Are people with high IQs sociopaths by definition?

[TheBigDog]

In order for their thinking to be measurable and in any way significant, it must affect their behavior.

 

blah blah Mafia blah blah Italians blah blah Guns blah blah

 

Some of that force is confusion and smooth talking (poor arguments that sound good), which takes intelligence to overcome.

None of what you said does anything to correct the fallacy I pointed out in your definition of sociopath. You have changed gears completely and your last sentence is what best describes your logic in this thread, which is Kriminal.

 

I am using my intelligence to overcome.

 

If you want to make a higher point about people fitting in or the dangers of conforming, then do so. Instead you make a specific argument, and you can't decide if you mean it or not, or if it is symbolic or not. And then when people come here to discuss it in good faith it becomes some sort of intellectual boxing exhibit instead of a discussion, which is Kriminal.

 

I am out...

 

Bill

[TZK]

Again, show evidence that supports your assertion that High IQs=Sociopath. Show just one study that supports it. That is all I ask. Oh, I forgot you have deductive reasoning, therefore research and evidence is unnecessary.

 

Yes it is, in cases where deductive reasoning is all that is needed. Why don't you show me a study that shows that tall people are not short? I'll tell you why you don't. Because that is just plain stupid. Some things aren't seen quite as easily, but you can be just as sure of them when you do see them. That is the point of deductive reasoning. To identify things that are necessarily true, but that we can not immediately perceive to be so.

[TZK]

None of what you said does anything to correct the fallacy I pointed out in your definition of sociopath. You have changed gears completely and your last sentence is what best describes your logic in this thread, which is Kriminal.

 

I am using my intelligence to overcome.

 

If you want to make a higher point about people fitting in or the dangers of conforming, then do so. Instead you make a specific argument, and you can't decide if you mean it or not, or if it is symbolic or not. And then when people come here to discuss it in good faith it becomes some sort of intellectual boxing exhibit instead of a discussion, which is Kriminal.

 

I am out...

 

Bill

 

So basically what you are saying is that if I win an argument I have done something wrong?

 

What fallacy are you talking about? A fallacy is a well defined logical contradiction not just a premise in an argument that you don't agree with...

 

You claimed that sociopathy deals with behavior not thinking, and I retorted that the thinking of others is immeasurable save for its effect on their behavior. If the way another person thought did not effect their behavior, you would have no way to allude to the idea that they thought. Not quite sure what this has to do with my first premise, which references behavior?

 

Also not sure what ambiguity in purpose you are referring to in my post? You tried to claim that intelligence doesn't necessitate being "disagreeable" and I was showing how it does... If you are confused about what the right thing to do is, it is easier to just go with the flow and not think so much. If you understand your surroundings very clearly, you are more likely to object to behavior that other people try to pressure you into...

[TheBigDog]

So basically what you are saying is that if I win an argument I have done something wrong?

 

What fallacy are you talking about? A fallacy is a well defined logical contradiction not just a premise in an argument that you don't agree with...

 

You claimed that sociopathy deals with behavior not thinking, and I retorted that the thinking of others is immeasurable save for its effect on their behavior. If the way another person thought did not effect their behavior, you would have no way to allude to the idea that they thought. Not quite sure what this has to do with my first premise, which references behavior?

 

Also not sure what ambiguity in purpose you are referring to in my post? You tried to claim that intelligence doesn't necessitate being "disagreeable" and I was showing how it does... If you are confused about what the right thing to do is, it is easier to just go with the flow and not think so much. If you understand your surroundings very clearly, you are more likely to object to behavior that other people try to pressure you into...

a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

 

One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.

 

someone with a sociopathic personality; a person with an antisocial personality disorder ('psychopath' was once widely used but has now been superseded by 'sociopath')

 

Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.

 

A person affected with an antisocial personality disorder.

a measure of a person's intelligence as indicated by an intelligence test; the ratio of a person's mental age to their chronological age (multiplied by 100)

If

1) a sociopath is a person who deviates from "normal" behavior,

and

2) having an IQ of say even just 140 means that there is only one person as intelligent as you in about every 200 people... or higher iqs meaning even more people are needed to find someone as smart as you

and

3) IQ is measurable because it creates a difference in reaction to your environment when compared to people with different IQ's

 

Then

 

Isn't it the case that all people with high IQ's are sociopaths?

1) Your definition of Sociopath is wrong in your premise.

2) Your definition of IQ is wrong in your premise.

3) Your definition of how IQ is measured is wrong in your conclusion.

 

IQ has nothing to do with value systems which are how we make evaluations of abstract topics. It is each person's value systems that drives their behavior - manifestation of thoughts into actions. If we choose to ignore the real definitions of these words and play along with your specifically defined verbal equation, then there still exist problems with your premises and conclusions that you need to fix. (I assume you posed them as questions)

The less honest approach is the typical sociopath. They see some part of others behavior as silly and nonsensical, but they decide early on that is just a fact of life. In order to achieve their goals that relate to other people, they just tell people whatever they want to hear. They use their intelligence to learn how to manipulate people into doing what they want. When they think noone is looking, they do things that others perhaps consider callous and cruel or at least abnormal in some way. But the truth is this person never agreed with those norms anyways, they just played along so as not to be antagonistic.

Blending into society in the presence of others, but acting in a fashion that doesn't please others when there is nobody else around is your first example of sociopathic behavior. That is actually called common behavior by definition, which is another reason why you are receiving so much resistance to your hypothesis.

The more honest approach is when you have someone who behaves in a way that coincides with his better understanding of some subject while attempting to explain his behavior perhaps resulting in debate. This person may be considered antagonistic and subject to all kinds of negative reactions.

I read this as autobiographical. You see yourself as smarter than everyone else around you, and you also see yourself perceived as antagonistic because your constant need to prove your superior intellect to those around you generates negative reactions. But you are trying desperately to be understood. You are not a monster, you are a human-being!

 

In your later posts you alluded to people going with the flow, instead of being honest to their rational understanding of things leading to things like the Germans before and during WWII participating in Hitler's insanity. If that is the point you are trying to make in the thread then I would suggest you refine your examples so that is clearly the point you are making. The level of comprehension among the members here is extraordinary, and failure to understand is typically a failure of the communicator, not the listener.

 

Bill

[sanctus]

What fallacy are you talking about? A fallacy is a well defined logical contradiction not just a premise in an argument that you don't agree with...

ARe you sure of this? Starting from a wrong premise you can prove anything (really anything!), so if you want call it mistake instead of fallacy but the point is that everything that follows is wrong.

 

TZK, correct me if I'm wrong, but eventually all you want to say is that sometimes intelligent people are sociopaths? Like for example the computer-freaks most probably everyone of us knows who can program you anything but don't feel at ease when forced through social pressure to go have a drink with old school-mates...

[CraigD]

If

1) a sociopath is a person who deviates from "normal" behavior,

and

2) having an IQ of say even just 140 means that there is only one person as intelligent as you in about every 200 people... or higher iqs meaning even more people are needed to find someone as smart as you

and

3) IQ is measurable because it creates a difference in reaction to your environment when compared to people with different IQ's

 

Then

 

Isn't it the case that all people with high IQ's are sociopaths?

From a purely logical point of view, and interpreted in the most favorable way, the syllogism implied by this rhetorical question is true, as are statements such as:

If

1) someone with blue eyes is a duck

2) some human beings have blue eyes

therefore

All blue-eyed human beings are ducks.

 

From a point of view of useful psychiatry and intelligence testing, however, the statement is so abnormal in its use of terms that I consider it worse than nonsensical. While my example is clearly nonsensical, TZK’s reinforces several common stereotypes, confusions, and inaccuracies about the subjects from which its terms are taken.

a sociopath is a person who deviates from "normal" behavior

As several previous posters, note, and this wikipedia article supports, this definition of sociopath is very far from the usual one. The usual psychiatric definition of sociopathy, an obsolete term equivalent to the older “psychopathy”, superseded by the newer terms “antisocial personality disorder” and “dissocial personality disorder”, is of a disorder characterized by a lack of normal empathy, conscience, and self-control. A sociopath is a person “lacking a conscience”, and therefore likely to repeatedly behave in a way a normal person refrains from due to feelings of wrongness and anticipated or remembered remorse, such as torturing and killing small animals.

 

Although many psychiatric description of sociopathy include “above average intelligence”, the idea that most sociopaths are very intelligent (in the upper 1 percentile) is a myth, related, I suspect, to archetypal fears of “mad geniuses”, “evil masterminds”, etc. In order to avoid confusion with diagnoses in the mental retardation spectrum, people with very low intelligence (lower 1 percentile) are usually excluded from being diagnoses with antisocial/dissocial personality disorder, even though some people with very low intelligence exhibit the defining “lack of conscience” feature of the disorder and its abnormal behaviors.

having an IQ of say even just 140 means that there is only one person as intelligent as you in about every 200 people

This is a reasonably accurate statement.

 

When referring to an “intelligence quotient” with numbers in this range, one is usually referring to the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. Originally, this scale had a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 10. Most recently, it has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. With these factors, one can consult an normal curve table or calculator (such as this one), to find that an IQ of 140 corresponds to testing higher than all but 1 out of 261 people. For 1 out of 200 people, the corresponding SB5 IQ is 138.6374.

 

Caution should be exercised, however, in equating IQ and other simple, single-axis intelligence testing with practical intelligence. The SB tests, for example, were designed to be relevant only for children through elementary school age, and are ill suited for the testing of adults.

IQ is measurable because it creates a difference in reaction to your environment when compared to people with different IQ's

This is inaccurate. “IQ” is an abbreviation for “intelligence quotient”, and, as mentioned above, derives from the SB intelligence scale. It is a quotient (the result of a division operation) because the test was originally divided into a collection of skill-testing questions considered “normal” for a particular age. The raw test score would then be divided by the test-taker’s chronological age to produce the result.

 

“IQ” in particular, and intelligence testing in general, almost always involves the use of verbal or written questionnaires. I know of no common intelligence test that involves measuring “differences in reaction to your environment when compared to people with different IQ’s”.

 

I believe a more appropriate term than “sociopath” to characterize some people with high intelligence would be “atypical” or “eccentric”, and would encourage people in general and TZK in particular to use these, and avoid the qualifier “all” when referring to human populations.

[Boerseun]

Sorry for butting in, I haven't read the whole thread, just the initial post and a few replies.

 

Just an observation:

 

It's quite interesting, really, to note that almost 100% of all certifiable sociopaths I've ever met in my entire life (and there were quite a few, actually), count amongst the most intelligent people I've known.

 

I have very rarely met intellectually-average people who battled to fit into the social setup.

 

Like I said, just an observation, and only my personal experience. A bigger sample might yield different results.

[Chacmool]

It's quite interesting, really, to note that almost 100% of all certifiable sociopaths I've ever met in my entire life (and there were quite a few, actually), count amongst the most intelligent people I've known.

Are you sure you are referring to true sociopaths and not merely socially akward people?

[paigetheoracle]

Pyrotex - the example you gave wasn't blue eyed and Aryan as well, was he?

 

Boerseun - Could it be that because sociopaths are manipulative, that they use their minds to get what they want as the less intelligent use their fists to try to do the same thing? Maybe that explains the reasoning behind this thread?

 

Chad Varah, the founder of The Samaritans, a suicide prevention charity in the UK, found that sociopaths were people who simply wouldn't take no for an answer and tried every trick in the book to get what they wanted. My wife worked with someone who had what I would have diagnosed from the information available to me as a clear case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and she was the same.

 

Could it be that sociopathology is or should be about the study of consciousness? my reasoning is thus: Sociopaths try to manipulate others to fulfill their wants, which puts them on par with babies/ children. No insight into the effects their demands have on the survival abilities of others, in other words. Adults by definition, have got to the stage in their lives where they are self-aware and other aware by inference too: Present and awake to the effects their existence has on others (Introverted as opposed to children/ sociopaths, who are extroverted - not thinkers but doers).

 

i dare say their are some who would disagree with my analysis of the situation but I am looking at it from the perspective of who I was as a child and who I am now, and the journey that led me to this state/ stage in my life.

 

If nothing else the originator of this thread is like a child/sociopath in that he has stirred up controversy and made us look at the world in a different way: The aristocracy also used this technique to bring in new blood to their fold. On top of this thorough bred animals are known to be badly genetically affected through inbreeding and mongrels are healthier for this reason. If you cannot see the reasoning behind this argument perhaps it's because you cannot see the bigger picture because you're concentrating on the smaller one (lost in extraneous detail) or it could be I'm a sociopath, trying to railroad through my views!

[TZK]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com definitions of Sociopath

a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

 

One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.

 

someone with a sociopathic personality; a person with an antisocial personality disorder ('psychopath' was once widely used but has now been superseded by 'sociopath')

 

Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.

 

A person affected with an antisocial personality disorder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com definition of IQ (Intellect Quotient)

a measure of a person's intelligence as indicated by an intelligence test; the ratio of a person's mental age to their chronological age (multiplied by 100)

 

1) Your definition of Sociopath is wrong in your premise.

2) Your definition of IQ is wrong in your premise.

3) Your definition of how IQ is measured is wrong in your conclusion.

 

IQ has nothing to do with value systems which are how we make evaluations of abstract topics. It is each person's value systems that drives their behavior - manifestation of thoughts into actions. If we choose to ignore the real definitions of these words and play along with your specifically defined verbal equation, then there still exist problems with your premises and conclusions that you need to fix. (I assume you posed them as questions)

 

Blending into society in the presence of others, but acting in a fashion that doesn't please others when there is nobody else around is your first example of sociopathic behavior. That is actually called common behavior by definition, which is another reason why you are receiving so much resistance to your hypothesis.

 

I read this as autobiographical. You see yourself as smarter than everyone else around you, and you also see yourself perceived as antagonistic because your constant need to prove your superior intellect to those around you generates negative reactions. But you are trying desperately to be understood. You are not a monster, you are a human-being!

 

In your later posts you alluded to people going with the flow, instead of being honest to their rational understanding of things leading to things like the Germans before and during WWII participating in Hitler's insanity. If that is the point you are trying to make in the thread then I would suggest you refine your examples so that is clearly the point you are making. The level of comprehension among the members here is extraordinary, and failure to understand is typically a failure of the communicator, not the listener.

 

Bill

 

1) is wrong. Your dictionary references indicates several commonly used definitions for sociopath. This means that for instance some people might use it meaning a specific disorder, while others just mean one of the less precise definitions. When looked at objectively many if not all of the definitions reduce into just deviant behavior. To show you what I mean (yet again) consider the following definition and the translated version that might be presented by someone who understands the problem with bandwagon fallacy:

 

"Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others."

 

Translated to

 

"Someone with a better understanding of morality than the average person. Sociopaths may feel justified in behaving in a manner that may deviate from the behavior of less intelligent people perhaps even affecting others negatively because they know it is the right thing to do."

 

The original definition comes from many kinds of IGNORANCE. Ignorance of

 

A) Bandwagon fallacy, aka the idea that the world does not revolve around them and their friends and what they might believe ignorantly.

 

:D The idea that sympathy is secondary to a consideration of what is the right thing to do, where right is a derivation of power from the animal kingdom with the consideration that among humans power is equally shared so selfish behavior will be overpowered. A police officer does not care about your feelings when he gives you a speeding ticket, nor does a so called sociopath care about your feelings when you get mad because you lost an argument when you fancied yourself the smartest guy around. The world should not remain in ignorance to satisfy someone's ego.

 

You see the second line in the true to form original definition of sociopath used here is pure propaganda, and if you want an objective definition between these two the only one available is the "abnormal behavior" part ie the fact that the behavior differs from other people's.

 

2) IQ hasn't been a ratio of mental age to actual age for a LOOOONNNG time. Like since the late 30's I believe... But in any case, the point of IQ is that if people accelerate knowledge at a faster rate than others, it is surmised that

A) They have better hardware

;) They will continue to gain knowledge at a faster rate than others.

It is a primitive but not useless measure. I am not particularly fond of it, but my point is that people with high ones probably have learned more than people with low ones. My use of the term is perfectly in line with this or a current definition of IQ. It doesn't have to match word for word, just mean the same thing.

 

3) That wasn't my conclusion, it was a third premise. Also I did not say HOW it was measured. I said that it IS measured, else we would know nothing about it, and that in order for it to be measured it must be able to affect our behavior. Else a person with a high IQ and low IQ would give the same answer on an IQ test. But it would be quite ridiculous to pretend that the only difference between a person with high and low IQs is that they give different answers on IQ tests.

 

My definitions match or are direct consequences of the common definitions of these words. As I said before if these connections need to be explained I can, but I don't understand why I am having to go over these connections over and over again with no response. Also, there are no other problems with the premises or conclusions, and if there were you would have stated them rather than trying to deceive readers into believing that my premises did not portray the terms accurately.

 

IQ most certainly does affect the quality of value system a person creates. Logical reasoning ability is very useful in creating a value system. Many people don't even create value systems for that matter, they just take ones that people give them and follow them due to social pressure rather than because they have verified every aspect of them personally.

 

If you think blending but then acting different when not watched is common, then perhaps you understand even better than I hoped why high intelligence pretty much automatically makes someone a sociopath. An average person with a bunch of guys who dislike another boy and wouldn't mind messing with him might harass the boy.. A sociopath might kill someone he thinks deserves it when noone is looking because he is smart enough to get away with it and has reasoned that the fear of permanent loss response should not apply to that particular person. An average forum mod might try to obfuscate a strong opposing argument and threaten his opponent (cough cough Q..) claiming he was justified in doing so, but a sociopath might destroy the forum and claim he had nothing to do with it, reasoning that the forum was wrong but believing that he could not explain to people of lesser intelligence why it should be done. The traditional sociopath is just a high iq version of this typical characterless personality. IMO the only difference high iq affords in this case is the scale at which this behavior takes place.

 

I don't have a need to prove superior intellect... That is selfish. If you must know, my behavior stems from being in a constant struggle to satisfy my second order need for security (see hierarchy of needs) which can only be achieved by helping others understand the truths I had to realize in order to survive my first years mentally. For people such as I, security is only obtainable through pure knowledge because my history has shown that going with the flow is not enough. The flow will F#$# you up. Of course this is all on a subconscious level. Consciously, I just feel compelled to pursue pure reasoning and knowledge and help other people understand and conform to better ideas. Similar to how you might get mad if someone doesn't follow the rules in a game, it bothers me when people use straw man fallacy or bandwagon fallacy... It is because of this that I do not give up easily... if my motivation was similar to what you proposed, I would just give up at the drop of a hat and reason that it was not working.

 

My point regarding environments like nazi germany regards the same issues. A lower intelligence person simply becomes confused by complex moral issues and gives in to social pressure as a backup plan. To quote my brother, these people's ideas of someone who often dissents is that "You think too damn much". Higher intelligence people better resist propaganda and social pressure and either openly resist or disregard social norms to a larger than normal degree when no one is looking.

 

If I didn't take some responsibility for communicating ideas effectively, I wouldn't be here responding. Instead I would just deem everyone too dumb to understand and leave. However raw mental ability is not the limiting factor in understanding my claims IMO. Instead people have emotional barriers preventing them considering ideas they are not used to, which are not overcome until full comprehension of the topic of skepticism.

 

Often it takes the form of me saying "Because of X, Y is true". Then one person coming and saying "BUT NOT X EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS STUPID" then me having to tailor my argument to this person and saying "X is true because of v and w" and them responding by saying "NUH UH IM NOT LISTENING I ALREADY PROVED YOU WRONG LA LA LA LA LA".

 

ARe you sure of this? Starting from a wrong premise you can prove anything (really anything!), so if you want call it mistake instead of fallacy but the point is that everything that follows is wrong.

 

TZK, correct me if I'm wrong, but eventually all you want to say is that sometimes intelligent people are sociopaths? Like for example the computer-freaks most probably everyone of us knows who can program you anything but don't feel at ease when forced through social pressure to go have a drink with old school-mates...

 

Yeah a wrong premise is not a fallacy, it's just a mistake. But the premises aren't wrong anyways. I am trying to say that basically the concept of sociopath and all of our current thinking regarding criminal behavior is wrong. That all intelligent people are sociopaths, because they either openly disagree with social norms or do so discreetly and grossly disregard social norms when noone is looking.

[paigetheoracle]

Are you sure you are referring to true sociopaths and not merely socially akward people?

 

Same thing but opposites - socially awkward people are becoming aware of their short comings but come across as struggling with their consciences/consciousness, whereas sociopaths appear as very self confident individuals (See the original Jerry Lewis version of "The Nutty Professor" for the difference between the two Jekyl and Hyde characters).

[TZK]

From a purely logical point of view, and interpreted in the most favorable way, the syllogism implied by this rhetorical question is true, as are statements such as:

If

1) someone with blue eyes is a duck

2) some human beings have blue eyes

therefore

All blue-eyed human beings are ducks.

 

From a point of view of useful psychiatry and intelligence testing, however, the statement is so abnormal in its use of terms that I consider it worse than nonsensical. While my example is clearly nonsensical, TZK’s reinforces several common stereotypes, confusions, and inaccuracies about the subjects from which its terms are taken.As several previous posters, note, and this wikipedia article supports, this definition of sociopath is very far from the usual one. The usual psychiatric definition of sociopathy, an obsolete term equivalent to the older “psychopathy”, superseded by the newer terms “antisocial personality disorder” and “dissocial personality disorder”, is of a disorder characterized by a lack of normal empathy, conscience, and self-control. A sociopath is a person “lacking a conscience”, and therefore likely to repeatedly behave in a way a normal person refrains from due to feelings of wrongness and anticipated or remembered remorse, such as torturing and killing small animals.

 

Although many psychiatric description of sociopathy include “above average intelligence”, the idea that most sociopaths are very intelligent (in the upper 1 percentile) is a myth, related, I suspect, to archetypal fears of “mad geniuses”, “evil masterminds”, etc. In order to avoid confusion with diagnoses in the mental retardation spectrum, people with very low intelligence (lower 1 percentile) are usually excluded from being diagnoses with antisocial/dissocial personality disorder, even though some people with very low intelligence exhibit the defining “lack of conscience” feature of the disorder and its abnormal behaviors.This is a reasonably accurate statement.

 

When referring to an “intelligence quotient” with numbers in this range, one is usually referring to the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. Originally, this scale had a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 10. Most recently, it has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. With these factors, one can consult an normal curve table or calculator (such as this one), to find that an IQ of 140 corresponds to testing higher than all but 1 out of 261 people. For 1 out of 200 people, the corresponding SB5 IQ is 138.6374.

 

Caution should be exercised, however, in equating IQ and other simple, single-axis intelligence testing with practical intelligence. The SB tests, for example, were designed to be relevant only for children through elementary school age, and are ill suited for the testing of adults.This is inaccurate. “IQ” is an abbreviation for “intelligence quotient”, and, as mentioned above, derives from the SB intelligence scale. It is a quotient (the result of a division operation) because the test was originally divided into a collection of skill-testing questions considered “normal” for a particular age. The raw test score would then be divided by the test-taker’s chronological age to produce the result.

 

“IQ” in particular, and intelligence testing in general, almost always involves the use of verbal or written questionnaires. I know of no common intelligence test that involves measuring “differences in reaction to your environment when compared to people with different IQ’s”.

 

This definition of sociopath is the objective interpretation of your definition. It is not a common misinterpretation, it is a commonly recognized result of trying to use your definition. People have seen that groups trying to use that definition of sociopath effectively just end up labeling everyone who acts differently than the group a sociopath. Given the number of objections to my definition of sociopath, I have added an extra premise to get from your definition of sociopath to mine which is the immediate consequence.

 

Feelings of wrongness = a lack of a belief that the action is necessary. Someone who objects to war may feel it is wrong to kill someone under any circumstances, while a soldier may think it is necessary. "anticipated or remembered remorse" is basically the human fear of permanent loss. If I move from my college town, I feel remorse at leaving a place I had so much fun at. If I considered killing a cute little bunny I feel anticipated remorse at the thought of losing all the joy it could bring me. Note however most people will stomp a spider without a moments hesitation, because it does not look similar to a human and does not trigger human emotional response. I could imagine someone killing a bunny just to gain some sort of insight into themselves, reasoning that it cannot be any more wrong then killing a spider. The next step for such a person might be that it is no different to kill a person. This might cause them to lose their anticipated remorse response because they have seen that it isn't the end of the world when they loose a bunny or person they have little contact with. (inductive reasoning overrides all when determining emotional response to events)

 

However these actions would be wrong in my opinion, for two reasons thus restoring the model where criminals are criminals because they broke natural rules of morality not because they are different or damaged somehow...

 

Killing the bunny is wrong because the purpose of life is life itself. The bunny brings you and others joy and does not harm you, therefore it should not be killed.

 

Killing the person is wrong for the same reason AND because it is easy to get caught and people will f#$# you up if they find out you did it. The bunnies friends can't f#$# you up but people the bunny affected might and if not you have lost a potential source of joy so why do it?

 

I never said all sociopaths have high intelligence. Random differences in experience may cause deviation as well. A handicapped person may fall on a bunny and kill it and later decide that it wasn't a big deal. Then perhaps this person decides later than everyone around some guy might be better off if the guy was dead, so he kills the guy and then sits down and eats his dinner.

Thats totally different than someone who reasons that human morality is wrong and that the human remorse response is obsolete, and then kills stuff just to rid himself of it.

 

How many people you test better than with a given IQ doesn't really matter to the argument... I didn't fudge those figures if you are saying that they are outdated then oh well.

 

Again not a huge fan of IQ testing, but it is surmised that if someone gained knowledge at a faster rate, they will continue to do so. IQ is not supposed to change over time, thus meaning that the ratio of knowledge held between a given person and the average person does not change.

 

Taking an iq test is an environment. Answering a question one way or another is reacting to your environment. Where did you hope to go with that objection anyways? Are you saying IQ never affects people's behavior outside of iq testing?

[freeztar]

...all intelligent people are sociopaths, because they either openly disagree with social norms or do so discreetly and grossly disregard social norms when noone is looking.

 

That's quite presumptive, no?

How would you classify an inteligent person that does not disregard social norms?

Or are you trying to say that such a person does not exist? Where do you draw the line?

[Zythryn]

That all intelligent people are sociopaths, because they either openly disagree with social norms or do so discreetly and grossly disregard social norms when noone is looking.

 

So basically, this is the crux of the issue. Let's disregard all the side-line discussions about IQ and such.

 

To paraphrase, 'All intelligent people either openly disagree with social norms or do so when no one is looking'.

 

I disagree. Many intelligent people follow and believe in many if not all social norms of the society they are a part of.

Please note, I am not saying All intelligent people always agree with all social norms. I am saying that it is NOT TRUE that all intelligent people always disagree with all social norms.

 

Is you position that intelligent people disagree with some social norms, or all social norms?

How intelligent are the people that fit in this category?

[Buffy]

It at least seems from the discussion that the proposition posed here is strained at the very least, so I'll pose a more likely and supportable association, that similarly can be supported purely by logic.

 

Are all sociopaths pedophiles by definition?

 

I think if you agree with the intent of this thread you would have to agree that it is quite likely. The inverse of the implication is provably true, and since the original proposition posits that implication is equivalence, then this is true by definition.

 

So, since the purpose of this thread is clearly to show that sociopathy is acceptable behavior, it would seem that the argument posed would make pedophilia similarly acceptable behavior.

 

Would you advocate in support of acceptance of pedophilia, TZK?

 

Logically true,

Buffy

[paigetheoracle]

It at least seems from the discussion that the proposition posed here is strained at the very least, so I'll pose a more likely and supportable association, that similarly can be supported purely by logic.

 

Are all sociopaths pedophiles by definition?

 

I think if you agree with the intent of this thread you would have to agree that it is quite likely. The inverse of the implication is provably true, and since the original proposition posits that implication is equivalence, then this is true by definition.

 

So, since the purpose of this thread is clearly to show that sociopathy is acceptable behavior, it would seem that the argument posed would make pedophilia similarly acceptable behavior.

 

Would you advocate in support of acceptance of pedophilia, TZK?

 

Logically true,

Buffy

I would because as Peter Gabriel put it in the title and content of one of his songs, it's a question of "No Self Control". If you see no wrong in what you do, then you will carry out any act that your mind can suggest to you as a possibility. However it is the 'thought' of consequences upon yourself, that leads you to put the brake on any endevours: On the purely basic level of societal revenge i.e. other control (The law/ friends or relatives seeking you out), you have survival and well being for the self - from the point of the larger picture, you have self-control because you waken to the larger Self viewpoint that this creates an environment that pollutes the world around you and makes life less worth living (Long term survival and well being over a broader area rather than short term, addictive behaviour).

[paigetheoracle]

Feelings of wrongness = a lack of a belief that the action is necessary. Someone who objects to war may feel it is wrong to kill someone under any circumstances, while a soldier may think it is necessary. "anticipated or remembered remorse" is basically the human fear of permanent loss. If I move from my college town, I feel remorse at leaving a place I had so much fun at. If I considered killing a cute little bunny I feel anticipated remorse at the thought of losing all the joy it could bring me. Note however most people will stomp a spider without a moments hesitation, because it does not look similar to a human and does not trigger human emotional response. I could imagine someone killing a bunny just to gain some sort of insight into themselves, reasoning that it cannot be any more wrong then killing a spider. The next step for such a person might be that it is no different to kill a person. This might cause them to lose their anticipated remorse response because they have seen that it isn't the end of the world when they loose a bunny or person they have little contact with. (inductive reasoning overrides all when determining emotional response to events)

 

However these actions would be wrong in my opinion, for two reasons thus restoring the model where criminals are criminals because they broke natural rules of morality not because they are different or damaged somehow...

 

Killing the bunny is wrong because the purpose of life is life itself. The bunny brings you and others joy and does not harm you, therefore it should not be killed.

 

Killing the person is wrong for the same reason AND because it is easy to get caught and people will f#$# you up if they find out you did it. The bunnies friends can't f#$# you up but people the bunny affected might and if not you have lost a potential source of joy so why do it?

 

I never said all sociopaths have high intelligence. Random differences in experience may cause deviation as well. A handicapped person may fall on a bunny and kill it and later decide that it wasn't a big deal. Then perhaps this person decides later than everyone around some guy might be better off if the guy was dead, so he kills the guy and then sits down and eats his dinner.

Thats totally different than someone who reasons that human morality is wrong and that the human remorse response is obsolete, and then kills stuff just to rid himself of it.

 

How many people you test better than with a given IQ doesn't really matter to the argument... I didn't fudge those figures if you are saying that they are outdated then oh well.

 

Again not a huge fan of IQ testing, but it is surmised that if someone gained knowledge at a faster rate, they will continue to do so. IQ is not supposed to change over time, thus meaning that the ratio of knowledge held between a given person and the average person does not change.

 

Taking an iq test is an environment. Answering a question one way or another is reacting to your environment. Where did you hope to go with that objection anyways? Are you saying IQ never affects people's behavior outside of iq testing?

 

With regards to sociopaths and killing in your first paragraph - it might be clearer to use pleasure and necessity. By this I mean that the right/ wrong argument is true if somebody is willing to die, rather than kill another human being. However, when it's a question of survival and somebody defending themselves to stay alive, the moral question becomes 'Does somebody kill for the enjoyment of doing it' (sociopath) or kill in self-defence, or destroy another life form to eat (plant, animal) or make something else they want/need? (plant, animal, mineral). In other words is it a necessary act that they are trying to justify on survival terms or a wanton act of overindulgence? (Treating something as worthless/ culling it with no objective in mind but the act of slaughter as the end product). We preserve what we consider rare (ancient or newly created) but waste what is considered old hat (plentiful and easy to replace). So basically it boils to value and economics, not necessarily emotion.:naughty::shrug:;):hyper::hihi::lol::confused:

 

Lastly, what you say about spiders is true - we are less likely to harm what we identify with than what we see as alien/ different ('Dislike of the unlike' Terry Nation in The Daleks serial on Doctor Who). Sociopaths therefore are people who identify with no-one and nothing but their own desires and are unconscious or semi-conscious people with suicidal tendencies as their acts usually come back to haunt them (see societal revenge in paragraph above).

A sociopath in my opinion is someone who sees themselves as right and everybody else is wrong - hence right wing (All the wrongs in the world are caused by people who think they're right). :evil:

 

By the way I did read your post before posting my own and can see what you're getting at but it's the differences in definition that most people are arguing against you for, not the strength of argument (At least that is my interpretation of events?).:doh::eek::eek2: