Which types are most likely to be sociopaths/psychopaths?

Which types do you think would be most prone to becoming socoipaths/psycopaths?

I don't believe it is related to type. It's a neurological disorder. Not to mention the fact that psychopaths cannot answer the questions honestly - my psychopath ex-friend did the MBTI test and got ESFJ, didn't like the description (it didn't fit him at all), looked through other types and took the test again. He came out an ENTJ, which is probably the type psychopaths would most like to be (with their 'motto' on typelogic being "I'm sorry you have to die" or something similar.

Plus psychopathy manifests before the age of 15, usually much earlier, so I'm not sure their type could fully develop before their mental disorder set in.

Originally Posted by Pillow

I don't believe it is related to type. It's a neurological disorder. Not to mention the fact that psychopaths cannot answer the questions honestly - my psychopath ex-friend did the MBTI test and got ESFJ, didn't like the description (it didn't fit him at all), looked through other types and took the test again. He came out an ENTJ, which is probably the type psychopaths would most like to be (with their 'motto' on typelogic being "I'm sorry you have to die" or something similar.

Plus psychopathy manifests before the age of 15, usually much earlier, so I'm not sure their type could fully develop before their mental disorder set in.

You chose your second preference in childhood before you become a teenager, and 2 functions is all one needs to have a type.

Originally Posted by Unicorntopia

You chose your second preference in childhood before you become a teenager, and 2 functions is all one needs to have a type.

True, but it wouldn't be as fully developed as a 4-letter type would it? You wouldn't have time to settle in to your functions before they were countered by factors of the disorder, such as lack of empathy.

The reason I say this is that all psychopaths seem to be basically the same. It almost seems like a separate type in itself - they have the variations within type that the MBTI types have, but they generally have the same fundamental characteristics.

*votes INTJ* Fiction has told me so.

In actuality, I'm not sure if psychopathy is linked to type. Plus, I would think that if type had something to do with it, the psychopaths would more likely be a certain type instead of a certain type being more likely to be a psychopath.

Originally Posted by Pillow

True, but it wouldn't be as fully developed as a 4-letter type would it? You wouldn't have time to settle in to your functions before they were countered by factors of the disorder, such as lack of empathy.

The reason I say this is that all psychopaths seem to be basically the same. It almost seems like a separate type in itself - they have the variations within type that the MBTI types have, but they generally have the same fundamental characteristics.

Read this: Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type (Beebe model)

An Ni dom can onkly be INTJ or INFJ because the second function choosen must be one of opposite attitued (external/internal) and cannot be percieving if it has already chosen a perciving function as it first. It must be an evaluation function. there is only one type with Ni in first postion and Fe in second position, INFJ, regardless of developement after they choose a second function preference.

Carl Jung said neurosis are from when someone choses to supress any function and/or orientation/attitude. he did not even bother to type healthy individuals. So, it could be said that it is the one with the neurosis that has a type and the one without a neurosis that does not have a type, roughly.

Originally Posted by Unicorntopia

Read this: Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type (Beebe model)

An Ni dom can onkly be INTJ or INFJ because the second function choosen must be one of opposite attitued (external/internal) and cannot be percieving if it has already chosen a perciving function as it first. It must be an evaluation function. there is only one type with Ni in first postion and Fe in second position, INFJ, regardless of developement after they choose a second function preference.

Carl Jung said neurosis are from when someone choses to supress any function and/or orientation/attitude. he did not even bother to type healthy individuals. So, it could be said that it is the one with the neurosis that has a type and the one without a neurosis that does not have a type, roughly.

Thanks, ok that makes a lot more sense now. Have you read Hervey Cleckley's book on psychopaths? He gives case studies of a number of different psychopaths in the 1950s, and they are all very similar. Maybe the slight variations are due to variations in type? I don't think that it would be easy for your type to come through if you didn't have empathy or other 'normal' emotions. How would you even notice, for example, a secondary F function if you had no empathy, couldn't understand how others perceive you, and didn't really care about the well-being of yourself or anyone else?

My 2 cents:

I don't think psychopaths can have any Jungian type at all. (Although they can imitate any type)

Firstly, they can change their personality completely, on a whim or to suit their interests.

Also, if you think about it, they can be neither Thinkers nor Feelers. Since they have no concern for truth or accuracy whatsoever, they can't be Ti doms, and since they don't care for any kind of external criteria of judgment or organization, such as authority (and especially authority), they can't be Te doms. I think it's also quite obvious why they can't be Fe or Fi doms (please tell me it's obvious).

As for Intuitives and Sensors. While they can be novel in their approaches to getting what they want, they never do anything novel for the sake of novelty, like Ne doms. They don't consider any perspectives except their own to be valid or even worthy of consideration which rules out Ni dominance. As for Si, they can abandon and/or destroy anything that one might think would be important or have personal value to them, as soon as it becomes even slightly inconvenient. They can change their lifestyles literally overnight. This goes completely contrary to Si values. Finally, we arrive at Se dominance. Se is the attitude reacting immediately to stimulus. Or just "going with the flow". Psychopaths generally don't do this in the same way. While they are impulsive, that doesn't mean that they're "going with the flow". They actively monitor every aspect of the impression they want to give you, which is not at all like "going with the flow". I think Se doms will agree with me on this, but I must admit that my understanding of Se is sort of vague.

Originally Posted by Pillow

Thanks, ok that makes a lot more sense now. Have you read Hervey Cleckley's book on psychopaths? He gives case studies of a number of different psychopaths in the 1950s, and they are all very similar. Maybe the slight variations are due to variations in type? I don't think that it would be easy for your type to come through if you didn't have empathy or other 'normal' emotions. How would you even notice, for example, a secondary F function if you had no empathy, couldn't understand how others perceive you, and didn't really care about the well-being of yourself or anyone else?

No, I actually have not read much on sociopaths. Carl Jung believed there were "Four Functions of Consciousness." I don't know that a person can exist without being conscious. F does not equal empathy. F means making decisions based on feelings. A person can decide to cut someone because it hurts their feelings. What if that is what the psychopath considers "winning." Regardless of whether or not someone feels guilt and knows right from wrong, they still have to make decisions concsiously. If someone pays concsious attention to "impressions made directly through his senses" rather than "intuiting potentialities, hidden relationships, intentions, and possible sources," then they would experience the world as a sensing type. It has nothing to do with being a good or bad person, unless people start descriminating based on congnitive functions.

Originally Posted by Unicorntopia

No, I actually have not read much on sociopaths. Carl Jung believed there were "Four Functions of Consciousness." I don't know that a person can exist without being conscious. F does not equal empathy. F means making decisions based on feelings. A person can decide to cut someone because it hurts their feelings. What if that is what the psychopath considers "winning." Regardless of whether or not someone feels guilt and knows right from wrong, they still have to make decisions concsiously. If someone pays concsious attention to "impressions made directly through his senses" rather than "intuiting potentialities, hidden relationships, intentions, and possible sources," then they would experience the world as a sensing type. It has nothing to do with being a good or bad person, unless people start descriminating based on congnitive functions.

I know that F is making decisions based on feelings, I was saying that if psychopaths have no empathy and can only really feel anger, they would rarely be making decisions based on feelings. They cannot understand other people's feelings, even though they often say they can. Some good examples:

A psychopath in our research said that he didn't really understand what others meant by fear. "When I rob a bank," he said, "I notice that the teller shakes. One barfed all over the money. She must have been pretty messed up inside, but I don't know why. If someone pointed a gun at me I guess I'd be afraid, but I wouldn't throw up." When asked if he ever felt his heart pound or his stomach churn, he replied, "Of course! I'm not a robot. I really get pumped up when I have sex or when I get into a fight."

They are completely indifferent to the rights and suffering of family and strangers alike. If they do maintain ties, it is only because they see family members as possessions. One of our subjects [a psychopath] allowed her boyfriend to sexually molest her five-year-old daughter because "he wore me out. I wasn't ready for more sex that night." The woman found it hard to understand why the authorities took her child into care

So maybe in the second one you could say the woman was making the decisions based on her own feelings, but I would say it was more based on her lack of feelings and lack of understanding of feelings, if it was even based on feelings at all. In the first example, the guy clearly doesn't understand what it is to be scared, and you can't make decisions based on something you don't understand. The only 'emotion' he seems to understand is 'adrenaline'. In fact, psychopaths often equate lust with love, adrenaline with fear, etc. If you wanted to read that book it is online here and is very well-written.

They also seem to make most of their decisions based on slight whims (if you read the book you will see what I mean). They will decide to run away from home because they walked out of the door and just didn't stop. They will decide to go on a trip around Europe because they heard a rumour that an ex-girlfriend may possibly be in Europe. They don't make decisions in the normal way of thinking about them and having reasons for doing them (even though they sometimes profess to do so). Their 'impulses' are as strong as a summer breeze - you know when you're in a really boring meeting and you have a thought that you'd like to stand up and run out screaming or something? That is equivalent to their strongest impulse.

I think the problem here is that I haven't read enough about MBTI and you haven't read enough about psychopaths, so we're approaching it from 2 completely different angles!