PROFILE OF A PSYCHOPATH (5) - Thinking about blurred categories and STALKERS.

[madman101]

THEY CANNOT CONTROL THEMSELVES.

It's like people who keep placing blame or telling other people they are wrong.  These folks, who think themselves constantly right, are incapable of admitting they are the ones who are wrong, and so they are incapable of any apologies other than fakes ones.

I have been pondering the blurred distinctions between narcissists and psychopaths.  You can have a malignant narcissist who means harm, and have a covert psychopath who means harm insidiously and is concerned about what others think, if only because that may impinge upon his or her agenda.  What's the difference?  ....  Gotta take dog out......

What's the dif between a mean narcissist and a nice psychopath?  Not much.  The problem is that theory and classifications are blurry, and psychologists have their own interpretations, etc.  (And what's the dif between a communal narcissist and a moralistic covert narcissist?)  It's clear to me that a lot more definition needs to be made here, in a science which is not exactly hard.

I've seen masochism and depression as internalisations of group blame, which may arise from jealousy and be expressed as morality.  Self-harm can be an inward direction of otherwise outward sadism or violence.  What is saidsm?  A desire to hurt or harm others, usually thought of as being directed in physical ways.  But sadism can be the thoughts or intentions behind actions of phsyical harm, and so sadism could exist along a continuum of expression between the private and public self.  Simply, for example, expressed in passive aggression.

Psychopaths are thought to hold a significant degree of sadistic psychology, because they very obviously harm people, physically, and usually go to jail for it.  But if sadism is relaitive, then there should be a gradient of classification between ego-centric narcissists and ego-centric psychopaths based on the degree of sadism they appear to hold in their cognition and behaviour,  So, a malignant narcissist might be distinguished from a nice-appearing, covert narcissist, simply by the degree to which the latter means, intends or inflicts some degree of physical harm.

Because, most all dysfunctional control is sadistic.  Even an apparently benign ego-centric and manipulative, lying narcissist holds a degree of sadism, if only by virtue of the fact that he or she gains in a relationship, deliberately or subconsciously, while the other is made to lose.   This is one indication of dysfunction - socially - whereas another would be that the mentally ill person's ideation or social behaviour does in fact interfere with some aspect of health or progress in that person's life.  And, "health or progress," , could mean human or ethical maturation, or the development of a sense of self, security, or self-actualisation.

Ultimately, sadism comes back to haunt the perpetrator, which we have seen in the collapse of aggressive (and narcissistic) nation-states, e.g.  After all, sadism can also be seen as self-harm externalised.

On the other hand, a parent who wants to control his or her children, to teach them how to deal with threats, or whatever, is not being dysfunctional or, so, sadistic, but is encouraging health and progress in family and, usually, in society,  A parent who is jealous of his or her children and resorts to mocking them or competing with them, like an immature and jealous sibling, is being sadistic, because he or she is being socially destructive - working against the maturation of the children, and so forth.

It can be very hard to tell whether a person MEANS to do harm, or is in denial of doing harm, or will ever admit to doing harm.  But, such perverse ambivalence is often resolved when society makes a decision as to whether harm was done and whether the person was too insane to be accountable for his or her destructive behaviour.  The more harm, and/or the more denial of wrongdoing, then the more likely the perpetrator is a true psychopath.

But, there can be people who are narcissists amongst their friends, and psychopaths towards the enemies they envy.  I would call these selective psychopaths.  And I have described them before as a kind of sociopath who is a social climber, kind to those in authority and cruel to those they can exploit, on their mission towards infinite control and power.

I watched a crime show last night, which reminded me of another thought I have been mulling over.  It was the Flordia case of a gril (Kristen Pratt) who was stocked by a very clear psychopath, who was obsessed with her, even while he himself did not know why. I could not pull up the video of the actual TV episode for you, but here is one video about the case. (You will find several others online).

Click to view

This video isn't as illustrative of some things. For example, you don't really get to see the weirdly large brow ridge on the guy, which he often rubbed in some kind of anguish. There are just people who are born to be sick. sadly.

But, the thought is this: Here is a clear psycho, but he is entirely focused on one person. Is he only a psycho relative to that person, or that representation in his head? Of course, he is ill all around - but does the illness only manifest in relation to one person/proxy? And are many serial killers psychos in the same selective way, only generalising it via new victims? I am not expressing this well, as I am very tired.

Of course, this guy's victim could have been anyone, basically. But the idea of a psychopath putting on blinders and tunnelvisioning only on one person makes me think of the selective psychopath, and the whole idea that these illnesses can be very relative. And our classifications can be so blurred.

Was this guy a psychopath PLUS OCD-like infatuation? Or do most psychopaths focus on single victims or enemies like this, at least symbolically and/or successively?

Notice how this guy never admitted he was wrong, and that he never meant the victim and harm. Not only was the victim traumatised for life by his stalking, most people like him slide so easilly into physical abuse or homicide for the very reason that they, all along, refuse to see that they are doing anything wrong. Always - always - it is the victim who is to blame for any problems that may arise in the psychopath's head.