Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Psychopathy in socionics

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Psychopathy in socionics

    Referring back to the "why choose evil" thread, it is evident that those who choose evil are choosing Ni over Si, and in a very specific context. The superego functions command that you consider your impact on others' experience of them when affecting its elements with your ego block. Say for example, I may act to improve my Si, but if it is at the expense of others' Si some would call that evil. Most people would consider weighing the social costs of the Si vs the personal costs, trying to find a balance via universal ethical egoism (a concordant person might resort to altruism) and sharing knowledge of this balance. A personal egoist presumably cannot find this balance for themselves, and must receive awareness of it from others. An individual egoist will always look for the altruistic frame offered by the other side's ideology (their morality), because it offers a rationale for unmitigated scorn and hate. However in lieu of this balance they will act indifferently to the superego block, or even totally against it. Or if they are smart, they will use one side's moral gaps as a shield by which to cover themselves as they pursue their indifferent interests, thus enabling them to escape the superego's vise to their satisfaction. (this is apparently how dictators do it, the practice of "charismatic sociopathy")

    Psychopathy is the bid to do as much social damage as possible. It is a deliberate act of defiance against social norms. The point of psychopathy is not just to do what one wants in spite of the consequences -- it's to spread the gospel of social indifference and to create more and more indifference to others' status. It is the cause of social destruction. Don't just be content that you have chosen to pursue naked self-interest... make sure that others feel they must take the same course. This in the non-totally insane sense of psychopathy. In the insane sense you have all the features of the messianic killer, combined with an urge to perpetuate this standard of belief. Gadhafi showed us what this looks like a few months ago, however the Columbine killers offer a simpler (and rarer) picture of the phenomenon, in that the Columbine killers were driven by rage without a developed social core, thus they exhibited oppositional defiance exhibited, and thus exhibited unrestrained destructive rage (although I hear they were harder on the Christians than other members of their Mafia). The point of psychopathy is destroy a specific society outright.

    Variants of Psychopaths

    Creator type: the creator type psychopath (ethical psychological egoism) specializes in increasing the indifference around them by appealing to their peers to be indifferent to those they meet. In their view, people cannot rely on each other. The idea that they can is a lie that must be expelled. The more severely their abandonment in the past, the more severely the ethical psychological egoist believes that love is a lie.

    Destroyer type: the destroyer type psychopath specializes in creating distrust, so that concern by others for each other degrades into indifference. By creating distrust, they make others more reliant on them. The aim of the destroyer psychopath is to be the only one trusted, and so be the only one relied on for upholding social responsibility. This in turn is the pathway to power. In a world without love, social responsibility is key. Self-interest is the bedrock of the state.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 12-17-2011 at 03:56 PM.

  2. #2
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You know what makes you a psychopath, Tcaud? You condescend what everyone says that is against what you say. This makes you preach - one way communication. If you gave a shit what any of us actually thought, you would engage us when we ask questions, and you would use any criticism to adapt a more sound argument. Ignoring people and then judging their criticism as the result of something bad or evil means you see only black-and-white.

    And you obviously take most here for fools because you disrespect just about everyone on this board in the process and yet still expect us to think the product of your mind is somehow a paradigm of what is moral and good? Who do you think you are exactly?!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I will not be responding to BionicElmo. However I will discuss his concerns indirectly in a thread on concordancy I am preparing.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Click

    I heard you like OkCupid Tcaud.

    The Officer

    You're a sane, friendly person with a healthy respect for the law. You're not particularly emotional and may have difficulty connecting with others, but because you do tend to follow the law and treat others with respect it's doubtful your behavior will ever be particularly destructive. You're definitely not a psychopath.

    No creator nor destroyer psychopath I'm afraid.
    Last edited by Absurd; 12-17-2011 at 05:16 PM.

  5. #5
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicElmo View Post
    You know what makes you a psychopath, Tcaud? You condescend what everyone says that is against what you say. This makes you preach - one way communication. If you gave a shit what any of us actually thought, you would engage us when we ask questions, and you would use any criticism to adapt a more sound argument. Ignoring people and then judging their criticism as the result of something bad or evil means you see only black-and-white.

    And you obviously take most here for fools because you disrespect just about everyone on this board in the process and yet still expect us to think the product of your mind is somehow a paradigm of what is moral and good? Who do you think you are exactly?!
    Not that constant shitting on his threads and person is any help to the matter.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  6. #6
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Not that constant shitting on his threads and person is any help to the matter.
    He started this thread by labeling all those that ask clarification of his reasoning or that happen to disagree with him constructively, as psychopaths (from another thread). Tcaud isn't a voice of high moral integrity; ignoring people just because they disagree with him is hypocritical. I'm not going to let him accuse people of being psychopaths and then claim he is somehow different or better than them by labeling them as such.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicElmo View Post
    He started this thread by labeling all those that ask clarification of his reasoning or that happen to disagree with him constructively, as psychopaths (from another thread). Tcaud isn't a voice of high moral integrity; ignoring people just because they disagree with him is hypocritical. I'm not going to let him accuse people of being psychopaths and then claim he is somehow different or better than them by labeling them as such.
    There's nothing you can do, because people will judge the propositions based on their own intellect, which, quite frankly, is pretty much homogeneous among healthy people in the same cultural setting. I'm perfectly at peace with their judgment, because I know what it will be. I'm a psychologist, after all. I am indeed not a voice of moral integrity... morality is quite frankly vapid and limited, a rigidly defined tool by which evil people gain power through its gaps. Social ethic is a markedly different matter, especially universal ethical egoism. You should take another look at it.

  8. #8
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    There's nothing you can do, because people will judge the propositions based on their own intellect, which, quite frankly, is pretty much homogeneous among healthy people in the same cultural setting. I'm perfectly at peace with their judgment, because I know what it will be. I'm a psychologist, after all. I am indeed not a voice of moral integrity... morality is quite frankly vapid and limited, a rigidly defined tool by which evil people gain power through its gaps. Social ethic is a markedly different matter, especially universal ethical egoism. You should take another look at it.

  9. #9
    InvisibleJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Si vis pacem
    TIM
    para bellum
    Posts
    4,832
    Mentioned
    202 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Exclamation

    A classic IEI says its better than ILI thread 'with bells on'.

    Its even wrapped in bizarre 'social is better' quasi left wing without substantiation statements.

    Is it any wonder one end of the Ni paradigm likes to think it is magical and that it can commune with spirits?

    Dreamy.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it's a rather solid set of observations. I was thinking, that if you add love as a motivation for destroyer psychopaths, then you get Muammar Gadhafi, who basically ended up with the love of no one but the respect of... some people at least. However love as an overriding motive seems to invoke Fe, so it may not be universal to destroyer psychopaths, just ENFJ destroyer psychopaths.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Regarding selfish creators, I've come to believe that the Joker is, in essence, this personality. The ENTPs here generally agree that the Joker is one of them. The Joker has both harmless and psychopathic incarnations. However, it is always understood that the Joker is insane, and not a gloat. The destroyer psychopath is in essence out to destroy the world, not toy with it. The Joker's goal is incitement and persuasion: he wants to be understood, and the means to doing this is to make more people like him.

    The destroyer personality aims to eliminate that which will not be persuaded. As such, destroyer psychopaths are in essence cruel sadists who aims to eliminate every last shred of decency before them. They differ from the Joker in that their strategy is the elimination of dissent, rather than persuasion. There is a rational variant, which is predictable and self-interested, and an irrational variant which is subject to paranoid delusions. The irrational variant may become fixated on certain characteristics (such as physical features) and develop urges to destroy all who have them.

    Regarding Gadhafi, there was the system which surrounded him and the man himself. Outside the system he was a likable man. However he was violent and believed the system required him to make war. I don't think an assumption of him as a destroyer is necessary: selfish teleological discordant creator (with spiritual features) suffices.

  12. #12
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I could be wrong, but my theory is that if you are famous (whether you are Charlie Sheen or Gahndi), you can't have real love. Real love and fame are polar opposites. A famous person is in a position to help the world objectively as much as possible. They will break romantic hearts, but solve moral issues. A normal person is the opposite. They just want to find caring people and not rule the world so much. A hollywood writer desperately tries to combine the two but in all reality they end up being the former (help world objectively, break romantic hearts) not the latter.

    They're not evil. But they're evil to me, since I am such a romantic guy.

    Like one of my friends says, "I don't want to run for president. I'm afraid I'll win."

    Another interesting point is that morality is often very much at odds with love, a conflict that the show Buffy expressed quite beautifully.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    I could be wrong, but my theory is that if you are famous (whether you are Charlie Sheen or Gahndi), you can't have real love. Real love and fame are polar opposites. A famous person is in a position to help the world objectively as much as possible. They will break romantic hearts, but solve moral issues. A normal person is the opposite. They just want to find caring people and not rule the world so much. A hollywood writer desperately tries to combine the two but in all reality they end up being the former (help world objectively, break romantic hearts) not the latter.

    They're not evil. But they're evil to me, since I am such a romantic guy.

    Like one of my friends says, "I don't want to run for president. I'm afraid I'll win."

    Another interesting point is that morality is often very much at odds with love, a conflict that the show Buffy expressed quite beautifully.
    What does this have to do with psychopathy?

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So we've established that sociopaths are indifferent by nature and psychopaths are people whose aim is to nurture this indifference in others. But do they enjoy this indifference? Unlikely because it can be used against them. However it can be a gateway to something that I think they really do enjoy, and that is dissonance between dual functions. Now I want to qualify: using eight elements, you can't figure this because Fe and Ti may either force a decision between each other or force depending on the circumstances. That's the key: within the domain of the same quadra, functions can be used to sabotage each other, and this is the beginning of evil. Consider, logic applied to people, to others' emotions, particularly without concern for those emotions, is manipulation. Gain without respect for fairness is greed. The converse are also true: letting emotion control the expression of logic creates ignorance. Insisting on standards of equity that are irrespective of a person's financial circumstances creates financial shortfalls and sudden bankruptcy, creating an impulse for excessive wealth. All of these are harmful.

    Destroyer and creator psychopaths diverge over the method used to create this dissonance. Both take joy in it. There are both emotional and practical reasons for creating interfunctional dissonance. For one thing, it creates anxiety that makes people easier to control: the more dissonance there is in a society, the more opportunities there are to push it further. This is proved by the relation of dissonance between beta Ni and beta Se: struggling against overwhelming tides, believing one has the mastery, is the substance of arrogance. Compulsory rule, which robs the ruled of their right to choose their destiny, is tyranny. One invites the other.

    There is a clue as to what delusions invite this conflicts. No functions, responsibly used, will be at the expense of each other. That's simply unwise. However if you believe that the people's choices lie with you, why not force them to do whatever you deem necessary? After all, it's not only your choice, but theirs as well. You know their wills better than they themselves do, in all your infinite wisdom, der Fuhrer! However here we're moving towards the tyrant's position. Throw responsibility out the window, and you get something a little more lighter. How do you get that? Simple: assume the opposite, that the population is ever disagreeing with you. Here we find Dark Knight's Joker. If you can't get through anyway, why not have a little fun? There is a very clear differentiation: the cruel tyrant thinks they are doing the world a service. The joker, on the other hand, harbors no delusions that they are anything but evil, because they believe that the world sees them that way, the creator of chaos and destruction, thus they must be on the other end of everyone else.

    But all this a means to very definite ends. I was watching the newly subbed episodes of Cutey Honey Flash, and I realized what that end was. The antagonists of Cutey Honey Flash, one a crime lord and the other a nebulous super being, are both psychopaths. Sister Jill, the crime lord, is a destroyer psychopath (tyrant) and the other, Panther Zora, is a creator psychopath. Both share a fixation on jewelry. So fixated are they, in fact that the protagonist, Cutey Honey, is able to defeat them both by appealing to their greed and vanity. In the final episode of the original series, Honey defeats Sister Jill by creating a shower of diamonds. Sister Jill is distracted by the jewels to such an extreme that she releases Honey from her disadvantaged position, enabling Honey to kill her with ease. Panther Zora attempts to persuade Honey that she is not that different from her, that she has desires as well. Zora betrays that her drive is for power, but her desire is to be beautiful. For this she needs all the world's riches, to make her appear beautiful despite her ugly appearance. Honey realizes that what Zora truly wants is to love herself, and so she makes it possible by transforming her into a giant diamond.

    On balance, Sister Jill's arrogance in believing she can defeat Honey by deploying insufficient force demonstrates beta Ni nixing beta Se. Zora's obsession with desire suggests delta Fi. INFP and INFJ, types with very different values. One values alpha Si, the function of beauty, where the other doesn't. Thus the circle is completed: by exclusion, the seat of desire is the base EM function (alpha Si in this case), where the seat of personal drive is the base IM function. One is a means to self-improvement, the other a measuring rod for social esteem and status. Psychopaths, we infer, are dominated by their pursuit of fulfillment in terms of their base EM function, something measured in terms of perfection or imperfection, acceptable or unacceptable. Black and white, as it were.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Imagine a person who hated themselves. They hated how they looked, who they were, what they had, what they thought, what they felt, what they wanted, what they valued, what was done for them, what they accomplished, what they aimed to achieve, what they enjoyed, what they felt was acceptable behavior... the very fact that they were alive at all. But they just kept on going, because as much as they hated what they were, they were exactly that and could not change themselves. They lived and continued to function. People took mercy on them, pity... helped them survive. In vengeance, they were as mean to these people as they could be. They took advantage of them, spited them, abused them. And to spite them all the more, they thought to corrupt them. But they couldn't, because the hearts of those who loved them were pure, filled only with love, concern, and regret. So to break their spirit, this person endeavored to prove love a lie to everyone else who wasn't as pure -- those who were open to believing the world filled with either love or hate. To make others feel unloved, unwanted... even their children. All to make the people who loved them hate themselves for continuing to love, for not being able to hate. Except their hearts were filled with love, and so they were filled with pity all the more. To be trapped in that situation... wanting to vanish, to die, and to be endeavoring to make the world an icy reflection of oneself, so that it would permit the destruction to commence, that it would act towards oneself as one had acted towards it. You might one day learn that the effective way out is not to keep trying the impossible, to crush the problem from without, but to arrange that the persuadable create a barrier against love's intervention -- out of concern for its welfare --, and get to the heart of the matter, which is not the destruction of love, nor the hatred of others, but the destruction of the true object of hate -- oneself -- by turning the world directly on oneself. To find the reflection of oneself in another, and to constellate it to kill.

    This seems to me the liberal traditionalist side of destroyer psychopathy: "I'm not worth it. People should just let me die. I'm just a burden. I can't change. As much as I would like to show love, I love myself more. But I don't want to love myself... I want to hate myself. I keep doing bad deeds... I should hate myself."

    There is a truism here: those who do not change when they should, do so because they pity themselves. The world is the one that is wrong: it should change for them. Those who change themselves do not indulge in self-pity because they blame themselves for their problems, not the world. The traditionalist has contempt for those who do not change to suit them; the reformer has contempt for those who will not change themselves to better their own lives. Both have pride, one in the beginning, and one in the end.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-13-2012 at 01:30 AM.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now imagine a person who was all of the above, except that they go one step farther and say, "Well, I really love myself because I am all these loathesome things, I recognize that. I don't hide from myself: I see what I am and I accept it. Because I hate myself for doing all these terrible things, I am a very respectable person. So unlike all those other people who wallow in self-pity, I blame no one but myself, and I'm proud of that."

    Here is the position of the Jack Nicholson's Joker... hell, maybe Jack Nicholson himself. Can't you just imagine Jack Nicholson saying this to you in a private conversation? (well maybe not... while keen to others' ability to think in psychopathic terms, he himself does not so indulge, if interviews and news reports are any indication).

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The way I see it, these people believe that they are entitled to love. As such, they feel free to ask people for their love. This in turn means that they do not associate psychological distance with action. They mean malice to others and yet they are honest about the fact that they want what is denied by this malice. It's completely absurd and they know it... this is why they are bizarre and clown-like. FTR the Joker is not the only character like this... I've known a few real life Jokers... if you look hard on OKCupid I'm sure you can find some. Granted they are not killers (that I know) but they do joke around about trying to kill people. It's also worth noting that the nonsensical variants of these are that way because they have SiFe EM types... other psychopaths may be notably less open about their intentions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •