Last things first:
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 an 'of course'.
I said as much two pages ago in my response to Metakron:
"The label 'psychopath' is an abstract and artificial concept. It's defined by behavior and is very imprecise. The term 'fact' really doesn't describe anything about it. It's purely subjective, except from a behavioralist point of view."
SheDevil,
please copy and post the statement where I display a romantic view of psychopaths .....the murdering kind..which is what I assume you refer to.
You assume too much.
I never mentioned murder.
Don't try to get me on a red herring.
"You have them, but they do not have you."
I.e.
The psychopath is free. He controls them, yet he is free from their control mechanism. A glorious spirit flying above it all.
I responded to this post in very explicit terms demonstrating just how unfree the psychopath (or, more properly, the sociopath) truly is. But you evaded it.
"Because they are more powerful, more effective and they simply do not care what you think about what they do."
That seems to glorify the mighty sociopath. Free, free, free.
And powerful.
"Psychopaths are merely immune to the inadequacies, the neediness, and the manipulation. They are immune to the bullshit that humans engage in..."
Immune to the inadequacies of the human race. They are superior to the needy humans. Above the pettiness of the human squabblings.
Of course, you've forgotten, by this time, that the psychopath (sociopath) is most certainly not above the manipulation. His life actually centers, to a large extent, around the manipulation of other humans.
Thus, he must dwell in their rules. As I said, you don't drive a car with the glove box.
There's more, of course, but I don't really feel like copy and pasting practically every word you've said. You've already shown a predilection for avoidance, so you'll probably simply avoid this post as well.
And no, I am not a fan of murderers, but psychopaths and murderers are not in fact one and the same.
Nobody's mentioned murder, I don't think.
But, psychopaths do derive enjoyment out of cruelty. They are more dangerous than sociopaths. Sociopaths are simply empathy deficient. Psychopaths are cruel and take pleasure in manipulation and power games.
Anyway. How would you know if the psychopath is a murderer or not? Surely you don't think he'd tell you the truth, do you?
You're just another inferior thing to be manipulated like all the rest.
The reality is simply those more dangerous members of our society do not acknowledge societies rules, they are not bound by them.
The problem is deeper than this.
As I've previously posted, there is a continuum of ethics in our society. Some of our rules are based on simple empathic terms. Others are based on more artificial terms.
It's no wonder that we have so many criminals in our culture. The rules of society have become so abstract that we often feel little connection or reason to obey them. The only reason is fear of consequences. And an adept manipulator can often elude such punishment for a goodly time if not permanently.
A short thesis on custom vs. law:
"Natural societies are comparatively free from law first because they are ruled by customs as rigid and inviolable as any law; and secondly because crimes of violence, in the beginning, are considered to be private matters, and are left to bloody personal revenge.
Underneath all the phenomena of society is the great terra firma of custom, that bedrock of time-hallowed modes of thought and action which provides a society with some measure of steadiness and order through all absence, changes, and interruptions of law. Custom gives the same stability to the group that heredity and instinct give to the species, and habit to the individual. It is the routine that keeps men sane; for if there were no grooves along which thought and action might move with unconscious ease, the mind would be perpetually hesitant, and would soon take refuge in lunacy.
/.../
When to this natural basis of custom a supernatural sanction is added by religion, and the ways of one's ancestors are also the will of the gods, then custom becomes stronger than law, and subtracts substantially from primitive freedom. To violate law is to win the admiration of half the populace, who secretly envy anyone who can outwit this ancient enemy; to violate custom is to incur almost universal hostility. For custom rises out of the people, whereas law is forced upon them from above; law is usually a decree of the master, but custom is the natural selection of those modes of action that have been found most convenient in the experience of the group."
The Story of Civilization - Will Durant
So, perhaps this continuum from custom to law explains part of the continuum of empathy to no empathy. One can hardly be said to be a psychopath for breaking the law, yet when one violates custom... that is another matter altogether. Custom is based on more natural urges. When one fails custom, then one is deserving of the title anti-social.
If you can not tell when someone is less intelligent than you, perhaps you have yet to meet someone less intelligent than you.
And if you have never underestimated someone, then you are very proficient at self-deception.
By the way, the above quote indicates a sense of judging yourself superior. In order to be superior, there needs be an inferior. More evidence of entanglement in social concerns despite yourself.
To humour you or to amuse myself at your expense?
Muaha!
Nice.
Including your response to my bait which was in response to yours. You revealed yourself too easily. You're too keen for a reward.
Muaha!
The psychopaths circling each other. Testing and probing.
Who is the superior? Who is the inferior?
Who reveals what?
How can you know he's revealed anything except what he's wanted to reveal?
Heh.
Boring.
Heliocentric,
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.
That's why there are two terms for this type of condition. Sociopathy and psychopathy.
Neither are exact categorizations, of course, but psychopathy is connected more with violence and cruelty than sociopathy.
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.
Why is psychopathic about hunting? There is more to hunting than hurting animals. In fact, most hunters do their best to not hurt the animals. To kill them quick. Quick kills taste better. Less stress hormones in the meat.
Cruelty to animals, however, is a warning sign.
The two are not the same.
Sam,
A lack of conscience as a social handicap.
Of course it is. How could it not be?
Those who lack empathy must struggle hard to fit in if that's their choice. They must constantly be analyzing the situation to judge how they should act. Their instincts don't provide the answers.
Bowser,
But if the psychopath has no innate morality, then there is no point in even considering the equation. It does not apply. Or could it be that the psychpath has a moral code that is upside down relative to that of normal folk.
Define morality.
I wouldn't say that the psychopath has no morality. The issue is one of empathy. Due to lack of empathy, the psychopath has constructed a moral structure which differs from the norm to varying degrees. Empathy is a vital teaching and learning tool in the human animal.
