Dealing with sociopaths

There is a genetic basis for a disorder that accounts for some of the violent criminal behavior, but this doesn't necessarily mean it accounts for all violent criminal behavior. This group of people have a perfect mask of sanity, they don't have conscience and they are not necessarily violent criminals.

At least 3 terms continue to be mixed up and misinterpreted. Perhaps a quote from Robert Hare's book, "Without Conscience", will provide some clarity:

Sometimes the term sociopathy is used because it is less likely than is psychopathy to be confused with psychoticism or insanity.

Some clinicians and researchers, as well as most sociologists and criminologists- who believe that the syndrome is forged entirely by social forces and early experiences prefer the term sociopath, whereas those- who feel that psychological, biological, and genetic factors also contribute to development of the syndrome generally use the term psychopath. [...]

A term that was supposed to have much the same meaning as "psychopath" or "sociopath" is antisocial personality disorder (APD), described in the 3rd edition of the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM III, 1980)[...]

The diagnostic criteria for APD consist primarily of a long list of antisocial and criminal behaviors. When the list first appeared it was felt that the average clinician could not reliably assess personality traits such as empathy, egocentricity, guilt, and so forth. Diagnosis therefore was based on what clinicians presumably could assess without difficulty, namely objective, socially deviant behaviors. The result has been confusion with many clinicians mistakenly assuming that APD and psychopathy are synonymous terms.

So, APD refers primarily to criminal and antisocial behaviors; and psychopathy refers to both personality traits and socially deviant behaviors. In other words, the majority of criminals have APD, but most criminals are not psychopaths. Let me explain this further...

It was my experience with deviant people that finally brought me to the subject of psychopathy, and finally all started to make sense. Before, I was trying to save someone who could not even be saved so to speak, the stress that he provoked me was making me miserable and my health was progressively deteriorating. I was projecting all kinds of struggles into a person, that didn't gave a damn to begin with. The key point is that psychopathy is genetically based and that there is a lot of confusion with the clinical terms. Criminal behavior does not equal psychopathy. In fact, 80% of imprisioned immates are NOT psychopaths. Some people prefer to use the term "sociopath", because Hollywood among others had loaded the word psychopath with a lot of stereotypes "a la Hannibal Lecter". But a psychopath is not exclusively a serial killer (like the guy in "No Country for Old Man"). In fact, it is much more subtle, some clear examples can be found in your own government and in CEO s of Big Pharma!!! Martha Stout's book introduction has a good synopsis of the psychopathy traits, unfortunately she uses the term sociopath where actually psychopath would be more appropriate This is so because it has a genetic basis, it is not something that society provokes, although society might play a role in how it manifests. To put just one practical example: some psychopaths already were killing cute little animals when they were kids just for the fun of it, even if they were raised in healthy environments were compassionate values were emphasized. Anyway, here is an excerpt of Martha Stout's book introduction:

Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.

And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.

Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.

You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.

In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world.

You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered.

How will you live your life?

What will you do with your huge and secret advantage, and with the corresponding handicap of other people (conscience)?

The answer will depend largely on just what your desires happen to be, because people are not all the same. Even the profoundly unscrupulous are not all the same. Some people - whether they have a conscience or not - favor the ease of inertia, while others are filled with dreams and wild ambitions. Some human beings are brilliant and talented, some are dull-witted, and most, conscience or not, are somewhere in between. There are violent people and nonviolent ones, individuals who are motivated by blood lust and those who have no such appetites. [...]

Provided you are not forcibly stopped, you can do anything at all.

If you are born at the right time, with some access to family fortune, and you have a special talent for whipping up other people's hatred and sense of deprivation, you can arrange to kill large numbers of unsuspecting people. With enough money, you can accomplish this from far away, and you can sit back safely and watch in satisfaction. [...]

Crazy and frightening - and real, in about 4 percent of the population....

The prevalence rate for anorexic eating disorders is estimated a 3.43 percent, deemed to be nearly epidemic, and yet this figure is a fraction lower than the rate for antisocial personality. The high-profile disorders classed as schizophrenia occur in only about 1 percent of [the population] - a mere quarter of the rate of antisocial personality - and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that the rate of colon cancer in the United States, considered "alarmingly high," is about 40 per 100,000 - one hundred times lower than the rate of antisocial personality.

The high incidence of sociopathy in human society has a profound effect on the rest of us who must live on this planet, too, even those of us who have not been clinically traumatized. The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth.

Yet surprisingly, many people know nothing about this disorder, or if they do, they think only in terms of violent psychopathy - murderers, serial killers, mass murderers - people who have conspicuously broken the law many times over, and who, if caught, will be imprisoned, maybe even put to death by our legal system.

We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense.

Most of us would not imagine any correspondence between conceiving an ethnic genocide and, say, guiltlessly lying to one's boss about a coworker. But the psychological correspondence is not only there; it is chilling. Simple and profound, the link is the absence of the inner mechanism that beats up on us, emotionally speaking, when we make a choice we view as immoral, unethical, neglectful, or selfish.

Most of us feel mildly guilty if we eat the last piece of cake in the kitchen, let alone what we would feel if we intentionally and methodically set about to hurt another person.

Those who have no conscience at all are a group unto themselves, whether they be homicidal tyrants or merely ruthless social snipers.

The presence or absence of conscience is a deep human division, arguably more significant than intelligence, race, or even gender.

What differentiates a sociopath who lives off the labors of others from one who occasionally robs convenience stores, or from one who is a contemporary robber baron - or what makes the difference between an ordinary bully and a sociopathic murderer - is nothing more than social status, drive, intellect, blood lust, or simple opportunity.

What distinguishes all of these people from the rest of us is an utterly empty hole in the psyche, where there should be the most evolved of all humanizing functions. [Martha Stout, Ph.D., The Sociopath Next Door]

The best books available in this area, are Robert Hare's "Without Conscience", Martha Stout's "Sociopath Next Door" and Paul Babiak/Robert Hare's "Snakes in Suits". Also "Mask of Sanity" by Hervey Cleckley, its a classic (available on line, Mask of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley PDF - book download). There are also plenty of references in scientific journals and a considerable amount of websites.

Here are a few useful links:

http://www.friedgreentomatoes.org/articles_index.php (with LOTS of articles and references that explain main concepts), http://friedgreentomatoes.org/ is an exc source for victims.

http://saferelationships.com/

http://www.geocities.com/lycium7/psychopathy.html

The Trick of the Psychopath's Trade: Make Us Believe that Evil Comes from Others

Neurobiological basis of psychopathy

Early Signs of Psychopathy

Psychopathy and Corporations