Reincarnated As A Psychopath

[Give It Time]

I'm sure we've all heard that those who did evil in a previous life are reincarnated to be punished in the next. I'm sure there are people who look at those who do evil and fantasize about that person suffering in the next life.

What about the psychopaths who are living today?

Is their current status punishment or reward?

If they're being punished for their evil acts from a previous life, it doesn't make sense that their reward is to be able to do even more evil in the next life.

Is it a reward for having been good in a previous life? I can't imagine anyone with a truly Buddha nature seeing a lifetime of cold, calculated evil as a reward.

So, why aren't there fewer and fewer psychopaths as time marches on? Do enlightened beings choose to incarnate as psychopaths in order to meet out karmic justice?

What's up with this?

[Thoughtful]

I'm sure we've all heard that those who did evil in a previous life are reincarnated to be punished in the next. I'm sure there are people who look at those who do evil and fantasize about that person suffering in the next life.

What about the psychopaths who are living today?

Is their current status punishment or reward?

If they're being punished for their evil acts from a previous life, it doesn't make sense that their reward is to be able to do even more evil in the next life.

Is it a reward for having been good in a previous life? I can't imagine anyone with a truly Buddha nature seeing a lifetime of cold, calculated evil as a reward.

So, why aren't there fewer and fewer psychopaths as time marches on? Do enlightened beings choose to incarnate as psychopaths in order to meet out karmic justice?

What's up with this?

I think they are made, not born.

[Give It Time]

I'm sure we've all heard that those who did evil in a previous life are reincarnated to be punished in the next. I'm sure there are people who look at those who do evil and fantasize about that person suffering in the next life.

What about the psychopaths who are living today?

Is their current status punishment or reward?

If they're being punished for their evil acts from a previous life, it doesn't make sense that their reward is to be able to do even more evil in the next life.

Is it a reward for having been good in a previous life? I can't imagine anyone with a truly Buddha nature seeing a lifetime of cold, calculated evil as a reward.

So, why aren't there fewer and fewer psychopaths as time marches on? Do enlightened beings choose to incarnate as psychopaths in order to meet out karmic justice?

What's up with this?

I think they are made, not born.

Interesting. It's my understanding the are both. It's my understanding Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) is ADD/ADHD in its most extreme form. I could be entirely wrong. I know many of the traits and behaviors for ADD/ADHD are also the traits and behaviors for Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). ODD is the precursor to ASPD. If the ODD is not caught and treated it will blossom into ASPD. So, with a questionnaire of traits and behaviors, a person can register as ADHD if they have a certain number of traits. The more traits, the more severe the ADD/ADHD until they have enough traits that they are considered to have ODD.

There is a certain amount of nature in there. I also said that the ODD can blossom into ASPD if it is not caught and treated. I'm currently interpreting that to mean that the parents can be kind, loving, imperfect parents who are in denial and refuse to believe that it is impossible for a person to not have a glimmer of compassion or experience emotions the same way they do. Since they are in denial, the ODD is never caught and treated.

As to your statement they are made. I don't know if an average child to be severely enough abused to take them through the full range of killing off all or most of the compassion to create a person with ASPD. I don't know if that is possible or it takes the seed of the ADHD (possibly, a more extreme case) along with the abuse, to create the conditions of ASPD. I know that several children can come out of the same extremely abusive household and the adults produced by that household will range from being just as abusive as their abuser, or possibly more, all the way to the other end of the spectrum of refusing to be abusive themselves. The difference, I'm told, is choice. Simple choice. However, did the basic neural networking of those individual children factor in determining the respective choices the different choices they made? My guess is yes.

So, to tweak my question. I can see someone earning the reward of being placed in a situation where they receive as a reward, the cruelty they visited upon others as their karma for the next life. However, if we're taking into account that psychopaths are at least a little bit made, then that person's karmic reward was to be born into an abusive household with the neural network in in their brain to have that person develop into a person with ASPD. That means that person would have been born into an abusive household in a previous life where they were reared to be abusive and receive the karmic reward of being born into another abusive household so they could experience the misery they meted out in their previous existence only to go on to probably get worse in the next and so and so on.

My question still holds. Why would a person who was cruel reincarnate to be born into a family and life where they will likely develop into a psychopath when they were cruel in a previous existence?

[Thoughtful]

I'm sure we've all heard that those who did evil in a previous life are reincarnated to be punished in the next. I'm sure there are people who look at those who do evil and fantasize about that person suffering in the next life.

What about the psychopaths who are living today?

Is their current status punishment or reward?

If they're being punished for their evil acts from a previous life, it doesn't make sense that their reward is to be able to do even more evil in the next life.

Is it a reward for having been good in a previous life? I can't imagine anyone with a truly Buddha nature seeing a lifetime of cold, calculated evil as a reward.

So, why aren't there fewer and fewer psychopaths as time marches on? Do enlightened beings choose to incarnate as psychopaths in order to meet out karmic justice?

What's up with this?

I think they are made, not born.

Interesting. It's my understanding the are both. It's my understanding Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) is ADD/ADHD in its most extreme form. I could be entirely wrong. I know many of the traits and behaviors for ADD/ADHD are also the traits and behaviors for Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). ODD is the precursor to ASPD. If the ODD is not caught and treated it will blossom into ASPD. So, with a questionnaire of traits and behaviors, a person can register as ADHD if they have a certain number of traits. The more traits, the more severe the ADD/ADHD until they have enough traits that they are considered to have ODD.

There is a certain amount of nature in there. I also said that the ODD can blossom into ASPD if it is not caught and treated. I'm currently interpreting that to mean that the parents can be kind, loving, imperfect parents who are in denial and refuse to believe that it is impossible for a person to not have a glimmer of compassion or experience emotions the same way they do. Since they are in denial, the ODD is never caught and treated.

I don't know where you're getting this. There is some research indicating that ADHD diagnosed in childhood may be an indicator of personality disorders later in life (adolescence). However the statistical connection between ASPD and ADHD is weakest compared to the others. The most common comorbid personality disorder is Borderline. All of the other personality disorders individually have a statistical power that is at least double that of ASPD in terms of cooccurrence with ADHD.

And though there is a correlation there, it's not saying one causes the other, but that they sometimes are both diagnosed in the same person. To compound it, most psychologists will not diagnose personality disorders in young children as the risks of doing so outweigh benefits. A diagnosis of lesser severity, like ADHD, is more likely to be given to a child than something like bipolar disorder or a personality disorder -- so in the cooccurring cases, one of the dx may be incorrect.

ADHD is a neurological difference. ODD is a behavioral problem, a type of conduct disorder. They are separate and distinct problems that may also be co-occurring.

The children I work with who have ODD typically have a very significant history of adverse childhood experiences, often a combination of abuse, neglect, trauma, frequent transitions, inconsistent parenting, parents with mental illness, poverty, prenatal alcohol exposure etc etc etc.

Children with ADHD tend to have a parent who was the same way (hyperactive and unable to focus on things that don't interest them) and now has a physically oriented job where movement isn't a barrier to functioning the way it is in school.

ODD as a precursor to ASPD sounds more possible/ plausible but I don't know enough about it in my branch of psychology. It has face validity.

Nevertheless, I've also worked with enough ODD children that I can't say any of them had NO empathy. In fact there's one I worked with in the past who stands out as an extremely empathetic individual, but didn't wanna get told what to do. He would avoid following directions using empathy (pointing out bullying victims and making a case for them) as a way to get out of work.

I will say that severe abuse doesn't produce "average" children, it produces damaged children who process that damage in a variety of dysfunctional ways. Harming animals, other children, becoming sexually reactive (even if sexual abuse didn't happen to them) are all within the behavioral profile of children coming from a background of abuse or neglect. Children who are sexually reactive and untreated may often grow up to become predators.

I don't think abuse/ neglect are the only possibilities though. Self centered parents have produced some of the least empathetic, most manipulative, and unidimensionally focused children I've ever seen.

[Give It Time]

I think they are made, not born.

Interesting. It's my understanding the are both. It's my understanding Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) is ADD/ADHD in its most extreme form. I could be entirely wrong. I know many of the traits and behaviors for ADD/ADHD are also the traits and behaviors for Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). ODD is the precursor to ASPD. If the ODD is not caught and treated it will blossom into ASPD. So, with a questionnaire of traits and behaviors, a person can register as ADHD if they have a certain number of traits. The more traits, the more severe the ADD/ADHD until they have enough traits that they are considered to have ODD.

There is a certain amount of nature in there. I also said that the ODD can blossom into ASPD if it is not caught and treated. I'm currently interpreting that to mean that the parents can be kind, loving, imperfect parents who are in denial and refuse to believe that it is impossible for a person to not have a glimmer of compassion or experience emotions the same way they do. Since they are in denial, the ODD is never caught and treated.

I don't know where you're getting this. There is some research indicating that ADHD diagnosed in childhood may be an indicator of personality disorders later in life (adolescence). However the statistical connection between ASPD and ADHD is weakest compared to the others. The most common comorbid personality disorder is Borderline. All of the other personality disorders individually have a statistical power that is at least double that of ASPD in terms of cooccurrence with ADHD.

And though there is a correlation there, it's not saying one causes the other, but that they sometimes are both diagnosed in the same person. To compound it, most psychologists will not diagnose personality disorders in young children as the risks of doing so outweigh benefits. A diagnosis of lesser severity, like ADHD, is more likely to be given to a child than something like bipolar disorder or a personality disorder -- so in the cooccurring cases, one of the dx may be incorrect.

ADHD is a neurological difference. ODD is a behavioral problem, a type of conduct disorder. They are separate and distinct problems that may also be co-occurring.

The children I work with who have ODD typically have a very significant history of adverse childhood experiences, often a combination of abuse, neglect, trauma, frequent transitions, inconsistent parenting, parents with mental illness, poverty, prenatal alcohol exposure etc etc etc.

Children with ADHD tend to have a parent who was the same way (hyperactive and unable to focus on things that don't interest them) and now has a physically oriented job where movement isn't a barrier to functioning the way it is in school.

ODD as a precursor to ASPD sounds more possible/ plausible but I don't know enough about it in my branch of psychology. It has face validity.

Nevertheless, I've also worked with enough ODD children that I can't say any of them had NO empathy. In fact there's one I worked with in the past who stands out as an extremely empathetic individual, but didn't wanna get told what to do. He would avoid following directions using empathy (pointing out bullying victims and making a case for them) as a way to get out of work.

I will say that severe abuse doesn't produce "average" children, it produces damaged children who process that damage in a variety of dysfunctional ways. Harming animals, other children, becoming sexually reactive (even if sexual abuse didn't happen to them) are all within the behavioral profile of children coming from a background of abuse or neglect. Children who are sexually reactive and untreated may often grow up to become predators.

I don't think abuse/ neglect are the only possibilities though. Self centered parents have produced some of the least empathetic, most manipulative, and unidimensionally focused children I've ever seen.

Thank you for this.

There is only one point I want to clarify. Children can start out average and post-abuse come out traumatized, but not average. I still maintain there are those who will choose to continue that abuse as adults and those who will not. Choosing to not abuse doesn't mean they are average or not traumatized.

Other than that, I really appreciate the broadened understanding.

Original question remains essentially unchanged, though.

If a soul went through those experiences in a previous life and grew to continue those experiences, I don't see how being reincarnated into the same conditions with an even more experience-hardened soul to continue the pattern sense.

The question is philosophical/faith-based and this discussion is veering scientific, which would be fine, but this is the "staying faithful" forum and that is the kind of question I asked and the kind of discussion I seek. I would really love it if all of your scientific knowledge and explanation that I'm finding very interesting could be wrapped in the packaging of how this makes sense within a framework of reincarnation.

[Give It Time]

Actually, if you're game, I do have a question.

If a psychopath can be made, as you state, that implies they can be unmade, as well.

It's my understanding that they cannot be changed. At all. If you're not a mental health professional, just stay the hell away from them.

Also, is it possible for two children raised in the same environment and one turn out to have ASPD and the other not? Or do they all develop ASPD? Joseph Smith is considered by many on this site to have been a sociopath. Are those same characteristics evident in any of the information we have about his siblings? He had some sisters who married and, as far as I know fell off the radar. They apparently didn't believe their brother. I know Joseph had a singular traumatic experience as a child that none of the others had, his leg surgery. Would that explain any difference?

Pardon all these questions, I've always understood ASPD to be both nature and nurture. You are the second person I've come across saying they are 100% made (referring to your first response). The other person was on an internet forum and an angry psychopath (I'm guessing). You are actually backing up your statement with firm information and I appreciate that.

I ask these questions, because they could hold some answers to how reincarnating into those conditions makes some sense.

[Thoughtful]

Interesting. It's my understanding the are both. It's my understanding Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) is ADD/ADHD in its most extreme form. I could be entirely wrong. I know many of the traits and behaviors for ADD/ADHD are also the traits and behaviors for Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). ODD is the precursor to ASPD. If the ODD is not caught and treated it will blossom into ASPD. So, with a questionnaire of traits and behaviors, a person can register as ADHD if they have a certain number of traits. The more traits, the more severe the ADD/ADHD until they have enough traits that they are considered to have ODD.

There is a certain amount of nature in there. I also said that the ODD can blossom into ASPD if it is not caught and treated. I'm currently interpreting that to mean that the parents can be kind, loving, imperfect parents who are in denial and refuse to believe that it is impossible for a person to not have a glimmer of compassion or experience emotions the same way they do. Since they are in denial, the ODD is never caught and treated.

I don't know where you're getting this. There is some research indicating that ADHD diagnosed in childhood may be an indicator of personality disorders later in life (adolescence). However the statistical connection between ASPD and ADHD is weakest compared to the others. The most common comorbid personality disorder is Borderline. All of the other personality disorders individually have a statistical power that is at least double that of ASPD in terms of cooccurrence with ADHD.

And though there is a correlation there, it's not saying one causes the other, but that they sometimes are both diagnosed in the same person. To compound it, most psychologists will not diagnose personality disorders in young children as the risks of doing so outweigh benefits. A diagnosis of lesser severity, like ADHD, is more likely to be given to a child than something like bipolar disorder or a personality disorder -- so in the cooccurring cases, one of the dx may be incorrect.

ADHD is a neurological difference. ODD is a behavioral problem, a type of conduct disorder. They are separate and distinct problems that may also be co-occurring.

The children I work with who have ODD typically have a very significant history of adverse childhood experiences, often a combination of abuse, neglect, trauma, frequent transitions, inconsistent parenting, parents with mental illness, poverty, prenatal alcohol exposure etc etc etc.

Children with ADHD tend to have a parent who was the same way (hyperactive and unable to focus on things that don't interest them) and now has a physically oriented job where movement isn't a barrier to functioning the way it is in school.

ODD as a precursor to ASPD sounds more possible/ plausible but I don't know enough about it in my branch of psychology. It has face validity.

Nevertheless, I've also worked with enough ODD children that I can't say any of them had NO empathy. In fact there's one I worked with in the past who stands out as an extremely empathetic individual, but didn't wanna get told what to do. He would avoid following directions using empathy (pointing out bullying victims and making a case for them) as a way to get out of work.

I will say that severe abuse doesn't produce "average" children, it produces damaged children who process that damage in a variety of dysfunctional ways. Harming animals, other children, becoming sexually reactive (even if sexual abuse didn't happen to them) are all within the behavioral profile of children coming from a background of abuse or neglect. Children who are sexually reactive and untreated may often grow up to become predators.

I don't think abuse/ neglect are the only possibilities though. Self centered parents have produced some of the least empathetic, most manipulative, and unidimensionally focused children I've ever seen.

Thank you for this.

There is only one point I want to clarify. Children can start out average and post-abuse come out traumatized, but not average. I still maintain there are those who will choose to continue that abuse as adults and those who will not. Choosing to not abuse doesn't mean they are average or not traumatized.

I was not at all saying that children who are abused always perpetrate the cycle, become ODD, or have ASPD. I work with trauma a lot, and it manifests in many different ways. And I can't say 100%. But 100% of the ODD dysfunction I did see is a product of adverse childhood experiences. (Which aren't always abuse). Genetic propensity is usually things like OCD, ADHD, and other neurological stuff. The conduct disorders, major depression, suicidality, and personality disorders are usually an apparent product of trauma. And there are children who have ACES but don't have obvious problems as well.

[Thoughtful]

Actually, if you're game, I do have a question.

If a psychopath can be made, as you state, that implies they can be unmade, as well.

It's my understanding that they cannot be changed. At all. If you're not a mental health professional, just stay the hell away from them.

Also, is it possible for two children raised in the same environment and one turn out to have ASPD and the other not? Or do they all develop ASPD? Joseph Smith is considered by many on this site to have been a sociopath. Are those same characteristics evident in any of the information we have about his siblings? He had some sisters who married and, as far as I know fell off the radar. They apparently didn't believe their brother. I know Joseph had a singular traumatic experience as a child that none of the others had, his leg surgery. Would that explain any difference?

Pardon all these questions, I've always understood ASPD to be both nature and nurture. You are the second person I've come across saying they are 100% made (referring to your first response). The other person was on an internet forum and an angry psychopath (I'm guessing). You are actually backing up your statement with firm information and I appreciate that.

I ask these questions, because they could hold some answers to how reincarnating into those conditions makes some sense.

I'll try to come back to this from a keyboard. I've heard some interesting reincarnation stories, incidentally about traumatic deaths, from kids with no personal history of trauma.

Epigenetics says nurture is nature as well, to compound it, and generational trauma is a thing. But estimates are as high as 20% of people have some level of sociopathy. Not all are serial killers, rapists, etc.

Its impossible to psychoanalyze someone post mortem, but I tend to think JS was more likely narcissistic or using drugs or both, maybe even a gifted healer. I think his works indicate a some level of empathy -- but also power corrupts, everything is about sex, except sex and that's about power....

[Give It Time]

I was not at all saying that children who are abused always perpetrate the cycle, become ODD, or have ASPD. I work with trauma a lot, and it manifests in many different ways. And I can't say 100%. But 100% of the ODD dysfunction I did see is a product of adverse childhood experiences. (Which aren't always abuse). Genetic propensity is usually things like OCD, ADHD, and other neurological stuff. The conduct disorders, major depression, suicidality, and personality disorders are usually an apparent product of trauma. And there are children who have ACES but don't have obvious problems as well.

I surmise from a statement like psychopaths are made, rather than born, that it would be reasonable to conclude that all the children raised by the same set of parents would have ASPD to one degree or another. I was wondering if that was true.

Crap I'm glad I asked this question. It went an entirely different direction from what I was expecting, but I'm learning a lot and I appreciate your taking the time to explain these things.

[Give It Time]

I'll try to come back to this from a keyboard. I've heard some interesting reincarnation stories, incidentally about traumatic deaths, from kids with no personal history of trauma.

Epigenetics says nurture is nature as well, to compound it, and generational trauma is a thing. But estimates are as high as 20% of people have some level of sociopathy. Not all are serial killers, rapists, etc.

Its impossible to psychoanalyze someone post mortem, but I tend to think JS was more likely narcissistic or using drugs or both, maybe even a gifted healer. I think his works indicate a some level of empathy -- but also power corrupts, everything is about sex, except sex and that's about power....

I have recently read an estimate that sub-clinical psychopaths are somewhere in the range of 5-15% of the population, so 20% seems credible and like something people in the field don't want us to know, yet.

It's my understanding epigenetics can only move the needle so far.

I'll express my next thoughts on a fresh post.

[Give It Time]

My personal views on all this.

I have come to appreciate Taoism as a guiding philosophy. The areas where it needs rounding out, I've borrowed a little bit from Zen Buddhism. I'm still young on my path, but it's my understanding that Taoists view reincarnation as an aspect of nature, not a burning off of karma, as the Buddhists do. However, I've read some thoughts that do lend a certain amount of plausability to the idea of reincarnation and I want to explore that possibility, just a bit.

My mother never said she believed in reincarnation, but she had deja vu about two places she had never been. One place she recognized as she and my father drove through it for the first time. She was able to tell him that around the corner was a certain kind of business or building and she'd be right.

People find out about the philosophies I follow and ask me if I know anything about my past lives. I tell them I hope reincarnation isn't true, because one go-round of this life is enough for me. Just as I hoped polygamy wouldn't be true when I was TBM, I hope reincarnation won't be true now that my guiding philosophy is Taoism.

My question stems from a co-worker of mine who has been hellacious. I don't know if she's a psychopath, but once you get past her initial quiet friendliness, she sure is a mean little pallas-cat shrew. Especially, if she sees you as being in the way of her ambitions. I try not to take my work home and it sure isn't worth letting this person have any kind of rent-free space in my head, but in an effort to cope with this, I've contemplated this in terms of reincarnation.

I have no desire to come back and visit this treatment upon her she has upon me. I just really want to wash my hands of her. I have no desire to be karmically tied to her. Then, I wondered what she did in a previous life to earn her present point of view with it's attendant behaviors and the whole reincarnation question in light of this just kind of stuck in my craw.

As far as the psychopathy is concerned, it is up to 20% of the population. Avoiding them may be a good idea, but that's pretty much impossible. Better to have a plan in place for dealing with them when interaction is necessary. What I've considered to be the best advice I've read is to accept the fact that there are people like this, be cool and professional with them. If working with them is a necessity, try to negotiate win-wins that make them look good. Then, finally, just stay the hell away from them.

[Thoughtful]

I was not at all saying that children who are abused always perpetrate the cycle, become ODD, or have ASPD. I work with trauma a lot, and it manifests in many different ways. And I can't say 100%. But 100% of the ODD dysfunction I did see is a product of adverse childhood experiences. (Which aren't always abuse). Genetic propensity is usually things like OCD, ADHD, and other neurological stuff. The conduct disorders, major depression, suicidality, and personality disorders are usually an apparent product of trauma. And there are children who have ACES but don't have obvious problems as well.

I surmise from a statement like psychopaths are made, rather than born, that it would be reasonable to conclude that all the children raised by the same set of parents would have ASPD to one degree or another. I was wondering if that was true.

Crap I'm glad I asked this question. It went an entirely different direction from what I was expecting, but I'm learning a lot and I appreciate your taking the time to explain these things.

Not necessarily, because even in the same household, the environments and learning history between children are different. Parents don't treat their children the same.
For example, I experienced trauma that my siblings did not. I was a parentified child and suffered some neglect, but my siblings were rather spoiled, etc.

[Thoughtful]

I'll try to come back to this from a keyboard. I've heard some interesting reincarnation stories, incidentally about traumatic deaths, from kids with no personal history of trauma.

Epigenetics says nurture is nature as well, to compound it, and generational trauma is a thing. But estimates are as high as 20% of people have some level of sociopathy. Not all are serial killers, rapists, etc.

Its impossible to psychoanalyze someone post mortem, but I tend to think JS was more likely narcissistic or using drugs or both, maybe even a gifted healer. I think his works indicate a some level of empathy -- but also power corrupts, everything is about sex, except sex and that's about power....

I have recently read an estimate that sub-clinical psychopaths are somewhere in the range of 5-15% of the population, so 20% seems credible and like something people in the field don't want us to know, yet.

It's my understanding epigenetics can only move the needle so far.

I'll express my next thoughts on a fresh post.

Epigenetics is so new, we don't really know how it all shakes down. But the available choices can only express genes that are present in an individual.

[Thoughtful]

My personal views on all this.

I have come to appreciate Taoism as a guiding philosophy. The areas where it needs rounding out, I've borrowed a little bit from Zen Buddhism. I'm still young on my path, but it's my understanding that Taoists view reincarnation as an aspect of nature, not a burning off of karma, as the Buddhists do. However, I've read some thoughts that do lend a certain amount of plausability to the idea of reincarnation and I want to explore that possibility, just a bit.

My mother never said she believed in reincarnation, but she had deja vu about two places she had never been. One place she recognized as she and my father drove through it for the first time. She was able to tell him that around the corner was a certain kind of business or building and she'd be right.

People find out about the philosophies I follow and ask me if I know anything about my past lives. I tell them I hope reincarnation isn't true, because one go-round of this life is enough for me. Just as I hoped polygamy wouldn't be true when I was TBM, I hope reincarnation won't be true now that my guiding philosophy is Taoism.

My question stems from a co-worker of mine who has been hellacious. I don't know if she's a psychopath, but once you get past her initial quiet friendliness, she sure is a mean little pallas-cat shrew. Especially, if she sees you as being in the way of her ambitions. I try not to take my work home and it sure isn't worth letting this person have any kind of rent-free space in my head, but in an effort to cope with this, I've contemplated this in terms of reincarnation.

I have no desire to come back and visit this treatment upon her she has upon me. I just really want to wash my hands of her. I have no desire to be karmically tied to her. Then, I wondered what she did in a previous life to earn her present point of view with it's attendant behaviors and the whole reincarnation question in light of this just kind of stuck in my craw.

As far as the psychopathy is concerned, it is up to 20% of the population. Avoiding them may be a good idea, but that's pretty much impossible. Better to have a plan in place for dealing with them when interaction is necessary. What I've considered to be the best advice I've read is to accept the fact that there are people like this, be cool and professional with them. If working with them is a necessity, try to negotiate win-wins that make them look good. Then, finally, just stay the hell away from them.

The caveat being that not all sociopaths are harmful or dangerous to the public. Self centered, unempathetic, antisocial, manipulative even... But if what they are motivated to be seeking poses no threat to you, they could be harmless. I mean, for every Ted Bundy, there's probably a thousand or more of the other type that is maybe focused on shoplifting PS3 games.

[Give It Time]

I was not at all saying that children who are abused always perpetrate the cycle, become ODD, or have ASPD. I work with trauma a lot, and it manifests in many different ways. And I can't say 100%. But 100% of the ODD dysfunction I did see is a product of adverse childhood experiences. (Which aren't always abuse). Genetic propensity is usually things like OCD, ADHD, and other neurological stuff. The conduct disorders, major depression, suicidality, and personality disorders are usually an apparent product of trauma. And there are children who have ACES but don't have obvious problems as well.

I surmise from a statement like psychopaths are made, rather than born, that it would be reasonable to conclude that all the children raised by the same set of parents would have ASPD to one degree or another. I was wondering if that was true.

Crap I'm glad I asked this question. It went an entirely different direction from what I was expecting, but I'm learning a lot and I appreciate your taking the time to explain these things.

Not necessarily, because even in the same household, the environments and learning history between children are different. Parents don't treat their children the same.
For example, I experienced trauma that my siblings did not. I was a parentified child and suffered some neglect, but my siblings were rather spoiled, etc.

Makes a lot of sense. My sister and I are ten years apart. With her, my parents were still figuring out their parenting style. By the time I came along, they had developed and honed that style. She has started many a story with, "you know how our parents would..." and I'd say, "no, with me they would...". There are enough of these stories it's almost as if we were raised by a different set of parents.

[Give It Time]

I'll try to come back to this from a keyboard. I've heard some interesting reincarnation stories, incidentally about traumatic deaths, from kids with no personal history of trauma.

Epigenetics says nurture is nature as well, to compound it, and generational trauma is a thing. But estimates are as high as 20% of people have some level of sociopathy. Not all are serial killers, rapists, etc.

Its impossible to psychoanalyze someone post mortem, but I tend to think JS was more likely narcissistic or using drugs or both, maybe even a gifted healer. I think his works indicate a some level of empathy -- but also power corrupts, everything is about sex, except sex and that's about power....

I have recently read an estimate that sub-clinical psychopaths are somewhere in the range of 5-15% of the population, so 20% seems credible and like something people in the field don't want us to know, yet.

It's my understanding epigenetics can only move the needle so far.

I'll express my next thoughts on a fresh post.

Epigenetics is so new, we don't really know how it all shakes down. But the available choices can only express genes that are present in an individual.

This makes a lot of sense. This is why I think it is dangerous for the church or any religion to think they can change a person. There is only so much change that will occur.

[Give It Time]

My personal views on all this.

I have come to appreciate Taoism as a guiding philosophy. The areas where it needs rounding out, I've borrowed a little bit from Zen Buddhism. I'm still young on my path, but it's my understanding that Taoists view reincarnation as an aspect of nature, not a burning off of karma, as the Buddhists do. However, I've read some thoughts that do lend a certain amount of plausability to the idea of reincarnation and I want to explore that possibility, just a bit.

My mother never said she believed in reincarnation, but she had deja vu about two places she had never been. One place she recognized as she and my father drove through it for the first time. She was able to tell him that around the corner was a certain kind of business or building and she'd be right.

People find out about the philosophies I follow and ask me if I know anything about my past lives. I tell them I hope reincarnation isn't true, because one go-round of this life is enough for me. Just as I hoped polygamy wouldn't be true when I was TBM, I hope reincarnation won't be true now that my guiding philosophy is Taoism.

My question stems from a co-worker of mine who has been hellacious. I don't know if she's a psychopath, but once you get past her initial quiet friendliness, she sure is a mean little pallas-cat shrew. Especially, if she sees you as being in the way of her ambitions. I try not to take my work home and it sure isn't worth letting this person have any kind of rent-free space in my head, but in an effort to cope with this, I've contemplated this in terms of reincarnation.

I have no desire to come back and visit this treatment upon her she has upon me. I just really want to wash my hands of her. I have no desire to be karmically tied to her. Then, I wondered what she did in a previous life to earn her present point of view with it's attendant behaviors and the whole reincarnation question in light of this just kind of stuck in my craw.

As far as the psychopathy is concerned, it is up to 20% of the population. Avoiding them may be a good idea, but that's pretty much impossible. Better to have a plan in place for dealing with them when interaction is necessary. What I've considered to be the best advice I've read is to accept the fact that there are people like this, be cool and professional with them. If working with them is a necessity, try to negotiate win-wins that make them look good. Then, finally, just stay the hell away from them.

The caveat being that not all sociopaths are harmful or dangerous to the public. Self centered, unempathetic, antisocial, manipulative even... But if what they are motivated to be seeking poses no threat to you, they could be harmless. I mean, for every Ted Bundy, there's probably a thousand or more of the other type that is maybe focused on shoplifting PS3 games.

True and reassuring, actually.

[Mad Jax]

This makes a lot of sense. This is why I think it is dangerous for the church or any religion to think they can change a person. There is only so much change that will occur.

I have said almost nothing about this since returning and maybe it's time. So here's a thought on that.

I've very recently concluded a six month therapy course in order to treat a pretty severe mental illness (schizophreniform disorder). I hope my silence on that subject isn't seen as dishonesty. Having undergone it in no way makes me an expert on psychiatry, psychology, or neuroscience nor am I claiming it does. Nevertheless I've experienced how antipsychotic medication (loxapine) combined with real therapeutic self examination and cognitive recognition techniques can effectively build healthy neurological pathways and diminish the unhealthy ones.

Without delving too much into the details of the process (which is fascinating, but would divert too much) the trouble is that it takes such brutal honesty and unpleasant realization of where you are psychologically and in my case, a painfully obvious lack of maturity and ownership of past mistakes. Of recognizing sources of distress and trauma in the past and, rather than bury them, letting your mind pass through them and over them and learning to immunize yourself against the mind viruses of that which wounds us. All of these are much more difficult than the escapism of indulgent griping, or tantric sexual encounters, or chemically inducing a stupor, or cathartic violence.

So change is very hard, or at least is for me, but I believe it is possible if one possesses:

1. The desire to do so above one's desire to maintain their ego.
2. The correct path and principles that will guide the change.

I think number two is more malleable, as what may work for one may not work for another. I think you are correct that few religions offer this in the right way. Certainly the differences between the church (You have committed sins, and they have removed you from God, but may find atonement at the hands of a mediator) are not the same as that of therapy (There is no such thing as sin, but mistakes do have consequences, and there is no atonement but what you make). I can say that the former doesn't work for me and that's all I can say about it. It may work for others.

Few people will change and I agree that few will change because of the church. But I hold to the belief that redemption is possible for almost anybody if they really desire it, even the most unlikely of people.

[Give It Time]

This makes a lot of sense. This is why I think it is dangerous for the church or any religion to think they can change a person. There is only so much change that will occur.

I have said almost nothing about this since returning and maybe it's time. So here's a thought on that.

I've very recently concluded a six month therapy course in order to treat a pretty severe mental illness (schizophreniform disorder). I hope my silence on that subject isn't seen as dishonesty. Having undergone it in no way makes me an expert on psychiatry, psychology, or neuroscience nor am I claiming it does. Nevertheless I've experienced how antipsychotic medication (loxapine) combined with real therapeutic self examination and cognitive recognition techniques can effectively build healthy neurological pathways and diminish the unhealthy ones.

Without delving too much into the details of the process (which is fascinating, but would divert too much) the trouble is that it takes such brutal honesty and unpleasant realization of where you are psychologically and in my case, a painfully obvious lack of maturity and ownership of past mistakes. Of recognizing sources of distress and trauma in the past and, rather than bury them, letting your mind pass through them and over them and learning to immunize yourself against the mind viruses of that which wounds us. All of these are much more difficult than the escapism of indulgent griping, or tantric sexual encounters, or chemically inducing a stupor, or cathartic violence.

So change is very hard, or at least is for me, but I believe it is possible if one possesses:

1. The desire to do so above one's desire to maintain their ego.
2. The correct path and principles that will guide the change.

I think number two is more malleable, as what may work for one may not work for another. I think you are correct that few religions offer this in the right way. Certainly the differences between the church (You have committed sins, and they have removed you from God, but may find atonement at the hands of a mediator) are not the same as that of therapy (There is no such thing as sin, but mistakes do have consequences, and there is no atonement but what you make). I can say that the former doesn't work for me and that's all I can say about it. It may work for others.

Few people will change and I agree that few will change because of the church. But I hold to the belief that redemption is possible for almost anybody if they really desire it, even the most unlikely of people.

Wow!

Thank you for sharing this. It was unbelievably brave and I admire both your journey and your posting.

See. This gives me hope. Not for this woman or my ex or anything like that, but for very selfish reasons. Me. Today was stake conference and I availed myself of the opportunity to play hooky.

While I was driving around, I was thinking of this thread. I am so blastedly imperfect. As I proceed through life solo and go back to who I was before I married, but not, because there's so much water under the bridge, but I'm rediscovering the nascent me and I don't like everything I'm rediscovering. I was thinking about the idea of how the needle can only be moved so much and getting kind of discouraged.

Your journey is by no means easy. The authenticity. The seeking help. The holding your feet to the fire. Just amazing. However, it shows it's possible. Thank you for this.

I looked, but couldn't find an emoji of a good Chinese bow. I hope this'll do.

[Thoughtful]

This makes a lot of sense. This is why I think it is dangerous for the church or any religion to think they can change a person. There is only so much change that will occur.

I have said almost nothing about this since returning and maybe it's time. So here's a thought on that.

I've very recently concluded a six month therapy course in order to treat a pretty severe mental illness (schizophreniform disorder). I hope my silence on that subject isn't seen as dishonesty. Having undergone it in no way makes me an expert on psychiatry, psychology, or neuroscience nor am I claiming it does. Nevertheless I've experienced how antipsychotic medication (loxapine) combined with real therapeutic self examination and cognitive recognition techniques can effectively build healthy neurological pathways and diminish the unhealthy ones.

Without delving too much into the details of the process (which is fascinating, but would divert too much) the trouble is that it takes such brutal honesty and unpleasant realization of where you are psychologically and in my case, a painfully obvious lack of maturity and ownership of past mistakes. Of recognizing sources of distress and trauma in the past and, rather than bury them, letting your mind pass through them and over them and learning to immunize yourself against the mind viruses of that which wounds us. All of these are much more difficult than the escapism of indulgent griping, or tantric sexual encounters, or chemically inducing a stupor, or cathartic violence.

So change is very hard, or at least is for me, but I believe it is possible if one possesses:

1. The desire to do so above one's desire to maintain their ego.
2. The correct path and principles that will guide the change.

I think number two is more malleable, as what may work for one may not work for another. I think you are correct that few religions offer this in the right way. Certainly the differences between the church (You have committed sins, and they have removed you from God, but may find atonement at the hands of a mediator) are not the same as that of therapy (There is no such thing as sin, but mistakes do have consequences, and there is no atonement but what you make). I can say that the former doesn't work for me and that's all I can say about it. It may work for others.

Few people will change and I agree that few will change because of the church. But I hold to the belief that redemption is possible for almost anybody if they really desire it, even the most unlikely of people.

Change is a process, not an event. And, no one changes unless conditions are right for it to occur. Perhaps for some (many) it's psychotropics, or cognitive restructuring. For a few it might be church.

I hate the quote by Packer that studying the gospel changes people faster than psychology does. Nothing changes anyone without the environment (including sometimes genes, neurotransmitters, hormones) being able to change.