ENTP = quintessential sociopath?

From a sociopathic-identifying reader:

I have been fully immersed in psychology in the last few years, leading to my exposure to the Meyers Briggs personality indicator, which I feel is relevant to my possible sociopathy due to my strong identification with the ENTP type. 

Even on the surface level, ENTPs seem to be the ideal candidate for a sociopath: our zero tolerance policy toward boredom and consequent willingness to go to any lengths for stimulation combined with our ability to turn charm on and off without a second thought is nearly identical to the driving factors that sociopaths seem to have. Personally, I exercise my social manipulation skills (aka "charm") often and with much joy, objectively viewing most people as little more than pieces in a large and exciting game. 

Regardless of my psychopathic tendencies as a child, my uncertainty toward my identity is due largely in part to the contrast of stereotypical sociopathy and my ENTP personality. My lack of morality could either be attributed to a mental disorder or the results of inherent indecision and refusal to accept traditional ideals--although many believe INTJs to be the personality most closely linked to sociopathy, I think (possibly from personal bias) ENTPs natural inclination to charm, cajole, and intently seek out to challenge any form of regulation aligns us almost perfectly with the portrait of a sociopath.

My struggle now is mostly originated from the possibilities of either my true nature as a sociopath or of the simple fulfillment and exhibition of qualities blanketed under the ENTP personality type. 

The origins of criminality as a feature in sociopathy (part 2)

Cleckley’s sociopath was “bold”, boldness here being “a capacity to remain calm and focused in situations involving pressure or threat, an ability to recover quickly from stressful events, high self-assurance and social efficacy, and a tolerance for unfamiliarity and danger. Terms related to boldness include fearless dominance (Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, et al., 2005), daringness, audacity, indomitability, resiliency (Block & Block, 1980), and hardiness (Kobasa, 1979).” Id. Bold individuals are likely to show: “social dominance, low stress reactivity, and thrill–adventure seeking (Benning et al., 2003; Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, et al., 2005) . . . imperturbability, social poise, assertiveness and persuasiveness, bravery, and venturesomeness.” Id.

Boldness was evident in [Cleckley’s] case descriptions and diagnostic criteria in terms of poise and high social efficacy, absence of anxiety or neurotic symptoms, diminished emotional responsiveness, imperviousness to punishment (“failure to learn by experience”), and low suicidality. Other historic writers concerned with psychopathy in psychiatric patients as opposed to criminal samples (e.g., Kraepelin, Schneider) also identified bold externalizing types. Id.

Cleckley studied non-criminal sociopaths at a large inpatient facility. No other researcher has focused so extensively on non-criminal sociopaths.

Most researchers studied criminals, and consequently defined sociopathy as a dark strain of criminal deviance. Early researchers William Maxwell McCord and Joan McCord painted a picture in “The Psychopath: An Essay on the Criminal Mind” (1964) of a socially detached, predatory, aggressive, and remorseless individual plagued by angry-reactive forms of aggression and resultant criminality. Similarly Lee Robins, whose work underlies the DSM-V’s “Antisocial Personality Disorder” (ASPD), focused on a maladjustedness marked by persistent aggression, criminality, and destructiveness. Robins (1966, 1978).

Around that same time, Robert Hare developed his Psychopathy Checklist (now revised, PCL-R), based on the Canadian criminal population. The PCL-R is the most popular diagnostic tool for sociopathy. Hare based it on Cleckley’s sociopath, however, it is distinctly darker:

In contrast with Cleckley’s portrayal of psychopathic patients as personable and ostensibly well meaning but feckless and untrustworthy, this latter perspective conceptualizes psychopathic individuals as cold, abrasive, and aggressively exploitative in their interactions with others.

Patrick, et al. (2009).

Cleckley saw “boldness.” Hare substituted “meanness.” Why? Interestingly, Hare’s own early work also found boldness instead of meanness. Id. What changed?

Alice, a sociopath I met in Australia, theorizes that it wasn’t the sociopaths that changed, but Hare. Alice thinks Hare is biased. In fact, she goes so far as to tell me she believes he’s a subclinical narcissist. Her evidence for narcissism includes Hare’s statements that suggest he has a fragile ego and needs to be liked by others. For instance, you could read the following statement as a theory about how most people feel, or you could read between the lines and see someone who is overly concerned with how he is perceived by others:

“We are haunted to some degree by questions about our self-worth. As a consequence, we continually attempt to prove to ourselves and others that we are okay people, credible, trustworthy, and competent.”

He does seem to take the misdeeds of sociopaths personally, for example he warns:

“All the reading in the world cannot immunize you from the devastating effects of psychopaths. Everyone, including the experts, can be taken in, conned, and left bewildered by them.”

Hare speaks from personal experience. He is on record describing his first encounter with a sociopath “Ray” as a long con in which Ray influenced Hare to break prison rules. Hare said he did what Ray asked to build a “rapport”. Due in part to Hare’s influence, Ray received a plum job in the prison mechanic shop. When Hare’s tenure at the prison ended, Ray performed a tune-up on Hare’s car. The brakes failed while Hare was driving down a hill, family in tow. A local mechanic confirmed that the brakes had been rigged with a slow leak. 

Alice thinks this early experience and his continuing inability to build a rapport with prison sociopaths caused him to harden his heart against them. Alice thinks he sought payback by portraying them in the worst psychological light possible, destroying their possibility of parole.

Alice’s theory for Hare’s anti-sociopath bias is consistent with the facts as we know them.

To give you an idea of Hare’s lack of scientific objectivity, in his book Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us he calls sociopaths the “monsters of real life” and warns:

“On a more personal level, it is very likely that at some time in your life you will come into painful contact with a psychopath. For your own physical, psychological, and financial well-being it is crucial that you know how to identify the psychopath, how to protect yourself, and how to minimize the harm done to you.”

Hare has manifested other narcissistic traits. In a widely publicized move, he threatened to enjoin the publication of an academic, peer-reviewed article that criticized his PCL-R. The article, by researchers Jennifer Skeem and David Cooke, argued that “the PCL–R weighs antisocial behavior as strongly as—if not more strongly than—traits of emotional detachment in assessing psychopathy.” Consequently, it “is overly saturated with criminality and impulsivity (Blackburn, 2005; Forouzan & Cooke, 2005)” and as such, it “imperfectly maps psychopathy” and “does not fully correspond to Cleckley’s (1941) conceptualization, on which it is purportedly based.” 

Natural born killer?

A reader sent me this "military essay on sociopaths and their utility," specifically the disparate impact that sociopathic soldiers have in a time of war:

A natural killer is a person who has a predisposition to kill—he enjoys combat and feels little or no remorse about killing the enemy. These men have existed throughout the history of warfare, and their feats have often been hailed as heroic. They constitute less than 4 percent of the force, yet some studies show that they do almost half of the killing. These men rarely distinguish themselves before the moment arrives to pull the trigger. It is only after the smoke has cleared that the full impact of their accomplishment is seen. It is important to identify natural killers before combat, because these soldiers are both a vital asset and a potential liability—correctly positioning them in a unit can turn the tide of battle. To better understand the importance of identifying these soldiers, one should understand what makes soldiers kill, the characteristics of natural killers and their battlefield capabilities and limitations.
***
A temperament for killing exists among some human beings. Marshall, in identifying the battlefield fighters, said, "the same names continued to reappear as having taken the initiative, and relatively few fresh names were added to the list on any day." A post-World War II study by R. L. Swank and W. E. Marchand proposed that 2 percent of soldiers were "aggressive psychopaths" who did not suffer from the normal remorse or trauma associated with killing. I use the word suffer because when the job of the soldier is to kill, those fettered by their conscience are suffering while doing their job. We tend to shun the concept of the willing killer because it offends our kinder sensibilities, but a controlled psychopath is an asset on the killing fields. Those who possess such a temperament are natural killers and many have served this country well. The problem lies in identifying these individuals and positioning them where they can be most effective.

How to identify them?


The natural killer is most likely not a first-born son. Later sons are generally more aggressive and have less fear or anxiety in dangerous situations. An Israeli Defense Force study of its officers from 1961 to 1966 showed that "first borns" were more anxious than "later borns" and that they generally sought less dangerous positions in the military. Later borns were more likely to volunteer for combat and had a better chance of encountering terrorists on patrols. A study of Korean War fighter plane aces found that first borns engaged the enemy less and were more anxious about flying. Family position also seems to relate to assassins. Almost all American assassins have been later sons—John Wilkes Booth, Charles Giteau and Lee Harvey Oswald, to name three.15 Later borns, by virtue of being routinely dominated by their siblings, ultimately feel less fear during stressful situations. They also feel the need to prove their worth over their siblings and more quickly accept dangerous challenges.

A natural killer has been a fighter for much of his life. Frequent fighting as a child does not mean the individual was a bully. Rather, he chose to respond to stressful situations with aggression. Arthur J. Dollard concluded that aggression is the result of frustration and this is a normal human reaction. The sociopath, also referred to as the undercontrolled aggressive personality type, has low internal controls against violence and will resort to aggressive behavior unless constrained by rigid external controls. Such a person can be conditioned to not respond to frustration with external aggression. Thus, if frustrated by a Drill Sergeant’s control, the undercontrolled personality type will refrain from direct aggression and look for another target for his aggression. The military provides ample displacement outlets for this aggression in the form of physical training, field maneuvers and weapons ranges. It is the perfect environment for a sociopath to excel.

The natural killer is an aggressive athlete whose physical makeup allows him to excel at contact sports. Combative sports provide long-term training in aggression while acting as a short-term catharsis or safety valve for aggressive individuals.19 An Army-funded study of Korean War veterans discerned differences in the characteristics of fighters—those who took aggressive action in combat—versus nonfighters—those who were hysterical or nonresponsive in combat. This study, conducted by the Human Resources Research Office (HumRRO), concluded that the fighters had been more active in contact sports such as football, boxing or hockey. It also concluded that fighters had a high masculinity factor or outdoors adventurousness about them. Their body types were larger; on average they were an inch taller and eight pounds heavier than the nonfighters. They were rugged individuals who had channeled their aggressions through contact sports.

Another discriminator for identifying natural killers is their socio-economic background. Natural killers usually come from a middle or upper class background. The volunteer military has had the luxury to pick and choose those who will be allowed into the service, and we exclude those with criminal records. Sociopaths follow a "cheater strategy" to obtain what they want. The lack of a social conscience allows the sociopath to cheat without remorse. Consequently, those who find themselves in the economically disadvantaged lower class will resort to crime unless placed in a highly controlled environment. In other words, a sociopath from a depressed economic background will most likely have a criminal record, and under today’s standards, he would not be able to enter the military. Thus, natural killers in the US military will most likely come from a middle or upper class background.

Sociopaths are generally extroverts. One reason for this is the inheritance of a nervous system that is relatively insensitive to low levels of stimulation. Individuals with this physiotype tend to be extroverted. They also have lower than average levels of adrenaline and seek experiences to heighten this. Extroverts and sociopaths are less affected by threats of pain or punishment, and they have greater tolerance of actual pain or punishment. Both sociopaths and extroverts will approach a situation that most people will avoid. These factors were confirmed by the HumRRO study conclusion that fighters were extroverted, spontaneous and relatively free from anxiety.

The natural killer has above-average intelligence. Like sociopaths with no economic resources, those without above-average intelligence end up in jail. Therefore, sociopaths in our military are usually intelligent. The HumRRO study found that the intelligence quotient (IQ) of fighters was, on average, 13 points higher than nonfighters’. The study subjects were all infantrymen and the mean group IQ was only 85, 15 points below the national average of 100. This indicated that less intelligent men were sent forward to fight, but within that group, the more intelligent ones were better fighters.

Additionally, the natural killer has a caustic sense of humor that relies on sharp wit and biting sarcasm. Such hostile humor acts as a tension-discharger, a relief valve. While we normally associate humor with friendly behavior, laughter itself is a primarily aggressive behavior. Laughter is usually directed at someone and is infectious, with the unspoken agreement being to "join in or not be part of the group." With aggression as the underlying theme, the natural killer enjoys humor.


Sound like anyone you know?

The worth of souls

I've been thinking recently about the different ways that people value human life. From LDS President Dieter Uchtdorf on how God values human life:

Think of the purest, most all-consuming love you can imagine. Now multiply that love by an infinite amount—that is the measure of God’s love for you.

God does not look on the outward appearance. I believe that He doesn’t care one bit if we live in a castle or a cottage, if we are handsome or homely, if we are famous or forgotten. Though we are incomplete, God loves us completely. Though we are imperfect, He loves us perfectly. Though we may feel lost and without compass, God’s love encompasses us completely.

He loves us because He is filled with an infinite measure of holy, pure, and indescribable love. We are important to God not because of our résumé but because we are His children. He loves every one of us, even those who are flawed, rejected, awkward, sorrowful, or broken. God’s love is so great that He loves even the proud, the selfish, the arrogant, and the wicked.

What this means is that, regardless of our current state, there is hope for us. No matter our distress, no matter our sorrow, no matter our mistakes, our infinitely compassionate Heavenly Father desires that we draw near to Him so that He can draw near to us.



Apart from being a reminder of the impossibly high standard that many religious people are meant to hold themselves to when tasked with loving their fellow man as God loves them (and the great chasm from that expectation to their actual performance), I think this represents an interesting alternative to valuing human life than what has become the fad of late: prestigious job, fancy house, and attractive significant other being the baseline indicators for success, with additional money, celebrity, talent, or power being the true distinguishing characteristics to lift one above the masses of mediocrity. I have been in all sorts of cultures, from where Porsches are considered wannabe striver cars to where owning a bike is the envy of the village, but no matter where you are or what criteria you are using people always manage to find some way to think that they're better than other people.

I'm not suggesting that people stop judging others -- that's for them to reconcile with their own personal beliefs. I just think it's telling to see the different standards the people use to judge themselves and others. I thought the video below was an interesting perspective that happens to be very counter the majoritarian view -- so much so that I imagine many people assume she feels this way just because she does not rate high on attractiveness herself (sour games?). Her view: "I never want to get into this place where I feel like what I look like is more important than what I do . . . . Being beautiful is not an accomplishment." I especially liked the part where she compared humans to how other animals look: "It's absurd when you waste too much time on it, when you look at the perspective of being part of this kind of silly looking species on this planet in this solar system in this universe that is huge and contains life forms we haven't even encountered yet and that are completely foreign to us."


But what is the sociopathic angle to all of this? Maybe that sociopaths also sometimes get judged according to standards that they feel are arbitrary or silly? And if you can see some absurdity to the way that many people value human life, maybe you can better understand how sociopaths feel about adhering to seemingly silly and arbitrary things like social norms? Maybe to let the people know who write to me to tell me, "get your life together and establish a legitimate career" or opining that what I have done with my life is "wholly insignificant" that my value system for the worth of a life is probably a little different from there's? And that's ok. I'm glad some people love their middle class lifestyles because they stabilize society and pay into the welfare coffers for the rest of us bottom feeders. Or maybe I am setting up a pity play -- trying to trigger an emotional response in people who read this in order to promote more tolerance as part of a desperate ploy to prevent further legally sanctioned prejudicial treatment of sociopaths?

Or maybe I've just been thinking about this because it seems like our transition from consumer culture to information culture has made us all connoisseurs and critics of "content," including the people that populate our lives. But I'm not sure that most people enjoy being the subject of other people's scrutiny. Nor could you really say that everybody is fair game, if fair is something you believe in. Because I don't remember asking to be born, much less born the way I am and I can't imagine that most people do/did either. And yet there is such a temptation to become an amateur critic of the humans we encounter. But what a dim view of humanity to believe that there is any morally sound and unbiased basis for sorting people out according to value, ranking something so unknowable as the human soul according to such superficial criteria as "our 'riches' and our 'chances for learning.'" Because out of all of the wonders of this world, humans are the most amazing to me. I guess that's why I like the Mormon doctrine on this point: "Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God".

Sociopaths categorically get excluded from neuro diversity movement

Under the headline, "Neurodiversity editorial: Do we have to accept sociopaths?":

Yay for neurodiversity. History-making artists, scientists, politicians -- were any neurotypical? Probably not. But then who is? Up with neurodiversity.

Yet, I’m a huge hypocrite: I just can’t get with the whole sociopaths-are-just-another-neuro-diverse-population gig.

On the one hand, it’s true: sociopathy is organic. Just like kidney stones. On the whole, kidney stones are seen an illness; a little free will with diet, but, in general, involuntary. Same with sociopathy. Some contextual free-will, but not much. I know that. Predators are predators, sociopaths are sociopaths, that’s what they do.

Contrast autistic spectrum disorders. I’m totally ok with that neurodiversity. Both autistic spectrum and sociopaths lack “empathy” (although there are profound other differences, which I won’t go into here). Why am do I grade these two organic conditions differently, having neurotolerance for autistic spectrum, and no tolerance whatsoever for sociopaths?

Fear. I’m fearful because wild-type sociopaths roaming free in society are capable of huge swaths of destruction, and I can’t tell who they are. They look so lifelike. It’s context. I understand the ecological niche for rattlesnakes. But NIMBY. If sociopaths were culled from the herd, and put somewhere where they couldn’t do any harm, I’d be much more benevolent. I know this is inconsistent. But is it wrong?

If society tested first graders, and herded off the proto-sociopaths into a special needs class, I’d feel sympathy. “Oh, look,” I might say as older vo-tech school sociopaths get off the bus with guidance counselors at Broad and Wall to work the bond trading desk, “how sweet. ” And I’d probably feel good and righteous, and probably tell other people, “I saw the sociopath school bus today. They were all wearing their “Do Not Approach- I’m A Sociopath” badge, and not one put up a fuss. What a great thing for them.”

The author suggests using the crossed out devil logo above to signify your intolerance for sociopaths. I know I don't even have to say it, but it might as well be:

Keeping/getting out of the system

From time to time we get readers who have gotten caught up in the "system," institutionalized for one reason or another by government agencies trying to "help" them. Sociopaths need to prepare for such a contingency. Here's how one reader got off the psychological hook after being raped:

To get out of counselling, I convinced everyone I had PTSD. After they put a label on me, they felt okay to "release" me. After I got out, life went back to "normal". I never pressed charges or filed a formal report because it felt unnecessary to do so, so I didn't have to act like I had PTSD at school (the event occurred during secondary school). The only glitch in the whole plan was my parents; they were concerned with my lack of... reaction, I guess. Everyone in my family is quite aware of my APD and sociopathy. (We have kind of a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy when it comes to what I do with my, what I like to call, skills.) I guess they thought we were more vulnerable, haha, that a rape would break me or something. What a riot.

Anyway, it was probably the most frustrating and best learning experience I've ever had. I have since built a mental repertoire of how to react in certain (mostly traumatic) situations, should they ever arise. I'm prepared now. (;

I think for most situations it's easiest to actually concentrate on feeling an emotion that is in the ballpark of "appropriate" rather than faking it. For instance, another socio reader recently suffered a miscarriage. I advised her to respond to people's inquiries by just repeating that she "feels loss." That's my go to response when something bad has happened to me, because I really can feel loss, and if I just keep focusing on the loss I feel, if any, I think I give sufficiently legitimate emotional responses approximating grief.

If you don't have a good "reaction," it can mean trouble. One small example is when I went 10 days with a ruptured appendix. I didn't have any satisfactory answer for why I hadn't come in sooner. People kept asking me questions about my pain threshold, tolerance for pain, etc., but I didn't have answers that jived with my medical history for that either. I think the truth was that I was just very good at compartmentalizing the pain -- mind over matter stuff like walking over coals? I don't know. I obviously still don't have a good enough explanation for it. Once they have you in some sort of "care," though, it's all about playing the game to get out before they have time to observe you for too long. The last day I was in the hospital, I was flushing food down the toilet because they said I couldn't leave until I had eaten. Luckily I wasn't in there with something suspicious like a knife wound, otherwise I might never have been able to leave.

Figure out the "right answer" they are looking for if you can and give it to them -- I know that's the goal, but it's easier said than done. How do you know what the right answer is for having been assaulted? Or having lost a child? The cops and doctors have seen it a hundred times before, so they know how you should act. That's the worst part about it! They sit there all smug, staring at you and comparing it to their wealth of experience while you try to verbally tap dance your way out of custody, sometimes tap dancing your way into even more trouble. It's enough to make you want to run whenever the cops or other authorities get involved, but of course that looks quite suspicious if you do and they later catch you.

As I'm writing this, I realize that maybe I'm a bad person to give advice on this subject. I tend to give people a confused look that makes them want to detain me. My internal dialogue goes something like this: "Is this a situation where less is more? Or where more is less? Do those phrases even make sense? Why are they whispering into that two-way radio while staring at me?"

I've been held on suspicion of all sorts of things, like drug use, cheating, concussions, and smuggling. Once I have triggered more than one red flag, I better hope I am innocent because I can't talk my way out of a paper bag at that point. Cops are the worst. I can't ever give them the reaction they're looking for. I guess that's why I think having a contingency plan is so important, because I have had so many problems with it in the past. It's certainly not because I have any talent for it.

Dating other sociopaths

From a reader asking if it is a good idea for sociopaths to date other sociopaths:

My reasons for thinking we're a perfect match:

1)   Point: We need a challenge; everyone else is just too easy to win over. 

      Personal experience: When friends ask me how I do it, I shrug and say something banal because it is useless to try to explain. I feel that “game” is a skill that is fine-tuned throughout life, and even a lifetime of practice will not be of desired effect unless one already possesses an uncanny knack for reading body language, understanding weaknesses and individual needs, deciphering subliminal clues people unknowingly give off, and minimal emotional involvement. The ease at which I get what I want can actually be frustrating. I usually lose interest right after I acquire my target's complete attention and/or whatever I need from him. As I slowly let it go (so as not to burn bridges just in case I ever need that bridge again), I usually get some sort of a love confession. It’s a nice ego boost, but it honestly annoys me. Maybe it annoys me because it reminds me that I am incapable of feeling anything back. More likely, it’s because I have to waste my energy trying to let him down easy. Yet even more likely, it's probably because it reinforces the fact that I'm failing in my search for another of equal mindset. 

      Rationale: Dating another sociopath would be much more invigorating, as it would be a constant challenge for one another’s attention. As stated in Robert Greene’s “The Art of Seduction”, the most successful couples are those in which both people have mastered seduction. Without this, we get bored. We need a game, and an incompetent opponent is no fun after the first round. 

2)   Point: Save the emotional acts.

      Personal experience: I do manipulate, but I do recognize that if I want to remain in respectable societal standing, I have to play towards the emotions of the people I deal with. In my past relationships, I have had to fake what I am not feeling (i.e. pretend to comfort the guy when he’s upset, force myself to do the whole stare-into-each-other’s-eyes thing, convince him that I feel the same way, etc.) I’m not sure if there are other socios out there that feel this, but strong expressions of love and sadness are the two emotions I feel the most phony mimicking. I can literally feel the insincerity seeping out of my pores. Near the end of relationships my tolerance for such acts fizzles out, and I am accused of not caring…and since I generally don’t, he ends up hurt. While I have never felt sorrow or regret from this, I also do not want to leave a trail of broken hearts behind me. It’s essentially damaging my reputation and whatever connections I might need to make in the future. 

      Rationale: Tending to a lover’s emotions is tiresome and an enormous waste of time. Dating a sociopath would eliminate this rollercoaster of ridiculous emotional performances, and we would be able to live in drama-free harmony. Paradoxically, it would actually be a more honest relationship. 

3)   Point: We are attracted to those who are both book-smart and street-smart.

      Personal experience: I am attracted to intellect and power, and I assume that most other socios are as well. I’d rather marry an ugly but manipulative and successful genius than a sexy-as-hell but dumb-as-a-rock superstar. I saw that you mentioned the 48 Laws of Power. I cannot discuss this book with anyone I know. They lack the ability to see the rules as one entity from which we must derive certain principles, based on what our situation and goals are. I consider craftiness along with the ability to gauge situations and handle them with appropriate tact to be my definition of "street-smart". Lacking this quality is a complete turn-off for me. Being book-smart is also essential for my attraction to another; if I feel that I am capable of getting better grades on a factually-based exam than someone, I can't take them seriously. In my dealings with dating, I have come across only one person who has mastered both areas. I have insincerely told several people throughout my life that I "love" them (usually out of obligated reciprocation); I'm unsure of what my take on love is, but I can honestly say that what I feel for that one person is closer to love than what I've felt for anyone else.

      Rationale: There are plenty of book-smart people out there. There are also plenty of street-smart people. To have both is rare- and those who have both have an edge over everybody else. Most socios are able to recognize this potential for success, for they possess it within themselves. Naturally, we are attracted to excellence. Therefore, we are attracted to other sociopaths.

4)   Point: Being a "chameleon" can only be understood by others like us.

      Personal experience: I change my persona depending on what I need and who I am around. My groups of friends are eclectic and from all walks of life. In the past, when the guy I'm with at the time has met a group of friends who views me differently than he does, disaster ensued. "Who are you?", "You didn't tell me you used to do such-and-such things",  "I talked to so-and-so...I don't even know you", and so on. I am forced to purposely avoid letting my significant other meet certain people or hear certain things, in an attempt to maintain his view of who I am to him.

     Rationale: Who we date is usually a frequent escort. That being said, it is difficult for someone who isn't a social chameleon to get along with more than one group of your friends- or anyone who sees you in a different light than your lover does. Dating another sociopath means that he/she will easily fit into your eclectic groups of acquaintances. He/she will understand the necessity of mimicking and will be able to recognize when it is being done. He/she will also be able to mimick, which eliminates the "why do your friends hate me?" mediation and the "what was that all about?" explanations. He/she will understand that the "you" that you are pretending to be is just an act.

      I could probably continue, but I'll wait for some feedback first. Please do note that I am presenting this from theories I've derived from my own experiences. Also note that I am not referring to full-blown psychopaths, sadists, or those that might only date to extort things from/harm the other. Rather, I am referencing "mild" sociopaths like myself, who understand self-interest and are frustrated with dating simpletons.

Take the Test

From TNP, describing the test:


It essentially breaks down all known psychopathic behavior into individual clusters that branch off of a base psychopathic tree. It's an evaluation, which a person can take themselves, to see just where they fall, and what characteristics and predominant in their personality. It takes away the arbitrary binary designation Yes/No to psychopathy, and instead focuses on the type of psychopathic features a person displays.

My academic sources are rooted in the works of Hare, Millon, and the DSM, though I do avoid complete redundancy, and nixed a few aspects that seemed obsolete, or unrelated to psychopathy.



The test itself:


Psychopathic Trait Tendency Assessment (PTTA)

This evaluation measures an individual's potentially psychopathic personality traits. It measures four different clusters of acknowledged psychopathic traits, and has a scoring system to measure if an individual meets enough of the criteria to acknowledge how much their personality is affected by each cluster of psychopathy. The evaluation also makes the distinction between each cluster being a primary personality tendency or a secondary one if indeed an individual displays enough traits for a cluster on a consistent basis.

This test does not evaluate whether an individual is a psychopath or not. It simply measure how their personality measures up to researched psychopathic features. The criteria, thresholds, and clusters are derived from the works and research of Hare, Millon, and the DSM IV.


Scoring System

Each trait has a max score of 4. There is no "3" in the scoring system, due to the severity of difference of a pathological trait, and a learned and utilized trait due to environmental adaptation necessities.*

0 - manifests rarely if at all
1 - manifests occasionally
2 - manifests frequently
4 - is an ever-present pathological manifestation in the personality of the person and is rarely if ever not utilized
  
*Examples of this would be when a person lives in a life-situation where classically psychopathic traits are needed to survive and thrive. This usually applies to hostile or high-stress work-environments for the likes of soldiers, career criminals, police, emergency responders, doctors/nurses, et cetera.


PTTA Evaluation

Assign a score to each trait based on the scoring system above. Add up the total for each cluster.

Core Base Psychopathic Personality Traits

-Superficial usage of charm
-Drastically lower levels of fear and anxiety
-Lack of empathy
-Lack of remorse
-Underdeveloped emotions
-Lack of respect or understanding of social norms and morals
-Impersonal relationships with family, friends and lovers
-Shallow to nonexistent affect
-High levels of cunning, deception and manipulation


Primary Psychopath threshold 28+/36
Secondary Psychopath threshold 20-27/36


Core Antisocial Personality Traits

-High levels of apathy and lack of life goals
-Disregard and violation of the boundaries of others
-Recidivist criminality
-Low levels of impulse control
-Low tolerance for frustration
-Prone to violent outbursts
-Prone to parasitic relationships with friends, family, and lovers
-Prone to indulgence of narcotics, alcohol, and other habit forming chemicals
-Sexual promiscuity

Primary Antisocial threshold: 28+/36
Secondary Antisocial threshold: 20-27/36


Core Narcissistic Personality Traits

-Highly susceptible to criticism or praise
-Grandiose self-image
-Sense of entitlement
-Delusional and unrealistic goals
-Obsession with self
-Requires constant attention and prefers to be the center of it
-Easily and often jealous and angry
-Wants and feels they deserve "the best" of whatever they want or need
-Indulges in fantasy of wealth, power and fame

Primary Narcissist threshold: 28+/36
Secondary Narcissist threshold: 20-27/36


Core Sadistic Personality Traits

-Prone to use physical or psychological harm to achieve their goals
-Humiliates or demeans others
-Utilizes unusually harsh punishments and lessons
-Takes pleasure or is amused by viewing or participating in the harming of animals and or humans
-Usage of intimidation
-Restricts the autonomy of those closest to the person
-Highly interested weapons, violence and torture
-Views others as toys to be played with and discarded when bored
-Takes pleasure in terrorizing and inducing fear and panic in others

Primary Sadist threshold: 28+/36
Secondary Sadist threshold: 20-27/36


Each core personality type represents a cluster of traits typically associated with Psychopaths and their behavior. As these are personality clusters, some are usually represented more than others, but it is possible that an individual would score very high on all clusters, or possibly only high on one if they were somewhere in the psychopathic spectrum.

Each cluster has nine traits, and the thresholds are kept at levels that require a majority of points being pooled into each cluster.

Secondary represents that an individual not only represents most traits to a moderate degree, but has at least one that falls into the realm of pathological.

Primary represents that not only does an individual have most traits to a moderate degree, but that they have most to a pathological degree.

Thresholds are not meant to include or exclude the possibility that someone encompasses a personality cluster. For example, an individual with only three or four traits in a cluster to a pathological degree would probably be represented by the personality cluster, even if the other traits did not appear present or that noticeable. It is rare (but not impossible) than an individual would only have a few traits in a cluster at pathological levels, and not the rest, to at least achieve the Secondary status for that cluster.

Wired for risk

This was an interesting article sent to me courtesy of a reader, "Economic decision-making in psychopathy": A comparison with ventromedial prefrontal lesion patients," featuring our good friend Newman as one of the authors. The gist of the article is that "born" sociopaths share certain risking taking and economic decision-making patterns in common with people who have an impaired ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that is associated with risk, fear, and decision-making.

First, the researchers make a distinction between classes of sociopaths:

“primary” (low-anxious) psychopathy is viewed as a direct consequence of some core intrinsic deficit, whereas “secondary” (high-anxious) psychopathy is viewed as an indirect consequence of environmental factors or other psychopathology. 

Next, the sociopaths were given two classic decision-making tasks, the Ultimatum Game and the Dictator Game. Regarding the Ultimatum Game:

In the Ultimatum Game, two players are given an opportunity to split a sum of money. One player (the proposer) offers a portion of the money to the second player (the responder), and keeps the remainder for himself. The responder can either accept the offer (in which case both players split the money as proposed) or reject the offer (in which case both players get nothing). “Rational actor” models predict that the responder would accept any offer, no matter how low. However, relatively small offers (less than 20–30% of the total) are rejected about half the time (Bolton and Zwick, 1995; Guth et al., 1982). The “irrational” rejection of unfair offers has been correlated with feelings of anger (Pillutla and Murnighan, 1996), suggesting that the responder’s ability to regulate anger and frustration plays a critical role in task performance. Patients with vmPFC lesions, who are known to exhibit irritability and poor frustration tolerance despite an otherwise generally blunted affect (Anderson et al., 2006; Barrash et al., 2000), reject an abnormally high proportion of unfair offers (Koenigs and Tranel, 2007). Thus the first aim of this study is to determine whether either of the psychopathic subtypes (primary or secondary) also rejects an abnormally high proportion of unfair offers.

And the Dictator Game:

In the Dictator Game, there are again two players with an opportunity to split a sum of money. However, in this case the responder has no choice but to accept whatever split the proposer offers. Thus, the amount offered by the proposer in the Dictator Game is presumed to reflect a prosocial sentiment, such as empathy or guilt. Patients with vmPFC lesions, who are known to exhibit deficits in empathy and guilt (Anderson et al., 2006; Barrash et al., 2000), offer abnormally low amounts in the Dictator Game (Krajbich et al., 2009). Thus the second aim of this study is whether either of the psychopathic subtypes (primary or secondary) also offers abnormally low amounts in the Dictator Game.

I'm not surprised at all by the results. The only thing I find somewhat puzzling is that the primary and secondary sociopaths differ. I would think that both types would try to shortsell their partners in the games. Unless the secondary sociopaths are a little bit more aware or paranoid that this may be a situation that would leave them vulnerable to the unpredictable social judgment of others?

Survey results

I copied the results below. I tried not to have duplicates, but I may also have inadvertently left some out. Some of the questions didn't really get enough responses to include. Some of the answer categories I grouped together, e.g. "eating to survive" included pretty much everyone who said that they typical just eat for the nutrients, although they may sometimes find pleasure in eating. Next time I'll make an actual survey form for ease of calculation. Of course this was far from reliable, but it was still interesting. I was surprised by some of the results, was not surprised by some. I'll let you speculate without tainting you with my own conclusions/theories.

1. Do you have normal average blood temperature, run hot, or run cold?
12 Cold 4 normal 2 hot

2. Do you have normal blood pressure, run high, or run low?
13 Low 2 normal 6 high

3. What is your relationship to food?
5 love 1 like 17 eat to survive

4. Do you have corrected vision, i.e. glasses, contact lenses?
9 corrected 12 none

5. What is your tolerance to pain? Low, high, or normal?
17 high 5 normal 1 low

6. Have you ever had stitches or surgery that could have been otherwise been preventable based on lifestyle choices?
10 no 12 yes

7. Would you say you look about your age, younger, or older than your age?
11 younger 8 same 3 older

8. Do you take cold medication? How soon after a cold do you start taking medication?
17 no 4 some/sometimes 1 yes

9. Do you have trouble sleeping?
8 yes 12 some/sometimes 2 no

10. Which do you crave more, salty or sweet foods?
8 salty 3 both 7 sweet 3 neither

11. Do you wake up in the morning drenched in sweat?
4 no 5 sometimes

12. Do you abuse drugs like alcohol?
3 no 7 yes

13. Do you have great admiration for the aspergers people?
5 yes 3 no

14. Creepy stare:
6 yes

15. People oriented job:
2 no

16. Do you like sun and brightness?
8 no

17. Do you eat red/bloody meat?
5 yes 1 no

18. Are you involved in or have you been involved in extreme hobbies and activities?
3 yes 3 no

19. Do you like trying new things, or are you averse to change?
6 change