The Myth of the Psychopath

That is not a "troll" statement, nor a "psychopath" statement. I say the exact same thing to my own self, and it is very important for me to say to my own self.

That does not mean saying it to a stranger on a public forum is necessarily likely to help them come to better understanding. It can depend on who they are, and how they operate.

But, what you did there is an excellent example for a very serious flaw in 'how people think of others'. Taking a completely valid yet "critical" statement and dismissing the person making it (even if it were your own self) does what? It is depersonalizing the person.

You do not have to think about what they have to say, because you have closed off thinking by labeling them. In this case, your diagnosis is both as a "troll" (derogatory, listen to nothing they say)... and a "psychopath" (derogatory, listen to nothing they say).

You may not listen to this, but perhaps others would. And maybe, even some part of you could. This is not abnormal reaction, it is a normal, common reaction. People want to shut down sources that have anything challenging to say.

Truth is, my statement actually implies something positive about you. That you have done effective and strong research in your own area, which I am taking from your nick to be "security". As in computer security. With some consideration for the context, which is this forum.

So, someone says one good thing and one "bad" thing, and that causes an immediate - automatic - reaction to shut them down consciously... and depersonalize them with not just one emotionally laden label, but two.

That, btw, is how the unconscious interacts with the conscious. Automatic behavior. There are other ways, but you have to deprogram yourself, or better - debug yourself - in order to get closer access to your unconscious and make more informed judgments.

I may have been manipulative for another reason. I may have been pattern breaking, or trying to shut down your conscious facilities to get everything else in there. Benign, malicious... your conscious would have one view, your "unconscious" another.

FYI, I will be completely upfront: I am dual studied in these fields, but within very narrow scopes. And the reason why - besides general personal betterment - well, for psychology, it was to deal with madness. Not "sociopathy", not "psychopathy".

PTSD, paranoid schizophrenia, schizoaffective... are some of the meaningful labels there. Addictive Personality disorder. At times, depression, and other possible labels could be applied to myself by myself, or by professional psychiatrists. But, those are just labels. And while they have some value for my own self to help me find potential "cures", they are not names. They are not permanent labels. When you get into that kind of thinking, you are setting your own course for no change. It is destructive.

Conversely, I understand what I am prone to, and that can help me know how to steer the boat of my own self in the future.

A lot of the best advice I have ever gotten was challenging. Advice which has no challenge often is just 'what people want to hear'.

It is true, typically, what one wants to do to persuade someone is to be indirect and build up rapport. But, if it is always rapport, you end up doing nothing to lead them anywhere else. You might as well just be a monkey or parrot.

Even if, where you actually need to go is the wrong place you are being led to... it still is very likely... a place you have not even considered before. And so, then, you have another possible "here be sea monsters" or big rocks and low ground you can put on your map. And go somewhere else.

"Sure non-criminal, adults forgo emotions on the job after essentially being trained to do so. Probably learned it over time with other life experiences requiring the same thing. Yet, how did the younger one's learn to have no empathy or feelings? What exact path leads to other people's suffering exciting them or causing sexual arousal? What individual experience lead people to compulsively commit harm or deception against their own intentions?"

Asking the "how's" is very difficult, without extensively studying "such people". But, when you do study them, you discover while there may be commonalities, there is also individuality.

Freud/Fraud worked hard at pretending to study root causes, but the guy was just popularizing and bastardizing concepts which were already there. His own four or so patients he had, every single one was a failure.

You mention 'sexual sadism' in the same vein as really very common other "symptoms" or "indicators". But, 'sexual sadism' is extremely rare, very aberrant, very bizarre.

My point is: why do you need to understand psychology. This is important. Because people get good at what they need to do. And they constantly give themselves other reasons for other matters.

So, many in psychology just needed a job. Many needed to fix or maintain themselves. Often people just need some further understanding which they can then use to displace and put away matters they do not want to deliberate on, to think on.

In security, you may want to control some people. You definitely want to predict their behavior. But, normally, you are more interested in "economic" level factors, in terms of risk analysis.

Individual analysis is not much needed for most areas of comp sec. I have had to apply it, because I have worked with sources. Or perform security interviews. But, that is personal, individualistic.

Usually, I just have to consider wider range factors that involve such matters on a more economic level. Where economy may mean, directly, money. Or it may be economy of information. What is the value of what you are protecting by considering the value of it in various markets. That sort of thing.

And, FYI, I posted here, on this, first, because the psychological implications of security interest me the most. This is a specific area where I have seen those who are most at fault, are those who are the ones attempting to do the labelling. So, it intrigues me to see their ideas, their perspectives.

Your other point makes sense. I think it's what your getting at. How people categorize other people can lead to them harming them and often does. This is part of human nature I'm afraid: shows up everywhere with every kind of people with very few exceptions. Your boss vs employee example is decent until you take it to the extreme to support your agenda. An extreme that's rare.

Now, let's try a different take with an actual person in my categorization. He's a nice-looking, sharply-dressed, young manager from a fairly typical family with typical good and bad per people that grew up with him. He picks fights with underlings who are good workers but don't play politics (image worse than him). He wittily cuts them, sets them up for problems, and has enjoyment in his eyes. He regularly deceives both new hires and existing staff in games that benefit him at their other expense. Far from remorse, the more agony and rage people break out into the more there's a glimmer in his eyes. His calm, confident, and apparently caring demeanor around most employees and other management ensure his victim's rage fit appears to be their own personal problems. He cunningly tells a believable story that pushes all the right buttons. They quit. If anything, he's good at getting troubling workers out of the place the others think with some on the fence and a few seeing his game but quiet.

I call him a psychopath, born or learned, because he acts like one. His victims used the same word although it's certainly a pop psych term & that's expected. How would you describe this person to a third party, especially a layperson, that captured these traits adequately?

Note: He eventually did leave the place... in handcuffs... for allegedly fondling his hot gf's... daughter. The look on his face in the mugshot wasn't shame or guilt. It was a look I've seen 100+ times on kids & teens: "Shit I got caught."