You really make me smile of your interactions with your family.
"...continues until we die or cease caring." LOL. Perhaps there is a third option which places few demands: I live in a country where I don't speak the language that well. Except to buy essential goods and services, I rarely interact with anyone beyond 'good morning'.
Thank you again for your work and willingness to reveal your life.
The thing about mimicry of tone and emotions is that all of the reactions exist but with the limited emotional range they are pretty much free to be activated and used, with practice of course.
Crying from frustration as a child is very much something I experienced and it was really annoying to be honest. Once in about 7th grade I struck a match in the library at school. Of course the smell attracted the attention of the librarian and eventually the principal came out to interrogate my friends and I. I lied so glibly that the principal went back to his office. My friends wouldn’t look at me and I couldn’t figure out how I was going to get out of the situation as I knew someone would crack. I started to cry then stopped and went to the office and confessed. Nothing happened. The principal congratulated me for standing up like a man and not getting my friends in trouble too. No one ever said a thing about the incident again.
That was when I learned that sometimes looking them square in the eye and giving them the truth can be a good strategy
"continues until we die or cease caring. I wonder which one I reach first."
ROFLMAO. I trust you'll let us all know which comes first? Kinda like the chicken and the egg, I'm guessing.
As an NT, I can tell you that there definitely comes a time in life when I've become less willing to put up with the bull**it. And this unwillingness increases as I get older. In a way, I suppose that the NT version of "tact" is a bit like a mask in that we hide our true feelings when the truth is either hostile or likely to hurt the other person's feelings.
I have noticed this in many people, and hypothesize that this comes around the time of aging out of breeding capability quite often, and that it is directly related to no longer caring about attracting a mate for the purpose of continuing the genetic line. I have no idea if this in correct, but based on what I have observed it seems logically consistent.
I think it's more down the lines of feeling like one's time left on earth is getting shorter and therefore more precious and not wanting to waste time and energy on less important stuff. Similar to the saying, "I'm getting too old for this." It takes energy to be tactful. We geezers have got less of it.
Still, the notion that we have already done our bit--or not--for continuing the genetic line is definitely worth consideration. That's a "think outside the box" that would not have occurred to me.
Well, we geezers still have our friends. Though come to think of it, to the degree that I'm still tactful, I do consider how my words will impact the folks I do care about. It's mostly all them other folks I'm less tolerant of.
Imagine a world in which everybody was psychopathic.
Do you suppose you'd enjoy it more than this world? Would mask wearing still be a thing? Would more get done faster civilization-wise, or would we remain stuck in even more rampant tribalistic and violent ruts?
I'd love to read some extended musings on this. I suppose it could very well go either way.
I'm actually working on a post about that, but there really isn't a whole lot that I have to draw on. It isn't as though there is a pool of psychopaths available to me to create this idea of the world. It's largely speculation and that doesn't seem to be remotely accurate to me. There isn't a lot of information about how we would even interact with one another outside of individual relationships. Those tell us little about extrapolating that out and accounting for different personalities and priorities.
Why don't you allow yourself to speculate fully, for a change? Think of it as writing a piece of fiction. I think people might enjoy that, for a change.
For one, it would likely be a world in which feelings would hold little to no sway. Many of the puzzling things you describe from your infancy would not have occurred. People would probably be far more practical and tacit in their dealings. Manipulation might not work and might be sneered upon as low class/ low functioning, since all people would discern any such ploys easily. Art/Religion/Philosophy might not exist, and Engineering/Science/Technology might be far more intricate than our own. On the other hand, whatever conflits arose might escalate summarily into genocide, until a sort of mutual welfare/cooperation dynamic was established through hystorical hindsight as the most logical position.
Hm. Maybe such a world would be a bit like the Vulcan or Borg civilizations from Star Trek? I don't know much about its canon, but it somewhat feels they might be going for a similar premise (the former seem to be conceptualized as a hyper logical species that vanquised emotion, the latter as futuristic hybrid human computers).
Unlikely, as the Vulcans organized themselves around tamping down their emotions and thus that would greatly influence their society, and the Borg were hive minds, which psychopaths would never be. We are staunch individualists.
You're right, I was imagining through my own non-psychopathic lens what a psychopathic civilization might be like.
That's what I find interesting about the present exercise, though - I would like to see how you'd conceptualize a psychopathic civilization as seen through a genuinely psychopathic lens.
I think one of the challenges in your way might be something that invariably boggles all fiction writers, and once done right provides the cornerstone for an accomplished fictional narrative: world building.
You need to first establish the rules of the world before you can flesh out the setting. Context before text, simply put.
Then you can just apply your understanding of psychopathy to that context.
It might be helpful to proceed in historical stages and imagine how things might have played out. In such a world - assuming there wouldn't have been some kind of widespread event that instantly turned all living people into psychopaths - all people would have evolved through the generations in a context of non-existent emotional reactiveness.
How would that possibly pan out in early cavemen era? How might that have affected the early underpinnings of society? Would society even arise in a world exclusively comprised of staunch individualists? Would agriculture ever have been devised in a world in which human bonding wasn't a thing, or would it instead be a reality comprised only of hunters? How might early civilization have shaped up in such a context? If civilization did unfold, what sort of collective drama (i.e. witch hunts, inquisition, etc) might have been avoided, and what sort of collective challenges might have arose instead? Would it likely pan in in a more diplomatic way, or could societies turned out far more savage? Perhaps a bit of both? How might that have led to a present reality different than our own? In what ways might it not have been for the better, and in what ways could it have been advantageous?
That's some food for thought. It's admittedly a highly complex undertaking. Not sure how far you would want to take this, but whatever premise you come up with might one day be the basis of an interesting novel - if you ever happen to feel like writing it. It could shape up to be a really interesting reflection on the virtues and vices of emotional reactiveness.
The issue that I arrive at again and again when thinking about these things is that it is similar in the belief that some group of people or an individual can usher in a Utopian society when in reality it would be nothing more than a Dystopian nightmare. The level of ego that it takes, as well as pure idiocy that is required to believe that an imagined society that exists in the mind of it's creator will actually look like what they imagine is fairly impressive.
I don't see this as any different. It would be an extremely limited self-indulgent world that takes very little reality into account in its construction. Thus the saying, "You don't know what you don't know".
That is a wise stance. I agree that diversity is a prerequisite of a balanced and sustainable life, and all extremes of any kind invariably disrupt order and promote chaos. I very much intended to allude to this possibility with the questions I've raised in this conversation. Once again, you shown that albeit you have a strong ego, you do not appear to be attached to it; that is commendable, in my book.
Regardless, there's nothing wrong with imagining things or indulging speculations or fooling around creatively; if nothing else, it sheds light on what we do not know, provided we cultivate discernment - rather than succumb to the illusion of knowledge as anything else but a ongoing, never-ending depuration process. As I personally like to put it "there is always an horizon beyond the horizon".
What you just wrote has substance and depth, and might very well be the thesis of a piece of fiction that might have cathartic potential. I remain curious to see whether you'll fashion something out of these ideas you have floating around.
The way you describe childhood for a psychopath resonates with me. Not all of it, of course, since I’m not one. I cried often as a kid and sometimes still do. But the parts about empathy and learning how to act in certain situations?
A good example is one I vaguely recall in which I told a girl my age I didn’t like her dress. I don’t remember why, but I know I hurt her feelings and she didn’t like me after that.
My mom had to EXPLAIN how ‘white lies’, i.e. lies that aren’t harmful while still technically being dishonest, are sometimes necessary in social situations. I might think Meghan’s dress is ugly but if she asks, I should tell her I like it, because telling her how I really feel makes her sad.
I have ADHD, of the combined type (though they weren’t that specific with subtypes when I was a child). When someone asks me my opinion I almost immediately want to say my exact thoughts, I’m /impulsive/ when it comes to verbal communication, I don’t think about what I’m saying until it’s already coming out of my mouth.
I can tell when I’ve said the wrong thing based on how the person’s face falls, the change in tone, etc.
I’ve gotten better at choosing my words more carefully especially if it’s a sensitive subject because I truly don’t mean to hurt people’s feelings, but this is a part of communicating that my brain has just never allowed me to become a ‘natural’ at, it’s something I need to consciously think about because my real self dominates conversations, won’t let other people get a word in until I’ve made MY point across, speaks a mile a minute to try to get all my thoughts out at once before I can be interrupted, and doesn’t consider how what I’m saying could be offensive until it’s too late.
It kind of sucks, but it’s who I am and I don’t know how not to be me so, I do my best with it, if that makes sense. The difference for me though wasn’t that I didn’t care I was upsetting people, it was that I didn’t have the forethought to consider it might before it was too late. Once I did it, I usually felt terrible if it was someone I cared about.
I mean, I try not to be a raging asshole. Most of the time, lol.
I know what you mean, and it's funny when I say something that I don't think should be upsetting, but then I find out that I lacked the cognitive empathy in that situation that would have prevented dealing with the aftermath.
It seems to be. I have never cared, so watching the changeover from flirtatious to not giving one crap about anything anyone thinks is always amusing to see.
"Most experts agree that 70 to 93 percent of all communication is nonverbal." Would you describe "mask-off" as complete lack of these cues? With no non-verbal cues, and no simulated empathy, what else would be missing when you do not have your mask on? (Not breaking eye contact? NTs find that very unsettling)
Not breaking eye contact is certainly a part of it, but it can also be not directing attention to a person that is speaking. On many occasions the person has entered my space and wants me to not do what I was doing, the thing I want to do, and now focus on them. This may not be something I am interested in doing. For instance, if I am gaming and now someone feels the need to interrupt that activity I am going to be disinclined to pause my game and make them my priority.
I have the same thing. It is often easier for me to engage in a dialogue productively if I don’t have to be focused on it alone and can do other things while I am listening and talking. For me communication has helped to avoid having to do that. Both to people I met just recently and my friends I just tell about that straight. Obviously not in straight as in “I am not as interested in our conversation as I am in what I am doing, what you are saying is merely being processed by my mind in the background and I don’t want to look more engaged than I am”, but I tell them that I am focused on my work, for example, whatever I am actually doing, but still listen to them very attentively and excuse because I cannot dedicate more attention to them. I remind myself to give some specific responses from time to time so there is no problem. Most people are understanding of that.
I live with the mask off. What's funny is even with me saying that I know it is absolutely apart of me. I am open and honest about who I am and how I make decisions so people understand my viewpoints. Reality, the voice inflections and facial changes to show emotion come out. I can't turn them off because they have become apart of my character. I always make the statement I have zero personality and every personality because they are the same thing. I was born without an emotional personality but I created a personality that fits in any and all situations. It's like being a puzzle piece that changes to fit the puzzle without me thinking about it. As much as I am open and honest I can't turn it off unless I am in the room alone with another masked person. At some point the masks completely come off and we are there talking in the most monotone bland conversation ever about some extreme crazy event like we are explaining a simple math problem.
Psychopaths do not lack personalities at all. We are very aware of and very comfortable with who we are and know our personalities very well. The mask is not creating a personality because without it we lack one. It is about creating the emotional feedback system that neurotypicals rely on in order to obtain whatever it is that we would like out of any given situation.
Both the other psychopath that I know and I have very strong personalities and frequently talk mask-off with one another. I cannot imagine a psychopath thinking that they lacked a personality, nor one that would be meek or mild in their personality. It is completely contrary to how we are wired.
Can I ask you a question? My wife has tested > 96% on the Hyper Narcissistic scale test. 82 for psychopathy, 78 psych asthenia, 75 Schizoid on the MMPI test. What is she?
A person cannot have psychopathy, NPD, Schizoid personality disorder, psychopathy, and psychasthenia.
In fact, none of these things can coexist with psychopathy as they are all trauma based, and psychopaths cannot be traumatized. It sounds to me that Dr. Wagner is using a very old-school thinking when it comes to both psychopathy and personality disorders and is likely conflating psychopathy and ASPD when they have nothing to do with one another. Hopefully he didn't ask her whether she set fires, tortured animals, and wet the bed for a long period of time.
She is doing everything she has been diagnosed with, including filing 18 false police reports cause I caught her stealing. She has had a very unsuccessful Mary Kay business for 12 years, we have been together 6, married 2.5 years. She was putting her MK expenses on my cc lol, saying will pay me back on 15th. 4 months no reimbursement. I confronted her, she left and kidnapped my beautiful child.
I do have a question, out of pure curiosity: Do all psychopaths learn to mask? I know you said the mask is always improving and changing to suit the needs, but what happens if a psychopath just never learns how to mask the way is necessary to fit in, so to speak?
How would a psychopath that’s unable to present a more ‘palatable’ (for lack of better term) self to the public, fair in a world that demands so much on social graces, nuance, and subtle cues?
They would have an extremely limited life which would not provide them with anything interesting to do. They wouldn't care that they didn't belong to the group, but they would care that the group, society as a whole, would serve as gatekeepers from the things that they want to do.
Oh, I enjoyed the movie and I would love to read what Athena thinks about Amanda's character. For that matter about Lily too (though that second girlie is NT).
And India from Stoker. Her murderous uncle was clearly an emotional jealous sort of person, but she is closer to what I see described here. Except she does seem upset about passing of her father for longer than what Athena describes as short adjustment period. And her sensory sensitivity seemed closer to what people on autism spectrum experience.
Both movies are still fictional works, but what they portrayed I found quite interesting.
Do you not fear death? Most people are usually scared of that. How do you logically reason out something like that? Let's say you go bungee jumping on your vacation. Does it occur to you that if the rope or the equipment fails, you may fall deep down and cease to exist. Doesn't that give you a feeling of fear?
Your blog is so informative. Very insightful and definitely worth reading!
This article reminds me of the "moral message" that had been preached to me as a kid but for which the actions of the adults proved that they did not take seriously, that is the "be yourself" message.
People may consciously agree with that message but as soon as they meet someone who doesn't fit into their sensibilities, they don't like it. As a child it always felt like the adults where communicating 'Be yourself. Oh, but not like that!'
Admittedly my experiences are of me being an autistic child rather than a psychopathic one, but I do relate to having to learn how to navigate the social landscape of NT society albeit not in the same way.
I feel like NTs take for granted the fact that they're in the majority. They are not forced to face the reality of what "be yourself" entails. I've found comments made by certain NT individuals when they learn about masking, whether that is masking of autism, psychopathy, ADHD, whatever, they'll make a comment like 'You shouldn't have to do that, you should just be yourself.' and I just see someone who is regurgitating a social idea that I have yet to see put into effective practice.
I was 5 years-old when I told my grandfather I was different. He was the only person I knew would listen to me. I told him that I didn't know anyone that thought like me. Years later I found out why... Psychopathy.
To anyone reading this... I killed animals for curiosity as a kid. Tortured and mutilated. As an adult with cognitive empathy I apologize to anyone for the pain I caused them as a kid. But, as a kid I didn't think I did anything wrong. I just wanted to see what I could do and how long they would last. It was entertainment because I was looking for something to do. Boredum sucks.
Animal torture has nothing to do with psychopathy at all. The MacDonald Triad that made this claim was almost immediately debunked. It is related to the externalization of child abuse, not psychopathy.
I can’t identify with this at all. I once was physically restrained by an adult after coming up on some kids who were killing kittens and I attempted to gouge the ring leaders eye out. I don’t recall which eye it was but they didn’t lose it and recovered fully.
What a wonderful and well written work!
You really make me smile of your interactions with your family.
"...continues until we die or cease caring." LOL. Perhaps there is a third option which places few demands: I live in a country where I don't speak the language that well. Except to buy essential goods and services, I rarely interact with anyone beyond 'good morning'.
Thank you again for your work and willingness to reveal your life.
The thing about mimicry of tone and emotions is that all of the reactions exist but with the limited emotional range they are pretty much free to be activated and used, with practice of course.
Crying from frustration as a child is very much something I experienced and it was really annoying to be honest. Once in about 7th grade I struck a match in the library at school. Of course the smell attracted the attention of the librarian and eventually the principal came out to interrogate my friends and I. I lied so glibly that the principal went back to his office. My friends wouldn’t look at me and I couldn’t figure out how I was going to get out of the situation as I knew someone would crack. I started to cry then stopped and went to the office and confessed. Nothing happened. The principal congratulated me for standing up like a man and not getting my friends in trouble too. No one ever said a thing about the incident again.
That was when I learned that sometimes looking them square in the eye and giving them the truth can be a good strategy
Quite true
It's often the best strategy. Especially looking them in the eyes without blinking and a with a relaxed gaze.
Telling the truth saves a lot of time.
"continues until we die or cease caring. I wonder which one I reach first."
ROFLMAO. I trust you'll let us all know which comes first? Kinda like the chicken and the egg, I'm guessing.
As an NT, I can tell you that there definitely comes a time in life when I've become less willing to put up with the bull**it. And this unwillingness increases as I get older. In a way, I suppose that the NT version of "tact" is a bit like a mask in that we hide our true feelings when the truth is either hostile or likely to hurt the other person's feelings.
I have noticed this in many people, and hypothesize that this comes around the time of aging out of breeding capability quite often, and that it is directly related to no longer caring about attracting a mate for the purpose of continuing the genetic line. I have no idea if this in correct, but based on what I have observed it seems logically consistent.
I think it's more down the lines of feeling like one's time left on earth is getting shorter and therefore more precious and not wanting to waste time and energy on less important stuff. Similar to the saying, "I'm getting too old for this." It takes energy to be tactful. We geezers have got less of it.
Still, the notion that we have already done our bit--or not--for continuing the genetic line is definitely worth consideration. That's a "think outside the box" that would not have occurred to me.
Well, we geezers still have our friends. Though come to think of it, to the degree that I'm still tactful, I do consider how my words will impact the folks I do care about. It's mostly all them other folks I'm less tolerant of.
Imagine a world in which everybody was psychopathic.
Do you suppose you'd enjoy it more than this world? Would mask wearing still be a thing? Would more get done faster civilization-wise, or would we remain stuck in even more rampant tribalistic and violent ruts?
I'd love to read some extended musings on this. I suppose it could very well go either way.
I'm actually working on a post about that, but there really isn't a whole lot that I have to draw on. It isn't as though there is a pool of psychopaths available to me to create this idea of the world. It's largely speculation and that doesn't seem to be remotely accurate to me. There isn't a lot of information about how we would even interact with one another outside of individual relationships. Those tell us little about extrapolating that out and accounting for different personalities and priorities.
Why don't you allow yourself to speculate fully, for a change? Think of it as writing a piece of fiction. I think people might enjoy that, for a change.
For one, it would likely be a world in which feelings would hold little to no sway. Many of the puzzling things you describe from your infancy would not have occurred. People would probably be far more practical and tacit in their dealings. Manipulation might not work and might be sneered upon as low class/ low functioning, since all people would discern any such ploys easily. Art/Religion/Philosophy might not exist, and Engineering/Science/Technology might be far more intricate than our own. On the other hand, whatever conflits arose might escalate summarily into genocide, until a sort of mutual welfare/cooperation dynamic was established through hystorical hindsight as the most logical position.
Hm. Maybe such a world would be a bit like the Vulcan or Borg civilizations from Star Trek? I don't know much about its canon, but it somewhat feels they might be going for a similar premise (the former seem to be conceptualized as a hyper logical species that vanquised emotion, the latter as futuristic hybrid human computers).
Unlikely, as the Vulcans organized themselves around tamping down their emotions and thus that would greatly influence their society, and the Borg were hive minds, which psychopaths would never be. We are staunch individualists.
You're right, I was imagining through my own non-psychopathic lens what a psychopathic civilization might be like.
That's what I find interesting about the present exercise, though - I would like to see how you'd conceptualize a psychopathic civilization as seen through a genuinely psychopathic lens.
I think one of the challenges in your way might be something that invariably boggles all fiction writers, and once done right provides the cornerstone for an accomplished fictional narrative: world building.
You need to first establish the rules of the world before you can flesh out the setting. Context before text, simply put.
Then you can just apply your understanding of psychopathy to that context.
It might be helpful to proceed in historical stages and imagine how things might have played out. In such a world - assuming there wouldn't have been some kind of widespread event that instantly turned all living people into psychopaths - all people would have evolved through the generations in a context of non-existent emotional reactiveness.
How would that possibly pan out in early cavemen era? How might that have affected the early underpinnings of society? Would society even arise in a world exclusively comprised of staunch individualists? Would agriculture ever have been devised in a world in which human bonding wasn't a thing, or would it instead be a reality comprised only of hunters? How might early civilization have shaped up in such a context? If civilization did unfold, what sort of collective drama (i.e. witch hunts, inquisition, etc) might have been avoided, and what sort of collective challenges might have arose instead? Would it likely pan in in a more diplomatic way, or could societies turned out far more savage? Perhaps a bit of both? How might that have led to a present reality different than our own? In what ways might it not have been for the better, and in what ways could it have been advantageous?
That's some food for thought. It's admittedly a highly complex undertaking. Not sure how far you would want to take this, but whatever premise you come up with might one day be the basis of an interesting novel - if you ever happen to feel like writing it. It could shape up to be a really interesting reflection on the virtues and vices of emotional reactiveness.
The issue that I arrive at again and again when thinking about these things is that it is similar in the belief that some group of people or an individual can usher in a Utopian society when in reality it would be nothing more than a Dystopian nightmare. The level of ego that it takes, as well as pure idiocy that is required to believe that an imagined society that exists in the mind of it's creator will actually look like what they imagine is fairly impressive.
I don't see this as any different. It would be an extremely limited self-indulgent world that takes very little reality into account in its construction. Thus the saying, "You don't know what you don't know".
That is a wise stance. I agree that diversity is a prerequisite of a balanced and sustainable life, and all extremes of any kind invariably disrupt order and promote chaos. I very much intended to allude to this possibility with the questions I've raised in this conversation. Once again, you shown that albeit you have a strong ego, you do not appear to be attached to it; that is commendable, in my book.
Regardless, there's nothing wrong with imagining things or indulging speculations or fooling around creatively; if nothing else, it sheds light on what we do not know, provided we cultivate discernment - rather than succumb to the illusion of knowledge as anything else but a ongoing, never-ending depuration process. As I personally like to put it "there is always an horizon beyond the horizon".
What you just wrote has substance and depth, and might very well be the thesis of a piece of fiction that might have cathartic potential. I remain curious to see whether you'll fashion something out of these ideas you have floating around.
The way you describe childhood for a psychopath resonates with me. Not all of it, of course, since I’m not one. I cried often as a kid and sometimes still do. But the parts about empathy and learning how to act in certain situations?
A good example is one I vaguely recall in which I told a girl my age I didn’t like her dress. I don’t remember why, but I know I hurt her feelings and she didn’t like me after that.
My mom had to EXPLAIN how ‘white lies’, i.e. lies that aren’t harmful while still technically being dishonest, are sometimes necessary in social situations. I might think Meghan’s dress is ugly but if she asks, I should tell her I like it, because telling her how I really feel makes her sad.
I have ADHD, of the combined type (though they weren’t that specific with subtypes when I was a child). When someone asks me my opinion I almost immediately want to say my exact thoughts, I’m /impulsive/ when it comes to verbal communication, I don’t think about what I’m saying until it’s already coming out of my mouth.
I can tell when I’ve said the wrong thing based on how the person’s face falls, the change in tone, etc.
I’ve gotten better at choosing my words more carefully especially if it’s a sensitive subject because I truly don’t mean to hurt people’s feelings, but this is a part of communicating that my brain has just never allowed me to become a ‘natural’ at, it’s something I need to consciously think about because my real self dominates conversations, won’t let other people get a word in until I’ve made MY point across, speaks a mile a minute to try to get all my thoughts out at once before I can be interrupted, and doesn’t consider how what I’m saying could be offensive until it’s too late.
It kind of sucks, but it’s who I am and I don’t know how not to be me so, I do my best with it, if that makes sense. The difference for me though wasn’t that I didn’t care I was upsetting people, it was that I didn’t have the forethought to consider it might before it was too late. Once I did it, I usually felt terrible if it was someone I cared about.
I mean, I try not to be a raging asshole. Most of the time, lol.
I know what you mean, and it's funny when I say something that I don't think should be upsetting, but then I find out that I lacked the cognitive empathy in that situation that would have prevented dealing with the aftermath.
"This starts when we are children, and it continues until we die or cease caring. I wonder which one I reach first."
Cease caring. It's very liberating.
It seems to be. I have never cared, so watching the changeover from flirtatious to not giving one crap about anything anyone thinks is always amusing to see.
"Most experts agree that 70 to 93 percent of all communication is nonverbal." Would you describe "mask-off" as complete lack of these cues? With no non-verbal cues, and no simulated empathy, what else would be missing when you do not have your mask on? (Not breaking eye contact? NTs find that very unsettling)
Not breaking eye contact is certainly a part of it, but it can also be not directing attention to a person that is speaking. On many occasions the person has entered my space and wants me to not do what I was doing, the thing I want to do, and now focus on them. This may not be something I am interested in doing. For instance, if I am gaming and now someone feels the need to interrupt that activity I am going to be disinclined to pause my game and make them my priority.
I have the same thing. It is often easier for me to engage in a dialogue productively if I don’t have to be focused on it alone and can do other things while I am listening and talking. For me communication has helped to avoid having to do that. Both to people I met just recently and my friends I just tell about that straight. Obviously not in straight as in “I am not as interested in our conversation as I am in what I am doing, what you are saying is merely being processed by my mind in the background and I don’t want to look more engaged than I am”, but I tell them that I am focused on my work, for example, whatever I am actually doing, but still listen to them very attentively and excuse because I cannot dedicate more attention to them. I remind myself to give some specific responses from time to time so there is no problem. Most people are understanding of that.
I live with the mask off. What's funny is even with me saying that I know it is absolutely apart of me. I am open and honest about who I am and how I make decisions so people understand my viewpoints. Reality, the voice inflections and facial changes to show emotion come out. I can't turn them off because they have become apart of my character. I always make the statement I have zero personality and every personality because they are the same thing. I was born without an emotional personality but I created a personality that fits in any and all situations. It's like being a puzzle piece that changes to fit the puzzle without me thinking about it. As much as I am open and honest I can't turn it off unless I am in the room alone with another masked person. At some point the masks completely come off and we are there talking in the most monotone bland conversation ever about some extreme crazy event like we are explaining a simple math problem.
Psychopaths do not lack personalities at all. We are very aware of and very comfortable with who we are and know our personalities very well. The mask is not creating a personality because without it we lack one. It is about creating the emotional feedback system that neurotypicals rely on in order to obtain whatever it is that we would like out of any given situation.
Both the other psychopath that I know and I have very strong personalities and frequently talk mask-off with one another. I cannot imagine a psychopath thinking that they lacked a personality, nor one that would be meek or mild in their personality. It is completely contrary to how we are wired.
I quite enjoy being a human chameleon!
Can I ask you a question? My wife has tested > 96% on the Hyper Narcissistic scale test. 82 for psychopathy, 78 psych asthenia, 75 Schizoid on the MMPI test. What is she?
A person that should go to an actual psychologist to be evaluated and ignore online testing. Online testing has no value.
Those are from an actual psychologist lol. Dr. Wagner even tested Gary Ridgeway the Green River Killer! My wife tested higher than him!
A person cannot have psychopathy, NPD, Schizoid personality disorder, psychopathy, and psychasthenia.
In fact, none of these things can coexist with psychopathy as they are all trauma based, and psychopaths cannot be traumatized. It sounds to me that Dr. Wagner is using a very old-school thinking when it comes to both psychopathy and personality disorders and is likely conflating psychopathy and ASPD when they have nothing to do with one another. Hopefully he didn't ask her whether she set fires, tortured animals, and wet the bed for a long period of time.
He gave her the MMPI2 test. Any number higher than 70 indicates a problem, and she tested higher than 70 for Psychopathy, Schizoid, and psych asthenia
The MMPI-2 is not enough for a diagnosis. Diagnostics are much more in depth.
She is doing everything she has been diagnosed with, including filing 18 false police reports cause I caught her stealing. She has had a very unsuccessful Mary Kay business for 12 years, we have been together 6, married 2.5 years. She was putting her MK expenses on my cc lol, saying will pay me back on 15th. 4 months no reimbursement. I confronted her, she left and kidnapped my beautiful child.
I do have a question, out of pure curiosity: Do all psychopaths learn to mask? I know you said the mask is always improving and changing to suit the needs, but what happens if a psychopath just never learns how to mask the way is necessary to fit in, so to speak?
How would a psychopath that’s unable to present a more ‘palatable’ (for lack of better term) self to the public, fair in a world that demands so much on social graces, nuance, and subtle cues?
They would have an extremely limited life which would not provide them with anything interesting to do. They wouldn't care that they didn't belong to the group, but they would care that the group, society as a whole, would serve as gatekeepers from the things that they want to do.
Amanda (Olivia Cooke) tries to teach Lily (Anya Taylor-Joy) how to fake cry in the film "Thoroughbreds" (2018):
https://youtu.be/IfZmBGcWkLI
Oh, I enjoyed the movie and I would love to read what Athena thinks about Amanda's character. For that matter about Lily too (though that second girlie is NT).
And India from Stoker. Her murderous uncle was clearly an emotional jealous sort of person, but she is closer to what I see described here. Except she does seem upset about passing of her father for longer than what Athena describes as short adjustment period. And her sensory sensitivity seemed closer to what people on autism spectrum experience.
Both movies are still fictional works, but what they portrayed I found quite interesting.
Do you not fear death? Most people are usually scared of that. How do you logically reason out something like that? Let's say you go bungee jumping on your vacation. Does it occur to you that if the rope or the equipment fails, you may fall deep down and cease to exist. Doesn't that give you a feeling of fear?
Your blog is so informative. Very insightful and definitely worth reading!
No, I don't fear it at all. I have been close to it a few times, and nothing has changed in that regard. It's still just something that is there.
What is you experience of morality?
You mentioned, in one of your articles, that you express ‘contempt’ for a particular group of rapists, but what does that feel like to you?
I spoke about that here:
https://athenawalker.substack.com/p/morals
Contempt is cognitive for me. There isn't a feeling involved.
Thank you.
This article reminds me of the "moral message" that had been preached to me as a kid but for which the actions of the adults proved that they did not take seriously, that is the "be yourself" message.
People may consciously agree with that message but as soon as they meet someone who doesn't fit into their sensibilities, they don't like it. As a child it always felt like the adults where communicating 'Be yourself. Oh, but not like that!'
Admittedly my experiences are of me being an autistic child rather than a psychopathic one, but I do relate to having to learn how to navigate the social landscape of NT society albeit not in the same way.
I feel like NTs take for granted the fact that they're in the majority. They are not forced to face the reality of what "be yourself" entails. I've found comments made by certain NT individuals when they learn about masking, whether that is masking of autism, psychopathy, ADHD, whatever, they'll make a comment like 'You shouldn't have to do that, you should just be yourself.' and I just see someone who is regurgitating a social idea that I have yet to see put into effective practice.
I ceased caring.
I was 5 years-old when I told my grandfather I was different. He was the only person I knew would listen to me. I told him that I didn't know anyone that thought like me. Years later I found out why... Psychopathy.
To anyone reading this... I killed animals for curiosity as a kid. Tortured and mutilated. As an adult with cognitive empathy I apologize to anyone for the pain I caused them as a kid. But, as a kid I didn't think I did anything wrong. I just wanted to see what I could do and how long they would last. It was entertainment because I was looking for something to do. Boredum sucks.
Animal torture has nothing to do with psychopathy at all. The MacDonald Triad that made this claim was almost immediately debunked. It is related to the externalization of child abuse, not psychopathy.
Im not saying psychopaths do that... Im saying I did. It was curiosity. I wasn't a good kid. I just remember thinking I wonder what would happen.
I can’t identify with this at all. I once was physically restrained by an adult after coming up on some kids who were killing kittens and I attempted to gouge the ring leaders eye out. I don’t recall which eye it was but they didn’t lose it and recovered fully.
I have no explanation for that reaction either
I can't either. Animal torture has nothing to do with psychopathy at all.
"I Don't Feel Anything" - Another clip from the film "Thoroughbreds" (2018):
https://youtu.be/j91qPMHaqbg