I always like to present the views of other sociopaths when i can. Here is what one reader calls his declaration of independence:
"We are the uniquely gifted"
"Sociopath" is a misleading word: it implies a disorder, something wrong and unnatural with the person, and this couldn't be further from the truth. We, the people you refer to as sociopaths, have nothing wrong with us. We are instead, the uniquely gifted. Our gifts have been mischaracterized and maligned and it’s time someone set the record straight.
What the experts call superficial charm, I call having a natural ability to win friends and influence people. What experts call manipulative and conning, I call an affinity for persuasion based upon an innate ability to pinpoint others personality strengths and weaknesses. What the experts decry as a lack of compassion, I call pragmatism and clarity. What experts call a “problem with authority”, I call embracing personal power and celebrating the independent spirit. What experts call “delusions of grandeur”, I call self confidence and optimism. What experts call “shallow emotional affect,” I call freedom from the tyranny of irrational emotions. And finally, while the experts say that guiltlessness is a disorder (because it is the lack of guilt that separates the sociopath, psychopath and Machiavellian from the general population), I say it is the enhanced ability to do the things that build civilizations and keep societies going, the very things that the guilt afflicted shy away from. It is no coincidence that our lack of guilt so often comes with abnormally high intelligence and charisma.
We are born to lead and many of our traits support this conclusion. We are born knowing this and the rest of you know it when you see us. It is these very traits that make us necessary for the survival and success of the human species, especially since the dawn of civilization. It’s why you elect us, follow us, and often give your very lives by our command. Though we are found disproportionally in prisons we are found with even greater frequency in your governments, your corporations, your military. Who else but someone devoid of conscience could order thousands of soldiers to die, regardless of how noble the cause? Who can fire hundreds of workers to save a company from bankruptcy and then sleep peacefully that night? Who can so elegantly tell the lies that must be told, to protect the very people to whom the lies are told? It takes one of us to make those calls, the calls that the rest of humanity cannot make.
And yet a distressing number of us become the very thing you fear us all to be; criminals and abusers. This creates a cycle of ignorance, as all the "sociopaths" identified by the news are killers or wife-beaters, and so we identify this collection of gifts as evil, as pathological, and thus those of us in our proper roles feel the need to disguise ourselves for fear of being labeled evil. A similar cycle of ignorance has kept homosexuals oppressed for decades; homosexuality has been associated with child molesters and perverts, drug use and disease, and it was called "evil" for this.
We are not evil; you simply do not recognize the “good” ones as the same phenomena. Google "sociopath" and all you find are ways to recover from contact with a sociopath, information advising you to run from relationships with sociopaths, and misinformation that will claim that "sociopaths cannot feel love" or that we "cannot think of others as human beings" or that we are "parasitic".
It is very distressing to discover, for a child who has always known that he was different, that he is a monster... that he is doomed to live a loveless life and become a criminal, that he will never be able to hold a job or raise a family. Indeed, one must wonder how often do one of us accepts the mischaracterization of our abilities and instincts as things to be repressed and rejected due to ignorance? How often do the young among our frequently demonized minority discover what he is, buys into the paranoid misinformation and simply does what he is expected to do, withholding from society the very qualities it needs and secretly wants to maintain itself and imprisoning himself in a state of confusion and needless pain as a result?
What is the so called sociopath? A sociopath is one of your potential leaders, labeled by the fearful and unreasoning masses as something sick and evil. "Sociopath" is a negative label which only serves to further alienate people who simply need to be allowed to embrace their gifts. Getting rid of this misleading term should be the first step towards fully understanding who we are and the role we play in this world. We are not the embodiment of a pathology. On the contrary; we are instead the uniquely gifted.
You sound awful self-congratulatory about your "unique gifts." However, doesn't almost everyone (sociopath or not) feel they are uniquely gifted in varying ways? Deluding ourselves about our own special qualities is pretty much a universal human flaw. Perhaps a better way to describe yourself would be "uniquely superficial" or "uniquely superficial." As far as sociopaths making good leaders, I think you are overly romanticizing sociopaths abilities to be effective LONG-TERM leaders.
ReplyDeleteUniquely gifted... to feel compelled to ruin people. Damn M.E., you and the person in your featured comments are giving sociopaths a bad name!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, think about "delusions of grandeur" and then read that post again. You're pretty much proving the popular point yourself.
I understand the poster's thoughts about discrimination/stereotyping in regard to sociopaths. I also believe that sociopathy can be a personality type (or a set of characteristics) instead of a destructive "disorder".
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that a lot of sociopaths assume that all empaths are these weak, overly emotional messes, and that's clearly not the case. It is just as easy and just as common for an empath to not feel guilt, to lead, to manipulate, etc...as it is for a sociopath. Just because you CAN feel guilt/remorse doesn't mean you actually do.
I guarantee you that many, many CEOs, presidents, dictators, and so on are empaths. Empathy isn't this mushy prison of emotions, empaths (like many others) have an amazing ability to justify their own actions (no matter how disturbing they are) and they sleep just fine, convinced that they did what must be done. It's empaths who are frightening in that aspect, because they have the ability to feel remorse and they still do "horrible" things.
You really are quite blind to your own faults. You call yourself charming, but based on your posts here, your IM conversations that you have shared, and your described itneractions with others, you just sound conceited and boring. I hope you are aware that almost everyone considers themself to be charming. People just tend to think that they are better than average and better than they actually are. This is true whether they call themselves a sociopath or an empath.
ReplyDeleteYou have created a distorted image of the sociopath that you idealize, then declared yourself to be one. You remind me of someone who fantasizes about Twilight vampires, who have all of the "good" qualities of a vampire with none of the bad. You think that sociopaths are charming, intelligent manipulators who are never caught unless they want to be. But the truth is, most aren;t as high-functioning as they believe. When "empaths" are nice to you, consider that maybe it is because they feel sorry for your awkwardness and lack of social graces (what you think of as charm is slimey and suck-up). Do not assume that everyone is just floored by how amazing you are. They are probably just being polite.
What the experts decry as a lack of compassion, I call pragmatism and clarity
ReplyDeleteGuiltlessness destroys civilizations more often than it builds them.
We are born to lead and many of our traits support this conclusion
Appaulling judgement, profound self-interest? Yeh right. Sooner or later all sociopathic "leaders" are thankfully ousted because of their "gifts".
We are born knowing this and the rest of you know it when you see us
And we always see through it in the end.
Who else but someone devoid of conscience could order thousands of soldiers to die, regardless of how noble the cause?
"ignoble the cause" would have been more fitting.
"Who can fire hundreds of workers to save a company from bankruptcy and then sleep peacefully that night?"
Sociopaths will fire them in order to claim a significant personal bonus. There is always a strong element of self-interest.
homosexuality has been associated with child molesters and perverts, drug use and disease, and it was called "evil" for this
Undeservedly so. However the facts show an alarming number of sociopaths are criminals and child abusers.
It is very distressing to discover, for a child who has always known that he was different, that he is a monster
A sociopathic child would delight in this label.
"Sociopath" is a negative label which only serves to further alienate people who simply need to be allowed to embrace their gifts
Oh those lovely gifts. Emptied bank accounts, destroyed lives, wrecked marriages, nations ethnically cleansed. The label is very useful in identifying and understanding these individuals. This in turn allows us to protect ourselves better.
If you are so gifted then why do you often end up pariahas, alone or in prison?
Hi
ReplyDeleteI just came across your blog and found it really informative and well put together. This is an extremely difficult subject and I felt that your blog portrayed it well.
I would really like to follow this blog and hope that you will check out mine. Thanks for a great blog J.A.
This little essay was dreary, charmless, and of dubious insight. The self-aggrandizing goober who wrote this is likely not yet a mature person and is not a 'leader' in any sense.
ReplyDeleteI think it's possible to be an "ethical" and successful sociopath, but it requires a disciplined and less self-congratulatory approach in managing our behavior.
If you walk around believe you're a god, you're bound to show your hand.
What they call delusions of grandeur, I call the most awesome real grandeur ever in the history of man.
ReplyDeleteAbout sums up the article, yeah?
I'm gathering a lot of Darwinian influence in this person's writing.
ReplyDeleteWe're not all out for your daughters and bank accounts. Many of us are entirely ruthless and unforgiving but we serve a purpose just like everyone else.
Some of us eat, others are eaten.
I enjoyed this posting, thanks for sharing, M.E.
This “declaration” sounds more than a wee bit hyperbolic, but still, I kinda like it. In a sense, the writer is doing what M.E. is doing with this blog: deliberately representing a positive perspective on sociopaths. Granted, M.E. isn’t nearly as self congratulatory as the writer. But I like the idea of someone celebrating his personality rather than meekly accepting society’s judgment of him as the embodiment of pathology.
ReplyDelete{O} said, “It's empaths who are frightening in that aspect, because they have the ability to feel remorse and they still do "horrible" things.”
This is so true. In one sense, everybody is selfish and will do what they must to get what they want. Maybe one real difference between the sociopath and the normal is the normal feels compelled to justify his “evil” actions with all sorts of mental and emotional gymnastics designed to make himself look and feel better, while the sociopath doesn’t bother. Of what practical difference does remorse make if you still go out and do “terrible” things to other people anyway?
Harry Lime said, “I think it's possible to be an "ethical" and successful sociopath, but it requires a disciplined and less self-congratulatory approach in managing our behavior.”
Why would you bother to “be” an ethical sociopath?
are sociopaths ever ticklish ?
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteIn response to your query to Harry:
Because if you don't, this article is just a bunch of trash. It calls for an end to "ignorance," the notion that sociopaths are unethical abusers and such. But judging from your response, this idea is pretty spot on, don't you think? Why bother being ethical? I like it. :)
This article is at odds with everything the self-diagnosed sociopaths here, including M.E., post. The only exception might be Pager, who seems to have a more positive take on things. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he were the author. The vocabulary and viewpoints expressed here are very similar to his.
I'm not trying to start an argument with anyone, but surely even you folks can see how amusing the difference between these words and your collective attitude of, "I'll do whatever I want to benefit myself no matter who it hurts, I don't have or want any ethics, I like to ruin people for fun, I love to manipulate people for fun."
If not, I'd love to hear from some of you who express support for this article, how these thoughts and behaviors might be considered compatible with the article. If you want it to actually get through to people, you'll have to address that anyway.
And I’m not being argumentative with you either Peter when I say I don’t understand what you’re talking about. Unless you’re saying that you took the affirmative tone of this so called declaration to mean that sociopaths should be ethical because that’s the positive thing to do. I took it to mean that he’ll be as ruthless as he needs to be and as he knows society sometimes secretly wants him to be and that he’s not going to accept the negative labeling society wishes to hypocritically foist upon him. For example, where society might say he’s unethical, he might instead say he’s merely being a realist, which is a more positive spin on the same set of behaviors.
ReplyDelete“This article is at odds with everything the self-diagnosed sociopaths here, including M.E., post.”
Really? How so?
“surely even you folks can see how amusing the difference between these words and your collective attitude of, ‘I'll do whatever I want to benefit myself no matter who it hurts, I don't have or want any ethics, I like to ruin people for fun, I love to manipulate people for fun.’”
Seriously, I don’t see the difference.
“If not, I'd love to hear from some of you who express support for this article, how these thoughts and behaviors might be considered compatible with the article. If you want it to actually get through to people, you'll have to address that anyway.”
Could you be more specific. Give me an example of something that I’ve said, for instance, that you believe is utterly incompatible with the tone of this declaration. Again, not being argumentative, only literal.
I believe that's what he meant as well, but I think it's a pipe dream without a code of ethics. A sociopath will undermine all of his "positive" works in pursuit of his personal goals unless there's something stopping him. Even if his ethics are driven by practicality rather than empathy, it's still necessary or his position of power is a disaster waiting to happen for everyone who relies on him. In short, the sociopath without a code of ethics is the last person you'd want "leading" you in the long term.
ReplyDeleteThat's where I think your way of thinking conflicts with the article. You seem as though you see no reason to have a code of ethics, period. You've said it in the past, and you raised the question again here: why bother?
Do you really not see how this conflicts with the idea of sociopaths being perfect leaders? Leaders exist to benefit the group. That's their function, their purpose, and the only way they can stay in power. If they falter in that area, they lose everything, and likely so do the people following them. In other words, they're failures.
People who ruin and manipulate for fun are also poor leaders. It's a reckless, pointless abuse of power, and it will eventually catch up to the abuser. Notice he also said that the idea of sociopaths as abusers is ignorant, a statement which is inherently incompatible with M.E.'s compulsion to ruin. I think you may have mentioned something about screwing with people for fun, too, and I know I've read similar remarks from plenty of others here. That's a form of abuse, again undermining the message in this declaration of hypocrisy.
What I'd like to see is a rational rebuttal to this. How does compulsive ruining and mindfucking not equate to abuse? How does looking out for number one at the expense of anyone and everyone, including investors, etc, equate to being a perfect leader? The article is comprised of irrational declarations that aren't supported by fact or argument.
He even goes on to assert that greater than 20% of the people working in our governments and businesses are sociopaths. That's all unsupported, too. Where's his evidence? I think this is a perfect example of "divine knowledge" as one of the Anons called it.
It'd be great to see a foundation laid for all of this, but I don't think any of you can do that.
Peter Pan said, “In short, the sociopath without a code of ethics is the last person you'd want "leading" you in the long term.”
ReplyDeleteOk, let’s define our terms here. When I use the word positive accomplishment, within the context of this conversation, I mean the standard definition of success, like rising to the top of a corporation for instance. Also, when I think of a “code of ethics”, I think of explicit moral guidelines that one might attempt to adhere to, or at least tell themselves and the world that. Codes of ethics are often recognizable as guidelines that society would also say they approve of, generally speaking. Lastly, I am defining sociopath as a man or women with little to no conscience compared to the general population.
With all of that in mind, say you have a corporate sociopath, call him Jack. Jack starts his career off with the goal of becoming CEO of the company he’s working at. He knows he’s going to have to actually work sometimes. Fair enough. But he’s not limited to just that tactic. He is also free to use deceit, manipulation, and whatever else the situation requires to achieve his objectives. If he’s prudent and careful, he can employ all of these tactics to his maximum advantage. In getting to the top, if he is aware, he’d also understand that maximizing company profits is also to his advantage. Doing so reflects well on him (which is useful for the future and stokes his ego) and it’s profitable for the shareholders. Now if in pursuing the maximization of profit and the advancement of his own career, he has to do things others would consider ruthless, well so be it so long as he and the shareholder wins.
Another example:
ReplyDeleteThe same kind of thing could be seen in politics and government. Say a young man, call him Barack, decided that he wanted to be president of the United States. Say he’s also a sociopath. He looks around and assesses his situation. He’s black, which might very well be the biggest impediment in a country with a racist history. He’s male, which is helpful in a country with a sexist history. Still, he doesn’t come from wealth. He’ll need to maximize every advantage he can and then some to get to where he wants to go. So he gets into Ivy league schools and gets good grades. He makes friends with lots of different kinds of people without deeply caring about any of them. He’s an atheist but he understands that atheists don’t get elected to high office in America, so he joins a church and says all the right words to manipulate people into believing he’s a Christian. Later, he employs what he knows to be empty rhetoric in order to sway unthinking crowds to believe the unbelievable, all with a view towards getting enough votes come election day. Now the Barack of my hypothetical has never actually given much of a damn about any of the people he’s come into contact with down thru the years and he doesn’t believe the things he says in his lofty speeches. He doesn’t even believe in democracy. He’s in the game for one and one thing only: power. But he’s also smart enough and aware enough to understand that destroying the country he’s been elected to lead will not only erode his power but will mean that his place in history will be greatly tarnished, so he does actually attempt to make some great changes that he thinks will actually enhance the country’s prosperity in the long run. Still, in his heart of hearts, it’s all only been a game, one that he dared himself to win against unconceivable odds, and he does. (DISCLAIMER: I’m not saying that I actually believe Barack Obama is a sociopath. This was just for entertainment purposes only!)
So in both of my hypotheticals, the sociopath climbs to the top, saying whatever he has to say and doing whatever he has to do, all the while being aware that strengthening his organizations welfare (by for instance, firing thousands of workers in a corporate takeover in the one example or by demonizing your political opponents in the other) is also in his best interest. In neither example was an internalized code of ethics required. If right or wrong come into the equation at all, right will be saying and doing all that may be required to achieve the objective and wrong will be the exact opposite (including but not limited to “getting caught”).
To the sociopath, leadership exists to benefit himself. If he’s smart enough, he’ll see that strengthening the group benefits him long term. So we agree. I think. It’s only that I’m accenting what all of this might or might not mean to a sociopath.
Daniel Birdick - "Why would you bother to “be” an ethical sociopath?"
ReplyDeleteI work hard to 'appear' ethical. It's the only way to gain people's trust.
The article is irritating because it's both an expression of pride and but more clearly a plea for special consideration.
You can't cast 'the sociopath' as both fearless corporate/political leader and misunderstood/oppressed minority.
The tone of the article suggests the author feels more distinctly 'oppressed'. Successful people never cry about being misunderstood.
'Poor sociopathy' so sad you are not admired. It's heartbreaking. But not to me, I'm a sociopathy.
I think what you just said pretty much amounts to adopting a code of ethics. In this case, "I work for the people, I further their cause." The reasoning may be selfish, but your hypothetical president doesn't stray from that simple rule. Doing so, even when he thinks he can get away with it would be an unnecessary risk, which, if done consistently, could very well lead to the negatives you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteI think we agree there, and maybe this discussion has answered your question to Harry.
I'd still like to hear your take on ruining/manipulating/abusing people just for the hell of it, and how it relates to the so-called ignorance of expecting such things from sociopaths. Given that the majority of self-proclaimed sociopaths here actively post about doing (or supporting) exactly that, doesn't it strike you as a blatant (and poor) attempt at distorting the truth? If not, why not?
Harry,
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's either. It seems to me like a play for power. i.e. lying to garner support. Seems pretty Sociopathic to me.
Harry Lime, "I work hard to 'appear' ethical. It's the only way to gain people's trust."
ReplyDeleteAh. I see. Well in that case I completely agree.
Peter Pan said, “I think what you just said pretty much amounts to adopting a code of ethics. In this case, "I work for the people, I further their cause." The reasoning may be selfish…”
ReplyDeleteSee I think many normals might not agree with this characterization of morality and ethics. They’d say you’re adopting a faux ethical standpoint for all the wrong reasons. Of course, practically speaking it doesn’t matter why you adapt any ethical standard, so long as you abide by them. But I think people who deeply believe in morality would say that if the only reason you’re behaving morally is entirely for selfish reasons, none of which have anything at all to do with the moral itself, is somehow “wrong”. This brings to mind that quote about psychopaths: they know the words but they can’t sing the music, or something like that. That’s a minor quibble.
“maybe this discussion has answered your question to Harry”
Harry answered it for me. So did you. So long as a person appears ethical it doesn’t really matter if they actually are, which is what I was actually asking about. And if a circumstance should call for a response that others would consider less than ethical, well so be it.
“I'd still like to hear your take on ruining/manipulating/abusing people just for the hell of it, and how it relates to the so-called ignorance of expecting such things from sociopaths.”
It’d be nice if said ‘reader’ gave some comments about his declaration. But barring that… I think maybe the “ignorance” is in vilifying the sociopath ONLY, which excludes any positive benefit society takes from some sociopathic actions, especially when it comes to government and business. The whole vilification thing also doesn’t take into account the “victims” role in the cycle of abuse. Another thing would be the word abuse itself. One woman’s abuse is another woman’s way of life, for instance. All of these reasons suggest that it is ignorant to focus on one set of behaviors, the “abusive” set, to the exclusion of any other set of behaviors that might prove beneficial under the right circumstances.
As for me… I’m a good example of the point I was making. Yes I did mention that playing games with people has been great fun. I don’t do that as often as I used to, but when I did, I freely admit that I enjoyed it to max. But is that all there is to say about me? Some people would read this paragraph and think, yes, that’s all we need to know. That’s fine, but it needlessly reduces their powers of observation. Which is also fine. Maybe I should I say that I would not want my own clarity unnecessarily clouded by pointless stereotyping.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThe issue, as I see it, is that empaths can make "difficult" decisions too, driven by a sense of duty and obligation. I guarantee you an empath could lay off hundreds of workers with no qualms, because he feels a moral obligation to look out for the best interest of his employer. The same can be said of empath government officials who are acting either out of a sense of duty or for the greater good. Pager often makes the false assumption that empaths are incapable of doing this, and the author of this article certainly implies it as well.
I think it gives them a distorted view of the grandiosity of their "condition," however you'd like to label it, as well as its prevalence in positions of power. Keeping all of this in mind, I don't see why there would be a significant benefit to having a sociopath lording over your investments when you consider the associated risks. Clearly, a well disciplined sociopath can do well, but so can a pragmatic Empath who is genuinely loyal and honorable.
I do think it's wrong to assert that all sociopaths are 100% bad for society, but when you weigh the benefits of their presence against the risks, I think the generally negative public opinion is very rational.
Bear in mind we're not talking about a race of people who are statistically more likely to be involved in crime as a result of environmental factors and cultural influences. Sociopaths are literally defined by a set of characteristics that naturally make them more likely to become criminals and/or abuse any power they're entrusted with.
Do you see any faults with this line of thinking?
Peter Pan said, “The issue, as I see it, is that empaths can make "difficult" decisions too, driven by a sense of duty and obligation…”
ReplyDeleteTell that to the people being fired or the people being killed by soldiers who are acting out of patriotism. Either way, all people can do ruthless things when necessary. I definitely agree with that. One group however can do them without pity or the need for self justification or being wracked with guilt.
“Keeping all of this in mind, I don't see why there would be a significant benefit to having a sociopath lording over your investments when you consider the associated risks. Clearly, a well disciplined sociopath can do well, but so can a pragmatic Empath who is genuinely loyal and honorable.”
But you just implied that empaths are as capable of ruthlessness as sociopaths. The only real difference is the internal experience of the “perpetrator”.
“I do think it's wrong to assert that all sociopaths are 100% bad for society, but when you weigh the benefits of their presence against the risks, I think the generally negative public opinion is very rational.”
I understand why they’d feel the way they feel. Think of being able to lie, cheat, steal and kill WITHOUT needing to delude yourself into believing your actions were morally justified or without wrestling with remorse. Which is my main point irrespective of what Mr. Declaration of Independence is saying or not saying.
I can see where you’re coming from. I think. Here’s my opinion (meaning what I’m about to say is neither an argument backed up by a wealth of fact nor relentlessly logical). In many ways, human society is one great big egoic feedback loop. People are willing to do just about anything to validate the beliefs they hold about themselves and thus the world around them. I call it “ego validation”. The process of EV is the mechanism most normals use to justify to themselves their often selfish, deceitful and ruthless actions. In a world filled with such people, the one who has no need to play those kinds of mental games with himself because he has no conscience, in other words, the one who doesn’t have to lie to himself as often, has a potential advantage. Yes, often the empath and the normal are indistinguishable in terms of their actions. As House would say, everyone lies. The advantage for the sociopath is how those actions are processed and experienced subjectively. This, of course, is not advantageous for society, but that’s irrelevant. The internal coolness has the potential to impart increased clarity, which in turn would make one’s actions more effective because he’d be responding to what’s actually happening in the environment.
I see where you're coming from, but that internal dialogue serves as a safeguard against selfish action that damages the company. It's imperfect, I'll give you that, but it's completely absent in the sociopath.
ReplyDeleteI also think you're underestimating empaths when you imply they can't see situations clearly enough to make rational or effective choices. When it comes to doing selfish things like siphoning money off the top, that's definitely true, but we're looking for responsible businessmen, not thieves. A sociopath, on the other hand, would be ruthlessly effective at this, and more likely to do so if there was little or no risk of being caught. That's one of the reasons they're dangerous to have around. They can also be damaging by ruining political enemies who are very valuable to the company, but that's a tangent I'd rather not follow right now.
The point is this lack of clarity usually only comes into play when there's a moral conflict, and not all empaths have the same set of values. Not every empath values compassion for the individual above duty and obligation. I think you'd find the thinking of those who don't clear and decisive, and their actions quite effective and perceivably even ruthless through the right set of eyes. Whether they're lying to themselves about the righteousness of their actions is irrelevant, in my opinion, because as we both seem to agree, the results are what matter. These people can be trusted to do what's best for the company, often even when nobody is watching.
Also keep in mind we're discussing extraordinary individuals from both classes of people. Your average sociopath is certianly not fit to head a corporation, and neither is your typical empath. The typical empath would try to make friends with everybody and let it cloud their judgment, and the typical sociopath would slack off and stir up trouble. I think this is a point both sides of this debate frequently ignore. You're not likely to find much pointless destruction from the extraordinary sociopath, and you won't see much of the frivolous emotional turmoil from their empath counterparts.
That's my take on it. My largest objection to this article is that it's a one-sided, sensationalist rant. It appears to me to be either deliberately fabricated or the result of some very delusional thinking. Things are rarely so black and white, and I don't think the best way to counter a man shouting, "The world is all black!" is to shout back, "No, the world is all white!" Both positions are equally moronic and will serve only to strengthen the resolve of the other.
I do agree that a high functioning sociopath has a distinct advantage in climbing the corporate ladder.
ReplyDeleteI think the distinction you make about us actually discussing exceptional people is on point. You’re right. Rising to the top of any social strata usually takes an extraordinary person, sociopath or normal. Making that distinction helped me in turn to clarify what I think my real point is. It is no more advantageous to be a normal than it is a sociopath. It is instead most advantageous to be true to your innate traits, characteristics, talents, intelligence and so on. There is this widespread belief when discussing sociopathy and normality and so on that the sociopath is sick (hence the pathology in the label) and should prefer to be a normal. Instead, I think that a person without conscience should prefer to be a person without conscience. To believe that anyone should be anything other than what they are is nothing more than an exercise in futility. Normals don’t often see that though, as evidenced by some of the comments they leave here. Normals quite often approach this issue from the standpoint of “We are right and better, ergo we must study the sociopath in order to fix him”. They have no rational leg to stand on (unless they are more specific). What they have instead, is their own self interest and the numbers required to assert their preference. And there’s nothing “wrong” with that of course.
ReplyDelete“These people can be trusted to do what's best for the company, often even when nobody is watching.”
This presupposes that one’s highest priority will actually the company’s best interest. For instance, I could see how I’d have to get rid of perfectly good, solid and talented people, people who are assets to the business, if they became obstacles. My own interests would supersede those of the company. Granted, I wouldn’t want to hurt the company too badly because as you rightly point out, that’s bad for me in the long run, but yeah, you gotta break some eggs if you want to make an omelet and all that jazz.
“That's my take on it. My largest objection to this article is that it's a one-sided, sensationalist rant.”
Oh come on man, can’t a guy make a sensationalist rant on the internet anymore? LOL Of course it’s over the top and irrational. That’s the point of an “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” rant, no?
Other than some of the finer points, I think we are largely agreeing with each other. Again. What happened to us dude?
Oh, who knows?
ReplyDeleteBatman is a sociopath.
ReplyDeleteMike wrote:
ReplyDelete"Damn M.E., you and the person in your featured comments are giving sociopaths a bad name!"
NO they're not! Sociopaths already have a bad name! Sociopaths ARE the bad name. It's the modern term for 'evil', 'not human', 'demon', etc..
Normal people don't see a personality type which can manifest in a multitude of ways, just like all personality types can. They see only one thing: Bad, Evil, wrong = wrong as in 'Not like us (the norm)'!
If anything M.E. and his friend are giving Sociopaths a slightly less bad name, because he's showing there's more to having a sociopath personality type than being evil and bad or a menace to society!
M.E. is doing it the right way: If he was only depicting the good sides of this personality type, no one would believe or pay credits to his words. THAT would give Sociopaths a bad name. But he's being 'real' (at least for a good long way), and that's what intelligent normal people may be able to learn from.
I'm a biological sociopath, born with some irregularity with my brain's ability to react to dopamine and endorphins, and as such I am biologically incapable of guilt, or love and empathy in the normal sense.
ReplyDeleteHowever I do understand partnerships and investments and just because I can't feel the emotion called love doesn't mean I can't become attached to people and prioritize their well being. Just because I don't have the feelings of guilt, remorse, or empathy doesn't mean I can't cognitively understand something like empathy. My inability to feel anther's emotional pain does not mean that I can't comprehend that another is in pain, or relate it to things that I can understand.
I carry no delusions of grandeur, I was not born to lead, I am not necessarily better. From my perspective I am just another animal born without the burden of unnecessary emotions that I see constantly destroy other people's lives.
Still I am also intelligent and self-aware of my sociopathy. While sociopaths are presumed to be immoral I am simply amoral, at least insofar as feelings are concerned. In the place of morality I have philosophy and ethics, through which I govern my behavior to create the most harmonious existence with those around me and inflict the least harm.
I can not feel as others do, but I can understand people's vested interests, and will respect them as long as they respect my own. It is presumed that I should be hedonistic, vicious, aggressive, egotistical.
These are gross over-generalizations which I think would better be reserves for the psychopaths who lack our level of self awareness. I think it's time to divorce the terms psychopathy and sociopathy, and to start recognizing the diversity among sociopaths.
We aren't the serial killers and boogy men of the mass media, most Sociopaths are harmless and many lead harmonious and productive lives.
Sufficed to say there is a great deal wrong with Peter Pan's post and others like his. I think the featured article does run the risk of reinforcing stereotypes of narcissism, but that's because we're already presumed narcissistic from the start.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is we're demonized, dehumanized, and vilified based on the worst examples of sociopaths, often in ways that are akin to racial prejudice. As I said before most sociopaths are harmless and many live harmonious and productive lives, I think the OP spreads awareness that we aren't what we're depicted as, and he obviously sees his sociopathy as a beneficial quality, as do I.
I'm what would likely be called an ethical sociopath. I've come to the conclusion on my own that sociopathy is a defect. The vast majority of humanity has evolved into a highly social group. Humans derive comfort and feelings of safety from others. As the vast majority of humanity developed this way it is clearly the superior state.
ReplyDeleteAs a sociopath I'm cut off from something that should rightfully be mine as a human being and would be further excluded if people knew the way I think. It's terribly difficult and tiresome to enjoy the company of the few people that please me because I'm constantly on guard and evaluating how I'm expected to act next.
Seeing the points clearly, I wonder why so many people feel the need to judge. People have different personalities, some inherited and some developed. The original post here is the psychological equivalent of physiologically disabled people saying "We are handi-capable". This person put a lot of himslef into his post to try and get people to see that he is trying to embrace what he is. That regardless of the difficulty, he is choosing to love himself. If you know him personally and he hurts you, send hate mail. But judging like this is juvenile. Why don't you go bully people on an Autism or ADHD website too? I have been seriously abused by a sociopathic narcissist and I've seen first hand that he struggles. He loses everyone and doesn't know how to change it. I still had to choose to leave, but that does NOT make him any less deserving of self love, especially since he makes it so hard for others to do so. Being a sociopath is NOT a choice and condemning them is ignorant. And realize, if you're still hell-bent on judging sociopaths, that all this attention is exactly what they want anyway. Lol. This post was worded exactly how it needed to in order to incite these responses, probably intentionally. You're acting like the weak, mindless puppets you're being accused of. It's hilarious. That old phrase "You do you and I'll do Me" aka: mind your own darn business... That applies here. But wait, you think that you are better than this guy and have no empathy for him or guilt over bullying him. Doesn't that make YOU a sociopath too?
ReplyDelete