I wasn't talking about the consequences causing the child to pursue behavior to modify others. I was talking about the consequences causing the child to pursue understanding of why it happened. I'll remind you of our PMs on FFN were I pointed out the immorality of moving my comments to a more public sphere without permission and you conceded the point. My reaction made you re-examine your own actions and conclude they were wrong from my perspective. That is how a child learns empathy.
I'm not sure you actually understand what sociopathy is.
Sociopathy is a popular and misused term. I'm certain there's an accepted definition of it in the psycology field. I'm equally certain that the mass public has no idea what that definition is and many would disagree that that's what it means. I consider a sociopath to commonly mean a person with consistent intentions that pursue complete self-interest with an amoral lack of concern for any others. I think even with the small group of people we have posting here, we could have a debate about what the term sociopath means with several different viewpoints.
but because it's a disability in the same way that being incapable of love
You're assuming a sociopath is incapable of understanding empathy. Being judged amoral doesn't mean you don't understand what the moral thing to do is or that you don't feel empathy. Merely that you push it aside, much like you would push aside anger when you feel it's not appropriate or is irrational. Which brings me to my next point.
because amorality really doesn't work out well for most people. Because we are a social species. Sociopaths are generally not at all successful in their professional and social lives.
I really don't think anyone's qualified to make that judgement. First of all, the most successful sociopaths we probably don't even know about. Only the sociopaths who are stupid, made mistakes, or deliberately exposed themselves for fame are the ones we know about. Take H. H. Holmes for example. The man was a genius who neatly avoided incriminating himself for dozens or even hundreds of murders and managed to make himself rather rich in the process. He wasn't caught or even pursued until he left one loose end and got arrested for horse theft, of all things.
Quoting from wikipedia: Until the moment of his death, Holmes remained calm and amiable, showing very few signs of fear, anxiety or depression.
Wikipedia does list a source, which I don't have access to. Even if it is just an author making up something to make it more chilling, it still underlines my point. We can't really know for certain whether Holmes was happy with his life. But it sure as hell doesn't look like he regretted it. Same thing for Ted Bundy, who was caught because he got arrested for a stolen car. Intelligent sociopaths are perfectly capable of blending in with society, having functioning marriages, and raising children. Perhaps it was just a cover. Perhaps they did actually care for them (in some cases). Either way, the broad statement that sociopaths are usually failures and are unhappy is not something you can really prove with any reliability unless you have a way to actually get inside a massive amount of peoples thoughts and feelings. Given that many of them don't stop their amoral actions for decades and only do so once they have no other choice actually implies they're quite happy with themselves.
P.S. Damnit, I keep wanting to leave this discussion and getting sucked right back in.
Re: Sociopaths
I'm not sure you actually understand what sociopathy is.
Sociopathy is a popular and misused term. I'm certain there's an accepted definition of it in the psycology field. I'm equally certain that the mass public has no idea what that definition is and many would disagree that that's what it means. I consider a sociopath to commonly mean a person with consistent intentions that pursue complete self-interest with an amoral lack of concern for any others. I think even with the small group of people we have posting here, we could have a debate about what the term sociopath means with several different viewpoints.
but because it's a disability in the same way that being incapable of love
You're assuming a sociopath is incapable of understanding empathy. Being judged amoral doesn't mean you don't understand what the moral thing to do is or that you don't feel empathy. Merely that you push it aside, much like you would push aside anger when you feel it's not appropriate or is irrational. Which brings me to my next point.
because amorality really doesn't work out well for most people. Because we are a social species. Sociopaths are generally not at all successful in their professional and social lives.
I really don't think anyone's qualified to make that judgement. First of all, the most successful sociopaths we probably don't even know about. Only the sociopaths who are stupid, made mistakes, or deliberately exposed themselves for fame are the ones we know about. Take H. H. Holmes for example. The man was a genius who neatly avoided incriminating himself for dozens or even hundreds of murders and managed to make himself rather rich in the process. He wasn't caught or even pursued until he left one loose end and got arrested for horse theft, of all things.
Quoting from wikipedia: Until the moment of his death, Holmes remained calm and amiable, showing very few signs of fear, anxiety or depression.
Wikipedia does list a source, which I don't have access to. Even if it is just an author making up something to make it more chilling, it still underlines my point. We can't really know for certain whether Holmes was happy with his life. But it sure as hell doesn't look like he regretted it. Same thing for Ted Bundy, who was caught because he got arrested for a stolen car. Intelligent sociopaths are perfectly capable of blending in with society, having functioning marriages, and raising children. Perhaps it was just a cover. Perhaps they did actually care for them (in some cases). Either way, the broad statement that sociopaths are usually failures and are unhappy is not something you can really prove with any reliability unless you have a way to actually get inside a massive amount of peoples thoughts and feelings. Given that many of them don't stop their amoral actions for decades and only do so once they have no other choice actually implies they're quite happy with themselves.
P.S. Damnit, I keep wanting to leave this discussion and getting sucked right back in.