Sociopaths on television: Breaking Bad

Our time is now (!), as suggested by this review of "Breaking Bad":

When, and why, did American television and cinema viewers first fall in love with the Sociopath protagonist? Perhaps the audience was always there, nascent and ready to be born. My current favorite Sociopath television show is AMC’s Breaking Bad, the story of an ordinary, albeit resentful and self-loathing, married man who breaks out of his bourgeois cocoon to become a Methamphetamine dealer. His bourgeois name is the aptly constructed “Walter White,” representing the plain vanilla nature of his high school Chemistry teacher life in small town New Mexico. His alter ego name is “Heisenberg” (after Nobel winning German physicist Werner Heisenberg), chosen by White, to represent his genius in making the purest and best “Meth” ever seen in the Southwest and Mexico.

I think Coppola’s Godfather series created the modern heroic Sociopath. We rooted for Brando’s and Pacino’s characters, although Michael Corleone became unlikable by the end of Godfather II. Coppola was the first to romanticize the familiar character of the gangster in movies. But Quentin Tarantino perfected the generalized concept of the protagonist Sociopath. His breakout film was, of course, Pulp Fiction, a so-called dark comedy with such a wide variety of watchable sociopaths one could probably make a television series around virtually every major character in the film. In fact, the two strands of modern Sociopathic television and films can be plausibly traced to either Coppola or Tarantino. In the organized crime motif, for example, there is of course The Sopranos and the unfortunately canceled series Brotherhood. But shows like Dexter and Breaking Bad are in the dark comedy mode consistent with Tarantino’s sensibility.

Breaking Bad has 2 million viewers. Stuck on AMC (I have 150 HD channels but AMC is not one of them) this is a pretty big audience. Going back to my opening question, why are these shows appealing? For me, the theme was repulsive. Then I watched it. I root for Heisenberg/White, even though he has been directly and indirectly responsible for many deaths. In real life I would want him dead yesterday. But in my sometimes fantasy life, I somehow identify with him. What’s that all about? Maybe “between the dust and love that hangs on everybody, there is a dead man trying to get out.” Or a Sociopath.

Breaking Bad: Is Walter White a Sociopath?

AMC's hit show, "Breaking Bad" returns this Sunday and some are asking "How Walter White Found His Inner Sociopath".  The show details the exploits of a chemistry teacher turned meth kingpin who finds his hands getting dirtier and dirtier until he seems to lose most of his humanity. Or does he? A.O. Scott writes for the NY Times:

In truth, though, his development over five seasons has been less a shocking transformation than a series of confirmations. Mr. Gilligan’s busy and inventive narrative machinery has provided plenty of cleverly executed surprises, but these have all served to reveal the Walter White who was there all along. The sides of his personality — sociopath and family man, scientist and killer, rational being and creature of impulse, entrepreneur and loser — are not necessarily as contradictory as we might have supposed.
***
Walter may have wanted us to believe — and may, at moments, have convinced himself — that he was a decent man driven by desperate circumstances to do terrible things, but that notion was either wishful thinking or tactical deceit. Viewed as a whole, in optimal binge conditions, with the blinds pulled down and the pizza boxes and chicken wrappers piling up around the couch, “Breaking Bad” reveals itself as the story of a man mastering his vocation and fighting to claim his rightful place in the world. 

But is he really a sociopath? He is great at lying. That's probably one of the most entertaining parts about the show. He is amazing at coming up with an answer that fits the facts, like a sort of WebMD for excuses that fit the symptoms perfectly yet innocuously. Where did all of this cash come from? He has a gambling problem. Why did his wife just have an emotional breakdown? She was having an affair and her lover is in the hospital. He is the master of deflection and playing upon not just people's emotions, but especially their expectations about him (as a loser, but ultimately harmless) and the world (that bad people are not your friends, relatives, and neighbors but people who seem "off" to you).

However, I don't think he is a sociopath. He may act like how one expects a sociopath to act (ruthless, disloyal, power hungry), but his motivations seem all wrong. If he was a sociopath, why does he constantly cling to an image that he's a good dad/husband/friend making the most of a bad situation? From the NY Times:

Walter is almost as good at self-justification as he is at cooking meth, and over the course of the series, he has not hesitated to give high-minded reasons for his lowest actions. In his own mind, he remains a righteous figure, an apostle of family values, free enterprise and scientific progress. 

For instance:

Walt: "When we do what we do for good reasons, then we've got nothing to worry about. And there's no better reason than family."

Here he extends his typical self-justification to his wife:

Walt: Skyler, you can't beat yourself up over this thing. Please. You didn't set out to hurt anybody. You made a mistake and things got out of control. But you did what you had to do to protect your family. And I'm sorry, but that doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you a human being. 

Skyler: Stop it, Walt. Just stop. I don't need to hear any of your bullshit rationales.

And an incredibly insensitive and oblivious moment of self-absorption:

Walt: So how are you feeling? 

Jesse: Okay, I guess. Broke it off with Andrea. I had to. She's gonna tell Brock. I'm still gonna take care of the rent and stuff. It's the right thing to do, but, you know-- 

Walt: (interrupting) I meant this. (gestures behind) How are you feeling about the money?

And finally the over the top but insincere display of emotions and taking huge offense when the sincerity is questioned:

Walt: I am just as upset as you are. 

Jesse: Are you? 

Walt: Really? How can you say that to me? Jesus! I mean, I'm the one who's the father here. What, do I have to curl up in a ball in tears in front of you? 

Walt in all of his self-centeredness clearly thinks that not only do his ends justify any means he chooses, but it's clear that this process of justification is important to him. If he were a sociopath, why he would care at all? As a corporate executive put it upon seeing Walt and his team balk at killing two innocent witnesses, "I thought you guys were professionals." But there's hardly anything professional about them. Despite being extremely clever and calculating (he fakes an emotional breakdown in his brother-in-law's DEA office to tap his phone), he seems like a prototypical narcissist who lets his emotions rule him, particularly his feeling that his talents were never truly appreciated and so he is finally going to make them realize that he is a force to be reckoned with. A sociopath would not care what people thought of him, as long as he was getting and doing what he wanted to get/do.

Walter White is also a great example of why I don't value people's "good" intentions--because they're incredibly subjective, often misplaced, and sometimes used to justify horrible atrocities. People never feel that they have done anything wrong as long as their intentions were not malicious. It reminds me of this recent comment from a reader:

Intentions don't matter. Hitler's intentions were good. What are good intentions? It depends who you're talking to. If you talk to the chicken just before you kill it and tell it "Hey chicken, my intentions are good, I don't want to be misunderstood, I'm just gonna eat you and share you with my family."

And also from this NY Times review of Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion:

Traits we evolved in a dispersed world, like tribalism and righteousness, have become dangerously maladaptive in an era of rapid globalization. A pure scientist would let us purge these traits from the gene pool by fighting and killing one another. But Haidt wants to spare us this fate. He seeks a world in which “fewer people believe that righteous ends justify violent means.” To achieve this goal, he asks us to understand and overcome our instincts. He appeals to a power capable of circumspection, reflection and reform.

Socios on TV: Breaking Bad's Gus

From a reader:

Have you followed the TV show Breaking Bad at all? It has a fantastic premise: a middle aged chemist is diagnosed with cancer, and this in combination with a mid-life crisis of sorts leads him to begin cooking meth. The various travails of his life in the aftermath of this choice make for great viewing, and the show is great television. It's from AMC, whom you may admire already if you've ever seen the show Mad Men.

At any rate, there is a character named Gus who runs a massive meth production and distribution network, something he does with sterile precision and professionalism. In seasons 1 to 3, he remains courteous and polite at almost all times, although certain scenes allude to his likely sociopathy. In the first episode of the currently airing season 4, his true nature is shown for the first time, in an exhilarating portrayal of his ability to kill without the slightest hint of emotion, although it is a combination of calculation and burning anger that leads him to do it. The actor is exceptional- his face remains blank, but you can feel the smooth decision-making process happening behind it.

The link is here.

I strongly suggest you set aside 45 minutes to watch this, and I would love to know your impressions. In the event that you are too busy to spend 45 minutes on this, the scene in question is from appx. 27 minutes in until 38 minutes in.

M.E.: I have been a big fan of the show, initially for the fun premise and the overall bleakness. I too thought that Gus was a sociopath. When wearing a mask, he is almost obsequiously polite--classic sociopath. I particularly liked the third season for him, when he was clearly "seducing" Walter [protagonist] into going into business with him. It's so understated and tasteful the way he crawls into Walter's head and feeds him whatever he needs to hear. There is actually palpable chemistry between the two. But you are right, the portrait of Gus as sociopath was really completed in the first episode of this current season. Interestingly, the more I watch the show the more it seems like Walter leans narcissist, or at least is highly narcissistic. At first I just wrote off a lot of Walter's eccentric behavior to cancer and the premise, but the writers have actually done a great job making him seem like he was a ticking time bomb and if it wasn't the cancer scare, it would have been anything else that might have finally set him off into a narcissistic tailspin.

Early childhood intervention -- a missed opportunity

From a reader:

I talked with my friend - I've written you about him before - Professor Psychopath. He's from a family with high-functioning psychopaths on both sides. His dad is/was a compulsive gambler, lives off various women, delights in knocking people out in street fights, etc. The mom had similar men in her family - they were literally royals (in their home country). PP is a professor with a lot of bad habits - things like driving down the street the wrong way for thrills. He's as Machiavellian/cold-hearted as they come.

He shared the following with me: when he was young, a teacher noticed he was really shy and had some issues suggesting he might need some help. They did a full battery of tests. The parents kept the information from the kids because - they said - they didn't want the kids to feel bad/good depending on their IQ ranking - all of the kids had genius IQs. These days two of the kids have PhDs in STEM and the other one was a successful entrepreneur. The parents didn't tell them that they'd done general psych tests, so they thought they were just IQ tests.

So today the dad gave him his scores from the psych tests. All he said was something about the IQ, and was proud (as if he had anything personally to do with having an IQ, passing it, on, LOL). Our guy learned today (30 years after the fact) that they'd done personality tests too.

He was surprised to see that they'd had him pegged when he was still a child. They figured that he was very smart, but with lots of problems relating to others, including social anxiety, OCD and aggression. They noticed all things that have made his life (and those in his family) difficult: OCD, social anxiety and lousy impulse control. They noted he had a great ability to strategize and scheme, but little ability to complete things. Total desire/inability to do assigned tasks - he wouldn't follow orders . He did work on tasks that he found interesting.

They didn't label him a "psychopath" or "sociopath", but they did say that given his body/age, they were recommending that he get some psychological treatment and learn to emotionally connect with others and control his anger, lest he become a bully in a few years (which he did). The OCD and social anxiety eventually became debilitating, at which point - decades later - he got treatment. After he got the treatment for anxiety he went on a tear, traveling around the world seducing women. A bit like Walter White (Breaking Bad) the high levels of social-anxiety (manifesting as emotions like fear, shame, envy) kept him in check. Once that lessened  his lack of a conscience, need for stimulation and antisocial bent led to him doing a lot of extreme things.

When he looked at the results, he felt disappointed. The teachers had tried to help. And nothing came of it. He wonders what might have happened if they'd intervened earlier.

He figures his narcissistic dad was too involved in his gambling habit to care. He's so self-absorbed he probably didn't read the report much, and probably ignored the negative stuff. The mom had her head way up her ass - but had she said anything about the kid needing help, the dad would have shut that down - if only because he needed to run the show. He didn't to be the guy with the screwup kid.  It wasn't hard at all for PP to put himself in his dad's shoes (they are VERY similar) and realize how his dad would have thought/felt about the report: "hey, MY kid is super smart. Of course he is. Chip off the old block." And that was it. He didn't act on the information that he could act on.

So PP wasn't too resentful about his dad. He said he had compassion for him; the dad really couldn't have done otherwise. I thought about my own family - very similar situation and way of relating to it - which is why he'd told me. FWIW, my dad only raised me because the government paid him to do it. He took custody of me weeks after it became possible to get paid to raise me due to my mother killing herself. I had to move out of the house as soon as the government checks stopped coming. He spent the money on his hobbies. When my extended family told me about my dad's behavior and motivations, it all made sense. I wasn't particularly bothered with him; what else was he going to do? The most irritating thing for me was that he couldn't be honest about his motivations.

I gave some thought to the phenomenon of diagnosing kids and the families dropping the ball. I know a family with Aspergery/ADD kids. I helped one of them (in his 50s) to do basic tasks that he'd never learned to do. It took me being patient, focused on the goal, creative, etc. I really made a positive difference in his life - the family is very grateful. When they expressed that to me, I was mostly angry with them - why hadn't they done the same thing? It wasn't like it was hard - how hard is it to hold a gun to someone's head to get them to do something? And it would have really helped him out. But then, spending time with them, it was clear why they couldn't help - they were all too Aspergery/ADD/Catlady to make it happen. As soon as the going got rough they would have folded. They were really lucky to have a kind psychopath in their lives.

Anyway, this got me thinking that psychopathic families will relate "psychopathically" to the news they are "special" (with a shrug, or perhaps a prideful, "yes, we're really at our best in crises"). If they get serious about change, they'll detonate their lives - really burn them to the ground - and set up a life with structure (join the military/monastery) and try again. Aspergery/ADD/Catlady families will wring their hands and start a self-improvement program (and then quit it 6 weeks in). Stupid families will be too stupid to integrate the information and do anything.

So in conclusion, perhaps it makes sense that extreme traits in families - creativity, psychopathy, stupidity, ADHD - exist because they are self-sustaining. Eg society will try to get the underclass to behave more like the middle class; it won't work. Society will try to get the psychopaths to behave - they'll ignore it. Society will try to get the ADHD/Aspergery people to retrain their brains - but perhaps they'll be too distracted/upset to make changes. Or maybe not - perhaps this is just overthinking it.

Prototypes and archetypes (part 3)

I know some of you hate email exchanges with empaths, but I don't care. They're interesting because they force you to see yourself through someone else's eyes, and that is always enlightening. My responses are in bold:

I can't thank you enough for putting your time and energy into giving me your insight, that is really an incredibly selfless and generous thing for you to do, to really take an interest in people and their problems - just thank you, thank you, thank you. A couple other things that strike me as contradictions - if i would ask him in front on his friends if he needed something, like a soda, he would get mad at me and tell me i baby him, but then on another occasion he would fight and ask me why i never yell at him to whip into shape, like tell him he's being irresponsible and he shouldnt go to the bar but instead stay home to study for a test. I would tell him that it wasnt my job to do that, that that seems more like treating him like a baby than anything else. If he is a sociopath, why would he ask to be "controlled" like that? consistent with my thought that he is conflicted, feels out of control himself, wants to stop feeling that way, so wants help from you to help him manage his behavior. Babying him could make him feel even more out of control/vulnerable. It's fine for him to admit himself that he has issues and needs help. It's not fine for you to suggest independently that he is needy and out of control because it freaks him out even more--headtrips him.

Also, one time I asked for a kiss (not that I had to ask everytime, ha, just that he wasn't easily accesible at that moment) and he said "why would you ask? thats why youre so weak and have no power in this relationship, if you want a kiss, just take a kiss" - again, isnt that giving up control? He wants you to be strong, take what you want from him when you want it so he can pretend that you are a strong person that is with him because you want to be, not because you are needy, weak-willed, or feel somehow pressured to be. If you don't act that way, then it is just another reminder to him that he will destroy you eventually, and that you are an unwilling victim. Harder for him to justify being with you then.

(Maybe those are stupid examples, but they just popped into my head). He's said that something about me, without me even doing anything, just makes him become irritable and in a bad mood, like he can feel his blood start to boil, but im the only one that does that to him he doesnt treat anyone else like that. one time i came over to see him and he was in one of his moods and he said that he didnt know why, he wasnt angry before i got there, and when i leave he knows that he'll be mad at himself and all he'll want to do is be around me, that he doesnt want to be mean to me but he can't control it, but then if i left to let him cool off he would beg me to come back and would be loving and apologetic. And i guess you mentioned something like that in your letter, but can there be a specific person that makes your blood boil sometimes for no reason, but other times theyre the only person you like and need? And do you therefore resent them for the anger they make you feel and the moods they put you in? He's conflicted. I realize I keep saying that, but it's true. He's frustrated. You are both what he wants and a reminder of his deficiencies. You represent an itch he can't scratch, a thirst he can't quench. And you probably make it to easy for him to be bad, and get too hurt when he does. He resents you for both of those things.

My ex really does seem more content without me now, like he just doesnt miss me, doesnt really even want to talk to me or be friends. I know a lot of people feel that way when they end a relationship, but i guess its just so odd to me because after 2 years of back and forth, this one is most definitely final, and it seemed like without provocation from me, because we didnt even talk for a month, it very quickly turned into a true dislike for me and our relationship. It's probably not a dislike for you, per se. If I realize that a relationship isn't working out, it's driving me crazy because I can't be better, I'm always being bad, and it's hurting the other person -- so I'll just end it suddenly like that. Better for the both of us. It's not that I hate that person, although part of me blames them for not being able to help me out, pull their fair share of the load in the always fraught with difficulty sociopath/empath relationship. It feels like a double drowning. Can you really fault someone (empath) for freaking out while they're drowning and taking you down with them when you are trying to help keep them afloat? No, not really. That's just the nature of someone who is drowning. It would be like getting mad at a bee for stinging you. But can you blame that person for your own drowning? Yes, they certainly were the cause, weren't they, even if they couldn't help themselves. Double drowning victims just physically freak out and start clawing for survival. It's a natural survival instinct. People emotionally freak out in a failing relationship. It's just a survival instinct, but it's often not at all productive. When it starts happening, the best thing both people can do is to completely get away from each other. These things end in murder suicides.

This latest string of events leading to the breakup - wanting or needing to talk to me every single day while i was gone, visiting me, saying it was the best time he's ever had, that we have so much fun together, that he truly loved me, then abruptly breaking up with me a week after i got home, (the day after he said he wished he never said anything, he would have been happy to just to keep "trying" to make himself love me because he wanted me in his life, asking me if we could still be friends) to then never really needing or wanting to talk to me again, and now says that those 2 years were not particularly fun for him. Does it come that easy to a sociopath to just stop feeling good thoughts about a person and to have a genuine dislike for someone they once really "loved", or do you think maybe i am just trying to attribute what could be just a normal reaction of a person after they break up with someone, into something much deeper? He wanted to love you a certain way and he couldn't. Now it sounds like he is trying to blame you for not being loveable rather than blaming himself for not being able to love. The latter is the real truth, not the former. He may never acknowledge this in his lifetime, but that doesn't make it any less true.

I remember something else he said this last time we talked and i had made him feel badly about himself. He said something about how hard it is for him to rationalize what he does and how he acts when he's around me. he said that i am the only person that makes him feel like he's a bad person, and he hates that (although except for this one time that i actually came right out and said it, i've never tried to guilt him into feeling badly about himself or tell him he should feel bad about who he is), but he also agrees that i know him and his underlying feelings better than anyone. Right, he knows what is going on, in his heart of hearts. He just isn't willing to face the music right now. He's self-deceived, thinks he is great and worries he is a monster. Really both are true, but he just can't reconcile them in his mind right now, can't accept reality.
He said that he hasn't felt badly about himself and who he is in a month (since we last hung out) and he's felt great, and that he doesnt want to sink back into feeling how he was when he was with me. Yeah, I've felt this way about people. Think about it this way: certain people bring out the worst in you. Sometimes it is because they are a bad person, but other times it is because they expect too much of you. You try to be there for them, but you can't. You're constantly confronted with your failure. If you worked at a job where you sucked but no one ever fired you, would you quit? Or would you keep yourself and everyone else in misery and just keep trying?

I could understand if i made him feel bad by telling him what he did wrong all the time or putting him down, but i was really always supportive and encouraging to him, which he even got angry at at times. Is it plausible to think that its easier for him to ignore these conflicting feelings he has of himself when im not around, and has maybe transfered that into a genuine disdain for me and our relationship? Or again, am i grasping at straws here? No, you're right, it's easier to ignore his own inadequacies when you're not there reminding him of them. Like deadbeat dads who not only don't pony up the child support, they stop seeing their children because they are ashamed and the children are a constant reminder of that shame.

Heroes and sociopaths

I have posted before about how being a sociopath can make you *feel* like you are a superhero. I think this feeling (narcissistic self-import) is relatively common among sociopaths. For instance, I stumbled upon this not-me description of it here:

Being a sociopath doesn't mean you have to be evil. We struggle to feel the difference between right and wrong, but we do know the difference since we have had it drilled into our heads since we were children, right? Fact is, us sociopaths have more choice in this world than the rest. That is because we can choose to be heroes or we can choose to be villains. No one else can do that, they have to be what they are, they are born a certain way, they will always be that way. Us sociopaths can change to our surroundings. We can do anything we choose to do.

Interestingly, some say this feeling goes both ways -- that superheroes can sometimes feel (or act) like sociopaths.

We look at heroes and do-gooders as a special sort of breed: people who possess extraordinary traits of altruism or self-less concern for the well-being of others, even at the expense of their own existence. On the other end, sociopaths also have an extraordinary set of traits, such as extreme selfishness, lack of impulse control, no respect for rules, and no conscience.

As crazy as it sounds, there may be a closer link than than most people would think between the extreme-altruistic personality and sociopathic personality. Would it shock you to know that two people, one with the traits of extreme-altruism (X-altruism) and the other the traits of a sociopath, could be related? Even siblings? And that their personality traits are very similar, with only a few features to distinguish them? Research by Watson, Clark, and Chmielewki from the University of Iowa, “Structures of Personality and Their Relevance to Psychopathology” [pdf], present a convincing argument in which they support the growing push for a trait dimensional scheme in the new DSM-V to replace the current categorical system.

[X- altruists are risk takers and rule breakers.] When they are faced with that moment, they just act. Compulsively. Barely considering any other course. The lack the impulse control to stop themselves from doing “the right thing” when it comes to the welfare of others, yet ironically, it almost always results in some form of negative consequence for themselves. They have no problem breaking the rules when it means helping an innocent, yet they highly value the importance of obeying rules in other contexts. That’s crazy, you say? Now you’re getting the idea.

[but sociopaths are unfeeling monsters, altruists are so great, bla bla bla]

Interestingly, these two type of individuals, the sociopath and the X-altruist, may appear similar in their displays of behavior, and at times, even confused for the other type. If an X-altruistic person is compelled to break rules without remorse in order to help a disadvantaged person, is may seem as if he is acting rebelliously, especially if the motives behind his behavior are not known. On the other hand, a sociopath may donate a large sum of money to a charity, a seemingly altruistic behavior, but his actions may have been motivated by his selfish need to appear better than or more generous than a colleague. The defining characteristic that separates the two personality types is their ability to empathize, either not at all or too much, which then drives the extreme behavior of each.

And my favorite comment from the article:

Interesting article, but not without bias, and in my opinion, unprofessionally written. Never before have I heard a health-care professional refer to a sociopath as "nasty". As a behavioral specialist, I would expect you to know better than anyone that sociopaths do not choose their hereditary personality disorders anymore than your beloved X-altruists do. Why call names?

And how do you define virtue and "good" intent? Is not the X-altruist's all-consuming desire to help others, at the expense breaking these rules you seem to value so much, just as selfish as the sociopath?

followed closely by this one:

Your intentions are obvious. Try as you like, we'll never associate heroes with sociopaths.

And the social order will thus survive, despite your kind's attempt to weaken and destroy it.

It's an interesting point, though. Are sociopaths considered "bad" just because they seem to do, on average, more "bad for society" type things? If so, can't we just punish the "bad behavior" without singling out everyone with the condition and eradicating them? For another interesting look at heroes and sociopaths in fiction/media, see this article on the "heroic sociopath," including such gems as this rationalization of Peter Pan: "He's only slightly less uncaring towards others as his nemesis Captain Hook and comes across better mostly because his sociopathy is a result of being a perpetual child, whereas Hook really has no excuse." Aspies or Auties, anyone? I'm not so much saying that the hate against sociopaths isn't at all warranted, more that there is no principled way to hate sociopaths and not hate other people/personalities/disorders that are widely accepted or even beloved in society.

The science of evil

I wanted to write a response to this NY Times review of Simon Baron-Cohen's book "The Science of Evil," but I already expressed most of my outrage about the book and it's theory that a lack of empathy is the root of all evil here. Today, however, there was an interesting response to both Baron-Cohen's book and Jon Ronson's "The Psychopath Test" by Yale professor of Psychology Paul Bloom, again in the NY Times. Under the title "I'm Ok, You're a Psychopath":

For Baron-Cohen, evil is nothing more than “empathy erosion.”
***
Now, one might lack empathy for temporary reasons — you can be enraged or drunk, for instance — but Baron-Cohen is most interested in lack of empathy as an enduring trait.
***
For Baron-Cohen, psychopaths are just one population lacking in empathy. There are also narcissists, who care only about themselves, and borderlines — individuals cursed with impulsivity, an inability to control their anger and an extreme fear of abandonment. Baron-Cohen calls these three groups “Zero-Negative” because there is “nothing positive to recommend them” and they are “unequivocally bad for the sufferer and those around them.” He provides a thoughtful discussion of the usual sad tangle of bad genes and bad environments that lead to the creation of these Zero-Negative individuals.

People with autism and Asperger’s syndrome, Baron-Cohen argues, are also empathy-deficient, though he calls them “Zero-Positive.” They differ from psychopaths and the like because they possess a special gift for systemizing; they can “set aside the temporal dimension in order to see — in stark relief — the eternal repeating patterns in nature.” This capacity, he says, can lead to special abilities in domains like music, science and art. More controversially, he suggests, this systemizing impulse provides an alternative route for the development of a moral code — a strong desire to follow the rules and ensure they are applied fairly. Such individuals can thereby be moral without empathy, “through brute logic alone.”

This is an intriguing proposal, but Baron-Cohen doesn’t fully elaborate on it, much less address certain obvious objections. For one thing, if people with autism can use logic to be good without empathy, why can’t smart psychopaths do the same? And what about the many low-functioning individuals on the autism spectrum who lack special savant gifts and don’t spontaneously create moral codes? On Baron-Cohen’s analysis, they would be Zero-Negative. But this doesn’t seem right. Such individuals might be awkward or insensitive, but they are not actively malicious; they are much more likely to be the targets of cruelty than the perpetrators.

I think there’s a better approach, one that involves breaking empathy into two parts, understanding and feeling, as Baron-Cohen himself does elsewhere in his book. Individuals with autism are unable to understand the mental lives of other people. Psychopaths, by contrast, get into others’ heads just fine; they are seducers, manipulators, con men . . . and often worse. . . . The problem with psychopaths lies in their lack of compassion, their willingness to destroy lives out of self-interest, malice or even boredom.

Bloom goes on to criticize Baron-Cohen's theory by pointing out that everyone can suffer from a lack of empathy due to circumstances or sometimes through choice. Unfortunately Bloom does not then take the final step of questioning whether a lack of empathy should actually be the scientific definition of "evil," as Baron-Cohen advocates, but instead makes a nod to the I-hate-sociopaths camp, quoting: "'Why should we care about psychopaths? They don’t care about us.'" At least people are starting to think twice before drinking the Hare et al. Kool-Aid of fear-mongering.

Sociopath fan boy

A list of movies/characters/tv:

Movies
Rosamund Pike - Gone Girl
Jake Gyllenhaal - Nightcrawler
Eva Green - 300 Rise of an Empire
Toby Kebbel - Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Matt Damon - The Departed
Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Carl Urban and Lena Headey - Dredd
Ralph Fiennes - In Bruges
Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
Ryan Gosling - Drive
Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci - Goodfellas
Hugo Weaving - The Matrix
Christain Bale - American Psycho

Tv
Kevin Spacey - House of Cards
Bryan Cranston - Breaking Bad
Many actors - The Sopranos
Michael Kenneth Williams - The Wire
Robert Knepper - Prison Break
Iwan Rheon - Game of Thrones

Tearing things apart

I got a question on Twitter about what might be so beautiful about seeing another person torn down. I thought this comment from a not so recent post explored that question in an interesting way.

As a comment on the idea of all being aspects of a whole:
This makes sense. The human brain has a distinct base form, but naturally it has evolved to produce all shades of expression- from the person who cares deeply and personally for another, to the person who is categorically non-empathetic- and each acts according to his nature, most of the time without conscious consideration of the essence of his activities.

As for tearing down vs. building up:
I think on a basic level the human species has a need to find patterns. It was advantageous to survival in primitive times, and continues to be so. Generally we don't think about it much, instead it is a natural, maybe even inescapable tendency. (When was the last time you looked at a cloud and didn't see some kind of shape?) We also have both a supportive and a destructive instinct; consider the predatory animal, which rips apart prey and then brings the best part to her cubs before cuddling with them and playing with them gently. These instincts enforce social bonds, or take down dangerous others. M.E.'s love of ruining others could come from destructive social energy- as a highly successful woman she has few real threats. Or it could come from destructive predatory energy- people nowadays have no need to take down animals with claw and tooth, and often this innate drive is redirected into more socially acceptable outlets, such as football, or law. There's an element of empowerment involved as well- again, the chosen pursuit of many a primitive human. It could be her logic- she's good at ferreting out inconsistencies, recognizing masks and lies for what they are. Perhaps it feels good to rip apart that holey pattern to reveal the form underneath. (Ever take apart a theory, remove the bits that don't make sense, and come through with something more elegant? Elegance of articulation is categorically rewarding, I find.) Or, it could refer back to that basic pattern-solving mind- what's more fun than figuring out how something works, taking it apart, and experimenting with what you can make it do?

I say not that M.E. is primitive or base, save in that sense we all are. We are all the animal, shoved through the sieve of the social model, and this must be taken into account when attempting to understand the human mind.

-D 

I wonder a little at people's expressed inability of seeing the beauty in seeing things torn down. I feel like 90% of popular film, literature, television, etc. are based on people's desire to be thrilled in this way, so it can't really be an unpopular phenomenon? You wonder what made a television show like Breaking Bad popular, one where arguably this is what was happening to every character almost at all times. Whether schadenfraude or an aesthetic and even intellectual appreciation for seeing these disassembled and deconstructed, the pleasure or satisfaction or excitement that people get in seeing things torn apart seems so common to me that I wonder why some people claim to not feel it at all and to not understand it. 

How to Manipulate People

This was a good Lifehacker article on how to manipulate people (quick read, worth reading in its entirety). The following are the headings from the article along with my thoughts on each suggestion:

• Emotion vs. Logic: Appealing to emotion rather than logic in manipulation is a little bit of a no brainer. Not only do most people respond better to emotion than logic, irrational people often best (only?) respond to fear. 

• Master Your Own Emotions: Mastering your emotions means essentially two things -- being able to divorce your emotions from what is happening externally (look at this article for helpful suggestions of how) and being able to project the right emotions in the right circumstances to create the desired illusions. 

• Be Charming and Flirt Often: I love to flirt. I flirt with everyone. I used to flirt only with people that I could see myself wanting to seduce, but then the person who first called me a sociopath famously told me that she flirts with everyone, gay or straight because everyone likes positive attention everyone wants to be seduced.

• Overcome Trust Issues and Heal Doubt: Building trust with your target is often critical, see number 2 here (does Lifehacker read this blog? or have a sociopath on staff cluing them in?)

• Conceal Evil in Altruism: This step means pretty much what it says and is super popular with celebrities, billionaires and politicians.

• What to Do If You're Discovered: In addition to backpedaling and creating doubt in your target's mind as to whether you were actually manipulating them, I also suggest starting a counter insurgency campaign against them where you are spinning the message to favor you and disfavor them (Oliver North is a good example of this) if they're an enemy, or possibly proposing some sort of alliance if they're a friend or loved one (think Skyler White in Breaking Bad). Of course the best course of action is to prophylactically insure against this by building an actual, legitimate reputation for good (at least in certain areas) for people to cross-reference. 

Also, beware the anti-seducer, for they cannot be manipulated.

Benign neglect: Rizzoli and Isles

In response to the Fringe and Breaking Bad post, a reader mentioned the character Dr. Maura Isles from the television show "Rizzoli and Isles" as someone to watch out for. In the episode "I'm Your Boogie Man," the (Asperger's? Autism? Sociopath?) sometimes odd acting Isles questions a serial killer's statement that she is not afraid of him because she is just like him:

Rizzoli: You okay? Come on, Maura, talk to me. He's a freak. He gets to everybody.

Isles: I didn't -- I did a lot of research into his background; his childhood. Maybe he's not wrong.

Rizzoli: What are you talking about?

Isles: Maybe I am a little bit like him.

Rizzoli: You are nothing like him.

Isles: I don't -- I don't know, Jane. I was a weird kid.

Rizzoli: Were you killing small animals?

Isles: [laughs] No, but I dissected a lot of frogs.

Rizzoli: That's different.

Isles: I just started to think about things that I never really thought about before.

Rizzoli: Here it comes. There are bodies buried in your basement.

Isles: I spent a lot of time alone. I was adopted, my father was a professor and my mother she -- she came from a wealthy family and was an only child. I just realized something when I was reading about Hoyt. It just never occurred to be before. There was a lot of benign neglect. It's not that they didn't love me. It's just that I didn't ask for much. I don't think I really knew how, and the less that I would ask for the less time that they have for me. They were just very, very involved in their own lives and into each other. They sent me to boarding school when I was ten. I actually think that I sent away for the brochure myself. [smiles with Jane] They were delighted. I was really lost.

Rizzoli: Come here. [takes Maura's hand] No matter what happened to you, you are nothing like that monster, okay? You're a little anti-social maybe, goofy, but that's not the same thing.

Isles: [crying] Thank you.

This was interesting, this idea of benign neglect. I think it's easy to write a character like this off as being a relatively harmless Aspie, but do negative environmental factors like this trigger autism or Asperger's? Even if she is Aspie, or even just an introvert, apparently the way she was raised has led her to become an antisocial, relatively unfeeling and unempathetic brand of humanity, which really isn't that different from her foil the serial killer.

Can benign neglect trigger sociopathic behaviors? Maybe. Or probably.

Psychopaths feel emotions

This is an interesting interview with psychopath researcher and University of Wisconsin professor Joseph Newman in which he basically asserts that psychopaths feel the same breadth of emotions that normal people do, but that they do not attend to the emotions as others do so they do not experience them as other people do.

For those of you who want to skip around:

6:00: Non criminal psychopaths are characterized by weak urges breaking through even weaker restraints.

9:10: What happens when "guiding light" is absent is not necessarily consistent across all psychopaths, so psychopathy cannot necessarily be defined by behavior; behavior will depend on gender, age, social role, etc.

10:32: "The ones who break the law or who are violent, or commit criminals acts, those are the ones that are going to make it into my studies"

11:00: Do psychopaths experience emotions? If they do, are they less "deep" emotions? Sociopaths say they have emotions, will go out of their way to help others, capable of responding to affective materials.

13:53: Conventional wisdom regarding psychopaths and emotions being that psychopaths are fearless, incapable of emotions or general emotion deficit.

14:07: Newman's "attention deficit" theory -- "emotions don't have any power if you don't attend to them," psychopaths are not attending to the emotional cues that would elicit certain emotional responses.

16:12: "Emotions are there, to some extent, to the degree you pay attention to them"

16:48: Sociopaths are not obsessed in that the drive to do something is so strong, it's just that they are not considering other contrary info; but "if you can get them to pay attention to this information, they'll use it."

21:51: Treatment options using fear conditioning.

Newman thinks psychopaths are in some ways more likely to help a stranger than a normal person, which I think is correct in that the psychopath is just as likely to act impulsively doing good things as bad, and certainly doesn't see things in terms of "good" and "bad" anyway. (I talked a little bit about this lack of distinction here). I also think that there may be something to his theory that a lot of the emotional differences between psychopaths and normal people stem from the way that emotions are dealt with or attended to. If I focus on an emotion, I can greatly amplify its force far beyond what it should be. I frequently do this with pleasant emotions, but will also do this with "negative" emotions because there is pleasure in pain and I want to keep a flexible emotional repertoire (emotional yoga). For feelings that I don't care to feel, I just tune them out. I'm so good at compartmentalizing that it's easy to ignore anything I don't care to consider.

This video showed up on LoveFraud recently, leading to the following insightful comments from "Redwald" (excerpts):

It’s easy to understand this idea with an auditory or visual analogy. Suppose we’re in a room where a party is in full swing and there’s lots of noise. Now and again the noise can “interfere,” but on the whole the auditory signals are strong, and we can discern multiple signals. We can not only hear what a companion is saying to us, but we can also pick up snatches of other conversations around us, besides identifying any music that’s playing. In the visual field, we can easily recognize several people we know in a group of people nearby. There’s Ted, there’s Tom, there’s Sally. We can see all of these multiple people clearly and individually.

Conditions are different if the signals are “weak.” If there’s music coming from somewhere in the distance, and murmurs of conversation from the next room, we’ll have a harder time recognizing what’s being said, or played. More relevant here, trying to recognize it calls for an effort of concentration. If we’re straining to hear what’s being said next door, we may not even notice there’s music playing somewhere else. Or if we’re trying to hear the music, we may not notice the conversation at all, let alone make out what’s being said. Similarly, if we spot a group of people some way away, they may be hard to recognize at a distance. Quite possibly we’ll focus on one person who looks vaguely familiar and ask ourselves “Is that Ted or isn’t it?” But while we’re focusing on him we’re not focusing on the other two, so we may never recognize them. In short, we only pick up some of the many things going on around us, and miss others altogether.

Regardless of how strong (or weak) the emotional signals are in absolute terms, much of the problem with psychopathic behavior is still how strong (or weak) these signals are in relation to one another. If psychopaths’ perception of their “urges” is weaker than in normal humans, bad behavior can still result if their “restraints” (such as “conscience”) are weaker still.

I think the point being made is that because psychopathic behavior is not well regulated emotionally in any constant fashion, it tends to be impulsive. One characteristic of “impulsive” behavior is that it’s likely to be inconsistent from one time to another. It may even be somewhat RANDOM in the direction the impulse takes from one occasion to the next. The psychopath is a “loose cannon” whose behavior may be hard to predict.

Given this built-in inconsistency, it’s credible enough, at least in theory, that a psychopath acting on impulse could behave helpfully, even generously toward others at one time, and at another time, acting just as uninhibitedly on a very different impulse, be guilty of an act of sheer cruelty or predation.

For the reason I mentioned above, people observing these contrasting behaviors are likely to discount the psychopath’s acts of helpfulness or generosity and characterize him or her chiefly by the acts of cruelty. But people go further. They attempt to see (as Polonius put it) “method in the madness,” where sometimes there may not BE any “method”! People expect “consistent” behavior out of others, and they look for a pattern. If a psychopath appears helpful and generous to them at first sight, they’ll start off believing “this is a kind, caring person.” If the psychopath then turns round and treats them badly or exploits them, eventually they’ll decide “this person is a villain after all.” But they may still try to reconcile the contradictory behaviors in their own mind by trying to find a common motive or purpose behind both. Then they may conclude that the behaviors they saw as “kind” and “caring” were deliberately contrived by the psychopath in order to “take them in” and “put them off their guard.”
That may well be true in some cases, but in other cases it may not be true at all. The contradictory behaviors may be largely random and impulsive, not part of any greater “scheme” or purpose.

The pro-social sociopath?

I found this recent comment on an old post. It raised an interesting question of whether sociopaths can ever be "pro-social" despite being clinically labeled antisocial. The reader explains it thusly:

I don't fit the textbook description of "antisocial personality disorder". That's because there appear to be two types of sociopaths... intelligent ones and stupid ones. The stupid ones break the law (and get caught), lie (and get caught), hurt people (and get caught), and therefore have relationship problems, etc - and get the psychiatric label. Intelligent ones, on the other hand, become politicians, businessmen, etc. At least I assume they do, because not being stupid, they don't get labeled with a psychiatric disorder.

So with my definitions, I'm an "intelligent" sociopath. I don't have problems with drugs, I don't commit crimes, I don't take pleasure in hurting people, and I don't typically have relationship problems. I do have a complete lack of empathy. But I consider that an advantage, most of the time.

Do I know the difference between right and wrong, and do I want to be good? Sure. One catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. A peaceful and orderly world is a more comfortable world for me to live in. So do I avoid breaking the law because it's "right"? No, I avoid breaking the law because it makes sense. I suppose if I weren't gifted with the ability to make a lot of money in a profession doing what I like, I might try and profit by crime. But with my profession, I'd have to really hit the criminal jackpot to make it worth a life of crime.

When you're bad to people, they're bad back to you. I'm no Christian, but "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you" works.

So to any other sociopaths out there reading this... don't be an idiot.

This is not the first time I have heard of a pro-social sociopath fitting almost exactly this description, even apart from my own self. But there is also another very simple explanation for this that keeps everything people think they know about sociopaths -- just categorically exclude all of these people from the definition. If you otherwise fit all of the diagnostic criteria for being a sociopath, but have ever done something good in your life that didn't immediately benefit you and only you, we'll call you a social-apath. No?

Non-discriminatory love

A recent comment on an old post:

I have recently come across this blog and find this post insanely accurate. I know this love. I give this love.

I become obsessed with knowing everything about someone - every detail - and I love it whether it is good or bad or ugly. I love them so much they feel like they can't live without me. My love is intoxicating, obsessive and completely desirable. But none of that means my love isn't real - just different. The intensity within itself is enough to show that the love of a sociopath is real, cemented and totally accepting. What more could you want in love? Sure - I can't love for long periods of time because I end up breaking the person, and myself a little bit - but the love that I delivered prior to breaking them was real and intense and passionate. 

I don't think empaths are vulnerable and pathetic - I think they leave themselves open to be hurt by people like me. But that is what love is all about - give and take, ying and yang, compromise. I have recently allowed a lover (who is an empath) to move into my house with me, as she left her girlfriend (which I orchestrated, but she doesn't know that. She thinks it was her idea after years of emotional abuse. Truth is, I just like the idea of being powerful enough to rip someone out of an eight year relationship). She is now staying with me until she gets on her feet - and boy do I love her. I make her lunch, touch her in all the right places and make her feel wanted and needed and desired. I am everything she has never had. Apart from being her physical fantasy (tall, thin, blonde, green eyes, very womanly and pleasant yet edgy), I give her all of the support she needs - I listen, respond, understand - I see the REAL her and love her anyway. But I know this won't last long. Once everything has settled down, I will get bored and itch to move on. But I love her all the same. Sociopaths can love males, females, empaths, other sociopaths, intellectuals, simpletons - EVERYONE. We don't discriminate on love and that's why it's real. We can love. Regardless of what it looks like. We love. 

On becoming a sociopath (female)

From a reader:
 
In terms of ASPD: I still am, to a degree, but I am much less inclined to that disorder than I was as a  child. For the high-functioning sociopath, it is mandatory for him to have a relationship with himself. He lacks any sort of internal social inhibition, and therefore, he doesn't automatically incorporate the majority ethics. As a kid, I was at my most impulsive. Until I came to develop a code rooted in reason, rather than guilt, I was all over the place. People take for granted "right" and "wrong,” and many don’t question the ‘why’ behind it until they are much older, because they may cruise along on autopilot with the common knowledge that stealing is bad, and that they feel bad. If the sociopath can't introspect, however, he'll grow into a dangerous criminal as he hits adulthood and gains the means. For the sociopath, he has to mature early in, or face possible legal consequences for the rest of his life.  Although being a female and a sociopath is unique, I am fortunate in this respect. If I were a man, there’s a great chance that I would not have made it.
    
I hate to sound sexist, but it’s the truth: men are typically stronger than women. At the age of eight, I was already fantasizing about sex crimes. I remember thinking, verbatim, that it wasn’t “enough to love. You have to rip apart.” For me, cuddling and kissing could only go so far before the emptiness sank in. The threshold was reached, and boredom stirred. A man, or woman, could satisfy with soft whispers and affection to a point. Then, to overcome that boundary, sadism came to play. The only way I felt that I could truly share something with another human being, was to torture and to push him over the edge. There was excitement in this, and my own brand of worship. I didn’t realize that my desire was abnormal. For a long time, I didn’t realize that others weren’t like me. I observed them, and I thought that we were putting on a show, and so I acted, too. I watched and waited, half-expecting an explosion as one of us broke. It never came. Every now and again, I saw them clearly and was slammed with questions. "Is this real?" I wanted to capture their faces, to make them look at me. I lived in denial.
    
Bottom line: I stayed out of prison because I lacked the brute muscles to kill, and the dedication to go through with plans (I had constructed a motif in my head). Twice, I snapped on human beings and did everything in my carnal power to injure them, craving their expressions, because the fear and shock filled up a void within me. It was a foreign substance, and, as such, I took it as a druggie. 
    
I was let down in my weakness. I didn’t go after children my age, but lashed out against men who I perceived as strong. I wanted the triumph of breaking them, and I fell short. It was humiliating to have revealed and lost. Thus, I retreated to my intellect, and became the cult-starter. I manipulated without touch, and although, in the end, the new approach could have proved even more dangerous than the corporeal given my structure, I was appeased by little stunts, and, thankfully, came to my senses before moving onto greater defeats. Honestly, I just grew up, and trust me when I say that if I had waited even another year, given the crowd that I had gathered, things would be different. I have formalized legal opinions now, and a definition for good and evil, but I don’t possess the faculty of remorse. I can regret: regret meaning, I can find the consequences of something not to my enjoyment, and I can wish that I had acted otherwise, but, if not caught, I don’t have remorse, in that I don’t feel guilt for doing what I see as justifiably illegal. Hence, my version of “right” and “wrong” revolves around what is good for me, psychologically. Unrestrained, I slip and intentionally perform acts which I reject, lawfully, when statistics suggest a lapse in capture, but I do try to avoid this more often than not, because, regardless of how good I am, it’s never surefire.

Speeding through the turns

Sometimes when I am driving I want to take chances, drive aggressively, get a rush. I want to push the limits, I want to feel the danger. I don't choose to speed, though. or I don't speed in the straightaways. I think that is too obvious, and I'd be worried about getting a speeding ticket or worse. Speeding is so cut and dry a rule that it is very apparent when people are breaking it. Going excessively fast through a turn, though, you get all of the rush you're after, without obviously breaking any rule. Those little signs giving the suggested speed for a turn are just that -- suggestions. And even if they weren't, the turns go too quick for anyone to clock you. There is obviously still the chance of losing control, harm and injury to yourself or others, but that is what you are after, why you are doing it in the first place. This is the appeal of speeding through turns -- smaller likelihood of getting caught, or least having a decent excuse if you do get caught: you didn't expect the turn to be so sharp, you are unfamiliar with this stretch of road, you did not see the warning signs. It is harder to explain away something like extreme speeding.

I feel like I live my life this way. I don't tend to explicitly break rules. Rather I look for loopholes, areas of exploitation in the social fabric. I want to have a ready made excuse when I get caught. I try to have the bad things I do intentionally be things that other people do mistakenly or accidentally.

Maybe this is why I don't feel fear -- I always have an escape plan. I've had a doctor try to diagnose me with anxiety disorder before based on this obsession with escape and certain physical markers. I thought it was laughably inaccurate when I heard it -- I have such a low fear response, never get nervous, a healthy death wish, etc. But the more I thought about it, I realized that I do get anxious, particularly in crowds or with strangers, something that I had always credited to my fear of mobs or clear vision of the horrors of which seemingly "normal" people are capable. But I wonder if this is just indicative of a very healthy survival instinct, something that has largely become obsolete in the modern world of few avoidable hazards, but something that still has great use for someone like me. Maybe even the secret to my success.

Sociopath TV execs exploit their sociopath criminal brothers

Fox Television is planning a new television program tentatively titled, Smile, You’re Under Arrest. The show features law officers setting up elaborate sting operations to lure criminals with warrants:

“It is a reverse Punk’d,” says Fox President of Alternative Entertainment Mike Darnell. “Instead of the worst day of your life and then a joke at the end, this is the reverse. This is the best day of your life, and then we arrest you.”

One of three set-ups just shot in Arizona features the cops luring a criminal to a movie set with the promise of making him an extra and paying him a couple hundred dollars. An elaborate film set is staged and filming begins on a faux movie. The set-up continues as the director then gets mad at the lead actor, fires him and replaces him with the law-breaking extra.

The scene escalates with the fake director introducing the mark to a supposed studio mogul and continuing to create this dream-comes-true sequence. Finally, all the participants are revealed as officers of the law, and the criminal is apprehended (before signing waivers to let the footage be used in the show).

Other scenarios include a fake fashion shoot where the subject thinks he is about to become a supermodel and another in which the mark becomes an auto racer, a set-up which ends when a police car comes up behind him on a race track to pull him over.

“If it were a regular person you’d feel bad for them, but they are all wanted by the law,” Darnell says.

This is why people feel fine persecuting sociopaths. You can just hear someone justifying sociopath abuse: "If it were a regular person, you'd feel bad for them."

An sociopath's online journal

A reader writes:

I'm writing because I've recently come across your book and have found it mind blowing.  Particularly so, because it reads as if you are peeling back layers from my mind on every page. You have articulated things I have thought but not been able to express. I also was accused of being a sociopath by someone who had come across one before. I also let it go but felt offended. I am a black, 27 year old who has done pretty well but seem to have hit a wall in my life. I only came across your book by chance and I've not put it down since. It has inspired me to also write an online journal anonymously. I am not sure if I am a sociopath but many of the qualifying traits reside in me perhaps to a lesser extent than yourself. The journal has made me reach into my childhood to find out what is "wrong" with me so to speak.

An excerpt:

I do not think I am a bad person but I can do bad things. Most people tend to like me when they meet me. I genuinely care for people without always feeling any form of emotional compulsion towards them. I'm a generally smiley person, i know it encourages people to let their guard down. I love breaking ice, whether between my teeth or between myself and another person. It's exhilarating. I also have a penchant for the extreme. Though I admit I'm actually scared of most things I do, there is something that draws me to it. The sense of danger, the adrenaline, the suspense and the anticipation of conquering it. 

No limits

I have a tendency to not know my limits, either from big things like going 10 days with my appendix ruptured before I finally passed out and was rushed to a hospital, to smaller things like having nicks and scars all over my hands from recklessly handling cooking knives. I eat rotten food and have no real sense that I should stop. I have driven too fast, pushed too hard, lied too much, and turned the screws on people so hard that they snapped. I don't know what it is, I am blind to certain boundaries, certain warning signs that I need to back off of whatever it is that I'm doing.

Another small, but illustrative example -- when I was a child, my parents used to monitor what I ate and in what portions. When I first started eating by myself, it took a while for me to understand not to eat until I vomited. I had no desire to overeat, I wasn't even eating sweets or anything particularly desirable. It was more like I either couldn't feel the sensations of being full, or that I was somehow able to override those sensations, to ignore them and keep eating then promptly wretch it all up into toilets, backyards, parks, parking lots, etc.

These past couple months I pushed myself very hard, particularly mentally. Now I feel a little broken. I can feel that I have hurt myself. I am mentally not all there. I don't feel bad, I just don't feel right. When I go to say something, it's like someone else is saying it, and not what I meant to say. There is a disconnect between me, my conscious self, and the me that is talking and acting like me in the world. I feel like I have a very mild form of alien hand syndrome, but affecting my entire body and mind. The inner me has to some extent vacated the premises, leaving the rest to survive on evolutionary autopilot.

This has happened at least once before for different reasons, and I recovered, but was never quite the same I don't think. I wonder what will happen this time. It's odd thinking that my mind and body can take so much punishment, that I can subjugate my will in so many ways, but that there is finally a breaking point where something will just snap -- an irreparable injury. When I was reading that article about Elon Musk, I found an interesting quote from him, an explanation of why his marriage failed: "I went from working hard to working ridiculously hard. And stress breaks things."

Let's play doctor

From a reader:

I was wondering about sociopaths and have a feeling that I may be one.
So I've been scouring the internet searching for some sort of answer. Every site has different answers to what makes one as well as their tendencies differ. Unfortunately it seems I can confirm a majority of the tendencies. I play mind games with people and enjoy it when I hurt them through them. Breaking people up making them cry. Weird things like that. Also since noticing that I'm positive for things like that I've been thinking back on certain things. Everything I ever do causally with other people some how turns into a contest in my mind and I have to do everything possible to win. Extreme hatred towards loud obnoxious rude people (aka narcissist).

Also my ultimate goal is to take over the world... Has been for a long time. Long before I even started thinking about if I was a sociopath. I have had daydreams and dreams of gaining power for as long as I can remember. I've also had other dreams from about when I was 13. The first one was watching some kill themselves and it was extremely exciting. There have been other ones. Most recently I've been excited from the thought of watching as a rain of fire kills everyone on the earth. I know these things are "Wrong" but the thoughts of killing people is so exciting. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's supposedly just our animal instincts to kill. Of course I wouldn't kill anyone for pure pleasure right now. I still have no power and even though I could probably get away with it saying that they attacked me first. It would be a waste of time right now. I have an obvious lack of respect for human rights and people as people. I've thought before this that people are simply tools and I still do.

Your recent sociopath test was extremely helpful. The second question is exactly what I've always done for as long as I can remember. Lies about things that happened to gain sympathy, trust, or interest from other people. My favorite one is pretending to be grieving for an old friend who died of cancer. Of course I've learned that if you add some truth from a story that you have heard or read people believe it instantly. Yes again to questions 3,4,6,7,8 and 12.

As for why I think I am a sociopath I noticed it awhile ago when reading up on some stuff online and I came across the term sociopath for the first time. Now that I've read your site more I'm almost positive that I am. I guess I just came asking you for confirmation. Kinda pointless. I don't think it's a bad thing to be one. In fact supposedly from all I've read being a sociopath makes you superior to everyone else. That's pretty much all I can come up with to tell you. I don't know if you can tell me if I am one but thank you for your time either way. The only other question now is whether I was born one or if it was from childhood trauma. A bit of both I think. My parents were a bit abusive at times. Anyways thank you for your time and your Blog. It has been extremely helpful.