Psychopath vs. Sociopath. Why do people keep getting it wrong?

[jklinders]

Psychopath vs. Sociopath. Why do people keep getting it wrong?

Because people don't care enough about those who treat them like shit to bother with semantics. That would be my guess.

I really don't know if that is a fair comment. How many people who get this shit wrong actually know someone with a mental disorder? And how many of those try to see where they are coming from. I am fairly well acquainted with a man who at least at one time fell under the sociopathic spectrum. He still has a couple of the ticks associated with the commonly expected behaviors but is otherwise a pretty cool guy who is trying to turn his life around and be a good father.

A few years back, I worked with a schizophrenic. When on his meds, he seemed to be slow thinking to the point of being mentally challenged. he needed them though as his thoughts would cycle outside of his control without them. He described it once...as something like one part of his brain thinking too fast for the rest of it to keep up. Pretty good guy, utterly harmless. needed meds to function at least mostly like the rest of us.

It's hard to understand this stuff from the outside. Doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

But recently I double-checked and found that it was the other way around: psychopaths are the manipulative ones who are able to disguise themselves while sociopaths are the ones with a near-inability to control themselves. And I have to admit, this was genuinely surprising, because just about everything I had seen previously had claimed the opposite.

Who are you? I have also recently looked up these two terms for, err...reasons. With pretty much the same results. Explaining them will just be repeating what most have already said, so I shall resist that. Just wanted to show my curiousity towards a seemingly coincidental self fueled revelation. Are you me? Evil twin? Projection of self? Gahh! Too many thinks!

 

[Benpasko]

I also find the changing terms funny when all they are are medical labels for assholes - the REAL assholes in life that embody all the sentiment in that title.

Monster is another apt name.

Seriously? "People with mental disorders are monsters"? I really hope I'm misinterpreting you, because that is backwards as fuck.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I also find the changing terms funny when all they are are medical labels for assholes - the REAL assholes in life that embody all the sentiment in that title.

Monster is another apt name.

Seriously? "People with mental disorders are monsters"? I really hope I'm misinterpreting you, because that is backwards as fuck.

In my experience, it's the other way around. Anyone who does anything considered monstrous is automatically assumed to be mentally ill, excepting sometimes when they are part of some other group society doesn't like. Once people have checked to see if they are Muslim or gamers or communists and all, if there's no easy explanation, it's easy to go for mental illness.

This is an extremely bad idea, for all sorts of reasons. Particularly when people accept that the people have good reasons for doing what they do, but still label them as mentally ill because they don't approve.

 

[CrystalShadow]

There is no "sociopaths are like this psycopaths are like this" and really the hollywood sexy psychopath does not exist. Nobody out there is Patrick Bateman or Dexter. Pleny of people out there are criminal, drug addicted sleazeballs who beats his wife, can't hold a job and constantly manipulates the few people who made the mistake of caring about him. That's what a real psycopath looks like.

Though undoubtedly likely to be hard to prove (and I certainly am not even sure I can find clear reference to it anywhere)
It seems to be the opinion of some that many company CEO's can be described as Sociopaths/psychopaths, because, within reason, it almost seems like what makes someone good for that job benefits from having a personality like that...

I guess if there's any truth to that, it would be interesting, but also a little disturbing when you think about it.

Seems plausible though when you consider how many of them seem to be incredibly greedy, self-centered types for whom 'never take no for an answer' seems like some kind of mantra.
(yes, that's a generalisation obvious. Still, makes you think...)

As for medical definitions...
Having been diagnosed with Aspergers, but also told that that's apparently not a thing anymore. (It's simply classed as Autism these days), it does seem that medical terminology for things that fall under the category of 'mental illness' does seem to change quite a bit for any number of reasons...

Though I have no idea how the words psychopath or sociopath have been used medically, if at all...

 

[Thaluikhain]

As for medical definitions...
Having been diagnosed with Aspergers, but also told that that's apparently not a thing anymore. (It's simply classed as Autism these days), it does seem that medical terminology for things that fall under the category of 'mental illness' does seem to change quite a bit for any number of reasons...

Also depends where you live, I think Asperger's is still recognised over here.

 

[CrystalShadow]

As for medical definitions...
Having been diagnosed with Aspergers, but also told that that's apparently not a thing anymore. (It's simply classed as Autism these days), it does seem that medical terminology for things that fall under the category of 'mental illness' does seem to change quite a bit for any number of reasons...

Also depends where you live, I think Asperger's is still recognised over here.

Oh, to be clear, there is still a diagnosis, and recognised condition. And plenty of people (even the medical community) continue to use 'aspergers' to describe it even in the places where the new definition/name is in use.

What's changed in practice is simply that on a formal diagnosis 'Asperger's syndrome' is now referred to as 'high functioning autism'.
Or, (perhaps ironically), 'High functioning Autism (asperger's type)...


... Yeah, that last one is especially dumb...
But, what are you you gonna do? XD

 

[Someone Depressing]

Because many psychopaths call themselves sociopaths and vice versa in order to avoid misconceptions caused by pop culture.

My sister was diagnosed as being a psychopath at 15 but she's one of the nicest, most compassionate people I know (empathy=/=compassion, the care for human life). You're surrounded by psychopaths and sociopaths - they're your bankers especially. who would have thought that people with a gift for manipulation got off on making money off of idiots? - and you're just going to have to live with that.

You can't tell a psychopath, a sociopath or anyone with any mental conditions from television because most television is fiction, and thus distorts the truth for the sake of drama/comedy/whatever.

 

[beastro]

I also find the changing terms funny when all they are are medical labels for assholes - the REAL assholes in life that embody all the sentiment in that title.

Monster is another apt name.

Seriously? "People with mental disorders are monsters"? I really hope I'm misinterpreting you, because that is backwards as fuck.

You've ever suffered at the hands of one of them?

Both my father and uncle are sociopaths and they've devastated our family.

Simply because they have a mental disorder does not excuse them from their actions.

Go shove your sanctimonious outrage somewhere else, it won't fly with me or anyone else who knows what they are like. Don't try to make it out like they're victims, they've made plenty of their own just being themselves.

 

[Johnny Impact]

There's no real way to get it right. Psychology changes all the time. Disorders reclassified, terms redefined....the short version is even the experts don't know what goes on in our heads. Maybe someday we will.

Words are bandied about by people who neither know nor care about the real definition. Hollywood is especially guilty of this. Take the term schizophrenic. Hollywood schizophrenia refers to the straitjacketed, hopelessly insane, gibbering victim of his own brain who has no chance of ever being anywhere near normal and is only kept from harming himself by restraints and tranquilizers. That can happen but such extreme cases are quite rare. Real schizophrenics range up and down a spectrum from highly functional to non-functional. I work with a paranoid schizophrenic who has had at least two complete breakdowns, yet she shows up on time and does her job every day. Only after you knew her for years would you start to think there might be an issue. They say you shouldn't self-diagnose, but I've taken tests that show me to be a low-level schizophrenic, myself. I have all of the so-called negative symptoms. They're mild, and thankfully I don't have any of the positive ones, but they do make life harder.

So beastro, I'm curious if you think a chronic inability to experience joy automatically means I hurt others at every opportunity. Is it that black and white for you?

 

[beastro]

To make an extreme example, think about pedophiles. A pedophile might victimize children, which is obviously unjustifiable even if they are mentally ill, but they are also a victim of their own psychology at the same time.

They're lost any claim to being a victim and just mentally ill the moment they went out and irreparably harmed someone else.

But if someone is mentally ill, they ARE a victim, even if they also do bad things.

Sry, don't agree. Having a mental illness does not immediately grant you that title and all the convenience that comes with victimization these days. At most you'll have me agree with:

Conversely, being a 'victim' doesn't mean you can do no wrong.

But that still doesn't invalidate that they're warped, twisted, monstrous people, it's just that there's a medical explanation for it oppose to the rest of us with or without the help of or conscience.

You cannot treat sociopathy. There are no medications, there is no therapy, a sociopath cannot learn to fill in the emotional blanks like someone in the autism spectrum can to varying degrees because their desire for control and their narcissism undermine that.

Wouldn't you agree that being a sociopath harms a person, by causing them to be unable to participate normally in social interactions? It's not a choice they made, and it negatively impacts their life, so I would call that being a victim.

Harms them? They have a great time doing what they do without any guilt over it. My father always got a kick playing up being a wonderful father and husband to everyone he ran into to the point where close friends refused to believe my brother, mother and I when we told them how abusive he was behind closed doors. To them it all ties into their love of power and manipulation.

That comes down to the crux with sociopaths compared to others who are mentally ill, they see nothing wrong in what they do, it is not some abnormal behaviour that swoops in and overpowers them be they a pedophile, a schizophrenic or anyone else. They do not question is what they do is wrong no simply because they have no conscience, but also because of their narcissism they believe they're always justified in their actions, hence why it drives them mad when you catch them solidly in a lie, also why it angers them when they proven wrong, because in their mind they're infailable and god-like.

 

[Benpasko]

To make an extreme example, think about pedophiles. A pedophile might victimize children, which is obviously unjustifiable even if they are mentally ill, but they are also a victim of their own psychology at the same time.

They're lost any claim to being a victim and just mentally ill the moment they went out and irreparably harmed someone else.

This is just a hard disagreement I guess, I think someone can be both victim and victimizer. I think it's important to recognize that, because the two are usually linked. I disagree with the idea of 'losing any claim to being a victim'. If you ignore their suffering, how do you figure out what lead them to this course of action?

I'm not disagreeing that sociopaths are often (Usually, even? I don't know, I don't have stats for that) incredibly harmful, but that doesn't instantly make them not a victim of their disorder.

Wouldn't you agree that being a sociopath harms a person, by causing them to be unable to participate normally in social interactions? It's not a choice they made, and it negatively impacts their life, so I would call that being a victim.

That comes down to the crux with sociopaths compared to others who are mentally ill, they see nothing wrong in what they do, it is not some abnormal behaviour that swoops in and overpowers them be they a pedophile, a schizophrenic or anyone else. They do not question is what they do is wrong no simply because they have no conscience, but also because of their narcissism they believe they're always justified in their actions, hence why it drives them mad when you catch them solidly in a lie, also why it angers them when they proven wrong, because in their mind they're infailable and god-like.

That's one kind of sociopath, but it's not indicative of all of them. I have no doubts that the person you were interacting with was like that. But it's wrong to think that anecdotal evidence is indicative of how things 'really are'. I think it's dangerous, on an intellectual level.

Narcissism is a seperate disorder that often coincides with sociopathy, but isn't a required component. Theodore Millon suggested 5 types of Sociopathy, based on attributes on a spectrum.

Spoiler

Harms them? They have a great time doing what they do without any guilt over it. My father always got a kick playing up being a wonderful father and husband to everyone he ran into to the point where close friends refused to believe my brother, mother and I when we told them how abusive he was behind closed doors. To them it all ties into their love of power and manipulation.

'Harm' wasn't the best word earlier, but it fit with the situation. Even if they don't feel bad about it at all, they're missing out on parts of the emotional spectrum.

Edit:

But if someone is mentally ill, they ARE a victim, even if they also do bad things.

Sry, don't agree. Having a mental illness does not immediately grant you that title and all the convenience that comes with victimization these days. At most you'll have me agree with:

Being a victim isn't a 'title', we're not talking about some bullshit gaming controversy. Being a victim is an inevitable, unavoidable part of life, and it's a big part of the reason people do the things they do.