We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, January 28. 2008
That is from a page which also lists Dr. Hare's checklist of Sociopathic traits. (h/t, reader H, in reference to yesterday's Clinton post.)
You don't need all of those items to be a sociopath - each one is a trait, and a warning sign.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
thought you were describing Fidel, Bill, Hugo and so many more and oh yeah that other fellow Teddy K....
Both Clintons possess enough of the traits to easily state they are indeed sociopaths. Indeed to deny they are means automatic membership in the Flat Earth Society.
The amazing thing occurring at the moment is how the same press that defended them both as if their lives depended on Clintonian purity are now acknowledging all of the perverse behaviors that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy pointed out during Slick Willy's first run.
It is as if the entire press corp was brainwashed by some Walter J Duranty acolyte and simply fabricated, in their best Duranty style, an entire Clinton Potemkin Presidency.
The absolute best coverage of the entire Clinton era was done by the WSJ's late editor Robert Bartley. It is still possible to get bound volumes of his work and for those who want to pass the truth on to their children about the Clinton calamity an investment in his writings would do justice to the truth.
Robert Bartley was the voice which opened my political eyes -- it was even before his stunning "waiting for the shoe to drop" series on the Clintons -- it was all the way back in the late 70s, when I first began buying a few stocks and reading the WSJ. Bartley's editorials on what was going wrong in those years were bulldozers scraping the scales away from blind blind eyes.
Sociopathy is a disguise, assuming the external traits of a warm human being without any inward correspondence.
Of course wolves hide in sheep's clothing. What good would it do them to hide in wolves' clothing?
A delightful piece of psychological slight-of-hand.
Witness how each major trait has an opposite trait. You're either "smooth", "engaging" and "charming", or 'threatening', 'aggressive' and 'verbally abusive'. This wide a net catches many a fish, indeed.
Note how so many of the sub-categories would normally be construed as good traits, such as being self-confident and unafraid to speak your mind, yet now they're 'warning signals' that you could be due for years of professional psychotherapy.
Consider how all of the proper buzzwords are addressed, stereotype by stereotype. If you're a tough businessman, then you're automatically "coldhearted." If you do anything risky, then you certainly have to check off "need for stimulation" and "taking chances." If you're a successful salesperson, then you are, by definition alone, "self-assured", "opinionated" and "cocky."
God help you if you're a politician.
Observe how practically every male in the audience is guilty of 'attempting to sexually coerce others into sexual activity,' obviously a strong sign of impending sociopathological problems.
Bask in the typical, strong liberal bent, where, if your bleeding heart doesn't show "empathy" and "feelings" toward all Personkind; that if you actually dare to be "unconcerned" or "dispassionate", much less "shrewd", "crafty" or "cunning", then, indeed, you might need years of psychoanalysis to get you even within the realm of normalcy.
And finally, wallow in the guilt you must feel as you recount silly childhood activities, such as playing with matches or devising a way to cheat your younger brother at cards, both strong traits of developing sociopathy.
We won't even discuss your youthful experiments with "sexual activity", a surefire ticket to the Fun House.
And now for the capper:
"(h/t, reader H, in reference to yesterday's Clinton post.)"
Do you guys know what the actual definition of "sociopath" is?
From The American Heritage Dictionary:
"One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior."
Does that sound like the Clintons to you guys?
Your faint logic is being applied against decades of research, repeated controlled research and experiments. The conclusions presented are those of that decades long effort. You are spitting into the wind with your critique and ill advised to challenge the corpus of knowledge built up over thousands and thousands of case studies and research.
To characterize it as psychological slight-of-hand is risible in the face of the known facts. Finally most scientists and professionals don't use a dictionary definition to prove their point in the peroration, given the usual complexity of a discipline, such as psychology.
I don't mean to be glib or superficial, but it's sleight of hand.
"...each one is a trait, and a warning sign."
That's a bit much. Half of the traits fit a used-car salesman; the other half, a teenage dufus with ADD. Sexual activity? Then we all should be looked at for possible signs of sociopathology.
Once again allow me to point out that worldwide, psychologists in the discipline of psychology and the study of human behavior didn't simply throw darts at a dartboard to come up with these traits.
Perhaps they are a bit scary for some to accept, but they weren't arrived at through voodoo methodology.
Meta, your Flat Earth Society Certificate is in the mail.
Keep the certificate, Habu. It's all about clarity in writing.
I've run across plenty of sociopaths and recognize the traits. And yep, I've been scared to death by a few of them.
" It's all about clarity in writing
Surely not yours. It's never "all about" one thing when discussing complex systems such as human behavior. All analalogies in logic are false but they do aid in understanding. Your "it's all about" is like say the hydrogen bomb is "all about" the external shape of the bomb. Nope , it goes deeper in most all cases.
I imagine the challenge here is simply an individual who doesn't want to believe what they're reading ,didn't read it in the first place, or didn't comprehend what they were reading.
Take a Midol, Habu. Note the response of the comments you took issue with were not about the traits themselves but the suggestion that each trait was a warning sign. THAT needed clarification - not the post itself.
And quit being so rude and aggressive and verbally abusive when you're 'kicking down'.
What you describe as rude,aggressive, and verbally abusive...
It's all in the clarity of the writing, couple with several of the discussed traits, an "A" type personality honed to a razor's edge while in the the Marine Corps and the CIA.
And it's not a case of if I told ya I'd have to kill ya. It's more along the lines of what most civilians experience when I limn the projects in which I was involved ..they simply don't believe that tough a world exists out there ..let me assure you it does, and in spades.
All of the above are "excuses" or explanations but in the end much of my behavior is not civil or forgiving. That is something I do try to harness. Just a work in progress, with human failings.
Pay attention. They’re "smooth", "engaging" and "charming" when kissing up, 'threatening', 'aggressive' and 'verbally abusive' when kicking down.
Now go over your list of politicians again to see who's what.
All y'alls are scarey.
The Psychopath in Prison is grabbing his sides, while his jailers are hitchin' their breeches and checking their wallets, again.
Is there anyway outa here?
For my own personal reference, I try to keep it simple:
1. Fearless - does unusually weird, immoral and risky stuff when drunk or when ‘nobody important’ is watching.
2. No feelings for others – like the guy who walks straight thru the puppy pen to get from point A to B kicking puppies out of the way, not necessarily out of maliciousness, but does it as if the puppies don’t even exist.
3. Quick fix mentality – they always prefer to cheat instead of actually doing the work.
Everybody has been one or all of these things some of the time. But a psycho is all three things all the time - tough, mean and lazy. The real problem is when they’re smart too. Instead of being in prison, maimed or dead they’re slick enough to keep out of serious trouble – they don’t get caught. They become good actors, politicians and manipulators.
the commander hits on an important point in vivid images.
There is an important distinction between people who have occasional bad behavior, even bad traits, and those whose entire personality is dominated by such traits - who have, so to speak, no other cards to play. There isn't a human alive who hasn't exhibited a symptom or two of a Personality Disorder, but that is not sufficient for diagnosis.
The "social" in Antisocial does not mean "chatty, friendly, talkative," but "societal norms, behaviors which promote group function." Clinton is certainly not asocial - few sociopaths (antisocials) are. He might legitimately qualify for an APD diagnosis, or more likely Mixed Personality Disorder with Antisocial and Narcissistic Traits, but even that's a stretch.
Habu - You were right, but you were rude - though I prefer to think of it as "irritable" when I apply it to myself.
I think the point that is being missed here is deviant behaviors are merely evidence of a different brain and one that is woefully underdeveloped. The sociopath or narcissist (who can be more dangerous than the sociopath because he/she is not undermined by radical impulsiveness) is a large three year old or five year old who is capable of inflicting great damage and whether he means to or not is another question altogether.