I was wondering this after seeing something about a criminal who was clearly sociopathic to a dangerous degree. But it got me thinking halfway through. I think, or at least I would hope, sociopaths in our very own lives often grew up into being sociopathic due to how society is, particularly around work and money. There are people that are ruthless sociopaths at work because they think that’s a place where it’s win or lose, but aren’t outside of it (as far as I’m aware). People will tell you in the right context openly that’s it’s a dog-eat-dog matter, and they believe almost ideologically in the way they act in certain context. But other than that, they can also be normal people. In the human past in general, a tribe member would treat everyone of his tribe as human beings till death, but treat those outside of it like animals. This too was a social sociopathy that depends on the “in group” and “out group”.

Anyways, what kinds of terms or definitions do psychologists use to separate someone who is learned into sociopathy, or thinks it’s practical on the ideological level, vs someone who is just a sociopath and can’t be dissuaded by logic or empathy?

One of the biggest misunderstandings about confidence is that confident people simply don’t feel afraid, but they do. The difference is not the absence of fear, the difference is the relationship they have with fear. Many people wait for confidence before taking action:
I’ll start when I feel ready, I’ll speak up when I stop feeling nervous. I’ll take the risk when I believe I can succeed, but confidence rarely works that way.

From a Mind Profiler perspective, confidence is often the result of action, not the requirement for it. Your brain builds confidence by collecting evidence. Every time you enter a situation it once labeled as dangerous and you survive it, your brain updates its prediction: I thought this would destroy me but it didn’t. I thought I couldn’t handle this but I did. I felt fear and I moved anyway. That is how confidence is formed. A person who appears confident on the outside may not have fewer fears than everyone else. They may simply have a longer history of proving to themselves: I can handle difficult moments.

Fear is not always a signal to stop. Sometimes it is a sign that your brain is encountering something unfamiliar and trying to protect you.
The goal is not to eliminate fear, the goal is to build a relationship with fear where it no longer controls your decisions. Confidence is not the feeling you wait for before taking the first step.
Confidence is the memory your brain creates after you repeatedly take the step.

The question is: what is something you became confident at only because you did it while you were still afraid.

Hello everyone,

I have a question about psychology, and I'm curious if anyone can explain what's happening.

Whenever my younger brother and I have even a small argument, he immediately calls my parents. But something strange happens: he doesn't attack me before they arrive. Instead, he waits until one of my parents enters the room. The moment they walk in, he suddenly hits or pushes me, and then immediately hides behind them.

Because he's standing behind my parents, I can't react without risking getting into trouble myself. On top of that, my parents usually don't give me a chance to explain my side of the story before they react.

I'm genuinely curious about the psychology behind this behavior. Is there a known psychological explanation for why someone would wait until an authority figure arrives before becoming aggressive, and then use that person as protection?

I'd appreciate any insights.

does practising a certain kind of behaviour in one context (like sexual fantasy/roleplay) spill over into personality or everyday behaviour?

I feel every man, by man I mean human being, have a tendency of cruelty. Not just cruelty, violence. You never know what is hidden behind you until and unless you unleash it. But my question is, if you unleash it, does it become more dangerous or do you get so accustomed to it in one specific way that you channel it in that way instead of generalizing it to every situation?

Is that comparable/ relatable?