Recently diagnosed as a sociopath...am I the next minority? (complex, father)

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by stava

Are you kidding me? Motives are EVERYTHING. Nothing more to be said.

It's important to distinguish between intentions and motivations.

"Intentions" are what we aim to do. Does one aim to help, or to harm? If I rush into a burning building to save somebody, my intention is to save them. I may or may not succeed. I may become flustered by the challenge and beat a cowardly retreat, failing. I might even impede, through my amateurish enthusiasm, the efforts of the better-trained and the more competent, thus causing more harm than good. But my intention was good.

Suppose that my intentions are bad. I aim to frighten somebody by swinging at them with my fist. But in so doing, the person ducks, and a brick that was about to fall on his head, instead falls harmlessly to the floor. Effectively I saved the person's life… but unintentionally.

"Motivations" are our personal reasons for undertaking the subject action. I might rush into the burning building to secure my reputation in the community, as a brave and heroic individual. I might do it to impress my parents, my girlfriend, my neighbors. I might enjoy the thrill of overcoming danger. I might be a glutton for attention. Or I might be altruistic. Or I might have no particular contemplative reason at all, instead just acting on instinct.

Intentions are indeed fair game for adjudicating the moral substance of an action. But not motivations. Motivations are inscrutable and ineffably private. I might not even know what really motivates me, confusing abstract desires for specific motives operative during the act.

Now back to the OP's issue. His intention is to feed homeless people. His motivations are irrelevant. He feeds them successfully, with nutritious food. They don't get food poisoning or inject toxins served by him. However reprehensible in an abstract sense might be the narrative of his motives, his intentions are good. And that is more than what could be said for most of humanity.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by stava

I disagree. They may not have the wiring for empathy, but I believe that is ultimately CAUSED by nurture (or lack thereof).

Whenever I hear the statement "he grew up in a normal, loving family" in reference to a sociopath, I shake my head. Normal, loving, empathically-attuned parents do not raise sociopathic children. It just doesn't make sense. A sociopath might CLAIM their family was normal, and outsiders might have SEEN them as normal, but I guarantee you, something there was far from normal.

Yes, you'd think that good parents raise good children and bad parents raise bad children. Regrettably however I have seen many, many examples of wonderful parents raising demon seed and truly lovely people emerging from horrific family situations. It may not be intuitive, but it's common.

One must always remember that children have both free will and, increasingly as they get older, personal freedom of choice and personal responsibility, too.

Also, the notion that mental illness is usually the parent's fault went the way of the DoDo somewhere around 1990. Finally.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by jzeig104

Your comment about homosexuals just shows you have no insight. Being homosexual is not harming others. Being a sociopath harms anyone you interact with.

Listening to your diatribes and self professed, egotistical rant DID cause me to have feelings of panic. Why is none of your business.

Go away.

Quoted for truth. Or re-truthing, so to speak (pardon my barbaric slaughter of grammar).


Being of a different religion, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or outside conventional gender-identification congruence - and even being "stupid" in and of itself - does not ITSELF constitute a direct threat. Nor do those with such differences make it extremely likely that the person will threaten any of the following about another:

1) Their life
2) health (physical or mental)
3) functionality / wholeness (physical or mental, the latter including peace of mind)
4) essential dignity
5) civil liberties and other political rights
6) money, property and anything else of substantial monetary value (or reasonable use thereof)
7) items of high sentimental value even if lacking substantial monetary value

Being a sociopath (or having any other Cluster B personality disorder) does present such a threat. Therefore, not only do I see no compelling interest in preserving any but your most fundamental rights (the presumed meaning of your use of "minority"), I also see a compelling interest in actually abridging at least some of your rights - at least while staying significantly short of Gitmo or Abu Ghirab style mistreatment of such people (although I would continue to say you do have the right to vote, trial by attorney, etc).

IMO, the best job for both you and the rest of society would be either
1) one involving little to no personal interaction with others (night security guard).
2) one in which the average person already reasonably expects dishonesty or truth-bending to be present to begin with.

Anything else necessarily involving full adherence to even the basics of respecting the dignity of others - you'd frankly bring more harm than benefit to your employer.

Originally Posted by mordant

Yes, you'd think that good parents raise good children and bad parents raise bad children. Regrettably however I have seen many, many examples of wonderful parents raising demon seed and truly lovely people emerging from horrific family situations. It may not be intuitive, but it's common.

One must always remember that children have both free will and, increasingly as they get older, personal freedom of choice and personal responsibility, too.

Also, the notion that mental illness is usually the parent's fault went the way of the DoDo somewhere around 1990.

Also quoted for truth. I can only add that there does seem to be at least some genetic component to such conditions. That doesn't mean people with the genes WILL come down with the condition, any more than the gene for alcoholism, a type of cancer, etc. means the person WILL become an alcoholic or get cancer. Beyond this, I think some instances of narcissism, sociopathy, etc. can be induced by outside forces rather than something intrinsic to the person (i.e. some mental disorders are not the result of genes, although having certain genes does make it more likely)

[Oldhag1]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

Right on. My ex is a sociopath (or at the very least has a Cluster B personality disorder - he has absolutely no conscience and is a consummate charmer/abuser). He is also a colonel in the Army. Now THAT'S scary.

I have met more than a few colonels and generals that could check just about every block on a "Are You a Sociopath?" quiz. I think many are drawn to the military for the power and sanctioned violence.

[LillyJo]

No one is born a psychopath or a sociopath. It's a learned response.

[victorianpunk]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

"Motivations" are our personal reasons for undertaking the subject action. I might rush into the burning building to secure my reputation in the community, as a brave and heroic individual. I might do it to impress my parents, my girlfriend, my neighbors. I might enjoy the thrill of overcoming danger. I might be a glutton for attention. Or I might be altruistic. Or I might have no particular contemplative reason at all, instead just acting on instinct.

Exactly. I mean, if one of these "haters" were saved from a burning car by a sociopath/narcissist who, after making sure they were okay, stuck around for the news crews to get his picture taken, would they be angry at said "anti-social" person? Would they have rather had empathic bystanders stand around and do nothing?

I am hardwired to be brazen in my endless hunt for recognition and admiration. As a result I can and have stuck my neck out for others when no one else would...I was on the bus and a very absurd man was touching a random woman, who looked scared to death. Everyone on the bus did nothing...accept me. I got within inches of his face, told him "you can massage my colon with your tongue!" (my favorite insult, guaranteed to get the target's attention) and he turned to me. He was larger than me and angry, but he backed down and got off at the next stop. The woman thanked me...she wasn't very good looking, so I didn't ask her number.

I may never be able to love or feel empathy...but I can also never be a bystander who sits back and does nothing. My narcissism is what balances my sociopathic tendencies, I guess.

And let's be real; this guy is the biggest narcissist in the history of pop culture:

Now back to the OP's issue. His intention is to feed homeless people. His motivations are irrelevant. He feeds them successfully, with nutritious food. They don't get food poisoning or inject toxins served by him. However reprehensible in an abstract sense might be the narrative of his motives, his intentions are good. And that is more than what could be said for most of humanity.

I agree. I may be rotten to the core, but A) I'm willing to admit it and B) I am rotten to the core, but the outer shell that feeds that core is far from rotten.

Just to prove my point, look at this video. A kid getting abducted, and no one doing anything...except two guys who look a bit "thuggish". If I was there, the butterfly knives would fly out and the I would finally have a chance to do my best impersonation of Dexter.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7dfkZKjWSo


The haters apparently would prefer the empaths who ignore that kid in trouble to me, a sociopathic narcissists who would jump at the opportunity to be GOD for a moment. I fail to see the logic there.

[victorianpunk]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

IMO, the best job for both you and the rest of society would be either
1) one involving little to no personal interaction with others (night security guard).
2) one in which the average person already reasonably expects dishonesty or truth-bending to be present to begin with.

Anything else necessarily involving full adherence to even the basics of respecting the dignity of others - you'd frankly bring more harm than benefit to your employer.

So, how would you suggest to enforce this? Have people tested and those that are shown to be like me be registered with the government and have to have our names on a database like child molesters? A molester at least actually did something (molested a kid) I didn't do jack. Aside from making fun of people for kicks, making a random girl at a bar cry for the joy of it once and, when I was like 12, killing baby ducks at a park, I've never done anything horrible to anyone and my co-workers like me. I treat them well because I know in doing so they will help me out more and if they needed something I would provide it because hearing their gratitude would be a great ego boost.

I respect the "dignity" of others because it serves my purpose to do so. If I am a dick to people beneath me on my job, they will stop doing as I ask and need them and I may lose my job. If I commit a crime, I will go to jail if I'm caught, and I know how hard it is to get away with major crimes these days. That is what keeps me in line. Someone like me is why we need laws in the first place.

But really, what oh what, in your perfect world, should happen to me? A Gulag? Maybe have me where a yellow Star on my clothes or something? And what about children who have this thing in them? Should they be treated differently and hence made into even bigger monsters than they may turn out already?

For someone with a conscious and ability to emphasis, you certainly don't seem to show it.

[Reneeme]

Have you heard of the book called "Confessions of a Sociopath"? It's written by someone who considers themselves to be a sociopath, and something about your post reminded me of the book, so might be worth checking out (and I didn't read all of the posts so not sure if anyone else may have mentioned it as well).

[stava]

Originally Posted by mordant

Yes, you'd think that good parents raise good children and bad parents raise bad children. Regrettably however I have seen many, many examples of wonderful parents raising demon seed and truly lovely people emerging from horrific family situations. It may not be intuitive, but it's common.

One must always remember that children have both free will and, increasingly as they get older, personal freedom of choice and personal responsibility, too.

Also, the notion that mental illness is usually the parent's fault went the way of the DoDo somewhere around 1990. Finally.

But sociopathy, psychopathy, and narcissism aren't mental illnesses. They're personality disorders. There's a significant difference.

I know of a set of parents who other people would deem "wonderful", but they raised a narcissistic son because they doted on him like he was the second coming. People see seemingly loving, involved parents, and they think "good parents". But if those parents are excessively doting on their child, teaching him that he (or she) can do no wrong, is perfect in every way, and doesn't need to feel shame for his wrongdoings, then that is a form of abuse as well. That type of treatment creates an over-inflated ego and sense of entitlement in the child that does not translate well to the outside world. That's why I do not believe that "demon seed" can be spawned from two truly loving, empathic parents - "demon seed" implies evil, and evil implies no conscience, and a conscienceless person cannot be derived from two empathic parents.

[Woof]

Do you know of any evidence for that opinion, Stava? Have there been studies of sociopaths and their parents, that would indicate such?

I've known cruel and evil people who came from good parents, and I've known others who were made that way - sometimes growing up in a war zone, whether literal or figurative. I've known good and decent people as youths who became Republicans as they grew older, and others who started out mean and bullying but mellowed with the years.