Both Psychopaths and Sociopaths can be dangerous. I believe there are more Sociopaths than Psychopaths and many of them either never end up in the criminal justice system, or only commit minor crimes, but they all prey on people emotionally, psychologically, mentally, physically, monitarily, any way they can think of. There are commonalities between Sociopaths and Psychopaths, but the difference between the two is: Psychopaths are loners and stay away from the social scene. They know right from wrong and the norms of society, but choose to go against them. They secretly want to get caught. They blame all their problems on others, generally their bad upbringing and role models. They have tremendous guilt, but it is directed at themselves for their short-comings in their role model's and/or society's eyes. They don't like themselves and see themselves as a failure. Sociopaths, on the other hand, are social and have a high opinion of themselves. They have their own set of societal rules and norms that are different from reality and they try to convice others that their way of thinking is best. They are aware their views are different, but they are not aware they are wrong. They do not like to get caught at anything and they do not have any guilt. They don't have time to blame others because they are too busy planning their next venture, and if they told you anything of the sort, it would be a con job. They seek out others to manipulate on a constant basis.
Both Sociopaths and Psychopaths like to see others suffer, like to play games with people's emotions and lives, and both are pathological liars and manipulators, but only the Psychopath is aware the norms and values of society are best and he sees himself as a deviation of that. There are many more Sociopaths in our society than Psychopaths. There are many degrees of sociopathy, and they are very cunning. They don't want to get caught, because they don't think they need any help. In my opinion, those factors make them more of a problem and ironically much harder to spot than a psychopaths, who are generally hermits for the most part. Of course the question would be, was Ted Bundy a Sociopath or a Psychopath. He has been labeled a Psychopath, yet he was seemingly very social. We all have some sociopathic and/or psychopathic personality characteristics, so it is possible he was either, but with some traits of the other; And like I said there are commonalities, like the inability to feel remorse or empathy for the victim or others (see the model below). I have not studied his case, but he appears to me to be a Sociopath. He appears to have his own set of values, different from society's. And, he thought he was quite clever and that there was nothing wrong with him.
They would get fired if they acted bad at work, so the Sociopath compartmentalizes, using different approaches to get what they want in different areas of their life and treating those separately from each other. A perfect example is Ted Bundy. Some who knew him, knew him as a strange character. Some knew him as a player. And, others knew him as a friendly over-achiever. Still others knew him as a cold-blooded killer.
Truth is the truth, right? The normal people get that. The Sociopaths do not get that at all as they only know and respect their own truth. The rest of them who are doing the bad behaviors, are choosing to ignore the truth, are the product of a bad upbringing or some chemical or biological deficiency, and some have displaced anger. And, there are plenty of those out there, too, getting satisfaction from hurting or annoying others. But, they don't last long on most websites if there is moderation, because they have to have bigger and bigger thrills.
Some of the mean posters on Curezone are simply very self-righteous control-freak people. If you look at their past, you will find many failed relationships due to their controlling manipulative behavior. But, this way of thinking, to a lesser degree, is very common because it is inherent in human behavior (I believe all behavior is learned, so I am not talking about inherent in the species itself). As an example: The difference between a rat and a human, is that if you put cheese in a tunnel and later move it to a different tunnel, the rat will eventually go down a different tunnel and find the cheese. The human on the other hand, will go down the same tunnel, ad nauseam, never finding any cheese. The rat, you see, is only interested in cheese, but the human believes he is going down the right tunnel; And, it is more important for him to be right than to receive cheese. Like I said, humans tend to be this way and Capitalism fuels it. Some people will learn it is better to be loved than be right. I run across these "tunnel with no cheese" types ever so often on Curezone and it is not a happy experience. The only thing you can really do is not answer them. But, that makes them feel like they won and they will go on to attack others. I also run across Sociopaths (or those with sociopathic personality traits) or those who just have poor social skills for whatever reason. There is a myriad of these folks. I think Spirit catered to them by creating debate rooms. I really think he keeps debate rooms to keep the jerks away from the support rooms. I think his intentions were good, to let people have a voice. But, debate rooms are not representative of real debate. I would call them debate, personal attack and insult rooms. In my opinion all debate rooms ought to have the words public trash can at the top. There is another subclass on Curezone, those who think you are wrong and they are right, but don't generally post it. They are the types who keep things inside and find other avenues for their anger and frustrations of life. Overall, Curezone is pretty representative of society, and that is not a good thing, not in this day and age, in my opinion. I like the information Curezone is able to provide, but I don't enjoy the hurdles one faces at times in trying to participate in the sharing of that information. The traits below are based on the Psychopathy Checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.
Profile of the Socio/Psychopath
Other Related Qualities: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html Good Movies about Sociopaths: 1. A Cry for Help: The Tracey Thurman Story Good Website to keep track of Socio/Psychopaths: www.dontdatehimgirl.com Psychotherapist and Author Sandra L. Brown discusses dangerous and pathological relationships
NOTE: In the 1830's this disorder [Socio/Psychopathic] was called "moral insanity." By 1900 it was changed to "psychopathic personality." More recently it has been termed "antisocial personality disorder" in the DSM-III and DSM-IV. Some critics have complained that, in the attempt to rely only on 'objective' criteria, the DSM has broadened the concept to include too many individuals. The APD category includes people who commit illegal, immoral or self-serving acts for a variety of reasons and are not necessarily Psycho/Sociopaths. Criticism of the DSM-IV criteria The DSM-IV confound: some argue that an important distinction has been lost by including both sociopathy and psychopathy together under APD. As Hare et al write in their abstract, "The Axis II Work Group of the Task Force on DSM-IV has expressed concern that antisocial personality disorder (APD) criteria are too long and cumbersome and that they focus on antisocial behaviors rather than personality traits central to traditional conceptions", concluding, "... conceptual and empirical arguments exist for evaluating alternative approaches to the assessment of psychopathy ... our hope is that the information presented here will stimulate further research on the comparative validity of diagnostic criteria for psychopathy; although too late to influence DSM-IV." My Critique: The problem with the newest model, DSM-IV and the DSM-III before it, is they also group in people who commit illegal, immoral or self-serving acts for a variety of reasons and are not necessarily psychopaths. Those are not good models at all. It was a case of the mousetrap isn't broke, so why fix it. So, now, the system says everyone is a psychopath, basically, and I think it does absolutely no good to have a model like that. It is important we identify those who are pathological, but to use a model that includes so many people based on so many deviences, is akin to a Hitler mentality in my opinion. The Cleckley and R. Hare model is the best one and should have never been changed.
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
Promiscuity, child sexua| abuse, rape and sexua| acting out of all sorts.
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
2. Sleeping with the Enemy
3. Cape Fear
4. Rope
DSM-IV Definition
Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called Psychopaths or Sociopaths.