3 ms·

Sorry, I gave those defining symptoms in reference to Antisocial personality disorder, which is the clinically-defined term that most closely matches sociopathy

Sorry, I gave those defining symptoms in reference to Antisocial personality disorder, which is the clinically-defined term that most closely matches sociopathy. In fact, ASPD is defined by most of the criteria you gave for a sociopath (excluding intelligence). I should have included that, I apologize. Again, serial killers do not tend to have higher IQ than the general population. It is a popular misconception, but it is incorrect all the same. I highly recommend not basing opinions on true crime shows. EDIT: I sincerely apologize, it was not my intention to insult you. I included that last line as a way to knock down one of your supporting arguments, not as a personal attack, or to imply that true crime shows were the reason you have these opinions. I actually originally had that section also rebutting your citation of an intro to psych class (how I'm guessing you took that class a while ago, the field has changed a lot since then, and depending on the exact year you might have been taking classes while sociopathy was a clinically defined term, etc) but I cut it down for the sake of brevity. That's an explanation, mind you, not an excuse. The intention of my words are irrelevant, all the matters is how they are received. I really am sorry, and I don't mean to belittle you or your experiences.

DoreenMichele 9y ago
I highly recommend not selectively pulling out one detail of many as an excuse to be dismissive. It's actually contrary to HN guidelines to argue in that fashion. As already stated, I have taken college classes where this was touched upon. I have raised two children with a lot of personal challenges and I've read quite a lot of stuff. It's fine for you to disagree with me. But you are being personally insulting for no real reason. So I plan to step away from further discussion with you. If you take additional personal potshots at me, my lack of reply is not some sort of confirmation that these low blows are in any way accurate.
- dsacco 9y ago
  > I highly recommend not selectively pulling out one detail of many as an excuse to be dismissive. The other commenter didn't merely nitpick a detail, they attacked a central pillar in your comment's credibility. When you responded with irrelevant information about watching criminal dramas, the commenter (rightly) advised you not to get your information from entertainment media. I can't tell you how to feel personally, but frankly I'm not sure it could be worded any more gently. You really shouldn't get your information from TV. At a certain point it's difficult to correct someone else without coming across as patronizing. As for your other sources of information: > As already stated, I have taken college classes where this was touched upon. As I cited in another reply to you, those college courses either provided you with misinformation, or you misunderstood them. Reading "quite a lot of stuff" and raising children while encountering "personal challenges" also does not satisfy any empiricism for your claims. > If you take additional personal potshots at me, my lack of reply is not some sort of confirmation that these low blows are in any way accurate. This is irritating and comes across as controlling, in my opinion. You don't really have any authority on how other people interpret your lack of reply. Nor were the commenter's valid criticisms "potshots" or "low blows" - you're being factually incorrect, insofar as there is cited, demonstrable evidence available. In fact, I'll freely interpret your lack of response as a tacit concession!
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
threatofrain 9y ago
When a person deeply intertwines themselves into their argumentation, you are given the choice to argue around them or at them, or you can just nod at them. It's very hard to attack someone's personal credibility without being "personally insulting", and that especially includes questioning whether true crime tv cuts it for discussion. How does one do that not insultingly? That's why, whether the effect is desired, the final result is constraining. You cannot lower someone's credibility non-insultingly.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

I highly recommend not selectively pulling out one detail of many as an excuse to be dismissive. It's actually contrary to HN guidelines to argue in that fashion. As already stated, I have taken college classes where this was touched upon. I have raised two children with a lot of personal challenges and I've read quite a lot of stuff. It's fine for you to disagree with me. But you are being personally insulting for no real reason. So I plan to step away from further discussion with you. If you take additional personal potshots at me, my lack of reply is not some sort of confirmation that these low blows are in any way accurate.

dsacco 9y ago
> I highly recommend not selectively pulling out one detail of many as an excuse to be dismissive. The other commenter didn't merely nitpick a detail, they attacked a central pillar in your comment's credibility. When you responded with irrelevant information about watching criminal dramas, the commenter (rightly) advised you not to get your information from entertainment media. I can't tell you how to feel personally, but frankly I'm not sure it could be worded any more gently. You really shouldn't get your information from TV. At a certain point it's difficult to correct someone else without coming across as patronizing. As for your other sources of information: > As already stated, I have taken college classes where this was touched upon. As I cited in another reply to you, those college courses either provided you with misinformation, or you misunderstood them. Reading "quite a lot of stuff" and raising children while encountering "personal challenges" also does not satisfy any empiricism for your claims. > If you take additional personal potshots at me, my lack of reply is not some sort of confirmation that these low blows are in any way accurate. This is irritating and comes across as controlling, in my opinion. You don't really have any authority on how other people interpret your lack of reply. Nor were the commenter's valid criticisms "potshots" or "low blows" - you're being factually incorrect, insofar as there is cited, demonstrable evidence available. In fact, I'll freely interpret your lack of response as a tacit concession!
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

threatofrain 9y ago

When a person deeply intertwines themselves into their argumentation, you are given the choice to argue around them or at them, or you can just nod at them. It's very hard to attack someone's personal credibility without being "personally insulting", and that especially includes questioning whether true crime tv cuts it for discussion. How does one do that not insultingly? That's why, whether the effect is desired, the final result is constraining. You cannot lower someone's credibility non-insultingly.