I think the envying thing is something I run into often. Especially class based jealousy. Like, I wish I grew up rich too, but I'm not mad because kid at school's parents bought him a new car. I'd like a new car too, but hating the kid for getting one isn't going to get me one.
Better to be friends with them and then they take to Taco Bell in their new car.
Well yes! I see it both ways though because as a young messed up person I felt intense bitter envy, though rarely showed it and didn't act upon it. As the years passed, that changed, and I no longer feel it, and it makes no sense to me anymore. I recall the beast that it was as though it were somebody else experiencing it. But I am not quick to judge envy in others, I understand the feeling and the reasons for it.
That's interesting that it went away as you aged. I wonder if that factors into my observation of people regarding when they self censor, and when they don't. I have noticed that when they are younger, there is more of a need to appear certain ways, and as they age, this need dissipated and goes away. My theory on this is that when people are younger, they are seeking a mate during their years of eligible breeding, but as they go further from those ages, their care lessens over time, until you get to the older people that no longer care about appearance. They are much more forward than they would have been when they were younger. I have always found it to be interesting to watch.
That's something that is generally interesting to me as well. I'd especially like to see it in myself. I can't fathom where I'd be mentally in five years. I'm curious to see how my appearance changes as well. I did my college years in rainbow cat pj's so if it only gets worse, 60 year old me is probably gonna be a nudist.
Also thinking about it, I found my partner when I was 18, and we're still going strong, so the seeking mate thing probably doesn't apply to me.
I would bet also on belonging, finding a place in the world and having this wide-eyed ideals about how the world around is, big hopes meaning a lot to lose. Not just mate. Self-image and community too. And as yu come to know more, alternatively get more deeply entrenched in your ways...
I wasn't self censoring for appearance sake, it was more that I knew my feeling were wrong and potentially damaging and not to be acted upon. I was alarmed and not proud of it. I have always cared less than most about appearances as I was an oddball from a young age and had little to lose in terms of 'popularity'! Envy disappeared gradually because of huge improvememts in my psychological health and functioning- if I had attempted to quash it directly, as one of a multitude of issues, that wouldn't have worked.
It's true that people stop giving a damn how they come across as they age though (and in behaviours with no moral component, that is a food thing and a relief!).
I appreciate your perspective on it because it's something that I've never felt and really just haven't had empathy for ever. I have to remind myself that people don't MEAN to feel envious, it just something that they're going through.
I will say I'm glad you're not going through that anymore. I'm sure it makes life easier to not have that sitting in your brain like that.
Thoughtful and in line with my personal outlook, as usual. As for the hair video...I am not one who really likes long hair on anyone (though hers IS exceptionally beautiful) but her dog is friggin adorable and reminds me of mine. I spent the whole time looking at or for the dog.
The commandments were specifically for small tribes of desert dwelling nomads ruled by chieftains, everyone knew each other, knew everything about each other.
They are rules for the tribe to survive.
Yet In a modern society where most of us are strangers, honesty is a social contract that must be earned.
As you say, do not give the benefit of the doubt at first - this has been a VERY painful lesson for me to finally learn, as I had been a magnet for Machiavellians in the past.
There is also such a thing as irrational empathy, where it’s pointless, or will only be used to exploit the empathetic.
That is what I have noticed in my observations of the world. Due to to a lack of empathy I can see those that are manipulating from the get go for some perceived gain, everything from attention, ego, or monetary. However, I see people fall for the same pattern over and over again, and then be shocked that they were manipulating. It's that appeal to empathy that they take advantage of, but for some reason the people that fall for it seem incapable of identifying the patterns.
Whenever I hear the word "morals", I immediately think about conversations I've had with various people about morals vs. ethics. Here's one article that is close to my generals sense of the difference:
" Generally it is said that ethics are societal decisions with rigour and structure. Morals are more self-determined and influenced by many influences from family, education to religion. As you can imagine there is a great cross-over between the two and each influence the other. Both ‘Ethics’ and morals differ in definition when used in different context such as within research, business, health etc. Both can differ and vary depending on situations e.g. within a culture and the country used."
There are lots of other pages talking about it... I tend to avoid thinking about "immorality", personally, and focus on "ethics". Maybe that's my own moral code? :-)
However I tend to agree with you, Athena, on most of your comments re. the 10 Commandments. I suspect that some religious leaders think they are doing the ethical thing, establishing good rules and order for society, by trying to get some of the more unruly human creatures to fear punishment by a massively powerful parental figure and not slaughter each other randomly...
People vary in their ability to reason through tit-for-tat and related "social contract" concepts too, yet I vaguely hope that they'll still have some reason to refrain from using their chainsaws on my door. But one isn't supposed to talk about those sorts of issues in conjunction with religion.
Indeed, religion is a governance system. It keeps people from going outside the lines that a particular society has established. You can't have officials watching all day and night to be sure that you stay within the parameters that are agreed on, so an always present, all seeing God comes in very handy for that job.
But does it really? That may be its intention or purpose, but it seems to fail spectacularly, fear of a vengeful god notwithstanding. I have long thought that organised religion has done far greater harm than good throughout history as now, and I don't accept the 'it's people not religions doing wrong' defence.
You have to keep in mind that when the Abrahamic religions were founded, society conducted itself very differently than current times. Back a few thousand years ago it was very effective.
Yes I suppose it was different back then. I have to keep in mind that my assessment of its effectiveness must relate to 'the lines that that particular society established', as you say, even though I think of those lines as intellectually and morally reprehensible, making them 'ineffective' as moral guidelines from my point of view, but potentially effective in control terms.
Yes, I agree with this. Jordan Peterson did a whole lecture series on this, and it was quite good. I need to relisten to it, I just haven't had the time.
I think it is reasonable. There are a lot of things in the world that we have no explanation for, and I can see spirituality being something that allows there to be some investment in the unknown, without necessarily needing an answer to what that unknown is.
I agree and feel the same way about most of what you wrote. My question is related to a topic I've been thinking about a lot lately. Anglo Protestant morality is quite ridiculous to me. Despite its naivete, people who enforce it can cause a lot of harm, so it's definitely not harmless. I'm assuming you grew up and were diagnosed in an Anglo Protestant culture. Do you see its bias in the way psychopathy is defined? It's almost that we are expected to lie to ourselves about the reasons why we have laws and why we behave a certain way, when it's obvious that they are simply pragmatic reasons thay lead to a more pleasant existence and a productive society. So from this perspective, wouldn't a psychopath just be a person who can't be brainwashed by culture and who sees things for what they are, or at least closer to reality? Anyone who is intelligent enough and spends adequate time pondering these issues would come up to the same conclusion as a psychopath would. Maybe for psychopaths it's a natural way of thinking, whereas neuritypicals have to acquire this type of thinking through learning and effort.
I was out of any religious environment many years before i was diagnosed, and it wasn't protestant at all.
Psychopathy never came up in my religious upbringing. It wasn't something I ever considered outside of hearing about it on television, or in a movie.
It could be possible to see some psychopaths that way, but there are certainly dumb ones that do thing impulsively and get themselves in trouble, so it is a bit difficult to say that psychopaths in general have a clearer sense of things, and even by that line of thinking, the question really becomes how you define "things".
The world that we live is is largely decided and defined by a neurotypical perspective. If perception is reality, and the consensus perception is defined by the majority, it poses an interesting question about it being a clearer picture. I imagine that people, when they are not saddled with the emotional baggage would come to similar conclusions, but then again, that is my own bias speaking
I think that psychopaths like you should have a different label from those who are impulsive, violent, and commit crimes. Or maybe no label at all. And I also think many people have no conscience, remorse or morality but simply lie about it because it's socially expected. Probably just my bias but amorality is not a mental health condition or personality disorder if we exclude moral judgments. And psychiatry should have nothing to do with morality.
I have always disliked the term "prosocial psychopath", and figure that the designator should be applied to the minority, not the majority. Instead, so long as they are insisting on keep using "psychopath" as the term, it seems more reasonable to call the criminals, "antisocial psychopaths", as they are the ones with aberrant behavior.
Yes, but think of 'prosocial psycopath' as a temporary stopgap term that allows people who have never considered the concept to begin to understand psychopathy. I draw an analogy with other groups who are feared or vilified- a non-violent schizophrenic, a passing transgender person. The terms can be seen as offensive, and have a limited time of usefulness, but they can help get the confused on board.
My own view of religion in general based on my experience is that it was conceived to permit unattractive people to have access to resources and sex while controlling other peoples sex life and activities by appealing to fear of the unknown. I've not heard of any religion that at some point in its dogma doesn't validate my opinion
Buddhism tends to be about disconnection from the things that are considered earthly vices, and emotions. Humans do often get preoccupied with sexual pursuits, so it makes sense that to be a practicing Buddhist, you would have to separate yourself from that desire and not let it dictate life.
There is a whole idea around what the role of religion and how it plays into monogamy. I would have to brush up on it however, before I could relay it accurately. It is somewhat complicated, but has to do with the biological imperatives.
Perhaps then it's not that psychopaths have a clearer picture, but rather a picture which in many aread naturally has a certain clarity that neurotypicals can usefully aspire to. Though, as you say, by being the minority picture, it necessarily has gaps and misses out too much of the overall human experience to be considered 'clearer' as such.
Favourite answer so far; i was taught there are different types if jealousy, or envy, and that envy is the one where you wish to see their loss of that which you desire; and the other which is wanting that which another desires,
which isn't necessarily a bad thing and that praying for an increase in their blessings in regards to that object etc. is a cure for the envious-destructive side of it.
I think the envy thing is in some way about competition. If you destroy what you cannot have then the one who had it no longer stands above you. Another aspect could be that since seeing it in someone else's hands brought you pain, if it cannot be seen anymore, it hurts less. No longer reminding you, no longer reopening that wound.
Personally I am more the sort that says "but at least I get to look at it". When I am envious, it will sooner make me turn on myself for failing short of an ideal.
There is also very practical aspect to honoring parents - one wants to ba cared for in old age. And one would like their children do, what they want them to do (and maybe what they wanted for themselves, but missed out).
Except for the lying thing we'd get along just fine. I am very apposed to lying as a rule, although I can see where sometimes it's nesasary.
I guess I like the "keep it to a minimum" thing.
Also lying causes other people not to trust you so that's a minus if there are certain people you prefer to have in your life. that probably isn't a big deal to you, but. it's a good way to loose friends.
I get too why the masking thing is nesasary, and while it is a lie, technically, I don't see it as harmful. There are so many lies that are harmful to others, so those, and gossip, will make me walk away from someone as fast as I can go. My walking away is also a done deal, 99.9% of the time.
I won't get into the religious part of this post although it's a subject I have some insight into. Having read the Bible several times, plus a study Bible which really helps get to heart of things. Funny thing is Jesus said almost the same thing as you did about doing unto others, it was love your neighbor as yourself.
I think the envying thing is something I run into often. Especially class based jealousy. Like, I wish I grew up rich too, but I'm not mad because kid at school's parents bought him a new car. I'd like a new car too, but hating the kid for getting one isn't going to get me one.
Better to be friends with them and then they take to Taco Bell in their new car.
That's how to make things work for you.
Well yes! I see it both ways though because as a young messed up person I felt intense bitter envy, though rarely showed it and didn't act upon it. As the years passed, that changed, and I no longer feel it, and it makes no sense to me anymore. I recall the beast that it was as though it were somebody else experiencing it. But I am not quick to judge envy in others, I understand the feeling and the reasons for it.
That's interesting that it went away as you aged. I wonder if that factors into my observation of people regarding when they self censor, and when they don't. I have noticed that when they are younger, there is more of a need to appear certain ways, and as they age, this need dissipated and goes away. My theory on this is that when people are younger, they are seeking a mate during their years of eligible breeding, but as they go further from those ages, their care lessens over time, until you get to the older people that no longer care about appearance. They are much more forward than they would have been when they were younger. I have always found it to be interesting to watch.
That's something that is generally interesting to me as well. I'd especially like to see it in myself. I can't fathom where I'd be mentally in five years. I'm curious to see how my appearance changes as well. I did my college years in rainbow cat pj's so if it only gets worse, 60 year old me is probably gonna be a nudist.
Also thinking about it, I found my partner when I was 18, and we're still going strong, so the seeking mate thing probably doesn't apply to me.
That's funny, nudist at sixty.
I would bet also on belonging, finding a place in the world and having this wide-eyed ideals about how the world around is, big hopes meaning a lot to lose. Not just mate. Self-image and community too. And as yu come to know more, alternatively get more deeply entrenched in your ways...
I wasn't self censoring for appearance sake, it was more that I knew my feeling were wrong and potentially damaging and not to be acted upon. I was alarmed and not proud of it. I have always cared less than most about appearances as I was an oddball from a young age and had little to lose in terms of 'popularity'! Envy disappeared gradually because of huge improvememts in my psychological health and functioning- if I had attempted to quash it directly, as one of a multitude of issues, that wouldn't have worked.
It's true that people stop giving a damn how they come across as they age though (and in behaviours with no moral component, that is a food thing and a relief!).
I appreciate your perspective on it because it's something that I've never felt and really just haven't had empathy for ever. I have to remind myself that people don't MEAN to feel envious, it just something that they're going through.
I will say I'm glad you're not going through that anymore. I'm sure it makes life easier to not have that sitting in your brain like that.
Thoughtful and in line with my personal outlook, as usual. As for the hair video...I am not one who really likes long hair on anyone (though hers IS exceptionally beautiful) but her dog is friggin adorable and reminds me of mine. I spent the whole time looking at or for the dog.
Dogs are important
My Cats disagree
Nothing in the universe is important, except themselves.
MIne are the same way. Maybe they know something that we don't?
Thou shall not lie
The commandments were specifically for small tribes of desert dwelling nomads ruled by chieftains, everyone knew each other, knew everything about each other.
They are rules for the tribe to survive.
Yet In a modern society where most of us are strangers, honesty is a social contract that must be earned.
As you say, do not give the benefit of the doubt at first - this has been a VERY painful lesson for me to finally learn, as I had been a magnet for Machiavellians in the past.
There is also such a thing as irrational empathy, where it’s pointless, or will only be used to exploit the empathetic.
That is what I have noticed in my observations of the world. Due to to a lack of empathy I can see those that are manipulating from the get go for some perceived gain, everything from attention, ego, or monetary. However, I see people fall for the same pattern over and over again, and then be shocked that they were manipulating. It's that appeal to empathy that they take advantage of, but for some reason the people that fall for it seem incapable of identifying the patterns.
Ok yes, totally gorgeous hair!
Thank you for the writing!
Whenever I hear the word "morals", I immediately think about conversations I've had with various people about morals vs. ethics. Here's one article that is close to my generals sense of the difference:
https://www.oxfordcollege.ac/news/ethics-versus-morals/
" Generally it is said that ethics are societal decisions with rigour and structure. Morals are more self-determined and influenced by many influences from family, education to religion. As you can imagine there is a great cross-over between the two and each influence the other. Both ‘Ethics’ and morals differ in definition when used in different context such as within research, business, health etc. Both can differ and vary depending on situations e.g. within a culture and the country used."
There are lots of other pages talking about it... I tend to avoid thinking about "immorality", personally, and focus on "ethics". Maybe that's my own moral code? :-)
However I tend to agree with you, Athena, on most of your comments re. the 10 Commandments. I suspect that some religious leaders think they are doing the ethical thing, establishing good rules and order for society, by trying to get some of the more unruly human creatures to fear punishment by a massively powerful parental figure and not slaughter each other randomly...
People vary in their ability to reason through tit-for-tat and related "social contract" concepts too, yet I vaguely hope that they'll still have some reason to refrain from using their chainsaws on my door. But one isn't supposed to talk about those sorts of issues in conjunction with religion.
:-) Complicated planet.
Indeed, religion is a governance system. It keeps people from going outside the lines that a particular society has established. You can't have officials watching all day and night to be sure that you stay within the parameters that are agreed on, so an always present, all seeing God comes in very handy for that job.
But does it really? That may be its intention or purpose, but it seems to fail spectacularly, fear of a vengeful god notwithstanding. I have long thought that organised religion has done far greater harm than good throughout history as now, and I don't accept the 'it's people not religions doing wrong' defence.
You have to keep in mind that when the Abrahamic religions were founded, society conducted itself very differently than current times. Back a few thousand years ago it was very effective.
Yes I suppose it was different back then. I have to keep in mind that my assessment of its effectiveness must relate to 'the lines that that particular society established', as you say, even though I think of those lines as intellectually and morally reprehensible, making them 'ineffective' as moral guidelines from my point of view, but potentially effective in control terms.
I had felt the same way about Christianity in it variants as you do, a flaming sword atheist if you will.
I no longer do, as I have examined the presuppositions of my beliefs within this context, and found them to be irrational.
Western religion has been a buggy operating system for the west, that has built in opportunities for exploitation.
But it’s basic principles have built the modern world, post enlightenment.
Yes, I agree with this. Jordan Peterson did a whole lecture series on this, and it was quite good. I need to relisten to it, I just haven't had the time.
I think it is reasonable. There are a lot of things in the world that we have no explanation for, and I can see spirituality being something that allows there to be some investment in the unknown, without necessarily needing an answer to what that unknown is.
I agree and feel the same way about most of what you wrote. My question is related to a topic I've been thinking about a lot lately. Anglo Protestant morality is quite ridiculous to me. Despite its naivete, people who enforce it can cause a lot of harm, so it's definitely not harmless. I'm assuming you grew up and were diagnosed in an Anglo Protestant culture. Do you see its bias in the way psychopathy is defined? It's almost that we are expected to lie to ourselves about the reasons why we have laws and why we behave a certain way, when it's obvious that they are simply pragmatic reasons thay lead to a more pleasant existence and a productive society. So from this perspective, wouldn't a psychopath just be a person who can't be brainwashed by culture and who sees things for what they are, or at least closer to reality? Anyone who is intelligent enough and spends adequate time pondering these issues would come up to the same conclusion as a psychopath would. Maybe for psychopaths it's a natural way of thinking, whereas neuritypicals have to acquire this type of thinking through learning and effort.
I was out of any religious environment many years before i was diagnosed, and it wasn't protestant at all.
Psychopathy never came up in my religious upbringing. It wasn't something I ever considered outside of hearing about it on television, or in a movie.
It could be possible to see some psychopaths that way, but there are certainly dumb ones that do thing impulsively and get themselves in trouble, so it is a bit difficult to say that psychopaths in general have a clearer sense of things, and even by that line of thinking, the question really becomes how you define "things".
The world that we live is is largely decided and defined by a neurotypical perspective. If perception is reality, and the consensus perception is defined by the majority, it poses an interesting question about it being a clearer picture. I imagine that people, when they are not saddled with the emotional baggage would come to similar conclusions, but then again, that is my own bias speaking
I think that psychopaths like you should have a different label from those who are impulsive, violent, and commit crimes. Or maybe no label at all. And I also think many people have no conscience, remorse or morality but simply lie about it because it's socially expected. Probably just my bias but amorality is not a mental health condition or personality disorder if we exclude moral judgments. And psychiatry should have nothing to do with morality.
I have always disliked the term "prosocial psychopath", and figure that the designator should be applied to the minority, not the majority. Instead, so long as they are insisting on keep using "psychopath" as the term, it seems more reasonable to call the criminals, "antisocial psychopaths", as they are the ones with aberrant behavior.
Yes, but think of 'prosocial psycopath' as a temporary stopgap term that allows people who have never considered the concept to begin to understand psychopathy. I draw an analogy with other groups who are feared or vilified- a non-violent schizophrenic, a passing transgender person. The terms can be seen as offensive, and have a limited time of usefulness, but they can help get the confused on board.
I can see your point.
Unfortunately the term 'psychopath' already has a negative connotation.
I agree, and think that it should be dropped completely, however I am not the one that gets to have any say in that decision.
My own view of religion in general based on my experience is that it was conceived to permit unattractive people to have access to resources and sex while controlling other peoples sex life and activities by appealing to fear of the unknown. I've not heard of any religion that at some point in its dogma doesn't validate my opinion
That is an interesting way to see it.
Except that there are plenty of attractive religious people.
Well of course there are! I didn't say only unattractive people were religious, only that it was a scheme to gain access
How about Budists?
Buddhism tends to be about disconnection from the things that are considered earthly vices, and emotions. Humans do often get preoccupied with sexual pursuits, so it makes sense that to be a practicing Buddhist, you would have to separate yourself from that desire and not let it dictate life.
There is a whole idea around what the role of religion and how it plays into monogamy. I would have to brush up on it however, before I could relay it accurately. It is somewhat complicated, but has to do with the biological imperatives.
Perhaps then it's not that psychopaths have a clearer picture, but rather a picture which in many aread naturally has a certain clarity that neurotypicals can usefully aspire to. Though, as you say, by being the minority picture, it necessarily has gaps and misses out too much of the overall human experience to be considered 'clearer' as such.
This is a good example of tyranny of the majority.
Favourite answer so far; i was taught there are different types if jealousy, or envy, and that envy is the one where you wish to see their loss of that which you desire; and the other which is wanting that which another desires,
which isn't necessarily a bad thing and that praying for an increase in their blessings in regards to that object etc. is a cure for the envious-destructive side of it.
That is certainly a good way to counter negative feelings I imagine
I think the envy thing is in some way about competition. If you destroy what you cannot have then the one who had it no longer stands above you. Another aspect could be that since seeing it in someone else's hands brought you pain, if it cannot be seen anymore, it hurts less. No longer reminding you, no longer reopening that wound.
Personally I am more the sort that says "but at least I get to look at it". When I am envious, it will sooner make me turn on myself for failing short of an ideal.
There is also very practical aspect to honoring parents - one wants to ba cared for in old age. And one would like their children do, what they want them to do (and maybe what they wanted for themselves, but missed out).
That is an interesting thought. It might be a partial explanation as to why psychopaths don't experience it.
Did you decide what your code of conduct would be all at once, or does it evolve over time?
For instance you said "I have evaluated my position on this one, and murder is not on my “never” list."
Did the evaluation happen in case it comes up in the future, or is there a story you don't want to get into?
It evolves over time, and may change based on new information considered
Athena
You may find Stefan Molenexux’s Universally Preferable Behavior to be an enlightening, functional and useful frame on morality.
Thank you for the recommendation. I will check it out.
Except for the lying thing we'd get along just fine. I am very apposed to lying as a rule, although I can see where sometimes it's nesasary.
I guess I like the "keep it to a minimum" thing.
Also lying causes other people not to trust you so that's a minus if there are certain people you prefer to have in your life. that probably isn't a big deal to you, but. it's a good way to loose friends.
I get too why the masking thing is nesasary, and while it is a lie, technically, I don't see it as harmful. There are so many lies that are harmful to others, so those, and gossip, will make me walk away from someone as fast as I can go. My walking away is also a done deal, 99.9% of the time.
I won't get into the religious part of this post although it's a subject I have some insight into. Having read the Bible several times, plus a study Bible which really helps get to heart of things. Funny thing is Jesus said almost the same thing as you did about doing unto others, it was love your neighbor as yourself.
Good post, brought some good discussion as well.
Well done
Good discussion is always fun
For what type of things do you lie?