Am I a psychopath?

[henry]

Then this brings up the question of how can you tell if someone is a psychopath. What about someone who appears to show empathy, but who is also incredibly callous most of the time.

Look for differences between words and behaviours. Is the "empathy" this person is showing only in words. You say they are callous most of the time. It sounds like you are describing such a difference.

But be careful before putting labels. None of us are psychologists. Given the way psychopathic values are the standard in our society, it might just be someone who is highly ponerized. What is important is to remove yourself from contact. If it is at work, and you can't change posts or jobs, then you need to know how to defend yourself. You need to learn to recognize manipulative behaviour and how to counter it.

Read George Simon's In Sheeps Clothing and artha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door to get an understanding of how to do that.

 

[Graalsword]

It seems to me that psychopaths know they are psychopaths, or at least know they are different from normal people.

I would say that a psychopath NEVER wonders if they are one.

At first sight I saw these two statements as contradictory, but thinking more carefully, i think that they consider they psicopathy not as something pathological or evil. Or maybe they consider it so, but they feel ok towards it. So they may think they are special, different from others, but at the same time, they would not have a real conflict between their personality and the Real I, they would not be aware of the Real I -the soul- observing objetively their psicopathical nehaviour, as they don

 

[Mr. Premise]

Yes, that's the way I interpreted Laura's statement as well. Wondering if you are one implies doubt on the question and also implies some conflict. Psychopaths don't seem to have doubt, they KNOW they don't have a conscience, they also don't have inner conflict, for the reasons you laid out, 777.

It seems to me that psychopaths know they are psychopaths, or at least know they are different from normal people.

I would say that a psychopath NEVER wonders if they are one.

At first sight I saw these two statements as contradictory, but thinking more carefully, i think that they consider they psicopathy not as something pathological or evil. Or maybe they consider it so, but they feel ok towards it. So they may think they are special, different from others, but at the same time, they would not have a real conflict between their personality and the Real I, they would not be aware of the Real I -the soul- observing objetively their psicopathical nehaviour, as they don

 

[katatonically]

Then this brings up the question of how can you tell if someone is a psychopath. What about someone who appears to show empathy, but who is also incredibly callous most of the time.

Look for differences between words and behaviours. Is the "empathy" this person is showing only in words. You say they are callous most of the time. It sounds like you are describing such a difference.

But be careful before putting labels. None of us are psychologists. Given the way psychopathic values are the standard in our society, it might just be someone who is highly ponerized. What is important is to remove yourself from contact. If it is at work, and you can't change posts or jobs, then you need to know how to defend yourself. You need to learn to recognize manipulative behaviour and how to counter it.

Read George Simon's In Sheeps Clothing and artha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door to get an understanding of how to do that.

After talking to Dr's and doing a lot of reading on cass and the forum, my siblings and I have come to the conclusion that our mother was a psychopath. Not border line disorder, but a true blue psychopath and she was damn good at it. I am not saying that she beat us or sexually abused us, no she just tried to destroy our personalities, our sense of self worth and our confidence in our selves.
She was such a good one, that it took almost 20 years after her death, for any one to start catching on, that something was not right about the way we were raised and the being that had raised us

She kept all of us very loyal to her. We each had our role and served our purpose in her ugly dance. We each had a piece of a story from her but no one had or has the complete story. She had to be good to keep us all cataloged and in our roles. She didn't start slipping until she became ill. We still didn't catch on then. My oldest brothers death some how triggered an awakening in us. Some of us had started catching on at this point but had been unable to broach the subject with our siblings, we were barely able to broach it with ourselves. After my brothers death things finally started coming out in the open and notes started being compared and we started realizing the scope of what had happened to us

I am sure that we all carry some psychopathic behavioral traits, how could we not. What I am trying to figure out is which are traits from association and which are real psychopathy.

How many generations will this affect? Is it a gene that will be passed down? If so how long till it waters down and no longer affects us.

I am pretty sure that a deceased brother was, 2 nephews and a niece are probably psychopaths. There is one other family member that I am wondering about. Yet I do not want to come to any conclusions until I have investigated it more.
Kat

 

[Laura]

Is it possible for someone to be doing the work and still be a psychopath?

I decided to come back to this question from a different angle.

Yes, it is not only possible, but even quite likely for a psychopath to get involved with others "doing the work," but certainly not to do it him or herself, but rather as a "hunting ground."

If so how would that work? Could they be fooling themselves into believing that they are sincere in their efforts, or even possibly be sincere in their efforts and still be a psychopath?

That is possible, I think. Such a person might say they are sincere, but their idea of sincerity might be quite different. They would be thinking (possibly) that sincerity is defined as "how many people can I get to believe I am sincere," rather than actually BEing sincere.

Would they know they are a psychopath? and could they be fooling themselves as well as others?

That also is an interesting question. I think that some psychopaths do not know that is what they are. Their inner world is simply bereft of any capacity to evaluate themselves in any way. They may give lip service to questioning themselves, but it does not really happen inside. They do it as a form of mimicry, because they know that certain phrases like "I examined my conscience," or "I could be wrong" are often used by people, and they USE them, but they are empty.

Could it be possible for them to resonate with the material if they are fooling themselves?

In that case, they aren't really "resonating," it is just a game to them. At some place inside them, they are thinking that they are smarter then everyone, they want to belong to a certain group because they have targeted it as the one that represents a certain "pose" they wish to adopt for predatorial purposes, and their real intention is to get inside, get to the top, and be considered an "authority" because it will enable them to better prey on others.

Could they be working on their programming and still seem to be making progress?

They could be pretending, using words and phrases, and perhaps even - to some extent - mimicking behavior, but it is all an act, a ruse, a pose, for the purpose of furthering an agenda to "put one over" on others. And, of course, the more challenging the project, the more enjoyment they might get out of success.

Could I be a psychopath and not know it? If so how would I determine if I am one?

As I mentioned before, if you were, you would probably not ever sincerely question yourself. You might ask the question as a ruse to throw people off, but inside, there would be no question.

I have read a lot of the material on the cass site about psychopaths and Martha Stout's The Sociopath next door, but how objective can one be about ones self, if they are a psychopath trying to hide that fact from themselves?

Interesting question: does a psychopath try to hide it from the self that they are a psychopath? Like I said, it is possible - and probably even likely in many cases - that the psychopath doesn't know that they are a psychopath because knowing that requires a certain ability to be "outside the self looking AT the personality." The psychopath simply does not have that capacity. I think that maybe, some very SMART psychopaths might have the knowledge that they are a psychopath by reading about them and finding the description "attractive" and "fits" and adopts it theoretically. Others may have received a diagnosis (smaller group here). But in general, I think that if a psychopath comes across the REAL idea of what it is to be one, they find it "fits" and inside, they exult in it even if it is not true self-awareness.

My understanding of it. is that programming can appear to be psychopathic behavior. If I am correct in this, then how do I determine which it is? After long self analysis I have come to the conclusion that I am not a psychopath but a human in struggle, trying to rid myself of some pretty ugly programming. But how can I be sure?

Well, certainly, if you were a psychopath, you could be asking these questions just to throw people off the scent. The real key is: do you, inside in the deepest places of the heart, always feel that you are fully capable - and even enjoy - putting one over on others?

After talking to Dr's and doing a lot of reading on cass and the forum, my siblings and I have come to the conclusion that our mother was a psychopath. Not border line disorder, but a true blue psychopath and she was damn good at it. I am not saying that she beat us or sexually abused us, no she just tried to destroy our personalities, our sense of self worth and our confidence in our selves.

A true, female psychopath? Interesting. A rare creature. That would mean, I think, that she would have had to get the gene from both her father and mother. Her father would have had to be a psychopath and her mother could have been normal, but a carrier of the "tainted" X chromosome. (Here, I am not an expert, I am just utilizing the information that is available from experts and going another step with it.) The result could be that both her X chromosomes would be tainted and all her children would receive at least one copy of a psychopathy gene, without exception. If your mother married a non-psychopath, then all her daughters would get only one copy of the tainted gene, but any sons would be psychopaths because sons do not get an X chromosome from the father.

She was such a good one, that it took almost 20 years after her death, for any one to start catching on, that something was not right about the way we were raised and the being that had raised us.

That is certainly the most interesting kind. And the most damaging.

She kept all of us very loyal to her. We each had our role and served our purpose in her ugly dance. We each had a piece of a story from her but no one had or has the complete story. She had to be good to keep us all cataloged and in our roles. She didn't start slipping until she became ill. We still didn't catch on then. My oldest brothers death some how triggered an awakening in us. Some of us had started catching on at this point but had been unable to broach the subject with our siblings, we were barely able to broach it with ourselves. After my brothers death things finally started coming out in the open and notes started being compared and we started realizing the scope of what had happened to us.

Secrecy is where the psychopath thrives. That is why all the "rules" of society about not "telling tales" have been so thoroughly inculcated in people.

I am sure that we all carry some psychopathic behavioral traits, how could we not. What I am trying to figure out is which are traits from association and which are real psychopathy.

Not to mention the gene. Like I said, if you got one clean X chromosome from your father, you can be free of psychopathy, but you may still have issues and tendencies. It's like having a wolf and a dog inside constantly battling. And you will also carry the gene and have a 50 percent chance of passing it on to all of your children, sons and daughters alike.

How many generations will this affect? Is it a gene that will be passed down? If so how long till it waters down and no longer affects us.

Genes don't "water down," they just follow rules of recombination.

I am pretty sure that a deceased brother was, 2 nephews and a niece are probably psychopaths. There is one other family member that I am wondering about. Yet I do not want to come to any conclusions until I have investigated it more.

Well, you might want to learn a bit about semi-dominant genes that are carried on the X chromosome and do some mapping. But, as you might suspect, if your mother was that good, it may be difficult to get answers about individuals who are really "good".

If you have nephews and nieces that you suspect, that means that their mother(s) is at LEAST a carrier. And, as noted above, that is true of you, as well. That is based on the idea that your mother was a full psychopath, and thus carried the taint on both X chromosomes. A lot would depend on your father in this case; if he was not a psychopath, then you and your sister(s) would get an untainted X chromosome from him. Women can be carriers and NOT be psychopathic at all because the normal copy of the gene dominates (the dog wins over the wolf). They may also get an X chromosome that is not just clean, but carries maybe something like "anti-psychopathy," say which gives them an added boost in battling the characteristics in themselves. But they are still a carrier.

So, like I said, if your father was normal, and your mother was "full blown", you and all sisters will be carriers and not "full blown," but any brother will be a psychopath. And of women who are carriers, it's about 50-50 that the psychopathy will manifest, but it may seem just like an extreme form of narcissism.

You might want to read this for clues: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2886

Hope this helps.

 

[Ruth]

Some of the characteristics of Personality Disorders seem to show what some would call psychopathic behaviour. Here is a description of Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

Has grandiose sense of self-importance. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, beauty, brilliance, etc. Needs attention and admiration. Shows an arrogant attitude based on feelings of entitlement and envy. In relationships with others, expects special favours. Takes advantage of others; shifts between overidealisating others to disregarding them. Lack ability for empathy.

Kneisl Wilson Trigoboff "Contemporary Psychiatric-Mental Health Nursing" 2004
There are an awful lot of people out there diagnosed with PDs. I wonder how many of them are actually psychopaths and have been mis-diagnosed? And, I suppose, vice versa too.

 

[Laura]

Some of the characteristics of Personality Disorders seem to show what some would call psychopathic behaviour.

That's because psychology and psychiatry have, for the most part, been taken over by psychopaths (as has just about everything else in this world) and the diagnoses in these areas have been deliberately obfuscated for various reasons, mainly political. As Lobaczewski wrote:

When I came to the West, I met people with leftist views who ... kept asking ... What can politics have to do with psychiatry?

My attempts to explain what that other reality looks like met with the difficulties we are already familiar with, although some people had previously heard about the abuse of psychiatry. However, such "whys" kept cropping up in conversation, and remained unanswered.

The situation in these scientific areas, of social and curative activities, and of the people occupied in these matters, can only be comprehended once we have perceived the true nature of pathocracy in the light of the ponerological approach.

Let us thus imagine something which is only possible in theory, namely, that a country under pathocratic rule is inadvertently allowed to freely develop these sciences, enabling a normal influx of scientific literature and contacts with scientists in other countries. Psychology, psychopathology, and psychiatry would flourish abundantly and produce outstanding representatives.

What would the result be?

This accumulation of proper knowledge would, within a very short time, enable the undertaking of investigations whose meaning we already understand. Missing elements and insufficiently investigated questions would be complemented and deepened by means of the appropriate detailed research. The diagnosis of the pathocratic state of affairs would then be elaborated within the first dozen or so years of the formation of the pathocracy, especially if the latter is imposed. The basis of the deductive rationale would be significantly wider than anything the author can present here, and would be illustrated by means of a rich body of analytical and statistical material.

Once transmitted to world opinion, such a diagnosis would quickly become incorporated into it that opinion, forcing naive political and propaganda doctrines out of societal consciousness. It would reach the nations that were the objects of the pathocratic empire's expansionist intentions. This would render the usefulness of any such propagandized ideology as a pathocratic Trojan horse doubtful at best.

In spite of differences among them, other countries with normal human systems would be united by characteristic solidarity in the defense of an understood danger, similar to the solidarity linking normal people living under pathocratic rule.

This consciousness, popularized in the countries affected by this phenomenon, would simultaneously reinforce psychological resistance on the part of normal human societies and furnish them with new measures of self defense.

Can any pathocratic empire risk permitting such a possibility?

In times when the above-mentioned disciplines are developing swiftly in many countries, the problem of preventing such a psychiatric threat becomes a matter of "to be or not to be" for pathocracy. Any possibility of such a situation emerging must thus be staved off prophylactically and skillfully, both within and without the empire. At the same time, the empire is able to find effective preventive measures thanks to its consciousness of being different as well as that specific psychological knowledge of psychopaths with which we are already familiar, partially reinforced by academic knowledge.

Both inside and outside the boundaries of countries affected by the above-mentioned phenomenon, a purposeful and conscious system of control, terror, and diversion is thus set to work.

Any scientific papers published under such governments or imported from abroad must be monitored to ascertain that they do not contain any data which could be harmful to the pathocracy. Specialists with superior talent become the objects of blackmail and malicious control. This of course causes the results to become inferior with reference to these areas of science.

The entire operation must of course be managed in such a way as to avoid attracting the attention of public opinion in countries with normal human structures. The effects of such a "bad break" could be too far-reaching. This explains why people caught doing investigative work in this area are destroyed without a sound and suspicious persons are forced abroad to become the objects of appropriately organized harassment campaigns there. ...

In nations with pathocratic systems, supervision over scientific and cultural organizations is assigned to a special department of especially trusted people, a "Nameless Office" composed almost entirely of relatively intelligent persons who betray characteristic psychopathic traits. These people must be capable of completing their academic studies, albeit sometimes by forcing examiners to issue generous evaluations. Their talents are usually inferior to those of average students, especially regarding psychological science. In spite of that, they are rewarded for their services by obtaining academic degrees and positions and are allowed to represent their country's scientific community abroad. ...

After all, those people shall later have the power to permit someone to take a doctorate, embark upon a scientific career, achieve academic tenure, and become promoted. Very mediocre scientists themselves, they attempt to knock down more talented persons, governed both by self-interest and that typical jealousy which characterizes a pathocrat's attitude toward normal people. They will be the ones monitoring scientific papers for their "proper ideology" and attempting to ensure that a good specialist will be denied the scientific literature he needs.

Controls are exceptionally malicious and treacherous in the psychological sciences in particular, for reasons now understandable to us. Written and unwritten lists are compiled for subjects that may not be taught, and corresponding directives are issued to appropriately distort other subjects. This list is so vast in the area of psychology that nothing remains of this science except a skeleton picked bare of anything that might be subtle or penetrating. ...

Due to such a state of affairs, the most mediocre or privileged of physicians become a psychiatrist after a course of study lasting only weeks. This opens the door of psychiatric careers to individuals who are by nature inclined to serving the pathocratic authority, and it has fateful repercussions upon the level of the treatment. It later permits psychiatry to be abused for purposes for which it should never be used.

Since they are undereducated, these psychologists then prove helpless in the face of many human problems, especially in cases where detailed knowledge is needed. Such knowledge must then be acquired on one's own, a feat not everyone is able to manage.

Such behavior carries in its wake a good deal of damage and human injustice in areas of life which have nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Unfortunately, however, such behavior is necessary from the pathocrat's point of view in order to prevent these dangerous sciences from jeopardizing the existence of a system they consider the best of all possible worlds.

Specialists in the areas of psychology and psychopathology would find an analysis of this system of prohibitions and recommendations to be highly interesting. This makes it possible to realize that this may be one of the roads via which we can reach the crux of the matter or the nature of this macrosocial phenomenon. ...

The essence of psychopathy may not, of course, be researched or elucidated. Darkness is cast upon this matter by means of an intentionally devised definition of psychopathy which includes various kinds of character disorders, together with those caused by completely different and known causes. This definition must be memorized not only by every lecturer in psychopathology, psychiatrist, and psychologist, but also by some political functionaries with no education in that area.

This definition must be used in all public appearances whenever it is for some reason impossible to avoid the subject. However, it is preferable for a lecturer in such areas to be someone who always believes whatever is most convenient in his situation, and whose intelligence does not predestine him to delve into subtle differentiations of a psychological nature.

It is also worth pointing out here that the chief doctrine of said system reads "Existence defines consciousness". As such, it belongs to psychology rather than to any political doctrine. This doctrine actually contradicts a good deal of empirical data indicating the role of hereditary factors in the development of man's personality and fate. Lecturers may refer to research on identical twins, but only in a brief, cautious, and formal fashion. Considerations on this subject may, however, not be published in print.

We return once more to this system's peculiar psychological "genius" and its self-knowledge. One might admire how the above mentioned definitions of psychopathy effectively blocks the ability to comprehend phenomena covered therein. We may investigate the relationships between these prohibitions and the essence of the macrosocial phenomenon they in fact mirror. We may also observe the limits of these skills and the errors committed by those who execute this strategy. ...

Some people become morally derailed under these conditions, whereas others create a solid foundation for their convictions and are prepared to undertake difficulty and risk in order to obtain honest knowledge so as to serve the sick and needy. The initial motivation of this latter group is thus not political in character, since it derives from their good will and professional decency. Their consciousness of the political causes of the limitations and the political meaning of this battle is raised later, in conjunction with experience and professional maturity, especially if their experience and skills must be used in order to save persecuted people.

In the meantime, however, the necessary scientific data and papers must be obtained somehow, taking difficulties and other people's lack of understanding into account. Students and beginning specialists not yet aware of what was removed from the educational curricula attempt to gain access to the scientific data stolen from them. Science starts to be degraded at a worrisome rate once such awareness is missing. ...

A normal person's actions and reactions, his ideas and moral criteria, all too often strike abnormal individuals as abnormal. For if a person with some psychological deviations considers himself normal, which is of course significantly easier if he possesses authority, then he would consider a normal person different and therefore abnormal, whether in reality or as a result of conversive thinking. That explains why such people's government shall always have the tendency to treat any dissidents as "mentally abnormal".

Operations such as driving a normal person into psychological illness and the use of psychiatric institutions for this purpose take place in many countries in which such institutions exist. Contemporary legislation binding upon normal man's countries is not based upon an adequate understanding of the psychology of such behavior, and thus does not constitute a sufficient preventive measure against it.

Within the categories of a normal psychological world view, the motivations for such behavior were variously understood and described: personal and family accounts, property matters, intent to discredit a witness' testimony, and even political motivations. Such defamatory suggestions are used particularly often by individuals who are themselves not entirely normal, whose behavior has driven someone to a nervous breakdown or to violent protest. Among hysterics, such behavior tends to be a projection onto other people of one's own self-critical associations. A normal person strikes a psychopath as a naive, smart-alecky believer in barely comprehensible theories; calling him "crazy" is not all that far away. ...

Any person rebelling internally against a governmental system, which shall always strike him as foreign and difficult to understand, and who is unable to hide this well enough, shall thus easily be designated by the representatives of said government as "mentally abnormal", someone who should submit to psychiatric treatment. A scientifically and morally degenerate psychiatrist becomes a tool easily used for this purpose. ...

The abuse of psychiatry for purposes we already know thus derives from the very nature of pathocracy as a macrosocial psychopathological phenomenon. After all, that very area of knowledge and treatment must first be degraded to prevent it from jeopardizing the system itself by pronouncing a dramatic diagnosis, and must then be used as an expedient tool in the hands of the authorities. In every country, however, one meets with people who notice this and act astutely against it.

The pathocracy feels increasingly threatened by this area whenever the medical and psychological sciences make progress. After all, not only can these sciences knock the weapon of psychological conquest right out of its hands; they can even strike at its very nature, and from inside the empire, at that.

A specific perception of these matters therefore bids the pathocracy to be "ideationally alert" in this area. This also explains why anyone who is both too knowledgeable in this area and too far outside the immediate reach of such authorities should be accused of anything that can be trumped up, including psychological abnormality.

 

[Nathan]

On the topic of how a psychopath would regard himself if he were to realise what he was, I suspect he would see it as a desirable state of being, free of all the "defects" and inconveniences that humans would "suffer". He would most likely see himself as the next step in evolution (when, in truth, he is many steps behind), an efficient being that could accomplish far more than a mere human. He would regard some of his own defects (e.g. no conscience) as desirable attributes, while other defects (e.g. inability to learn from past mistakes) he simply would not be aware of.


In regards to the discussion here on inheriting a tainted psychopathy gene, it is my understanding that the male receives his X chromosome from his mother. So if an affected male were to have children of his own, the sons would not inherit his tainted X chromosome gene because they receive only his Y chromosome, not his X. But his daughters may inherit it as they inherit one X chromosome from each of their parents. Now since this tainted gene is semi-dominant, rather than being just dominant or recessive, I suspect that means the daughters of the father would have a 50% chance of inheriting it (this is just my theory though). If the mother is a "carrier", I would say there'd be a 50% chance of passing on the tainted X chromosome gene to her sons and daughters.

I have attached a diagram below (from Cassiopedia) that illustrates the inheritance of an X-linked recessive gene.

Based on my current understanding, this seems to apply to the inheritence of the psychopathy gene, which is semi-dominant. But would this diagram be different in any way to illustrate a semi-dominant gene?

Lobaczewski mentions the similarities between inherited psychopathy and colour-blindness. With that in mind, you can look at the male/female ratio of people diagnosed with colour-blindness (females diagnosed with colour-blindness are exceedingly rare) and compare it to inherited psychopathy. This would give you an estimate of something like 0.10 - 0.50% females who are not just "carriers" of psychopathy but are also affected by it, where the gene is "expressed", like in males. I suspect in this case the "affected" females would have a copy of the tainted gene in each of their two X chromosomes. Of course, that's only about 1 in every 100-500 females who would have this. Very rare indeed.