Are Psychopaths The Only People Without Souls?

[Mr_Bateman]

I have a very questioning nature and have spent considerable time looking into the whole soul/self/consciousness subject in an attempt to resolve some of my own issues.

As yet, I have found nothing that even comes close to evidence for a non-materialist solution to the ‘soul’, indeed, the opposite seems to be the case.

If this is true, what is the alternative theory for psychopaths? That the whole range of associated behaviours being attributable to a single cause seems very unlikely to me.

 

[nf3]

Hello Mr. Bateman and welcome.

There are several threads on the forum already covering these issues. Please feel free to use the search function and join in on those discussions.

 

[Z...]

At this point I got curious about your nick?

Any particular reason you decided to call yourself after archetypal psychopath?

http_en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Bateman

 

[Mr_Bateman]

Hello Mr. Bateman and welcome.

There are several threads on the forum already covering these issues. Please feel free to use the search function and join in on those discussions.

Hi.

I have tried searching, but 'soul' and 'psychopath' doesn't really limit things much on this forum!

I've spent many hours browsing/reading various threads, and haven't stumbled across anything that directly relates to the OP. But now I know some exist I'll continue looking. Thank you.

At this point I got curious about your nick?

Any particular reason you decided to call yourself after archetypal psychopath?

http_en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Bateman

The Patrick Bateman thing is a long story, and nothing sinister. However I would describe the character as more 'cartoony' than 'archetypal'.

My person angle is that I score as a sociopath/psychopath on psyche tests and know in myself that I share most of the traits. Yet they manifest in ways that seldom coincidence with 'accepted' psychopathic behaviour.

In fact, a lot of actions of psychopaths seem contradictory to me.

So on paper I'm a psychopath, yet in thought and deed I would say I'm not (but self analysis is always difficult). And at the same time I see commonalities in people that give a lot of weight to evolutionary psychology and a none spiritual solution.

Summary: I'm confused and this subject seems to be openly discussed here.

 

[observer]

My person angle is that I score as a sociopath/psychopath on psyche tests and know in myself that I share most of the traits. Yet they manifest in ways that seldom coincidence with 'accepted' psychopathic behaviour.

So you are proclaimed psychopath by psychiatrist or psychologist, or this is your personal diagnosis?

Temporal states of being influenced by environmental factors (family, athmosphere in a place of residence, community) and developmental factors (times of big changes in one's personality) can make inner emotional life very ambiguous.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

My person angle is that I score as a sociopath/psychopath on psyche tests and know in myself that I share most of the traits. Yet they manifest in ways that seldom coincidence with 'accepted' psychopathic behaviour.

In fact, a lot of actions of psychopaths seem contradictory to me.

Can you provide some examples of the types of behaviour that seem contradictory to you?

The only accepted test for psychopathy is the PCL-R. Do you score as a psychopath on the PCL-R? Or do you score as antisocial personality disorder using DSM-IV? If so, there are many causes for "sociopathy" that do not include psychopathy, such as various forms of brain damage, and poor childhood upbringing.

 

[anart]

I've spent many hours browsing/reading various threads, and haven't stumbled across anything that directly relates to the OP. But now I know some exist I'll continue looking.

If you open the forum topic thread 'Psychopaths at Home, at work, in the Garden' (this topic), there are several 'sticky' threads at the top - one of these is on OPs - if you have yet to read that one, if offers quite a lot of information. However, it might be worth pointing out that OPs are not, by definition, psychopathic.

 

[Mrs.Tigersoap]

Hello,

I must say that my initial reaction is the same as Deckard's: why Mr Bateman?
A nick reveals a lot about yourself and, most importantly, about how you want the others to view you, so may I ask you what you wanted to convey when you chose that particular nick?

You haven't shared what it makes you feel to score as a psychopath. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?

Also, when you say you share most of their traits, can you be more specific?

You titled your post 'Are Psychopaths The Only People Without Souls?'. Is it because you feel you have none but are reluctant to call yourself a psychopath? If so, why do you think you have no soul?

I know i'm asking a lot of questions, by no means feel like i'm giving you the third degree, i also have a very questioning nature ;)

 

[Mr_Bateman]

So you are proclaimed psychopath by psychiatrist or psychologist, or this is your personal diagnosis?

Temporal states of being influenced by environmental factors (family, athmosphere in a place of residence, community) and developmental factors (times of big changes in one's personality) can make inner emotional life very ambiguous.

I have never visited a shrink of any description. While I’m sure something is not ‘quite right’ with myself, it has served me very well. Society, as it is, suits a detached frame of mind and I am thriving.

This is not a temporal state, it is how I have been by entire adult (and maybe sooner) life.

Can you provide some examples of the types of behaviour that seem contradictory to you?

The only accepted test for psychopathy is the PCL-R. Do you score as a psychopath on the PCL-R? Or do you score as antisocial personality disorder using DSM-IV? If so, there are many causes for "sociopathy" that do not include psychopathy, such as various forms of brain damage, and poor childhood upbringing.

I’ve done three tests over the past few years, one was some online thing that probably means nothing, the other two were from girlfriend’s psychology degrees.

I had seen the PCL-R thing before, but didn’t know its name. Looking over it now I would say 17/20 apply to me to some degree, but that is just a personal take on it.

But I think it is what items apply rather than how many.

For an example of contradictory behaviour, and a central issue for my confusion:

If psychopaths have such an inflated sense of self worth and low opinion of others, why the need to control girlfriends / friends?

I bounce from one girlfriend to another because if things aren’t to my liking I just walk away because I don’t care.

If you open the forum topic thread 'Psychopaths at Home, at work, in the Garden' (this topic), there are several 'sticky' threads at the top - one of these is on OPs - if you have yet to read that one, if offers quite a lot of information. However, it might be worth pointing out that OPs are not, by definition, psychopathic.

By OP, I meant my Original (Opening?) Post. I think I need to take a more ordered approach to reading through threads. I am a very busy person but just reading threads in a random manner is appearing to be a false economy.

I have also ordered the ‘Snakes in Suits’ book, which I had never heard of before this forum.

Hello,

I must say that my initial reaction is the same as Deckard's: why Mr Bateman?
A nick reveals a lot about yourself and, most importantly, about how you want the others to view you, so may I ask you what you wanted to convey when you chose that particular nick?

Hi

I chose ‘Mr Bateman’ for two reasons:

1. The book was a great inspiration on my life (not in an axe wielding way).

2. While discussing psychopaths, it seemed a logical choice.

You haven't shared what it makes you feel to score as a psychopath. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?

In brief, tests aside, I live my life on an emotional ‘flat line’ and have never felt anything towards any person in my life (am 36, so this is not teen angst ).

Also, when you say you share most of their traits, can you be more specific?

See above!

You titled your post 'Are Psychopaths The Only People Without Souls?'. Is it because you feel you have none but are reluctant to call yourself a psychopath? If so, why do you think you have no soul?

I’m not sure whether I am a psychopath or not, but no, the label would not bother me. Most the people in my social circle consider me one already and are fine with it, so it wouldn’t be any kind of life changing realisation.

I don’t think I have a soul, I don’t think anyone has. So the lack of a soul being given as a reason for psychopaths seems a red herring to me.

Why do I think no one has a soul?

No proof. The soul appears to be an invention of ancients in the same way as god is, ie an attempt to explain the unknown at that time. And just like god, the soul is ever shrinking as science grows. It wasn’t that long ago we thought the soul control the body until some Italian guy noticed lightening made dead frogs twitch.

I know i'm asking a lot of questions, by no means feel like i'm giving you the third degree, i also have a very questioning nature ;)

Is fine, I am here to discuss and hopefully learn.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Why do I think no one has a soul?

No proof. The soul appears to be an invention of ancients in the same way as god is, ie an attempt to explain the unknown at that time. And just like god, the soul is ever shrinking as science grows. It wasn’t that long ago we thought the soul control the body until some Italian guy noticed lightening made dead frogs twitch.

Au contraire -- in fact the exact opposite is true with regard to science and soul. True scientists, not the pseudoskeptical variety, are making some very interesting discoveries that actually make the presence of soul, at least in some people, VERY plausible indeed. If you took the time to do some proper research, you would find some good internet sites that deal with this kind of thing. But as a start, I direct you to this site: _http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/scientificproof1.html

Unlike this site, I don't necessarily agree that ALL people have an inbuilt soul, but the evidence that many do is quite convincing. Ultimately of course the only real evidence that soul exists is when a person themselves dies and finds that they still exist. But this has, for all intents and purposes, occurred in some people who have clinically died for at least 15 minutes, had no brain function whatsoever, and yet have been revived and able to report profound experiences. There is one particularly notable case of an American woman who had a brain operation for an aneurysm and had to be flat-lined, and the blood drained from her brain and body. The surgeon had to monitor her brain to ensure it had no activity whatsoever. She was in this state for a significant time, and yet upon revival, she reported one of the most profound experiences in the near-death literature. Apart from that, there exists much very stringent, scientific research and evidence which bridges across many different areas, such as reincarnation, out-of-body experiences and physical materializations.

 

[Mr_Bateman]

Thank you. After death experiences have so far seemed to me as nothing more than visions caused by degraded brain functions. But I've downloaded the pdf from that site and will have a proper read over the coming week.

I had a quick look over it and saw the bit about having to 'hit Dawkins with proof', which made me chuckle as Dawkins doesn't seem to require proof for his meme theory.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Mr_Bateman, the "visions caused by degraded brain functions" is the popular retort from pseudoskeptics, but it has long ago been shown to be extremely tenuous as best. In the case of the woman who had her blood drained, she actually witnessed the surgeon using a most unusual instrument to operate on her own head. She witnessed this from behind her own head. When she was revived, she described the instrument very accurately, despite never having seen one before in her whole life.

That site I directed you to is just one of many reputable sites that deal with the subject. Get to know Google better (or whatever search engine you prefer).

 

[Mr_Bateman]

I suppose my 'research' could be considered biased in a sense.

I have deliberately leant towards the materialistic and scientific method. It just seems to be coming from a more honest place.

As soon as any discussion on the soul starts focusing on life after death it is appealing to the emotional and becomes disreputable. Surely all the 'pseudoskeptics' in the world would be happy to find out they will survive death?

And looking at the bigger picture, I also can't see how the soul concept can be reconciled with evolution, which is something I find a lot more convincing.

But I will with hold any further comment until I've read that document, which looks like it may lead to more reading.

 

[Beau]

Unlike this site, I don't necessarily agree that ALL people have an inbuilt soul

Where on this site did you read that all people have souls?

 

[Laura]

I don’t think I have a soul, I don’t think anyone has. So the lack of a soul being given as a reason for psychopaths seems a red herring to me.

That seems to be at the root of many of the world's problems: people who don't have souls and can't conceive of them, assume this is true for everyone and project that belief onto others.

Because, it is, in fact, a belief.

At the same time, people who DO have souls, also can't conceive of those who do not have them and likewise project that belief onto OPs and psychopaths.

It would be comical if it wasn't so tragic.

You say you have never felt anything for anyone ever in your life. Does that include your parents? Any siblings? Pets?

How do you feel about - or react to - music and art? Nature?

Have you ever cried while watching a sad movie?