Sociopath Community

by Systematic

I've been thinking of this for a while now.

In society, people are urged to do kind or good actions by emtional nudges. This same emotional chain binds them from doing acts that oppose popular belief. So, take a sociopath who isn't bound by this chain. Most would abuse this free will and commit crimes, manipulate and scrap their way through life with this advantage. But then, you have a certain amount of individuals that recognize the extent of their abilities but choose to not abuse it. What if one of these individuals chose to do good, kind acts with this advantage?

Would it make the individual better, morally than the man committing kind acts simply because of his emotional restraints? I would think so and having the capabilities, I believe this righteous, sociopathic individual would have limitless potential.  

Just a thought.  

 So, a sociopath that takes responsibility, instead of displacing it...

Ideally, this fundamentally contradicts the definition of a sociopath. What you may be looking for (ironically) is a narcissist.

by Systematic

But then, you have a certain amount of individuals that recognize the extent of their abilities but choose to not abuse it. What if one of these individuals chose to do good, kind acts with this advantage?

Would it make the individual better, morally than the man committing kind acts simply because of his emotional restraints? I would think so and having the capabilities, I believe this righteous, sociopathic individual would have limitless potential. 

 
Yes, it would. They would simply have to be in an environment that promotes and encourages this sort of behavior.

by TheSocio

A sociopath could be walking down the street and see a bum begging for change. He could kick the bum in the face and take all the money (morally bad), he could give the guy change (morally good), or he could keep walking (unaffected). The third option is morally better than the first, and the second option is morally better than all three. So, if the individual keeps walking he is morally better than the guy who kicked him in the face but less moral than the guy who gave him change. His potential to do good isn't limitless and sociopaths don't do nice things just because they can. They just keep walking.

The righteous sociopath would give the beggar change, as well as advice on how to improve their current situation, or, depending on the potential of the beggar, and whether or not he'd be capable of reform, help him with his first steps towards reforming himself. He wouldn't kick the beggar, since that serves no purpose, and if indeed he saw someone kicking the beggar, he would stop them from doing so.

This is because the sociopath knows and can understand that any person who attacks those lower/weaker than them in status or otherwise is doing so out of emotional turmoil. The same emotional turmoil that affects the beggar, and the same emotional turmoil that once affected the sociopath.

Imagine this individual recognizes its potential and takes it upon itself to commit these acts of good fortune. It's not motivated by the welfare of the public, but more so to strengthen itself. Purposely inhibiting itself, so that when it does desire something it would be obtained easily. In short, it's like running with a weight vest or swimming against a current to get stronger. Not only is it getting stronger, but winning the hearts and respect of the people while still not even at full capacity.  

Imagine if it wanted something enough to throw off the inhibitors and pursue its item of intrest fully. The applications would be limitless. 

Possibly a narcissistic sociopath or a sociopathic narcissist if there's a difference. 

How would helping everyone strengthen themselves? Do you have any practical examples?

The righteous sociopath would give the beggar change, as well as advice on how to improve their current situation, or, depending on the potential of the beggar, and whether or not he'd be capable of reform, help him with his first steps towards reforming himself. He wouldn't kick the beggar, since that serves no purpose, and if indeed he saw someone kicking the beggar, he would stop them from doing so.

No, that is just a righteous person. You can't just give an example of what a righteous person might do and shove the word sociopath in front of it. Everything you're talking about the individual doing directly contradicts what a sociopath is. I'm not saying a sociopath can't do good, but I am saying he wouldn't waste his time doing good deeds that don't benefit him or try to improve a beggars life.

so·ci·o·path [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-] Show IPA
noun Psychiatry.
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

 

I don't think they would ever help anyone without feeling they're getting something in return. And no, I don't think they expect thanks as a reward.

Hancock

You putting yourself through the endeavors of others lives would make you more experienced. Immersing yourself in their mistakes and learning from them would make your troubles in life that much easier. Or at least so I've found.

But immersing or learning has nothing to do with helping? Why not just "watch and learn" instead of "help and learn"?