Difference between NPD and Psychopath

fiveintime wrote:No worries. My feelings aren't hurt. Before you go attributing anything else to my PD, though, you should probably know... I don't have a personality disorder.

It is the thought process I consider to be disordered FiveinTime: the attributions I made were to that in itself. Of course though, I recognise the pity prod when it is administered too (ouch) and now feel like a very bad person.

So you consider yourself a ‘normal’? Yet position yourself as ‘not a normal’ throughout the thread (weren’t normals the ones dancing on a naked table drinking wine with a straw as you pointed out their folly?).

fiveintime wrote:Well, if your exposure to an unemotional, unempathetic, calculating, rational, individual is not only somebody who's disordered, but also a romantic "ex," that could bias your opinion a bit. Everybody has their biases. I certainly have mine.

True – the vast majority of my relationships were with emotional, empathetic and caring individuals however, so hopefully I’ve come out with a relatively balanced view.

fiveintime wrote:I tend to think it's even more respectable to be a good person when you don't have some sort of biological inhibitors forcing it on you. Shows a sort of conscientious self-dicipline.

Yes – it does doesn’t it? If you have to learn empathy as an adult, you then make a conscientious choice to exercise it in your dealings with others, and I think that is to be admired. It is a little like Search for Truth’s choices now he is self-aware. Working towards empathy (if you like) somehow ennobles it as a characteristic. It is like anything that doesn't 'come easy' I suppose?

Normal? wrote:I recognise the pity prod when it is administered too (ouch) and now feel like a very bad person.

Haha. Good. You are a very bad person for hurting my feelings like that. You should feel guilty. Very guilty. Suffer the pain.

Normal? wrote:So you consider yourself a ‘normal’? Yet position yourself as ‘not a normal’ throughout the thread

I don't know what I am. "Normal" isn't so cut and dry. I test "normal" on psychological tests, but I think it's a fluke; I think I somehow fall through the cracks. I've always been of the mindset that I would see a doctor to work on my problems, and labels are of little use. I think I might actually ask next week though. I've been seeing him for some time now, and I'm getting curious.

Normals are capable of desensitizing themselves. Repeated exposure to events prepares them from reactive emotional outbursts. The ones who behave irrationally through emotions are what most people label, emotionally immature.

Most frustrations that leads to anger, IMO comes from a lack of understanding of the situation. Empathy allows people to understand other people (or try) and other animals to lesser extents. People who are highly empathic don't get violently angry over human affairs because they get it.

Although I would be devastated if my my dog was ran over in front of my eyes, I wouldn't violently attack a man who accidentally ran over it like this guy http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/cont ... ticle.aspx?
subjectid=450&articleid=20110307_11_A10_ULNSbY113455.

KenWalker wrote:Normals are capable of desensitizing themselves.

Quite a few mentally ill people are normal, with modifiers. It's the extent of the modifiers that defines whether they're still officially "normal" or not.

KenWalker wrote:Empathy allows people to understand other people (or try), and to lesser extents other animals.

Intellect/sympathy allows people to understand other people (or try). Empathy allows them to share the experience.

fiveintime wrote:

KenWalker wrote:Normals are capable of desensitizing themselves.

Quite a few mentally ill people are normal, with modifiers. It's the extent of the modifiers that defines whether they're still officially "normal" or not.

I agree, and I'm not saying whether normals are more or less criminally prone than AsPDs but just what they're capable of. As it's beneficial for an ASPD to learn about emotions, it's weight of importance competes with normals who would benefit from learning indifference.

fiveintime wrote:

KenWalker wrote:Empathy allows people to understand other people (or try), and to lesser extents other animals.

Intellect/sympathy allows people to understand other people (or try). Empathy allows them to share the experience.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree here. Are you defining empathy as exclusive of intellectual/understanding qualities?

KenWalker wrote:Are you defining empathy as exclusive of intellectual/understanding qualities?

Nope. I'm saying that you can observe and recognise emotions without empathy (through intellect alone). Empathy also requires an ability to recognise the emotion, but it goes above and beyond in actually internalising and experiencing it.

I'm pretty sure we agree on that anyway. I'm not really saying anything profound. What I was originally pointing out, is that you don't necessarily require empathy to understand others. Of course, that depends on how you define "understand." Some people don't think you truly understand until you share the experience in some way. Maybe they're right *shrug*

fiveintime wrote:Haha. Good. You are a very bad person for hurting my feelings like that. You should feel guilty. Very guilty. Suffer the pain.

I'll be completely honest with your FIT, I suffered the pain for a little while, then I had a quick word with myself and reminded myself what I have learnt. My reflex is to feel guilty - absolutely. Thanks for just giving me a little practice at how to manage it - I really mean that!

fiveintime wrote:I don't know what I am. "Normal" isn't so cut and dry. I test "normal" on psychological tests, but I think it's a fluke; I think I somehow fall through the cracks. I've always been of the mindset that I would see a doctor to work on my problems, and labels are of little use. I think I might actually ask next week though. I've been seeing him for some time now, and I'm getting curious.

May I ask why you think it is a fluke? Were you to self-diagnose, what would that diagnosis be?

I wonder if you have ever read David Smail's books (particularly How to Survive without Psychotherapy - highly recommended!). He is not 'anti' therapy per se, he just deconstructs the 'consulting room model' and he points out that spending an hour a week in the company of a compassionate listener does not necessarily change the social and economic reality in which the patient must LIVE (and it is this reality which he claims is often the cause of the patient's issues in the first place).

He suggests that in many cases it is this reality that must change and not the patient themselves. He positions this as part of a political (rather than psychological/individual) necessity - a little bit like Christopher Lasch does in his book about Narcissism. He asks - 'Is it possible to be 'normal' in a world in which getting one over on someone, being ruthless and cruel, is not only advocated but positively rewarded?'.

It is very similar to Erich Fromm's contention that often the person who feels 'not normal' suffers the fate of being a 'normal person' but in an abnormal society:

A person who has not been completely alienated, who has remained sensitive and able to feel, who has not lost the sense of dignity, who is not yet "for sale", who can still suffer over the suffering of others, who has not acquired fully the having mode of existence - briefly, a person who has remained a person and not become a thing - cannot help feeling lonely, powerless, isolated in present-day society. He cannot help doubting himself and his own convictions, if not his sanity. He cannot help suffering, even though he can experience moments of joy and clarity that are absent in the life of his "normal" contemporaries. Not rarely will he suffer from neurosis that results from the situation of a sane man living in an insane society, rather than that of the more conventional neurosis of a sick man trying to adapt himself to a sick society. In the process of going further in his analysis, i.e. of growing to greater independence and productivity,his neurotic symptoms will cure themselves.

I am coming around to the conclusion that what makes a person feel 'normal' is a sense of congruence - the notion that what they believe and how they act, come from the same source, that they are not contradicting themselves in behaviour or thought.

Not sure if that made any sense but even as a 'normal' I also often wonder what 'normal' is - hence my username.

Normal? wrote:I'll be completely honest with your FIT, I suffered the pain for a little while, then I had a quick word with myself and reminded myself what I have learnt. My reflex is to feel guilty - absolutely. Thanks for just giving me a little practice at how to manage it - I really mean that!

You are kidding with me, right? Because, I haven't been around you enough to know. I was just kidding. There was no fit, my feelings weren't hurt (that was sarcasm), and I figured you were just messing with me about feeling guilty. Back over in my typical forum, when somebody says "I feel guilty," it's usually a snarky jab at those other folks - the ones that actually feel guilt.

Normal? wrote:May I ask why you think it is a fluke? Were you to self-diagnose, what would that diagnosis be?

It's a fluke, because I have antisocial behaviour without fitting the personality profile. I wouldn't even venture a guess at a self-diagnosis. Some form of selective sadism and quasi-antisocial behaviour? Maybe it is AsPD, but I don't really think so. I don't know if there's even a term. I'm honestly curious, myself. I'll share my findings...

Normal? wrote:he points out that spending an hour a week in the company of a compassionate listener does not necessarily change the social and economic reality in which the patient must LIVE (and it is this reality which he claims is often the cause of the patient's issues in the first place).

Couldn't agree more. I guarantee, if my doc was nothing more than a sympathetic ear, it would be an incredible waste of time and money. He seems intent on identifying root cause, and addressing those issues head on.

Normal? wrote:I am coming around to the conclusion that what makes a person feel 'normal' is a sense of congruence - the notion that what they believe and how they act, come from the same source, that they are not contradicting themselves in behaviour or thought.

That's ego-syntonic. It might make a person feel normal, but doesn't make them clinically normal. A high-functioning psychopath is a perfect example. Their psyche could be very "congruent," but I doubt his mental state would be considered normal. My state is very ego-syntonic, but I'm quite certain I'm not qualified to wear a "normal" badge.

Normal? wrote:
I am coming around to the conclusion that what makes a person feel 'normal' is a sense of congruence - the notion that what they believe and how they act, come from the same source, that they are not contradicting themselves in behaviour or thought.

Not sure if that made any sense but even as a 'normal' I also often wonder what 'normal' is - hence my username.

I'm not an expert on evolutionary psychology but I heard this mentioned before. Incongruence is a sign of instability in people, and mates find them less attractive and therefore their chances of reproducing are less. What types of people do you find that are normally instable?

Of all the PDs, ASPD seems the most stable. A lot of psychopaths look more stable than your average normal until you read about one on the news. Even then, they get a lot of obsessed women fans who want to carry their offspring like with some of the serial killers. Maybe it's the ability to remain calm and look normal even under those circumstances that make ASPDs look congruent. So I don't know how valid that theory of evolutionary psychology really is because of that, but I'm sure it's somewhat correct since a lot of men/women say that they won't date he/she because he/she is psycho.

fiveintime wrote:You are kidding with me, right? Because, I haven't been around you enough to know. I was just kidding. There was no fit, my feelings weren't hurt (that was sarcasm), and I figured you were just messing with me about feeling guilty. Back over in my typical forum, when somebody says "I feel guilty," it's usually a snarky jab at those other folks - the ones that actually feel guilt.

No – not kidding at all. It is my knee-jerk response to someone telling me I have insulted or hurt them. It doesn’t really matter the extent of that hurt, or it would seem, the veracity of the claim – it is instinctive. That’s why I have to have a quiet word with myself for a moment and bring clarity to the situation. My quest (!) is to detach from this, and accept that each person is responsible for themselves, and for how they feel. It is in fact quite Narcissistic of me to believe I have so much impact on other people I think?

fiveintime wrote:That's ego-syntonic. It might make a person feel normal, but doesn't make them clinically normal. A high-functioning psychopath is a perfect example. Their psyche could be very "congruent," but I doubt his mental state would be considered normal. My state is very ego-syntonic, but I'm quite certain I'm not qualified to wear a "normal" badge.

I’m not sure what the difference is. An individual presents for psychological assessment or support because they don’t ‘feel normal’ (unless they are forced into it by a ‘higher power’!). Whether they are clinically normal or not is a bit of a moot point as this definition would not even come until play until they sought treatment, and they wouldn’t seek treatment unless they felt they needed it, if that makes sense.

But there is another aspect to ideas of congruency; it must be reflected by society at large (this is the root of the Narcissist’s disorder in essence – his grandiose idea of himself is not mirrored: it is constantly cast into doubt and must constantly be reasserted). So, if we believe that being honest is what we are all about for example, and this notion is supported by experience in the outside world, then congruency is the result.

Some psychologists claim that anxiety (and I think anxiety is at the root of all PDs – the difference lies in how this anxiety is managed) is a consequence of the gap between who you ‘think’ you are and who you ‘know yourself to be’. The latter is predicated on the feedback we get from everyone else. If that feedback is lacking then we are considered delusional, demented or both. Hence the least ‘anxious’ person is the person who behaves in a way that is most in keeping with his notion of self, and that notion is supported and confirmed by those around him.

The problem with the psychopath is that although he knows his emotions and actions are ‘congruent’ society does not support his view. It tells him the opposite. There is no recognition of his ‘wholeness’, only a plethora of messages conveying how it is wrong to behave and think in the way he does. His only recourse is to reject these messages – otherwise, who is he? Or to change his idea of who he is. It is little wonder that this often leads to a desire for revenge, or to extreme anger (as in the most extreme cases of psychopathology).

So I suppose I am saying that the idea of congruence is twofold:- it is about acting in a way that reflects your identity as you understand it, and having that identity confirmed by the world outside too. Or else going to live in the woods like Walden until you don’t give a monkey’s about the outside world?