YES. I HAVE A LOT OF LOVE AND PRESENT AN COMPLIMENTS TO RECIVE. KEEP them coming
by TheCrowOnTheFence
by EdvardJust lack of connecting with others? That's your own way of defining sociopathy. I disagree. Autists, schizoids and some retards fail to connect too, and they can be manipulative too in their own ways.
Add to what you said, lack of a conscience, lack of regret for hurting others, inability to learn from their own mistakes which is a very important trait of sociopaths imo, recklessness that makes them underestimate the risks and go after the rewards despite of those risks... They all come together, these traits. Pick and choose just a few, that's not a sociopath, that's your made up fantasy about them. And as it happens this cocktail of traits makes sociopaths dangerous and damaging to those around them. Take a man with those traits and force him to live in society and groups of normal people, he'll be abusive, no way around that.
The sociopath who can do bad but chooses not to? That's bullshit. It's way easier and tempting to get by by trampling others in your way, on short terms at least. And that's what the sociopath's cocktail of traits makes him do.
How would you define the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath? Or would you, at all?
It's most certainly not easier to get by, by trampling on others. That's self-sabotage, in the long run. Unless you're in some very particular circumstances. Everyone I've ever seen who makes a habit of trampling on other people, ends up screwing themselves over and being miserable. Damaging other people will inevitably result in other people damaging you, and just generally makes day-to-day life less agreeable. And when you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, there will be no one there to help. I've seen it happen a million times.
I'm not completely sure if I'm a psychopath or not, but for me, I prefer to keep things running smoothly. When you treat people well, nine times out of ten, they'll return the favor with interest. My life is serene. Extremely so. And I'd have to be retarded to think that it would be any better if I started abusing the people I keep near me.
Sociopaths, antisocials and psychopaths, they mean the same thing to me.
And yes, you are right about long term vs short term gain and trampling over people. I specifically said "short term" in my post, because psychopaths live in the present. They lack long term goals, aren't very good at planning far in the future, act on impulse and seek immediate gratification. It's all part of their brainwork.
That is what a psychopath is to me. I don't believe in the cunning, calculated dexter types. I've never met one.
If you bring up CEOs and politicians and whatnot... There are ruthless people among non psychopaths too. There are many who would trample over people then come home and hug their dog and kids, whom they love and care about. Those are not psychopaths in my book.
And you care way too much about animals to be one, in my opinion, which is great.
so the conclusion is that still no one can make a difference between the 3 definitions. But why does it matter anyway? the differences, if any, would be too small to be really relevant.
One thing you could say is that AsPD is linked to criminality. And socio/psycho-paths both lack the affectionate empathy to some degree. And while i have not seen official definitions, its often said that socio were not born damaged, while psychos were.
And all 3 can mix in different combos.
by Metaergso the conclusion is that still no one can make a difference between the 3 definitions. But why does it matter anyway? the differences, if any, would be too small to be really relevant.
One thing you could say is that AsPD is linked to criminality. And socio/psycho-paths both lack the affectionate empathy to some degree. And while i have not seen official definitions, its often said that socio were not born damaged, while psychos were.
And all 3 can mix in different combos.
It matters for the same reason that having these labels at all, matters. Convenience.
The one I hear most often is difference in origin. Which is the sole reason that I tentatively refer to myself as a psychopath, rather than a sociopath.
All learning is from experience of one sort or another. Psychopaths and sociopaths must be capable of a reasonable amount of learning from experience, or they'd be stuck at the developmental state of a newborn, forever. And understanding that treating people badly can frequently cause adverse reactions, isn't exactly rocket science.
by Edvard
by TheCrowOnTheFenceHow would you define the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath? Or would you, at all?
It's most certainly not easier to get by, by trampling on others. That's self-sabotage, in the long run. Unless you're in some very particular circumstances. Everyone I've ever seen who makes a habit of trampling on other people, ends up screwing themselves over and being miserable. Damaging other people will inevitably result in other people damaging you, and just generally makes day-to-day life less agreeable. And when you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, there will be no one there to help. I've seen it happen a million times.
I'm not completely sure if I'm a psychopath or not, but for me, I prefer to keep things running smoothly. When you treat people well, nine times out of ten, they'll return the favor with interest. My life is serene. Extremely so. And I'd have to be retarded to think that it would be any better if I started abusing the people I keep near me.
Sociopaths, antisocials and psychopaths, they mean the same thing to me.
And yes, you are right about long term vs short term gain and trampling over people. I specifically said "short term" in my post, because psychopaths live in the present. They lack long term goals, aren't very good at planning far in the future, act on impulse and seek immediate gratification. It's all part of their brainwork.
That is what a psychopath is to me. I don't believe in the cunning, calculated dexter types. I've never met one.
If you bring up CEOs and politicians and whatnot... There are ruthless people among non psychopaths too. There are many who would trample over people then come home and hug their dog and kids, whom they love and care about. Those are not psychopaths in my book.
And you care way too much about animals to be one, in my opinion, which is great.
But even in the short term, it often disrupts your life and happiness. Besides, not anticipating the future stems from not learning from the past and, as I said to Meta, sociopaths have to be capable of a reasonable level of learning from experience, even if that ability tends to be diminished.
One of the reasons that I only tentatively consider myself psychopathic, is because I don't fit many of the traits commonly associated with people who are. However, I've always understood it to be lack of empathy and conscience, at it's core. Those seem to be the defining criteria, with everything else being noteworthy common similarities. If every trait listed as a symptom was part of the defining criteria, then someone who perfectly matched all but one, would be considered an entirely separate case than all the others. Which just makes no logical sense to me. : /
DSM IV at least seems to think it can appear within a limited variety of ways:
by DSM IV According to Wiki
The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV-TR), defines antisocial personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B):
A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
B) The individual is at least age 18 years.
C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.
I ought to look into how DSM V sees it.
Yeah, I've read that. I do fit the majority of those, so according to DSM IV criteria, I am antisocial, despite the considerable discrepancies of personality between myself and others with AsPD. Which I think is a reasonable assessment.
I vaguely recall reading a similar bit from DSM V and it hadn't seemed to have changed much.