• 💖 [Donate To Keep MyPTSD Online] 💖 Every contribution, no matter how small, fuels our mission and helps us continue to provide peer-to-peer services. Your generosity keeps us independent and available freely to the world. MyPTSD closes if we can't reach our annual goal.

Other What is a sociopath? personality disorders general

Status
Not open for further replies.
I put this issue clearly into the same box as I put the use of CPTSD as a diagnosis, which is perpetuated myth and does not exist as a diagnosis vs. the correct term, complex trauma, which is real, known and actual. The same as self-diagnosing, the same as people coming onto this forum without PTSD and saying they have it, and the list goes on and on.

What happens in real life is not necessarily equal to writing online. It is like people on Facebook who destroy a persons life by saying untruths. If it is factual, ie. a person you are talking about is a diagnosed sociopath, no worries... you are not making false assumptions, which is a negative thinking style.

What I don't endorse, never have on this website, is the perpetuation of harmful acts by any member with false information once known it is false, ie. via challenging, admission, etc.

I have banned people from this site for misleading others, because they sent emails to someone they befriended, admitting they didn't have PTSD, didn't have all the trauma they wrote about... they just wanted to makeup stories and such to be part of something. Whilst that is a problem in itself, it is not the scope of this website nor my problem, nor something I can deal with in a personal manner with an anonymous person across the globe. My control stops at allowing the person to continue here or not continue lying to others here, after I have become aware of it and evidence exists.

People with this false labelling problem, they don't provide evidence. It is like asking someone to verify with the person who diagnosed them with CPTSD, and ask for the validity of that diagnosis for insurance and legal purposes. Suddenly they discover they don't have CPTSD, they have been diagnosed with PTSD + BPD or Dissociative disorder, then told via perpetuation a false diagnostic term which has zero diagnostic criterion, hence the diagnoses they actually have they where given based on assessed, legal, ethical, doctrine. When CPTSD exists as a diagnosis, that is when I will change my stance on it.

My control starts and stops at this site, to what is allowed, what is stopped. What happens within peoples communities is not within my control. So using local aspects is not a justification in my view to allow speculation and perpetuation of false information or acts here, once they are brought to staff attention.
 
OFF TOPIC:

I have banned people from this site for misleading others, because they sent emails to someone they befriended, admitting they didn't have PTSD, didn't have all the trauma they wrote about... they just wanted to makeup stories and such to be part of something.

Why on EARTH would someone make up having PTSD? I can understand those undiagnosed who are unsure but suspect they have it, but to actually fake it? Why would they do that, and isn't it difficult anyway?

ON TOPIC:

I find that calling people a "sociopath" on here is basically just a name. It's actually less of a "They are a sociopath" as defined in the DSM thingy, but just kind of like saying "He was wild/crazy etc. etc." Like when people say "depressed" sometimes they don't actually mean the actual medical terminology definition thing, but they mean "This person was sad for a while." It seems like that to me anyway, but that's just my two cents worth.
 
Why on EARTH would someone make up having PTSD? I can understand those undiagnosed who are unsure but suspect they have it, but to actually fake it? Why would they do that, and isn't it difficult anyway?
Because people lie, basically.

There have been members reported based on all sorts of things via befriending someone, who actually does have PTSD, for them to eventually tell them they don't. People say they're poor and unemployed, but are wealthy and working, people say they have kids, no kids, people say they have been through x abuse, never endured and make it all up, and the list goes on and on.

There is a lot of things that come forward behind the scenes of the site. Staff joke about the full moon cycle, we find it funny, yet around that time we get all sorts of crazy new member nonsense and such. People forward emails to me they have with members in private when they find out such deception from them, etc... lots of things go on.

This is why I make no qualms in my very blunt member notice, about not thinking you are safe online, about not thinking you actually know who you are talking with at the other end of a computer here, etc etc. People lie. Fact!
 
Heres a question...do you think people with neurosis are more likely to see some people as sociopathic because the neurosis often is accompanied by an overactive conscience?
 
I do not know. What I do know, there is no rhyme or reason really to human behaviour. Theorists and behaviours have been studying such personality actions for hundreds of years, still no conclusive facts on why people do other than, personality (combination of nature vs. nurture) and present mood can dictate actions.

Does neurosis make a person more likely? No idea!

I know and understand from my own past actions, that being highly traumatised absolutely affected how I would say things, word things, etc. As I've reduced that I tend to think more before I speak (or write) nowadays. Is that applicable to all trauma? Still no idea. Probably heightens likelihood... but then what doesn't when you get down to behaviouralism at its core!
 
OFF TOPIC:
Why on EARTH would someone make up having PTSD? I can understand those undiagnosed who are unsure but suspect they have it, but to actually fake it? Why would they do that, and isn't it difficult anyway?

Oh yeah, there are all kinds of people out there, who make stories up just to be a part of a group! I can sort of see why too, as folk here are willing to believe you because no one else has, and they offer a welcome hug and support emotionally...which feels good. It's kinda creepy that people do that though, given that most people here are actually struggling to live with a real disorder.

My mother thought I was making up being clinically depressed.....for 10 years!:( Some people do make up shit like that just to get out of working and to get social security. I've met one guy who's been doing that for the last 10 years. He says that if he had to work he would go mad, so that's how he justifies it.

ON TOPIC:

I find that calling people a "sociopath" on here is basically just a name. It's actually less of a "They are a sociopath" as defined in the DSM thingy, but just kind of like saying "He was wild/crazy etc. etc."

That's kinda how I see it as well when people use that word, and when I use that label myself at times. It's more to describe their behavior...but that doesn't mean everyone interprets the label in the same way, and it is dangerous to label people.
 
Anthony,

So the problem is not that people label or use the word sociopath, the problem is that members on the forum lie. Please provide the DSM for conditions related to those who lie.

Ok, so you have evidence that a member who was participating in threads about sociopathology conditions is not a legitimate likely PTSD sufferer? Was this evidence explored from both sides? That is, you allowed the accused the chance to respond to the accusation of legitimacy?

The evidence was 'brought to' your staff's attention against one person misrepresenting themselves and their condition. Was the accuser investigated for motivation? Was the accuser questioned at any time for their legitimacy?

Was the accused given the opportunity at ANY time to refute the 'label' of 'faking it by another member?

Have you banned the person who is here under false pretenses? or just punished the rest by not allowing them to speak freely on the topic in question.

Have Supporters also been questioned for their legitimacy, because they don't have a diagnostic criteria to say they are in fact a supporter? Is the ex - girl/boyfriend a legitimate supporter or just someone who was dumped, couldn't get over it and wants a bit of attention - does that mean that you will come down on them with the same force when there is no DSM diagnostic criterion for a likely PTSD supporter?

Are they being 'checked' and analysed for 'labeling', and for 'legitimacy' as much as likely sufferers are? And are they being pulled up and questioned about the evidence they provide about being a supporter?

What is this forums 'policy' and 'procedure' for investigating complains about members legitimacy? What are the stats on members booted from this forum based on not being a legitimate likely sufferer vs likely supporter? Can we have some evidence of the extent of this problem please and clarification of the process of investigating ones legitimacy?
 
Heres a question...do you think people with neurosis are more likely to see some people as sociopathic because the neurosis often is accompanied by an overactive conscience?


Firstly, they have to be diagnosed with likely neurosis as a subset of a condition. Neurosis can be attributed to a number of conditions including (but not limited to) obsessive compulsive disorder, personality disorders such as boarder-line personality, skitzoid etc.

Neurosis generally relates to an inability to cope with your environment and adapt or change behavioral patterns. It also relates to an inability to develop (in terms of improving in a positive direction) a personality. The condition has a negative affect of ones psychology, cognition, behavior etc.

Indicators of such a neurosis trait can be found in a variety of behaviors. The list of these behaviors is extensive and this list of behaviors can be found in non-neurosis based causes. So, not all anxiety responses and cautious behavior is caused by neurosis, probably few are.

So, if someone sees someone as likely to have sociopathic behaviors, it does not mean that the accuser necessarily has neurosis. There is probable unlikeliness of one having neurosis if they have not been diagnosed with a personality disorder that impairs growth and development of personality, in the first instance.

Inability to have growth in personality, may possibly, be expelled in avoidance behaviors and it may not. Phobia is one of the behavioral conditions listed in neurosis likeliness and the extent of a phobia is derived from a scale of extreme fear and distress cased by something as simple as 'seeing a picture of a spider' or the mention of the word 'spider', let alone being faced with an environmental condition where there is a spider. The neurosis is likely when these anxieties dominates ones personality and they can't develop beyond this.

An overactive conscience? Need a definition from you of these words. I thought hyperactive conscience is a mood disorder related word, that is about excessive guilt and blame being placed on oneself. So wondering about the connection you are making here. Extensive feeling of guilt, does not mean one will accuse another of sociopaths behaviors, it is possible likely that they would call themselves a sociopath, rather than accuse others of the condition.

Short answer, you are pulling a variety of ideas into one basket from a variety of possible conditions, and a variety of possible behaviors. When we try to create complex connections to multi-facets in this way, it is very risky in deed.

There also is no substantiated proof of neurosis behavior targeted in response to another condition (collection of behaviors) which a neuritic trait in a personality disorder would be unlikely to have the cognition to make that connection (of a cluster of behaviors) in the first place.

But I am not an expert at all. So, this is just opinion and conjecture, and nothing more. I simply do not see the connection you are trying to make here.

To be honest, I think you are looking for answers and trying to make connections in whatever way you can. It is best you don't try to diagnose yourself and make these types of connections ok? **

**If I am wrong about this assumption that you are in the process of trying to self diagnose, then I apologize in advance for reading too much into your questions (in this thread and others).
 
My heart goes out the this girl and her family.

Me too Meadowsweet, me too.

But for me, the point of understanding medical labelling clearly, is to be aware and look at the situation as logically as I can. Its not about minimising an illness or minimising abuse, its about understanding how that persons mind works.

This is what I believe some, including the original poster of the question on sociopathy said was the purpose they were trying to achieve.

I would also like to note that the above DSM information was not posted to the original thread to assist in understanding - it was posted here instead. Furthermore, the list provided here, and the links do not provide the 99 criterion for the condition. So incomplete information is still being provided. Yet, this member was subject to a rigorous critique of postings about what was being experienced and a 'lesser' label given.

I did read a post of a person 'accusing' people of lying on this forum some time back. Some of those accusations included someone saying they did not have money, and that accusser determining that, that person lied because when they talked on the phone, the person in question was having a piece of furniture installed - is that substantial evidence of lying. This is the money status comment that is referred to here. Someone is judging someone on this forum for not disclosing their bank statements to a PUBLIC forum???

I also noted that that accuser (as per above) also said that someone said they had, at some point, not had a male partner, then when on a call the accuser 'heard' a males voice in the background...suddenly the accuser was stating that that member was a liar for not disclosing who the male voice was in the background???

At no point was this accuser, who was just picking on random people and labeling them 'liars' and not 'legitimate', being questioned about their own motivations and legitimacy....??? If it was done, then it must have been 'behind the scenes', rather than the 'public' humiliation that the member has suffered for using the word sociopath, and trying to understand what this term means.
 
PTSD sufferer thanks for the reply. I am awaiting therapy...think I might have PTSD but then again I might have something else (for a while I thought I was turning psychotic but this was based on bad information and people trying to deceive me). I am so confused at the moment I ain't trying to self-diagnose just waiting patiently for a therapist.

However, this forum is interesting and I like learning. The question was based on something i read in a book on character disturbance by Dr George Simon P.h.D . I ain't got the book with me but in an article I found he says neurotics often have an excessively active conscience.

It is a fair point you put about the guilt meaning to blame yourself and call yourself a sociopath. What I meant was though, if a person does something that an overactive conscience would not permit but a relatively normal conscience might let happen now and again would the person with the overactive conscience be more likely to view the behaviour of the person as so alien it seemed conscienceless to them.

Its a bit like someone going to Germany and not being used to the directness of the people and labelling them as rude when in fact people from other countries who also speak fairly directly would not view them as rude.
 
So the problem is not that people label or use the word sociopath, the problem is that members on the forum lie. Please provide the DSM for conditions related to those who lie.
That is not what the initial post outlines. Further responses are general, they have nothing to do with your question.
Ok, so you have evidence that a member who was participating in threads about sociopathology conditions is not a legitimate likely PTSD sufferer? Was this evidence explored from both sides? That is, you allowed the accused the chance to respond to the accusation of legitimacy?
Again, where did I say this? Are you confusing your interpretation with what I wrote somewhere? This thread is very clear about labelling someone a sociopath without diagnostic evidence.
What is this forums 'policy' and 'procedure' for investigating complains about members legitimacy? What are the stats on members booted from this forum based on not being a legitimate likely sufferer vs likely supporter? Can we have some evidence of the extent of this problem please and clarification of the process of investigating ones legitimacy?
Forum policy is already outlined, and matters outside policy are investigated by staff, not by members of the forum. This question has no relevance in this thread, nor has this even been explored as such here beyond a general statement, with zero definitive aspects... hence my suspicion you are interpreting beyond the scope of this threads topic.
 
I like this thread; it is helpful and clears up stereotypes. And makes people realize the word "Sociopath" is a serious thing to say. Don't just throw it around.

Reminds me all the times I have heard about how Bipolar this is or that is. The "weather is Bipolar", "that girl was so Bipolar"...and blah blah blah. In fact that happened last week in school.

I hate stuff like that. Using words outside of what they really mean, especially the serious ones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top