Are sociopaths mentally ill?

Post Reply New Topic

In your opinion, do sociopaths have the capability to be good people? or are they physically and psychologically handicapped?

sure they might know what is considered right and wrong, but can they truly appreciate the difference?

Afayk some psychologists (can't be bothered to give you names, sorry) don't even consider the existance of sociopaths, placing everyone with a pathological lack of empathy in the "psychopath" (i.e. born mentaly insane) cathegory. In this sense, the word "sociopath" doesn't even have a purpose.
Some-guy whose name I can't remember atm came up with the theory that some empathy chalanged individuals don't have a natural tendency towards this, and their attitudes can be explained by enviromental influence - hence the word "socio". In other words, some people got so badly and constantly hurt by other people that they've come to consider the world as unworthy of any "good" from their part. Really, if anyone around spits at someone for no other reason then a natural anti-pathy for the way one is, can that person be blamed for not considering others the same way he considers himself, and acting acordingly?
So, by definition - no! Socyopaths aren't mentally ill. They know very well right from wrong and don't care about others only because they don't consider them worthy of this.

There might be some underlying mental conditions, like a persecution complex in some cases, but that's not a necessity for one to be a sociopath.

In my own opinion, "the capability to be good people" and being "physically and psychologically handicapped" can co-exist.


I can "truly appreciate" the differences pointed out to me, but I could/would have never come up with them on my own.


As I was reading along there, I thought you were going to say "... they've come to consider the world as incapable of any 'good' from its part."


I do not disagree there, yet I do think that is a bit simplistic since "don't care about others only because they don't consider them worthy" is not necessarily an embraced thought lying behind such a person's wrong action. For example:

A prosecutor (in 1977) was once expounding and editorializing greatly as to my seeming "lack of remorse" for a wrong (crime) I had done (committed) -- the judge soon interrupted and stopped her completely -- and/but to this day I maintain my only error actually made there had been that of taking matters into my own hands.

A sociopath might know the difference between right and wrong, but they can't consistently do the right thing. Think of a time where you were in love, or angry, and you knew what you were doing was wrong, but you did it anyway. Now think of that on a consistent enough basis to the point that it becomes the norm. That's a sociopath. They always think someone is out to trick them, or to one up them, and if you do one up them, you get the silent treatment for the rest of the night as a punishment. If sociopaths are not mentally ill, I wonder what the definition of "mentally ill" would be? Depending on the type of sociopath, they can be passive aggressive, physically aggressive, more proactive, more reactive, it varies, just like any group of people. It's similar to how all people on the spectrum are different, but have things in common. As for "can they be good people" yes, absolutely, but not on a consistent enough basis, or they will think you are trying to take advantage of them. That's why they always have to take advantage of others, so they can make sure they are in control, not you. It's not even about controlling someone else as much as it is making sure someone else isn't in control of them, but even this can vary. It depends on their experiences.

I'm basing this on my own experiences, so if prominent psychologists disagree with me, well, I'm just going by what I see.

The problem with calling sociopathy a mental illness is that a person who has this condition almost by definition DOESN'T WANT to change. A true sociopath considers his or her condition to be all that is laudable in the world. The sociopath is a person who believes with nothing but true and heartfelt sincerity that anybody whose outlook differs from his or her own is INFERIOR and deserving of his or her unrestrained scorn and abuse.

If you are lawful, the sociopath sees you as being "chained down."

If you are generous, the sociopath sees you as "wasteful."

If you are trusting, the sociopath sees you as "gullible."

If you are kind-hearted, the sociopath sees you as "womanish" and therefore beneath contempt in the eyes of the strength-favoring sociopath.

If you are merciful, the sociopath sees you as "weak-stomached."

If you are intelligent, the sociopath sees you as "an egghead."

The only thing that can ever affect a sociopath is the prospect of losing something associated with material gain, ill-gotten or not. That's the only thing that motivates the sociopath. The sociopath is literally an object in the fact that he or she can be bought and sold like a commodity, and the sociopath cannot be swayed either by social disapproval or the threat of punishment.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/a ... x?ID=18907

How can we make the case that the sociopath is like a human object? Well, in order for something to have a right to compassion, it must have the capacity for being affected in his or her behavior by being subjected to some kind of pain, whether mental or physical. The sociopath is immune in this sense to pain. In order for something to have a right to earn our approval, that person's behavior must be capable of being affected by our disapproval. But something that can be bought and sold for a sum of money, on the other hand, is literally no more a person than a can of concentrated orange juice.

Sociopaths might have a severe mental illness, but we owe them nothing that we owe to an actual person because sociopaths are not people at all. They are not even animals in the sense of your dog or cat because your dog and cat can be swayed by punishment and can feel ashamed when scorned, each in their own special way.

The sociopath, unlike your dog and cat, cannot be beaten harshly enough for that person's psyche to be affected except in the desire to exact revenge. The sociopath is, again, like a human object. The sociopath is in fact proud of this fact. As scary as it sounds, a person can literally not only lack the level of humanity that your pet cat has, but that person can feel that this is something that the whole world should aspire to.

Because the sociopath can literally be a subject of neither compassion nor social approval, we might diagnose the sociopath with a mental illness, but how we choose to treat the sociopath should be based not on the sociopath's welfare but upon our own. We should think only of the best interests of society at large when dealing with the sociopath, so it makes no difference at all whether our "treatment" renders the sociopath a vegetable for life or results in rehabilitation. It is literally, in the case of a true sociopath, six of one and a half-dozen or the other unless one is either cheaper or safer.

I've wondered from time to time if I'm a sociopath because of my inability to feel guilt. If I do something that I know is wrong, I don't feel guilty about it, I simply apologize or do whatever I can to fix the situation and move on. If there's nothing I can do to fix it, so be it. Guilt is just such a ridiculous and foreign concept to me. It's not that I understand it but disagree with it, I literally don't understand it.

I'm a very big fan of Patricia Highsmith's Tom Ripley books, The Talented Mr. Ripley being the most well known. (There are five total.) I'm sure plenty of people would be disturbed if I told them this, but part of the reason I like them is that I identify with Tom, who is often called a sociopath by literary critics. He's not evil and he's not amoral, since he knows the difference between right and wrong and he has a set of ethics, but he feels no guilt over, say, beating a man to death for threatening to expose Tom's involvement in an artwork forgery scheme.

As for not knowing the difference between right and wrong: that, I think, would more appropriately describe a psychopath instead of a sociopath. But I'm not a psychologist, and the definitions of "psychopath" and "sociopath" seem pretty loose these days anyway.

[edited for typos]

It has helped me to understand guilt is not an emotion. Hence, there is really no such thing as "feeling guilty". Instead, the real question here has to do with whether or not we experience or "feel" any actual remorse after being found legally/lawfully guilty of something ... and then even that is not the same as merely "feeling bad" about having been caught, tried, convicted and in any way punished.


Many people in prison today are just like him.


I would tend to agree, and this thread has helped me become better convinced I am not actually either.

I'm not defending Tom's actions or claiming that I would ever do what he does, only pointing out that I relate to his lack of guilt (or whatever you'd like to call it). I'd also like to point out that I don't use my inability to feel guilt as an excuse to do things I know are wrong. It's just that if I do something that I later realize was wrong, I'll try to fix the situation to the best of my ability, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Even if I could feel guilt, I would try to force myself not to, because it never accomplishes anything.

Understood, and I think we pretty much agree!