7 ms·

You don't know what a psychopath is until you meet one. I decided to leave a project because the project lead turned out to be a real psychopath. It's difficult

You don't know what a psychopath is until you meet one. I decided to leave a project because the project lead turned out to be a real psychopath. It's difficult to describe a psychopath's behavior. They are not 'evil', sadistic or cruel. They are clearly self-centered, narcissist and self-important but in unusual appearances. Appearances which can be very abusive to dependent persons in their sphere of influence.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
I'm pretty sure you're referring to a sociopath. Not that the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" aren't functionally useless beyond mere colloquialisms.
- justinator 11y ago
  The description also seems to fit a, "sociopath" as well. There's sometimes incredibly likable, until you hear about some of the ways they act.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
I've met... many... that meet their description. Some I know had decent parents and childhood. The thing they had in common is they saw people like objects rather than people. That was most distinctive. Being a bit impulsive and anal about certain things was another. All could present themselves in whatever way they needed to in front of a given audience. Some I've read on but didn't meet had compulsive violence with even sexual arousal. Did they learn that and with what practice that hardwires one's junk to a woman's screams? So, esp with some having good childhoods, it's hard for me to believe they just transformed into this by making some choices. Seems more likely to be innate. Still a possibility that much of this was learned behavior but I'm just saying I lean in a different direction given what I've seen and heard dealing with them.
- mjfl 11y ago
  I seriously think that people who label others as psychopaths without clinical diagnosis are a much bigger problem than the actual psychopaths.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    People attaching a label to evil, persistent, damaging behavior worry you more than the people behaving that way? That's an interesting perspective you have there...
    - mjfl 11y ago
      Yes because people tend to apply it to people they don't like instead of people that objectively are potentially dangerous. This justifies a lot of bad things including and not limited to restricting ones empathy towards that person because "they have no feelings". Your boss fires you without any emotion, from his side of the story it is because you annoyed him for a very long time and it was finally the last straw. To you he is a psychopath who doesn't consider any of your feelings having to do with being fired. You go to his house, armed, because people like that deserve to be "put down". You do something stupid and get put in jail, "but it's all his fault, he's the psychopath!"
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        So applying a label is more harmful to you than causing harm with or without a label. Let me test it: your view is short-sighted. If I was right, you roll your eyes or get irritated. If you were right, then you seeing it led to a feeling of being violated, potentially shortness of breath, lost sleep, and possibly post-traumatic stress disorder. Is this how you feel? Your other point makes sense. I think it's what your getting at. How people categorize other people can lead to them harming them and often does. This is part of human nature I'm afraid: shows up everywhere with every kind of people with very few exceptions. Your boss vs employee example is decent until you take it to the extreme to support your agenda. An extreme that's rare. Now, let's try a different take with an actual person in my categorization. He's a nice-looking, sharply-dressed, young manager from a fairly typical family with typical good and bad per people that grew up with him. He picks fights with underlings who are good workers but don't play politics (image worse than him). He wittily cuts them, sets them up for problems, and has enjoyment in his eyes. He regularly deceives both new hires and existing staff in games that benefit him at their other expense. Far from remorse, the more agony and rage people break out into the more there's a glimmer in his eyes. His calm, confident, and apparently caring demeanor around most employees and other management ensure his victim's rage fit appears to be their own personal problems. He cunningly tells a believable story that pushes all the right buttons. They quit. If anything, he's good at getting troubling workers out of the place the others think with some on the fence and a few seeing his game but quiet. I call him a psychopath, born or learned, because he acts like one. His victims used the same word although it's certainly a pop psych term & that's expected. How would you describe this person to a third party, especially a layperson, that captured these traits adequately? Note: He eventually did leave the place... in handcuffs... for allegedly fondling his hot gf's... daughter. The look on his face in the mugshot wasn't shame or guilt. It was a look I've seen 100+ times on kids & teens: "Shit I got caught."
- charlieflowers 11y ago
  Consider this question: what about cultures throughout history which callously divided people into classes and treated the lower ones horribly? Like slavery. Or the French aristocracy. Etc. You could say "everyone", including people widely considered to be decent, were still participating in treating the lower classes horribly. It was perfectly acceptable to do so. So the vast majority in those cultures found some way to "turn off" or become desensitized to feelings of remorse. Were they all psychopaths?
  - justinator 11y ago
    Well, there's the idea that you can't judge a past culture (or even a different culture) using the same values as your own. Consider perhaps coming from a culture that is 100% vegan, then being transported to the US, where eating meat is not only accepted, but celebrated. Would you call those people psychopaths that have been somehow desensitized? Certainly, there's justification to the actions (I'm hungry! Meat tastes good!), but perhaps the jump that all meat eaters are pyscopathic murderers sounds a bit suspect. I mean, I don't know: I'm in the US, and I eat meat . Perhaps take a human rights issue. Is being homophobic psychopathic? What about owning people as property?
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      If all this really is a matter of perspective, then TFA is basically correct that people can learn to behave so far outside the norms of any given society as to inspire a specious label like "psychopath".
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      I say we consider defining it by what most innately do with minimal coaching. Every kid experiences being wronged or hurt to some degree. A certain amount of that is unrealistic expectations and learning to tell the difference. A subset of it that most share is what we consider unethical acts. That our most primitive minds have a way to derive that suggests, at least for humans, there's a baseline that's somewhat objective. That's the nature part. There's exceptions to it clearly. Then, nature and nurture work together from there with nurture having more an impact. You gave good examples of that.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

I'm pretty sure you're referring to a sociopath. Not that the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" aren't functionally useless beyond mere colloquialisms.

justinator 11y ago
The description also seems to fit a, "sociopath" as well. There's sometimes incredibly likable, until you hear about some of the ways they act.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

I've met... many... that meet their description. Some I know had decent parents and childhood. The thing they had in common is they saw people like objects rather than people. That was most distinctive. Being a bit impulsive and anal about certain things was another. All could present themselves in whatever way they needed to in front of a given audience. Some I've read on but didn't meet had compulsive violence with even sexual arousal. Did they learn that and with what practice that hardwires one's junk to a woman's screams? So, esp with some having good childhoods, it's hard for me to believe they just transformed into this by making some choices. Seems more likely to be innate. Still a possibility that much of this was learned behavior but I'm just saying I lean in a different direction given what I've seen and heard dealing with them.

mjfl 11y ago
I seriously think that people who label others as psychopaths without clinical diagnosis are a much bigger problem than the actual psychopaths.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  People attaching a label to evil, persistent, damaging behavior worry you more than the people behaving that way? That's an interesting perspective you have there...
  - mjfl 11y ago
    Yes because people tend to apply it to people they don't like instead of people that objectively are potentially dangerous. This justifies a lot of bad things including and not limited to restricting ones empathy towards that person because "they have no feelings". Your boss fires you without any emotion, from his side of the story it is because you annoyed him for a very long time and it was finally the last straw. To you he is a psychopath who doesn't consider any of your feelings having to do with being fired. You go to his house, armed, because people like that deserve to be "put down". You do something stupid and get put in jail, "but it's all his fault, he's the psychopath!"
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      So applying a label is more harmful to you than causing harm with or without a label. Let me test it: your view is short-sighted. If I was right, you roll your eyes or get irritated. If you were right, then you seeing it led to a feeling of being violated, potentially shortness of breath, lost sleep, and possibly post-traumatic stress disorder. Is this how you feel? Your other point makes sense. I think it's what your getting at. How people categorize other people can lead to them harming them and often does. This is part of human nature I'm afraid: shows up everywhere with every kind of people with very few exceptions. Your boss vs employee example is decent until you take it to the extreme to support your agenda. An extreme that's rare. Now, let's try a different take with an actual person in my categorization. He's a nice-looking, sharply-dressed, young manager from a fairly typical family with typical good and bad per people that grew up with him. He picks fights with underlings who are good workers but don't play politics (image worse than him). He wittily cuts them, sets them up for problems, and has enjoyment in his eyes. He regularly deceives both new hires and existing staff in games that benefit him at their other expense. Far from remorse, the more agony and rage people break out into the more there's a glimmer in his eyes. His calm, confident, and apparently caring demeanor around most employees and other management ensure his victim's rage fit appears to be their own personal problems. He cunningly tells a believable story that pushes all the right buttons. They quit. If anything, he's good at getting troubling workers out of the place the others think with some on the fence and a few seeing his game but quiet. I call him a psychopath, born or learned, because he acts like one. His victims used the same word although it's certainly a pop psych term & that's expected. How would you describe this person to a third party, especially a layperson, that captured these traits adequately? Note: He eventually did leave the place... in handcuffs... for allegedly fondling his hot gf's... daughter. The look on his face in the mugshot wasn't shame or guilt. It was a look I've seen 100+ times on kids & teens: "Shit I got caught."
charlieflowers 11y ago
Consider this question: what about cultures throughout history which callously divided people into classes and treated the lower ones horribly? Like slavery. Or the French aristocracy. Etc. You could say "everyone", including people widely considered to be decent, were still participating in treating the lower classes horribly. It was perfectly acceptable to do so. So the vast majority in those cultures found some way to "turn off" or become desensitized to feelings of remorse. Were they all psychopaths?
- justinator 11y ago
  Well, there's the idea that you can't judge a past culture (or even a different culture) using the same values as your own. Consider perhaps coming from a culture that is 100% vegan, then being transported to the US, where eating meat is not only accepted, but celebrated. Would you call those people psychopaths that have been somehow desensitized? Certainly, there's justification to the actions (I'm hungry! Meat tastes good!), but perhaps the jump that all meat eaters are pyscopathic murderers sounds a bit suspect. I mean, I don't know: I'm in the US, and I eat meat . Perhaps take a human rights issue. Is being homophobic psychopathic? What about owning people as property?
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    If all this really is a matter of perspective, then TFA is basically correct that people can learn to behave so far outside the norms of any given society as to inspire a specious label like "psychopath".
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    I say we consider defining it by what most innately do with minimal coaching. Every kid experiences being wronged or hurt to some degree. A certain amount of that is unrealistic expectations and learning to tell the difference. A subset of it that most share is what we consider unethical acts. That our most primitive minds have a way to derive that suggests, at least for humans, there's a baseline that's somewhat objective. That's the nature part. There's exceptions to it clearly. Then, nature and nurture work together from there with nurture having more an impact. You gave good examples of that.