It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are the diagnoses of sociopathy/psychopathy/narcissim *themseves* dehumanizing?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xaberz

Originally posted by simone50m
reply to post by adraves
 

You have a fascinating point there. I have compassion, empathy, etc., but if I came across someone who was doing something horrifically wicked to a kitten, for example, I'd rip their throat out with my teath like a vampire, and shishkabob them with the nearest long steel or wooden pole, ....... and relish in it.
Is THAT psychopathic? I truly honestly don't know.


I think that would be a moment of temporary insanity. I think it would be psychopathic if you saw them do that, but then stalked them every night and planned how you were going to kill them slowly so that they suffered in the most unimaginable way possible.


We are all capable of horrific behaviour but have to be provoked into it. Normal people do these things in an extreme of emotion, rage, fear whatever. A psychopath would do it without any emotion at all merely for expediency.

You could manipulate a normal person and a psychopath into murder. The difference is the psychopath would not feel bad about it and would be able to plan it out.

I expect the population with this character trait will increase over time because we have built a society that rewards it. Its a successful mutation.




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


I'm not sure how you come to these conclusions.

If about 1% of the population is thought to be a psychopath, then statistically, if I meet 100 people in my life, I probably have met a psychopath.

I've met tens of thousands of people in my life, at least.

If a genius is IQ 142+ sd15, then that's one out of 250 people.

We see them all the time.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Er, never seen the figures you quote before, and this is an area in which I'm quite studied. I go to my professional library in my office when I need to look something up. Not the net.
(Yes, I'm snobbish about where I get my information.)

Also, Genius is 160 and up, not 140. 140 is "Gifted".

Standard Deviation applies to average IQ, which is 100 with a standard deviation of 15.

Anti-social PD is not common. You may meet people with "traits", but who won't meet the criteria for a full blown diagnosis. Not to say you haven't met one, or won't ever. They are around, and I've met several. In my office. They inevitably send chills up my spine.
Prison guards meets hundreds of them every day. lol

- Same with geniuses, but my work takes me off the beaten path of life, and I have more opportunity to come across these aberrations than others. But yeah, you could have met one, sure.

I hung out at Harvard for a while. Tons of Geniuses there on the faculty, so yeah, not saying you haven't met any. Just saying they are not common. Which they aren't.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


unityemissions is correct about the prevalence of antisocial personality disorder. Current research has found that about 1% of the population meets the diagnostic criteria. The thing is though most people won't realize that they know somebody who has an antisocial personality. To most they will just appear to be the most charming person they've ever met.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


Actually, there's no correlation between an iq over about 120 and genius.

The term must be properly qualified. It changes definition over time.

I've met a few iq160 plus idiots over the years.

Definitely not geniuses.

Most true geniuses don't attention college. I think what you're referring to is scholastic brilliance. Completely different.

Caliber is correct.

It's at least 1%. it's disturbing that this is supposed to be your area of specialty, yet you don't know that.

Btw, you may be surprised to find that books from all of history can be found "on the Internet" for free to read. I don't need to venture to a university or public library to be educated. I'm a 21st century autodidact.


edit on 12-9-2011 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


.In your U2U, you suggested I have an "elitist" attiude, and if I do, it's because in this area I do have credentials and accomplishments. When I participate in these threads, I consider I am "sharing", in hopes of providing information. That is all.

I'm sorry but the professional literature does not support your claims. I will just leave it at that.



new topics

top topics
 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join