guardians_song (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
guardians_song) wrote2013-06-17 12:23 pm
guardians_song) wrote2013-06-17 12:23 pm
*climbs onto soapbox* Three psychopathic traits...
I would place the most important aspects of psychopathy as a lack of remorse, an absence of strong morality, and a fascination with deceit.
Why am I omitting the lack of empathy? Simple. I believe psychopathic behavior can occur in people who claim to be perfectly empathic if they have the above three traits. I also believe that psychopathic behavior will not occur in people with low empathy who are remorseful, moral, and honest. True, it's in one's best interests to practice the "Locks keep honest men honest" attitude around them. But they don't pose dangers in the way that those with the above three traits do.
--
Remorse is helpful. It forces you to continue to dwell on matters where you erred. Without remorse, some people really don't learn. I've seen people do harmful things again and again with bounces in their steps and smiles in their hearts because, no matter how empathic they are, they're convinced they're in the right and refuse to listen to any testimony to the contrary. If they felt remorse, they'd be open to advice. They're not.
(Remorse can backfire, malfunction, or become all-consuming. That is a bad thing. In the past, I've had my soul - for lack of a better term - eroded out from under me because... I was led to believe that I was an immoral person for aspects of my personality that I refused to change, put it that way. That was absolutely wretched. But I don't believe the remorse was wrong - the skewed perception was what was in the wrong.)
Now, lack of remorse can be a defense mechanism to save one's sanity. In a situation where you're under the authority of someone displaying instability, splitting, and savage emotional attacks in response to perceived insubordination, you will probably have to practice manipulation to survive with your personality intact. If said person presents himself or herself as the one true moral authority, you may also have to accept your innate 'immorality' to not be crushed. And under the pressure of enough guilt trips, you may be smashed into a choice between 'I'll do whatever you want, just please make it stop' and 'CRY FUCKING MOAR'.
Lack of remorse under circumstances where one's inner self isn't under siege, however, is inexcusable. And people can do anything if they don't feel remorse.
Anything.
--
So why might someone choose not to do so? Well, a strong sense of What Is Right and What Is Wrong can stand in the way of someone acting up in the first place.
I'd like to draw a very strong distinction between "warbles about how righteous he or she is" and "has a sense of right and wrong". I, in fact, am using it in the sense of "has a sense of right and wrong aside from what other people think is right and wrong and acts accordingly'. The person who says, 'I know what the truth is because my professor says so,' is about as dangerous as the person who says flat-out, 'It's just a matter of power and those too weak to use it.' The former just blends into society better.
I don't know if the "acts accordingly" is really necessary, because people who have morality and aren't glomming onto the morals of a group tend to hold to their own morality... At least, I'd think so, in that they'd have no reason to tack on clauses they don't plan to follow.
In case you're wondering why this doesn't fold into the "remorse" quality - well, I believe it's possible to be moral on a matter without feeling empathy or remorse. One can speak in a calm and civilized manner to an absolute scumbag because it is Right and Proper to speak calmly and reasonably to any human being, even if one harbors extreme doubts as to whether said person qualifies as a human being in anything but the strictly biological sense of the word. One can sincerely wish for such a scumbag's continued good health (while studiously avoiding the morally ambiguous matter of whether poorer health would reduce the amount of harm which they could dish out...) on the grounds that all human beings deserve good health, even if one's reaction to hearing of their death would be extreme relief. And so on, and so forth.
I also include this specifically because some people are oh, so remorseful! and oh, so terribly sincere! But did they see their behavior as wrong? Would they not do it again?
Ahaha-ah-fucking-ha.
--
So... okay, if we don't have the above two traits, then we have amoral and remorseless people who may or may not have any empathy worth mentioning. Isn't that full-blown psychopathy?
Well, I've also noticed that case studies of full-blown psychopaths (and con artists in general) seem to show them lying well beyond what they need to accomplish their ends. In fact, it sometimes turns self-sabotaging because CHANNELING ELIJAH WOOD?! Seriously?!
They seem to literally lie for the sake of lying. If they were truly as smart as they claimed, they could accomplish the same goals by planning out what they actually need and constructing a much more reasonable persona. Win-win for them, since they have less batshittery to keep track of and less probability of people bursting out laughing in their face. But no, they just pile on the deception because... they always wanted to LARP without the inconvenience of people knowing it's a LARP? Or something?
I emphasize this point because I just don't get the point of lying so much. It's not necessary for manipulation. It's not necessary for covering tracks. It's not necessary for self-advertising. There's just no need, even for the completely amoral. Unless you were backed into a situation where you had to lie or suffer retaliation from vicious-tempered authority figures, why would you do it? Intentional omission of information is one thing, but spinning endless yarns...
As for the dangerous aspect, the 'honesty' point is the difference between the surly dragon advancing towards you and the mountain lion padding up behind you. Yes, that dragon is going to eat you alive, steal your shiny items, and only feel a mild sense of indigestion at worst about the whole thing. But, on the other hand, you can see the dragon, fight it, and dodge its attacks - unlike the neck-snapping bite that you don't even know is coming.
An honest asshole is still an asshole, but at least you'll know his or her true nature.
--
As a final note, it's sufficient for "empathic" people to have the first two traits to render them capable of some of the least empathic behavior you'll stumble across, luck permitting. The fascination with deceit, however, seems to be what enables psychopaths to deal massive amounts of damage.
*climbs off of soapbox and ends amateur analyses*
Sorry if this isn't very well-written. I'm feeling a little under the weather today and I'm hitting the caffeinated beverages. *shrug*
Why am I omitting the lack of empathy? Simple. I believe psychopathic behavior can occur in people who claim to be perfectly empathic if they have the above three traits. I also believe that psychopathic behavior will not occur in people with low empathy who are remorseful, moral, and honest. True, it's in one's best interests to practice the "Locks keep honest men honest" attitude around them. But they don't pose dangers in the way that those with the above three traits do.
--
Remorse is helpful. It forces you to continue to dwell on matters where you erred. Without remorse, some people really don't learn. I've seen people do harmful things again and again with bounces in their steps and smiles in their hearts because, no matter how empathic they are, they're convinced they're in the right and refuse to listen to any testimony to the contrary. If they felt remorse, they'd be open to advice. They're not.
(Remorse can backfire, malfunction, or become all-consuming. That is a bad thing. In the past, I've had my soul - for lack of a better term - eroded out from under me because... I was led to believe that I was an immoral person for aspects of my personality that I refused to change, put it that way. That was absolutely wretched. But I don't believe the remorse was wrong - the skewed perception was what was in the wrong.)
Now, lack of remorse can be a defense mechanism to save one's sanity. In a situation where you're under the authority of someone displaying instability, splitting, and savage emotional attacks in response to perceived insubordination, you will probably have to practice manipulation to survive with your personality intact. If said person presents himself or herself as the one true moral authority, you may also have to accept your innate 'immorality' to not be crushed. And under the pressure of enough guilt trips, you may be smashed into a choice between 'I'll do whatever you want, just please make it stop' and 'CRY FUCKING MOAR'.
Lack of remorse under circumstances where one's inner self isn't under siege, however, is inexcusable. And people can do anything if they don't feel remorse.
Anything.
--
So why might someone choose not to do so? Well, a strong sense of What Is Right and What Is Wrong can stand in the way of someone acting up in the first place.
I'd like to draw a very strong distinction between "warbles about how righteous he or she is" and "has a sense of right and wrong". I, in fact, am using it in the sense of "has a sense of right and wrong aside from what other people think is right and wrong and acts accordingly'. The person who says, 'I know what the truth is because my professor says so,' is about as dangerous as the person who says flat-out, 'It's just a matter of power and those too weak to use it.' The former just blends into society better.
I don't know if the "acts accordingly" is really necessary, because people who have morality and aren't glomming onto the morals of a group tend to hold to their own morality... At least, I'd think so, in that they'd have no reason to tack on clauses they don't plan to follow.
In case you're wondering why this doesn't fold into the "remorse" quality - well, I believe it's possible to be moral on a matter without feeling empathy or remorse. One can speak in a calm and civilized manner to an absolute scumbag because it is Right and Proper to speak calmly and reasonably to any human being, even if one harbors extreme doubts as to whether said person qualifies as a human being in anything but the strictly biological sense of the word. One can sincerely wish for such a scumbag's continued good health (while studiously avoiding the morally ambiguous matter of whether poorer health would reduce the amount of harm which they could dish out...) on the grounds that all human beings deserve good health, even if one's reaction to hearing of their death would be extreme relief. And so on, and so forth.
I also include this specifically because some people are oh, so remorseful! and oh, so terribly sincere! But did they see their behavior as wrong? Would they not do it again?
Ahaha-ah-fucking-ha.
--
So... okay, if we don't have the above two traits, then we have amoral and remorseless people who may or may not have any empathy worth mentioning. Isn't that full-blown psychopathy?
Well, I've also noticed that case studies of full-blown psychopaths (and con artists in general) seem to show them lying well beyond what they need to accomplish their ends. In fact, it sometimes turns self-sabotaging because CHANNELING ELIJAH WOOD?! Seriously?!
They seem to literally lie for the sake of lying. If they were truly as smart as they claimed, they could accomplish the same goals by planning out what they actually need and constructing a much more reasonable persona. Win-win for them, since they have less batshittery to keep track of and less probability of people bursting out laughing in their face. But no, they just pile on the deception because... they always wanted to LARP without the inconvenience of people knowing it's a LARP? Or something?
I emphasize this point because I just don't get the point of lying so much. It's not necessary for manipulation. It's not necessary for covering tracks. It's not necessary for self-advertising. There's just no need, even for the completely amoral. Unless you were backed into a situation where you had to lie or suffer retaliation from vicious-tempered authority figures, why would you do it? Intentional omission of information is one thing, but spinning endless yarns...
As for the dangerous aspect, the 'honesty' point is the difference between the surly dragon advancing towards you and the mountain lion padding up behind you. Yes, that dragon is going to eat you alive, steal your shiny items, and only feel a mild sense of indigestion at worst about the whole thing. But, on the other hand, you can see the dragon, fight it, and dodge its attacks - unlike the neck-snapping bite that you don't even know is coming.
An honest asshole is still an asshole, but at least you'll know his or her true nature.
--
As a final note, it's sufficient for "empathic" people to have the first two traits to render them capable of some of the least empathic behavior you'll stumble across, luck permitting. The fascination with deceit, however, seems to be what enables psychopaths to deal massive amounts of damage.
*climbs off of soapbox and ends amateur analyses*
Sorry if this isn't very well-written. I'm feeling a little under the weather today and I'm hitting the caffeinated beverages. *shrug*