Stuff you hate

[Sajainta]

If we're talking Cho Seung Hui, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc., I think it's a worthwhile thing to try and investigate the motives and developmental histories of these individuals so we can identify warning signs and stage an intervention before people like them do something they ought not to in the future. I met one of Cho Seung Hui's victims just a couple months before she died, and I can't deny an obsession with learning more about how the heck that could have happened. This is different from empathy or sympathy with the perpetrator though; the interest is nothing more than clinical.

I don't think anyone can be faulted for wanting to understand how sociopaths work

Agreed.  Many people find the concept fascinating ("how can someone not feel any kind of empathy toward their fellow humans?"), and there is nothing wrong with doing research on the psychology behind sociopaths or psychopaths.  A thirst for knowledge is healthy.

I've done extensive research on ASPD (anti-social personality disorder).  The disorder is very interesting and extremely unnerving.  I'm no expert on sociopathy or psychopathy, but I'd wager I know more than most--having known two people with ASPD, and spending many years of my life reading on what could have made them that way.

I also resent how you (tushantin) group sociopaths with those with autism, the impoverished, the orphaned, and the handicapped.  Those people do not have a proclivity to harm others and they have the ability to care for others, unlike sociopaths.

I don't know how much research of your own you've done, but ASPD is not caused by paranoia, so I don't understand what you meant by your first sentence.  And although there are medical studies that show that many sociopaths were not born that way, that still does not fit into your "normal people drove them into insanity" assertion.  Abusive or neglectful parents are not "normal people"--they have deep-seated issues of their own.

It is unfortunate that crappy childhoods resulted in people developing ASPD, but that does not excuse the actions that many of them commit.  They have the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and yet do wrong anyway.  No kind of misfortune is an excuse for that.  They are not victims.  They willingly commit crimes.  They willingly harm people and don't even care because they cannot feel anything for the person they are hurting.  I had a really shitty childhood and adolescence too, but I would never use it as a crutch to hurt people.

And please do not forget that it's commonly accepted that psychopaths are born that way, and not made.  I don't know if you're using "sociopath" and "psychopath" interchangeably, but if you are, then keep that in mind.  They were not born into misfortune.  Humanity did not make them unfeeling, manipulative, cruel people--they were born that way.

[tushantin]

Heh, it's amazing how people think that people who are born "Psychopaths" and "Sociopaths" are born monsters. Seriously? Have superficial TV shows such as "Dexter" and the like really put such a bad connotation to the terms? (Though, not to undermine Saj's own research and experience, but I beg to differ)

I don't think I can bring myself to respond to Saj yet, considering that response may be somewhat related to the post in "Violence thread". Though, FaustWolf, I'll respond to your post soon.

Do you really know what it's like to be that disconnected from people, that fundamentally, deeply, it's-in-your-wiring disconnected?

By about 65%, I do, based on my own association with such a child (a psychopath, not a sociopath) a few years back. I helped nurture the child despite the psychological differences and helped train his intelligence chain and predatory tendencies to make up for the lack of ethics (I wasn't the only one to do so, however; secondly, I don't think he'd even require a moral compass for his abilities and trade in the first place -- I wish I could explain that in-depth here). Today, the child does wonders at his trade.

But unfortunately, some of his school-mates got the wind of what he is and have now begun treating him like he's some kind of an animal. Some kind of a monster. Such treatment towards a "normal person" would drive that person insane; but when a "sociopath" freaks out, it's apparently entirely his fault. And I worry about this social-circle instability.

Hopefully. Sociopaths are incapable of the sympathy and empathy you have, which is what allows them to be so callously destructive to those they interact with. A person that is able to understand ethics but is unable to value being ethical...that's a damn good definition for an evil person.

I agree with your statement there, but not how you apply it. No offence, but this is exactly the kind of attitude I mentioned disliking in my previous post... Evil; really?

Firstly, with all due respect, I'd like to ask you: do you honestly believe that they have a choice in the matter? Or may they be much like the homosexuals and hence do not?

Sociopaths can be incredibly impulsive and fearless about their decisions, usually (though not always) lacking the capability of long-term perspectives, but that isn't a reason to discriminate against them. Compared to Psychopaths, their resulting nature does not always stem from mental deficiencies; usually, social circumstances have a major role to play.

[Sajainta]

Heh, it's amazing how people think that people who are born "Psychopaths" and "Sociopaths" are born monsters. Seriously? Have superficial TV shows such as "Dexter" and the like really put such a bad connotation to the terms? (Though, not to undermine Saj's own research and experience, but I beg to differ)

No one called them monsters.  We have only pointed out their tendency to manipulate, hurt, and prey on other people.

I helped nurture the child despite the psychological differences and helped train his intelligence chain and predatory tendencies to make up for the lack of ethics (I wasn't the only one to do so, however; secondly, I don't think he'd even require a moral compass for his abilities and trade in the first place -- I wish I could explain that in-depth here). Today, the child does wonders at his trade.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but why would you "train his predatory tendencies" ?  Why would you encourage that?  For what trade is predatory tendencies needed?

But unfortunately, some of his school-mates got the wind of what he is and have now begun treating him like he's some kind of an animal. Some kind of a monster. Such treatment towards a "normal person" would drive that person insane; but when a "sociopath" freaks out, it's apparently entirely his fault.

If this child is freaking out about how his schoolmates view him, then what makes you believe he is a sociopath?

Firstly, with all due respect, I'd like to ask you: do you honestly believe that they have a choice in the matter? Or may they be much like the homosexuals and hence do not?

Do they have a choice to have ASPD?  No.  Do they have a choice to commit crime or acts of cruelty upon other people?  Yes.

Personally, I do not believe everyone with ASPD is, by nature, a "bad person".  Some of them go throughout their entire lives without committing a single crime.  But you cannot deny their natural proclivity to manipulate others.  And although I have never met a sociopath who didn't act on those urges, I'm sure there are some who do not.  So no, being a sociopath does not automatically make you a bad person.  It should, however, warrant some caution when interacting with them.

(Jesus fucking christ I can't believe I'm defending sociopaths.)

As a final note, if your response to me is going to be anything like the post you wrote in the violence thread, then perhaps you should keep it to yourself, or run it by someone first to make sure it doesn't provoke a similar response.

[FaustWolf]

or run it by someone first

Yes, this strikes me as an excellent idea.

[tushantin]

(Jesus fucking christ I can't believe I'm defending sociopaths.)

Then just forget about it; I no longer find myself interested in discussing this further. All in all, however, thank you for your honest perspective, as it means a lot to me.

[Truthordeal]

tushantin, from what I can tell, I think your heart is in the right place. You want there to be more that society can do for sociopaths, and you dislike the negative perception they automatically get. Unfortunately wanting something to occur does not make it so. We're still years away from any type of breakthrough in therapy or psychology that could effectively treat sociopathy, if any exists. It's not fair that people are born into a disorder that makes them a textbook example of "evil," but such is the world, and nature doesn't care about our wishes for reform.

[Radical_Dreamer]

I agree with your statement there, but not how you apply it. No offence, but this is exactly the kind of attitude I mentioned disliking in my previous post... Evil; really?

Really. An individual who understands ethics, but has a pattern of deliberately ignoring ethics in the cause of mistreating others is evil. I don't find anything controversial about that statement. If you think you have a better definition, you're welcome to offer it.

Firstly, with all due respect, I'd like to ask you: do you honestly believe that they have a choice in the matter? Or may they be much like the homosexuals and hence do not?

I anticipated that this would be your main line of objection, although I am disappointed in how you chose to phrase it. Let me first address the substance of your complaint.

I don't think that anyone chooses to be a sociopath. I have no reason to believe that it is possible as a choice, nor can I think of any reason why an individual would chose it. The life of a sociopath is only appealing to an individual who is already completely devoid of ethics. I understand what you're trying to imply here, that one ought not to condemn individuals for things which they did not chose. There's a fair point in that, but it's irrelevant in this case. As Saj mentions, sociopaths are equally capable of choosing to behave ethically as normal people. In fact, sociopaths can be some of the most charming and social people you'll meet. They aren't stupid; they understand the actions of their consequences (they understand ethics after all) and generally don't behave in a destructive fashion when doing so will cause greater harm to befall themselves. And in those moments, if you don't know who you're dealing with, it's easy to assume that they're being sincere. This is a front though; it isn't kindness, it is calculated manipulation. We have a phrase in America, "Setting someone up for a fall." This means you treat them very well to boost them in some way for a while, so that when you eventually betray them, the loss will be that much greater. That is the best behavior of a sociopath. Thus, I do not find the absence of choice in becoming a sociopath a compelling cause for compassion on my part- the harm done by sociopaths is just as much a choice as the harm done by non-sociopaths.

As for your picking homosexuals as a group for comparison, that was a quite offensive choice. I believe I understand your logic but if this is so, you have incorrectly grasped mine. My support for treating homosexuals indistinctly from heterosexuals does not result from the fact that I don't think anyone chooses their orientation. It results from the trivially obvious fact that homosexuals are ethically indistinct from heterosexuals. Comparing people who are made to suffer by society because they love people the prevailing culture would rather they didn't to people who cause individuals to suffer because they themselves are incapable of love denigrates the former in a way I sincerely hope was not apparent to you.

Sociopaths can be incredibly impulsive and fearless about their decisions, usually (though not always) lacking the capability of long-term perspectives, but that isn't a reason to discriminate against them. Compared to Psychopaths, their resulting nature does not always stem from mental deficiencies; usually, social circumstances have a major role to play.

I have never claimed sociopaths are stupid. If only they were! Someone who is unintelligent is much less capable of manipulation than someone with a strong intellect, and capable of a much smaller scope of harm should they succeed. Sadly, sociopaths are frequently of above average intelligence, which makes them all the more dangerous, and all the more ethically responsible for their actions. The only mental deficiency they posses is the inability to empathize with their fellow living beings. I do not discriminate against sociopaths for any of the reasons you list; I mentioned my reasons in my initial post on the topic.

[Sajainta]

(Jesus fucking christ I can't believe I'm defending sociopaths.)

Then just forget about it; I no longer find myself interested in discussing this further. All in all, however, thank you for your honest perspective, as it means a lot to me.

I don't know if you'll reply and maybe I shouldn't even post this, but I can only assume you quoted that segment because it upset you and / or further convinced you that those of us who don't have ASPD view those who do unfairly.

But ask yourself this--do you honestly expect me to react differently?  You know some of the things I've been through--how the hell am I supposed to react in any other way?  How the hell am I supposed to WANT to defend them?  People with this disorder have brought me and those I care about nothing but fear and destruction and danger.

When a sociopath threatens to murder your eight-year-old brother if you don't do what he says, you learn not to fucking trust, respect, or have any feelings of decency toward sociopaths.  When you witness a sociopath committing unspeakable acts of cruelty with the same emotional detachment as doing laundry, you learn not to fucking trust, respect, or have any feelings of decency toward sociopaths.

I would think long and hard before you respond.

Related:  I'm sick of people getting all upset when I express fear or anger against X group of people.  Men, sociopaths, the super-religious, etc.  I am instinctively afraid of them and I do not trust them.  And it's fucking justified.  Until those individuals prove to me that they are worth trusting, I do not trust them.  Except for sociopaths--I don't want to be around one of those people ever again.

[tushantin]

But ask yourself this--do you honestly expect me to react differently?  You know some of the things I've been through--how the hell am I supposed to react in any other way?  How the hell am I supposed to WANT to defend them?  People with this disorder have brought me and those I care about nothing but fear and destruction and danger.

...you learn not to fucking trust, respect, or have any feelings of decency toward sociopaths.

I actually anticipated your response, so no, I didn't expect you to react differently.

In any case, your fear and reaction is valid. I understand how it may sicken you, so let's just drop the subject.

[Sajainta]

Well, I do apologize for being more vitriolic than I should have been.

ON TOPIC:

Sometimes I hate being a writer.  It is so frustrating to attempt to write something that you see so vividly in your head, and yet fail miserably.  I am a perfectionist when it comes to my writing, and that results in a lot of frustration and irritation.  I have the entire short story I'm working on in my head, but putting it in words is a monumental task.

Edit:: never mind, I'm dumb.

[tushantin]

Sometimes I hate being a writer.  It is so frustrating to attempt to write something that you see so vividly in your head, and yet fail miserably.  I am a perfectionist when it comes to my writing, and that results in a lot of frustration and irritation.  I have the entire short story I'm working on in my head, but putting it in words is a monumental task.

Also (and this is more of a frustration), it says "vitrolic" is a typo.  Psssht.

XD Vitriolic. I before O. Io?

Hah, as the allegorical poet in me always says: "If you can't write or speak, then SING!"

[Sajainta]

XD Vitriolic. I before O. Io?

Yeeaaaaaaaah, totally misspelled that word. 

[tushantin]

Hmm, something I feared since past 5 years ago finally surfaces...

One area of scientific agreement is that believing in free will is beneficial for society and individuals. Psychological research shows those primed to believe in determinism are more likely to cheat in exams, and refuse giving money to charity.

“If we eventually discover that we don’t have free will, the news will come out and we can predict that people’s behaviour will get worse as a consequence,” says Mele. “We should have plans in place for how to deal with that news.”

Offering topical advice for New Year’s resolvers, he argues that you shouldn’t set yourself too many goals. Rather, establish good habits (give your moral muscle a regular workout), and commit yourself publicly to your targets.

And even if free will is an illusion, Baumeister and other psychologists suggest that it is one worth believing in – for all our sakes.

[tushantin]

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_we-do-not-want-hazare-to-sit-on-fast-anymore-team-anna_1632291

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Anna-Hazares-supporters-pray-for-his-health-at-Rajghat-Narendra-Modi-wishes-him-speedy-recovery/articleshow/11328070.cms

Meanwhile, the corrupt mooks in the government are chuckling to themselves. "What Lokpal bill?" they say.


http://www.hindustantimes.com/Specials/Coverage/Assembly-Elections-2012/Chunk-HT-UI-AssemblyElections2012-UP-TopStories/Lokpal-is-dream-of-every-youth-not-just-mine-Rahul/SP-Article10-789235.aspx

[tushantin]

So, apparently...

...I'm not going to Australia.