NationStates Jolt Archive

This came up in another thread I was involved in - I believe it was the one about which laws I'd broken. Someone suggested that a "true" sociopath would not be able to identify themselves as such. The short answer is that this is wrong.

First a little information on semantics: the word "sociopath" is no longer used as a diagnostic label, instead, anti-social personality disorder is used. Sometimes sociopathy is also used as a label for dissocial personality disorder, though this usage is problematic. Despite this, the word "sociopath" is still used by laymen and often by sociopaths themselves. Although sociopathy is also considered a synomyn with psychopathy, high-functioning (I'll get to this later) sociopaths draw a distinction. Sociopaths are not self-evidently inclined towards violence, in fact, it often goes against their instincts as it's messy, incriminating and requires a great deal of energy to accomplish. Psychopaths, on the other hand, tend to resort to violence. In short, psychopaths gain gratification from aggression, sociopaths gain gratification from manipulation. It's also worth noting here that these terms are disputed and are often reversed, nonetheless these are the definitions I'll be using in this post.

So, so sociopaths know they are sociopaths?

Yes, we do. Sociopaths are experts at analysis, because it's a trait required for our survival. Our inability to feel the way neuro-normal people feel requires us to look at others, and mimic them. This trait can also be turned inwards. Sociopaths know they are different from other people, though they may not all realise this at the same stage. All children display traits of sociopathy: self-centeredness, inability to empathise, lack of consideration for others etc. It may take a while for a sociopath to realise that they have not grown out of this stage.

The mistake the guy in the thread mentioned above was to confuse sociopathy with narcissism. Here's a quick analogy to help sort out this unfortunate confusion:

Narcissist wolf says to everyone: "I'm a sheep, I'm a sheep, I'm in the sheep club. The sheep are the best. Those wolves are terrible. You have to be a special sheep to be in the high-wool club like me. If you don't believe I'm a sheep then you are calling me a liar. I was only eating meat because my boss made me do it. I was howling at the moon because you made me angry. I have always been a sheep. You are paranoid, I don't have canine teeth. You are imaginging it. I'm a sheep. I won best sheep of the year award. We have to be on the look out for SueTarget. She's a wolf in sheeps' clothing. I am the one that did all the work. SueTarget messed it all up. SueTargets's fur looks fake. I'm the biggest sheep so I should be the boss. I have every right to punish SueTarget and eat her. It will be good for her, and teach her a lesson. I'm not doing it for me, I'm doing it for the team. I have to be the enforcer here and eat bad sheeps to help keep society clean. I used to be a vegetarian but because all these lazy sheep won't do anything, I am forced into keeping order and forced into being the bad guy and have to do all the eating of sheep."

Sociopath wolf says: "Become the sheep. Believe you are the sheep. Keep the wolf hidden. Don't act like a narcissist and don't try to "talk your way". Become the sheep. Do sheep things. Behave like sheep. No one will see the wolf. Baa baa baa. Eat grass for a while. Give up meat for a while. Tell the sheep things that will make them feel good about themselves. Gain their trust. Be humble. Make them the center of attention. Get them to lower their defenses. Tell them you lost your teeth in a car accident and your parents could only afford wolf-teeth replacements. Keep past a secret so they don't research. Let them do all the talking. Then when the time is right, devour! It is worth the sacrifice and the wait. Then on a polygraph when they ask if I am a sheep, I will have all the sheep memories because I became a sheep. I have memories of eating grass and living like a sheep. I'm telling the truth."

I hope that clears up the confusion.

I believe damage or underdevelopment of the orbitofrontal cortex can get people to exhibit "sociopaths" behaviors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbitofrontal_cortex

Do they know what they are sociopath rationally? Probably. But my guess is that their way of understanding the rights from wrongs are different from that of a normal person. Things that they "know" is wrong just doesn't "feel" wrong anymore.

I believe damage or underdevelopment of the orbitofrontal cortex can get people to exhibit "sociopaths" behaviors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbitofrontal_cortex

Do they know what they are sociopath rationally? Probably. But my guess is that their way of understanding the rights from wrongs are different from that of a normal person. Things that they "know" is wrong just doesn't "feel" wrong anymore.

This is pretty much the case (at least with myself). I can rationally know something is wrong, but I feel nothing in the realm of morality (or in many other realms). I live in a very rational world.

This is pretty much the case (at least with myself). I can rationally know something is wrong, but I feel nothing in the realm of morality (or in many other realms). I live in a very rational world.

Are you suggesting that perhaps you might have antisocial personality disorder? That you can watch something REALLY wrong (in your opinion) happening in front of you without feeling anything?

You might want to consider seeking help if that's the case.

Are you suggesting that perhaps you might have antisocial personality disorder? That you can watch something REALLY wrong (in your opinion) happening in front of you without feeling anything?

You might want to consider seeking help if that's the case.

Yes, I have APD. No, I don't want "help". I'm perfectly fine how I am. There are much more dangerous people than me out there, and very few of them are likely to be sociopaths.

EDIT:

Another thing, I do feel things. Just not the way neuro-typical people do. Instead of guilt or remorse, I'll feel rational regret (ie, I'll have lost something through my actions - I won't feel guilty over those actions, but I will regret the consequences). Instead of sadness, disappointment, and so on. My emotional makeup is different, but I'm not dead.

Yes, I have APD. No, I don't want "help". I'm perfectly fine how I am. There are much more dangerous people than me out there,

From the man who wanted to eat people.

From the man who wanted to eat people.

I said that? Yeah, trolling is fun.

Are you suggesting that perhaps you might have antisocial personality disorder? That you can watch something REALLY wrong (in your opinion) happening in front of you without feeling anything?

You might want to consider seeking help if that's the case.

Why? What's wrong with veiwing the world in a different way? Unless someone is commiting acts of 'REALLY wrong', why is help needed?

The world presents us with tools to be used to our advantage. Other humans happen to be amung those tools. I find nothing wrong with that.

Yes, I have APD. No, I don't want "help". I'm perfectly fine how I am.

sounds like a narcassist to me.

The world presents us with tools to be used to our advantage. Other humans happen to be amung those tools. I find nothing wrong with that.

yes yes, I'm very sure, you're such a tough guy. :rolleyes:

sounds like a narcassist to me.

Supposing all personality disorder rejects help because they don't find anything particularly in need of fixing. That would go for both narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.

Although surely a person can have both.

Troll is trollish?

Supposing all personality disorder rejects help because they don't find anything particularly in need of fixing. That would go for both narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.

Although surely a person can have both.

Yes, it's possible to have both. A defining trait of narcissism is the need to be approved of, to be loved. I have no such need, ergo, I'm not a narcissist.

Sociopaths rarely seek "fixing" because we generally don't see anything to fix. I enjoy what I am.

Troll is trollish?
And extremely self-congratulatory.
Seriously, Mindset, do all sociopaths feel the need to wank in public or is that unique to your condition?

First a little information on semantics: the word "sociopath" is no longer used as a diagnostic label, instead, anti-social personality disorder is used. Sometimes sociopathy is also used as a label for dissocial personality disorder, though this usage is problematic. Despite this, the word "sociopath" is still used by laymen and often by sociopaths themselves. Although sociopathy is also considered a synomyn with psychopathy, high-functioning (I'll get to this later) sociopaths draw a distinction. Sociopaths are not self-evidently inclined towards violence, in fact, it often goes against their instincts as it's messy, incriminating and requires a great deal of energy to accomplish. Psychopaths, on the other hand, tend to resort to violence. In short, psychopaths gain gratification from aggression, sociopaths gain gratification from manipulation. It's also worth noting here that these terms are disputed and are often reversed, nonetheless these are the definitions I'll be using in this post.


Sorry, but you're wrong. The term sociopath is very poorly defined within psychology (and even worse withing psychiatry) and can go from Lykken who used it to refer to psychopaths with social causes to Hare who uses it more to refer to those who come from social groups whose moral structure appears psychopathic. What you are essentially talking about is the distinction between high and low functioning psychopaths - or more accurately criminal and non-criminal psychopaths. The distinct is really not as clear cut, and there is a lot of debate in the literature about how central criminality is to psychopathy, but there is strong evidence (I would point you to the work of David Cooke up in Glasgow) which would say that it's not actually central to the concept of psychopathy. In other words you can have psychopaths who engage in direct aggression and violence and those who engage more in indirect aggression and manipulation (or indeed both) but we would still call both cases psychopaths because they have the same personality traits and emotional deficits.

I believe damage or underdevelopment of the orbitofrontal cortex can get people to exhibit "sociopaths" behaviors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbitofrontal_cortex

Do they know what they are sociopath rationally? Probably. But my guess is that their way of understanding the rights from wrongs are different from that of a normal person. Things that they "know" is wrong just doesn't "feel" wrong anymore.

"They know the words but not the music" is the classic quote there. They understand the concepts but can't actually subjectively grasp what it feels like. In a similar way that a blind person may understand the concept of colour but can't really experience it.

Orbitofrontal cortex is definitely involved but the principle area is probably the Amygdala, which is involved in emotion processing, particularly fear and empathy processing. The OFC is more related to impulsivity aspects of the disorder, although there is a lot of interactions between the different areas.

sounds like a narcassist to me.

Narcissim is a major part of Psychopathy, it relates back to the lack of empathy and inability to feel genuine connections to others combined with a lack of fear or anxiety, certainly social anxiety. If you don't care about others feelings and are not anxious about what others will think of you, this tends to lead to narcissim.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The term sociopath is very poorly defined within psychology (and even worse withing psychiatry) and can go from Lykken who used it to refer to psychopaths with social causes to Hare who uses it more to refer to those who come from social groups whose moral structure appears psychopathic. What you are essentially talking about is the distinction between high and low functioning psychopaths - or more accurately criminal and non-criminal psychopaths. The distinct is really not as clear cut, and there is a lot of debate in the literature about how central criminality is to psychopathy, but there is strong evidence (I would point you to the work of David Cooke up in Glasgow) which would say that it's not actually central to the concept of psychopathy. In other words you can have psychopaths who engage in direct aggression and violence and those who engage more in indirect aggression and manipulation (or indeed both) but we would still call both cases psychopaths because they have the same personality traits and emotional deficits.

Interesting. Yeah, there seems to be a great deal of disagreement even within the relevant fields. I'm working from a sort of ad-hoc definition compiled from various sources, including the man who diagnosed me. I don't pretend to be an expert. Please tell me more.

I know I'm either a sociopath, or a psychopath, perhaps a bit of both.

I think what he meant by sociopathy and psychopathy is that there is a difference between not liking people in and hating everyone. In that respect, no, he is sociopathic and not psychopathic.
Personally, I just think that it's all on a spectrum, and that some people simply 'feel' less than others. That doesn't mean they want to kill everyone in sight or take mankind down a peg (somehow), it just means that they 'feel' less than others. And that's all.

"They know the words but not the music" is the classic quote there. They understand the concepts but can't actually subjectively grasp what it feels like. In a similar way that a blind person may understand the concept of colour but can't really experience it.

Orbitofrontal cortex is definitely involved but the principle area is probably the Amygdala, which is involved in emotion processing, particularly fear and empathy processing. The OFC is more related to impulsivity aspects of the disorder, although there is a lot of interactions between the different areas.

I always thought that amygdala alone is for basic negative emotions (as you mentioned fear and basic empathy processing) while the frontal lobe, particularly orbitofrontal cortex, is requires to formulate things like guilt, shame, and other higher social/cultural oriented negative emotions.

Do you know where I can find more information about this topic?

I know I'm either a sociopath, or a psychopath, perhaps a bit of both.

They're the same thing.

They're the same thing.

Only by some definitions.

yes yes, I'm very sure, you're such a tough guy. :rolleyes:

Who said anything about being tough? My interpersonal relationships are generally defined by 'how can I use this person?' Over time this can sometimes change, but there are very very few people who have moved beyond it. It's not something I find to be bad, necessarily. It has it's uses, but there's also a time and place for everything.

I reckon it would depend on what degree of sociopathy is involved. Some do realise, some dont. I'm guessing something like a bell curve, extremes wont realise, but those occupying the middle will. I wouldn't really call myself a sociopath, but I do more than my fair share of manipulation, only because I find it is suprisingly easy.

This has actually sparked a great interest, seeing that the above only came from reading this thread, so I will have to do some proper reading.

This is pretty much the case (at least with myself). I can rationally know something is wrong, but I feel nothing in the realm of morality (or in many other realms). I live in a very rational world.This assumes that morality and rationality are two different areas.

They're the same thing.Not really, though they're similar.

This assumes that morality and rationality are two different areas.

You would argue that they're synonymous? I can't see how.

You would argue that they're synonymous? I can't see how.Not synonymous, but morality is included within the realm of rationality.

Not synonymous, but morality is included within the realm of rationality.

Can you elaborate?

And extremely self-congratulatory.
Seriously, Mindset, do all sociopaths feel the need to wank in public or is that unique to your condition?

Narcissistic trolls do ;)

Earlier today, I heard the song "Again We Rise" by Lamb of God, and it reminded me of this thread and the OP. Particularly, the verse:
Go home son, hang your costume up,
A goddamn insult to the rest of us.
A thousand-yard stare across the south,
A full belly and a lying mouth.
Momma's boy plays heretic,
The real thing would kill you quick, bitch.

Can you elaborate?Something that is rational is defined as that with reason and/or understanding. Morality is derived from reason and understanding. Ergo, morality is rational. It is, however, not the only rational thing.

Did anyone see the news of the father in the UK who raped his daughters for something like 17 years, where they had 12 children by him, much like the Austrian case.

The father showed absolutely no remorse and even said 'what about me, at least my daughters got something out of it, they have children'.

I think some people feel enormous guilt but are compelled to act in the way they do, others have seemingly nothing whatsoever.

Here's the quote...

The father known as Mr X has complained in a letter from his cell that he had got nothing but a prison sentence while his daughters now had the benefits of the children he had fathered.

In the extraordinary letter, the man — who liked to refer to himself as “The Gaffer” — said that he had no regrets but that he feared for his future after pleading guilty to 25 rapes. “All that has come out of this is a long sentence for me,” the 56-year-old wrote. “We were all getting on well before this came out, what went wrong?

Umm, this...?

‘British Fritzl’ got sex slave daughters pregnant 19 times to milk thousands in child support:

A rapist father made his two daughters pregnant 19 times in order to collect thousands of pounds in child benefit handouts, it was claimed last night.
The extraordinary allegations were made by the man’s sister-in-law, who also revealed the full horror of her nieces’ 28-year ordeal.

Are you suggesting that perhaps you might have antisocial personality disorder? That you can watch something REALLY wrong (in your opinion) happening in front of you without feeling anything?

You might want to consider seeking help if that's the case.

There is no treatment for Antisocial Personality Disorder. There's very little in the way of treatment for any personality disorders.

And extremely self-congratulatory.
Seriously, Mindset, do all sociopaths feel the need to wank in public or is that unique to your condition?

It is a symptom of antisocial personality disorder. This is most obviously apparent in those with APD who become serial killers--they enjoy displaying the ways in which they are more clever than those around them.

Of course sociopaths know that they're sociopaths. That's why we try so hard to come across as normal, nice ... even a bit boring.

Of course sociopaths know that they're sociopaths. That's why we try so hard to come across as normal, nice ... even a bit boring.Heh. Sociopaths are boring.

hahaha, who cares if they know or not. There's nothing rare about a sociopath and it speaks for itself. It's a simple matter of choice. And we don't know much about the brain anyways. We could speculate forever, but until there is solid application it's mostly speculation, and nobody is going to get away with blaming a medical condition for asshole choices; nobody where I have a say in the matter, at least. I'm sure many weasel out of things in courts. But anyways, there's nothing rare, special, nor particularly interesting about a person who cares about #1 above all else. It's a developmental throwback to primal times, and there's nothing darkly romantic about pleasure in harm or manipulation; no, there really isn't. It's been romanticized in stories to a point, but in such cases it's about mythical intelligence, that's what really moves that whole appeal. And intelligence, now that is something uncommon, if not rare. Certainly that much of it.

I've never met a self-confessed sociopath before. I've known quite a few, my father included, but they never admitted it. I wonder why you would?

I've never met a self-confessed sociopath before. I've known quite a few, my father included, but they never admitted it. I wonder why you would?

To try to look like a coolio anti-hero. Ironically, they just look like flaring colons.

DSM diagnostic criteria:

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

The antisocial behavior must not occur exclusively during an episode of schizophrenia or a manic episode.

APD is often viewed as the end of a continuum, which goes from oppositional-defiance to conduct disorder to APD.

I've never met a self-confessed sociopath before. I've known quite a few, my father included, but they never admitted it. I wonder why you would?

Self-confessed, no. But self-aware? Likely. It's certainly not in a sociopath's best interest to disclose the s/he is a sociopath.

Children with APD are much more likely to be pyromaniacs and torture animals.

I've never met a self-confessed sociopath before. I've known quite a few, my father included, but they never admitted it. I wonder why you would?

The most reason I can give (beyond the pseudoanonymity of the internet) is that I'm only recently diagnosed and I'm interested in how people respond to sociopathy. It's an experiment, like everything else I do.

Self-confessed, no. But self-aware? Likely. It's certainly not in a sociopath's best interest to disclose the s/he is a sociopath.

Since the sociopath(s) I've known have been highly intelligent, I'm fairly certain they knew exactly what they were and actually revelled in it. For the record, my father fit all the criteria you listed for APD except #4 - that I noticed (there was the incident when another driver irritated him and he ran him off the road).

It's a simple matter of choice. And we don't know much about the brain anyways. We could speculate forever, but until there is solid application it's mostly speculation, and nobody is going to get away with blaming a medical condition for asshole choices

It is not simply a matter of choice. It is a matter of choice to engage in unlawful activities; it is not a choice how one feels about them.

As far as I know, a diagnosis of APD can not generally be used to plead insanity, since one of the fundamentals of APD is that the person committing a crime knows the activity is illegal and chooses to engage in it.

Since the sociopath(s) I've known have been highly intelligent, I'm fairly certain they knew exactly what they were and actually revelled in it. For the record, my father fit all the criteria you listed for APD except #4 - that I noticed (there was the incident when another driver irritated him and he ran him off the road).

I imagine the majority of cases are like that. Another hallmark of sociopathy is "superficial charm"--sociopaths do not feel emotions in the way most people do, but they can very easily create a "mask" of normality that fools others. Ted Bundy, for instance, was often described as charming. The signs that give normal liars away, even very good liars, are absent in sociopaths, because they feel neither remorse nor anxiety.

Heh. Sociopaths are boring.

Well, as mentioned above they can be charming, but people tend to get that "creepy" feeling if that's overdone.

Thumbless Pete Crabbe. Excellent example. Utterly genial, chatty. Definitely one of us.

The most reason I can give (beyond the pseudoanonymity of the internet) is that I'm only recently diagnosed and I'm interested in how people respond to sociopathy. It's an experiment, like everything else I do.

Experiment eh? So that makes you ... a mad scientist?

My previous two posts were facetious, but since reading the criteria I see that I could actually qualify. Of course I won't self-diagnose, but perhaps I shouldn't joke about it either.

You have a second opinion for this diagnosis?

Experiment eh? So that makes you ... a mad scientist?

My previous two posts were facetious, but since reading the criteria I see that I could actually qualify. Of course I won't self-diagnose, but perhaps I shouldn't joke about it either.

You have a second opinion for this diagnosis?

I don't consider myself mad, and I don't consider it necessary to seek a second diagnosis. I was forced into the first one. I don't want to be "fixed", even if it were possible. What's the point? It's just a label applied to describe how I work. It doesn't mean much to me.

Experiment eh? So that makes you ... a mad scientist?

My previous two posts were facetious, but since reading the criteria I see that I could actually qualify. Of course I won't self-diagnose, but perhaps I shouldn't joke about it either.

Did you ever torture animals? Have you ever regretted hurting a loved one? Do you love anyone?

I don't consider myself mad,
That was a joke. Joke! You know, I say something I don't mean that might make you happy in a sort of uncomfortable way? Joke?

and I don't consider it necessary to seek a second diagnosis. I was forced into the first one. I don't want to be "fixed", even if it were possible. What's the point? It's just a label applied to describe how I work. It doesn't mean much to me.

It should. Psychologists and psychiatrists aren't just in the business to "fix" you, they're experts with a base of knowledge. Some of which they broadly agree on, but different professionals disagree fairly widely too.

Some of them are not above trying to "scare" you into taking treatment seriously, by giving you a false diagnosis. Could this diagnosis be what you wanted to hear?

If you're curious about yourself, "how you work," then mental health professionals are useful to you. Think of them as expert, but not infallible consultants.

I don't consider myself mad, and I don't consider it necessary to seek a second diagnosis. I was forced into the first one. I don't want to be "fixed", even if it were possible. What's the point? It's just a label applied to describe how I work. It doesn't mean much to me.

As I understand it, sociopaths don't think they need to be "fixed," they think everyone else needs to be "fixed." After all, life would work so much better if the people around them would stop being upset about their behavior and let them do what they wanted.

Something that is rational is defined as that with reason and/or understanding. Morality is derived from reason and understanding.That neglects the role of things like empathy and commitment in morality. In normal people emotions like guilt or caring for someone else play an important role besides instrumental reasoning. Typically it even plays the bigger role. And it's rather important for 'stupid' moral behaviour like risking your life running into a building building to safe a puppy.
Morality is an evolutionary adaption to living in society. Rationality has to do with it only in so far as it's functional to achieve our genes' "goals"; and in quite a few situations it can be dysfunctional (like prisoners' dilemma situations).

That neglects the role of things like empathy and commitment in morality. In normal people emotions like guilt or caring for someone else play an important role besides instrumental reasoning. Typically it even plays the bigger role.This asserts that guilt or caring for someone else is irrational.

And it's rather important for 'stupid' moral behaviour like risking your life running into a building building to safe a puppy.Perhaps so, but perhaps not. It could be that doing something that appears to be stupid is ultimately rational in the long run.

Morality is an evolutionary adaption to living in society. Rationality has to do with it only in so far as it's functional to achieve our genes' "goals";Exactly.

and in quite a few situations it can be dysfunctional (like prisoners' dilemma situations).The prisoners' dilemma shows the irrationality of immorality, not the irrationality of morality.

Yes, we do. Sociopaths are experts at analysis, because it's a trait required for our survival. Our inability to feel the way neuro-normal people feel requires us to look at others, and mimic them. This trait can also be turned inwards. Sociopaths know they are different from other people, though they may not all realise this at the same stage. All children display traits of sociopathy: self-centeredness, inability to empathise, lack of consideration for others etc. It may take a while for a sociopath to realise that they have not grown out of this stage.


Yep, that's pretty much describing your average high IQ Asperger.

Ryadn, by the standards of the three questions you asked I am certainly no sociopath. I tortured animals as a small child, going along with other boys, but that "probed" my empathy in a way which made me almost excessively gentle towards other living things by late childhood.
Yes I regret hurting others, I feel conscience. Yes, I love people -- and I'm rather naive, love people I barely know. I'm a big ol' teddy-bear by the three standards you mention.

The criteria I could consider myself to fulfil are these:

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
This is a terrible criterion, which defines "social norms" as "abiding by the law." However, I might fulfil it, since I find the law rather than social norms to limit my behaviour. I would flaunt even more social norms (for instance, I would go naked in public) but for the law.
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
No to the first (unless drunk) but yes to the second. At times I can't commit myself to do x or y one hour in the future. I get very "driven" by a whim, but generally manage to channel that into safe outcomes ... sometimes at the last moment.
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
Self, mostly. Very open to the "voice of reason" though, so others can usually stop me before I endanger them. I don't drive. If I drove, I would almost certainly be dead by now, and probably a killer too.
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behaviour or honour financial obligations;
It's another slanted standard. Richard Branson doesn't "sustain consistent work behaviour" and that's not a problem. "Failure to sustain consistent work behaviour" could mean either "ability to follow orders no matter how dumb" (I FAIL) or it could mean "not sticking to one field long enough to succeed" (I fail too) or it could mean "not being able to do the same thing repeatedly without introducing changes for better or worse" (In which case I fail also.)
Nice. I'm a middle-aged, untreated case of ADHD, and that is ONE of THREE criterion for being a sociopath.

If I were to pick the four things out of the list which struck me as MOST corrupted by the economic role of psychiatrists in criminal cases and in compensation cases ... three of those four would apply to me.

Bad list. Corrupt, unfounded-in-human-rights, legalistic and mendacious list.

This happy little sociopath refuses to be ruled by the clock or by the calendar. He refuses to be ruled by middle managers who order unnecessary work because ordering work is their job. He refuses to honour his financial obligations, to bandits whose swindles amount to billions.

I'm a sociopath? It's a badge of honour, compared to being a drug-pushing, ambulance-chasing, corporate whore like the scumbags who wrote those criteria.

Perhaps so, but perhaps not. It could be that doing something that appears to be stupid is ultimately rational in the long run.

*nod* You die from carbon monoxide poisoning, but the puppy goes on to discover the secret of World Peace.

Yep, that's pretty much describing your average high IQ Asperger.

Thus ends the similarities.

*nod* You die from carbon monoxide poisoning, but the puppy goes on to discover the secret of World Peace.

You don't sound like a sociopath, at least not based upon my own subjective viewpoint. You sound pragmatic.

Thus ends the similarities.

Then why use that as a figurative example?

You don't sound like a sociopath, at least not based upon my own subjective viewpoint. You sound pragmatic.

A shame I just died of CO poisoning. Talk to the puppy.

Then why use that as a figurative example?

Because it's true? Aspergers and sociopathy are not the same thing.

Because it's true? Aspergers and sociopathy are not the same thing.

Of course they are not the same thing, the things I quoted earlier seem just not descriptive of sociopaths.

Oh, incidentally, they often do lead to the same behaviour.
An awful lot of less analyticly apt Aspergers are in jail or in psychological rehabilitation or "treatment" programs because of past crossing of social boundaries that they did not realise existed.

This asserts that guilt or caring for someone else is irrational.Well, it is, for one it doesn't "have to do with reason and understanding". Furthermore, you're better off without guilt if other people have guilt, because then you can take advantage of it; and you're better off without it when they don't have guilt, so they can't take advantage of it in you.
That's one of the reasons 'sociopaths' do so well in business; provided there aren't too many of them (if there are it devolves into PD).

Perhaps so, but perhaps not. It could be that doing something that appears to be stupid is ultimately rational in the long run.For the species, perhaps. But not for the individual; there's never a benefit to getting yourself killed. More generally, by being moral (rather than merely appearing so) you limits your options to exploit opportunities that serve your self-interest, and it is therefor not rational for an individual. (Even though it makes for a better society where, if nearly everyone subscribes to it, everyone is better off).

The prisoners' dilemma shows the irrationality of immorality, not the irrationality of morality.PD isn't put in general terms of moral and immoral; it's merely game theory. However, if you call 'cooperating' in PD moral, then it most definitely does show the irrationality of it, since any agent defecting against a cooperator is much better off. But the point of the game is more that making a rational decision can lead to the least desirable outcome.
Morality comes in (or can come in) as a solution to solve the dilemma at the population level, for instance in the form of punishing defectors. But since punishment comes at a cost (typically), it isn't rational for anyone to commit to punishing someone; they gain nothing and instead lose even more. That's why an irrational commitment to what we might call 'justice' is necessary to achieve what for the population (but not the individual) is rational.

Wait, if one derives one's self-identity and sense of importance from things like proclaiming one's psychological disorder on the internet, wouldn't it be rational to actually confirm the existence of said disorder by actually seeing multiple specialists, rather than relying on "a man" who "forced" a diagnosis?

Dunno, mate. Try chatting to a couple.

Well, it is, for one it doesn't "have to do with reason and understanding".Sure it does. There are plenty of reasons to care for someone, and to want someone to care about you.

Furthermore, you're better off without guilt if other people have guilt, because then you can take advantage of it; and you're better off without it when they don't have guilt, so they can't take advantage of it in you.
That's one of the reasons 'sociopaths' do so well in business; provided there aren't too many of them (if there are it devolves into PD).True, but guilt provides an important function as well - at the very least it might be able to tell you when you've gone too far and might provoke a hostile reaction against you.

For the species, perhaps. But not for the individual; there's never a benefit to getting yourself killed. More generally, by being moral (rather than merely appearing so) you limits your options to exploit opportunities that serve your self-interest, and it is therefor not rational for an individual. (Even though it makes for a better society where, if nearly everyone subscribes to it, everyone is better off).Unless, of course, you're hailed as a hero, and can exploit that.

PD isn't put in general terms of moral and immoral; it's merely game theory. However, if you call 'cooperating' in PD moral, then it most definitely does show the irrationality of it, since any agent defecting against a cooperator is much better off.But both agents defecting against each other is worse than both agents cooperating.

But the point of the game is more that making a rational decision can lead to the least desirable outcome.Rational according to whom?

Morality comes in (or can come in) as a solution to solve the dilemma at the population level, for instance in the form of punishing defectors. But since punishment comes at a cost (typically), it isn't rational for anyone to commit to punishing someone; they gain nothing and instead lose even more. That's why an irrational commitment to what we might call 'justice' is necessary to achieve what for the population (but not the individual) is rational.What is rational for the population is what is rational for the individual. If nobody commits to punishing anyone then the individual has a significantly higher risk of being the victim of a crime.

Ryadn, by the standards of the three questions you asked I am certainly no sociopath. *snip*

While I assume you were going over-the-top intentionally, I do want to say that those criteria are not all that psychiatrists use. While four or more symptoms must be present, these symptoms must also 1) negatively impact functioning in one or more areas of life, and 2) be unattributable to any other diagnosis. Several of the symptoms listed are also symptoms of ADHD (reckless disregard, failure to plan ahead), which is why psychiatrists need to carefully assess patients over time.

It should also be noted that many disorders listed in the DSM are, by its own admission, most accurately described as a "constellation of symptoms". There is no blood test for bi-polar disorder; there is simply a collection of symptoms that are often experienced together, which tend to cause particular issues, and which seemed to be helped by certain medications. We call the collection of symptoms "bi-polar disorder", or "ADHD", or "depression with psychotic features". These are human constructs, and as such are open to human interpretation and diagnosis, which is why diagnoses can change over time or with more information.

Some disorders also have a high rate of co-morbidity--people with annorexia nervosa, for example, are far more likely to have substance abuse issues and clinical depression. Those with ADHD have a higher instance of substance abuse, mania, risk-taking behavior or trouble with authority figures, and OCD. So a GOOD psychiatrist absolutely does not make a diagnosis on a checklist of symptoms alone.

An awful lot of less analyticly apt Aspergers are in jail or in psychological rehabilitation or "treatment" programs because of past crossing of social boundaries that they did not realise existed.

Sociopaths, though, realize the existence of these boundaries and knowingly violate them.