[lightburns]

(Original post by Anonymous)
There are a lot of elaborate claims being made on this thread, like people claiming to never have felt guilt. First, that isn't something you'd have insight into. All you have are your own emotions as reference, and you cannot infer what you lack an analogy for. You cannot compare your level of guilt to someone else's if you're altogether incapable of feeling guilt. So if you're aware not "not feeling guilt" there's a good chance you most likely have

I'm comparing myself to how I used to be. Maybe that immediately strikes me off - as I felt emotions when I was a kid. Maybe that immediately means that whatever I am is not psychopathy, if it's something that has to have always been there. But it does mean that I can be very sure that I have an abnormal lack of emotion. Some things, sure, I can only compare to other people as I've always been like that. I have someone irl that I occasionally ask things to check - apparently other people really are horrified by tragedies, according to her.

Lastly, having negative thoughts and bouts of schadenfreude does not make you a psychopath. The problem with these self-report tests, is that people are likely to exaggerate their own conditions in order to get the results they want. Moreover, most people completely lack the subjective insight to answer the questions accurately.

I completely agree that self-report tests will be horrendously inaccurate. It also bothers me that I could have answered it all wrong.

I don't blame many for coming on here and self-identifying as psychopaths. It seems like a cool thing to be. Our society glamourises it and there's a live fascination with the condition. But I really doubt most of the people on here are psychopaths. To really know what it's like to be dead on the inside, just be happy that you don't actually suffer from this condition, as it is a rather lonely and dark place to live in.

If it's a lonely and dark place, that's not me. It's a cold and alone place. But not uncomfortable, and not lonely. I have no emotional connections to people, for example, but that doesn't bother me.
I do agree that it's been glamourised by society somewhat. Maybe that has influenced me. But I just want a label - any label. If it's not a developing psychopathic personality, then what is it?? For me, it's just a label that vaguely fits, which is at least a start. Others haven't come that close.

[Anonymous]

(Original post by n00)
You complain about elaborate claims then come out with this bull****.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/qu...ple-in-general

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/qu...ple-in-general

It is actually the number trait listed about psychopaths, it isn't that difficult to ascertain.

[Summa Laude]

(Original post by nexttime)
Its just because people don't know what a psychopath is. Its just a score of emotionality based on a questionnaire, not that you are a serial killer or need "special school" as suggested above.

It isn't as simple as that.

The main feature of a psychopath is that he/she registers no empathy towards others. A psychopath can be very good at being manipulative and deceitful, because he lacks remorse for his actions. There exists a plethora of other features, but all in all a psychopath is antisocial.

Whilst I agree with some others that the 1% figure is rather vague and for all we know could have just been pulled out of thin air, it is a figure quoted by many psychologists. I've heard on several occasions that as many as 20% of prison inmates would qualify as psychopaths.

You're right that psychopaths are wrongly confused with serial killers (I think the term 'psychotic' is more appropriate). But they aren't benign either.

[Anonymous]

(Original post by lightburns)
I'm comparing myself to how I used to be. Maybe that immediately strikes me off - as I felt emotions when I was a kid. Maybe that immediately means that whatever I am is not psychopathy, if it's something that has to have always been there. But it does mean that I can be very sure that I have an abnormal lack of emotion. Some things, sure, I can only compare to other people as I've always been like that. I have someone irl that I occasionally ask things to check - apparently other people really are horrified by tragedies, according to her.

Your friend is probably not a good source to base this label on. The fact is, most people are just pretending to care most of the time, but we will elicit a socially-desirable response when required or when publicly questioned. Take this for example; ask anyone if they feel sad when a baby dies, and almost every "normal person" will reply with yes. But at the same time, these normal people when confronted about their true depth of empathy for starving babies in Africa, say, probably aren't all that bothered. You see, in abstract it is easy to claim that you're bothered or would be bothered by a certain phenomenon, but in reality most people are just pretending too. Your friend will tell you that the normal response to the tsunami is horror and despair, and yet the Indonesian tsunami, whilst devastating, did not bring the world to a stand still. It's just not socially appropriate to admit this though, that's all

(Original post by lightburns)
If it's a lonely and dark place, that's not me. It's a cold and alone place. But not uncomfortable, and not lonely. I have no emotional connections to people, for example, but that doesn't bother me.
I do agree that it's been glamourised by society somewhat. Maybe that has influenced me. But I just want a label - any label. If it's not a developing psychopathic personality, then what is it?? For me, it's just a label that vaguely fits, which is at least a start. Others haven't come that close.

This makes sense. Many people do have a need to label things, as it makes life easier and more comprehensible. But psychopathy exists on a spectrum of disordered personalities and behaviours. So in choosing to label yourself a psychopath, you have chosen most extreme of available options on the basis of displaying a few outlier traits. Perhaps narcissism might be more appropriate or even borderline personality. Many traits found in psychopathy overlap with other personality disorders too. It would take an expert to give you a proper diagnosis, if you believe that your personality is really abnormal.

[nexttime]

(Original post by Summa Laude)
It isn't as simple as that.

The main feature of a psychopath is that he/she registers no empathy towards others. A psychopath can be very good at being manipulative and deceitful, because he lacks remorse for his actions. There exists a plethora of other features, but all in all a psychopath is antisocial.

Whilst I agree with some others that the 1% figure is rather vague and for all we know could have just been pulled out of thin air, it is a figure quoted by many psychologists. I've heard on several occasions that as many as 20% of prison inmates would qualify as psychopaths.

You're right that psychopaths are wrongly confused with serial killers (I think the term 'psychotic' is more appropriate). But they aren't benign either.

The data is from giving a random anonymous sample of people a questionnaire regarding emotional responses to situations 1% scored (15?) or above, so were 'psychopathic'. About the best you can do whilst maintaining anonymity.

The debate went on for a while above and i cba to do it again, but i do believe a substantial proportion are indeed benign. We're saying 620,000 psychopaths (on questionnaire) in the UK. 20,000 are in prison if we go by your figure, so 600,000 walk amongst us. If every one of them is 'not benign', then i think i'm going to find myself a bunker in the country somewhere. No?

[lightburns]

(Original post by Anonymous)
Your friend is probably not a good source to base this label on. The fact is, most people are just pretending to care most of the time, but we will elicit a socially-desirable response when required or when publicly questioned. Take this for example; ask anyone if they feel sad when a baby dies, and almost every "normal person" will reply with yes. But at the same time, these normal people when confronted about their true depth of empathy for starving babies in Africa, say, probably aren't all that bothered. You see, in abstract it is easy to claim that you're bothered or would be bothered by a certain phenomenon, but in reality most people are just pretending too. Your friend will tell you that the normal response to the tsunami is horror and despair, and yet the Indonesian tsunami, whilst devastating, did not bring the world to a stand still. It's just not socially appropriate to admit this though, that's all

True.. But there's not much else I have to go on. To give the exact context (I think I said this much earlier in the thread), it was me telling her my train of thought in response to the tsunami when I was 12, which was "*disappointment*, I had better make the most of this, could be ages til something like this happens again". But - society does have an obsession with tragedy, look at the news. Could be just that I'm more honest with myself (if not other people; I fake it irl).

This makes sense. Many people do have a need to label things, as it makes life easier and more comprehensible. But psychopathy exists on a spectrum of disordered personalities and behaviours. So in choosing to label yourself a psychopath, you have chosen most extreme of available options on the basis of displaying a few outlier traits. Perhaps narcissism might be more appropriate or even borderline personality. Many traits found in psychopathy overlap with other personality disorders too. It would take an expert to give you a proper diagnosis, if you believe that your personality is really abnormal.

Just by comparison to how I once was, I'm sure it's abnormal. I've never been strong on any of these, but 2 years ago, what I had of my emotions drained away and empathy shattered.
You are supposed to feel actual concern for people that you know well when they cry or get ill (decent likelihood of death).
You are supposed to feel guilty if you break off all contact with someone who could have used an ear when you discovered that you'd no longer be able to get sex from them.
You are not supposed to consider cutting up dead mice as the favourite activity of the week (and want to take it to live animals).
You are not supposed to have 'flip anger' that means that a insignificant trigger makes you strangle a friend.

Let me know if my assumptions of normality are wrong. They aren't a problem, not at all, but I'm sure they aren't normal.
But yes - I could well have been a bit hasty in trying to attach a particular label. Time for me to read about personality disorders I suppose. Thanks for your input.

[Summa Laude]

(Original post by nexttime)
The data is from giving a random anonymous sample of people a questionnaire regarding emotional responses to situations 1% scored (15?) or above, so were 'psychopathic'. About the best you can do whilst maintaining anonymity.

The debate went on for a while above and i cba to do it again, but i do believe a substantial proportion are indeed benign. We're saying 620,000 psychopaths (on questionnaire) in the UK. 20,000 are in prison if we go by your figure, so 600,000 walk amongst us. If every one of them is 'not benign', then i think i'm going to find myself a bunker in the country somewhere. No?

By using the term 'benign' I am not necessarily referring to a lack of violence as you are suggesting, that's just the most explicit and extreme thing a psychopath could do.

If a psychopath were to manipulate someone into doing something at their detriment, I would call that malicious, hence not 'benign'. And based on that logic, yes I do believe that psychopaths are dangerous individuals. It could be anyone from a psychopathic partner who is only using you for personal gain to the CEO of a multinational corporation who would gladly fire 1000 employees if it meant he could bag a big sum of money, not just a serial killer.

Wouldn't you agree that someone who completely lacks remorse is more likely to do something selfish and to the detriment of others?

[nexttime]

(Original post by Summa Laude)
By using the term 'benign' I am not necessarily referring to a lack of violence as you are suggesting, that's just the most explicit and extreme thing a psychopath could do.

If a psychopath were to manipulate someone into doing something at their detriment, I would call that malicious, hence not 'benign'. And based on that logic, yes I do believe that psychopaths are dangerous individuals. It could be anyone from a psychopathic partner who is only using you for personal gain to the CEO of a multinational corporation who would gladly fire 1000 employees if it meant he could bag a big sum of money, not just a serial killer.

Wouldn't you agree that someone who completely lacks remorse is more likely to do something selfish and to the detriment of others?

Perhaps. Stupid people are more likely to be detrimental to society too though. Or those with hereditary tendency for disease. When is something 'benign' and something not benign? What does that even mean? Should we section every single psychopath in the country?

[A Cat]

(Original post by nexttime)
Perhaps. Stupid people are more likely to be detrimental to society too though. Or those with hereditary tendency for disease. When is something 'benign' and something not benign? What does that even mean? Should we section every single psychopath in the country?

until you meet one and have had extended contact with them, you won't really understand them. Yes one=all of them. They all have the same traits and are rather predictable in their behaviour and reactions. 'Benign' (in this argument) in the case of the psychopath means not violent (generally). Do you know what kind of bankers were responsible for the global economic downturn? Psychopath or human? Stupid or intelligent?

In my opinion they should be removed from all human contact. This means isolating them on some island. I'd suggest one island for men and one for women. They would live in hospitable conditions with food, water and shelter (not like it really matters to them, they don't care what conditions they're in). Anyway they shouldn't be allowed to exist in civilised society because they are simply uncivilised.

[Anonymous]

(Original post by nexttime)
Perhaps. Stupid people are more likely to be detrimental to society too though. Or those with hereditary tendency for disease. When is something 'benign' and something not benign? What does that even mean? Should we section every single psychopath in the country?

(Original post by Samrout)
until you meet one and have had extended contact with them, you won't really understand them. Yes one=all of them. They all have the same traits and are rather predictable in their behaviour and reactions. 'Benign' (in this argument) in the case of the psychopath means not violent (generally). Do you know what kind of bankers were responsible for the global economic downturn? Psychopath or human? Stupid or intelligent?

In my opinion they should be removed from all human contact. This means isolating them on some island. I'd suggest one island for men and one for women. They would live in hospitable conditions with food, water and shelter (not like it really matters to them, they don't care what conditions they're in). Anyway they shouldn't be allowed to exist in civilised society because they are simply uncivilised.

Ignore the Samrout user below. He has started threads before that had to be shutdown because of making inflammatory statements and just being a troll. His rather simplistic view of humanity, as black or white, should be evidence enough that he doesn't have the most superficial of insights into people and their conditions. True, psychopaths are not benign in the strictest sense of the word, but at the end they are human. It is rather Samrout's ability to completely dehumanise a group of people and turn them into animals, that I find quite worrying. This is the same tactic used by oppressive regimes justify the persecution and holocaust of entire populations. First, you have to be able to turn a human being into an animal, strip them of their subjective qualities by labelling them "evil" and then you can do anything to them without remorse, for they are not truly "human". But really, what kind of civilised society would take up such recommendations and haul human beings off to an isolated island for suffering from a condition that they cannot help, and more so, that doesn't necessarily lead to violent manifestations? That would be truly sick. Even more sick than the malignancy of said psychopaths.

[A Cat]

(Original post by Anonymous)
Ignore the Samrout user below, he is a little bit of a troll who is completely out of his depths. He has started threads before that had to be shutdown because of making inflammatory statements and just being a troll. His rather simplistic view of humanity, as black or white, should be evidence enough that he doesn't have the most superficial of insights into people and their conditions.

Well, that would be your subjective view of the thread wouldn't it. A lot of people found my advice very helpful and those that have been dealing with psychopaths agreed with (some) of my views. I am not a troll. What books have you read please? And have you had any experience with psychopaths?

True, psychopaths are not benign in the strictest sense of the word, but at the end they are human. It is rather Samrout's ability to completely dehumanise a group of people and turn them into animals, that I find quite worrying. This is the same tactic used by oppressive regimes justify the persecution and holocaust of entire populations. First, you have to be able to turn a human being into an animal, strip them of their subjective qualities by labelling them "evil" and then you can do anything to them without remorse, for they are not truly "human". But really, what kind of civilised society would take up such recommendations and haul human beings off to an isolated island for suffering from a condition that they cannot help, and more so, that doesn't necessarily lead to violent manifestations? That would be truly sick. Even more sick than the malignancy of said psychopaths.

I'll put to you the question - what makes us human? What seperates us from the animals, from the human lookalike robots?

Right well, I'm not an oppressive regime am I? What kind of person, and notice I don't use the term human here, would have been at high levels in such regimes to have the sadistic will to carry out mass killings? Psychopaths, quite obviously! I never said they were animals. If they are not evil, are they good? We are living under the rule of psychopaths, and that is a statistical fact which can be exaggerated because psychopaths tend to chase positions of power. Furthermore just because psychopaths are not violent in person, does not mean that they will not go by the means of employing others to do their dirty work. For example, the psychopath who instigates others to do violence. Or Hitler.

If the human race was rid of all psychopaths our lives would be, objectively..., better, would they not?

edit: please quote me back in the two chunks presented to you, so as to make replies easier.

edit 2: not Hitler. Tony Blair. Kelvin McKenzie. Anders Breivik.

[darkxangel]

(Original post by Samrout)
Well, that would be your subjective view of the thread wouldn't it. A lot of people found my advice very helpful and those that have been dealing with psychopaths agreed with (some) of my views. I am not a troll. What books have you read please? And have you had any experience with psychopaths?



I'll put to you the question - what makes us human? What seperates us from the animals, from the human lookalike robots?

Right well, I'm not an oppressive regime am I? What kind of person, and notice I don't use the term human here, would have been at high levels in such regimes to have the sadistic will to carry out mass killings? Psychopaths, quite obviously! I never said they were animals. If they are not evil, are they good? We are living under the rule of psychopaths, and that is a statistical fact which can be exaggerated because psychopaths tend to chase positions of power. Furthermore just because psychopaths are not violent in person, does not mean that they will not go by the means of employing others to do their dirty work. For example, the psychopath who instigates others to do violence. Or Hitler.

If the human race was rid of all psychopaths our lives would be, objectively..., better, would they not?

edit: please quote me back in the two chunks presented to you, so as to make replies easier.

I don't think that hitler was a psychopath, he was probably crazy/psychologically damaged though.

But your other points are true imo but i wouldn't think it'd be moral to ship psychopaths away if they are willing to live their lives without doing anything evil/harmful.

[A Cat]

(Original post by darkxangel)
I don't think that hitler was a psychopath, he was probably crazy/psychologically damaged though.

But your other points are true imo but i wouldn't think it'd be moral to ship psychopaths away if they are willing to live their lives without doing anything evil/harmful.

yeah you're probably right about that.

Hitler, despite all the unusual, unpleasant, and abnormal features reported to be characteristic of him, could not, in my opinion, be identified with the picture I am trying to present. Many people whose conduct has been permanently recorded in history are described as extremely abnormal in various ways. Good examples familiar to all include Nero and Heliogabalus, Gilles de Rais, the Countess Elizabeth Báthory and, of course, the Marquis de Sade. I cannot find in these characters a truly convincing resemblance that identifies them with the picture that emerges from the actual patients I have studied and regarded as true psychopaths - Hervey Cleckley

The thing is they do evil things, most of the time it's just making people feel bad, but are capable of plenty worse acts. Whatever they do, they do it for their own personal gain, self gratification, and nothing else.

[Anonymous]

(Original post by Samrout)
I'll put to you the question - what makes us human? What seperates us from the animals, from the human lookalike robots?

What makes us human is fundamentally our consciousness, our ability to reflect on our actions and engage in second-order cognition. Following that, is our internal life, of which emotions are only a component. Psychopaths have emotions. How do I know? I am one. I won't go into my exploits or detail my profile, since you really don't seem bright enough to understand nuance. But needless to say, I have feelings, trials and tribulations, despite the asinine and irresponsible actions that I engage in from time to time. I live peaceably in society, have goals that I pursue, and do not necessarily go out of my way to hurt people. I do have a sadistic streak, but I'm aware of this, and do control it, because in fact I AM human, not an animal and can therefore control my impulses. It is easy to look at any "evil" person and deem them psychopaths, but this would be a logical fallacy. Because whilst some evil people ARE psychopathic, not all psychopaths are necessarily evil. Some of us can actually control ourselves most of the time. There is no proof that Hitler, Tony Blair, Kelvin McKenzie. Anders Breivik were psychopaths. Now you're just picking names out of the hat of people you think are bad, and labelling them psychopaths. I hope all reading this will see the flaw in your tautology.

And look at that, you have been conversing with me without even realising that you're conversing with an actual psychopath. And I guarantee you that you would never be able to tell because at the end of the day, I am just a regular person with hopes dreams and fears. It is only my internal thought processes that differ radically from the general population. It is quite unfortunate to come on here and see people like you trying to paint us all with the same stroke, as if you can judge an entire group based on what a minority of them do. Does that sound familiar? I hope so, because it's quite similar to racist and other prejudicial thinking. I think you need to seek help for your trauma and the things that your mother did to you. It has coloured your world view and caused you to seek out a scapegoat. But if you really knew sociopaths and psychopaths, outside the rather unfortunate limited exposure you have had, you'd see that we are not all the same at all. Some of us even have a hint of compassion at rare moments.

[lightburns]

(Original post by Anonymous)
What makes us human is fundamentally our consciousness, our ability to reflect on our actions and engage in second-order cognition. Following that, is our internal life, of which emotions are only a component. Psychopaths have emotions. How do I know? I am one. I won't go into my exploits or detail my profile, since you really don't seem bright enough to understand nuance. But needless to say, I have feelings, trials and tribulations, despite the asinine and irresponsible actions that I engage in from time to time. I live peaceably in society, have goals that I pursue, and do not necessarily go out of my way to hurt people. I do have a sadistic streak, but I'm aware of this, and do control it, because in fact I AM human, not an animal and can therefore control my impulses. It is easy to look at any "evil" person and deem them psychopaths, but this would be a logical fallacy. Because whilst some evil people ARE psychopathic, not all psychopaths are necessarily evil. Some of us can actually control ourselves most of the time. There is no proof that Hitler, Tony Blair, Kelvin McKenzie. Anders Breivik were psychopaths. Now you're just picking names out of the hat of people you think are bad, and labelling them psychopaths. I hope all reading this will see the flaw in your tautology.

And look at that, you have been conversing with me without even realising that you're conversing with an actual psychopath. And I guarantee you that you would never be able to tell because at the end of the day, I am just a regular person with hopes dreams and fears. It is only my internal thought processes that differ radically from the general population. It is quite unfortunate to come on here and see people like you trying to paint us all with the same stroke, as if you can judge an entire group based on what a minority of them do. Does that sound familiar? I hope so, because it's quite similar to racist and other prejudicial thinking. I think you need to seek help for your trauma and the things that your mother did to you. It has coloured your world view and caused you to seek out a scapegoat. But if you really knew sociopaths and psychopaths, outside the rather unfortunate limited exposure you have had, you'd see that we are not all the same at all. Some of us even have a hint of compassion at rare moments.

How do you know you are one, may I ask?

[Bellissima]

(Original post by Anonymous)
What makes us human is fundamentally our consciousness, our ability to reflect on our actions and engage in second-order cognition. Following that, is our internal life, of which emotions are only a component. Psychopaths have emotions. How do I know? I am one. I won't go into my exploits or detail my profile, since you really don't seem bright enough to understand nuance. But needless to say, I have feelings, trials and tribulations, despite the asinine and irresponsible actions that I engage in from time to time. I live peaceably in society, have goals that I pursue, and do not necessarily go out of my way to hurt people. I do have a sadistic streak, but I'm aware of this, and do control it, because in fact I AM human, not an animal and can therefore control my impulses. It is easy to look at any "evil" person and deem them psychopaths, but this would be a logical fallacy. Because whilst some evil people ARE psychopathic, not all psychopaths are necessarily evil. Some of us can actually control ourselves most of the time. There is no proof that Hitler, Tony Blair, Kelvin McKenzie. Anders Breivik were psychopaths. Now you're just picking names out of the hat of people you think are bad, and labelling them psychopaths. I hope all reading this will see the flaw in your tautology.

And look at that, you have been conversing with me without even realising that you're conversing with an actual psychopath. And I guarantee you that you would never be able to tell because at the end of the day, I am just a regular person with hopes dreams and fears. It is only my internal thought processes that differ radically from the general population. It is quite unfortunate to come on here and see people like you trying to paint us all with the same stroke, as if you can judge an entire group based on what a minority of them do. Does that sound familiar? I hope so, because it's quite similar to racist and other prejudicial thinking. I think you need to seek help for your trauma and the things that your mother did to you. It has coloured your world view and caused you to seek out a scapegoat. But if you really knew sociopaths and psychopaths, outside the rather unfortunate limited exposure you have had, you'd see that we are not all the same at all. Some of us even have a hint of compassion at rare moments.

don't know about anyone else but i certainly guessed you were...

[Anonymous]

(Original post by Bellissima)
don't know about anyone else but i certainly guessed you were...

You probably realised this from the things that I said in this context and the insight I was trying to provide, i.e. the sort that would only be available to an insider. But I don't really talk about such things in everyday life. It is only the veil of anonymity that has allowed be to speak candidly. However, in everyday life I steer clear of such candour and am constantly on guard to ensure that my actions do not betray my nature.

[Anonymous]

(Original post by lightburns)
How do you know you are one, may I ask?

Quite a series of things up to and including a near diagnosis. But I stopped seeing the therapist before then because I found him quite thick and incompetent. He then called my parents and tried to converse with them about my condition, dropping hints at the personality disorder.

Of course there are other clues, some self-observed, but I can't go into detail online. I might be hiding behind a veil of anonymity, but one can never be too careful about putting out information about themselves that might later be used against them. What I have however found, is that as I grew up I learnt how to control quite a few of my impulses. As a child, I was treacherous, up to the point of causing a teacher to breakdown and cry in class (that's just the most benign variety of the things I did). But as I grew up I realised that pragmatically, such behavioural acting out would not help me to get to the places I wish to go in life. I also started to take a personal pride in being able to control my darker dispositions. The result is that I don't actually really have to wear much of a mask in public, like many other psychopaths or sociopaths. This self-mastery allows me to seem fairly normal outwardly, to an extent.

I often sense though, that people can sense my coldness close up. There's something not quite there about me and even if they can't put their finger on it, some can feel it. Most people have that sort of intuition. And I guess that because I never quite mastered the wearing of a mask (having chosen to master self-control instead) there part of my real self that is left slightly bare. That said, I'm very good at acting (as you have to learn) and can easily override their apprehensions. And one myth to dispel about psychopaths since we're being somewhat candid here, is that we can be very perceptive. Contrary to popular stereotypes that suggest that we cannot sense other people's emotional expressions or reactions, we can, at least those of us that are not completely devoid on the inside. I am also very readily able to spot others who are like me, and we actually tend to like to keep another's company. So perhaps rather than trying to guess at what psychopaths are like, psychologists should employ us to suss one another out. It would provide much more insight for the general public than what is currently available right now.

[A Cat]

(Original post by Anonymous)
What makes us human is fundamentally our consciousness, our ability to reflect on our actions and engage in second-order cognition. Following that, is our internal life, of which emotions are only a component. Psychopaths have emotions. How do I know? I am one. I won't go into my exploits or detail my profile, since you really don't seem bright enough to understand nuance. But needless to say, I have feelings, trials and tribulations, despite the asinine and irresponsible actions that I engage in from time to time. I live peaceably in society, have goals that I pursue, and do not necessarily go out of my way to hurt people. I do have a sadistic streak, but I'm aware of this, and do control it, because in fact I AM human, not an animal and can therefore control my impulses. It is easy to look at any "evil" person and deem them psychopaths, but this would be a logical fallacy. Because whilst some evil people ARE psychopathic, not all psychopaths are necessarily evil. Some of us can actually control ourselves most of the time. There is no proof that Hitler, Tony Blair, Kelvin McKenzie. Anders Breivik were psychopaths. Now you're just picking names out of the hat of people you think are bad, and labelling them psychopaths. I hope all reading this will see the flaw in your tautology.

This is quite hilarious. What we are seeing in this paragraph is something called 'splitting'. It means to confuse one's real self with one's imagined self. Your imagined self here, is the psychopath. Sadly for you, your emotional intelligence is higher than the average psychopath, as is your depth of knowledge. Now you say that psychopaths have emotions - they have them on such a tiny and ego-centric scale compared to humans, that humans are incapable of empathising with psychopaths once the truth about them is known. The reason you've taken to stalking me is simply, I've said a lot of bad things about psychopaths, you've taken it personally having confused yourself with them, and your expectations are that I yield to whatever logic you come out with.

What you've done here is made claims that only you can substantiate, which is a psychopath tactic. e.g, that you feel emotions, that you can suppress your impulses, that you control your sadistic streak. This points a little bit to grandiosity - oh look at me, I've been plighted by so much but I'm so great I can overcome them - another case of splitting. You don't have a sadistic streak that's too far out from any human, and yes, while you feel emotions, they're quite limited to yourself, in that you'll be sad, sometimes crying, if you put all your eggs in one basket and didn't get what you want.

Thirdly - that was not picking names out of a hat. That was analysing their behaviour closely and how it links to a psychopath mode of thinking - motive, means, ends, reasons, aftermath.

The good news is you're more human than a psychopath, because you're not a psychopath (but close).

And look at that, you have been conversing with me without even realising that you're conversing with an actual psychopath. And I guarantee you that you would never be able to tell because at the end of the day, I am just a regular person with hopes dreams and fears. It is only my internal thought processes that differ radically from the general population. It is quite unfortunate to come on here and see people like you trying to paint us all with the same stroke, as if you can judge an entire group based on what a minority of them do. Does that sound familiar? I hope so, because it's quite similar to racist and other prejudicial thinking. I think you need to seek help for your trauma and the things that your mother did to you. It has coloured your world view and caused you to seek out a scapegoat. But if you really knew sociopaths and psychopaths, outside the rather unfortunate limited exposure you have had, you'd see that we are not all the same at all. Some of us even have a hint of compassion at rare moments.

Yes here the grandiosity of NPD really shines through. I am stupid and you are clever, is that it? I got the hint that something was *wrong* with you when you failed to acknowledge abstract comparisons in PM, and mixing up subjective and objective. I wouldn't have been able to tell you were a narcissist before this telling post. You say you have hopes, dreams and fears - all of which are largely self centred no doubt. To say your thought processes differ radically is masking what you really want to say but know you can't get a way with - "I am more intelligent than all of you", something you wrote in a previous post when you said that psychopaths are more intelligent than humans. Psychopaths may appear more intelligent, but they are really as thick as ****. You are slightly intelligent, yes, but you are not a psychopath. Now, psychopaths as a whole engage in morally-corrupt behaviour - lying, cheating, stealing, manipulating, bullying and so on. All of them do this.

Yes well done for trying to discredit what I say because my mother is a psychopath. In some ways I'm thankful for the fact that she is one, because she has woken me up from a dream you simply don't have the capability to arise from. What you have done here is confuse a lot of people as to what a psychopath actually is. They never, ever show compassion because they are literally incapable of it. You are not a psychopath, so get that out of your head, if you possibly can. While you do show a lack of empathy and self-centred emotion, you're not really as dangerous as psychopaths. Lack of empathy being, you use a troubled time in my life and turn it against me, like you cannot put yourself in my shoes.

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by james1211)
1%?? That seems really really high. So approx 1 in 100 people you meet are diagnosed psychopaths?

Try 0.0001% maybe

Is it diagnosed like a disease? Most psychopaths are not murderers, there are probably lots of successful law abiding psychopaths.