Before reading this book, I was never very clear on the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath. Since reading, I've decided I'm pretty sure that they're the same thing except that the psychos aren't disguised as normal humans.
According to this book, a sociopath is a person with no conscience. They feel no guilt or shame and have the freedom to do whatever they want with no moral restrictions. Some dominate the business world, some operate out of envy and try to bring others down, some are incredibly lazy and feel no compunction about sponging off others. Some are unusually charming, hiding the hollow interior where normal human attachments are ordinarily formed; some are more irritating and grating. Contrary to popular belief, not all are criminals (though those who are feel no remorse).
I'm just speculating here, because obviously I'm far less knowledgeable than the clinical psychologist who wrote this book, but I wonder if it's more nuanced than that? Maybe some sociopaths just have an underdeveloped conscience instead of completely lacking one. Maybe some people have some sociopathic tendencies or sometimes engage in sociopathic behavior but aren't always completely inhuman. Either way, reading this book has led me to identify three likely sociopaths: one that I know personally, one that I know tangentially, and one that I know from the news. Obviously I'm not gonna name any names here. And I could be completely wrong! But it's definitely food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment
"Ah, good conversation--there's nothing like it, is there? The air of ideas is the only air worth breathing." --M. Rivière to Newland Archer, The Age of Innocence