translate please
If you were a psychopath...
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
translate please
To humour you or to amuse myself at your expense?
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Agreed.
I think the tendency to listen to ones own moral conscience and to be sensitive/observant of others around you are very good qualities to have.
Its hard to say if these if any of these qualities relate directly to someone who is socially shy, id argue that they arnt unique, it is simply that the shy person has more time in solitude to develop their emphatic reasoning skills. Then again the two may be genetically linked, i dont know.
In any case some of the greatest philosophers and thinkers of our time have been immensley shy people, i believe einstein infact was known a 'shy man'.
Agreed, people need only the permission to act badly to go out and do so, its hard to really know how much conscience plays into this. Id lean to towards the opinion that most people do have a conscience, its just there are a million and one ways to hide from ones inner moral voice.
Which is why i believe the bulk of most of the worlds 'evils' are based in simple ignorance or moral/intellectual apathy rather than a lack of natural ability to empathise.
The moral voice of the 'consensus' replaces the inner moral voice for most people in most case i think - again id put this down to apathy.
True to a degree, my problem with the label psychopath is that it only alludes to one who harms other humans, rather than relating directly to a deficit in empathic reasoning as i believe it should.
This erroneous thinking is clearly apparent as we can see that one who hunts deer/bear/foul for fun is allowed to path through a social loophole in which he is not labled as a 'psychopath' despite displaying clear traits of being so.
It give me a headache to try to make sense of stuff like that.
On the one hand it is agreed that no one can prove what a person really feels or thinks,while on the other it is apparently possible to know all about each others inner voices.
Tell me please, heliocentric, what gives you this wonderfull ability to know what somebody else's inner voice is trying to tell them, but without the proof of it?
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
I dont know anything - as not much can be proved in absolute terms either way, im mearly speculating, agree or disagree as you see fit.
Last edited:
Seriously, call it speculation or what you will, what gives rise to the assumption?
Typically, a psycopath would tell you that it is all conditioning, that as far as may be told the said voice is imposed not conditioned, and elusive, so where then to find the inner voice?
Releive the anxiety please; am I a psycopath for want of the knowing of this, for want of the ability to talk to myself?
Truly. I know of many who showed traits of psychopathic behavior, but nearly each individual showed some evidence of conscience. I have known very few where conscience was completely absent, though I have known such individuals.
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Well look at any well run autonomous western nation, theres only a small proportion of people who engage in typically defined psychopathic behaviour (i believe someone in the region of 4%)
Then compare to a run down nation in which the central power base has fallen apart. You will general see the numbers of horrific crimes normally attributable to the quite rare sociopath/psychopath rise astronomically.
Now, which seems more reasonable in this scenario? that a 1/3 of the population has somehow inexplicably turned into psychopaths overnight, without any inherent ability to empathise?
Or does it seem more likely that the buik of 'evil' taking place can be put down to the inner moral voice being left 'unheard' infavour of the mob consensus?
Clearly there is a difference between not having the ability to empathise and not using it, in cases of political social unheavel where man can quite easily turn into a 'monster' id argue that empathy is simply not being utilised as survival instincts take over and go into over-drive.
The only other option (which is frankly pretty disturbing) is that we have far more psychopaths in our midst that we could ever have imagined and it is only in a power vacum that the masks of the psychopaths are allowed to drop to reveal their true selves.
As i said my opinion leans towards ignorance and moral intellectual apathy being the root of 'evil', however we're obviously dealing with a very complex pathology that has various causes and various effects.
I by no means have all the answers.
Prehaps youre being overly litteral for effect
Last edited:
I'd join the military, defend the country, get an education, then I'd make money like everyone else.
Most psychopaths are not criminals, only the stupid ones are criminals and get caught. This means a psychopath has plenty of options, they can work the kinds of jobs no one wants.
It's also a myth that psychopaths are always irresponsible, everything is always down to how a person was trained. A psychopath simply does not feel guilt, but there are some who are very responsible to whatever it is they consider important.
Also, you assume that being a psychopath is an advantage. Having a conscience is often like having intuition, because that intuition is what allows you to know right from wrong instinctively, without having to go to jail, or get killed, or make lots of enemies.
Anything a psychopath can do, a non-psychopath can do, if the situation is right. The difference is that the non-psychopath needs to be in the sort of situation where it's the last resort, while the psychopath can just do it because they feel like it and think they'll get away with it.
If you want to know more about psychopaths, check out this forum
http://www.psychopath-research.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php
With psychopaths, just like any other type of human, it's all about how they are living their life. It's not simply about how they think.
Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.
Yeah right. The police don't assume this. The courts don't assume this. The government does not assume this. Thats why we have laws. I don't assume everyone is one way. For all I know, no one here could have a conscience, what difference would it make?
Last edited:
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Sauna i think you should vacate this thread if you dont have any real opinions on this topic, frankly its insulting and a huge waste of time for me to go into great detail explaining my proposed ideas for you, only for you to come back with a rather silly glib remark.
Remember being glib only works if it rests apon a foundation of considerable knowledge. Either prove you have an opinion or some (any) degree of knowledge here, or otherwise im going to assume youre out of your depth, and are being overly-litteral for effect.
Unless of course youre not familiar with the phrase 'inner voice' ? and dont understand it is not meant to be taken as wholey litteral.
In which case, again, youre probably way out of your depth.
Remember being glib only works if it rests apon a foundation of considerable knowledge. Either prove you have an opinion or some (any) degree of knowledge here, or otherwise im going to assume youre out of your depth, and are being overly-litteral for effect.
Unless of course youre not familiar with the phrase 'inner voice' ? and dont understand it is not meant to be taken as wholey litteral.
In which case, again, youre probably way out of your depth.
Last edited:
Well look at any well run autonomous western nation, theres only a small proportion of people who engage in typically defined psychopathic behaviour (i believe someone in the region of 4%)
Then compare to a run down nation in which the central power base has fallen apart. You will general see the numbers of horrific crimes normally attributable to the quite rare sociopath/psychopath rise astronomically.
Now, which seems more reasonable in this scenario? that a 1/3 of the population has somehow inexplicably turned into psychopaths overnight, without any inherent ability to empathise?
Or does it seem more likely that the buik of 'evil' taking place can be put down to the inner moral voice being left 'unheard' infavour of the mob consensus?
Clearly there is a difference between not having the ability to empathise and not using it, in cases of political social unheavel where man can quite easily turn into a 'monster' id argue that empathy is simply not being utilised as survival instincts take over and go into over-drive.
The only other option (which is frankly pretty disturbing) is that we have far more psychopaths in our midst that we could ever have imagined and it is only in a power vacum that the masks of the psychopaths are allowed to drop to reveal their true selves.
As i said my opinion leans towards ignorance and moral intellectual apathy being the root of 'evil', however we're obviously dealing with a very complex pathology that has various causes and various effects.
I by no means have all the answers.
Prehaps youre being overly litteral for effect
Hooliganism, mob rule, thats what scares me. That's when thousands of psychopaths decide to just start destroying everything out of rage, such as in the case of a riot, or over a soccer game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooligan
It's not a matter of how many are this or that, it's how people behave. There is no way to calculate how many psychopaths there are in society, it would be impossible to ever get an exact number.
What we do know is that some psychopaths are violent and some arent, some psychopaths are responsible and some arent, some psychopaths are criminals and some arent. So some are more harmful than others is what I'm saying.
In the situation of a riot, or when government breaks and theres no security, thats the time when mobs form and start going crazy.
heliocentric
I've personally met some psychopaths who were not violent. They don't kill. So not all psychopaths are violent like that, I know that much for a fact.
Some psychopaths are only violent towards themselves. I'm not trying to be some expert in psychology here, I'm just making the point that it's not being a psychopath that automatically makes a person violent. And you are right, any of us here if our survival were at stake, would become ruthlessly violent.
It's all in how people are raised, trained, taught. If a person is raised right, they won't become a killer in most cases. Yes you have the occassional serial killers, but thats a specific breed of psychopath, the sorta breed that is unique in and of itself.
I think different people are capable of different levels of violence. A psychopath may be capable of not feeling guilt but it does not mean they'll like seeing violence.
Last edited:
I would not use one sample of nonsensical babble to determine your intelligence level. I have taken everything you have written into consideration.
Including your response to my bait which was in response to yours. You revealed yourself too easily. You're too keen for a reward.
Thats interesting. A lack of conscience as a social handicap.
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Agreed TimeTraveler, i guess the key question is were they 'crazy' to begin with and mearly given a license to express it?
Or does a specific social situation create psychopathic behaviour where there was none before? (re: the hooliganism link etc)
Or does a specific social situation create psychopathic behaviour where there was none before? (re: the hooliganism link etc)
Why do you associate shyness with an abundance of empathy?
They are not related.
have you never heard the expression
'the quiet ones are always the worst'
the kid who gunned down his school mates, shy, inhibited, self conscious, loner?
A lot of people are crazy. A lot of the most beautiful people are also the most crazy.
The point is, crazy does not mean crazy in a violent way. Hooliganism however, gives people the license to do a lot of things that are just plain wrong. So yeah some people might steal for food, but then you end up with a few who start setting fires, and start shooting people, and it gets out of hand, and next thing you know the entire city is burning.
It might have started out as a survival tactic but due to the wrong people getting involved it turned into just a "destroy everything in sight" sorta thing. It's that blind rage, combined with the wrong mental makeup, which can create these sorts of environments.
I don't know, I guess I don't want to call people crazy, but psychology the way it works and I think it works in a negative way, it basically tries to figure out how crazy each person is. Instead it would be better to help people properly use their strengths, than to highlight their weaknesses.
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Please note i did actually outline that shyness may not be directly linked to an abundance of empathy if you re-read what i said.
So shyness is related to psychotic behavior instead because of an 'old saying'? that seems every bit as erroneous to me, if not more so.
as have I, it is merely a matter of choice. When to care and when not to, and in the case of 'work', one has to justify ones actions else one could not continue doing them and then one could not feed ones own family.
Imagine an abortionist with a conscience about it. How could they do it if it plagued their conscience, they could not. So they 'turn it off'. Are they psychopaths, people who rip babies apart for a living? We consider not. But it is a good demonstration of how 'we' switch the rules to suit ourselves.
Psychopath = someone doing something we have not given them permission to do, repeatedly and without consideration to us and our rules.
Not a psychopath = someone given permission, working within the rules.
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Im not sure any of that really answers the question, but i take your points and i am in agreement with most of what youve said.
#
no it is not related
anymore than lacking shyness is. Things are not that black and white. We cannot stabilise the world by creating fences around it, putting everything into a neat little box and then labelling the boxes.
This is my point.