coming and they were warned. It didn't surprise me. i feel like i have already written about my ability to "see the future," but looking at the past blogs, i can't find where. anyway, welcome to the club. Pleasure to be here. I assume my membership card is on its way. There are a few exceptions, and I find I react negatively out of wounded pride. I don't like to be wrong; it doesn't happen often. When it does, I become irritated. I may or may not lash out depending on whom I blame for the mistake. If I see where I made my error, I correct it and move on. If I don't, I am a very angry woman, and I can say some very hurtful things. I did this more often when I was younger, finding that guilt trips worked wonderfully on my peers when I needed something or when I simply felt betrayed. But then, shouldn't you feel guilty if you betray me? I'm fiercely loyal to those I care about, and I expect the same in return. What goes around, comes around.

M.E.: Yeah... that is a belief typically held, but not exclusively so, by the empathy-challenged.

D.R.: But I didn't have a criminal childhood or anything. It never really occurred to me that I could. If I did what I was supposed to do, I wouldn't get punished. If I got bruises for talking too loud in a library as a toddler, I wasn't going to find out what would happen if I shoplifted. I find I must actively remind myself of the consequences. I did have a few problems at school, (one that actually landed me in "counseling") but nothing necessarily criminal.

M.E.: Same here

D.R.: I've also never thought of myself as emotionally inept. I feel outraged at things that I do not like.

M.E.: Morally outraged?

D.R.: No, more like a child who didn't get their way. But there are things like child abuse and trafficking I have problems with. Children don't know any better, and many are too weak to help themselves anyway. I'm not particularly stirred up by what is happening but that someone believes they are entitled to do it. I'm not a fan of bullies.

M.E.: Ha, me neither.

D.R.: I have what I consider to be a moral code that has evolved with time and knowledge. I believe in God, that his son and self Jesus is the savior (regardless of the haters who have nothing better to do than worry about how I decide what is right and wrong as if I care about their opinions), and that he has a set of rules (or guidelines as I tend to think of them) for living a healthy, happy life in a FALLEN world. What I mean by that is: the world is now defective; this is how you handle it until I fix it. I don't think the same rules always apply just as they changed from Old Testament to New. Mine is not to judge; it's to deal with what's in front of me the best I can.

M.E.: I'm religious too, actually. I did a post on this.

D.R.: Yes, I remember reading it. This is actually how I stumbled upon your blog. I am what I call happy when things go well for me and mine. I am aggravated when they do not. I am not sad usually...not like I see other people be sad.

M.E.: I did another post on this, negative emotions.

D.R.: I'm not prone to crying; only in times of great frustration with no other outlet do tears shed. They last a minute, maybe two, and all traces of crying are gone. I think: what's the point? What do the tears do? Will they call my fairy godmother to take me to the Palace and get my glass slipper? No, they'll make my face wet and my throat dry. That's unpleasant. I hate crying. I can't handle it. I don't know what to say or do because I just don't feel it and I know I'll make it worse. Sad for me is what others call melancholy. I get bored, very easily. this is a socio trait. And in my current living situation, there is not a lot of time to "go out." I don't feel like I'm missing out on a chance to socialize; just that I'm bored and I need to build my network so I have more options next time I'm bored. Boredom=sadness for me.

M.E.: Yeah, just someone said something like this in the comments in the negative emotions post.
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.