Writing Exercise: Off -kilter

[rowyn]

Only two exercises left in the "bad writing" section. Aww! I think I'm gonna miss these.


The next one is "compose a response to a neighbor's complaint about your early-morning bagpipe practice, as if you were a sociopath".


Dear Neighbor:

I am most dreadfully sorry to learn that you and your family do not enjoy my the bagpipe concerts I give at 4AM in my living room. The bagpipe is, truly, one of the most magnificent of instruments. I find that, whenever other people cannot appreciate it, tragedy, inevitably, follows.

Perhaps you will enjoy the process of constructing a bagpipe more: the tender care that goes into crafting the bladder, from only the very finest and most supple of leathers. Have I mentioned what soft skin your young daughter has? Bagpipes nowadays use a variety of substances for the reed -- synthetics are popular -- but I find nothing gives quite the resonance that bone does. You drink a lot of milk, don't you?

In any case, I am sure you will come around in time. Hopefully, you will find tomorrow's 2AM concert on your lawn more to your liking. If not, I hope you will use the enclosed skin conditioners and calcium supplements. Good preparation can never start too early!

Yours truly,
Donald McGillavry

---

The last exercise is "make up and write your own bad writing exercise". Haven't decided on one yet, but I'm leaning towards "poodling up" a straightforward paragraph. Or maybe I'll do a really, really bad MUCK character @desc. >:)

Comments

[caffeinewabbit.livejournal.com]

Okay, the milk and calcium supplement suggestions are pure genius. :D

I still think, though, that I have the worst MUCK @desc on file somewhere. It was really long, really offensive, and absolutely hysterical.

Re:

[rowyn]

The bone-milk-calcium idea was an afterthought -- it just needed something more, y'know? :)

So, was the @desc one written as a joke or one that you saw someone else wearing in apparent seriousness? >:)

Re:

[caffeinewabbit.livejournal.com]

It was some freak wearing it in all seriousness. Furry is a SCARY place...

Re:

[rowyn]

It is indeed! Did you ever find the desc? :) You've got me all curious ....

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

AAAAUUUUUUUUUUGH!

Yes, very, very sociopathic. Or psychopathic. (What's the difference, anyway? I use too many words I don't know the exact meaning of.)

Re:

[rowyn]

Hmm.

A little research suggests that sociopath/psychopath are largely interchangeable terms, meaning people who have no conscience, no empathy, no emotional content -- basically, no recognition that other people have any value at all. Best distinction I've seen between the two would be here: "The term psychopath is usually used to describe a mental illness, the sociopath is an individual who habitually violates known norms and laws."

Accordingly, all sociopaths are psychopaths, but some psychopaths do not actually violate laws and therefore they're not sociopaths. But I don't know how widely accepted that distinction is.

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

*slowly, carefully backs away from you...*

(Translation: You did REALLY well.)

Re:

[rowyn]

Why, thank you. Would you like to try some moisturizing lotion? :>

[level-head.livejournal.com]

Oho! I have no bones to pick with you. ];-)

===|==============/ Level Head

Re:

[rowyn]

Showing your impeccable taste, as always, sir. ;)

(grins)

[ex-strangess744.livejournal.com]

You know, it's a pity there's no money to be made doing bad writing...that you could bear to make (thinks of the last many hollywood movies and shudders)

Thank you for giving Kirzen and I a laugh.

As far as I can tell after some reading, psychopathy is the state of having mental pathology relating to anti-social behaviour....callousness, manipulativeness, disregard for rules, etc.

There is still considerable debate on just what the nature of this pathology is. Most of the effort is in finding categories of behaviour that clump together. Anti-social personality disorder in the DSM-IV essentially is just a measurement: are you adult, have you behaved in a somewhat or largely psychopathic manner in the past, have you become at least a little worse with time, and are you free of delusions and other basic perceptual issues that could derange your judgement.

As you might see, this doesn't say anything about why they do what they do or what their internal experiences in common with each other are.

An ironic aside, attempts to treat people who meet these criteria usually make them worse, by giving them more literacy in the mindsets of those they seek to use, abuse, or evade. Changing their motivation is an unlikely prospect; insofar as it may have success, it seems to come from trying to make them understand on a visceral level that they are responsible for their actions, and that their lives are not random collections of reactions and impulses.

But to answer the original question, what is the difference between psychopath and sociopath...first, psychopath is an old psychiatric term. It used to be in a vague category, moral insanity.

In contemporary use, it relates to the Hare(sp?) Psychopathy scale....it was derived about 1980 and represents the best behavioural classification of who can be considered chronically and pervasively anti-social.

To describe psychopathic behaviour clinically and try to define treatment or analytical outlines, the DSM IV and ICD-10 both use or derive from the scale. Neither guide mentions the term "sociopath" or "psychopath"; psychopathy is merely the litmus of identifiable (and hopefully but not definitely useful) disorders related to anti-social behaviour.

However, criminologists _do_ use the words, and it seems the they are just different styles of criminal behaviour. Sociopathy is more about narcisism and a total lack of limits in whatever behaviour they adopt to sate their needs.

Psychopaths are less common and are sort of a sub-category or parallel category....they're most of what you (acurately) mentioned as defining aspects of a sociopath, but whereas the sociopath is satisfied to live a mostly normal life, with some private wrongdoings in the pursuit of gratification, the psychopath sees what they want...and they find the shortest path to that. The only thing that deters them is if the shortest path is still too much hassle for them. (being incarcerated being seen mostly as a nuiscance, ultimately)

This generally thrusts them into the criminal strata because they simply often feel that something violent or otherwise illegal is worth their time and effort as a means to their ends.

In exceptionally violent and lawless regions, they are sometimes able to channel this "can do", relentless ruthlessness into getting legitimacy among peers and forming political or military organizations based upon their "man on a white horse" agenda to fulfill brutal but commonly held aspiration.

I mentioned this to emphasize that ironically their traits are not entirely bad....it's just their goals that are messed up because of the empathy and lack of responsibility issues. Unfortunately, that's a rather large "just". Swaying them to this sort of reordering of their lives is almost precluded by their nature.

Which to me implies that if you can reliably identify them, you might as well either kill them or lock them up in perpetuity. But that's a reflection of my own pathologies (wry smile)

Re: (grins)

[rowyn]

You should've made that a response to Greywolf's comment -- it's much more informative than my own brief note.

I'm glad you and Kirzen enjoyed it. I should've known that the genteel homicidal piper would entertain you. ;)