Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

I looked into the characteristics of a Sociopath and it falls in line of:

• Intelligent
• Cold and calculating
• Lacking empathy
• Sexual deviants
• Low tolerance for boredom
• Narcissist
• Manipulative
• Authoritarian
• Charming

I'm sure there are other traits that I didn't list. I can't really see to much wrong with the traits of a sociopath. They seem to have the formula for someone that can get a lot done and make things happen. Yet, I usually hear people regard sociopaths as bad people (eg. serial killers). Ironically, I also read that sociopaths won't blatantly break the law, but instead look for loopholes in it. In my opinion, these are traits that are to be respected and admired in its own way. What do you think?

They're pretty much the assholes that everyone loves until dissillusioned. It depends entirely on the person, though. They can't be judged as a whole, because it's a condition that everyone deals with/acts through differently.

I mean, look at all the differences between you and James. Should I still judge you the same way because you both have aspergers?

That makes sense, I guess.

What?

...

Oh my fucking God James, Sent ALREADY sees you two differently.

...fuck it, I'm getting bonged again.

Wait, that's a bad thing?

lol. XD

Oh, I get it now.

You really wanted to be lumped in the same as Danaos?

Even on an ass-burger level, I'm pretty fucking sure he didn't mean to offen.  ._.

I guess the fact that I started the post off with a generalization might not have sent the best message. What I meant to say was that Sociopathy seems to be a mildly attractive disorder for some people who've seen what "they're capable of" in the movies, until they've realized that they're all just people who can be practically however they want to end up.

What's wrong as being the same as Danaos?

Some are good, some are bad. The bad ones just tend to fall on the more extreme side of bad.

Wouldn't that be just a spectrum of bad then?  :P

Probably a better divider is, some are law abiding and others are not.

The law abiding ones just learned how to be assholes within the confines of the law (And even then they're probably still bending or breaking the occasional law here and there)

Bwhahahahahahahaha

Are you okay?

If you got time to waste there are forums dedicated to sociopaths. Usually on psychological sites which have forums that cater to every disorder you can think of.

Reading through threads of where everyone is a self proclaimed sociopath is sort of interesting, but it's one of those things (like with the internet in general) where you think "Is this guy a real sociopath? Or is he just trying to look like some heartless bastard for the lulz?"

Of course both of those need not be mutually exclusive.

They aren't always completely heartless, I mean, there was that one Christopher Walken character...

Well if Danaos or anyone else is interested, here's the psych site that has a shitload of forums. Sociopaths are under Anti-Personality Disorder.

http://www.psychforums.com/forum.html

You look at traits like lacking empathy, cold and calculating, manipulative, and narcissist, and you seriously can't see how that's a recipe for very bad things?

An abnormally high number of serial killers have been sociopaths. (The really successful ones probably become politicians...) And I'm sure there are plenty that go through their lives without actually murdering anyone (or at least not getting caught) but they never get movies made about them. 

But the thing about them makes them so fascinating and popular in fiction is that those traits combine to mean the sociopath in your life would be very hard to identify. If they've made it all the way to adulthood without anyone realizing they're walking around with a lizard brain than it's a good bet they know all the tricks to not get caught. That friendly, assuming guy next door who just happens to have a freezer full of severed heads.   

I think they're supposed to see themselves as the only 'real' person, the only one that matters, and everyone around them is just a meat puppet. They put on an act of being polite and friendly and don't break the law in obvious ways only because they're calculating the odds of getting caught or of making someone dislike them and therefore harder to manipulate. If something you're doing is annoying them they'd see zero moral difference between charming you into stopping because you think they're your friend, or setting your car on fire while you're locked in the trunk. It's just a matter of which is more convenient and likely to succeed.

Mr. Mercedes is a recent book by Stephen King dealing with a sociopath, and one of the better ones he's written in awhile. (it's a detective story, nothing supernatural this time around, surprisingly) And if you want to dip into some real literature, East of Eden is a Steinbeck book about a lot of things, but the sociopathic villainess is what really stands out in my memory.    

And there are billions of other examples in both fiction and non-fiction if it's seriously a subject you're interested in.

edit: the thread title is hilarious though, I thought for sure you had to be trolling.

Lacking empathy isn't necessarily a bad thing, it removes unneeded emotion from important decision making. Being cold and calculating to me means that you are willing to do anything to make sure that the objective is met, again, this isn't a bad thing. Manipulating people can be reasonable given the circumstances. As to narcissism, yeah, that can be bad. However, their confidence could help them become a better leader figure.

How often do you go out in the woods and torture small animals?

Just curious.

e: or children

I never tortured any animals in the woods and I've never tortured any children to speak of.

Damn you're a smooth liar. I find that to be an admirable trait.

I'm not lying.

I've never tortured any children.

I've never tortured any animals in the woods, that would require me to actually make the trip out there.

You can't prove that you're not lying.

You can't prove that I am.

I feel like we're not even talking about actual, real life sociopaths anymore. Is the question now literally 'why is being incapable of feeling empathy for others a bad thing?'

I think you're the point you're missing is that if a person can't feel empathy, (and is a narcissist to boot) than the only factor that matters in any decision is how much they personally benefit. No one else's needs or wants are factored in in the slightest; you are literally the only one who matters in any situation..And if the 'empathy' switch in your brain really was entirely switched off and shorted out, you wouldn't be able to understand even on a theoretical level how anyone else could matter.  A normal person would be able to feel more compassion and empathy for a cockroach than you would for your own children. 

At most you'd probably be able to fake the appearance of caring for others (thus being successful in social situations) since at some point while growing up you would have figured out that that's the socially acceptable way to behave...it'd be a learned behavior, like figuring out that you should smile to make other people think you're happy even if you had some disorder that prevented you from ever actually feeling the sensation of happiness.

Also, aside from this being hilarious, where do you get the idea that Psychopaths are charming. Or even anything but basically having an extreme version of aspergers? Not to mention that the basic definition of a psychopath is injerently a lack of inhibition, lacking ability to plan or foresee events. Really seems useful for plan making, right?

House MD is not the place to learn about mental illnesses. :P

Sociopaths and psychopaths are different things. Sociopaths make good villains for mystery novels, psychos for slasher movies.

Seriously though if the OP is interested in the actual mental condition rather than just LOL-worthy question of 'why do people think they're bad'. I'd suggest going to the library and checking out some books rather than taking a poll on a random internet forum.

edit: missed that he had aspergers, this thread is probably pointless then

Ha ha, aside from maybe minute details, psychopaths an sociopaths are medically identical. Dont actually know what those details are, but I highly doubt the difference is really noticeable, ha ha.

First search result: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Psychopath_vs_Sociopath

And it's interesting, seems like popular media has it backwards. Psychos are the charming ones who plan ahead to minimize risks, sociopaths can be violent and impulsive.

But when people like the OP say sociopath they're thinking of the charming serial killer stereotype.

Really it's been found most serial killers tend to have "boring" personalities.

Basically the fact that they kill a lot of people in some gruesome way is literally the only thing that tends to make them remotely interesting as a person.

Interesting. Funniest thing about that article is that it directly links to the wikipedia page about it. XD (mind you, I'm using wikipedia as a backdrop for this but still, a research paper shouldn't be citing wikipedia. XD). I'd take the information with a grain of salt, though. It seems to have somehow figured out who commits perfect crimes majority of the time, lol. 

Which I'm trying to explain doesn't exist in the real world. Theyre as common as Sherlock Holmes. :P

I'm not a psychology major and I doubt anyone here is. That's why this is kind of a dumb place to ask. Even wikipedia would have been a better place to start. All anyone here can do is answer the OP's question of 'Why do people think sociopaths are bad?''.

And even responding to that is basically pointless if he's already made up his mind that they're admirable people he wants to emulate.

Oh yeah, definitely. None of us are actually qualified to answer anything. But when has that stopped anyone? XD

XD true.

So because we don't specialize in the field of knowledge of the topic, we can't even share out opinion about it or even speculate? And yes, I gave my opinion of them first since I was the one that started the topic. I wanted to know what people here thought. It's just that simple.

Don't assume to know what I think. I'm not picturing a "charming serial killer" when I say they are charming. I'm saying that they have an ability to perform well in social situations.

Well just to play sociopath's advocate…

The traits like lacking empathy, manipulative, authoritarian, cold & calculating really aren't bad for you to have per say, but they're probably bad for everyone else around you since most people have like…y'know feelings or something.

Still, even if you do have all these traits, you still have to learn how to rein that shit in. Even if you're the dictator of some third world country, you have to at least give the peasants a break every once in awhile so they don't get tired of your shit and overthrow you. (Okay, so don't rein in the manipulative bit)

Really the only purely "bad" one I see on there is narcissism due to the fact that it typically causes one to brag, show off and get in over one's head. Basically you really need to be "that damn good" to get away with being a narcissist and it's the rare person that is indeed "that damn good." Narcissism is also one of those traits that doesn't even help you directly, it's just one that feeds your ego.

Sexual deviancy would be the other possible "bad one", but even that depends on what kind. If you're into licking women's high heels to get off, well that's pretty benign. If you're trolling the elementary school for a date you're fucked up regardless of whatever your other traits might be.

It's worth noting that Narcissism is a completely separate mental disorder, with varying degrees of severity. The very worst Narcissist is very much a rather unwholesome monster.

• Narcissistic
• Authoritarian
• Cold and calculating

... Yeah, totally worth emulating.

Yeah...can you tell me how those traits are bad?

Danaos do you mind sharing your real name, I suspect you're going to wind up on the news someday and I don't want to miss it.

I'll write up a lengthy reply tomorrow, when I feel less sick.

I'm a psychology major, who plans plans to start a psychology doctorate next tall.

How?

Well... 8 out of 9 isn't that bad.  Maybe if I just apply myself...

You know, when I was way younger, I really wanted to believe that I was a sociopath (or psychopath - Aman has the right of it, they are both synonymical terms that refer to the same condition. As for Mizal's search result - Aman, Wikipedia is a very accurate source, don't be a douche and certainly don't discount it on the idea that it references Wikipedia alone. However, it is a widely spread, incorrect belief that there is, in fact, a difference between the two.)

I wanted to believe I was one precisely for the reasons you list up there. Intelligent, cold, dangerous, charming - it reads like a Christmas list of awesome personal characteristics. 

You look at the movie and tv depictions, or you read the Hannibal* books, and you think "Wow, these guys are awesome", they seemingly operate on an entirely different level than the normal person - and the sad thing is, most people actually seem to think that these depictions are accurate, because of course they don't know what an actual socio/psychopath is like.

Do you know what the sociopathy really is though, Danaos? I'm not talking about the list of characteristics you found on one of the thousands of articles talking about how cool and monstrous sociopaths are, i'm talking about the actual meaning behind the term.

Sociopathy is a mental disability that results in social deficiencies. Hence Sociopathy - Social disease. It's someone who is unable to process emotions correctly, and who is unable to respond correctly to social situations. A common street bum in the middle of an orgy who throws a trash can lid in a homicidal rage after someone walks by him without kneeling before him and shining his dog's shoes is more of a sociopath than Hannibal Lecter or Patrick Bateman will ever be. 

Socio/Psychopaths also tend to be portrayed as intelligent - specifically because of their inability to process emotion. They are able to perfectly and logically assess every situation to make the best possible choice, because they are unhindered by such human weaknesses as love, hatred, sorrow or happiness. 

Of course, that's because of the common misconception that emotion is a counter to intelligence. It isn't. Emotion is necessary to the decision making process, without it intelligence is irrelevent - you won't ever know what choice to make because you don't feel anything. Without being able to attach importance to something your decisions won't matter. Improperly processing emotions skews your decision making process far more than properly processing them - and regardless, oftentimes what would logically be the best choice is also the wrong one. 

Oh, and Aman, House M.D was a great and fairly accurate show, cheap blow, totally uncalled for.

*If you haven't, you totally should, that's an amazing series.

Oh, I was using Wikipedia. The point was the it was amusing, since Wikipedia disagreed with it. :P

And house was great. Not so accurate when you're watching it with a doctor next to you. :P

Ah, thought you were saying she was wrong for it.

I said fairly! I know the mistakes in it, goddamn you Political Dissent was a super accurate dissection of the innacuracies in House!

Nah man. 

:P We already argued this one, me thinks. XD

No we didn't, you basically said  "Nah, I don't like that the guy didn't publish all of his personal details online for his blog, as well as maybe personally mailing me his diploma, along with an inspector to make sure of its validity". Pretty sure you didn't read through a single damn thing either, just immediately declared the whole thing to be the work of a guy with no life and access to Web M.D. Which I still think is unbelievably full of it, and I absolutely still hold a grudge for you saying I was gullible.

You want a medically inaccurate show, watch Grey's Anatomy or Scrubs. House was far more accurate than any other medical show out there - while still sporting a fair number of mistakes, because yeah, it's a show.

:P

Oh, certainly more accurate the scrubs. But that's saying absolutely nothing. XD

I think Scrubs actually had more medical procedures going on than Grey's Anatomy. From what I can tell of that show it's just about the medical staff fucking each other and then getting killed. 

My mom and sister love that show. 

My understanding about being a sociopath outside of what I listed is that it is some sore of antisocial disorder with the lack of emotional development.

The lack of social capability is due to difficulty processing emotions correctly, not the other way around.

I think we should all see which of these traits apply to us. I'll start:

• Intelligent - At the risk of meeting #6, yes.
• Cold and calculating - At times
• Lacking empathy - Variable
• Sexual deviants - By the Abyss no!
• Low tolerance for boredom - moderate
• Narcissist - Unsure
• Manipulative - Yes
• Authoritarian - Yes
• Charming - I think so

You're doing it wrong. You have to think of the human brain/psyche not as a switchboard, where if enough things are "On" you have a certain disorder, but a sort of sound/volume board, where everyone has different traits on different levels. Everyone is all of those at certain times in different ways, it only becomes a disorder when you/the people around you start having trouble functioning properly because of your behavior. Insanity is only truly relative to the people around you.

I see. However, I meant compared to the average person.

According to a psychology personality quiz, I'm 70-80% more sociopathic than the average person. I like to think I'm more emotionally functional than that.

Quizzes on the internet are unreliable.

My results: I am 30% sociopath. (It means I am not.)

Hey, it was a shitty green website made by psych students, it's still better then naming off symptoms out of context of a psychologist's office.

Eh, why not?

• Intelligent - I would say so, yeah.
• Cold and calculating - Yes.
• Lacking empathy - I can understand why people feel emotion (if I know why they do, in the first place), but I can't make myself feel that emotion unless it directly affect me (like the loss of a mutual friend).
• Sexual deviants - No.
• Low tolerance for boredom - Yes.
• Narcissist - No. Maybe, a little.
• Manipulative - No.
• Authoritarian - No.
• Charming - Haha, no.

Which means you're great at empathy (feeling another's emotions is sympathy, understanding them is empathy, you won't believe how much the misunderstanding of the word pisses me off).

• Intelligent - Yes
• Cold and calculating - I've been described as such
• Lacking empathy - Meh
• Sexual deviants - No
• Low tolerance for boredom - Yes
• Narcissist - No
• Manipulative - When I see it necassary
• Authoritarian - Yes
• Charming - When I want to be

Unreliable to ask people what applies to them. They'll say yes or unsure to the ones they want to say yes to, and unsure or no for the ones they don't.

It is true that most people are capable of understanding themselves better than anyone else, but we also lie to ourselves more than anyone else too. You're better off making your own observations about others than trusting what they tell you.

Besides, an actual sociopath would always fail this test. Narcissism, remember? 

Authoritarian

adjective

1.favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.

2.of or relating to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others:

It's not really about leadership, if anyone was wondering. Or at least not the good kind of leadership.

• Intelligent -Yes
• Cold and calculating - No
• Lacking empathy - No
• Sexual deviants - Nope
• Low tolerance for boredom - Yes
• Narcissist - Probably
• Manipulative - Yes
• Authoritarian - Sometimes
• Charming - Yes

Intelligent - Debatable, but I like to think so.

Cold and calculating - No

Lacking empathy - No, but I do have problems empathizing with normal people. I often find myself finding a strange kinship with the "bad guy" or otherwise spurned characters.

Sexual deviant - I'm not a statistician and what is considered to be socially acceptable in terms of sexual behavior is changing rapidly, so I'm honestly not sure. I don't go around asking ladies if I can suck their toes, though.

Low tolerance for boredom - Yes.

Narcissist - No.

Manipulative - Eh...when I was a kid, people used to call me "manipulative" all the time. Really, I don't think I could be considered such now that my juvenile charm has worn off and I have to expend a lot of mental energy just to avoid coming off as "creepy" to other people.

Authoritarian - Not really, no.

Charming - Even I'll admit that this one's a "no".

I think a sociopath would fail this. They can be blind to their own characteristics. It's their family, friends or co-workers who would fill out this list correctly. I watched a TV program where a scientist studied sociopaths, from their genes to how their upbringing influenced them. He, the scientist, was quite surprised to find that he was a sociopath. His family wasn't. The difference between him and the (criminal) sociopaths he studied was the upbringing. A classic case showing that both nature and nurture shapes the person.  A sociopath that has the right upbringing blends in among "normal" people, and it's only those close to him or her that know that something is off.

As for the list:

• Intelligent - Looking at the people online, I'm dumb as a rock. Seriously. Most claim an IQ over 160 or so. Still I manage to put one fot in front of the other. That would put me at average intelligence I guess?
• Cold and calculating - No. I go with the flow. Planning is not my thing.
• Lacking empathy - Yes. I can logically understand how someone else might feel, but I do not "feel it".
• Sexual deviants - According to who? The pope or Madonna? It's all in the eye of the beholder.
• Low tolerance for boredom - I'm never bored. I can't remember being bored, ever.
• Narcissist - No. I don't like attention. I prefer being in the background over taking the center stage.
• Manipulative - No. I do get my will through quite often, but it's straight forward orders, not manipulation.
• Authoritarian - Absolutely not. Authority should be questioned rather than obeyed. We'd all be monkeys hunting with sticks if no one questioned authority.
• Charming - No. I'm a grumpy, ill tempered old dragon. Unless you think farts are charming, then I'm the shit.

Oh, and the manipulative one always makes me laugh (because I always hear so many people tell me they're manipulative). So many people like to see themselves as smarter than everyone else, playing them for puppets or working them to their will because they're just more clever or witty or deceptive. It's like none of you realize that everyone plays the same game you do, has the same thoughts you do, oftentimes the same motivations - everyone thinks they're a manipulator. What I want to know is what makes you think your proficiency in manipulation is so great that you can be called manipulative.

Well actually, some have moral codes that prevent them from doing so. Others may not try as hard.

.... Hmm... I'd say the only one that applies to me is sexual deviancy. 

Hetrosexuality is deviant culture, right?

Oh, dear. Tumblr won't be happy...

Pretty much anyone whose idea of a good time is something other than straight missionary with someone of conventional attractiveness is a deviant. The key is to be more deviant than other people.

For example, if this picture is NSFW to you...

Then you are a very deviant deviant. Albeit, a deviant deviant of exceptionally good taste, but still. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be back in about 15-20 minutes.

Oooh, hey ba--DAMMIT, SENT! There are CHILDREN on this site, man! >_> Don't be throwing around filthy pictures like this!

Sociopaths, or anti-social personality disordered types, which are about 85% of the prison population - although I hear the shouts of protest that most are weed violations and therefore bullshit, and I agree - don't see that there is right and wrong. There is only them. There is no way to be a true sociopath, unless your brain is missing that mechanism which tells you "This is wrong." If so, you don't feel guilt. That's the way to tell.

If you can't feel guilt (or regret/remorse, to be more precise) you are a sociopath. Otherwise, notwithstanding some trauma like Poltergeist or Mad Max, you can never be. Far more complicated than that, but you get the gist.

Source: NP, Psychiatry.

Caveat: Can not be taken as medical advice. Seek your own MD/NP/DO/PA for diagnosis.

"Can not be taken as medical advice. Seek your own MD/NP/DO/PA for diagnosis."

That odd moment when you realize that a slice of pizza is telling you to consult a lawyer for psychological questions.

That's a Physician Assistant to you, fool.

A whole bunch of responses:

--@Drakilian You always hear so many people tell you they're manipulative?  What kind of people do you associate with? Oh right, high schoolers. XD  

--You know, I've read studies lately that claim nearly 85% of adolescents now fit the clinical criteria for narcisissm.  One of them discussed the idea that 1) self-esteem building by parents/teachers resulted in children whose foundational truth was that they were innately special and deserving of unearned respect. 2) anti-peer pressure tactics taught children that their opinions and preferences were more important than anyone else's.  
The letters to the editor from the college-age readers were hysterical.  One writer claimed "This scientist can't criticize us, our generation is going to be remembered as the most important and influential generation in history."  

--In my limited experience, most of the time when people explicitly tell you they possess a trait, the truth is more likely that they consider that trait desirous, and their self-image requires that they believe themselves to possess it.  Generally, people who actually have said traits don't even think about it because it really is part of their base personality.  
A really good liar would never tell you- why put your guard up? Great liars present as honest to a fault.
A really "quirky" person doesn't need to tell everyone because it's self-evident.  They can't help being different, and that actually bothers most of them at least a little.
Telling someone how charismatic you are is pretty much the opposite of actual charisma. 
I'll make a slight exception for intellect.  There is a simple truth value for "I am intelligent."  However, I still contend that the people who make a point of their brilliance tend to be the mid-level geniuses-- the ones who feel the need to demonstrate their intellect.  Quite a lot of truly smart people think everyone else is at their level, and are genuinely confused/upset when they realize no one else followed what they just said. 
I guess that's my end point on that:  if you truly are something, you don't need to think about whether or not you are.  

As to the list: you can't possibly answer truthfully, you can only answer what you personally believe about yourself (which, if you're really a sociopath, you'll undoubtedly say you aren't.)  Also, none of these characteristics are clearly defined; for many of them, the yes/no answer is contingent on a more specific explanation.  

• Intelligent -- Is anyone really going to say they aren't intelligent? 
• Cold and calculating -- I bet a lot of people claim to be this when they really aren't.  Not to mention, according to some sources, anger and fear are the two emotions sociopaths are actually capable of feeling.  Which doesn't really mesh with "cold."  
• Lacking empathy -- If you do lack empathy, how would you know?  This could go both ways- non-sociopaths could falsely claim to lack empathy because they wish they didn't care; sociopaths could insist that they have plenty of empathy, just no sympathy. 
• Sexual deviants -- What constitutes deviancy?  Are, for example, sadists and masochists equally likely to be sociopaths?   
• Low tolerance for boredom -- Again, what does this mean?  Is this the same as "easily bored?"  How are we defining "boredom?"  If you're really that smart, can't you entertain yourself?  Or is this a selfishness thing-  "I demand that the world entertain me?"
• Narcissist -- No narcissist is capable of claiming to be a narcissist.  Even if you told them they were, they'd insist they weren't -- "I am smart, I am special, I am destined for greatness, I deserve your respect" -- these are inarguable facts.
• Manipulative -- Hmm, this is another one that I'm certain gets claimed when it's really just wishful thinking.  I bet the really manipulative people wouldn't consider their actions to be manipulation. 
• Authoritarian -- Is this just another way of saying "wants everything their way?"  I can see people admitting to this if their personal connotation was that "authoritarian" implies that they are strong people, capable of exerting their will over others.  Ties into narcissism, inability to accept that other people could disagree with them and not be wrong.
• Charming -- This is another one it would be difficult to accurately judge about oneself.  Can you really know for certain if you're charming without relying on others' reactions? Also, once again, what are we defining as "charming?"  Superficially friendly?  Capable of faking social graces? Considered likeable by casual acquaintances?

100% agreement.

Wheeeee, sociopathy check-list! =D

• Intelligent - ... I don't know, actually. In what regard? I made a lot of As in college, but that doesn't really mean shit in the real world. I've been told I'm above average, but the sources for that were likely biased, didn't take into account enough factors, exc. We all like to think we are, but that doesn't mean anything. I doubt I'm particularly dull, but ... am I really intelligent enough to say "I'm an intelligent" person? ... Maybe not. *shrug* =|  
• Cold and calculating - I absolutely can be, but not normally, no. 
• Lacking empathy - Ordinarily, I'm sure the answer is no.
• Sexual deviants - Not enough to be notable.
• Low tolerance for boredom - Kinda.
• Narcissist - No.
• Manipulative - Usually no.
• Authoritarian - No. 
• Charming - ... *shrug* I don't think of myself as charming. I think I'm likeable at times, though.

Spacebar!

Earthpub!

Legion, what have you done?

xD ... Thank you, James, I think.

In all seriousness, Seth and Drak have a good grasp on this subject imho. I agree with a lot of what they said.

Sociapaths are not good or bad. They are like all humans, a mix of both. Good people are capable of evil and evil people of good. No matter if they are sociopaths/psychopaths or not.

Ironically, that list also fit many Hollywood "heroes", not only the movie bad guys.

They are intelligent. I've never seen a stupid movie hero. They are cold as ice. Shoot people without blinking. No remorse or very little of it. They do things their way, get things their way, and really don't care much about those who are affected of their actions. The sex? Well, it's Hollywood. There is never a dull moment and all lights are on them. They don't shy away from lies and deception to get what they want. They rule, everyone else has to follow, or are the enemy in one for or the other. A boss who disagrees becomes an enemy just as easily as a mad bomber. And the whole point of a leading role in a movie is to charm the audience in one way or the other. All this generally speaking of course. 

Sociopathy is entrainment, and it's not just the bad guys who are sociopaths.

Intelligent: Quite honestly, I personally believe that I am at least more intelligent than Ford of TSR. That isn't saying much, but I'm usually definitely right about everything, and I feel that people should acknowledge this more often than they do.

Cold and Calculating: YES! I swear, for all I'm worth, that the geometry teacher leaves the window next to my fucking seat open ON PURPOSE. Jesus Christ, I'm the coldest calculator in that god-forsaken shithole. The worst part is, they ONLY open the window next to my seat, right fucking next to my seat and no one elses and GODDAMN I HATE FUCKING FREEZING TO DEATH I JUST WANT TO PUNCH THAT GUY IN THE FACE SOMETIMES!

Lacking Empathy: I have plenty of empathy! I just don't give it to undeserving fatheads!... Which happen to be most people these days...

Sexual Deviant: Quite honestly, you boring whitebread N00bs have no idea what you're missing. The taste of a reuben mid-orgasm multiplies the glory of the experience tenfold!

Low Tolerance for Boredom: I don't think I can say I have that if I've rated the same fucking Warriors story multiple times every week for mere points.

Narcissist: I'll admit that I am, but it's only because I'm just that damn good.

Manipulative: Sometimes I purposefully word things with extra harshness to get people to argue with me and thus support my grip on the precious shiny.

Authoritarian: I'll have you know that I was voted into General-hood by my fellow Penguinites!

Charming: Pff, who, me? OF COURSE!

• Intelligent

People say I am, but I myself doubt it. *shrugs*

• Cold and calculating

When it comes to inanimate objects that have no sentimental value to anyone I know of, then yes.

• Lacking empathy

Definitely not.

• Sexual deviants

Nope.

• Low tolerance for boredom

I am a bit confused here. If you mean that I do not like boredom and will do just about anything to rid myself of it, then yes.

• Narcissist

Nope.

• Manipulative

Occasionally. I think. I'm good at EoN, which includes alot of manipulation, and I kinda know how to words things in stories to (hopefully) get a specifac emotional response, or put in a fake endgame link in there to get rid of the cheaters who click the back button when it looks like they've died.

• Authoritarian

Not really. I try to be.

• Charming

Definitely not.