From my limited understanding psychopaths lack empathy, guilt etc… from my point of view loosing my child is the worse thing that can happen. But since psychopaths are incapable of love , would they experience any trauma over loosing their child? Can they get over it easily ? I am not trying to be judgmental I am genuinely curious

Relationships with these personality types apparently go through stages. Idealise, Devalue and Discard. Is this unintentional as they lose interest or is it planned? What can be done to avoid the devalue and discard stage so that it can end on good terms if possible? Their partner is often blamed for their loss of interest toward the end because they lack introspection, so must I accept that somethings cant be avoided despite best intentions and just leave them be? Any advice from a psychopath or someone who has been in a relationship with would be appreciated. (Male relationship.)

This post is about a highly psychopathic man, so psychopathic its difficult to believe this person exists, its almost like a caricature and it sparks the question, how strong can the psychopaths delusions of grandiosity be?

So this man started gaining popularity in the 80's claiming to be capable of healing any illness with his chiropractic adjustments and various techniques. he was very charismatic, fearless leader and great speaker, capable of getting thousands of people to pay for his treatment. He would demand discipline and obedience, and loved to be praised by people and equally loved to make others feel humiliated, small and beneath him. When they wouldnt listen he would beat them sometimes with a whip, sometimes with his fists, usually in front of a crowd to make an example out of them. That was his thing, being the one that controls everyone and everything, and it was poorly hidden behind the disguise of being a mesiah and a leader that came to save the people.

At first he kept saying that he will become the president, that he healed 3000 people from vision problems, made cripples walk, saved dying children, was a black belt in multiple martial arts, a pilot etc, blatant bullshit he seemed to genuinely believe. As he got older and his influence went down he kept getting arrested or ending up in psychiatric institutions even though he already had 12 felony convictions for assaulting people. At some point was heavily supervised by the police, couldnt travel etc. Instead of learning his lesson and leading a more normal life, he got more and more delusional and aggressive, started talking about how he is the reincarnation of Jesus christ and many more outlandish beliefs. There was even more fights and "making an example" out of people, showing up to his "enemies" houses with guns, few more attacks on minors, hundreds of conflicts, and the grand finale keeping a person hostage and abusing them in various ways. Finally after his iirc 18th conviction he died in prison at 60 years old.

The criminal history of this man is ridiculous. You could write a 1000 pages of text to cover just what is out on the surface from his videos and journalists reports, so many insane behaviors. Im genuinely surprised how much time he spent outside. An unbelievable lack of self control and perspective taking or rational thinking. Every day, every hour, every interaction were a high risk of trouble. He LOVED to humiliate and hurt others. Utterly fearless and not in a good way. So many fights, so much conflict, so much overt law breaking. You have to ask yourself does this person even have empathy for themselves, to go in such a strong conflict with the world and put so many enemies on himself. Such a massive weight on your shoulders, or maybe not for a man living in his own world where hes the best, incapable of wrong and needs no one else to affirm it.

His name is Dr. Ante Pavlović. He has a youtube channel, a lot of his content was taken off by youtube but theres still videos of him violating by innapropriately touching quadriplegic person then mocking him for having a small penis and showing him his own, assaulting people physically, and usually verbally, tying his dogs around a pole and throwing them in a lake to swim while he is running errands, going through 12 red lights and driving on the sidewalk with his motorcycle to save time, being insanely mean and aggressive, rambling about his achievements and just a constant incapacity to behave within even somewhat normal moral standards in any way or form.

https://www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/crna-kronika/kiroprakticar-pod-istragom-ante-pavlovic-divljao-i-zlostavljao-djecaka-jer-nije-htio-skinuti-gace-578155

One of his 2014 arrests prior to he already spent 1590 days in prison on 12 different convictions. Translate if interested, you can find dozens of these.

OK, so, this is a long one, so brace yourselves. Although I shouldn't have to, I probably need to preface this post by saying that it's going to talk about a certain person of religious import (as should be evident from the title). I'm not glorifying a cult leader, nor disrespecting spiritual icons, but I hope we can all be grown up enough to have this conversation without getting all uppity about peripheral nonsense. However, in case we aren't, here's a disclaimer.

The PCL-R scores presented here are purely hypothetical due to the absence of sufficient collateral information and contextual data required for a full and proper assessment. The interpretations and justifications used to assign scores reflect speculative analysis based on limited information and should not be taken as authoritative conclusions.

The persons chosen each represent an extreme on the PCL-R scale, and are intentionally selected to illustrate the core point of the post.

Right, with that out of the way, let's get started. First, a few introductory bits and bobs.

What is the PCL-R?

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is a forensic tool used to assess the presence of psychopathic traits in an individual. Used alongside a battery of tests and other instruments, and in review of a large amount of collateral data, it evaluates personality traits, behaviours, and personal history to measure criminal tendencies and risk. It is scored on 0-2 scale per item against an overall range from 0 to 40 where a score above 30 typically suggests psychopathy. In some regions, e.g., Brazil, this cut-off is lower at 25. Likewise, when researching "non-criminal" psychopaths, the cut-off is reduced to 25.

Who is Jesus?

Jesus of Nazareth was a first-century religious leader whose teachings form the basis of Christianity. Revered as the Messiah and Son of God by Christians, his life is characterised by acts of compassion, empathy, hope, love, miracles, and a defined spiritual mission.

Who is David Koresh?

David Koresh was the leader of the Branch Davidians, a sect that engaged in a notorious standoff with federal agents at Waco, Texas, in 1993. He claimed to be the final prophet of the lord and led his followers with a combination of religious teachings and authoritarian control; the culmination of which was a violent seige of his compound.

In light of the above descriptions, we can pin-point some overlaps between the two leaders:

• claimed to be messianic figures with a divine mission
• had a loyal following that believed in their spiritual message
• faced opposition from established authorities (religious and governmental)
• framed their teachings as fulfilling or surpassing religious laws
• were perceived as charismatic leaders with strong influence over their followers
• saw their missions as necessary to bring about a new spiritual order

However, Koresh is considered a criminal and cult leader, not a spiritual leader or divine figure. Why is that? Well, let's take a look, shall we? Most cult leaders exhibit features colloquially referred to as "messiah syndrome"--not to be confused with saviour complex. The latter is characterised by a drive to save or help others, whereas the former is about establishing oneself as a messianic figure for the purposes of personal gain, power, or control. The common features these types tend to share are:

• hypocritical puritanism
• unprovoked acts of violence
• prone to temper tantrums
• destroying or stealing people's property and livestock
• disregarding personal boundaries
• anti-authority
• breaking with established tradition and religious laws
• demanding flattery and worship without earning it
• using divisive, racist, xenophobic, and populist language
• hoarding luxuries for themselves
• disrespecting and defiling the dead
• callously separating families
• consorting with prostitutes and criminals
• poor impulse control
• ghosting and cutting people out that disagreed with them
• starting a cult or secular community
• black-and-white thinking/absolutism
• glib and superficially charming
• deceptive and manipulative
• grandiose sense of self and aloofness
• sexual misconduct

I think we can agree that's a pretty psychopathic list, but, no matter how you swing it, there's a few things in it we can apply to Jesus. Of course, we need to view them in context. What better way than through the PCL-R? Let's start with Jesus.

Jesus scores a lowly 5 on the PCL-R. As expected, not very psychopathic at all.

And Koresh?

Koresh comes out at a solid 34. Again, no surprises there. Notice, however, I added a column for "Justification"? While we view Jesus through a spiritual lens, we can excuse, dismiss, or hand-waive a lot of the inventory. But is that fair? Despite the broader context, we can cherry-pick examples to normalise some of Jesus' behaviours--we can, not alter the narrative, but semantically reframe and even remove the entire spiritual and cultural context. Items in a list are, after all, devoid of nuance, moral or spiritual conviction, when taken in isolation, e.g.,

• Disregarded Personal Boundaries: Jesus often nullified the autonomy of his followers

• Anti-Authority: Jesus repeatedly defied religious authorities, condemning the Pharisees (Matthew 23:27) and healing on the Sabbath (Luke 13:14), challenging traditional Jewish law.

• Breaking the Sabbath and Other Jewish Laws: Jesus allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28), directly challenging Jewish law, framing himself as above it.

• Above Roman Law: Jesus' elevated himself above Roman authority, and placed his mission outside the legal framework of mortal men.

• Demanding Worship without Earning It: Jesus claimed to be the son of god and expected people to take it at face value.

• Using Xenophobic Language: in his encounter with a Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:22-28), Jesus refuses help, resorting to harsh language.

• Disrespect for the Dead: “Let the dead bury their own dead” (Luke 9:60); raising a lietral dead man (Lazerus).

• Callous Separation of Families: Jesus' direct statement in Matthew 10:34-37 about turning family members against each other.

So, let's take a leaf out of the book of Monty Python and imagine a man who lives a life analogous to Jesus. Let's assume he didn't perform any miracles, even if his followers believe he did. Let's imagine this man hit all the other story beats, and, for completeness, let's call him Brian. How does a man like Brian fare on the PCL-R when we apply the Koresh-styled moral lens to his behaviour?

Brian suddenly scores 24, putting him into the common cluster B (ASPD) range and cresting on the Brazillian forensic cut-off of 25. Interesting...

What if we do the same with Koresh? Let's imagine a man who lives a life analogous to Koresh, follows all the same story beats, but maybe, well, what if the consensus is he did perform a miracle or two? What if his little sect grew into a major world religion practiced by a 3rd of the population? Let's call him Tim and see how the PCL-R works out for Tim when viewed through the Jesus-spiritual lens.

Will you look at that? Our boy Tim rolled into a very safe 6.

What did we learn?

The PCL-R, while a respected tool in forensic psychology, has very obvious limitations. Its reliance on observable behaviour and subjective interpretation makes it vulnerable to bias, particularly when used outside the intended forensic context. As seen with the examples of Jesus and Koresh, identical behaviours can be framed in drastically different ways depending on the narrative being applied--whether spiritual, moral, or cultral. For example, from a spiritual perspective, actions like overturning the tables of merchants and traders in the temple or encouraging followers to leave their families can be viewed as acts of divine righteousness. However, through a moral lens, these same behaviours could be interpreted as impulsive, manipulative, antisocial, destructive, etc, depending on the evaluator's personal beliefs, and understanding of the subject's motivations.

Reliance purely on observable, surface-level behaviours without prior or deeper exploration into motivation and applicable context makes any such tool inaccurate. For individuals like Brian and Tim, the PCL-R may over- or under- pathologize behaviours. It fails to differentiate between truly psychopathic behaviour and those that stem from different worldviews or highly individual motivation, leading to false positives, elevated or supressed scores, and mischaracterisation.

These shortcomings demonstrate how the PCL-R can be influenced by personal agendas, biases, prejudices, and other preconceived notions, making it vulnerable to misuse, especially when applied to individuals whose lives do not fit cleanly into the forensic framework it belongs to. This susceptibility to narrative framing challenges the tool's ability to consistently assess psychopathy across diverse contexts. It requires careful, context-aware, narrow usage as part of a wider system. Hence, the PCL-R is only one tool in the forensic psychology toolbag, and there is a great deal of emphasis on procedure and collateral evidence during its application.

There is no "psychopathy test"; no 100% fool proof system or metric; no absolutely reliable indicator (see previous posts). There are, however, processes, peer reviews, and many lengthy assessments which incoporate an eco-system of instruments which the PCL-R is often the final summary of. But does that gaurantee accuracy any more than a quick online self-test? Or is it just more layers to hide the bias between?

On this sub I’ve seen multiple posts pointing to the idea that the sort of narcissism psychopaths exhibit is qualitatively different— specifically that it is self-affirming in contrast to the “pervasive neurosis” that is vulnerable narcissism.

So my question is:

Is this self-affirming narcissism equivalent to a more extreme version of grandiose/“thick skinned” narcissism?

and

Do we have any quality literature on this topic specifically?

Currently, I am working as a "Trainee". I am a "new fish " in a business ; I learned a lot this past quarter of the year. However, I felt uncomfortable interacting with one of my female coworkers. And since my arrival, hostility seems to be a very common approach; and I am noticing that her actions are contradictory. This, makes me wonder, if Psychopaths, in the working place, are a commonplace?. Or, if there is a certain criteria/pattern they do?

Hello!

Had a quick question/debate point. There is this prevailing idea in pop culture people with psychopathy and/or other personality disorders can come off as "charming". Would you say you've ever met anyone who's charming? I know it's a bit of an inexplicable term, but how would you describe it? I don't think I've ever really been "charmed" by anyone

I am curious whether or not the environment of roleplay or roleplaying games is more or less attractive towards psychopathic individuals, and if so, what would that be or not be the case?

It's effectively creating (tabletop games, LARP) or entering (computer games) a simulated environment where an individual has a greater deal of control over who they are, and what they do, and any consequences that would occur are largely only fictional. I know that many people use those as an escape from real life, or as an opportunity to act in ways they would not otherwise be able to do. Does that have any appeal to a psychopath or not? I could anticipate someone feeling that taking actions inside of a fictional setting has no real weight to it, and that events that occur would simply bring no satisfaction or no reaction at all as a result.

Clearly I wouldn't be here if I wasn't curious to hear what you all had to say on the topic.

Why do they lack emotions, is it something in morphology of the brain or something else. Is it known and why does it happen.

From my understanding, psychopaths primarily relate to others via contempt - in other words, due to their internal grandiose structures, it is necessitated that they look down on others for most part. Certainly, no psychopath idealizes or admires others, although they can hold some level of respect or envy for others as well.

Now, take the following scenario: A psychopathic person is working a relatively low-status job, let's say a dish washer at a restaurant or something similar. They meet another person, either in-person or online, who is working at a much more prestigious and high status job which also makes more money. The person that they meet for whatever reason decides to mock and hold the psychopath in derision and contempt. What psychological processes does the psychopath use in this scenario in order to not experience shame? What is the thought process of the psychopath in such a situation - how do they react? Moreover, how can a psychopath continue hold most people in contempt and hold themselves in a grandiose position if they occupy such a low status and position in a society? How are they able to be indifferent to the negative opinions of others and poor future prospects? I'm trying to understand on what ground does the psychopathic grandiose self-structure stand on, such that it is impervious to external attacks. Input from highly psychopathic individuals is most appreciated.

Disclaimer: The post itself only refers to the parts relevant for the discussion (see below). Any questions beyond that relies on the reader's own initiative. A link to the paper is provided below the question.

The paper is about research about the relationship between Subjective Well-being (SWB) and the Dark Triad (Narcicism, Machivalianism, and Psychopathy) under the role of Buddhism.

The study classifies three types of Buddhist patience:

• patience with hostile people ("attain inward peace without any anger or hatred, especially while being complaint or even injured")
• patience with a harsh world ("individuals accept the environment surrounding them, while facing hazards, disasters, illnesses, pains, and mental anxieties")
• patience with abstruse books ("break habitual thinking patterns and constantly pursue the attainment of truth through the understanding of profound Buddhist law or concepts of truth within the universe")

The overarching idea is that pateience is an indicator for SWB. The equation of SWB with Buddhist pateience derives from a correlation between "little upsetting" and SWB, and Buddhist patience decreasing upsetting.

The results show that psychopathy is negatively correlated to any form of patience:

"the higher psychopathy possessed by an individual, the lower the score of patience—hence psychopathy can negatively predict patience"

The paper further suggests that Buddhism patience and Psychopathy are some sort of an opposite on a spectrum:

This negative correlation relationship is concerned with the influence of eastern and western cultural backgrounds. The Dark Triad was an extreme development of the west to encourage competition and individual heroism (Smith & Griffith, 1978)

Buddhism is a practise which is suppose to teach patience, and there is serious evidence that practising Buddhist teachings can alter the brain structures:

Long-term Buddhist practitioners show high-amplitude gamma-band oscillations and phase-synchrony during nonreferential meditation. Some preliminary data suggest that these gamma oscillations are correlated with self-reports of clarity of meditation. Unfortunately, the lack of a control population makes it difficult to interpret whether the brain patterns reflect specific meditative qualities or the cognitive processes induced by the instruction. (Faure, Bernard, 2012)

Discussion: Can psychopaths help themselves by practising, or at least partly following, Buddhist teachings? By that they might decreasing their sensitivity towards their environment, other people, and develope tolerance for disrupting thought-patterns. Since Buddhist, unlike many other religions, mostly focus on self-improvement and not an obligation to follow the instructions of an authority, Buddhism might be easier to accept by psychopathic individuals, given their history of Conduct Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder).

Link: Microsoft Word - 08_32958nsj151117_62_68.docx (researchgate.net).

Wondering if reasons psychopaths initiate divorce is different than reasons “normal” / non-psychopathic people tend to initiate divorce (or a break up from a long term partner).

I am really curious about what kind of situations genuinely make/made you suffer or are extremely emotionally painful to you? How would you describe the way you experience your own suffering?

I find you all fascinating by the way.

I've wondered this, I personally have less, but it's not completely absent. is this the cause of impulse?

or is it all just different with each person?

There is the ongoing idea of Psychopaths being some kind of rational Master Mind, who is immune to any hoax and fraud. To the Psychopath, being the puppet player behind the curtains he naturally is, all forms of deceptions are simply given to him since birth. He could not even image to believe any conspiracy, only his brilliant and cold understanding of the human mind allows him, much like a chess-master, to predict how his victim will fall for the lies he spread through all of society...

On the other hand, there are these weird conspiracy believers, a bunch of naive people, low IQ, backward, pitiful and a burden to society, people who could be grateful we even tolerance, if they were not so stupid. But they are the perfect victims for any psychopathic Master-Mind who just lies in ambush for his gullible victims to suck out all his made-up conspiracies.

What if I told you, they are actually the same person?

Contrary to popular belief, there is a correlation between Dark Triad Personalities and belief in Conspiracy Theories.

Results provided partial support to the prediction that trait psychopathy would predict belief in conspiracy theories. Interestingly, results showed only primary psychopathy was a significant (positive) predictor of belief in conspiracy theories. As discussed in the introduction, primary psychopathy is characterised by traits such as social dominance, self-confidence, selfishness, manipulation of others, and a callous nature [26, 27]. This more composed, confident nature of primary psychopathy contrasts the impulsive, destructive, and volatile nature of secondary psychopathy (Evita March, Jordan Springer, 2019)

This was confirmed during the COVID pandemic (yeh we all try to forget about it I know).

Covid-19 conspiracy beliefs also mediated the positive relations between collective narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism and dissemination of Covid conspiracies. We have replicated recent findings in relation to collective narcissism and dissemination of Covid-19 conspiracy theories. (Sara Hughes and Laura Machan 2021)

The question is, if they only spread such beliefs or hold such beliefs themselves.

It is possible however that each trait has distinct motivations for spreading such misinformation. Future research should investigate motivations for spreading current and future conspiracy theories, particularly for psychopathy and Machiavellianism, so that public health messages may be adjusted accordingly to increase adherence to medical guidelines. (Sara Hughes and Laura Machan 2021)

That Narcissistic traits seem to be a core-factor for believing conspiracies, is further confirmed in another study. Here, unsurprisingly excluding "Sadistic" traits (a fourth form of "Dark Personality Traits").

The results showed positive correlations between Machiavellianism, primary and secondary psychopathy, and sadism on the one side and BCTs on the other. However, in the mediation analysis, sadism did not show significant direct or indirect effects, which is not in line with our expectations. Our results are in line with previous studies in which Machiavellianism and psychopathy emerged as the dominant predictors of general conspiracy beliefs (Hughes & Machan, 2021; March & Springer, 2019)

Now, the interesting question is of course, do they really believe the conspiracies themselves? If it is cheer pleasure to disseminate misinformation, one could expect Sadism to be a good indicator as well, and secondary psychopathic traits should not differ much from primary psychopathic traits.

However, the most significant predictors are all factors related to distrust, such as Machivalianism, narcissism, and primary psychopathic traits. This begs another question. Is it possible that these "Dark Triads" do not spread conspiracies with bad intentions, but with an actual belief that they protect others from potential harm? They may be doing so for the sake of self-preservation, since in case of politics, one needs masses to move something, but they may also be worried to a certain extent about the well-being of people they perceive as being in danger.

They do get a bad reputation since conspiracy theories are often equated with misinformation and trolling. On the other hand, if people who are partly shaped by a hostile environment, and by that develop some sort of "alarm bells" for approaching danger, could they be aware of a potential threat "healthy" people are not aware off?

Hello. Not sure what to type here but I always find it interesting what people think of psychopaths. I was incarcerated in an adult correctional facility while only in my mid-teens due to some violent acts (stabbings) and was tentatively labeled as antisocial with possible personality of schizoaffective disorders, but was too young for a formal diagnosis. I now avoid psychologists like the plague because one of my conditions of release from corrections was that my parole agent would be able to access any psych records I may acquire. So I do not have a formal diagnosis, and I apologize if that is a requirement for making one of these "confessionals."

Now i would say i have reigned in my impulses and set violence more to fantasy, though i do still cheat on my girlfriend by cucking guys, and harbor some increasingly deep deviations of desire from what would be acceptible I think. It is through some study of Lacan that I have reached better self-knowledge and believe I have identified some of the reasonings for my tendencies.

For people that fall high on the psychopath spectrum. I’m not sure what research shows, but do psychopaths tend to have very short tempers or is it the total opposite ? Does it take them awhile to get in enraged ? Do you have to trigger them in a certain way just like most people to get them mad ? What is it.

The anonymity provided by the internet can make it easier for psychopaths to connect and collaborate without the usual social barriers. This can lead to the sharing of personal spaces and resources in ways that might seem unusual to others.

It’s a complex and troubling issue, but understanding these behaviors can help in developing strategies to mitigate their impact.

It's important we talk about these traits.

A few months ago I got pretty interested in this topic and I would love to better understand the mind of a psychopath/sociopath, the way they think, and how they operate on daily basis. Do you know any books that could help me? Thanks a lot!

Gather around kids for I have a jail time story… it is not about me, because I am well adjusted individual, but it is about a feller I was on block with.

To not maintain anonymity, let’s call him Wolfgang because such is his name. It was from time when I was still housed in a wing for deviants so we do not get shanked.

As pure coincidence, he comes from region known to produce beacons of human race such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Fritzl and some others – Land Oberösterreich. He was sitting 6 years for buggering a minor boy or two against their will, or by his words “they were willing as long as they believed there is 100eur involved”. I immediately disliked him for tainting the oldest profession, but sharing a dorm with him for long hours, and in combination with my playful nature and religious fervor of catholic islam faith – as many knows It is my long term goal to unite two religions and having my name being said in same sentence with Gandhi, Mandela and Obama. So in my attempts to convert convicts and guards alike to my religion I think the Wolfie really bonded with my school of thought and suddenly came to me showing me how good he can sing amazing grace, I said his amazing grace sucks and is the reason why Jesus isn't coming for next 2000 years and he smashed my face against bunk ladder bars. Luckily correctional facilities maintain noble tradition of collective punishment so we were quickly pacificated by other inmates to not get denied dorm privileges. However having smashed face will be noticed by guards so I was questioned and immediately spilled all beans, because I could not stand the torture of Oberleutnants halitosis. Believe it or not this is the true psychopath of the story as he mercilessly denied my privileges - and only mine - on grounds of inciting violence in other inmates and disrupting peace. I know we cannot do Jennifer stories, but I think this injustice ignited my dislike of authorities. This is story about Wolfgang tho, so after I was not deemed sexual deviant I was moved to low sec general population and never heard of him again.

-Wrote on my new Samsung S24 Ultra

With the relationships that you had in the past that actually meant something to you, did you continue to “care” for that person after? What did you feel towards them? Did you ruin the relationship?

By “meant something” and “care” i understand the way a psychopath would be able to connect with someone/love someone if at all. It is different, and muted or impossible. i know that. I do know that connection is possible though, in certain ways. For more context as to why i’m asking this question, or maybe the answer i am really looking for, here:

(hopefully this is not seen as a life story, but just the experience that led me to my interest in this sub!)

I had a pretty intense relationship with a psychopath as a preteen-teen. Obviously i didn’t know what was wrong with him then, but i was so in love with this kid that i would let him hurt me. I mean he was manipulative a bit it though, it wasn’t outright. I didn’t just exactly submit to him, but with a bit of a game, which i’m sure he enjoyed, i would. I know that with the amount of control this kid had over me, and just based on the complex nature of our relationship, it’s possible he had some sort of connection to me, though it only came from a place of control.

After something really bad he did there was police involvement, in the end i did choose myself and betrayed this kid. We have gone no contact which is best for my safety.

I have read the sub rules so i know the issues i have with myself and am not looking for support. Just curious on brains and how these relationships work- I like to learn.

So what is your story with how you currently feel about your past “loves?”

Edit: i don’t mean to keep coming for people in the comments but i also don’t like how some are looking at me like i am a person who is whining about a “mean ex”. for the purposes of responding to this post please understand that i did in fact date a person with ASPD who fits all criteria of a psychopath, i know what he is. i know what i am talking about, the same way all of you do. If you are going to comment “he is not a psychopath” you are wasting your time, just answer my question.

I would love to make more posts about him though because the way his mind work and the way he saw things was crazy, but also really interesting. i think the cat story is interesting, the way he did it and got away with it. Also i am just really mad because he killed my cat. He literally killed my fucking cat wtf. AND GOT AWAY WITH IT! That is all i wanted to say. Further, it was after we broke up so why would he kill my cat if he didn’t care? Clearly he did in some way, because i wronged him. And he still tries to stalk me sometimes now, but he does not love me. (Over the internet, even faking personas to follow me and talk to me on social media, finding me in ways i didn’t know he could, like on here…, and driving by my house, tailgating me, ect.)

I have police contact often and a restraining order to protect me from him but this is where my curiosity of this question is coming from!! This is not love. He could not love. So why is he still coming after me? (Doing it in ways where police/law cannot catch him either, like you can’t do anything about tailgating unless it’s constant, and he is smart about he does it so i can’t catch him.) Is it like revenge? Or is it the fact that he won’t have control over another person like he did with me and just can’t let that go? I hope this clears things up and makes me look less like a whining idiot.

Please tell me your thoughts on the coalescence of Psychopaths especially utilizing forums like zoom to create their own and extensive back channels to harass and harm people.

Do they get pleasure out of the pursuit and seeing someone decline? Is it to feel important and powerful? Is it because many psychopaths are loners and have nothing better to do? They build trust and then start plotting and planning to destroy a victim. How do they choose their target? If confronted, they lie and blame the victim.

I matched with a guy back in July on a dating app. Started out well and went south QUICK. Found out he’d recently served 25 years in the Feds and had a violent history and he also wasn’t single as he’d said and lived with a woman. When confronted he said the woman was an easy mark as she was about die and he stood to gain $1 million.

He asked to come over to my house to talk and try and work it out but when he came over he didn’t want to talk and whipped his dick out. I said no and ended up in a chokehold and was raped. I told him I was reporting him which inspired months of death threats.

I did a rape kit and reported him but police have dragged their feet.

Dude has ASPD and is innately sadistic. He used to laugh to the point of tears when reminiscing about setting homeless people on fire as a kid.

Will he ever relent or is this going to end horribly for me? I’ve considered recanting for the safety of myself and kids but it makes me sick knowing he raped me and gets away with it; however, I don’t want to die.

There's been quite a bit of talk on scoring the PCL-R or some variant of it lately, and, not to forget the obligatory weekly "is <<INSERT FICTIONAL CHARACTER>> a psychopath" post. So, I thought I'd do a serious-not-serious attempt at it. I've selected the PCL:SV because it's better suited to this type of scenario where data is limited.

If you'd like to see more of these, feel free to suggest a future subject, just don't spam the comments.

Subject:

• Amy Elliot Dunne (Gone Girl)

Objective:

Trait analysis in the indication of psychopathic personality disturbance using the PCL:SV.

The PCL:SV is a 12 item inventory scored on a 3 point scale from 0-2. The cut-off of 18 is used to indicate elevated psychopathy.

Limitations:

Amy Dunne is a fictional character. As such her narrative exists for plot and entertainment purposes. Much of her reasoning and justification to action are presented via story-boarding or require additional interpretation due to lack of fleshed out historic information. The character only exists within the scope of the book "Gone Girl" by Gillian Flynn, and movie adaptation of the same name. Collateral data is therefore limited.

The PCL:SV does not test for, diagnose, nor exclude any potential clinical issues. The scoring is defined by presenting life-term characteristics aligned with Hare’s construct of psychopathy.

Core presenting characteristics:

• Manipulative

• Perfectionist

• Vengeful

• Tyrannical sadist

Conflict and triggers:

The immediate trigger for Amy’s behaviour in the main storyline is her husband’s infidelity. The hoax kidnap and ransom were, by design, punishment for this. On further analysis, there is a deeper, pervasive, and life-long internal conflict at play.

Before Amy was born, her parents suffered a series of stillborn children; all babies named Hope, who would be held up on an angelic pedestal by her mother: died as babies, forever innocent and pure. While growing up, she was a brazen, brave, and adventurous child, and the inspiration for the fictional character, Amazing Amy, who became a popular children's character created by Amy’s parents.

Amy grew up feeling compared to an unrealistic ideal of a persona she could never be, a false apotheosized version of herself, but also a sole survivor. She harbours a deep belief that she should never have been born, and that her identity is void. She sees herself as the shadow of Amazing Amy and carries survivors’ guilt in relation to her siblings. In describing herself, she talks about an empty vacuum fronted by a series of masks depending on necessity and momentary gain.

Throughout the story, she is only ever concerned for her own feelings; she paints herself as the victim, self-actualises her perspective and flags others as the antagonizer whilst rejecting their roles, feelings and individuality; other people contribute to her ideal of married and family life by virtue of her choice in them being there. In her mind, they have no agency of their own.

Her motivations are equal parts shielding herself from narcissistic injury and executing punishment over others whom she believes have wronged her. Her biggest fear is that she might be perceived as a bad wife and will be abandoned or viewed by others as ruined or without value. She is afraid of losing the grip she has over her husband and "fairytale" lifestyle. We could argue her acting out is the dissonance between trying to embody and live as "Amazing Amy", and the hatred she feels toward that persona for stealing her mother's love and affection away.

Amy is not devoid of emotion, readily able to experience affective negativity and egoist emotions, but limited in her capacity to apply consideration for the inner experience of others. Her view of morality is conditional, as is her understanding of love.

Behaviour:

1. Manipulation and Deception:

   • Amy is charming and manipulative, adept at leading people to believe she is whatever they want her to be.

2. Sabotage and Revenge:

   • She ruins her ex-boyfriend Tommy O'Hara's life by framing him for rape after their relationship ends.

   • Amy sabotages her marriage to Nick by fabricating a narrative of abuse and fear.

   • She befriends a pregnant neighbour, Noelle, only to steal her urine and fake a pregnancy.

   • She creates false diary entries to portray herself as a victim of Nick's abuse.

3. Fraud and Theft:

   • Amy purchases expensive electronics with credit cards in Nick's name, creating debt.

   • increases her life insurance, and buys a getaway car without Nick's knowledge

   • She stages her own kidnap and attempted murder, implicating Nick, and drawing her own blood to fake a crime scene.

4. Extreme Measures for Control:

   • After Nick discovers her disappearance, she changes her appearance and starts a new life

   • She manipulates Desi Collings, a former boyfriend, into helping her and later kills him to return to Nick, framing Desi for kidnapping, assault and abuse.

5. Physical Violence:

   • Amy violently kills Desi by slashing his neck and covers herself in his blood to support her story.

   • Upon returning, she engages in a physical altercation with Nick. Nick's response is to almost choke her (her plan to further make him appear the aggressor).

6. Psychological Manipulation:

   • Amy's behaviour causes Nick to be persecuted on national TV and ostracized by his family and community.

   • She manipulates Nick into staying with her by impregnating herself with his frozen sperm without his knowledge.

7. Creating a Toxic Relationship:

   • Amy makes it impossible for Nick to leave by threatening the future of their unborn child.

   • She continues to exert control over Nick by making him dependent on staying with her, culminating in her final move of ensuring her pregnancy as a means to bind him forever.

   • Amy consistently psychologically and emotionally manipulates Nick

8. Faking Pregnancy:

   • Amy fakes a pregnancy by stealing urine from her pregnant neighbour, Noelle

9. Abusing the Legal System:

   • She uses false evidence, such as a faked pregnancy and fabricated abuse, to manipulate legal outcomes and public perception

These behaviours highlight Amy's manipulative, deceitful, and malicious nature, affecting everyone around her to achieve her selfish goals. Amy's behaviours showcase a pattern of control and vindictiveness.

PCL:SV

1. Superficial charm: Amy is adept at charming people and manipulating them for her own gains

   • Score: 2

2. Grandiose sense of self-worth: Amy demonstrates a significant sense of self-importance, feeling entitled to the belongings and money of others and to ruin lives and frame people; other people are "obligated" to her, but not vice-versa

   • Score: 2

3. Deceitfulness

   • Pathological lying: Amy fabricates elaborate lies about her personality, her past, her pregnancy, and her married life

   • Cunning/manipulative: Amy's entire scheme involves manipulating Nick, Noelle, Desi, and others to orchestrate an elaborate plan to punish her husband

   • Score: 2

4. Lack of remorse or guilt: Amy shows no remorse for the lives she ruins; everybody ‘deserves’ it

   • Score: 2

5. Unempathetic/Callous and unemotional

   • Shallow affect: Amy's outward emotions are superficial, calculated, and weaponised

   • Callous/lack of empathy: Amy demonstrates a complete lack of empathy towards those she harms, including Nick, Tommy, Noelle, Desi, and her own unborn child

   • Score: 2

6. Poor behavioural controls: Amy exhibits several violent behaviours and tendencies, often acting out, but in general she externalises her negative affectivity in cruel and manipulative acts over prolonged periods

   • Score: 1

7. Juvenile misconduct: Insufficient data.

   • Score: 0

8. Lack of realistic, long-term goals: Her long-term goals are destructive and unrealistic, centered on maintaining a fake, impression managed “perfect marriage”

   • Parasitic lifestyle: Amy relies on Nick and others for financial support, manipulating and draining their resources without contributing

   • Score: 2

9. Impulsivity: Amy demonstrates impulsivity in her drastic actions without considering long-term consequences, but most of her actions are calculated and planned

   • Score: 1

10. Irresponsibility: Amy's actions show a high level of irresponsibility, endangering herself and others for her selfish goals.

    • Score: 2

11. Failure to accept responsibility: Amy consistently blames shifts, excuses her own doing by justifying against her perception of others and manipulates situations to avoid responsibility for her actions.

    • Score: 2

12. Adult antisocial and criminal behaviour: Amy commits fraud, theft, framing, assault, murder, and exhibits a strong antisocial disposition regardless of punitive measures or consequences

    • Score: 2

Total Score: 20/24

Based on this assessment, Amy displays significant psychopathic traits. This score indicates Amy would likely score in the significant to elevated range of the PCL-R.

I've been trying to find a chart with percentiles and psychopathy scores with 50th being the median (like you see with income distribution charts). The ones I've seen gives an idea but don't show what I'm looking for.

What I really want to know is whether it's distributed more like a straight line all the way from least psychopathic to most psychopathic or whether it suddenly increases exponentially at a certain point (say around the 70th percentile). I assume it's the latter because I've read that around 70% of population have no psychopathic traits. But a graph would help understand it.

Hi everyone,

I’m curious about the differences in interactions with male and female psychopaths. For example, In my experience with one male psychopath I’ve noticed he often had a predatory stare and sometimes the dead eyes stare. Do female psychopaths exhibit the same kind of stares, or are their behaviors and traits different in other ways? What are some signs that tells you that a woman is a psychopath when talking to her?

Thanks in advance!

I used to steal a lot as a kid. It was a bit thrilling not gonna lie. They threatened to take me to jail just so I could see where I'll end up if I don't stop. It was not even that big of a deal, just a few bucks and snacks here and there. Come on! I'm sure every kid does this. Okay maybe I did a lot more often with no sign of ceasing. (I don't have ASPD nor have traits similar). I did stop eventually around 13/14.

So now you, as a kid, say you stole something important or highly valuable, assaulted someone or destroyed property (which what I did would be adorable if were compared)... Your uncle or some rando your family knows say a police officer family friend, decided you know what, let's take him to jail just so he can get a taste of the real life consequences of committing crime. How was it? How did you feel?

How did that work out for ya?

Hi! Curious layperson here. I have a theory about about psychopathy, or at least, the narcissistic cluster of traits that can go into making someone either a psychopath or pathological narcissist. I was curious whether my theory was one that could be testable using the tools and methods of neuroscience, and whether research to that effect already exists.

The theory is there's a type of neurodivergence that causes effects similar to that of "the man who mistook his wife for a hat" in Oliver Sacks's story. (I haven't read the Oliver Sacks book yet, but was always struck by the title and read a summary of the story.) Except, instead of being visually unable to distinguish between a person and an object, someone with this type of neurodivergence is unable to distinguish between people and objects on an emotional level. For them, people are essentially like walking, talking television shows or movies or video games. It's not that they don't feel emotions about people, but they can't form emotional attachments to people.

I'm thinking it's similar to how a normal person can like or even love a television show, and feel a lot of emotions about the show, but it would seem absurd to be expected to have a caring, reciprocal, two-sided relationship with a TV show or a DVD player. A normal person doesn't worry about the feelings and well-being of the TV show, no matter much they might enjoy it. A normal person doesn't feel any ethical qualms or pangs of conscience about pressing the right buttons on a remote control to start the show they want to see, and they don't feel bad about turning it off and walking away when they're done with the show. So, someone with this neurodivergence likewise doesn't feel bad about saying or doing whatever they need to, to elicit the behavior they or benefits they want from other people (i.e., lies and manipulation), nor do they feel bad about discarding someone once they've used them.

If a normal person breaks their TV, they might feel some emotions about it - frustration, annoyance, regret, anger, or whatever. But it's not like the grief and remorse they would feel about hurting someone they loved. So, someone with this neurodivergence might feel something negative when they hurt others, but they can't feel the kind of remorse a normal person would.

Essentially, they have all kinds of emotions, but their emotions just don't link up to their moral decisionmaking the way they would for a normal person. It's not even that they are incapable of moral behavior. It's that moral behavior for them can't be guided by emotional attachments, so for them, it's more like an abstract math problem than a baked-in, instinctual response. I think for normal people, a lot of moral behavior is something we actually don't think too much about - we use our emotional attachments as kind of a shorthand guide to ethics; if we sense that a behavior would hurt someone we care about, we hesitate over doing that behavior. But if someone with this type of neurodivergence wants to behave in accordance with society's moral norms, they have to think kind of hard about how it would apply in a given situation. Like how James Fallon talked about how trying to behave like a "good" person slowed him down.

What I'm wondering about is, could one design an experiment using brain scans to compare how a psychopath or someone with narcissistic personality disorder responds emotionally to people versus how they respond to things? Like, could you see whether the same areas light up, and whether they are different from the brain cell activation patterns (forgive my uneducated lingo please!) of a normal person? Is there research like this that has already been done?

In many psychopathy related online debates, there is this pseudo-scientific distinction between Sociopathy (environment) and Psychopathy (born with) and all associated misconceptions about how neurology works. Here a quick overview about how the misconception of these beliefs are classified in academic literature, followed by a quick criticism on their own classification, followed by the consequences. Bypassly, a bunch of information I share with you between the lines:

"Genetic determinism is linked to essentialist reasoning, which can be understood as the view that every entity, including biological traits, contains an immutable underlying essence that predicts similarities between members of a group (Gelman, 2003). Genetic determinism can be regarded as the biological component of essentialism (Keller, 2005), but it is generally considered to be a lay concept deserving independent and focused attention. As Dar-Nimrod and Heine (2011) argue, essentialist thinking can be reinforced by a superficial understanding of genetics, in which genes take the role of concrete placeholders for essentialist ideas. Such an understanding of genetics tends to inaccurately attribute an overactive, primary, or even exclusive determining power to the gene. However, recent developments in genomics and epigenetics have reinforced the notion of gene action as probabilistic and mutually interdependent with the environment, (...)" (Genetics Education p. 108)

In contrast, the view that humans are born as a blank sheet of paper, is a view held by a popular philosopher those opinion is essential to many contemporary views on personal identity and personhood in general.

"The empiricist philosopher John Locke expressed the idea that humans acquire all or almost all of their behavioral traits from nurture, claiming that the human mind is a tabula rasa, and that mental functions and behaviors develop solely from environmental influences" (p. 109)

Since biological determinism is considered a "layman's belief", where does this idea come from? There have been studies looking at the distribution of said theory across cultures and is considered a universal concept (p. 112) The study looked into how much genetic-influence is overestimated across Europe, North America, and South America on traits.

"Gericke et al. (2017) reported that bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, alcoholism and, to a lesser degree, intelligence, severe depression, attention defcit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and violent behavior scored lower for genetic deterministic beliefs among the participants of the study, when compared to heritability scores from the literature, whereas only two traits—related to the biological component (diabetes and breast cancer)—scored higher, indicating genetic overattribution. Hence, there was, among the Brazilian students involved in the study, a tendency to attribute less power to genes for social and mental traits, compared to biological traits." (p. 113)

Without going into further detail, the results show that the opposite of the hypothesis is true. Most people underestimate genetical influence. Another striking result is that there is still a strong underlying belief in mind-body dualism; with phenotypical traits associated with "genetics" and mental traits to be considered "environmental". For example, [ADHD's is indeed strongly linked to genetics](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7046577/#:~:text=The%20formal%20heritability%20of%20ADHD,(SNPs). is often considered to be environmental or a choice, by layman".

This is also indicative that people are willing to blame for mental disabilities, believed to have control over, but not to external forms of disability, even when the risk factor is increased by one's actions (for example, in the case of breast cancer).

Interestingly, genetic determinism is not that popular among layman as thought, despite being mistakenly proposed in much literature.

"While some traits—the same fve in each country—showed elevated rates of genetic overattribution, rarely did a majority of respondents endorse a deterministic response. To conclude, this large study in three countries from three different continents did not support the idea that genetic determinism is a general and widespread belief. This general finding of low overall genetic overattribution was also reported by Gericke et  al. (2017) in the same sample of Brazilian undergraduates (using a distinct analytical approach), as well as by Willoughby et al. (2019) for laypeople in the United States. However, it is at odds with other prior literature (e.g., Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011; Keller, 2005; Nelkin & Lindee, 2004). Several authors have previously reported BGD to be a widespread phenomenon in common discourse (Keller, 2000; Nelkin & Lindee, 2004), in the media (Condit et al., 2001), and in school textbooks (Gericke et al., 2014)." (p. 118 [this quote is probably the most interesting one])

For those who got curious now about "what to belief then everything thought before turns out to be wrong", here comes salvation:

"Although the topic is complex, there is consensus that the interplay between genes and environment is a core idea of genetic literacy (Boerwinkel et al., 2017). Fifty-seven experts participating in a delphi study brought to light the genetics knowledge that is relevant for laypeople in the twenty-frst century. Nine knowledge categories of genetic literacy emerged. One of them addressed understanding M. Hammann (*) · J. C. S. Zang Zentrum für Didaktik der Biologie, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster, T. Heemann Kardinal-von-Galen-Gesamtschule Nordwalde, Nordwalde, Germany 128 multiple and interactive causation of genetic phenomena: “Multiple genes and multiple environmental factors interact in the development of most traits.” Some experts even argued that gene-environment interaction was the most relevant category of all." (p. 128)

In regards to psychopathy and the resurfacing debate about heritable traits, it is important to note that "teach that the environment can influence cell functioning through changes at the protein level" and " that environmental factors can cause mutations in genes, or alter gene expression". In other words, genes are not hard-coded stones flowing through our bodies like gears, but mutable and flexible, soft and alterable molecules-compounds.

Unfortunately, however,

"educational standards inadequately address the impact of the environment on genes and their products (Dougherty et al., 2011), high-school textbooks provide only limited discussions on genetic and environmental influences on multi-factorial diseases (Hicks et al., 2014) and omit the impact of the environment on gene expression altogether (Aivelo & Uitto, 2015; Martínez-Gracia et al., 2006), trait-formation tasks in high-school textbooks hardly ever address the role of the environment in trait formation (Heemann & Hammann, 2020), internet websites fail to address gene–environment interactions (Cheng et al., 2008), and media portrayals emphasize genetic infuences and diminish environmental on"

The educational services' attempt to combat biological determinism and racism kinda backed-fired, when this led to many students largely adopting Locke's view, as seen in the following pages of the quoted paper, which is that people are a product of their environment and education, neglecting the genetic influence. On the other hand, people who are "self-taught", are probably mostly confronted with a pseudo-intellectual oversimplification of biological determinism, leading to "self-taught people", to accept "the harsh reality" in contrast to "liberal educational systems in which everything is soft switching environmental factors". This could also explain the phenomena of LARPerpathy.

If we want to get political, this also explains why a lot of younger people are "left-leaning".

Hopefully, this helps to understand why the nurture vs nature debate itself, is outdated and arguably a layman debate in itself.