Sociopathy

[IDMclean]

I am aware of the difference btween a dissociative state and a personality disorder. I do know that I have been diagnosed with several mental disorders. Including ASPD. My dominant personality Quark would be that of Oppisitional Personality Disorder. My mom says it's not a true disorder, just that the society doesn't like a uppity drone.

 

I generally find that most any situation I get into now a days does not require going elsewhere within. Infact things that I did during those periods were not appropiate even when I did them. I know there are times and places for everything but I have yet to find the spacetime co-ordinace for using that skill.

[Michaelangelica]

A simple example that I can think of that relates to your beliefs regarding sociopaths as leaders. For example I believe that the number of people who agree with you in an argument is irrelevant. Even if you want to call being correct a function of how many people agree (since noone can ever be sure something is right) then you still have to consider that something logically correct will ultimately have the potential to convince an infinite number of people in the future. Then there is the argument that if you and others agreed with a belief just because others agreed then the very fact that "everyone agrees" becomes irrelevant- a circular argument. Therefore you must remain skeptical until fully convinced without consideration of what others think. Another similar argument is that only an idea that is logically correct has the power to gain you social acceptance across different social groups.

.

You lost me

Want to try again?

[Michaelangelica]

In memory of our one true sociopath- panji

Brain mishaps produce “cold” morality

 

March 21, 2007

Courtesy University of Southern California

and World Science staff

Imagine that someone you know has AIDS and plans to infect others, some of whom will die. Your only options are to let it happen or to kill the person. Do you pull the triger?

 

Most people waver or say they couldn’t, even if they agree that in theory they should. But a new study reports that people with damage to one part of the brain make a less personal calculaion. The log*i*cal choice, they say, is to sacrifice one life to save many.

 

The research shows that emotion plays a key role in moral decsions, scientsts claim: if cerain emotions are blocked, we make decisions that—right or wrong—seem unnaturally cold.

 

Past studies have linked damage to some brain areas with a lack of any disernible conscience, part of a syndrome commonly called psychopathy.

Brain mishaps produce "cold" morality

 

Psycopathy in the church

Vatican set to OK condoms for disease prevention

 

A forthcoming Vatican document is set to approve the use of condoms in a marriage where one partner is infected with HIV/AIDS and the other is not.

 

Speaking on background, an official in Lozano Barragàn's office told the National Catholic Reporter that the document will sanction the use of condoms to halt the spread of the disease "inside marriage and the family, not outside of it."

AIDS Information Services >> Condoms can be okay

[nutronjon]

This looks like a very interesting thread. Panjandrum can convey thoughts clearly and has started some very interesting threads. If Panjandrum is lost to the forums, it is indeed a loss of someone valuable to interesting discussion.

 

I see the word suspended under the name. That is scarey. Makes me wonder how those in charge value those who post. Perhaps we should all bow respectfully to those in power? :evil: Then I am in trouble. :phones:

[Buffy]

I see the word suspended under the name. That is scarey. Makes me wonder how those in charge value those who post. Perhaps we should all bow respectfully to those in power? :hihi: Then I am in trouble. :evil:

We value people who post here very highly, so highly in fact that we are unwilling to let them be attacked like this:

Thats priceless. Some people are just too dumb to live.

We are highly tolerant around here of very wide ranging views, but this is a moderated forum and we like to protect our members from personal attacks. I would hope that you would see this as a good thing! If you prefer forums where such attacks are tolerated, this may indeed not be the forum for you.

 

So to bring this back to the point of this thread: its probably fair to say that sociopaths or those with Antisocial Personality Disorder may find themselves incapable of resisting the urge to attack other members and find themselves unwelcome here.

 

We're quite happy to have you around here, I'd just suggest that you not jump to conclusions about either the seemingly unassailable virtues of specific members, nor accusing "those in power" of lacking respect for members of this forum....

 

Enjoy your stay! :phones:

Buffy

[Michaelangelica]

This looks like a very interesting thread. Panjandrum can convey thoughts clearly and has started some very interesting threads. If Panjandrum is lost to the forums, it is indeed a loss of someone valuable to interesting discussion.

 

I see the word suspended under the name. That is scarey. Makes me wonder how those in charge value those who post. Perhaps we should all bow respectfully to those in power? :cocktail: Then I am in trouble. :phones:

 

Panjandrum was a highly intelligent girl. she started a lot of interesting discussions here.

She was also in serious need of psychological help and determined that no one would give it too her.

While I miss her intellect, and am sorry this community cannot help damaged individuals, the moderators have a job to do.

When someone become offensive they need to be warned, then suspended then banned.

I would not be here without moderation.

Un-moderated web sites descend into chaos and become full of spam or crazy people.

Don't get too worried about a moderator rebuke (as above).

Written rebukes are always more serious sounding than they actually are.

and

moderators have short memories

 

 

I am happy to continue to talk to you about sociopathy as it is an interest of mine

How would you define it?

[snoopy]

I am not sure anyone who is a true sociopath can realise they are....

 

wouldnt they lack the insight or self awareness to see that ??

 

I think she was a very clever girl who liked to play with words

 

and that is about it....

 

Peace

:phones:

[Michaelangelica]

I am not sure anyone who is a true sociopath can realise they are....

 

wouldnt they lack the insight or self awareness to see that ??

 

:phones:

Good point , very astute.

I am not sure

She thought she was a sociopath.

[Kriminal99]

IMO... The idea of a sociopath is problematic. The only legitimate identification of right and wrong is the logical strength of the arguments behind someone's reasoning.

 

Say you have a murderer. Your first inclination might be to call him evil. But upon looking at differences in his background, or perhaps a missing part of his brain that would allow him to recognize the suffering of others, evil no longer fits.

 

What can we say about him? Well he is different. The problem with using a term that basically says he is different, is that it implies that different is somehow bad and the term will eventually evolve to mean that.

 

As CraigD points out, the term is supposed to be limited to people that are different in very specific ways. But even if the term was limited in that fashion even in informal use, it would still be problematic.

 

For every aspect of the definition, a counter example person could be identified. For instance, if we say a sociopath is someone who is different in that they act violently against members of their community, then we would for instance be deeming German resistance fighters during World War 2 sociopaths.

 

In fact these people were heroes.

 

The fact that someone is different is irrelevant. All that matters is, are their actions morally right or not? If you are looking for a simple way to refer to, deal with, justify different kinds of punishment for, a murderer, there is none. Life is not that simple.

 

A superior term for such people would be "the willfully ignorant" meaning that they forcibly tried to cause others to act according to their ideas while refusing to consider counterarguments.

 

For instance, a robber who believes might makes right steals from and injures someone. His actions were willfully ignorant because he refused to listen to anything but physical force.

 

@KickAss Clown I found the Myers-Briggs stuff useful in recognizing differences about myself. I registered iNTj on that one.

 

You lost me

Want to try again?

 

In short, most people aren't very rational so to be different from them might actually be a good thing. Even if that requires willingness to commit violent acts... Again I refer to the Anti Nazi rebels in Germany as an example.

[CraigD]

I am not sure anyone who is a true sociopath can realise they are....

 

wouldnt they lack the insight or self awareness to see that ??

Though some sociopaths also have cognitive impairments that might prevent them from understanding their own condition, the disorder is only weakly correlated with disorders in that spectrum (mental retardation, etc.). Many sociopaths are of normal or above intelligence, knowledgeable about psychiatry, and able and willing to diagnose or acknowledge their own condition.

IMO... The idea of a sociopath is problematic. The only legitimate identification of right and wrong is the logical strength of the arguments behind someone's reasoning.

Many if not most psychiatric diagnoses are problematic, one of the reasons medicine, in including psychiatry, is considered an art rather than a science.

 

Despite the disorder’s problematic lack of precise definition and diagnostic criteria, it’s possible to get a reasonable consensus definition from people experienced in its diagnosis and treatment. Though many pronounced features are associated with the disorder, including strong addictive tendencies, poor impulse control, and violent behavior, its defining characteristic is a lack of emotional empathy. In everyday terms, sociopaths simply don’t feel guilt and remorse in a normal, appropriate way. This lack of appropriate irrational emotional affectation, conventional wisdom states, results in an abnormal lessening of inhibitions, so, in situations where an ordinary person feel an impulse toward or consider using violence to resolve a situation that thwarts them, have a new experience, avoid boredom, etc., a sociopath actually acts on these impulses of thoughts.

 

The diagnosis is a vague, because sometimes ordinary people do act on such thoughts and impulses, and sometimes sociopaths don’t. In such cases, the diagnostician must try to assess the patient’s remorse for their actions. This is also troubled, because sometimes normal people exhibit little remorse, or appear to exhibit little remorse, while sometimes a sociopath appears to exhibit much remorse. The diagnostician is stuck, then, trying to objectively make an typically subjective judgement: does the patient really feel remorse, and is that remorse really related to feelings of empathy for their victims.

 

A further complication is that non-sociopaths may, in special circumstances, behave very violently, but have little or no strong emotional remorse. Examples include soldiers, police, or schizophrenics who believe themselves to be in situations analogous to soldiers or police.

 

Though such a judgement is sometimes easy to make, sometimes it’s very difficult.

I am not sure

She [Panjandrum] thought she was a sociopath.

As with many if not most medical and psychiatric conditions, I suspect than many people who self-diagnose themselves as sociopaths are incorrect.

 

Among psychology educators and there’s a phenomenon referred to jokingly as “student’s psychosis”. It’s related to confirmation bias, and describes the common occurrence of inexperienced students believing they have a disorder they have recently studied.

 

I would not be surprised if Panj wasn’t suffering primarily from this pseudo-disorder.

Say you have a murderer. Your first inclination might be to call him evil. But upon looking at differences in his background, or perhaps a missing part of his brain that would allow him to recognize the suffering of others, evil no longer fits.

 

What can we say about him? Well he is different. The problem with using a term that basically says he is different, is that it implies that different is somehow bad and the term will eventually evolve to mean that.

Competent psychiatrists are trained to, and strive to resist, “culturally loaded” terms such as “evil” and “bad”, without discarding the crucial concepts of “dangerous to self and/or others”.

 

As Krim notes, a yes/no determination that a person is a sociopath can be problematic. However, the idea of sociopathy has merit, IMHO, not only for providing guidelines in managing people convicted of violent crimes, but because there appear to be many potential causes and early signs of the disorder, suggesting that it can be detected early and effectively treated and managed.