Difference between NPD and Psychopath

And "normie" isn't too hard to define in this context - it simply means the absence of a PD, right? If a person cannot be diagnosed with a PD, they do not have a PD, they are normal.

That still leaves all myriad shades and types of whack to choose from.

Plus - the great leveler - LUCK.

A number of normies are capable of acting very differently from how they are acting right now, if their life circumstances change for the worse. Can be seen anytime on "the news."

Point being, emotions, even in normal, healthy people, can lead to criminalization, hence, some of the stuff said above re: ASPD was a bit much.

There's a whole lot of other disorders besides PDs.

Is somebody with a bunch of paraphilias, anxiety disorder, OCD and agoraphobia a normie?

unreal wrote:Is somebody with a bunch of paraphilias, anxiety disorder, OCD and agoraphobia a normie?

Oh man. Stop spilling my private shiz on teh internetz.

BUT seriously, for the sake of this conversation we can divide people into ASPD and non-ASPD, because the point was made above that ASPDs need to overcome their disorder and become emotionally 'feeling' or they will commit crimes. Possibly murder.

I'm not ASPD but I found that a wee bit offensive.

Anais wrote:That's cool, that simply means you're a normie who is not committing any crimes at the moment and has no plans to. But how can your mental state dictate who commits crimes... huh?

Everybody who becomes criminalized has a PD? No way, not at all... it's 40% isn't it? Not anywhere near 100%...

I was suggesting that my behaviour is pretty representative of 'normals' in general. I also have a family full of other normals who don't commit violent crime, I can list them all too if you like? As an adjective, normal suggests conformity and relates to what is 'common' or shared by the majority. I would argue that the 'majority' are not criminals.

No one claimed that all criminals had a PD or that all AsPDs were criminals (although the DSM might imply different). You have rather over-egged the pudding there.

The examples given of crimes such as road rage, murder and husbands killing adulterous wives all relate to emotional dysregulation, which is a core feature of the personality disordered, and other mental health disorders. I would suggest a 'normal' is generally unlikely to commit these acts. Their emotions do not 'run amok' because they can assess and control them effectively, even under the most enormous stress. They learnt how to do so when they were young, and have refined that art since as they grew up.

Only those individuals with an underlying 'fault-line' respond in a violent manner to being 'cut-up' or cheated on. This is the very reason they are on the news in the first place:- if it were 'normal' then no one would blink an eye because it would, by definition, be the behaviour of the majority.

Normal? wrote:I was suggesting that my behaviour is pretty representative of 'normals' in general.

Yes I caught that.

I also have a family full of other normals who don't commit violent crime, I can list them all too if you like?

Not sure what goes here. Neener?

Only those individuals with an underlying 'fault-line' respond in a violent manner to being 'cut-up' or cheated on. This is the very reason they are on the news in the first place:- if it were 'normal' then no one would blink an eye because it would, by definition, be the behaviour of the majority.

That's not the news I was talking about. More how people react to disaster, civil unrest, etc. War. All sorts.

Over-egged the pudding

rofl rofl rofl

LifeSong wrote:I'm fairly good with wake-up calls, Search,

Normal wrote: I second that Lifesong! Nice to see you again too – I hope you are well?

Good to see you. I hope you continue to post here Normal. I miss your input.

Doing ok, thank you. My dog just died last night. I’m grieving right now. Not working. Still think I see her coming around the corner, or hear her often. Unexpected, so it’s a shock to my son, daughter, me. Glad for the 15 years we had together, but this hurts right now.
Distracting myself with the board today for awhile. It’s raining storming outside, so my computer and books and a hot bath are my friends today, since I don’t want to talk IRL to anyone.

I think the terms ‘norm’ or ‘non’, as used throughout the Cluster B forums of the board, are usually in reference to those who are not personality disordered. So, if that’s the definition we could agree to, I’d say that plenty of nons cause lots of pain and harm and all kinds of damage to self/others, as is obvious, and for a whole bunch of reasons.

For me, the distinction falls not so much in the realm of the causative factors (disorder, depression, etc) but in effective (or affective) factors - what does the ‘causer’ feel after the harm has been done? how does s/he respond? I think most nons feel guilt, remorse, shame, empathy, or some other ability to bring some level of understanding and connectiveness to the other person - AsPD, NPD, some BPD/HPD, do not have similar emotional/empathic responses.

It is the coldness and deadness to normal emotional response after inflicting (severe) pain to someone that is most chilling to me about psychopaths when they choose to act out. I find myself recoiling from that, and, I think, appropriately so. In that, a psychopath’s range of emotion, or lack thereof, far exceeds or is outside range of normal.

Fiveintime wrote: Not sure what normies you've been hangin' out with, but all emotions seem unstable to me. At the low end, they're just little pangs of jealousy, insecurity, sadness, and whatnot. At the high end, people commit some pretty heinous acts. Different degrees of the same problem

All emotions are unstable, Five? That’s a pretty far-reaching statement. Do you just mean that they fluctuate? If so, I’d agree. But I wouldn’t define normal fluctuation as unstable. Most nons’ (and I’m only considering healthy nons here) emotions are capable of fluctuating through a wide range of normal, rarely stepping outside normal to the extremes - still, as others have pointed out, are capable of extending to extremes under extreme conditions. Nons’ emotions are fairly predictable and unhidden, and wide wild frequent swings are the exception.

The emotions of healthy nons maintain a certain level of equilibrium; a certain state of balance – there is a general consistency of mood and affect that enables the person to have appropriate feelings about common experiences, to express those appropriately and to act in a rational manner... all while feeling alive by experiencing range of emotion. I don’t define that way of life as having 'unstable emotions'. If that were true, then I guess I’m in a state of ‘unstable emotions’ right now as I grieve the loss of my dear dog, Maggie. What I'm experiencing today is not unstable emotions... it is normal emotion, healthy emotion. I’d rather feel this loss and pain, than feel the nothingness that some would feel in a like situation.
It means I love.

My condolences, Lifesong.
As a dog-lover, I've been through this experience so many times in my life. It hurts every time, but as you say, it's the price we pay, to know love.
I hope you don't mind the anecdote: My 'friend' with strong NPD traits (family man with young boys) once said to me that he would never have a dog, because dogs just die.

LifeSong wrote:The emotions of healthy nons maintain a certain level of equilibrium; a certain state of balance – there is a general consistency of mood and affect that enables the person to have appropriate feelings about common experiences, to express those appropriately and to act in a rational manner... all while feeling alive by experiencing range of emotion. I don’t define that way of life as having 'unstable emotions'. If that were true, then I guess I’m in a state of ‘unstable emotions’ right now as I grieve the loss of my dear dog, Maggie. What I'm experiencing today is not unstable emotions... it is normal emotion, healthy emotion. I’d rather feel this loss and pain, than feel the nothingness that some would feel in a like situation.
It means I love.

Further, I feel there is also something healthy in reacting with anger (and expressing it) to being teated indignantly, or insensitively, by someone we have treated kindly (a person with NPD)

mindful wrote:My condolences, Lifesong. As a dog-lover, I've been through this experience so many times in my life. It hurts every time, but as you say, it's the price we pay, to know love.
I hope you don't mind the anecdote: My 'friend' with strong NPD traits (family man with young boys) once said to me that he would never have a dog, because dogs just die.

Thank you, mindful. It helps to hear that others can relate. Someone wrote me earlier and gently told me to take good care of myself this weekend. I wrote back to say that I would certainly do that. I know how to take good care of myself, but that that wouldn't be happening today. Today, I'm reeling in the pain of this reality and letting that be ok. Not doing anything harmful (except eating way too much chocolate and might start on some wine when the sun goes down), but letting the emotions carry me away, yet still within appropriate bounds. Not going out to fXXX somebody... not picking fights with others... not going numb with hard drugs... but just letting the pain have its way with me. I know it will pass. But I'm not forcing it to go away.

I've heard that comment too many times, mindful: "I'm not getting a pet / getting a girlfriend / getting married / falling in love with anyone/anything... 'cuz I'll only get hurt".
Seems to me that a person is losing out on a potential whole lot of love by trying so hard to avoid pain, if you ask me.

Further, I feel there is also something healthy in reacting with anger (and expressing it) to being teated indignantly, or insensitively, by someone we have treated kindly (a person with NPD)

There is something unhealthy, if you ask me, by not reacting with some anger when you've been treated very poorly.
Anger isn't the problem; it's just an emotion that serves as a warning that something seems to be not right or is harming us.
It's a good thing. It helps us to stop, and take stock of the situation - become aware of it.
Anger serves as a warning light if it's healthy anger. It's also an energizer into action once we've determined what the right action is.
It's what we DO with the anger that can become the problem if we aren't careful.

Before I get all argumentative, sorry to hear about your dog, LifeSong.

LifeSong wrote:All emotions are unstable, Five? That’s a pretty far-reaching statement. Do you just mean that they fluctuate? If so, I’d agree. But I wouldn’t define normal fluctuation as unstable. Most nons’ (and I’m only considering healthy nons here) emotions are capable of fluctuating through a wide range of normal, rarely stepping outside normal to the extremes - still, as others have pointed out, are capable of extending to extremes under extreme conditions. Nons’ emotions are fairly predictable and unhidden, and wide wild frequent swings are the exception.

Yes, all emotions are unstable. The degree of instability varies depending on the level of stress a person is under, but even at the low, "healthy" levels, emotions seem to cause people to make rash or irrational decisions, and sometimes do things they regret. Who that you know, who's "normal" can say they've never done anything they felt guilty about? If they felt guilty after the fact, then why did they do that thing in the first place? Often, it's because of how they were "feeling." This is why people feel the need to apologise.

Normal? wrote:I would suggest a 'normal' is generally unlikely to commit these acts. Their emotions do not 'run amok' because they can assess and control them effectively, even under the most enormous stress. They learnt how to do so when they were young, and have refined that art since as they grew up.

The bold/underlined phrase is the part that I don't agree with. Picture two guys; Dave and Steve. Their company is downsizing, two positions got reduced into one, and Steve got the job. Steve used to be Dave's best friend, but he used some rather underhanded tactics to get the job. Now poor Dave is without a job, and he's wondering how he's going to pay the mortgage and take care of his three kids and dearest wife of twenty years, who he loves with all his heart. He packs up his things, and leaves work. On the way home, he ponders driving into oncoming traffic, or driving off a cliff, but his only condolence is that at least he still has his wife, his soul-mate. With her, he knows he can pull through any kind of difficulty.

So, he gets home, earlier than normal, and he walks in to the sounds of screams, writhing lust and passion. He hears his wife screaming "Oh...my...god... Dave never did that to me." and "Oh, Steve, you're so much bigger than Dave." There, in front of him, is his wife, naked, getting ravished by his backstabbing best friend in the most perverse and depraved ways imaginable.

So, you're telling me that childhood and "refining the art" of containing one's emotions, would have taught this guy how to deal with this? Sure, it's an extreme and contrived example, but it makes a point. People don't know how to control their emotions in new environments until they encounter them. Some people are better at containing their emotions than others, but my point is, that the very presence of emotions in stressful environments is volatile.

Isn't this even a legal thing? Temporary insanity? When stress and emotions cause a "normal" person to do otherwise abnormal things?