I have a different perspective: agreeableness is all about self-interest. It looks like other-interest, but that's what defenses do - they portray positive qualities to distract from the qualities we've rejected. It looks like compassion or kindness, but its really a way of managing low self-esteem.
If I agree with you,
- you'll accept me. If I told you what I really wanted, you'd hate me. Everybody would.
- I'm protected from your opinions. If I agree, you won't argue, criticize my choices, or "make me feel bad."
- I'm protected from my own vulnerability. Agreement keeps me safe from divulging how I feel and who I really am.
Since you're happy that I agree with you, I fool myself into thinking you like me. So I forget my original misconception & start seeing myself as someone who is likable because I'm giving and agreeable. That's who I am. And I continue the behavior without thinking.
NT's self-interest is the lessening of psychological conflict. Being agreeable appears to accomplish that for some people.
But defenses aren't really effective; the original issue - low self-esteem - is still there. So agreeableness isn't really in our self-interest. But the psyche thinks that it's better than dealing with esteem. So the psyche, who runs the show, thinks it's in our self-interest.
Not everyone is ready to explore it. So the psyche might be correct in its evaluation. Sometimes, defenses are the best one can do.
That is interesting and is in line with what I think about human interaction. It is all about getting your wants and needs met, but for many people that makes them feel selfish, which grants them negative views about themselves, so they deny it.
I find this comment painfully accurate to my life. I generally get a long with people but I have ended up gaslighting myself into believing that the way I see the world is fundamentally wrong.
I use to think that if I had a disagreement with anyone, then the other person was right by default.
For me, it’s not so much about trying to get people to like me as it is trying to avoid conflict. My speech can be very awkward in real life and trying to argue with people usually ends with the same result of them trying to manipulate me into getting what they want anyways. Whether that be agreeing with their opinion, or doing something for them.
The thing is, being agreeable can make self esteem worse because it can make you wonder whether or not people like you for who you are, or if they like you because they think you agree with them. (Or they think they can control you)
I'd be curious how much defenses are at play in my case - they surely must be. However, I find myself repeatedly agreeing to unagreeable to minimize long term backfires. Like being forever stuck in the funeral dilemma. When I deny to go along someone's wish, I can play out a scenario, often quite accurately, what effect will that have on them and how that will make them react in the future. What shortcomings that poses on me. Okay, I'll just come along.
I guess in such cases I'm dealing with others' low self-esteem. Still learning where to draw a line...
"being agreeable can make self esteem worse because it can make you wonder whether or not people like you for who you are, or if they like you because they think you agree with them. (Or they think they can control you)"
It's crucial to your well-being and self-esteem to establish boundaries, and that requires not caring whether or not you're liked. Boundaries and respect are the first priority. That's fundamental to enlightened self-interest. To be liked can come later, or not at all. Validation can't take precedence over boundaries. You don't have to agree with another opinion by "winning" an argument. You could calmly agree to disagree so that you maintain your sense of self.
That said, it all depends on what your needs are, too. If you need or want a particular person to be in your life, you'll have to compromise at times, and be agreeable to things you'd rather not do. But, there has to be a balanced give and take dynamic. If you're the only one giving, you're being used, and so an argument is necessary so that you don't feel taken advantage of.
That’s the thing, I don’t want to be “liked”. What I want is to be seen as a human being.
When I said “the way I see the world is fundamentally wrong” I don’t mean wrong as in “wrong opinion”, I mean wrong as in “it shouldn’t even exist in the first place”.
This was mainly a problem for me when I was younger and I have been getting better over the years, but it’s still there.
Being agreeable is a strategy I use to avoid getting “punished”. Being popular was never a goal of mine.
Under the threat of unavoidable punishment, I'd likely be agreeable—up to a point. That might be necessary, but I'd still try to look for ways to live without that threat.
Remember there is no universally right or wrong worldview or belief system. Each person is entitled to their own perspective, and your worldview is just as valid as anyone else's.
Funny thing about this. I regularly get calls to come fill in teaching martial arts classes. I don’t get paid for it but I will almost always do it because I have fun. When I don’t such as a recent request I flat said no I have something else going on and that was accepted with no questions.
I realize that if you do what you want without being wheedled you won’t likely be pestered when you say no.
Forgive me if this is only tangentially related to your post, but it's been on my mind. Sometimes, people assert that a person cannot consent to x because they are poor, even if consenting is in their overall self interest. i.e. You can't do clinical trials on people in India for money. Their poverty makes them unable to consent! But without the clinical trials they'll be even poorer. Now, putting aside actual consent violations with such trials, how should this kind of 'morality' be interpreted? Removing the clinical trials entirely would make poor people even poorer and the people complaining about consent aren't exactly doing anything themselves to address that poverty. The supposed watchdogs are pushing for social outcomes with even lower utility than the one which exists now. But this kind of moral 'do-gooderism' is common. Why? Is it Virtue Ethics? Deontological Ethics? Some other kind of heuristic? Some undeclared self interests? How can I engage what I see as a harmful morality if I need to? Or is it hopeless , and I should just be resigned to weird altruistic punishment from some people?
There is an argument along these lines when it comes to sweat shops. People think that they are immoral, but the other side of the argument is that a lot of people would be forced into things like sex work to survive if the sweat shops didn't exist. Where a person falls on that moral scale and what they find acceptable is often informed by their own worldview, not by understanding the situation that the poor person is in.
Another argument regarding this is charity. People donate to charity and a lot of things are shipped overseas to communities that are inundated with these donations. The other side of this, however, is that it limits actual business in those areas from being able to operate. Why would someone buy shoes or socks from you, the business owner, when they can go to a massive clothing supply house and get them for free.
People often make moral judgments about things that they truly do not understand. It is one of those things that is understandable, so long as the person is able to reconsider their position on the matter when they hear contrary information that is directly related to the quandary.
"People often make moral judgments about things that they truly do not understand."
Is this an issue that can be addressed with more information? I'm certainly tempted to believe that opposing, say, pay-for-clinical trials on poor people stems from ignorance. But... I suspect that providing information will result in accusations of bad motives, not some ah-ha moment.
I think that it is a situation that informed consent comes into play, and people should be able to make their decisions from there. However, there is a great deal to be said for the notion that companies have a habit of hiding the negatives that might deter people from agreeing to their terms. It's a tough call.
I just realized something very curious, Athena. Your articles in general but some of your latest ones in particular, after reading them, left me with a feeling of "this reminds me of something, but I don't know exactly what it is". Today I finally figured it out: you remind me of my cat Maya! Seriously! In fact, now that I think about it, I've always believed that there's a lot of cat-ness in psychopaths and a lot of psychopathy in cats.
Interestingly I used to disagree with this notion, but then an author over on Quora made the argument in a very succinct way that made me change my mind.
They may appear independent, aloof, and cool but they are too emotional to be psychopaths. I've seen panic, grief, rage, or just skittishness, or neurosis. I've owned a lot of cats, and I've seen emotions in all of them, and empathy in most.
Perhaps that's why some people say dogs are better than cats? They don't seem to like the way cats' behaviour are more self centered
- Cat don't like it? Hiss at it
- You are calling them? Too bad, they will only come at you if they want
- Want a cat on your lap? It's their choice
The dog on the other hand seems to have a lot of their well being tied to their owner. Following the owner everywhere, intimately tied to their needs, etc. Not saying it's bad, that's what make dogs very important when it comes to farm, search missing people, emotional support, etc.
But if I had to pick being a cat or a dog I would be a cat. Do what I want, when I want, coming to people when I want. Not eager to please everyone.
saying no can be difficult when it's largely implemented in culture, too. my family had a huge fallout the first time i didn't show for the family reunion but seven years later and i still don't show. you make good points about the weight of what discomfort you're choosing to feel when you say no vs. when you begrudgingly say yes.
it is also very true, the point about many others being bitter when you begin to take care of yourself. when i finally started taking care of myself, i knew immediately who to cut off. good one, except mary had a little lamb is now stuck in my head.
I am wondering whether you can imagine intellectually what a neurotypical person might get back for putting someone else’s needs over their own—or are those emotions too unfamiliar for your brain to imagine?
We all have some inability to empathize. In fact, there are many people who are not psychopathic who are also incapable of putting others’ needs ahead of their own—but it’s not because they are incapable of feeling empathy. It’s because they direct ALL their empathy towards themselves.
The problem is, if every single human being was as incapable of empathy as a psychopath (or a sociopath or a pathological narcissist)—I suspect that we would not survive long-term in the “civilized” world our species created. That’s why humans fabricated the idea of free will; it’s so people will feel personal responsibility and sometimes consider someone else’s needs over their own.
So, even though you are correct that people aren’t actually responsible for anyone but themselves, we are in the midst of evolving a conscience for our own survival. Sadly, when neurotypicals feel scared about their own survival, they lose their conscience and no longer care who they hurt. That’s why there is a wave of authoritarianism sweeping across the globe right now.
No, I have no idea what those emotions are. If I place someone's needs above my own it is entirely a cognitive choice that I will make when the occasion requires it or I can see it is the correct choice, but there is nothing about doing so that is emotionally rewarding.
Psychoanalyst Joyce McDougall uses the term normopathy to connote an excessive and pathological attachment and adaptation to conventional social norms. English psychoanalyst Christopher Bollas uses a word with a similar meaning, normotic, which seems to be a play on the word neurotic. Not having developed a sense of self, people who are normopathic or normotic have a neurotic obsession to appear normal, to fit in. They are abnormally normal. At the bottom of this malady is an insecurity of being judged and rejected. Normotics are overly concerned with how others view them, which makes them afraid to creatively express their unique individuality, which results in them being reticent to participate in the call of their own individuation. As Jung counsels, we should be afraid of being too healthy-minded, as ironically this can easily become unhealthy. Overly healthy-minded people are what Jung refers to as being “pathologically normal.” Families, groups, and societies can all be afflicted with normopathy (according to whatever the group’s rules are regarding what is considered “normal”), such that it is considered normal to be normotic. The strange thing is that if almost everyone in the group is normotic, this pathology is seen as normal and healthy—which makes the person in the group who isn’t subscribing to being normotic appear to be abnormal, the one with the pathology. Insanely, in a case of projecting their own craziness, the ones with the pathology then pathologize the one who doesn’t have it. Something of this nature is going on in our world at present.
-Paul Levy, "Undreaming Wetiko: Breaking the Spell of the Nightmare Mind-Virus".
Do you know the science fiction movie "Equals"? It's not bad at all. It's about a kind of "psychopathic" society, perfectly functional and devoted to science and knowledge, and in which empathy and love are a rare but serious degenerative disorder that is treated and kept at bay with medication and surgery.
I have never heard of it, but psychopaths aren't like Vulcans that aren't interested in having fun. We would still have that in a society built for us by us.
This post is meant to people who genuinely are nearly being taken adventage of by other people and they cannot see it.
I believe that a Dark Triad is likely to pretend to be agreeable to things that are inconsecuential to them. With the purpose of gaining over the other person and build a public persona that's generous and helpful and keep the other one hidden.
My mom used to do this. She'd say yes to many things. In the eyes of everyone, she's a very non self interested person with extreme values, kind, altruistic. They were things that held little effort from her... Behind the scenes though, she remains the most messed up woman I have met in my entire life. And when it came to reputation and keeping her romantic partner she would do anything,
I do both. I really like to help people, specially those who are honest and are in need. I believe that if you find yourself feeling bad about helping someone it might be that you are taken adventage of or they are asking you for silly noisy stuff that they actually don't need you for at all. At the same time, it is a benefit to build a certain reputation socially. For some, this is a form of manipulation: I will do what you're asking for but you owe me your loyalty forever. It's like a contract. After someone does a few favours for you, now you have less qualifications to question them. Hey, I helped you and you come up with THIS? You fucking ungrateful b4st4rd... then they play with the values of the other person who ends up givin in. But it was all a trick from the get go.
Average people don't need to do this, only someone who holds far too many secrets a security network. Athena, if I were to go by this post, it seems to me that you don't have that much of a double life to hide, as you don't mind not being as likeable by saying no.
That is an odd statement. I can't imagine why someone that is psychopathic experiencing that. There is no sustained emotion at all, and certainly not anger. Perhaps he is misjudging aggression for anger. I have known several young men that think that they are angry, but in reality they were steeping in high testosterone and that made them feel aggression.
I have a different perspective: agreeableness is all about self-interest. It looks like other-interest, but that's what defenses do - they portray positive qualities to distract from the qualities we've rejected. It looks like compassion or kindness, but its really a way of managing low self-esteem.
If I agree with you,
- you'll accept me. If I told you what I really wanted, you'd hate me. Everybody would.
- I'm protected from your opinions. If I agree, you won't argue, criticize my choices, or "make me feel bad."
- I'm protected from my own vulnerability. Agreement keeps me safe from divulging how I feel and who I really am.
Since you're happy that I agree with you, I fool myself into thinking you like me. So I forget my original misconception & start seeing myself as someone who is likable because I'm giving and agreeable. That's who I am. And I continue the behavior without thinking.
NT's self-interest is the lessening of psychological conflict. Being agreeable appears to accomplish that for some people.
But defenses aren't really effective; the original issue - low self-esteem - is still there. So agreeableness isn't really in our self-interest. But the psyche thinks that it's better than dealing with esteem. So the psyche, who runs the show, thinks it's in our self-interest.
Not everyone is ready to explore it. So the psyche might be correct in its evaluation. Sometimes, defenses are the best one can do.
That is interesting and is in line with what I think about human interaction. It is all about getting your wants and needs met, but for many people that makes them feel selfish, which grants them negative views about themselves, so they deny it.
I find this comment painfully accurate to my life. I generally get a long with people but I have ended up gaslighting myself into believing that the way I see the world is fundamentally wrong.
I use to think that if I had a disagreement with anyone, then the other person was right by default.
For me, it’s not so much about trying to get people to like me as it is trying to avoid conflict. My speech can be very awkward in real life and trying to argue with people usually ends with the same result of them trying to manipulate me into getting what they want anyways. Whether that be agreeing with their opinion, or doing something for them.
The thing is, being agreeable can make self esteem worse because it can make you wonder whether or not people like you for who you are, or if they like you because they think you agree with them. (Or they think they can control you)
I'd be curious how much defenses are at play in my case - they surely must be. However, I find myself repeatedly agreeing to unagreeable to minimize long term backfires. Like being forever stuck in the funeral dilemma. When I deny to go along someone's wish, I can play out a scenario, often quite accurately, what effect will that have on them and how that will make them react in the future. What shortcomings that poses on me. Okay, I'll just come along.
I guess in such cases I'm dealing with others' low self-esteem. Still learning where to draw a line...
"being agreeable can make self esteem worse because it can make you wonder whether or not people like you for who you are, or if they like you because they think you agree with them. (Or they think they can control you)"
It's crucial to your well-being and self-esteem to establish boundaries, and that requires not caring whether or not you're liked. Boundaries and respect are the first priority. That's fundamental to enlightened self-interest. To be liked can come later, or not at all. Validation can't take precedence over boundaries. You don't have to agree with another opinion by "winning" an argument. You could calmly agree to disagree so that you maintain your sense of self.
That said, it all depends on what your needs are, too. If you need or want a particular person to be in your life, you'll have to compromise at times, and be agreeable to things you'd rather not do. But, there has to be a balanced give and take dynamic. If you're the only one giving, you're being used, and so an argument is necessary so that you don't feel taken advantage of.
That’s the thing, I don’t want to be “liked”. What I want is to be seen as a human being.
When I said “the way I see the world is fundamentally wrong” I don’t mean wrong as in “wrong opinion”, I mean wrong as in “it shouldn’t even exist in the first place”.
This was mainly a problem for me when I was younger and I have been getting better over the years, but it’s still there.
Being agreeable is a strategy I use to avoid getting “punished”. Being popular was never a goal of mine.
Under the threat of unavoidable punishment, I'd likely be agreeable—up to a point. That might be necessary, but I'd still try to look for ways to live without that threat.
Remember there is no universally right or wrong worldview or belief system. Each person is entitled to their own perspective, and your worldview is just as valid as anyone else's.
Funny thing about this. I regularly get calls to come fill in teaching martial arts classes. I don’t get paid for it but I will almost always do it because I have fun. When I don’t such as a recent request I flat said no I have something else going on and that was accepted with no questions.
I realize that if you do what you want without being wheedled you won’t likely be pestered when you say no.
Forgive me if this is only tangentially related to your post, but it's been on my mind. Sometimes, people assert that a person cannot consent to x because they are poor, even if consenting is in their overall self interest. i.e. You can't do clinical trials on people in India for money. Their poverty makes them unable to consent! But without the clinical trials they'll be even poorer. Now, putting aside actual consent violations with such trials, how should this kind of 'morality' be interpreted? Removing the clinical trials entirely would make poor people even poorer and the people complaining about consent aren't exactly doing anything themselves to address that poverty. The supposed watchdogs are pushing for social outcomes with even lower utility than the one which exists now. But this kind of moral 'do-gooderism' is common. Why? Is it Virtue Ethics? Deontological Ethics? Some other kind of heuristic? Some undeclared self interests? How can I engage what I see as a harmful morality if I need to? Or is it hopeless , and I should just be resigned to weird altruistic punishment from some people?
There is an argument along these lines when it comes to sweat shops. People think that they are immoral, but the other side of the argument is that a lot of people would be forced into things like sex work to survive if the sweat shops didn't exist. Where a person falls on that moral scale and what they find acceptable is often informed by their own worldview, not by understanding the situation that the poor person is in.
Another argument regarding this is charity. People donate to charity and a lot of things are shipped overseas to communities that are inundated with these donations. The other side of this, however, is that it limits actual business in those areas from being able to operate. Why would someone buy shoes or socks from you, the business owner, when they can go to a massive clothing supply house and get them for free.
People often make moral judgments about things that they truly do not understand. It is one of those things that is understandable, so long as the person is able to reconsider their position on the matter when they hear contrary information that is directly related to the quandary.
"People often make moral judgments about things that they truly do not understand."
Is this an issue that can be addressed with more information? I'm certainly tempted to believe that opposing, say, pay-for-clinical trials on poor people stems from ignorance. But... I suspect that providing information will result in accusations of bad motives, not some ah-ha moment.
I think that it is a situation that informed consent comes into play, and people should be able to make their decisions from there. However, there is a great deal to be said for the notion that companies have a habit of hiding the negatives that might deter people from agreeing to their terms. It's a tough call.
I just realized something very curious, Athena. Your articles in general but some of your latest ones in particular, after reading them, left me with a feeling of "this reminds me of something, but I don't know exactly what it is". Today I finally figured it out: you remind me of my cat Maya! Seriously! In fact, now that I think about it, I've always believed that there's a lot of cat-ness in psychopaths and a lot of psychopathy in cats.
Interestingly I used to disagree with this notion, but then an author over on Quora made the argument in a very succinct way that made me change my mind.
They may appear independent, aloof, and cool but they are too emotional to be psychopaths. I've seen panic, grief, rage, or just skittishness, or neurosis. I've owned a lot of cats, and I've seen emotions in all of them, and empathy in most.
Perhaps that's why some people say dogs are better than cats? They don't seem to like the way cats' behaviour are more self centered
- Cat don't like it? Hiss at it
- You are calling them? Too bad, they will only come at you if they want
- Want a cat on your lap? It's their choice
The dog on the other hand seems to have a lot of their well being tied to their owner. Following the owner everywhere, intimately tied to their needs, etc. Not saying it's bad, that's what make dogs very important when it comes to farm, search missing people, emotional support, etc.
But if I had to pick being a cat or a dog I would be a cat. Do what I want, when I want, coming to people when I want. Not eager to please everyone.
"Trust me, they will get over you not wanting to go to their dinner party with a focus on the insects of the world."
Lol! :D
saying no can be difficult when it's largely implemented in culture, too. my family had a huge fallout the first time i didn't show for the family reunion but seven years later and i still don't show. you make good points about the weight of what discomfort you're choosing to feel when you say no vs. when you begrudgingly say yes.
it is also very true, the point about many others being bitter when you begin to take care of yourself. when i finally started taking care of myself, i knew immediately who to cut off. good one, except mary had a little lamb is now stuck in my head.
"I used to suffer from F.O.M.O. (Fear Of Missing Out)"
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/fomo
I am wondering whether you can imagine intellectually what a neurotypical person might get back for putting someone else’s needs over their own—or are those emotions too unfamiliar for your brain to imagine?
We all have some inability to empathize. In fact, there are many people who are not psychopathic who are also incapable of putting others’ needs ahead of their own—but it’s not because they are incapable of feeling empathy. It’s because they direct ALL their empathy towards themselves.
The problem is, if every single human being was as incapable of empathy as a psychopath (or a sociopath or a pathological narcissist)—I suspect that we would not survive long-term in the “civilized” world our species created. That’s why humans fabricated the idea of free will; it’s so people will feel personal responsibility and sometimes consider someone else’s needs over their own.
So, even though you are correct that people aren’t actually responsible for anyone but themselves, we are in the midst of evolving a conscience for our own survival. Sadly, when neurotypicals feel scared about their own survival, they lose their conscience and no longer care who they hurt. That’s why there is a wave of authoritarianism sweeping across the globe right now.
No, I have no idea what those emotions are. If I place someone's needs above my own it is entirely a cognitive choice that I will make when the occasion requires it or I can see it is the correct choice, but there is nothing about doing so that is emotionally rewarding.
Psychoanalyst Joyce McDougall uses the term normopathy to connote an excessive and pathological attachment and adaptation to conventional social norms. English psychoanalyst Christopher Bollas uses a word with a similar meaning, normotic, which seems to be a play on the word neurotic. Not having developed a sense of self, people who are normopathic or normotic have a neurotic obsession to appear normal, to fit in. They are abnormally normal. At the bottom of this malady is an insecurity of being judged and rejected. Normotics are overly concerned with how others view them, which makes them afraid to creatively express their unique individuality, which results in them being reticent to participate in the call of their own individuation. As Jung counsels, we should be afraid of being too healthy-minded, as ironically this can easily become unhealthy. Overly healthy-minded people are what Jung refers to as being “pathologically normal.” Families, groups, and societies can all be afflicted with normopathy (according to whatever the group’s rules are regarding what is considered “normal”), such that it is considered normal to be normotic. The strange thing is that if almost everyone in the group is normotic, this pathology is seen as normal and healthy—which makes the person in the group who isn’t subscribing to being normotic appear to be abnormal, the one with the pathology. Insanely, in a case of projecting their own craziness, the ones with the pathology then pathologize the one who doesn’t have it. Something of this nature is going on in our world at present.
-Paul Levy, "Undreaming Wetiko: Breaking the Spell of the Nightmare Mind-Virus".
That is really interesting. Strange, but very interesting
Do you know the science fiction movie "Equals"? It's not bad at all. It's about a kind of "psychopathic" society, perfectly functional and devoted to science and knowledge, and in which empathy and love are a rare but serious degenerative disorder that is treated and kept at bay with medication and surgery.
Trailer:
https://youtu.be/_RTN3HnQV3c
I have never heard of it, but psychopaths aren't like Vulcans that aren't interested in having fun. We would still have that in a society built for us by us.
Let's say you are philautic.
Based on Ancient Greek φιλαυτία (philautia, “self-love, self-regard”), from φιλέω (phileo, “I love”), and αὐτός (autos, “self”).
Sure, that works I suppose
This post is meant to people who genuinely are nearly being taken adventage of by other people and they cannot see it.
I believe that a Dark Triad is likely to pretend to be agreeable to things that are inconsecuential to them. With the purpose of gaining over the other person and build a public persona that's generous and helpful and keep the other one hidden.
My mom used to do this. She'd say yes to many things. In the eyes of everyone, she's a very non self interested person with extreme values, kind, altruistic. They were things that held little effort from her... Behind the scenes though, she remains the most messed up woman I have met in my entire life. And when it came to reputation and keeping her romantic partner she would do anything,
I do both. I really like to help people, specially those who are honest and are in need. I believe that if you find yourself feeling bad about helping someone it might be that you are taken adventage of or they are asking you for silly noisy stuff that they actually don't need you for at all. At the same time, it is a benefit to build a certain reputation socially. For some, this is a form of manipulation: I will do what you're asking for but you owe me your loyalty forever. It's like a contract. After someone does a few favours for you, now you have less qualifications to question them. Hey, I helped you and you come up with THIS? You fucking ungrateful b4st4rd... then they play with the values of the other person who ends up givin in. But it was all a trick from the get go.
Average people don't need to do this, only someone who holds far too many secrets a security network. Athena, if I were to go by this post, it seems to me that you don't have that much of a double life to hide, as you don't mind not being as likeable by saying no.
If someone has an issue with me saying no, that is they're problem
10/10 post
Thank you
Off topic but: excerpt from Andy McNab in one of his Collab books with Kevin Dutton:
" 'You know, Kev, I've been angry for at least half of my life,' Andy tells me as we grind to a halt in a sea of cows and cars.
For years, I hated everyone and everything, mostly because I didn't have what they had"
Incredibly confusing to me? Not at all what I'd imagine a psychopath feeling/saying???
That is an odd statement. I can't imagine why someone that is psychopathic experiencing that. There is no sustained emotion at all, and certainly not anger. Perhaps he is misjudging aggression for anger. I have known several young men that think that they are angry, but in reality they were steeping in high testosterone and that made them feel aggression.