Does a sociopath have any real lasting feelings of rationality or does it keep getting worse as time goes by?
Sociopathy is a mental illness misunderstood by most thanks to
misinformation from the media. A sociopath is someone who suffers
from Anti-social Personality Disorder, which means that they do not
feel normal human emotions; they lack remorse, shame or guilt; and
their emotions are shallow.
To answer your question, they are extremely rational, but
without feeling. If you want someone completely gone, it is
rational to kill them, isn't it? Yet it is human empathy which
dictates to us that this is wrong. A sociopath is uncontrolled by
human emotion, and any appearance of this is a facade with an
This condition is not curable, as you cannot force someone to
'feel' something, and it is a chronic condition that neither gets
better nor worse. For more information on sociopathy do a web
search. I find google most helpful. www.google.com
If you are a sociopath, you probably are resistant to the idea of
Robert Hare, PhD., says that the personality of a sociopath
(psychopath) is essentially set in stone, so to speak, by
adulthood, and incredibly hard to change.
But some keep trying to help them; giving up is not an option.
Sociopaths cause too much trouble.
A good therapist can prevent you from victimizing him/her without
victimizing you in the process. And recent studies made by
neurosurgeons and other medical experts have finally begun to
pinpoint the things that go awry in the brain that are part of what
In some cases, such medications as Depakote, Topamax, and even
Lithium are being prescribed, and although some individual
therapists prescribe Ativan and the like, much more research needs
to be done there on ultimate benefit of drug treatment. It is
already known that drug treatment must be augmented by a very
structured and positive-oriented talk therapy.
Sociopaths can get somewhere in talk therapy if the clinician is
self-confident and relaxed, firm but never authoritarian or
self-important. It must not ever become an ego-contest.
Once the process gets far enough along so that the sociopath is
actually able to feel even a tiny flicker of genuine happiness,
that is an impetus that will grow stronger if the process continues
to move forward.
But a sociopath seeking this must be warned that at some point
quite well along in the process of therapy, there will be an
interval in which all the newly developing strength is called upon
to endure very deep and long-buried pain. Sticking to it through
that takes a very strong will.
The therapist must repeatedly remind the patient that the process
will also reward him or her with better and better feelings,
ultimately becoming its own reward: that terrible emptiness
called 'boredom' or 'static' being replaced by feeling, both
painful and joyous.
In cases where brain damage is too severe to permit of this on its
own, new developments in technology in the next decades will bring
implantable devices that may be able to be used in the brain, along
with other means including synthetic replacement neurotransmitters,
to carry nerve impulses along paths formerly silent and unused
in the sociopath's brain.
Although such devices would have to be used with extreme care to
avoid causing violent convulsive seizures, some of the
anti-convulsant medications that are already being prescribed to
sociopaths in test trials could possibly prevent this unwelcome
In the present, therapy is hard to come by for anybody not
extremely wealthy, and for sociopaths, many of whom are unable to
work, it is even that much harder to find help. But it exists. And,
looking at some observations posted at other similar questions by
others, one can see that a very popular opinion is that
sociopaths, psychopaths, are all "evil" and undeserving of
One very important point, therefore, is that, most certainly, no
one helps sociopaths by repeatedly calling them 'evil'! That kind
of response cannot possibly help anyone.
Yes, of course sociopaths arouse great anger in people; one must
take care of oneself and make steps so as not to allow oneself to
be victimized. But HATRED is another issue: if hate takes you
over, you become that much more like the sociopath.
A sociopath before treatment cannot trust anyone and must learn the
fundaments of trust and interaction between people. No one who is
persuaded to believe that he or she is just plain bad can sustain
any hope for change.
It becomes a vicious cycle: the sociopath, being told he or she is
evil and cannot be helped, gives up, and in frustration and anger
lashes out again at people, and in response to that, people say
that their original point is proven.
The main reason sociopaths don't usually seek help is that they
can't trust, rather than that they like being as they are. Plus,
they can often sense exactly what sort of a response any call for
help on their part is most likely to elicit from professionals and
lay folk alike.
Sociopaths are not breezing along in paradise. It isn't all a game.
It's a truly miserable existence. And it can be made
It may not be "curable" yet, but it most certainly isn't as
hopeless as so many people say. There is therefore nothing to be
gained and much to be lost when therapists and lay folk try to
ostracize sociopaths from the human race entirely!
Sensationalism and superstition will only prevent
On the other hand sociopathology doesn't really exist. You might as
well be asking if Transformers have "real" feelings. Why? Because
both are just things created by human's imaginations. While touted
as science, "mental illness" has never been proven to exist. Cancer
is an illness. AIDS is an illness. One can objectively test for
their presence. There is no objective way to test for mental
illness. It can only be diagnosed through subjective means, either
by self-diagnosis or through a doctor's subjective evaluation of a
patient's own admissions or behavior. Most children could be
considered sociopaths given the criteria in the DSM.
So in essence there is no answer to your question. If you want to
be sure though, ask someone to answer your question without citing
the DSM. By the way do you know the method by which new "mental
illnesses" are added into the DSM. A vote. Effectively that is all
that is needed. I doubt that the bubonic plague needed to be voted
into existence. That's funny though, because if mental illness
exists then the sheer number of people ailing from it should
qualify as an pandemic of sorts.
Here's something that reads much better than what I just
The most fundamental criticism of the DSM concerns the construct
validity and reliability of its diagnostic categories and criteria.
Although increasingly standardized, critics argue that the DSM's
claim of an empirical foundation is overstated. A reliance on
operational definitions necessitates that intuitive concepts such
as depression be operationally defined before they can be used in
scientific investigation. Such definitions are used as a follow up
to a conceptual definition, in which the specific concept is
defined as a measurable occurrence. John Stuart Mill pointed out
the dangers of believing anything that could be given a name must
refer to a thing and Stephan Jay Gould and others have criticized
psychologists for doing just that. A committed operationalist would
respond that speculation about the thing in itself, or noumenon,
should be resisted as meaningless, and would comment only on
phenomena using operationally defined terms and tables of
operationally defined measurements. This line of criticism has also
appeared in non-specialist venues. In 1997, Harper's Magazine
published an essay, ostensibly a book review of the DSM-IV, that
criticized the lack of hard science and the proliferation of
disorders. The language of the DSM was described as "simultaneously
precise and vague", and the manual itself compared to "a militia's
Web page, insofar as it constitutes an alternative reality under
siege," and a "fertilizer bomb" against hard science.