Amoral V sociopath

Torakx

I'm not sure if this is the right forum. I am pretty sure it will go over everyones head in the psychology forum as it is mostly aimed at clinical theory and philosophy seems far apart there.

Over the years I have been interested in psychology and behaviour in people and animals.
Psychopaths and sociopaths are very interesting, but i don't fully understand them yet myself. I can only guess at some of the differences between them.
One being an awareness of consequences being missing in the former.
Both sharing a lack of empathy.

What I have been noticing about myself since getting heavily into philosophy is that I have more and more shed the old biblical morals i grew up with and seem to see no need for these when I can determine myself what is preferred and better for others and myself. Ussually based on an ethos of insisting everyone has the right to their own purpose in life.

The result seems to be that I have become more aware of my effect on others and more concienscious(dylexic spelling sorry) in general.
But in saying that, I do see many similarities with sociopaths and my amoral self.
So i was wondering if anyone has any insights on that or would find it interesting to discuss.

I'm interested in the effects philosophy has on people. The wayit changes thought patterns and self regulation.
Also I wonder if sociopaths had a great knowledge of philosophy and therefore a greater awareness of consequences, systems and the ebb and flows of power, would they be more socially capable?

Are there, or was there, any well known philosophers who were sociopaths?
I'm not sure where this is going. I rarely have an end game with these type of ponderings...
Possibly a cure Ok a whole other debate is open there on whether a cure is really what the world needs.

An example of sociopaths showing "love", was where i read an article stating thatsociopaths can love animals.
But I think that this love is about what the animal means to them. In my iew probably something to control and may appear like affection. Or could be real affection for that which submits completely.
if that was the case, it maybe that the need for others to submit to their power, is a fear mechanic, a need to grasp at something to anchor oneself.
often sociopaths get angry when something they want is taken away. Even violent. This also seems like a fear of loss.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is the right forum.

MOD: It's the right forum if philosophers and their philosophical positions are incorporated in your discussion.

Torakx

I may need a proverbial hammer, but will try

Peregrinus

Torakx wrote: »

What I have been noticing about myself since getting heavily into philosophy is that I have more and more shed the old biblical morals i grew up with and seem to see no need for these when I can determine myself what is preferred and better for others and myself. Ussually based on an ethos of insisting everyone has the right to their own purpose in life.

Just take out the word “biblical” there, and I think what you are describing is a normal process of human maturing.

Everybody is raised with a moral system. It’s instilled us by our family and wider community, partly by what they explicitly teach us but mostly by how we observe them to behave and to relate to us and to one another. Part of the process of becoming an adult involves interrogating, testing and modifying the moral system that we have inherited so that, over time, we move from making moral decision out of the habits that have been inculcated in us, towards making moral decisions that align with values and beliefs that we have adopted as our own.

For most of us, this is an extended process rather than an event that happens over a short period.

And, for most of us, the scrutiny of what we have inherited involves ratifying a large part of it, and rejecting only a small part. I may not have embraced the views I was given in childhood about, say, sex before marriage, but I’m pretty much on side when it comes to murder, theft, lying, cheating, bullying and a host of other issues. I think that’s pretty typical.

Torakx wrote: »

The result seems to be that I have become more aware of my effect on others and more concienscious(dylexic spelling sorry) in general.
But in saying that, I do see many similarities with sociopaths and my amoral self.

Why are you calling yourself “amoral”? Your description of yourself suggests that you are highly moral - you reflect explicitly on moral issues, you take responsibility for your own moral judgments, you have identified at least one fundamental value (“everyone has the right to their own purpose in life”) which provides you with a ground for making moral judgments.

And, what are the similarities that you see between yourself and sociopaths? From what you have said so far, I’m not seeing any similarities.

Torakx wrote: »

I'm interested in the effects philosophy has on people. The wayit changes thought patterns and self regulation.

Hmm. Wouldn’t Aristotle suggest that the causation is the other way around? He was emphatic about the importance of “habits of virtue”. We raise our children to, e.g., not hit one another, and share their toys, from an age where they are wholly incapable of moral reflection about violence or selfishness. We reinforce this with rewards and punishments, praising the behaviour we want to foster and disapproving of other behaviours. In due course this is backed up with explicit commands - “Mummy says you must share your toys” - which, still later, turn into commands from God, or from the individual’s own conscience. And the end result of all this is that, when the individual at last becomes capable of independent moral reasoning, he is already strongly disposed to value non-violence in the settlement of disputes and unselfishness in the sharing of toys. And this of course affects the moral system that he adopts for himself in maturity. (That’s perhaps why we generally reject so little of our inherited morality.)

Where does sociopathy come into this? Well, sociopathy is generally thought of as a disorder that is manifested in lack of empathy, the violation of social norms and an inability to form or maintain functional social relationships. The causes are unknown and may be diverse, but I suppose it could in some instances be caused or contributed to by chaotic, disordered or inconsistent experiences in early life. It’s hard to learn how to love people if, in infancy and early childhood, the people who are supposed to love you are always or frequently unloving, or violent, or chaotic, or simply absent. If you’re raised in an environment where you get seriously mixed messages between what people say about human relationships and what you observe them to do in their relationships with one another and with you, the formation of sound “habits of virtue” as a basis for mature moral decision-making may be disrupted. Which in turn can lead to a very erratic moral system in adult life.

If this is correct, then a sociopath loving animals is not necessarily surprising. The individual may have learned that the uncomplicated and undemanding love of an animal is more dependable that the more messy relationships they have had with humans. Plus, a (domesticated) animal typically takes the subordinate role in a relationship with a human owner, and this may meet the individual’s need to feel in control in the relationship, arising out of formative experiences in chaotic relationships.

It’s not so much that sociopaths can’t feel love, perhaps, as that they don’t know how to respond to that feeling, or how to express it, or how to let it manifest itself in how they live.

I’m sceptical that introduction to this or that philosophy will either induce sociopathy, or help to alleviate it. But I can see that a sociopath could be more attracted to some philosophical positions. We’re all familiar with the stereotype of the sociopath who adheres to Nietzsche, or to a Nazi interpretation of Nietzsche, or simply to Naziism, or some variation of that. My instinct is not that they became sociopaths because of exposure to this philosophy, but that they adopted this philosophy because they are sociopaths.

(Clarification: I’m not saying that Neitsche was a sociopath, or that Nietzscheans generally are sociopaths, or anything of the kind; just that some sociopaths adopt (a selective and distorted version of) Nietzschean thinking for themselves.)

Torakx

https://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/12/27/ethics-and-sociopaths/

The author makes a good point, using the example of a fictional world where everyone was a sociopath acting ethically.
He mentions that sociopaths can act in line with societies ethics or morals and if everyone did so without the "crutch" of emotions, the world might be a better place. Bearing in mind anger would be one of the emotions he would be considering heavily.
My own view is that jealousy can be a strong trait with these "disorders", but maybe not in all cases.
After having read mostly only Nietzsche so far, I am reminded of the idea of the Ubermensch(or whichever was the one for over-human in german) in "Thus Spake Zarathustra".
It seems that a world of Ubermensch might be quite similar to a world of amoral philosophers.
I am keeping in mind that I have yet to read counter philosophies to gain an apposing perspective to Nietzsches.



http://www.sociopathworld.com/2009/11/sociopathy-as-legitimate-life.html

This one is scary for me
I can very much relate to this philosophy. I saw it in Nietzsches writing and I often have thought the same way after considering many things from a dualistic perspective.
It can be noticed also I think in the thread on love and attachment in this forum. A sense that everyone should be free and not attach. The moment you assign attachment you are not yourself. Maybe this is not a necessity though.. I can't remember the conclusions right now

There is a very interesting post underneath in the comments section.

I couldn’t have said it better. It’s absolutely true in my experience, which is why I kept saying that it doesn’t matter what people think of me because it says more about them and their state of mind than it does me. That isn’t arrogance; it’s clarity. Only I would probably add that it’s not so much the feeling, good or bad, that traps you, but one’s attachment to the feeling. Instead of trying to shortcut or repress the emotion, merely notice it and let it go on its way is what I would say.

I don’t really know that this way of thinking is “sociopathic” either. Must detachment from emotion equal pathology? I don’t know. I do know it’s akin to Eastern mindfulness practices, especially Vipassana Buddhism. Taking a step back and being aware of what one is feeling rather than identifying wholly with it would probably do a lot of people a lot of good, imnsho.

This has been the conclusion I have come to myself.
When i decided I was going to improve my-self, to be content, I decided that my emotions were distracting and also could give me a serious disadvantage in many situations. And with daily practice I have been paying close attention to my unconscious signals. Body language and emotions.
After processing Thus Spake Zarathustra, I have become adept at nearly instantly stopping an emotion and asking myself, how do I feel? how do I want to feel? Almost like I'm forcing my mind to go from emotional to logical, but still able to acknolwedge those emotions. Only I now look at them with curiosity in a bid to find out more and improve my-self.

The most interesting part to me right now, is that I am actually a very emotional person. My super power is empathy ^^ and I read people the way people read books. So much so that I often feel like people are blind and I feel extremely awkward around these exposed feelings of suppressed anger, desire, jealousy..all emotions are clear.
So i am pretty sure I am not a sociopath lol Unless the theories on it are not yet conclusive. if I was though, I would reccomend it any day. I think with the right education and respects for life it could be a powerfull thing for humanity to share and learn.

So have I become better at being amoral while holding at the same time a full range of emotions? I can vouch for the emotions anyway
But usually pain for others suffer(which I also can now decide to divert via investigation of emotions), I find it hard to feel hate and always have.

And does this seem like some philosophies could bring certain if not most people to be more like sociopaths in the aspects mentioned positively, while still having the choice of feeling their emotions?
Is that also close to Nietzsches view of the overman. And if not what's next? haha
I know deep wells and all that ( see my signature below), i still sit on the fence, but I allow myself to live according to this ethos or way until I need to change or adapt to suit life.
It seems to be a great combo and i have been wanting to share this "thing" I discovered for a while now. Especially with those who suffer with depression.
Because I previously and still am suffering physically in some respects and have suffered chronic depression and anxiety in the past, it has been my saving grace. This ability to look into myself and seperate to a degree from emotions, as a choice in the moment(if I remember, which is a matter of habit).
I should say i have also processed a good few books on NLP, behaviour, personalities etc etc. Which gives a lot of clear attention to where certain emotions can be rooted and "anchored" in some instances.

Just in case it isn't obviously stated. I don't think amoral means without emotions.
I'm saying that this amoral type of philosophy or ideas I have come to think, seem to have lead me to be closer to this profile of a sociopath, but with the bonus of having the full range of emotions and regrets.
It's just my perception when controlled can be lead to whatever I choose.
Imagination? Fantasy?
Possibly an extreme right side dominance, giving strong abilities for fantasy(schizophrenic levels?), but moderated now through philosophy, via my new habit of thinking logical instead of just fantasy.
My personality type changed from a consistent INFJ (Introvert, Intuitive, Feeling, judement), what I see as my personality rooted with religion and right brain thinking, to an INTP(Introver, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving), the philosophical right brain dominant.
I see the philosophical ability as being mostly linked to the introvert trait. As most I know of, who are very philosophical are introverted and those less so seem to be more extrovert to a fairly similar degree of extroversion.

Sorry a long post!
I'm still searching for sociopathic traits in famous philosophers. Here is a start...
https://philosophynow.org/issues/65/Philosophers_Behaving_Badly_by_Nigel_Rodgers_and_Mel_Thompson


Edit: posted late. Thanks Peregrinus, that was very thought provoking.
I think I elaborated on much of your questions in this post. It migth have given a better idea of the connection I was seeing.

And after thinking about all of this now. I have maybe figured out something new about myself
Always I am saying or thinking or feeling that I am all things. In that I have fully acknowledged that I have the ability in me to be like any other person, because of my instincts and way the brain develops personalities and nuerosis.
Nietzsche wrote " I do not trust a man who does not admit he is a murderer within". I found that interesting and I think that we are all capable of murder, so why not a lot of the other things. Which means that serial killer we hate is the reflection of our own ability to do the same. That is the root of our hate...maybe.
Nietzsches abyss comes to mind.
Or as they say on Trailer park boys, the "sh1tabyss" the drunk Leahy figths and gets devoured by, every season

If we accept we are the people we originally hated, I think we will be unable to hate them, while also believing truly that we love ourselves as we should.

Torakx

johnny osbourne wrote: »

tldr but i guess your pockets are fairly full,

funny how the rich always try to justify taking the bread from poor childer's mouth

Bad guess
Had we a competition to see who suffered austerity the most, I might be a good one to place a bet on( so sorry I'm not Enda kenny :P). If you make that presumption based on my language skills alone, I understand completely.
I am not some well trained and educated person.
I taught myself to read, at home with 2 types of dyslexia( meaning school was a complete waste of time). I am a book worm for many years and so I write as I have read and I speak in common slang, as well as fairly ok spoken english.
No other reason to guess my pockets are full, unless you mean proverbial pockets, with proverbial sh1t. Then I can possibly see way to agreeing
I write a hell of a lot of crap. Consider introverts you meet as extroverts through text, on average. And vice versa it seems.
different means of communication. No body language distractions.

Peregrinus

Couple of points, Torakx:

1. You say that you decided that your emotions were “distracting”, and that you endeavour to take moral decisions by reference to logic rather than emotions. Through a process of self-awareness and willpower, you seek to identify your emotions and discount them so you can take logical, not emotional, decisions.

2 . But you also say that when you decided to improve yourself, your goal was “to be content”. And contentment, of course, is an emotion. So it seems to me that, far from discounting it, there is at least one emotion that you are putting at the centre of your decision-making process.

3. When you talk about recognising emotions in others, you mention anger, desire and jealousy. It strikes me that these are all negative, destructive emotions.

4. Could it be that when you talk about emotions, and identifying and excluding them in the way you do, you are thinking primarily of negative and destructive emotions? And that if you feel a positive or creative emotion - affection, sympathy, happiness, a desire for the welfare of another - you don’t attempt to factor that out of your moral decision-making process? That’s the only way I can reconcile your various statements which otherwise appear to me to conflict.

5. I still have to quibble with two things you say. First, you say that your superpower is empathy, because you can read people’s emotions like you can read books. But empathy isn’t the capacity to discern what other people are feeling; it’s the capacity to feel it with them. If you observe that A feels angry and understand that it’s because he thinks he has been treated unjustly, that may make you perceptive, but it doesn’t make you empathetic. To be empathetic, you have to share his sense of suffering an injustice, and his emotional reaction to that.

6. And you continue to describe yourself as amoral, but you don’t explain why you regard yourself as amoral and I honestly can’t see why you would. You seem highly moral to me.What do you think “amoral” means?

Torakx

Nice points again
I know I can be very confusing. I find it extremely difficult todescribe accurately a lot of things that I think of feel. Often I go too far and use words that make my thoughts appear absolute.

1. yes I think at times, my emotions can be an instigator and not a diffuser for situations where others are emotional and acting out.
It would be so easy for me to join in, either feeling anger or sadness or fear.
A good recent example was when I was attacked from behind in town one night not so long ago. Some drunk guy broke my nose by taking a swing at me after running up behind me. When I turned to him right after contact, I had a tiny split second where I was ready to fight and when he saw me eyes he nearly fell over. I had the chance then to get revenge.
However he was with 4-5 other drunk friends and they also looked like theywould enjoy a good fight. Had I allowed my anger to win, I would have had no trouble going for all 5 and probably do some serious damage and get myself in trouble with the law and courts.
Instead I let him back all the way to his friends as I stared at him and then I backed off to flag a garda car.
That is a prett good example of the type of situation I would not want my emotions to be involved in at all. It seems logical and much safer to be calm and think. And it may have saved me from a serious beating aswell.

2. I see happiness as the polar opposite to sadness and i think it would be healthy to find a balance of the two. I aim for content for that reason and intend not to yoyo too much between the other two. I may indeed be putting emotion at the center of my goals, if content is an emotion. I see it as a logical choice, something I have thought about for a long time and decided that would be my way for now. Other people I know are aiming for happiness and seem to be sad because they cannot sustain it constantly...My choice was not made with emotion.

3 + 4. I think what i was trying to say was that I like to option to choose if I follow my emotions. Sometimes theyare good, sometimes theyare bad, depending.
If I saw someone mugging another person on the street, I am guessing i would decide then and there if I have the ability to help. If I do and part of my strategy is to use anger I would let it out. If I maybe wanted to calm an angry person or resolve a situation between people, I might turn tocomedy and try togrow an emotion of pity and love for this poor person doing this bad thing. I feeling of understanding which would help me reach my goals.
I still feel things normally like everyone else, I just seem to be able to consciously choose. Like an inner voice saying ok, lets go with that for this reason. Detachment! Thats the word. I learned to detach from my emotions, even though I feel very strong emotions and empathy.

5. I can read peoples emotions because I feel them as soon as I look at their face. I don't feel the emotion myself because now I would detach, but I recognise the emotion and I know how those things feel.I can simulate it in my head from memory. Why I also get faint when people talk about operations and accidents.. I simulate everything and start to get weak haha
My ability to read people so well is a natural talent(emotional intelligence I suppose) I think and a mix of research.
I know I have empathy though for sure.
At an uncles funeral I was balling my eyes out. But not because my uncle was gone. It was because I could see all these people upset and my sister beside me upset and then I cried for them. I can accept death very easy and let people go. But other creatures or peoples suffering is difficult.
So according to the profile of a sociopath, I don't fit.

6. I am trying to be amoral maybe. Or possibly I feel I am, because for now I think that is good for my situation. Like the time I was attacked. My choice not to put someone in hospital(and possibly get myself killed in the process) was based on logic and not morals. Had he been alone I most likely would have held him down and broken his nose to make sure we were even again. and probably added interest with a black eye or broken fingers etc. I believe I should pay for my misdeeds and would accept the same. Although I am just supposing here. I might alsojust forgive him and consider him weak for attacking what he fears.

But I also felt sorry for the guy after. Because I understand he probably does not have what I have. My freedom of thought and my contentment, my abilities etc I pitied him not long after. I think the next day or later that night.He probably broke his hand aswell. My nose healed fine and I really didn't suffer that much.
My actions were totally amoral, because at the time I shut down anger and rage and just stopped, looked at the situation and calculated intuitively the chances of me getting out in one piece if I attack. Right or wrong had nothing to do with it. And anger also had nothing to do with it. Well it didn't as soon as I stepped back and regarded the situation. The flash of anger went quickly and I began thinking, what is the best thing to do strategically.
I would say that any feelings toattack must be base din anger, to have a need to bring punishment. Maybe a strong sense of justice?


I guess I am not fully amoral. More like I have chosen tobe amoral when it suits.
But the thread topic is about the differences between amoral philosophy and sociopaths for me.
I am seeing many similarities.
When I choose to ignore what feels like right or wrong, I can decide if it is right or wrong for me and my goals.
It may be I am a "good" person only because my goal is for everyone to have their own life experience in peace and that I find others suffering to be painful(a selfish thing). It may be because i feel i deserve to have that freedom to live my own life and if I deserve it, then everyone else does too. That would be just in my view.

I am interested in what you think about the idea that an amoral philosophy could bring regular people with emotions to a stage where they can be almost like sociopaths, by deciding not to feel instead of just feeling and having no control over it.
In my case I can still feel all the emotions, I just now am more likely to choose not to in order to help people better, help myself or be safe and content.

I should say that I also sometimes think that I should not have too much happiness. and if I wanted I can decide not to feel that too. The happier I am, the more difficult it is of course, but i am getting really good at detaching and thinking about my emotions and their origins while having them.
It feels like schizophrenia, but I have looked into that. I think more likely it is because i am very right brain dominant and my mind is fantasy based at the core, I can imagine many things and have a flexible mind.
Logic doesn't come naturally to me at all. But philosophy has helped so much for that.

But what if everyone learned to do this? To be a bit more like the sociopath. Would it be a better place? Or just the same?
To feel empathy, justice, anger, love, but to be able to decide if thatis suitable at any time, by detaching in the moment of feeling.

KomradeBishop

Personally, I think that everybody has the capability to become a sociopath, in the right circumstances - e.g. look at Nazi Germany and treatment of the Jews.

So, I think that to a large degree, exercising (or not) morals and emphatic emotions to that affect, is a personal choice - although one which may require conditioning/deconditioning (e.g. soldiers training for war may go through deconditioning/desensitizing, Nazi Germany used propaganda to desensitize most of an entire population against empathising with Jewish people).

Some people also have a deficit in their ability to actually feel emotions - but I don't think that necessarily affects their ability to have and exercise morals; you can have a rabid socio/psycho-path, who is a perfectly functioning and moral member of society.

Nearly all people are heavily incentivized to have empathy and strong morals though, simply to function in society and have a decent quality of life - which is why, indirectly/unconsciously, nearly all people choose to be emphatic/moral rather than sociopathic.

If you look closely though, you will still see plenty of people picking and choosing who they will be emphatic with, and certain people/groups who they will choose to have more sociopathic/dehumanizing attitudes towards - which is a pretty good way of seeing how nearly everyone is capable of displaying sociopathic traits.

KomradeBishop

Was just reading an interesting article on 'computer aided telepathy' (not as woo-ish as it initially sounds), which had a good part on psychopaths and empathy, which backs extremely well my view that sociopathic/psychopathic traits are actually a choice, that anybody can make:

Research from Keysers and others reveals that these apparently cold-blooded predators are actually good at detecting emotions. In one 2013 study, Keysers asked 20 criminal psychopaths to watch short videos of two people either caressing or striking one another’s hands – a simple way to evoke an emotional response that in ordinary people activates brain regions associated with emotional processing. Initially, these participants did not have much activation in regions involved in feelings or pain. But when Keysers instructed them to empathise while watching, their patterns of neural activity became fairly normal.

His interpretation is that these violent predators can feel empathy, but often choose not to. They deploy the ability strategically in order to win over their victims and secure their trust, and then shut it down in order to swindle, rape and kill. So a mind-reading machine wouldn’t necessarily turn a psychopath into a creampuff. Instead, he might become an even more effective manipulator – more cunning, more perceptive, and harder to outwit.

The rest of us aren’t really so different: we also evade or down-regulate our mind-reading abilities when it becomes painful or inconvenient. In one 1988 experiment, psychologists in Canada set up a donation table in a busy corridor and monitored the pathways of passersby. If the table featured a picture of a dejected child, people veered far away from it, in order to avoid getting their heartstrings jerked. In another experiment, people told that a fellow participant had been given electric shocks downgraded their opinion of him – and justified it by concluding that he probably deserved it. Rather than feel his feelings, they found ways to emotionally distance themselves through rationalisations. In similar ways, people frequently underestimate the suffering of foreigners, people of other ethnicities, or prisoners.

These and other findings in the new science of empathy converge upon a new appreciation of how malleable empathy can be. It can be used for good or ill; it can be turned up or down. It is motivated, argues Jamil Zaki, the director of the Stanford Social Neuroscience Laboratory. ‘We tend to view it as something relatively automatic, but people exert control over their experiences of empathy,’ he says. Although it seems self-evident that people who feel more empathy will behave more morally, in practice there is only weak evidence that feeling someone else’s pain induces you to do something about it. Some data even indicates that people who sense others’ emotions most intensely tend to avoid situations that will expose them to deep suffering. Their own pain prevents them from helping those who need it the most.

...

The more we know about empathy, the less it seems to guarantee moral rectitude. People generally feel more empathy toward members of their own racial, political or social ‘tribe’, and limit the amount they extend to outsider. It directs you to respond to the needs of the person right in front of you and downgrade those who are abstract and far away. Empathy often biases you toward people who look and act like you, at the expense of those who do not. It is easy to manipulate, responding strongly to cuteness, proximity, or particularly heartbreaking details. ‘A morality based on empathy would lead to preferential treatment and grotesque crimes of omission,’ writes Jesse Prinz, a philosopher at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/can-we-harness-telepathy-for-moral-good/

Excellent article - gives a really interesting scientific view of empathy.

Torakx

That was a nice find! Thanks.
It seems to be confirming a lot of my feelings and intutions.
But I am unsure on the conclusions in that article.
And I am reminded of myself and my journey so far, since taking on philosophy and partly psychology in the past.
As I mentioned above I seem to be purposefully doing the things that those tests showed psychopaths could do. If they can apparently feel emotion at will, they are possibly only different to others, in that they might choose emotional reactions, regarding empathy anyway.
Apparently from what I have learned so far, psychopaths have trouble keeping sight of consequences. Apparently if you direct their "will" or desires to something more preferred than the well known socially unacceptable behaviour, they can be kept on track.
It maybe the environment growing up before the age of 12 that decides the persons chances of growing the right neuron paths to manage future consequences.

‘A morality based on empathy would lead to preferential treatment and grotesque crimes of omission,’

I think this part I would dissagree with, partly.The conclusion seems too much of a blanket statement. But also a true statement when you read the link I introduce further down.

I have always saw my empathy as a creative intuitive right brain "styled" skill. My imagination alongside empathy and visual thinking combined, helps me simulate in 3D space while watching body language and emotions.
I do feel like I can see into the future based on motivations of people involved. Asking myself what I would want in this situation. With other peoples relationships I feel I can see years ahead. Some people I can tell will have an unhappy future in 10-20 years, based on ...all that I know and see? It's hard to talk with intuition or explain it's reasoning, most of the time. Predictions or thoughts seem to take my whole existence into account. So my intuition can also mislead me if i trust it too much. I would guess especially when dealing with personal fears, where I might not be as rational and fall prey to bad intuition from learned experiences in the past.
That has been one of my latest challenges. To try and figure out when my intuition is wrong and right.


I also found another interesting article, from the same site.
http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/maria-konnikova-empathy-sherlock-holmes/

A good read, using the character Shelock Holmes to consider other sides of empathy.
In this article, it is explained that there are two forms of empathy they are finding. Emotional and cognitive.

If you read through it, you might be reminded of some of my thoughts earlier in the thread.
My goals with empathy and trying to detach it from emotion, but also use it with emtion when I need to.
It is embodied in the character of Sherlock Holmes it seems.
And to be honest, I would make an excellent detective I'm just not so good at being corruption...It is an admittance of weakness of character I think. So I would destroy myself if I thought I had become corrupt(even though corruption is a matter of perspective right?)

Feelings are not entirely absent from Holmes’s empathic calculus, but they are not allowed to drive his actions. Instead, he acts only if his cognition should support the emotional outlay. And if it doesn’t? The emotion is dismissed. It’s not about the feelings for Holmes, but about the perspective-taking, the hypothetical departure from self and into a world of possibility that is the root of imagination and inspired reason. In short, it’s about the creative departure from your own mind — whatever the motivation behind that departure happens to be. In sterilising his empathy, Holmes actually makes it more powerful: a reasoned end, rather than a flighty impulse. As Watson remarks: ‘Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his.’

I laughed reading that last part in bold. That is me to the core.
I save strong emotions for those times when I am alone watching a film or documentary. Those times I feel it's safe to let them lose for a bit.
To let them out when dealing with someone I care about(or just anyone) would be irresponsible and disrespectful most of all, if they made things worse.
For this reason I feel that forcing me to feel emotions when I chose not to, is highly disrespectful and is probably the only way to make me angry if trying.
I would only really get very angry, if someone tried to make me angry.
There is a loop there I am wary of. A self feeding circle of anger I wonder about, but have not seen. I avoid it by being logical and calm.
Much like a sociopath or psychopath it appears from reading.

If someone is trying to make me angry, I will do something they do not like as a form of justice. Justice with a purpose to teach and keep me safe on the long term. Not justice for the sake. It has to be effective to last and cause as little harm as possible. Efficient I guess! (jesus that sounds like a psychopath alright :P)
For that reason a psychological parry and flanking manouvre mentally speaking is what I usually resort to. after as many warnings as I can plainly make.

If anger is expected, it will never appear. Or if they succeed in that, I am very afraid of that loop that I see others fall into, that reaches a rage where they lose all control. From having strong emotions, it doesnt sound like something I want to be involved in!
So I will most times reach a point where I feel the anger is there as an emotion and adrenaline starting to kick in. At that stage, it is a decision between letting go completely or controlling completely.
I channel that into a calm logical choice.
What will make this person stop? and What will remind this person of this situation when they go to do it again?

In those cases I do use empathy as a "Weapon". To figure what they like and dislike in the moment and give them a taste of what it is like to be forced to feel or experience yourself, when you do not want to.
But... I am also way too empatethic to peoples emotions. I could really hurt people by letting out alltheir secrets, even strangers. But I don't have the heart. I know how that would feel. Hence, the reality is that I willjust avoid, or try my best to get away from the conflict.
It makes me appear weak, unable to handle conflicts etc. But I think people don't understand how well I understand each conflict and the price it would cost them for me to take part..
In hindsight I may be a sociopath LOL
But if I am, I am delighted with my sociopathic self.
I think it is more likely that it is a form of intelligence.
And because society deem left brain logic as the highest form, considering the prevailance of IQ tests, I think empathy and self control regaridng emotions, has bee drastically underrated. Leaving the whole world possibly prone to dangerous people with these particular skills.
I think after reading those last few articles(and self analysis), it is likely that the difference between a "normal" person and a psychopath, is that a psychopath has neuro related issues that prevent the from being able to imagine the consequences. Imagine was my own word used. i have heard forsee or to understand.
I think it takes a good imagination to simulate the consequences.

Which brings me to wonder. Am I a sociopath as well by definition?
Apparently the definition is without empathy, which has always sounded stupid, set beside the view of psychopath. Well apparently i am not by the traditional definition. PHew, we can allrelax now... So much for facts and science

Was I correct then(considering the last article) in saying that if everyone learned to detach from their emotions, the world might be a better place?
I think maybe it still could go either way. The deciding factor must then be the environment. As seen in the anarchy thread, the biker gang mentioned went into this anarchistic state, to adapt to the environment they found themselves in and not because they were naturally like this.

But i am interested to know whatothers reading this think now about sociopaths and especially in relation to themselves, their morals and their own emotional responses. Do you folks think you prefer to be emotionally irational or to have the chioice?
Does an amoral philosophy suit this the most? A moral philosophy I think would be a nightmare and that is where I can agree with that first article.
It would be dangerous to have irrational thought mixed with a fixed structure of thinking.

Sorry for the text bomb...
I try not to "soapbox", I have issues holding to that, as I relate to everything subjectively and from my experience(the only one I trust). When I am using empathy, I am that other person or thing, so always subjective I guess... In an objective way :P
Oooh.. the contradictions!

KomradeBishop

While the article I linked pointed out the damaging effects of empathy, it also counterpointed that by encouraging focused use of empathy - e.g. applying it to faraway places where people are in need of help, but who tend to be ignored (e.g. Palestine, or many African nations), to spur political change there.

So, I think that targeted use of empathy like that - but having a good moral system for knowing when/where to apply it (and when to reserve it) - may be important.

Empathy is still an extremely important motivating force in people, so while yes, I think people learning to detach from their emotions is a useful ability, it is important that people know when to apply it and when not to - when to let themselves feel the emotions that a certain situation invokes.

I think for this reason, having an extremely solid moral philosophy - for knowing when to apply empathy and when not to - is very very important.

An amoral philosophy wouldn't really leave you with any guidance of when to apply empathy, and you would likely be subject to the cognitive biases that the article I linked describes - such as not empathising with people far away (Palestine/Africa), tending to rationalize/justify harm caused to people (because it makes you feel uncomfortable through empathy, and it's easier to just believe they deserve it), etc. etc..

If you take on an amoral philosophy, your empathy can ironically end up making you think/act in an immoral way, so your morals are likely very important in guiding how you apply your empathy.

Torakx

KomradeBishop wrote: »

While the article I linked pointed out the damaging effects of empathy, it also counterpointed that by encouraging focused use of empathy - e.g. applying it to faraway places where people are in need of help, but who tend to be ignored (e.g. Palestine, or many African nations), to spur political change there.

Yeah I do think it can be used that way. But also that the act of using focussed empathy might limit planning and judgement toward logical goals.
In the case of foreign aid, the money might make it go to the wrong people, and if emotions are so irrational as I am making them out to be, judgement and the succuess of that cause could be impaired.
If a person became aware of this, but continues to invest emotion and funds, could it be then said that the act of empathizing to the same directed cause, was then an act of self gratification?
Does this bare any significance to all other diverted or far foccussed empathy. Maybe we have a fun debate on charities to be had!

I tend to think that if you really want to help someone, you can do it better when you have a goal and can think clearly.
I am probably talking in absolute terms again and maybe more philosophically than practically.

As a reaching out motivator yes for sure, it would compell and give motion toward. However I think that is covered when being able to choose when to feel and when to think, if I can be allowed to put a giant wedge between them for a moment.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So, I think that targeted use of empathy like that - but having a good moral system for knowing when/where to apply it (and when to reserve it) - may be important.

Empathy is still an extremely important motivating force in people, so while yes, I think people learning to detach from their emotions is a useful ability, it is important that people know when to apply it and when not to - when to let themselves feel the emotions that a certain situation invokes.

I think for this reason, having an extremely solid moral philosophy - for knowing when to apply empathy and when not to - is very very important.

Ah, I realize now you answer some off my previous points here..
In that this foccussed empathy needs to be managed with a framework.
That, I think we both agree on. I am still figuring out the Amoral part.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

An amoral philosophy wouldn't really leave you with any guidance of when to apply empathy, and you would likely be subject to the cognitive biases that the article I linked describes - such as not empathising with people far away (Palestine/Africa), tending to rationalize/justify harm caused to people (because it makes you feel uncomfortable through empathy, and it's easier to just believe they deserve it), etc. etc..

If you take on an amoral philosophy, your empathy can ironically end up making you think/act in an immoral way, so your morals are likely very important in guiding how you apply your empathy.

Amoral I am pretty sure is the lack of right or wrong, good and evil.
I still feel like my general/personal philosophy so far is amoral. But I also know what is right.
I am thinking this knowing is the emotional empathy(mentioned in that second link) which is based on my ego and its need to protect the "self".
My own empathys are pretty strong towards animals, homeless people and innocence lost. Because I grew up with animals at home, I am under threat of being homeless for years and I feel a loss of innocence from my childhood, being forced to attend religious propaganda, that exploits peoples fears.
So these to me are natural things to empathize with. I know these will be the things for now, that will cause my emotions to well up more often and more easily than with other things, at least in every day life and probably in extreme situation my emotional empathies would be biased towards those too.. i'm not sure.

My personal philosophy at the moment is my signature. After i read those words, I started to see that this is one of the best overall methods to deal with life that I have come across. One that suits my nature. Which is to stop, watch, and wait, until I see a reliable pattern appear.

For me to say that something is morally right, is to say that my perspective and experience is more important than someone who apposes that perceived right.
My cognitive empathy I am guessing, is holding on to this one.
My emotions would say, a rapist is wrong, but my cognitive says that nobody is fit to make a moral judgement. however as you mentioned regarding backing it up with a strong moral philosophy, I choose to side with the idea that everyone has the right to their own experience, so the rapist would be "judged" to be wrong, from a cognitive sense, only because I decide to think in philosophical terms. Otherwise my emotional empathy says, "hang them from the trees".

I am wary when you say moral philosophy. Because the most popular ones have been rather dangerous. Specifically religion and cults.

What if we pose the same thoughts about mass guidance of empathy,to a world of mostly amoral empaths.
where everyone felt emotion, but had the cognitive ability to decide when to use it.
I think you get the same result either way. Both require a framework for guidance or nothing has "value". Propaganda either way has a chance to disrupt judgement.

If that was the case, then I guess amoral V sociopath doesn't mean much at all, until these frameworks that connect emotional attachments to objective principles, are considered.

My original question, accidently highlights the main point.
What morality and someone with an apparent lack of morals have in common, is the framework they adapt to and it is that which counts the most.
Which makes us both correct for different reasons. mwuahah go fence sitting! Nietzsche put one up on the board

If that is true, then the logical conclusion regarding psychopaths(who now we think can feel emotions) and a "cure", is to give them the right framework or philosphy, as you mentioned.
Ok.. I'm slow to get there, but I get ya

I suppose the conclusion I got to here, is that neither moral or amoral is better or worse when it comes to empathy.

Thanks for your patience also. I post too much text.

MRnotlob606

I think the morality is relative in most places, even if you're you don't subscribe to biblical precepts. Psychopaths are described as people who lack the ability to be empathetic towards individuals.Even if see yourself as being amoral that doesn't mean your a sociopath in anyway.

It demonstrates your capacity to be able to scrutinize traditionally-held assumptions and social conventions.You probably see your self as amoral due the context of where you are. I'm assuming you live in Ireland and Ireland is still quite a catholic country.

zeffabelli

Mental illness and diagnosis are arguably an attempt to medicalise morality in the first place.

Science is amoral. It has to be to remain neutral.

Psychiatry claims to be a science, yet how can you call someone a sociopath or amoral unless you lay out a morality by which to measure it against in the first place.

Here is an interesting talk on Jesus being a malignant narcissist, the teachings of Christ being a tremendous foundation on which the west lays its laws and ethics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AoJd3bWjwg

As far as empathy goes, there is cognitive, emotional and compassionate empathy. A sociopath can appreciate another person's point of view to exploit it to his or her own advantage, but will not have compassion.