What's new

The Pity Play - Tipoff Play of Sociopath

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
Like I said up-thread, I think there is a spectrum of sociopathy, corresponding to the degree of empathy and concern for others that a person has, and it's arbitrary to draw the line at any particular point and say "people with this level of concern or less are sociopaths".

I also think that there are people who are able to compartmentalize their feelings, for example having empathy for their kids and friends, but none for enemies who would harm them.

Somewhat arbitrary. Everyone has some cancerous cells in them. Most get swept up by the immune system. Some stay in a precancerous mass. At some point, your oncologist says - you have cancer. I think the line, while fuzzy, is discernible in the wake and type of destruction a personality leaves behind. And I think with better testing diagnostics, that line will get sharper and more biochemically-based, rather than clinically.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
BT, there is some evidence that sociopaths can turn empathy on and off. And I think there area a number of partial sociopaths out there who have an impaired sense of empathy, or who need to be reminded time and again to turn up the volume. This is especially true if NPD is laid on top of the sociopathy.

And this evidence that you speak of that a "sociopath" can turn empathy on and off: How does this differ from a normal human being, exactly?

Alanzo
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
I was thinking more along the lines of the Illuminati or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion type of conspiracy theories. Serious belief in something such as "Chariots of the Gods".

I've had interactions with members of both the Russian and Chinese mafia, I KNOW there are actual conspirators out there. It's just that they are usually more prosaic and petty than the conspiracy theorists make them out to be.:p

Thank you for clarifying that it's about particular types of conspiracy theories. If all conspiracy theories were untrue there wouldn't be any conspiracies. I guess I can search for "Illuminati" and "Elders of Zion" on ESMB to see who the theorists on the board are, but it seems unrelated to a discussion of whether or not someone is "neurotypical."
 

In present time

Gold Meritorious Patron
Not true ... see my post from yesterday:



The Story of the Personal Assistant

In her initial interviews with me and my personal assistant (a man who was moving to another state), the woman I hired to replace him blew us both away. She was charming, smart, skilled, described herself as dedicated, and professed to be professionally smitten by me. She had moved to the area within the last year (from California) and said she could understand how difficult it must be for me to find good help in this area. (She was right.) She said her greatest difficulty in the work place was that people were often intimidated by her technical skills.

In turn, I was smitten with her. She seemed ready for prime time. I was also feeling desperate to find someone good, because my current assistant (who was wonderful) would be gone in a few weeks.

The next day I called her previous employer and ignored the muzzled, unenthusiastic reference I was given -- the applicant's dates of employment, job title and and a guarded attitude. I chalked it up to "great worker, jealous supervisor."

A few weeks later the woman came to work for me. She was fine. She was more rigid than I'd expected her to be, but c'est la vie. She changed things I didn't want to change, because she said my old ways didn't work for her.

After a month or so, she started to tell me about her in-laws and how unfriendly they were to her. She thought they were jealous of how much her husband loved her. She also asked to alter her schedule. It wasn't convenient for me, but I thought I could be flexible. She was grateful. And became charming again.

A month later she asked for a raise. I blinked. She said she needed more money than she was making or she'd have to look for another job. She cried, said it hurt her to ask me for more money, said she knew how unusual it was. I weakened and gave her half of what she asked for. I didn't want to look again for another assistant -- I didn't have time to look for and train another one so soon after her arrival.

A month later, her absences -- requested and unexpected -- had spiked up. I had a "come to Jesus" talk with her. She revealed, in sobs, something she had not told me about before -- that she had cancer. She had thought it was under control, but it wasn't. She needed time off to see doctors 100 miles away. I was horrified. How awful! She was a mess. I gave her the time off she asked for. Some of it with pay.

Three months into this I googled the hell out of her and discovered she was under indictment in California for embezzling funds from a prior employer out there and had fled the state. There were warrants out for her arrest. I was absolutely horrified. What the hell had I done hiring a suspected criminal on the run from the law?

I confronted her with this news. She broke down in tears again, bigger than ever. She said it was even worse than I knew. She said that she had been charged wrongly. She said the only way she could have responded was to leave California, because she did not have the funds to hire a proper lawyer, that the first two lawyers she'd hired had been unable to offer her a proper defense because they had not believed in her or her innocence. She was now trying to save enough money to hire a third lawyer and go back to California and defend herself.

I told her she had one month to clear this up, or she was gone for good. And I told her I wanted to talk to her third lawyer when she found one.

(Anybody wondering at this point if I have even half of a functional brain?!? Me, too.)

Do you really have cancer? I asked. Oh, yes! More sobs, head in arms on the desk, real tears. You can call my doctor if you want! Here's his name and phone number.

I called. Like an idiot. The nurse said, "Are you kidding? I'm not going to tell you anything about anyone's medical condition!" Fuck, I knew that. I felt like an idiot and was mad at myself.

The next few weeks went by with more absences, but some good work, too. Some days she was happy, others bravely courageous, others sad.

Two weeks later -- she stopped coming to work. No phone call, no letter of resignation.

I called her mobile. Nothing. I called the emergency number she had given, and her mother-in-law called the phone.

When I asked if her daughter-in-law was well, she laughed. "Did she tell you she had cancer? That's one of the things she tells people."

Where is she, I asked.

"They moved to Illinois over the weekend. They've been going up there for months trying to find a house to rent. She's already got a job up there. At least that's what she said. Who knows if it's true."

What is she really like? I asked.

"She's insane. She's the worst thing that has ever happened to our family. She is a pathological liar and has our son tied up in knots. We fear she will be the death of him. But, God forgive me, I'm so glad she's gone and out of our home. You should thank your lucky stars she's gone, too."

Needless to say, I was!

And that's how sociopaths fuck you over. They are very good at getting you to trust them. They are natural-born con men. They can turn on the crocodile tears in a heartbeat. They play on the sympathies of people. They will take from you everything they can get you to give them. It's not always money. It can be love, admiration, jobs, promotions, entertainment, sex, any currency that they value.

Alanzo, if you've never met anyone like this, you're the luckiest man in North America. As I've said before, they are not rare.

The very good news is that sociopaths are a small minority of people. The vast, vast majority of people are comfortable and skilled at making fair exchanges with each other in ways that both sides will profit from or, at least, aren't injured badly by. In fact, that's what "social" means -- the demonstrated ability to interact positively with others in society.

Identifying those who are anti-social still leaves the door wide open for discussion and research as to why they are the way they are. In the meantime, we want to live our lives as fruitfully as we can. Therefore, it behooves most of us not to hang around people with anti-social tendencies, histories and habits.

wow, i didn't see this before. it is the same case with the "new boss". mr ipt is no slob when it comes to tracking down information. and he discovered right at the start that the new boss has a CV full of nothing but lies.
at this point all the guys knows it, but no one is saying a peep, as they are trying to start a new company that can carry on servicing the customers they have had for years, without screwing them over.
this new boss has also brought on some suspiciously "wise" looking company out of tampa, and everything has become a straight up and vertical stat push. many of the lucrative customers are dropping like flies, because they know a bad deal when they see one.

kevin got fired for taking care of his contracts like he always had, a fair deal. where everyone does okay.
but the new deal is you have to nail the clients with at least a fifty percent profit margain.
that just doesn't work in small business around here.

loads of falsifying of documents to meet stats quotas and such.
which the boss overlooks because numbers are pretty.

i think psychopaths are pretty rare, but it seems obvious that they drag others down around them, and they start to behave the same way, just to survive.
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
Wonder if manipulation isn't also used at the other end of the spectrum: to accomplish some good.

Perhaps, manipulation has too many negative connotations, but influencing another's behavior subtly or overtly can sometimes be very beneficial.

My wife is constantly manipulating my behavior. I'm a slob, self-absorbed, neglectful, etc. Over the years, under her tutelage, I think I've grown to be a much more positive version of myself.

Or, another example, the KC Chiefs are now 7-0 after being 2-14 last year. Their coach manipulates the players attitudes to get them to win. Listening to the players being interviewed makes me believe it's a good manipulation.

We all want to influence one another. I want to influence my children, make them feel good about themselves, competent enough to succeed with what they choose and satisfied with what they do. I want them to live a full and meaningful life. But, let them choose how they do it.

I feel you bring up a very valid point. Imo, that's framing events and circumstances into proper self contexts. Looking at this in the perspective of core values from this list gives an interesting contrast.

For example, your wife giving you encouragement because she cares about you and loves you. The coach because he's connecting with his team to inspire them. You being a role model for your children and giving them your humanity with a good solid beginning to build their lives. Excellent examples of people living their core values, what ever they may be. So do we all in some way influence each other, of course we do! With love, compassion, kindness, forgiveness, gratitude, friendship, connection, commitment, and a whole host of other beautiful qualities that make our inner hearts shine.

The contrast to manipulation is what's below ....

Covert Emotional Manipulation Tactics
http://psychopathsandlove.com/covert-emotional-manipulation-tactics/

Covert emotional manipulation tactics are underhanded methods of control. Emotional manipulation methodically wears down your sense of self-worth, self-confidence, self-concept and trust in your own perceptions. At its worst, you can lose all sense of self and your personal values.

Positive Reinforcement: Praise, flattery, adoration, attention, affection, gifts, superficial sympathy (crocodile tears), superficial charm, recognition, appreciation, intense sex, and declarations of once-in-a-lifetime love. When all of these are present continually at the beginning of the relationship with no negative behavior in sight, it’s called “love-bombing,” and it’s designed to hook us deeply and bond us tightly to our abuser.

Intermittent positive reinforcement: This is a very effective manipulation tactic, one abusers use to great effect. Intermittent positive reinforcement occurs when your relationship goes from nonstop positive reinforcement to only getting attention, appreciation, praise, adoration, declarations of love, etc. once in a while, on a random basis. This will create a climate of doubt, fear and anxiety. You’ll know he’s withdrawing and you’ll fear you’re losing him, but he’ll deny it. This replays over and over until you’re riding and emotional roller coaster, with no way to stop the ride and get off. S/He is doing this on purpose to increase his power and control over you and to make you even more desperate for his love. You have become the proverbial lab rat frantically pushing the lever for a randomly dispensed treat. The rat thinks of nothing else, and neither will you. The bond can become even stronger during this phase, believe it or not. It’s a well-known psychological phenomenon known as traumatic bonding.

Negative reinforcement: The manipulator stops performing a negative behavior (such as giving you the silent treatment) when you comply with his demands.
Not allowing negative emotion: The victim is typically chastised for emotional behavior. The focus is put on the emotional upset itself, not the cause behind it (which conveniently takes the focus off of him). He refuses to hear what it is she wants to talk about. The only subject is her emotion, which is unacceptable; in fact, it’s an issue she needs to work on, and one he finds unattractive.The silent treatment usually follows, which increases her frustration at not being able to express her thoughts and feelings.

Indirect aggressive abuse: Name-calling is direct and obvious, but an underhanded way to make it much less obvious is to drop the angry tone of voice that usually accompanies it, and disguise the insult as teaching, helping, giving advice, or offering solutions. It appears to be a sincere attempt to help, but it’s actually an attempt to belittle, control and demean you, and you will sense this.

Manipulators share intimate information about themselves, their lives and families early on to create a false sense of intimacy. You’ll automatically feel obliged or free to respond, and afterward you’ll trust him more and feel closer to him. Later, you’ll find out most of what he disclosed wasn’t true, and that he’ll use everything you told him about yourself to manipulate you or hurt you.

Triangulation: This is a common and effective tactic of a psychopath’s covert emotional manipulation. The manipulator introduces other women into the relationship in any way he can — by talking about a woman at work, talking about his ex girlfriends, flirting with other women in front of you, or comparing you unfavorably to another woman — just to hurt you, knock you off balance and make you jealous. In a normal relationship, a man will go out of his way to prove he’s trustworthy. The manipulator does just the opposite, and he enjoys watching your pain and angst. He is usually grooming his next target, who he conveniently uses to manipulate you devalue you.

Blaming the victim: This tactic is a powerful means of putting the victim on the defense while simultaneously masking the aggressive intent of the abuser. This usually happens when she questions him about something he wants to hide (such as his involvement with another woman). The victim finds herself put in the defensive mode, and she can’t win. He tells her that her concerns are rooted in her problem with “insecurity” and have nothing to do with his behavior or with reality, and that he finds her insecurity very unattractive. Since this is very unpleasant she learns not to question him, and silently puts up with his bad behavior in the future.

The manipulator will makecarefully chosen insinuating comments to evoke an uncomfortable emotional response or even several responses at once. He knows your weaknesses and your hot-buttons, and he will enjoy dropping a bomb like this and watching the fallout. If someone says something that has multiple negative meanings and causes negative emotions while leaving you flummoxed and without a meaningful response, you’ve experienced it.

Empty words: The abuser can turn on the charm and tell you exactly what you want to hear: “I love you,” “you’re so special to me,” “you’re so important to me,” etc. The problem is they are just words, backed up by nothing. Filling your need for approval, validation, and reassurance with these empty words gives him incredible power over you.

Denying/ Invalidating reality: Invalidating distorts or undermines the victim’s perceptions of their world. Invalidating occurs when the abuser refuses or will not acknowledge reality. For example, if the victim confronts the abuser about an incident of name calling, the abuser may insist, “I never said that,” “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” The same as gaslighting, really, a tactic which is explained below.

Minimizing: The manipulator will tell you you’re making a big deal out of nothing or that you’re “exaggerating” when you confront him with something he’s done.

Withholding: Includes refusing to communicate, refusing to listen, and using emotionally withdrawal as punishment. This is commonly called the “silent treatment.”

Lying: It’s often difficult to know when someone’s lying, but psychopaths are pathological liars who will say anything to get what they want. You may notice they lie so much they can’t keep the details straight. If you question them, they revert to denial.

Lies of omission: A more subtle form of lying where a truth is left out if it’s not convenient.

Gaslighting: An especially frustrating manipulation tactic where you know you heard him say something or saw him do something but when you confront him, he simply denies it. It seems obvious enough but if it’s repeated often, victims can begin to question their “version” of reality. We also want to believe whatever it was didn’t happen, so we may let this absurdity slip by. I forget who said “words are more real than reality,” but that sums it up.

Projecting the Blame: Nothing is ever a psychopath’s fault, and he will always find some crafty way to find a scapegoat
.
Diversion and Evasion: When you ask the psychopath a question, instead of answering it he may use diversion (steering the conversation to another topic) or evasion (giving an irrelevant, vague and often rambling response).

Selective forgetting: The manipulator pretends he forgot something important he once said. If you feel the need to use a tape recorder when speaking with someone, covert emotional manipulation is at play.

Refusing to take responsibility for his behavior, for the relationship or for your reactions to it.

Attempts to turn the tables and make you look like the abuser: These skilled manipulators have an arsenal of tactics at their disposal, and they will be pushing as many buttons as possible to get you to lose control. They can inflict so much psychological warfare and make you suppress so much emotion that you can be backed into an emotional corner. When this happens, the intense frustration you feel, but can’t express through normal communication, will cause you to react in self-defense. Emotional reactions in self-defense to an abusive situation do not make you an abuser.

Diminishing and belittling your opinions and ideas non-verbally by using eye-rolls, scoffs, smug smiles, etc. There are plenty of variations.

Hypnotism and trance induction: This is the most powerful manipulation tool a psychopath uses with his victim, and is related to charm. The technique of hypnosis comes naturally to the psychopath, and he mesmerizes his victim to gain emotional control. Hypnosis and trance are the “attraction heat, attachment magnet and bonding glue,” according to Sandra L. Brown, M.A., author of “Women Who Love Psychopaths.” (*This tactic applies only to psychopaths; the rest on this list are also used by all types of manipulators as well as psychopaths.)
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
BT, there is some evidence that sociopaths can turn empathy on and off. And I think there area a number of partial sociopaths out there who have an impaired sense of empathy, or who need to be reminded time and again to turn up the volume. This is especially true if NPD is laid on top of the sociopathy.

Interesting. Can you point us to that evidence?

Wikipedia said:
Empathy is the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another sentient or fictional being. One may need to have a certain amount of empathy before being able to experience accurate sympathy or compassion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

Scientologists' capacity to [STRIKE]spot tone levels[/STRIKE] recognize emotions are drilled in and Hubbard-based. What they turn on, off, up and down is not usually called empathy, but ARC, particularly "affinity."

A technical example would be the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation on which Science of Survival is based. Column AQ on this chart is a scale of "Tone Level of Auditor Necessary to Handle Case."
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
Scientologists' capacity to [STRIKE]spot tone levels[/STRIKE] recognize emotions are drilled in and Hubbard-based. What they turn on, off, up and down is not usually called empathy, but ARC, particularly "affinity."

Which is derived, I believe, from Dale Carnegie sales techniques. Which is why so much Co$ literature looks like it was knocked together by a used car dealer.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Man, I can't keep up with all you guys.

One of the major concerns here seems to be the list of attributes for a sociopath or psychopath, many of which we all share to one degree or other.

The thing that distinguishes such individuals and all who are evil is the complete lack of conscience.

Such an individual just does not care for you or anyone else, could care less if you suffer, actually usually enjoys seeing you suffer.

Whatever term you want to throw at such individuals, we are all nothing to them except something to be used.

All the other traits follow suite.

Such individuals can be intelligent or not, charming or not, athletic or not, artistic or not--or whatever other attribute you want to examine. They can be driven to conquer the world, or too lazy to get out of bed.

If you have any degree of caring for the well being of others, you just are not what's being examined and labeled here.

A serial killer who does stuff to get caught most likely isn't a sociopath or whatever label you choose for this, because somewhere that person is feeling remorse about what he's doing and wants to stop. A person without a conscience isn't going to want to stop or get caught because he has no remorse. Period.

His victims deserve what they get.

But, then again, most of us feel that our victims deserve what they get. But, often, deep down, under all the justification, we know that they didn't and feel a bit bad for them.

As long as we have any conscience at all.

But who gets to decide if a person truly has remorse or empathy or conscience, especially when it's a bunch of people passing the latest number one selling book on sociopaths around the water cooler? During the discussions I've had about this thread the response has been, "Not a single one of you people is qualified to diagnose something like this," and that is still the most important concern for me (unless one of the posters here is qualified to make that diagnosis, in which case please ignore). Aside from that, does it really matter, in practical terms if you are raped by a "sociopath" rapist or some other kind of rapist, if your murderer is a sociopath or not, if your conman is a sociopath or not? It seems to me the most important thing is to educate and take other measures to try and protect yourself from becoming a victim of a specific crime - but the truth is you are still way more likely to be raped, murdered or ripped off by someone in your own family or someone you know and trust.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
Begin fair use snips:

Abstract:


Psychopathy is a personality disorder associated with a profound lack of empathy. Neuroscientists have associated empathy and its interindividual variation with how strongly participants activate brain regions involved in their own actions, emotions and sensations while viewing those of others. Here we compared brain activity of 18 psychopathic offenders with 26 control subjects while viewing video clips of emotional hand interactions and while experiencing similar interactions. Brain regions involved in experiencing these interactions were not spontaneously activated as strongly in the patient group while viewing the video clips. However, this group difference was markedly reduced when we specifically instructed participants to feel with the actors in the videos. Our results suggest that psychopathy is not a simple incapacity for vicarious activations but rather reduced spontaneous vicarious activations co-existing with relatively normal deliberate counterparts.

Bold is mine.

Intro:

Psychopathy is a personality disorder associated with a profound lack of empathy (Hare, 1991) and elevated reactive and instrumental aggression (Williamson et al., 1987; Serin, 1991; Cornell et al., 1996; Patrick and Zempolich, 1998; Blair, 2007). Dominant models of psychopathy focus on two processes. Some posit that deficits in instrumental learning are central to psychopathy, preventing individuals with psychopathy from associating their antisocial behaviour with the negative affect that should be triggered by the distress of their victims (Blair, 2007). Others posit that deficits in attention might be central, with individuals with psychopathy having relatively preserved deliberate ‘top-down’ attention, but abnormal automatic, ‘bottom-up’ attention (Moul et al., 2012). This imbalance would prevent subjects from adequately processing certain stimuli (e.g. distress cues) that are peripheral to their current goals (e.g. obtaining resources) (Patterson and Newman, 1993).


Here, we advocate considering a third, to date less explored process. Because vicariously experiencing (i.e. empathizing with) the negative emotional reactions of victims may normally inhibit aggression (Miller and Eisenberg, 1988), the increased instrumental aggression in psychopathy might be related to their reduced vicarious experience of the emotions of others (de Vignemont and Singer, 2006; Decety and Moriguchi, 2007).

Conclusions:

In many circumstances, empathy can be counterproductive: if you want to take the Rolex off an old man’s arm, empathizing with the man will not serve your greed. Only if empathy is a spontaneous response, will you feel empathy in this circumstance, and reduce your violence (Miller and Eisenberg, 1988). Accordingly, the lack of spontaneous vicarious activation we measured in our observation experiment will have severe violence-disinhibiting consequences even in the face of a preserved deliberate empathy. For therapists requesting a scientific understanding of psychopathy to tailor their therapies (Salekin et al., 2010), our finding that instructions to empathize can reduce group differences indicates that therapeutic efforts may actually not need to create a capacity for empathy, for such a capacity may already exist (at least in our sample of incarcerated psychopathic offenders). Instead, therapies may need to focus on making the existing capacity more automatic, so that it will come into play even when inhibiting goal-directed behaviour.
 

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
But who gets to decide if a person truly has remorse or empathy or conscience, especially when it's a bunch of people passing the latest number one selling book on sociopaths around the water cooler? During the discussions I've had about this thread the response has been, "Not a single one of you people is qualified to diagnose something like this," and that is still the most important concern for me (unless one of the posters here is qualified to make that diagnosis, in which case please ignore). Aside from that, does it really matter, in practical terms if you are raped by a "sociopath" rapist or some other kind of rapist, if your murderer is a sociopath or not, if your conman is a sociopath or not? It seems to me the most important thing is to educate and take other measures to try and protect yourself from becoming a victim of a specific crime - but the truth is you are still way more likely to be raped, murdered or ripped off by someone in your own family or someone you know and trust.

I understand the concern about witch hunts, and false accusations, of being shunned for something that isn't true.

Gadfly wrote something about being mostly concerned with how a person behaves, and less with whY. As in, treating others so they can be happy and succeed in life is more important than why you chose to do such.

I think for me, knowing helps me predict what's going to come next. Labels aren't as relevant as knowing what to expect from a given condition.

If you see an a glowing bit of heat in a pile of wood with some smoke beginning to appear, you know that the pile of wood can possibly erupt into a bonfire. You might live in a culture that has fifty different terms for the glowing bit of heat and people might argue whether a fire will erupt because certain terms define the condition as non-threatening. But, what really matters is whether a fire might erupt so you can either douse the ember or move the kids so they're not sleeping near a fire hazard.

True, if someone shoots you or rapes you, it doesn't matter a whole lot whether they are just fucked up in the head or a sociopath or a psychopath or a normally friendly acquaintance on drugs. A bullet hole is a bullet hole.

And, true, none of us seems qualified to clinically diagnose whether a person is or is not a sociopath.

And true, most of us have traits which fall into sociopathic characteristics to one degree or other, and for longer or shorter periods of our lives.

As more information comes in, theories change about what causes a particular affect.

But, I find the information as presented about sociopaths helpful in understanding certain people I've met and had to deal with. Seeing what others have posted here opened my eyes a little wider.

But, even with that knowledge, I'm not out to judge others and set up kangaroo courts.

I used to work in a large facility with hundreds of people. A handful struck me as sociopaths. A couple of them were pretty intelligent and charming, and we got along pretty well. I enjoyed talking with them. But, I knew enough not to trust them, and I knew enough to recognize when they were pulling their tricks--which was pretty much all the time.

I think my point is that it's a good thing to understand others rather than not.

And, just so you know, I would imagine that others have thought I was a psychopath at one time or another. When I was in college a girl I knew told me she thought I was the Devil Incarnate.

Despite her opinion and judgement, I went on to live a pretty decent life.

PS: just because someone's in your family doesn't mean they aren't a sociopath. Even sociopaths have families.

Same with people we know. Knowing or trusting someone doesn't mean they are suddenly exempt from being a sociopath.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Of course there are destructive people out there

I get it. Compulsive liars, and all that. If they aren't sociopaths, they're the next thing to it.

I've run across a couple. Once when I was renting out my rental house, this guy applied. Older than some recent law school grads, he charmed me. I really liked him. So I was thinking, ok, just a formality, I'll check out the references. So I did. Not one of them panned out.

A couple other things like that happened, too. So I get it. But, honestly, I just look at what they're doing and then, hopefully, I know. By the time I'd analyze red flags and characteristics, I'd already have had the stuff happen. The false rental app. Or, in the earlier post, the stuff about the fake cancer and the other lies.

You just keep your guard up. I don't mean be totally hardened and untrusting, but you just keep your guard up to an extent. Watch the person. Watch their body language. Listen to your heart. Just like I did that time with the vivacious and lively and loud teenagers - and I had that weird feeling so I walked to the right, much closer to the shops than the curb. And the other people got doused with the sodas the girls carried, and I didn't.

Of course analysis and traits are good to know about but sometimes by the time you see some significant personality trait, the person's already thrown a drink on ya or broke into your house or whatever.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Claire is annoyingly New Agey

I guess that what I'm getting at is that in the absence of a crystal ball or truth serum, that an intuitive approach is good and to listen to your heart. And body language- which is actually a bit more concrete but which can play into the intuition stuff.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
I understand the concern about witch hunts, and false accusations, of being shunned for something that isn't true.

Gadfly wrote something about being mostly concerned with how a person behaves, and less with whY. As in, treating others so they can be happy and succeed in life is more important than why you chose to do such.

I think for me, knowing helps me predict what's going to come next. Labels aren't as relevant as knowing what to expect from a given condition.

If you see an a glowing bit of heat in a pile of wood with some smoke beginning to appear, you know that the pile of wood can possibly erupt into a bonfire. You might live in a culture that has fifty different terms for the glowing bit of heat and people might argue whether a fire will erupt because certain terms define the condition as non-threatening. But, what really matters is whether a fire might erupt so you can either douse the ember or move the kids so they're not sleeping near a fire hazard.

True, if someone shoots you or rapes you, it doesn't matter a whole lot whether they are just fucked up in the head or a sociopath or a psychopath or a normally friendly acquaintance on drugs. A bullet hole is a bullet hole.

And, true, none of us seems qualified to clinically diagnose whether a person is or is not a sociopath.

And true, most of us have traits which fall into sociopathic characteristics to one degree or other, and for longer or shorter periods of our lives.

As more information comes in, theories change about what causes a particular affect.

But, I find the information as presented about sociopaths helpful in understanding certain people I've met and had to deal with. Seeing what others have posted here opened my eyes a little wider.

But, even with that knowledge, I'm not out to judge others and set up kangaroo courts.

I used to work in a large facility with hundreds of people. A handful struck me as sociopaths. A couple of them were pretty intelligent and charming, and we got along pretty well. I enjoyed talking with them. But, I knew enough not to trust them, and I knew enough to recognize when they were pulling their tricks--which was pretty much all the time.

I think my point is that it's a good thing to understand others rather than not.

And, just so you know, I would imagine that others have thought I was a psychopath at one time or another. When I was in college a girl I knew told me she thought I was the Devil Incarnate.

Despite her opinion and judgement, I went on to live a pretty decent life.

PS: just because someone's in your family doesn't mean they aren't a sociopath. Even sociopaths have families.

Same with people we know. Knowing or trusting someone doesn't mean they are suddenly exempt from being a sociopath.

True, but how do you know you're actually "understanding" others if you decide they're a sociopath? Trained clinicians exclude just about everything else first, including medical issues. These are the kinds of things others are not privy to - full life histories, traumatic events, mental illnesses, traumatic head injuries etc. etc. If a person has been diagnosed with a sociopathic condition by a trained and qualified clinician then there is all sorts of information that might help another person understand what to expect. Aside from this, what we "think" we might be understanding about somebody could just be our own projections.
 

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
True, but how do you know you're actually "understanding" others if you decide they're a sociopath? Trained clinicians exclude just about everything else first, including medical issues. These are the kinds of things others are not privy to - full life histories, traumatic events, mental illnesses, traumatic head injuries etc. etc. If a person has been diagnosed with a sociopathic condition by a trained and qualified clinician then there is all sorts of information that might help another person understand what to expect. Aside from this, what we "think" we might be understanding about somebody could just be our own projections.

I decide a lot of things by convenience because I'm a bit lazy. I like to simplify standards or criteria so I'm not absorbed measuring, weighing and counter-balancing myriad nuanced aspects.

The more I have to go back and forth with on-the-one-hands vs on-the-other-hands in my mind, the more my teeth start to chatter and the more bits and parts of my brain seem to vibrate loose.

Long ago I concluded I don't have all the answers. But I do have lots and lots and lots of answers I'm comfortable with. Some even contradict one another.

But, I'm comfortable with contradictions.

As long as they're not jackhammering against one another.

None of us (even the best mental researchers) know exactly what lies at the bottom of the phenomenon we're discussing here.

But there are phenomenon. There are behaviors. Some of which are identifiable. And there are theories.

Because I'm a bit of a thug, I don't mind disparaging others. In fact, my best friends and I make a habit of tearing each other apart for our own amusement. I'm not a gentle soul with peace and love dominating my heart.

My one criteria for a sociopath is whether they seem to have a conscience. How much to they regard the well being of others? If someone seems to have absolutely no regard for the well being of others, I'm just lazy enough to regard them as a sociopath.

Might be completely wrong. But, I'm comfortable with being wrong because it's just an idea, and I can always change an idea.

That doesn't mean that if the person I thought was a sociopath left their lunch at home I wouldn't give them a sandwich to eat. That doesn't mean I wouldn't help them change a tire. It doesn't mean that I won't joke with them and enjoy the aspects of their personality that I do find appealing.

It only means that I take everything they say with a grain of salt. (and we all know that too much salt can raise one's blood pressure.)

Now, I don't take my opinions and assessments too seriously because I'm prone to change my mind quickly, fluidly. I also realize that my thinking something doesn't immediately give those thoughts and opinions some sort of superior importance in the cosmic scheme. My thinking something isn't admissible in a court of law. It won't divert rush hour traffic so I can drive home faster. It's just a thought.

There are no thought police goose-stepping through the corridors of gray matter. No one telling me, "You must think this! Or you'd better not think that!" My neural metropolis is mostly bohemian, rather wild and carefree.

What is is what is. Nothing I think changes that. I can't think the wall is red and make it such simply by thinking. I'd have to go buy some paint and apply it.

But, that lazy streak in me...

If this discussion is over what we're allowed to think about others, the message gets drowned out by the drunken rabble populating my thoughts. They're just not adept at compliance.

I try to treat others as I want to be treated. It just makes sense to do that.

But, I'm also not bothered by what others choose to think about me. So, if someone wants to think I'm a sociopath, I would just be amused.

Which leaves me scratching my head a bit over why a few here are so up in arms about what others might possibly think. (Not what they actually are thinking but what they might think.) And the personal ramifications--such as, "do they think I'm a sociopath because I've done some criminal things or because I don't care about others or because I've been promiscuous?"

I've done all those things, and I could care less whether someone believes that makes me a sociopath.

What I do care about is how the engine works so I can mow the grass when it (the engine) starts to sputter. Or what makes others tick so I can mow life's grass without hitting big rocks or getting my toe cut off.
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
Yes, here. I have a subscription to Brain, I can post some fair use snippets later.

What an interesting article. Thank you very much. I see there's quite a bit of literature on empathy training in various contexts, not only for psychopaths, but for medical students and even children.

I wondered about the value of assessing empathy as a diagnostic criterion when clearly it is a skill that can be learned, and produced for tests. Hubbard certainly had highly developed empathic skills, which served him in his conning operations. He was so empathetic that he got his slaves proclaiming him to be mankind's greatest friend. Then he made it his business.

The "rapport" that all Scientologists drill is empathy. The trained rapport or empathy is then used for antisocial purposes.

fso-dissem-flyer-2004-1.jpg


But now I also understand that the professionals do distinguish between empathy as a spontaneous affect and willed empathy. That explains psychopaths' selectivity of targets; how they can love bomb some targets for some purposes, and hate bomb targets they have consciously evaluated according to their antisocial criteria. It is likely that psychopaths would hate bomb the people who have their number. The psychopaths would know such people wouldn't fall for their phony love bombing, so they hate bomb them, and get others to hate bomb them.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
I decide a lot of things by convenience because I'm a bit lazy. I like to simplify standards or criteria so I'm not absorbed measuring, weighing and counter-balancing myriad nuanced aspects.

The more I have to go back and forth with on-the-one-hands vs on-the-other-hands in my mind, the more my teeth start to chatter and the more bits and parts of my brain seem to vibrate loose.

Long ago I concluded I don't have all the answers. But I do have lots and lots and lots of answers I'm comfortable with. Some even contradict one another.

But, I'm comfortable with contradictions.

As long as they're not jackhammering against one another.

None of us (even the best mental researchers) know exactly what lies at the bottom of the phenomenon we're discussing here.

But there are phenomenon. There are behaviors. Some of which are identifiable. And there are theories.

Because I'm a bit of a thug, I don't mind disparaging others. In fact, my best friends and I make a habit of tearing each other apart for our own amusement. I'm not a gentle soul with peace and love dominating my heart.

My one criteria for a sociopath is whether they seem to have a conscience. How much to they regard the well being of others? If someone seems to have absolutely no regard for the well being of others, I'm just lazy enough to regard them as a sociopath.

Might be completely wrong. But, I'm comfortable with being wrong because it's just an idea, and I can always change an idea.

That doesn't mean that if the person I thought was a sociopath left their lunch at home I wouldn't give them a sandwich to eat. That doesn't mean I wouldn't help them change a tire. It doesn't mean that I won't joke with them and enjoy the aspects of their personality that I do find appealing.

It only means that I take everything they say with a grain of salt. (and we all know that too much salt can raise one's blood pressure.)

Now, I don't take my opinions and assessments too seriously because I'm prone to change my mind quickly, fluidly. I also realize that my thinking something doesn't immediately give those thoughts and opinions some sort of superior importance in the cosmic scheme. My thinking something isn't admissible in a court of law. It won't divert rush hour traffic so I can drive home faster. It's just a thought.

There are no thought police goose-stepping through the corridors of gray matter. No one telling me, "You must think this! Or you'd better not think that!" My neural metropolis is mostly bohemian, rather wild and carefree.

What is is what is. Nothing I think changes that. I can't think the wall is red and make it such simply by thinking. I'd have to go buy some paint and apply it.

But, that lazy streak in me...

If this discussion is over what we're allowed to think about others, the message gets drowned out by the drunken rabble populating my thoughts. They're just not adept at compliance.

I try to treat others as I want to be treated. It just makes sense to do that.

But, I'm also not bothered by what others choose to think about me. So, if someone wants to think I'm a sociopath, I would just be amused.

Which leaves me scratching my head a bit over why a few here are so up in arms about what others might possibly think. (Not what they actually are thinking but what they might think.) And the personal ramifications--such as, "do they think I'm a sociopath because I've done some criminal things or because I don't care about others or because I've been promiscuous?"

I've done all those things, and I could care less whether someone believes that makes me a sociopath.

What I do care about is how the engine works so I can mow the grass when it (the engine) starts to sputter. Or what makes others tick so I can mow life's grass without hitting big rocks or getting my toe cut off.

Because we're sociopaths and we're scared of being found out?

Or because we think a society where people are running around seeing [STRIKE]witches[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]communists[/STRIKE] sociopaths in every corner is inevitable and lamentable given human nature - that even though we know we're pissing in the wind we can't help but cry out "Wait!!" because we think it's a bloody stupid idea, let alone irresponsible, for a bunch of unqualified people to go around crying "Sociopath!" I don't know. You tell me. Frankly I think describing another poster as "gaslighting" and "manipulative" - with ZERO evidence of that and LINKS to the "lists" of such characteristics - was a kind of unspeakable mental cruelty and a complete abuse of the purpose for which they were designed. People preaching about kindness and sociopaths and then going out and hurting others just gets up my wick. If you choose to interpret that as the "thought police" trying to shut you up I could care less - and, yes, I know you didn't make that particular post, but it's just an example and it turns my stomach.
 
Top