All you need is to show consistent flat affect, and voila: You’re a psychopath/sociopath.
The problem I have with this is that in the very definition of the word Psychopath (and in later years, Sociopath) you must have some consistency of harmful behavior as well. But where is the line? How harmful must you be, and in how many ways?
There are empathic people who portray just as harmfully as sociopaths and who get the label because it’s just easier and cheaper to not give them a thorough scan.
On the other hand there’re neurologically verifiable sociopathic people who somehow manage to not harm others. It’s all linked to circumstantials in our upbringing.
I am not arguing that there is no such thing as sociopaths, that would be silly. But I am arguing that there are people with the same neurological make up who can in fact be contributing to the survival and progress of our species. ‘Empaths’, the so called ‘normal people’ in our societies, are too heavily focused upon what THEY think is good and right, and what they think is good and right usually is a status quo that will kill our species along with the rest of the planet if we don’t change our ways very soon (yet that may be too late).
Those that I call psychopaths are mindlessly helping the empaths do their damage. But some of those the empaths call psychopaths could be their saviors!
