Getting into the mind of a psychopath

[robvalue]

I see.

I've read about psycopaths and sociopaths in loads of different places and getting a strict definition seems difficult. Sometimes they're used interchangeably, sometimes not.

Must be a bloody easy existence not having a conscience.

[Edwardo Piet]

From what I think I know it seems that in theory an absolute psychopath would never feel neither remorse nor fear... so if after murdering someone if someone pointed a gun at them they would just rationally think "I need to escape quickly so I don't die."... their heart wouldn't even beat with anything but excitement for murdering the person, never out of fear. Whereas a sociopath would panic and be scared. But neither would feel remorse for murdering the person (which is hypothetically why they have a gun pointed at them in the first place).

To go with your analogy of video games... a sociopath would see the world as a video game but if it became like a scary video game they'd be scared... so they would be like those people who get scared by scary video games, applied to the real world.

But a psychopath in the video game world wouldn't be afraid in even the most scary circumstances... they'd be like those people who don't find any video games or movies scary, applied to the real world.

So to simplify: a sociopath would be like "Life is only a game and it's not real, and we should never feel guilty or sorry or remorseful: but it's still sometimes a scary game." But a psychopath would be like "Life is only a game and it's not real, and we should never feel guilty or sorry or remorseful: and why would I ever be scared? It's only a game."

[abaris]

From what I think I know it seems that in theory an absolute psychopath would never feel neither remorse nor fear... so if after murdering someone if someone pointed a gun at them they would just rationally think "I need to escape quickly so I don't die."... their heart wouldn't even beat with anything but excitement for murdering the person, never out of fear. Whereas a sociopath would panic and be scared. But neither would feel remorse for murdering the person (which is hypothetically why they have a gun pointed at them in the first place).

I'm sure someone with real expertise can correct me on that, but that's rather the difference between an organised and a disorganised perpetrator. Psychopaths are very capable to plan ahead and certainly don't wait around for being caught because they have no fear. Most serial offenders plan their next crime to be an even better gratification for their needs. They certainly feel something, but no empathy. For them people are objects to be used to satisfy their own needs. That's where serial offenders and a Sociopathic CEOs overlap. In this case it certainly is about sociopaths and not psychopaths.

Disorganised offenders tend to be mentally ill. Suffering from schizophrenia or another condition influencing their ability for judgment. According to the books I have read, they're much easier to be caught than personalities such as Ted Bundy, who could function very well in a social environment without ever being a part of it.

[ApeNotKillApe]

I imagine it's a much more efficient existence in a lot of ways; a high-functioning psychopath can thrive in the human environment, selection works in their favour.

Obviously not. One or two may thrive but if selection really worked in their favor we would all be sociopaths by now. We are a social species and as such required to work together and not in the sense of using and abusing each others. Our societies would crumble if that was the norm.

And it's important that in the overwhelming majority, psychopaths are made by childhood influences and aren't born that way.

Humans are a very new species, their social order has altered radically over a very short period of time. Civilization has created a new type of environment with its own selective pressures, where humans largely struggle against each other, even within their own communities.
The typical characteristics of psychopaths - manipulative, ruthless, charming, cunning, egotistical/narcissistic, are potentially very advantageous traits in many aspects of human society throughout the last few thousand years if not before. A lot of psychopaths are bankers and lawyers and politicians, the personality type gravitates towards positions of power, and is equipped with a very useful set of traits for achieving them. That seems to me like an example of a species thriving in an ecosystem.

[Edwardo Piet]

From what I think I know it seems that in theory an absolute psychopath would never feel neither remorse nor fear... so if after murdering someone if someone pointed a gun at them they would just rationally think "I need to escape quickly so I don't die."... their heart wouldn't even beat with anything but excitement for murdering the person, never out of fear. Whereas a sociopath would panic and be scared. But neither would feel remorse for murdering the person (which is hypothetically why they have a gun pointed at them in the first place).

I'm sure someone with real expertise can correct me on that, but that's rather the difference between an organised and a disorganised perpetrator. Psychopaths are very capable to plan ahead and certainly don't wait around for being caught because they have no fear. Most serial offenders plan their next crime to be an even better gratification for their needs. They certainly feel something, but no empathy. For them people are objects to be used to satisfy their own needs. That's where serial offenders and a Sociopathic CEOs overlap. In this case it certainly is about sociopaths and not psychopaths.

Disorganised offenders tend to be mentally ill. Suffering from schizophrenia or another condition influencing their ability for judgment. According to the books I have read, they're much easier to be caught than personalities such as Ted Bundy, who could function very well in a social environment without ever being a part of it.

Everything I've read definitely tells me Psychopaths are the more extreme of the two.

Sociopathy is often compared to Anti Social Personality Disorder... and whereas it's not known how much of Sociopathy is down to nature and how much is down to nurture... I've read that sociopathy is more on the nurture side whereas psychopaths tend to be born thay way. Sociopaths are incredibly dysfunctional and self-destructive and have often had an abusive and dysfunctional childhood and/or adolecedence and so their capacity for remorse and empathy has been stunted to either nonexistent or almost nonexistent...

Whereas psychopaths are either born almost without empathy altogether or are completely without it... and they tend to be very low anxiety whereas sociopaths are very high anxiety.

That's a way of looking at it, like I said, both are lacking in remorse... psychopaths tend to be low anxiety (to a 'fearless' level)... and so they are very bold risk takers. They're pleasure seekers and manipulators. Sociopaths are perhaps even more reckless but that's because their high level anxiety is self destructive, and they're still very impulsive they just feel a lot more anxiety and regret (but not remorse, just regret for hurting themselves, for being foolish) over their own self-destructive behavior...

Another way of looking at it, is there is supposedly two kinds of psychopaths, and one of them is more like the classic fearless calculating psychopath, which is known as primary psychopathy and the other is like the anxiety ridden Anti Social Personaly Disorder-ed Sociopath, which is known as secondary psychopathy:

Several researchers have argued that there are two variants, or subtypes, of psychopathy. There is also empirical support for separating persons scoring high on the PCL-R into two groups that do not simply reflect Factor 1 and Factor 2. There is at least preliminary evidence of differences regarding cognition and affect as measured in laboratory tests. Different theories characterize these two variants somewhat differently.

Compared to "primary" psychopathy, "secondary" psychopathy has been conceptualized as being associated with more fear, anxiety, and other negative emotions. This subtype is seen as more impulsive and with more reactive anger and aggression. David T. Lykken, using Gray's biopsychological theory of personality, argued that primary psychopathy is characterized by little fear while secondary psychopathy is characterized by an increased sensitivity to rewards. Studies also suggest that secondary psychopathy manifests more features of borderline personality than primary psychopathy, and comparable levels of antisocial behavior.

There are also different theories as to the predominant causes of either variant. Some researchers, such as Benjamin Karpman, believe that primary psychopathy is caused by an emotional deficit and that secondary psychopathy is acquired through adverse environmental experiences, although others, such as Lykken, link both variants to different biological predispositions. Some preliminary research suggests that secondary psychopathy may be associated with a more abusive childhood, a higher risk of future violence, and potentially a better response to treatment.

(my emphasis)

[GrandizerII]

I see.

I've read about psycopaths and sociopaths in loads of different places and getting a strict definition seems difficult. Sometimes they're used interchangeably, sometimes not.

Must be a bloody easy existence not having a conscience.

Yeah, by no means should what I posted be taken as absolutely true. These are all labels at the end of the day trying to capture something that's there but hard to capture with adequate accuracy.

But nevertheless, interesting study I read about earlier today which showed that, when viewing a bloody violent scene, non-psychopath viewers would show "aroused" or perturbed physiological response to the scene (increased heart rate, breathing, sweating even), whereas psychopaths were physiologically "soothed" by the scene. Disconcertingly interesting.

[brewer]

Don't think that they are empty emotionless robots, they are not. It's just that all emotion is centered inward. Do they experience remorse or regret, yes, but only for themselves.

[Edwardo Piet]

Absolutely not empty emotionless robots. They experience excitement a lot for starters.

Psychopaths are pleasure seekers. Regret for themselves perhaps, but not shame or remorse. Low or non-existent anxiety... high excitement.

Sociopaths have no remorse or shame either, they have regret... but their anxiety is very high as well as their excitement, and they're more prone to rage and less calculating. That's the way I see it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Really? I didn't know that. I thought it was mainly genetic.

I know that how a psycopath turns out is hugely shaped by their upbringing.

Psychopathy is at least mostly genetic... sociopathy is mostly upbringing. Sociopaths are severely selfish and anti-social, almost or completely stunted empathy, very anxious and disturbed. Psychopaths are born with almost missing or completely missing empathy. They trouble others with their sick and abusive behavior but on the inside they are far from anxious or 'distrubed', it's others who are distrubed, they're severally pathologically sick and lacking in empathy but they're not irrational. It's all thrill-seeking to them:

While the term is often employed in common usage along with the related but distinct "crazy", "insane" and "mentally ill", criminal psychology researcher Robert Hare stresses that a clear distinction is known among clinicians and researchers between psychopathic and psychotic individuals. Hare claims that psychopaths "are not disoriented or out of touch with reality, nor do they experience the delusions, hallucinations, or intense subjective distress that characterize most other mental disorders. Unlike psychotic individuals, psychopaths are rational and aware of what they are doing and why. Their behavior is the result of choice, freely exercised.

(my emphasis)

[Edwardo Piet]

Robert D. Hare is the most famous expert on Psychopathy today, as far as I know:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4d4euAOq7s