How does that statement make you feel? I'll tell you how it makes me feel. In a word, "nonsense".
If there is one demographic that exists to foment and induce socio-emotional disarray in human society, it would be what we call "sociopaths". But
given this is still such a vague term, I will basically define "sociopath" as someone with a deficit in empathic understanding of other peoples
feeling and emotional states. This condition can be created by a) developmental trauma, creating whats called by relational psychologists a self
system of subjugation; which basically means the self is developmentally organized and cued by feelings of shame, and the way it wards it off is by
amplifying self/body connections (embodied subjective experience) and tuning down awareness of self-other mind-body connections (a relational or
intersubjective experience) creating a mind state where the self seeks by default to 'subjugate' the other.
Neurobiologically, 'simulation theory' posits that people "experience within themselves" the intention states of others. This is how were able to
empathize with others. This process is mediated by mirror neurons - a group of neurons in the premotor cortex of mammals (and in us, the anterior
cingulate cortex aswell) which lights up in the same manner as the motor cortex of the animal/person carrying out the action. In other words, a normal
human brain "picks" up the motor cues of a person he is watching and translates them not only in motor areas of our brain, but cognitive/emotive
(cingulate cortex) and bodily (insula) areas as well. This is how what we see produces affects (feelings in our body) and cognitions (metaphorically
elaborated in areas adjacent to the motor cortex)
A second way of developing a sociopathic condition is through genetic disease. There have been studies that indicate that a small portion of the human
population is genetically "programmed" for sociopathy; however, we still don't know and cant even quantify the difference between developmental
traumas which can create a sociopathic personality structure and intrinsic neurobiological defects. How much of one is because of the other? For
example, someone may be sensitive to developing a sociopathic character structure if exposed to these types of environmental experiences (triggers).
Which would mean anyone could theoretically "sociopathic" - if only his genetic structure and environmental experiences 'linked up' in just the right
By this point I hope its understood that I am not sensitive or in anyway tolerant of people who exhibit sociopathic character structure. I
specifically decided to write this thread because of what I saw earlier:
Cody Wilson is an anarchistic law student advocating - nay, pompously bragging - that he believes people have a right to 3D print guns. Most people
find something wrong with that. The problem is, Cody, who speaks with a smile and devilish twinkle in his eye - all inications of narcissism and
empathic deficits - nevertheless insists that he has right; he has a right. And hearing this again and again is somehow supposed to mean something to
the normal person.
What I want to point out is why when we hear someone like this speak, we do not discuss what is going on in his mind - in his brain - and how
basically, it is patently obvious that he has absolutely no sensitivity to what it means to want a good society; a peaceful society; a society in
which people are mindfully connected to one another; a society where scientific understanding and conscious and empathic understanding of human
relations flourishes within every mind.
Many people want this. But some people don't.
Why is that? Why should I listen to Cody speak and not conclude that ultimately his mind is disorganized; that there is something objective "out
there" - the nature of the human condition and the compassionate response that should emerge when one becomes conscious of it - that is not entering
Cody's awareness. For whatever reason, he doesn't resonate.
In social mirror theory (basically justified by every psychological and social science) what we call our "selves" - that sense of having a subjective
style, way of being, sound of voice, and general reputation - is nothing but a consequence of the relational patterns you were exposed to in your
early life. Genes, as research shows, contribute less than 20%. If even. Genetic "potential" at birth is biased, but it can be directed in a
improbable direction by certain relational styles.
So, then...thats the evidence. Our selves are a fiction our bodies tell ourselves. Amazingly, this life of mind and body that we feel is actually
dependent on everyone else; on culture, on society: on other human beings. You keep children alone (as happened in Romania in the 90's) and separated
from human interaction and that SEVERELY traumatizes; simple neglect, a not doing, can neurologically predispose brain development (only 1/3rd of
which is built at birth!) and you will have an affectively hypoaroused, barely consciously alert human being. Where's the self? It is lost in the
static of not being. The normal human (mammalian!) urge at birth is for connection with the other. If that doesn't happen, in the case of human
beings, a coherent self will never form. And because of that, such a person will always struggle to feel and experience their bodies - the "base"
which builds and facillates both our experience of emotion and our sense of self.
As humans with bodies, each of us similar; each of us our equal, so why the hell not should our political, legal and cultural systems not acknowledge
And yet, there is a person - such as cody wilson - who denies that and pursues ideas and other cognitions that strangely oppose what should be
intrinsically apparent to MOST human minds. Clearly then, the flag should be pulled up. Cody should be called out. A simple "hey man, I know you
believe what you're saying, but you're affective experience of the world - the basic emotional reality that underlies your subjective experience -
isn't computing a very basic piece of information: other peoples subjective emotional feelings. That's important man. Of course, you can continue
thinking what you think, but it should absolutely be pointed out that you are neurologically or developmentally injured. Your beliefs are born from an
ignorance of a vital fact in human relations - and thus all political thought (which should reflect a democratic spirit): how other people feel
matters. Its in fact the most relevant piece of information we should pay attention to if we want a better life for ourselves and for one another.
It is also very sad that people like Cody exist. If you cannot sense that cosmic connection between things; if that is only a "cognition", a
perception devoid of an affective quality, how can you experience the spiritual wonder of lifes interactivity? Of our ability to see this - and FEEL
it - and be aware to it all. Wondrous. Building within you a real social sensibility.
So, then, what are your feelings of this? Am I saying that his anarcho-capitalism is ridiculous? Yes. But I am also saying that certain philosophies
are borne from the minds of people who have been subjectively injured: shame and fear organized their minds to feel and experience the world in a
certain way. For a therapist and brain researcher (myself) I am constantly astonished at how dissociated our political systems are
edit on 27-9-2014 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)
You don't need to feel sorry for sociopaths because they are completely happy with themselves. In fact, sociopathy is awfully close to a superpower.
It is akin to not feeling physical pain, only it is psychological pain they can avoid feeling. There are many days I wish I didn't feel my
our scientific investigations into the human condition. This exists because we are still so ignorant; the knowledge tend to support progressive
policies that are based on sound and wise scientific research into the brain, relationships, dyadic psychology and social psychology.
Conservatives seem to represent that pole of people who can think just fine - very sophisticatedly in fact- but who nervertheless are dissociated at a
fundamental level; their sense of connection with others and their concern for people "beyond their immediate kin" is surpisingly absent. Why?
As a therapist I know that people aren't 'genetically programmed' this way; but still, why the discrepancy? Why do they not experience the world as
experienced by "progressive" types?
We block our emotions when lifes stresses compress upon us. But we aren't aware of it. It happens from the get-go: from the womb, in fact. Mama's
thinking and feeling - something highly influenced by her immediate social connections (husbands) - is transmuted in body as electro-chemical events;
stress is correlated with higher levels of cortisol in the body; 20% of which penetrates the walls of the placenta, and once there, what does the
cortisol do? When an animal is developing, at a fundamental level, were talking about micro-molecular events; proteins, nucleic acids, lipids and
other macromolecules move this way and that way; but how? Its been a major mystery in developmental biology, but it is not recognized that the
presence of chemicals within the mothers own body - produced by her own cognitive and emotional states - "guides" the developmental of primary
nervous system architecture in the intrauterine stage of development. At this point, we don't know which specific neurons; all we have our enticing
epidemiological data indicating that a stressed mother will produce - and wisely, by evolution! - a child which is especially sensitive to the
'threats' the mother must be experiencing (other why would should be stressed? Todays ridiculous society confuses the body; the body responds to
stress by creating itself to conform to the 'information' coming from the environment.
So you can see how intrauterine microevents can influence our biology. But still, the really important limbic and cortical areas are hardly fully
developed at birth, so the most important part of development is the first 10 years of life, especially the first 2 years.
Dissociation is simply an unconscious evolutionary system which organizes human self states. Self state are experiences we have that become associated
with certain environmental contexts. We tend to have many of them; some are great while others are subtle. The reason they're called "self states"
- neurologically coded together as 'profiles' - is because it is the totality of us. Even though the higher abstract cortical areas are absent at
birth, the brain stem is sensitive enough to pick up affective cues - in face, body, and voice - that organize the infants attention. Every infant has
a different 'sensitivity' (intrauaterine/genetic factors) so responses aren't completely predictable; but once a certain threshold is crossed, the
infants brain dissociates a certain experience; if "this" affective experience and facial expression (on my own face) and relational style results
in this (mother lashing out, hitting you) then the mind will assume a self-other organization that maintains bodily affect and helps the person in
that particular environment \
Fast forward. Your dad hit you. Your dad neglected your emotions. Who hasn't had this growing up? And who wouldn't deny that they "woudn't be any
different" if this didn't happen to them.
Fact is, certain things stay "unthinkable" because they are first "unfeelable" - that is, in a state of dissociation from consciousness. A lot of
the good progressive ideas that are felt as "unthinkable" are that way because they are unfeelable to the conservative mind; shame, a sense of
vulnerability, will probably keep them stubbornly connected to the cognitive-philosophical ideas that are meaningful to them; within that world, mind
and body interact; but not outside it. Once he thinks of liberals, he thinks "soft" "bleeding hearts" and this all comes off as sensible thinking
to him. Because he has absolutely no idea how his unconscious relational systems have put certain ideas into an unfeelable state of "not-me"; I do
not hug and kiss my dog in front of other people; I do not cry in front of others; I do not care about people who don't have health insurance".
Things people cant think, or really cant think of in a meaningful away, are like that because the mind has been closed by a brain organization system
called dissociation. It is not permanent, just something that happens during development that protects (however detrimental for others at times) the
mind from experiencing negative affective states; if the mind is focused on something else (the very action of dissociation) the body can be more
effective in its game of surviving.
People can change and people should change. As a society, everyone of us needs "THERAPY". And I only mean from this that we all need to understand
that healthy human relationships require that we be aware of the implicit processes that happen between us; and how these processes BIAS our thinking.
How often do you just bitch someone out because of something that happened earlier; a simple look someone gave you that put you in a rigid state of
mind; a mind that became easily reactive when someone else asked you an innocuous question.
Of course that's not fair; and even more importantly, its entirely preventable. The brain is PLASTIC. Consciousness has the incredible ability to
consciously direct its own development; it does so by biasing and monitoring what happens. Just watching, observing, and then redirecting attention.
Certain acts of attention our vital (seeking favorable environments) while others small and incremental and possibly requiring endless reiteration.
But over time, your mind changes - your mind must have been engendering different neuro-chemical activity; serotonin if you've been happy, dopamine
if you've been more energetic. Amazing.
Maybe Sociopaths are deserving of our sympathy.
If the "disease" actually exists and it isnt just some made up fancy word we have for a******s then the people we call Sociopaths are born with it
and its not their fault, you wouldnt hate on someone due to them having Cerebral Palsy or any other genetic condition so why should we hate
Just a thought
(post by whyamIhere removed for a manners violation)
every person on the planet deserves our sympathy....if they are mentally ill or just plain awful something triggered that....and if nothing triggered
and they were born that way then we should feel sympathy for that too
many of the laws people break are legal in other locations...isn't that something...you get 10 years in one place and it not be a crime in
another..society tries to say what is normal and not normal and then we literally kill each other over it...or at least control each other
i love everyone the way they are. and i also won't push any 'sociopath' i know to change, because forcing others to act according to our will is,
imho, much worst than what they are doing. all i can do for them is to pray that they will change, but if they wont change, i wont be disappointed
to me, everyone on this planet is learning and growing by either making mistakes or doing the right things.
There is more and more evidence all the time that sociopathy has some genetic elements. So because sociopaths don't feel compassion they don't
deserve compassion?? What sort of logic is this? As someone else noticed, there is a anti-gun, political (conservative bashing) element to your post.
So Mr. Wilson is a sociopath because he is pro-gun?
I am not a sociopath, I have compassion and empathy, but (honesty and non-political correctness to follow) I don't have a lot of empathy for a lot of
people all the time. Boohoo. I am a happy guy, but my temperament is not hugs and kisses all the time, and I tend to be compassionate towards people
who I feel deserve my compassion, rightly or wrongly. And I see a lot of other people who seem to have the same sort of compassion that I do.
Frankly, I'm tired of people telling me how I must feel. How I must think. And how much I should care. And that if I don't feel this way, if I
don't think your way, and I don't care as much as you think I should, that I must have something wrong with me.
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” - Neitzsche
Have any of you noticed that more and more just about anyone who isn't a happy little working ant these days is immediately suspected of mental
illness? If we all aren't happy social sheep we are told that there could be something wrong with us. Then they want to get us on their
antidepressants, so they can make their drug company buddies and themselves money. Remember when they wanted kids on them not long ago, and how that
worked out? These people know barely anything about the brain, or even what causes depression or mental illness to begin with. But they are going to
tell us what we need to do to be good happy worker ants?
It seems everyone who is a little apathetic in this apathetic world is quickly labeled a sociopath these days. It must be good for the therapy
business. I look around, and I see that most people have all sorts of issues, and I don't think we were all meant to be the same, or even all be
happy cooperative worker ants all the time at that. Our brains are all wired differently. Nature doesn't give two craps about our flimsy ideas about
morality. Beyond ourselves, our ethical ideas barely extend to the natural world anyway. I saw in another thread that you described us as the peak of
nature. If we are the peak of nature, I am absolutely horrified. Nature is truly a brutal beast.
In truth our species is about as ethical as the God of the bible. We talk a lot about our vaunted moral sense and how it separates us from nature, but
a quick glance at our collective -actions- in a history book tells a different story.
This whole idea that we all have to conform, be cooperative, care about everyone, consider everyone as equals in some manner, and hold hands singing
with a coke is astonishingly unrealistic to me. You want us to all be the same. Like a big herd of sheep, who are all perfectly socially
acceptable.And if you don't fit in, you must have a mental illness, of course. This sort of thinking reminds me of that movie Divergent.
Lastly, what about the fact that we are now entertaining the idea that psychopaths and sociopaths, having been around since the beginning of human
history, may actually have some evolutionary purpose in our development as a species. How about them apples? Again, our flimsy
genetic/familial/cultural/arbitrary concepts about morality are not reflected whatsoever in the schemes of nature.
But I'm not a therapist, so what do I know? What I predict is that someday, people who think like you will want to subjugate others who don't.
You'll want to 'fix' us in some stupid way, and make everyone social clones, without much thought for the designs of nature. That's mankind, the
peak of nature, in a nutshell.
Individual's that are in fact diagnosed with a anti-social personality disorder, under stress can develop psychotic symptoms. They can experience
Audio/Visual hallucinations, Delusions as well as Suicidal/Homicidal impulses.
As far as people who are, adult versions of "Brats" and/or Bullies?
You accuse this man of being a sociopath because he is proguns and has a twinkle in his eyes?
This a looks like an elaborate rant.
Between the Cody Wilson and the sociopaths running the NWO 1984 controlling media I would rather have Cody Wilson and some crazy people having guns.
The ones running the show will from my point of view always kill more people in the system and create system faults where death happens to people who
will not follow the system.
OP if you really wanted peace then remove the sociopaths at the top before going after someone who is trying to push back the 1984 a bit. But then you
have bought the idea that the current society is good for you. With the ones running the Pyramid Ponzi schemes with trickle up capitalism you are
enslaved to money by the controllers of the money. Now tell me again you are a free man in the system you live in.
edit on 27-9-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)
I respect your opinions Astro, but here, I watched the video, and I am not so sure where or how you perceive sociopathy.
I do not agree with his idea of what would be beneficial for society, yet, I perceive he has his own idea of what would be beneficial for
society. -Which indicates social conscience.
Just as I sometimes have french people ask me- don't americans have social conscience at all? How can anyone have values upon individualism, or
individual liberty, and also have any sense of social conscience??
I have to explain to them that our traditionally held values stem from the idea that "the state of the individuals making up a collective determines
the state of the collective." A society is made up of individuals, if they are healthy and happy, so will the society be.
This may or may not be true, or (as I suspect) there is no absolute principle on this (they tend to think selflessness is the key to a happy healthy
society, which I also suspect to be unreliable).
But this kid reflects that particular value or moral. In taking care of self, I serve the whole. He is not advocating, for example, that only he have
the right to print out guns- his cause is the right of everyone to do so. So again, I see signs of social conscience.
What I'd like to point out is that ALL humans have the instinctual defense of shutting out consciously their empathic responses to any one or thing
they do not identify with.
A person can be very sensitive to their family and friends, or people they share a belief system with (their church members, their political party
members, their own countrymen, etc.) and yet be very cruel and insensitive to those who they identify as "other". The infidels, the enemy, the bad
guys, the foreigners, the barbarians....
(ETA- note I specified "consciously" shutting out- that does not eliminate the subconscious internal biological/physiological reactions you
This is true about most of humanity! That as soon as the person is not identified with as "us" they are "them" and suddenly not worthy of any
sympathy, empathy.... even the very existence of human emotions in them is not recognized or acknowledged. They become objectified to the extreme.
.... called things like brainless, heartless, inhuman, psychopaths, sociopaths.....
Is that perception of lack of empathy on the part of the "other" really a perception of their true state,
Or is it simply a reflection of your own towards them?
edit on 28-9-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)
Cody Wilson is an anarchistic law student advocating - nay, pompously bragging - that he believes people have a right to 3D print guns.
Which is absolutely correct.
There is a massive community of home gunsmiths who have been making their own firearms for generations. 3D printing is just another tool, to add to
the mills and lathes that have been cranking out top quality firearms in peoples' garage workshops since before either of us were born.
The only restrictions on the manufacturing of firearms is either (i) where that person is prohibited from possessing a firearm anyway, and/or (ii)
where the firearm is manufactured for the purpose of being sold, in which case it falls within regulatory requirements for businesses.
If you live in the US and you are not prohibited from owning a particular type of firearm, then you are not prohibited from making it, either. There
may be state-specific rules in play as well but I couldn't really comment across all 50 states!
He is not being an anarchist, he is not being a sociopath, he is being absolutely correct.
There was a great thread started recently about psychopaths and sociopaths. Unfortunately it got "disappeared" after the OP got himself banned after
a flurry of posts, but my contribution fits as well in this situation:
"You're labelling someone as 'mentally ill', when what you really mean is 'he said something that I don't agree with.'"
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.