EPTSo this is going to be a documentation of the events that occur in my life, written in the style of a blog though it was not orginally intended to be posted anywhere at anytime or even read by anyone other then the author. I do this merely for the sake of the writting style which I prefer as it will be easier actually write anything in just a stream of conscienceness. This should be a great time sink for me which is needed badly and the reasons for that you will find out later on down the road. Excuse any spelling errors or insane run on sentances as I have a tendancy to do that, plus I lack spellcheck. I also plan to use this to completely document any on-going stories or whatever reasons. I have been telling people their and their extremely specific details and possibly add more additions to beef them up while I'm at it. Any confusion about anything will most likely be explained later so patience will answer almost all of your questions.
Where to begin, where to begin. I think due to the title I should begin by giving the definition of what a psychopath is to me, followed by what it is to leading researchers (I'm looking at you Hare), proceeded by the points of diagnosis and how they apply to me and finally what specfic rules I apply to myself and why I do that as I consider it a rather unique attribute to someone such as myself.
To me a psychopath is just another player in the game that we like to call life. He is just a level above the vast majority in skill at said game. He isn't hindered by things others are and will do whatever is needed to pursue whatever is chosen to pursue whatever he wishes. Of course not every psychopath is more sound of mind and smarter then the average person but the majority are. Being a good psychopath to me means being able to adjust properly to society and forge strong friendships to be able to both reap the benefits of having such friends such as fiscal support, more strength in your opinions when presenting them to others with people supporting, giving you job opportunites through connections and of course staving off the crippling boredom that seems to so often plauge us. You know it is kind of funny that people wonder so much why people go and shoot up a mall for apprently no reason. I would bet that the majority of those are times are simply some bored psychopaths. Yes it really gets that bad that doing ANYTHING to not be bored is better then continue to be tortued.
It does seem that there is some truth to that predatory nature that so many label us with. I can safely say that I am my most happy (and by this at times I literally mean tears of happiness) when I'm crushing someone beneath me. Or say I have put somone who is supposed to be in a position of power over me and who would like nothing more then to screw me over in a position where they have to give me exactly what I want or face severe consquences. There just seems to be a very primal desire to triumph over everyone else, to not let yourself become the prey no matter the cost. I strongly urge everyone who doesn't have the same views to reconsider. The entire point of life if there is any at all must be to triumph in the end and not get trampled on no matter the cost.
I also STRONGLY disagree when so-called experts on the field say things like we don't have the capacity for love. I have a different view on what love is then you but that does that fucking mean that I do not have the capacity for it. Just because I do not have the same sense of emotional connections then you does not mean I do not have them. Jesus fucking christ why does nobody realize that. Different does not mean not in exsistence. The definition of love to me at least is valuing another person so highly that you would put them above almost all other things. I don't think anyone should put another person above themselves as this is simply self-destructive at heart in the current society. If two people value themselves above the other in a relationship it will remain a healthy one. I know that at first the doesn't seem to logically click but if you delve a little deeper into it then it will start to become more sensical. Point one. During any divorce during therapy any therapist will say leaving as good in the long term to perserve your health and mental state. They are basically saying that your personal health should always trump the health of the relationship your in to the point where you end the relationship because of it. If both people put their own happiness as the maximum proiority you will never get situations where one person suffers that the hands of another as they just wouldn't take that shit. If your well-being is your absolute top priority there will never be a situation where your trapped. There is always options, always. My second point on that is that simply with both people striving for their own interests/happiness if being in that relationship makes them happy (which it should or will lead to greater happiness once a rocky patch has gotten smoothed over) both people should realize that strengthing the relationship and deepening it will be mutually benefical. In short it is not that I lack the capacity to love as most see it but I just don't agree that it is healthy or a good idea in general. Though perhaps by holding such strong opinions on the matter I really do lack the capacity to love in the commonly accepted form of it.
Continuing on the emotional note about how psychopaths only 'fake' remorse or other similar emotions when it is of advantage I disagree. It is almost put as if people think we would actually evulate every situation where remorse is expected and conclude that it is going to be advantagous. Thats just silly. Nobody has time to do such a thing. Its a matter of instictively knowing what will be an effective social technique in a given situation. It is the same as if when someone is off crying in the corner everyone feels some kind of pull to go console them. And upon consoling them you just know they will feel grateful upon your success, so you earned yourself another friend and all benefits with that.
Finally as for being labelled as a psychopath. I suppose any group has the right to slap labels on another and they will do this automatically it just seems that the assumptions that come with this are mistaken. While I have come to terms with being assiocted with the label I just disagree with most of what it entails.
As for the clinical definition for what I psychopath is I'm just going to copy-paste that as summarizing it isn't really worth the effort.
Alright here you are ----
It has often been noted that psychopaths have a distinct advantage over human beings with conscience and feelings because the psychopath does not have conscience and feelings. What seems to be so is that conscience and feelings are related to the abstract concepts of "future" and "others." It is "spatio-temporal." We can feel fear, sympathy, empathy, sadness, and so on because we can IMAGINE in an abstract way, the future based on our own experiences in the past, or even just "concepts of experiences" in myriad variations. We can "predict" how others will react because we are able to "see ourselves" in them even though they are "out there" and the situation is somewhat different externally, though similar in dynamic. In other words, we can not only identify with others spatially - so to say - but also temporally - in time.
The psychopath does not seem to have this capacity.
They are unable to "imagine" in the sense of being able to really connect to images in a direct "self connecting to another self" sort of way.
Oh, indeed, they can imitate feelings, but the only real feelings they seem to have - the thing that drives them and causes them to act out different dramas for effect - is a sort of "predatorial hunger" for what they want. That is to say, they "feel" need/want as love, and not having their needs/wants met is described as "not being loved" by them. What is more, this "need/want" perspective posits that only the "hunger" of the psychopath is valid, and anything and everything "out there," outside of the psychopath, is not real except insofar as it has the capability of being assimilated to the psychopath as a sort of "food." "Can it be used or can it provide something?" is the only issue about which the psychopath seems to be concerned. All else - all activity - is subsumed to this drive.
In short, the psychopath - and the narcissist to a lesser extent - is a predator. If we think about the interactions of predators with their prey in the animal kingdom, we can come to some idea of what is behind the "mask of sanity" of the psychopath. Just as an animal predator will adopt all kinds of stealthy functions in order to stalk their prey, cut them out of the herd, get close to them and reduce their resistance, so does the psychopath construct all kinds of elaborate camoflage composed of words and appearances - lies and manipulations - in order to "assimilate" their prey.
This leads us to what psychopaths DO have that is truly outstanding: an ability to give their undivided attention to something that interests them intensely. Some clinicians have compared this to the concentration with which a predator stalks his prey. This is useful if one is in an environment with few variables, but most real life situations require us to pay attention to a number of things at once. Psychopaths often pay so much attention to getting what they want that they fail to notice danger signals.
For example, some psychopaths earned reputations for being fearless fighter pilots during World War II, staying on their targets like terriers on an ankle. Yet, these pilots often failed to keep track of such unexciting details as fuel supply, altitude, location, and the position of other planes. Sometimes they became heroes, but more often, they were killed or became known as opportunists, loners, or hotshots who couldn't be relied on - except to take care of themselves. [Hare]
Annnnnnd back. That will wrap things up for this entry I suppose. Could have gotten more in but got distracted by some of my reading. The next will come when I feel like it.
