[knuththetruth]

>Do you think it’s something that people suspect about you? Or do you think people’s perceptions are so off that they wouldn’t really know what psychopathy looks like?

>No. Psychopaths use what we call a ‘mask.’ It’s basically an entire affectation of being like everyone else. We learn at a really young age that if we respond to things the way that we naturally respond to things, people don’t like that. So you just learn how to affect the behavior and how to appear like everyone else, and that’s just what you have to do.

Psychopaths always believe this to be true, and to their “credit,” it does deceive many people. But it’s also symptomatic of their narcissistic delusions.

It’s been my experience that people who have had the misfortune of spending a lot of time around a psychopath can quite quickly identify others. It’s hard to describe exactly, but psychopaths are very deterministic in their behavior patterns. It’s as if the dulled emotions and fear response subtract some of the randomness that makes people without this pathology actually unpredictable. They can still be surprising in the moral thresholds and social boundaries they’ll cross without hesitation, but in terms of what they pursue (opportunities to deceive and manipulate, power over others), they’re dully predictable.

So, many do actually see completely through them, it’s just that this knowledge isn’t very useful. Social hierarchies and asymmetries of power do more to preserve their capacity to cause damage than anything else, so without the opportunity to fundamentally change the context you’re navigating, there’s not much you can do. Your boss will, in most cases, still be your boss, even if they’re transparently psychopathic. And their power to harm you is inherent to their title, not the specifics of their personality.

This is why if you ever read a book about dealing with psychopaths, the first thing they’ll almost all tell you is that nothing is gained by confronting them and your best recourse is to disengage as completely as possible. It’s a realpolitik approach to social dynamics, because only in rare and limited circumstances does a deep understanding of the psychopathic mind allow you to transcend them.

[dfraser992]

Got my upvote there... I had to deal with a actual psychopath who'd fooled the other people in this little charity sort of org for years. I got pulled in because a friend asked me to work on their website and I was supportive of the goals of the organization.

The guy was an obvious ass&*$% but had wormed his way into defining himself as the 'head' of the org and people went on with it because A) the dominant behaviors B) he'd turned himself into the public face of the org C) and I quote "yeah, but he's productive, he motivates other people, he gets things done"... But that was just the Stockholm syndrome talking - people like this are little more than parasites. I was the new guy so could see through the mask a lot quicker. I wish I'd asked questions about the backstory...

I concur with everything you say about social hierarchies and power. I'm American and my take on the English, based on my living here for over a decade and all the sociopathically inclined I've run into, is that there is a very good reason there seems to be so many adult bullies etc in the UK (versus my take on America). The rigid class structure and etc conceals a lot of fundamental psychological pathologies in English society - sure, they're present in every society, but the English seem to revel in them and even regard them as virtues.

[kromem]

I think the thing most interesting in the interview was the S/O and friends.

What's the value in those relationships to a psychopath? I can't imagine there's the same desire for consensual validation, etc that drives so many normative relationships.

I really wish the interviewer dived a bit deeper into what her need fulfillment was in her interpersonal relationships.

[ashildr]

„I can't imagine there's the same desire for consensual validation, etc that drives so many normative relationships.“

So is the rational decision to be together with a S/O less worthy than being bound together by the subconscious (chemical?) force of love?

[knuththetruth]

It’s touched on obliquely, but psychopaths are impulsive and in constant need of stimulation, which, because of their diminished emotional responses, they largely derive from anti-social behavior. Its adrenaline inducing response is one of the few ways they can “feel.” High functioning psychopaths will often pursue long-term relationships because they provide a consistent source of this kind of stimulation, while also allowing them to modulate and practice the “masks” they use to deceive others.

The interviewee more or less admits this in speaking about how her “friend” would frequently ask if she was unwelcome around the interviewee, despite her not doing anything explicit to suggest this. It’s a typical psychopathic lapse into bragging about one’s ability to manipulate or inspire fear in others, albeit under the guise of the ability to “feel concern.” I guess it’s kind of a clever manipulation within the context of the interview itself, if again, it wasn’t so remarkably predictable. Few psychopaths can seem to go very long without slipping in examples of their inherent superiority or delighting in some prior act of sadism.

[anothergoogler]

The authoritative tone of your comments bothers me. What are they based on? The claim that psychopaths pursue long-term relationships doesn't jive with the antisocial nature of this condition. I'm also troubled by your view that any engagement with a psychopath is wasted. Psychopathy does not exclude reason. A premise of your views is that you are able to unambiguously diagnose psychopathy in others, and that it is appropriate to treat those people radically differently based on your casual diagnosis.

To be frank, I feel like I'm reading paraphrases of Pieter Hintjens' self-help book "The Psychopath Code" which is quite popular with this website's users. The book is no longer open source, but I read a fair bit of it when it was. It struck me as a dangerous work that teaches how to perceive your foes as psychopaths, and then to cut them out of your life. I can see how the practice is empowering, but it irresponsibly elevates the armchair psychologist reader.

I think your comments should be be composed like the opinions they are, and not made to sound like objective truth.

[XorNot]

The much more interesting version of this article was the neurology researcher who scanned his own brain and found it matched exactly the structure of criminal psychopaths who he was studying.

The guy otherwise had a wife, children and positive social environment, so it was something of a surprise discovery to him. It was much more introspective and informative on the possible nature of the condition - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscien...

[DanBC]

He's mentioned in the submitted article, and there's some dispute about his findings. There's a bunch of stuff that affects brain function, and "psychopathy" is only one of them.

> Similarly, he takes issue with neuroscientist James Fallon’s calling himself a psychopath because his brain imaging profile matched that of psychopathic individuals.

> “Just because the amygdala shows hypoactivation does not make you a psychopath,” says Neumann. “This is a characteristic that’s associated with psychopathy, but biology is not destiny. We believe that the syndrome, the personality disorder, is a coming together of these four major domains.”

[baza89]

Just thinking out loud: As for long term relationships, they provide easily accessable sex for instance, so no hassle in constantly looking for partners. Also having someone always around is consistent source of other forms of (anti)social stimuli.

But I generally very much agree with you, (m)any of the psychopathy traits listed in the article can be, or even are to a certain degree, present in everyone. So there is real danger in stigmatazing just about regular people.

And sure interaction with a psychopath doesn't need to be destructive for everyone, that'd have to be some kind hard working super villain to be able to hurt everyone around them.

And to emphasize, antisocial behaviour or just put plainly being a bad person is something everyone is guilty of.

So if this psychopath term is to be considered real it would just mean that psychos do a certain combination of (bad) things to a much higher degree than everyone else.

But if it all comes down to a degree, it makes me wonder if there really is no therapy for these people? Can they really not change? Can they really not learn to accentuate wider spectre of emotions?

Regular people can change their behaviour albeit it can be really hard, and they need to want it. Thus I'm not really buying the whole it's a fixed thing, it's brain chemistry-morphology whatever narrative.

[dnomad]

This is pretty silly. But then the article is also really silly. Psychopaths are not superheroes. They don't have magical powers. And, believe it or not, they are absolutely not narcissists who need stimulation from other people.

In simplest terms psychopaths are people who do not "get" the particularity of human relationships. To a psychopath, relationships are always and everywhere abstract conceptual power relations. They don't get jealous (but they can fake jealousy), they don't fall in love (but they can fake love) and when people leave their lives it's more like losing money on a bad investment then, you know, losing one's best friend or lover. This is not magical or antisocial or deviant. Psychopaths are just everyday people who never really miss other people. They are just as stupid and irrational as everybody else but in different ways.

There is an argument here to be made here that just as society is welcoming of people who fall in love at the drop of a dime it should also be welcoming of people who can't fall in love. It's the sort of thing, like homosexuality, that people might think is a big deal but is really not and eventually will just be sort of normalized.

[baza89]

>In simplest terms psychopaths are people who do not "get" the particularity of human relationships.

Well now, I'm pretty sure you can't use this as a definition for psychopathy, as many other types of disorders fit this definition.

In my comment I was thinking of the definition given by this article, and the list of traits it provides.

So going by that definition I have to disagree with your argument: "...that people might think is a big deal but is really not and eventually will just be sort of normalized."

If someone checks all the boxes from the points raised in this article I would really hope that that sort of behavior never gets normalized because these traits are the exact opposite of what people should strive for in their lives.

[dfraser992]

His comments are reflections of all the extensive reading I've done, though he explains things better than I ever could. So I didn't have a problem with his authoritative tone - in general, I never have a problem with an "authoritative tone" when there is actual content and it matches up with what I know for myself, or it looks like it can be double checked (and is).

I guess for me I find it easy enough to ascertain the emotional drivers behind what someone is saying (or I think so). From that you can tell where they're coming from and what their motivations really are. A useful skill one gets in spades once you've dealt with an actual psychopath...

[knuththetruth]

>The authoritative tone of your comments bothers me. What are they based on?

A moderately extensive reading of the popular and professional literature on psychopaths. I know this is an internet message board, so it’s best to doubt such claims, but that’s the answer.

>The claim that psychopaths pursue long-term relationships doesn't jive with the antisocial nature of this condition

You’ll notice that I prefaced that with “high functioning.” High functioning psychopaths often come from financially and emotionally stable families/backgrounds, which help inhibit what we’d think of as overtly anti-social behavior (e.g. violence). And as you say, psychopaths are not without reason. Given a set of sufficiently pro-social developmental circumstances, some can learn to delay their “gratifications” to obtain greater “rewards,” just like anyone else.

>I'm also troubled by your view that any engagement with a psychopath is wasted.

It’s not so much wasted, but about reducing your exposure to harm. And it’s not my view, you can find the same stated in the work of people like Hare, Stout, and Babiak.

>A premise of your views is that you are able to unambiguously diagnose psychopathy in others, and that it is appropriate to treat those people radically differently based on your casual diagnosis.

I claim no such ability. I’m speaking only to a fuzzy heuristic intended to reduce my own exposure to psychopaths after damaging experiences with people who quite consistently match their patterns of behavior.

>To be frank, I feel like I'm reading paraphrases of Pieter Hintjens' self-help book "The Psychopath Code" which is quite popular with this website's users.

I’ve never read this book, so I can’t speak to it. Again, you’re well warranted in your skepticism because it’s the internet.

[dnomad]

> It’s touched on obliquely, but psychopaths are impulsive and in constant need of stimulation, which, because of their diminished emotional responses, they largely derive from anti-social behavior. Its adrenaline inducing response is one of the few ways they can “feel.”

Another way to look at this is that psychopaths seek and respond to different kinds of stimulation. They have little interest in gossip, hanging out or generalized bonding rituals. Instead they may be drawn to competitive, "results-oriented" games where individuals or groups have a clear objective. They may also, on the whole, be more drawn to "high-stakes" games because they perceive less downsides and more potential upsides to such games. Again, this doesn't suggest any real malicious intent. Psychopaths are just using different risk metrics. While some people may shy away from high-stakes status games because they are very sensitive to the potential loss of status, to a psychopath, "loss of status" isn't a thing and so such games can be perceived as pure upside.

> It’s a typical psychopathic lapse into bragging about one’s ability to manipulate or inspire fear in others, albeit under the guise of the ability to “feel concern.”

Again you seem to deliberately attributing some kind of malign intent without justification. This woman is trying to explain how she relates to others and why. There's no reason to think she is lying or that she cannot actually feel concern.

[serversytem]

How can loss of status not be a thing to psychopaths when they are narcissistic?

[afpx]

When someone appears to be non-psychopathic, how can you be certain?

Reminds me of the “zombie problem”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie