In today’s world there is a much more scientific and social understanding to identifying sociopaths and psychopaths. Compared to times like the Middle Ages and the Renaissance there is a much more concrete definition for these distinct personalities. Understanding what we now know, sometimes when you learn history it really makes you wonder if some people in the past were textbook defined sociopaths or psychopaths. It surely played a role back then as we see noticeable characteristics such as extreme deceitfulness all throughout older novels like the Decameron, written by Giovanni Boccaccio in 1353. Were these characters bordering the line to this mental disorder? Sociopaths and psychopaths have their differences, yet even back then they stuck out in a crowd. All throughout history there have been stories told of dark human beings with crude thoughts and personalities that make you shiver.
…show more content…
Seen throughout present day Hollywood to times as old as the Decameron, writers have given their characters distinctive attitudes to capture the audience in wonder of what they’ll do next. Within the Decameron, Third Day, First Story, the protagonist of the story uses extreme deceit to manipulate nuns into getting what he wants. This trait of manipulation is something both psychopaths and sociopaths share. Yet, while they have similarities, these two personalities differ in large ways. When being compared to sociopaths, it is found that psychopaths take more calculated risks. Psychopaths are more self-controlled than sociopaths- who often take action from spontaneity rather than planning and analyzing. One large factor that determines a psychopath is the idea that they were handed down the predisposition to be who they are, feel what they feel- or actually, feel nothing. A sociopath’s illness is contrastingly depending on their environment and upbringing. Back in the early 1990s a test called The Hare Psychopathy Checklist was created to analyze the level of an individual’s psychopathic inclinations. This test is one of many that has been used to develop an understanding of a person’s mental likelihood to be a palpable psychopath. Compared to a psychopath, a sociopath is assumed to be the more dangerous and compulsive of the two. …show more content…
A sociopath is not likely to be able to hold down a steady job, commonly switching from small low level jobs all throughout their lives. They are known to be able to form attachments to particular individuals or groups. Yet, a psychopath is unable to form any bond whatsoever to another individual. A famous presumed psychopath in history is Sergi Nechayev (born in 1847), a Russian radical who was well known for his extensive lies and manipulation during his life. Back in his time period, the nineteenth century, antisocial personality disorder was labeled as moral insanity. His legacy of terror shows how mental illness has shown no mercy over the decades. Overall the two personalities are defined as two different antisocial personality disorders. Among this they also compare in the fact that neither personality can feel remorse or guilt. Pain to others is seemingly unbothersome and unimportant. Some would define this as basic selfishness, yet sociopathy and psychopathy take on another level of mercilessness. Unlike other mental disorders, these are seemingly ongoing and have no definite cure. Individuals with personality disorders are extremely stuck in their pattern of coping and with their traits. They are majorly inflexible to changing the style that they
Seen throughout present day Hollywood to times as old as the Decameron, writers have given their characters distinctive attitudes to capture the audience in wonder of what they’ll do next. Within the Decameron, Third Day, First Story, the protagonist of the story uses extreme deceit to manipulate nuns into getting what he wants. This trait of manipulation is something both psychopaths and sociopaths share. Yet, while they have similarities, these two personalities differ in large ways. When being compared to sociopaths, it is found that psychopaths take more calculated risks. Psychopaths are more self-controlled than sociopaths- who often take action from spontaneity rather than planning and analyzing. One large factor that determines a psychopath is the idea that they were handed down the predisposition to be who they are, feel what they feel- or actually, feel nothing. A sociopath’s illness is contrastingly depending on their environment and upbringing. Back in the early 1990s a test called The Hare Psychopathy Checklist was created to analyze the level of an individual’s psychopathic inclinations. This test is one of many that has been used to develop an understanding of a person’s mental likelihood to be a palpable psychopath. Compared to a psychopath, a sociopath is assumed to be the more dangerous and compulsive of the two. …show more content…
A sociopath is not likely to be able to hold down a steady job, commonly switching from small low level jobs all throughout their lives. They are known to be able to form attachments to particular individuals or groups. Yet, a psychopath is unable to form any bond whatsoever to another individual. A famous presumed psychopath in history is Sergi Nechayev (born in 1847), a Russian radical who was well known for his extensive lies and manipulation during his life. Back in his time period, the nineteenth century, antisocial personality disorder was labeled as moral insanity. His legacy of terror shows how mental illness has shown no mercy over the decades. Overall the two personalities are defined as two different antisocial personality disorders. Among this they also compare in the fact that neither personality can feel remorse or guilt. Pain to others is seemingly unbothersome and unimportant. Some would define this as basic selfishness, yet sociopathy and psychopathy take on another level of mercilessness. Unlike other mental disorders, these are seemingly ongoing and have no definite cure. Individuals with personality disorders are extremely stuck in their pattern of coping and with their traits. They are majorly inflexible to changing the style that they