Can a person choose to not feel emotions or empathy?

[physics user1]

With training can you shut down your emotions and empathy?

 

[rootone]

Personally I doubt it since those things arise not from conscious thought, but from more primitive 'instincts'.
You could of course train yourself to react to these instincts in different ways, but I doubt that they could be eliminated.
Just as you can't change your heartbeat rate at will.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Even Mr. Spock couldn't do this. And he has the twin advantages of being alien and fictional.

 

[Kuzon]

Of course you can - just like you can train to remove anger, sadness or anxiety such as in cognitive behavioural therapy. Emotions arise from thoughts and you have a lot of (but not total) control over your thoughts.

 

[rootone]

Of course you can - just like you can train to remove anger, sadness or anxiety such as in cognitive behavioural therapy. Emotions arise from thoughts and you have a lot of (but not total) control over your thoughts.

Isn't that more to do though with managing anger and etc in an appropriate manner, as compared with eliminating the emotion altogether?
I am aware that there are medications for anxiety and so on, but they can be effective (partially anyway), for one person while not for another.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

What emotion are you referring to?

 

[physics user1]

What emotion are you referring to?

Mostly empathy, fear, embarrassment, remorse and love

 

[Pythagorean]

Isn't that more to do though with managing anger and etc in an appropriate manner, as compared with eliminating the emotion altogether?
I am aware that there are medications for anxiety and so on, but they can be effective (partially anyway), for one person while not for another.

Yes, emotional management doesn't necessarily get rid of emotions. For some situations, regulation can be trained so well that it's automatic and the it's close to elimination. But the real trick is being able to identify when you're triggered and choose to manage it. Most people don't realize that their triggered while they're triggered.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Mostly empathy, fear, embarrassment, remorse and love

You can work on the fear and embarrassment by occasionally doing/saying things that others would find embarrassing (with your finger in the air). Humiliation/embarrassment essentially stems from allowing what others think to affect you. Do you really believe that others have a right to tell you how to feel and act, or what to believe? That's what happens when you try to follow the thousands of social rules we learn about from birth- most fear, anxiety, and embarrassment stems from those rules. Revoke enough permission and follow only those that allow you to have a job and not be in conflict with everybody all the time. It takes time though. I remember how scary it had been the first time I decided to wear pants to church... Now, nobody thinks I'm so cute and I have a severe aversion to sitting pretty on a pew with my legs crossed, hands in my lap, and head straight. The last time I attended a study session, I got into it with my mothers preacher (a mechanical engineer with a degree in physics). I do not like being told how I should behave or think! There is this group of women at my daughters ballet school that are starting to get on my nerves, badly. They think that although I pay for the schools services, not their company, that I should follow their little unwritten rules and be more like them. I'm debating what strategy I should use to get them to leave me alone. I've thought about flirting with their husbands, but not all of them make an appearance. Games, I do not have time for. I'm not dropping a thousand dollars on one purse every fashion season from multiple designers.

Remorse usually occurs when you do something wrong. What did you do so terrible? Empathy is usually a reaction to stimulus. Maybe you should try to avoid more situations if you are spending most of your time having to be so empathetic- everyone needs a break. Also, if you stop offering to be so helpful, then it won't take from you emotionally (let them ask for your help). And if someone doesn't want you because of that, then maybe they aren't being a good friend. Friendships don't work out well when one ends up always giving, while the other receives. See Aristotles advice on friendship, some good stuff!

Love isn't supposed to always feel good. That's the reason it works, it hurts too. Animals usually lose the will to live when they find 'peace'.

 

[Drakkith]

With training can you shut down your emotions and empathy?

Is this just curiosity, or do you really want to shut down your emotions?

 

[Drakkith]

There is this group of women at my daughters ballet school that are starting to get on my nerves, badly. They think that although I pay for the schools services, not their company, that I should follow their little unwritten rules and be more like them. I'm debating what strategy I should use to get them to leave me alone. I've thought about flirting with their husbands, but not all of them make an appearance.

Might I suggest simply ignoring them? I seriously doubt this will improve your situation in the slightest.

Animals usually lose the will to live when they find 'peace'.

I'd like a reference for this. And a definition of "peace" in this context. My first thought goes to the millions of pets around the world who have little-to-no worries and yet still live to be fat and happy for many years.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Might I suggest simply ignoring them? I seriously doubt this will improve your situation in the slightest.

The problem is that I normally do ignore them. The are trying to haze me, if you think that men are vicious... Because I handed out candy after one class, they made a fuss and by the next class a sign was posted that said all treats must have ingredients reviewed from an instructor before giving them out! Apparently, one child is 'allergic' to red dye # 40. As if the nail polish they handed out once wasn't toxic too! All homemade foods are BANNED, it must be prepackaged. Anyway, it's just that many instances like this that add up over time. The nit-picking. I have to put up with it to a degree for the next decade, lest they omit inviting my daughter to future birthday parties and sleepovers (essentially interaction with friends).

I'd like a reference for this. And a definition of "peace" in this context. My first thought goes to the millions of pets around the world who have little-to-no worries and yet still live to be fat and happy for many years.

I cannot reference this, you might have to remove it! "Peace", as in wanting nothing, not even food. Have you never been clawed ruthlessly by a hungry cat when going to feed it an hour late? My point was that we should never expect all emotions in life to feel good. For example, hunger hurts, eating feels good. Without experiencing hunger, eating could never really feel good- how could you define it was even good without being able to compare it to something else, like hunger? Both negative and positive emotions give us drive. I embrace both extremes. I advise the OP not to be afraid of them and try to rid of them so quickly- he can utilize those feelings and direct them towards something that helps him later. Let him be angry that the beliefs of others are what is making him feel embarrassed and fearful. There is no shame in being human, but there is when you aren't taking up for yourself.

 

[Drakkith]

Have you never been clawed ruthlessly by a hungry cat when going to feed it an hour late?

I have not. My cats never clawed me unless I had done something to them to deserve it or it was by accident.

My point was that we should never expect all emotions in life to feel good. For example, hunger hurts, eating feels good. Without experiencing hunger, eating could never really feel good- how could you define it was even good without being able to compare it to something else, like hunger?

I don't see why it wouldn't still feel good, but I could see how you wouldn't appreciate it nearly as much if you've never gone hungry.

 

[CollinsArg]

Try studying philosophy, Albert Kamus got to eliminate his empathy to his mother.

 

[DiracPool]

Try studying philosophy, Albert Kamus got to eliminate his empathy to his mother.

It's Camus with a C, and my mom actually turned me onto his book "The stranger" in my senior year in high school and it changed my life. To this day I still consider myself largely an existentialist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Camus

 

[SW VandeCarr]

To suppress empathy is not a good thing. I suppose it's possible with some individuals, but lack of empathy is a condition found in many criminals, particularly serial killers. If you really want to suppress your empathy and capacity to form emotional bonds with others, you might consider this:

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1949/moniz-article.html

I think they still do them in Sweden. People who have had this procedure are docile, have a flat affect (no significant emotions) and are not social, but not dangerous either.

I'm not really suggesting this and I know our emotional bonds can cause suffering when they're broken, but most people can recover, with or without help.

 

[physics user1]

Guys i was just curious, i found something on psychopaths and i found that they can choose to feel empathy if they want and i was wondering if the opposite was possible

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Guys i was just curious, i found something on psychopaths and i found that they can choose to feel empathy if they want and i was wondering if the opposite was possible

Do you mean to selectively turn empathy off? Well I think we have an example with war. In combat you have to dehumanize the "enemy". A total stranger who could possibly be a friend under different circumstances becomes someone who is to be immediately hated and feared at first contact, and therefore killed if possible. There many stories of soldiers who completely broke down after finding pictures of apparent family members on the body of a man they just killed. Maybe that's not exactly what you're asking about. With criminals, there are examples where they can feel genuine affection for some people and kill others without a thought. So yes, it's possible.

 

[physics user1]

Do you mean to selectively turn empathy off? Well I think we have an example with war. In combat you have to dehumanize the "enemy". A total stranger who could possibly be a friend under different circumstances becomes someone who is to be immediately hated and feared at first contact, and therefore killed if possible. There many stories of soldiers who completely broke down after finding pictures of apparent family members on the body of a man they just killed. Maybe that's not exactly what you're asking about. With criminals, there are examples where they can feel genuine affection for some people and kill others without a thought. So yes, it's possible.

What if you actualy have bounds with someone, like a close friend, can you kill him without remorse or without feeling anything just because you choose to not feel anything?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

What if you actualy have bounds with someone, like a close friend, can you kill him without remorse or without feeling anything just because you choose to not feel anything?

That would be a psychopath and they certainly exist.

 

[physics user1]

That would be psychopath and they certainly exist.

But can a person choose to be a psycho? I mean, it is know that with practise our brain change, can a normal guy become a psycho then? I have read that psychopats are born, they have different brains, can a person train and so change his brain in order to be a psycho?

Thanks for the patience :)

 

[Drakkith]

But can a person choose to be a psycho?

No. Psychopathy is a mental/personality disorder with a certain set of symptoms, only one of which has to do with empathy. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Signs_and_symptoms
You can't choose to be a psychopath any more than you can choose to be bipolar, schizophrenic, or psychotic.

 

[Laroxe]

No, you can't turn off emotions, they form an important part of our cognitive processes and operate at all levels of awareness, they help keep us alive and are central to motivation, the push us into action. Empathy is not an emotion, its an interpersonal skill which allows us to predict another's behaviour or recognise how they are feelings by comparisons with our own experiences. People get mixed up about empathy they thinks its a positive caring sort of thing thing. The idea that psychopaths lack empathy because they can engage in extreme harm to others without guilt is nonsense, a psychopath knows exactly what effect they are having on a victim, they use this empathy to refine the torment they cause, the difference is is that they enjoy it, if they didn't, why would they bother.
There are some drugs that lower a persons emotional tone and they describe feeling very little, but this is universally described as unpleasant, life becomes joyless, boring and everything becomes an effort.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

. The idea that psychopaths lack empathy because they can engage in extreme harm to others without guilt is nonsense, a psychopath knows exactly what effect they are having on a victim, they use this empathy to refine the torment they cause, the difference is is that they enjoy it, if they didn't, why would they bother.

Is this your opinion or can you provide some evidence to back it up? That's not the the standard interperation of empathy or measures of empathy. Coercive and sadomasochistic behaviors correlate with measures of low empathy.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-015-0595-0

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/blame-the-amygdala/201304/what-would-we-find-wrong-in-the-brain-serial-killer

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/9/4/435.short

http://www.livescience.com/39904-why-psychopaths-lack-empathy.html

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-09-neurological-basis-lack-empathy-psychopaths.html

 

[Laroxe]

Is this your opinion or can you provide some evidence to back it up? That's not the the standard interperation of empathy or measures of empathy. Coercive and sadomasochistic behaviors correlate with measures of low empathy.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-015-0595-0

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/blame-the-amygdala/201304/what-would-we-find-wrong-in-the-brain-serial-killer

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/9/4/435.short

http://www.livescience.com/39904-why-psychopaths-lack-empathy.html

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-09-neurological-basis-lack-empathy-psychopaths.html

I'm not sure there is a standard definition of empathy, Carl Rogers originally talked about it in terms of being able to enter into another persons world of experience, however another pillar of his work was phenomenology, the idea that peoples experience was their own, it was a personal and idiosyncratic view of events, so it was impossible to enter into another's world of experience. You can never really understand how another feels, the best you can come up with is how you would feel in a similar situation. Later in his writing he talked about empathy in terms of accurate listening, it became less about what connects with your own experience and more about trying to clarify what the person experiences by getting more information. Some workers have attempted to clarify the idea by sub dividing it into cognitive empathy and emotional empathy, a football player may watch another player take the ball, then based on what he would do if he was in that position he plans an interception, going to where he thinks the other will go. That's cognitive, a strategic skill, emotional empathy is the ability to recognise emotional states in another again it may be based on our own experience of events or the ability to pick up non verbal cues. No one talks about empathy as an emotion.
To look at emotions generally really would involve a review of all the different ones, fear is fairly basic, it allows for rapid responses the perceived threats, this gets us acting before we start thinking, without fear you die young. I suppose you can just think about how we evaluate all information, notice the word evaluate, we give everything some sort of value positive or negative, it actually helps us prioritise our thinking. I we didn't and everything had the same priority we would be overwhelmed by all the stuff to think about.
The psychopath idea is a bit more complex, it has been and continue to be part of forensic mythology, its based on the idea that if someone was sensitive to the suffering of others they would never act in this sort of way. There is a self serving fantasy that a normal person would never act like this and an active search for pathological differences between psychopaths and non psychopaths. All the stuff from the neuro-sciences has failed to demonstrate any consistent findings in the brains of psychopaths, despite all the claims. Psychopaths only ever earn that label after some criminal event, labelling people outside of this is the realm of pop psychology. Perhaps the question is, is the desire to torture and harm others pathological, it actually becomes quite common when social control breaks down, think of Rhwanda, the genocide wasn't just a matter of murder, children would be killed in front of their parents, a wife raped in front of her husband before being killed and then him, usually in savage ways, with people laughing and clearly enjoying themselves. The war in Serbia, a modern European state in which rape camps were established. If a psychopath feels nothing for their victims, why do they behave like they do? what motivates them and when you look at their behaviour, its pleasure, they enjoy it. Attempting to measure empathy by questionnaires is interesting in itself, empathy is inherently interpersonal, so I'm not sure what they are measuring but its not empathy.. All of these things are addressed in the literature but its all over the place really, emotion is fairly well covered, but empathy tends to be defined to suit any study rather than describe a clear concept

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm not sure there is a standard definition of empathy

I've been away for a while but I think there's still a standard as to what you can say in this forum. I asked that you provide an acceptable source for your claims. You've quoted my links, but you obviously haven't read them or provided any of your own. Below is a quote from the fifth link:

"When the highly psychopathic individuals imagined the accidents happening to themselves, their brains lit up in the anterior insula, the anterior midcingulate cortex, the somatosensory cortex and the right amygdala — all areas involved in empathy. The response was quite pronounced, suggesting psychopathic individuals were sensitive to thoughts of pain.

But when the highly psychopathic inmates imagined the accident happening to others, their brains failed to light up in the regions associated with empathy. In fact, an area involved in pleasure, the ventral striatum, lit up instead. Furthermore, these individuals showed abnormal connectivity between the insula and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an area important for empathetic decision-making.

By contrast, the less psychopathic individuals showed more normal brain activation and connectivity in these areas."

These are directly observable neurophysiologic correlates of empathetic and non-empathetic responses to different suggestions.

 

[OCR]

No one talks about empathy as an emotion.

I wouldn't consider that statement to be completely true...

 

[Laroxe]

I've been away for a while but I think there's still a standard as to what you can say in this forum. I asked that you provide an acceptable source for your claims. You've quoted my links, but you obviously haven't read them or provided any of your own. Below is a quote from the fifth link:

"When the highly psychopathic individuals imagined the accidents happening to themselves, their brains lit up in the anterior insula, the anterior midcingulate cortex, the somatosensory cortex and the right amygdala — all areas involved in empathy. The response was quite pronounced, suggesting psychopathic individuals were sensitive to thoughts of pain.

But when the highly psychopathic inmates imagined the accident happening to others, their brains failed to light up in the regions associated with empathy. In fact, an area involved in pleasure, the ventral striatum, lit up instead. Furthermore, these individuals showed abnormal connectivity between the insula and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an area important for empathetic decision-making.

By contrast, the less psychopathic individuals showed more normal brain activation and connectivity in these areas."

These are directly observable neurophysiologic correlates of empathetic and non-empathetic responses to different suggestions.

I've been away for a while but I think there's still a standard as to what you can say in this forum. I asked that you provide an acceptable source for your claims. You've quoted my links, but you obviously haven't read them or provided any of your own. Below is a quote from the fifth link:

"When the highly psychopathic individuals imagined the accidents happening to themselves, their brains lit up in the anterior insula, the anterior midcingulate cortex, the somatosensory cortex and the right amygdala — all areas involved in empathy. The response was quite pronounced, suggesting psychopathic individuals were sensitive to thoughts of pain.

But when the highly psychopathic inmates imagined the accident happening to others, their brains failed to light up in the regions associated with empathy. In fact, an area involved in pleasure, the ventral striatum, lit up instead. Furthermore, these individuals showed abnormal connectivity between the insula and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an area important for empathetic decision-making.

By contrast, the less psychopathic individuals showed more normal brain activation and connectivity in these areas."

These are directly observable neurophysiologic correlates of empathetic and non-empathetic responses to different suggestions.

Indeed, there are real advantages to being able to reference the key issues but your question effectively asks for about half of all psychology to be explained, and its the half that creates serious issues in their study. Firstly there is the role and significance of emotions in our mental life, this is a huge issue with links to much broader ideas about cognitive processes, physiology and the concept of self.
Empathy again represents an ill defines concept, you might find this abstract helpful in understanding that;
http://emr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/12/01/1754073914558466.abstract
Though I thought my description was fairly mainstream. Then we mix in the concept of psychopathy which in reality is more used within the legal system as it is not a medical diagnosis nor any real personality type, it is principally supported as a description by Robert Hares million dollar industry of psychometrics of known offenders. Again you can check out some of the controversies at;
http://www.positivedisintegration.com/psychopathy.htm#a2

Of course neuroscience has a range of new tools and is at the cutting edge of much of brain research, sadly it is also responsible for a great deal of hype and daft claims. The section you quote illustrates this very well, it identifies a number of areas it says are important for empathetic decision-making, whatever that is. Its worth looking up the areas identified, its clear that these areas are associated with very broad range of mental activities and are not specific to empathy, and why would they be, that isn't the way the brain works. It then claims “These are directly observable neurophysiological correlates of empathetic and non-empathetic responses” so we should then be able to reliably identify psychopaths using scans? This is Nobel prize material, no one has been able to find any reliable biomarkers for any functional mental health problem or personality variable, its one of the holy grails of mental health. The technology is discussed at;

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2012/12/07/166733094/brain-scans-dont-catch-the-brain-in-action

and if you want more detail;
http://human-brain.org/imaging.html

This leaves us trying to make sense of issues by engaging our own ability to use logic, I found a blogger called gachiyellow that set out the problem quite well so I'll use his ideas. It starts with the idea that psychopaths have a predisposition to harm others, so something must motivate this.

The majority of humans have no empathy for rocks yet we do not waste time destroying them for no apparent reason. There’s no value in it. There is no empathy and no motive.
Most people have no empathy for mosquitoes. Most people will not go out of there way to kill mosquitoes unless they feel they’re about to be bitten. This is a perfect example of how motivation is needed for violence. Mosquitoes attack humans. Humans kill mosquitoes.
So what is the value for psychopaths in harming others often in extreme ways and when there are great deterrents in terms of personal risk and prison, they are not stupid. While they may not learn inhibitory responses, there must still be a reason for their behaviour and there is good evidence that they take pleasure from their actions. You need to appreciate the effects you are having on the victim otherwise we need to explain this aspect of behaviour.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Indeed, there are real advantages to being able to reference the key issues but your question effectively asks for about half of all psychology to be explained,

No. I was specifically objecting to this:

"The idea that psychopaths lack empathy because they can engage in extreme harm to others without guilt is nonsense, a psychopath knows exactly what effect they are having on a victim, they use this empathy to refine the torment they cause, the difference is is that they enjoy it, if they didn't, why.would they bother." (boldface mine)

While the term term "empathy" may have some variations of interpretation, I asked you to find a reputable source saying that psychopaths that commit heinous crimes against innocent victims for some kind of gratification do not lack empathy and that claiming they do lack empathy is "nonsense". I doubt any expert would say that. Could there be exceptional cases? Sure, but that does not falsify the scientific evidence that true psychopaths have low empathy.

The fact that the relevant brain regions light up when the subject imagines pain in himself simply means the subject fears pain. When the suggestion is pain in another, the empathic response is that the same regions light up. The non empathic response is that these regions remain dark, and in a true psychopath another region associated with pleasure lights up.

 

[BillTre]

Fear is an emotion that is often treated with anti-phobia type treatments, which involve increasingly close/big experiences with what ever is the cause of the fear.

Two examples from my personal experience are:
1) Fear of speaking in front of people: took a speech course in HS. The main thing of the course was intentionally doing embarrassing and stupid things in front of the rest of the class. This worked really well. I am now reasonably fearless in front of a crowd.
2) Fear of heights: When I was young I had a pretty strong fear of heights. At some point, I got paid a lot of money (for being in Jr High) to paint house which involved a lot of ladder work. I am pretty unconcerned about that kind of thing now.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Fear is an emotion that is often treated with anti-phobia type treatments, which involve increasingly close/big experiences with what ever is the cause of the fear.

What you say makes sense, but may not be always be the correct approach. Some people with deep phobias may be severely traumatized by exposure. I have a healthy fear of spiders. I didn't always. As a young child I picked one up and it bit me. My entire hand swelled and it took some time (I can't remember exactly) to recover. However, for many phobias, I agree this technique can work.

The OP was asking something different. The OP wanted to suppress his/her empathy but didn't give a reason for this. Often empathy can cause pain, but not to have empathy is much worse.

 

[BillTre]

The OP was asking something different.

He lists here what he was talking about:

What emotion are you referring to?

Mostly empathy, fear, embarrassment, remorse and love

 

[BillTre]

What you say makes sense, but may not be always be the correct approach. Some people with deep phobias may be severely traumatized by exposure. I have a healthy fear of spiders. I didn't always. As a young child I picked one up and it bit me. My entire hand swelled and it took some time (I can't remember exactly) to recover. However, for many phobias, I agree this technique can work.

That makes sense. Could be similar to the Garcia effect: not wanting to eat food that made one nauseous previously, except its a strong negative reinforcer based on effects of your body.

 

[Laroxe]

No. I was specifically objecting to this:

"The idea that psychopaths lack empathy because they can engage in extreme harm to others without guilt is nonsense, a psychopath knows exactly what effect they are having on a victim, they use this empathy to refine the torment they cause, the difference is is that they enjoy it, if they didn't, why.would they bother." (boldface mine)

While the term term "empathy" may have some variations of interpretation, I asked you to find a reputable source saying that psychopaths that commit heinous crimes against innocent victims for some kind of gratification do not lack empathy and that claiming they do lack empathy is "nonsense". I doubt any expert would say that. Could there be exceptional cases? Sure, but that does not falsify the scientific evidence that true psychopaths have low empathy.

The fact that the relevant brain regions light up when the subject imagines pain in himself simply means the subject fears pain. When the suggestion is pain in another, the empathic response is that the same regions light up. The non empathic response is that these regions remain dark, and in a true psychopath another region associated with pleasure lights up.

I suppose my problem with this is the idea that there is scientific evidence, some issues:
1. the whole concept of psychopathy is difficult, many people see it as deeply flawed, it is in effect only used in legal proceedings and is used to describe certain people who have already committed a serious crime. The principle proponent in this situation is Prof Hare who has made millions on his inventories despite some very serious misgivings about its credibility, its only really widely used in the USA where some courts accept it as evidence.
2. Empathy is an ill defined concept, Carl Rogers originally described it as the ability to experience the emotions of another, an idea that is in fact totally inconsistent with phenomenology, in his later writing he tended to think of it as a communication style that allowed another to really understand the others feelings. Several; workers have tried to subdivide the concept into different types of empathy.
3. fMRI doesn't provide evidence of empathy, at best it provides a proxy measure, but generally there are no specific areas in the brain that only become active in the presence of one stimuli. Historically people who commit serious crimes have been the subject of intensive research efforts and there have been various theories about their emotional "deficits", to date there are no neurophysiological measure that have provided reliable and consistent findings.
This leave us with the problem of explaining what motivates behaviours that can be elaborate and long term, involving the torture of others and that put the perpetrator at high risk, its credible that there may be impaired fear responses, but why act like this for nothing, it doesn't make sense, if they feel pleasure this can only be because they are aware of the effect on their victims.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

This leave us with the problem of explaining what motivates behaviours that can be elaborate and long term, involving the torture of others and that put the perpetrator at high risk, its credible that there may be impaired fear responses, but why act like this for nothing, it doesn't make sense, if they feel pleasure this can only be because they are aware of the effect on their victims.

I don't know why this is so difficult for you.

The normal person responds to his or her own suffering and to the suffering of others by experiencing pain to some degree. That's empathy. The psychopath experiences pain only with his or her own suffering, but responds to the suffering of others either not at all or with pleasure. That's a LACK of empathy.I