Monday, November 17, 2014

Recovering sociopath

From a reader:

My sociopathy is certainly not mild. I understand the unquenchable thirst for sex. There were times when I'd have sex with three different women in 12 hours, on a weekday for no reason other than I could. Women who knew and hated each other--just for the kicks. I understand the admiration and obedience they offer when given the powerful combination of multiple orgasms and sweet nothings whispered in their ear. Invest 20 minutes writing a heartfelt poem and they'll cut you a key to their house. Walk in and explain how much you've missed them any time you're feeling horny and understimulated. Neither ditsy college girls nor educated, successful women are safe from the skills born from our predatory instincts. Such things feed our equally unquenchable egos; perpetual lust, with clever justification via logic, science, and the nature of humanity. It's just how we are built, we say. Now shut up and let me control you.

Such behavior lost me the woman of my dreams... someone who not only loved me true, but knew and accepted me on the deepest level for exactly what I was, and sacrificed much just to make me fit into her life. Ironically, yesterday was the 4th anniversary of the last time we spoke. I've not had sex in years, and I won't. I'm waiting for her to come home.

If she was so accepting, then why did she leave? Why were my tendencies not acceptable as a lover? Because sociopathy is a way of thinking, not acting. We are blessed to choose exactly who and what we are. It makes me sad to see so many I identify with using silver tongues to live in self-enabled denial--believing that "right" and "wrong" are just words with meanings that vary as opinions do. What an ugly truth to see it is an empath's world, and we are the outliers for a reason. Regardless of neurobiology, everyone should wake up with the intent to make the world we share just a little bit better. Sleeping around benefits none but oneself, and is far from being healthy. If anything, those born with poor impulse control would benefit more from practices of restraint and humility. It's human, even if we don't feel human at times.

In the end, we are people first and sociopaths a distant second. She taught me that. As a former kleptomaniac, pyromaniac, pathological liar, sexual prowler, and selfish exploiter with a closet full of masks and memories, I can say that my life is now infinitely better. People love me now, even if I don't quite know what that means. I don't need to understand love to understand it's important to be on either end.

I'm still a sociopath and live a stimulating life that suits me well. I simply chose to be a good person, too. As it turns out, both are possible. 

Your long-time, silent reader,

Telos, 23

P.S.: Thank you, M.E. Never found myself until after I found you.

No more damage

I found the logic of this old comment to be interesting, especially "Empath's aren't some poor victim who are preyed upon for no reason, they are one of the main reasons sociopaths develop into what they are.":

Firstly, the example you gave is a little extreme, considering most sociopaths don't mess someone up to the point where they are committed to a mental institution. In fact, the average sociopath does almost nothing to distinguish him or herself from the general population, in order to blend in. Unless you have a low amount of self control or deep uncontrollable desire to see others hurt in the most dramatic ways, usually the sociopath does no more damage than those overly empathic people who jump from high to lows, fighting with their spouse regularly and creating a chaotic household. The only main difference is the sociopath adds a more elegant touch, creating the same amount of drama without people often realizing something is happening 

I do agree that rape does have a high emotional impact, and perhaps that was not the best example for me to use. But most emotional pain easily heals over physical pain, when we look at the average individual. Now don't get me wrong some people take emotional pain more severe than others, but when does responsibility fall on the victim? Eventually the victim needs to overcome their emotional pain, otherwise they become what? a drain on society? someone who can't work or uses up government resources because they couldn't handle a breakup? I'm not saying their emotions should not be taken into account, but there should be a limit on how much emotion is too much emotion, and when someone is simply letting themselves be the victim. 

"The only reason, I guess, that you don't acknowledge the permanence of emotional damage is because you haven't looked back at your victims." 
Not true, I've looked back on my "victims" but I don't see them as victims, they were companions that provided me with the stimulation I required at the time, did I possibly do things that upset them? Yes, did I lie and manipulate them so they would like me more, who doesn't lol. But if you look at the overall picture they always received more positive than negative during the relationship, and if they can't handle themselves after the relationship was terminated, that is not my problem, I did my part when it was expected of me. 

Lastly, " Just because people are naturally emotionally vulnerable, why does that give you the right to violate them, emotionally or physically?"

The same reason why it's right that we sacrifice animals for food, survival. Empaths might view sociopaths as pure evil but sociopaths are just people trying to survive (for the most part, some are just fucked up like regular people). If a sociopath doesn't learn to lie and manipulate from a young age they are instead isolated from society, people call them names, tell them they are messed up, pump them full of drugs. Empath's aren't some poor victim who are preyed upon for no reason, they are one of the main reasons sociopaths develop into what they are. Things like lying and manipulation are necessary to live a somewhat normal life, it's only natural that if you start at a young age, by adulthood you are pretty good at it. Besides I'm sure you remember being a child, if you did anything weird it negatively effected your entire childhood, now imagine telling friends, parents, or teachers the thoughts of a five year old sociopath, good luck living a decent life after that. All I'm saying is from a young age (for a sociopath) it is survival of the fittest, and that's a game that he or she won't lose.

I know a lot of people will take issue with whether emotional wounds heal easier than physical. As far as generalizations go, most are wrong and this one seems particularly suspect. But I do think it brings up an interesting issue. A lot of people ask me whether labeling people sociopaths makes them act out more because now they have a justification or an excuse for their bad behavior. But I think you could say similar things about "victims". Some people seek after the victim label, or if not quite that, they make the utmost of it once they feel they have it. I've been reading Victor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" in which he advocates that people find meaning and purpose in their unavoidable suffering, quoting Nietzsche for what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. He also says that suffering is like a gas -- it expands to fill up whatever container it happens to be in. So even a little suffering can seem unbearable to some in the right circumstances. I understand all of that.

But I also know that the way we think of an experience puts a distinct spin on it. For instance, I have a friend who injured one of his joints in a work related accident a couple of years ago. He complains about the pain all of the time. I have another friend who similarly injured his joints several years ago engaging in athletics. He only sometimes mentions it. It could be that the injury and pain level are vastly different between these two. But I can't help wondering whether the distinction is more that one of them feels like a victim, always acted upon instead of acting, while the other considers his injury almost a badge of honor -- that he is active and athletic enough to have these sorts of injuries.

Is it possible that victims of sociopaths could redirect their thinking to consider their injuries a badge of honor? That only people who take risks in life and trust and love to the extent that they do would even sustain such an injury? See also "The Agency Moment". 

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Attached (part II)

A reader updates us on whether he was forming genuine emotional attachments to things and people:

I wrote to you a year ago about my efforts to resume a prior persona. I questioned whether vigorous application of myself to my reality would result in forming the same kinds of emotional connections that empaths form.  You wondered if I just grew attached to these people like I would a good pair of tennis shoes.  After a year of having resumed this life, I have to confess that you were right.  Just like I prefer to hang certain pieces of art in my living room, I prefer to adorn my life and surroundings with a certain group of people.  I've lost some of them this year already through social attrition and even death, and honestly, aside from the initial sense of disruption, I haven't been moved much by those losses.  At the end of the day, I just prefer how these people, this location, this life, accessorizes me.

The greatest surprise that I faced was assuming that the relationships would have existed in a kind of stasis.  I walked back into this life with bridges that I left fairly unsinged, and was met with varying levels of resistance--from passive aggressiveness or social avoidance to outright anger.  Conversations that were run of the mill the last time I was here were met with hostility or annoyance.  All because I had transitioned to a different place in life.  It actually was kind of funny, the ego-stroking and strategically timed "emotional conversations" that were necessary to resume my place in the social pecking order of these groups.

My efforts at resuming this life, and the long route I took reminded me of a past conversation.  Right around the time I was making this transition, I was talking to a friend who's clearly like me (whether she realizes exactly what she is or not).  I told her that she and I are like canines while most people are sheep.  But we have a choice.  We can be wolves or sheep dogs.  My transition back into this life, with its surprises about people's emotional buttons, certainly tested my resolve as to which role I wanted to fill--whether to rampantly exploit emotional buttons to get what I wanted through the shortest path possible, or to take the difficult and more patience-testing path of simply allowing them to come around on their own with only gentle nudging.

I wish I could say that I did it because it would have felt wrong to take the shortcut.  The power I feel when I push emotional buttons actually would've felt better in the short-term.  But I like to keep my pets happy.  Makes life more interesting that way, and helps me "attune" myself to more prosocial behaviors so that my act is seamless.  But I have to admit to myself now that if I lost any of these people I'd just find a replacement.  But at least I'd water it and feed it and if it came down to it, kill any wolves that wanted to eat it.


Friday, November 14, 2014

Nightcrawler

I've been getting quite a few inquiries about what sort of mental health diagnosis I think that Lou Bloom, the protagonist in the film Nightcrawler, might have. I'll try to stay general about personality characteristics and not specific about plot so as to avoid spoilers, but also apologize that consequently this won't make sense unless/until you see the show. The good news is that the show is worth seeing.

So, I'd love to hear other people's thoughts because mine is just a guess, and not a very educated one, but I thought autism spectrum with antisocial traits? There's actually a strong hint of narcissistic personality disorder as well, but mostly in his seemingly selective obliviousness to the needs and feelings of others and the way he prioritizes his own needs above all else. But my (albeit limited) experience with people with ASD suggests that they too come off as selectively oblivious.

Bloom clearly has difficulties empathizing, both cognitively and emotionally. It's not clear whether he can't tell when he creeps people out, or he can but chooses to ignore it. On the one hand, it appears to be the former because if he could help it, why wouldn't he be less creepy? Especially if it would make his life easier for him. On the other hand, he says things, especially later in the movie, that suggest that he just doesn't care to wear a mask for the sake of others. Also, there are plenty of times when he is very smooth, especially when he is committed to playing a particular role rather than trying to be a more sincere version of himself. This is especially true when he has just seen the "right" behavior modeled to him, e.g. the job interview situations with him on both sides of the table, also when he first begins his "career".

I think the thing that shocks the average view the most about him at first is his instrumentalism. He does not have ethics or even really pretend to have them (at least not until ethics both become necessary for his survival and are properly modeled for him to imitate). He is a clever tactician, but part of it seems to be based on luck or mimicry rather than planning things out several steps ahead. Some viewers may notice that his most elaborate set-up had several ways that could have left him unacceptably vulnerable, if things had not gone just so. Perhaps he would have relied on his ability to improvise solutions and have dealt with those issues if/when they came, but it gives him the overall impression of him just being a huge risk taker rather than a mastermind. He is super cool under pressure. He doesn't seem to express much emotion, except the negative, anger based ones. He does not seem to have a moral compass at all. He behaves in antisocial ways that would have him likely scoring as ASPD or high on the PCL-R.

Some of the most entertaining and thought provoking parts of the movie are when he has taken a concept that has been very intentionally soft-pedaled to him (e.g. if it bleeds it leads) and acted very literally and unapologetically on it. For instance, people may be aware of (and passively supporting) the mass euthanizing of animals at animal shelters, but people get quite upset still when they actually witness an animal being harmed (see also, eating meat). Bloom does not understand or at least acknowledge in his actions these very fine distinctions that are frequently drawn. But it's not that Bloom seems to misunderstands the concept or the nuance, he just feels no need to sugarcoat what is, not justify his actions to himself or others, nor otherwise try to whitewash exactly what he does and why he does it -- what prurient interests he is trying to supply.

The thing is, every character in a Hollywood film is going to be a caricature of whatever they're attempting to portray. So it's not too useful to analyze this character in any serious way in terms of an actual mental health diagnosis. Still, I thought it was an interesting portrayal of what might be thought of as a psychopath who perhaps was not socialized early enough to have been fluently normal seeming (home schooled psychopath or psychopath raised by aspies?), or someone on the autism spectrum who is particularly obsessed with self promotion (not like selfie generation promotion, but in the driven, career centric way) and power. 

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Serge King on Power

A reader sent me this, which I thought was interesting especially because it discusses the different flavors and nuances of power. When I say that sociopaths enjoy power, a lot of people think of one or two, or even just a few different types of power (usually the kinds that they themselves covet or have experienced). I didn't realize this was such a popular misconception before. For instance, in the book I talk about ruining people. A lot of people thought this was destructive or sadistic. To me it was just a particular flavor of influence:

Power and Purpose by Serge Kahili King

The essence of power is influence. It is that which enables you to be effective at doing what you want to do, to get the results intended, to move others to help you, and it is that which affects the power of others even when it is unintentional. Everything has both active and passive aspects of power. A flower has the active power to grow, blossom and reproduce. It may also have the passive power to give food to a bee or pleasure to a human, both of which enhance its active power to grow and reproduce. A human may have the active power to perform a certain task. He or she may also have the passive power to inspire other humans by that performance.

There are several kinds of power: 
1. The power of energy (as of the elements, strength, emotions, vibrations). 
2. The power of favor [ability to give or withold] (as of money, position, prestige, affection, punishment, protection, pleasure, etc.). 
3. The power of intimidation (threat or act of violence or loss, emotional manipulation, etc.) 
3. The power of knowledge (as of skill, information, wisdom). 
4. The power of authority (as of self-confidence, or confidence in one's access to another power). 
5. The power of focus (as with decision, determination, motivation, desire). 
6. The power of belief (as with assumptions, attitudes and expectations).
***
Power, however, is meaningless without a purpose, and no purpose can be achieved without power. The larger the purpose, the greater the power, but it doesn't work the other way. You can't accumulate tremendous power first and then set about applying it to a great purpose. It is the purpose that expands the power.

. . . . Most have also encountered two major problems based on a misunderstanding of power.

The first problem is the false association of power with control. This error is very common, and is the main reason so many people are afraid of the whole concept of power. Actually, control is just a technique, and not a very good one, for exerting influence. Control requires the threat or the fact of punishment to be effective, and the response to that is always fear and anger. Therefore, the use of the control technique sets up a natural resistance to its use. If you look at the surface of a situation the control technique may appear to be effective, either in a family or a police state, but the underlying resistance is constantly working to undo it. Even if the situation lasts for many years, the control technique will produce a very poor record of achieving the desired results.

The second problem is the use of power against something. Now, exerting influence induces change, and the universe has a built-in resistance to change that helps to keep it from falling into chaos. In all of existence we can see a constant interplay between the forces of change and resistance to those forces. We also see constant attempts to reduce resistance in order to make change easier, such as the path taken by molten lava, the shape of a raindrop, the structure of a palm frond, the strength of an elephant, the streamlining of an airplane, and the altering of a lifestyle. Very rarely do we see power used consistently and purposefully to get rid of something, except among humans. Some people are not satisfied with developing their own religious or political system; they have to make theirs the only one by destroying the others. Some people do not want to compete; they want to eliminate the competition. Some people do not want to cure cancer or heal the drug problem; they want to make war on them. The use of power to willfully oppose, subdue or destroy another power generates tremendous stresses which reduce the effectiveness of both.

"Power over" and "power against" are very inefficient uses of power. A far more efficient use is "power to." The former are inherently destructive, while the latter is inherently creative. Sometimes the difference is as subtle as an attitude, but the effects can differ vastly.

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.