--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Another point might be that if we categorise Hitler as a sociopath > > isn't that the same kind of pushing him away as the conspiracy > > theorists do. Another way of saying we're safe because he aint like > > us. > > > > > I think the different way we are looking at this, and that includes > Turq, is that you both seem to be taking a philosophical stand on the > concept, but psychiatrists are taking a clinical approach. Telling a > family that their son's interest in torturing kittens is just him > expressing his dark side doesn't help. The model evolved by treating > patients who display certain recognizable symptoms. If you are > counseling a person who lacks a capacity for empathy and cannot relate > to the question, "how does your action make another person feel?", > there is a problem for that person to develop relationships of any > kind. But all of modern psych is a POV. It is one I appreciate but > it is not for everyone I guess. >
I'm sure there is such a thing as sociopathy, I just think it can be overused to describe anyone who's selfish, nasty etc. >From what I've read, the task of clinical diagnosis is quite involved and can only be applied by a qualified doctor (according to the his book) as it is easy to misdiagnose. I like to think I met the real thing, I had a "friend" who fits all the descriptors. He was, to put it mildly, the scum of the earth. Vain, shallow, two-faced, thieving, manipulative. But because he came over as such a nice guy, very charismatic and funny it was easy to get drawn in. The lesson is always learned too late unfortunately and even though I've read and understood the books I couldn't say for sure if he was sociopathic or just a spoilt, selfish brat. which is why I think that categorising Hitler may be a way of excusing him.
