Ask HN: Psychopaths/Sociopaths

[WhatIsThisIm12]

Last time I tried to discuss this topic on HN, my post was flagged. However, I think HN is a great place to discuss it, because I'd wager a significant percentage of commenters here fall into the "sociopath" category, myself included.

So my question is,

1) Are you a sociopath?

2) What do you think of society's labeling and marginalization of so-called sociopaths?

Sometimes I think sociopathic individuals will be the next minority to fight for their rights. It's scary how much anti-sociopath rhetoric is prevalent in media today. Nobody is offended if you say sociopaths should be rounded up and killed. According to society, as long as you can sufficiently label someone a sociopath, it becomes within your rights to deny them freedoms and torture or kill them.

[smt88]

> 1) Are you a sociopath?

No.

2) What do you think of society's labeling and marginalization of so-called sociopaths?

Who cares? This is a non-issue for the following reason: even experts can't positively identify a sociopath, and even the definition/diagnosis isn't widely agreed-upon. A smart sociopath would exhibit mostly pro-social behaviors, even though he has anti-social motivations.

People can't be persecuted as a group if they can't be identified in that group. People can rage about sociopaths all they want, but they can't identify them in order to do anything to them.

> Nobody is offended if you say sociopaths should be rounded up and killed. According to society, as long as you can sufficiently label someone a sociopath, it becomes within your rights to deny them freedoms and torture or kill them.

I don't know what country you live in, but this is not true in the US. If you can show me some examples that aren't random nutjobs on the internet, I'd be very interested to see them.

(You may, of course, be referring to sociopaths who are accused of murder or some other anti-social act, which is not the same as persecuting them just for their personality.)

[wahern]

There are certain brain structures (or lack of structures) that are shared by the vast majority of people who would be roundly classified as sociopaths by psychiatrists. The presence of the markers in non-sociopaths is relatively rare, though it nonetheless suggests there's an important environmental dimension. There's an article online by a researcher who studied psychopathy through neuroimaging and discovered he possessed this neural marker.

Classic sociopathy is lumped in with other personality disorders in the DSM, and at the margins there's a large group where there's wide disagreement about classification. But regarding the classic sociopath studied by Hare and others, AFAIU the majority of psychiatrists can spot those a mile away. And DSM or no DSM, most psychiatrists see them as a distinct group. But such people have no reason to seek psychiatric help for their condition, and because it's not susceptible to any kind of treatment in the traditional sense, there's little reason for these people to interact with the medical community the way other categories of "abnormal" people do. So that limits how much scholarship and research that will occur, especially considering that most sociopaths are non-violent. And while a large portion of violent criminals seem to be sociopathic (less or more depending on how you define it, but nonetheless significant), the direct cause of the violence seems related to other mental issues--sociopathy just merely removes one of the natural inhibitors of violent behavior.

[smt88]

> There's an article online by a researcher who studied psychopathy through neuroimaging and discovered he possessed this neural marker.

You are referring to James Fallon, of TED Talk fame, and his science is not sound: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/pseud...

> the majority of psychiatrists can spot those a mile away. And DSM or no DSM, most psychiatrists see them as a distinct group

That's impossible to know for sure. If you don't have reliable diagnostic criteria (and the ability to thoroughly examine the subject), these people can't test their belief that someone is a psychopath. It's just not science.

[wahern]

Which part of Fallon's research is unsound, 1) the neurological correlation, 2) his characterization of it, or 3) the characterization of himself?

Regarding, e.g., the Hare criteria not being science, it's not true that such criteria are not testable. You're conflating accuracy (or trueness) with precision. The diagnostic criteria clearly lack precision, but they don't necessarily lack accuracy. Macroeconomics lacks precision but various theories are incredibly accurate. That said, actually rigorous testing is lacking. It's lacking partly for the reasons I specified, but lacking nonetheless. And that's fair. But experimental results are not the sine quo non of how we understand the world; it's not black & white like that. There are other modes of understanding the world, and other substantive indicia of the correctness of theories. The Scientific Method is one of the best modes and its results some of the best forms of evidence, but it's hardly exclusive.

In any event, look at the similar condition of narcissism. Like sociopathy that word gets thrown around so much it's almost meaningless in a lay context, and there are wide margins where the classification is dubious even in a medical context. When people (including experts) claim Nixon, Clinton, or Alex Baldwin are narcissists, you sort of roll your eyes because such aversions tend to expose the term for being so loose and imprecise to the point of being useless. You can't even agree or disagree.

But is there any doubt in your mind that Donald Trump is a testament to some physiological phenomenon that fits squarely within the box we label narcissist? What that classification implies regarding his fitness as president is another matter altogether, but I don't think there exists many practitioners even loosely related to the study of the human brain that don't sense he's the archetype of some concrete and identifiable human condition.

[DanBC]

You probably should not self-diagnose yourself with a complex psychiatric diagnosis.

And people with personality disorders of various type are already campaigning for change - your use of outdated stigmatising language is hampering your ability to search.

Mostly around borderline PD and antisocial PD: http://www.emergenceplus.org.uk/news-from-emergence/507-meet...

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/mentally-diso...

[wahern]

If you're bothered by societal attitudes regarding sociopaths (and not simply because it's effecting your success at personal gain), you're probably not a sociopath in the classic sense.

If you feel some kind of kinship with other sociopaths, you're probably not a sociopath.

There are other phenomenon related to empathy. For example it was recently discovered that some people lack conscious awareness of empathy. In these cases physiological and psychological responses to empathic emotions are clearly present (e.g. various stress responses), but the person doesn't consciously understand why the response is occurring (or even always that it's occurring) or its relation to a social interaction. Some people on the so-called autistic spectrum seem to suffer from this; their mirror neurons are present and functioning, they're just not plugged into everything correctly.

Some people lack episodic memories. They remember the birth of their child, for example, in the same way they remember that 10 * 10 == 100; as a fact, not as a lived experience imbued with an emotional dimension. Arguably this might imply that their experience of the world is more superficial than others, perhaps similar in some respects to a sociopath's experience of the world.

The role of sex in relationships is incredibly rich and complex. Arguably people who are asexual or otherwise less motivated or responsive to sexual passions might feel more disconnected emotionally in some respects than other people.

And just because you _think_ you wouldn't be emotionally stirred by events normatively considered "shocking" (like the injury of a small child, or especially your own child) doesn't mean you wouldn't actually be stirred in reality. We all consciously and unconsciously disassociate from the world, especially when technology intermediates. But you can't compare that to being physically present and involved. It's why it makes little sense to believe that, e.g., playing violent video games would strongly relate to a tendency to real-life violent behavior.

[Broken_Hippo]

1. No 2. Not much.

The thing is this: Even if most people are sociopaths, it isn't an issue. What the media labels as a sociopath doesn't match the clinical definition. Even a clinical diagnosis only comes about if the person is having life problems or is hurting other folks, and most won't do that because it would hurt themselves or hamper their goals. The same really goes for hearing voices - it isn't a problem so long as you can deal with it, they are positive and go about life in a fairly normal fashion - but if you can't, you should probably seek help. In addition, a lot of people will self-label if it is a popular thing to be. For reference, suddenly lots of people fall into the autism spectrum, many have ADHD, gluten intolerance, etc without a doctor's actual diagnosis. A "hunch". It is probably normal to feel a bit abnormal because we only see a glimpse of what goes on in other's heads.

... as long as you can sufficiently lavel someone a sociopath, it becomes within your rights to deny them freedoms and torture or kill them.

Not really, nor is this any different from someone schizophrenic or bipolar or any number of diseases. Society is only bothered with those that are violent and outright hurt folks. But it is the same with rapists, child molesters, etc, and there are many contributing factors. So long as we have a society that is generally well-educated and can sort out the difference between reality and fantasy, oddities and normalities, it really doesn't matter much. (whether we have that is debatable and another topic altogether).

[id122015]

1.No. 2. If you want to understand what sociopats are search for the very long article called, The Gervais Principle according to The Office, its also the comedy movie series, and watch it. Its a pitty it only tells the story of sociopaths within corporations. But there are a lot of sociopaths in Public Sector that we cant escape, Public Administration, Public Education, etc.. look sociopath here:

http://m.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2016/06/06/mizzou-empl...