It's really easy if you know nothing of how mental illness works, and not portraying it correctly would alienate many of your readers who have a better grasp of it, or have experienced it. The biggest issue is that sociopath=/=psychopath, and 99.8% of sociopaths don't actively try to mess with people. It's really difficult for psychologists to agree on general "symptoms" of psychopathy. A good antagonist [or character in general] doesn't just inspire one emotion in a reader. Nuances of personality give them features beyond being sinister, and make them realistic.
A personality disorder is a mental illness. And I'd just like to point out that I have multiple personality disorder, and mild schizophrenia. So please, tell me how ignorant I am of mental disorders.
First of all, they are not the same by definition and I think multiple people have already shown they agree with me. Second, having something does not mean you understand it. Did medieval Europeans understand the Black plague? No, that's the reason why it was such a problem. Thirdly, multiple personality disorder is not the name anymore, it's Dissociative Identity Disorder, and that one is a highly suspect diagnosis. I think you've given more reason to believe you don't understand psychology. All this stuff is within google search capacity. The first twenty or thirty results would be enough to show you. I wasn't saying you were ignorant as a whole, just you said ignorant things that unintentionally promote a very negative prejudice. And you didn't address my other two points. Mental illness does not make you bad, so don't phrase it like it does, even if you don't mean that. And sociopathy does not have any connection with enjoying pain. And finally, has anyone else noticed that despite asking you to be sophisticated this forum's spellcheck is only American english and does not recognise numerous unobscure terms in general?
Shouldn't you seek medical help on those problems, btw? I'm concerned that you seem to be maybe too casual about those issues. And, just out of curiosity, what are your alternate personalities called and what are they like? Just a brief description. And have any of your comments on this thread been them acting? (p.s. I'm aware you might only have alternate.)
My understanding of the difference between a successful-in-business sociopath/psychopath and a criminally-insane sociopath/psychopath is childhood trauma...i.e., NOT having a supportive family. It's sad, but probably true, that the trope deplored by @Link the Writer (https://www.writingforums.org/threads/am-i-the-only-one-sick-of-the-villain-with-tragic-backstory-shtick.143234/page-5#post-1406410) is a reflection of reality.
I think it is more complex than that. But generally, a destructive/not caring environment can and probably will enhance any problems which were there before. It can also create problems on its own. And also usually (excepting the occassional exception), it will not make better anything, but only worse.
Absolutely. I was massively oversimplifying. Also to be borne in mind is that mental health isn't about absolutes. There is a spectrum of every behaviour, and we are ALL of us somewhere along that. Classic example is Asperger's/Autism. Most of us are high-functioning autistics, those who are diagnosed (whether professionally or not) are those who are low-functioning...it's the inability to avoid recognition that leads to being diagnosed! The fact that 1 person in 8 in the UK was diagnosed with anxiety in 2013, and around 1 in 270 people worldwide suffer from schizophrenia, and around 1% are psychopaths, indicates that almost anyone COULD end up mentally ill at some time.
So to cut this debate short: We are all of us screwed-up I am not intending to make fun of people who genuinely have problems with their mentality (or who make problems for others), but just everyone of us is in some way above/beyond the 'norm' in some area. After all, a 'norm' is just a mathematical expression which is exact. And exactness is simply not being achieved by ANY human.
Didn't Stephen King once say that we all were insane, only some of us are just being honest about it?
Aspergers/autism and psycopathy are personality disorders, they're not classified as mentally ill. Mentally ill is not something any good number of people can innately be unless something is wrong. that is one of it's key aspects. Mental illness is abnormal. It's a problem, not the norm. It's kind of silly to suggest that all of a species is suffering from malfunctioning. Sure, we have diversity, and some of that for some of us is personality disorders. And many people go through temporary anxiety disorders or some or actual mental health problem. But the notion that in any way we are describable as all mentally ill is preposterous. I'm sorry to be kind of a buzzkill, but you're saying it as if it is true on some level, despite the joking tones.
In terms of mathematics it IS TRUE. Look up the definition of 'norm', it is taught in class. And I am not sorry at all to take out my personal swat for the fly, either In my post I didn't refer specifically to mental illness - just read what the words say and not what is called up as mental picture for you. I only told the fact that every human is divers from all others. Not more not less (okay I admit to joking a bit about it but that is because I like my personal kind of screwed-up ).
Sociopaths and psychopaths are not the same thing - and like every "personality" there is a broad spectrum. But in general the essential difference is that psychopaths can't differentiate between right and wrong - they're only focus is on their own satisfaction and pleasure. This doesn't mean they are necessarily bad just don't expect them to care about anyone else. Sociopaths however can tell right from wrong - its just that right and wrong for them is different to right and wrong for society in general. Again this doesn't mean they are bad it just means that their moral compass is slightly askew from everyone else. A sociopath will do something society considers wrong because they believe its the right thing to do or because they see it as justice. A psychopath will do it because it makes them feel good. This is essentially the difference as far as I understand it. But getting back to the original question - I believe the best villains are the ones that think they are doing the right thing or that they are saving the world or mankind or however you want to think of it. This creates the conflict between the protagonists ideology and the antagonists. It may also draw some readers into sympathising with the villain if they can see it from the villain's point of view. POV is extremely powerful in terms of biasing your audience. History is always written by the victors as they say and one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist - we still see it in the world today. So depending on whether you want a sympathetic villain or not if they believe they are right it can take your story in a totally different direction. I read an article recently in relation to Star Wars that argued depending on your point of view the Jedi were actually an oppressive fascist conservative group policing the galaxy in order to quash any potential dissidence. Just a few thoughts I had - didn't intend this post to be so long sorry if I bored people!!
I don't want to be too skeptical, but I've discussed Dissociative Identity Disorder with some of the personalities of the writer L.B. Lee (or group of writers, I guess you'd say.) One of the biggest things that pissed them off was people like Andy Blake who pretend to have DID, and one of the common factors of folks like Blake is that they often get the symptoms of DID confused with the symptoms of schizophrenia. (For instance: http://lb-lee.livejournal.com/641886.html) Schizophrenia and DID can be comorbid, so I'm not accusing you of anything. It's just something that came to mind.
Autism can also be a disorder on the more severe end of the spectrum. My sister cannot live unassisted or convey complex thoughts through speaking or writing. But she can understand really complicated requests and do hygiene on her own. Mental spectrums and disorders are broad and individualistic, but are often given incorrect symptoms/features. Like how everyone assumes autistics are savants. Fortunately the Internet exists, and you can educate yourself on certain mental illnesses. With the forum or imageboard environment, you can often hear it straight from the people affected.
Tha That's kind of what I was talking about when it said it was highly suspect. It's been under suspicion for a while now. They're(psychologists) considering dumping it.
Well, you'd have to work out why they want to take over the kingdom. The usual reason historically is because of a need to sustain oneself: empires expanded in order to feed its citizens so they would continue to serve those in power. However, there are other possible reasons. Perhaps they saw the Kingdom as a threat, or that it was running in a bitterly inefficient manner or perhaps purely because of ethnic hatred. As for the question of psychopathy, it's well known that those in power are more likely to be psychopaths. This is due to 1) psychopaths tend to be better at handling power due to lack of empathy and 2) psychopaths are more drawn to the idea of domination and controlling others (I believe it's also argued we all are but are restrained by our empathy and social norms). However, that doesn't have to mean that your villain is a psychopath naturally. Perhaps they started with good intentions but because politics forces uncomfortable situations, they were led to become more ruthless. Perhaps the reason the kingdom is 'dark' is an attempt to prevent a greater darkness or is an act of revenge? Also, it's important to remember that you don't have to stick with a single villain, especially when they're in power. People delegate so you could take some ideas you like into one character then take some different ideas into one of their lieutenants.
I don't psychopaths are necessarily incapable of moral sense. That's why many of them are normal. It's like half the population. It's more of a reduced empathy I think, the result depends on the rest of you, although strong cases are going to be unlikely to be good.
You might be able to frame some of the obsessive traits as personality issues, but autism includes sensory and communication problems that go far beyond that. It even has some associations with epilepsy. We can all be described as limited or flawed. Whether that counts as a mental disorder is another matter.
Autism Spectrum Disorder is classified as a personality disorder group and not a mentap illness. This is simply a fact. And perfection doesn't exist. A lack of perfection is not a malfuctioning so no, we're not all mentally I'll.
The DSM-IV classed both Asperger's syndrome and autistic disorder under Axis 1, along with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and mental retardation. In contrast, personality disorders were filed under Axis 2. The DSM-V removed that sharp, categorical divide between the two realms, but one can hardly compare the pervasive cognitive and sensory differences of autism to a bit of excessive selfishness or rumination. Would you consider Tourette's syndrome a personality disorder as well? As for the comment on perfection, high blood pressure is a very common physical problem, and Alzheimer's disease becomes extremely common past seventy or eighty. Should they no longer be classed in medical terms?
http://www.behavior-consultant.com/aspergers.htm. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/12/18/confusing-aspergers-with-mental-illness-and-mental-illness-with-evil/. http://www.asmonline.org/autism.asp. Furthermore, my point about perfection was that we are all imperfect. Some conditions being common does not invalidate the idea that we are not malfunctioning for being imperfect.
It's a developmental disability. It affects personality, but that is far, far from the only realm it touches. We're talking about something (Asperger's is a form of autism) that, in its most severe forms, can prevent someone from developing the ability to speak. We don't normally refer to it as a "mental illness", in the strictest sense, but I'm not sure if doing so would actually be inaccurate. I'll have to read some more. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-practice/200807/dear-abby-is-autism-mental-illness Many of our flaws are too common to earn a psychiatric label, but that doesn't mean much, in a practical sense. They have still caused us untold amounts of trouble.
As a horror writer, I develop many 'villain-like' characters, obviously. My style tends to create the character with little backstory, enough to allow the reader to understand the basics of the character... Then after a while, if I continue to use the character which is a common method for me as I commonly makes a set of different stories that somehow link to one and other - I will eventually create a story that goes into a deeper backstory of the villain.
My point was that just the raw, simple imperfections cannot be counted as enough to call us all mentally ill.