Dunno about the terror, but my understanding is that the main trait of psychopaths is that they don't feel empathy. I think they also tend to be arrogant, and that could easily prevent any feeling of terror or fear.
Dunno about the terror, but my understanding is that the main trait of psychopaths is that they don't feel empathy. I think they also tend to be arrogant, and that could easily prevent any feeling of terror or fear.
You are correct, that is the most defining characteristic. It's important to remember our understanding of psychopathy is imperfect. Most all the early work that really defined the conventional understanding of it was done working with incarcerated or institutionalized people, since those populations are so much easier to study. Hervey Cleckley was the pioneer who really jump-started our understanding of it. His subjects were in a mental institution. Robert Hare, the second most influential person in the earlier days (and maybe he still is, I haven't kept up that much over the last decade or so) studied criminals in prison. Our knowledge of highly functioning psychopaths has grown a lot since them, but like all of psychology, it's imperfect to say the least. They do not feel shame or remorse. Ever notice how so many politicians have such a thick skin? They can be humiliated in such ways that a normal person would want to crawl into a hole and hide, yet they are completely unfazed. That's an extremely valuable trait for a politician, or anyone aspiring to claw his way to the top of any institution. They have a LOT of advantages, including that their traits are very attractive to normals, who gravitate towards "leaders" who show "strength" and unwavering confidence. It's also important to understand that, while there are plenty of full-blown psychopaths whose brains function quite differently and feel absolutely no empathy, guilt, or shame, no matter what, it exists on a spectrum and there are plenty of "near-psychopaths" who are often high-functioning. I don't succumb to the temptation to call them sociopaths, I believe in calling a spade a spade. Some say the two are not the same, it's possible to define them differently, but there's really no need, it unnecessarily complicates understanding the phenomenon.
I poked around one day to try to find out the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath. Different authorities have different definitions, so there is no one definitive definition, so to speak.
My working definition is that sociopathy is a spectrum, with psychopathy at one extreme end.
I must confess that my introduction to psychopaths was Jon Ronson's book The Psychopath Test. Admittedly Ronson is mostly a humorist (so the book is a very enjoyable read) but if the experiences in the book are true, he did serious research and went all over the world visiting various psychopaths in prisons, mostly.
I've read more about it since then, and next up on my list is Political Ponerology, which looks much more daunting.
More daunting is an understatement! Reading twice won't get it with ┼Бobaczewski, it takes more passes than that, for me at least. Worth it though for sure. Sounds like you're on the right track. It's not possible to understand how things work, and why they are as they are, without a good understanding of psychopathy, including how normals react. Re psychopath/sociopath, it's a pointless discussion IMO. The condition, its degrees, how it manifests in different individuals, how it affects others, is what matters. Sure you can come up with some guidelines and stick on different labels. I don't see any point to doing that, it just causes confusion for absolutely no reason.
I agree that getting tangled up in semantic weeds is counterproductive. As you say, the effect is what matters. My mental model is useful in that I can imagine how sociopaths game various systems (government, industry, science) to their advantage, and the real psychopaths tend to rise to the top, like cream. Or maybe scum is a better word.
Dunno about the terror, but my understanding is that the main trait of psychopaths is that they don't feel empathy. I think they also tend to be arrogant, and that could easily prevent any feeling of terror or fear.
You are correct, that is the most defining characteristic. It's important to remember our understanding of psychopathy is imperfect. Most all the early work that really defined the conventional understanding of it was done working with incarcerated or institutionalized people, since those populations are so much easier to study. Hervey Cleckley was the pioneer who really jump-started our understanding of it. His subjects were in a mental institution. Robert Hare, the second most influential person in the earlier days (and maybe he still is, I haven't kept up that much over the last decade or so) studied criminals in prison. Our knowledge of highly functioning psychopaths has grown a lot since them, but like all of psychology, it's imperfect to say the least. They do not feel shame or remorse. Ever notice how so many politicians have such a thick skin? They can be humiliated in such ways that a normal person would want to crawl into a hole and hide, yet they are completely unfazed. That's an extremely valuable trait for a politician, or anyone aspiring to claw his way to the top of any institution. They have a LOT of advantages, including that their traits are very attractive to normals, who gravitate towards "leaders" who show "strength" and unwavering confidence. It's also important to understand that, while there are plenty of full-blown psychopaths whose brains function quite differently and feel absolutely no empathy, guilt, or shame, no matter what, it exists on a spectrum and there are plenty of "near-psychopaths" who are often high-functioning. I don't succumb to the temptation to call them sociopaths, I believe in calling a spade a spade. Some say the two are not the same, it's possible to define them differently, but there's really no need, it unnecessarily complicates understanding the phenomenon.
I poked around one day to try to find out the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath. Different authorities have different definitions, so there is no one definitive definition, so to speak.
My working definition is that sociopathy is a spectrum, with psychopathy at one extreme end.
I must confess that my introduction to psychopaths was Jon Ronson's book The Psychopath Test. Admittedly Ronson is mostly a humorist (so the book is a very enjoyable read) but if the experiences in the book are true, he did serious research and went all over the world visiting various psychopaths in prisons, mostly.
I've read more about it since then, and next up on my list is Political Ponerology, which looks much more daunting.
A sociopath is a pavement or sidewalk wide enough for two people to walk along side by side.
A psychopath is crazy paving. :)
More daunting is an understatement! Reading twice won't get it with ┼Бobaczewski, it takes more passes than that, for me at least. Worth it though for sure. Sounds like you're on the right track. It's not possible to understand how things work, and why they are as they are, without a good understanding of psychopathy, including how normals react. Re psychopath/sociopath, it's a pointless discussion IMO. The condition, its degrees, how it manifests in different individuals, how it affects others, is what matters. Sure you can come up with some guidelines and stick on different labels. I don't see any point to doing that, it just causes confusion for absolutely no reason.
I agree that getting tangled up in semantic weeds is counterproductive. As you say, the effect is what matters. My mental model is useful in that I can imagine how sociopaths game various systems (government, industry, science) to their advantage, and the real psychopaths tend to rise to the top, like cream. Or maybe scum is a better word.