How to avoid get married with an APD person?

I've heard that "Sociopath next door" is one of the most recommended books for anyone that want's to understand sociopaths and how to recognize them before they can do you some harm. In my experience the sociopath did not see herself as a sociopath. One big question she had, was why none of her past relationships ever lasted. Based on the recommendations I had read about that book, I told her she should read it if she really wanted to understand and improve her chances of having a better relationship with any man. However, knowing her the way I do, I'm pretty sure she didn't take my advice.

One theory I've been working, is that sociopathy is not an either or condition. It is more like a spectrum or range of conditions that fit into the category of sociopathy. Many of those conditions are only mildly impacting and usually remain unrecognizable to others. Even the more server conditions of it don't get much attention unless those individuals are noticeably breaking the law and putting themselves on the radar of society.

You mentioned 4% of the general population is sociopathic. I too would question that statistic as I think if the complete spectrum of sociopathy could be reasonably calculated that number would be closer to 10% IMO.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Apparently, my last sentence touched your nerve (am I onto something?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) and you failed to comprehend that I just recited some definitions, statistics and factoids from the book "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha Stout. http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828. Last sentence is 100% my opinion though. I want to specifically state that it's not an anti American rant. It's anti-"modernity" rant. Modern societal developments (which are especially pronounced in USA) do correlate well with mushrooming personality, psychiatric and psychological disorders and general feel of misery extinguished with drugs, rat race, materialism and information noise.

Since you mentioned USSR, I must disappoint your preconceptions. In my humble opinion, despite bloody purges, taboos on certain kinds of expressions, etc., USSR was substantially more "psychologically comfortable" and saner place to be than the post soviet beacons of freedom or even modern West itself. Traditional social organizations (satisfying basic human psychological needs to belong and matter regardless of material deprivations and social status) plus far less pronounced social inequality did keep Soviet citizenry much more saner and "original". Like it or not, there is a well established link between social inequality and (mental) health. Compare this to Western ideology of competing, status seeking human atoms that is 180 degrees opposite to most of our psychological needs. No doubt, Soviet comrades tried hard to destroy old ways and to introduce managed doses of modernity into Soviet social life (after all, Socialism a.k.a state capitalism and oligarchical Western capitalism were built on the same philosophical foundations of industrialism and progress). Fortunately, Soviet comrades were far less "efficient" modernizers and homogenizers than Western "free markets". As soon as Gorby flooded USSR with "modernity", it was no more, and 22 year later, post Soviet countries are truly miserable places to be. Why? Because social well being losses were not made up with consumption the way it was done in the West. Post Soviet countries have lost psychological comfort (unrelated to consumption) they had and they didn't really made it up with major spike in across the board consumption, don't let stupendous post soviet inequality to fool you. Just imagine USA without shopping? Seriously, without frequent therapeutic trips to big box stores, malls, online shopping, etc. tens of millions would turn into homicidal nuts, there is little or nothing else to make up for modern social deprivations in the USA or in the Westernized countries in general. That's modernity in a nutshell for ya.

In short, humans have two competing basic needs "to belong" and "to climb status ladder". Soviet reality provided limited opportunities for status and wealth climbing (that's what ultimately destroyed USSR), Western status centered realities provide very few opportunities for real (not phony) unconditional belonging. It's obvious that denying "status climbing" human needs destroyed USSR very fast. Yet, denying the needs "to belong" drives West (and post Soviet countries) nuts, literally. Note, denying "status climbing" opportunities doesn't really affect mental health.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well... yeah.

From some book. Ok, I don't care if you have recited what you read in a book. You chose your wording- do not blame the author of some book for your post. What I'm asking for and will continue to ask for is citations that show accuracy to what you say, and a book on Amazon won't impress me much, as the Holy Bible is also available on Amazon. That book you read may be a great book. I have no idea unless I go and read it. So... please support your claims with proper citations (Which you may find in the references of that book...)

Citation?

Your opinion is not a citation which refutes my opinion. Citation?
Edit to add: I'll point out that the Russian method of dealing with Alcohol Addiction is apparently, far more affective than drug and alcohol treatment in the USA. I, too, am not making any anti-<nation> rant, here.

I find this a very interesting claim considering that it makes no sense by evolutionary biology standards.
We developed and evolved in a massively competitive market. It's dog eat dog and I'm not saying that's good, don't get me wrong. I'm saying that's the nature of nature. It was competitive and survival based. Make it- or die. To claim that our psychology is 180 degrees of that simply does not add up to evolution. So, I think I'm being reasonable in asking for citations to support this.

The next bit you said sounded very opinionated to me. I won't bother asking for citations on it- I doubt we could establish anything from all that.

Sounds like a damned if you do, damned if you don't. But I find the bit in bold interesting...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sounds like your confusing Ayn Rand for Darwin or something--dog eat dog? Competition in nature is seldom competition within one's own species, and this is especially true for species which are by nature social and/or pack-like.

Regarding the Soviet Union, consider Dimitry Orlov's analysis between the USA's and the Soviet Union's "readiness" for "collapse," for instance: Closing the 'Collapse Gap': the USSR was better prepared for collapse than the US.

 

Thanks for the link. This seems like a good point.
However, an example, chimpanzees lie to eachother, suggesting a good location for food and letting the other chimps go to investigate, then the liar chimp will scurry to the actual location to hoard the food. Competition is part of social apes. As is status- for example, silverback.
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&UID=1947-00519-001

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-moral-lives-animals/201112/those-lying-apes
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Thinking-Like-a-Chimpanzee.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t4e1bj1u76w8avw5/

 

To be fair, I think amongst social species it's a mixture of both competition and mutual aid.

For humans, the real challenge is obtaining the optimal balance.

 

Interestingly, what was long considered "common knowledge" regarding wolves, and other canids, was found to be entirely wrong some years back--I'm referring to the whole "alpha" notion, of course.

In wolves, the "alphas" only exist amongst wolves who are held in captivity. In the wild, there exists no parallel. I'm drawing a blank on the names of the researchers (one in particular), but I'll do a search and give you a link if you're interested.

Also, on a somewhat related note, within human communities the emergence of hierarchy is largely contingent upon governance--you can see where I'm going with this, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(See M Sahlins, S Diamond, P Clastres, et al)

 

This guy makes me want to read the book.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.amazon.com/review/RZ8SMOY1AOCI4/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RZ8SMOY1AOCI4

 

Anarchist Archives, eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

lol
Ok, this is a good point. That "balance" is always being debated in the Politics Forum...

I'll run a search on it, but if you find it first, feel free to link. I, for one, would find that very interesting.

Sidenote- Silverback:
(Ape) dominance in social order was established first in observations in the wild... and has been observed up to today... heavily.

 

Well Kropotkin was first and foremost a biologist, and then a social/political theorist. (Also, see addendum to my post above.)

Just do a search for David Mech (or L. David Mech) and you'll find a shitload of stuff.

Here's a particularly relevant piece though: http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/resources/mech_pdfs/267alphastatus_english.pdf

 

Ok, help me out here... just how much is a 'shitload,' anyway? Is it a lot or a little? What's the unit of measurement? Gerbils?

 

I added a link after you posted.

 

As you already pointed out- a pack is not massive.
Everything else out there that is not part of your pack is.

 

Construed? Am I to recognize every author, every title? No.

I pointed out the fallacy of offering up "Some Book" with no gauge as to its accuracy. I also pointed out that it may be a great book. The book may even provide the citations in its references.
But for this purpose, providing citations is the proper response, not a Book for me to go and read.

And I'd appreciate it if you step up off my back about it.

 

And this is especially true of Abrahamic traditions, of course. The funny thing is, the Torah contains some pretty remarkable insights about human social behavior--the most compelling example would be chapter 4 of Genesis, detailing the transistion from hunter-gatherer societies to pastoral-agrarian ones, and the (possible) neuroses and such-like which result from this. And the Book of Job is highly regarded by everyone from today's ethologists and animal studies folk to dog and horse trainers (the voice from the whirlwhind, of course).

Obviously I'm not suggesting that there's anything "divine" or "prophetic" about these works, I'm only saying that the authors were some pretty astute observers--if only they had more astute readers. (And yes, there've been some, but they usually wind up getting excommunicated or something, like Meister Eckhart.)

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No. Suggesting a book is fine- But not when in the middle of either a discussion or a debate. Reference material is proper for the middle of a discussion or a debate. I think that's more than reasonable.

It has not been discarded and for the third time now, I'm sure it's a fine book. It is still not the proper course for me, to stop and read a book, when in the middle of a discussion. I have every right to ask for citations or references and not for books. Maybe I will someday have a chance to check that book out. That is not now, mind you and for now, citations and references are preferred. Again- this is not unreasonable and it does not dispute the book.

And I would appreciate it if you would stop giving me a hard time for rejecting a book in favor of something more... concise and efficient to verify.

I will accept your word that the book is a good authority- Fine- I still have not read it nor will I be reading it in the near future so references to journals is preferred.

Most major religions delve deeply into psychology. I have never met an atheist that did not say that the bible or Koran or Torah wasn't a good read about human nature.