[xx101010]

You did not apply the same level of research to a different field. MRI studies, of, for instance, extraordinary criminals are going to show significant differences from ordinary people. That does not mean their brains are not trained that way.

And, they did provide evidence, citing at the very start of the blurbs from the book a recent study pointing out evidence that empathy parts of these "sociopath" brains did light up under certain conditions. They simply have more control over them then others. But, so do countless non-criminals who also have to forego ordinary emotions and adrenaline reactions as part of their very civil and very social jobs (like cops, surgeons, soldiers, etc).

Anyway, not sure why you would want to dabble in some other fields and expect the same results without equal level of efforts.

I have dual studied comp sec and psychology, and in both instances, been focused on theory, sure, but also results. (To stave insanity in one instance, and to make a living and have some fun in the other. Won't say which one is which.)

[nickpsecurity]

I've always applied a certain amount of research to the other fields. Usually it gets results. That everyone studying this topic is saying different things tells me more about the field of psychology than my own research methods. That's not surprising given that it doesn't even count as science in some places.

Back to the topic. Sure non-criminal, adults forgo emotions on the job after essentially being trained to do so. Probably learned it over time with other life experiences requiring the same thing. Yet, how did the younger one's learn to have no empathy or feelings? What exact path leads to other people's suffering exciting them or causing sexual arousal? What individual experience lead people to compulsively commit harm or deception against their own intentions?

Most of this stuff doesn't seem like it should pop out of nowhere. If it does, it was probably innate. Otherwise, it was learned through some kind of experience and what experiences cause these things to become habits? Quite debatable. There's too little, hard evidence presented on most sides of these things. People in my position could do better if we had some.

"Anyway, not sure why you would want to dabble in some other fields and expect the same results without equal level of efforts."

Nice fallacy and troll tactic given nobody said that. Unsurprising that this is also your first post. Goodbye, troll.

[xx101010]

"'Anyway, not sure why you would want to dabble in some other fields and expect the same results without equal level of efforts.' Nice fallacy and troll tactic given nobody said that. Unsurprising that this is also your first post. Goodbye, troll."

That is not a "troll" statement, nor a "psychopath" statement. I say the exact same thing to my own self, and it is very important for me to say to my own self.

That does not mean saying it to a stranger on a public forum is necessarily likely to help them come to better understanding. It can depend on who they are, and how they operate.

But, what you did there is an excellent example for a very serious flaw in 'how people think of others'. Taking a completely valid yet "critical" statement and dismissing the person making it (even if it were your own self) does what? It is depersonalizing the person.

You do not have to think about what they have to say, because you have closed off thinking by labeling them. In this case, your diagnosis is both as a "troll" (derogatory, listen to nothing they say)... and a "psychopath" (derogatory, listen to nothing they say).

You may not listen to this, but perhaps others would. And maybe, even some part of you could. This is not abnormal reaction, it is a normal, common reaction. People want to shut down sources that have anything challenging to say.

Truth is, my statement actually implies something positive about you. That you have done effective and strong research in your own area, which I am taking from your nick to be "security". As in computer security. With some consideration for the context, which is this forum.

So, someone says one good thing and one "bad" thing, and that causes an immediate - automatic - reaction to shut them down consciously... and depersonalize them with not just one emotionally laden label, but two.

That, btw, is how the unconscious interacts with the conscious. Automatic behavior. There are other ways, but you have to deprogram yourself, or better - debug yourself - in order to get closer access to your unconscious and make more informed judgments.

I may have been manipulative for another reason. I may have been pattern breaking, or trying to shut down your conscious facilities to get everything else in there. Benign, malicious... your conscious would have one view, your "unconscious" another.

FYI, I will be completely upfront: I am dual studied in these fields, but within very narrow scopes. And the reason why - besides general personal betterment - well, for psychology, it was to deal with madness. Not "sociopathy", not "psychopathy".

PTSD, paranoid schizophrenia, schizoaffective... are some of the meaningful labels there. Addictive Personality disorder. At times, depression, and other possible labels could be applied to myself by myself, or by professional psychiatrists. But, those are just labels. And while they have some value for my own self to help me find potential "cures", they are not names. They are not permanent labels. When you get into that kind of thinking, you are setting your own course for no change. It is destructive.

Conversely, I understand what I am prone to, and that can help me know how to steer the boat of my own self in the future.

A lot of the best advice I have ever gotten was challenging. Advice which has no challenge often is just 'what people want to hear'.

It is true, typically, what one wants to do to persuade someone is to be indirect and build up rapport. But, if it is always rapport, you end up doing nothing to lead them anywhere else. You might as well just be a monkey or parrot.

Even if, where you actually need to go is the wrong place you are being led to... it still is very likely... a place you have not even considered before. And so, then, you have another possible "here be sea monsters" or big rocks and low ground you can put on your map. And go somewhere else.

"Sure non-criminal, adults forgo emotions on the job after essentially being trained to do so. Probably learned it over time with other life experiences requiring the same thing. Yet, how did the younger one's learn to have no empathy or feelings? What exact path leads to other people's suffering exciting them or causing sexual arousal? What individual experience lead people to compulsively commit harm or deception against their own intentions?"

Asking the "how's" is very difficult, without extensively studying "such people". But, when you do study them, you discover while there may be commonalities, there is also individuality.

Freud/Fraud worked hard at pretending to study root causes, but the guy was just popularizing and bastardizing concepts which were already there. His own four or so patients he had, every single one was a failure.

You mention 'sexual sadism' in the same vein as really very common other "symptoms" or "indicators". But, 'sexual sadism' is extremely rare, very aberrant, very bizarre.

My point is: why do you need to understand psychology. This is important. Because people get good at what they need to do. And they constantly give themselves other reasons for other matters.

So, many in psychology just needed a job. Many needed to fix or maintain themselves. Often people just need some further understanding which they can then use to displace and put away matters they do not want to deliberate on, to think on.

In security, you may want to control some people. You definitely want to predict their behavior. But, normally, you are more interested in "economic" level factors, in terms of risk analysis.

Individual analysis is not much needed for most areas of comp sec. I have had to apply it, because I have worked with sources. Or perform security interviews. But, that is personal, individualistic.

Usually, I just have to consider wider range factors that involve such matters on a more economic level. Where economy may mean, directly, money. Or it may be economy of information. What is the value of what you are protecting by considering the value of it in various markets. That sort of thing.

And, FYI, I posted here, on this, first, because the psychological implications of security interest me the most. This is a specific area where I have seen those who are most at fault, are those who are the ones attempting to do the labelling. So, it intrigues me to see their ideas, their perspectives.

[xx101010]

Thinking on 'why people do this', I have come to the conclusion that they are attempting to solidify a belief of theirs. Posting about it helps them to do this, because any suggestion (belief) is likely to die after being born if it can not stand future adversity.

And came up with this, for clarification purposes, albeit, it is specifically designed to be more about asking questions then providing answers. Less about the illusion of logic, and more about the reality is questions that do not want to be asked...

This article on [a consensus derogatory label] is invalid because [it goes against how I want to operate consciously]. There are no valid reasons for it, because [it does not offer any evidence, even if it cites a study, I will ignore the existence of that study]. It is also not the consensus opinion of the experts who, I admit, know more then me [even if that consensus opinion is actually explicitly and loudly argued in the argument to be contrary].

Say, a bunch of scientists you admire create an encyclopedia of definitions, of say, living beings. You won't find bigfoot there. You won't find Yeti there. Likewise, "sociopath" and "psychopath" are not in the DSM. And so, by definition, then, the meat of the article actually simply attempts to merely point this out.

If the article was "Bigfoot is a myth", it might be a little less heated. Because critics who disbelieve the bigfoot myth are less likely to be called bigfoot for doing so.

Everyone has their own language. Maybe they are not aware of the underlying etymology of the words "sociopath" or "psychopath". These words, by etymology are extremely generic. One is sick in their dealings with society. Or one is sick in their own mind. So, one could say every definition in the DSM is, actually, both sociopathic and psychopathic.

Is there sickness in their mind? Are there social angles to that sickness? It would be hard to find a single definition in the entire DSM which did not meet one or both of those criteria.

So, saying "sociopathy" or the equivalent people use "psychopathy" is "a myth", is just plain wrong.

Further, it is [not backed by my own standards which exclude the consensus book entirely] and it [does not help me pretend to understand others individually when I need a more generic, all inclusive term to understand them for my own reasons of depersonalizing them].

If you are of [a belief system most contrary to my own], or if you [state a belief I find not most useful to my own conscious purposes to believe], then you are wrong. And I will [attempt to produce a complex enough justification for that judgment to fool my own self and others]. And this is [exactly why I post, to try and create consensus opinion to come to a model I can use in the future and today which is less likely to be decimated by anyone else's model].

And [the problem with this sort of critical post] is that [even though it is obscure I get a strong sense it declothes me], so I will [feel a strong need to actually try and cut it apart].