"The code is mine.
So are the relationships I cultivate."

Anybody else want to talk about sociopathology?

True sociopaths have no conscience—none.

They make life a game

They get their kicks from kicking others, from manipulating, and most of all from WINNING.

The future of humanity would be on more certain ground if the sociopathic nature/nurture--whatever it is--could be eliminated from the human experience. Of course that is easier said than done, and ethical questions abound. Meanwhile we simply must make-do with early-in-life recognition and apply careful but certain controls to safeguard others.


http://www.roadtopeace.org/?itemid=846

Can't say I do!

What?


People mourn them all the time... What are YOU talkin about?

I think sociopaths are very lonely people. They are suffocated in a, for them, true existentialist loneliness, because they can't accept other people's soulful vitality. So they are literally, each and every one of them, alone in this world.

That must be horrible, living a lifetime with no proper and meaningful human interaction.

Thanks for contributing, Mirror.

You, unknowingly, did.

Every human gets mourned. They all have family or loved ones, no matter what awful things they may do in life.

I'm talking about a quote related by someone representing a sociopathic mind-state. I thought everyone would understand that from the quotation marks around the statement made...

I always enjoy your insight!
Really, though, I must disagree on a certain point.
Sociopaths tend to be compulsive.

I feel that it is not so much they cannot feel, but rather are incapable of accessing certain emotions, such as empathy.

Thanks for replying, sincerely.

I think that you hit the nail on the head; true sociopaths don't see other people as people at all but simply another object. They can't feel anything for them because in their eyes they only exist as obstacles and not human beings.

Not one single, solitary person, including his second wife (first one long dead,) mother, two sons, sister, nephews and nieces or one supposed friend went to my uncles funeral (if you can call it that)NOT ONE, he was that much of a SOB.

So live well, dying and being put to rest that alone is THE sign of a wasted, ugly life.

Most of them lack the basic emotions to formulate a "proper" response to a given situation. I don't know if it so much they don't have the emotions or just have the inability to formulate the emotional response properly. Take me for instance, I really don't feel any emotions, which is ataraxia (give or take, I don't bother pushing the issue as it isn't completly medically accepted).

Sociopaths have an amazing ability to adapt to their area, or become reclusive to the point that no one notices them (Ed Gein). Like I said in another post "your retarded is another persons normal", kind of applies...while a majority won't mourn someone who has done spiteful things, there are millions more that will off the basis of beliefs/religion or society/upbringing.

I don't think any of them are lonely, because well, that requires an emotional response that they more or less lack. However, as with any human (mentally "wicked", or mentally "correct") there is still much to be learned and studied. Hopefully one day we can figure out the tick so to speak, but until then you just sit back and wait.

"If you don't go to other people's funeral, they won't come to yours, either."

I had an uncle too, whose corpse his daughters buried more because they wanted it out of sight, rather than because they wanted to grant him eternal peace. He was not inhumanely mean, or psychopathic, he was just an egotist boob who suffocated his daughter's emotional and social growth by blocking willingly their higher education. He had other tricks, but his peers, even his wife and his brother-in-law, had love and respect for him. His daughters did not. I can see exactly why, too.

I would like to go a bit philosophical and defend my point.

My model for a sociopath has emotions, but regards others as mere cuckroaches. So this person never has anyone to spill his beans, has noone to talk his emotions, worries, happiness, over with, he cannot share a laugh or a tear. He is lonely, by the definition that he emotes but he does not consider others human. He knows what a "human" is, much like he knows a caterpillar from a centipede.

So, he is lonely. He has no sounding board, he has noone he can open up to. His world is completely void of the possibility of even opening up.

So they are very understandably rather thisky. Hill, I'm thisky if I miss two days' worth of bowel movement. Can you imagine how bad I would be in solitary confinement for decades?

My stance is that society creates the aura of lonely, therefore I am not convinced that someone that has been in solitude for decades actually can be lonely...they simply don't know what 'lonely' is. As I said though, there is still much to learn about how the human brain indulges different situations and how the person reacts to them.

Society creates the boogeyman, then scream 'heretic!' when the boogeyman turns on them. Media coverage, interviews, everything...Columbine, 9/11, Jonestown, etc. We glorify violence, then we snap our fingers when it backfires on us. Think, if only for a year...violence was taken from the media and the news could only report the good things day to day?

That is sociology at its best.

I was going to say that it's not society what creates a lonely man, but an innate need to communicate one's thoughts and feelings.

But then I realized I'd need to use the same support as you did for the opposite of my opinion: You said we don't know how the brain dysfunction that creates a psychopath affects the need to communicate.

I agree there. If the lack of ability to consider other humans humans comes from a dysfunction of not needing to communicate with other humans, then yes, you're right, and I'm wrong, the loneliness does not exist. If te dysfunction does not affect the need to communicate, only the opion of others, then I'm right and you're wrong.

With the knowledge we have, we cannot say with any assurance that it's this way or the other way.

As much as we know, there is still more to learn and some things may never be truly known. I think some people don't consider other people when they make their decisions, but this could also be my nihilism and apathy showing out. I'm just laying out how society bands terms together with a thread of fact, rarely do we see professionals speaking on behalf of their own unbiased research...instead we see correspondents from the media that are paid by the media.

We in fact created violence, but violence has always been primitive...a necessity to life, regardless of view. Without violence we wouldn't be where we are and our studies wouldn't have developed into what they have become today. With that said though, there is controlled and uncontrolled violence; a bomb drops on a factory harboring terrorists, a knife wielding maniac targets a school...two distinctly different violent actions, but still violent.

Who says who is a sociopath then becomes the question, who is put in the power to say the guy wielding the knife is a sociopath while the guy dropping bombs on a factory is a hero? See, this is where the media plays their hands to the majority view...of course the knife wielding guy is the sociopath, and the bomb dropper is the hero. Why? Society labels it so, if society didn't have the labels to place on things it would all be neutrual grey area. Our hero is another countries "knife wielding maniac", all the same for the opposite...two distinctly different views on the same situation.

Like I said, society/media created the boogeyman...before society/media the boogeyman was just another story to keep the kids out of the closet.

Okay giving you that you know all the family and know they did not mourn, mourning doesn't require appearance at a funeral though. The mortuary mourned, people who look through the obits mourn, etc...

No human goes unmourned.