0_equals_true wrote:
You're confusing sociopath with psychopath they are not the same thing. Psychopath is not really used as medical term anymore neither is sociopath but it comes under Antisocial Personality Disorder. People use psychopath as a very ambiguous term that isn't really helpful when you’re dealing with a lot of different conditions. Let me be clear I'm not saying anything that was just my first hunch. I wouldn't be surprised if the analysts had that hunch. It was at that point very typical of sociopathical behaviour.
This is incorrect. Psychopathy is very much a current term in forensic psychology (see
Wikipedia - Psychopathy); the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL–R) and related psychological instruments are used to diagnose it. Psychopathy is not in the DSM-IV-TR or the ICD-10 diagnostic manuals; in these, antisocial/dissocial personality disorder comes closest to psychopathy. The term sociopathy is not used in any current diagnostic instrument or manual.
Some experts and theorists do, however, make a distinction between psychopathy and sociopathy. To David Lykken, a psychopath is someone born with a temperamental predisposition towards socially abrasive behavior (through fearlessness, impulsivity, and unemotionality). To Lykken, sociopaths learn antisocial behavior and attitudes from their environment. A psychopath doesn't feel guilt or remorse because they are physiologically almost incapable of such a feeling; a sociopath, however, was just never taught some things are wrong or was taught that doing bad things is good.
Another expert, Robert Hare, the creator of the PCL–R, defines psychopaths according to his checklist. To him, sociopaths don't necessarily have personality traits like guiltlessness or callousness but commit crimes with great regularity because they've joined a gang, the mob, or some other group that encourages antisocial behavior. To him, sociopaths can be loving towards, for example, family.
Other experts contend that psychopathy and sociopathy are exact synonyms. Meh.
Ok interesting. Have you noticed that many 'successful' antisocial personalities rather than create a movement completely up from scratch have used existing structures to their advantage.
Like for instance Hitler started talking at a beer hall where the socialist party met. Nobody knew who he was at first. He began to dominate there and completely steered the direction of the party. Anyone who go in his way he ruthlessly discredited. He was so proactive that nobody stopped to question his credentials (he had none). Then he used the Arian mysticism/spiritualism that Himmler&Co was into (In many ways Himmler was more loony than Hitler) to help join together his inner circle. Then to gain German popular support he used the sense of outrage again the republic and the dented pride from the first world war. he really emphasised this strong German identity (especially Christianity) that had be tainted by foreign blood (despite being Austrian and of Jewish decent).
You can say the same for Stalin, Bin Laden. Just a theory I have.
19 Apr 2007, 3:32 am
