Psychopathic cannibals

[Lerxst]

I started a colony of nothing but psychopaths. They butchered a couple tribals and at them for dinner in between farming. They were upset over the cannibalism...?

Seems to me, cannibalism shouldn't affect psychopaths in one way or the other. Meat is meat, so why the sudden moral dilemma when it's a person?

[akiceabear]

Just because some is a serial murderer/sadist doesn't mean they actually enjoy eating human flesh. I think the system makes sense as is.

[blub01]

well, they should neither get a penalty nor a bonus, as they don't enjoy it, but they don't really care about it, either.

[b0rsuk]

One of reasons cannibalism is taboo is because there's increased chance of getting human parasites and diseases. When you eat pork, veal or fish many parasites are filtered out right away because your body is too different. For the same reason human shit is not used as fertilizer. Not because we have a shortage of it.

[akiceabear]

well, they should neither get a penalty nor a bonus, as they don't enjoy it, but they don't really care about it, either.

Again, I disagree - being a psychopath hardly implies being a cannibal or even being "ok" with eating human flesh. They are too very different conditions.

[blub01]

being a psychopath means you don't give a sh*t about what happens to other people - meaning it is unlikely that a psychopath cares about a human being killed and butchered for his dinner.

[JesterHell]

Assuming that psychopath mean sociopath you might have a case in that they shouldn't view it as immoral and therefore not get a mood penalty.

I decided to google both term and this link stands out.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath

The author of the article says "Leading experts disagree on whether there are meaningful differences between the two conditions. I contend that there are clear and significant distinctions between them."

So there seems to be some conjecture in the field between the professionals so unless your a professional yourself and have done the studies I would say that the "Leading experts disagree" part hold most sway... this is especially true when psychopath and sociopath are not clinical terms, both are categorized under the banner of "antisocial personality disorder" with the distinction being only in symptoms.

This article I said sociopaths are hot-headed and psychopaths are cold-hearted but both lack empathy or morality with this being more pronounced in psychopaths.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference?page=2

So while I don't think psychopaths are inherently cannibalistic I don't think they would have an issue with cannibalism.

[b0rsuk]

Psychopaths may not eat human flesh out of health concerns.

[Keychan]

Just because a Psychopath doesn't care for anyone else doesn't mean they will eat anyone.  They care only about themselves and could care less about who he's butchering.  That doesn't mean that person particularly enjoys eating other people, they would still think "That's disgusting" or "I'm not suppose to be eating this."  Two different conditions that can both go hand-in-hand and not.  You could be cannibalistic, but not psychopathic because you care for your own people and others, but only eat the flesh of the fallen enemy (a cultural example.) You could be psychopathic, but not cannibalistic because you just don't care about others.  You only care about yourself, simply it.  Jimmy's head may be on your dinner plate, yeah you don't care that it was him or he was the most caring person, but you would still find it revolting that someone wants you to eat a person.  It's just natural for humans not to eat others, even if you have a mental illness to not care for others, you'd still think it's not best for you to eat them.

[StorymasterQ]

Put it this way, psychopaths may not care about others, but they do care about themselves, and eating human flesh is a bad way to care for one's self (due to the previous mentions of diseases).

[JesterHell]

Jimmy's head may be on your dinner plate, yeah you don't care that it was him or he was the most caring person, but you would still find it revolting that someone wants you to eat a person.  It's just natural for humans not to eat others, even if you have a mental illness to not care for others, you'd still think it's not best for you to eat them.

Why is eating human meat revolting?

At best I can see A psychopath acting as if their revolted to hide their true nature but being genuinely revolted would require feeling that its wrong on some level.

Psychopaths may not eat human flesh out of health concerns.

Put it this way, psychopaths may not care about others, but they do care about themselves, and eating human flesh is a bad way to care for one's self (due to the previous mentions of diseases).

To say that the heath concerns would stop a psychopath is something I find that doubtful not only do most people not know of these issues but I've read a couple psychology articles and the consensus I got was that sociopaths are concerned about taking risks but but are hot-headed while psychopaths don't suffer stress or anxiety about risk taking and cold-hearted and calculating.

I think its unlikely that a psychopath would be so concerned about the health issues of cannibalism as to suffer a mood penalty.

[b0rsuk]

The word 'sociopath' has largely replaced 'psychopath', because the media and journalists abused the phrase 'psychopatic killer' until 'psychopath' meant exclusively a killer in public awareness. It's similar to how most people think "hacker" means a "computer thief" to public.

[blub01]

it might be an interesting notion to actually consider the health concerns in game, and maybe make cooks use human flesh last?(if they don't already do that)

[Songleaves]

A lot of people are not so much "morally" opposed to cannibalism, but just grossed out by it, similar to how people are grossed out by the idea of eating "pet animals" like dogs and cats. Similarly, psychopaths can be grossed out by things just like normal people. Source: am psychopath.

[JesterHell]

The word 'sociopath' has largely replaced 'psychopath', because the media and journalists abused the phrase 'psychopatic killer' until 'psychopath' meant exclusively a killer in public awareness. It's similar to how most people think "hacker" means a "computer thief" to public.

Sociopaths and psychopaths are both "antisocial personality disorder" just with different symptoms, what the general public think is largely irrelevant, its like necromancy means to divine the future from the dead not control the undead and anybody who say other wise is technically incorrect.



that being said I understand that ultimately language evolves and the meaning of words change though popular usage so your point does stand and I prefer to ignore the "correct" use of necromancy, I just like being contrary 

A lot of people are not so much "morally" opposed to cannibalism, but just grossed out by it, similar to how people are grossed out by the idea of eating "pet animals" like dogs and cats. Similarly, psychopaths can be grossed out by things just like normal people. Source: am psychopath.

this is interesting, where you diagnosed by a professional psychiatrist? because the official term is "antisocial personality disorder" which is a catchall for both sociopaths and psychopaths.

The reason I ask Is because from what I've read its far more likely that you'd be a sociopath then a psychopath if you find something like cannibalism "Gross" as that seem like an emotional or gut reaction.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference

"A psychopath doesn't have a conscience. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won't feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. He may observe others and then act the way they do so he's not "found out," Tompkins says."

"A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it's weak. He may know that taking your money is wrong, and he might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won't stop his behavior."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath

"Many sociopaths are able to form an attachment to a particular individual or group, although they have no regard for society in general or its rules. In the eyes of others, sociopaths will appear to be very disturbed. Any crimes committed by a sociopath, including murder, will tend to be haphazard, disorganized and spontaneous rather than planned."

"Psychopaths, on the other hand, are unable to form emotional attachments or feel real empathy with others, although they often have disarming or even charming personalities. Psychopaths are very manipulative and can easily gain people's trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature."

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2015/02/12/differences-between-a-psychopath-vs-sociopath/

"Psychopaths, in general, have a hard time forming real emotional attachments with others. Instead, they form artificial, shallow relationships designed to be manipulated in a way that most benefits the psychopath. People are seen as pawns to be used to forward the psychopath's goals. Psychopaths rarely feel guilt regarding any of their behaviors, no matter how much they hurt others."

"Sociopaths, in general, tend to be more impulsive and erratic in their behavior than their psychopath counterparts. While also having difficulties in forming attachments to others, some sociopaths may be able to form an attachment to a like-minded group or person. Unlike psychopaths, most sociopaths don't hold down long-term jobs or present much of a normal family life to the outside world."



Now none of this means your not a psychopath but it does make me question it.