A friend of mine recently asked me why a sociopath would go out of his/her way to either avoid creating or work to resolve issues with close friends and family, in which the sociopath has offended them. To answer this I came up with an interesting analogy I thought you might enjoy hearing and possibly commenting on.
For a moment imagine your life as an apartment, and the friends, family, and significant others you have chosen to allow in your life are your pets. Now every so often, regardless of how diligent you are, one of your pets is going to make a mess on the carpet. Whether you or the pet are at fault for the mess is irrelevant, because when it comes down to it your apartment now smells a little worse. So you have two choices, ignore the mess, and continue on with your life (which is the preferred result), or clean it up. So why do we clean it up? Because very few people like their place smelling of shit, and if enough pets make a mess it's going to get pretty unbearable. However, that doesn't mean we enjoy cleaning it up, it's just a necessary (yet unfortunate) action that must be done to maintain a clean healthy apartment. Of course you can always get rid of the pet when it makes a mess... but then what will you have to play with?
It's very (most?) often in the sociopath's best interest to act in pro-social, or at least friendly ways. I used this recent analogy to someone. Let's say that someone is fat but doesn't act like it -- fat girl in a tube top confidence. Other people might feel awkward about this girl. She is clearly violating the social norms that demand that she feel some measure of shame about her body and/or clothing choices. Maybe they feel embarrassed for her, particularly if they feel like she just doesn't realize how bad she looks (same reason people feel embarrassed when someone else has something stuck in their teeth? I always get a little annoyed when people insist that I get something out of my teeth, particularly when they behave as if it is an act of supreme selflessness. I'm fine with something being in my teeth, if it bothers you, at least be honest that you are selfish enough to insist that I change my behavior/appearance to suit you better). Another popular reaction is for people to get angry with the fat girl and try to overtly shame her. I find both of these reactions to be completely puzzling. If she is not embarrassed for herself, why be embarrassed for her? There is no objective "truth" about what is or is not beautiful (and aesthetic preferences regarding corpulence vary widely when compared across time and culture). And why harass her? Is it because she has offended their delicate sensibilities? Is that why they have quickly deputized themselves members of the social norm enforcement police? Because even if they find her look to be unappealing, others might not share their same opinion.
How would a sociopath react to the fat girl in a tube top. I think people think that sociopaths would be the meanest of the mean. But what benefit is there to a sociopath in being mean, even exceptionally so? There would be much greater value to the sociopath in being friendly and propping up the girl's self-esteem. Now she feels like they have commonality. The sociopath has made a friend, and if the girl wants to keep getting the validation from the sociopath, she will be a loyal and dedicated friend. Of course this approach involves some degree of manipulation because the sociopath is more consciously choosing to present himself as a friendly ally, and not for some more lofty goal of crusading on behalf of the weight-challenged. But does that make his action any less pro-social? Or any less a welcome response from the fat girl? Rather, it is itself a form of implicit validation -- despite you being fat, I still think you're worthwhile enough to have as a friend. In other words, a sociopath sees your value clearly, without common prejudices or xenophobic knee jerk rejection, and still chooses to associate himself with you. If you were someone who is frequently marginalized from society, who would you prefer to interact with?
I'm not saying that sociopaths can never be "mean" (can sociopaths ever be unreasonable? maybe they just all seem reasonable to me because we share the same worldview?). They can do bad things and they should be held responsible for their actions in the exact same way that everyone else is held responsible for their actions (me included, of course). But to make generalizations about sociopaths always acting in anti-social ways and never benefiting society is willful ignorance of the facts. The unique traits of a sociopath are going to make them both "nicer" and "meaner" than normal people. To ignore the former in favor of focusing on the latter is disingenuous -- it distorts the truth in a manipulative way that seems clearly calculated to perpetuate negative and largely unfounded stereotypes.*
*If you think these stereotypes are founded, please share specifically what you believe that foundation consists of so I can address them. Or if you don't want to speak in generalities, tell me what I do (currently, preferably) that seems so singularly wrong such that I have earned the negative stereotype and deserve to be punished. I have no problem engaging in an open and honest dialogue about all aspects or implications of sociopathy, including "bad" ones, with a focus on provable facts rather than baseless slander. I like learning truth, even if it means I've been wrong, and will keep an open-mind.
i tend to be "nicer" to people when i first meet them, and as they gradually become closer to me, my fangs come out more and more, and I notice they begin to behave angrily towards me more and more. I get called "mean". Of course, I consider it my right to direct control over people who insist on being a large part of my life. It's only natural they should fight it :)
ReplyDeleteThat's basic human nature. When you decide that a particular relationship means enough to bypass the comforts of short term self interest and consciously choose to keep treating a person with dignity even when you could manipulate them for the sake of control, then you will be able to sustain that relationship.
DeleteWhen people say things like "marriage is work", I think what the mean is that both parties must consciously choose to invest in the long term stability of a relationship to keep what they have from the inevitable deterioration that the mindset you've described brings.
I've said a lot of times that sociopaths are not necessarily malicious, and frequently act in pro-social ways (even perhaps predominantly, when you factor in the millions of things they do each day like stopping at stop signs or covering their mouth when they sneeze). Just because they don't feel guilt or don't see the world in terms of black/white, right/wrong, doesn't mean that they wouldn't choose to do good things or even necessarily derive any pleasure from being "mean".
ReplyDeleteRetarded. It's called "psychopathy" for a reason. It's a destructive disorder towards everyone around them. It's not even about choice.
What you put is one of the most ignorant comments I think I have read on here. Just because the medical community labels psychopathy as a purely destructive force does not make it true, do you honestly believe in everything told to you by a figure of power? If you did any research you would understand that the definition of psychopathy is basically derived from hare's psychopathy checklist, which has become the staple definition of a psychopath. The checklist however was created by interviewing criminals in the prison population, not the majority of psychopaths who have never committed a crime worthy of jail time. People have this misconception of sociopaths because all we know is how the anger-prone and dangerous ones act, but only a small percent of the prison population are sociopathic. That means we have many non psychopathic people killing others, but it's fine because they haven't been labelled by the medical community so they can potentially be good . . . The point is you have based your flawed opinion on a stereotype that was founded by someone of political power, and you are taking it as a truth. Technically this is what you would call a logical fallacy lol.
DeleteI don’t want to be anyone’s pet if I don’t choose to be one. If a sociopath asks: do you want to be my pet? And I say “yes”, that’s fine. Otherwise he should treat me like a pet so I know with which kind of person I am dealing and decide if I want to still deal with him/her. I know it was an analogy, but it was a good analogy because it is applicable.
ReplyDeleteAbout the fat girl. No, it is not nice to make fun of someone because the person has a presumed handicap, independently if it’s socially perceived handicap, a physical handicap or any other type. There are also evil empaths and they also do evil things. But to lie at the person encouraging her handicap it is not pro-social; you are not doing that person a favor at all. If you consider a person is making fun of herself without being aware and you want to be pro-social, inform her in the best possible way. If you were wrong and the person is completely aware of her attitude and how this can be perceived by others, that pro-social action was unnecessary. But to encourage her behavior if it is not beneficial for her it is anti-social. Of course, someone can do something that he/she presumes beneficial when it is not, but there again, there is no “mal per se” when something is done with the best intentions for the other.
The fact that the pure selfishness of the sociopath might have sometimes accidentally benefits for others, don’t make them any kinder, because their intentions are not kind. And for the fat girl it will not even be the case because the message “despite you being fat, I still think you are worthwhile enough to have as friend” will be proven a fraud very soon by the sociopath who would not treat her as a friend. The harm of the fraud is that nothing good is real and that you are being treated as an idiot and not respected, and you can’t even choose to get rid of the scam because someone wants to keep you ignorant.
Sociopaths behave as the worse type of xenophobes. They do a selection according on how exploitable somebody can be for them, and in this selection there are parameters like class, income, origins, etc.
“If you were someone who is frequently marginalized from society, who would you prefer to interact with?”
You have to be kidding to ask this one. If you are frequently marginalized from society the last person in Earth you want to meet is somebody who is purely going to abuse you.
It was not till I encountered a sociopath that I realized that the stereotype was founded.
"The fact that the pure selfishness of the sociopath might have sometimes accidentally benefits for others, don’t make them any kinder, because their intentions are not kind. And for the fat girl it will not even be the case because the message “despite you being fat, I still think you are worthwhile enough to have as friend” will be proven a fraud very soon by the sociopath who would not treat her as a friend. The harm of the fraud is that nothing good is real and that you are being treated as an idiot and not respected, and you can’t even choose to get rid of the scam because someone wants to keep you ignorant. "
DeleteJessi- I mostly agree with you here. However, I am not sure that ME is saying she wants to be friends with the girl in the tube top. Rather, she feels no compulsion to "fat shame" someone to satisfy her narcissistic need to validate that she is in an in group (attractive woman) and the tube top girl is in the out group. This quality alone is not enough to build a friendship upon. But that does not mean it is without value. For a person used to being treated with disdain, it's nice to be treated with basic dignity.
Where things become ethically problematic in my mind is if that positive interaction opens a door to exploitation of the tube top girl. I think that's where sociopaths succumb to evil. If they can affirm tube top girls dignity and then leave it at that, they have done something good.
Any person who shows respect, deserves to be respected. In other cases, I think that it is better to be treated with truly felt disdain than with a fake basic dignity, is more dignifying for the person; you offer them the option to write you off for a true reason.
DeleteI can’t imagine a sociopath affirming tube top girls’ self-esteem without a devious reason.
maybe she doesn't judge tube top girls personal appearance to be the most important indicator of ver value as a human being because she's not constantly asking "if I talk to fat girl in a tube top am I still cool?" Maybe she is just interested in being pleasant and seeing past the surface.
DeleteJessi- there is no virtue in expressing truly felt disdain for someone you are not invested in enough to support in a constructive manner (and no, snide comments and fashion advice do not count as constructive). And fake basic dignity? Is that just something you made up? You either treat people in a way that acknowledges their humanity or devalues it. Your personal experience of the behavior matters only to you- not to tube top girl.
"You have to be kidding to ask this one. If you are frequently marginalized from society the last person in Earth you want to meet is somebody who is purely going to abuse you."
DeleteI'm a diagnosed sociopath. I agree with your worry, but it's not like we have this constant desire to abuse every person we see or are in contact with. I'm a straight, fit, middle class white male but I don't associate with anyone that fits that description. Most of my friends (and yes, sociopaths can have friends and are extremely loyal to a default) are "minorities" and I rarely hang out with anyone who is in esteem. For me, it's like this: I know I can fake it and fit in with society, but why? The "outcasts" accept me and I accept their social "faults".
The issue is that you willingly and knowingly manipulate people to meet your own selfish desires and needs, with little regard for the well-being of your targets. You may make people feel better about themselves, and they may love to have your attention and interest, but you are deceiving them, planting the seeds of false hope that the average person would accept them for who they are. Social dictums are as good as law, and you encourage people to break them by accepting what should be unacceptable. You're not doing them any favors. Failure to adhere to social norms has very real consequences, and it is in every individual's best interests to conform in order to be happy and comfortable in life.
ReplyDeleteYou are a prime example of the damage a sociopath can do. Had you not discovered that you were a sociopath, not embraced it, you likely would be in a better place right now. You've spoken of self-manipulation as a mechanism to control your own behavior. How do you feel about the situation that you've manipulated yourself into? You haven't told us what the consequences of your actions have been, but I'm guessing the position at BYU is on very shaky ground, if that opportunity hasn't vanished completely. Based on your statements that the LDS church is perfect for sociopaths, I wouldn't be surprised if you've faced consequences from your religion as well. Now you must fall back on your support system, your family, the only ones that care for you in this world, because you didn't burn those bridges. Imagine where you would be if that sociopath M.E. had never come into your life.
If it wasn't obvious, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm willing to keep it up, but my personal opinion is simple. I have none, only thoughts.
I just finished the book. There are references to UKan in there( and Kany) There are some references to the Regulars. However, I wanted to stay something. I pondered about not saying it because it sounds like I am on my high horse. I am not. You know how flawed I am.
ReplyDeleteME was talking about the sociopath having children and I don't think a sociopath should. The reason is not esoteric. It is because the sociopath cannot truly hear the cries of the baby. By cries, I mean the emotional language, which the baby needs mirrored. I don't think the sociopath CAN mirror in an authentic way and children know what is authentic in the feeling realm, better than adults.
I don't think there is any amount of intellectual acumen that can make up for that void in the sociopath, when it comes to children on a 24/7 basis, not being an aunt or a more distanced kind of relationship. 24/7 demands all the empathy of someone who has it. Empathy is the essential ingredient needed for the healthy emotional growth of a child. Empathy is at the root of true mirroring.
The language of children is the unseen and the FELT. That is the arena the sociopath lacks. I say this from being the child of a mother with low empathy. The Mal Narc can hear you when you are distressed out of your mind but it has to get to that. She cannot hear simple distress. However, the sociopath cannot hear any distress. He can think it. I am not saying he cannot but he cannot FEEL it and that is not good enough for a child in my humble opinion.
I don't mean to insult anyone who has kids. I don't mean to put myself on high, in ANY way, shape or form. This is one person's opinion but this person had a mother with low empathy who was very smart intellectually and really wanted to do a good job as a mother. She couldn't because of her lack of empathy.
Monica, this is an incredibly good point. I could not agree with you more that those who are primary caregivers of young children need to be empathic, or it's nearly impossible for that child to gain enough functional trust (i.e.- if I do my homework, I will get a good grade) to develop a personality that can operate in our culture that is very rule based.
DeleteThe only caveat I would offer is that a father can be an excellent primary caregiver if the mother is lacking in empathy. I am the woman I am because of a father's love, not a mothers love.
That being said, having a pro social sociopath as a second parent could be quite beneficial once a child is past the stage of needing to be mirrored and a cohesive sense of self could be established. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that a pairing of an empath with a particularly reformed sociopath (and by that I don't mean "religiously converted"- I mean sufficiently convinced that the long term investment of self discipline and delaying gratification necessary for maintaining a long term relationship with the empath who is a primary caregiver is in their own best interest) can work quite well. It looks a lot like traditional marriage, although the gender roles may be reversed- one breadwinner and one caregiver.
Some people claim infallible knowledge about things that they do not even have the capacity to fathom. They show such confidence in their ignorance that they press their own unfounded opinions as undeniable proof. It's enough to drive a quiet and patient person to a cold and seething rage.
DeleteAnd these people project their opinions so strongly upon others, that if their targets do not conform, they expend time and energy forcing them to step in line. People like this are everything that is wrong with humanity. I am not the monster here, that part is played by my adversary, the slave to unreason.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYes, Mach
DeleteI hear you about the sociopath parent for the older child. If so, I think it should be the father as the mother/child bond is glued with empathy and nothing can replace that essential ingredient, in my humble opinion.
I remember the wire monkey study in Basic Psych. I had a panic attack and had to leave the room when he talked about the four groups of monkeys. The offspring of the wire monkeys were crazy, biting and fighting each other.
The offspring of the normal monkeys were normal. Then, they had a wire monkey with a heating pad and they were messed up but not as bad as the wire monkey's offspring.
No empathy is the wire monkey.
I was raised by a wire monkey.
DeleteIt sucked. By having an empathic father saved me.
Yes, I hear you Mach <3
DeleteYou have a lot of nerve stating that anyone shouldnt have children after what happened to yours! It would be wise for you to keep your parenting advice to yourself.
DeleteI have blunted empathy, but my children are growing up to be well-educated, balanced, secure individuals. I am aware of my short-comings but my children know they are loved.
A lack of empathy has even proved beneficial to them as they have learned to work through their issues without becoming needy emotional wrecks. I am teaching them to be strong, independent thinkers. It helps me to discipline objectively as opposed to emotionally. It allows me to be unbiased and pragmatic in terms of assisting them through their trials.
While it is true that my low empathy has indeed caused me to be unnecessarily callous at times, it is a two-sided coin, and I am self-aware and humble enough to accept correction when it is warranted.
You are right, I cannot FEEL my children's emotional distress, but this does not prevent me from safeguarding their well-being. What I lack in empathy I make up for in terms of a well-developed protective instinct. I would kill anyone who sought to really harm my child without a moment's hesitation. Can you say the same?
Empathy is over-rated. It is just a feeling; actions are more important than emotions. My children respond to how I *react* to them; whether or not I possess the ability to *feel* what they do is relatively inconsequential.
I also think that a sociopath parent has the competence to raise children successfully. I specially agree with “children respond to how I *react* to them; whether or not I possess the ability to *feel* what they do is relatively inconsequential.” The issue is more that if for any reason, those kids are not part of the public image the sociopath cares to protect and become an impediment, they will have few problems in abandoning them and never go back to them (unless they can use them again)
DeleteMy father is a psychopath. He abandoned a son (from another mother) because the mother vowed to never allow him any contact with her child after he went to prison- a decision I understand. He tried to establish contact after many years, but his son rejected him, for good reason. My dad went to jail for an act of extreme brutality. I met my half brother only once. He looks and even speaks like my father. He seemed quite aggressive. We did not maintain contact.
DeleteMy father never abandoned me, although he did not support or love me in the way I wish he had. He was *very* hard on me and imposed exceedingly high expectations and standards. He taught me to "resolve" my problems with my fists and was proud of me when I did. He would brag that he pitied any man who tried to assault me.
I would never abandon my children for any reason.
@monica
DeleteI once knew a sociopath. After a few months without beeing able to categorize his personality I could not help but think of a wire monkey.
@ Andy- Agreed.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I'm not a fan of narcissists. Their 24/7 need to have an idealized self reflected back through the subservient behavior of others is extremely wearing. They are "slaves to unreason" because if they were reasonable they could accept the holes in the false self construct and then make modifications.
Sociopathic parents lack motivation to provide the consistent mirroring a young infant needs, but they are not the most problematic parents. Monica referenced being raised by a Malignant Narcissist. That is far more damaging than simple (mostly benign) neglect. A narcissistic parent will deny a child's right to have any sense of self beyond conforming to what the narcissist thinks reflects positively on the narcissist.
While I don't think a sociopath should be the primary caregiver in the years 0-6, they can be great parents overall, once the child has a sense of self and is can manage basic self care (eating and hygiene related tasks). But a malignant narcissist? Yikes. While they may do ok with a baby with an easy temperament, once the child begins to develop a separate identity, the power struggles begin. Watching the spirit of a creative and intelligent child get crushed by overbearing parents is tragic. I have yet to see a good outcome for a person raised by malignant narcissists because these sorts of parents will destroy any kid who is not a mini me once the inevitable power struggles that accompany adolescence show up.
At least sociopaths are willing to let you live in peace (well, at least when they are not exploiting you). They don't care what people think of them unless it materially affects the quality of their lives.
There is huge gap between conforming and to have antisocial behaviors. You make it sound as if anyone has little hope in being anything but gregarious to have a comfortable life and that is not true. What you cannot do is to intentionally damage the ones you are asking for support. Our culture supports freedom and compassion not abuse.
ReplyDeleteM.E. self-promotion campaign didn’t end how she had wished and the typical sociopathic attitude is to be angry at the result and at the others. Which up to some point it’s consistent because I presume M.E. did not do the come out as an internal call but with some greedy objective in mind. Greedy objective not fulfilled, therefore, anger.
But, Andy, you are not answering me why is not enough for you to be just someone fun and interesting to be around? This is nothing that you would have to feign. The decision to emotionally scam is not explained by the fact that you have no empathy. Not to have empathy explains a callous and superficial relational style, but as apparently Fallon’s life proves by example, is compatible with a pro-social conduct.
I have very low antisocial scores on the psychopath test. I could be better described as asocial. I have never scanned anyone in my life. Everyone has ulterior motives, I'm just more likely to try and fulfill those motives through subtle actions.
DeleteThe situation with BYU is complicated, and probably about more than M.E.'s confessions of sociopathy. That is, the statements about BYU students as providing "myriad opportunities for scamming" (her words, not mine, may be seen by BYU as violating their faculty guidelines (policy.byu.edu/view/index.php?p=9) as somehow "derid(ing) the Church" (again, their words, not mine). Whether her words really fall under BYU's limitations, or whether those limitations are even "okay," is another matter. (See, e.g., the wikipedia entry on "academic freedom at Brigham Young University").
ReplyDeleteBut knowing what I do of BYU, I suspect their objections are really less to do with confessions of sociopathy, as many commenters here seem to think, and more to do with how they view her statements on the Church. (Note: I am not Mormon, but have a number of Mormon friends, and also ex-Mormon friends. So I am fairly neutral on this.)
I might also add that the law professors I've talked to reacted more strongly to her weak publishing record than her confessions, which are regarded more as just weird and quirky. They're okay journals she's published at, but not amazing.
ReplyDeleteBut her getting an offer from BYU despite this weak record is actually consistent with her descriptions of her sociopathic "charm." That is, perhaps her charm is what led to the offer despite her so-so publications. I've skimmed them (my expertise is in another area) and talked to IP professors about them and we agree they're okay, but not great--that is, probably not what we'd look for in a lateral hire based on publications alone. But again, that is entirely consistent with what she herself says in her book about her "laziness and general lack of interest"--her publications show nuggets of good ideas, but lack the followthrough to make them great, as opposed to unpolished, law review articles.
very interesting, indeed.
DeleteOne of the main guys at BYU Law now is a UChi Law alum:
Deletehttp://www.law2.byu.edu/faculty/profile_fancy.php?id=30
Also, BYU Law has a deep connection with UChi Law through Rex Lee, Dallin Oaks, etc. So Jamie likely used that strong connection in her sociopathic schmoozing, I'd guess.
Wouldn't she have to be interviewed by an LDS General Authority (church leader) to get hired by BYU Law? Doesn't this demonstrate a lack of discernment on the part of said G.A.? So even God's elect are susceptible to sociopathic manipulation. Cool.
DeleteNow, now, people. Let's not get carried away. BYU Law certainly is no Harvard or Yale. And BYU Law has engaged in quite a few questionable hires, if you ask me. Plus they are inbred to a fault (pretty much only Mormons with connections get hired).
DeleteAre you ready to be fucked, Man?
ReplyDeleteThere would be much greater value to the sociopath in being friendly and propping up the girl's self-esteem.
ReplyDeletePotential value. If the fat girl is useful to him in some way, then yes. But otherwise, why would he care about her self esteem, one way or the other?
But yeah, if we’re defining “pro-social” here as friendliness, affability, charm, then yes, sociopaths are notoriously pro-social. In psychology however, pro-social is more closely associated with altruism or at minimum, a term used to describe behaviors that are deemed beneficial to society. By the latter definition then, sociopaths are only accidentally pro-social; benefitting others is rarely their intention.
Maybe it would be better to say that there is less objective harm from propping up the tube top girl's self esteem (provided it was not the calculated beginning of a con- in that case it would simply be bad news) than the harm that is caused by the thoughtless advice givers who are trying to change a person. Unsolicited criticisms by strangers are generally very destructive. If ME is stating that in general, sociopaths don't engage in telling other people how to run their lives by making demeaning value judgments- I have to agree with her. But the I would ask her: is there an end game with tube top girl? Because the deception of false friendship is far more damaging than unsolicited advice giving.
DeleteSo far I understand the "prosocial" addition to sociopath as the sociopath with no antisocial behaviour, not as the one that accidentally doesn't harm or does a gratuitous benefit while having devious plans.
DeleteI think that's a good way to define prosocial.
ReplyDeleteThis is a fascinating forum . Yet can someone , in one sentence or less, get to the bottom line point? Some of these above viewpoints are so meandering that they are even fairly confusing, if not exhausting.
ReplyDelete@Anon
ReplyDeleteSome people, such as Jessi, try to prove how smart they are so much that you can't figure out what they are even saying. That really irritates me.
Jamie, you can always sneeze in my face. Maybe next year at Coachella?
ReplyDeleteYou people are very long winded may I say. Interesting how motivated some of you are.
ReplyDeleteM.E.?
DeleteYes, this is M.E.
DeleteHai gurl! stay away from the knives!
ReplyDeleteSh*t, I'd take the time to write something if I knew Patrick Bateman was going to review it! You go gurl!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThis is to anonymous @11:42 (my browser doesn't seem to allow me to reply). Yeah, I realize every school, including BYU, has questionable hires. Doesn't mean we can't be amazed by the mismatch between scholarship quality (measured by my own and others reads, as well as the weaker indicator of publication fora) and school ranking. Not that rank means everything, and not that connections don't factor into lots of hiring decisions, but this seemed especially stark. No decently ranked flagship journal (besides the note)? Even though IP is a fairly hot topic?
ReplyDeleteI can't help but think that if Jamie actually did have some "fear" or negative emotions, it might have spurred her to refine her pieces to better situate them. So "empath" that I am (I suppose? I'm not especially emotion-driven, though I certainly "feel" them), it makes me a little sad about her missed potential.
I suppose commenters here will say that book sales will make up for it. But I've read enough cynical accounts from authors with even higher ranked Amazon ratings to be a bit skeptical.
Lawyering and teaching lawyering both suck indescribably. Jamie is better off taking a different path. Whether her Dr. Phil fiasco was a "Freudian slip-up," or was strategically planned, it will work out better for her in the end if she leaves the law field.
DeleteIt's not for everyone, sure. But not everyone who does either finds it "suck(s) indescribably." I find both really rewarding and fun, though I'm sure there are plenty of other things I'd also enjoy.
ReplyDeleteBut if she finds it sucks, definitely getting out sooner is the better option, rather than wasting a lot of valuable time with it.
Are you tenured faculty by chance? Do qualified students apply to your institution anymore? Applications are way down at most places and will stay so for the forseeable future. Tenure is at risk at a lot of places. Do you have a Plan B?
DeleteI'm tenured, yes. And students are still applying to my own school (whew). And I still maintain practice connections (I get recruitment calls from within academia and legal practice regularly) so I think I have a good fallback.
ReplyDeleteBut I also realize I'm fairly fortunate that way. Took a lot of work, though.
And no, I don't actually recommend that folks apply to law schools in this current climate. But many students who call me still don't listen.
ReplyDeleteYou know I have followed your blog for a few months and while some of what you have to say is interesting, I am not convinced that you are in a fact a sociopath. You seem to be self aware of who you are, your actions, and seem to posses some sense of right and wrong. At best I think you're narcissistic and you enjoy the attention you're getting.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I say this is because I was friends with a guy named Eddie who I strongly am convince is a true sociopath. Unlike you that loves the attention, he would run away from it. He is someone who hides in plain sight, charming, full of shit, talks a very convincing game, but sees everyone as an object to be used and once their usefullness runs out, he tosses them aside looking for the next opportunity to cross his path. He cares about no one except himself and would use anyone to satisfy his greed.
Calling him out on his bullshit and digging up dirt on his past was the only way to rid my self of him and using truth against his lies was the only way to stop him.
I don't believe that's you.
You know your "stuff", Joe :)
DeleteIf there is the "sociopath", but also the "prosocial sociopath", maybe our dear M.E, is the "introspective sociopath" ;)
DeleteYes or No. Is Casey Anthony a psychopath?
ReplyDeleteI realize a lot of you here are in the habit of writing "M.E.", but isn't that passe now that we all know the true identity of our favorite sociopath..."M.E." = Jamie. Doesn't it make more sense to call her by her real name? Otherwise, it's like going along with a stripper and using her fake name. Come on, you all can say "Jamie." Try it. Ja-mie. That's it. Once more, with feeling. Ja-mie. There you go. It's okay. I mean, she's not Voldemort for Christ's sake?!?
ReplyDeleteBesides, according to the Stripper name generator, Jamie's fake name should be Candy:
http://thejuicyj.com/strippername/
lol, maybe she'll change her name to jamie on here, but up pictures of her pets and family, change the background to a spring garden theme.... then she'll be like every other woman that has a blog xD
ReplyDeleteShe seems to have a thing for Ayn Rand...
ReplyDeleteThe Martha Stewart of Sociopaths. You must have an apron lying around somewhere, M.E./Jamie!
ReplyDelete"M.E./Jamie: Up Close and Personal"
So wait.... M.E is possibly getting hired at BYU???? Would it be weird if I stalked her during my next trip to see my dad at BYU?...... just kidding. :/ seriously. I'm kidding. Unless you're up for that pedi.....
ReplyDeleteSorry.... I meant JAMIE.
DeleteHa!
DeleteShoot, just enroll at BYU and take her class. Sit on the front row. Attend her office hours. Email her all the time. The possibilities boggle the mind...
ReplyDeleteHa ha ^^^^ I'm totally joking. But for some reason it makes me feel creepy to even joke. Oh well. Back to planning my fall enrollment.
ReplyDeleteHand raised high in the air, Horseshack-style: "Oooh! Oooh! Professor Lund!"
DeleteOoops, I suppose Welcome Back Kotter is before your time.
I will google Welcome Back Kotter. :)
Delete"Can you see the real M.E., can ya?, can you????!!!"
ReplyDeleteI think that what you have to understand is that no matter how much both sides try, a psychopath will never be able to feel or see the world the way you do. Is simply impossible for us, I think for us pro-social this is most marked in funerals, I've never been able to see the sense in one, or understand people grief or even why people seem to need this concept that you will go on after death.
ReplyDeleteAs a psychopath, you are governed by pure logic. Actually, your only basis of reference in the world is just data. The amount of energy one spends in a day trying to follow all of the sentimentalist around is draining You need to understand that for us, talking with the fat girl is far from hypocrisy, we see things in values, and this doesn't mean is wrong it just means that our points of views are completely contrary.
sometimes everything is really confusing, I think we get this good at cataloguing and being able to act out emotions because we've spend our whole lives trying to understand why the people that surrounds us react in such weird ways. You find us very unnatural, and for the most part we find you uncomplex and annoying, or in rare cases fascinating in how different you seem to be.
I do not take advantage of the outcasts, I see no advantage in that. My worst fear has always been people finding out, it seems to be vox populli that I'm cold hearted, and it annoys me to no end, because I try horribly hard to be a good person.
You need to understand that for us hurting another person is easy, much easier than when we chose to be good. Not harming and trying to understand is hard work for us, but we pro-socials still do it. We put on a smile and go out of our way, out of our nature to try and be there when a friend need us even when we can't care, I have seated by a friend and held her while she cried when he aunt died, i comforted her the best i could, even when in essence I have no idea of why she is even acting this way, her aunt no longer exist, like when you dispose of a pen because the ink run out, you may feel a bit of loose because it was your favourite pen but that's it. It just stopped exiting so why does she still cares for it? when the problem just solved it self. Can someone explain to me why if her aunt that had an ACB and was no longer herself since about 6 months, because she developed alzheimer, and was an honest to god burned for her whole family as much as an economical taxing as emotional and physically draining for them... can someone just explain to me why people mourn? This girl is my neighbour, so I've seen what the disease of her aunt has put them thought, I was relieved when she died, I mean by all logic the aunt was a problem and the problem just solved itself. I don't understand why they get like this.