Would you consider yourself 'Eccentric'?

[G0R3Z]

Oh, so you are a high-functioning sociopath.

~Ah, I enjoyed the link. One of my gripes how people talk about Sherlock Holmes explained quite tremendously.

I also play the violin... And the Hurdy-Gurdy.

 

[Hungry Friend]

Eccentric is just another label that generally represents individuals who possess qualities that can't be explained by conventional means, so for sure yes. I'm fairly intelligent, obsessive, a perfectionist and I have lots of other little quirks that seem somewhat atypical, plus I'm an introvert who doesn't like too much attention. Socializing isn't a problem and I love talking to my girlfriend, friends and family but I have just a few people I trust enough to open up to. I don't think I'm better or worse than anyone else and really, if you think about it, almost everyone is "eccentric" in some ways, but most people feel pressured if not forced to conform to social norms and unfortunately hide their unique qualities in order to avoid being judged and/or mocked. I could be wrong but that's my personal opinion, but it's important for us all to be accepting(within reason) of peoples' differences. Group think can be great at times but it can also turn us into monsters and make us easily manipulated.

Good thread.

 

[Hells Malice]

Sociopaths lack a sense of shame, they have a very weak conscience and tend to be manipulative.

Wow that is the exact description of the general manager at the store I work at.

I never thought about it until I read that.

 

[Hungry Friend]

Wow that is the exact description of the general manager at the store I work at.

I never thought about it until I read that.

NOTE: THESE ARE EDUCATED GUESSES AND OPINIONS, NOT FACTS

I'm no expert but I have dealt with a good number of sociopaths in my younger, dumber years when I used to associate with scumbags, and the smart ones are usually VERY hard to spot. The very manipulative ones are quite good at appearing "normal" and even at faking emotions even though full blown sociopaths literally have no feelings(there are various degrees of the disorder) and literally do not understand from an emotional standpoint why it's wrong to hurt, manipulate, torture and kill people; they have no "core". They are by definition amoral. The stereotype of a psychopath/sociopath(same disorder but psychopath generally refers to violent sociopaths but imo it's exactly the same thing) is that of some raving madman, cult leader etc and while those types certainly exist, they are more likely to be flashy con men, greedy businessmen, corrupt politicians as well as other professions/walks of life that allow them to blend into society and avoid detection and suspicion.

Sociopaths are the only group of people I am genuinely bigoted against, although I admit it is wrong to be so because it appears to be completely or almost completely genetic. Sometimes those who experience horrible traumatic events lock away their emotions and can appear emotionless but imo they're really just hurt and refuse to show emotion to protect themselves mentally. That's a generalization but my point is that negative experiences can cause people to act sociopathic in some ways but real, full blown amoral sociopaths are born, not made.

In my own personal experience, the best way to deal with sociopaths is to ignore them and not respond to their attempts to hurt you and/or get you angry and emotional. They seem to crave attention and if you give them none, they will be more likely to lose interest in messing with you. For those dealing with sociopaths, proceed with extreme caution.

 

[mashers]

full blown sociopaths literally have no feelings

That's not quite true. All sociopaths experience emotion. They are perfectly capable of experiencing boredom, excitement, joy, contempt, hatred, jealousy and a range of other emotions. They tend to experience these emotions for very different reasons to neutotypicals. For example, they may experience contempt towards somebody when observing their joy, or may experience joy when seeing another suffer. They tend not to experience emotions which indicate empathy, such as compassion, tenderness or even love.

and literally do not understand from an emotional standpoint why it's wrong to hurt, manipulate, torture and kill people;

From an emotional standpoint yes this is true. Because of their lack of empathy they are able to do those things to others without having a reaction of shame, fear, revulsion etc. So as long as they are not caught and punished, there is no disincentive to their actions.

The stereotype of a psychopath/sociopath(same disorder but psychopath generally refers to violent sociopaths but imo it's exactly the same thing)

The term psychopath does not necessarily imply violence. You're right that they both refer to the same fundamental disorder, but those who use the term 'psychopath' (in a clinical sense) are usually focusing on and referring to the psychiatric characteristics, whereas those who use the term 'sociopath' tend to focus more on the way the individual functions in and interacts with society. There are some who use 'psychopath' to mean an inevitable, congenital state and 'sociopath' as one which comes about due to the individual's experiences. I don't think there is conclusive evidence either way, and like most psychiatric conditions psycho-/sociopathy is likely to arise from a combination of both congenital and experiential factors.

is that of some raving madman, cult leader etc and while those types certainly exist, they are more likely to be flashy con men, greedy businessmen, corrupt politicians as well as other professions/walks of life that allow them to blend into society and avoid detection and suspicion.

Exactly. Psychopaths are clever, and don't want to draw attention to themselves. They are extremely unpleasant, but rarely as bombastic or as dangerous as the stereotype would suggest.

 

[Hungry Friend]

I'm not entirely convinced that full-blown psychopaths(I'll just use that term from now on to avoid confusing people) are actually able to experience genuine emotion but I could be wrong. The most extreme cases including one individual I used to know was basically robotic and even had a fake laugh in order to appear "normal". You could very well be right that they are able to experience some degree of emotion in a very selfish, narcissistic sense but full blown psychopaths are 100% incapable of love, empathy, compassion and therefore cannot experience guilt or shame even if they try. I'm convinced true psychopathy is almost entirely genetic. Traumatized people who show some symptoms of the condition as well as other environmental factors do not suffer from the condition imo.

What we do agree on is that they are generally not flashy, and while most do crave attention, the intelligent ones won't compromise their "cover" in order to garner attention because their main goal other than obtaining power, control and domination over as many people and things as possible is to hide and keep their amoral nature hidden behind elaborately constructed fake public personas. It often takes years to actually detect a really good sociopath or you may never figure them out, but I advise those who see behind a psychopath's mask to NOT let them know that you know their dirty little secret. As beings with no conscience they will see you as a threat and go after you and being amoral, probably your loved ones as well. They can seem very benign at times but they are the most dangerous human beings on the planet; don't let the superficial charm/fake persona fool you!

Lastly, if you don't think you can be conned, you are more likely to be conned than most people in my view. Humble yourself and know that you, just like all of us with our limited intelligence, can easily be fooled.

 

[Coto]

mashers those points are rather interesting, in fact I truly believe facts aren't well documented in "science" per se as psychology standard treatment goes.

What society needs to learn is that those people are harmful to both society and themselves, and proper care must be taken from them, i mean to me they're socially adept psychopaths.

see:

http://pathwhisperer.info/tag/socially-adept-psychopath/

 

[Hungry Friend]

mashers those points are rather interesting, in fact I truly believe facts aren't well documented in "science" per se as psychology standard treatment goes.

What society needs to learn is that those people are harmful to both society and themselves, and proper care must be taken from them, i mean to me they're socially adept psychopaths.

see:

http://pathwhisperer.info/tag/socially-adept-psychopath/

Naturally I cannot diagnose people I do not know but I suspect that a rather large number of the world's billionaires and political leaders are socially adept psychopaths. That is admittedly a guess on my part but behaviors such as ripping people off, taking bribes, lying(especially lying) and amorally seeking profit and/or power while ignoring any harm you may be doing to others favors psychopathic personality types.

 

[mashers]

I'm not entirely convinced that full-blown psychopaths(I'll just use that term from now on to avoid confusing people) are actually able to experience genuine emotion but I could be wrong. The most extreme cases including one individual I used to know was basically robotic and even had a fake laugh in order to appear "normal".

Remember that they aim to be in control at all times. You only see what they want you to see. They are able to comprehend other people in a rather sophisticated way, so can hide what they are feeling from you. Some psychopaths also deliberately do things which appear bizarre to other people because it amuses them to unnerve other people. So the example you cited may have been 'laughing' that way because he liked seeing the people around him squirm in reaction to it.

You could very well be right that they are able to experience some degree of emotion in a very selfish, narcissistic sense but full blown psychopaths are 100% incapable of love, empathy, compassion and therefore cannot experience guilt or shame even if they try.

I agree with you on the latter point for sure. Guilt and shame are predicated on concern for others' opinions, which is something of which psychopaths are aware but are not concerned about.

I'm convinced true psychopathy is almost entirely genetic. Traumatized people who show some symptoms of the condition as well as other environmental factors do not suffer from the condition imo.

Yeah, trauma and other environmental triggers would tend to cause something like a dissociative personality disorder which develops as a defence against the trauma itself.

What we do agree on is that they are generally not flashy, and while most do crave attention, the intelligent ones won't compromise their "cover" in order to garner attention because their main goal other than obtaining power, control and domination over as many people and things as possible is to hide and keep their amoral nature hidden behind elaborately constructed fake public personas.

I completely agree. One of the few times when you see a psychopath's rue personality is when they become angry at being thwarted. This is often when the veneer slips and you see what they are really experiencing - and it's usually rage.

mashers those points are rather interesting, in fact I truly believe facts aren't well documented in "science" per se as psychology standard treatment goes.

The problem with researching psychopathy is that psychopaths are notoriously unreliable. You can rarely rely on anything they tell you, and they are able to fake a lot of normal behaviours like empathy and compassion when it suits them. They will also tend to sneer at treatment due to their arrogance and sense of superiority. They are not motivated to change, even if it were possible for them to do so. So treatment for psychopaths tends to be rather ineffective.

 

[Coto]

The problem with researching psychopathy is that psychopaths are notoriously unreliable. You can rarely rely on anything they tell you, and they are able to fake a lot of normal behaviours like empathy and compassion when it suits them. They will also tend to sneer at treatment due to their arrogance and sense of superiority. They are not motivated to change, even if it were possible for them to do so. So treatment for psychopaths tends to be rather ineffective.

This is exactly what i'm talking about. You better get a PhD in Psychology now. To "erase" such behaviours in those kind of people, the pattern i've seen effective is to unmask them and prove them wrong on at least the most repetitive pattern they use as pillars (like stablishing relationships on a certain matter tied to a trauma they had way before, in other words, a mask).

When a psychopath loses their pillars they are way weaker. I think here is where a psychologist should begin their treatment, or mark the guy as "unreliable". If he will eventually expose psychotic behaviour at least it will be easier to see.

 

[mashers]

This is exactly what i'm talking about. You better get a PhD in Psychology now.

What do you mean?

To "erase" such behaviours in those kind of people, the pattern i've seen effective is to unmask them and prove them wrong on at least the most repetitive pattern they use as pillars (like stablishing relationships on a certain matter tied to a trauma they had way before, in other words, a mask).

When a psychopath loses their pillars they are way weaker. I think here is where a psychologist should begin their treatment, or mark the guy as "unreliable". If he will eventually expose psychotic behaviour at least it will be easier to see.

That's very interesting. I didn't think proving a psychopath wrong would have any effect other than inducing rage or contempt. Are you suggesting using these techniques to reveal a psychopath, or as a form of treatment?

 

[Coto]

What do you mean?

hit the nail in the head, what we are currently deducting is what overall psychology treatment lacks a bit. because social sociopaths are still hard to track down

That's very interesting. I didn't think proving a psychopath wrong would have any effect other than inducing rage or contempt. Are you suggesting using these techniques to reveal a psychopath, or as a form of treatment?

both.

 

[Hungry Friend]

Remember that they aim to be in control at all times. You only see what they want you to see. They are able to comprehend other people in a rather sophisticated way, so can hide what they are feeling from you. Some psychopaths also deliberately do things which appear bizarre to other people because it amuses them to unnerve other people. So the example you cited may have been 'laughing' that way because he liked seeing the people around him squirm in reaction to it.


_snip_

The problem with researching psychopathy is that psychopaths are notoriously unreliable. You can rarely rely on anything they tell you, and they are able to fake a lot of normal behaviours like empathy and compassion when it suits them. They will also tend to sneer at treatment due to their arrogance and sense of superiority. They are not motivated to change, even if it were possible for them to do so. So treatment for psychopaths tends to be rather ineffective.

Can't disagree with anything you're saying really and good point about the creepy fake laugh and your point in general that they hold their cards VERY close to their vest because they cannot afford to be exposed. Also agree that they're nearly impossible to research because they can lie so convincingly and without a shred of guilt and they seem to inherently enjoy messing with and deceiving people because I suppose it's the only thing they really know how to do. Their very existence socially is one big deception because in order to blend in they have to create VERY elaborate fake personas and learn how to "act human". Arrogance is one of their weaknesses though and when they get too arrogant, they may start to show their true colors briefly.

It is indeed a very enigmatic disorder that unfortunately happens to be both incredibly dangerous as well as currently untreatable. Psychology and psychiatry are still in the dark ages compared to much of medical science as a whole and much of it is guess work despite the DSM and such, not to mention the fact that many psychiatrists are nothing but greedy pill pushers. Mental health treatment is still in its infancy and I really hope it advances significantly in our lifetimes.

 

[mashers]

hit the nail in the head, what we are currently deducting is what overall psychology treatment lacks a bit. because social sociopaths are still hard to track down.

Oh I see! Well I do intend to do a PhD once I finish my masters, but I intend to research autism

So, once a psychopath has been exposed as such, would this exposure work in the therapist's favour? I mean, once the patient knows that the therapist has uncovered what they are, wouldn't they become more resistant to the therapist's actions?

Can't disagree with anything you're saying really and good point about the creepy fake laugh and your point in general that they hold their cards VERY close to their vest because they cannot afford to be exposed. Also agree that they're nearly impossible to research because they can lie so convincingly and without a shred of guilt and they seem to inherently enjoy messing with and deceiving people because I suppose it's the only thing they really know how to do. Their very existence socially is one big deception because in order to blend in they have to create VERY elaborate fake personas and learn how to "act human". Arrogance is one of their weaknesses though and when they get too arrogant, they may start to show their true colors briefly.

I agree with everything you've said! I would add that despite how unpleasant they are, I do find psychopaths quite fascinating.

It is indeed a very enigmatic disorder that unfortunately happens to be both incredibly dangerous as well as currently untreatable. Psychology and psychiatry are still in the dark ages compared to much of medical science as a whole and much of it is guess work despite the DSM and such, not to mention the fact that many psychiatrists are nothing but greedy pill pushers. Mental health treatment is still in its infancy and I really hope it advances significantly in our lifetimes.

The main problem I think is with assessment. Nothing in psychology and psychiatry is directly observable. You can only observe the patient's behaviour (which includes self-report) and infer the possible causes. Then you try some treatment and hope for the best, with no way of directly observing the outcome. Compare this to medicine - if you put on the ointment and the rash is gone, then the rash is gone

 

[Coto]

Oh I see! Well I do intend to do a PhD once I finish my masters, but I intend to research autism

So, once a psychopath has been exposed as such, would this exposure work in the therapist's favour? I mean, once the patient knows that the therapist has uncovered what they are, wouldn't they become more resistant to the therapist's actions?

1) they will, and they will know that they are uncovered now and you can either focus on their willpower to change aspects of their mind (ie: "its not correct to manipulate people like that because you can go as far as causing a crime indirectly because x,y or z" or you can prescribe them as mentally ill (which is where the law enforcement comes in), so they would have a track of their behavior. I have seen that social psychotic behavior in people whose aspect extends from their personality, will try at all costs to be socially accepted, and if they fail at that, the burden will be much worse than for a normal guy that tried to make some friends.

This is very important, because you can at this point check if the subject motives are normal or abnormal .

2) Well this is why the research of the social psychopath is important, because it will allow public entities (jobseek, government, medical field) to build effective teams.

 

[FAST6191]

I would add that despite how unpleasant they are, I do find psychopaths quite fascinating.

If this sort of thing interests you then I highly suggest grabbing a copy of a book called confessions of a sociopath ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Confessions-Sociopath-Spent-Hiding-Plain/dp/1447242734/ ). I would not use it as a reference manual or anything but it was a fascinating read never the less.

Compare this to medicine - if you put on the ointment and the rash is gone, then the rash is gone

Not quite. There is a reason we do double blind tests with placebos by default for everything that it is at least ethical to do that for.

Also on "Nothing in psychology and psychiatry is directly observable." then the whole functional MRI/NMR thing and a whole raft of related concepts would beg to differ. There is still the whole wiring thing (I can see a tumour growing and pressing on things or problems with blood supply but often the simple "wiring" remains more of a mystery) and certainly it is a problem in neuroscience related fields but to say it is the entire picture would be wrong.


Anyway OP I have a question. It is said that people do not like silence and will tend to punctuate things with ums or at least try to make some sound. Many I have seen that would have share similar traits to those you describe seem to have no problem with silence. How do you find yourself here?

 

[mashers]

If this sort of thing interests you then I highly suggest grabbing a copy of a book called confessions of a sociopath ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Confessions-Sociopath-Spent-Hiding-Plain/dp/1447242734/ ). I would not use it as a reference manual or anything but it was a fascinating read never the less.

Thanks! I'll check it out.

Not quite. There is a reason we do double blind tests with placebos by default for everything that it is at least ethical to do that for.

Great point! I hadn't thought of that. I was trying to illustrate that medicine is more concrete than psychiatry. I realise it's not quite so black and white, but at least you can see a rash/tumour/broken bone, but something like psychopathy can't actually be seen, only its effects on behaviour.

Also on "Nothing in psychology and psychiatry is directly observable." then the whole functional MRI/NMR thing and a whole raft of related concepts would beg to differ. There is still the whole wiring thing (I can see a tumour growing and pressing on things or problems with blood supply but often the simple "wiring" remains more of a mystery) and certainly it is a problem in neuroscience related fields but to say it is the entire picture would be wrong.

I'm certainly not hugely well read on fMRI studies, but what I've read about it in the field of autism has left me slightly sceptical about this field of study. Take the work of Simon Baron-Cohen. He takes neutotypical people and scans their brains while they do empathy-like behaviours. He sees what lights up in the brain and infers that these are the areas responsible for empathy. He then takes autistic people and does the same thing, and because the areas he has designated the empathy regions don't activate in the same way, he infers that people with autism don't have empathy (or cognitive empathy at least). I think this is a dangerous set of assumptions. I can tell you from both personal and professional experience that people with autism can achieve cognitive empathy, but it's harder for us than it is for neurotypicals. We need to think consciously about the context and the clues, but with sufficient focus we can do it. So fMRI and other related technologies allow us to image the pattern of activation in the brain, but so far I'm not aware of any way for them to explain what the brain is actually doing. Again, we have to resort to self-report to expose this.