Hacker News Reader

Comment by oseibonsu | Hacker News Reader

Those characteristics apply to narcissists. All sociopath are narcissists but not all narcissists are sociopaths. Sociopaths cannot feel empathy or guilt. Those who suffer from narcissistic personality disorder feel guilt and are driven by a deep sense of insecurity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disord...

View on HN

Yep - that is entirely true. But wouldn't you feel guilty if you humiliated a girl like JFK did at the pool with Powers? It seemed that JFK had no remorse about any of his actions -- but again, this is just working off the material I am reading here (which matches some other accounts of his behavior).

He did apologize to her. He didn't have to.

Actually, the article mentions that JFK apologized to both of them afterwards.

Apologizing is different from feeling guilt (or doing it in the first place) - that said this is still very much the realm of hypothesis for me so I would gladly be wrong. Sociopaths are able to blend in fairly well exactly because of things like this - they can even put on the mask of caring or feeling guilty without being either. I used to work with a sociopath (99 percent certain of this) - he would do completely reckless things with company money, then when I would call him out on it he would apologize. Later he would repeat the same offenses. Similarly, I don't think this was Kennedy's last questionable action.

then when I would call him out on it he would apologize. Later he would repeat the same offenses.

Yes, that fits the profile of a sociopath - he manipulated you in order to get you off his back. The question wrt JFK is whether apologizing to her and his staffer was done out of a sense of guilt or was it just manipulation for his own gain. Unfortunately the article does not give us enough details to decide one way or the other.

He apologized after Powers called him out; the circumstance demanded an apology.

It could have been an insincere apology, but there's no way to know from the article. Whether he was sorry or not, what he did to his interns would correctly be considered rape by today's standards.

Personally, I detest JFK and people like him, but I'm not sure if he was a sociopath. There's definitely enough evidence to make us wonder if he was, but probably not enough to get a definitive answer.

JFK sex affairs would be typical cases of sexual narcissism to overcompensate for low self-esteem and an inability to experience true intimacy.

Or they are simply a reflection of the male reproductive strategy.

The low self esteem typical of those born to millions, decorated for their military service, and from a young age continually elected to public office?

Low self esteem is build in youth. He came from very weird family. Jack was ignored and his father favored Joe who was groomed to become the president.

sociopaths are a subset of narcissists. sociopaths are narcissists.

narcassists feel guilt. sociopaths cannot feel guilt.

something you wrote is wrong - you are contradicting yourself.

No, what oseibonsu was saying is that we're starting with humans in general (who are capable of feeling guilt), to narcissists (still capable), to sociopaths (incapable).

then why make sociopaths a subset of narcissists? it adds absolutely nothing to what he was saying. they could be completely separate sets and it wouldn't change the argument.

the wikipedia page on narcissists has no mention of sociopaths - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disord... - while the page on sociopaths only mentions narcissists as a possible subtype or coexistence - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

in short, when someone on the internet says contradictory things it's much more likely they are half-remembering something they read in a magazine five years ago than that they are a subject expert.

I was only objecting to the way you presented your criticism: that one category couldn't be a subset of another because the subset seems to lack a feature that the superset has. Criticize for the right reasons, etc.

please keep your pseudoscience in your pants. your silly book has been disbarred, and now proper mocked http://boingboing.net/2013/10/20/dsmv-reviewed-as-a-work-of-...

What on earth are you on about?

DSM-5 has been disbarred? Not that a book can be disbarred.

Mocked? Oh, wow. An online website of cultural criticism published an opinion piece on a medical classification and diagnostic tool. I guess we better throw it in the trash.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com