psychopathy nr *not to be confused with psychosis sometimes i get sucked into reading true crime/psychology, and i was led to that psychopathy checklist created by robert hare. from there, i started reading about psychopathy itself. the common traits of seem to be a lack of conscience and empathy, and often narcissism and manipulation skills. i hadn't realized there's strong evidence of a physical difference in the brain that psychopaths' brains have — less grey matter in the area of feeling human emotion than in the normal human brain. which, unlike most psychological disorders, makes them pretty unresponsive to treatment. it's not like you can insert the ability to feel emotion into the human brain. 'not all killers are psychopaths, and not all psychopaths are killers' it strikes me as interesting (and chilling) that there are non-violent, high-functioning, intelligent psychopaths around us. (apparently 1 in 25, but how can these things be proven?). and then i was thinking, what would stop these people from acting violently? i guess the answer is a lack of motivation and an awareness of consequences. it seems these people know what's considered right and wrong but they don't have moral opposition to wrongdoing. 150704 ... nr and levels of psychopathy, i suppose. 150704 ... nr "I know very well the pain my actions will cause to others. It’s calculated, and if the benefits of that pain are worth the possible backlash to get what I want, it’s worth it, and the pain itself really means nothing. I bust my ass every day to be a good person; and consciously work to not manipulate and hurt others for my own gain." "[The fact that said person is] psychopathic doesn’t mean he is going to stab his wife at any moment. He could do it and not care about it (he would care only about the consequences to himself), but he chooses not to. It would be unthinkable to anyone else, but for him it is an active choice." all right. time to watch a mindless sitcom now. 150704 ... amy in red This is one of those fish or cut bait moments; I'll bite. I did the psychopathy quiz got a 2 and felt guilty about it- the only reason i mention the score -somewhat rudely and impolite!- is to help clear up confusion that in my independent nature which happens to be prone to mental illness might be somewhat pathologically selfish. It totally isn't. So i had this question was put to me at my tutor table by a struggling adolescent - & not a cool moment in tutoring chemistry, btw. Student is super tired. Brings up a "test for a psychopath" as if you don't start feeling tired when others around you are tired. Like if you don't feel any need to yawn sort of sympathetically. I did not think so as i thought my being alert has nothing to do w others being exhausted and vice versa and whatever-- i thought he might be describing antisocial behavior though. If you don't have sympathy for your fellows you might score for sociopathy though it was possible i was being the meanie tutor taskmaster who didn't give two hoots about how tired people are, but i did take offense that being simply awake is considered psychopathic, probably by nonpsychopathic youth trying to weigh their options. Which gets me to choice of major. i had a plan to get through an Intro to Business textbook - a very common one used at community colleges. Because i have a little speculation that these youth have it a little mixed up as to who would be a good businessperson and who wouldn't. So, the book, the 10th edition copyright 2009 or 2010, starts out by making this philosophical case for business- entrepreneurship is about succeeding in making a profit by taking a risk, and the bigger the risk the bigger the profit. And I'm thinking, um, cruel world? And there were other subtle arguments in that first chapter meant for self-justification, including what great taxpayers businesses are, yet how the mission is to avoid taxes and regulations. They could do no wrong, basically. I backed away slowly from the book. It was not for me and came away with a solid conviction that these students should pursue their dreams at the undergraduate level, then get MBAs and avoid cheesy business degrees that encourage predator-prey relationships in society. Last point. A culture - like a nation or something - can't be sociopathic because that's not even logical, but it can certainly be psychopathic to its members and that is, has been, will always be a problem within the culture... I think this is why we got religion. although i'm not saying religion - and ritual - is super effective because i don't know people need to have both energy and to behave, and life thrives on, i don't know, chaos. No reason no reason, any thoughts? 150705 ... amy in red blue life is hard. tutoring sucks. these questions are impossible. college kids ask the hardest questions, these days, (maybe all days, if they could be brave). do you get trained to deal with the problems of a preacher's son? no. dyslexic people with dreams? no. career advice for a cut throat internet devoured world? no. why tutor? why do all that heavy lifting? you got a B but you deserved a C but the professor is unwise and unkind and gives out Cs to B students. hey kid I'm glad i could help. why'd i get that chemistry degree? it was a mistake. i made a mistake. Is "Freedom" a bad book? no. Did people hate it? yes. Does life suck? yes! Life sucks! i CAN yawn with the rest of them, but instead, at tutoring i was cheerful because it was better than nothing. happy day! happy days! happy day! in your twenties you can't be cheerful just in spite of things. that's only available in your thirties. so sure! just clear the table on the degree! whatever! whatever to psychopathy too! just whatever! 150705 ... nr i'm not sure if this is what you were getting at, amy, but personally i don't think not feeling something when someone else is feeling something (ie fatigue, as mentioned) can be considered psychopathic in itself. it doesn't mean you yourself are unable to feel those specific emotions or understand how the other person is feeling/suffering when they're tired. the taskmaster/tutoring comments made me think about when i had music lessons. if i showed up tired or hungover or not having practiced, i wouldn't ever expect my teacher to be sympathetic. i know the drill -- i pay to come every week and learn. it's on me when i don't do my job. but the teacher could more so be thought of as psychopathic if they inflicted pain on the student without remorse. which reminded me of jk simmons' character in 'whiplash' (a performance which deservedly earned him all the awards); specifically the scene where he, the teacher, wants the student to get up to speed in 'caravan' (at a speed that is not in real life possible), and the student can't quite get there, so the teacher keeps saying "no. again. again." etc. and keeps him there for hours and hours, while he's crying and his fingers are bleeding. the teacher only ever wanted the next great jazz player and would go to great lengths to get that from a student, abusing them in the process and having complete disregard for the pain he caused them. 150705 ... nr the ones who fascinate me the most are the ones who make an active effort not to manipulate people. i just can't wrap my brain around why they would strive to be better people (though it's clearly good that they do) if they have no moral reason to be. 150705 ... amy in red blue sorry no reason, i kind of freaked out when i thought you weren't going to answer, the antisocial blather silence once again proving how i unfit i am for the normal people of the world. i found that the teacher in Whip-lash was odd, not even a real person but one with a mental illness, a behavioral disorder. psychopath? yes. but if you accept him as mentally ill, then the movie doesn't work because it is basically about getting up again and again when you have fallen off your horse. not being a victim. i mean it's simple. but you don't want to actually be a student of that actual teacher. if such a teacher as that really exists. which, you know, some chemistry teachers.... physics teachers have a way of scoffing at dumb notions that doesn't quash people's dreams. if you don't get or like physics you just get to go "Ok! I'm not a geek!" but chemistry is more like Whip-lash because it is material and since we are alive, we are interested in a more base way with material things. it's not like the movie because it's not supposed (!) to be emotional... which probably brings us (or me!) back to psychopathy. it's an issue. i find the issue after i've overcome the learning curve. i wonder why i liked chemistry in the first place then i find the issue and i do not like what i see. yet. i do still like chemistry for the uphill effort to overcome the issue. my moon is in capricorn. i like mountains, and hills. what can i say. and your second comment, about people lying about themselves to get to a better place. fake it till you make it? some have an inner life that is kind of depraved (actually, that's too strong of a word. try: low. hm. not great either.) not as wonderful as they'd hoped. sometimes they act it out but other times they are trying to improve. you can be about your ethics without being about morals. hoping for acceptance. but then again, maybe you are talking about actual murderers which i just assume i successfully avoid. ISIS you suck. see? i avoided the murderer. i have DVD combo pack i got at a drug store and these movies are great! they really tackle the issues. it is Lovers and Liars with Goldie Hawn and The Driver's Seat with Elizabeth Taylor. i'm bowled over by how good these movies are. 150707 ... nr haha, this past week has been full of me preparing for my trip to illinois (hence not having much blather time, and not having time to respond to this at the moment). if you're still here, we should meet up and talk about psychopaths in a bar or something. it would be something to cross of a life list for me. 150707 ... amy in red blue cool. 150708 ... epitome of incomprehensibility That is an interesting subject. I remember being disappointed at first with a program on "psychopaths" on CBC's Doc Zone (doc for documentary, not doctor) a few months ago. It started all like (broadly paraphrasing), "DUM DUM DUM...psychopaths...THEY WALK AMONG US!" In the first few minutes I was also thinking, "How does a friggin English Literature major [me] know more about this subject than you guys do? Don't you research stuff?" And they kept saying "psychopath" instead of sociopath. But my assessment wasn't really fair. I learned new things: sociopaths, yes, don't feel empathy or at least feel it a great deal less, but also their brains are typically wired towards high-risk activities, which means they might be likely to make it big in business, but also presumably to fail if the risks don't work. One man had a sociopathic son who was also a compulsive petty thief, and it wasn't a good combination. He had problems getting a job and keeping friends, understandably. And they are not all cruel or criminal of course, but they have traits that might make them more likely to do criminal things... is that ableist? I'm not sure. Maybe that was part of my problem with the program's tone. NR: "the ones who fascinate me the most are the ones who make an active effort not to manipulate people. i just can't wrap my brain around why they would strive to be better people (though it's clearly good that they do) if they have no moral reason to be" ...Personally, I find that logic is a better motivator than guilt, based on my experience at overcoming (to some extent) a violent temper. Although, to dig deeper, I guess that my "logic" is empathy-based: it's not just "what would make the most sense" but "what would this do to the other person" and "how would the other person feel." I guess to a sociopath, the problem would be that they can't really FEEL the empathy, not that they can't work out what something would do to another person and why they shouldn't do it. I think I'm more afraid of people who have plenty enough imagination and empathy and do terrible things anyway. (Like myself? But gah, see, this is how guilt makes me self-centred. I'd be better, at least less whiny, if I were less emotional. I wouldn't want to be sociopathic, or at least I can't imagine not having empathy. Hm. I've worked myself into an interesting little paradox. No empathy for someone not empathetic. No identification with, maybe? Is there a difference?) amy: "sometimes they act it out but other times they are trying to improve. you can be about your ethics without being about morals. hoping for acceptance." Nicely concise and yes. Although maybe the problem isn't morals but imagination/empathy? Maybe I'm not thinking of the word the same way, though. I guess I'm thinking of "morals" as something in an external system, not a matter of conscience. 150708 ... amy in red blue I think the problem is morals, e o i. Like if you put your perceived rights above another's in one terrible event, or consistently, over time. anyway let's discuss it (there is lots to say about this!) over email somehow, if you want. the public forum creates confusion, random fire hint hinting kind of unnecessary in these touchy times. write me, anybody can write me at my totally cool and unpsychopathic email greenscotchtape at h u sh ma i l .com . (Because my yahoo emails are too depressed to receive personal correspondence, it seems) 150709 ... e_o_i Thank you, it'd be great to talk with you, although I don't think I'd have a lot more to say on psychopathy. I simply don't know enough about it. Knowledge of minds in general = still only a little. Knowledge of anything really! For example, I didn't think of spacing an email address out. It makes sense, though. It reduces the chance of being targeted by random spam. The morality question: I think what I meant was not a disagreement, but that people interpret the word "moral" differently: for instance, as a lesson (like a moral to a story), a set of values, an idea of a natural sense of right-wrong, and a conscience (maybe related to the one before). But about people only hinting at things, that reminds me of something in a forum online a few days ago where people were talking about Paul Bernardo (this Canadian murderer) applying for day parole (though he won't get it) and they wouldn't say his name. It took me a while to figure out who they were talking about. And maybe I was just in a grouchy mood, but it seemed like they were treating him like Lord Voldemort (He Who Must Not Be Named!) or something, and I found it frustrating. On the other hand, I did understand the impulse: not naming in order not to give the killer more publicity. Im general I agree: victims deserve remembering more than the murderers. But at the same time, naming evil-doing people can take the fear away. They're just people, not soul-shattered wizards, anyway. Or is them being "just people" a more frightening thought? Gah, I'm rambling again. Anyway, thanks for the invite. 150710 ... amy in red blue oh it's ok i think i get it there's still a lot to talk about but it shouldn't be behind closed doors-- i agree because it is a scary subject most especially if you equate it with murder. But if you don't equate it w murder -like low boil psychopathy (in a positive sense, free spiritedness) then i think there are insinuations made in public that are not healthy to the public especially in this weirdly constructed forum we've been so graciously been granted- i mean you want people to grow not be scared of themselves. So that's why i suggested we not twitter away and blather_is_blather about it.... email me whenever though! I -believe- in email I always have. I had penpals when i was a kid, and I miss that. Who expects kids and teenagers to handle psychopathy in the form of Harry Potter? I'm probably underexposed to a lot of life but the series is like non stop pain to me. Like a police state. anyway. I'm on the Order of the Phoenix. It doesn't really sync w the Little House/ Anne of Green Gables type of reading i did as an impressionable youth. 150711 ... nr delayed, but, e_o_i, what bothers you about the fact that people talk to/about paul bernardo like he's evil? 151015 ... nr still interested in this subject, and i've been reading interviews and blogs by diagnosed psychopaths and sociopaths. i'm not interested so much in what they've done (especially if it's violent—too disturbing and also seemingly rare for a psychopath), but why they do it. the creepy thing is, if i met a person like the ones i've read about, obviously without knowing they were a psychopath, i would probably like them. they all come across as calm, assertive, smart, curious, and engaging. they also don't react negatively when they're attacked or accused of trolling/lying/etc. etc., which on the surface seems emotionally mature. maybe i'm so interested in the subject because it almost seems like it's fictional; the idea that so-called humans can exist without possessing essential components of humanity. that said, i really hope not to ever encounter one of these people or that no one i care about ever does. 151015 ... nr ... that no good person ever does, really. 151015 ... e_o_i nr: Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant by the Harry Potter comparison was that a lot of the Hogwarts students were afraid of saying Lord Voldemort's name out loud. And Harry makes the point that being afraid of even saying Voldemort's name is giving him too much power - and too much respect, in a weird way. ("If we call him 'You-Know-Who' then the terrorists will win!" = something like that.) I was thinking of that when people in a comment section were avoiding writing "Paul Bernardo," because it seemed to me that avoiding his name was giving him too much power. But that probably wasn't the reason they didn't mention it. They were also saying that the victims and survivors are better worth being remembered than murderers (same deal with a discussion on school shootings) and I agree with that. I just don't know how to balance the whole naming/not naming thing. Is saying someone's name giving them publicity? In a way, yes, especially with the Internet being as searchable as it is. Maybe this is very tangentially related to me not wanting to write my MA project on Ezra Pound after reading some of his letters (not the witty friendly ones, the angry racist ones). But instead of not writing about him at all (and going with my old favourite James Joyce - besides the fact I doubt I could've written anything new about Joyce) I devoted a section of the project to talking about how is aesthetic theories were related to his defence of totalitarianism. Were they? I dunno, really. But it at least pointed out that Pound could be a racist, dictator-supporting... something. (I want to write "dick" because of my impulse to interior-rhyme, but I prefer to avoid gendered insults generally.) 151016 ... e_o_i Edit: "his" aesthetic theories. I'm dropping my aitches like there's no tomorrow. I'm also not sure if sociopathy itself is something to be "othered" to such a large degree. I guess it depends on how you define it? Sorry if I'm being needlessly critical this time... What do I mean? I don't know. I guess I'd be less worried about someone fitting the definition of a sociopath than whether they would be violent towards me or others. I'm a wimp, yes, but I also don't like real-life violence in general. Yup, I hate violence. I'm angry at the concept of violence and I want to punch it in the face. No, but seriously: it no longer surprises/offends me that a former friend cut off all contact after I hit her in the face - what surprises me was that she didn't hit back, which perhaps shows that I haven't changed as much as I thought. When I was a kid and teenager I would hit my parents when I was angry. "Good" people don't do that; apparently "normal" people don't do that either, but it still bothers me that my mother uses the term "normal" against me: to be normal-good in her eyes, I'd also have to be ADHD-free and exclusively heterosexual. (She has more to resent against me than I do against her, but that still doesn't give her an excuse to be like that. Bitter? Me? Never.) Anyway, I think my tendency to avoid real-life physical violence now is a good thing, but there was a time about two years ago when I was afraid of even getting a cut and bleeding. About manipulation: well. I like to think I'm not too vulnerable to emotional manipulation, but I'm afraid I give money away too easily. I mean, I don't want to live like I distrust everybody, but I shouldn't let people take advantage of me financially. Giving money to my brother was something I don't regret and would do again. I mean more my agreeing to do a month of unpaid internship. I'm not sure it was fair for a company in that field to do that. But then I'll make excuses for them: it's a small business, I had to be trained, etc. If my bosses met the popular definition of sociopathy, they'd probably be very happy to take advantage of my softer side in order to get all the work out of me they can. tl;dr - I meant "his" when I wrote "is" and I am not good at sticking to a single concept. Oh, and you should check out the blog We Hunted the Mammoth if you're interested - they say "teal deer" for "tl;dr" and "freeze peach" in a joking way for people who misuse "free speech." That is the basis of my recommendation! OK, mainly the writer mocks online misogyny. The discussion about Paul Bernardo and, later, school shooters took place in that comment section, but there's some lighter and fluffier material too. (I am the same name there.) 151016 ... nr incidentally, in terms of the power of someone's name (or a word in general), psychopaths'/sociopaths' brains don't register any difference when hearing words we consider powerful (death, love, ...voldemort) than words considered normal (rain, socks, cup), while the brain of the non-psychopathic person does. so they themselves wouldn't be affected by us not naming them. 151016 ... e_o_i Huh. I didn't know that. To me it seems very strange. Not because words are magic but because of meaning. Do you know if this is for single words only or for phrases too? I mean, "You are a failure in life and I despise you" would not mean any more to a sociopath, emotionally, than "Can I borrow a pair of socks?" To me it'd be terrible to go through life not being able to feel things - mainly the good things, but in general too. I was grumbling earlier today (to other people) about a certain poetry contest favouring "touchy feely lyrical poetry" over more the formal, playful stuff I sent them, but feelings are what enrich the meanings of words, even if those words are not autobiographical. 151016 ... nr yep, phrases too, i think. they don't generally care what others think of them (unless it's a manipulation tactic), and the missing wiring that provides most of us the ability to feel remorse and empathy causes a lack of this kind of understanding in them. it seems they do feel some emotion (satisfaction at getting what they want, frustration or anger when they don't), but not like a 'normal' person does. but still never empathy or sympathy. 151017 ... nr i've read about instances in which they've been asked whether if they had the chance, they'd choose to have the ability to feel empathy. they always say no, because they've never known what it's like and to them it seems like it would be a hindrance. something that would get in the way of getting what they want. on the other hand, i'd think that if you asked a person with a conscience if they'd ever want to lose it (no guilt, very little fear, lots of confidence), they'd say no. because even though it can get in the way of us getting what we want, it does so for a reason. the grey area is interesting to me. if someone's born different, without the ability to feel certain things, can you really blame them for the way they are? i'd say no, but you still can't ever call them a good or real human. 151017 ... amy in red I wonder how anybody gets what they want without being accused of being a psychopath, but i know you are not saying it's a one-to-one relationship between getting what you want and lacking empathy. I can't sympathize with cold blooded disregard up to and including murder, but i personally have a sticking point that falls along the axis of something more like sociopathy and am therefore highly concerned that the two are confused. To me being human is doing the hard work of finding one's sticking points somewhat to get better but moreso to improve the sense of empathy.... and then you have something to release to humanity, creativity through the arts or whatever. My sociopathic sticking point is i don't get much out of the group feeling and dynamic. it's like exhaustion at the end of the day, find a group agreement or dynamic to carry your emotions for you and get an extension on your day. My fear about social things (not relationships which are always full of character) is that is what they are and it's nothing else, therefore they are empty or lack depth, and when one group convinces itself it is superior to another eventually, to preserve the group, there's some kind of genocide. Can you tell that I totally do not love sports- because i don't enjoy winnng that much, but i'm slanting things pretty negatively here and am thus being a sociopath. A societyopath. I know why psychopathy and sociopathy are confused but I think sociopathy might lie on the more normal side, but it gets ostracized/bullied by those who see no need for self accountability. Not that that is a good way to be, too much, because you'll get overwhelmed with low self esteem. In between my previous comments on this heading i watched all of Sherlock which has a line. "I'm not a psychopath, I'm a high functioning sociopath. Do your research." But it doesn't make sense to me because he's characterized as lacking empathy for others he relates with so I would classify it as psychopath. I called the former president a sociopath for starting the Iraq war because his aim was to destroy a society which would also destroy the American sense of itself. I might still be confused but maybe sociopathy is a lack of empathy for group needs -man as the social animal?- also something about the rugged individualism of the American mythos seems to preclude good society but i don't know why it means we have to kill, for example, Native Americans. i guess originally it was because they would kill us. brutal. men are brutal. 151018 ... nr yeah, i'm not really sure what the difference is or if there is one—some mental-health professionals use the term interchangeably, and some say that psychopaths are born while sociopaths are made. and other things too (similar to what you said, amy). people can definitely have psychopathic/sociopathic/antisocial tendencies without being actual psychopaths or sociopaths. but if someone has a conscience, they're not one of these people. again, interesting grey areas. and there are most definitely positive traits to someone only guided by logic and drive, without the clouding of second-guessing or worrying what others think, to get what they want. which would explain why these people can be so successful in the workplace. 151018 ... nr people who have been diagnosed as one or the other have done those "I Am A" things on reddit. i can't really tell much of a difference between the answers of the people with either diagnosis except for the fact that sociopaths seem to more likely to tolerate long-term relationships (though they usually admit they use relationships to get what they want on a more base level). 151018 ... amy in red that's very useful . Thx nr. 151018 ... nr haha, i'm glad. i realize i'm talking like i'm an expert, which i'm really not. but i have read enough to learn a lot and be objective, i think! 151018 ... nr i've never seen sherlock, but i was curious and did a google search for that quote, and found this: http://io9.com/5933869/stop-calling-sherlock-a-sociopath-thanks-a-psychologist this psychologist seems pretty adamant on proving he's not a sociopath! (and she says sociopaths and psychopaths are the same.) 151018 ... nr sometimes it's good to 'channel your inner psychopath,' says that psychologist in the UK. i'm not sure that is the best way to put it, but sometimes the thought of being a confident narcissist is comforting. at my worst, i'm basically the opposite. 151111 ... nr i should really say appealing, not comforting. i'm not sure i can be comforted by something i've never totally felt. 151111 ... amy in red as far as understand, and buy, we all have this thing called primary narcissism which is the healthy self-love of the ego. all things being not totally perfect, you can't live without an ego, but an ego does cause a boatload of suffering, as buddhists describe. nr you have it too i know you do, but i think you are either a straight player when revealing something about yourself (unexpectedly) or you are at ease with uncertainty when the going is unclear, then trouble, then erasure of self, somehow? i do not think "opposite of narcissistic, at your worst" could be a bad thing (as in pathological) just not a ultimate healthy thing. the difference. about the damn internet. i have something against being territorial and will ask myself if i need to respond to things, if i think it's going to be helpful to the other person yes i'll respond. if it's only helpful to me no i don't respond. but that's just on the internet. real life is too complicated to not be territorial, and my boundaries go awry, so the internet is really my *alterego. this comment is also meant to be helpful.... sometimes Help! is better than Confessions by St. Augustine but Help! definitely has more ego, of a primary narcissistic kind. and not psychopathy at all unless you get offended by someone's turn off to your help and proceed destroy them (which is not what i *ever want to do, i'm only *ever pbs/npr-y conversation-y, but i generally assume a too-direct written manner that comes from not wanting to respond to intimidation patterns.) anyway. blah. just an impression. i wouldn't have guessed you were an S but it makes sense (ha right?) i am far too N for my own good, but it's also kind of bad to be P/J 50/50 i've recently decided. it's indecisive and unproductive, and tends to weaken because i won't ever strike that balance - it's like there's not enough time in the day- now i gotta drive an hour to work against my low carbon footprint principles because some jobs are truly worth their experiences (i hope they keep me) hope you are doing all right and you should pardon my reach if i offended. (trying to be a bit British) 151112 ... nr not offended at all! i like when people read and respond. otherwise i'd probably just blog to myself. attention, everyone! look at MEEEEE! (speaking of narcissism....) anyway. being the opposite of a narcissist is probably not pathological, it's true, but it's definitely not useful. there's no upside to senseless worrying about others and about one's appearance to others. it's true that everyone has a degree of narcissism, though... perhaps i should have just used the word 'confident person' rather than narcissist. my therapist thinks i'm not good at recognizing my strengths. i think my anxiety was making him anxious. ha! (i should channel my inner psychopath and not be anxious.) yeah i'm pretty borderline N/S, but usually an F. so more of a feeler (which seems to lean more to the abstract) but i like a present/concrete experience and real-life evidence often. i read this: "Sensing types often attend to what is occurring in the present, and can move to the abstract after they have established a concrete experience." i relate to this. interesting that you're an N; i may not have initially guessed that either! 151112 ... nr huh, this is interesting; i’m usually an N now. also the latest book i read by a psychopathy expert said they don’t often get depressed. which doesn’t really seem true, from the accounts i’ve read from people. maybe they don’t get depressed for what we’d consider typical reasons, but they are often bored, and boredom can lead to depression. 190820 what's it to you? who go blather from