Interesting. I used to think psychopaths had certain immunity against suicidal behavior, but turns out that idea of Cleckley’s is now considered outdated in literature, at least according to ”Psychopathy, Antisocial Personality and Suicide” by Verona, Patrick & Joiner. (In their own study, they too found positive correlation between the impulsive/antisocial component of PCL-R (F2) and suicidal behavior.)
Why put any weight on what a pathological liar and someone probably poorly skilled in introspection told about themselves?
But why would you put any weight on what a pathological liar and someone probably poorly skilled in introspection told about themselves? (Not saying a tv show is that much more reliable as a source though.)
If over_qualified_quinn struggles with that the way I initially did, perhaps my interpretation helps: what you’re saying is that despite lacking empathy, psychopaths *must* have social awareness to be able to engage in their manipulative games.
Contrast this with what we’d probably expect from them if they lacked social awareness (as well as empathy): they might act cruel towards other beings, but it’d be difficult for them to scheme elaborately because they wouldn’t be able to predict people’s reactions and behavior.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my comments.
I think a big (though not big enough to be first-time-preventive) difference between you and psychopathic killers is that you’re not superficially motivated. A psychopath has no trouble hurting people in order to gain something relatively trivial — typically grotesque is the seek of sexual gratification.
You’re more of the ”I believe an antisocial act will have a cleansing effect on my soul” type that, upon acting out, either gains the spiritual emancipation they’re after, or realize they’ve just been pursuing a flare. The reason I think so is all this introspection you demonstrate here. I can’t picture you, after committing a bloody act, sitting there, thinking ”well that didn’t do much, maybe I just didn’t do it good enough, big enough?” You’d more likely have your answer there, and wouldn’t have to keep on repeating the act, banging your head against the wall so to speak (as thrill-seeking psychopath would). You’d have made your statement and either it makes an effect on others or it doesn’t. Either way, it’d be out of your hands by then, no use doing it over and over again.
According to the article, ”PCL-R officially lists four factors (1.a, 1.b, 2.a, and 2.b)”. Yet ”The two factors” only lists Factors 1 and 2 without dividing them into 1.a, 1.b and 2.a, 2.b. Is this a deliberate omission or a slip?