My understanding is that it means the subject is unable to weigh the effects of their actions on others and so will as readily hurt people as not.
(I fiddled with the wording of that sentence several times, and I'm still not totally happy with it. Hopefully you get what I mean.)
Harm can be known objectively.
Values relating to harming or not seem independent
of empathy, ie, some of those with it enjoy the harm
they cause.
Ultimately it boils down to choices one makes.
Not the psychological state that underlies those choices.
Interesting. Almost a contradiction. He behaves in a psychopathic way. Yet he recognizes that and decides it's wrong, which he is not supposed to be able to do if he is truly psychopathic. Why would he want to change, if he doesn't care about those he hurts? As you say, shades of grey. One thing sociopaths are reportedly good at is recognizing patterns of social behavior that "normal" people exhibit, and mimicking them very successfully. Doesn't seem to be the case here though.
I blame popular culture for creating the image of all
sociopaths & psychopaths as Hannibal Lector or
Norman Bates. I've actually known at least one of
that type. (He's securely locked away now.)
But I also know many "abnormal" people who pose
no problem at all...at least by my values.
I'm not sure what this means. It suggests a truism, that things are rarely totally anything, but what is the alternative mechanism?
It means that one needn't be neurotypical to
peacefully live in their world. Socialization can
come more naturally for some, & more analytically
for others. Is one superior to the other?
I see that both fit in the melange of people.
It matters what the person does and the mental processes behind his decisions are secondary, but not irrelevant.
I'll agree.
Relevance arises if problems do.
I mean no offense, and don't know you at all other than what I read here. This is probably not a good subject for public discussion.
I take no offense whatsoever.
Such conversation is interesting & useful.