"I added on the "sociopath" because its the subject at hand, not because I think sociopaths lack the ability to be introspective. If my assumptions are correct I very well may be an introverted sociopath. I'd like to believe I only have some tendencies though."
"Sociopath" is a label. Don't simplify who you are by slapping some label onto yourself which helps explain "who you are." It's a roadblock to understanding your mind.
"When analyzing another person psyche you're taking stabs in the dark at best. You're comparing the information with the assumptions your mind(and others) have already made when encountering other minds and your own. So it is possible but EVERYTHING you base your conclusions off of is based on the experiences your brain and others have had."
Within the last two days I predicted how some persons would react to certain situations, and told another person to watch them do exactly as I said they would. I was very specific in my description of what these people would do. Four out of four times, I was correct to a T. I'm not trying to say I'm an expert at reading people—I'm not. But I have learned it is useful to question your own thoughts and behaviors, as well as how others conduct themselves—I mean thinking about why they do the things they do—from every slight body movement, to the things they choose to say. If you follow that practice often (and have a decent ability to reason), analyzing another person is not really a "stab in the dark" at all, unless you simply know very little about the person.
"So it is possible but EVERYTHING you base your conclusions off of is based on the experiences your brain and others have had."
You are correct. But the mind is not such a chaotic thing. Complex perhaps, but also very orderly. Hence why we have the terms "predictable" and "unpredictable" to describe people. Mind you that the characteristic of "unpredictability" can also be broken down and analyzed...but that is a whole other discussion of its own.
"I agree with this point but even still the human bias has significant sway in psychology. It's like an eye trying to watch itself. Without a perfect mirror it will either have a distorted view of itself or simply not be able to see itself at all."
Again, you are correct. But one should not write off the capacity humans have for better understanding themselves. Some are better than others at it, sure, and no one will ever "perfectly" understand themselves (whatever that would mean), but there is plenty you can learn if have a rational mind and make the attempt.
"So would that mean that one needs to be psychopathic to be a sociopath or that the same genes that play a part in developing a psychopath play a part in developing a sociopath?"
In research, a "sociopath" is someone with an "antisocial personality disorder." A psychopath is a person who through a set of genetic factors has a rather different pattern of brain development and experience of human life, which is why some people like to say that psychopaths are "a different species." That seems a bit extreme to me, but nonetheless, it illustrates how different these people feel compared to ordinary persons.
What I have just said should explain that one does not need to be a "psychopath" in order to be a "sociopath."
To answer your last question, some genes like (like the monoamine oxidase inhibitor genes) probably play some role in both conditions, as they are related to mood and aggression. I think there are probably some genes associated with psychopathy that aren't associated with sociopathy, but I haven't read any research about that.
"That because of that the genes are attributed to being a psychopath instead of both. Is it simply a matter of intelligence; Being able to be aware what moral boundaries are and how to fit into a system to extend your own existence?"
I think it's more a matter of temperament than IQ. Both Cleckley and Hare have case studies in their books of psychopaths with exceptional intelligence. You can be very bright, and simultaneously not capable of giving a fuck.