is everyone essentially a sociopath

Post Reply New Topic

so i have been applying for jobs like crazy and the first few times i was just as blunt as a i could be, but then I realize being honest always seems to work against me. So during interviews and job applications, whenever i have to answer a personal question I essentially say what I would imagine the interviewer would want to hear. I been essentially inhabiting the thinking of a sociopath, at least that is what I think. i haven't lied too much yet but i have been bending the truth pretty good(at least to by my standards which usually is complete blunt and naked honesty.) What i call lying others would call "putting a different spin on things" During an interview I was thinking about a question and I sort of unwittingly bowed my head while i was thinking and the interviewer made a note of it, as if it is some kind of mark against me as a crank. I really resent all this pomp and dressing up both physically and personally. I dont think any of these personal questions, which really don't reveal anything about ones character, or arbitrary stuff like having work experience works like a litmus test, which everyone seems to believe, and I mean every individual of society.

I've been thinking about that castro dude in ohio who imprisoned all those women and I found out he was a bus driver that got fired only because he took a risky u-turn, essentially he broke a relatively arbitrary regulation.. He otherwise was the most popular well liked dude on the block and seemed to do everything right.

I realized that he, as a sociopath, did what everyone does on a daily basis, using deception, or what I like to call politeness, to hide their true nature, temperament and personality, to be agreeable and respond to social expectations.

I know this is an extreme but I think if viewing this from the Kantian paradigm of means to and end, everyone is in a sense a sociopath, the only thing that divides everyone else from the murders is they don't commit crimes or perhaps have such natural inclinations. Nevertheless by virtue of being socially agreeable, or deceptive even if it is innocuous, behavior that serves to "get along" or to climb the social ladder and become accepted, everyone is a sociopath or at least meet the first few criteria of one

I am I exaggerating and making a completely uneducated assertion or is there something to this?

Not exactly.

Sociopathy is a form of utilitarian consequentialist ethics, but all utilitarian consequentialist ethics are not sociopathy.

In fact, utilitarian consequentialist ethics which consider other people as intrinsic utilitarian ends are *better* than a Kantian deontological model, from an ethical perspective. Kantian ethics undermines itself by using people as a means to its own end, even if the end is "believe I'm a good person for always following these rules".

Actual utilitarian consequentialism says "what is the right thing to do, based entirely on the outcome I expect to happen?"

So, lying is acceptable if it leads to a better outcome for everyone than not-lying. What you might call "lying" and other people might call "putting a different spin on things", a strong utilitarian consequentialist might call "skillful means".

Look at it this way: If you say something that is technically true, but causes someone to have the wrong impression, did you tell the truth or did you lie? If you say "I told the truth", then you're exactly the same kind of rules-lawyer as most successful sociopaths. If you say "I may not have lied, but I still did not behave correctly", then you have a real challenge in front of you, because you need to figure out what behaving correctly actually looks like.

Example: if someone picks up a glass of water, starts to drink it, and then asks if there's any chemicals in it, and you start on a tirade about the dangers of Dihidrogen Monoxide, you are not being honest with them. What they REALLY meant when they asked if there's any chemicals in it is, "is this water safe to drink?". If the water is safe to drink, and you start ranting about how water is a chemical, you are (possibly deliberately) twisting the context of their question so that you can give them an answer that serves your agenda, not theirs.

With the job interview, the key is to understand what their actual agenda is. Are they asking you these questions because they actually need to know the answer, or because they are required to ask these questions due to the nature of their job? For any question that's the latter, you need to understand what their job is, why they are asking this question, and what they REALLY mean. You need to have an understanding of *their* side of the process. And hell, part of the job interview is testing you to see if you can do that. Playing along is part of the test, and they need to know if you can play along in fluid social situations where the rules are somewhat ambiguous - because if you can't, you're likely to cause interpersonal conflicts down the road.

Does all that make sense?

I've always thought that employers just needed to know that their employees could put on a good public face to deal with customers. They even have to sit there and take it as politely as possible if a customer decides to shout at and berate them for something completely out of their control, because people tend to direct their anger at any target they can find if they're having a bad day and the company can't risk arguing with and alienating the people who keep them in business. Maybe it would be better if they could, because sometimes they get truly nasty.

I was extreme saying people are literal sociopath. But isn't acting a certain way, contrary to ones own inclination not because I beliveve what is acceptable is right but because I act to appease an expectation not because i personally subscribe to it but because I want to control the consequence of my actions to serve my shortlong term goals. Don't I essentially do first thing a sociopath does, control the situation to achieve an end by "falsely playing the part"

You are right ranting about water is technically the truth and I agree intention is key, but my point is everyone seems to think they can gauge intention of others correctly when they in truth cannot. people are so programmed to recieve a certain input that whether or not I am a good person or not I can convince people I am by doing the utilitarian expected thing and by knowing the relationship i can easily forsee the consequence which would be positive so long as everyone around me is convicned it is correct. But isn't that what non psychotic socialized neuro typicals do? nietzhe I think would totally disagree with utilitarian ethics, i think according to him morals are completely arbritrary and are defined by the collective power structure at be. So i would imagine.

I agree with the spirit or right and wrong, but I feel the concepts are so absent from people's minds that regulatory behavior trumps moral behavior of the mind. What I understand about sociopaths is that they understand exploit the arbitrariness of "expected norms"

I think I understand your point but I'm not sure

I guess what I was trying to drive at is: doesn't everyone is some way behave like a socipath?

That seems to me like saying that everyone's autistic because we're all socially awkward sometimes.

Not everyone just all those people in that Ohio neighborhood where he lived everyone thought they had the right theory of his mind but they didn't. The college professors and the women who met Ted bundy thought he was a trustful person but he wasn't. He convinced that conservative Christian who interviewed that pornagraphy drove him to those murders. The people who got butchered by dalhmer thought he could be trusted.

The Freudian psychologist R.D Lang said: the idea of insanity is insane. There was recent debate over the dsm revision whether depression after a the usually mourning period over a love ones death should be considered a clinical disorder

That is my point, the abitrary nature of social norms are so pervasive that they are subsitutes for actually trying to crtically think and gauge another person. You would be right to a certain extent the concpet of illness is socially structured. A schizophrenic in another culture would be regarded as a shaman. Do you think they are weong and if so do you have the authority or does a different group of outsiders have the right to universal norms and so who can and should define them? Or what was once considered just a personality quirk or uniquness can be now construed as autistic. Social conventions are such the paradox that they are supposedly concrete in some sense and yet they are very fluid. The best thing about the unwritten rules are they seem to be impossible to change and yet they are always different and never the same.

It may seem like I'm saying that I have the ultimate knowledge, i don't, what irritates me is that neuro typicals seem to think they know everything and because all the social conventions are working for them somehow they think they are in the universal right and therefore perpetuate it and force on everyone else. I'm not saying overthrow everything , I would just like to see everyone acknowledge the arbitrary nature of it all instead of clinging to it like a dogma

I have a job now, but let me admit this - I lied to get it.

They asked: are you okay with receiving instructions from several principals at once? I answered yes. I really meant no.

They asked: do you work well with others and ask for help when needed? I answered yes. I really meant no.

They asked: are you flexible with your time to work days, evenings or nights? I answered yes. I really meant no.

They asked: at times you might be required to stay another shift or come in on an off day. Is this okay? I answered yes. I really meant no.

They asked: are you okay with call bells going off, demanding patients, bright lights, foreign voices everywhere? I answered yes. I really meant no.

They asked: are you okay with spending hours on your feet and working till the job is done? I answered yes. I really meant no.

Am I a sociopath?

My strict logic as it stand would say: no but for a brief moment you acted like one, you still betrayed and manipilated a convention, which society supposedly prizes and rewards, for your own purpose without a clincal feeling of remorse for it, but since you we're rewarded by being hired, and by the utilitarian stand point, you haven't gone as far to break the more serious convention or causes any real damage what you did was acceptable. You could say they really don't care, but that is what drives me crazy, I convinced myself being honest to everyone and myseld without malice: being hateful is the right thing to do and that is what society expects of me: " thou shall not bear false witness" but i didnt see that asterisk under that clause which says: " unless you absoultely have to in order to get ahead" clearly your example proves that ultimately it's more a luxury or inconvience that gumms up the wheels of things and should be skirted and ignored. So I really have noonelse to blame but myself for believing such a silly notion.

Listen this topic was a form of a question and I'm seeking a logical answer that if it proves I'm wrong, then thank heaven I am the wiser, so my reply is not a insult in anyway just repsonse that follows my my idea of a sociopath which may be totally wrong.

I think you're on to something. When my sister was getting her executive MBA, in ethics class two sides presented and then the class voted. Her topic was whether Nestle should stop selling infant formula in areas of the world where they know damn well the parents do not have access to safe drinking water. And it's actually worse than it sounds in that the f@#kers at Nestle would hire people and dress them in medical garb and have them go into villages and pass out free samples, and the women's milk would dry up, almost like they were giving out free samples of heroin.

And the class voted against my sister's group and for the other group! Even though these were generally older students and many of them were themselves parents.

It's like they were preparing to sell out before they had to.

=======

* My sister's class was more than ten years ago. In large part due to an international boycott, there has been significant improvements. But all the same, corporations are fundamentally amoral, which is scarier than being immoral.

** and there has been progress in promoting Oral Rehydration Solution, which in many cases is a literal life-saver.

Brilliant question, OP!

I think we all have sociopathic elements to our nature. All of us.

I'm still trying to determine if I have Aspergers or am a sociopath. I don't like talking on the telephone so I haven't been able to make a doctors appointment to get a formal diagnosis yet, but I'm defintely one or the other.

Personal experiences in bold

I'll explain. When I was in my second semester of college I had a friend from high school that died. He died from drinking and taking some medication. His best friend at graduation was my childhood best friend. Because of this I went to the viewing so I could tell him I was sorry. I stood in line and watched the people as they moved towards the casket to pay their respects to their lost friend/loved one. I watched their reactions and emotions to what happened because in all honesty I didn't reallly care. I was there to tell someone I was sorry and leave. The entire process was a burden for me so I had to bring my fiancee along just so I wouldn't get frustrated and leave. I got up to the casket and looked at my friend's corpse for about 4 seconds with a solemn look then I looked up at his mother and father with a look of sadness I had seen on other people's faces. I hugged his mother and shook his father's hand and apologized for their loss like it was my fault...I still don't get that. Then I went to my friend, asked him if he was okay, told him I was sorry and left to get a burger.

A week after this one of my other friend's from high school committed suicide. This friend was also my fiancee's cousin. I had essentially the same effect here as I did with my friend. The difference between these two is that I still have to pretend to care at family functions which his grandparents attend and I had to go to the actual funeral instead of just the viewing. I then decided that I didn't want to go to class so I sent an email to my professor saying I was mourning the loss of my friend. I stayed home and played video games.

I commuted to college and one day I got a flat tire. I went home and borrowed my fathers truck as it was only about 500 feet that I realized I had the flat. I got to class and everything and the professor gave us an assignment to be done by 3 in the afternoon. I didn't do the assignment due to my lack of time management and I sent the submission to the professor with a picture of my destroyed tire saying I was unable to do the assignment as I had the flat on the way home and missed the deadline because of it.

A sociopath will do whatever it takes to further their agenda and don't really care about other people. They will lie, but it's not really a lie. It is more of what they perceive to be the right thing and they can pass lie detector tests because whatever they say they believe. I am trying to figure out if I actually have aspergers or if I'm a sociopath because I exhibit many of the symptoms of both...maybe I have both.

Either way telling lies is not the distinguishing factor of a sociopath. It's more along the lines of saying whatever will manupulate the person into doing what you want them to do or give a beneficial outcome. I like to look at them as similar to the vampires of the twilight books. They look normal, are charming, charismatic, and people want to be around them. This works well to their advantage as they want to have many people around to do their bidding like minions. I could go on about this for hours but I think I've already typed more than enough.

The answer to your question is no. Not all people have sociopathic tendencies. Many people lie to make sure the people around them are comfortable. Everyone fibs as a defense mechanism, but sociopath's lie as a means of advancement and entertainment.

From my personal experience,

Lying is always 100% right when its done to me by my peers or authority figures
Lying is always 100% wrong if I should happen to do it for ANY reason.

So I've got no time for other peoples opinion of whats honest. If I want a job to be done by an honest person, I'll do it myself.

The part at the beginning with putting off the phone call, that does sound like what an Aspie might do. I will put off a needed phone call to a bank or insurance company fir days and days sliding to weeks. Now, I am self-diagnosed, but I'm reasonably certain I'm Spectrum, as well as my Mom and my sister, and my grandmother (mother's side).

I finally decided with funerals, I am there to pay my respects, not feel or perform a certain way. The only part I might question is when you told a professor you were in mourning and then played video games. If you had done something equally productive as school but of your own choosing, that would have been better.

And with the cousin committing suicide, that's brutal. I can see the grandparents reaching out to almost anyone, at times inappropriately. Maybe if you have some general statement ready something like, He seemed like an alright guy, I didn't really feel I knew him that well. And the thing is, I feel this general statement would need to be largely true!

Both of these funerals sound like someone you knew, but more friend of a friend.

The first one was a friend of a friend who was also my friend. He was just a better friend with my previous best friend.

The second one was my fiancee's cousin, but my friend. I was closer to him than she was.

I like to think back to the scene in Dexter where he is at a funeral. Everyone is sitting around crying and there's a monologue about pain and how he relates. It makes me feel like I'm not the only one...but then I feel like I shouldn't be relating since he's a serial killer

Isn't this the theoretical ideal for either a priest or a doctor, that we feel compassion for everyone? As unrealistic as this may be. And/or perhaps the hallmark of good screenwriting.

And even if it does turn out that you're a sociopath flat out, not necessarily a disaster, it just means you're wired up differently emotionally. It still seems to me that the main goal remains engagement, and not conformity. And take business people, as one prominent example potentially among many professions, business people focus on certain outcomes and ignore others. They preach win-win (and occasionally practice it!). But logically, regardless of how sporadically may they practice it, there is a pretty good case for it.

Mitrovah, your OP is really thoughtful and insightful - I'll be keeping an eye out for your other posts on WP I'll read more than a glance of the other posts here when I have a few spare minutes to do so, but for now I'll just offer my initial thoughts.

* It's expected that job applicants sell themselves; it therefore gives a false impression to be blunt, "honest", straightforward.
* Interviewers ask seemingly irrelevant questions, and make observations of seemingly irrelevant behaviours, because they use these as a way to gauge desirable or undesirable traits of potential employees, based on statistical correlations found in occupational psychological research. This is vulnerable to errors, e.g. unfair interpretation of a gesture, but generally averages out to be more or less reliable and valid in achieving its ends depending on the robustness of the supporting science, data collection (e.g. that gathered in interview) & analysis.
* I agree that it's a stupid game we're goaded to play, and that success in doing so is not a fair measure of character... or maybe there's a negative correlation, which I think is what you're getting at.