3 ms·

> Human beings aren’t designed to function without access to emotion, so we sociopaths often become destructive in order to feel things. I used to break into ho

> Human beings aren’t designed to function without access to emotion, so we sociopaths often become destructive in order to feel things. I used to break into houses or steal cars for the adrenaline rush of knowing I was somewhere I wasn’t allowed to be — just to feel, period. There's a common distinction between psychopaths and sociopaths that suggests the latter is (usually, but probably not in this case) considered less intelligent primarily because they lack the forbearance to hide their condition. I personally think any sensible person afflicted with this disposition should keep it to themselves, knowing very well that public admission to anti-social behavior is not in their best interest as a person. Then again if narcissism is at play one might feel compelled to revel in the attention that begets the glorification of sociopaths by the media. The news is pretty irrational nowadays, so I understand why the notion that dissocial individuals are somehow victims is gaining traction. Having to read about someone who has a PhD in psychology making these statements is pretty uncomfortable, but nonetheless admissible once the absurdity of our reality is embraced. I wish her and her family the best but, for their own sake, I wish she hadn't published this article. If I ever hear of someone admitting to being diagnosed with this personality disorder I would do everything in my power to disassociate myself from them -- which I believe to be a rational decision when self-preservation is the goal. I can already imagine the parents of her poor child's friends whispering into their children's ears to "avoid that family at any cost from now on".

mijoharas 6y ago
It sounds like you're saying the difference between psychopaths and sociopaths is that the former hides their condition while the latter doesn't? Am I understanding you correctly? Because if so, this isn't a definition I've heard of. Can you tell me where it's from?
- Memosyne 6y ago
  Recommended reading: - https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/crimjust_facpubs/121/ https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/crimjust_facpubs/121/ - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178913000542 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13591...
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Do high functioning sociopaths hide their condition behind a flag?
quintushoratius 6y ago
> If I ever hear of someone admitting to being diagnosed with this personality disorder I would do everything in my power to disassociate myself from them -- which I believe to be a rational decision when self-preservation is the goal. This seems pretty harsh. You're making a pariah of someone, based on something you heard, because you assume they wish to do you harm without ever meeting the person. Replace "sociopath" with "homosexual", "non-Christian" (since, really, who chooses their religion?), or "Black". Keep in mind that sociopathy is not a choice. It's possible they're made, more likely they're born that way, but either way not a path a person sets themselves on. While knowing such diagnosis for an individual may be instructive in forming relationships with them, just assuming they intend you harm without getting to know the individual is a knee-jeek reaction at best. The author's own experience, should you choose to accept it, shows that relationships are not only possible but can be healthy, beneficial, and even self-enlightening to all parties.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Valakas 6y ago
  Harm maybe not, but used definitely. If you're not useful to a sociopath you will not be in their life. And if something goes wrong, you definitely incur the risk of getting harmed, either physically or mentally.
gnramires 6y ago
She acted ethically. Seems extremely responsible to disclose a condition like this. Yes, you will get shunned by some, and I guess it's in people's right to do so. This article would give me confidence to be acquainted with her, though I would keep the condition in the back of my mind (in case it could have risks ). I have interacted with several people with mental health issues, and usually understanding their condition helps immensely in dealing with them. There are a few other public articles about "high functioning" psychopaths and sociopaths. Generally, what drives ethics is not simply human emotions. This is a great lesson from those individuals. What drives ethics are twofold: 1) The pragmatic aspect: if you act unethically, you will most likely get caught someday. Even if you don't get caught, this is a fragile and risky behavior. If people learn about it, they'll try to punish you or generally ensure this doesn't happen again (worse effects if you're known psychopath or sociopath). 2) The principled aspect: most importantly, ethics should be built on principles. a) The most important principle is that other people (other beings really) are also real, are also conscious just like you, that somehow we all share an 'internal medium', even if we can't directly observe each other's mediums -- whatever well being you deserve naturally implies other beings also deserve it. (I'd like to call it the Rogers Principle in honor of Fred Rogers...) Perhaps it's just a generalization of 'love thy neighbor as thyself': you should love others as if yourself; the only difference is that pragmatically you can't devote as much attention to others as to yourself (because pragmatically division of labor is necessary, that each takes care of his own well-being for the most part for things to work in practice). b) And then there's Kant's Categorical Imperative. We should act as if by Universal Law: whatever fundamental principles about ethics you conclude, will probably be concluded by others as well. This is a metaethical principle really. If you conclude some way of behaving which you wouldn't like others to have, that would become a bad universal law. So reject those on principle (assuming others are also aware of metaethics[1]). [1]: This is not present in Kant's own work I believe, but I have a novel view on the Categorical Imperative: I view it as a pragmatic metaethic principle. This principle is useless if other individuals don't themselves abide it; so for it to work, you need two things: 1) the capability and disposition of individuals to think, plan and consider acting ethically; 2) actual knowledge of those principles themselves. So the validity of CI depends on common knowledge of CI. So the more you want it to apply (and generally we want it to apply), the more you have to publicize it. If you want it to be true, you have to shout it from the top of your lungs: "Act as if your ethics were to become universal principle" !!! (which I'm generally trying to do here)

mijoharas 6y ago

It sounds like you're saying the difference between psychopaths and sociopaths is that the former hides their condition while the latter doesn't? Am I understanding you correctly? Because if so, this isn't a definition I've heard of. Can you tell me where it's from?

Memosyne 6y ago
Recommended reading: - https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/crimjust_facpubs/121/ https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/crimjust_facpubs/121/ - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178913000542 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13591...
082349872349872 6y ago
Do high functioning sociopaths hide their condition behind a flag?

quintushoratius 6y ago

> If I ever hear of someone admitting to being diagnosed with this personality disorder I would do everything in my power to disassociate myself from them -- which I believe to be a rational decision when self-preservation is the goal. This seems pretty harsh. You're making a pariah of someone, based on something you heard, because you assume they wish to do you harm without ever meeting the person. Replace "sociopath" with "homosexual", "non-Christian" (since, really, who chooses their religion?), or "Black". Keep in mind that sociopathy is not a choice. It's possible they're made, more likely they're born that way, but either way not a path a person sets themselves on. While knowing such diagnosis for an individual may be instructive in forming relationships with them, just assuming they intend you harm without getting to know the individual is a knee-jeek reaction at best. The author's own experience, should you choose to accept it, shows that relationships are not only possible but can be healthy, beneficial, and even self-enlightening to all parties.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Valakas 6y ago
Harm maybe not, but used definitely. If you're not useful to a sociopath you will not be in their life. And if something goes wrong, you definitely incur the risk of getting harmed, either physically or mentally.

gnramires 6y ago

She acted ethically. Seems extremely responsible to disclose a condition like this. Yes, you will get shunned by some, and I guess it's in people's right to do so. This article would give me confidence to be acquainted with her, though I would keep the condition in the back of my mind (in case it could have risks ). I have interacted with several people with mental health issues, and usually understanding their condition helps immensely in dealing with them. There are a few other public articles about "high functioning" psychopaths and sociopaths. Generally, what drives ethics is not simply human emotions. This is a great lesson from those individuals. What drives ethics are twofold: 1) The pragmatic aspect: if you act unethically, you will most likely get caught someday. Even if you don't get caught, this is a fragile and risky behavior. If people learn about it, they'll try to punish you or generally ensure this doesn't happen again (worse effects if you're known psychopath or sociopath). 2) The principled aspect: most importantly, ethics should be built on principles. a) The most important principle is that other people (other beings really) are also real, are also conscious just like you, that somehow we all share an 'internal medium', even if we can't directly observe each other's mediums -- whatever well being you deserve naturally implies other beings also deserve it. (I'd like to call it the Rogers Principle in honor of Fred Rogers...) Perhaps it's just a generalization of 'love thy neighbor as thyself': you should love others as if yourself; the only difference is that pragmatically you can't devote as much attention to others as to yourself (because pragmatically division of labor is necessary, that each takes care of his own well-being for the most part for things to work in practice). b) And then there's Kant's Categorical Imperative. We should act as if by Universal Law: whatever fundamental principles about ethics you conclude, will probably be concluded by others as well. This is a metaethical principle really. If you conclude some way of behaving which you wouldn't like others to have, that would become a bad universal law. So reject those on principle (assuming others are also aware of metaethics[1]). [1]: This is not present in Kant's own work I believe, but I have a novel view on the Categorical Imperative: I view it as a pragmatic metaethic principle. This principle is useless if other individuals don't themselves abide it; so for it to work, you need two things: 1) the capability and disposition of individuals to think, plan and consider acting ethically; 2) actual knowledge of those principles themselves. So the validity of CI depends on common knowledge of CI. So the more you want it to apply (and generally we want it to apply), the more you have to publicize it. If you want it to be true, you have to shout it from the top of your lungs: "Act as if your ethics were to become universal principle" !!! (which I'm generally trying to do here)