Psychopaths

[Facade]

The issue of psychopathy seems to me to be a matter which is both widely misunderstood as well as neglected. Recent estimates state that .75% of the United States population is psychopathic. It is not known how many of these people are full-blown psychopaths. The condition of psychopathy is most often associated with its corresponding characteristic of lack of empathy. Mention the word "psychopath", and the first thing that comes to mind for many people is a murderer, often a serial killer. And indeed most serial killers are psychopaths. However, most psychopaths aren't serial killers.

Exactly what is psychopathy? It is a salient neurological configuration which produces a corresponding, qualitatively unique form of consciousness. Perhaps the best reference for understanding this state of consciousness would be Hervey Cleckley's book The Mask of Sanity, which is available for free in PDF format, and I will provide a link to this book in case anyone is interested. Research has shown that a true psychopath is born and not made. They are not able to genuinely care for others. They see no value in truth and are only honest when they think it would be most effective. The connection from their emotional centers to the centers of higher cognition are weak and they are emotionally under-aroused. For this reason they must learn how normal people work on an emotional level and learn to mime them.

The most severe of psychopaths are those with the worst emotional deficits. Some of their behaviors strike the normal man as bizarre, extreme, and irrational. Good examples of such psychopaths are found in the case studies from Cleckley's book. Some speculate that severe psychopaths are not even conscious, or that they are severely dissociated. I would say based on the neurological data that they simply lack certain aspects of consciousness which are found in the normal man, such as the impetus toward moral behavior (moderated by areas of the prefrontal cortex) and a lower level of emotional cognition (due to reduced matter in the uncinate fasciculus tract).

Despite their aberrant behavior, psychopaths are not insane. In fact, one of Cleckley's diagnostic criterion was "absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking." There have been many incarcerated psychopaths who when questioned about their deceptive nature, basically retort that all people have their games (in strikingly similar wordings). That is, people have emotionally-laden delusions that become indistinguishable from their realities. Psychopaths seem to lack these delusional models or at least have much less-developed forms of them. Therefor they don't project like other people do and seem able to see people's "games" for what they are. They understand the emotional significance of such games and they know how to play to them, hence the notorious manipulative ability of the psychopath. Famous psychopathy researcher Robert Hare says that psychopaths are intuitive psychologists. Psychopaths also often self-report a lack of a stable or well-formed identity. Is this not because identity is a set of thoughts that one delusionally believes defines oneself out of some emotional need? A need which would be either absent or reduced in the psychopath? And does this not all suggest that the psychopath is inherently a being more guided by logic?

I would also like to point out for those of you familiar with Nietzsche that many people have pointed out parallels between the idea of Übermensch and the psychopath. Might the psychopath be a born Übermensch? I think it is also worth noting that Nietzsche's amoral philosophy, particularly from Thus Spoke Zarathustra onward, might be interpreted as praising or encouraging the very characteristics psychopaths seem to innately possess. I would like to hear the thoughts of others.

Here are some links for more information on psychopathy:

http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm A link to Cassiopaea, a member of the very interesting Quantum Future Group. Seems to demonize psychopaths—be aware of bias.
http://www.google.com/search?q=psychopa ... afe=images A directory of key pages from the blog Neurological Correlates which investigates the neurology and consciousness of psychopaths.
http://neuralmechanics.blogspot.com/201 ... pathy.html An article I wrote on psychopathy earlier this year.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/sanity_1.PdF Hervey Cleckley's book, The Mask of Sanity.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 647438214# A documentary on psychopathy. Appears to have an incriminating narrative (note the music)—be aware of bias.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaTfdKYbudk Video on the psychopathic brain.

[Blair]

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5444&hilit

[Facade]

Interesting. It's a shame they piled so much on him at once and drove him away (that would be my guess to why he stopped responding). Strangely, everything about this person bears a very strong resemblance to a friend of mine. Down to a T...even career interests and reading materials. Some parts of the punctuation seem familiar too. I'll have to ask him if he ever posted here next time I see him, maybe he will make a return if it was indeed him.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I would also like to point out for those of you familiar with Nietzsche that many people have pointed out parallels between the idea of Übermensch and the psychopath. Might the psychopath be a born Übermensch? I think it is also worth noting that Nietzsche's amoral philosophy, particularly from Thus Spoke Zarathustra onward, might be interpreted as praising or encouraging the very characteristics psychopaths seem to innately possess. I would like to hear the thoughts of others.

Psychopaths appear at the low end of the scale of conscience, philosophers at the high end. This is an important distinction. While Nietzsche's Übermensch might appear amoral or immoral, since he's creating new or different morals, he can only create after destroying what was there strongly developed in the first place; he overcomes. Morality, conscience and character always have been alien to the psychopath and he will never create anything like that for himself. He's a borrower, an empty vessel, the "Untermensch", with no attachment at all to truth and very strongly attached to various pretty low level emotional excitements.

The ordinary human being hangs in between Unter and Über. It's fascinating how normal at the surface both extreme types can appear when not paying closer attention to what's actually happening.

[Facade]

Psychopaths appear at the low end of the scale of conscience, philosophers at the high end. This is an important distinction. While Nietzsche's Übermensch might appear amoral or immoral, since he's creating new or different morals, he can only create after destroying what was there strongly developed in the first place; he overcomes. Morality, conscience and character always have been alien to the psychopath and he will never create anything like that for himself. He's a borrower, an empty vessel, the "Untermensch", with no attachment at all to truth and very strongly attached to various pretty low level emotional excitements.

The ordinary human being hangs in between Unter and Über. It's fascinating how normal at the surface both extreme types can appear when not paying closer attention to what's actually happening.

So if I understand correctly, according to your view the conscience of the philosopher (Nietzsche's 'free spirit') is so developed that it transcends conventional morality? I am in agreement with you if that is indeed your position. Additionally you are correct in noting that Nietzsche does make frequent reference to an "overcoming" as the process of becoming an Übermensch, and that the psychopath does not do any overcoming. He is born into an amorality, as opposed to consciously developing some view of morality via logic. It appears to me you have done well in pointing out that while there are some parallels between an Übermensch and a psychopath, these are basically superficial coincidental resemblances.

However, I do still feel that in some aspects the psychopath is a sort of super-human. The naturalness with which manipulation comes to them is not simply a consequence of lacking empathy. It is a result of lacking a quality of emotional influence upon higher cognition. It is because they lack this cognitive component that they are free from delusional thinking. And it is precisely because they are free from delusional thinking that manipulation/people skills come so naturally to them; they see things for what they really are. You say that character is alien to psychopaths. Is not character a set of delusions about things one believes to be indicative of oneself? Perceptions of right and wrong, good and bad, founded upon emotion?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

However, I do still feel that in some aspects the psychopath is a sort of super-human. The naturalness with which manipulation comes to them is not simply a consequence of lacking empathy. It is a result of lacking a quality of emotional influence upon higher cognition.

Perhaps one could say the psychopath's mind doesn't bother with the usual "petty" concerns? It might create a lot of mental space for focusing on whatever is desired for whatever reason. I wouldn't call it an mind free of concern, actually some of the obsessive behavior would indicate the small concerns are replaced by some overarching large concern. But that concern might seem irrelevant to others, or 'cheap' gratification. For the psychopath it might mean much more.

And it is precisely because they are free from delusional thinking that manipulation/people skills come so naturally to them; they see things for what they really are.

What I suspect is that because of the types of experiences they engage in, fearlessly, unconcerned, they do gain some unusual perspectives, including perhaps how to see petty concerns as the petty concerns they are, and seeing how other people are so attached to them, open for manipulation. But all the indications are there that the psychopath is wholly incapable to see his own gross self-delusion. It's possible his mind just maintains the proper blind spots by carefully selecting his exposure, to minimize any threat to the delusion.

Is not character a set of delusions about things one believes to be indicative of oneself? Perceptions of right and wrong, good and bad, founded upon emotion?

Character in the usual sense extents toward a pattern of behavior and ingrained habits. And a strong character is usually comfortable with it, independent of any realization of it being illusive or relative. Perhaps psychopaths are not that relativistic, they think they found out how others tick but also that is necessarily limited and often not very well checked on consistency. I believe the psychopath is necessarily shallow.

By the way, I never thought Lentitudo was an actual psychopath. Hard to say from a few posts but it seemed he was merely exploring the possibility, based on discovering the ruthless exchanges of social interaction ("coinage of emotion") and perhaps a realization of his own basic amoral deeper nature. But I think in his case it might be a stage and a seeking of a label, some identity perhaps?

[Carmel]

Diebert van Rhijn:

The ordinary human being hangs in between Unter and Über. It's fascinating how normal at the surface both extreme types can appear when not paying closer attention to what's actually happening.


Carmel:

That's an interesting observation, and I agree any similarities are merely superficial.

From Facade's first link:

"Another extremely interesting study had to do with the way psychopaths move their hands when they speak. Hand movement can tell researchers a lot about what are called "thought units." The studies indicate that psychopaths' thoughts and ideas are organized into small mental packages. This is handy for lying, but makes dealing with an overall, coherent, integrated complex of deep thoughts virtually impossible.

Most people are able to combine ideas that have consistent thought themes, but psychopaths have great difficulty doing this. Again, this suggests a genetic restriction to what we have called the Juvenile Dictionary. Not only are they using extremely restricted definitions, they cannot, by virtue of the way their brains work, do otherwise. Virtually all of the research on psychopaths reveals an inner world that is banal, sophomoric, and devoid of the color and detail that generally exists in the inner world of normal people. This goes a long way to explain the inconsistencies and contradictions in their speech."
--
Add to this the fact that psychopaths are highly narcissistic and the end result is a rather boring individual. Whether Lentitude was actually a psychopath or not I couldn't say, but nearly everything he said was about himself. He claimed to have an interest in philosophy and science, but never engaged in these subjects in any meaningful way. He may have expressed these interests as mimicking behaviour to illicit "trust" from this particular group. He admits to using his insights into human nature to manipulate people, as a method to alleviate boredom. All in all, not
a very interesting or high minded individual.

[Facade]

Perhaps one could say the psychopath's mind doesn't bother with the usual "petty" concerns? It might create a lot of mental space for focusing on whatever is desired for whatever reason. I wouldn't call it an mind free of concern, actually some of the obsessive behavior would indicate the small concerns are replaced by some overarching large concern. But that concern might seem irrelevant to others, or 'cheap' gratification. For the psychopath it might mean much more.

I would say that they do not care about most petty concerns. You may be right in judging that might create a sort of 'mental space', which, if I am understanding you correctly, is a high availability of attention. It is generally believed in the field that severe psychopaths have less internal dialogue, which would mean less interference. However I have never seen any data to support that idea. I believe you present the idea that the psychopath's lack of petty concerns creates some vacuum which other concerns fill, and if I have understood correctly, we are in disagreement on that point. My thoughts are this: concerns are anxieties caused by threats (real or potential) to some valued thing. If psychopaths do not value as many things, it follows they are going to have less anxiety.

Lack of anxiety, impulsivity, and inability to fulfill long-term plans are all standard diagnostic characteristics of psychopaths (see PCL-R). It seems to me those characteristics evince that psychopaths with their emotional under-arousal do not value many of the things that a normal man might value. I think it is not so much that psychopaths are unable to care about the cause and effect relationship their actions have (some theorize this is so), but more that psychopaths often do not find value in the effects and so do not care. If a psychopath doesn't care one bit about some person or the opinion that person holds of them, they aren't going to mind ruining that relationship. Most people would be of the opinion that such behavior is self-destructive. Certainly many a psychotherapist has. They see folly in such behavior because they themselves value things which the psychopath discards freely. Back to the issue of concerns: Because psychopaths view most relationships in terms of structures of dominance, they might be more concerned than the average person with presentation and hierarchy status. There are probably a few other concerns which are common to psychopaths and uncommon to the average man, but I think that overall the psychopath is going to have a far smaller set of concerns.

What I suspect is that because of the types of experiences they engage in, fearlessly, unconcerned, they do gain some unusual perspectives, including perhaps how to see petty concerns as the petty concerns they are, and seeing how other people are so attached to them, open for manipulation. But all the indications are there that the psychopath is wholly incapable to see his own gross self-delusion. It's possible his mind just maintains the proper blind spots by carefully selecting his exposure, to minimize any threat to the delusion.

Character in the usual sense extents toward a pattern of behavior and ingrained habits. And a strong character is usually comfortable with it, independent of any realization of it being illusive or relative. Perhaps psychopaths are not that relativistic, they think they found out how others tick but also that is necessarily limited and often not very well checked on consistency. I believe the psychopath is necessarily shallow.

I do not think that psychopaths gain an understanding of the pettiness of petty concerns or of manipulation because of their fearless unconcern. A psychopath is fearless and unconcerned because of emotional under-arousal. And it is because they are underaroused that they do not need to fabricate stories about reality. I will illustrate what I mean by this. We've all heard of karma, and the effectively similar saying, "what goes around, comes around." The notion that there is karma makes less sense than astrology, but plenty of people still believe in it anyway. "What goes around, comes around" is the motto of people who have been hurt or are appalled by pain, and they derive some security from thinking the universe really operates in that manner. It isn't logic that leads them to such conclusions, it is emotion. The logic has holes in it, and if you think about the concept of karma realistically, it falls apart in 5 seconds or less.

Beliefs such as "there is karma" come from reasoning in the service of emotion; there is some emotional stimulus and rationality is used to respond to that stimulus in order to create a sense of security (security plays a large role in everyone's life). That is the essence of delusion. And we find this very same rationality in the service of emotion as a major component in the development of human personalities. In my view a sense of self is a breeding ground for delusion, and people with a strong sense of identity are more or less pervaded by delusions. I cannot see how any person can be defined by some set of affective characteristics or mannerisms, I can only see how these things might develop and become ingrained because of internal needs. A psychopath is shallow as you point out, but is that necessarily a bad thing in the context of my argument?

You also have said that psychopaths are blind to their own delusions. I have no well-formed opinion on this. What delusions do you think psychopaths might suffer from?

By the way, I never thought Lentitudo was an actual psychopath. Hard to say from a few posts but it seemed he was merely exploring the possibility, based on discovering the ruthless exchanges of social interaction ("coinage of emotion") and perhaps a realization of his own basic amoral deeper nature. But I think in his case it might be a stage and a seeking of a label, some identity perhaps?

It is of course impossible to know a great deal about someone based upon some text they post on the internet. What I can say is one of my friends is a psychopath, and Lentitudo sounded uncannily like my friend. We were even studying Latin together back in March (lentitudo is a Latin word), and I had brought to his attention an essay contest for Atlas Shrugged. He might have listened to that book on his stolen iPod? And he is right now a physics major but he considered medicine? I can certainly see this Lentitudo being a psychopath, and if he is, I assume he would have come here partly out of boredom, and partly for the stage. Psychopaths don't really get to keep dialogues going once they start being honest; most people become afraid of them. It must be refreshing and amusing for them to have frank discussions about their condition. But given the ambiguity involved here, it is certainly possible that you are correct.

[Facade]

Most people are able to combine ideas that have consistent thought themes, but psychopaths have great difficulty doing this. Again, this suggests a genetic restriction to what we have called the Juvenile Dictionary. Not only are they using extremely restricted definitions, they cannot, by virtue of the way their brains work, do otherwise. Virtually all of the research on psychopaths reveals an inner world that is banal, sophomoric, and devoid of the color and detail that generally exists in the inner world of normal people. This goes a long way to explain the inconsistencies and contradictions in their speech."
--
Add to this the fact that psychopaths are highly narcissistic and the end result is a rather boring individual. Whether Lentitude was actually a psychopath or not I couldn't say, but nearly everything he said was about himself. He claimed to have an interest in philosophy and science, but never engaged in these subjects in any meaningful way. He may have expressed these interests as mimicking behaviour to illicit "trust" from this particular group. He admits to using his insights into human nature to manipulate people, as a method to alleviate boredom. All in all, not
a very interesting or high minded individual.

As I said when I posted that link, be aware of bias at Cassiopaea. You can tell by the choice of wording there that they aren't particularly fond of psychopaths. It appears to me that the function behind that web site's articles on the condition is to spread awareness of what is conceived to be an intraspecies predator. It is a good web site run by intelligent people, but there goal is not to help people understand psychopathy objectively; their goal is to prevent normal people from being hurt by psychopaths. You only need look at the titles of the articles to affirm what I am stating. Now bearing that in mind, the web site is a very good resource, but one must do some separation of data from narrative. The quotation you cited gives us a good representation of Cassiopaea's opinion of the described phenomena, but let's also consider things from the psychopath's point of view.

Imagine that you've grown up your whole life never experiencing empathy. While you can see in others that there is some kind of bonding emotion they feel which has a profound effect on their behaviors, you yourself lack this. And because you cannot bond with others, people to you do not have the same magical quality they do to everyone else; they seem the same to you as a car or a computer—things which behave by certain protocol and can be useful for oneself. You have found that when your perception of things reveals itself in your behavior, people react negatively. And maybe in certain situations that is not the kind of effect you want to have on them. So while you do not see the use of an object (human) beyond its function relative to you (just as most normal people would not bond with a car), you learn to act as if you had this bonding mechanism because it is the best thing for you to do to get what you want. Normal people use language to promote and express the bonding mechanism, as well as to manipulate the environment. Psychopaths use language exclusively to manipulate.

I would argue that a large part of the typical 'self' is an effect of a feedback loop between the bonding mechanism (expressed as psychic states and behavior) and social stimuli. So to a normal observer the psychopath would have a "barren" inner world because the psychopath's actual self is perhaps exclusively a set of desires or basic functional principles (this ties in with my last response to Diebert). When asked about this internal world he likely attempts to verbally simulate a normal one by lying, but probably does a poor job of doing so. I believe the inconsistencies and contradictions in the psychopath's speech are not so much results of a barren inner landscape as Cassiopaea argues, but rather a result of how they relate to others—as objects which might do something useful if manipulated correctly.

Considering Lentitude, if he was a psychopath, he was not here to please anyone but himself. That is how a psychopath always is, but they realize that in many interactions it is useful to be pleasant to others, hence the psychopathy diagnostic factor on the PCL-R "Glibness/superficial charm." A psychopath would come to a forum called "Genius Forum" to hear what people who might be geniuses (or who are at least somewhat intelligent) think about him. I suppose the basic theme of my response is consider the psychopath's experience. You seem to find them boring, but I recognize that they are very good at some things, and I like to know how they are good at them. I'm also open-minded and I like to develop my model of reality.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I believe you present the idea that the psychopath's lack of petty concerns creates some vacuum which other concerns fill, and if I have understood correctly, we are in disagreement on that point.

While I did say "replace", perhaps that would imply too much a certain direction in the cause and effect. It might be very well that a larger concern (need) has pushed out the smaller ones. Or that he just takes the shortest route, a route which is available because of the lack of inhibition. Most short and quick routes to gratification (comfort, pleasure, reassurement) are blocked to some degree by higher conscience functions.

I think it is not so much that psychopaths are unable to care about the cause and effect relationship their actions have (some theorize this is so), but more that psychopaths often do not find value in the effects and so do not care.

One could wonder why they would care if they have so many other sources available to achieve similar effects (rewards). The game or planning strategy could quickly make the evaluation.

I think that overall the psychopath is going to have a far smaller set of concerns.

The question remains however if this means anything good in this context. If I'm born without taste buds, I might lack the concern about how food tastes. But it can hardly be seen as advantage or comparable with someone who stopped caring about it after eating many delicious things.

And it is because they are underaroused that they do not need to fabricate stories about reality.

Some would call that a complete lack of depth of ability to handle the complexity of reality. Of course with that kind of lack, all stories become obsolete. It might be interesting to think about the survival strategy of someone unable to cope with or respond to complexity, the layered, symbolic nature of our experiences. Does he become like a parasite, does he need to cling on to those who do have their stories?

We've all heard of karma, and the effectively similar saying, "what goes around, comes around."

Karma is nothing but cause and effect, that everything has consequences and one cannot just escape or undo the consequences of past events, perhaps even from past generations. It's one of those stories which help to understand something of the complexity of existence and our role in it. It's really a very logical concept although at times abused to turn it into something more mystical.

In my view a sense of self is a breeding ground for delusion, and people with a strong sense of identity are more or less pervaded by delusions. I cannot see how any person can be defined by some set of affective characteristics or mannerisms, I can only see how these things might develop and become ingrained because of internal needs. A psychopath is shallow as you point out, but is that necessarily a bad thing in the context of my argument?

The ego in the sense you describe above is important during growing up and defines a more or less functional place in the world. The challenge is to outgrow the delusional elements. The shallow psychopath remains the bottom-feeder in this scenario but in societies where the majority doesn't outgrow the main delusions, psychopaths might prosper, like a shark in a fish pond.

You also have said that psychopaths are blind to their own delusions. I have no well-formed opinion on this. What delusions do you think psychopaths might suffer from?

It seems to me their inherent lack remains a mystery to themselves since they have absolutely no interest in it. It's just not on the radar, as it would be a grave concern which needs emotional triggers to enable them to care. How successful in life a psychopath could become you think? Is there always a road to self-destruction or short-term gain and long-term loss? The literature is not clear on this.

Psychopaths don't really get to keep dialogues going once they start being honest; most people become afraid of them. It must be refreshing and amusing for them to have frank discussions about their condition. But given the ambiguity involved here, it is certainly possible that you are correct.

Would a real psychopath feel any need to discuss his own condition? Where is the benefit in that? Where's the game? The only benefit I can imagine is to those who are not psychopaths but somehow want to play with the idea, to confirm it inside some elobarate conservaton. Which would point to a kind of complex emotional need which is of course alien to a psychopath.

[Facade]

While I did say "replace", perhaps that would imply too much a certain direction in the cause and effect. It might be very well that a larger concern (need) has pushed out the smaller ones. Or that he just takes the shortest route, a route which is available because of the lack of inhibition. Most short and quick routes to gratification (comfort, pleasure, reassurement) are blocked to some degree by higher conscience functions.

I would say he takes the "shortest route." I read that psychopaths have a larger repertoire of behavior because they aren't inhibited from behaving antisocially. I think Hare said that.

I think it is not so much that psychopaths are unable to care about the cause and effect relationship their actions have (some theorize this is so), but more that psychopaths often do not find value in the effects and so do not care.

One could wonder why they would care if they have so many other sources available to achieve similar effects (rewards). The game or planning strategy could quickly make the evaluation.

It isn't just that they have fewer limitations on behavior. What I was making reference to when I said that they don't care about cause and effect relationships their behaviors have, is that many of them end up suffering the consequences of the many things they do for instant gratification. Especially the very severe psychopaths, I assume a lot of them wind up in jail or the asylum. The psychopaths from Mask of Sanity are shining examples of how the psychopath is riddled with self-defeating apathy. People with that severity of psychopathy probably would have done fine in the pre-civilization but in today's society they're maladjusted.

I think that overall the psychopath is going to have a far smaller set of concerns.

The question remains however if this means anything good in this context. If I'm born without taste buds, I might lack the concern about how food tastes. But it can hardly be seen as advantage or comparable with someone who stopped caring about it after eating many delicious things.

That's a good point. I am of the opinion that having concerns isn't very important because of the temporal nature of human existence; I think we should maximize pleasure and minimize displeasure. Though I also understand that pleasure and emotional sensations in themselves are pretty vapid subjective experiences programmed by an evolved behavior regulation mechanism.

We are all run by our primitive machinery. Even the philosopher who thinks he is transcending his animal nature by behaving according to some abstract principles is really just fulfilling his need to not feel confined. He creates the illusion he has escaped from his own nature, but of course it is impossible for an animal to do be anything but an animal or to exhibit behaviors an animal does not exhibit. Really the only way out of being an animal is suicide. My view is, if we're animals we might as well not try to pretend that we aren't.

Some would call that a complete lack of depth of ability to handle the complexity of reality. Of course with that kind of lack, all stories become obsolete. It might be interesting to think about the survival strategy of someone unable to cope with or respond to complexity, the layered, symbolic nature of our experiences. Does he become like a parasite, does he need to cling on to those who do have their stories?

I am not sure. I don't see why being emotionally underaroused would make someone unable to philosophize though. Philosophy in itself is more of a cerebral function, an attempt to logically understand the universe. Psychopaths do feel joy (or something like it) and many seem to find enjoyment in intellectual pursuits. A psychopath I am friends with does seem interested in matters of philosophy and science and seems much more capable of understanding matters of those fields than the average man. However I am not certain; what makes you feel they can't understand the complexity of reality?

Karma is nothing but cause and effect, that everything has consequences and one cannot just escape or undo the consequences of past events, perhaps even from past generations. It's one of those stories which help to understand something of the complexity of existence and our role in it. It's really a very logical concept although at times abused to turn it into something more mystical.

I consider what you describe to be determinism because karma has by definition a connotation of a causal relationship between good and bad. To me it assumes there are real things such as good and bad and that they directly correlate. If I kill someone in the woods, I will face the consequences if the authorities find out I am responsible. If I am caught it is not because the "badness" of my actions have brought about a counteractive "goodness."

The ego in the sense you describe above is important during growing up and defines a more or less functional place in the world. The challenge is to outgrow the delusional elements. The shallow psychopath remains the bottom-feeder in this scenario but in societies where the majority doesn't outgrow the main delusions, psychopaths might prosper, like a shark in a fish pond.

The only way I can see one outgrowing some delusional elements is by either reducing a sense of self-definition or creating new delusions to replace the old. What elements of self beyond the instinctual direction of pleasure seeking are not delusional?

It seems to me their inherent lack remains a mystery to themselves since they have absolutely no interest in it. It's just not on the radar, as it would be a grave concern which needs emotional triggers to enable them to care. How successful in life a psychopath could become you think? Is there always a road to self-destruction or short-term gain and long-term loss? The literature is not clear on this.

Well it is a general statement that they have no interest in themselves. Some or possibly most are not reflective while others are. Ted Bundy seemed to understand himself pretty well. And I don't see any delusion in not being reflective. I think the psychopath's ability to cope depends to some extent upon the severity of the disorder. That is, there is a certain severity beyond which the person simply cannot fit in because they lack the control needed to cope with modern society. Before that point cutoff point, the adaptability of a pyschopath depends upon what they value. Some want to kill people, some want to be rich, some just want to be. Cleckley toward the end of his book said it is almost inevitable that a psychopath will succeed in the social realm. Keep in mind that very few people can identify a psychopath. Not many people are aware of the condition, and of that group only so many actually understand it.

Would a real psychopath feel any need to discuss his own condition? Where is the benefit in that? Where's the game? The only benefit I can imagine is to those who are not psychopaths but somehow want to play with the idea, to confirm it inside some elobarate conservaton. Which would point to a kind of complex emotional need which is of course alien to a psychopath.

Many of them may not see the point in discussing their condition. Most psychopaths, like most other people, enjoy conversation. They are human too and they have certain desires as social animals. Psychopaths find pleasure in discourse but do not bond or feel the need to do so. They especially enjoy talking about themselves. Understanding people on an empathic level and understanding people on an intellectual level are two different things. I don't think many (if any?) psychopaths see others as meaningless entities. Perhaps this article can clarify: http://www.sociopathworld.com/2009/06/s ... ds_15.html. In reference to what you describe as "elaborate conservation"...surely a great deal of internet 'psychopaths' exhibit this.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I would say he takes the "shortest route." I read that psychopaths have a larger repertoire of behavior because they aren't inhibited from behaving antisocially.

Would the repertoire not reside in some particular area only? The behavior involved in addressing short-term goals?

Even the philosopher who thinks he is transcending his animal nature by behaving according to some abstract principles is really just fulfilling his need to not feel confined. He creates the illusion he has escaped from his own nature, but of course it is impossible for an animal to do be anything but an animal or to exhibit behaviors an animal does not exhibit. Really the only way out of being an animal is suicide. My view is, if we're animals we might as well not try to pretend that we aren't.

And yet there are many different kinds of animals, many possessing aspiring traits. So even when admitting to our animal nature, there's still a hierarchy of animals to attempt to "transcend" towards.

what makes you feel they can't understand the complexity of reality?

In the sense of reality being more than just a set of logical questions, more than a secret to unlock and master. The skill involved here needs a high degree of conscience.

This might relate to the classical definition of the ego-function as a way to delay the immediate gratification by introducing things like shame, taboo, concerns or morals. This enables the developing person to reach for potential benefits of delay (or the faith in such benefits). The social order is based upon this to make sure people invest in relationships, stocks, comfort, the next generation or even charity, for example, and deriving delayed forms of gratification from this process, in the cases it succeeds.

A psychopath might not have this function developed very strongly but therefore it's highly doubtful he'd be able to sacrifice much of a direct benefit or reward for long-term chances on what is believed to be better. This is also the role of conscience in my opinion. Rich emotions, faith, empathy and sensitivity are to me just the first step in dealing with the higher mental functions. A fully developed conscience grows out of these and if it develops into the philosophical it will still the emotional, simply because the need is not there anymore with what has grown into place.

The only way I can see one outgrowing some delusional elements is by either reducing a sense of self-definition or creating new delusions to replace the old. What elements of self beyond the instinctual direction of pleasure seeking are not delusional?

Pleasure seeking or delaying it, sacrificing it, or oneself, seem equally delusional. And obviously programmed in somehow.

Cleckley toward the end of his book said it is almost inevitable that a psychopath will succeed in the social realm. Keep in mind that very few people can identify a psychopath. Not many people are aware of the condition, and of that group only so many actually understand it.

Perhaps the category itself has serious limitations. Many people have psychopathic elements and not only the lack of awareness in the average man enables the psychopath to prosper, but I'd also make the case that there's an increasing psychopathic element to our society itself. This element is kept hidden and then needs to be acted our in person by the more openly psychopath. Well, at least that's my sense of these things. There's this recurring description I see of psychopaths being "disjointed" or "fractured" or even machine-like in some of the coldness. It's the machine-like disconnected organization of our society which I believe at some level enables a lot of such mental dysfunction or at least is unable to address it effectively.

They especially enjoy talking about themselves.

Yes, the lower ego function needs affirmation from that stage or any other reflection (in that way similar to the narcissist) since it cannot be derived by any higher ego function.

[RAZIA]

I started a youtube channel recently and purchased 10,000 Youtube subscribers from www.socialkik.com for our Youtube channel and the results were amazing! I passed all my competitors in the number of Youtube subscribers... some competitors have had their channels for over 3 years, but I now have 20 times more subscribers than them, which made it seem that I've been in business much longer than them !

[cousinbasil]

I started a youtube channel recently and purchased 10,000 Youtube subscribers from http://www.socialkik.com for our Youtube channel and the results were amazing! I passed all my competitors in the number of Youtube subscribers... some competitors have had their channels for over 3 years, but I now have 20 times more subscribers than them, which made it seem that I've been in business much longer than them !

Say, you are a psychopath...

[paco]

Hmm....HUMOR.


As a youngster, I always labeled myself, i.e., as a psychopath...interestering enough, earlier. This topic blows. As the statements flowed from my lips in my youth. I underestimated the topics of standard academia. I had chosen to isolate myself. However, this is such good material because there are no(what's the word?) that into the deep.

God bless

[Animus]

There's this recurring description I see of psychopaths being "disjointed" or "fractured" or even machine-like in some of the coldness. It's the machine-like disconnected organization of our society which I believe at some level enables a lot of such mental dysfunction or at least is unable to address it effectively.

I know what level its at.

I'm inside of a white padded room, there are cameras in two of the corners. There is a control room next to the room I'm in where people are monitoring me. There is no privacy. A doctor enters with two others for protection and give me an ultimatum, either I take the straight-jacket or the sedative.

I'm in a jail cell awaiting the hearing of a justice of the peace, I'm looking at a urine stained room, whose only sunlight is through 4" glass blocks. I'm served plain toast which is offensive to my taste, yet I'm hungry so I eat some of it. The guard opens a 2x6" slot in the solid metal door and takes the remaining toast left on the shelf on the inside of the door-slot. He scolds me for not eating everything and doesn't bring me lunch or dinner.

I'm in an institution for assessment of behavior and scholastic ability. Things are highly structured and I have no freedom outside of the institution. I am made to lay in bed for hours, lights out, after the instuition has determined I should do so.

I find a way to stay out of these places by conforming to rigid structure outside of them, but I am dead.

[Lentitudo]

Interesting. It's a shame they piled so much on him at once and drove him away (that would be my guess to why he stopped responding).

Some might come to such a conclusion.

[paco]

There...there...coffee, don,t be late.

[paco]

almost, said the dragon

[Dan Rowden]

Sorry, Paco, but you really need a break, and so do we. I'm deactivating your account for a while. Spend the time sorting a few things out, ok?

[jupiviv]

Paco is suffering from Zenophilia.

[alphaeg]

I know I lack credibility claiming to be a psychopath on a internet forum, but I decided to join here in hopes of understanding myself better.
This thread interests me, a few of you have opinions I'd like to hear more from.

One thing in particular that interested me was the discussion of psychopaths having no conscience.
It was said psychopaths see the world for what it is without emotion and imagination coming in the way of truth. I feel this is a fair description of myself but this leads me to a question. . . What exactly is this conscience I hear about?

Is it just knowing if something is right or wrong? Is it something you can see, hear, feel?

I feel like I'm stuck in reality; I can day dream and see pictures in my head but I can clearly make a distinction between what is real and what is fabrication. Everything I know and say comes entirely from intuition. I don't know how or why I know the things I do, I just know and very rarely am I ever wrong. Is this intuition normal for all of you? Where do your answers or solutions come from?

Geometry seems so pointless to me because I can already tell everything is in 3d, this makes me think the way I perceive things is different than everybody else. I feel like geometry teaches everybody how things are because they can't see how things are.

Most things people say are so imaginary to me. It's hard for me to do something or remember why I am doing something if I cannot logically justify why I am doing it in that particular moment aside from the fact I was told to do it. I have quite an imagination, but I have complete control of this imagination, it never gets the best of me. It seems to me that most people are complete slaves to their imaginations and have hard times distinguishing fake from real.

When I was baby I used to hurt other babies, but I wouldn't say I am completely emotionless because through the years I have observed how people react to certain situations and copied them. It's hard for me to interact with people and sincerely react to the moment, I have tried so many times to do this and these conversations normally end with me staring at them with nothing to say.
If I speak honestly with others it is easy for me to continue, but they're sometimes frightened or weirded out because everything I say is what I really believe to be truth without bias, even if this goes against the general consensus of what we are talking about.

To give you an idea to the extent of my emotions imagine you have a bucket that holds a gallon of water, and above this water is a faucet that drops 1 drip of blood into the bucket every 10 seconds. I can feel just enough to know how I should act, but not enough to really care in most situations.

This is not to say I take advantage of people, because I do not at all. Even though I would not feel very bad for manipulating somebody, I made the choice along time ago that being deceitful was not the type of person I wanted to be. This is not due to any religious or moral standings because I believe nothing is good; nothing is evil. . .

But mainly because I can see what a great thing kindness can be when exported from the human and I do not have any desire what so ever to destroy this from our planet. Even if I am not fully capable of showing it myself, I feel it is something that should be protected and preserved.

Nothing I've typed here was in hopes of imitating any particular personality, but rather myself speaking freely. I'd be interested in any insights or comments any of you have to say. I'm tall, athletic and good looking, I can get girls anytime I want, this is not to boast but only to hopefully get the point across that I am not somebody who is seeking attention.

I mean these words honestly, which even gives me greater reason to believe I am a psychopath, as most people have a hard time comprehending that I sincerely say things for the reasons I say I do. I'm tired of wondering what makes me different than everybody else and I want to know what can be done to change for the better.

The greatest pain anyone can feel is nothingness; I wouldn't say I'm tortured and that is exactly the problem.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hello alphaeg,

I don't know how or why I know the things I do, I just know and very rarely am I ever wrong.

How did you arrive to the conclusion you have been rarely wrong? The situation couid exist in which one believes to be right and interprets events and evidence to confirm that. Obviously such procedure is prone to error.

Geometry seems so pointless to me because I can already tell everything is in 3d, this makes me think the way I perceive things is different than everybody else. I feel like geometry teaches everybody how things are because they can't see how things are.

This does not make sense. It seems to build on a particular view on geometry, human perception and your own perception. All of which you appear to assume being correct?

Most things people say are so imaginary to me.

They certainly are but being imaginary does not make it false or without any value. Only in some specific context but not in any absolute sense.

What exactly is this conscience I hear about?

A useful definition might be: the depth of ones ability to question oneself.

[alphaeg]

Hello alphaeg,

I don't know how or why I know the things I do, I just know and very rarely am I ever wrong.

How did you arrive to the conclusion you have been rarely wrong? The situation couid exist in which one believes to be right and interprets events and evidence to confirm that. Obviously such procedure is prone to error.

My thoughts and perceptions of events may indeed only be real to me and false in reality, but through my entire life I have only been wrong about something when I listened to somebody else.

For example, when I was in grammar school I told everybody people evolved from water and the sun should be worshiped more so than god. Of course, I was laughed at and made to think I was a fool, but later in life I come to find these observations I made even as a child were true. This was so completely obvious to me I did not understand how anybody could disillusion themselves into thinking anything else. I now know I was able to come to these conclusions because I see things for what they're and not what I want them to be. Only recently have I been able to understand that people can become emotionally upset with the truth of reality to a point where they would rather live with lies.
Even more recently have I come to realize that my way of thinking is not part of the norm and maybe I should take note.


I am good at making very accurate estimates. This may sound a little iffy, but I assure you I wouldn't even bring it up if I didn't sincere believe it to be true.
I feel like I shouldn't be pulling these answers from thin air, I feel like I should be able to see this thinking process that gives me correct and accurate answers. I feel that if I had a conscience I wouldn't just know, I'd be able to see how I knew.

Geometry seems so pointless to me because I can already tell everything is in 3d, this makes me think the way I perceive things is different than everybody else. I feel like geometry teaches everybody how things are because they can't see how things are.

This does not make sense. It seems to build on a particular view on geometry, human perception and your own perception. All of which you appear to assume being correct?

I do not understand how geometry is something anybody would even want to study, I had a hard time with geometry at first because its easier than I could comprehend.

This may be a bad example, but in the rare event I ever smoke weed my perception of everything changes. I have heard that certain chemicals can have opposite effects on different people; this gives me reason to believe that the way everything looks to me if I smoke anything, is how other people perceive things 100% of the time.
This world that I am transferred into is definitely one of limitations; I can understand how someone in that world would think certain things about life and require a field of study such as geometry to make sense of it.

I am almost completely convinced that time elapses slower to me than other people.

But yes you're right, I do assume I am correct in this instance. What startles me, is the thought that maybe I actually am correct, and what should startle you, is the fact that maybe I do see things differently.
But then again, maybe I am wrong about everything. Maybe I live in the restricted world.

What exactly is this conscience I hear about?

A useful definition might be: the depth of ones ability to question oneself.

Meaning that since my reply was a question of myself, I have more of a conscience than I gave myself credit for?


I know I am not a genius by standard definition, the highest I've scored on a IQ test is 124ish. But, I have noticed that something about the way I think is different than people with IQs far above mine, superior in some ways. I know IQs are not a very strong case for argument here, but I also know there is something different about my brain that I need to make sense of. Does an absence of emotion allow one to make better decisions?
Does my absence of emotion come from being a psychopath or somewhere else?

[Ryan Rudolph]

I have known one unrefined psychopath in my community. He had quite a bit of potential to be a decent philosopher, but he blew it, and my analysis suggests this happened because a sense of self developed from his ability to manipulate people. He realized that he didn't need to work to survive, and he wasn't afraid of the consequences, plus he derived a subtle pleasure from his ability to fool people, and this pleasure is what fed his limited sense of identity. This is how many criminals evolve, they get addicted to the pleasure they receive from controlling people and the pleasure of pulling off a crime.

As a child, I always had a fear of negative consequences, which kept me out of trouble, but this boy lacked all fear, and if you brought up the consequences to him, there was no reaction. It stimulated no response in him. He spent quite a bit of time in Jail, but he was indifferent to it. Jail made him into a better criminal, and when he got out he spent quite a few years involved in more serious criminal activity. Eventually he got bored with the whole thing, and got a woman and had a child. He is now a mechanic, but who knows how long that will last. As previous posters have stated, psychopaths have a very difficult time committing to anything because their emotional satisfaction is fickle and short lived. They get bored easy. His driving force for action is crude forms of pleasure. Last time he contacted me years ago, he asked me if I could get access to functional credit card numbers because he knew I had a in depth understanding of computers. He proceeded to keep buttering me up with ego fluff in order to get what he wanted for free. A learned behavior to manipulate. This guy was fairly charismatic in a really shallow way, he knew what to say to dumb people to get what he wanted.

I was drawn to these types of personalities as a youth, only because I observed that they had a degree of power, fearlessness and confidence that ordinary people lacked. They had less of a need to fit into social groups or conventional modes of acceptance. However, much of their behavior is wreckless, haphazard, fickle and without direction. His sense of humor was the the deal breaker that ultimately caused me to end the relationship. He was like a super prankster. His pleasure was bragging about how he is able to outsmart everyone - family, friends and larger community. He had no desire to serve anything higher than the petty need for pleasure rooted in himself being the master.

Whats funny is that this is the first time I have actually realized the major reason for our falling out. It was a intuitive decision I made one day as a teenager, by saying - this guy is a douche, and that was the end of it. But I do not even know if I fully was aware of the reason at the time.