what is a crush, an affection about one thing about someone? many things? i might crush on many people, but i'm aware that these are just infatuations with a new thing. it happens with books and hobbies and etc, too
so he had a cool coworker of the opposite sex. is there a "crush scale"? maybe you round down if the crush doesn't entertain future-fantasies, heh
It's imo in human nature, and perfectly valid. If you are in a monogamous relationship which you wish to retain i think you need to be aware of this. To internalize ones feelings and be aware when it's heading towards a threshold, and put in the work to prevent it from damaging your relationship if its worth fighting for.
I've long thought that modern society fails to raise our children to self analyze. Tools to develop healthy mental habits do not seem discussed, let alone taught. So in this case people naturally "crush" on passers-by who perhaps on paper shouldn't ruin their primary relationship... but when left unchecked, do.
Relationships need care, protection even. Sometimes, perhaps often, from your own self.
In that sense, the time spent building a relationship, time invested in growing trust, understanding and shared experiences, looks like building a business. And abandoning it just for biochemical experience with another looks like somebody with a successful five year old startup abandoning it to start another one because the code was written in Go and they've discovered they really love writing Elixir.
In our relationship, it's definitely the opposite. We specifically, actively avoid bonds that could get romantic vibes.
The exact location of the line depends on the individuals and the relationship i'd imagine.
Mine is pretty far back. I wear my heart on my sleeve (is that the right usage of that term?) and form bonds quite easily. Yet, i'm intensely devoted for various reasons - so i keep the opposite gender at a respectable distance.
Maybe? It means "I make my emotions readily apparent", which might not be what you meant.
Partner guarding seems like a lot of pointless energy expended based on insecurity; one of my aims in relationship(s) is to constantly improve to remain the highest-value around without resorting to possessive capture. Plus, it's better to let people move freely and self-select voluntarily, rather than give them ultimatums or threatening "if you ever" speeches.
I look at importance of relationships (love/friendship) based on the amount and sustainment of attention, mutual care, support, and trust. Sex is just sex to me without deeper affinity and common interests; a shared, social activity that is delightful without being black-and-white all-meaningful. It's also important to be sure other participants are truly on this same wavelength so that they don't end-up regretful or are otherwise left worse than before.
In conclusion: open works best for me, with a consideration for Mff or Mfff poly where f are pan/bi. I think Mfff tetrad of ever-reconfiguring pairs is more stable because there's no third-wheel issue. And all disagreements must be followed by bedroom activities, and stalemate disputes are resolved by last one who gets there wins.
1. You trust them with your life
2. Better together than apart
3. Good friends
4. Common goals
5. Complementary personalities
From this line, I already knew where this comment was going. It's oddly familiar.
> Partner guarding seems like a lot of pointless energy expended based on insecurity
And there it is. Counterpoint: No, it's not; you're just, as you said yourself, different. For the vast majority of people it is neither pointless nor is it born out of insecurity.
The odd thing is that you start by acknowledging yourself as different, just to turn around and present these opinions as statements. It's not the first time I've seen it either with people explaining why they buy into polyamory.
> Plus, it's better to let people move freely and self-select voluntarily, rather than give them ultimatums or threatening "if you ever" speeches.
Wasn't aware that the only two choices were "not caring at all" and "giving ultimatums".
Speaking of "moving freely" and "not partner guarding":
> Not in my face if it's with a dude
> with a consideration for Mff or Mfff poly where f are pan/bi. I think Mfff tetrad of ever-reconfiguring pairs is more stable because there's no third-wheel issue.
So the conclusion is that... You "discovered" polygyny. That's also familiar; reddit for instance is full of guys supposedly in that kind of arrangement, and many more others clearly wishing they were.
It's not new, many societies have tried it; most of those weren't big on women's rights, though. And a lot of it stemmed from, shall we say, "partner guarding"... against other males.
Then again, quite a few of the discussions I've had with self-declared polyamorous people were themselves women and I am not only strictly monogamous, but I'm also gay, so what do I know.
> Not in my face if it's with a dude, don't get pregnant, or diseases, and I don't care.
(I didn't miss this.) You may be very equally open; it's hard to tell from your comment. Congrats on having such an unusually low level of jealousy.
Let's see if you feel the same way when the alimony and child support garnishment kicks in...
The biggest turn-on for women is safety. Once women feel safe they don’t care about the fact that the man they are with also loves other women. Just like friends who are emotionally mature and secure do not care that you have multiple close friends.
Good for you for figuring this out.
If one can keep it in the open and it's everything alright between them as a couple it's alright. But if one keeps it hidden, dismisses the other and lies about the activity it's a betrayal. Although rules are a bit different for non-romantic gender, because in general this relationship will not replace the romantic one, it still may apply. If one opens up to their buddy and keeps distance with their partner, isn't it a reason for partner's concern?
Other people use the term similar to your usage where it is much more general. Communicative partners may say they have a crush on someone else with the implication that they would never act on it.
I'm not sure that she has those tendencies, though. She talks about having flat affect and about her sensation seeking in youth, but plenty of youths engage in mildly antisocial behavior (the brain doesn't fully develop until the mid-20s or so), and many sociopaths don't display flat affect - in fact, they may show rather volatile emotions, including angry jealousy triggered by perceived slights, which she apparently lacks.
She was medically diagnosed and then earned a Ph.D. in psychology. I don't know how you can reasonably question that.
This author says, "My lack of emotion and empathy", and "my insincerity, emotional poverty, absence of shame and guilt, and reduced empathic response".
I wonder what one dose of MDMA would allow her to experience?
Or possibly be a candidate for an MDMA research study.
It was not true at all, and ended very badly (he drugged me, and that's all that I know for sure).
The experiences seemed to be more hedonistic for him than anything... However -- and this is big, imo -- the MDMA did help him open up about a lot of things (for example, being a sociopath) and other kinds of darker predilections that he had kept inside / experienced in the past. And I think it made him a much better person for it, in all kinds of ways, just getting this stuff out and sharing.
But in the end, the relationship fell apart because I couldn't deal with the subtle manipulation that he would constantly try to get away with (hilariously assuming that I couldn't pick up on what he was doing, which was often very obvious -- a sociopathic trait, being unable to relate and thinking oneself superior). We had a lot of good times, and I think about those days often. In the end I just couldn't handle the quirks... which might say more about me than him.
They just enjoy feeling really good.
My most recent ex also really enjoyed psychedelics, but as far as I could tell she had qualitatively very different experiences from me - not so much of the psychedelic/mystical/connecting aspects and more of recreational enjoyment and to some limited extent self-exploration. Her deepest realization was that she appreciated hanging out with her childhood friend. She never had a bad or dark trip or any of the anxiety.
I think it's a mistake to believe that these things affect different psyches similarly.
I found this bit most fascinating. How does this work logistically? Does one stock own cart with embarrassing items, “just in case”, and then dump them before checking out? I’m assuming that the mischief is then sought out, and less of a reaction to being wronged? With that said, taking the whole thing with a grain of salt.
Everybody in the family knew she loved taking her grandchildren to Disney World at least once or twice year. Over the years we had several family reunions there. What few of us ever knew was that she would steal trinkets from the gift shops every chance she could. As she lived with both type 1 diabetes and cancer, she always carried around one or two huge bags with food and medicine which she would stuff with her loot.
According to my uncle (her brother) she did it as a way of taking control over her somewhat hard-luck life, which also included getting pregnant at 16 and other hardships. I don't know the extent to which he knew beforehand, or if he had ever spoken with her about it. I think it's mostly a guess of his based on the fact that, apparently, such mischievous habits are a not uncommon stress response behavior. But I have no reason to doubt that the items were indeed stolen; her husband and daughter confirmed it.
 AFAIU, over the years she had multiple types of cancer, including breast cancer; not just a metastasis of one type. She was one of the longest survivors of the form that killed her. (Don't know the name.) She kept miraculously responding to various experimental treatments for years until she didn't; and then they stopped admitting her to new programs. I still vividly remember once getting a frantic call in the middle of the night after she was refused entry into an experimental program. She was desperate to find and pull on any string, and she begged me to query any friends who were doctors, scientists, w'ever. The diabetes was both a curse and blessing as it caused her to become exceptionally skillful and consistent at controlling her diet and lifestyle, which presumably helped her respond well to the various cancer treatments. She was also tenacious. She never stopped fighting for a single second. No courageously poetic acquiescence for her. Her last night she tried to stay awake for as long as she could, knowing she'd never wake up.
But I can't really imagine caring on the other side of that.
2) She's not an actual sociopath, but in claiming to be one she's more likely to be a person who exhibits attention-seeking behaviors.
Either case would help explain both the tone of the article and her claimed activities. I also doubt that she was paid much, if anything, for the article. Modern Love is a weekly, reader-contributed column: https://www.nytimes.com/article/how-to-submit-a-modern-love-... That page also says that submissions "must be entirely true", though it doesn't explain the extent to which they verify the stories.
This is what holds the fabric of civilization together though! When you are dying of cancer and need a ride to the doctor all those guilt driven decisions might pay off
There's a common distinction between psychopaths and sociopaths that suggests the latter is (usually, but probably not in this case) considered less intelligent primarily because they lack the forbearance to hide their condition. I personally think any sensible person afflicted with this disposition should keep it to themselves, knowing very well that public admission to anti-social behavior is not in their best interest as a person.
Then again if narcissism is at play one might feel compelled to revel in the attention that begets the glorification of sociopaths by the media. The news is pretty irrational nowadays, so I understand why the notion that dissocial individuals are somehow victims is gaining traction. Having to read about someone who has a PhD in psychology making these statements is pretty uncomfortable, but nonetheless admissible once the absurdity of our reality is embraced.
I wish her and her family the best but, for their own sake, I wish she hadn't published this article. If I ever hear of someone admitting to being diagnosed with this personality disorder I would do everything in my power to disassociate myself from them -- which I believe to be a rational decision when self-preservation is the goal. I can already imagine the parents of her poor child's friends whispering into their children's ears to "avoid that family at any cost from now on".
This seems pretty harsh. You're making a pariah of someone, based on something you heard, because you assume they wish to do you harm without ever meeting the person.
Replace "sociopath" with "homosexual", "non-Christian" (since, really, who chooses their religion?), or "Black". Keep in mind that sociopathy is not a choice. It's possible they're made, more likely they're born that way, but either way not a path a person sets themselves on.
While knowing such diagnosis for an individual may be instructive in forming relationships with them, just assuming they intend you harm without getting to know the individual is a knee-jeek reaction at best. The author's own experience, should you choose to accept it, shows that relationships are not only possible but can be healthy, beneficial, and even self-enlightening to all parties.
Am I understanding you correctly? Because if so, this isn't a definition I've heard of. Can you tell me where it's from?
There are a few other public articles about "high functioning" psychopaths and sociopaths. Generally, what drives ethics is not simply human emotions. This is a great lesson from those individuals. What drives ethics are twofold:
1) The pragmatic aspect: if you act unethically, you will most likely get caught someday. Even if you don't get caught, this is a fragile and risky behavior. If people learn about it, they'll try to punish you or generally ensure this doesn't happen again (worse effects if you're known psychopath or sociopath).
2) The principled aspect: most importantly, ethics should be built on principles.
a) The most important principle is that other people (other beings really) are also real, are also conscious just like you, that somehow we all share an 'internal medium', even if we can't directly observe each other's mediums -- whatever well being you deserve naturally implies other beings also deserve it.
(I'd like to call it the Rogers Principle in honor of Fred Rogers...) Perhaps it's just a generalization of 'love thy neighbor as thyself': you should love others as if yourself; the only difference is that pragmatically you can't devote as much attention to others as to yourself (because pragmatically division of labor is necessary, that each takes care of his own well-being for the most part for things to work in practice).
b) And then there's Kant's Categorical Imperative. We should act as if by Universal Law: whatever fundamental principles about ethics you conclude, will probably be concluded by others as well. This is a metaethical principle really. If you conclude some way of behaving which you wouldn't like others to have, that would become a bad universal law. So reject those on principle (assuming others are also aware of metaethics).
: This is not present in Kant's own work I believe, but I have a novel view on the Categorical Imperative: I view it as a pragmatic metaethic principle. This principle is useless if other individuals don't themselves abide it; so for it to work, you need two things: 1) the capability and disposition of individuals to think, plan and consider acting ethically; 2) actual knowledge of those principles themselves. So the validity of CI depends on common knowledge of CI. So the more you want it to apply (and generally we want it to apply), the more you have to publicize it. If you want it to be true, you have to shout it from the top of your lungs:
"Act as if your ethics were to become universal principle" !!!
(which I'm generally trying to do here)
This is how they show up in workplaces with credentialed staff:
+ Public humiliation of victims
+ Intentional isolation of victims
+ Smear campaigns against victims
+ Encourages others to torment, harass, alienate, and/or humiliate victims
+ Sabotage victims
+ Invades personal privacy of victims (feeds into other techniques)
In broad strokes, these people can be identified through their use of social violence and deception. Whether their internal state of mind conforms to some pathology template is almost irrelevant.
This is some aggressive and concerning rhetoric.
Being a jerk at work is not “violence” and we should not try to equate the two as being on the same level.
Don’t forget that many fascist regimes were built around this kind of aggressive punishment of unpleasant behaviors.
Or from the dictionary definition 1.b.  "extremely powerful or forceful and capable of causing damage"
We have seen throughout history that fascism and other forms of totalitarian governments base their foundation upon this type of strict “no broken windows” style of behavior control.
Another popular technique for these types of regimes is changing the definition of words.
I would strongly encourage you to look into the rise of fascism in the first half of the twentieth century. Recently fascism is more closely associated with nationalist and racist groups. But this was very different a hundred years ago when these ideas were first gaining large acceptance.
I’ve seen many people use this as an excuse to not be honest. But, the value in the honesty isn’t happiness.
It’s trust, integrity, respect, and allowing the other person to make choices with all the facts. It’s in letting go of the burden of lies. It’s showing vulnerability and weakness. It’s in being honest with yourself, which you must be, in order to be honest with your partner.
Often this comes across as deep insecurity, and ironically it can sometimes be easier for someone else to understand it from the outside (or at least see it for what it is).
In my experience people who aren’t able to express or introspect on their emotional state to both themselves and others make for difficult romantic partners, and can cause a lot of damage long term when raising children.
There's situations that are simply ambiguous, contradictory, and where honesty is more an attempt to defuse or clarify than well, actually honest.
For example there are a lot of people who always attempt to be honest, and then tend to hand out advice to people without really knowing what the other person is actually about.
I think there's a reason lying or at least omitting things exists and it's not just being a coward, it can also be legitimate deferral and in a way humility, I can't assume that I always have all the facts and simply opine on an issue.
Then I remembered, it kinda does anyway...
Side note: I have enjoyed reading Modern Love on NYTimes, but there are times (perhaps with this one, and others for sure) where I feel topics or stories are packaged a bit too cutely, to easily and poetically to be real. For short stories Modern Love can be a surprisingly deep and touching, but other times it feels like ... just stories polished up too much for the sake of the story. At times I feel like I can sense the writer ignoring or hand waving other things.
I mean I rarely feel guilt either, but I'm not a sociopath.
I am definitely interested in what her upbringing was like and if she has a history of trauma.
Something doesn't add up about her story. It would probably be worth seeing it properly from a third perspective. Like her husband, her broader family that she doesn't mention or the people she works with.
The book "The Sociopath Next Door", written by a clinical psychologist, describes a real-life story of a [presumed] sociopath who fraudulently worked as a clinical psychologist. Unfortunately, their habits tended to the more malevolent end of the spectrum and they supposedly delighted in manipulating their patients. The story begins at page 77 of the Kindle Edition.
Have a read. A large part of performance seems to be from the ability to gain an alliance with the patient, a component of which is empathy.
>Being skillful at detaching from your own emotional response would seem to me to be a useful skill for such an occupation.
Possibly to some extent. Psych professionals often talk about 'countertransference', basically how the patient affected you emotionally, and how to use that clinically. If you didn't feel anything, you might not be able to use this useful cue.
And one other mantra I keep hearing from the psychiatrists are, "Find one thing you like about the patient and focus on that" (especially in regards to hateful, angry patients) It's going to be hard to help someone you can't empathise with for being angry and build an alliance.
edit: Psychologist/psychiatrist I flick between terms. I just mean any mental health professional that engage with a patient. Particularly for talk therapy.
edit edit: It's not like she's barred from being one. It just would be a big disadvantage (unless she deals with psychopaths who famously don't respond to anything)
It is not at all clear why a sociopath would be better at detecting lying. Is this a skill that can be transferred? How can the absence of emotion better detect an emotional act (lying)?
But mostly this is just spin. It’s a good thing, see. I’m helping you. Everybody else is just like me. You need me to protect you. Please don’t leave me. I’ll destroy you.
With most groups, especially disadvantaged groups, we hesitate to make any negative generalization. For example, I would never say, "blind people excel at subtle manipulation; they learn this skill in order to work around their inherent social deficiencies." In fact, I wouldn't even make any negative generalizations even when I have reason to believe they are probably true, like "blind people tend to be less productive programmers."
I just think it's fascinating how sociopaths are totally barred from this protection. We really do fear them, and that fear puts them out in the cold, outside the usual embrace of diversity. I wonder if you could make the statements you've just made about any other group of people with a genetic condition without incurring the wrath of the community or even the moderators.
I'm really not moral grandstanding here. I'm not sure you're correct about typical sociopath behavior, but if you are then I have no issue with you saying it. I'm only pointing it out because I'm genuinely fascinated by this exception to a very strong cultural norm.
Psychopaths aren't usually terribly dangerous. Don't lend them money, but almost certainly they won't kill or steal from you! (people with borderline personality disorder, a terrible and debilitating disease, are far more dangerous to the people in their lives)
Psychopaths are perfectly capable of behaving morally. They lack to a degree the emotional aspects of personal morality, but they can certainly reason morally, and thus can be productive members of society. The idea that they don't have emotions is an exaggeration. They do have emotions, though these emotions can be unusual or weak, and they can suffer. We should have empathy for them, even if they may not have for us
I've seen no evidence in the clinical literature that psychologists hate these patients, just that their is little help that can be provided them, especially given their propensity for manipulation and deceit. Talk therapy has been proven to actually polish their skills in these domains and there are no drugs or other treatments that can develop the capacity for empathy or remorse where none exists. The best one can hope for is that they can be instilled with a kind of risk vs. reward calculus that will prevent them from indulging the more extreme aspects of their behavior. But this largely is largely determined by their level of intelligence and upbringing.
>Psychopaths aren't usually terribly dangerous.
This depends on your definition of dangerous. Not every psychopath is violent, but they almost universally engage in constant lying, manipulation, exploitation, and pushing of boundaries, which take, at the very least, a strong psychological toll on those around them. If you end up working for a psychopath or in a relationship with one, your life is likely to be more miserable than not, regardless of whether they behave in an explicitly antisocial fashion.
Most people are easily mislead and others don't mind unless attacked. Best thing sociopaths can do is radical honesty.
Hence, sociopaths spend a lot of time lying to and manipulating other people. Detecting lies might very well be easier for someone who lies a lot themselves: "Don't bullshit a bullshitter."
With that said, from what I understand of these various personality disorders, it's a bit of a floating spectrum of classifications, so traits and symptoms can overlap.
Edit: I agree, of course, that the whole text should be taken with a tablespoon of salt.
After listening to his podcast for six months, I'd suspect that what Harris admits to himself and what actually happened might not be the same thing...
I don't know what the point of this article is, I'm going to view it as a demonstration of what a functionally sociopath person look like and use it to broaden my definition of people to fear.
Sociopaths are dangerous. Everything in our culture and society is built around the fact, purposefully or not, that most people have basic empathy for the direct and visceral experience of seeing another person suffer. If you involve yourself with a sociopath, there are no mechanisms at play to help you. You will find yourself totally destroyed. If everyone in the world really knew what sociopaths are, they wouldn’t be allowed to roam freely. I’m astounded at how casually the subject is addressed in this thread.
Actually, taking a step back: your comment horrifies me. It's coherently worded and looks similar the other comments in this thread on the surface, but you are very clearly advocating for the author and people like her to be locked up; calling this you're calling this wife a danger to her husband, this mother of a family a menace to society. This is a woman who took the time and courage to write about how she maintains a fairly normal life with a highly stigmatized psychological condition (often eliciting the very reaction you've had in your comment–"pure, unnatural evil") using words that I know if directed at me would make me fear for my very existence. I read comments every day that violate the Hacker News guidelines ("lol the author of this post is dumb", "the Clintons were behind 9/11") and it's usually easy to tell because they stand out as being gross violations that nobody is going to take seriously. But this…the conviction with which you say these words that I don't think I could make any more discriminatory…is what astounds me. I am honestly struggling for words to describe how wrong your comment feels.
There are lots of dangerous people groups. Are you going to include any veteran with PTSD? Or brilliant MBAs because they might learn to game the system or start a trading scam?
It's estimated that 46% of adults have a severe psychological condition at some point in their lifetime.
We have to be careful as a society of locking people up because of what they could do, not because of what they've done.
I feel insulted, but I can’t refute this.
And I think it's a bad idea to try and imprison people because of who they are.
Of course people who were friends with Ted Bundy were surprised! Do you think they would be his friends otherwise? For every friend there were two people who weren’t surprised I can promise you. And yes some sociopaths are geniuses but that’s not relevant to my point at all. Most sociopaths are not able to play a rol perfectly forever. Ted bundy is a perfect example of that.
I once had the pleasure of encountering a sociopath in a social setting. He was charming and I was the only one who knew, and I knew instantly, everyone else loved him. And sure enough it was only a matter of time before the others came around one by one. If you know what to look for they are easy to spot. Extremely easy. The difference in autonomic responses alone is almost impossible to conceal.
Neither could vote, or owned land, or really all that much. That 99.999%, probably add .0009 too, had zero power realistically.
I find it amusing that most people look "to the past", and the point out the hardship of one sex or the other, yet when doing so?
Look at how 'Lords and Ladies' lived, which most certainly they would not have been. You, I, and likely every single person on this forum would be a serf, zero power, zero upward mobility, locked in caste and servitude.
My impression of the period is that prenups were common, if not the default, among the aristocracy.
Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube
(Also, women losing their power is more of a common law than a civil code thing, as can be seen in the variance in family law in the US between the de novo states and the states which had been part of code jurisdictions before purchase or conquest.)
And despite what the author implies, a hallmark of a sociopath is a lack of any genuine awareness that they are a sociopath. So it is safe to assume the “admission” is just another manipulation.
That's why when I read the article, all I see is attempted manipulation and exploitation of the reader.
Plenty of non-sociopathic relationships are transactional or exploitative. What do you think a young attractive woman marrying an older wealthy man is?
>That's why when I read the article, all I see is attempted manipulation and exploitation of the reader.
And again, half of the news articles I see every day are guilty of the very same thing. When an author goes on a podcast tour before the release of their book, what else is that other than manipulation to buy their book, are they all sociopaths?
All I see when I read that article is honesty. Every person in that woman's social circle knows what's up, how is that even manipulation, what you see is what you get. She clearly has functional relationships, what you seem to be hung up on is her intent.
Nobody deserves to be marked unlovable based on the way they are born. Period. If someone has already hurt you personally then that's different: an individual is different from a category, actions are different from hypotheticals, and trust is different from compassion. I'm not saying a person's past actions should be ignored. What I am saying is that everyone should be considered based on their own individual choices.
“We are all receiving Charity. There is something in each of us that cannot be
naturally loved.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves
“Experience that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn.
- CS Lewis
I just don't really believe this is always true. What do you call the people consciously doing sociopathic things?
This is a ridiculous paradox.
An alcoholic might engage in behavior that matches sociopathy (lying, manipulation, irritability, etc) for various reasons (covering for their drinking, getting access to alcohol and so on). What makes it different is that the alcoholic deep down can recognize that their drinking is a problem and hence also act to mitigate their destructive behavior.
A sociopath might be theoretically knowledgeable about their condition, but they can do little, if anything, to mitigate how they act and even if they know that everyone else might think something they do is wrong, they simply don't care. In other words: an alcoholic is likely to wish for not being an alcoholic, while a sociopath is likely to want to stay a sociopath.
An example of this is Sam Vaknin, who also monetizes his personality disorder after a fashion. There's a documentary about him and his wife floating around on Youtube, "I, Psychopath".
The lying, deceit and manipulation I refer to as performed by otherwise psychologically stable alcoholics is different because it's usually employed to cover for the lack of control over their drinking - things like taking sick days when hungover, lying about drinking, coming up with plausible reasons for "needing a drink", and so on.
Thus, unlike in ASPD alcoholics, the behavior originates from feelings of guilt, shame and remorse - which, inevitably, is "handled" with more drinking. The key difference is that in empathic alcoholics, this behavior will cease if/when they give up drinking.
I used alcoholism as an example because I couldn't really think of anything apart from addiction that would make an empathic person engage in a somewhat comparable behavior for prolonged periods of time, despite feeling remorse.
It's normal for all people to lie from time to time, but that's not "consciously doing sociopathic things". ASPD/NPD manifests as such a massive, sprawling, unpredictable and destructive web of manipulation, lying, gaslighting and callousness that I'd personally say it'd be impossible for an empathic, healthy person to even come up with something that mimics it.
So now they know, as I suspected, but want to stay that way.
While they also have to take the Turing test for us to be convinced that it’s genuine awareness
Deep down you know this is flawed, unnecessary addition, just so the rest of us can be comfortable that other people are different
Bit of rambling, I know, but I just don't get why we seem to celebrate the label. I'm aware that I don't experience any other person emotions other than my own and that makes me very limited to the understanding of my own emotions, but my observations tell me that I could walk into a few pysch wards and have a diagnosis of sociopathy within a few weeks if I wanted. My observations also tell me that the main reason for desiring that label would be to feel unique, accomplished (by overcoming some obstacle) or to use that label as a "get out of social judgement jail free" card.
I see the irony that is your attempt to dismiss these labels is just a way to label these people as self-aggrandizing fraud. In absence of evidence isn't it wiser to not assume such a stand?
edit: it should also be noted that the article says she was diagnosed with sociopathy which isn't even in the DSM-5. In fact the word sociopathy appears once in the entire DSM-5 as an incorrect term to describe antisocial personality disorder. Which to me is a red-flag for self-diagnosis.
The byline is "Patric Gagne is a writer and doctor of psychology from Los Angeles." She might have stretched the truth in the essay, but surely we can still trust NYT to verify something like this? Anyone with a PhD in psychology has had access to all the diagnosis she could ever need. She isn't anonymous. If she really isn't what she so publicly claims to be, someone from her university would speak up. Of course, no one wants to have a public squabble with a sociopath...
Most people that get these labels don't want go feel special. In fact, most are at their wits end and just want things to get better. It's usually the opposite of what you think - these people are often happy and surprised they are not alone.
The label helps avoid a lot of explanation when moving from provider to provider. Any provider worth their salt will see the person as a multi dimensional human.
It's very privileged of you go assume it has anything to do with vanity or a desire to be unique.
(Sorry for the formatting, on mobile)