Sociopath....?

Trifoilum

Trifoilum

find wisdom, build hope.
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
..What have I read... o_O;

Anyway, just a random set of questions, mainly concerning distinguishing;
What differs a sociopath from the kind of people who actively tries to be charming / gaining a lot of social 'distinction', so to speak?
What differs a sociopath from the kind of people who uses emotional manipulations? I'm quite sure most sociopath uses emotional manipulations, but is all emotional manipulators sociopath?
What differs a sociopath from the sort of people who harmed us, intentionally or not? Or to be extremely shallow, 'jerks'?

Because it would seems to me that sociopath has becoming a sort of umbrella term* (which, I have to say from the comments I'd read, emotionally fueled) for either of those, or some combination of both; especially concerning our everyday lives. And....it seems there's more of it to that.
Of course, I'm not judging anything about any abuses or negative experiences those who have met, lived, and suffered the things they have described. What I'm judging is the word usage, and the blurriness that exists because of the usage*.

*)honestly, it seems to me as if using 'sociopath' in describing experiences of living with someone is a more emotionally impacting, more tragedy-evoking and more ego-boosting way of saying 'heartless, cruel JERKASS.' BUT IT'S JUST ME I DON'T KNOW THEIR LIVES.
 
A sociopath is a person who is unable to empathize with others. They do cruel and manipulative things because they don't feel a connection with others. They are unable to feel remorse for their actions. Their brains are actually wired differently from those of other people.

Charming and manipulative people still have the ability to empathize with others and create relationships/bonds with others.
 
1.failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2.deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3.impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;
4.irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5.reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6.consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7.lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;

This is just taken from wiki, but it covers what might differentiate them (sociopaths) from a normal "jerk" who's emotionally demanding.
 
It is possible to be a good, kind, and charming person and not be a socio/psycho-path. Thank goodness for that.

It is also possible to be a manipulative bastard and not be a sociopath. There is a spectrum in between the extremes.

I've known people who are sociopaths/psychopaths. They are very dangerous in multiple ways and best avoided.
 
Somewhere in the far reaches of my mind is the memory that one thing the majority of sociopaths have in common is the lack of bonding to a caregiver during infancy.
 
niffer said:
A sociopath is a person who is unable to empathize with others. They do cruel and manipulative things because they don't feel a connection with others. They are unable to feel remorse for their actions. Their brains are actually wired differently from those of other people.

Charming and manipulative people still have the ability to empathize with others and create relationships/bonds with others.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
[MENTION=3998]niffer[/MENTION] spells it out well.
A sociopath lacks the ability to think of others. They see people as tools to get what they want, period. They wear a mask of humanity that is deceiving which is what makes them dangerous.
 
I could be wrong, but I think there is a difference between sociopaths and psychopaths in that psychopaths can consider consequences and their behavior is less erratic and reckless than sociopaths.
 
vdwxmskkntz said:
Does a lack of empathy always come with a disregard for personal consequence? I'm a bit confused because I was under the impression sociopaths simply lacked empathy.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I think there is an inherent assumption in criminal law that the penal system will dissuade people from criminality, but if sociopaths don't consider personal consequences, what good is the threat of punishment? Certainly, impulsive people of all sorts, including sociopaths, will be more oblivious to the threat of punishment, at least in the moment.
 
acd said:
I could be wrong, but I think there is a difference between sociopaths and psychopaths in that psychopaths can consider consequences and their behavior is less erratic and reckless than sociopaths.
Click to expand...

My unfortunate personal experience with both types is that psychopaths are more sophisticated, subtle, and dangerous than sociopaths.
 
Endersgone said:
1.failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2.deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3.impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;
4.irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5.reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6.consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7.lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;

This is just taken from wiki, but it covers what might differentiate them (sociopaths) from a normal "jerk" who's emotionally demanding.
Click to expand...
This sounds too criminal-related...? I mean, what about the 'next-door' types?
And; [MENTION=1678]Norton[/MENTION];
My unfortunate personal experience with both types is that psychopaths are more sophisticated, subtle, and dangerous than sociopaths.
Click to expand...
Strange. Not that I doubt your words, but from what I'd read, sociopaths were generally what you'd described. The reckless, impulsive ones were psychopaths. Were I in the wrong here?
Does a lack of empathy always come with a disregard for personal consequence? I'm a bit confused because I was under the impression sociopaths simply lacked empathy.
Click to expand...
It..isn't, but the issue's more than that, I would believe. Because a lot of our daily issues are affecting our personal consequences, in the long run. From what I'd read, sociopaths notices this and thus the tendencies to mimic empathy when the need suits them.

I don't know. Still confused.
 
once you know a true sociopath you will never be confused which is which
*speaks from experience*
 
I just finished reading an artical in Psychology Today on this. Here is how the author made the distinctions:

1. A psychopath is someone who biologically lacks a conscience. He simply doesn't have any empathy--there is no physiological response to pictures that show suffering, for example. In the real world this givesw the psychopaths incredible advantages, and is why so many psychopaths end up in positions of power. You can spot the psychopath because their appeal to whatever cause varies according to whom they are speaking, but are always advantageous to the psychopath.

2. A sociopath doesn't suffer from a mental illness or physiological difference. A sociopath will latch onto one ideal, and pursue it to the exclusion of all other virtues. Their behavior is seen as nonsensical by society at large, but it will make sense within the small social community in which they are involved. They are certainly far from amoral -- they see themselves usually as acting very morally: the problem is that their morality is a kind of tunnel vision that sees only THIS virtue, and doesn't notice when they stomp all over everything else good and true and beautiful in the pursuit. Like the psychopath, they have the potential to become tyrants.

3. Most of the time we get hurt by ordinary everyday allocation of conscience, which we ourselves do as well. Basically think of doing good as "conscience dollars." You only have so many. You can choose what to spend them on, but you can't afford to buy EVERYTHING you would like, so you pick and choose. It's the old "I can't solve all the world's problems, so I will choose to solve just these few." Most of us choose on many occasions to help others. Maybe you pause on the freeway to see if the guy with the hood up needs you to phone for help. Maybe saving spotted owls is your thing. BUT... you spend your money on all sorts of stuff you don't really need while kids starve in Somalia. It's not that you are a bad person -- there is just a kind of limit to how far you are willing to screw yourself in order to help someone else. This is how your ex-whatever was so wonderful for years, but now after the divorce they are a nightmare -- they are simply allocating their conscience dollars elsewhere.
 
vdwxmskkntz said:
I wish I was a sociopath, seems like it would make life 10,000 times easier.
Click to expand...

Wow, I pity them. They will never experience emotions, love or relationships. They have no ability to be introspective or really have any self-awareness. There isn't much besides breathing that separates them from the dead. They are like vampires.

I've been in a relationship with someone that had NPD. Close to sociopath...but not quite. I couldn't IMAGINE coming in contact with a sociopath. I would fear everyone and everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top