Toilet thoughts: Thought experiment

[ConcubusBunny]

Lol well thank you.

I noticed you didn't mention E so I will explain my reasoning there a little further. (I kind of glossed over it.) E is afraid to mess up. This means that while they likely feel like some of what A has done is their fault, E is more hyper-aware of consequences for messing up, or killing people. This makes them feel partially responsible, but also motivates a distance between themselves and A because they fear the consequences for killing.

Interesting, you have a knack for getting to understand characters very effectively.

I actually didn't want to add this, but I want to see how you'll interpret this.

Same scenario and characters but A-F are heartless who've long since forgotten the value of a person's life.
What will be your new interpretation of A-F

 

[Biggest-Kusa-Out-There]

Okay, first A would never find them useless and even if they were also A is there to be closer to them their skill gap has nothing to with A's reasoning also no the A stays a psychopath.

For your understanding A and the others have messed up multiple times but A never saw the use in Killing them, cause murdering them never even crossed their mind.
As for the plot armor bit, they're all murders, they aren't upset by why they killed but more on the the method they used to secure their safety.
I was actually hoping someone to point out the flaws in A's thought coupled with the unavoidable misunderstanding that both A and B-F but for some reason you're all hung up on if A will murder their friends, when that's not even part of the possibilities I put there.

That's like saying my character is non-binary and then claim they identify as male, then try and reinvent the term nonbinary and use it in my story for shits and giggles while claiming the character is nonbinary while simultaneously having a set, solid male egos.
If you want a psychopath, they will/should/have to/must/shall abandon people and find them useless if they don't further their goals, and consider murder to solve the issue if they actively endanger their goal. Otherwise you're claiming a nonbinary person identifies as male. The whole point is to not do that. You can't have a psychopath that cares for other people. They are simply no longer a psychopath. Use another word. Invent one if necessary. Either that or simply avoid psychopathy at all.

 

[ConcubusBunny]

That's like saying my character is non-binary and then claim they identify as male, then try and reinvent the term nonbinary and use it in my story for shits and giggles while claiming the character is nonbinary while simultaneously having a set, solid male egos.
If you want a psychopath, they will/should/have to/must/shall abandon people and find them useless if they don't further their goals, and consider murder to solve the issue if they actively endanger their goal. Otherwise you're claiming a nonbinary person identifies as male. The whole point is to not do that. You can't have a psychopath that cares for other people. They are simply no longer a psychopath. Use another word. Invent one if necessary. Either that or simply avoid psychopathy at all.

Okay first off it ain't the same thing also what did I tell in the beginning.
Also I'm not doing the media popularized version of a psychopath, I'm doing from my understanding of what the word means, also why? I don't see why my psychopath can't see their friends as important to them or not exactly care that they mess up or not.

 

[greyblob]

consider murder to solve the issue if they actively endanger their goal.

Not all psychopaths are violent. And murder should always be a last ditch effort. There are easier ways to get rid of someone. So unless that character is violent or has shown similar tendencies before, it doesn't need to be considered unless their back is against a wall.

 

[ConcubusBunny]

Why do you tell me something is something... only to say it's not?

If "they have little to no emotions and they don't know how to process someone with one" is supposed to be the only statement you make about A, why add the "psychopath" in the full expectation that people will misunderstand?

It's like I told you to imagine something as green, then added that everything but mint is wrong.


Forum interest in your novel is by no means lacking, but towards getting more useful feedback, clearer questions can be extremely helpful.

Glad it's not just me!

Look towards Viator's comment, I wanted more like what they commented on. That's what I wanted to get from this thread.

 

[Biggest-Kusa-Out-There]

Okay first off it ain't the same thing also what did I tell in the beginning.
Also I'm not doing the media popularized version of a psychopath, I'm doing from my understanding of what the word means, also why? I don't see why my psychopath can't see their friends as important to them or not exactly care that they mess up or not.

What I'm referring to is the psychoanalitic view of psychopath. The one that people learn of in university. The educated version, if you will. The one that can and will tell you from experience that your understanding of a psychopath is flawed, misrepresenting, and harming because it's not too dissimilar from the already existing image in popular media. Nonbinary people don't choose their identity on the fly as you would a jacket. They are born that way and should have their identity respected, similar to neurodivergent people should have a proper representation based on the relevant field of study, not however you want it to work.
My bad if I'm coming off as aggressive, but it doesn't work the way you think. They just don't care because they can't. Period. That's not debatable, there is no spectrum. Research and find what you mean so you can avoid mislabeling a group of misunderstood people in today's society and come up with a rich and enjoyable character instead of one that will feel off.

Not all psychopaths are violent. And murder should always be a last ditch effort. There are easier ways to get rid of someone. So unless that character is violent or has shown similar tendencies before, it doesn't need to be considered unless their back is against a wall.

About that:

A few hour later D saves a civilian running from a monster which A promptly kills without even batting an eye, the others are greatly disturbed by this unwarranted and unusual show of ruthlessness by A.
A explains that that it'd be bad if someone in town found out about them and admits to have killed a lot of people behind their backs on the off chance that they might mess up and get themselves in trouble.

 

[greyblob]

About that:

I was speaking on your statement alone. Honestly, I haven't read any of the purple blocks of text. I've given up on OP a long time ago - at least on this subject. I think they just want the edginess associated with psychopaths, which is quite ironic considering this:

Also I'm not doing the media popularized version of a psychopath

 

[Biggest-Kusa-Out-There]

I was speaking on your statement alone. Honestly, I haven't read any of the purple blocks of text. I've given up on OP a long time ago - at least on this subject. I think they just want the edginess associated with psychopaths, which is quite ironic considering this:

The comment had a lot of context, so yeah.

 

[greyblob]

The comment had a lot of context, so yeah.

I dont think it mentioned anything of the scenario? But either way, I agree with everything else you said.

 

[ConcubusBunny]

I think they just want the edginess associated with psychopaths

That was never my intention.
I never wanted to do the edgy version that most people have when thinking of a psychopath, but more on the what a person would actually go through.
This was less of an edgy psychopath killing people and more of the psychological effect it'll have on a person who wished to understand others or to feel what they feel even for a second, but will never get the chance.
I want to explore what said person would do to sorta bridge the gap of their actions not quite translating to their intentions.

 

[greyblob]

That was never my intention.
I never wanted to do the edgy version that most people have when thinking of a psychopath, but more on the what a person would actually go through.
This was less of an edgy psychopath killing people and more of the psychological effect it'll have on a person who wished to understand others or to feel what they feel even for a second, but will never get the chance.
I want to explore what said person would do to sorta bridge the gap of their actions not quite translating to their intentions.

Then you're being obtuse on purpose. You asked what people think what psychopathy is, and every answer you got contradicted your own - some even went as far as reciting sources.
You're doing exactly what you're preaching against: using the term just for the sake of using it. Psychopaths are so cool, cold, and collected. They hurt their enemies, but they're also nice to their friends - and they'd never hurt them.
There is really no point in arguing any further on this subject. What was said in the other thread is what the term really means - not what's portrayed by the media - and you can do your own research and find out.
But that won't happen, and this conversation doesn't matter. You have a certain view in mind of what a psychopath should be that goes against what's known about them - as if you were one yourself.

I realize this is futile, but you can watch The House That Jack Built or Hannibal, the series or the films. It should give you some idea about what you're trying to portray here.
Edit: There's also one episode of House about a psychopath. It's pretty interesting as well. And American Psycho, of course.

 

[Plantorsomething]

Whoa, you did it! The thing I was longing for and you, beautiful user you!
Also I should've put that B is A's best friend. B would understand more than anyone else, but still feel like shit and try to boost their confidence down the line.
C,B & D would mostly do as you theorized.
A and F's love on the other hand isn't about how good the other one looks but more of how they treat each other.
A being the emotionless brick that could never understand anyone and F being friends with other psychopaths and understanding their troubles faster than F ever would.
Don't worry too much about not having this info prior I actually did this to see how people react to the info given above, the results were less than satisfactory.

Alexithymia is a trait in which a person has trouble recognizing and expressing their own emotions, and difficulty understand others’ emotions. It can be developed as the result of ptsd or trauma inducing events. I think this is what you actually want to portray, and the way you describe the character fits severe alexithymic traits a lot.

Writing trauma and emotionless characters are hard, really hard. I get it, personally. Because of that, it’s really tempting to sometimes just wing it and go off a general vibe after reading a few listed traits. It’s easier after all. It’s just that some people find it really sketchy to use a real mental disorder as a trope instead of the actual real life implications and issues that these people have. Psychopathy has enough misconceptions as it is, and doesn’t need even more bad representation and stigma. Like I said, you don’t necessarily have to rewrite the character entirely. Your character seems to exhibit a lot of alexithymic traits rather than psychopathic ones. Or you can research real psychopathy. Good on you for trying to write someone that thinks differently than yourself in the first place!

To answer your question, I think A and F need to be slow and honest and have a completely no-judgement discussion. after that F would help A understand the others and a vice versa, acting as a mediator of sorts.

 

[Viator]

Whoa, you did it! The thing I was longing for and you, beautiful user you!
Also I should've put that B is A's best friend. B would understand more than anyone else, but still feel like shit and try to boost their confidence down the line.
C,B & D would mostly do as you theorized.
A and F's love on the other hand isn't about how good the other one looks but more of how they treat each other.
A being the emotionless brick that could never understand anyone and F being friends with other psychopaths and understanding their troubles faster than F ever would.
Don't worry too much about not having this info prior I actually did this to see how people react to the info given above, the results were less than satisfactory.

Lol well thank you.

I noticed you didn't mention E so I will explain my reasoning there a little further. (I kind of glossed over it.) E is afraid to mess up. This means that while they likely feel like some of what A has done is their fault, E is more hyper-aware of consequences for messing up, or killing people. This makes them feel partially responsible, but also motivates a distance between themselves and A because they fear it's consequences

Interesting, you have a knack for getting to understand characters very effectively.

I actually didn't want to add this, but I want to see how you'll interpret this.

Same scenario and characters but A-F are heartless who've long since forgotten the value of a person's life.
What will be your new interpretation of A-F

Well, assuming the new parameters, A-F would probably be together under the understanding they share said values, but that's not a guarantee. Any disagreement over A killing people would arise out of its interference with the plans and chosen lifestyle of F, rather than any morality. Instead, each would be with the other out of a sense of shared benefit to their goals. It's possible what holds them together is the shared heartlessness if they recognize it, but it is equally possible that one is ignorant to the other's heartlessness if they are a good enough actor.

In either case, A and F would be a danger to one another if they decided that their partner no longer fit in whatever life they chose. Since A is still doesn't understand emotions, and F might, despite not valuing human life; it potentially makes F the more dangerous of the two. F is far more likely to dispose of A in a high emotional state.

Either of them could also use the other as a scape-goat to get out of a bad situation, but this is more likely with A, as they lack the possible emotional attachment. F might genuinely have feelings for A. Which makes F less likely to cut ties, or kill A immediately when A shows themselves not to be up to the expectations of F.

In the scenario specifically, if F was upset at all, they would likely be upset with A for being more out in the open with his heartless behavior since they make the group more wary of such behavior as a whole, and draw unnecessary attention. But they also might tolerate it because A took the spotlight off them. Or F is simply pretending to be upset. And it fits into the plans of one, or both of them.

 

[ConcubusBunny]

Alexithymia is a trait in which a person has trouble recognizing and expressing their own emotions, and difficulty understand others’ emotions. It can be developed as the result of ptsd or trauma inducing events. I think this is what you actually want to portray, and the way you describe the character fits severe alexithymic traits a lot.

Writing trauma and emotionless characters are hard, really hard. I get it, personally. Because of that, it’s really tempting to sometimes just wing it and go off a general vibe after reading a few listed traits. It’s easier after all. It’s just that some people find it really sketchy to use a real mental disorder as a trope instead of the actual real life implications and issues that these people have. Psychopathy has enough misconceptions as it is, and doesn’t need even more bad representation and stigma. Like I said, you don’t necessarily have to rewrite the character entirely. Your character seems to exhibit a lot of alexithymic traits rather than psychopathic ones. Or you can research real psychopathy. Good on you for trying to write someone that thinks differently than yourself in the first place!

To answer your question, I think A and F need to be slow and honest and have a completely no-judgement discussion. after that F would help A understand the others and a vice versa, acting as a mediator of sorts.

Thanks for the input but that still doesn't fit the character, there is no trauma or ptsd for why they're emotionless, they're just born that way.
Also for F explaining things to A the reason why it won't work is because A just can't understand so they'd go a different route of trying to ease out the unintended situation from a logical stand point.

Lol well thank you.

I noticed you didn't mention E so I will explain my reasoning there a little further. (I kind of glossed over it.) E is afraid to mess up. This means that while they likely feel like some of what A has done is their fault, E is more hyper-aware of consequences for messing up, or killing people. This makes them feel partially responsible, but also motivates a distance between themselves and A because they fear it's consequences

Well, assuming the new parameters, A-F would probably be together under the understanding they share said values, but that's not a guarantee. Any disagreement over A killing people would arise out of its interference with the plans and chosen lifestyle of F, rather than any morality. Instead, each would be with the other out of a sense of shared benefit to their goals. It's possible what holds them together is the shared heartlessness if they recognize it, but it is equally possible that one is ignorant to the other's heartlessness if they are a good enough actor.

In either case, A and F would be a danger to one another if they decided that their partner no longer fit in whatever life they chose. Since A is still doesn't understand emotions, and F might, despite not valuing human life; it potentially makes F the more dangerous of the two. F is far more likely to dispose of A in a high emotional state.

Either of them could also use the other as a scape-goat to get out of a bad situation, but this is more likely with A, as they lack the possible emotional attachment. F might genuinely have feelings for A. Which makes F less likely to cut ties, or kill A immediately when A shows themselves not to be up to the expectations of F.

In the scenario specifically, if F was upset at all, they would likely be upset with A for being more out in the open with his heartless behavior since they make the group more wary of such behavior as a whole, and draw unnecessary attention. But they also might tolerate it because A took the spotlight off them. Or F is simply pretending to be upset. And it fits into the plans of one, or both of them.

Splendidly done yet again, I actually wanted to do something like that but something was missing from this theory the psyche.
You see the fact that they value a person's life or not or abandon one another is an option, but not one I'd ever take.
The experiment at least I can from you was a success, everybody else was too hung up on if the psychopath would abandon their friends or kill them to actually participate.
I actually gave the flaws in hopes someone evaluated in from their psyche point of view, I guess I got work to do

The comment had a lot of context, so yeah.

Look to Viator's comment for what I was expecting to get.

 

[Cipiteca396]

Look to Viator's comment for what I was expecting to get.

To be honest, expecting a specific result from an open ended question is foolish at best, and hubris at worst. You can't expect random people to confirm your opinion, especially if you deny them the information you used to reach that conclusion.

A question like the one you asked is normally used to get an outside perspective, something that would help you get around your own biases and see things from a more objective standpoint.

If you wanted a specific answer, you should have asked a more specific question. I noticed that you edited the original comment to try to be more specific, and that's good. But it still lacks a lot of the details that you'd need to get the response you want.

---

With everything that you've added on and Viator's comments that you seem to enjoy, the only conclusion I can come to is the entire scenario is too contrived to happen. B-F wouldn't get upset at A's actions, nor would they question A's decisions. They would have expected and welcomed it. They never would have saved the random, because it would have interfered with their goals.

If they truly misjudged A, and DO get upset, then they would most likely kill A as I outlined before. In a life or death situation, people become far more dangerous to one another, and A has lost the trust of C-E, and possibly B and F as well.

The thing you seem to have misinterpreted is that everyone is piling on A because they're a psychopath. That isn't the case. The scenario you've outlined would make the other characters stop trusting A. They are the ones whose thoughts are important. Even if A would never, ever harm the others, they have no way of knowing that. They only have their own paranoia and insecurity to rely on. If there's no paranoia, then there's no conflict, and the whole thing is just... what, a misunderstanding?

 

[Viator]

That was never my intention.
I never wanted to do the edgy version that most people have when thinking of a psychopath, but more on the what a person would actually go through.
This was less of an edgy psychopath killing people and more of the psychological effect it'll have on a person who wished to understand others or to feel what they feel even for a second, but will never get the chance.
I want to explore what said person would do to sorta bridge the gap of their actions not quite translating to their intentions.

Can I say I respect your goal here. You want to try to understand a perspective, even if that perspective is controversial, by examining the problem through writing and character analysis.

I think no matter how bad or alien a person's mind seems to the rest of the populace, they are still a human. I am fascinated by how they got to where they are, and what drives them. Because that could've been you, or me. That's why I love character creation. To explore, examine, and theorize a different mind and a different perspective. I honestly believe it gives me patience, and helps me accept others who's views are different from mine. I am always trying to look through another lens.

 

[ConcubusBunny]

To be honest, expecting a specific result from an open ended question is foolish at best, and hubris at worst. You can't expect random people to confirm your opinion, especially if you deny them the information you used to reach that conclusion.

A question like the one you asked is normally used to get an outside perspective, something that would help you get around your own biases and see things from a more objective standpoint.

If you wanted a specific answer, you should have asked a more specific question. I noticed that you edited the original comment to try to be more specific, and that's good. But it still lacks a lot of the details that you'd need to get the response you want.

---

With everything that you've added on and Viator's comments that you seem to enjoy, the only conclusion I can come to is the entire scenario is too contrived to happen. B-F wouldn't get upset at A's actions, nor would they question A's decisions. They would have expected and welcomed it. They never would have saved the random, because it would have interfered with their goals.

If they truly misjudged A, and DO get upset, then they would most likely kill A as I outlined before. In a life or death situation, people become far more dangerous to one another, and A has lost the trust of C-E, and possibly B and F as well.

The thing you seem to have misinterpreted is that everyone is piling on A because they're a psychopath. That isn't the case. The scenario you've outlined would make the other characters stop trusting A. They are the ones whose thoughts are important. Even if A would never, ever harm the others, they have no way of knowing that. They only have their own paranoia and insecurity to rely on. If there's no paranoia, then there's no conflict, and the whole thing is just... what, a misunderstanding?

Thanks this was the type of response I was looking for when I posted this, I'm sorry if the original was harder to understand.
I do find weird that people keep thinking that A or B-F would kill each other that wasn't part of my thought process, neither was the act.
I was more interested on what people would think B-F's thoughts were on the way A handled it.
They were upset by it but not them Killing a civilian but by A thinking that they could save them all the trouble by doing everything themself.

 

[Plantorsomething]

Thanks for the input but that still doesn't fit the character, there is no trauma or ptsd for why they're emotionless, they're just born that way.
Also for F explaining things to A the reason why it won't work is because A just can't understand so they'd go a different route of trying to ease out the unintended situation from a logical stand point.

Splendidly done yet again, I actually wanted to do something like that but something was missing from this theory the psyche.
You see the fact that they value a person's life or not or abandon one another is an option, but not one I'd ever take.
The experiment at least I can from you was a success, everybody else was too hung up on if the psychopath would abandon their friends or kill them to actually participate.
I actually gave the flaws in hopes someone evaluated in from their psyche point of view, I guess I got work to do

Look to Viator's comment for what I was expecting to get.

You don’t have to have trauma to have alexithymic traits, they’re present in 10% of the population. It just so happens that trauma correlates to it. You can also make the connection with aspergers, which a lot of MCs display traits of. Either way, I think presenting something that isn’t psychopathy as psychopathy is pretty harmful, and I think you should reconsider.