sociopaths

[panzerkampfwagen]

I was recently wondering about whether sociopaths are always born, or if they can be created, intentionally or otherwise. Obviously, quite a few people are born sociopaths and as a result, every generation or so has a Joseph Mengela. However, it would only make sense to me that people could become sociopaths if they so desire and want to enough. However, that would upturn the whole concept of sociopathy being a mental illness or defect.

On a related note, is morality (or lack thereof) developed during early childhood, or is it part of the human psyche? If it was even close to being legal and could actually recieve funding, I have always wanted to "borrow" some children at birth and completely isolate them from other people and see if they have any understanding of morality or a conscience (the more voices you have in your head, the more things you can think about at one time). If they did, we may seriously have to re-evaluate our concept of the human mind.

In any event, both of these ideas came off of the "Do You Belive in God" thread that was circulating recently. Personally, I believe that the origin of morality is far more important than making up new religions. What is the logic in saying that we are held accountable for our sins if there is no true morality? Similarly, what implications would there be if there is a true, defined morality and conscience? The greatest breakthrough that all of the religions have sought the answer to might finally be answered in the next few years- by scientists.

[Kaydon]

Personally, taking no "professional" opinions/"facts" into account.

I don't believe they are mentally ill at birth, or rather I don't believe one is only born evil. I think they can be born evil, but they can also become evil. I've grown bitter over the years with the way my Government betrays it's own people and I very well could become emotion-less at this rate, reaffirming my belief that people can become cold. Morality is easily lost if one needs to, think of the spies we never hear about, they can't let their emotions and personal morals interfere with their mission.

Morality is very relative in my opinion, some believe the Bible constitutes absolute morality and all other versions are immoral, it's more of what you deem moral. Human emotion, reaction, etc. all seem to dictate what one would perceive as moral and immoral. What one person would deem moral, another won't.

I think if you isolated them, without any other human interactions really they wouldn't have a concept of morality. I think it comes from interacting with other beings, be it animals or humans. It's not hard wired into our psyche.

That's the problem, religious fanatics ignore science, they deny science.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/2618/4lj0jeuno4.png

That's religion vs. science in a nutshell.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

From what little I know about this issue you are asking the "nature or nurture" question; are they (sociopaths) born or are they "made" by outside influences or otherwise. Sociopathy is characterized by a lack of empathy as well as a lack of guilt for actions accrued by the individual.

In having little to no empathy, the individual does not feel what others may when they are in distress. Thus torture comes easy to a sociopath. Often seen are the characteristic trademarks of the "pre-murder behaviour" such as torturing puppys and other things that most people find very offensive & cowardly.

If the individual has no positive input to stop and think, to develop empathy with other people or living things; that would be a "nurture" aspect of sociopathic development. If this behaviour happened outside of adolescent experimentation; say in adulthood; that might be a "nature"-conditional phenomenon.

Everyone would like to have less guilt now & then. Guilt is not pleasant. But the sociopath is generally a coward and infantile in their social dynamics. This is NOT something to be admired, but something to be detested. Sociopaths fuck-up most pleasant situations with their selfishness. Even the penitentiary is made more of a problem as those who are not sociopathic have to deal with those who are (large percentage).

[hatal]

A good article, describing the difference between psychopath and sociopaths.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOCONNOR/428/428lect16.htm

My conclusion: better a sociopath today, than a psychopath tomorrow. According to the article (sociopath) "Everything and everybody else is mentally twisted around in their minds as objects to be used in fulfilling their own needs and desires. They often believe they are doing something good for society, or at least nothing that bad." while psychopaths "natural-born intraspecies predators who satisfy their lust for power and control by charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence...Lack of realistic, long-term goals, Parasitic lifestyle".

[megalomania]

The key defining characteristic of a sociopath is complete lack of conscience. There are other factors, but that is the big one. Now the question is can you be born without a conscience, or can it be taught out of you. Maybe that should be can a conscience not be taught into you.

Morality is a very volatile situation that depends on the situation. The whole "love thy neighbor" component of morality really goes out the window when thy neighbor is a rapist/child molester/pedophile. Some people who would be kind and compassionate to a stranger are certainly capable of murder of someone - they - don't - like -

If you were raised to believe that rape and murder are perfectly normal, and enjoyable, aspects of day to day life, that still does not mean you don't have a conscience at all, it just means you have a clear conscience about what you are doing because you don't know those things are wrong. If you were led to believe that unless the people are raped and murdered they will suffer unimaginable pain, and they are only happy when raped and murdered, you would only be a sociopath if you refused to rape and murder.

If you were raised to believe (as some children are) that every time you leave food on your plate some child in China starves to death, and then you intentionally leave food on your plate because you want Chinese children to starve to death, you might be a sociopath. Even though your parents tell you this big lie to get you to eat your broccoli, and no one is actually harmed, you desire to inflict misery because of a lack of conscience.

My favorite definition of the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath is: A psychopath will torture and murder you and enjoy it, a sociopath will watch the psychopath torture you and murder you and enjoy it.

[Kaydon]

Think about it.. Back in roman times things we see as immoral, wrong, insane, etc. were all perfectly normal. Coliseum, anyone?

It seems to change quite often, and it's all based on popular opinion.

[panzerkampfwagen]

Kaydon, I like that flow chart. It's only missing the "Start Jihad in order to defend your opinion" box.

In any case, I think that they there is a difference between the Romans and the Coliseum and complete sociopahts. Most Roman citizens would not kill anyone themselves. They saw gladitorial combat as a social spectacle and a sport. They watched people kill eachother and bet on it and had parties after watching the fights. Sociopaths kill people compulsively simply because they cannot come up with a good enough reason to not kill them and they want them dead. They would not blink twice about killing their own mothers, evaporating a coulple of pounds of mercury in an orphanage for crippled children with cancer, or running through a convent or monestary with a flamethrower and a rusty hacksaw. That is, in my opinion, what seperates people with different social standards and sociopaths. Especially the part with the rusty hacksaw, since it would take incredible determination to kill someone with one.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

If we factor in the cultural context influenced aspects of the definitions we certainly have some complications.

[megalomania]

The type of killer you described, panzerkampfwagen, is a psychopath, not a sociopath. A sociopath would not care if those things were done, and indeed would take satisfaction out of the harm of others, but would unlikely do those things without reason. The psychopath simply does not distinguish "wrong" in any way. They would kick a baby out of their way as easily as you or I would kick a rock from our path. I don't even ponder for a moment if I hurt the rock, or its feelings, nor would a psychopath consider the baby.

[hatal]

Some of the architects of the Holocaust can be considered as sociopaths. Like Reinhard Heydrich. He had no problems planning and commanding a mass-murder operation. He was an "end justifies the means" guy (in the extreme), and ofcourse he didn't felt any remorse or guilt that for sure.

In that context the psychopath was Gestapo brute who tortured the enemies of the state. Or for that matter a KGB interrogator, working for Commie sociopaths.

Atleast thats the way I see it ...

[Kaydon]

Holocaust? What? Oh you mean that thing that didn't happen during the world wars. Gotcha.

But what I was referring to about the Coliseum, is merely watching that in modern times would have you labeled as a sociopath, or a psycho. People thought that was entertainment, today it's sin.

[Rbick]

Yeah, just like the Baton death march and the dropping of nuclear weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were made up. The people who said they experienced it were liars! And all the video footage and dead bodies recovered were fake! :p


About the Coliseum: It is strange how humans have changed their views on subjects such as these. Would someone considered an average citizen back then be considered a sociopath by todays standards? Its interesting how much we have changed, yet how little we have changed, if you know what I mean. People are still killing people, just with better weapons, people still steal, people still commit adultry. Nothing is new under the sun :confused:

[hatal]

Many people would call us sociopaths or atleast antisocial. Participating in discussion about killing, weapons and explosives. Being involved in the production and use of weapons and explosives. Not to mention other subjects... But I would prefer the word unorthodox, even through the eyes of the sheep, rather than antisocial (or sociopath).


Off-topic:
Well, I think the holocaust happend. I just doubt the numbers and methods which became the backbone of a de-facto law for everybody, even historians. And so argueing against it in any way became a crime called "holocaust denial".

The jews just did what they always do: work the numbers for their benefit.

[Kaydon]

Rbick,

What does Nagasaki and Hiroshima have to do with anything? Japan asked for it when they declared Total War, making their own citizens our enemy ;)

Research Ernst Zundel, David Irving, etc.

Hatal,

Sheep would see us as those with "no life." Even though I'm pretty sure most of us live "normal" lives doing "normal" things. I grocery shop, pay my bills, have hobbies, I'm "normal" on the surface :D

Richard Kuklinski comes to mind for a sociopath of sorts. He was one twisted dude, maybe Jeffery Dahmer? Maybe he would fall into the psychopath category. It's kinda hard to distinguish for me. But I think Kuklinski was a sociopath, he was never scared, no emotion. They had an interview of him on TV once, he described in detail his crimes, and it was like a normal conversation for him.

[Defendu]

Yeah, just like the Baton death march and the dropping of nuclear weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were made up. The people who said they experienced it were liars! And all the video footage and dead bodies recovered were fake! :p

With regards to the Bataan Death March and the atomic bombing, historians don't need to dig up crackpot "witnesses" to make things up.

Hollowood/kike shamans don't have to be called out to turn pictures of dead typhus victims into "proof" of gassings.
Completely unrelated documents don't need to be construed as evidence to prove the Bataan Death March.
Tortured confessions and shrunken heads are not needed to prove the Hiroshima bombing.

There's absolutley no logical comparison of the evidence of atomic bombings and the "evidence" of the holohoax.

[Rbick]

We (the US) actually killed more people with firebombings in Japan than the Nuclear Bombings did. Maybe they just took pictures of fire bombing sites and said it was a nuclear explosion? And the radiation burns/sickness was really just an outbreak of the plague that was made to look like there was radiation poisoning. And geigercounter readings taken afterwards were really just lies by the government!

Point is: Anything can be made to sound like a hoax.

Kaydon: Thanks for the references, I will check those out. I never said you guys or I were right or wrong, I just like to put up a fight :D

[nbk2000]

Science enables one to determine the truth of events long after political agendas that created the original lies have faded into oblivion.

To use the example of a 'faked' Hiroshima, it could be said that the radiation readings were faked, since only the US had the mandate to do the readings after the war, never minding the thousands of japanese who were blinded by the flash, felt the blast, and saw the mushroom cloud.

But that wouldn't be true now, and scientists can still detect residual traces of the nuclear event in buildings that were present at the time of the attack. So that event can be proven to have happened.

Whereas, the 'gas chambers' have no residues of the Zyklon B that were purported to have been used to gas jews, yet the very chambers that everyone (even jews) agrees were used to only fumigate clothes in, have detectable levels of the poison, even after all these decades.

So all the holohoax crap is just jew whining to get sympathy and money.

[Kaydon]

Whereas, the 'gas chambers' have no residues of the Zyklon B that were purported to have been used to gas jews, yet the very chambers that everyone (even jews) agrees were used to only fumigate clothes in, have detectable levels of the poison, even after all these decades.

So all the holohoax crap is just jew whining to get sympathy and money.

That and the bogus claim of Diesel engines used for Carbon Monoxide poisoning, and it was claimed they were dead in 32 minutes.. It takes around 8 hours to die from CO poisoning in such a controlled level. Not only that, but it was claimed the Jews turned blue after death, if memory serves, when you die from CO poisoning, you turn a cherry pink or red. Plus think about it, Truckers world wide sleep in their rigs with their engines running sometimes alot of exhaust leaks into the cab, but do they die? Nope.

Oh, and the Zyklon that was used was used for delousing, IIRC.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

Many people would call us sociopaths or atleast antisocial.

This is what I mean by social context. If we all lived in San Fransisco, CA we might be deemed sociopathic IF our discussions were believed to be indicative of our actions. [To be "antisocial" we would have to digress & determine if we really wanted to interact with those around us there...] We would certainly not be PC.

The discussion of anything, I believe, cannot be a determinate of the predominate state of mental health. However if that (the discussion of weapons) is ALL one talks about - then that may provide a clue as to some of the proclivities of that person's emotional make-up.

The key here is the ACTIONS of that person within society. It may be said that if the person is a "Walter Mitty" type character and lives a vicarious life of violence and what-have-you through his discussions, then that person may have issues, indeed. But socio pathology is an action dynamic (IMO).

[Killian]

Everyone would like to have less guilt now & then. Guilt is not pleasant. But the sociopath is generally a coward and infantile in their social dynamics. This is NOT something to be admired, but something to be detested. Sociopaths fuck-up most pleasant situations with their selfishness. Even the penitentiary is made more of a problem as those who are not sociopathic have to deal with those who are (large percentage).

In penitentiaries, the percentage is estimated to be as high as 75%.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder)

---

Charles Owlen Picket described well the stereotypical sociopath, but what he lacked to include is the stereotypical extroverted sociopath's counter-part.

The introverted sociopaths; with an incredible ability to adapt to or even adopt social circumstances by taking cues from people with an observatory method. They're often dissociative to a degree and have to view society(down to an individual) and social situations objectively.. Perhaps the "good" to the "bad" sociopath that is commonly focused upon.

To the main topic: 'nature or nurture'. Either one can create/manifest a sociopath, but for a TRUE sociopath the planets must align.

[anonymous411]

The seminal work in this field is Hervey Cleckley's "The Mask of Sanity: an Attempt to Clarify Some Issues About the So-called Psychopathic Personality". Essential reading for anyone interested in the subject; I can't think of anyone who was more insightful or prescient.

http://www.quantumfuture.net/store/sanity_1.PdF

[Man Down Under]

A very interesting article about psychopaths and the military: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/146708-Twilight-of-the-Psychopaths

http://www.sott.net/signs/images/posters/sott_psycho800x600.jpg

Attached article and picture, in preparation for the inevitable 404.

[Winter Wolf]

I was discussing the differences between sociopathy and psycopathy with a psychiatrist friend of mine. He explained it quite well and used this example:

A sociopath working at an airport with the job of moving the stairs to the door of the aircraft in a freezing rainstorm will go through this process... He knows that it is cold and wet, he knows very intensely that he is quite miserable. He knows that the staircase is covered in ice and that someone will likely get very badly injured if they attempt to walk down it as is. The sociopath will push the stairs to the door of the plane and get back to his coffee and cigarette where it's warm and cozy, thinking to himself "man it sure is miserable out there".

The psychopath in the same situation would think to himself "you know... if i position this thing just right in the shadows here, no one will notice that it's icy until it's too late. He ignores the conditions outside and may not even notice the cold, wet, freezing rain while he positions himself in the shadows with his camera to get the best picture he can of the ensuing accidents and injuries. Furthermore he will likely keep the photos in a special place so that when he is bored he can visit it and relive the glory of the event.

He also stated that the sociopath knows very very well what pain is and seeks to avoid it at all costs. The psychopath cares not for avoiding pain or injury, all he cares about is completing whatever task he has set for himself. He may not even notice that he has been injured until after his task is complete.

Regarding the nature or nurture question he stated that the general consensus is that there has to be a combination of both genetic predisposition as well as a very specific set of environmental factors. Of course opinions abound for one theory or the other as well.

[JekyllandHyde]

Regarding the nature or nurture question he stated that the general consensus is that there has to be a combination of both genetic predisposition as well as a very specific set of environmental factors. Of course opinions abound for one theory or the other as well.

Most psychiatrists and biologists gave up trying to determine to what extent genetic/environmental factors influenced personality types. It surfaces to say that both genetic and environmental factors MAY contribute to one becoming a sociopath or psychopath, but it would be impossible to determine to what extent genetics/environmental stimuli caused someone to become the way that they are.