# High and low functioning sociopathy



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Just curious if anyone is familiar with high/low functioning sociopathy, and perhaps if one has read the book by Kevin Dutton "The Wisdom of Psychopaths":

The Wisdom of Psychopaths - Lessons in Life from Saints, Spies & Serial Killers by Professor Kevin Dutton

Which seem to treat psychopathy as more inherent traits than a psychological disorder that must be labelled and treated. Research is ongoing and all my life I've always questioned the "facts" in the field of psychology especially when it made zero sense to me, especially its absolutes and inflexibility. It is unfortunate that there isn't a book which deals more directly into sociopathy rather than psychopathy but... we use the resources available to us.

So far, Mr. Dutton's views are more in the minority but do you feel there is truth in it?


----------



## sandcastle (Sep 5, 2014)

So- you would have to be diagnosed at least Anti- Social = sociopath.

And yes- I'm familiar with an actual diagnosed sociopath- diagnosis by one of the leading Mental Health Hospitals in the world and NO , I have not read Duttons book.

I deal with a moderately destructive Sociopath who is charming,witty and is not going to jail for any reason. That would be high- functioning as opposed to the vast majority of Anti- socials who make up the prison population.

Or so I've been told.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Curious about the diagnosis too, when is it the line is drawn when it comes to dealing with others accepted as having only sociopathic traits before being labelled as an actual sociopath?

Also, high-functioning sociopaths, why are all considered destructive? Is it due to the potential damage they cause or the damage they actually cause irrelevant of the more... positive aspects some bring into society (which is the subject the book relays on)


----------



## sandcastle (Sep 5, 2014)

Research Anti social diagnosis-

Basically nice term for sociopath.this diagnosis can be combined with other cluster B traits as well as non cluster b traits.

On a spectrum . 

If you believe you are dealing with this disorder- I suggest you get a diagnosis from one of the standout professionals connected with a Hospital like Hopkins, Menninger etc.


----------



## sandcastle (Sep 5, 2014)

Not to mean you , personally ,have the traits associated with the disorder( maybe you do, not the issue)but if you are in anyway closely connected to someone who fits the bill- rather than google diagnose- you really do need to get whomever diagnosed by serious credentials.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Ah, but where exactly on the spectrum is the line drawn, that's what I'm curious about.

Also, is having sociopathic traits inherently bad and in need of serious attention? Let's use one of the tamer ones, one which I'm most curious about; such as lack of empathy. I read an article before - forgot where it was - but they researched both high/low sociopaths in determine their empathy, they found empathy to be a switch - due to their findings from the high functioning one. The conclusion was curious, as it mentioned that the ability to control one's empathy isn't a trait inherent with diagnosed sociopaths, and they used examples such as where a mother could kill coldly to defend her child.

Also Dutton did his research on a diagnosed psychopath, an ex-SAS soldier, what he called by the title of one of his books "Good Psychopath", and makes me question why we use the label on rather, productive and beneficial members of society.


----------



## Uptown (Mar 27, 2010)

RandomDude said:


> Just curious if anyone is familiar with high/low functioning sociopathy.


Dude, most people having a full-blown personality disorder are "high functioning." With BPDers, for example, recent studies suggest that roughly 2/3 to 3/4 of them are HF. They exhibit most of the 9 BPD symptoms at a strong and persistent level. But they nonetheless tend to get along fine with casual friends, business associates, clients, and total strangers -- because none of those people pose a threat to their two fears: abandonment and engulfment. This is why most BPDers can be friendly and controlled all day long at work but will go home at night to abuse the very people who love them, i.e., those who made the mistake of drawing close in a relationship that triggers the two fears.



> Ah, but where exactly on the spectrum is the line drawn, that's what I'm curious about.


"Where exactly" does not exist. There is no precision in "diagnosing" a full-blown PD because the diagnostic manual specifies only general guidelines. Hence, different psychologists have differing opinions on where that line should be drawn. The criteria are set at such a high threshold that they primarily serve only the interests of the courts and insurance companies, who insisted upon a bright line. But drawing this bright line _"makes zero sense,"_ as you say.

This is so because, like all the other PDs, sociopathy (ASPD) is a "spectrum disorder." This means that, like selfishness and resentment, sociopathic traits are merely behavioral symptoms that everybody has to some degree. It therefore was ridiculous for the psychiatric community to adopt a dichotomous approach -- wherein a client is deemed "to have" or "not have" sociopathy.

Granted, this "yes or no" approach makes perfect sense in every field of the medical sciences, where clients are found to either have a disease or not. Chickenpox, for example, is something a person either "has" or "does not have." This is why, in the medical sciences, "disorder" means "disease." In psychiatry, however, it does not mean that with respect to PDs. There is NO KNOWN DISEASE that causes any of the ten personality disorders (PDs). Hence, in psychiatry, a personality "disorder" simply means "group of behavioral symptoms typically occurring together" (aka a "syndrome").

Of course, a substantial segment of the psychiatric community has long known that this dichotomous approach to diagnosis makes no sense for behavioral symptoms that vary in intensity from person to person. They knew it is senseless to say a person meeting only 95% of the diagnostic criteria "has no disorder" and a person meeting 100% "has the disorder."

Doing so is as silly as diagnosing everyone under 6'4" as "short" and everyone under 250 pounds as "skinny." The psychiatric community adopted this silly approach only because the insurance companies and the courts -- who were long accustomed to "yes or no" diagnoses from the medical community -- were pressing for a single, bright line being drawn between those clients they would cover (or institutionalize) and those they would not cover.

Consequently, when a person looking for a mate or deciding whether to remain married, obtaining a diagnosis of "no sociopathy" is unlikely to be helpful. It may be as useless as telling a blind man "There is no BUS coming" when he is deciding whether to step into a crosswalk in front of oncoming trucks and cars. Importantly, a person satisfying 75% or 85% of the diagnostic criteria -- and, hence, "not having sociopathy" -- may be nearly as difficult to live with as a person satisfying 100%. 



> Curious about the diagnosis too.


the psychiatric community is still unable to "diagnose" in the way that term is used in all other scientific fields. When a psychologist tells you he has "diagnosed" you as having sociopathy, he only means that he has determined that your behavioral symptoms are severe and persistent. 

In every field of the medical sciences, however, "diagnosis" does NOT occur by simply telling you the severity or persistence of your symptoms. On the contrary, the doctor usually relies on YOU to provide that information. This is why the very first thing he will ask you is what symptoms you've been experiencing and how long they have been occurring. Hence, when a medical doctor gives you a diagnosis, he is not describing your symptoms. Rather, he is telling you what CAUSES those symptoms (i.e., name of a disease).

For several decades, psychologists tried to diagnose in that manner -- i.e., tried to identify the underlying causes of behavioral symptoms. Sadly, the result was an unmitigated disaster. It was so bad that a client seeing three different psychologists likely would be given three different diagnoses. During the 1970s, the field of psychology had become such a joke to the scientific community that the American Psychiatric Association members decided to stop trying to diagnose mental disorders in the same way that medical doctors diagnose diseases. 

Hence, in 1980, the APA stopped trying to identify the causes of these behavioral symptoms. This means psychologists stopped attempting to perform a true diagnosis. Instead, they adopted a new approach (DSM-III) in which they identify only the symptoms themselves. The irony, of course, is that the APA decided to use the term "diagnosis" to describe this process of rating the severity of symptoms. Never mind that nobody has yet been able to prove, to a certainty, what it is that CAUSES personality disorders. 

Unfortunately, this misuse of the term "diagnosis" has confused a substantial share of the lay public. Many laymen fear that, if they start speaking of behavioral symptoms in an educated manner, people will think they are trying to do an "armchair diagnosis." They confuse "spotting symptoms" with "making a diagnosis." They don't realize that the psychiatric community WANTS them to learn how to spot these mental disorders by learning the behavioral symptoms -- i.e., the warning signs -- associated with each disorder. This is why hundreds of mental health institutions describe these behavioral symptoms on their public websites. 



> Also, is having sociopathic traits inherently bad and in need of serious attention?


No, having sociopathic traits simply means you are human. Everyone on the planet exhibits these traits and all the other PD traits occasionally -- at a mild level if they are healthy. Psychologists Trull and Widiger write (2013) that, _"In a survey of members of the International Society for the Study of Personality Disorders and the Association for Research on Personality Disorders, 80% of respondents indicated that *'personality disorders are better understood as variants of normal personality than as categorical disease entities.'”*_ See Trull-Widiger 2013 at 1. 

At low to moderate levels, PD traits are essential to our survival. They become a problem only when they are so strong that they start to seriously undermine our relationships with others. This is why the blue-ribbon panel of experts (DSM-5 Work Group) recommended in 2012 that this dichotomous approach be gutted and completely replaced with a graduated (i.e., dimensional) approach that makes it clear that people have sociopathic (and other PD) traits to various degrees (i.e., "little to no impairment," "some," "moderate," "severe," and "extreme"). Because the APA membership wanted more empirical testing done before implementing the new approach, it appears in Section III of the current diagnostic manual to encourage research. And it likely will be adopted and fully implemented in the next revision of the manual.



> Why are all [high-functioning sociopaths] considered destructive?


My view -- like yours, Dude -- is that many high-functioning sociopaths and other PD sufferers can be very valuable to society -- even when their PD traits are strong. Sociopathic traits sometimes may be beneficial to society in some professions, e.g., for surgeons, soldiers, and politicians.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Very interesting read, thank you as it REALLY explains alot! 2012 was that article written. Seems to have come some way in ten years. 

Curious however, is this a much supported revision based on the study or does it face challenges?


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Hmmm, definitely going to discuss this with my friend who is studying psychology, rather surprised she's not aware of this material yet. One hell of a response, it's much appreciated.

EDIT: Also, assuming these views are the majority - as in 80%, why is not more common knowledge? Why do even books written by these professionals themselves enforce the labeling of psychopaths by even titling one of their subjects as a "good psychopath". I'm suspecting it may be due to the general public being more familiar with the use of labeling rather than as you say - a spectrum. But in that case, shouldn't we be working against that?

In other words, shouldn't we, in this case, remove the word "psychopath", and leave only "psychopathy" or "psychopathic" traits?


----------



## Uptown (Mar 27, 2010)

RandomDude said:


> Is this a much supported revision based on the study or does it face challenges?


Dude, the move to a graduated approach for diagnosis is widely recognized as necessary and inevitable. The only thing holding it up is the lack of time to do any empirical testing to see if psychologists have difficulty using the new categories. That testing is currently being done.



> Also, assuming these views are the majority - as in 80%, why is not more common knowledge?


It is common knowledge among the professionals. Indeed, they had to know, back in 1980, that it makes no sense to use a dichotomous approach for evaluating one's position on a spectrum. Yet, because the psychiatric community was in a serious crisis in the late 1970s, there was great pressure to do something quickly -- and to do something simple that would produce uniform results from various psychologists.



> Why do even books written by these professionals themselves enforce the labeling of psychopaths by even titling one of their subjects as a "good psychopath"?


I believe the labeling is a good thing as long as it is made clear that "psychopath" is properly defined, e.g., as being on the upper third or upper fifth of the psychopathy spectrum. What is absurd about the current dichotomous approach is that, when a person falls a little short of the diagnostic threshold, he is said to "not have psychopathy." 



> In other words, shouldn't we, in this case, remove the word "psychopath", and leave only "psychopathy" or "psychopathic" traits?


As noted above, I don't have a problem with labeling someone as tall, heavy, smart, funny, or psychopathic as long as those labels are clearly defined to indicate we are talking about an upper region of a spectrum. If you're going to worry about labeling, the worst label appears on the front of the 600 page book. It's titled "Diagnostic Manual" even though it doesn't offer a true diagnosis of any of the 157 "disorders." It should be called a "Dictionary of Behavioral Terms." The ten personality disorders, for example, are not disorders at all. Rather, they are syndromes, i.e., groups of common human behavior. Because these behavior patterns apply to all of us, it is valuable to have a common language (i.e., labels) with which to discuss them.

Although the 10 PDs are called "disorders," they actually are only "patterns of behavior." Nobody on the planet yet knows whether the 157 mental "disorders" are caused by 5 different disorders or by 3,000 different disorders. The problem is that "Sociopathy" is defined only as a group of symptoms. This is a problem because symptoms usually tell you little or nothing about the disorder causing those symptoms. 

This is why the medical profession largely abandoned using symptoms as a basis of "diagnosis" in the middle of the last century. That is, doctors realized that the same set of symptoms sometimes can be caused by any of two dozen different disorders or diseases. Moreover, a single disease may cause any of a dozen sets of symptoms, depending on the age, gender, and general health of the patient. Medical doctors therefore switched to basing diagnosis on blood tests, body scans, and analysis of tissue samples. As I said earlier, a true diagnosis requires a determination of the cause of symptoms. Simply describing the symptoms usually tells you virtually nothing about causality.



> I'm suspecting it may be due to the general public being more familiar with the use of labeling rather than as you say - a spectrum. But in that case, shouldn't we be working against that?


Yes, but the public is more familiar with it only because that's what the psychiatric community has been telling them for 37 years. The public will find a graduated approach (e.g., mild, moderate, strong, severe) just as simple to learn as the nonsensical dichotomous approach ("has it," "doesn't have it").


----------



## sandcastle (Sep 5, 2014)

Most - if not all - Psychiatrist/shrinks boot patients once they diagnose said patient with a PD. They can't prescribe drugs to "fix" Borderline, anti- social, narcissistic, histrionic etc .

CBT/DBT may help but that requires dedication and an admission from the PD diagnosed that they are destroying their relationships/ life.

Hard to do when you lack empathy for anyone but yourself.

It is the victims of the PD diagnosed that shrinks can possibly help with prescribed Meds -anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, drug/alcohol addiction.

YMMV.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

The problem is:

Painting a portrait with two colors. Black and white.

Or with one color say black on white parchment.

Life is variable 'to the max'..

The 'colors', hues, tints, pastels, lack of color, give it this variability.

It is equivalent to trying to measure 'sine-wave', 'Alternating Voltage'.
Most useful equations use 'instantaneous voltage' rather than a false, fixed amount.

Our brain is a chemical factory. The neurons are unpredictable and as variable as most anything in nature.
Neurons, proteins and chemicals, molecules make up memories and our response to stimuli and our thinking patterns.

This grey matter is made up of billions of neurons, some working well, some half baked.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

In the end..

Psychiatrists will literally reprogram the brain.
Using probes that enter at key junctures.

Or depth-controlled, beamed, neuronal 'reordering' waves that enter the skull without a scalpel or a drill bit.
..................................................................................................................................
I have commented on this before. Women need to run for the hills when men master this science.
Note: this is not a joke or a tongue in cheek, snide remark. I am dead serious..

Remember the old movie, circa 1956, Forbidden Planet ?
They had a mind machine that gave 'normal' beings super powers. And the users did what all sentient beings do. They used it selfishly, for their own pleasure. they ended up killing each other.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Uptown said:


> Dude, the move to a graduated approach for diagnosis is widely recognized as necessary and inevitable. The only thing holding it up is the lack of time to do any empirical testing to see if psychologists have difficulty using the new categories. That testing is currently being done.
> 
> It is common knowledge among the professionals. Indeed, they had to know, back in 1980, that it makes no sense to use a dichotomous approach for evaluating one's position on a spectrum. Yet, because the psychiatric community was in a serious crisis in the late 1970s, there was great pressure to do something quickly -- and to do something simple that would produce uniform results from various psychologists.
> 
> ...


Hmmm... makes sense, I still don't like labelling for example, that SAS soldier as a psychopath, even if he's in the upper third or fifth of the spectrum. Besides, it's already admitted that even having a high PD can still prove to be beneficial for society. Labelling has a risk of self-identification from my experience, it's an uneducated opinion but that's just my experience with it, hence I use the labels as more of a joke, but I fear others may take it more seriously and even worse - identify as one, when they should be focusing on their actual psychopathic traits, understanding them, capitalising them to use in a productive way and not class themselves as "fked in the head". I tend to reveal the positive aspects of psychopathy and lack of empathy when used in the correct situations to do positive things in society to illustrate the ineffectiveness of the labels as well.

It's good news for me that we are moving away from that at least. Looking forward to the future if that's the case, still worried about the labelling though


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

Uptown said:


> This is why the medical profession largely abandoned using symptoms as a basis of "diagnosis" in the middle of the last century. That is, doctors realized that the same set of symptoms sometimes can be caused by any of two dozen different disorders or diseases.


Yeah, this is the blunder that was made with "type 1 diabetes" and "type 2 diabetes".
Two completely different diseases, different causes and mechanisms, different treatments. 
But the same *symptoms* (high blood sugar, and complications caused by that). 

In my vocabulary, I would not refer to a PD as a "mental illness".


----------



## Uptown (Mar 27, 2010)

Laurentium said:


> In my vocabulary, I would not refer to a PD as a "mental illness".


The psychiatric community refers to PDs as "disorders" and "mental illness." Strictly speaking, however, PDs are defined only as a group of symptoms, i.e., a pattern of behavior that everyone has to some degree. The PDs therefore reveal little or nothing about the nature and characteristics of the actual disorder (actual mental illness). Psychologists simply ASSUME that when sociopathic symptoms are severe enough, there MUST be some underlying disorder/illness causing those symptoms. Because that disorder is unknown, it may be the very same disorder that causes the other 9 PDs as well. Or there may be 20 disorders, any one of which can cause sociopathic symptoms.

If the rest of society used the term "diagnosis" in this peculiar manner (where no actual diagnosis is made), it is easy to imagine the result. You find that your car is pulling strongly to the left on the highway, so you drive into an auto repair shop to get the problem diagnosed and fixed. The repairman asks what symptoms you're encountering. You explain that you must struggle with the steering wheel because the car keeps pulling to the left. The repairman asks how severe the symptoms are. You explain that the problem is so severe that your right shoulder is hurting from fighting the steering wheel for the past hour.

The repairman gives you the diagnosis: _Pull Rightosis_. He explains that it is very different from _Pull Leftosis_, which has the opposite effect. He also explains that, although some speculate that this problem might be caused by a defective linkage in the steering column or by worn tires or bad alignment, nobody has yet proven what is really causing it. It thus cannot be fixed. There are, however, effective treatments for reducing the symptoms. One option is for him to attach a strong spring to the right side of the steering wheel and anchor it to the car's floor. Another option is for him to give you ibuprofen or aspirin to treat your throbbing shoulder.

Like this repairman, a psychologist's inability to perform a true diagnosis and fix the problem does NOT imply that he is ineffective and useless. On the contrary, psychologists provide enormous help to millions of people. Although they cannot cure or fix the (unknown) underlying disorders, they nonetheless can save and transform peoples' lives by treating the symptoms, thereby reducing emotional pain. 

Hence, my primary objection is that, by using the term "diagnosis" in such a peculiar way, psychologists have unintentionally mislead a large share of the public into believing that they cannot identify PD symptoms because doing so constitutes a "diagnosis." It does not. Indeed, the experts at identifying symptoms are not the professionals but, rather, the laymen (who usually are the only ones in a position where symptoms can be seen or felt). A symptom, _by definition_, is something that a layman can identify. When the lay public is unable to identify the effects of a disorder, that disorder is said to be "asymptomatic," i.e., without symptoms.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Treatment... curious, how about those deemed "mentally ill" by severe PDs, but are otherwise functional and productive? Is it really something that should be cured if functional and if the "sociopaths" in question are socially decent members of society? Mainly focusing on the high functioning sociopath/psychopaths, not the other PDs. Still the list of PDs are rather odd to me compared to what I would consider serious mental illnesses such as Alzheimer's (though it's classed as medical correct?) which my grandmother suffers from.


----------



## Uptown (Mar 27, 2010)

RandomDude said:


> Is it really something that should be cured if functional and if the "sociopaths" in question are socially decent members of society? Mainly focusing on the high functioning sociopath/psychopaths, not the other PDs.


None of the 157 mental disorders listed in the DSM 5 can be cured. As noted above, you cannot cure a disorder or disease until you first have identified it. That requires an actual diagnosis of what the disorder is. Psychologists cannot yet do that for any disorder. This is why, in 2015, the National Institute of Mental Health diverted its research grants away from the study of symptoms to the hunt for biomarkers that prove the existence of actual, identifiable disorders. This switch is significant because NIMH is the world's largest funder of mental health research.

As to sociopathy (ASPD), the distinguishing feature is not that it cannot be cured. None of the 157 disorders can be cured. Rather, the remarkable feature is that it apparently cannot be treated. Treatment only works, of course, if the patient has sufficient self awareness to recognize he has a problem as well as having sufficient ego strength to do something about it. I've never heard of treatment being successful (i.e., making a substantial improvement) in a sociopath, who would agree with your view that sociopaths have no dysfunctional behavior that warrants treatment.



> Still the list of PDs are rather odd to me compared to what I would consider serious mental illnesses such as Alzheimer's (though it's classed as medical correct?) which my grandmother suffers from.


No, Alzheimer's Disease is still listed in the DSM-5 as a mental illness. Like the other 156 mental disorders, it cannot yet be truly diagnosed. That is, scientists have not yet found biomarkers that can identify the disease itself. Hence, psychologists look for the symptoms and, if they are sufficiently severe, they assume that a (unidentified) disease must be present in the brain. But scientists seem to be getting close to identifying an actual disease. They have already identified a buildup of sticky proteins in the brains of Alzheimer's patients. So far, however, that biomarker has been too unreliable an indicator because it is found in the brains of many healthy people too. This, at least, is my understanding.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

Uptown said:


> ....
> 
> My view -- like yours, Dude -- is that many high-functioning sociopaths and other PD sufferers can be very valuable to society -- even when their PD traits are strong. Sociopathic traits sometimes may be beneficial to society in some professions, e.g., for surgeons, soldiers, and politicians.


I write this in sheer ignorace.

For most people, their emotional life is like giving a kid a motor bike that it has no idea how to ride, control or maintain or a mustang that just drags it along. In this respect, a psychopath only has a pushbike, but it is far better for many purposes. But, the best life of all is to take control of your motorbike.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Uptown said:


> None of the 157 mental disorders listed in the DSM 5 can be cured. As noted above, you cannot cure a disorder or disease until you first have identified it. That requires an actual diagnosis of what the disorder is. Psychologists cannot yet do that for any disorder. This is why, in 2015, the National Institute of Mental Health diverted its research grants away from the study of symptoms to the hunt for biomarkers that prove the existence of actual, identifiable disorders. This switch is significant because NIMH is the world's largest funder of mental health research.
> 
> As to sociopathy (ASPD), the distinguishing feature is not that it cannot be cured. None of the 157 disorders can be cured. Rather, the remarkable feature is that it apparently cannot be treated. Treatment only works, of course, if the patient has sufficient self awareness to recognize he has a problem as well as having sufficient ego strength to do something about it. I've never heard of treatment being successful (i.e., making a substantial improvement) in a sociopath, who would agree with your view that sociopaths have no dysfunctional behavior that warrants treatment.


Hmmm... guess I'll come out of the closet in this case. Sparing the details, when I was young in early adulthood I was "diagnosed" with ASPD, it was when I was raised in a rather hostile environment and morality became a blur out of confusion from a combination of betrayal and abandonment. To escape the consequences of the diagnosis, I played the game to cheat the system, but felt there was indeed something "different" about me due to the lack of remorse and disregard of others rights, but that no one can help me. As the years went, I lived a much more legitimate lifestyle, having the opportunity at that time to abandon crime and have a fresh start. I re-programmed myself to blend into social norms, hence "high-functioning", developed my own moral system based on what I felt was right and wrong, away from society's expectations. I felt I needed it - and I was right. Like that experiment where they found empathy to be a switch, empathy became my weapon, that I could wield to understand and empathise with others, but could switch it off to turn the tables if I saw fit - unlike a low functioning sociopath who has no control over his inability to feel.

Due to my code of ethics I feel guilt, or my own version of it - only if it contradicts with my own moral code. It's something that persisted to this day. For example, in acts of revenge I have no remorse and I still savor the pleasurable sensations of each act of vengeance I carried out, but when I harm someone who I consider innocent, or even if I show irresponsibility or betray trust - I kick myself over it, and found guilt to be a method of self-discipline based on how I want or do not want to feel. I.E. I don't want to harm innocents for example, so I make myself feel guilt. With any risky activity I make calculated risks and almost all of the time, I get away with it.

All this interests me despite being uneducated in terms of psychology, due to how familiar I am with the so-called symptons of sociopathy and psychopathy, and it helps me to be more self-aware which I believe is important. Reading that there are "accepted" psychopaths, makes me feel more normal. At the same time recent experiences with counsellors and psychologists post-divorce has also shown I may indeed actually be "normal". But a part of me wonders if it's due to many years of being "high-functioning" or if my code of morals actually cured me. It's a continual study.



> No, Alzheimer's Disease is still listed in the DSM-5 as a mental illness. Like the other 156 mental disorders, it cannot yet be truly diagnosed. That is, scientists have not yet found biomarkers that can identify the disease itself. Hence, psychologists look for the symptoms and, if they are sufficiently severe, they assume that a (unidentified) disease must be present in the brain. But scientists seem to be getting close to identifying an actual disease. They have already identified a buildup of sticky proteins in the brains of Alzheimer's patients. So far, however, that biomarker has been too unreliable an indicator because it is found in the brains of many healthy people too. This, at least, is my understanding.


Hmmm curious, I would have thought for Alzheimer's it's something rather black and white, like:


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Anyway my studies also included reading the profiles of rather high-profile psychopaths such as Richard Kuklinski aka "Ice Man", who also had a set of morals that he upheld himself by, namely his refusal to take contracts on women or to harm children. However I found his method of intimidating his wife into loyalty rather inferior to willing loyalty, hence I found my set of morals rather superior in terms of understanding the long term effects of action and consequence. Still, he never harmed his children due to his own experience in his childhood, something I easily relate to, and why I went from working part-time in a low paying job to owning and operating my own business enough to provide for my daughter the childhood that I never had.

It's stuff like that, which makes me wonder if there is indeed a "cure" for all this, though as already found by the psychiatric community - the subject must be willing and as you mentioned - self aware enough to want to make the changes.


----------



## Uptown (Mar 27, 2010)

RandomDude said:


> Hmmm curious, I would have thought for Alzheimer's it's something rather black and white....


Dude, having an arm that is shrinking and withering away is a dramatic symptom that is easy to spot, but it doesn't tell you what is causing the arm to waste away. What is needed is a diagnosis that identifies the cause of the shrinking. Likewise, with Alzheimer's the shrinking of the brain is being caused by some disease or combination of diseases. Knowing that the brain is shrinking does not tell you what is causing it. A diagnosis is needed. 

Similarly, when BPD is very strong and low functioning, a patient may be cutting her arms every day to relieve the intense pain. The arm cutting, like suicide attempts, is easy to spot because -- as you say -- it is "rather black and white." As I tried to explain earlier, strong behavioral symptoms generally are very easy to spot when you are living with the person -- but it usually tells you little or nothing about the cause of those symptoms. Hence, a true diagnosis cannot be done until the cause -- not the symptoms -- can be identified.



> When I was young in early adulthood I was "diagnosed" with ASPD.... due to the lack of remorse and disregard of others rights.... recent experiences with counselors and psychologists post-divorce has also shown I may indeed actually be "normal".


As you know, Dude, we all exhibit ASPD (sociopathy) traits to some extent. Moreover, even the "normal" people can temporarily be at the high end of the ASPD spectrum -- as can occur under great stress, with a hormone change, with drug abuse, or with a head injury. It is only when ASPD traits are both strong and _persistent  _(over many years) that a person can be said to have full-blown sociopathy.

A key feature of full-blown ASPD, which is implied by several of the defining traits, is the inability to truly love anyone. I mention this because, in 2012, you started a thread titled _"I love my wife." _In your 10/3/12 post, you concluded that _"I truly love my wife."_ And in various threads over the past five years, you talk about loving your daughter too. If that is true, I don't see how you could possibly be a full-blown sociopath in the past or in the present.



> Like that experiment where they found empathy to be a switch, empathy became my weapon, that I could wield to understand and empathize with others, but could switch it off to turn the tables if I saw fit - unlike a low functioning sociopath who has no control over his inability to feel.


Sociopaths generally are very good at manipulation because they have strong "cognitive" empathy, which is the ability to understand other peoples' motivations and intentions -- and to intellectually KNOW what they are feeling. What sociopaths lack is "affective empathy," the ability to FEEL how other people are feeling. This is one reason they are unable to love others.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Yes I reckon I'm either one of the following:
- Incorrectly labeled ASPD from 12 to 20
- Temporary ASPD from 12 to 20
- Functional ASPD from 20 onwards
- "Cured" ASPD from 20 onwards

I quite frankly do not know, nor do the shrinks. Except I'm "normal" now  Or at the very least, very very functional lol - I read that from age 15 onwards it gets harder to treat, perhaps I'm one of the lucky ones. 

Anyway I wrote most of my threads during marriage while intoxicated, which I quit near the end of marriage - leading to a severe personality change, as there was a near 10 year addiction. As I recovered back to my persistent sober self, more of my former anti-social traits began resurfacing as well. I also question the love I had for ex-wife, as I never allowed vulnerability, even when drunk all the time. It reminds me of the toxic relationships that functional sociopaths have, the definition of love can be rather... relative. However, one thing is for sure - my daughter is the one person for whom I know the love is pure.

I believe it's due to my code of morals disallowing vulnerability for partners, but forcing vulnerability - by principle - for my children. My daughter can break my heart a thousand times but I will still love her and I won't allow anything to change that.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

> For example, in acts of revenge I have no remorse and I still savor the pleasurable sensations of each act of vengeance I carried out


This is disturbing behavior, especially the taking pleasure in it part. Question: How does your moral code define an act that deserves revenge?


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Is it really that disturbing? I see from others - normal people - that they take pleasure from revenge too, so is it really that wrong? 

As for my moral code it's mostly eye for an eye, I don't forgive unless it's earned, nor do I encourage forgiveness unless its earned, actions must be rewarded with consequence, it's what I consider "nature's equilibrium". Revenge as well, doesn't always have to be violent to be satisfying, and it must, as a rule, be served cold. I discussed this in some of my other threads dealing with forgiveness and retribution.

I'm not as vengeful as I was in my youth, mostly because I'm no longer in an environment where I'm exposed to that much scum. The victims of my youth, well, not all deserved it. Those that did, I'm fond of those memories, even proud of them. Those that didn't, meh. Don't really care as I did what I had to do. Guilt is a tool for self-discipline, nothing more, I don't wallow in it.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> Is it really that disturbing? I see from others - normal people - that they take pleasure from revenge too, so is it really that wrong?


Yes, it is to me because it involves intentionally hurting others and deriving pleasure from the act. I have seen people talk about revenge but have never heard of anyone actually exacting revenge, as least not any so-called normal people. That is why I asked for an example, based on your moral code ... what types of actions against you would require revenge and what form the revenge takes. I am seeking understanding.

For example, if you were involved in a motor vehicle _accident _where your injuries were severe would you later exact revenge from the driver by seriously injuring him or her in kind? Or, you could just describe a situation in which you exacted revenge on another person.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Errr no, it's an accident. If I'm alive I'll get out and see if he/she is ok too. If I'm severely injured, well it happens.

Let's give an example, my ex-mother-in-law always hated me, she always said I would never provide for my wife or daughter and I would beg her for money. During marriage however, it was the other way around and I managed to embarrass and ridicule her to the entire family. For me that was very satisfying, and one of my finer moments. As I said, revenge doesn't always have to violent.

In a not so tame example, I hunted down one by one those who insulted my wife and daughter during our early stages of marriage, due to race actually. I simply broke them to the point they were at my mercy. It was all very satisfying, except for the fact that I enacted it poorly in some cases, as three filed charges. I managed to get away but it was rather annoying for over a year with the courts. Still, no regrets, not to mention I learnt how to cheat the legal system even more. I had to change social circles however, and I did, in which since then, I never had to "educate" any more scum. They simply remained bottom feeders.

There's plenty of people even here who understand the satisfaction of revenge, it only becomes a problem when it's not served cold and when the avenger is not prepared to deal with the consequences. Check my forgiveness thread.


----------

