I've been thinking about this ... and I'm convinced that this true in certain narratives. Exempli gratia, the narrative of the tribe that has a diseased relationship with other tribes. A sick tribe within the society of tribes. As it were.

When we identify with a tribe, we subordinate our individual humanity to a degree and superordinate the collective humanity of the tribe, to a degree. We lose independence to a degree of both mind and heart. We become tribal animals to a degree and cease being individual humans, to a degree.

But is that necessarily sociopathic?

Well, if a tribe is sociopathic, e.g. has a parasite-host relationship with other tribes ... then yes, we are sociopaths if we identify with that tribe. To a degree.

Question begs, what degree of sociopathy is acceptable?

Any degree?

No degree?

Full degree?

Question begs further: are no degree and full degree even possible?

If not, what degree of sociopathy is a threshold degree, e.g. to effect crossover from the arena of empaths to the arena of sociopaths, in the general understanding of the terms? Is there a specific threshold point? Or a threshold cloud?


Pax

ps: With such wide latitude in our understandings of sociopathy, is it any wonder that those among us born to mischief have an easy time glossing over threshold distinctions between empaths and sociopaths ... in advance of twisting the failings of empaths into accusations of sociopathy.

Are you spamming the forum, Zook?

You keep starting these new, mindless threads rather than continue the discussions in the threads where you are receiving a number of severe paddlings.

This new topic is just more BS, trying to pin people down on the dividing line between saints and sociopaths. We all know it's a bell curve, and that there is no real dividing line. It's not binary, Mr. Black & White. Why would you attempt to move us into that kind of sophistry? More gatekeeping, perhaps?