13
   

A conversation with sociopaths.

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 04:02 am
@reasoning logic,
I did not say that you said that all religious people are sociopaths. That's the problem, you have provided no definition, and your use of the term is inconsistent. You ought to be able to do better than that, but your past performance does not encourage me to believe that you will.
absos
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 04:07 am
u want to talk about truth then someone could talk truly

u all exist of the same fact, u all not all nor me

u want to define definitions in the will to get the power of existence by killin its fact being existing

u mean knowin the black holes existence so universal truth and god, to conclude that god business is to perpetruate non existence as the fact so u by doin the same while existin n present so witnessin reality of smthg while u could move out, so u believe that by contributin to make perversions forces more alive that u r goin to gain what they do gain

ur end mayb the same life but u cant gain anything, that promise of god to make u rule over what exist by killin it is pervert one makin u forever slaves of perversions life which is obvious from seein ur boss the slave in all terms of means
so when ur boss is existin slave gettin out of being boss of slavery rules, how would u get any to boss since slavery rules is busy spot so determined
anyways it is true that i dont know anything of ur subjective fancies and ways of free livings spiritually
but at least what im sure of is that truth exist and in truth even insects have more right then u to pretend existing from that urge in actin existin that u r always only from reversin

so u all here are out of agreein with perversions life that is how a sense of free will became u the existing pervert livin soul that god realize

it is very sensible how u r managed, u need to love a big pervert strong free but also u must b forced hundredpercent to refrain doing pervert things, so to keep ur sense of pervert living soul ur existence base so for u to pretend being ur free will

it is the way of existence creations of perversions life so stayin abstract like true existence so to gain any from existence forces sense

so here u mean as ur god a way to make true rights conscious of being existin illusions and u the reality by abusin them in all terms so u could pretend being them instead of them
this is ur heads spiritual life
but the less close to god while of the same existence force, stay more hypocrit believin to justify how u gain from pretendin being nice or willin to quit bein pervert
and sell what one can gain from that, n i still dont get even in concept how gains could b related to such thing

so true not pervert exist then truth is the only existence fact and also not pervert without being true exist which also prove that truth is never pervert n always straight n free so up to better straight n straight to faster superior free so more true

now for sociopsychopaths that u mean being but as a pretense u gain from that is why u dont say it clearly meanin being urselves pretenders, n u call that intelligence source

pathology is the disease that cant b individual so cant manage its objective reality and its subjective freedom in one existin stable spot, wether abstractly in mind or concretely in being matters existence

so the sick is what hold on smthg else so need constantly to see all else more sick ends from what it needs to keep a perception of its futur possible since it exists in fact constnt while sick so not right existin and that is bc of u and ur god that force existence anyhows and exclusively for rights abuse so anytime

now u r meanin to call religious psycho, which show the psycho u

pointin who mean the same as u but go to the end of it by givin it to god n not keepin some to itself like u do, cant b closer to god but by being more pervert like god so what god would do to u

big companies kill everyday their competitors potentiels noone is callin them psycho or sociopath while on the contrary everyone sees there normal behaviors standard

a psycho so sick people are who cant stay constant individually they keep contradictin themselves and cant benefit from constant value so existence sense of the ground

who deal daily with some plan that he shares with others has no problem with constancy abstraction as the base of free individul expressions about anything present or not


reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 04:31 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
I did not say that you said that all religious people are sociopaths.


I was just making it clear that just because I said you must be catholic a long time ago didn't mean that I thought all religious people were like you. Wink
djjd62
 
  4  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 04:40 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
I would like to have a conversation with sociopaths


find a politician or a lawyer (a politician who was previously a lawyer would be a sociopath squared)
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 04:56 am
@djjd62,
Quote:
find a politician or a lawyer (a politician who was previously a lawyer would be a sociopath squared)


There does seem to be some truth to this.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 05:00 am
@Lustig Andrei,
I think this weeks court directed elocutions of Jerry Sandusky are type section sociopathic behavior. He was only sorrowul about his own plight and inconveniences that prison will present , and yet he doesnt even acknowledge that hes done anything criminal against some of the most helpless among us.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 05:07 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
I was just making it clear that just because I said you must be catholic a long time ago didn't mean that I thought all religious people were like you.


What an idiot.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 05:16 am
@fresco,
Quote:
The terms "empathy" and "conscience" are psychological terms rather than sociological ones.


Will you elaborate on this?

I do realize that most all of us are capable of being antisocial at times but when I think of sociopaths I think of individuals who lack the ability to feel empathy nor do they have a conscience.

I shared this on page one but no one commented on it.

This excerpt is from: "The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless vs. the Rest of Us" by Martha Stout Ph.D. (Broadway Books, New York, 2005, ISBN 0-7679-1581-X). Martha Stout is a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School and elaborates on the tales of ruthlessness in everyday life based on her 25 years of practice as a specialist in the treatment of psychological trauma survivors.

Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern of the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken. And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools. Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless. You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience that they seldom even guess at your condition.

In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world. You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences, will most likely remain undiscovered.

How will you live your life? What will you do with your huge and secret advantage, and with the corresponding handicap of other people (conscience)? The answer will depend largely on just what your desires happen to be, because people are not all the same. Even the profoundly unscrupulous are not all the same. Some people - whether they have a conscience or not - favor the ease of inertia, while others are filled with dreams and wild ambitions. Some human beings are brilliant and talented, some are dull-witted, and most, conscience or not, are somewhere in between. There are violent people and non-violent ones, individuals who are motivated by blood lust and those who have no such appetites.

Maybe you are someone who craves money and power, and though you have no vestige of conscience, you do have a magnificent IQ. You have the driving nature and the intellectual capacity to pursue tremendous wealth and influence, and you are in no way moved by the nagging voice of conscience that prevents other people from doing everything and anything they have to do to succeed. You choose business, politics, the law, banking or international development, or any of a broad array of other power professions, and you pursue your career with a cold passion that tolerates none of the usual moral or legal encumbrances. When it is expedient, you doctor the accounting and shred the evidence, you stab your employees and your clients (or your constituency) in the back, marry for money, tell lethal premeditated lies to people who trust you, attempt to ruin colleagues who are powerful or eloquent, and simply steamroll over groups who are dependent and voiceless. And all of this you do with the exquisite freedom that results from having no conscience whatsoever.

You become unimaginably, unassailably, and maybe even globally successful. Why not? With your big brain, and no conscience to rein in your schemes, you can do anything at all.

Or no - let us say you are not quite such a person. You are ambitious, yes, and in the name of success you are willing to do all manner of things that people with conscience would never consider, but you are not an intellectually gifted individual. Your intelligence is above average perhaps, and people think of you as smart, maybe even very smart. But you know in your heart of hearts that you do not have the cognitive wherewithal, or the creativity, to reach the careening heights of power you secretly dreams about, and this makes you resentful of the world at large, and envious of the people around you.

As this sort of person, you ensconce yourself in a niche, or maybe a series of niches, in which you can have some amount of control over small numbers of people. These situations satisfy a little of your desire for power, although you are chronically aggravated at not having more. It chafes to be so free of the ridiculous inner voices that inhibit others from achieving great power, without having enough talent to pursue the ultimate successes yourself. Sometimes you fall into sulky, rageful moods caused by a frustration that no one but you understands.

But you do enjoy jobs that afford you a certain undersupervised control over a few individuals or small groups, preferably people and groups who are relatively helpless or in some way vulnerable. You are a teacher or a psychotherapist, a divorce lawyer or a high school coach. Or maybe you are a consultant of some kind, a broker or a gallery owner or a human services director. Or maybe you do not have a paid position and are instead the president of your condominium association, or a volunteer hospital worker, or a parent. Whatever your job, you manipulate and bully the people who are under your thumb, as often and as outrageously as you can without getting fired or held accountable. You do this for its own sake, even when it serves no purpose except to give you a thrill. Making people jump means you have power - or this is the way you see it - and bullying provides you with an adrenaline rush. It is fun.

Maybe you cannot be a CEO of a multinational corporation, but you can frighten a few people, or cause them to scurry around like chickens, or steal from them, or - maybe, best of all - create situations that cause them to feel bad about themselves. And this is power, especially when the people you manipulate are superior to you in some way. Most invigorating of all is to bring down people who are smarter or more accomplished than you, or perhaps classier, more attractive or popular or morally admirable. This is not only good fun; it is existential vengeance. And without a conscience, it is amazingly easy to do. You quietly lie to the boss or to the boss's boss, cry some crocodile tears, or sabotage a coworker's project, or gaslight a patient (or child), bait people with promises, or provide a little misinformation that will never be traced back to you.

Or now let us say you are a person who has a proclivity for violence or for seeing violence done. You simply murder your coworker, or have her murdered - or your boss, or your ex-spouse, or your wealthy lover's spouse, or anyone else who bothers you. You have to be careful, because if you slip up, you may be caught and punished by the system. But you will never be confronted by your conscience, because you have no conscience. If you decide to kill, the only difficulties will be the external ones. Nothing inside you will ever protest.

Provided you are not forcibly stopped, you can do anything at all. If you are born at the right time, with some access to family fortune, and you have a special talent for whipping up other people's hatred and sense of deprivation, you can arrange to kill large numbers of unsuspecting people. With enough money, you can accomplish this from far away, and you can sit back safely and watch in satisfaction. In fact, terrorism (done from a distance) is the ideal occupation for a person who is possessed of blood lust and no conscience, because if you do it just right, you may be able to make a whole nation jump. And if that is not power, what is?

Or let us imagine the opposite extreme: You have no interest in power. To the contrary, you are the sort of person who really does not want much of anything. Your only real ambition is not to have to exert yourself to get by. You do not want to work like everyone else does. Without a conscience, you can nap or pursue your hobbies or watch television or just hang out somewhere all day long. Living a bit on the fringes, and with some handouts from relatives and friends, you can do this indefinitely. People may whisper to one another that you are an underachiever, or that you are depressed, a sad case, or, in contrast, if they get angry, they may grumble that you are lazy. When they get to know you better, and get really angry, they may scream at you and call you a loser, a bum. But it will never occur to them that you literally do not have a conscience, that in such a fundamental way, your very mind is not the same as theirs.

The panicked feeling of a guilty conscience never squeezes at your heart or wakes you in the night. Despite your lifestyle, you never feel irresponsible, neglectful or so much as embarrassed, although for the sake of appearances, sometimes you pretend that you do. For example, if you are a decent observer of people and what they react to, you may adopt a lifeless facial expression, say how ashamed of your life you are, and talk about how rotten you feel. This you do only because it is more convenient to have people think you are depressed than it is to have them shouting at you all the time, or insisting that you get a job.

You notice that people who do have a conscience feel guilty when they harangue someone they believe to be "depressed" or "troubled." As a matter of fact, to you further advantage, they often feel obliged to take care of such a person. If, despite your relative poverty, you can manage to get yourself into a sexual relationship with someone, this person - who does not suspect what you are really like - may feel particularly obligated. And since all you want is not to have to work, your financier does not have to be especially rich, just relatively conscience-bound.

I trust that imagining yourself as any of these people feels insane to you, because such people are insane, dangerously so. Insane but real - they even have a label. Many mental health professionals refer to the condition of little or no conscience as "anti-social personality disorder," a non-correctable disfigurement of character that is now thought to be present in about 4 percent of the population - that is to say, one in twenty-five people. This condition of missing conscience is called by other names, too, most often "sociopathy," or the somewhat more familiar term psychopathy. Guiltlessness was in fact the first personality disorder to be recognized by psychiatry, and terms that have been used at times over the past century include manie sans délire, psychopathic inferiority, moral insanity, and moral imbecility.

absos
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 08:03 am
@reasoning logic,
u r not reasonin logic in inventin the support of unlogical reasons
u cannot take urself for granted being knowin what logics is

logics are exclusively to objects so u cant mean any logics if u mean urself or if u mean smthg that is not obvious seen by any pair of eyes

n if u do then without seekin any further identification u r provin urself will to exist as an evil living

logics are to b respected that is why maths are the only logics field to use as u want
thinkin that u can use philosophy as a section to insult logics and make it a personnal business to anyone is denyin that this is the end so no u r not goin anywhere more with or without that

philosophy is close to maths logics bc meant only in relative extremity to freedom right sense of existin right to not know or wonder or doubt

u dont respect anything but it is obvious that all is followin right n true superiority rules so everything is present accordin to some terms above u, u n ur god are not the exclusive present free possible action

u confuse guilt with sociopath, showin the evil u r, since when a sociopath know guilt since someone callin himself reasonin logic decided so
it is disgustin what u mean and how u mean it and what u deal with to mean it

a sociopath by definition dont aknowledge else existence for sure now mayb bc as i invented a reason, bc he is sick and forced to exist so not a real individual
so which confirm the point he doesnt even exist to himself to aknowledge else existence, but then by not existin the only issue possible for its existence forced is freedom ways, as sick forced then he cant invent smthg in meanin bein free, so he would b happy by holdin to freedom forces which are always perversions life

when a person like u believe in creations so a kind of god will as the reason of anything real and alive, then how would u plaide for empathy instead of freedom that never care
it is obvious that who are free from empathy are the strong sane existence of ones, which could b explained in truth confirmin what i say always that one is evil in concept and fact

everyone seem pointin this time to consciousness i dunna what that mean to u, but what is certain is what truth is pointin conscious being free so independant to existence beings and facts
so a sense of consciousness is objectively existin without being right while leanin on evil existence wills out of existence bringin them to life as supreme forces powers over existence facts and realities

it is truly a shame wat u despotically refuse any point of truth to discuss honestly by what u know and what u r really now for a certain time

reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 08:42 am
@absos,
Quote:
logics are to b respected that is why maths are the only logics field to use as u want


Are you related to Sentanta?

I thought that logic may have come from our cognitive ability to combined language with our senses that detect nature.

The ability to hear allows us to construct concepts of sound. Without having this sensation that we call hearing, I am not so sure that we would be able to construct a concept that would enable us to have the many pitches, volumes and so on of sound that we have.

The same can be said about vision "we are able to construct many concepts in this area as well.

I think the same can be said about a concept of morality which would enable us to live in a much more peaceful and wealthier society. When we can not experience empathy first hand or if our empathic radius stops short or for other reasons such as misunderstandings, we can run into problems with morality. The same can be said about other sensations that we have. We seem to have an illogical understanding of the concept at hand if we are unable to experience sensations ourselves that are close to the reality at hand.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 09:23 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Re: fresco (Post 5134930)
Quote:
Quote:
The terms "empathy" and "conscience" are psychological terms rather than sociological ones.



Will you elaborate on this?


Empathy is meaningful as identity of self with a specific other, rather than a group. Conscience is basically about "living with yourself" following a social act. It is an anthropomorphic fallacy (or category mistake) to think of these a part of the dynamics of groups unless we are prepared to argue that individual psychology underpins group behavior. Taking a simplistic analogy of an ant colony, that view is unlikely to be the case. The reverse (that sociological forces are more fundamental than psychological ones) appears to be more likely from a scientific point of view.
absos
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 10:03 am
@reasoning logic,
no u r provin more the evil livin u want to b
logics are not of ur ability or urself at all
what could b to u is only positive free ability that has nothing to do with objective logics but only to objective freedom, the absolute nothin u can b while positively existin in constant so true terms, it is about what u give to urself by being present right free will

logics are never relative but freedom is only relative

u r provin inventin logics to abuse objective rights and facts

only superiority justify logics existence which is related to

which prove that by meanin urself able to conceive logics u r exclusively meanin being superior to all objective existence
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 10:56 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Empathy is meaningful as identity of self with a specific other, rather than a group. Conscience is basically about "living with yourself" following a social act.


I can see this to be true.

Quote:
It is an anthropomorphic fallacy (or category mistake) to think of these a part of the dynamics of groups unless we are prepared to argue that individual psychology underpins group behavior. Taking a simplistic analogy of an ant colony, that view is unlikely to be the case. The reverse (that sociological forces are more fundamental than psychological ones) appears to be more likely from a scientific point of view.


This part here I struggle with a little because to me it seems that for us humans we are a product of our environment and this environment has many individual psychologies, that have an influence on us such as our parents one more often than the other and the research that we have done on our own seems to matter. It seems that it is like minded individuals who form groups and an individual psychology can have a great influence on these groups and cause paradigm shifts to take place in social behavior.

I can think of many individual's whose psychology and reasoning had a great influence on how groups think.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 11:09 am
Set wrote:
RL has said that he considers the religious devout to be sociopaths.


I wouldn't call them that. A sociopath, as I see it, is a person who doesn't have the same emotional reactions to things as "normal" people would. A sociopath might get the same thrill you or me get from a rollercoaster when he watches someone die. A sociopath is a person who lives his life in his head, and finds it hard to feel. When psychopatic killers like Dahmer, for instance, went out to kill, it was thrill seeking.

Religious fanatics are in the other end of the spectrum. They resort mostly to emotional justification for their delusions. They are not sociopaths. They are only ignorant and foolish. No less dangerous though.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 11:52 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
I can think of many individual's whose psychology and reasoning had a great influence on how groups think.


A few "queen bees" ? ....the exceptions which prove the rule ?

Consider how in Soviet Russia, dissenters were classified as "psychotic" and incarcerated for "the good of society". Consider also the Japanese wartime practice of suicide for "loss of face".

We don't like the idea of ourselves as corks being tossed about on sociological currents but even such simple phenomena as the irrationality of "fashion" should convince us that such currents exist. And is not language a cognitive fashion which we cannot avoid ?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 12:02 pm
@Cyracuz,
I pretty much agree with your reasoning here.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 12:17 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
A few "queen bees" ? ....the exceptions which prove the rule ?


I do see your point that for the most part that people are followers and those who are not are an exception.

Quote:
Consider how in Soviet Russia, dissenters were classified as "psychotic" and incarcerated for "the good of society".


Yeah it seems that a large majority will go against their best interest at times by taken away the rights of others who mean them no harm but rather trying to advance a more just society.





0 Replies
 
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 08:10 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
Define sociopath !


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.
Are you familiar with the Hare checklist?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2012 12:21 pm
Have you gotten any sociopaths in there to talk to you yet? Would you know it if you had?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2012 01:10 pm
@Setanta,
He would know if he would know as he wouldn't know if he wouldn't know...no reason to believe either way without a concrete case to Analise.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/19/2020 at 02:59:20