I was intrigued by Gerbal's definition of sociopath: "it simply
indicates someone who has no sense of or possibly no respect >for
someone else's sense of "boundaries" (among other things)."
I thought, Ok, I know any number of people who do not know, are
insensitive to, or show little or no respect other's else's sense of
"boundaries". Even on this list, various names come flying at you, who
- at least at times -- if not often -- have that attribute.
People who will hammer someone over the head, even if initially their
point is valid, over and over again -- beyond most people's sense of
relevance and good taste. Name-callers, repeated characterization of
people who are "stupid, unevolved and without spiritual experience',
an embarrassing barrage quite above and and beyond a "normal" senses
of balance, fairness and measured response in the fabric and
boundarires of "normal" social interactions. Loud-mouthed, boorish and
blazen repetition of theories that have little foundation in science
-- beyond most people's normal boundaries of what constitutes common
sense and and a quite stilted lack of response to normal feedback
queues. Defenders of their own works, so hyper-intensive and
voluminous, as to break most people's boundaries of adequacy -- if not
also their ability and willingness to either read or respond to such
torrents of self-defense.
These "listers" are examples -- there are other possibly relevant
profiles from the list. Including myself -- but thats too easy. :)
And of course there is MMY whose job it is to break peoples
boundaries. So in that sense, any teacher is a sociopath -- if the
definition is restricted to ignoring or breaking (through) a persons
status-quo boundaries.
But in reading the various cites, there is more to it than "lack of
respect for boundaries" (as Gerbal acknowledges, but dos not
articulate.) And one problem or issue with the author of the book, is
she mixes the attributes of three major sociopath "criteria".
Regardless, here are some more mixed-list attritues:
* Glibness and Superficial Charm
OK, well, at least one of the listers above come to mind. And possibly
MMY. He had glibness and charm. I am not sure the charm was
superficial. Others argue it was.
* Manipulative and Conning -- They never recognize the rights of
others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They
appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering,
seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may
dominate and humiliate their victims.
>From the listers, one, possible two come to mind, the others are
neither charming nor perhaps adept enough to actually have victims.
But to say "NEVER recognize the rights of others" is too harsh.
Several exhibit this sometimes. "See their self-serving behaviors as
permissible" does fit. "They appear to be charming," fits one. "[they]
are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an
instrument to be used." Eell, sort of fits, again a bit to harsh or
black and white. "They may dominate and humiliate their victims."
Several may try to dominate and humiliate, but often end up
humiliating themselves, IMO.
As far as MMY, to me this is way to superficial a critique. While he
may not have always respected peoples boundaries (and for him as
teacher, that usually would be a good thing) -- and "ran over people"
at times (and other times was quite caring and sweet) -- I don't see
it as a way to gain pleasure. It was simply his way of managing to get
things done. For a larger, world cause. That doesn't justify it but,
to say he tried to "dominate and humiliate his victims' for his own
pleasure is laughable.
* Grandiose Sense of Self
Fits at least one lister.
And MMY. Brahman. :) Or, at least that it was on his shoulders to
spiritual regenerate the world. Do all "messiahs", by definition, have
a messiah complex?
*Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
Doesn't well fit the listers -- does fit MMY.
* Pathological Lying -- Has no problem lying coolly and easily and
it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis.
One of the listers comes to mind. Another doesn't lie, just doesn't
know any better.
And MMY? -- well certainly there are various POV's. One being that in
the realm of knowledge, he "spun", and/or "packaged" the knowledge he
gained from SBS in ways comptible with the West. Maybe he did a good
job at that, maybe not so good. But thats not "lying".
Organizationally, yes, "non-truths" ruled the day at times, if not often.
*Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their
own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass
lie detector tests.
Possibly one lister fits. And MMY -- yes, probably more and more so
over time.
* Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt -- A deep seated rage, which is
split off and repressed, is at their core.
Thats hard to say what drives the list members. Could be some inner
rage issues for a few,
but doesn't seem to fit. And for MMY, it doesn't seem to fit at all.
*Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets
and opportunities.
Two of the listers fit that bill to a degree. As does MMY.
* The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in
their way.
MMY!
* Shallow Emotions -- When they show what seems to be warmth, joy,
love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an
ulterior motive.
Possibly one lister. MMY, I don't see it. If anything he was a "big wave".
* Outraged by insignificant matters,
Well one lister for sure.
And some might say MMY. Though in that case, what is "significant"?
Get in the way of the "Plan" and he will get angry at you. is that
sociopathic? I don't think so.
* yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person.
Some stories of MMY fit this. Are these stories credible -- and do
they represent the majority of his int eractions - or a small slice?
* Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments
are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
One lister, probably.
MMY -- well always the need to keep moving ahead. Consistent with all
good executives.
* Callousness/Lack of Empathy -- Unable to empathize with the pain
of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of
distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Doesn't fit the listers so much in total, some flavor of that at times.
MMY? As above --- some stories of MMY fit this. Are these stories
credible -- and do they represent the majority of his int eractions -
or a small slice?
* Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature -- Rage and abuse,
alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an
addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating
hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful,
all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries,
no concern for their impact on others.
Too "big" for the listers.
MMY -- some would say thats "spot on". For me, thats too simplistic an
analysis.
* Irresponsibility/Unreliability -- Not concerned about wrecking
others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation
they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even
for acts they obviously committed.
As above -- too "big" for the listers. MMY -- some would say thats
"spot on". For me, thats too simplistic an analysis.
* Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of
all sorts.
Well, one lister fits the promiscuity and sexual acting out of all
sorts mold.
MMY ? Well ... clearly various POVs.
* Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle -- Tends to move
around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor
work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Possibly one lister. Maybe not.
MMY? "Tends to move around a lot" -- he used to but thats part of
the job description. "makes all encompassing promises for the future"
-- haha yes, but again, thats part of the job description. Did he do
it well -- thats another question. "poor work ethic" Doesn't fit.
"exploits others effectively" -- Depends on the definition and
connotation of "exploit".
Conclusion. None of the above are sociopaths -- if most of the
attributes need to be met. If three attributes need to be met -- maybe
a few listers are.
But thats a pretty loose and wide-open definition. MANY differnt
types of people may meet three of the above attributes.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
