A conversation with sociopaths.

i dont know what r u talkin about or meaning, i guess that u r creatin an objective form to ur wills to b

if truth told me ever anything is what it keeps repeatin to my perspectives and my senses that there cant b other justifications then truth, and how any pretense of other justifications is of liars always, while liars dont exist when only truth exist

let me get out of topic for a minute just to tell u smthg else that clarify my position here from my general stand relation to what is not right

what i reasonned myself alone is why im so different then others in many terms

from there some head points appeared one of the most essential is this

ur sense of superiority is the opposite to mine while superiority is the truth

for u superiority is what subjectively keep gettin higher or/and what objectively is constant in increasin itself expansion on the ground

that is how u jump to always conclude that god exist for sure since necessarily one will get it all, and that nothing exist too since necessarily by guettin higher u r meaning nothing
so everything and nothing is superiority always of one and none

stupid conclusions while truth would say evil wills ways

for me superiority is what subjectively keep never getting anything while becomin always more out clearly of any need or will concept in justifyin its present individual absolute point out of true existence fact
and/or what objectively is constant in never being related to else inferiority while always real by considerin else superiority in recognizin else existence rights from knowin itself present existence being true

in general true terms, superiority is out of what is always superior to zero as constant fact so superiority is from constancy which is truth and constncy is from freedom value which exist too, so superiority is bc of freedom and constancy that make a reality of value

but more subjectively i was meaning my sense of realizin true superiority being more to the fact of realizin that inferiority never exist as a true fact
immediately a sense of being true urself become real as present positive free sense bc there is no negative nor inferior ever

which confirm that absolute truth is exclusively from considerin the past rights in objective real terms

so what is meant from what i said is more the right of zero that allow to realize true superiority
zero was first true in what it is never negative nor inferior while constant free, realizing the objective value of zero existin is the reason of bringin superior fact out, and i guess that is why we have two freedoms and not one on each side of existence realisation, both are wat is brought out of recognizin past true rights that must come first

Define sociopath !

I suggest that your statements about "...having nothing against them..." and "...like the rest of us except..." are antithetical to any definition you might offer.

I see sociopaths similar as I see blind people or deaf people but I will elaborate on that later. I see most of us having similar problems at times but what I am interested in are those who have no empathy nor conscience what so ever.

Problem. Were the 9/11 perpetrators "sociopaths" ? No doubt they displayed selective "empathy". I suggest the definition of "sociopath" is statistical and relative to average cultural norms. And single sociopaths should be more properly termed "psychopaths". If you combine that idea with that of" a dis-unified self" (one whose empathic and logical bases are in constant flux), you might come to the conclusion that your proposed "conversation" is unlikely to be going anywhere.

as a definition i suggest sociopathology is the social disease translated by the mean to want to see others sick or to act against other being existence
in opposition to psychopathology which is more the self disease translated by meaning to get to b against itself

so the sociopath is not the psychopath when freedom is the base of anyone

but pathology is objectively the same thing, it is what look existin accidentally but actually is a negative thing so do not exist ever really

Say you define it properly, how will you "lure" the sociopaths to respond to you?
You're naive to think sociopaths will just admit to everyone of their state of mind. No, they're smarter than that, at least I'd hope so. Coming out as a sociopath is not necessarily a positive prospect for many, and I've read somewhere that sociopaths love to blend in with the normal crowd as they want to be accepted.
then there are the borderline cases.
Any way best of luck with your "conversation."

Having "no empathy" for others can describe many autistic persons who, I believe, are not generally classified as "sociopaths."

For me, a sociopath is someone who definitely does have strong feelings and emotions. He or she delights in causing emotional upsets for others,particularly if the behavior adversely affects a sizeable number of people. Sociopaths are quite dangerous to those around them. Adolf Hitler is a classic example of a megalomaniacal sociopath.

Well I would not be so sure about that and if you spend enough time you will see where some have responded in other forums.

I was reading one a while back where a person was asking if sociopaths could love their own children and I was amazed that a lady claimed to be sociopathic and said that she did not have love for her child but her child was a part of her so she would do whatever it took to make sure her daughter was safe but not out of empathy.

http://www.cix.co.uk/~klockstone/spath.htm

See my post above. Being emotionally sterile, so to speak, is not a definition of sociopathy. This woman might have thought of herself in those terms because of her inability to love her child(ren) but that's hardly a definition any mental health care professional would accept.

RL has said that he considers the religious devout to be sociopaths. You're not talking to someone with a rational argument to advance.

Always good if people can agree on the definition of terms. A rarity among some clowns here on A2k.

I have never claimed all religious people to be sociopaths. You can do better than that Setanta. My mother is religious and I do not consider her sociopathic nor do I consider most of them that way only the wolves in sheep's clothing.

Why not? Is sociopathy black and white?

From Dictionary.com --



Every definition I can find online and off stresses the aspect of antisocial behavior as a part of the definition. A merely emotionless person is not a sociopath unless that person does something atrociously sociopathic. Serial killers, generally, fall into the sociopath category. People who say, "I hate everybody" and then move on, do not.

OK I will go with that definition.




The part I am most interested in is "who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience".

These people seem to come in all types of characters but I am interested in having a conversation with the ones who will admit that they are and have a high IQ.

I seem to agree with a lot of what you had written in your post but the weird thing about the 9/11 perpetrators was that they may have thought that they were acting in a moral way. They thought that they were doing gods will and that what they were doing was going to take down an evil country's economic structure. If this is the case I do not see their acts as sociopathic but rather immoral.
I think that a sociopath does it for their self interest, now we could consider the 72 virgins waiting for them on the other side to be in their self interest but I would not think most sociopaths think that way.

I believe it was Socrates who has been quoted as saying, "No man errs willingly" or words to that effect. That being the case, I would posit that sociopaths, too, believe that their actions are honorable and, in some sense, "right" and justified. The fact that the 9/11 terrorists probably considered themselves upstanding pillars of Islamic society and acting in a moral manner does not lessen the magnitude of their crime nor, somehow, exempts them from being considered sociopaths.

I am curious too. By the way, a psychiatrist would be more likely to use the term psychopath.

Agreed. A psychopath can indulge in "sociopathic behavior" but that means "disruptive relative to the norms of groups ". The terms "empathy" and "conscience" are psychological terms rather than sociological ones.

But at the more general level this raises the issue of how a concept of self originates. Some would argue that is is acquired via the social medium of a common language as one like others.( Note for example how the early utterances of children such as "John wants one" precedes "I want one"). From this viewpoint we might argue that a psychopath has an inconsistent and perverse self concept whereas a sociopath has a consistent yet aberrant one with respect to "society as a whole". And since a religiously conditioned self can be "aberrant" outside its parochial contextual norm, this adds some weight to an argument for the sociopathogenesis of some religions.