Aren’t sociopaths supposed to be rule-breakers? Isn’t this a main indicator of their sociopathy? If so, then what’s up with sociopaths when they’re following, not breaking, the rules?
Hmm. This appears to be confusing, but then again, is it really?
Perhaps it’s oversimplistic to see sociopaths as incapable of following rules? In the grand scheme of things, I think it’s fair to say that sociopaths will break rules; they will violate boundaries; they will hurt and violate others with a startling—indeed sociopathic—lack of accountability and conscience.
The sociopath, I think we can say reasonably, will inevitably transgress others, and he will transgress them heartlessly.
However, when we compress the grand scheme of things into something less grand—for instance, day to day, week to week, month to month, even for longer periods—things may be different. When we break down time into shorter periods, we discover that sociopaths, much like many individuals gripped by compulsive, addictive tendencies, often possess the capacity, at least temporarily, to suppress their inclinations—in the sociopath’s case, his inclination to violate and exploit.
Otherwise, how would the sociopath manage, as often as he does, to operate so effectively undetected, or under-detected? In other words, if sociopaths couldn’t, and didn’t, follow rules; indeed, follow many rules—social rules, legal rules, interpersonal rules, employment rules—then there could be no such thing as the sociopath’s “mask?”
Because the sociopath’s mask, ironically, is dependent on, supported by, his capacity to follow rules.
The sociopath’s mask, in a certain sense, is precisely this—the social, legal and interpersonal conventions and rules he follows between, or in simultaneity with, his violating, exploitive behaviors.
His mask is his capacity to follow enough rules, enough of the time, to “blend in,” to seem normal and well-adjusted, to cast himself as among the least likely suspects to be perpetrating the transgressions he perpetrates while operating behind the mask.
And so there is a certain irony here. Yes, the sociopath, in the greater scheme of things, is a rule-breaker, a transgressor with a seriously defective conscience. And yet, at least in many cases, in the smaller scheme of things, he is a good enough rule follower to abet the construction of the very mask behind which he unconscionably violates, or surely will unconscionably violate, his victim(s).
(This article is copyrighted © 2010 by Steve Becker, LCSW. My use of male gender pronouns is strictly for convenience’s sake, and not to suggest that females aren’t capable of the attitudes and behaviors discussed.)
BTW this ad appearing on the top of lovefraud rght now:
http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CKebs5re9LyxehDYBRhPMgipTKkSaD61Ig
Here is something to “munch on”:
http://www.criminalprofiling.com/Psychopathy-An-Evolutionary-Perspective_s289.html
A nicotine ravaged midget – a fart in a windstorm – are we talkin about Mel Gibson on this thread too?
“Some would argue that if humans were an altruistic creature, we may not survive. This view has been represented timelessly through many different vehicles in societies throughout the world (with the most widespread probably being anti-communism and/or capitalism).”
That’s that whole Social Darwinism stuff I do not buy it at all. If you look at the sites run by sociopaths they use this excuse all the time.
Humans ARE altuistic creatures when left to our own devices. I have seen this time and time again. It is only things like class, religion and politics which forces a wedge between all humans and creates the “us and them” and “survivial of the fittest” mindset.
For me the ultimate proof that humans are altuistic is a skeleton of a stone age man found in Slovakia who was born with two useless legs and yet from his remains they discovered that he had been well fed and died of old age. This was proof that someone cared for him. That’s humanity right there.
Interesting article all the same thanks GI.
hens – your post about the woman who came to your door gave me huge chills. those piles of butts……eeeeeeeeee…
Point well taken Frank Lee, but I am afraid there is plenty of merit to this article. Especially toward the end, it does seem logical that they ARE the new Post human. Of course, if we all evolved into this, humanity will cease. on the other hand, mine often said he was a lone wolf. At the time I did not understand this, because it did not add up and register with the number of kids and families he’s had. Now, I have better understanding of this. And – as my child continues to exhibit more and more P traits, I know I was “Served”.
In most cultures it is “Us against them”, but the Nucleus must survive. In my culture, once you are a part of the nucleus, all will protect and stick up for each other. In other words, FAMILY is sacred. What one does outside of the family is of not much consequence as long as it brings no shame or troubles to the family. By associating with the P I had brought both on my nucleus I was forgiven because I remained a part of it. Most cultures do work like that. Humans are not yet able to really appreciate the fact that ALL is ONE. (Hope what I wrote made some sense).
With all their structural brain changes, Ps are now found to have, perhaps, the humanity is separating, just like (questionable) homo sapiens separated from the apes. Ps are growing in number, strength and ability to influence and destroy more lives. I ache for the stories of more Mothers Theresa and Ghandi.
good morning Onestep – Yes it is a night I will never forget.
spaths do not have the inconvenience of an empathic inner life. it removes a whole set of considerations and emotional processing that we partake in when we are with/ observing/ relating to others, changing the sort of information they gather, the patterns they create with it, and perhaps how they process the information.
if i am watching someone and have no consideration as to how they are feeling or what their needs are, how do i act? i am not saying i don’t KNOW from their behaviour what needs or feelings are, but that i have no consideration for those things and no intrinsic inner understanding of them; so how would i act? they are my subjects – not objects – but subjects. i can observe them, read them, and figure out how to get what i want by manipulating the information I have about them.
as i have no empathic inner life, do i believe that other’s do? those who do have an empathic inner life struggle mightily to believe that some others don’t; even after having their lives devastated by the disordered. As a disordered person, I have had no such devastation, so there is no impetus to believe the non disordered are not like me ”“ I figure we are playing the same game, but that I am JUST SO MUCH BETTER AT IT.
The disordered are ’detached’ from the lives the empathic lead. If you have very little emotional impact on me, why would I really care about your feelings? NO, I don’t waste my time with that; it’s not necessary in the paradigm that I live in. I only care about what you do if it messes with my game plan, and my perception of my place as master of the universe.
GettingIt–I have not read the article yet, but thanks for posting it. In waiting for the good to come out of all this nonsense, maybe that is just another sign that I may need to go where I have only been dreaming. I have always had a fascination with true crime, a seed my mom planted in my teen years. Along with The Outsiders and That Was Then, This is Now, I was reading books like The Stranger Beside Me, The Girl in the Box and Fatal Vision. With my interest in psychology, and now entanglement with the S and the N exH, my desire is to combine the two interests and become a psychological profiler.
Like the Angels winning the pennant, It Could Happen!