Are people with high IQs sociopaths by definition?

[Pyrotex]

So it's mental behaviour not physical action that makes a sociopath what they are? That means I could be a compassionate mass murderer, like Dr Shipman in the UK...

Yes. It's the mental behaviour.

And this is why diagnoses such as "sociopathy" are so difficult to pin down. You have three murderers who commit similar crimes: a knife through the hearts of their wives. Who is the sociopath?

#1 did it in a fit of jealous anger.

#2 did it for the insurance money to pay his gambling debts.

#3 wanted to see what it felt like to kill someone.

 

Journalists are quick to slap labels like "sociopath" and "serial killer" on perps because it sells more papers. Commonfolk are quick to slap labels like those on perps because it defines a wider "gulf" between them and the perp, giving them the comfort of believing that the perp is inherently "broken" and not "normal" like themselves.

 

[EDIT]: from BBC article: "Harold Shipman was a conundrum to police, friends and colleagues."

[CraigD]

Adding to what Pyrotex’s explanations, with which I agree, I think it’s worth noting that the most “hard”, objectively and scientifically repeatable and confirmable data about psycho/sociopathy comes from studies of the perceptual ability of people diagnoses with the disorder (all, AFAIK, from prison inmate populations). These studies show significant, and in some cases dramatic, deficiencies among psychopaths in recognizing various non-verbal clues, such as correctly describing the emotion displayed on a face in a photograph or drawing, implied messages such as humor or sarcasm in recorded voices, or describing “what’s going on / what happens next” when presented with a simple comic-strip depiction of a common social situation. In short, psychopaths seem to have very sub-normal abilities to “role play”, “put themselves in a situation”, or “put themselves in another person’s head”. This deficiency appears not to be a matter of choice, but of some profound learned or neuroanatomical disorder.

 

Because these deficiencies resemble those found in the autism spectrum of mental disorders, and those disorders have been strongly linked to microscopically observable neuroanatomical abnormalities (too much “white”, not enough “gray” cortical brain matter), many, including myself, believe that psychopathy also has an underlying neurochemical/anatomical cause. So far, however, compelling evidence of such physically observable causes has not been found. Some fMRI studies are promising, but, as with most current brain imaging data, difficult to map to precise neurochemical/anatomical causes.

 

The references in the wikipedia article “psychopath” are a decent starting point for literature concerning physical causes of psychopathy.

[paigetheoracle]

Yes. It's the mental behaviour.

And this is why diagnoses such as "sociopathy" are so difficult to pin down. You have three murderers who commit similar crimes: a knife through the hearts of their wives. Who is the sociopath?

#1 did it in a fit of jealous anger.

#2 did it for the insurance money to pay his gambling debts.

#3 wanted to see what it felt like to kill someone.

 

Journalists are quick to slap labels like "sociopath" and "serial killer" on perps because it sells more papers. Commonfolk are quick to slap labels like those on perps because it defines a wider "gulf" between them and the perp, giving them the comfort of believing that the perp is inherently "broken" and not "normal" like themselves.

 

[EDIT]: from BBC article: "Harold Shipman was a conundrum to police, friends and colleagues."

 

Doesn't three sound like a scientist or a sociopath as ordinary people would define the term? (animal research or cruelty?). I don't stand in judgment of this as when I was a child, I did similar 'nasty' things to insects that would be considered cruel/experimental by me now.

 

You're right about the me/ not me stance - there but for the grace of God go I

[paigetheoracle]

Well, if you want, you can make up any definition you want. TZK seems to think this is valid.

 

However, if you reference medical literature, you find that a sociopath does NOT necessarily have a "savage nature". What defines a sociopath is (using my own words):

 

a lack of what we would call, "conscience";

a total disregard for social norms of "right" and "wrong";

a lack of compassion for other people's pain and discomfort;

a casual willingness to manipulate others by unethical means;

a tendency to think of other people as merely animated objects.

 

What makes these add up to "sociopathy" rather than "retardation" or "brain damage" is that the sociopath is typically of normal intelligence, and is quite aware of "right", "wrong" and morality. The sociopath, may in fact, pretend to be moral if it furthers his goals. One might say that any moral behavior on the part of the sociopath is always a calculated pretense, or social camoflage.

 

Sociopaths I've read about or met seem to be both ruthless and blatant (won't take no for an answer - keep on until they get what they think they want, no matter what the cost to themselves or others).

 

I think it boils down to the will to get your own way/ succeed, no matter what and it is this that obscures their vision of other peoples existence - hence they would make good torturers or business men (no conscience/ willingness to do whatever it takes, means no awareness of others because they are too focused on their own lives/beliefs - therefore others naturally appear as mere objects or obstructions and their suffering means nothing because they are focused beyond the here and now, to the idealistic future (their goal) rather than on present reality. This is why I believe fanatics (idealists) are so dangerous and why future goals can lead to present destruction, not only in political terms but at the level of individual sociopathy - in other words war and all conflict brings out the worst in us because it takes us out of enjoying the present (Eastern religion emphasizes this). Peace allows us to flower not only as societies but as individuals just as conflict breaks down everything into its simplest states. You say sociopaths could be the way they are because they are brain damaged (CraigD) - I'd agree and say that all conflict leads to brain damage (the breakdown of organization, within the organism/ society) and therefore the temptation to give way to it is rightly cautioned against by religion for this reason (No, I'm not a Bible thumper).

 

Recently, to bring this to a more personal level, there was a knife attack on a doctor where my wife works, by a patient who had a major personality change after a stroke: Before it very affable, apparently - after it paranoid in the extreme. You're saying that sociopaths come into this world brain damaged? My point is that brain damage can be caused later to the detriment of the personality but from studies of other people who suffer injury or deterioration (Alzheimers etc), it doesn't have to be to the detriment of the individual. It seems to me it is a question of choice and orientation - do I treat the loss of the old as a disaster or the gaining of a new perspective (talent/ opening up of a different sensory route) as a challenge? Reactionaries revolt against the change because they are scared of how it will affect their future status in the world - adventurers explore the possibilities it may open to them as personal development.:shrug:

[Michaelangelica]

The answer is "no'

But

sometimes there are some similarities with sociopaths.

 

Having a very high IQ can be very lonely, isolated place where quick communication is difficult as you have to spoon feed others.

 

Often it is associated with Asperger's and other autism spectrum disorders.

 

IQ is a problematical construct/model/theory at the best of times.

Best left to psychologists looking for brain damage in specific area of the brain.

 

Not as it was originally designed to keep stupid people out of school so you didn't waste public money (Binet France) trying to educate them.

 

We know a lot more about educational, cognitive and intellectual development of people-especially of the very young- now. Still the old prejudices/memes/shibboleths persist.

 

It (IQ) is culturally specific and a widely misused popular concept.

If I tested you on surviving in the Australian Bush against an Australian aborigine you would come out with an idiot's score the aborigine with a genius score.

Web and pencil and paper tests are very poor and easily rigged or "trained" for.

 

Having a "high IQ" can be almost as difficult as coping with a very "low IQ"

(In my experience low IQ people mange to be happier).

 

If the ultimate objective of human life is happiness; perhaps we should sterilise everyone who has NOT got Down's Syndrome (Trisomy 21) ?!:shrug:

 

An old professor of mine defined and IQ test as "a test that tests what IQ tests test."

-That is about right.

That's all it can do.

It is a very poor predictor of anything that may happen in a person's future.

[paigetheoracle]

 

Having a very high IQ can be very lonely, isolated place where quick communication is difficult as you have to spoon feed others.

 

 

I'd agree and my IQ is only 140! The reason is that to think you need peace and quiet - mindlessness requires noise, hence all the brainless party goers. It's the same with creativity - you cannot create anything but havoc in a human filled space. They say ignorance is bliss and that could be why - the less you have to think with and about, the happier (relatively) you are.

[Pyrotex]

...You're saying that sociopaths come into this world brain damaged? My point is that brain damage can be caused later to the detriment of the personality but from studies of other people who suffer injury or deterioration (Alzheimers etc), it doesn't have to be to the detriment of the individual....

No, I can't say I agree with you.

 

The definiton of a "sociopath" is limited by the medical community to a specific set of symptoms and boundary conditions. As are all psychological disorders. For sociopath, one of the boundary conditions is an absence of any external reasons for the dysfunction. If there was a bang on the head that preceded the symptoms, then the "diagnosis" is something else -- not sociopath. Post-Concussion Personality Disorder, maybe.

 

As to whether or not a mental dysfunction can be considered some kind of "blessing" -- sorry, you won't find any sympathy from me for that one. A loss of function is a loss, no matter how you look at it. There are a few Alzheimer patients who don't know what's happening to them, but they are not happy campers. Frustration, anger and a growing sense of impending disaster are frequent symptoms for those folks.

[CraigD]

They say ignorance is bliss and that could be why - the less you have to think with and about, the happier (relatively) you are.

Though the assertion is very common place – “they” do indeed say it - I’ve not encountered any well-statistically-controlled evidence supporting it.

 

Just the opposite, all of the evidence with which I’m acquainted supports the opposite assertion, that intelligence and happiness are positively correlated, people with low intelligence test scores being on average less happy than those with high. This seems intuitively sensible, as low intelligence correlates with less education, which correlates with fewer personal and career choices, education, and other happiness-promoting opportunities.

 

Quantifiable measurements of happiness can be problematical, as how people report their happiness may not agree with how others perceive them, the medical stress they suffer, etc. At least one statistic seems to me to provide a fairly unambiguous happiness measurement: suicide rates. One example: according to the 2005 study of nearly a million Swedish men over 18 “Low intelligence increases risk of suicide”, people with lower than average education (< 9 years) and intelligence kill themselves much more frequently (1.64 times) than those higher than average.

 

“Ignorance is bliss” appears, under scientific scrutiny, to be a commonly believed falsehood.

[paigetheoracle]

No, I can't say I agree with you.

 

The definiton of a "sociopath" is limited by the medical community to a specific set of symptoms and boundary conditions. As are all psychological disorders. For sociopath, one of the boundary conditions is an absence of any external reasons for the dysfunction. If there was a bang on the head that preceded the symptoms, then the "diagnosis" is something else -- not sociopath. Post-Concussion Personality Disorder, maybe.

 

As to whether or not a mental dysfunction can be considered some kind of "blessing" -- sorry, you won't find any sympathy from me for that one. A loss of function is a loss, no matter how you look at it. There are a few Alzheimer patients who don't know what's happening to them, but they are not happy campers. Frustration, anger and a growing sense of impending disaster are frequent symptoms for those folks.

 

Point one - I was playing Devils Advocate, based upon CraigD's post - not that I believe brain damage causes somebody to become a sociopath.

 

Point two - I'm not saying it's a blessing but that people can adjust to the loss and discover unknown talents in other areas (other senses taking on the perceptual load as happens with blindness, deafness etc). As for the frustration, anger and growing sense of impending disaster - that I understand and I only suffer from repetitive migraines, causing slower brain damage, rather than obvious brain injury or deterioration: The problem is wanting to do what you're no longer capable of, rather than adjusting to the loss/ change. It's an identity/ pride thing (How we measure who we were rather than the acceptance of who we are now - that is the problem and it occurs as a condition of old age, whether of an individual or a society (The loss of The British Empire for instance).

[Pyrotex]

Doesn't three sound like a scientist or a sociopath as ordinary people would define the term? (animal research or cruelty?)....

No. I take it you are not a scientist.

 

A scientist would never perform an "experiment" to see what it would "feel" like. She would do it for the objective information that might be revealed -- information that could further an objective understanding of some phenomenon of Nature.

 

Yes, dying is technically a "phenomenon of Nature", but the "feelings" of the experimenter are not merely irrelevant, but worse than useless, as they may interfere with the observation.

 

A scientist is also keenly aware that her experimental results are pointless unless they can be repeated, validated and understood by other scientists. Science is a group concensus activity. Any so-called scientist that would expect other scientists to go out and non-chalantly stab their spouses for the purpose of experimental validation is not a "real scientist". Such a person would be a total freakin looney from hell -- and just maybe, a sociopath.

[paigetheoracle]

No. I take it you are not a scientist.

 

A scientist would never perform an "experiment" to see what it would "feel" like. She would do it for the objective information that might be revealed -- information that could further an objective understanding of some phenomenon of Nature.

 

Yes, dying is technically a "phenomenon of Nature", but the "feelings" of the experimenter are not merely irrelevant, but worse than useless, as they may interfere with the observation.

 

A scientist is also keenly aware that her experimental results are pointless unless they can be repeated, validated and understood by other scientists. Science is a group concensus activity. Any so-called scientist that would expect other scientists to go out and non-chalantly stab their spouses for the purpose of experimental validation is not a "real scientist". Such a person would be a total freakin looney from hell -- and just maybe, a sociopath.

 

No, I am not a scientist as you so rightly guessed. As for sociopaths and feeling - surely they don't have any either (no empathy with their subjects)?

Or maybe it's that they get enjoyment out of others suffering and that puts them apart from either scientists (dispassionate) or ordinary people (disgusted or frightened at the bestiality displayed)?

[markoos]

"Are people with high IQ's sociopaths by definition?"

 

Answer to your question is very simple and rather logical:

Very high intelligence as well as very low intelligence, poverty and wrong nurture is just one of the risk factors (since sociopath (contrary to psychopath - connected with neurological dysfunctions) is environment induced).

In similar way smoking is a risk factor for a lung cancer. Lung cancer don't really mark you as a smoker - but chance, that you are one when you get it, is rather big.

 

Post scriptum: My great grand mother smoked like a train and died in her 90's - as well as hundreds of millions peoples before her - so smoking don't necessary gives you cancer, it just might. As well as high IQ might make you sociopath.

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, markoos! :phones:

Answer to your question is very simple and rather logical:

Very high intelligence as well as very low intelligence, poverty and wrong nurture is just one of the risk factors (since sociopath (contrary to psychopath - connected with neurological dysfunctions) is environment induced).

:hyper: Where are you getting the idea that “psychopathy” is connected with neurological dysfunction, while “sociopathy” is encironment induced? :rolleyes:

 

You’ll notice in (and it’s important that you read) hypography’s site rules that our #1 rule is “In general, back up your claims by using links or references.” Following this rule, though it makes writing a post take more time and effort, often causes you to discover errors and unexpected avenues about what you’re posting, results in you posting something quite different than you originally planned, and results in an ongoing learning experience. It also prevents you from posting erroneous ideas.

 

This is a long, old thread, so if you read through it, you’ll discover a lot of common misconception about the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” have been discussed (for example in posts from around 8/7/07).

 

In short, both terms are pretty disused by scientists and clinicians, in favor of the slightly more neutrally descriptive term “antisocial personality disorder” and more precise “disassociate personality disorder”, though “psychopath” retains a legal meaning in some jurisdictions. There’s a wealth of evidence suggesting that the disorder is neurological, rather than a learned behavior, though no definitive conclusions as to cause or precise neurochemistry and anatomy of which I’m aware.

 

About 2% of the population, with little geographic or demographic variation, have it. There’s little evidence that it can be “cured”, rather only recognized and managed. It correlates positively to low intelligence, rather than high.

 

The wikipedia article “psychopath” is a pretty good starting point on the subject.

 

The idea that high intelligence is a “risk factor” for developing DPD or a similar disorder is, to the best of my knowledge, long discredited, as discussed earlier in the thread. The physiological connection between smoking and cancer is now well understood and essentially undisputed.

[clapstyx]

There is some merit to the post because it is true that (in my humble experience) people with IQ's that are uncommonly advanced do struggle to relate with equivalency with other people. As I see it its simalar to say a person who spent 5 years constantly thinking about something in particular trying to then relate enough of all that they realised in that time with someone who has never given any consideration to the topic of the discussion. Even harder if nobody has had any thoughts before on a given topic. The conversation just cant advance for long enough to get to the point where one can be fully expressive and reach a moment of mutual realisation that leads to a more advanced level of resolve with all aspects of the consideration within mutual awareness. Lets say you make a realisation on how to put common sense on the ascendancy and then advance past that thought perhaps 20 times over well naturally for there to be an equivalency the other person either has to have extensive thinking of their own or you retrace your own with them so that they can get up to speed. The latter rarely seems to work because usually the other person gets negative about the intelligence inequality. It is uncommon to be able to have a meaningful and soulful conversation. I dont believe thats got anything to do with sociopaths and what not but it does seem true that having an exceptionally high IQ can lead to lonliness and depression. Lets face it if one comes out and claims that they have a brilliant mental capacity and an IQ to match you can usually expect someone to be negative and argumentitive about it to reduce the depth of the engagement.

[Vox]

 

You play D&D and watch sci-fi. Perhaps by doing so you made someone else feel rejected because you did not hang out with them instead. But they also feel empowered because most people do not do those things, and their subconscious primitively reasons that deviance = weakness. Thus they feel they can get away with calling you a dork to alleviate their feelings of rejection... it isn't like the girl they like is going to defend your behavior because your one of a few that likes that stuff.

 

 

 

"You made someone else feel rejected because you did not hang out with them"

 

It is really interesting to see how general assumption this is: Mind thinks that our own feelings are generated and caused by someone else. If you feel rejected you are the one who creates that feeling within. Example: "Sunshine makes me feel happy”, "Rain makes me feel sad". Correct is: I will make myself feel happy when sun is shining, I will make myself feel sad when it is raining.

[Vox]

"Are people with high IQ's sociopaths by definition?"

 

In similar way smoking is a risk factor for a lung cancer. Lung cancer don't really mark you as a smoker - but chance, that you are one when you get it, is rather big.

 

 

Yes, smoking is liked to increase of statistical risk of getting lung cancer but who is the one who makes/creates your lung cancer if you would have it?

 

Yourself

 

Cigarette smoke does not have capability to create lung cancer, but you have, due these are your cells which will "transform" to cancer cells.