Sociopaths are like human 1.5, in-between models that are improvements on the existing model but are a bit under-designed, a little too utilitarian.

Every dimension of life will tend to contract and expand, and since humans don’t have natural selection anymore we rely on social patterns and incentives to develop evolutions. Based on past natural selection we can assume that being a more or less automatic emotional slave to others has been advantageous to human survival. This has also been an upper limit on consciousness.

So, how to not throw the baby out with the bath water? Naturally “normal” people fear and stigmatize sociopaths, and sometimes for “good” reason. But sociopathy only implies a kind of freedom and limit, trading one slavery away for another.

A lack of empathy is hardly an improvement. One can have empathy and not be bound to a moral system.
There seems to be this idea - perhaps you have it, perhaps you don’t - that any being concerned about the feelings/welfare of others can only be guilt and is primarily cognitive - part of some moral system, the trying to live up to an idea, rather than something more direct, affect based and NOT cultural reaction/urge.

I can’t in what way they are better. It would not be better for you to live with one than for you to live with someone christianized in the broad sense you imply elsewhere. However irritating the latter might be, they will be very unlikely to kill you on a whim, or drain your bank accounts or rape your girlfriend or tell the authorities about somethign you are doing because this will benefit him. Replace everyone in your Life is human 1.0 with the 1.5s and see if you Life gets better. And they will not hesitate to use prevalent mores to fuck you up if it benefits them.

I did notice you considered them only a limited improvement. But I Think even that is ridiculous. Hell, there is even fairly decent correlation between traumatic head injury and sociopathy. They are broken.

It is, however, the fear of any person that if they did not have guilt, they would be like sociopaths. And that fear is just as misguided as the placing sociopaths above other people. And mirrors it. One does need to have the courage or whatever to face that fear and see what it is like without guilt and conscience and being a good boy or girl. And so on one level the sociopaths function as the boogie men of our fears about ourselves and are used by the school-marmish portions of thinking to reinforce bad patterns like guilt, etc.

But yeah, I hear someone putting sociopaths on even a half pedestal and I wish them the prize of no longer having any 1.0 humans in their lives and instead, whereever those were, sociopaths. And yes, I am willing to allow, in this fantasy gift, whatever friends and lovers who are beyond the sociopaths, humans 2.0 or whatever, to still be around you. Your Life will suck compared to how it is now, for that period of time you survive. And sociopaths are liars, it’s not like Everything will be out in the open.

“…Since humans don’t have natural selection anymore…”


Presumably along the lines of we save the weak and incompetent. But other social mammals do this so we can assume that natural selection stopped well before homo sapians started doing better than neanderthals. Likely even Before herd animals were around, since even they can be fairly effective at protecting some of the weak and incompetent.

Yeah, just try playing chess with a conventional chess master by making random moves.
It probably will extend the game very slightly.
… but even more ensure your defeat.

Perhaps you can come up with a strategy that isn’t just someone else’s old game being played on you?

I can just see the deer in the forest;
“Hey, I got an Idea. Let’s all just act like morons, run wildly around, and attack each other. That way the hunters won’t be able to shoot us!” :slight_smile: 8-[

A popular meme, but selection does still happen - just in a different way.

And there’s a wonderfully liberal twist to it. Instead of dying out and being killed off like members of other species (because we have happened upon such significant medical knowledge, we have figured out how protect ourselves from so many sources of harm, and we have mostly bowed to the monopolies on force, to whom we have attributed institutional authority over us) we get… to CHOOSE whether or not to kill ourselves! Ah, freedom of choice =D>

Mental or emotional health is becoming a more and more significant factor in determining who gets to breeding age without killing themselves, and who doesn’t. Without passing such an elementary hurdle, which has the same effect as dying out or being killed off - you will not continue your lineage.

But even if you do get to breeding age, we have so much more freedom of choice over whether or not to contracept its traditional process. Yet more freedom of choice resulting in the same effect as being infertile or unable to conceive for whatever other reason. You have your career to concentrate on! You can’t bear the thought of inflicting the world on your potential child! You can wait until you’re completely sure your partner is the one!

In what is often referred to as some kind of reverse evolution, it’s the poor and the more animal of us who have the most kids. The forceful are ruthlessly vilified for violating the liberal code, but they succeed in passing on their genes and memes. They would not continue to exist if this were not true, however tragic to the liberal mind. The impulsive and irrational end up with many more kids than the rational who may reserve judgment, passing on their genes and memes much more, however tragic to the intellectual mind. But you can never have enough slaves.

“Nature” is clearly selecting certain things over others, like it or not. Probably just not in the way you think is better.
You might even say that “nature” has selected this version of natural selection over previous and other ones.

A lack of empathy is just a kind of ignorance. There’s nothing improved about it.

Yes, I was thinking it was a bit like being deaf or blind.

That’s about how I see it, yes.

There’s your empathy for you.


REally, that’s how you are going to deal with all the arguments about empathy and the problems associating with sociopaths?

As if being an automatic emotional slave was a necessary effect of empathy. This would seem to show a terror empathy.

What’s the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath? I know sounds flippant but
I do ask in all sincerity?

Google is your friend. Or you could try thinking.

In your case, I’d recommend Google.

Or you could try thinking, you still haven’t answered the question?

It’s actually a relevant question but then you just dismissed it at face value without thinking about it, good for you. :wink:

So I would want to engage someone who refuses to think… why?

Oh yeah, I already am. I guess that’s just boredom on my part.

The point is that what we call “empathy” is a kind of automatic slavery of emotions. It isn’t about feeling good or bad, or feeling what another person feels, or caring about them, or acting like you care. The limit, and I did say it is a limit, is how much of your own consciousness is dictated by others with no input or responsibility on your part.

So everybody who isn’t a sociopath is codependent?

Fallacy of oversimplification and exaggeration.

Get back to me when you start trying.

So basically you can’t answer the question so you just digress into some excuse you can’t really justify, well ok then. What is the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath? You can either answer it or you can carry on acting like a dink. End of the day if you cant answer the question that’s of course your problem.

It’s not a trick question I am not trying to rob you, it is something that you can think about and answer and digress on the subject.

You need me to GIVE your thoughts to you?

How embarassing.

And I thought this was a place for conversation.