Psychopaths

Could be that they are able to switch the empathy off at will.

Or that we simply are really incompetent at measuring the brain. I've been told that the statistical models for fMRI that are used in research are laughable at best. We probably don't know what we are doing.

Or that the most intelligent psychopaths have managed to get into positions in science to block & destroy the real results.

>could it be?

What is Eric Cartman?

That's not how psychopathy works. Anyone can switch empathy on and off, that's human nature, not a pathology.

So what is specific for psychopaths?

I don't know. In your freezer, maybe?

Lack of empathy isn't exclusive to psychopathy, and it's hardly its defining feature. Lack of empathy doesn't make them more lucid either, nor does it make them fundamentally more productive than anyone else.

You're not one, by the way. I've seen this pop-psychology spiel plenty of times. You're autistic.

Psychopathy itself is more discernible by it's relationship with authority. Autistic and Personality Disordered people (NPD and BPD specifically) all lack empathy in some capacity, but what sets Psychopathy apart from them is the fact that a psychopath NEEDS to be dominate. They NEED the power. They NEED to not be bored. And on top of their opposition to authority, they have a complete lack of fear. It's the fiery disposition that really sets them apart.

People like to portray them as cold and calculated. But they're actually very blunt and passionate. Stalin is probably the most quintessential example of one.

I thought the psychopathy was lack of regard for all things social coupled with egomaniac mindset. But it's actually a very strong social need to dominate?

What's the opposite called then? Pathological lack of need of social power or even social stimulation?

Well, they certainly have a lack of regard for social rules, but psychopaths are usually very social and charming. Psychopaths tend to chase excitement, and things are most exciting when you're clawing your way to the top of a social ladder. Usually, once they're on top, they either mellow out (often due to age) or they get bored, and self-sabotage. They tend to be narcissistic though, yeah, just by virtue of their extreme selfishness.

The trouble with psychopathy is that it's still up for debate whether it's a disorder, or just a personality type. But in the later part of your question, what you describe is closer to Aspergers.

>But in the later part of your question, what you describe is closer to Aspergers.
Aspies don't lack the need for social interactions. They just so oblivious to social norms that in may cases they come off as cynical and cold. They are as social as neurotypical people, but too interpersonally dumb to act properly.

They're not Human.

If there is no way I can get what I want with someone, I'd prefer to be able to call them sick or monsters or something like that. Makes it much more convenient for me...

But then what do you call someone who has very little social needs and stays away voluntarily but not because of fear or shame but just because they prefer to be alone?

Prefer to be alone and learn / tinker with their obsessions like technical devices or learning weird stuff.

Obsessolonies, maybe?

Psychopathy isnt a feature of human biology, its a genetic disfunction of the systems in the brain that regulate socialization, and generate and process emotions.
Humans evolved with plenty of environmental hazards, there is no positive natural selective force from introducing an internal hazard to the species.
Most prevalent psychopaths lacked any form of empathy or social skills as children. This wouldnt yield reproductive gene expression in nature.

Actually OP, I was thinking the exact same thing regarding bullying. Why does it exist, what the fuck can its benefit possibly be when its so integrated inside us that it's spread worldwide, through every single culture

And then I got it. If you ask most bullies after growing up, they tend to feel sorry about doing it, like they had no control over it and they just *had* to do it. As both a bullied and a bully later, I also can say the same thing - you just automatically do it without even thinking about it. Yes, the guy who degrades the weak one into tears has no long-term planning, is not doing it to appear manly to the girls or alpha to the boys, doesn't hate you, in fact, his mind is completely static and he just does it automatically. So, why the fuck do we have this evolved in our subconscious and is only observed while young?

Because it maintains the fitness of the population and mobilizes the weak ones into doing something to prevent it. Imagine a tribe where bullying is non-existent for generations, and everyone happily holds hands and joyfully chases butterflies. Now, imagine another tribe on the other side that bullies the fuck out of its peers, the weakest suiciding, the rest molded into being fit enough to defend themselves. Which tribe is most likely to survive in an inevitable rivalry?

So yeah, as you said, it's unironically beneficial for our species. Fun fact: it is also observed in other social species as well, where they collectively bully (without directly harming or killing) one of their beta members, like this one youtube.com/watch?v=kTdaWUDeGsg

Avoidant

But you can't claim something is a dysfunction without claiming there is an underlying intent of how something should work or is supposed to function. That implies a designer or creator of some kind.

According to wikipedia:

Avoidant personality disorder show signs of feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, extreme sensitivity to negative evaluation, anxious, unwanted, et.c.

What I am describing is the opposite of that. Doesn't care about almost any social evaluation at all. Just want to focus like at least 99% on their own obsessions.

Is Psychopathy a design flaw or a bug? Where the heck was Gods QA team? They all quit you say? Well, no wonder the world is as f*ed up as it is then!

> That implies a designer or creator of some kind.
He doesn't have to imply creator. A society has rules and pyschos break those rules and are destined to be outsiders. They are flawed for societies and are predatory to societies and families. They abuse trust that exists in societies.

If a disorder makes them unable to work well with others in a society then they are flawed for the "normal" human world.

they just have bad genetics

we should honestly just kill them all

prevent them from breeding and passing on these psycho genes to future gens.

lmao there are leftists that will claim psychos are not from genetic factors

lmao

Then who is to decide those rules? A human, presumably. Psychopaths are well known to be more reckless and also motivated to manage to get into positions to decide rules so whatever you claim such "psychos" are is not the same thing as psychopaths we are talking about in this thread, but rather the victims of the psychopaths.

Problem is the smartest of them probably cuck families and have other families raise their kids.

thats why we need the state to kill them all

also the state should implement free markets and murder all marxists

Humans decide what those rules are, yes. If psychos are in power then they will decide that psychopathy is not a disorder, but it is not the case. Lasting societies would typically want to isolate pyschos, no?

Lasting societies don't want anything. It is individuals who want things, and lasting societies tend to encourage the ones who are most reckless to raise in ranks.

Psychopaths probably want to isolate those who are onto them, that seems reasonable.

>What is evolutionary game theory

Lasting societies define rules, don't they? What is religion after all. Individual is not even an important entity, individuals cannot even reproduce on their own... structure is what is important.

Structure does not matter much if we can't manage or foster the productivity or creativity so that those with money are able to make any use of their money. You could be the richest or most powerful person in a society but that does not help you if you get a sickness and there is no cure or if you want something but there are no skilled people around to help you with it.

It's not structure that is important to a society. It's being able to allocate, refine and manage resources.

>nature intentionally does things
>this thing happens to be edgy
no, evolution doesn't work like that

also sociopaths are mentally ill and need to be kept on a leash by a normy so they don't act like tards and burn out, for every Beria there is a Stalin who lost all warm feelings for humanity for whatever reason but had them at one point

That's not what happens, It's the psychopaths who manage to get into a (often managemental) position to burn the normies out.

This is just a fancy Pareidolia example.
Evolution doesn't "do" thing to get things better. It doesn't care, it just happens as a natural process.

The natural selection process by which it happens is what leaves the "working" stuff and removes the "disfunctional"

It doesn't mean that psychopathy evolved for any purpose and is held around to achieve something...
stuff like psychopathy simple "happens" by random chance, you grow up with it... it doesn't kill you so you stick around. reproduce and this gene has a probability of being passed on since it was proven to be "good enough to reproduce"... doesn't make it better or worse then "normal" humans...

there's probably no connection between psychopathic individuals and collective strength. They rather get into high important positions instead of inteligent people and make stuff worse...

i mean, yes psychopaths are usually marked as inteligent individuals, but by the definition they do not really care about collective well being, which means they do very little for the collective in these high positions that they seek.

the wouldn't ever be a tribe of "weak" people that would need psychopats to act as catalysts for action, because "weak" tribes would simply not form. you need at least one dominant character for others to follow, which doesn't need to be psychopathic to promote the growth of the tribe... It has nothing to do with bullies existing, it just have to be a dominant person. bullies are a subset of dominants. in mathematical terms, every bully is a dominant, but not every dominant is a bully.

>we can't manage or foster the productivity or creativity
"WE"

I will take it that we are in agreement.

This might come off a bit edgy but it matches up with my headcanon that its possible that 'US' the modern humans are a domesticated specie of Homo Sapiens and that we were all wolves once.

I think its possible that we used to be all aggressive and lived to dominate each other- we were wolves. Then the dogs came and the dogs started to grow as the apex specie and drove the aggression gene out of the gene pool resulting in an all dog population.

The ones afflicted with extreme aggression (i.e. the psychopaths/socios) still have that 'wolf' gene in them that makes them predatory

This is a complicated topic, since there are several disorders that have that as a common symptom , and the reworking of the DSMV that has seen several disorders abolished, but the closest would be schizoid personality disorder

being psychopath is literally the only thing you need in a successful life

> no regrets, no remorse

pure win

No the cause of this society is moralfaggot syndrome, if the tolerant left had any semblance of empathy they would stop calling for migrants the instant they start ruining people's lives. Its all about how good they can appear to others. Humans even when moral are still ego tripping psychos.

Psychos show that humans are savage deranged wild animals naturally and our empathy is what keeps us in check. The psycho is an issue because most psychos are wild animals or savages that get off on causing misery and pain to others they cant even function without fucking with someone at least once a day. Humanity would be much better if we found a way to remove these demons among us too bad these monsters control us.

I know a cutie trap psychopath. Found some of her posts using her email she didn't know I'd found but could have anticipated it, regardless she was essentially broken in a way that she could only manipulate people less or try not to hurt them if she cared about them because they made her feel good.

She would fake everything required but if she really liked them she wouldn't try to manipulate them as much.

Either way we havn't had contact in several months and I may never reintiate it as she's expecting me to.

By your logic /pol/ are murderers

The modern world allows for people who have differing qualities than strength, speed or conservation of stamina to succeed and breed offspring. Today, this is a good thing. As we are less at risk of getting eaten by a tiger, other traits can flourish better. Sure, you could say the smart person could have outwitted the tiger, or the social butterfly could have had a social network wherein there were capable people for handing the situation, but these kinds of people, like those that were strong or fast, would still have been at a risk of dying.

A small, weak and passive person could be a brilliant scientist or an amazing artist, which are arguably more important traits than strength or speed when it comes to advancing the human species. Even if what you've posted would present itself as accurate, it remains a fact that psychopathy is a problem, no matter what you call it or how you label it, even from a eugenics-perspective. Society progresses quicker than evolution.

Furthermore, preparing defenses and overt vigilance consumes resources which could have been better spent elsewhere.

>I was thinking the exact same thing regarding bullying. Why does it exist
The simple answer is they never got the crap beat out of them, like they should have for what they were doing; never facing serious and arguably effective violent consequences for their actions.
I also don't buy bullies are more confident like what's been said. I think it's more a combination that bullies feel so inferior about themselves they have to pick on other people along with term being "confident" only so far as they have their heads shoved up their asses

>natural selection only happened among humans bcuz sociopaths

Go watch a REKT thread over at /gif/

Take your normie poetry shit and get the fuck outta this thread.

the majority of so called "psychopaths" don't even kill anyone you dip.

there's more wannabe psychopaths than actual psychopaths.

true psychopaths aren't trying to be dickheads, if anything they try pretty hard to fight against their nature and fit in with society.

are the psychopaths the problem?

or are the defenseless lambs the problem?

if everyone keeps their guard up and respects the danger other people pose there wouldn't be any problem.

but retarded fucking liberals keep inviting in literal monsters forged by the fires of endless war and rape for thousands of years into our tranquil cities.

Murder doesnt necessarily tie into it at all, the myth that it does has caused the biggest annoyances to people in the field.

Just because someone processes empathy in an abnormal way does not mean that they casually kill because theyre suddenly free of the shackles of emotion.

It more likely manifests in shit like oddly calm reactions to sudden shocking events like injury, or something more mundane than murder.

I have unironically been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and it's not all it's cracked up to be honestly.