Peer support subsequent to trauma contributes to full recovery

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) -- including complex trauma (cPTSD) -- is debilitating, breaking down the body through anxiety and stress, and it poses a significant suicide risk in sufferers. MyPTSD seeks to help and inform those who are directly or indirectly affected by these conditions through peer-to-peer support and educational resources.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice

The Daily Dose

Get the last 24hrs of new topics delivered to your inbox.

Click Here to Subscribe

What Is A Sociopath? Personality Disorders General

Discussion in 'Other Symptoms & Disorders' started by anthony, Feb 27, 2012.

  1. anthony

    anthony Master of none!

    I have watched this occur for quite a while now, and it is only getting worse and worse. Members are calling their abusers, ex's, pretty much any and every abuers who acts inappropriate, nasty, spiteful, hateful, vengeful, is abusive, violent and even a sexual predator, a sociopath, narcissist and labelling with other personality disorders. You can take this and near apply it to all personality disorders, because these are the diagnostic rules that you do not see in the symptom checklist.

    Symptom Application

    Diagnostic symptoms are not tick and flick, ie. yep, he does that, check. That is not how a diagnosis works, especially a personality disorder diagnosis. You cannot Google a personality disorder diagnosis, obtain the list of symptoms, then start checking them of down the list.

    Take that same list, give it to someone else who knows you well, then let them do the same thing. I guarantee you that you have some qualities within that list if you apply a tick and flick approach.

    If you're really honest with yourself, you could even apply it to yourself and if you have done that in your life, being what you are basically doing in a tick and flick approach on past abusers and such, you will astound yourself just how many of those traits you have done in your life, even do now or are a part of you. That does not constitute a personality disorder though.

    Again, diagnosis is not a running diatribe over a period of time for your personal assessment based on how much a guy has hurt you, abused you and so forth.

    That makes him an abuser, an arsehole, and many other choice words. It does not make him a sociopath, narcissist or other personality disorder name you want to readily apply.

    The Written Rules Applied To Personality Disorder Diagnosis

    You won't find these rules that must also be applied to a person for a personality disorder diagnosis within the symptom checklist, which so many people readily take for application and labelling purposes. These are the required factors before a physician can even review a person for a personality disorder diagnosis:
    1. The traits of the personality disorder/s began in childhood / adolescence.
    2. The traits affect the thoughts, emotions, behaviours, impulses and relationships.
    3. The traits of all personality disorders are inflexible and difficult to change.
    4. The personality disorder is impeding functioning within your life, work, school, family life, friendships and relationships.
    5. The traits and habits of a personality disorder cannot be acknowledged or confused with the traits and habits of your societal cultural background.
    6. If problems are caused by more specific medical or mental health problems that affect the behaviour, such as drugs, alcohol, Anxiety, Depression, etc, then a personality disorder is not correct diagnosis.
    The above six factors must all be correctly processed in order for a person to even continue towards actual diagnostic assessment for a personality disorder.

    Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) (Sociopath)

    I want to now outline some key elements that many people still more than likely are not aware of with the diagnosis of APD, again, still before you get near a diagnosis.

    The person will display as a pervasive pattern within their life, not just a relationship, but their actual life:
    • violence
    • impatience
    • self-centered
    • easily agitated
    • little regret when hurting others
    • little attention to rules of law (usually lots of police issues)
    • frequently thinks others aren't as smart as they are, thus they deserve to be manipulated
    • seldom has any close friends
    • seldom will be capable of any romantic relationship
    You must be an adult (18+) to be diagnosed with APD.

    You must have a history or harming, disrespecting or violating the rights of others since the age of 15. (In other words, if that occurs later in life, not APD)

    In addition, you must have engaged in similar rebellious behaviours earlier in life, prior to 15, demonstrating a history for a personality disorder to actually form.

    The most profound aspect of an APD diagnosis is that the person is breaking the law and causing legal ramifications within their life.

    Diagnostic Evaluation

    I am hoping by now, those with the quick mouth to label people with a personality disorder are starting to rethink their emotional attachment to a person versus the broader context in which a personality disorder can be diagnosed.

    Here is the International standard for assessing a personality disorder, which you can quickly see is vastly different than trying to review the 7 diagnostic aspects of APD and fit a person within it. To actually meet just one of those criteria, it takes 10+ questions to ascertain validity on whether a person meets that criterion or not. Again, not a simple tick and flick broad brush approach that many females here seem to be adopting by labelling ex's and abusers with a personality disorder themselves.

    The IPDE measures personality disorders according to the DSM-IV. DSM-IV includes ten disorders classified in three clusters and a remaining category. Cluster A comprises the paranoid, schizoid and schizotypal disorder, cluster B the antisocial, borderline, histrionic and narcissistic disorder. Cluster C finally comprises the obsessive-compulsive, avoidant and dependent disorder

    The IPDE consists of 99 criteria that are examined by means of interview questions. Each criterion is assessed and given a score of 0, 1 or 2. The assessment of the score is worked out in the interview book. A score of 2 means the criterion is confirmed. A score of 1 usually means that only a part of the criteria is confirmed, and a score of 0 indicates that the answer is negative. It is also mentioned if a criterion started before or after the 25th year. This is because the DSM IV dates the commencement of the first manifestations of a personality disorder at the latest in adolescence or early adulthood.

    In other words, from the 99 criteria required to be tested by a psychiatrist, and then calculating global averages, a requirement is defined whether a person meets a personality disorder or not. They don't just ask the specifics listed in diagnostic criterion.

    There are other measurement scales one can use as well, though they are just as detailed.


    As you can see, I have included information that most people normally don't even know about. This is more doctrine information for those who diagnose mental health disorders, as the public have no real need for such underlying information. There are further factors a psychiatrist uses for assessment that are not listed here, as well as a durational assessment period.

    Google can be your friend, it can be your worst enemy. I have read what I can only describe as a band of women who formed together as a hate site, they even categorised their own disorder and called it Sociopathic Personality Disorder, then wrote the site and included a forum of complete misinformation about what a sociopath is, then dumped all their abusive ex's into the pot. This site comes up on the first page of Google for sociopath, so it is disturbing the misinformation out there.

    The wikipedia is no better. A freely open site of pages editable by anyone who visits the page, to include any misinformation they desire, as long as they cite a reliable source, ie. journal, study, text publication. There are plenty of misguided studies and books in this world, which do not denote mental health doctrine.

    There is no dual application as people attempt to put the use of the word towards. That is an excuse to justify piss poor reasoning to yourself.

    Unless you're a psychiatrist and have evaluated the specific person, or the person has been evaluated with a personality disorder, then there is no requirement to apply such labels to any person.

    The simple fact that you're in a relationship with a person over a duration, probably says straight away the person is just an arsehole, abuser, etc, male genetics even, which does not make a person a sociopath. There is no other context for the term.

    There is no confusion in the above with the word psychopath either, another completely different terminology for more destructive behaviour as antisocial personality.
    Friday, joeylittle, Ayesha and 10 others like this.
  2. Register to participate in live chat, PTSD discussion and more.
  3. PTSD sufferer

    PTSD sufferer Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Are you able to provide the same for the completely different, more destructive 'psychopath' word please?
    shimmerz and Whitneys story like this.
  4. anthony

    anthony Master of none!

    My bad... I wrote that last sentence incorrectly. That teaches me for rushing it. Fixed now.

    The ICD 10 does cover a more diverse spectrum of naming conventions under their heading, Dissocial Personality Disorder, which covers:
    • amoral
    • antisocial
    • asocial
    • psychopathic
    • sociopathic
    For example, you would be diagnosed with "Dissocial Personality Disorder - Sociopathic"

    You can view a brief synopsis at:

    The DSV IV does not, however; the DSM V has been challenged to differentiate due to psychopathy is typically more destructive in nature than sociopathy, so the calls for change have been noted with the APA.

    Reading the current updates on the DSM V site, they have culled personality disorders back a little, expanded their sub-categorisation and included vastly new, more descriptive criterion followed by a new level of functioning personality scale.

    If you read the below, you will find they're introducing a new personality disorder called: Personality Disorder Trait Specified (PDTS), which allows psychiatrists to specify the trait, similar to that of what the ICD does under DPD. So a psychopath could be diagnosed, PDTS - Psychopathic, a sociopath PDTS - Sociopathic, etc. (contains excellent updates on the changes) (note the vast differences between DSM IV and the revision... nothing alike. (New scale)
    Friday and Whitneys story like this.
  5. anthony

    anthony Master of none!

    As you can see from the above, the new categorisation coming vastly enhances lumping sociopaths into the antisocial category, which can depict milder personality traits by itself, where sociopaths are more destructive and psychopaths are usually extremely violent, in terms of generic naming conventions.

    Yet right now, the naming conventions don't allow specificity, though they will very soon, as the DSM is the primary diagnostic text used, not the ICD.
    Friday and Whitneys story like this.
  6. Meadowsweet

    Meadowsweet I'm a VIP

    I think this needed to be written. Most people here suffer with a mental illness and many are aware of the lack of understanding and stigma that surrounds mental illness.

    And personality disorders are another aspect of mental health.

    Its a sad irony, and perhaps something that is difficult to reconcile, that PTSD is sometimes caused by the actions of others who are mentally ill. The man who attacked me had suffered from mental illness since childhood, but I don't know what he was diagnosed with. But I've experienced Abuse off people for different reasons too.

    But I feel quite strongly that all people should use labels that are invented for medically diagnosed conditions only for the appropriate condition. Because they are given that label so that the person can recieve appropriate support to minimise the risk to themselves or others.

    But I do feel a need to say that although 95% of members might be women, it is still a very small minority of us who have used this term in this way. Whilst men may use a different labels, the same derogatory implication and misdiagnoses are made. I think if you didn't address it to a particular gender, then individuals could read the points you have made and consider whether they can take something from them. I can't see a valid reason to genderise the post.
  7. anthony

    anthony Master of none!

    Accepted, original edited.
  8. Philippa

    Philippa I'm a VIP

    I've wondered the same thing when flicking through sites that are supposedly for "victims of sociopaths", and it's really hard to tell from the stories given whether the guy is just an arsehole or has a disorder, and the women just found a place to vent and it just got blown out of proportion.

    I've freaked myself out before admitting that many of the characteristics named on google sites I could actually apply to my own behavior at certain times...and it's made me wonder if I'm the one disordered, so I think you are right that we can all display certain things that may be similar to someone with a serious disorder...but that doesn't mean we have it. The behavior has to be much more regular than just the one off attack of assoholism that we are all prone to now and then.

    I've called my father a narcissist plenty of even, but I really don't know that he is in fact a true narcissist...he just behaves very much like someone who is described in the books I've read on personality it is important to not play 'amateur psychologist', though that is a role anyone with an analytical mind will take to quite easily.

    Thankyou Anthony for pointing this out. I've said it to others online myself, but I've also found myself labelling people I know without the right credentials to do so, so it is important. Peoples lives can be ruined when someone just decides to call someone a whatever.

    I saw it happen on facebook when someone went on and warned people about a certain person who was 'a paedophile'. The person didn't realise that there were 6 people in the world with that exact name (it was an unusual name) and those people had all lost friends and face in their respective country of origin in just a matter of hours, without even knowing why people had suddenly shunned them.
    Friday, Whitneys story and Loloma like this.
  9. PTSD sufferer

    PTSD sufferer Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    I found this document helpful as it puts some of the criterion side by side. Criteria for Personality Disorder (Comparison of DSM-IV DSM-5 old DSM-5 new.pdf

    Yes, you have to be careful about labeling people, but no one here on this forum is participating in character defamation. Character defamation is explained as naming a person and then falsely accusing them of something. The majority of postings around these topic have been about looking for information on conditions. Knowledge is important and finding answers for why this happened is a normal process.

    What worries me is that sometimes, those that quote DSM, seem to have more empathy for a purp if they have a mental illness than that purps victim who now has a mental illness because of the purp. That seems a bit illogical to me.

    Let me tell you a true story (and a recent one).

    There was this woman living in an area. She had been in trouble with the law for minor things, nothing that would send her to jail. She had done a spell in a psychiatric hospital where she received the care of psychiatrists and a diagnosis of 'a personality disorder'. She had a social worker who visited her every week. Her behavior when she moved to the area was very concerning to many of the residents, and the residents often made complaints about her behavior around the area. The police often said to these people, oh don't worry she is just being 'verbally abusive', oh don't worry she is 'mentally unwell and she does that sometimes', or she is just being 'antisocial', - anti social in the police world is a minor offense like noise complaint type things, or being a bit rowdy in a crowd when drunk.

    A teenage girl went out with her friends to do some shopping, have a coffee and just hang out. On the way back, before her bus arrived, she decided to take a walk in the public park in the same area. She was from a neighboring area and was unaware of the residents and their cautious behavior around this 'known woman with problems'. What do you think happened to that teenage girl? She was stabbed to death my the woman with a known 'personality disorder'. She died before the parras could get to her.

    Why did that have to happen for action from the police? Why didn't anyone act before she murdered that young lady, they knew she was not a very nice character? Are those residents who were cautious about such personality types safer? Or was the girl who knew nothing of this woman safer? What should the family/ parents of that girl think about this woman? Should they sit around discussing the semantics of diagnostic criteria and give her MORE sympathy for having ' a personality disorder' and a screwed up past OR talk openly about traits and preventative measures that could have saved that innocent VICTIMS life?

    A modern philosopher once said, that only those who have endured immorality of others up-close and personal, can determine when something is truly immoral (paraphrasing of course).

    Life experiences do count for something - because knowledge comes from 1) training; and 2) experience. Not all of us are diagnosing, most of us are questioning how the hell could this happen, and how the hell could people with such a crap personality exist undetected in society today? Why are they the way they are, which is completely different to a normal functioning person in society that would not intentionally harm someone else? How can we survive and protect ourselves, because those we expect to do this for us, have in fact failed us and others, the majority of the time? People who have these 'personality types' may not seek psychiatric diagnosis of their own condition...sometimes a diagnosis for these types of personality disorders is only given IF they end up in jail, because it would benefit them then to do so. I also imagine they would know all about the DSM and which particular traits to emulate - at least for a PD - psychopathy.

    I am going to be clear here so that there is no question. I respect the DSM and believe in seeking the knowledge (training and experience) from those most qualified is number one, particularly when it is you seeking for yourself. There is no question that it has been and will continue to be modified and revised --- for as long as it exists, and if replaced, then what replaces it will be modified and revised, for as long as that exists. The DSM does mention sliding scales of disorder 'likeliness' - but is always careful to use this criteria as 'likely' which is not definitive, so we should apply the same idea of 'likeliness' to traits, including our own diagnosis. That is what I personally take from this information.

    I respect your opinion Anthony and I thank you for the knowledge and links to even more knowledge. Wonderful!

    Gathering knowledge is a powerful tool. But, we cannot rely solely on one source of knowledge through a criteria to judge what is best for our own situation. We also need to understand that sometimes our own reactions to others stories can have us respond in an emotional way if triggered, so we can't always rely on that either (mine included).

    However, the 'victims of crimes', and our experiences need to be respected as much as the DSM. We do have the benefit of proximity, as did the residents in that community, who were cautious around the woman with a 'personality disorder'.

    Maybe if the DSM had clairvoyant powers to predict that this woman with 'a personality disorder' was going to kill, then maybe that teenage girl would be alive today.

    And, maybe if the police criteria for 'antisocial' disturbances predicted that this woman was going to kill, then they would have been less empathetic to the woman with 'a personality disorder' and that girl would be alive today.

    Maybe if that teenage girl had known, what those resident knew and had seen through experience of proximity to the situation, she may have put distance between herself and that stranger like the residents did, and maybe she would be alive today.

    Yes, getting a diagnosis from a qualified professional is important. However, a 'label' does not save the lives of disturbed individuals victims. Gathering knowledge about personality traits that concern us, whether that is becuase these traits have harmed us in the past or not, and practicing caution around these types, can save lives - knowledge saves lives, a 'label' does not.
    Whitneys story and dharmaBum like this.
  10. Philippa

    Philippa I'm a VIP

    Maybe it can all be resolved if people state that "this person behaved like a sociopath"...and leave it at that?

    I don't like the way it starts to seem that the perpetrators are given more credence than the victims either, and it's easy to see how support groups start when enough people come forward describing experiences where they are treated like shit by someone else, and someone else sees that and it validates their own experience, and it is so hard to understand why some many people behave so terribly to others...really really hard. Putting a label to it can feel so easy and righteous to others, to be able to contain all that awfulness in just a single I can understand why people do tend to jump the gun.

    I've been labelled a sociopath before, online, by someone who didn't know me at all...and even though I could front and say that it didn't bother me because I know I'm a good person, and I don't know that person and it doesn't matter what they still wasn't pleasant that someone was deliberately trying to demonize and turn others against me...for some reason that wasn't even made known to me.

    If I hurt someone with words and didn't realize it, it is up to that person to tell me that they are hurt, and then I can process that and apologize if it's called for. Most of the time I don't think when people do something that hurts someone else, they may not even realize what they've done, and won't until it is pointed out to them.

    I know with some personalities it doesn't matter how many times you try and tell them you are hurt, they will not admit they did anything, or validate your feelings...and that is bad...but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a sociopath...just a coward.
    Whitneys story, unalaa and Loloma like this.
  11. PTSD sufferer

    PTSD sufferer Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Good points to make Philippa.

    I will, however, add some thoughts to your comments:

    - someone can talk about their lifetime of experiences to gain empathy, that does not mean there is or is not reciprocal empathy for others.

    - someone may apologize for behavior time and time again, that does not mean they do or do not feel any empathy towards those they harm.

    - just because you empathize, does not mean that there is or is not reciprocal empathy.

    - just because you have the ability to empathize does not mean someone does or does not deserve empathy.

    - some may never apologize and turn it back on you, that does not mean that they do or do not, empathize with you.

    Falsely labeling someone 'just a coward' or 'just an abuser' if they cannot genuinely apologize when they cause harm to others is as dangerous a label, as falsely labeling someone a 'sociopath'. That is the point of my very long winded post and the summary of the news story.

    The women in the news story had several complains against her for verbal abuse, and she may or may not have apologized for that behavior. So, by some people's account she was 'just a coward' - then she murdered a 13 year old girl. But I guess that makes no real difference, and even less difference if she survived, because her behavior can minimized through 'labeling'. Minimizing behaviors is AS dangerous as maximizing it.

    No one, DSM Expert or not, can, in fact, read someones mind to find out if they 'actually', 'factually', 'definitively', feel any empathy or remorse...ANY label, even if it is not considered as 'severe' as another label, can cause harm. And, if that label is wrong, (if the subject is innocent or not innocent) it can cause harm. Minimizing physical and psychological violence to 'just abuse' is a label, and if wrong, also dangerous. I assure you, it is not a lesser crime, it harms and even kills (aka battery and/or Suicide).

    Do we need to wait for forensic evidence for a 'label' to be proven wrong or right before it is referred to as a reference point to discuss a collection of behaviors? Which is exactly how DSM is created, a group of people, with politics and motivations and all, discussing and trying to categorize behaviors, that they themselves may or may not have ever really experienced in 'real life'.

    Any label is dangerous, NOT talking about concerning behavior IS dangerous. Minimizing indicators of behavior by use of a 'lesser criterion' because of ones own belief system, can ALSO be dangerous. Using a criterion that is a GUIDE and CANNOT predict what is really going on in someones head or the outcome of what is in someones head is JUST as dangerous. A supposed 'lesser' crime (when people minimize they usually prefaced with use word 'just' before), is AS dangerous.

    I think I have made my point, so will get off my little 'talk box' now.
    Whitneys story and dharmaBum like this.
  12. PTSD sufferer

    PTSD sufferer Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Ok so not quite off my talk box... think of it in terms OTHERS would feel about 'lesser' labeling in that news story...

    - if you where that woman's psychiatrist and you gave a 'lesser' label how would you feel now?

    - if you were that woman's family member and gave her the 'lesser' label of 'just crazy' how would you feel now?

    - if you were the police officer who gave the 'lesser' label of she's 'just abusive' how would you feel now?

    - if you were the parent of that teenage girl who died at that woman's hand, how would you feel about the 'lesser' label now?

    - if you were a resident in that area and took your kids to that park regularily, how would you feel now about that 'lesser' label?

    I would feel pretty darn angry with myself if I was one of those people who gave a 'lesser' label. The labeling issue goes both ways, and responsibility for using the DSM to label goes both ways.

    Reality check complete.
    Whitneys story likes this.
  13. Meadowsweet

    Meadowsweet I'm a VIP

    My heart goes out the this girl and her family.

    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.

    I get concerned because I think there is a fine line between seeking understanding and using mental health to demonise a person.To some people a general ignorance of conditions makes anybody with a psychological illness a 'psycho', including people with PTSD.

    If abuse has taken place, then the person is an abusive person. If we know the person, we might be able to say more about the way they behave. Doing it that way keeps to the facts.
  14. anthony

    anthony Master of none!

    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.
  15. Jen93

    Jen93 I'm a VIP


    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?


    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.
    brokenbones and Philippa like this.
  16. anthony

    anthony Master of none!

    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!
  17. angymac1986

    angymac1986 New Member

    Heres a you think people with neurosis are more likely to see some people as sociopathic because the neurosis often is accompanied by an overactive conscience?
  18. anthony

    anthony Master of none!

    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!
    Whitneys story, unalaa and Loloma like this.
  19. Philippa

    Philippa I'm a VIP

    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.

    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.
    Whitneys story, shell and Meadowsweet like this.
  20. PTSD sufferer

    PTSD sufferer Well-Known Member
    Premium Member


    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?
    BloomInWinter likes this.
  21. PTSD sufferer

    PTSD sufferer Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    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).
    Srain and BloomInWinter like this.
  22. PTSD sufferer

    PTSD sufferer Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Me too Meadowsweet, me too.

    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.
  23. angymac1986

    angymac1986 New Member

    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.
  24. anthony

    anthony Master of none!

    That is not what the initial post outlines. Further responses are general, they have nothing to do with your question.
    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.
    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.
  25. Ayesha

    Ayesha Yarn and Cat Crazy.

    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.
  26. PTSD sufferer

    PTSD sufferer Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Yourself and other participants in this discussion can review the above posts to verify which posts reference lying, misleading, consequence of banning for such behavior. Prior posts of participants also discuss the use of labels, false labels and the use of non DSM labels CPD was also referenced as a false label. Check the source of derailing please.

    I believed that what was being discussed was the use of labels and DSM accuracy in use of such labels. My coments go to the heart of the discussion of using and misappropriating labels. Not off topic IMHO and provided in response to others comments. Thank you for clarifying that comments about accusations of lying is in no way connected to the forums use of the label sociopath.

    Please provide the 99 criterion used in diagnosis of sociopathy - back on topic.

User search cloud:

  1. vengeful personality trait

  2. what is a sociopathic personality disorder

  3. ptsd from sociopath

  4. sociopath misdiagnosis,
  5. female sociopath and male with c-ptsd,
  6. vengeful personaity,
  7. are sociopaths aware of their diorder,
  8. dsm-5 legal and ethical issues psychopath,
  9. callin someone a sociopath is ignorant,
  10. can ptsd cause sociopathy