This semester I taught both Forensic Psychology and Abnormal Psychology at the University of Bridgeport. The students there are an ethnically diverse group and I think are fairly representative of America’s young adult population. In both classes we discussed those individuals who have a “a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others.” I wrote antisocial personality disorder, sociopathy and psychopathy on the blackboard before we began our discussion. I then asked the students if they had heard of these terms and if they could tell me the definitions.
Only a small percentage had heard the term antisocial personality disorder, nearly everyone had heard the word sociopath, about a third had heard the word psychopath.
The next question to the students was, “What do all these terms mean?” Someone asked if antisocial personality referred to a person that didn’t like to be around others. Someone else said that psychopaths are “out of touch with reality, psychotic.” Most who heard the word sociopath associated it with criminality.
The students were shocked to discover that all three terms basically refer to the same disorder.
That same week, I spoke with an internet search expert. He told me that the term antisocial personality disorder is searched through Google about 5,000 times per day. The term psychopath is searched 60,000 times per day and the term sociopath is searched 110,000 times per day. These numbers are consistent with my survey of university students. My findings indicate that the American Psychiatric Association has done the public a great disservice with their boggled naming of the disorder.
An interesting historical fact is that this disorder used to be called “moral insanity.” Insanity is a legal term that indicates that due to mental defect a person is not responsible for his/her actions. Although many people believe that the morally insane have a mental (brain)defect there is considerable resistance to saying this absolves them of responsibility for their criminal acts.
This week we discussed the case of John W. Hinckley, Jr. the man who shot President Reagan and Mr. Brady, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a mental hospital. A psychiatrist for the prosecution, Dietz testified that Hinckley viewed his actions on March 30 as successful. “It worked,” Hinckley told Dietz in an interview. “You know, actually, I accomplished everything I was going for there. Actually, I should feel good because I accomplished everything on a grand scale….I didn’t get any big thrill out of killing–I mean shooting–him. I did it for her sake….The movie isn’t over yet.” In short, Deitz saw Hinckley as a sociopath who was grandiose and trying to impress Jody Foster with his actions, though I believe he actually diagnosed him with borderline personality.
I reflected to the class that it seems that individuals like Hinckley and Dahmer (the serial killer) should be considered special cases of sociopathy and not lumped with the rest. There are sociopaths who are so grandiose and obsessed with power that they seem to lose touch with reality. Not that they are schizophrenic and have delusions or hallucinations, but their interpretations of the world cannot be construed as “normal.”
This is actually where the term “borderline” came from, as is used today to refer to “borderline personality.” The borderline is some point between neurotic and psychotic-borderline psychotic actually. So perhaps we could consider psychopaths those sociopaths who are so afflicted that their thinking and behavior indicate they have lost their grip on reality. Some psychiatrists do think of psychopaths as the worst sociopaths.
Should those with moral insanity who commit crimes be treated differently than others? Should John Hinckley be released now that he has been judged not psychotic? These are questions for another week.
See also:
https://lovefraud.com/blog/2006/07/30/confusion-about-sociopaths-pyschopaths-and-antisocials/
If you have a personal example of a sociopath’s “loose grip on reality” please share it with us in a comment.
I think that what we’re struggling with here is more semantics than differences of opinion.
While many experts define Psychopathy as simply a more severe ASPD than Sociopathy, other experts define Sociopathy as a set of attitudes about life resulting from unfortunate social conditions and Psychopathy as a psychological illness.
While I usually adhere to the first definition for reasons of simplicity in communication, (It seems to be the more popular definition), I too am aware that there is a type of Psychopathy that I think is truly distinct from Sociopathy. These folks are different. They don’t feel much at all. This makes them very cold and calculating. Garden variety Sociopaths seem like very disorganized, often unhappy people to me. This other type of illness, the cold calculating form of psychopathy, is really different.
They may do evil things simply so that they may feel something, anything. Honest, sometimes I think that a stimuli must be extreme in order to register. Sometimes I wonder if this variety of Psychopath might need to commit a gruesome ax murder in order to get the equivelant thrill of you or I enjoying a bowl of rocky road icecream. They seem so removed from remorse, fear, anger, love, pleasure – feeling in general. It’s got to feel empty.
When I taught young children in a nearby church we used to play together in carefree, silly ways. Sometimes one of the two narcissists in the church would watch us. He always looked puzzled, and a little, (very little) sad. He really didn’t get Joy.
The worst form of psychopath might be like that, only I bet they can’t even feel regret over not feeling. I think they simply have an appetite for stimuli, the way we might have an appetite for more rocky road icecream.
I wonder if there are aspects of modern life that make emotional numbness more likely, and more acute in those who would otherwise not be so severely effected. I’m thinking of TV, video games, movies, discordant music and less family time.
Waddayathing?
Elizabeth Conely: How would you rate someone like Ted Bundy or what’s his name, Gary Ridgeway or BTK? Can’t remember this fools name. What category do you put them in? Oh, and then their Eileen Wornos (spelling)?
@....... BloggerT1765
You wrote:
“Wini Robert Hare in is book Without Conscience (the 1993 version page 170) states “I can find no convincing evidence that psychopathy is the direct result of early social or environmental factors”. ”
I tend to agree with you on this.
When I spoke to my ex’s sister for the first time she told me he had “always been different” (her words) to the rest of the family. He was the second-youngest of eight (now the youngest after his younger sister passed away). They grew up in a working-class family where their parents did their best to provide for their needs and according to the sister, that was never good enough for him. She told me that, even as a child, he was obsessed with money. He also had a reputation in his home town for criminal/fraudulent behaviour, so much so that he actually had a nickname because of it. According to her none of his seven siblings displayed any kind of criminal behaviour and all are leading normal law-abiding lives.
So I think he was just born bad, to put it plainly. He conned his family repeatedly and everyone else who crossed his path. He seems incapable of living an honest life – lying, stealing and cheating is integral to his character.
You will never be finished here! Here we will aLL stay unconfined to a makebelieve world our Concience as our Guide ,Our intuition our compass, Our Soul seeing the truth! For we have conquerd the enemy! It IS Ourselves! LOVE JJ
Dear Wini,
“How would you rate someone like Ted Bundy or what’s his name, Gary Ridgeway or BTK? Can’t remember this fools name. What category do you put them in? Oh, and then their Eileen Wornos (spelling)?”
I don’t think much about these highly publicized cases. There’s so much hype surrounding them. I find that combing through various second and third party opinions get real information about these personalities rather difficult. I’m really interested in people I actually interact with each day, but I’m not so interested in famous people.
If it wasn’t Monday AM, I’d spend an hour or so digging for enough background to form an opinion. Since I’m up to my eyeballs in homeschool parent tasks and Thanksgiving dinner prep I’d rather hear your opinions. What do you think of these folks?
I will tell you about a famous personality whom I consider to have been a psychopath: Nicolò Machiavelli. I base my opinion on his own words, preserved for all time. Here is a fascinating study in psychopathy:
http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm
Here is Clinton, here are our greedy CEOs, here are our clever, conniving oilmen and slick Senators. If you can wade through “The Prince”, these slimeballs will be an open book to you from that point onward.
Best of all, it’s free.
Here’s my favorite website. As far as I’m concerned, this is the sanest organization on the world wide web.
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/
BTW Iwonder:
“What was my ex? Sociopath or Psychopath”
I know you didn’t ask me, but my vote is Sociopath, based on the following:
1. Plenty of emotional stress – sleep problems, jealousy, tantrums – vs psycho emptiness and unnatural calm
2. Not willing to apologize, which is something a Psycho would do whenever it might make his life smoother or make a victim more malleable.
3. Not successful enough in manipulating and exploiting employers
4. In general – simply not as slick as a psycho, who would operate with the single minded viciousness of a shark, rather than the chaotic randomness of a weasel.
It seems to me that people struggle with the “terms” as it relates to the extent to which one breaks the law.
So a psychopathic murderer SHOULD be considered more dangerous as proof exists that he has broken the law and killed someone. Yet those psychopaths who have ruined lives through the emotional and psychological pain and eventual short/long term suffering are no less dangerous.
They are immoral and unethical, yet we forget the pain and damage that exists when it isn’t covered under the law. They leave people suffering from lost jobs, alcoholism, drug abuse, personal dysfunction, psychological suffering and sometimes leave their own children unable to function in life because of their psychopathy. THAT IS A CRIME TOO. But it is not recognized by the courts. I don’t know of laws that exist that cover lies and fraud unless it results in loss of money or death.
What we fail to realize is the potential these sick people have to ruin otherwise healthy people, commit “legal” fraud and potentially commit murder because of their lack of moral fiber, lack of ethics, values, lack of a strong belief systems and lack of conscience. We forget about those proven killers who “seemed” emotionally healthy just because they didn’t have previous arrest records.
They are just as dangerous, if not more, because they won’t be stopped and have potential to continue their destruction.
What’s in a name? The behavior speaks for itself.
I consider all these types as extremely dangerous. Even though I never saw a shred of violence in the one I dated for a short time, I would not put it past him to murder if it suited his purposes.
I agree Stargazer….. normal people “fear” the law and law enforcement to some degree so when people have killed, stolen, committed documented crimes.
I fear that power and control freak who mind f&%$s people and can’t control his greedy and sexual impulses and envious temper when he doesn’t get what he wants………the sociopath who has abused those closest to him and blames them for all that has happened to him. Then overindulges the SAME people he claims to have been hurt by….. They are the ones likely to take what they want, when they want it and manipulate as they are doing it.
Unfortunately, if it doesn’t make the news, or the latest tv series, it doesn’t seem as important to the rest of the public. I think the damage THAT causes is far worse.
keeping_faith: I think you give them more credit than they warrant. I think they don’t care, just because it doesn’t register to them to have to care … whether it be the law or any one else. Most of these folks look at positive attention towards them as favorable, which makes their interaction in a positive atmosphere easier. Negative attention takes more of their time to resolve. Being the center of attention, no matter how they get it makes their control of the situation easier because they know they are being focused on.
I don’t think they fear the law at all. I think they realize the law is there and what the law consists of, that the law could take up a lot of their time … and that is why they stay clear of the law. It’s the entanglement the law can provide on their time.
Peace.