What's your opinion on sociopaths?

sprinkles said:
Yes. One without the other is dead though. Without conscience one cannot be spoken to through morality, and without morality, conscience has no impetus.
Click to expand...

Yes. This relation was always a big study in philosophy.
 
Learn to identify and avoid at all costs.
 
LucyJr said:
Yes. This relation was always a big study in philosophy.
Click to expand...

Is it really a philosophical question?

What causes conscience to actually work in a material world? Can the mechanism end up broken or absent? Moreover, why do we even have it in the first place? If one has free will then why would conscience even be necessary?

I ask because remorse is not a comfortable feeling, and such a mechanism shouldn't even be necessary if one has actual control of their self. If there is actual good then it should be sufficient to only know it, because if there's absolute good and one is actually free, conscious, and has free will, and they are aware of it, the rational choice should be entirely clear, nobody would have motive to go against it, and therefore conscience would be unnecessary.

It's like with powerful chess computers that play on master level or higher. They have no motivations to make bad moves. And there's really no reason to give them the choice of making bad moves except to dumb them down for inexperienced human players to have a chance of winning against them. Or in other words for the sake of variety and interaction, there's a level of artificial stupidity that is introduced. While a strong chess computer hypothetically can make poor choices, it's not going to because there's no reason for it unless you force it to. Why should it?
 
sprinkles said:
Is it really a philosophical question?
Click to expand...

From a philosophical stand, yes, the question pretty much must be raised there. This is an odd position, for we do not have outside of philosophy/metaphysics any other ground to even think at this question. For example, if one is a determinist, he would have to assume when he raise the problem of morality, that his own thoughts are rational and are somehow not deterministic.

The same apply for materialism and so on. This is why these views that rejects a "rational rationality" have been labelled as self-refuting ideas.

When you think at morality or consciente, you already step in methaphisics. And this is not because is true (althought it might be true too), this is because we don't have any "tool" outside of metaphysics. It has been argumentated by many classic philosophers that methaphisics is the only tool that exists whatsoever. Others have said that we can accept a reductionistic view, because we can trust actually that our thoughts are reliable even if they would have developed from material causes.

What causes conscience to actually work in a material world?
Click to expand...

It depends of ones worldview. For example for psychiatrists is just "chemical balance and imbalance" and "genetics or biological factors", just mechanics. For a platonist or a theist, he would believe in the soul-body dichotomy, that implying that soul would cause it. There is also the reductionist view, who state that conscience is developed from purely material or naturalistic causes, implying that consciensce is caused and sustained by material causes.

Can the mechanism end up broken or absent?
Click to expand...
I think it can be broken or colden ( seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron-Bible) but not really absent, maybe absent just at mentally ill people.

When I think it's broken and colden/seared, I say it only from a kind of moral/ethical affirmation. Because in reality, the conscience works just fine. The mechanism still works, only its values have been changed. For example, the psychopath is not someone with no conscience, rather he is one who has trained his conscience that killing humans for his sexual appetite is no worse than killing a cow for his culinary appetite or something like that.

Moreover, why do we even have it in the first place?
Click to expand...
Honestly, this is really confusing for many. Reductionists say its just a evolutionar or naturalistic protection for our own good. Those who are theists believe that conscience is like a lawyer/witness against/pro our moral actions, given to us by God. There are many views though, and I don't know them.

If one has free will then why would conscience even be necessary?
Click to expand...

Like I said, I think it depends. It's different than fee will, that's clear.
 
sprinkles said:
I ask because remorse is not a comfortable feeling, and such a mechanism shouldn't even be necessary if one has actual control of their self. If there is actual good then it should be sufficient to only know it, because if there's absolute good and one is actually free, conscious, and has free will, and they are aware of it, the rational choice should be entirely clear, nobody would have motive to go against it, and therefore conscience would be unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Yes, but there are many other uncomfortable feelings. If there are good feelings, by necessity there must be the possibility of uncomfortable feelings. Just as a universal idea, it has been observed that nobody has actual control of their self. Different religion and worldviews have attempted to come to an explanation of this.

If there is actual good then it should be sufficient to only know it, because if there's absolute good and one is actually free, conscious, and has free will, and they are aware of it, the rational choice should be entirely clear, nobody would have motive to go against it, and therefore conscience would be unnecessary.
Click to expand...

This is true. But the very existence of free will makes it possible to chose something or not, or chose something else. You say "the rational choice". Yes, given the conditions, that would be the rational choice. Yet it is known exactly that we do so many irational choices.
 
sprinkles said:
It's like with powerful chess computers that play on master level or higher. They have no motivations to make bad moves. And there's really no reason to give them the choice of making bad moves except to dumb them down for inexperienced human players to have a chance of winning against them. Or in other words for the sake of variety and interaction, there's a level of artificial stupidity that is introduced. While a strong chess computer hypothetically can make poor choices, it's not going to because there's no reason for it unless you force it to. Why should it?
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. Let me think at this, because I have no idea if this is a correct analogy, then I'll try to give an answer.
 
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
Yes it seems we mostly agree.

However I posit that there's nothing non-mechanical/material. Why would I posit that?

Because some things are clearly not possible, and to have the impossible (or the possible) there must be material mechanics. For example, if I have a soul, maybe I can't have your soul as well as my own. Maybe I can't be God either. If I can't do these things, there has to be a real and actual reason that I can't do them, otherwise I'll be able to do them.

In metaphysics, one can become, and overthrow God, because there's nothing which prohibits you from doing so! Without a material realm, you'd be able to do anything you can imagine. If I fancy myself as a goddess, I'd become one, because what can stop me? If there's not something that can interact with my essence in a real and mechanical way, then there's nothing that anyone or anything could do about it, is there?

However if there are mechanical laws, I can't merely fancy myself as anything (well I can try, but it won't be real). I can't possess your soul, I can't create my own legion of gummy-souls, and I can't overthrow God - if there is one - because of physical mechanics. Or my lack of sufficient ones to accomplish any of that.
 
sprinkles said:
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
Yes it seems we mostly agree.

However I posit that there's nothing non-mechanical/material. Why would I posit that?

Because some things are clearly not possible, and to have the impossible (or the possible) there must be material mechanics. For example, if I have a soul, maybe I can't have your soul as well as my own. Maybe I can't be God either. If I can't do these things, there has to be a real and actual reason that I can't do them, otherwise I'll be able to do them.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that something would be ones own nature. For example a ghost (if its to exists), it has a certain nature, with certain properties. Given those properties, that ghost is limited to the material world to an extend. She can see, walk (sort off) in material world. But she can't interact with objects, she can't "hold" material things, she can't feel in a phisical sense nothing from the material spectrum.

But this is again depending of situation. For if theism is true, then God would be the "nature" giver/establisher. He would put the borders, the limits to each objects inside His creation and creation itself.

In a theistic framework, things starts from above, from "up there", from a Being that is Perfection, from a Being that is The Essence, that can create and limit the things created. In this framework, goodness would be real and objective, intrinsic grounded by the nature of God. Evil would be something which is fake in his nature , like a parasit, something that "steal" from the essence. This is the same for order. Disorder would be a fake, something that "steals" from order, which is alone essence. The same applies to beauty, reason and other qualities.

One other think would be that in this framework, only God could be God, meaning that any thing can't have the ability to go pass beyond his very nature. Morever, it means that even God can't create something which could be another God, because that is impossible.

In a atheistic framework, the plot/the reality would have been exactly opposite. The reality goes from simple to complex, from disorder to order, from appearence/form to essence, from non-value to value, from non-reason to reason and so on. If this framework is true, then anything can pass beyond its very nature, because there is nothing that limits or hold anything.

In metaphysics, one can become, and overthrow God, because there's nothing which prohibits you from doing so! Without a material realm, you'd be able to do anything you can imagine. If I fancy myself as a goddess, I'd become one, because what can stop me? If there's not something that can interact with my essence in a real and mechanical way, then there's nothing that anyone or anything could do about it, is there?
Click to expand...

If God would exist, then I think the answer is no. Ones very nature would limit in doing so. And, as I said, if God would exist, then nothing that is created could became God. Not even God himself could do such a thing.

This is because the very nature of God is in such a way that is stand-alone, that can not be reproduce or created. God is by his nature an eternal being, with no begining and no end. If God would create a being that is to be God, that would be impossible, because its very creation (of that being) implies a begining, thus meaning that the respective being can't be God.

Edit:
Also, in a theistic framework the only thing that is ever-lasting, stand alone in its essence would be God, and God is a spiritual/methaphisical being. He is not material.

On the other hand, in a atheistic framework, everything would start from the matter, and eventually would evolve to spiritual/methaphisics.
 
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

There has to be more than one's own nature. What defines the nature?

Also besides, natures don't prevent you from using strategies. You can't very well break concrete with your finger for example, and there's a reason why you can't - it's harder than you are! But if you get a tool and chip away at it, you can break it, because its rules are set. They're set in stone (you see what I did there? haha)

There has to be something that makes the impossible be impossible. Just saying it is so is not enough. In my opinion if you don't actually know why it isn't possible in a quantifiable sense, then you don't actually know anything.
 
sprinkles said:
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

There has to be more than one's own nature. What defines the nature?

Also besides, natures don't prevent you from using strategies. You can't very well break concrete with your finger for example, and there's a reason why you can't - it's harder than you are! But if you get a tool and chip away at it, you can break it, because its rules are set. They're set in stone (you see what I did there? haha)

There has to be something that makes the impossible be impossible. Just saying it is so is not enough. In my opinion if you don't actually know why it isn't possible in a quantifiable sense, then you don't actually know anything.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. In what framework do you raise this questions, because that's very important?
Also, when you use the word nature, in what sense do you use it?

When I used the word nature, I meant nature in a philosophical sense.

The nature of an object - material or imaterial - is what properties defines that objects along with is very existence, and make it what the object is, instead of something else.

For example, the nature of the number 7, or the nature of possibility, or the nature of a chair, or a stone, or the nature of speed, or the nature of reason or logic.

So I'm not using the word nature just in a physical sense, I'm using it in a much more broad spectrum.
 
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

The only kind of nature there is - material nature. Having properties independent of thought, being itself no matter who, if anyone, looks at it.

Tell me. If nonphysical entities are given legitimacy, why do we not fear the bogeyman? He's used to scare children but after a while it no longer works. Why not? If the bogeyman can't actually get you then it isn't a thing, even if you can philosophically question it.

Philosophy is mostly good for handling emotional matters and developing strategies to accomplish things through meta knowledge. It's not really good for determining how things work or what exists (though you can use it to try and puzzle out how to figure out how to figure out how things work or what exists i.e. ontology, epistemology)
 
sprinkles said:
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

The only kind of nature there is - material nature. Having properties independent of thought, being itself no matter who, if anyone, looks at it.
Click to expand...
Your affirmation is not "material nature".
Tell me. If nonphysical entities are given legitimacy, why do we not fear the bogeyman? He's used to scare children but after a while it no longer works. Why not? If the bogeyman can't actually get you then it isn't a thing, even if you can philosophically question it.
Click to expand...
I don't know about the bogeyman think, but this is not "material nature" again.

Philosophy is mostly good for handling emotional matters and developing strategies to accomplish things through meta knowledge. It's not really good for determining how things work or what exists (though you can use it to try and puzzle out how to figure out how to figure out how things work or what exists i.e. ontology, epistemology)
Click to expand...
Again this is not "material nature".

You made three afirmations that deny everything outside of "material nature". All three affirmations are philosophical in nature.
 
LucyJr said:
Your affirmation is not "material nature".

I don't know about the bogeyman think, but this is not "material nature" again.


Again this is not "material nature".

You made three afirmations that deny everything outside of "material nature". All three affirmations are philosophical in nature.
Click to expand...

You're having a subject/object problem here.
 
There is no difference between a narcissist and a sociopath they are one in the same. The only difference being that narcissist is used when describing the process of sociopathy. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Some have confused the process of treating sociopathy with the process of observing it. In science all must be recorded there is no such thing as magical and invisible as an absent reaction. But as of late our science falters towards sociopathic ineptitude. Just watch a lecture by Ben Goldacre the man is a genius.

Failure to self reflect are the signs of no conscience. One can easily compose a word list of words used to self reflect and if the target in question shows avoidance of such words you obviously are looking at a sociopath. They lack the ability to use counterfactual thinking of any sort due to an underlying quantification problem with comparison this leaves them perplexed by the idea of past tense and prone to delusions. I like to use the works of Charles Dickens and Voltaire as references when approaching such individuals of blind ignorance.

If you want to look at sociopathy throughout history just look up "asceticism" such is a byproduct of the splitting process swapping between idealization and devaluation.
 
Just so you have a better understanding of what the DSM defines as Borderline Personality Disorder, which they consider the same as being a sociopath or a psychopath, here are the main criterias:

A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:: 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.impulsivity 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;

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist which is used in the criminal justice system has similar criteria.

If you take a look at each one, you should be able to see that they can incompass people who are harderned criminals and take pleasure in torturing and mistreating others, but it can also encompass people who enjoy manipulating people for their own gains, have no problems in lying for what they believe is the right reason, have no problem breaking the law (that doesn't have to mean murdering people but can mean stealing from the boss, doing or selling drugs, or drinking and driving), are reckless when it comes to their own safety and that of others (like speeding or driving recklessly), are irresponsible with money, are impulsive and can't plan ahead, can have a temper and be in fistfights, and always rationalizes their behaviour as having been done for a 'good reason' and never having remorse for mistreating or hurting somebody.

This shows that what the DSM considers sociopathy can encompass a wide range of people from 'serial killers' to a ruthless CEO who does't care what harm he does while trying to make the most money, or an ordinary guy (or woman) who just makes his own rules in life and doesn't consider the law or other people's feelings in his decisions and never feels bad about it.

The problem with anything that is considered a 'mental health issue' is how it is portrayed in the media. Schizoprhenics and psychopaths are used as the 'monster killers' in many shows and movies but that is not what the great majority of them are.
 
Framed said:
I think true sociopaths get their power from taking advantage of someone those who are intimidated by them, especially someone who finds it hard to belief that anyone can lack so much empathy. In other words, they develop their lack of empathy from the people they try to take advantage. If they see they can manipulate and get under your skin, and rattle you, then they will because they realize it's having an effect. That's where their power derives. If you believe they are as powerful and as dangerous as they say they are, it tends to give them more power and advantage. If they see you are affected by them, then they get the upper hand. I don't doubt they are dangerous and they usually have an mo. They generally go after those who they they believe are gullible and vulnerable. They often target those who are "simple". In other words, they get their kicks from those who they can make feel inferior and weaker. They want you to feel less or beneath them. Their goal is control and the upper hand.
Click to expand...


However, if you're not affected by them or if you are immune, you are lucky. IF you can see them a mile away and stay away, chances are you've dodged a bullet. If you're not easily affected by them, then the impact won't be as harsh. In other words, I don't always think it's a case of someone being sociopath or not. Sometimes, it's a developed trait. Depending on the response they get, they will likely adjusts their sociology and psychology to fit the person. They are excellent chameleons. They can seem normal one minute but next do something to make you shiver. So, it depends.

I also just think we may sometimes give the sociopathic label to someone as a reason or excuse for their behavior rather than this person taking personal responsibility for their actions and choosing not to take those actions. Arguing that they have no control over those apathetic feels or emotions makes it too easy for sociopath to justify and continue their behavior. It makes them feel smarter and more attuned than everyone else.

Edit: Kinda makes you think of ethics. Does the fact that someone doesn't have empathy mean they don't have ethics?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You do have a point about a sociopath deriving their sense of power from rattling people and getting under their skin because it gives them more power and advantage. I think what makes a sociopath dangerous is the combination of someone who is very smart with the lack of empathy. I don't believe that in general they go after people who are simple, on the contrary they would much prefer to outsmart somebody who is smart. It's a game that bolsters their self-esteem. There is no merit in outsmarting someone who is dumb but if you do it to someone who thinks they are smarter than you than that is power.

I truly believe that anybody could be conned by a sociopath, except perhaps another sociopath. They appear quite normal and in most cases their manipulative behaviour is not obvious. I think that is one of the differences between a narcissist and a sociopath, a narcissist will act in a way to get recognition for how great they are, sociopaths don't do it for other's recognition, they do it for themselves and they don't need others to recognize their power for them to enjoy it.

I don't like labels so I'm not completly comfortable with using the term 'sociopath' to describe somebody in my life but I do believe that the lack of empathy is real and is a type of pathology and not a normal thing for the great majority of people. I really don't think most people would choose to be this way. I think they use it as a tool to feel better about themselves.

People who lack empathy can certainly be ethical if they choose to be. People can choose to act in a certain way because they believe it is the right thing to do and not because they 'feel' for the person.
 
Last edited:
I listened to a program on the radio some time ago in which a neuroscientist discovered that he is related to murderers and that his brain scan resembles that of a psychopath... Yet he's not actually a psychopath. It's a really interesting story about how his upbringing negated his becoming a psychopath.. Here's the link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976
 
There's some pretty good advice regarding protecting oneself from people like this which I follow and recommend to others that they consider following as well. It's the three strikes and you're out rule: Catch someone lying or dishonoring some obligation once, okay, could be a mistake.

Catch someone doing it twice, well, could be an asshole.

Catch someone doing those things three times and they may or may not be a sociopath but you are most definitely best off avoiding them.

Also, someone who is overly flattering is probably just trying to be nice but if you combine overly flattering with other dishonesty or general mistreatment, that's a very bad sign.
 
La Sagna said:
You do have a point about a sociopath deriving their sense of power from rattling people and getting under their skin because it gives them more power and advantage. I think what makes a sociopath dangerous is the combination of someone who is very smart with the lack of empathy. I don't believe that in general they go after people who are simple, on the contrary they would much prefer to outsmart somebody who is smart. It's a game that bolsters their self-esteem. There is no merit in outsmarting someone who is dumb but if you do it to someone who thinks they are smarter than you than that is power.

I truly believe that anybody could be conned by a sociopath, except perhaps another sociopath. They appear quite normal and in most cases their manipulative behaviour is not obvious. I think that is one of the differences between a narcissist and a sociopath, a narcissist will act in a way to get recognition for how great they are, sociopaths don't do it for other's recognition, they do it for themselves and they don't need others to recognize their power for them to enjoy it.

I don't like labels so I'm not completly comfortable with using the term 'sociopath' to describe somebody in my life but I do believe that the lack of empathy is real and is a type of pathology and not a normal thing for the great majority of people. I really don't think most people would choose to be this way. I think they use it as a tool to feel better about themselves.

People who lack empathy can certainly be ethical if they choose to be. People can choose to act in a certain way because they believe it is the right thing to do and not because they 'feel' for the person.
Click to expand...

Agree, that it makes more sense if they target the person who thinks they are smart. It's a challenge to them. They probably wouldn't waste much time on someone who is too transparent. I've noticed that they sometimes find the person who is too simple or easy to figure out a source of amusement. However, I know someone who was married to sociopath, and no offense to her, but she was really taken for a ride by her ex. She is a very genuine and nice person, and he turned their daughter against her, and made custody a nightmare. You could say, she was gaslighted. I think he did this to get the upper hand with their daughter. It apparently is a master of manipulation and wanted to get as much leverage as he could.
 
This also makes me realize how ineffective emotional appeals are to someone who appears to be a sociopath. I now realize I've met a few along the way, and can now get why they had no sense of personal responsibility or care for what they do or how they treated others. It just hits me why expecting them to have a sense of right or wrong about what they do was unrealistic. It's almost like using feeler logic to appeal to a thinker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top