Sociopaths, Psycopaths, Misanthropes gather round

Again, like I said, it varies, and the general populace uses them totally interchangeably, which is perfectly fine. In the clinical community, their definition is slimply slang for "antisocial personality disorder", or just extremely severe antisocial personality disorder. It's subjective, though, and clinicians typically don't use the term, because it's not a legal diagnosis. It can't be used in court, for instance. It's just slang for a disorder that doesn't sound as severe.



I apologize for not being clear. But to tell the truth, this is just an extension of what I said earlier, and it, too, is subjective, so what I said doesn't really matter. You can scratch that part off the record as my mistake.



Very true. But just as with any other disorder, everyone on the planet has tendencies or symptoms of other disorders without meeting the full diagnostic criteria to warrant an actual diagnosis, and psychopathy is no different. People can, to put it simply, just be habitually and horrifically mean people, even sadists, but that doesn't mean they're psychopathic. The diagnosis requires a whole lot more than that, but I can't legally state it here (even though it's found on the 'net everywhere, it's technically supposed to legally be reserved for clinicians so everyone doesn't go around diagnosing themselves--which they totally do).



This is where evolutionary psychology comes into play, because psychopathy is simply a matter of being a predator. To explain a little of that, we still have a whole lot of our ancestral traits, and one of those traits for both males and females is being "alpha", so to speak. Females, necessarily needing to be more choosy because they can reproduce much less often than men, who don't have any "down time" with their reproductive abilities, are very choosy about their mates. For men, there's some need to be vicious and violent, and at the same time uncaring, which can be survival tools. Generally, humans are innately empathic toward one another, but there are those (psychopaths) who were also part of heredity that are passed down. This is in large part because females often attract the "strongest" or "most vicious" man, since he's the most likely to be able to produce "strong" offspring. It's also because rape has always existed, and the sexual element common with violent sexual offenses, is also a way to pass down that male's traits because they don't have the "social skills" required to reproduce any other way--that's why in practically all serial sexual assault cases, their targets are invariably young women.

It's the same reason why many girls are initially attracted to assholes that every other male hates. Everyone wonders about this from high school all through college. It's a phenomenon that goes back to our ancestral days when it was important to dominate, and someone who openly displays dominance over others is attractive to women. Imprisoned murderers, especially the most infamous and televised ones who have a high body count, often have women falling in love with them, and who will even visit them in prison just to get close to them. This is because some genetics are still present that desire the simple need to "find a strong man for offspring" deal, and the brain interprets "he is stronger than other men" to the audience that is most susceptible to that kind of behavior (obviously, only a minority of females share that, but that too is hereditary).

To take it one step further, and this is somewhat controversial, but females of ancestral days would often use the "strong" male for having quality offspring so that the offspring would hopefully get desirable traits to survive another generation. But once the "strong" offspring are there, her hormones switch her to an opposite position, to wanting someone who is gentler and better at taking care of offspring, so they choose males later in life who are more caring and the most likely to be good fathers.

Edit: I can't seem to fix that "quote" thing up there. It doesn't show in my textbox at all. I'm having a really hard time forming this right. I hope it's at least acceptable. Damnit, sorry.
Edit2: Alright, I fixed it up, mostly. Hope that's all right now.

in my personal opinion I think humanity wouldn't really change much if it was

in terms of the psychopaths humanity might improve if handled correctly having a violent nature doesn't mean people will automatically act on it with no logical reason it does however mean these people will be better equipped and more mentally (and in some cases physically) prepared for dealing with violent situations.
I've known a lot of people like this good friends long as you don't cross em and if you don't know them personally I'd recommend avoiding them.


the sociopaths however would probably make things worse people as a whole can be greedy to a certain extent however most wouldn't trade a life for small gains however sociopaths don't care whatever the gain regardless of how insignificant if its something they want they will use whatever means to get it.
I've met one person like this he was strong physically but wasn't much for dealing with things on his own acted buddy-buddy with me till I had a run in with a girl he was trying to fuck he sent some of his cousins after me till after she rejected his advances he then cut her off and tried to get back on friendly terms with me again I never trusted em nor considered him a friend just an associate with similar goals.

misanthropes: don't know much about em not like I care to either I've met a few people who matched this description several times in fact big mouths a lot of hate and almost no bite much like Chihuahuas but maybe that's just my experience since most people in general are afraid to fight me one thing I find in common with them though is that hatred I will admit some of them do just blindly hate everything in general but some of the more educated ones tell me they hate society and how corrupt a lot of it is


to tell you the truth I think in the long term if a massive amount of these people filled up the world we would be in pretty much a whole new type of world war sociopaths and psychopaths would most likely be fighting heavily(even now if you think about it they kinda already are) with the misanthropes just constantly complaining.


on a personal level


I'd associate myself with psychopaths just more controlled I guess I take pleasure in combat in general the fighting the pain the killing however I took the teachings of my sensei to heart and I guess in a different term I just instinctively felt protective over others honestly speaking I just naturally had a feeling of superiority over almost everyone around me and that since I was stronger it was somehow my responsibility to keep them safe when I was younger I didn't care how people felt emotionally long as they where still physically alive "you shot? you wounded? you bleeding? no? then your not my fucking problem." this is one of the things I remember saying to people alot as I got older I started to consider peoples emotions to an extent I still find people who are crying about relationship issues irritating as hell


now just wondering in your opinion does this consider me a psychopath or just having "tendencys" of one

*makes frustrated gesture*

How can we even begin to answer a question about the biological scientific future of a hypothetical?

I mean the most anyone here can offer is pure conjecture such as, "Wel it's possible it might go about this way" or whatever but honestly if we don't know that these things are hereditary(And I'd argue that since there are many environments that can dramatically impact the likelihood of forming such beliefs/mental illnesses, they're not, ESPECIALLY not misanthropy at the very least) Then how can we possibly speculate as to how they're going to continue? We can't nail down which gene causes these things specifically if we don't know they're hereditary, so we don't know if it's a dominant gene found in few people or a recessive gene found in many, or whatever else would be required to figure out if natural gene duplication will keep it going, nor can we possibly speculate about the natural selection of such genes with any sort of basis not just because we don't know about the genes, but because the very nature of at least the first two that you mention is that they can effectively blend into society, but each tend to approach society differently.

I'l bet it would surprise some people to learn that those who are psychopathic make up 1% of the united states population, that's over 3 million psychopaths in this country. Where are they? They're certainly not all in jail, because there's rules against sending the clinically insane to jail for certain crimes, and most crimes are just done by people who have been brought up in a way to disregard law, which isn't necessarily indicative of psychopathy, or because of some sort of contextual problem wherein they felt they were justified in taking an action the law prohibits because of A or B extenuating circumstances.

Psychopaths make up a very small percentage of the prison population, so...where the fuck are these millions of psychopaths? Blending right the hell in! So how in the hell can we possibly speculate on how that's going to go in the future if we don't have effective means of knowing A. how to tell most of the people who suffer from such mental illnesses, or B. how to know how these genes interact with non psychopathic ones?

There, rant over.

Short answer: The question is unanswerable precisely because of what you presumed to be true for the sake of argument, because that premise is what needs to be investigated to come up with a cogent answer.

I'll argue that you need to be a bit psychopathic to understand this world. Only a psychopath would show true interest in the deeper meaning of things. Whereas the "layman" is interested in merely living itself.

I'm a psychopath, I will freely admit to it. But that psychopathy doesn't make me a criminal, nor does it make me not understand right from wrong. But it does make me question why it's wrong to begin with? What if it could be right?

In my opinion, as Human Beings we do ourselves a disservice from denying ourselves the forbidden fruit. Crime only exists because it's "forbidden". If it weren't illegal, that person wouldn't be called a criminal. Nor would he/she be incarcerated.

Now mind you, there's a necessary reason for "crime" to "exist". Namely that a crime takes away the rights of another person(whether it be their life, or their personal possessions or defiling those possessions(arson/vandalism).).

But I do happen to wonder, just as the argument exists for ending the war on drugs; What about the war on crime? If it becomes "legal" to do certain things, will it be all the less enticing?