i think im a sociopath

thanks black cat and zilla, its kind advice. ill look into those books =)

 

tony montana is a fictional gangster, your just admiring him for the moment because he seems awesome in his own gangster ways, trust me when i was younger i had many fictional idols too, it gets more and more sophiticated than you dont want to be like anyone after, just you - with a mix of characteristics of all your idols

 

you really 16

 

wa

 

wow, just wow. The level of ignorance in this thread is simply astounding.

wtf?!?

To the OP: stop talking about superficialities. You're a sociopath (or psychopath -- the two words mean exactly the same thing) if you have no conscience. You're a sociopath if you could walk up to your mother (assuming she never wronged you and only loved you), kill her gruesomely, and think nothing of it. Not all sociopaths do that, but their one commonality is they could do it without remorse. You would also be incapable of true friendships or relationships with anyone because, to you, people are objects without rights and can be manipulated without will. Your affliction would preclude all feelings of love and affection. In other words, you don't emotionally attribute moral value to life. This is why you may hear of sociopathy characterized as a wanton disregard for the rights of others.

And another thing--sociopathy is the product of a brain abnormality and cannot be cured. Especially not in psychotherapy--which has actually proven to exacerbate the symptom of the affliction.

Simply hating annoying people is called misanthropy. There's a big fucking difference.

 

your quite welcome mr. greenxxx. i hope they are helpfull for you. zilla is correct. his full name is spelled "herman hesse." sorry about the mistake on that point. aesthete, i am quite impressed on your knowledge in the area of this psycho-pathology. and, your just 17? quite impressive indeed! when i was your age, my head was full of shit, but not nearly as much shit, as most of the other kids heads were full of.

 

thanks. i read 2 and a half pages of responses assuming i would have to type all that out, but i'm glad someone else finally did beat me to it

 

You're a sociopath if you feel no guilt after harming another - and it has to be extreme and unwarranted, like committing murder.

Guilt is what keeps us from incurring punishment from society for what is considered a wrong doing. If you feel no guilt, you really need to work hard on recognizing the consequences of wrong actions on a rational basis - that is, think hard and with a clear head: if I do X, I will incur punishment Y. Y is not worth X, so I need to refrain from doing X. Most people have the luxury of letting their guilt take care of all that - they don't have to think about it; they just don't want to commit wrong acts. If you really are a sociopath, you really need to recognize this fact, and that you're in danger of incurring some potentially severe punishments if you do something stupid like rape or kill. You might even consider taking some medication - it's a shitty thing to have to do, but it beats going to jail for life (or constantly resisting insatiable urges to hurt people for the rest of your life).

 

Aesthete and I'minmyunderwear have great points. if you truly were a psychopath, you probably wouldn't be posting this thread
You're gonna be fine, I was definitely quite the misanthrope back in the day. I think it was insecurity and fear, mostly, and unwillingness to love. But once you start caring about something or someone, things can change. I don't think you're destined to be a Steppenwolf forever, or at least I think you have the potential to embrace the "man" side of the duo and accept the "wolf" for what it is. Many people feel like this. You're not crazy... you're an artist. Just don't go the Hitler route and you'll be cool.

 

Please tell me exactly what brain abnormality sociopaths have. There's no physical diference whatsoever.
I don't see why thinking differently should be considered an abnormality.

If anything you are the ignorant one. Sociopath and Psycopath do not mean the same thing, for one. At least, not anymore. Psychopath has been ab andoned by the professional world because it is understood now to be linked to someone who is criminal.
A sociopath is not necessarily completely without regret or remorse - just typically without it. Your example shows the typical view of a sociopath, when from the very beginning experts have been saying that they are not necessarily dangerous or criminal. (What you described is much more of a psychopath, thanks to those like yourself and the media that misconstrued the word over time.)
A sociopath is not necessarily out to harm anyone - they can be, but it's not fair to generalize them as such. From my experience so far in life (however short it may be) there are a whole helluva a lot of undiagnosed sociopaths out there.

Look at the symptoms list on Wikipedia (which is fairly similar to the one I was given in psych). A lot of these things are quite normal.

Persistent lying or stealing
- who doens't lie?; what exactly is "persistent"?; stealing, however 'wrong', is also quite common
Recurring difficulties with the law
- here we see that the adherently flawed psychology system bases itself on an adherently flawed legal system
Tendency to violate the rights and boundaries of others (property, physical, sexual, emotional, legal)
- honestly, this is the one that bothers me most on the list. However, it is again, something many many people do (including myself) on multiple occasions.
Substance abuse
- again, the adherently flawed psychology system bases itself on an adherently flawed legal system
Aggressive, often violent behavior; prone to getting involved in fights
- I try to avoid fighting; however, in other neighborhoods of the city; not many do. Could that 'wtf?!' of yours be considered aggresion?
A persistent agitated or depressed feeling (dysphoria)
- How persistent? I tend to feel depressed and agitated any time I think about life. My mum always seems agitated and depressed when she comes home from work; unless it was a particularly good day. Are all the miserable people in the world anti-social?
Inability to tolerate boredom
- This one seems especially normal to me.
Disregard for the safety of self or others
- What counts as disregard necessarily? I don't wear a helmet when I skateboard, I see a lot of people cross the street without looking...
A childhood diagnosis of conduct disorders - this is not a symptom but "a history of"
- I'm basically gonna ignore this one.
Lack of remorse for hurting others
- Note: this does not say persistant or total lack of remorse. Typically, I don't tend to feel bad when I hurt people, because I didn't do it intentionally. Sure, if I could have avoided it; I would have, but I didn't know. Does this count as a lack of remorse? I believe it does. Does it sound like such a bad philosophy though?
Superficial charm
- Well, I'll just make sure to bore the shit out of the doc if I ever have an evaluation =)
Impulsiveness
- Cause in our society/machine, everyone should be nice and predictable =D
A sense of extreme entitlement
- This one made me laugh. Such as the entitlement we give ourselves when judging others? Come off it already; this is probably the most normal thing here.
Inability to make ... friends
- Sounds like it could be bad luck to me
or keep
- Just because someone doesn't always deal with social situations in the smartest way, they have a disorder? I've lost friends in some pretty uncontrolable ways; and back when I was younger and more shy; if I lost a friend or two, then I stayed without friends for awhile.
Lack of remorse
- Again, please note this isn't a complete lack of remorse. Even if it was; if you really believe that everything happens for a reason (as many do) then why should you have a reason to have remorse. Or if you believe that noone knows what will happen and life is anarchaic is there reason to feel remorse?
Recklessness, impulsivity
- is everyone that lives in the moment antisocial?
People with a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder often experience difficulties with authority figures.
- do I have to repeat the part about the government?

Just like with half the other disorders out there - the list is very vague and could apply to quite a shitload of people. I'm not saying that I'm completely normal, or people that are diagnosed sociopaths are; but I'm saying that there is clear ground for someone who is to be identified as a sociopath.

 

You're right in one regard, and that is that the term "sociopath" is typically preferred over "psychopath" because of the Hollywood sensationalized connotations of the latter. However, they still mean precisely the sane thing: a person suffering from antisocial personality disorder. You can go on and on about all the supposed differences all you want -- fact of the matter is they've been pulled out of someone's ass -- either yours or someone else's. The most common misconception is that sociopathy is a learned trait whereas psychopathy is congenital. In fact, this is a quite meaningless distinction because the root cause of antisocial personality disorder is not known, much less the origins of any particular sociopath.

And, no, sociopaths/psychopaths don't necessarily go out and commit violence. However, their lack of psychological morality gives them a greater propensity to such acts, as well as much more common things as lying cheating, stealing, etc. (all when there is no rational reason to oppose the illegality or immorality of the deed.) If you don't believe me, you can read Robert Hare.


http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html

If you want to further discuss this, read this article. In it you will find answers to your questions about brain differences between psychopaths and normal people.

The problem with this nugatory analysis of the symptoms of psychopathy is that these criteria are meant to better and more factually corroborate the presence of psychopathy in subjects who have had problems with flagrant antisocial behavior. Sociopaths are known liars, right? Well, for the sociopath there's absolutely no practical use for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder; it casts a damning shadow on a person and pretty much eliminates their capacity to lie and cheat their way through society. So, they will lie about their affliction. These traits are meant to be used by psychologists who have had training in recognizing psychopathy and diagnosing it using Hare's Psychopathy Checklist. It was not meant for recreational use by all other people as a kind of exercise in gauging some level of imaginary psychopathy by use of superficialities.

 

No, I absolutely agree with this part. My main complaint in the part you quoted here was how you used such an extreme case as an example; it gives exactly the same idea as Hollywood's misuse of terms.
You're right in one regard, and that is that the term

I hardly believe that because you pass some tests you are any more qualified to access another person using a list. The problem isn't in the people using the list; it's in the list. It doesn't matter if you are the average person using a list or if you are a trained psychologist using a list; it's going to come to the same conclusions.
That is the problem with psychology. There will be psychologists that reserve judgment and apply it only in more extreme cases; but there are always a lot more psychologists that just check of the list - if you have 7/11 of them - congratulations, you just earned a new disorder.

When a person that used to torture their cats is labelled a sociopath - I have no toruble with that.
However, when a kid that is just a bit shy, and shows perfectly healthy signs of rebellion gets in toruble and their parents send them to a psych and they get labelled a sociopath - no good can come of it. You know what is likely to come of it? - alienation. It's not very nice to label someone something with such a negative connatation just because they don't fit in perfectly with what you say should be.

The only thing on the whole list that isn't completely normal in the average persons is the lack of remorse - and depending on one's personal philosophy - it can very well be adherent in a completely good person.

 

The example I gave is extreme in action but, among sociopaths, invariable in consequence. That is to say, they would feel no remorse from having done it.

Ok, so I guess we're in agreement that a diagnosis should arise from an analysis of the base mindset. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The problem is when it comes to diagnosing psychopathy in practice. It is perhaps the most difficult mental disorder to diagnose. It requires that evidence of a violent history is present; no one diagnoses psychopathy just with "superficial charm" or other such superficialities.

Which relates back to a point you made earlier. Psychologists are trained not to diagnose like that.

Well, for one, psychopathy cannot be diagnosed until one reaches an adult age. Also, it cannot be diagnosed without a recurrent violent history. Your example is untenable.

 

Again, sociopaths do not necessarily have a complete lack of remorse.

Depending on how you look at it - my argument is it's all too easy to diagnosis. (Depression is far worse, but still.)

This, I have absolutely never heard. In neither of my psych classes nor in independent research. I want a citing before I believe you on that. And if that happens to be true, it definitely isn't always followed.

When the hell did I make that point? I said that what's him name emphasized not to assume that because one exhibits sociopathic behavior that they are criminal. That doesn't say anything about diasgnosis. And how many of them diagnose just as they should? I read an article in the Newspaper a few weeks back, by a psychiatrist denouncing her colleages because she constantly hears them boasting about how quick they can get a prescription out. She was citing the possibly dangers of anti-depressants their extreme use among youngsters, and a case where a 2 year old was diagnosed as manic depressive that she called absolutely disgusting and harrowing.

My family counselor quit his high paying psychiatry job for this reason. He said he would have nightmares and feel sickened by himself for participating in such a thing. He chose a hectic 7 day work week as a counselor over it.
Me and him shared this in common, I quit my aspirations to become a psychologist after thinking about the ethics of it. (That was before/why me and him tlaked abotu this, by the way, he didn't influence me.)

I also have a psychologist friend (not currently practicing, but with degree) that was treated as a depressive and suspected sociopath when she was a teen. She told me that when she was taking her classes, she was amazed to learn she was never asked any of the questions associated with either, and only fit 3 of the depression checklist (I think that's the one where they consider you to have it after 7 if I remmeber right.)

It cannot formally be diagnosed until one reaches adult age, agreed. Again, I need a citing for this violent history thing.

 

Did you read the article I posted earlier?

 

Did you?
It says that most sociopaths aren't violent offenders. Not that you have to be a violent offender to be diagnosed as one....
But no, I didn't read it until now, because I was already familar Hare's work.

 

I never said otherwise. Most sociopaths obviously never get diagnosed.

 

Were you just asking me or was the question meant to debate one of my points? =S (The latter is what I originally assumed, but now I'm confused.)

 

About the article? I asked because you wanted a citation. From the article:

(emphasis mine)

 

Again, it never says that the person has to have a violent history - it just says you can't trust solely the interviews.