I disagree, i think we are worse. Logical? yes. Intelligent? generally. Efficient? absolutely. But when i see regular people forego logic and efficiency for love, it impresses me. Logic has led me to believe we are lesser beings. They see something we don't, and it is more important to them than efficiency, sometimes more important than their lives. We are the superior tacticians, and can easily exploit these weaknesses. Many are aware this advantage though, and still choose to follow their emotions. Logic would dictate these people have superior judgement to us on the matter of what is important in life, they are aware of a side of the human experience we cannot be. They know they are vulnerable, not all of them, but many, this has led me to believe what they see is more important than us. They, as servants of this great sight unseen, are more important than us. I have come to believe our rightful place is not their rulers, but their servants, their guardians from the dangers they leave themselves so undefended from. They found something greater than we can ever know. So i serve them, i give them my honest and non emotionally driven guidance. I use my propensity for, and lack of aversion to, violence to protect them. We are more efficient, but in the grand scheme of things, were useless. We cant make the world better, because we cant care in that special way, but we can serve those would. I guess that is how one could be a "good" sociopath.
Bollocks! We are not better or worse, just a different breed of human. As Shakespeare said "Nothing 'tis either good nor bad, but thinking makes it so." I am no-ones servant. There is no master slave relationship, but beneficial co-operation. My wife is an empathy, she is the ying to my yang. Together we are force to be reckoned with. Each with our own strengths and weakness. We use these against and in the world for our own benefit.
ReplyDeleteAmen. Agreed.
DeleteInteresting comment.^
ReplyDeleteSo do you think you 2 balance each other out, to an extent? Do you feel like an empath could trust you? Could you trust an empath?
Nice grammar and spelling, btw.
Mentally sane people certainly has advantages over "cracked items", even if the latters terrifying "aura" suggests something else. Combine the common person with the psychos ruthless ways and what has crawled forth from the shadows: yes Scorpius, aka the zodiac Scorpio, the ultimate fusion between sane man & deranged crackpot. Stable under any kind of fire/pressure, equipped with moral brakes, gives others christmas gifts and are able to produce wrath in ways many thought were reserved for deities like Kali or Hades..
ReplyDeleteWhat is with all the constant references to Scorpio?
DeleteSome like that "angle". Some think this topic is missing, and its not just "any" topic..
DeleteA sociopath is just different, not better nor worse. In biological terms, its simply another strategy.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing that is authentically good for you that is also
ReplyDeletenot good for another person. The same goes for bad.
That is why we are told to love our neighbor. And all of humanity
is our neighbor.
Blah blah blah. The only socio in this site with a better soul and you are sitill discuting good and bad like believers. Affe. He is right.
ReplyDeleteBeing a sociopath does not necessarily endow one with intelligence and willpower. If you lack those things (as most people do) and are a sociopath, you're likely to be a detriment to society and everyone around you.
ReplyDeleteI'll read lists of sociopathic traits, and while some of them are dead on (lack of guilt/remorse, remaining calm in dangerous situations, having few friends, maintaining uninterrupted eye contact) many key traits don't apply to me. However, I am acutely aware that the key traits that don't apply to me COULD apply to me, or have applied to me in the past.
If the topic of today's post is a sociopath, it is possible that they too have subverted some of their natural inclinations in favor of a behavioral pattern more conducive to functioning in society. At that point, introspection allows one to see what they lack, accept it, and learn to live with it. This particular person has a deep and abiding respect for empathic people, because he would trade his immunity for their pain.
I believe that most people are good, but at the same time I am deeply and profoundly sickened by the fact that any cruelty that a normal person can justify to their conscience is acceptable to themselves and society. If you feel disgust towards something, you are justified in speaking against it and calling for its destruction, whether it be a person, animal, or object.
But anywho, given that the vast majority of people (96-99%) have a conscience, the relative morality of the masses dictate that judgments be made about people based on the presence of a conscience. That's why an empath and a sociopath could commit identical crimes, but because the empath's crime can be justifiable to his conscience and might elicit feelings of guilt and remorse, he will receive a lesser sentence or possibly walk free. The sociopath has no conscience, which the masses find disgusting, so even though his crime is the same in every way, judgments are passed based on the dissimilarity of his inner world to that of the majority, and he will face harsher punishment.
This all stems from the fact that the mere presence of a conscience within someone REQUIRES that they believe themselves to be good at all times, in every case, lest they feel guilt, remorse, or shame. The conscience itself, then, must also be good, as it's a part of the whole. Unfortunately, there is nothing objectively good about having a conscience, because as I stated previously, a conscience allows justification of ANY act, no matter how malicious or cruel, so long as the target offends the subject.
Forgive the stream of consciousness, I'm not a professional writer like Mach ;)
You are wrong. Conscience, the real one is not something to be used to justify evil. It is something so bigger. Sorry that you will never get it, even if you are an empath.
DeleteI don't necessarily think ones better or worse. We both see things the other may not see to an extent. No, we can't care in that special way that they can and no they can't feel the freedoms of living without emotions like we do. They relate everything to an emotion, though everything may not be emotionally charged.
ReplyDeleteFor example someone were to commit suicide they would react by stamping emotions on it and be emotionally driven to help even if they don't know the person. Whereas I am free of said emotions and feel no obligation to do more than I see necessary. They would say:
He was just overwhelmed, He was just too stressed out, and they would immediately feel sad and send the family their condolences. Now they feel obligated to help and support the them and try to help piece together what's left of their family.
Whereas I would just chock it up to it just being his time give faux condolences and move on. That way I'm free from grieving family and can use my time more constructively instead of trying to ease the family's pain.
That way I'm free to do as I please.
This strikes me as an unhelpful question that leads to binary thinking. Certain personalities are a better fit with certain circumstances but all have their place. Those who protect and nurture life (in their own way) are nicer to have around than self centered bastards. But the level of emotion one experiences internally does not always correlate with the outer actions. Inner experience is entirely self referential and therefore useless for the purposes of making value judgements.
ReplyDeletePerhaps if there has to be a binary judgment it should be: Does this person translate their inner experience into prosocial or antisocial behavior? I think it's pretty clear which is more beneficial...
It is meant to stimulate discussion, which it has successfully done. Besides, most people operate on binary thinking.
DeleteI have found situations at times to be perplexing or awkward to observe (or be a part of). Situations of affection/love - those not apparent in being driven by biochemical lust - or horror/disgust are not relatable. Simulating them to derive some sort of feedback (which can work sometimes to return some inkling of a registerable, and therefore analyzable, emotion) does not work. No matter how much I think about them, I can not quite fathom it, which makes today's blog image apt.
There are, and perhaps always will be, pieces to the human condition puzzle that will always be missing to me. Observation and feedback have their limits. So while I can understand what I see to great extent, it will always be incomplete. This is unfortunate, if not a bit annoying, because there will be situations that I will never quite be able to deal with properly - where my sociopathy limits me. These limitations are not wanted, and they are not acceptable.
Sometimes I wish I could take my empathy and turn it off so I could hurt less- so I could forget the people who have been bad to me. I've wasted countless hours feeling things that really hurt that likely could've been spent better- so as much as you say your experience frustrates you, mine frustrates me too. I wish my eyes didn't well up with tears at a wedding (kind of awkward when you're divorced given the pity factor). My whole childhood was spent as "the sensitive one" and perhaps that's why I tend to lean more heavily on being rational today because I always felt ashamed of having so many feelings.
DeleteNo experience of being human is "right". It just is. What matters ultimately is how we translate our inner experiences into actions- that is what remains.
Free to do as I please. Yes, actually we're all free to do as we please. Freedom belongs to all. I don't feel obligated to step in when I don't want to, empath or not.
DeleteThat's how I feel about schizophrenics. There's something they can see that others can't, that I think might actually be there--in another dimension, maybe? I could choose to call these schizophrenics crazy and say that they're just "seeing things," but instead I choose to believe that something actually is there and they're capable of sensing it while most others aren't.
ReplyDeleteJen
I thought their memory process was affected and are reminisced random data from the brain in a chaotic pattern. I can`t say for those having visual hallucinations, but I can speak to people in my head, have conversations with them and they speak to me, but those that make them real? It is real for me, but not for the others. Its real for my brain, and it affect my emotions and thoughts.
DeleteBut can we say this is beneficial? The probability these thoughts will produce useful behaviors in this world is mostly null. Also I am never alone...
As for you guys, you really think everything you see and hear is real? A large part of what we sense is made up in the brain. I believe that delusional thoughts is a prerequisite for the mind to exist, to make connections between senseless data(what sense is there to all of this after all) and give it one. The schizos are broken, like a bird with imaginary wings.
Its funny because I see that the collective thought process groups of humans experience seems to produce delusions too, sometime even worse than mine! Maybe the schizo problem is that he is being delusional about things that are evidence for others, he sees to little of this world and too much of his own.
Intriguing Mr. Schizo. In a sense, life is but a dream since to a large degree you are right, all the good stuff happens in our brains and nowhere else.
DeleteThey see something we don't
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed they do. They see dead people. Or less cheekily, they see the ghost of the ancient programming installed in our primitive ancestors and passed along to modern humans genetically. This programming was “designed” to maximize their evolutionary fitness on the savannah by making cooperation (and thus morality) an emotionally driven imperative.
It’s biological programming combined with cultural indoctrination. Nothing more. It’s not magical or deep. And it most certainly does not make Joe Sixpack somehow better. There is no better or worse outside of our imaginations.
But when i see regular people forego logic and efficiency for love, it impresses me.
If self delusion impresses you, then you need to get out more.
Morality, in practice, comes down to power, to enforcing your vision of what is good and bad, better and worse, on others.
One does not simply spew such blatant autism, even on the internet.
DeleteAu contraire mon ami, the internet is the perfect place for spewing all kinds of bullshit, from autism to the zodiac.
DeleteBesides, characterizing my comments as "autistic", while emotionally satisfying, does not in any way negate the accuracy of said comments.
DeleteYou are, essentially, an emergent property born of a complex network of biological systems working coordinately to generate what we call 'consciousness'. The easier it is to satisfy the urges, desires, and needs of this emergent property, the better.
DeleteThus, the best kinds of people are probably those with Angelman syndrome, a neuro-genetic disorder characterized by severe intellectual and developmental disability, sleep disturbance, seizures, jerky movements (especially hand-flapping), frequent laughter or smiling, and usually a happy demeanor.
Imagine for a moment, that despite the illogicity and inefficiency of any and every action, you're always happy. Normal people have a pathway to happiness called 'love', that can satisfy the needs of their consciousness despite any adversity they might encounter.
Sociopaths also have methods to satisfy the needs of their consciousness, but these methods entail antisocial, rather than prosocial acts. While there is no objective morality that can be applied to judge the method by which normal or sociopathic persons achieve happiness, prosocial pathways are far less likely to be met with peer resistance than antisocial pathways.
Thus, in all practicality, it is better to be an empath than a sociopath.
The easier it is to satisfy the urges, desires, and needs of this emergent property, the better.
DeleteSays who?
While there is no objective morality that can be applied to judge the method by which normal or sociopathic persons achieve happiness, prosocial pathways are far less likely to be met with peer resistance than antisocial pathways.
Thus, in all practicality, it is better to be an empath than a sociopath.
Taking a helicopter to a mountaintop is physically easier than climbing that mountain. Yet mountain climbers exist. Why should the supposed ease of achieving one’s goals be the standard of judgment? You correctly state that no such standard exists, then you immediately sneak a proposed standard in and declare that “empath” functioning is better than “nonempath” functioning. What makes your proposed standard any more objectively superior than any other moral standard?
Have you noticed just how much conflict exists out there? The ubiquity of conflict, of all kinds, on all levels of social interaction, suggests to me that normals do not in fact have a surefire pathway to happiness called love. They fight for their moments of pleasure (of which love is a subset) using less violent, more socially acceptable means. But they fight, nonetheless. “Nonempaths” also fight to fulfill their desires, only they have a larger behavioral repertoire of tactics from which to draw from. The "empaths" advantage doesn't seem all that advantageous in that light.
The pursuit of happiness... What is happiness, really, but another chimera? And who do you know that calls themselves happy, who is not also seriously self-deluded in one way or another?
The mountain climbers present a good analogy, and it is true that some people revel in such challenges. However, the facility of reaching the peak (happiness) does not properly illustrate the social consequences associated with the two pathways (helicopter ride/prosocial or climbing/antisocial). You're unlikely to get arrested and thrown in prison for climbing a mountain. This is what I mean by peer resistance, which is to say that incarceration and possibly execution are the potential consequences of antisocial paths to happiness.
DeleteIf there were no consequences to antisocial behavior, neither path would be superior to the other. It's not a moral issue, but rather a practical one that favors prosocial behavior. Yes, there is conflict, but the disproportionate number of incarcerated psychopaths compared to empaths suggests that practically, empaths have an advantage over sociopaths.
So, empaths can achieve happiness through prosocial means, which preserve the path to happiness in the future. Sociopaths can achieve happiness through antisocial means, which commonly leads to temporary or permanent dissolution of that path, after which achieving happiness becomes exceedingly difficult.
If you were capable of deluding yourself into being happy, would you not choose happiness over other states of conscious existence?
If there were no consequences to antisocial behavior, neither path would be superior to the other.
DeleteYou are saying that consequences are the objective standard for judging one path morally superior to another. By that measure, the serial killer who takes great pleasure in murdering women and children and dies a happy man without spending a day in jail, is morally superior to the saint who was destroyed precisely because they played by the rules and were lifelong slaves to their consciences. (You know how the religious love to gruesomely kill their “prophets”.) You might say yes, indeed the happy serial killer is morally superior to the suffering saint precisely because the consequences weren’t all that bad for him. But most of the “empaths”, the group that you state are morally superior, would vociferously disagree with you.
And no, not every killer is caught. Last I checked, there was around a 60% clearance rate for homicides in the US, on average. Although that is the majority, that still leaves a very sizable minority who get away with murder every year. We’re not even including the unsolved, so called cold cases. If moral superiority is determined strictly by consequences that are correlated with happiness, then anyone smart enough and lucky enough to get away with their crimes are probably the happiest, and therefore the most moral, of us all. By your metric at least.
Yes, there is conflict, but the disproportionate number of incarcerated psychopaths compared to empaths suggests that practically, empaths have an advantage over sociopaths.
True, as a psychologically defined minority, psychopaths are overrepresented in the prison population. However, even if you grant that upwards of 25% of any prison are psychopaths, that still leaves the remainder. That 75% aren’t all mentally deranged. I’d bet most of them would count as an “empaths”. If the "empath" path is the objectively superior mode of functioning, why do any of them end up in prison?
Also, you just brushed aside the ubiquity of conflict, as if it had no bearing on your argument. The presence of conflict everywhere indicates that "empaths" are not a happy lot after all. So does the booming self help industry. The state of modern society itself indicates quite clearly that "empaths" are by no means traveling the royal road towards happiness.
If you were capable of deluding yourself into being happy, would you not choose happiness over other states of conscious existence?
Maybe. If I knew what exactly happiness was and if I knew doing so wouldn’t harm me. Congenital analgesia might sound attractive on first blush, but it can lead to serious injury or even death. Pain serves a purpose.
You still talk about happiness as if it were a real, quantifiable place. What is happiness and how do you know that it exists, much less which paths reliably lead to it and which ones don’t?
At that point you need to differentiate between contentment and happiness. A cat sleeping on your lap is content, not happy.
DeleteWe both accept that there is no objective morality that applies to everyone. My justification for this is that interpersonal relationships are too complex for a ruleset to apply to every situation in which one or more persons interact. Thus, it is more useful to discuss relative moral systems, which are not irreducibly complex. While empaths would surely disagree with me, any single person who experiences an enjoyable existence, regardless of any external judgment of his/her actions, has objectively lived a good life.
DeleteWe are comparing two groups of people, empaths (a large population) and sociopaths (a smaller population). Most empaths will experience love, which is described as a defining aspect of a fulfilling, enjoyable existence. Most sociopaths will experience an enjoyable existence through performance of antisocial acts, and most of them will be incarcerated or executed. Those who refrain from commission of such acts will not enjoy life. So, it becomes a numbers game, where an empath is more likely to enjoy existence than a sociopath. Yes, empaths end up in prison in higher absolute numbers, but the proportion of empaths that are imprisoned is much smaller than the proportion of sociopaths in prison. Since morality can only be discussed on an individual basis, empathic enjoyment of existence is more likely than sociopathic enjoyment of existence.
As an aside, my model can be applied to any subpopulation. If you reside in the U.S., it is better to be a straight white male than any other sexual orientation, race, and sex combination. The important distinction which may require definition is that I am not saying straight white males are better than any other population. That is a false statement. However, it is better to be a straight white male than anything else, and any invalidation of that statement would require one to be blind to the concept of privilege. Empaths are not better than sociopaths, but it is better to be an empath than a sociopath.
With regards to the ubiquity of conflict, I have a simple question. Do you base your perception of the omnipresence of strife on the overportrayal of violence and negativity in the media? My personal experience is that conflict is exceedingly rare. In my nearly 3 decades of experience, I have never witnessed in person a single instance of violent conflict resulting in serious injury. With regards to the self-help industry, if you are massively successful and sell 3 million copies of your book in the U.S., you have reached almost 1% of the population. The most popular self-help books are geared towards self-improvement rather than coping with problems.
I have only my own personal experience of happiness from which to draw. Whether I am a sociopath or not, the empathic paths to happiness are closed to me whereas sociopathic paths are open. Only the consequences of antisocial behavior, coupled with whatever willpower I might pretend to have, restrain me. Fortunately for everyone around me, those bonds are tight.
You bring up pain, which complicates things immensely. Considering happiness and pain as the currency by which an enjoyable experience is bought is difficult. It's like happiness is wealth and pain is debt, and your wealth and debt are in currencies that are not interconvertible, so valuation of one against the other is complicated. If debt is more heavily weighted than wealth, sociopaths come out on top due to resistance to the negative effects of physical and emotional trauma. If wealth is more heavily weighted, empaths come out on top. Complicated, complicated...
TL;DR
DeleteDo we really need to argue about whether efficiency is better than inefficiency?
"However, it is better to be a straight white male than anything else, and any invalidation of that statement would require one to be blind to the concept of privilege. Empaths are not better than sociopaths, but it is better to be an empath than a sociopath."
DeleteIt doesn't work this way because psychopaths are more parasitic and empaths are more cooperative. Therefore, the best scenario for a psychopath is to live in a world where everyone else is empathetic/cooperative.
They benefit from being a minority.
Interesting topic... I think it is too simplistic to suppose that either being a sociopath or an empath is necessarily "better". First you have to define what "better" means and in what context. I consider myself to be an empath and in so much as I have a switch - I have an understanding of what is to experience things on a sociopathic level. This could mean that my experience of life is more multi dimensional than that of a sociopath. Yet I don't know what it would be like to always be a sociopath - I can imagine. I can see some advantages to the condition of being a sociopath - akin to the advantages one might attain through being blind or deaf - one might have more chance to excel in certain areas to compensate for lack of capacity in others. I have an acquaintance who is a sociopath - contrary to many myths - sociopathy is not invisible at least not in my experience- as an empath I have always known that an aspect of his person is that he is a sociopath- I sometimes pretend that I don't know but that's more for his benefit as he likes to think his sociopathy is invisible. I'm not sure I concur with the current prevailing scientific consensus that sociopathy is irreversible... I think the natural reluctance of sociopaths to participate genuinely in useful studies of the condition means that a proper understanding of the causes of the condition will take a long time... I do think it's important that if a breakthrough is made no person should be coerced in to embarking on that developmental journey.. I make a distinction between sociopathy and psychopathy the options open to the former are likely to be more advantageous and realistic than for the latter, imo.
ReplyDeleteI will clarify that if I was a sociopath I would want the option of acquiring full spectrum emotion and empathy to add to my life experience and the advantages I'd acquired in compensating for those things.
DeleteYes and no. There is a general reluctance, but there are also biological issues in the brain which severely inhibit any sort of "fix". Brain scans have shown neurological deficiencies and damage in the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex. It is both a psychological and neurological disorder. As such, "just accept and think it better" can not build or repair the missing areas, no more than a person born without legs can will legs to grow.
DeleteI appreciate what you say ..have had a skimmy at recent publicised studies ..I note that pretty much all of those studies focus on prisoners who have committed crimes of rape and murder .. So I'm unconvinced that these subjects are any more representative of their subtype than a study of social workers for the "empath" population.... Also although it appears there may be structural manifestations in the o.f.c in the brain many of the differences in activity are in limbic activity and hormonal effects (I.e cortisol) and who's to say that these are causes as opposed to effects and possibly developmentally self propagating effects?
DeleteI found this one interesting ...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2729461/
DeleteWhile it can help developmentally to mitigate or prevent neurological damage early on (ie. before adulthood), fundamentally any resulting damage - whether chemical or otherwise - would be permanent. We do not have the technology to repair neurons. Only properly functional neurons can build the necessary synaptic pathways to regenerate any missing capabilities. This is basic neuroscience. Proper hormonal regulation can reduce any chemically-induced inhibitory effects, but it can not reverse neuronal damage - it can only allow undamaged and developed sections to work properly.
DeletePhysiology aside, psychologically it is possible for sociopaths - to use the phrase - to be "pro-social" (ie. high-functioning), which is beneficial. That being said, there is a significant difference between high-functioning sociopathy and neurotypical empathy. High-functioning sociopaths are, in concept, sociopaths who have successfully adapted to societal rules and play. In essence, those sociopaths have calibrated their survival instincts to work in society. Anecdotally, I choose not to murder someone, not because of guilt or conscience, but because the consequences are sufficiently significant enough (my freedom and my life) to make it unacceptable. Which, by the way, is the fundamental design principle behind the punishment of crimes in our legal systems in preventing crime. And in this case, it works.
It's not a matter of who is better, it's a matter of who I can tolerate.
ReplyDeleteMelissaR
Well stated.
DeleteHealthy response Melissa.
Delete@Daniel .. Nice post...but what happens if the human race finds itself in a situation equivalent to the savannah point again? .. How can you be sure that "love" is only ever a delusional state unless you have experienced it? Re your statement on morality - if that is your considered opinion on morality own it - as opposed to stating it as incontrovertible fact -it may be such for you but at the same time not for others.
ReplyDeleteNice post...
DeleteThanks.
but what happens if the human race finds itself in a situation equivalent to the savannah point again?
Those humans who adapt to their new environment (in this case, the end of civilization as we know it) will not only survive but pass along whatever it was that allowed them to successfully adapt to their offspring. Those who do not adapt will die. Same as always.
To clarify the "love is delusion" comment, love defined as an emotional experience and a behavioral output is no more a delusion than hunger and the act of eating is. Love defined as some sort of transcendental reality that gives meaning and purpose to human life most certainly is delusional.
Re your statement on morality - if that is your considered opinion on morality own it - as opposed to stating it as incontrovertible fact -it may be such for you but at the same time not for others.
Oh I most certainly do own it. The absence of evidence in favor of the existence of objective morality is indeed a fact. I wouldn’t use the word incontrovertible, since all facts are subject to change once new information becomes available. I would however feel completely comfortable placing moral realism in the same category as god. Absence of evidence sometimes really does equal evidence of absence.
Finally, just because most people believe in some kind of folk moral realism does not mean that their belief points to anything objectively real. Facts are not determined by popular vote.
Thanks for clarifying... I agree re savannah (though I'd add that parts of the world are currently in the savannah-esque state)... "love" transcendental -likely not- capable of giving meaning to experience - yes, imo... As an aside I don't recall saying that facts are determined by popular vote ! So if you have thought I was inferring such I definitely do not adhere to such a notion .. as to objective morality - I understand there is some anthropological evidence of widely held values though the manifestation of those values is wildly divergent... I do not personally subscribe to moral relativism on various grounds including infinite regress.
DeleteImagine being in a church and hearing people confess to the assembly that they´re psychopaths, scheming selfish fiends with nothing but themselves on the agenda, everyone else is just perceived as furniture or wallets. Surely cries of "rescue us from the limbs of Satan" would echo..?
ReplyDeleteUmmmmm I take it you've never heard of Jim and Tammy Bakker.
DeleteMelissaR
Since my young age I was fascinated by insects. I found various ways to kill them intricately. One day, a friend of mine said that I was doing that for nothing since insect feels nothing. Then I said if insects feels nothing, how can they live?
ReplyDeleteThings perhaps can live & prosper despite lack of pain signals to some dot-sized brain..?
DeleteYes.
DeleteAnts.
That's where humanity is heading.
Pointless, boring, unthinking automatons, who exist merely for the pleasure of squashing them, or for scorching them with high-tech weapons such as magnifiers.
Emphatic folks think of psychos like ants: trite robots devoid of compassion, humanity and the ability to appreciate things like sunsets. Socios just see sentimental turds on two legs waffling on & on about this mushy thing called "love" they´ve never experienced. There is a "link" or "bridge" that can close this gap. Leads: November. Animal circle. Paranoia.
DeleteThis is exactly why I feel like a superhero most of the time.
ReplyDeleteRe: Who is better?
ReplyDeleteIn many ways your take on this matter makes sense. As an Empath, we are driven by emotions and guided by logic as protection of our vulnerability- emotions.
In this end, it is within these emotions in which our "gut" feeling is derived from. Perhaps where we find our *meaning/purpose* in life and motive to keep moving forward- for whatever that "purpose" of being or ultimate goal may be.
Logic protects us from our own flaw. Emotions seems to serve us in finding our own "meaning in life" type thing but it is also influenced and affected by the structural constructs-rules/ethics, etc. in which humanity has created for this world. It does not make our ability to be "better" or to find the "true" meaning of life correct. The Empath route is simply an easier route to find our "purpose" in this world. But in the end, that "purpose"/"great unseen sight" does not matter, because it is subjective. Empathy is only the fuel for our wheels to keep moving forward. It is the spark for our drama; the color for our world.
Personally I rather be a Sociopath. There is an advantage to this "harder" route- that is being in control. That is truly important to me in this life, for the vast of this world is uncontrollable and out of our jurisdiction (including our own emotions). Because the "great unseen sight" or "true meaning of life" is ultimately subjective, I would rather have control and the option to choose what the former to be, and not have that choice be made for me by my emotions.
Most of the "good" emotions have negative repercussions, to many the experience is worth it. From what I have seen and experience in my entire existence, the good/gain has never outweigh the bad/loss and I have not lived a "bad" life per se.
Sociopaths have one thing we do not- control. That is far better than going through life being guided by emotions you cannot help but to feel, and therefore, revolved your life around.
P.D.
Depends on the situation. Sociopaths can adapt more easily to stressful situations (highly competitive corporate environment, war, etc.) and we can adapt more easily to stable situations.
ReplyDelete20160225 junda
ReplyDeleteadidas trainers
ugg boots
louis vuitton
burberry outlet
moncler jackets
ed hardy uk
fitflops clearance
michael kors
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton borse
coach factory outlet
coach factory outlet
toms outlet store
kate spade outlet
christian louboutin outlet
fitflops
fitflops
ugg boots
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
nike air max uk
polo outlet
ugg outlet
jordan 13
marc jacobs outlet
abercrombie and fitch
running shoes
ugg outlet store
michael kors handbags
sac longchamp
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors uk
toms outlet
cheap uggs
michael kors outlet online