Monday, June 16, 2014

Reading people

I liked this comment from a while ago:

Being able to read people to an irregularly deep degree isn't exclusively the province of sociopaths and headcases, they're just the poster children because there's something about the juxtaposition of understanding and predatory apathy that appeals to sheep. Sort of like why people are fascinated by the myth of the vampire, as long as it can be tamed and made 'comfortable' to their understanding of the world(*coughTwilightcough*).

But no. In my experience, people dislike being understood because there's always a chasm of difference separating the person they project themselves as being from the person they really are. A man I know, to pull an example from my hat, wants to be seen as suave, genius in his chosen field of study, worldly but still passionate about geeky things, a great gentleman with regards to women, etc. He doesn't want to be regularly acquainted with someone who sees him for the flaws he so desperately ignores or explains away underneath the exterior projection. They always want to project those flaws on you if they're afraid you understand them: I've had problems in the past with one specific group of my friends who has known me a long time and also is aware of at least some of my aptitude for reading people's patterns to an uncomfortably accurate degree. I've only ever had this problem with this one group, but reliably, whenever I would be seen as getting close to a member of the group, certain individuals would go out of their way to 'poison the well' so to speak and cast doubt on me, belittle me, or do whatever it took to keep that person away from me. Had I ever displayed malicious intent towards any of my close friends? Nah. I hadn't used them and discarded them, screwed them over, or done anything socially or morally unacceptable to them. But nonetheless they would cast me as a coward, deceiver, 'weird', and so forth as a means of isolating me because they feared me, and that I would bring their whole game crashing down if I got too involved. That's the conundrum I found myself in, with them: I made certain that they respected me, but as Machiavelli so famously made into an axiom, the only way to do that reliably is fear if you can't elicit love.

I think it ties into that primal instinct of 'us and them', where 'us' is the people playing the game 'by the rules', so to speak. The rules are that people want to feel good, enjoy humor and having their ego scratched, and make memories with other people that they can point to, whenever they want to reminisce about how awesome they are. Anyone who doesn't play the game, or who plays it differently, is 'them'. That includes people who see that most of the game is bullshit posturing, If you expose yourself as someone who doesn't observe a particular set of rules, the traditional social response is persecution and isolation. That's how groups maintain themselves, from street gangs (where the persecution usually comes in nine millimeters) to the social elite.

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Letter to a sociopath

From a reader (written but never sent to her sociopathic acquaintance):

DO YOU KNOW THAT...
I know you from your eyes? Every time we stare at each other for longer than usual, and you ask me 'What are you thinking?' I reply 'Nothing.' And you never believe me. But really I'm telling the truth. Seriously- I'm not thinking, I'm feeling. I'm feeling your cold stare. Feeling your calculation. Feeling that question coming up. 

What I see are two curious eyes, trying to read me. I suppose the look on my face is not something you can decipher. It's something new, something you've never seen before. All this, I know because I feel you.

And I love you, no matter how much YOU love ME. I'll probably never know for sure, even though you say it sometimes. All that I can know for sure is what my emotions are telling me. And they're not just some random butterflies in my stomach. It's something much bigger than that. I'm pretty sure it's dedication. Dedication towards a very special person, with lots and lots of potential. And I want to help cultivate that potential. 

At the same time, I want to keep on learning from you. Every day my eyes open more and more. You have no idea. The fog that is caused by my emotions, be they positive or negative, keeps disappearing in front of my eyes. I can see now, the outside world. When I touch a table, I know it is there. I've started keeping track of people and their habits, however small, because apparently that helps a lot. I'm learning to pay attention to any thoughts of suspicion I have, I used to ignore them altogether. I'm learning to see the world exactly as it is. 

And this is coming pretty naturally to me, because that's who I am. An actress. A mirror. I can easily BECOME you. I won't hurt or disappoint you because then I'd hurt and disappoint myself. Your pain is my pain. 

When I'm performing on stage for example, I don't merely recite my lines and make gestures and face expressions to go along with them. I become that person. The character in the play borrows my body, and the lines just pour out of my mouth, like they're coming out of nowhere. 

All this will maybe help you understand what I "think" when I look into your eyes.

And- with all the patience I can gather, I want to try to answer any other question you might have. Why? So you can understand ME easier, and other people as well. It would become easier for you to make me happy-- Both of us would end up happier! Symbiosis: a natural process. 

As for time, I will not pay attention to it, because a process of symbiosis could last a few seconds, a few hours, a few weeks, a few years, a few centuries, or until death does apart the participants in that process. I'd prefer the latter of course, but then again, whatever has to happen, will happen. So I don't want to pay attention to time. Staring into your eyes feels like eternity anyways. 

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Logic and labels

From a reader:

Hello M.E.,

I just finished reading your book and really enjoyed reading it.

I find you to be interesting and likeable. I think that I could definitely be your friend :).

I respect that you are trying to educate people about sociopaths and point out that all humans are more similar than they are different.

I have experienced an excessive sense of guilt and was diagnosed as having OCD, with my obsession being guilt.

I am doing a lot better now and feel very stable. It interests me to read the perspective from an individual that doesn't feel guilt. And I am happy to learn from a variety of perspectives. I believe that human beings are all selfish, whether we are sociopathic or empathic, and I also agree that people fall upon a spectrum. What I most believe, however, is that being empathic does not equate with good behaviour. For example, I rationally believe that I should be vegetarian because of how abused the animals are. However, empathically I don't feel a sense of guilt after eating meat, so I continue to eat meat despite my intellect knowing that it isn't right. Therefore, empaths can often do things that are wrong, or that they know are wrong, simply because they can avoid the guilt/remorse response within themselves. If sociopaths often operate from a rational morality, they may make decisions that empaths won't because empaths are relying on their feelings to dictate their behaviour in particular situations. I know that this is a generalisation, but it is something that I thought about when reading your book. There is no righteousness in being empathic, and just because I am highly empathic doesn't mean that I am not selfish. 

There's a gift in your state of existence and your unique journey, just as there's a gift in mine. We both have things to teach ourselves and others. We both have the opportunity to enrich lives. By spreading greater awareness of sociopathy, you are enriching lives and helping many to feel less ostracised. In doing that you're acting in a way that many would assume to be contrary to sociopathic behaviour - you're helping people. But I'm aware that sociopaths do good and bad, just as empaths do good and bad. People are people.

But what was maybe most interesting part of the exchange for me was talking about how the reader's open-mindedness and sexual orientation might play out together. I said: "It's interesting that you are gay and seem to not be caught up as much in "sheeple" thought, for lack of a better word for it -- i.e., you seem to be more openminded and self-aware than most people. Do you think there is a connection there?"

Reader:

I don't think being gay has anything to do with being open-minded. There are so many gays who are judgmental of other LGBTI individuals. Many gays actually reject gender-queer and transgendered people. That is upsetting for me because I love all my queer brothers and sisters. 

It is interesting. One of my friends was gay, now transgendered and pretty much disowned from his previous gay community. Of course there could be a lot of reasons why that happens, but I've found that to be true of mental illnesses too: "ours is ok, but these other people are really sickos". I think it's funny when people argue that marriage equality does not include the right to marry as many people as you want. Because, why not? Could it be that people come up with their beliefs/convictions first and then later convince themselves that there are logical justifications for those convictions? 

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Ego depletion

Why people (sociopaths and non), despite their best intentions are unable to always do the right thing? From Wikipedia (with accompanying sites to relevant scientific research):

Ego depletion refers to the idea that self-control or willpower draw upon a limited pool of mental resources that can be used up. When the energy for mental activity is low, self-control is typically impaired, which would be considered a state of ego depletion. In particular, experiencing a state of ego depletion impairs the ability to control oneself later on. A depleting task requiring self-control can have a hindering effect on a subsequent self-control task, even if the tasks are seemingly unrelated. Self-control plays a valuable role in the functioning of the self on both individualistic and interpersonal levels. Ego depletion is therefore a critical topic in experimental psychology, specifically social psychology, because it is a mechanism that contributes to the understanding of the processes of human self-control.
***
Conservation hypothesis
The conservation hypothesis is a partial explanation of ego depletion. It suggests that there are two sorts of depletion:

  1. When one is completely depleted and unable to self-control.
  2. When one is not fully depleted, but partly. Still, one reduces his self-control efforts to avoid complete exhaustion.

According to this view, when people feel depleted, there might still exist a reserve store of energy to be used in extreme, high priority situations that could be encountered in the future. This can be adaptive to the extent that expending any more resources at a given time might render an individual fully depleted of their resources in an unexpected situation requiring self-regulation or other self-monitoring behaviours. The existence of a spare reservoir of mental energy ultimately explains why various motivators can buffer the effects of mild or moderate ego depletion. In a state of low resources, an individual lacks motivation to exert any more energy, but if motivation is presented, there are still extra resources that can be used up. Thus, ego depletion could be conceptualized as a psychological constraint necessary to safeguard precious resources that might be needed in emergency situations in the future. Under mild depletion, people still have a small amount of energy left in their "tank", which they do not have access to under normal circumstances.

Is this why all of my worst examples of losing self-control have happened while traveling and being thrown together in ungodly situations with total strangers?

Monday, June 9, 2014

Sociopaths and transgendered?

Although I don't agree with the ultimate conclusion, there was something refreshingly honest about this recent commenter's beliefs:

Sociopaths don't follow the platinum rule, because although people do want a doting boyfriend who wants the best for them, they don't want a sociopath who studies them, pretends to be a soul mate while ruining their life.

a sociopath is a bit like a tranny. sure i like a woman who likes to dress up and act womanly. but a man that dresses up like a woman and acts womanly, perhaps goings so far as to get breast implants or even a dick removal and fake vagina constructed? that is disgusting, creepy and alarming, even if the tranny works out more, diets harder, wears higher heels and better outfits. even if that tranny sucks cock like a champ, or fucks -with that fake box - like a pornstar, I'm in the "kill it with fire" camp, because I'm having some fear/disgust emotions related to the dishonesty of it all.

a tranny is not following the platinum rule by dressing up, sucking and fucking like a pornstar and getting awesome hormone therapy and surgery. the way you know that is that such people routinely get killed for tricking dudes into bedding them.
Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.