Psychopaths

[Norsemaiden]

Everyone should know about psychopaths. Most psychopaths are subcriminal. It is considered that the criminal psychopaths are failing psychopaths - failing at hiding their nature. About 4% of the population are now thought to be psychopaths. One expert has suggested that the psychopath is the new man being produced by the pressures of modern life. They are incurable. Psychopaths are born that way. Effectively they are some other kind of human. Their difference to others is arguably greater than a racial or sexual difference.

All the philosophy about human nature, altruism, souls, etc is worthless when applied to the psychopath.

http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm

Oh, indeed, they can imitate feelings, but the only real feelings they seem to have - the thing that drives them and causes them to act out different dramas for effect - is a sort of "predatorial hunger" for what they want. That is to say, they "feel" need/want as love, and not having their needs/wants met is described as "not being loved" by them. What is more, this "need/want" perspective posits that only the "hunger" of the psychopath is valid, and anything and everything "out there," outside of the psychopath, is not real except insofar as it has the capability of being assimilated to the psychopath as a sort of "food." "Can it be used or can it provide something?" is the only issue about which the psychopath seems to be concerned. All else - all activity - is subsumed to this drive.

In short, the psychopath - and the narcissist to a lesser extent - is a predator. If we think about the interactions of predators with their prey in the animal kingdom, we can come to some idea of what is behind the "mask of sanity" of the psychopath. Just as an animal predator will adopt all kinds of stealthy functions in order to stalk their prey, cut them out of the herd, get close to them and reduce their resistance, so does the psychopath construct all kinds of elaborate camoflage composed of words and appearances - lies and manipulations - in order to "assimilate" their prey.

This leads us to an important quesion: what does the psychopath REALLY get from their victims? It's easy to see what they are after when they lie and manipulate for money or material goods or power. But in many instances, such as love relationships or faked friendships, it is not so easy to see what the psychopath is after. Without wandering too far afield into spiritual speculations - a problem Cleckley also faced - we can only say that it seems to be that the psychopath ENJOYS making others suffer. Just as normal humans enjoy seeing other people happy, or doing things that make other people smile, the psychopath enjoys the exact opposite.

What are your thought on this phenomenon?

 

[judas69]

Actually, I think the psychopath is a little mischaracterised in that quote.

I've known many who I personally would consider psychopathic, some of which fit that description and are terribly criminal (a guy who did 7 years in prison) and other very law abiding members of society. In short, while I think many of them turn out to be criminal, it's wrong however to paint them all as natural outcasts and cunning, manipulative predators.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Actually, I think the psychopath is a little mischaracterised in that quote.

I've known many who I personally would consider psychopathic, some of which fit that description and are terribly criminal (a guy who did 7 years in prison) and other very law abiding members of society. In short, while I think many of them turn out to be criminal, it's wrong however to paint them all as natural outcasts and cunning, manipulative predators.

Well "outcasts" they most certainly are not! On the contrary, our society is now so geared towards rewarding psychopaths on the highest levels and has the effect of making normal people feel that they have to behave in a similarly ruthless and calculating way to succeed in life.

It is because psychopathy is almost required to survive in Competitive, Capitalistic America.
As a society gets larger and more competitive, individuals become more anonymous and more Machiavellian. Social stratification and segregation leads to feelings of inferiority, pessimism and depression among the have-nots, and this promotes the use of "cheating strategies" in life which then makes the environment more adaptive for psychopathy in general.

Laura Knight-Jadcyzyk
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm

 

[speed]

Well "outcasts" they most certainly are not! On the contrary, our society is now so geared towards rewarding psychopaths on the highest levels and has the effect of making normal people feel that they have to behave in a similarly ruthless and calculating way to succeed in life.


Laura Knight-Jadcyzyk
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm

Hm...this is interesting actually. At first blush, I thought this was a ridiculous statement of yours, and then I thought about it, and indeed, you might be on to something. Our capitalist world and our organizational structures, reward persons who are ruthless, stalk their prey without conscience, etc. All of these traits are supremely important for any businessman, politician, stockbroker, investor etc. My only question is whether we call these persons psychopaths or not? I've always assumed psychopaths are those who kill or become fixated on another person; and you're saying psychopaths are channelling thse traits into business etc?

Obviously the first thing that comes to mind is the excellent book and equally excellent movie (which is very rare) American Psycho.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Hm...this is interesting actually. At first blush, I thought this was a ridiculous statement of yours, and then I thought about it, and indeed, you might be on to something. Our capitalist world and our organizational structures, reward persons who are ruthless, stalk their prey without conscience, etc. All of these traits are supremely important for any businessman, politician, stockbroker, investor etc. My only question is whether we call these persons psychopaths or not? I've always assumed psychopaths are those who kill or become fixated on another person; and you're saying psychopaths are channelling thse traits into business etc?

Obviously the first thing that comes to mind is the excellent book and equally excellent movie (which is very rare) American Psycho.

It is a common misunderstanding that psychopaths are serial killer types. That is not the case. Yes indeed I am certain many businessmen and politicians are real psychopaths. They really cannot feel guilt but they cunningly pretend they do, and can act very convincingly. Really they are self-obsessed, have no care for others, no sense of responsibility, etc,

Dictionary definition:SPECIALIZED in psychology, a person who has no feeling for other people, does not think about the future and does not feel bad about anything they have done in the past."

Psychopathic characteristics help people to do well in the modern society. They are the kind of over-confident narcissistic characters that others admire and aspire to emulate - not realising their condition. They rise to the top in all sorts of fields and are very successful with the opposite sex (whom they manipulate and treat badly).

Speed, you really should find out about these characters because there are many about, and if you don't know them, they will play you for a sucker.
Read this page on the traits of the psychopath
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/cleckley-mos.htm

Everything about him is likely to suggest desirable and superior human qualities, a robust mental health

Regularly we find in him extraordinary poise rather than jitteriness or worry, a smooth sense of physical well-being instead of uneasy preoccupation with bodily functions. Even under concrete circumstances that would for the ordinary person cause embarrassment, confusion, acute insecurity, or visible agitation, his relative serenity is likely to be noteworthy.

The psychopath shows a remarkable disregard for truth and is to be trusted no more in his accounts of the past than in his promises for the future or his statement of present intentions. He gives the impression that he is incapable of ever attaining realistic comprehension of an attitude in other people which causes them to value truth and cherish truthfulness in themselves.

Although he will lie about any matter, under any circumstances, and often for no good reason, he may, on the contrary, sometimes own up to his errors (usually when detection is certain) and appear to be facing the consequences with singular honesty, fortitude, and manliness.

The psychopath is always distinguished by egocentricity. This is usually of a degree not seen in ordinary people and often is little short of astonishing. How obviously this quality will be expressed in vanity or self-esteem will vary with the shrewdness of the subject and with his other complexities. Deeper probing will always reveal a selfcenteredness that is apparently unmodifiable and all but complete. This can perhaps be best expressed by stating that it is an incapacity for object love and that this incapacity (in my experience with well-marked psychopaths) appears to be absolute.

 

[judas69]

Well "outcasts" they most certainly are not! On the contrary, our society is now so geared towards rewarding psychopaths on the highest levels and has the effect of making normal people feel that they have to behave in a similarly ruthless and calculating way to succeed in life.

Generally, this sort of ruthlessness is true of the business world however, as mentioned throughout the criminal mind thread, the qualities (and personality traits) of the criminal are definitely present if not apparent in otherwise completely normal individuals and may well be a latent trait in all.

Humans are not consistant in their action, they will adapt, they will modify their behaviours to suit their environment, they will be affected different depending on many factors and so, in business, if they were to find themselves in a management postion for example, they will assume the role, the responsibilities and loyalty towards the company first as is required, and though it may appear heartless to fire someone or not hire someone based on xyz or whatever, which may include very superficial reasons aswell, it is wrong to make this person or the system out to be psychopathic. This person instead has accepted a very difficult position where everyone cannot be hired, and the success of the company and the jobs of all others depend upon maintaining the system while avoiding protential problems. It's true though, the business world is less mindful of the indivdual and more of the company, but success (which also benefits many) cannot be forsaken for the feelings of a few, and this surely doesn't mean those involved are incapable or disabled in the way of psychopathism.

You say our society is "geared towards rewarding psychopaths" ..I say society and business rewards those individuals who demand the most out of life, those who are the most confident, streadfast, clever, greedy ..and though you might say these are all traits characteristic of the psychopath, these are also characteristics of men who have done great things for the world and thus, serves only to blur the line as there is a clear distinction between a person who is strong-willed and enjoys playing the business world like a game for example, and those who are truly psychopathic at heart.

Touching on guilt, go back to my "Guilt and Morality" thread ..you have to question why we have guilt at all, is it societally based, or does it truly and indepentantly stem from our own being in most cases? It's funny how we do not feel guilt when our actions are accepted by society (ie. eating that burger, hunting that deer) ..perhaps the psychopath is an even more integrated and developed person? Maybe evolution is taking us in this direction?

Lastly though, I was just reminded of a documentary I have that actually went through all the traits of the corporation (entitled "the corporation") and basically concluded what you've implied. I agree again to a point, but the first major mistake is trying to grade a non-human structure by human standards. Surely, humans run the machine, but there is a trade-off there and the unease we get from looking at a company like Nike and not being able to anticipate it's next move, because of course it is not human and more adaptive, which means it has no set morals unless of course it's beneficial to do so, scares us.

Thus again, is the psychopath a more adaptive, super-human? At some level, you have to wonder how much guilt, and other self-inflicted emotions really hold us back as individuals and society on the whole, and why everyone is running for either the cheetos, or the bottle.

 

[OldScratch]

It is a common misunderstanding that psychopaths are serial killer types. That is not the case. Yes indeed I am certain many businessmen and politicians are real psychopaths. They really cannot feel guilt but they cunningly pretend they do, and can act very convincingly. Really they are self-obsessed, have no care for others, no sense of responsibility, etc,

Dictionary definition:SPECIALIZED in psychology, a person who has no feeling for other people, does not think about the future and does not feel bad about anything they have done in the past."

Psychopathic characteristics help people to do well in the modern society. They are the kind of over-confident narcissistic characters that others admire and aspire to emulate - not realising their condition. They rise to the top in all sorts of fields and are very successful with the opposite sex (whom they manipulate and treat badly).

Speed, you really should find out about these characters because there are many about, and if you don't know them, they will play you for a sucker.
Read this page on the traits of the psychopath
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/cleckley-mos.htm

The prime example that keeps coming to mind throughout this thread is the modern politician. The apparent inability to be truthful, or the need to manipulate truths(spin)to fit various agendas, the almost mechanical, calculating mannerisms, the ability to feign contrition when clearly they feel no guilt, the shameless egocentricity often accompanied by that fragrant condescension that drips from their speeches...
And to say that these vipers are playing America and Europe as a pack of embarrassingly gullible suckers is an understatement. But are they psychopaths or megalomaniacs? Or maybe both?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Generally, this sort of ruthlessness is true of the business world however, as mentioned throughout the criminal mind thread, the qualities (and personality traits) of the criminal are definitely present if not apparent in otherwise completely normal individuals and may well be a latent trait in all.

Humans are not consistant in their action, they will adapt, they will modify their behaviours to suit their environment, they will be affected different depending on many factors and so, in business, if they were to find themselves in a management postion for example, they will assume the role, the responsibilities and loyalty towards the company first as is required, and though it may appear heartless to fire someone or not hire someone based on xyz or whatever, which may include very superficial reasons aswell, it is wrong to make this person or the system out to be psychopathic. This person instead has accepted a very difficult position where everyone cannot be hired, and the success of the company and the jobs of all others depend upon maintaining the system while avoiding protential problems. It's true though, the business world is less mindful of the indivdual and more of the company, but success (which also benefits many) cannot be forsaken for the feelings of a few, and this surely doesn't mean those involved are incapable or disabled in the way of psychopathism.

You say our society is "geared towards rewarding psychopaths" ..I say society and business rewards those individuals who demand the most out of life, those who are the most confident, streadfast, clever, greedy ..and though you might say these are all traits characteristic of the psychopath, these are also characteristics of men who have done great things for the world and thus, serves only to blur the line as there is a clear distinction between a person who is strong-willed and enjoys playing the business world like a game for example, and those who are truly psychopathic at heart.

Touching on guilt, go back to my "Guilt and Morality" thread ..you have to question why we have guilt at all, is it societally based, or does it truly and indepentantly stem from our own being in most cases? It's funny how we do not feel guilt when our actions are accepted by society (ie. eating that burger, hunting that deer) ..perhaps the psychopath is an even more integrated and developed person? Maybe evolution is taking us in this direction?

Lastly though, I was just reminded of a documentary I have that actually went through all the traits of the corporation (entitled "the corporation") and basically concluded what you've implied. I agree again to a point, but the first major mistake is trying to grade a non-human structure by human standards. Surely, humans run the machine, but there is a trade-off there and the unease we get from looking at a company like Nike and not being able to anticipate it's next move, because of course it is not human and more adaptive, which means it has no set morals unless of course it's beneficial to do so, scares us.

Thus again, is the psychopath a more adaptive, super-human? At some level, you have to wonder how much guilt, and other self-inflicted emotions really hold us back as individuals and society on the whole, and why everyone is running for either the cheetos, or the bottle.

No way! Judas, you really don't understand how different these people are to normal people. They are seriously SCAREY!

You are right that one has to have a hardness of character to do the right thing in business, such as having to sack people and that machiavelianism is necessary in an effective leader but that isn't the same as being a psychopath. Great men can have the qualities to do these jobs, or to be military leaders, etc. or to fight in wars and enjoy the battle and not get a nervous breakdown etc. But psychopaths are different. They are genetically incapable of feeling love, compassion, sympathy - but excellent at acting as if they do.
You may have noticed how many politicians have a tendency to pretend to be against such things as child sex abuse - and yet there are a horrifying number of child sex scandals that people in positions of power are involved in. Why? Because these individuals are clinical psychopaths.

One interesting observation psychologists have made is that psychopaths have this need to take a vacation into depravity every now and then. Where most normal people like to go somewhere pleasant to relax or spend quality time with their family, the psychopath has to go and do something sick. So, for example sex tourism or curb crawling or going to the gay area of town to be as promiscuous there as possible, or using animals, whatever.
Freaky!

Examples of people regularly termed "psychopaths" who are NOT clinical psychopaths = Hitler, Nero and Heliogabalus, Gilles de Rais, the Countess Elizabeth Báthory and, the Marquis de Sade.

Characteristics of a "more adaptive super human"? I think not!

Characteristics of a Psychopath

superficial charm

self-centered & self-important

need for stimulation & prone to boredom

deceptive behavior & lying

conning & manipulative

little remorse or guilt

shallow emotional response

callous with a lack of empathy

living off others or predatory attitude

poor self-control

promiscuous sexual behavior

early behavioral problems

lack of realistic long term goals

impulsive lifestyle

irresponsible behavior

blaming others for their actions

short term relationships

juvenile delinquency

breaking parole or probation

varied criminal activity

About George Bush:

If we believe the psychiatrists, a sign of a future serial killer is a child who delights in torturing and killing animals. George W., as a child, did exactly that. In a May 21, 2000, New York Times' puff piece about the values Bush gained growing up in Midland, Texas, Nicholas D. Kristof quoted Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton: "'We were terrible to animals,' recalled Mr. Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush home turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. 'Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Mr. Throckmorton said. 'Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'"

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/conover01.htm

Miller said he did intend The Bush Dyslexicon to be a funny book, but that was before he read all the transcripts, which revealed, according to reporter Murray Whyte, "a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He's not a moron at all on that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chretien agree."

"He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge," Miller told Whyte. "When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine. It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."

Fascinating!

 

[judas69]

You know what's interesting, you have barbarian under your nickname and you have issues with the psychopath.

I'll say more about this later on.

 

[Norsemaiden]

You know what's interesting, you have barbarian under your nickname and you have issues with the psychopath.

I'll say more about this later on.

Well don't forget, psychopaths are treacherous and basically cowardly. They would never fight bravely in a battle for a dutiful cause. They would never sacrifice themself for others or for an ideal. They do not feel love. They are sneaks. They are into hurting others but really terrified of being hurt physically themselves (they are immune to being hurt emotionally - apart from a feeling of anger and frustration when their plans fail). They prefer civilisation and degeneracy to a spartan life. They thrive where people have lowered their standards and where people are most tolerant of behaviour harmful to society.

 

[judas69]

They would never fight bravely in a battle for a dutiful cause. They would never sacrifice themself for others or for an ideal. They do not feel love.

I think in your case there is a strong romantic appeal towards the barbarian, and it wouldn't surprise me if your admiration stems directly from a desire to be protected, which may relate to (1) your feminine nature or (2) some past life event. On a psychological level, it has always been interesting to me why we like or dislike certain things, horror over sci-fi for example, barbarians over psychopaths. Both the barbarian and the psychopath are unruly by definition and thus, neither should have an appeal to you unless again, there is an aspect of one we (you) desire, or can identify with ..for whatever reason.

Humans feel that just by associating oneself with (or annoucing ones loyalty towards) a certain group, is in a way asserting ones own membership. Coming face to face with a true barbarian now, despite all your interest and admiration, would surely change your mind. If you were naked, he would surely rape you, if you crossed him in any way, he would surely kill you, regardless of what you thought about him or his group.

As far as self-sacrifice goes, the barbarian is more interested in killing his enemy, than protecting his group or upholding his honour and loyalty. If the barbarian had no battles to fight, no enemy to kill, do you think he would take up golf? He would find something to kill and like I mentioned, wouldn't hesitate in turning on anyone in much the same way as the psychopath. The psychopath however, is more intellectual (cowardly as you say) and less emotional by definition, understanding society and human behaviour enough to get what he wants with the least amount of trouble.

More generally though, and the point I was making in my other thread, aspects of the psychopathism are apparent in everyone including the barbarian and even yourself. When you're angry, you are not loving, you are not empathetic, you've put yourself above these emotions in much the same way. The assumption you've made in response to the psychopath is that humanity, in not being psychopathic, are thus beyond such things, which again is surely not the case (ie. hitler). So again, I'm not sure why there's such a big distinction.

They are into hurting others but really terrified of being hurt physically themselves..

The psychopath is not terrified of consequence (he doesn't worry) so again, your idea of the psychopath here exists only in contrast to the barbarian, who will jump into any war, for any cause, on a whim. In otherwords, for you to consider the psychopath "cowardly" is to (1) perhaps admit your own personal fear of him and (2) in essense downplay his intellectual faculties, something he clearly has over your standard barbarian. The barbarian is thus, the one you should fear more.

As far as the Bush thing goes, though psychological evaluation in children can give you some insight towards future behaviour, you can't at all make a true diagnosis as it relates to psychopathism. Aside form this, the major centers of the brain at this age, and up even into teenage years, lack developmentally.

As far as the whole "adaptive super human" thing goes, there is something to be said for someone who has overcome emotional self-limitation (guilt, anxiety). It's one thing to walk around town as a victum, and another as your own individual, even at the expense of others.

 

[Seditious]

I think in your case there is a strong romantic appeal towards the barbarian

"a warrior steals a lot, and gives back a lot." - J. Rufus Fears, in a lecture on Beowulf

(1) your feminine nature..

I guess few people will refute that americans are afeminate/cowardly in wanting security rather than liberty, as the whole 9/11 conspiracy has addressed for years.

(2) some past life event.

I just want to interject to say I find that interesting, perhaps worthy of a thread itself if someone finds fit some time. I wouldn't have expected such a metaphysical proposition from people interested in philosophy (as we tend to, it seems, be skeptical of such traditional metaphysical claims, as exhibited by the conflict with religions with such claims) fuck I'm drunk off my ass right now or I'd track down and upload n interview (on american AM radio station Coast-To-Coast AM), discussing the idea of past lives as a form of interpretation useful in theraputic approach rather than a factual matter, which I found more compelling than any other explanation of the 'past life regression' concept.'

Humans feel that just by associating oneself with (or annoucing ones loyalty towards) a certain group, is in a way asserting ones own membership.

an interesting topic itself

Coming face to face with a true barbarian now, despite all your interest and admiration, would surely change your mind. If you were naked, he would surely rape you, if you crossed him in any way, he would surely kill you, regardless of what you thought about him or his group.

to me, this approaches the Kantian argument I refute.

If the barbarian had no battles to fight, no enemy to kill, do you think he would take up golf? He would find something to kill and like I mentioned,.

is this not to demonize him as invalidly as it was to romanticize him you accused her of doing? I personally don't believe in the 'evil for evil sake' model, (which even was refuted in Aristotle's time as well as in our 21'st century).

wouldn't hesitate in turning on anyone in much the same way as the psychopath. The psychopath however, is more intellectual (cowardly as you say) and less emotional by definition, understanding society and human behaviour enough to get what he wants with the least amount of trouble.
.

one who turns on anyone unintelligently isn't really 'intellectual,' and is just mechanically compelled (biologically?) rather than emotionally. a psychopath is fucked over by his own compulsion. an intellectual could put aside his inclination to gain what he wanted, for he'd understand the difference between what he can do and not get away with and what he really wants. personally, i'd say someone who'd turn on anyone for their own benefit in the moment lacks the virtue of 'wisdom' not 'courage' to refer Plato's virtues to the idea. (mind you I'm drunk for the first time in a long while ,and if I make no sense, ignore me)

More generally though, and the point I was making in my other thread, aspects of the psychopathism are apparent in everyone including the barbarian and even yourself. When you're angry, you are not loving, you are not empathetic, you've put yourself above these emotions in much the same way. The assumption you've made in response to the psychopath is that humanity, in not being psychopathic, are thus beyond such things, which again is surely not the case (ie. hitler). So again, I'm not sure why there's such a big distinction.

I'd be interested in hearing you expand on that, because I'm not sure what you referred to as the distinction.

there is something to be said for someone who has overcome emotional self-limitation (guilt, anxiety). It's one thing to walk around town as a victum, and another as your own individual, even at the expense of others.

"our own individual, even at the expense of others" another idea in which i find curiousity aroused.

 

[judas69]

I just want to interject to say I find that interesting, perhaps worthy of a thread itself if someone finds fit some time. I wouldn't have expected such a metaphysical proposition from people interested in philosophy (as we tend to, it seems, be skeptical of such traditional metaphysical claims, as exhibited by the conflict with religions with such claims) fuck I'm drunk off my ass right now or I'd track down and upload n interview (on american AM radio station Coast-To-Coast AM), discussing the idea of past lives as a form of interpretation useful in theraputic approach rather than a factual matter, which I found more compelling than any other explanation of the 'past life regression' concept.'

Well, I meant it as "past life-event", and not "past-life event".

As far as everything else, I have not the energy at the moment to comment so, we'll let it sit and see what others have to say.

 

[Norsemaiden]

More generally though, and the point I was making in my other thread, aspects of the psychopathism are apparent in everyone including the barbarian and even yourself. When you're angry, you are not loving, you are not empathetic, you've put yourself above these emotions in much the same way. The assumption you've made in response to the psychopath is that humanity, in not being psychopathic, are thus beyond such things, which again is surely not the case (ie. hitler). So again, I'm not sure why there's such a big distinction.
QUOTE]

A lot of your misunderstandings come from a common human tendency to believe all people basically are the same as yourself and that they only have an apparantly different way of thinking because they haven't learned some of the things you have. An important realisation is that this is as false as anthropomorphising an insect. Minds can be very different.

When you are angry you may feel like a chimp that is repeatedly poked with a stick. Your emotion may be much the same. It doesn't mean that chimps are human or humans are chimps. When you feel the need to urinate you have the same feeling as a wombat does - but there is still a big distinction biologically in the mental processes generally of a wombat and a man.

Barbarians have been highly intelligent in the past, with well ordered societies in which there was far less violence than in present day societies and no rape occuring within those societies ever.

 

[Norsemaiden]

In order to understand the mind of the psychopath you need to be able to emphasise with the way they think. Some of us can do this to a fair extent, so we may be said to have some of those aspects within our own persona. The difference between a normal person who can understand these mental processes and the actual psychopath is simply that the psychopath can't experience the emotions of shame, guilt, empathy, concern for others, sense of duty, love and faithfulness, etc that the normal person does. It has been commented that it is as if they don't have a soul. They don't contribute anything to society or the betterment of life (unless it is by accident while pursuing another goal which is often a destructive goal that counteracts any incidental good they may have done). This is one reason why having such people running business and government ensures that long term concerns for the consequences of policies are of no interest to these people. It is one reason why nothing will improve - and we are all going to hell (metaphorically).

 

[judas69]

Barbarians in the past [had] well ordered societies in which there was far less violence than in present day societies..

If this were indeed the case, it's only because (1) their population size and density were no where near that of ours and / or (2) their natural proclivity towards violence had been displaced externally (ie. towards other societies).

That said, I still have a hard time accepting this.

..and no rape occuring within those societies ever

Well, in every human society there is crime, violence, and rape. To say that there was no rape within these societies ever, only serves to exemplify your inability to accept that a barbarian would act in well, a barbaric manor.

 

[judas69]

This goes for anyone really, but moreso norsemaiden.

I'm curious who has personally known a psychopath, or someone you feel might have been one?

 

[Norsemaiden]

If this were indeed the case, it's only because (1) their population size and density were no where near that of ours and / or (2) their natural proclivity towards violence had been displaced externally (ie. towards other societies).

That said, I still have a hard time accepting this.



Well, in every human society there is crime, violence, and rape. To say that there was no rape within these societies ever, only serves to exemplify your inability to accept that a barbarian would act in well, a barbaric manor.

As regards the population density. I would indeed expect barbarians never to have a high population density because that only happens in civilisations. Barbarians living in civilisations avoid the city (I am talking about modern barbarians who are just naturally not domesticated but some kind of throw-back or whatever). Wild people might well see an attraction in serial killing if forced to live in a crowded city....
So even being a serial killer doesn't in itself equal being a psychopath!

The definition that the general public has of "barbarian" is inaccurate. Barbarians have been given a bad image because they are not part of civilisation. The biggest irony is that the most "civilised" people are technically those living in the heart of a city - yet their behaviour is increasingly savage, uneducated, cruel and rape is certainly something any woman alone on the streets at night has every reason to fear.

Vikings were barbarians and they had extremely strict taboos against so much as a husband striking his wife or someone stealing a kiss or pinching a bottom. A very rare madman might attempt a rape but this would be an incredible outrage. Men would regulary get into brawls with eachother - so it wasn't a nonviolent society, but only certain kinds of violence happened. They had rules over how to deal with murder, wounding etc and repaying the victims' family or being exiled and so on.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I have an uncle and another family member (by marriage - who is a woman) who show psychopathic characteristics. They are parasitic, and self-centered and my uncle has had several wives he has been unfaithful to and so on. But I have very little to do with them and I don't like to go into the details as it is unfair.

 

[judas69]

Psychopath or an INTJ who's gone to the dark side (Part 2)

Found this on the net, which sort of backs up a couple of my previous points.

Also, I just happen to be INTJ aswell so I guess, you'd better watch your backs?