1. I've been reading about psychopaths and one thing I read is that they lack the physiological reponses normally associated with fear - pounding heart, dry mouth, muscle tenseness, trembles, stomach butterflies. But, I later read that they have a need for excitement, as many describe doing such things like crime, crazy & dangerous things just for fun/excitement or "thrills". A description by one psychopath after describing something she did is "Christ! What a high!" Well, what physiological responses are associated with this high or thrill? Aren't many of them the same as those associated with fear (a difference being the amount of pleasure experienced)?
2. I also read that one expert's opinion is that psychopaths aren't well suited for dangerous professions. It is said that it is unlikely that they'd make good spies, terrorists, or mobsters, simply because their impulsiveness, concern only for the moment, and lack of allegiance to people or causes make them unpredictable, careless, and undependable - likely to be loose cannons. Well, what about this example: Vincent from the movie Collateral. I know it's Hollywood but I want to get to something (hopefully) well-known. The movie lets you assume that Vincent is from a private-sector security company of ex-Special Forces (or Stasi, ex KGB, whatever). He killed his father at age 12, grew up around foster homes, mental institutions, etc. Max (and, well the director of the movie) describes him as a sociopath (synonymous with psychopath). How would Vincent then be classified, if not a psychopath? Or, if a psychopath, would he be an exception? He obviously is very good at what he does, and, while still impulsive, isn't really careless and recognizes the value of planning and allegiances. What about BTK, Dennis Rader - a "very successful psychopath", with his great attention to detail in planning what he did? Are these people simply different, since (of course) not everyone is the same -- they just have some psychopathic traits?
2. I also read that one expert's opinion is that psychopaths aren't well suited for dangerous professions. It is said that it is unlikely that they'd make good spies, terrorists, or mobsters, simply because their impulsiveness, concern only for the moment, and lack of allegiance to people or causes make them unpredictable, careless, and undependable - likely to be loose cannons. Well, what about this example: Vincent from the movie Collateral. I know it's Hollywood but I want to get to something (hopefully) well-known. The movie lets you assume that Vincent is from a private-sector security company of ex-Special Forces (or Stasi, ex KGB, whatever). He killed his father at age 12, grew up around foster homes, mental institutions, etc. Max (and, well the director of the movie) describes him as a sociopath (synonymous with psychopath). How would Vincent then be classified, if not a psychopath? Or, if a psychopath, would he be an exception? He obviously is very good at what he does, and, while still impulsive, isn't really careless and recognizes the value of planning and allegiances. What about BTK, Dennis Rader - a "very successful psychopath", with his great attention to detail in planning what he did? Are these people simply different, since (of course) not everyone is the same -- they just have some psychopathic traits?