Observer: But you ascribed meaning to something that was not there. You saw what you wanted to see. You believed what you wanted to believe, because that's what your emotions do. They ascribe meaning to something that is not there. They fool your perception as to what is real. A dog does not smile, no matter how many times your kind might think it does. . . You blame us for her death, but it is irrelevant. She was here, now she is simply not here.
Human: You're wrong about emotions not being real. My feelings for her are very, very real.
But that's not quite the point that the sociopathic observer is making, is it? He never said that emotions don't exist (i.e. are not real). He just said that they obscure one's perception of reality, which I think most people would agree with? I have seen people make similar statements as the human before and I always wonder what point they're trying to make. What does it mean to them for feelings to be real? For instance, if you were having a hallucination of a dragon and I told you that there is no dragon, you might tell me that the dragon is real. And I guess in a way you would be right be the dragon exists in your hallucination, and what does it mean for something to be real? But from my perspective and from the reality that most people share, there is no dragon. And if you persist in obligating me to acknowledge your hallucinated dragon as being "real" because it is real from your perspective, then you must equally acknowledge that the dragon is not real because from my perspective it is not.
It reminds me of this tweet:
"Feelings ARE facts. This is what socios don't understand."
— M.E. (@sociopathworld) October 30, 2013
I figure it as a miscommunication between observer and human. Empaths identify what they are feeling as something of substance, no less substantial as sensory input like taste or touch. It is stimuli, therefore it is real. However cognitively speaking, it is an intangible real. Something without material form (setting aside something like art or music, which illicits emotion as a proxy form).
ReplyDeleteI had to look at your tweet more deeply to understand what you were saying, but I think I get it (correct me if I am misinterpreting your intent). It is factual in that it exists. It influences behaviour and actions. It is a complex variable in the greater equation of behaviour and action. The biochemical and neurological processes we are experiencing is interpreted as feelings. That makes sense.
The dragon can be said to be real, but only within the context of the imaginary reality inside that particular person's mind. It can not be said to be real in the context of material reality - the testable reality which we commonly use our five senses with. One easy example would be a dream. It is real when it happens at that moment - the vast majority of the time you are not even aware it is "only a dream" until you wake up.
In the end, there is a miscommunication between the observer and human as to how "real" is being interpreted in that context.
He just said that they obscure one's perception of reality, which I think most people would agree with?
ReplyDeleteHow do you separate "perception" of reality from reality itself?
Let's say I can see color, but you're colorblind. Does that mean color doesn't exist? If I see a lighter brown than the person next to me, does that mean that brown doesn't exist? If we follow the reasoning from the post, the reality that lacks color - or any other quality - is the more "valid" one. But that's patently absurd and contradicts your subsequent statement, which asserts the value of the majority opinion over that of the minority.
But from my perspective and from the reality that most people share, there is no dragon.
Let's say you do something destructive. The majority of people would be horrified. You aren't horrified at your action. In fact, it brought you satisfaction. Is the response of the majority more valid than yours? You often complain that this is the empath mindset, and yet you are employing it right now.
It's not the empath mindset, it is the human mindset. The human brain works as an interpretive engine. Memory is reconstructed (not recorded). An empath and a sociopath can both see a dragon, whether real or hallucinatory. The capacity is the same. The difference is the emotional aspect - what the sociopath feels is not what the majority of the population (what is defined as the "norm") feels.
DeleteRemember, M.E.'s statement regarding the perspective of the majority - that there is no dragon - is a statement in fact when it comes to material reality. It's a fascinating question, because as a sociopath more weight (not in totality, but more) is placed on material reality than any intrinsic reality.
I remember experiencing very vivid and lifelike hallucinations from a severe fever. I found it fascinating, because being detached I knew what I was seeing was not "real", yet was "not fake" in what my brain interpreted as sight. It looked, from what I could see, as being exactly the same as what it would have been if real. I know this stems from the reconstructive and interpretive nature of how the brain works. It didn't seem any less "real", but in (material) reality I knew it was not.
I know it's a human mindset. It's just that M.E. often accuses empaths of it, and I think her reliance on it should be pointed out to her.
Delete"Material" v. "intrinsic" reality is a false distinction. This is another version of "perception" of reality v. "real" reality. A schizophrenic might vehemently argue that the dragon has "material reality" - that it does, in fact, exist.
Where does this leave us? With the majority/minority argument. The reason you "know" the dragon does not exist is because the majority of people don't see the dragon.
I misspoke. Intrinsic should have been replaced with "internal" or "perceived".
DeleteYou can separate perception and "real" with, for example, a camera. I look and my eyes see a dragon in front of me. At the same time, there is a camera recording. Is there a difference between what the camera shows and what the schizophrenic sees? Does the schizophrenic see the dragon when he watches the recording?
By the way, I believe M.E.'s statement was not really accusatory. Since the majority of people are empaths, it is commonly phrased under a given umbrella term. Emphasis is on majority. When I made the distinction of empath vs human, I was separating the one given umbrella term into two distinctions. Majority vs whole. However, in this case M.E. was separating sociopaths from the "human" term. Observer (sociopath) and Human (empath). There is no improper reliance or emotional fallback when using it "as an excuse", because in truth we're not talking about that.
By the way this is not a criticism or a rebuke, just a clarification of word use. From the sociopath's perspective, the word use is distinct from common empathic usage. The intent is slightly different, because we do (when we're honest and open of the sociopathy) perceive and interpret things differently than empaths. We are, to coin the phrase, somewhat alien in our internal thinking.
Antisocial personality disorder: "There are six billion opportunities out there, to exploit."
ReplyDeleteParanoid personality disorder: "There are six billion liabilities out there" - humans to fear.
Narcissistic personality disorder: "There are six billion adnirers out there to view my greatness."
Someone want to complete the list?
Whatever glasses you put on, what you see is never really real. Not even if you use the normal pair of glasses.
Belief isn't necessarily based on emotion.
ReplyDeleteBelief isn't based on emotion. Emotion however can reinforce a belief (whether factually or morally right/wrong). Things such as happiness and anger can, for example, either act as a catalyst to act on a belief or strengthen it.
DeleteBy the way, those with ASPD do not see "six billion opportunities to exploit". That is rather overgeneralized and popularized stereotyping. We have the capacity to exploit. That doesn't mean we always do it. It's like owning a jerry can - I can fill it with gas and fill my car with it, or I can leave it empty in the garage. It's a choice an empath can make too. The difference is that the hardwired emotional/moral barrier that disincentivises using the jerry can is either diminished or non-existent.
Emotions are something that no one can see (like a dragon). Even between so called empaths, one cannot see another's emotion. Two "empaths" can witness the same event and have completely different emotional reactions. For instance, a serial killer being executed on death row. The victims might rage, anger, hate, fear and then relief when the killer is executed. But the killers family might experience sorrow, remorse, and a sense of loss for not being able to help their family member earlier in life to prevent the outcome.
ReplyDeleteAnother more common example might be when a neighborhood dog bites/mauls a small child and is then put down. The child and family might feel relief as they were afraid of the dog. But the dog's owner might feel shock and disbelief because their dog never bit anyone before and then sadness when their family pet is put down.
There seems to be two myths on this blog. The first is that all "empaths" experience life perfectly and never struggle with social difficulties, like everyone is on the same page emotionally and "gets" everything that is going on around them (social cues). But this could not be further from the truth. It seems so obvious that if this were true there would be much less friction in the world.
The whole "empathy vs socio" with nothing in between doesn't make sense to me. There is everything in between; the world is not black and white. But hey, if you see the world that way maybe that's YOUR dragon.
And this brings me to the second myth, and that is that every empathy wants to "fix" every socio. That's pure narcissism talkin right there sweety! Trust me, the world could never care nearly as much about you as you care about yourself! Ha!
MelissaR
Just as there are wide diversity of sociopaths, there are equally as wide of a diversity of empaths. It's important to recognize that clinically they distinguish this by calling various sociopathic factors "traits". The word is chosen very carefully and has a very specific meaning in psychology.
DeleteWhen a person scores high in the PCL-R, higher scores do not necessarily equate to a greater intensity or strength of the sociopathy. It's more of a probability - a greater chance of fitting the category - than purity. The higher the score, the "closer" you reach to a theoretical construct that is defined as being a sociopath. M.E., for example, relates her professional diagnosis as being 99% prototypical. That is a near maximum score. That does not necessarily make her a more "pure" sociopath. She's just closer to a predefined model. As for myself, my professional diagnosis has that percentage at a lower value than hers, but that does not make me "less pure" of a sociopath. I just don't fit as close to the model. We both can feel, just in a more limited fashion.
To put it another way, sociopathy is not truly measured on a one-dimensional line, which is how tests such as the PCL-R are built. Hare himself notes this quite fervantly, that the model given fulfills a very specific purpose and is being abused by being applied outside of its design. The same thing holds true for emotions. It's a trap of oversimplification - human beings are far more complex and diverse than generally given. It's like measuring IQ. The test's scope is limited. To give a simple analogy, M.E. might not be able to see the color red while I can. Yet M.E. might be able to see the color blue, while I can't. The tests don't measure that. What colors I have on my artist's palette, and how much of each color there is available, is different than what M.E. has on her palette.
Sociopathy (and/or psychopathy) is not a diagnosis and that's what makes it a difficult topic to discuss. Sociopathy is a very broad term for many symptoms or traits. It makes for a great book title though and that's why it's used so often in the media. It's not used in the clinical field which instead uses more specific terms.
DeleteMelissaR
But empaths DO see the emotions of other empaths, they transmit, whether via hormones, or acting out or facial expressions, all areas that the sociopathic have difficulty processing and interpreting. Maybe its unconscious or autonomic, but even on body language there is a emotional short hand at work that I for one find terribly empty and meaningless. In fact the idea of empathy creeps me out, why would I want someones stinky old emotions soiling my pristine nervous system?
DeleteThe "real" definitions of psychopathy and sociopathy are synonymous to anti-social personality disorder (ASPD). Unfortunately the terms have been abused by the population so much, and twisted so much in how it is used, that as a precaution psychologists no longer use those terms. This is because what they call a psychopath/sociopath is not the same as what everyone else uses those words for.
DeleteBy the way, all disorders are terms used for a set of symptoms (or what psychologists call traits). They are, in word, a box. A box to put the symptoms in and package with the label "XYZ Disorder".
In its usage here, on this site, there is a distinction between being a Sociopath and having Sociopathic Traits. If you have enough of the traits, it qualifies. To relate that to real life tests, if you score 30+ on the PCL-R (which has a maximum score of 40), you qualify. That isn't to say the PCL-R is in reality definitive, but it is the current gold standard.
Psykopath-I-logical,
DeleteI appreciate your honest response and I think it was very well explained. I just hope you can understand that it is not that simple and easy for empaths. There are many circumstances where empaths get it wrong or don't understand each other. Different cultural backgrounds cause many problems. What seems like indifference to one culture could be something else in another for example. And there is truth to the saying "I don't know if you were going to laugh or cry".
But I think you are confusing empathy and sympathy in regards to "stinky old emotions". Empathy is simply "reading" the emotion. Sympathy is taking on the emotion of another, feeling it with them. I don't recommend this!
MelissaR
Actual sociopaths feel little empathy or sympathy. Which isn't to say we feel absolutely nothing. Just to a significantly lesser degree, in what few occasions they come out. There are "robots", but they are a very rare extreme. We're cold, but not dead.
DeleteBy the way, in reality the definitions and usage of Empathetic vs Sympathetic are actually reversed:
Sympathetic: "My condolences for your loss. Is there anything I can do?"
Empathetic: "My dog died too. I know exactly how you feel."
We see the world not as it is, but as we are.
ReplyDeleteThat's perfect.
DeleteNone of us gets to be the omniscient narrator of reality, although we all begin our observations of reality as tiny egotists. As we grow in size, cognitive ability and hopefully wisdom, we come to understand that we don't have all the facts about every single situation we participate in.
ReplyDeleteThat understanding tends to precede a slow willingness to relinquish black and white thinking where we divide all the reality we experience into two categories- good or bad- purely based on our experienced emotions.
Our initial gut feelings about any given situation aren't necessarily useless- they are like an in the moment cheat sheet that sanctions action based on the accumulated knowledge from prior experience. Sometimes we don't have time to think- we must act or perish. The feelings that emanate from our reptilian brains can save our lives.
Sometimes our actions don't really matter (blue lollipop or red one?) so basing our choices on pure emotion is an acceptable shortcut. Feelings are more primitive than cognition, and more mysterious because it's impossible to ever know fully why we feel the way we do about certain situations because so many of our memories and biases remain unconscious.
The problem comes when we elevate feeling above thinking. When we defer to the shortcut of "I just know". You can only know your thin slice of experienced reality. You may have some very good theories based on this "thin slice"- but the error comes in assuming that the thin slice you've experienced is an accurate microcosm of the entire universe (and beyond). It's not. It's simply a filter for understanding whatever data lies in front of you in the moment.
Sometimes our thinking is greatly enhanced by the addition of the filter or feelings. Sometimes it is horribly muddied. The only thing that is certain is that this filter either sharpens or dulls our cognition.
Our feelings are the lens through which we view reality. Maybe they make the reality blurrier- or maybe they help us see leaves instead of blurry green blobs. It really depends upon whether the "thin slice" of previous reality that informs our "lens" is relevant to the situation or not.
We are the narrator of our own reality. The problems arise when we try to narrate someone else's reality.
DeleteMelissaR
So tough to know about reality. It can change in the blink of an eye. All I know is that when I base decisions on my intuition I fair better...especially when dealing with sociopaths. Of course observing patterns is helpful however I believe there are cues we get from sociopaths on a subconcious level and self-preservational people move away more quickly.
DeleteThat is an evolutionary response to predation. There are cues - very subtle ones - even from the best faking sociopaths. I have rarely ever been "outed" (I am not the best at faking it, but after years of experience I am quite good at it). If I wasn't open about it in this discussion, I'm sure I could have fooled virtually everyone. Just as many sociopaths fool virtually everyone, everyday.
DeleteAt the same time there are occasions where I don't wear the mask, such as in the privacy of my own home. Or there are occasions when I'm fatigued, distracted, or otherwise disinterested and disengaged where I just don't bother. Like sitting in the courtesy/disabled seating on the bus. The seat is not used as often (and therefore available), and I don't want to stand for 20 minutes (or 2 minutes). Will I surrender it to someone elderly? If prompted or otherwise the focus of someone's attention I most likely will, if only to hold off any rebuke and maintain the image. But if the arrangement is right, and I'm tired or otherwise not at risk of "disturbing the water", I may pretend to be unaware (like checking my phone) and just wait for some other empath to feel guilty a few seconds later to surrender theirs. Problem solved. I keep my seat, and they get theirs. Do I feel bad about the empath who gave up theirs? In reality, no. Do they feel bad for giving it up? I'm guessing not. The exception of course is if there is anyone I know in the vicinity who may observe this behaviour, in which case I am more than happy every time to give the seat like a good and civil samaritan. I'm not "being an ass" or anything negative/deviant, I just don't actually care (but I do care about wanting to sit). From this, you may get some more obvious cues and trigger that intuition.
I honestly wonder sometimes, from those who do register something is off, as to what the cues were at that time. Of the few occasions where it happens, I can't exactly pull off the sheep costume and ask "What gave it away?" They would freak out. So, within the safety of these comments I do ask, "What gives it away?"
Your feedback would be appreciated. I am unsure if many people have in reality interacted with an actual sociopath (not to be confused with crazy or neurotic). That being said, this is a rather specialized website to talk on, so I can assume slightly more than the average amount have dealt with real sociopaths (and known about it). As I have found it, the people who register something is off end up seeming uncomfortable or nervous to interact with. It's hard for me to identify most of the time, because I am unsure if they're just being shy or are inexperienced with social interaction. That all being said, your experiences would be interesting to hear.
Body language, facial expressions, hormones, body chemistry. I have been told that I do not have a scent-a dead give away that I am a person impersonator. Also psychopaths have been shown very astute in picking victims just from a few seconds of observation. It stands to reason that no matter how well house broken our demon is it is liable to make its presence felt, even it it is simply by omission.
DeleteAnon @ 9:32....yes it was an evolutionary response and some socios are very predatory with primitive instincts to harm their target. Since everyone has a distinct personality the cues are slightly different. I've had dealings with four that I know of. The last one just happened and it only took me two months to see the pattern however it was too late....lots of damage done. Something in the eyes, charm, lying, finding out secrets, back-stabbing and gas-lighting, minions
DeleteAs the anon who asked the question, I can say it is quite easy for me to "pick a victim" in just a few seconds of observation. That is not hard. As for attributes, body language and facial expressions I get. I practice those.
DeleteYour feedback raised some interesting points, so thank you for your response. You mention hormones and body chemistry? That I did not know or have thought about. I am curious if there have been any papers written on it.
I am having difficulty understanding what you meant by scent, in how not having one is a dead give away. That does not make sense. I can understand "scent" being an allegory to a more subconscious perception of empathy (or lack thereof). You spoke of hormones and body chemistry, so I am assuming things such as pheromones (therefore literal scent) was what you meant.
Also, it is strange you mentioned "our demon". If you are a sociopath, in what way do you see it as such? For me, my "demon" is just me. Nothing more, nothing less. Demon seems to imply a maligned inner self. You call it an "it", as if it is its own entity.
Based on how you phrase things, you are (or at least identify yourself as) a sociopath. Whether you are or not is not something I will judge (no more than you can properly judge me, since I have given no proof, but again will just consider it a given). However, I am curious as to your thoughts on this "demon".
Re the scent question-I think it may be something to do with that more ambiguous sense of self that sociopaths can have, physiological presence being malleable and vague-but sure scent can be read any number of ways.
DeleteI am suspicious of psychology as a rule, and have more faith in the harder science, (digital technology and neuroscience would seem to offer more hope for a favorable outcome to the puzzle of sociopathy to my mind.), and as I have a poetic streak, and a backlog of Catholic schooling I use the term DEMON-it also helps me to visualize my relationship with a somewhat wayward aspect of my character-sometimes it seems I am dealing with a dissociated rage that I have only tangential relationship with. Also in Greek Demon was, I believe synonymous with genius, a semi autonomous outcrop of self that seems beyond the limitations of social norms and behavior patterns...
Based on the comments above I'm am to understand that if someone likes to help people and perhaps chose the wrong career and should have been a doctor then those doctors are all Narcs because they want to fix people.
ReplyDeleteAlso someone has an emotion and that is quiet real specially victims or perhaps even victims from previously being with someone who was a Narc and now sees pattern that may trigger the natural fight or flight warning signs and express them perhaps in advance being a minority in a group of normal people, then what you are saying is that this person is poably seeing dragons. And who is to believe a victim anyway when that's exactly what narcs do to them.
Who would want to be caught specially, better them the victim ito a psycho seeing dragons for expressing factual feelings.
I would say that lots of people have dreams and if they decide to share or talk about it or some random paranormal coincidences may have happened with a few specific dream then why turn the person to a psycho. I find this post interestingly having nothing to do with real psychos. Yes I agree a miscommunication indeed may be part of facts as well as other people's perceptions being shaped by their own experiences and how they might be acting in a given situation. I think if someone was claimin that dragons exist then they must have had a history of being a loony for a long time and I highly doubt they are the kind to succeed much in anything let alone function normally in society and the fast moving world today.
Not all who dream or look for faith or belief of some kind during hard times are delusional psychopaths. Artists are all delusional then for being so involved and constantly exploiting emotions, mirroring, projecting, confusing and trying to achieve just that bit of unique feeling that normal people can't. They must all be crazy dragon dreamers because we don't see them or are they so hyper sensitive that perhaps more intune with their surrounding pain and feel the need to help somehow to avoid others from feeling the same.
But isn't that what true empathy as a factual feeling is ? Something most people are so incapable of doing so necessary for now a days that people condemn those who are capable of it because its so rare to be so naive and genuine now a days in today's emotionless society
Shame
It's important to distinguish "psychos" with sociopaths. It's why the blog was called "Sociopath World" instead of "Psychopath World".
DeleteBeing "crazy" (insane) and being a sociopath are two different things. Sociopaths see things in a more stark light, while "crazy psychos" see things in technicolor. I suppose you can technically have a "crazy sociopath" (not to be confused with criminal sociopath, that's not the same). Being crazy implies behaving and acting irrationally. Sociopaths typically act hyper-rationally. Not less, but more.
By the way, I was referring to literal dreams. As in the dreams you experience while sleeping. Not dreams where you aspire for something. I can dream of dragons just as well as you can.
DeleteThis miscommunication we just had is a good example of what M.E. was posting. As the observer, my intent when using the word "dream" was different than what, as you being the human, interpreted. The same holds for what you call a psycho and what I call a sociopath.
I am not a real psycho. I am however, a real sociopath.
I fail to see the difference between hallucinating about dragons and being religious. You might “KNOW IN YOUR HEART” that your religious beliefs are true (an elder in an LDS Idaho falls visitors center once told me this) but so can someone hallucinating about dragons.
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to understand that empaths need religion- reality is not all that pleasant – to escape the dog eat dog world we live in.
It is more difficult to understand how ME Thomas can actually write so much wisdom yet be religious. I guess she would say she doesn’t feel it the same way as empaths but she is still hallucinating . Why not believe in dragons? What is the difference?
It all reminds me of the song “I believe “ from the now famous musical THE BOOK OF MORMON. Some Christians laugh at it but of course the song is equally applicable to all religion, not just Mormonism. They are an easier target though since they are a minority (and also tolerant, imagine what would happen if someone mocked Islam....)
Find music and lyrics below:
http://www.songlyrics.com/the-book-of-mormon/i-believe-lyrics/
I can see a sociopath following a religion. It provides material for a moral compass to follow. It's also a societal norm to follow Judeo-Christianity in North America.
DeleteDon't get me wrong, I don't follow a religion. For my moral compass I use societal rules and generally-accepted practices.
As for "believing" in a God, you could go either way. Science provides strong rationality behind it, but at the same time the creator myth may not be a myth afterall. As a personal point, I find validity in both atheism and agnosticism.
Yes, I understand why she might FOLLOW a religion , I just cant understand how she can actually BELIEVE in it, since it is so unlikely things are the way religions describe . Even there were a God there is no evidence to suggest he is good. Also, even if there is a God, how is he? Like the Mormon God, like the Catholic God, like Allah? At the very maximum, only on religion/denomination can have gotten it all right so what is the likelihood that LDS got it right (or anyone else)?
DeleteIn a way one could argue even more against the validity of Mormonism since it is such a new religion and hence easier to scientifically disprove (such as Israelites living in the US , despite no archeological evidence to suggest it). Don't get me wrong- virgins , by definition, don't bear children , so the Catholics /other Christians have a lot to prove as well...
I surely think the burden of proof lies with the religious people, not the atheists : If you have an elaborate story you need to prove it- you cant say that everyone else should disprove it.
Being agnostic is one thing, ACTUALLY believing in a specific religion is very much like believing in dragons.
Btw, most (but of course not all) people get their religion form their parents. Who can rationally claim that specifically THEIR parents got it right.
Here is another funny episode of South Park that kind of in a funny way shows the unlikeliness of religion. Again , the joke is on Mormonism but is of course applicable to all religion. Btw, Richard Dawkins “The God delusion “ is a good read on this subject.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e12-all-about-mormons
/The same anonymous
To put it simply, she just might not believe it. Or maybe she does.
DeleteCan someone religious be a sociopath?
"Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's first law of Equivalent Exchange.” I think, this applies to human emotional exchanges too.
ReplyDeleteI trust people when I see them having their own best interest, but they have mine too. So, I feel obligated to return their gesture in equivalent. A mutual respect/trust is stronger than any kind of emotions. But still it relies on perceptions, keeping perception completely fair is hard. It takes time to really know/trust someone. Fleeting emotions are not real!
respect/trust also= behavior/action.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, but trust has to be earned. Do you give it freely to everyone?What if someone takes advantage of your good action?
DeleteAlso Interpretation of behavior/action totally depends on your perception: ill/good perception= mistrust/trust
DeleteEarning trust though is not a clear cut thing. If a police officer walked up to me and asked for my wallet, I would give it to him. I don't know him. I don't know if he is a "good" or "bad" cop. In fact I don't know if he is just convincingly dressed and acting like a cop. In any case, I would "trust" him.
DeleteIf an ordinary, average stranger were to walk up to me and ask for my wallet, I would say no. I don't know him. I don't know if he has "good" or "bad" intentions. In fact I don't know if he is just convincingly dressed and acting like he has a magician or something. In any case, I would not "trust" him.
What a good point! Everything should be viewed within its own “context”. Context defines the action or perception of it. I am frequently guilty of only looking at an “action” and disregarding the context of it. Thanks for pointing that out. (That’s why labels can be destructive too)
DeleteI live by the rule of you get what you give but in a world where it's all take take take sometime you can be left giving more then getting. I don't mind it as I know I have done my part and content with that. I often wonder as much I encourage and try to manifest the feelings I want to see in others, I still find this difficult to do so with narcs or sociopaths. I think my biggest wonder is Can they actually feel and reciprocate what is being given and to what extent is someone to be tolerant before they can respond and stop living in their illusions to start being responsible for ther actions or feel empathy or come out of their shells. Change in itself is a slow process but genes are another thing and some may never be able to reach a certain level emotionally due to their previou experiences and how they may have been affected by them to be able to Trust or Respect again fully.
ReplyDeleteI think what religion helps with is the idea of giving things the benefit of the doubt when rationality doesn't want to in an effort to like one mentioned make it easy to follow moral conduct and use for self discipline and self help like a personal therapy.
I've always considered myself to be an observer f humans and love to analyse ther behaviors and study them but as someone who was a victim of a Narc I would say yes they may have feelings but it really takes a lot of effort to distinguish their projections from who you are even after being out of the relationship.
He may have been borderline socio. Always uneasy in public. But to what extent can you really believe yourself that if you keep being the example and teaching them what emotions are specially of love kindness forgiveness and so on that it will actually be reciprocated and not imitated. Is guilt something innate or can be thought after a certain age. Also older people tend to fall less into the guilt trips people like to play on them in an effort to gain control over them. How do you distinguish if they are sociopaths or simply victims resisting dominance or rules and regulations limitin them from expressing their factual feeling extravertadly instead of keeping them burried inside for societies well functioning. I'm sure anger is in everyone and everyone deals differently. But if SP can feel anger Can they feel remorse guilt and all full range of emotions that was never thought to them without getting lost in their illusions. Feelings themselves need references to predisposed experiences so if they never felt it would they pretend it ?
But why would you need religion to have a moral code. When I said I was an atheist someone once asked me what stops me from killing people . I found the question absurd. Why on earth would I kill people? It would most likely make me unable to sleep at night- you don't need religion to feel bad about hurting others. btw, some of the most religious countries are the most intolerant . Think Iran, Saudi Arabia. So how does their religion help them live moral lives?
DeleteMorality is a social construct, built on societal/cultural norms and religion. To the people of the Middle East, they are living moral lives.
DeleteAs someone who has built their own moral compass, I can say from personal experience that religion is not the sole source or authority of morality. There are plenty of examples available outside of religion, such as the society I live in. Things like laws or social norms. Do not kill people and chew with your mouth closed.
By the way, I am speaking of morals and ethics synonymously in this context.
By the way, sociopaths can't "come out of their shells and admit their feelings". Is there a shell? Yes. Can they admit feelings? No, because there isn't any.
DeleteShould sociopaths take responsibility? By the measure of society, yes. But so should everyone else too. It is the same level of requirement regardless of who, or what, someone is.
Also, there is a significant difference between a Narc and a Socio. Narcs have feelings. Quite significant ones. Socios do not. Socios can, and do, exhibit narcissistic *traits* in that they care more than average about their own well-being, but it isn't based on emotions or delusions. For Socios, it is based on a clear requirement and drive to fulfill personal needs and wants. To simplify it, it is an evolution of the survival instinct.
Narcs feel good about themselves, it gives them happiness and joy. They reinforce this good feeling by focusing on themselves. When a Socio does something for themselves, they do not necessarily feel good. Or bad. Or much of anything for that matter on an emotional level. Fulfilling a desire, whether it is a need or want, is no longer on an emotional level. It's like feeling hungry, so you eat. Do I feel good when I'm full? No. But the hunger has stopped so I am more content than I was before.
Take a look at ME's post "Why I hate narcissists":
http://www.sociopathworld.com/2008/08/why-i-hate-narcissists.html
The analogy she forwarded is apt.
Thanks for posting that link, loved this part:
Delete“I have every right to punish SueTarget and eat her. It will be good for her, and teach her a lesson. I'm not doing it for me, I'm doing it for the team.”
Lol, too often heard around here!
The intriguing thing is, Narcs can convince themselves that they believe they are doing it for the team. That they are extending themselves out for the good of the team (and the team should be grateful for it). Socios are doing it for themselves, and they know it. Even if they did the act for the sole *apparent* benefit of the team, and not themselves (ie. altruism), it really was for themselves. Either explicitly (eg. money), or implicitly (eg. reputation).
DeleteOh well, I don’t like labels, people become victimized to their labels, sometimes. I always stand for my own right, and I defend others when I see them being abused. Meanwhile I make myself an easy target for haters, or exploiters! I try to make peace with everyone, but some people feel untouchable in their self-righteousness.
DeleteYou may find it more beneficial to not only yourself, but your cause/goal, by balancing it out a little. Altruism is a noble goal, but it needs to be balanced. To coin an extreme: You can't help anyone anymore if you're dead.
DeleteSay you won the lottery and received $10 million. As an act of ultimate altruism, you decide to donate all $10 million to charity in one giant act of selflessness. But what if you only donated $1 million? Are you being overly greedy by keeping 90%?
Not if you invested that remaining $9 million. Because let's say on the gains and interest you earn from that $9 million, you gain $1 million after a year. You are now up to $10 million again. If you continue it as a cycle - donate $1 million, invest the remaining $9 million, get $1 million a year - you are suddenly able to continue to donate $1 million each year of your life until you die.
Say you live for 30 more years. Then you die. In your will, you (understandably) instruct that all of money be donated to charity. The end result? Instead for giving $10 million for charity to use to help/save people, you've donated $39-40 million.
And the only extra effort you had to expend, was to hold out on donating the original $10 million in the first place. That's it. The gains and interest from investing would take almost no effort to set up.
“Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling.”
ReplyDeleteC.G. Jung
Which should theoretically be true, except that feelings typically override wisdom. Where wisdom reigns, feelings will try to supplant it.
DeleteSuperchick, I wish you luck on your interview today.
ReplyDeleteThis really seems to have exercised folks on the nature of reality-and the placement of emotion within it. Because sociopaths have such a thin veneer of self they are more attuned to environment. Sociopaths pick up on general emotions, when things become too specific it leads to existential anxiety and the sense of being overwhelmed. So sociopaths have a passing familiarity with emotion, but not a close one. As the world is prone to the emotional tempests of witch hunts, lynchings, Right wing election landslide and other ugly manifestations, the sociopath sees these processes like a latter day Cassandra, unable to respond to them emotionally, always the observer, trying to approximate a suitable response-a world which insists on a reaction, then if the sociopath decides to provide it witches everyone back away pale and horrified. Part of development it seems is to at some point blend ones reality in with others, (family friends teachers etc etc) we can see this as being a fundamental component of socialization./ That the sociopath has one way or another missed this seems clear, so that the sociopath take on reality is very dominant, not prone to serious basic revision, and to empaths maybe a tad oppressive.
ReplyDeleteSociopaths (at least this one) do not run into existential anxiety or being overwhelmed. If I run into an empathic response I don't understand, I just don't understand it. I might get baffled or otherwise confused. But anxiety? No. Overwhelmed? No. Remember, there is a hyper-rational component to our thinking. We rationalize a reason for something when we don't understand it. For example, if there is a reaction from someone which deviates from what I expect, I theorize as to what events and information that person received from myself or others, coupled with models and preconceptions.
ReplyDeleteReality is a definable notion for a sociopath. A box is a box. A dragon is a dragon. Or to be more specific, there is a difference between an imaginary dragon and a material dragon. For us, as the observer, it is what is observable.
Is the dragon you are imagining real? No, it is not existing in material reality. Are you imagining a dragon? Yes. Do you think it is real? Yes. Can there be other realities? Possibly, but it is currently not provable, based on current scientific theories.
We do not dispute that the dragon is real. Only that it is limited to being real to you. Can I hallucinate a dragon? Yes. Is it real? Only to me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA good example of a situation that causes existential anxiety is ME on the Dr Phil show, regardless of her take on her situation he refuses to accept it-her reality is being attacked, whether this is to cause stress in the sociopath or for simple empath glory of defeating 'one of us'-who can say. This tech of trying to unsettle or rattle the 'path seems a standard game-and rather pointless-as I agree we are often drearily clear headed because of our lack of emotional static. My comment was actually about how I feel when confronted by empaths trying to get 'close' or 'intimate' with me-it is oppressive, unwarranted, and frankly creepy.
DeleteThe scientific evidence that I have come across seems to suggest that sociopaths are not prone to delusions, hallucinations or other psychic ephemera-we build models and adhere to them, make adjustments where necessary, but I for one find emotion an alien element. The sociopathic model of reality will probably be shown to be a closer approximation of actual objective reality-lacking emotional associations as it does, though such proof would I suspect be some time in coming.
Socios don't feel anxiety or overwhelmed you say
ReplyDeleteWell that answers my question. I am clearly dealing with a bunch if people projecting false information about me because I don't like to play the victim and try to remain rational around irrational people who get way too tangled up in their emotions.
I know I'm not a narc and I know I'm not a socio but I've been caught up in so much projection from a possible narc that I was led to this blog in my research which has been very useful and informative !
Thank you !!!!!
“Thank you!!!!!” You’re welcome.
Delete(Honestly, I don’t know who you are talking to, but I feel the depth of your gratitude, so you’re very welcome)
See comment below for response.
DeleteI should be more careful with how I say some things "without the mask". Sociopaths *can* experience anxiety, just at a muted level. They can also feel overwhelmed, but the threshold to overcome to reach that is a lot higher than for empaths.
ReplyDeleteAs for existential anxiety? I have difficulty thinking of conditions where that could happen, unless the sociopath in question has an incomplete foundation of knowledge of themselves, the world, and the people that inhabit it. In that case, you might run into some rather nihilist or overly destructive projections. I could see that causing anxiety and being overwhelmed. The root problem with existential anxiety comes from determining purpose. If you entertain, say, the existence of a deity/deities, an acceptance of life outside of Earth, or a question as to what was before the Big Bang, then you probably won't. It gives possibilities where there otherwise were none.
As for playing the victim? No one does. Even for socios most of the time. Of course, I say most, because sometimes playing the victim has its advantages (like enhancing consequences by outsiders/authorities against the offender when you can't stop them, or playing the offender himself to accomplish an ulterior goal). That of course is all dependent on cost-benefit analysis.
Read my other comment-next post! You are reading toooooo much from my post and my lemonade splash pic. I think it created more anxiety in you than it did in me.
DeleteI do not think anything you said, or I said had any implication of offense, but you are perceiving it the way you want. I blame it on the context (my splash pic. ) and also the "data" that you have from me.
I liked your last paragraph, although I am not "playing" anything and I am not blaming you for anything. I really like to know how to stop offenders when you can't stop them.
Don't worry, no anxiety was felt. I am a sociopath.
DeleteMy last post was in response to the anon who gave his thanks (to me). However when I pressed the publish button, you had already posted and my page was not refreshed. The commenting software displaced my post as a result.
By next post I meant the one for Jan 21st, and cheer up!
ReplyDeleteAs the author of the maligned tweet, I'd like to clarify what I meant by it.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a persistent myth on this blog that sociopaths are more rational than empaths because they don't incorporate feelings into the decision-making process. This is incorrect, if not actually ludicrous.
Feelings are "facts" in the sense that they are givens. They're factual the way that getting hit by a bus is factual. Or being good at math. Or being born into a dysfunctional family. Feelings just are.
It is rational for me to make decisions that respect the feelings of others, since the feelings of others impact my emotional state. It would be completely irrational for me to make decisions that disregard my feelings or the feelings of others. This would increase my emotional discomfort or pain.
Empaths aren't less rational than sociopaths. They are working with a different (expanded?) set of givens.
Thank you...that is the most rational response I've read here regarding the self-rationalizing aggrandizing comments made by people claiming to be sociopaths....also don't know why they complain about being scapegoated by empathempaths
DeleteIf a socio targets me they will get called out...if they target someone else. And I witness it I will call them out. Other than that being diagnosed with asps is something that does not have to be disclosed unless you want to.
Some people want to pretend to be sociopaths. It can be exciting in a thrilling and dangerous way. A lot like many activities. It's the same reason people watch dark movies and read dark books. The danger feels stimulating, and powerful.
DeleteIt's important as a disclaimer that not all sociopaths fit a mold. The stereotypical one and the non-stereotypical one express and promoted in this blog and comments. This point has been made before, however in the context of this thread it is important to reiterate. Sociopaths can feel emotions. They can also not feel emotions. The range is as granular as people. There are extremely violent and criminal sociopaths, and there are non-violent and non-criminal sociopaths. The critical point in this context though, is that there are sociopaths in-between.
Yes and no. Don't get me wrong, I personally act irrationally all the time. But my thought processes are rational. They are also impacted by what I might actually feel (call it true feeling), and by my mask (call it fake feeling, and yes it happens).
ReplyDeleteI never suggested total rationality, just "more" rational. It's the same as saying I have a complete absence of emotions. I don't. I have a "lack" of emotions, just as much as a "lack" of guilt/remorse/regret. Is it significantly reduced? Yes. Is it absent? No.
And believe me, I do accept emotions as facts. Because they are there, and people have them (both those I interact with, and myself). In fact, sociopaths manipulate people all the time based on using the person's emotions as one/several facts.