How to avoid get married with an APD person?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by entelecheia, Oct 13, 2012.

  1. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151

    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    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...
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,895
    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.
     
  8. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    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/
     
  9. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,895
    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.
     
  10. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,895
    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)
     
  11. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    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
     
  12. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    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.
     
  13. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,895
    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
     
  14. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    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?
     
  15. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,895
    I added a link after you posted.
     
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    That is absolutely 100% false. As others have also pointed out, Homo sapiens is a pack-social species like wolves, gorillas, elephants, and many other animals. We have an instinct programmed by our DNA to work together for the common good, because we are more productive and successful that way. Our advantage is our intelligence and the power of our intelligence is multiplied dramatically when we work together. A Paleolithic band of humans--an extended family of a few dozen closely-related individuals--can light fires, build traps and stand in rows, forcing an entire herd of large herbivores to run into a cul-de-sac where they can all be slaughtered. An individual human on his own has to be really skillful with a spear or a bow and arrow, and very good at concealing himself (including his scent), to bring down a single animal.

    The truth is exactly the opposite of your assertion: we developed and evolved in a massively cooperative market.

    Perhaps what you're referring to is the fact that the pack-social instinct discriminates against other packs, because they are competitors for scarce resources. During droughts when there wasn't enough food to go around, packs encroached on each other's hunting and gathering territory and this resulted in many lethal fights.

    But this all changed with the Agricultural Revolution 12KYA. For the first time in history there was a food surplus and nobody had to kill anybody in order to have enough to eat. It took a long time for agricultural technology to reach its current level, which could feed the entire human population into morbid obesity (and still have enough left over to make dogs and cats fat too), if it weren't for despotic governments keeping their people poor and hungry. So there have been occasional famines, almost always local ones.

    The "competition" in today's world is primarily between religions (the scourge of humanity) and political systems (many of which evolved from religions).
     
  17. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    As you already pointed out- a pack is not massive.
    Everything else out there that is not part of your pack is.
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,367
    He provided a fairly well known and fairly widely discussed point in Stout's book.

    I would suggest, Neverfly, that before you discount a very well known book and one that goes in depth into sociopaths, written by an experienced psychologist, because the book is sold on Amazon and Amazon sells the Bible, you may want to consider how such comments could be construed. Also consider that some do read actual books to learn and gather information instead of relying solely on the net and sites like Snope for their information.
     
  19. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    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.
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,367
    Because reading a book or referring you to a book to read about the subject matter of this thread is a bad thing? Since when are books not good enough as a reference point? I guessed I missed that memo.

    For this purpose, Neverfly, I would strongly suggest you do not disregard a very well known book by an extremely qualified and experienced psychologist because said book is also sold on Amazon. Amazon also sells Darwin's 'On theOrigin of Species'. Would you discount Charles Darwin because his book is sold on Amazon and Amazon sells the Bible?

    He did not just offer you "some book", Neverfly. The author of 'The Sociopath Next Door' is a psychologist who was on the faculty of Harvard Medical School for over 25 years, amongst others. So it's not just "some book". If you wish to see how she came to that figure, the book is freely available for you to read either from a book store or local library.

    So I would appreciate it if you did not disregard someone's post or comments because they dared to refer you to a book to read.
     
  21. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,895
    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.)
     
  22. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576

    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.
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,367
    Neverfly, I am not giving you a hard time.

    I am simply pointing out that his citing the book as a point of reference is perfectly acceptable on sciforums. We do not discount books as a reference source. Had he referenced a book like a Barbara Cartland book in a discussion such as this current one, then you may have had a point.

    But he did not.

    In fact, Stout is quite conservative in her estimate of 4%.

    Now, since you feel that being referred to a book may not be proper in the middle of a discussion on a forum (I can assure you, it is more than proper and accepted on this site), I did a little bit of digging for about 30 seconds. Just for you. And I actually managed to find a copy of Stout's book online. So now you can read it online and know what he is talking about.

    Here is the link to Stout's book: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71058473/The-Sociopath-Next-Door

    Her 4% estimate is referenced and cited in her notes on page 219. This will require to scroll down. I hope that is proper for you "in the middle of a debate"? In the book itself, she first brings it up on page 6.

    A special note, Neverfly. During an actual debate, people often cite books and authors as a source of reference. In an actual debate, your opponent will cite books and authors and even quote from such books and authors with the expectation that you have done your research and will have read the same book at some point in the past. That is acceptable and the proper course.

    Dixon's reference and comment to that book was the citation and reference. In short, books are reference points and are often cited in debates and is actually a preferred citation on this site. Saying it isn't good enough because a) it's a book and b) because they also sell the book on Amazon is not acceptable on this site and this sub-forum. I hope I have made myself clear enough for you now?
     

Share This Page