> If your position is that all convincing self-accounts by psychopaths are themselves only convincing because the psychopath is somehow 'tricking' you, then you can take that statement and s/psychopath/any group you care to name/ and you'd never know the difference.
Don't believe me? Try substituting various bogeymen of the twentieth century: crack dealers, pedophiles, etc. You see what I mean? It always works: You shouldn't trust what pedophiles say because, well, they're pedophiles!
Your logic chop fails because one of the elements of psychopathy is being a convincing liar.
Not just a convincing liar, but one with a propensity for manipulation and a lack of empathy. Because of that, I think tomstoke's analysis is unique to sociopaths/psychopaths, and you cannot simply insert any bogeyman.
What you just described is not a lie. It would be a lie if you were a martian having no understanding in how humans operate. The question "Does my bum look big in this?" may be a factual inquiry about the qualities of the chosen garment or may be a solicitation of a social interaction expressing support and admiration, due to the feelings of insecurity or needing external validation. Yes, I know it sounds the same, humans are complex. But calling such social interaction "a lie" just because it is not a factual exchange is IMO misunderstanding the whole process and devaluing the term "lie".
But these lies are exactly why psychopaths lie. They start by telling the truth, and realising it doesn't work. They learn to lie. They discover that does work. They then use this technique and apply it to everything. Lies become more than the social oil that everyone uses to avoid offence, lies become a tool of manipulation.
I still have no idea what you're trying to say. I don't have an abundance of trust for psychopaths, pedophiles, or crack dealers. I've worked very closely with psychopaths (one was also a pedophile) in an institutional setting in the past. I had to assume that every interaction was a manipulation. Even being extremely careful, it was easy to get caught from time to time particularly when I was understaffed (i.e. 1 staff to 3 clients).
Reading the top parent of this thread was very interesting because he was thinking in exactly the way I had been conditioned to think at that time in my life.
When a person in your life lies to you or manipulates you, you will certainly begin to question the value of other interactions from that person. Once you have confirmed that the person has a personality type that makes them particularly likely to lie or manipulate (compulsive liars, psychopaths, criminals, what have you), you must be careful about your interpretation of any communication. But here's the real difficulty: If a psychopath is trying to manipulate you and knows that you are conscious of it, the manipulations morph. They adapt to your particular defense. In the institutional setting, they're in it for the long haul so they don't mind missing a couple times. In fact, getting caught is often part of the manipulation.
I wandered off my initial topic here so I better wrap it up.
vanderzwan: I'm intentionally dealing with public-paranoia stereotypes: The pedophile on the hunt; the crack dealer at the schoolyard; etc. etc. I meant 'pedophile', and used this charged word, specifically to pick out how our reactions often blind us; but in doing so, I myself equivocated between illness and criminality. Ew. Thanks for catching that.
I'm not sure if I would lump in "successful criminal" - which implies doing something criminal - with a mental sickness (sexual attraction to children) that may or may not actually be acted upon.
Your logic chop fails because one of the elements of psychopathy is being a convincing liar.