Tuesday, November 30, 2010

How they prove you're a Psychopath.

As silly as it may sound there is a way that is frequently used to 'spot' psychopaths. The methods are Pet and MRI scans.

All you need is to show consistent flat affect, and voila: You're a psychopath/sociopath.

The problem I have with this is that in the very definition of the word Psychopath (and in later years, Sociopath) you must have some consistency of harmful behavior as well. But where is the line? How harmful must you be, and in how many ways?

There are empathic people who portray just as harmfully as sociopaths and who get the label because it's just easier and cheaper to not give them a thorough scan.
On the other hand there're neurologically verifiable sociopathic people who somehow manage to not harm others. It's all linked to circumstantials in our upbringing.

I am not arguing that there is no such thing as sociopaths, that would be silly. But I am arguing that there are people with the same neurological make up who can in fact be contributing to the survival and progress of our species. 'Empaths', the so called 'normal people' in our societies, are too heavily focused upon what THEY think is good and right, and what they think is good and right usually is a status quo that will kill our species along with the rest of the planet if we don't change our ways very soon (yet that may be too late).

Those that I call psychopaths are mindlessly helping the empaths do their damage. But some of those the empaths call psychopaths could be their saviors!

2 comments:

TheNotablePath said...

You don't need to be a psycho to act psycho.

Shallow affect can be a learned numbness, as well as the MO of the psychopath.

Machiavelli is a good example on how I look at life, apparently. I've never read the man's work, only a brief blurb on his wiki, but when I took the MACH IV test, I scored a 100/100, not trying to manipulate the test.

There's plenty of sociopathic literature out there that people can take to heart, or behavior they can take to learn. It's not so much a question about if they're a psychopath so much as it is, are they consistently psychopathic in a harmful degree.

Zhawq said...

Indeed. That's kind of my point with many of the things I'm going to say.

However, learned sociopathy is what is referred to as ... sociopathy ... as opposed to psychopathy, at least by some experts.

I like definitions because things can get so blurred out when we don't know if we're really talking about the same things.

By the way, Machiavelli's "The Prince" is good reading even today. I'm sure many would see him as psychopathic or at least sociopathic, but personally I simply see him as someone offering some good advice to a group of people in society as it was at the time. Much of his advice is universal as well.