4 ms·

As a person who does not experience empathy (that is, a psychopath), I am somewhat insulted that Robert Lamb is telling the Internet that I am also "dishonest,

• __rkaup__ 15y ago
  Well then, speaking from your own experience, what is keeping you from doing these things?
  • anonymoushn 15y ago
    I consider the consequences of actions in the medium to long term before I do them. I'm honest because I believe a reputation for honesty can be of greater value to me than anything I can con people out of, and because I haven't any experience at conning people. I am about as dependable as I am honest. I am less impulsive than most people I know, and I don't do much of anything "for no reason." I have no problem owning my actions because I prefer to be honest. Regarding my interactions with others, I would say I'm "frank and earnest," but "casual and callous" works too.
    • WildUtah 15y ago
      Dude, you're not a real psychopath; that's just Aspergers.
      • rdtsc 15y ago
        Alright, that is an interesting take. I looked around and found these characteristics of both. * Both psychopaths and people Asperger's might make comments that hurt other people. Those with Asperger's will do it un-intentionally, they just don't understand all the rules of social interaction and they won't even know they would be hurting others. Psychopaths will often say things in order to hurt other. So the difference is that they will knowingly hurt others while those with Asperger's won't. * Psychopaths are better at learning and mimicking normal emotional responses. Some of them can even be "too" good and sometimes you can tell by them trying too hard. Those with Asperger's do that too but they are less successful * A psychopath will easily switch on an off their "social" mode. Someone with Asperger's might not have the same level of control. A psychopath does not cultivate relationships with others because they deem themselves to be too good and superior and see it as a useless waste of time. But they could if they wanted to -- if it benefits them. You can spot these cases when someone is very friendly with their superior (the boss) but immediately switch and act a total dick for now reason at all to their peers or their inferiors. * A person with Asperger's can be introspective. Can conduct self-analysis. They can have a low self-esteem and can be prone to depression. A psychopath will usually never see anything wrong with themselves. * A psychopath will enjoy see others suffer for no reason at all. They would go out of their ways to hurt someone just to enjoy the effects.
        • kubrickslair 15y ago
          Also most of us often confuse psychopathy and machiavellianism. Together with narcissism they form the so-called dark triad. I do not have concrete studies to back my claim, but most movers and shakers in the third world are rather Machiavellianistic. They may not create anything of value or change they world, but most gate keepers certainly fit the description. So do most non-tech entrepreneurs. I am not sure about the first world though, I have only experienced it inside the tech bubble.
    • __rkaup__ 15y ago
      How does your psychopathy affect your relationships? How do you know you are a psychopath? Also, I think that having a fine-tuned sense of how your actions will affect other's opinions of you, is to some extent what empathy really is.
    • berntb 15y ago
      >>I consider the consequences of actions in the medium to long term before I do them. >>I am less impulsive than most people I know Isn't part of being a psychopath to lack foresight? To lack fear of punishment? 'WildUtah' has a point -- you are on the Aspberger scale, or something.
• runjake 15y ago
  Reviewing your comment history, where you clearly express emotion and some empathy, and acknowledge consequences, you don't fit the bill as a psychopath. You may share certain attributes with psychopathy, or fancy yourself being one, but all indications are that you are not one. The second indicator that you are not a psychopath is that you disagree with Robert Lamb's description of psychopathy, which are not insults -- they are the qualifying traits of a psychopath.
  • anonymoushn 15y ago
    It pleases me to hear that I give the impression of empathy. My impression of the (recent) literature on the matter was that absence of empathy, in addition to the criteria for ASPD, is necessary and sufficient for one to be considered a psychopath. One could easily have both of these things without also being unreliable, impulsive, or dishonest.
    • runjake 15y ago
      I think that you're deluding yourself, for whatever reason. And on your second point, your impression is incorrect. These are qualifying traits of ASPD (formerly "psychopathy").
• michaelochurch 15y ago
  Self-described "psychopaths" are pathetic, in my opinion. First, you're probably not one, just as a person who occasionally plays video games till 3:00 is not an "insomniac", a person who double-checks locked doors is not "paranoid", a high-strung, finicky person is not "OCD", and a mild rush of anxiety caused by an unpleasant situation is not a "panic attack". Why do I say this? Because a real psychopath would never find it useful to discuss his psychopathy. Psychopaths don't overshare, because they don't really ever share (although they may feign emotions and share those, if it suits them). It doesn't benefit them to self-identify as psychopaths. Your claimed lack of empathy is normal emotional awkwardness, not psychopathy. Welcome to HN.
  • rdtsc 15y ago
    > Why do I say this? Because a real psychopath would never find it useful to discuss his psychopathy Interestingly, once it becomes common knowledge that if one describes themselves as a psychopath they couldn't possibly be a psychopath, it would be beneficial for the psychopaths to just identify themselves as a psychopaths because in the eyes of others will instantly be labeled as "definitely not psychopathic". That would perhaps serve as an extra shield behind which they can hide their psychopathy.
    • DrCatbox 15y ago
      Its psychopaths all the way down!
    • michaelochurch 15y ago
      Interesting possibility, but claiming psychopathy still reflects badly on a person's character, even if it means that person is almost certainly not a psychopath. It shows that a person is at least mildly histrionic and self-deprecating in an off-putting way (cheap, fake sincerity). Therefore, it's not a useful or skillful act, and the rational psychopaths aren't going to pursue it.
• danparsonson 15y ago
  Have you been diagnosed as such by a qualified professional? The traits listed in the article are also listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist - do you have any contrary sources? Assuming you don't, then if the terms listed don't fit you, you're not psycopathic because that term is defined to mean 'one who displays those traits'. Disagreeing with that is as meaningless as saying that not all brunettes have brown hair.
  • anonymoushn 15y ago
    Under PCL-R a person with a 30 or more "points" (ratings from 0-2 regarding each characteristic) is regarded as a psychopath, so assuming that PCL-R is the definitive definition of psychopathy, we must still accept that a psychopath is not necessarily also a pathological liar and an impulsive individual. It seems silly to use PCL-R as the definition of psychopathy for the general population, however, because "Revocation of conditional release" is something that one can only experience after being institutionalized or sent to gaol.
    • danparsonson 15y ago
      To re-iterate: have you been diagnosed psycopathic by a qualified mental-health professional?
      • anonymoushn 15y ago
        I have never even spoken to qualified mental-health professional while he or she was at work.
• Mz 15y ago
  I will suggest that it might be appropriate to describe yourself as a "sociopath" which I believe currently has no clinical definition but colloquially tends to be understood as negative and somewhat similar to, though less than, "psychopath". Folks here are not likely to accept some colloquial self-determined definition of a term like "psychopath" when it has a clear clinical definition. I have two very challenging children, one of whom is not empathetic, tends towards narcissism and so on. Like you, he stays out of trouble by making judicious choices concerning the longer range consequences of his actions which I spent a lot of time educating him about (in other words, I did not appeal to some sense of morally "right" behavior, which he lacks, instead I focused on developing a perspective of enlightened self-interest). He shares many traits with his father, my ex husband, whom I found quite difficult to deal with. But I get along extremely well with my oldest son. He was raised very differently from his father. He has a very similar nature to his father but the nurture part varied considerably and the difference in outcome has been substantial. EDIT: Which is to say I agree with a point I feel you are trying to make that having X trait in no way guarantees Y outcome. Most people who know him superficially describe my oldest son as "very polite and respectful" or "a very nice young man". Others who have had to deal with him more than just superficially tend to find him pretty crazy-making.
  • anonymoushn 15y ago
    What I would mean if I were to say "sociopath" seems clear as mud. Wikipedia tells me: Sociopathy is a loosely-defined term that may be used to refer to: Psychopathy, Antisocial personality disorder, Dissocial personality disorder and later, Hare writes that the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy may "reflect the user's views on the origins and determinates of the disorder." Edit: I see, thanks.
    • Mz 15y ago
      Yes, exactly: Clear as mud is very socially acceptable for most "normal" people (not necessarily on HN where people will pedantically argue every definition with you). Say "sociopath" and then if someone asks what you mean by that have a clear description of what you are trying to convey (basically define it yourself). It is a malleable word, open to interpretation. It gets you a lot less shit from other people than using the word "psychopath". I know because it is a word I and my sons use in part for this very reason. My remarks are intended to be a helpful suggestion, based on something that has worked for me. That's it. Peace. Edit: No problem.
• Tycho 15y ago
  I've long thought that being a psychopath hardly precludes/excuses one from acting morally. If most psychopaths turn out to be anti-social criminals I'd say the blame is ultimately because they failed to identify the value of moral behaviour (to the individual) and logically follow through on the principles which arise. Perhaps because society does not teach these things adequately. If most non-psychopaths turn out not to be criminals, however, arguably it could be a mixture of some people just blindly following their empathy and other people taking a principled stance on things.
  • Mz 15y ago
    My opinion, as someone who has very successfully raised "good kids" with a lot of these types of negative traits: Psychopaths often turn out badly because they are treated so negatively by other people for being different. So they basically get abuse heaped upon them. What goes around, comes around. (In other words: "normal" people who think they are so fucking moral are often assholes who help create monsters.)