A sociopath is someone with an anti-social personality disorder? I guess I am like that sometimes but I am not dangerous - I am a pacifist!

What kind of behavour are you talking about?

Clinical traits of a sociopath.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. SUPERFICIAL CHARM -- the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, and slick. Not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. He never gets tongue-tied and has freed himself from the social conventions about taking turns in talking, for example.

2. GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. An arrogant guy who believes he is a superior human being.

3. NEED FOR STIMULATION (PRONENESS TO BOREDOM) -- an excessive need for novel, thrilling, and exciting stimulation; taking chances and doing things that are risky. Often has low self-discipline in carrying tasks through to completion because he gets bored easily.

4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, and will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever (in extreme form, he will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest).

5. CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS -- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.

6. LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.

7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness.

8. CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.

9. PARASITIC LIFESTYLE -- an intentional, manipulative, selfish, and exploitative financial dependence on others as reflected in a lack of motivation, low self-discipline, and inability to begin or complete responsibilities.

10. POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper; acting hastily.

11. PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR -- a variety of brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs, and an indiscriminate selection of sexual partners; the maintenance of several relationships at the same time; a history of attempts to sexually coerce others into sexual activity or taking great pride at discussing sexual exploits or conquests.

12. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS -- an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.

13. IMPULSIVITY -- the occurrence of behaviors that are unpremeditated and lack reflection or planning; inability to resist temptation, frustrations, and urges; a lack of deliberation without considering the consequences; foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, and reckless.

14. IRRESPONSIBILITY -- repeated failure to fulfill or honor obligations and commitments; such as not paying bills, defaulting on loans, performing sloppy work, being absent or late to work, failing to honor contractual agreements.

15. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.

16. MANY SHORT-TERM RELATIONSHIPS -- a lack of commitment to a long-term relationship reflected in inconsistent, undependable, and unreliable commitments in life, including marital.

17. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY -- behavior problems between the ages of 13-18; mostly behaviors that are crimes or clearly involve aspects of antagonism, exploitation, aggression, manipulation, or a callous, ruthless tough-mindedness.

18. CRIMINAL VERSATILITY -- A diversity of types of criminal offenses (regardless if the person has been arrested or convicted for them); taking great pride at getting away with crimes.

So, I guess I am definitely not a sociopath then - phew! However, I would be interested to hear why you think you are living with people like that.

hmm, guess its all down to definitions - the ones you've listed can be because of a variety of reasons and i guess that's what needs to be considered rather than finding a label for their behaviour.

my general opinion on what we think of others is that i may like or dislike their ego but always love the human thats hosting it. if a person fits the description you've provided, they will never experience the contentment of being a true human and i would be pissed at their ego for both behaving the way it does and for robbing their human host of being a loving caring social animal.

as for what we do about it, my view is always treatment - pointless punishing the human for the doings of its ego - much better to find ways to kill the ego itself and give control back to the trapped human :)

shite XepipanyX thats really sounds like me lol

lol nevagiveup - i can relate and i think that's why in the official classification they're careful to add the line 'and is not diagnosed with some other mental illness'. about half of those also fit the description of a manic episode :O

I've known people with all 18 of these characteristics. They are subject to stress like everyone else is. In some situations, none of these may be noticeable. Depending on the severity of the disorder, they can be capable of learning to become more normal (whatever that means). These people should not be exposed to pornography, bestiality, sacrificial rituals, etc. at any time in their life.

What distinguishes a sociopath from a psychopath is the degree of #6: lack of remorse or guilt. Apparently the highest functioning psychopaths such as serial killers have learned to hide that they have no remorse. These are the ones we wouldn't expect to be serial killers. Others supposedly aren't capable or tire of the degree of sophistication required to continually hide this lack of conscience from normal society. These are the ones who appear affected and unkempt like Charles Manson. They don't care that they don't blend in. The first kind are the hardest to catch. And hardest to lock up without rehabilitation, or practice the death penalty on.

but wouldn't that simply mean that the distinction is simply down to how intelligent they are?

remorse and guilt are simply feelings that come about when we feel that we've done something 'wrong' in a moral sense. morals themselves are subjective and usually simply a consensus. my thinking is that people who engage in behavior that is harmful to others simply have a different set of moral rules and still would feel remorse and guilt but not for the same behaviors as you or me.

as a different colored example, living in a capitalist system, 'its just business' is acceptable when it comes to financial dealings with others, even if our actions cause them humiliation or hardship. if someone was to out-compete me in a business deal, i would be seen as doing the wrong thing if i got personally offended and broke his legs even though his legs would heal but his actions might drastically damage my life, cause me to be homeless and destitute etc! and in that situation, due to the consensus, people would demand that i should be the one who needs to feel guilty and remorseful!

coming back to people who cause harm to others beyond breaking their legs, their moral rules simply do not match that of general society and whether they can pretend to feel guilty would simply be a matter of their survival skills. so using your definitions with my thinking, a psychopath would simply be a smart sociopath.

and considering we obtain our moral rules through our upbringing, education and life experiences, i don't think either condition can truly be considered the person's own fault and society as a whole needs to take some responsibility in preventing and 'fixing' such unfortunate illnesses.

i guess this, like everything else boils down to the age old competing perspectives of individual against collective responsibility - i'll always be a socialist at heart...lol

It's interesting that there seems to be a law of the jungle by which we live in the work world where we behave in ways we really don't feel are ethical, yet we justify our actions in order to bring home a pay check. Makes one think the world is run by psychopaths or robber barons at the very least! I know I've been placed in situations where I felt pressured to compromise my ethics.

I don't know if that's the same thing though. Most of us aren't predators and don't think like predators.

Cage, I suppose it's safe to say a psychopath is probably a smart sociopath. There seems to be an evolution to the 18 clinical traits. So it makes sense that it should be possible to deconstruct the illness.

I think though that numerous studies of psychopaths have determined that these are the sociopaths that were unable to form emotional bonds in early development. There is an absence of object love, despite many of them having been raised in normal families. It renders them incapable of feeling responsibility or accountability as adults. This implies it wouldn't have mattered what their childhood was like and it gives the clinician a very limited frame of reference for rehabilitative treatment. I think they're at a loss of how to help them.

I don't know about psychopaths except what the experts say. The field of psychiatry is generally devoid of any acknowledgment of a "soul". Although, they will use the term conscience, they don't seem to admit that some people can be born without a conscience, as the general public often ascribes to psychopaths. That would be placing themselves in a bit of a hypocritical quandary. I don't know where the conscience-less, soul-less label came from really, and I may be mistaken, but it seems both the public and the medical profession are reluctant to engender very much empathy toward them.

Here's an interesting article: http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/cleckley-mos.htm by a psychiatrist who wrote "The Mask of Insanity" in 1941. I don't think there's been many new controversies raised over psychopathy in the last 60 years. And I guess the profilers have gotten good at profiling them, but I don't know how good they are at catching them. I'm just glad they're not being let out after they're caught.