Getting into the mind of a psychopath

[robvalue]

I'm using "psycopath" here to refer to someone who has (virtually) no empathy.

I always thought I could never get into their head. I am so hugely driven by empathy that the idea of having none at all is totally alien. But a little while ago I came up with a way of thinking about it which has helped me with this.

Imagine that instead of living your life as you do now, you're playing a computer game. So "you" are now the character you're controlling. You're not "real", as such. Neither is anything else in the game. You have no emotional attachment to anything in it. The other characters in the game are ultimately unimportant. Even if they die or suffer, who cares? The only point of the game is to get satisfaction from it, one way or another.

So to the psycopath, other people are like NPCs (non player characters). In a game, we may often treat an NPC "kindly" because it's in our interest to do so. We're not going to pull out a gun and shoot a guy who is helping us. We could do it, and it wouldn't matter to us, but it would not be in our best interest. We might need to learn the best ways to act around these NPCs so as to get the maximum benefit from them. If we can't simply control or kill them all, we're going to have to coexist with them and as such we need to find the best way.

So the psycopath, in my mind, is playing a game instead of living a life. There's nothing to feel guilty about. There are no moral dilemmas. There are just opportunities for gratification. But just like in a game, it's pragmatic to often behave pseudo-morally, because of the consequences for not doing so. Being locked in jail for the rest of the game would not be very satisfying, after all.

[Longhorn]

That's an interesting way to describe it. From an amateur's point of view it seems pretty accurate

but mostly I just wanted to say *psychopath, sorry sorry sorry

[robvalue]

Thanks, now corrected

I'm glad you agree! I'd be interested to know how many people see it as useful/accurate.

As I've stated before, I'm not mad at psycopaths. I used to be. But moral outrage is not appropriate against someone incapable of morality. So my logic overrode the emotion. And of course, the scientific term in no way means the person is necessarily going to do anything "bad", let alone kill people. But if they do, I don't view it in the same way as someone who has empathy but ignores it.

[abaris]

Thanks, now corrected

I'm glad you agree! I'd be interested to know how many people see it as useful/accurate.

It doesn't seem to be that off. In the wake of a mail bomb terror series in the early to mid 90ies, where the perp targeted organisations and persons helping fugitives and minorities and launched a devastiting attack on a Roma community, I started to read up on the books of forensic psychologists on the matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Fuchs

John Douglas, Englands Paul Britton (who fucked up royally at one point) and our very own Thomas Müller. They all say these people are master manipulators, who take their kicks out of making people do their bidding and having them under their thumbs. Sometimes to the extent of getting the ultimate power kick out of killing them. Which is, in their minds, being in total control of another person. Not all of them end up being criminals though. There have been surveys and studies claiming that many CEOs fit the bill also.

[robvalue]

Interesting, thanks

I wonder, is there any evidence of CEOs that don't fit the bill

[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.

[abaris]

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.

[robvalue]

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.

[abaris]

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

Far as I understand it, there may be some genetic predisposition. But according to forensic psychology that in itself isn't sufficient to create a sociopathic personality. There always were outside influences involved. Such as being physically or mentally abused.

I'm no expert, but serial offenders or people entirely without empathy aren't born. They are formed as children.

[GrandizerII]

Genetic predisposition + abuse/trauma in childhood => antisocial personality disorder (AsPD).

AsPD, by the way, is the DSM term for the more causal terms "psychopathy" (more physiological/genetic than environmental) and "sociopathy" (more environmental).

By the way, psychopathy isn't just lack of empathy (as sociopaths, narcissists, and others also have such deficiency). It's also the lack of conscience that contributes to the definition of psychopathy. Sociopaths tend to still have some semblance of conscience.