The Sociopath Next Door

Lemondrop kid

Valmont wrote: »

My problem would be that the word "evil" itself would be very hard to pin down and define for research purposes.

That's one of the 'challenges'.
Even large swathes of the list posted can apply to a variety of conditions.
Still, I like the idea of quantifying or defining parameters for evil. Could be pretty useful in a num of situations (legal, social, philosophical etc)

p.pete

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

That's one of the 'challenges'.

Not just one of the challenges - the first challenge - how can things proceed without covering that one?

Valmont

I think that finding some sort of consensus as to what should define (for research purposes) being evil would be close to impossible.

pablomakaveli

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

That's one of the 'challenges'.
Even large swathes of the list posted can apply to a variety of conditions.
Still, I like the idea of quantifying or defining parameters for evil. Could be pretty useful in a num of situations (legal, social, philosophical etc)

Theres a program thats sometimes on Discovery called "Most Evil". A psychiatrist called Michael Stone has devised a scale of evil which is a scale of 1-22. In the program he looks at famous murder and serial killer cases and looks at the background of the killer as well as the murders they commited. Depending on factors like mental conditions of the killer, whether the murders were planned or spur of the moment, if the murderer tortured their victim etc he will rate them on the scale of evil.

Here's a wikipedia entry for the program-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil


In relation to the book it seems fairly sensationalist. I'm sure most people would have several traits from the list while not being what could be considered a sociopath.

Pat Mustard

The whole 1 in 25 stat seems a little unrealistic. Check out this link. This guy, Hare, thinks it's 1/100. http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html

Maybe the author has lowered the standard to take in a certain degree of 'asshole-ish' behaviour'?

I do remember reading a book called 'Frozen Blood' about serial killers in Ireland. The estimate was that 1 in 1000 was a psychopath and that 1 in 1000 psychopaths was a serial killer (1 in a 1000,000 of general population).

I keep forgetting the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath, except there isn't a hell of lot between them, as far as I know.

Outta curiosity, might give the book a quick look though.

Genevieve

Zimbardo, P (2007), The Lucifer Effect: How good people turn evil: London Ridler

You probably all read this at one point in your undergrad but it is very interesting!

A journal that is very interesting in relation to psychopaths though is

www.psychiatrictimes.com/p960239.html

Spartan09

I have a few difficulties with the term "evil" because of the religious connotations that it brings up. Calling someone "evil" helps people to distance the person and the henious act that they committed from themselves. Looking at people as good or evil helps people to make sense of the acts of others and makes them feel better about themselves. For me each act and behaviour has a distinct function, be that for material gain, sexual release etc. To ascribe behaviour as being the work of "evil" is too simplistic and ignores the multitude of societal, genetic, behavioural and experiental which contribute to all behaviour, good or bad.

Genevieve

Do you think that Zimbardo simplifies evil?

I agree with what you said above, there has to be an integration of many aspects in order to understand behaviour.

Many human beings make an awful habit of categorising others into 'boxes' in order to understand oneself or/and to make oneself feel better. On that note though it seems to be a societal norm and now all I can think of is social control and Michel Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" which is really interesting!

guderian

There are two types of psychopath: violent psychopaths, who are often incarcerated, so can come to the attention of people like Professor Hare, and

social psychopaths, or sociopaths, who do not commit violent crimes and generally keep under society's radar.

I have met four of these chilling individuals. I have learnt to recognise them for my own sanity.

I think it is very foolish to dismiss phenomena like this. Social psychopaths are dangerous predators. You will rue the day you met one, believe me.

Their main characteristics are:

glib charm,
manipulation,
lying,
bullying one-on-one, so no one will believe the nice person is actually vicious.

They will make false allegations against you and your word will not be believed.

They have no remorse for the harm they cause. They enjoy hurting people psychologically and are masters at it - they have had a lot of practice.

All I can say is, they exist, and probably the best site is www.bullyonline.org . Both Martha Stout's and Hare's books are good, but because they use composite characters (presumably for fear of libel) they don't quite catch how remorselessly brutal a social psychopath will be when they ensnare someone; if you realise what they are, particularly if you tell other people to warn them, this makes you target number one.

Social psychopaths are untreatable. The least dangerous of the four I have met I suggested therapy to, and her facade of control broke down completely and I was subjected to a massive verbal attack of narcissistic rage.

eth0_

guderian wrote: »

I have met four of these chilling individuals. I have learnt to recognise them for my own sanity.

Unless you are a psychiatrist, psychologist or similar, I find it very hard to believe you have met FOUR psychopaths. And I presume you knew them for a reasonable amount of time, otherwise you wouldn't be able to label them as such...

p.pete

guderian, I don't believe you set up an account here for this to be your first post on boards. I think this thread's been discussed enough, but if you feel this unfair feel free to send me a PM, thanks,
p.pete