Odd Disadvantage Definition for Selfish

[Vaevictis Asmadi]

And on the flip side, sociopathy isn't required to behave like a selfish jerkface who habitually screws over other people. Lots and lots of people are just... jerks.

I'm also interested in something broadly useful. Not knowing the specifics of what a diagnosis of sociopathy actually means, I don't want my custom disad tied to that.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Vaevictis Asmadi

And on the flip side, sociopathy isn't required to behave like a selfish jerkface who habitually screws over other people. Lots and lots of people are just... jerks.

I'm also interested in something broadly useful. Not knowing the specifics of what a diagnosis of sociopathy actually means, I don't want my custom disad tied to that.

I would call a selfish person someone who disproportionately chooses his own interest at the expense of another. Not someone interested in his own interest or someone who chooses mutually beneficial things, or whatever.

Thomas Magnum had this some of the time. He never paid his debts and was unwilling to make reasonable contributions to making his host's estate run smoothly etc. At other times he was unusually heroic and had an altruism few had. Often this was toward female clients of course but equally those often were not the ones he was particularly attracted to except in a friendly sort of way. He was erratic rather then selfish but if you focus only on his flaws you have an idea of a selfish person.

[Irioth]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

No. As a 'socially adjusted sociopath'* I can a test to knowing that one can have CoH and/or SoD†.

* At least that's what my diagnosis was.
† SoD at least. I can't personally attest to CoH as I don't have one. But it's not a leap in my mind to have one, a set standard of ethics that are strong enough to qualify as a CoH.

Exactly. As another high-functioning, socially-adjusted sociopath, I can also attest it is possible to have enough of a strong attachment to an ideal, and/or to specific people, to justify a CoH or SoD. It is entirely possible to feel genuine love and care for someone or something, although such attachment is always going to be ultimately conditional, based on your own reasons, and I guess more akin to what other people may feel for pets or cherished possessions. You love them because they make you feel good, you find them useful for yourself or something else you care about, you like what they are, say, or do, and you are going to miss them if they go away. But if circumstances change enough that you stop deeming them important to you, you probably lose interest in them, and if they are gone, they are gone, you are not going to dwell on the loss overmuch.

What one truly lacks is the gut feeling anyone outside the circle of specific people you may care about for your own reasons, are anything more than walking, talking objects, and you should care for their welfare or feelings just because, as well as instinctual awareness of their emotions. You can learn to read clues to figure out what other people think and feel, well enough that it becomes easy and automatic. You can also learn to fake caring about them and their feelings to fit in, and do it effectively a lot of the time, but it is just an act. The real feeling people, especially strangers, are different from objects is impossible and incomprehensible. Using them as tools or means to an end therefore feels entirely right and natural, although you can internalize politeness and civility enough you appear friendly and nice pretty much all the time.

Unless you have other serious issues, it is not like you have any special drive to harm people, it is simply you have no inner censor stopping you from doing it if you deem the situation calls for it and it is the practical thing to do. Violence just feels like another action you can do, like taking out the garbage or walking your dog. You don't do it a lot of the time or ever in normal circumstances because you know it is not the practical thing to do, it would harm yourself or the things you care about, or there are better ways to do with the situation. But if you really think it is the thing to do, you are going to do it in complete serenity. Remorse, guilt, or shame are impossible, except perhaps as a violation of your own self-imposed code or ideals.

Fear is also an emotion you do not experience easily or often, although you can feel a concern about possible unpleasant events and a wish to avoid them. You probably bounce back from pain, trauma, punishment, loss, and danger more quicly or easily than most. It is one reason one with this condition may be resistant to the kind of trauma that often cause PTSD in others.

Coming back to the original topic, a sociopath may or may be Selfish as the Disadvantage is defined (I agree the name is terribly misleading). It all depends if social status is something one personally cares about to the point of internalizing it. It is not something as inherent to the condition as say being Callous or having a lack of Honesty. I would deeem Unfazeable is at least quite likely. One may or may not have Low Empathy, it depends on how well you learnt to 'read' the emotional status of other people, and act the appropriate response.

[Flyndaran]

Just a minor issue, but many people feel real love for their pets. I do, despite having rather weak empathy for people.

But the exact psychology of real people or even characters isn't the real issue. It's the game effects you want then back-defining things to fit them.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Irioth

What one truly lacks is the gut feeling anyone outside the circle of specific people you may care about for your own reasons, are anything more than walking, talking objects, and you should care for their welfare or feelings just because, as well as instinctual awareness of their emotions.

The overlap in symptoms regarding difficulty interpreting other peoples emotions, and the symptom of not looking directly at people or engaging with them (and thus appearing to be unable to distinguish people from objects), led to what we would now call profound Autism originally being called Juvenile Sociopathy (sociopathy got renamed psychopathy and there's yet another new name now).

In some ways the social aspects of autism are actually inverted from psychopathy - the autistic has problems interpreting body language to read emotions, but if it's hammered home, so to speak, the autistic can understand what that emotion is. It's just that people are cryptic and faces are full of so much incomprehensible information you just don't look at them.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Bruno

The overlap in symptoms regarding difficulty interpreting other peoples emotions, and the symptom of not looking directly at people or engaging with them (and thus appearing to be unable to distinguish people from objects), led to what we would now call profound Autism originally being called Juvenile Sociopathy (sociopathy got renamed psychopathy and there's yet another new name now).

Huh? I remember encountering "sociopath" as a new term replacing "psychopath."

Checking Webster, "psychopath" goes back to 1885, "sociopath" to 1930, and the definition of "sociopath" is PSYCHOPATH. So both were around before I was born, but it looks as if "sociopath" replaced "psychopath." And now, as you allude to, the DSM calls it "antisocial personality disorder" (unless some even newer term has taken over while I wasn't looking).

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Huh? I remember encountering "sociopath" as a new term replacing "psychopath."

Checking Webster, "psychopath" goes back to 1885, "sociopath" to 1930, and the definition of "sociopath" is PSYCHOPATH. So both were around before I was born, but it looks as if "sociopath" replaced "psychopath." And now, as you allude to, the DSM calls it "antisocial personality disorder" (unless some even newer term has taken over while I wasn't looking).

Woops, got the order backwards. Thanks!

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Checking Webster, "psychopath" goes back to 1885, "sociopath" to 1930, and the definition of "sociopath" is PSYCHOPATH. So both were around before I was born, but it looks as if "sociopath" replaced "psychopath." And now, as you allude to, the DSM calls it "antisocial personality disorder" (unless some even newer term has taken over while I wasn't looking).

You have to admit the replacement term is more concrete. "Soul sickness" is pretty uninformative.

[kdtipa]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Actually, the CEO might very well be a psychopath. Psychopathy doesn't require violence at all - it makes a person who is otherwise predisposed to violence more likely to become violent, however, as people are about as important to them as chairs.

I didn't mean to equate sociopathy/psychopathy with violence. Just meant to use violence for the high contrast in a situation where a person should feel an emotional reaction that a sociopath/psychopath does not.

[kdtipa]

This thread turned interesting in its discussion of Psycopathy/Sociopathy/Anti-Social Personality Disorder. I was aware of the fact that Psychopath and Sociopath were effectively the same, but I didn't know of the new term.

I was of the belief that the Low Empathy disadvantage was at least part of representing ASPD (APD?).