Asocial vs. Antisocial.

[CritFromAfar]

I've seen a lot of people confuse the two, so I'm wondering, how do you all view the difference between the two?

To me, asocial is being introverted or shy. They might not be outgoing or willingly choose to do social activities, but they are still, at the same time, fully capable of socialization, even if not perfectly, and are generally what you would call 'loners'. This might include behavior like shyness, or avoidant eye contact, not saying much, or simply choosing to be alone. The difference between someone who is asocial versus someone who is antisocial is that someone who is asocial tends to still be considered polite, friendly, and still tends to listen to what they're told by obeying rules and laws. They're still able to be likeable by their peers, they might just prefer to be on their own, and might just be awkward. Generally they're still capable of having friends, they just prefer to be by themselves.

Someone who is anti-social is someone that actually causes disruptive behavior. It can be milder behavior as non-stop talking over other people, especially authority figures, to extremes like violent activities, hate speech or breaking laws. Anti-social people might struggle to have normal, healthy relationships due to their disruptive social behavior creating strain, even if they're outgoing. Believe it or not, anti-social people can actually still have a large network of friends.

Despite the fact that anti-social personality is usually attributed to psychopathy or sociopathy, it's still possible to be anti-social without being a psychopath.

So what do you all think?

[Doctor Amadeus]

I've seen a lot of people confuse the two, so I'm wondering, how do you all view the difference between the two?

To me, asocial is being introverted or shy. They might not be outgoing or willingly choose to do social activities, but they are still, at the same time, fully capable of socialization, even if not perfectly, and are generally what you would call 'loners'. This might include behavior like shyness, or avoidant eye contact, not saying much, or simply choosing to be alone. The difference between someone who is asocial versus someone who is antisocial is that someone who is asocial tends to still be considered polite, friendly, and still tends to listen to what they're told by obeying rules and laws. They're still able to be likeable by their peers, they might just prefer to be on their own, and might just be awkward. Generally they're still capable of having friends, they just prefer to be by themselves.

Someone who is anti-social is someone that actually causes disruptive behavior. It can be milder behavior as non-stop talking over other people, especially authority figures, to extremes like violent activities, hate speech or breaking laws. Anti-social people might struggle to have normal, healthy relationships due to their disruptive social behavior creating strain, even if they're outgoing. Believe it or not, anti-social people can actually still have a large network of friends.

Despite the fact that anti-social personality is usually attributed to psychopathy or sociopathy, it's still possible to be anti-social without being a psychopath.

So what do you all think?

I think some things are black and white, meaning text book, and many things aren't. I agree with there likely being a distinctions between asocial and anti-social. I just don't like the idea of trying to invent new language to try to demonize others into something else.

For example GOOD people don't steal, so by default someone who steals is a Bad person. I am not saying there is anything wrong with labels either, they are fine when they are apt.

But the problem is people think GOOD people don't steal, and that isn't true.

The same could be applied here all psychopaths or sociopaths don't have to be Anti-Social, they also don't have to be mean, or bad people, nor do they have some kind of special powers either.

I think the biggest problem we have is ignorance and stupidity when it comes to these things. Ignorance from people that really don't know, and ignorance from people who know they don't know or do know but act against that knowledge.

You can NOT fucking diagnosis someone accurately even if you are qualified without certain tools and being able to do a sit down and gain the most information on any individual subject.

Anything else it just an outline, which like say profiling is most often times WRONG, even when highly trained qualified experts do it.


Honestly I think when it comes to things like this it's better to divorce any emotion, or any added labels or distinctions outside of what is objectively true.

Someone who is a Psychopath is often times isn't anti-social, in fact they tend to be extroverts, who enjoy engaging with others, often times come across charming and very charismatic, some are even seen as natural born leaders. NOT ALWAYS Though.

While Sociopaths, tend to be introverts probably be more of what you describe asocial, seeing other humans as unimportant, or at most a means to an end. AGAIN NOT ALWAYS

Those are outlines and general guides, but not diagnosis or reliable sources for layman to profile others.

[CritFromAfar]

I think some things are black and white, meaning text book, and many things aren't. I agree with there likely being a distinctions between asocial and anti-social. I just don't like the idea of trying to invent new language to try to demonize others into something else.

For example GOOD people don't steal, so by default someone who steals is a Bad person. I am not saying there is anything wrong with labels either, they are fine when they are apt.

But the problem is people think GOOD people don't steal, and that isn't true.

The same could be applied here all psychopaths or sociopaths don't have to be Anti-Social, they also don't have to be mean, or bad people, nor do they have some kind of special powers either.

I think the biggest problem we have is ignorance and stupidity when it comes to these things. Ignorance from people that really don't know, and ignorance from people who know they don't know or do know but act against that knowledge.

You can NOT fucking diagnosis someone accurately even if you are qualified without certain tools and being able to do a sit down and gain the most information on any individual subject.

Anything else it just an outline, which like say profiling is most often times WRONG, even when highly trained qualified experts do it.


Honestly I think when it comes to things like this it's better to divorce any emotion, or any added labels or distinctions outside of what is objectively true.

Someone who is a Psychopath is often times isn't anti-social, in fact they tend to be extroverts, who enjoy engaging with others, often times come across charming and very charismatic, some are even seen as natural born leaders. NOT ALWAYS Though.

While Sociopaths, tend to be introverts probably be more of what you describe asocial, seeing other humans as unimportant, or at most a means to an end. AGAIN NOT ALWAYS

Those are outlines and general guides, but not diagnosis or reliable sources for layman to profile others.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean be creating new language to demonize people. Asocial and anti-social aren't new words, they've existed for years, but as I've learned there is a distinction between asocial and anti-social that quite a few people I've encountered seem to get confused.

I'm not necessarily talking about actual diagnosis, because asocial behavior isn't necessarily something that would need to be diagnosed, but generally part of the misconceptions of asocial and anti-social have to do with the confusion between asocial behavior being considered antisocial behavior due to the name having the word "anti" in it. Anti-social behavior is usually hand-in-hand with a diagnosis of psychopathy, but at the same time, there are plenty of people with anti-social behavior that aren't diagnosed psychopaths. Hence, my thread - because if someone is labelled asocial it might be fairly damaging for them to be mislabeled as anti-social.

People that steal can be capable of drawing the line at theft, but in a lot of cases that isn't true as well. There are also thieves that have been known to maliciously murder someone in their attempt to mug them. I'm fairly certain there was a thread in the last few months here about a male who mugged someone and murdered them and ended up crying in court when he found out that he got a harsher penalty for being smug towards the victims family. That's why it's not safe to just assume someone is one way or the other, but to go off of the details and take it on a case-by-case basis.

Well, you're right there. Good people can steal. Good people can end up committing any crime, but generally when they do, regardless of how they see themselves and depending on how severe the crime is, they might not be considered good anymore. Yes, profiling on that basis can be fairly damaging, especially when people assume all thieves are teens wearing all black, baggy cloths. When you consider the reasons why someone might steal, than it becomes more clear that it's not really one type of person, in this case a moody teen, that could potentially want to steal. But again, that plays into assuming that someone will simply because of how they look. As far as I know, that's not what real profiling is anyway, as profiling has to do less with how you look and more with your personality, actions, and overall psychology. It's more akin to actual detective work.

Your next point is where my agreement with you starts to diverge. I believe that psychopaths and sociopaths might not necessarily be violent, but I do believe that they get diagnosed such due to specific criteria that can still run along the lines of mental manipulation, among other things. Regardless, I only brought up psychopathy and sociopathy due to my previous point about antisocial behavior being related and asocial behavior being mistaken for antisocial behavior, they're not necessarily the focus of my thread.

Ignorance is not knowing something, stupidity is when you do know better and do something that isn't smart anyway. There is no person on this planet that's immune to either, no matter how high their I.Q is. People make mistakes, but how they react and behave afterward does matter, and can be the difference between someone who just made a mistake and made up for it and someone who made a mistake, realized their mistake, but continued doing it anyway. How someone reacts to a mistake can be the difference between a positive social interaction and a negative one.

Profiling can be helpful and effective if done carefully and all details are looked over. Still, the problem might not necessarily be that the details weren't looked over, but that there weren't enough details to begin with. Profiling is based on psychology and not necessarily how someone looks - even though it can contribute, it shouldn't be the be-all-end-all of if someone would do something.

I agree with being objective, but I think based on your comment that maybe I wasn't very clear with my own definition of asocial vs anti-social. Asocial behavior isn't necessarily someone that is introverted, but someone that prefers being alone. They could still be extroverted, too - they could still enjoy the company of others, but prefer to spend time by themselves. The difference isn't introversion vs extroversion with different names, it's basically loners vs problem people, to put it more colloquially, or healthy socialization vs unhealthy socialization. The basis of anti-social behavior is that they behave in a way that is contrary to good will and positive interaction that consists of effective socialization, while asocial behavior is mistaken to be anti-social due to the "anti" because people assume that due to the desire to not be social, it means they behave contrary and disruptive of healthy socialization. Being alone does not mean asocial people desire to act out with harmful social behavior, just as being antisocial doesn't mean that people that behave anti-socially are introverted or extroverted. The reality is that they can be either. There are people that are extroverted and still shy, as extroversion is simply the emotional reaction to socialization with other people. Extroverts are invigorated by socialization and don't need to stop socialization, while introverts are drained by socialization and need to recoup by spending time alone. An extrovert can still be shy, and an introvert can still be assertive, friendly and sociable.

Healthy socialization can be done by either introverts or extroverts, and the same is true of unhealthy socialization. Being alone =/= people want to create problems for others, just as creating problems for others=/=that they won't find friends who will want to do likewise.

There's a common misconception that people that want to be alone are anti-social, and I'm saying that I understand why people think that way, but it's generally not true. Even though "anti" does mean "against", or something similiar, people that want to be alone are not necessarily against socialization, they just simply prefer being alone, and there are people considered loners that are stilly fully capable of making friends and having healthy relationships, but they still prefer being independent and doing things by themselves. With that criteria, it's not against healthy socialization. So it's not "anti" anything.

Equating poor eye contact to sociopathy and anti-social behavior is a completely malicious and fallacious comparison.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean be creating new language to demonize people. Asocial and anti-social aren't new words, they've existed for years, but as I've learned there is a distinction between asocial and anti-social that quite a few people I've encountered seem to get confused.

Then why get fuddled over the specifics unless one specifically studies the brain such as a psychiatrist or it's effects such as a psychologist. I mean I get it your descriptions makes sense although some of the technical are a bit fuzzy

I'm not necessarily talking about actual diagnosis, because asocial behavior isn't necessarily something that would need to be diagnosed, but generally part of the misconceptions of asocial and anti-social have to do with the confusion between asocial behavior being considered antisocial behavior due to the name having the word "anti" in it. Anti-social behavior is usually hand-in-hand with a diagnosis of psychopathy, but at the same time, there are plenty of people with anti-social behavior that aren't diagnosed psychopaths. Hence, my thread - because if someone is labelled asocial it might be fairly damaging for them to be mislabeled as anti-social.

I think labels are only important insofar that they act as pegs on a map, rather than direct and exact instructions. If you are on the South Part of Town, trying to get to the East, there can be as lot of different ways to get there. But there are specific ways

People that steal can be capable of drawing the line at theft, but in a lot of cases that isn't true as well. There are also thieves that have been known to maliciously murder someone in their attempt to mug them. I'm fairly certain there was a thread in the last few months here about a male who mugged someone and murdered them and ended up crying in court when he found out that he got a harsher penalty for being smug towards the victims family. That's why it's not safe to just assume someone is one way or the other, but to go off of the details and take it on a case-by-case basis.

Well yeah, motives can vary, the chain of reasoning and problem solving as well, but some things are a given.

Example YOU need fresh water. (Full Stop)

That's a fact, you are a human being, your body will not continue to function correctly unless you find some way to get fresh water. Now let say you aren't around any fresh water, and for practice purposes, there aren't any other ways to get it unless you have money.

If someone has Fresh Water, YOU are going to "HAVE TO" get it.

If you murder someone to get it, there is a reason why you made that choice. Sometimes it's a matter of what other choices you had, in others it's about what choices you felt you had.

But you did make a choice

That's the black and white of it. So where is your map and how did you get from Point A to Point B

Well, you're right there. Good people can steal. Good people can end up committing any crime, but generally when they do, regardless of how they see themselves and depending on how severe the crime is, they might not be considered good anymore. Yes, profiling on that basis can be fairly damaging, especially when people assume all thieves are teens wearing all black, baggy cloths. When you consider the reasons why someone might steal, than it becomes more clear that it's not really one type of person, in this case a moody teen, that could potentially want to steal. But again, that plays into assuming that someone will simply because of how they look. As far as I know, that's not what real profiling is anyway, as profiling has to do less with how you look and more with your personality, actions, and overall psychology. It's more akin to actual detective work.

Yes but I am also talking about people who "Snap" people that make the wrong choice, or something not socially acceptable. I mean people like to disassociate themselves with the worst parts of humanity, what is disgusting and gross.

But in reality that is part of the mechanism in the brain to avoid reality.

The truth everybody snaps, or has a breaking point, nobody is perfect, and everyone can be reduced to a point where those layers that separate all of us come undone.


If someone is starving they steal, or maybe they don't, however if someone that the same person loves is starving they do

Or someone is in a loving relationship on the surface, but then one commits an act of betrayal

Or a Baby wont quit crying and you are at your wits end, with no sleep feel like a failure

Or the Neighbors Dog won't quit barking, and the police wont do anything, and everyone thinks you're the asshole because it keeps you awake

Or you are bullied in school, friends and other school mates, join in or ignore your pain, and principles and councilors only make matters worse.


My point is that there are specifics about what is going on in any of those situations and the actors in them, the point is where we get to the point where we are now where some are just over all fatigued with the fact everything and everyone seems to have a diagnosis now days

And the rest seem to think well maybe everything is normal except for a handful or a few.

The Truth A Human being can break, and sometimes as a society, we do our best to try to fix it, but when terms and wanting to mean well become misguided forms to misuse science, for things we really don't have answers for yet, or we shouldn't be applying for especially by people unqualified.

Then sometimes what is called the cure for some, just becomes the problem for others and none of it's actual science anymore.


Good people break, and broken people aren't always bad, and the way we determine that isn't based on what we don't know, it's based on being careful of what we do.

Your next point is where my agreement with you starts to diverge. I believe that psychopaths and sociopaths might not necessarily be violent, but I do believe that they get diagnosed such due to specific criteria that can still run along the lines of mental manipulation, among other things. Regardless, I only brought up psychopathy and sociopathy due to my previous point about antisocial behavior being related and asocial behavior being mistaken for antisocial behavior, they're not necessarily the focus of my thread.

Ok fair enough

Ignorance is not knowing something, stupidity is when you do know better and do something that isn't smart anyway. There is no person on this planet that's immune to either, no matter how high their I.Q is. People make mistakes, but how they react and behave afterward does matter, and can be the difference between someone who just made a mistake and made up for it and someone who made a mistake, realized their mistake, but continued doing it anyway. How someone reacts to a mistake can be the difference between a positive social interaction and a negative one.

I agree, in fact I think the more intelligent someone is the more dangerous their stupidity is. Because they no longer care about the rules or limitations of the world.

Profiling can be helpful and effective if done carefully and all details are looked over. Still, the problem might not necessarily be that the details weren't looked over, but that there weren't enough details to begin with. Profiling is based on psychology and not necessarily how someone looks - even though it can contribute, it shouldn't be the be-all-end-all of if someone would do something.

I agree with being objective, but I think based on your comment that maybe I wasn't very clear with my own definition of asocial vs anti-social. Asocial behavior isn't necessarily someone that is introverted, but someone that prefers being alone. They could still be extroverted, too - they could still enjoy the company of others, but prefer to spend time by themselves. The difference isn't introversion vs extroversion with different names, it's basically loners vs problem people, to put it more colloquially, or healthy socialization vs unhealthy socialization. The basis of anti-social behavior is that they behave in a way that is contrary to good will and positive interaction that consists of effective socialization, while asocial behavior is mistaken to be anti-social due to the "anti" because people assume that due to the desire to not be social, it means they behave contrary and disruptive of healthy socialization. Being alone does not mean asocial people desire to act out with harmful social behavior, just as being antisocial doesn't mean that people that behave anti-socially are introverted or extroverted. The reality is that they can be either. There are people that are extroverted and still shy, as extroversion is simply the emotional reaction to socialization with other people. Extroverts are invigorated by socialization and don't need to stop socialization, while introverts are drained by socialization and need to recoup by spending time alone. An extrovert can still be shy, and an introvert can still be assertive, friendly and sociable.

I don't have the education to refute this or support it, I think this is an interesting take though. I am a big believer a lot of people try to diagnose themselves, then cure themselves and think they know how to fix others.

I am very careful of that.

Healthy socialization can be done by either introverts or extroverts, and the same is true of unhealthy socialization. Being alone =/= people want to create problems for others, just as creating problems for others=/=that they won't find friends who will want to do likewise.

There's a common misconception that people that want to be alone are anti-social, and I'm saying that I understand why people think that way, but it's generally not true. Even though "anti" does mean "against", or something similiar, people that want to be alone are not necessarily against socialization, they just simply prefer being alone, and there are people considered loners that are stilly fully capable of making friends and having healthy relationships, but they still prefer being independent and doing things by themselves. With that criteria, it's not against healthy socialization. So it's not "anti" anything.

I don't know I guess where I am at on this is trying to jam a square peg in a round hole, right, I don't want to jam people into places they don't go thus causing harm, or failing to line a squire peg up to square hole and saying it doesn't fit or can never fit.

It's not emotion, or feels but just that, I know just how much damage can come from making assumptions and getting it wrong. I mean Psychiatry has come from some very very fucking dark places, and sometimes out of misguided ideas of doing the right thing.

Which is why it irritates me when people who don't know what they are talking about malign, give false hope, or don't give a shit about giving bad information like misapplied science, because we have seen how destructive that can be, best intentions and all that.

I would say generally it depends on the severity and where one might be during whatever diagnosis, I do believe some can be helped, but I do think some are in more severe degrees than others.

Equating poor eye contact to sociopathy and anti-social behavior is a completely malicious and fallacious comparison.

OMFG yes, exactly excellent point. I think Hollywood has done a great job encouraging this stupid shit.

Or this signs of Autism bullshit that goes around. Plenty of real reasons people don't look you in the eye, and could be telling you 100% of the truth as they know it.

Just like stress test.

Did you kill such and such

A stress test is a point of data that can confirm an unconscious physical reaction, it does not conclude a subject is lying or what they are lying about.

If you feel guilty about the death of someone you had nothing to do with, you are just as likely to give a false positive.

But people see this shit on TV and follow a misapplied science.

[CritFromAfar]

Then why get fuddled over the specifics unless one specifically studies the brain such as a psychiatrist or it's effects such as a psychologist. I mean I get it your descriptions makes sense although some of the technical are a bit fuzzy

Well. I was curious to see if anyone disagreed with my definition, so that I could get a better understanding of how people viewed the difference, if they saw any at all, to better understand my own view of it. I figured there might be a few people that had their own view on asocial versus anti-social and I wanted to see how someone would view it differently.

I think labels are only important insofar that they act as pegs on a map, rather than direct and exact instructions. If you are on the South Part of Town, trying to get to the East, there can be as lot of different ways to get there. But there are specific ways

I think they're only descriptors to help express thought and communicate. Some definitions are ambiguous, but not all of them are. Some are fixed, and I don't think that should hold people back from being how they want to be.

Well yeah, motives can vary, the chain of reasoning and problem solving as well, but some things are a given.

Example YOU need fresh water. (Full Stop)

That's a fact, you are a human being, your body will not continue to function correctly unless you find some way to get fresh water. Now let say you aren't around any fresh water, and for practice purposes, there aren't any other ways to get it unless you have money.

If someone has Fresh Water, YOU are going to "HAVE TO" get it.

If you murder someone to get it, there is a reason why you made that choice. Sometimes it's a matter of what other choices you had, in others it's about what choices you felt you had.

But you did make a choice

That's the black and white of it. So where is your map and how did you get from Point A to Point B

That makes sense. Sometimes things aren't in our control, and we do always have a choice. Regardless, sometimes doing the right thing is easier said than done. I figure there aren't many people on the planet that have had an easy time about it, nor have they never made mistakes of their own, no matter how big or small. As far as I've heard there aren't that many Saints in existence.

Yes but I am also talking about people who "Snap" people that make the wrong choice, or something not socially acceptable. I mean people like to disassociate themselves with the worst parts of humanity, what is disgusting and gross.

But in reality that is part of the mechanism in the brain to avoid reality.

The truth everybody snaps, or has a breaking point, nobody is perfect, and everyone can be reduced to a point where those layers that separate all of us come undone.


If someone is starving they steal, or maybe they don't, however if someone that the same person loves is starving they do

Or someone is in a loving relationship on the surface, but then one commits an act of betrayal

Or a Baby wont quit crying and you are at your wits end, with no sleep feel like a failure

Or the Neighbors Dog won't quit barking, and the police wont do anything, and everyone thinks you're the asshole because it keeps you awake

Or you are bullied in school, friends and other school mates, join in or ignore your pain, and principles and councilors only make matters worse.


My point is that there are specifics about what is going on in any of those situations and the actors in them, the point is where we get to the point where we are now where some are just over all fatigued with the fact everything and everyone seems to have a diagnosis now days

And the rest seem to think well maybe everything is normal except for a handful or a few.

The Truth A Human being can break, and sometimes as a society, we do our best to try to fix it, but when terms and wanting to mean well become misguided forms to misuse science, for things we really don't have answers for yet, or we shouldn't be applying for especially by people unqualified.

Then sometimes what is called the cure for some, just becomes the problem for others and none of it's actual science anymore.


Good people break, and broken people aren't always bad, and the way we determine that isn't based on what we don't know, it's based on being careful of what we do.

Yeah. Sometimes what people find disgusting might actually just be something they learned through others, though. It becomes more apparent when you compare cultural norms in different countries or pay attention to animal behavior (cats rarely gag over smell, and they have more keen olfactory senses). What is considered 'disgusting' is mostly psychological. A lot of what's considered disgusting is perfectly natural if you're objective.

As for broken people, it's supposed to be hard to be able to do something like that. But it would take nothing short of consistent psychological distress for it to happen at all, and it still does. The fact that it still happens at all in this day and age is an enigma.

I agree, in fact I think the more intelligent someone is the more dangerous their stupidity is. Because they no longer care about the rules or limitations of the world.

I would like to think that's where emotional intelligence comes in. People say and do stupid things all the time, most times it's only a matter of apologizing and not doing it again to show good will and to acknowledge your mistake and recognize how you felt and how the other person felt. A lot of times people will apologize insincerely and just end up making excuses for themselves, that's when you know they're not really sorry.

I don't have the education to refute this or support it, I think this is an interesting take though. I am a big believer a lot of people try to diagnose themselves, then cure themselves and think they know how to fix others.

I am very careful of that.

I think you might find it funny that I can't really refute or support it either!

I read a bit about it in books, and online, some of it was just me thinking about how it all relates to everything. But I have no sources off-hand that could back it up, although for some of it I'm sure there are sources everywhere you could probably find that might support it. I usually go off of lots of different examples of things I've seen or experienced to decide if it's applicable or not. Take that as you will, I'm used to people not taking me seriously.

I don't know I guess where I am at on this is trying to jam a square peg in a round hole, right, I don't want to jam people into places they don't go thus causing harm, or failing to line a squire peg up to square hole and saying it doesn't fit or can never fit.

It's not emotion, or feels but just that, I know just how much damage can come from making assumptions and getting it wrong. I mean Psychiatry has come from some very very fucking dark places, and sometimes out of misguided ideas of doing the right thing.

Which is why it irritates me when people who don't know what they are talking about malign, give false hope, or don't give a shit about giving bad information like misapplied science, because we have seen how destructive that can be, best intentions and all that.

I would say generally it depends on the severity and where one might be during whatever diagnosis, I do believe some can be helped, but I do think some are in more severe degrees than others.

Yeah. Well. Sometimes things happen anyway. Psychiatrists refusing to accept that they may not be right, even if they're educated, is how I'd think that would happen. There were stories I'd read about journalists admitting themselves by faking a disorder, and when they tried to reveal it was a lie, it just reinforced the practitioners belief that they were ill, and they weren't allowed to leave.

Well. In the example you gave about the water, I'd say that could go either way. Did they intend on hurting someone for water? Or did it just happen? What's the alternative?

We do have choices, but in that example, the choices are limited. Unless the person is ingenuitive enough to be able to pull water out of thin air, it's idealistic to believe that they'd be able to get water peacefully. If they want to remain peaceful, they might die of dehydration. At the same time, though, you're right, the world is almost limitless and as long as you're smart there are endless options.

Sometimes people really are just malicious and ruthless.

OMFG yes, exactly excellent point. I think Hollywood has done a great job encouraging this stupid shit.

Or this signs of Autism bullshit that goes around. Plenty of real reasons people don't look you in the eye, and could be telling you 100% of the truth as they know it.

Just like stress test.

Did you kill such and such

A stress test is a point of data that can confirm an unconscious physical reaction, it does not conclude a subject is lying or what they are lying about.

If you feel guilty about the death of someone you had nothing to do with, you are just as likely to give a false positive.

But people see this shit on TV and follow a misapplied science.

I'm afraid I'm guilty of thinking I might have autism. I don't get what a stress test has to do with autism, though.

[Kokolums]

I've seen a lot of people confuse the two, so I'm wondering, how do you all view the difference between the two?

To me, asocial is being introverted or shy. They might not be outgoing or willingly choose to do social activities, but they are still, at the same time, fully capable of socialization, even if not perfectly, and are generally what you would call 'loners'. This might include behavior like shyness, or avoidant eye contact, not saying much, or simply choosing to be alone. The difference between someone who is asocial versus someone who is antisocial is that someone who is asocial tends to still be considered polite, friendly, and still tends to listen to what they're told by obeying rules and laws. They're still able to be likeable by their peers, they might just prefer to be on their own, and might just be awkward. Generally they're still capable of having friends, they just prefer to be by themselves.

Someone who is anti-social is someone that actually causes disruptive behavior. It can be milder behavior as non-stop talking over other people, especially authority figures, to extremes like violent activities, hate speech or breaking laws. Anti-social people might struggle to have normal, healthy relationships due to their disruptive social behavior creating strain, even if they're outgoing. Believe it or not, anti-social people can actually still have a large network of friends.

Despite the fact that anti-social personality is usually attributed to psychopathy or sociopathy, it's still possible to be anti-social without being a psychopath.

So what do you all think?

Asocial vs antisocial is a mildly interesting construct but hardly provable. You can't really crawl into someone's head and know for sure what their motivation is, and in practice the same person can probably be asocial and antisocial in the same day depending on their mood. Arguing between asocial and antisocial can quickly devolve into a useless exercise in semantics preventing you from actually solving problems.

[Rooflesstoofless]

I thought asocial was someone who just lacked the desire to make friends and socialize. They have a super low or nonexistent need for affiliation. Introverts and shy people still want friends and still have a need for affiliation.

Antisocial is a whole different ball game but gets thrown around a lot by groups when someone would rather do their own thing and doesn’t want to kowtow to their clique.

[CritFromAfar]

Asocial vs antisocial is a mildly interesting construct but hardly provable. You can't really crawl into someone's head and know for sure what their motivation is, and in practice the same person can probably be asocial and antisocial in the same day depending on their mood. Arguing between asocial and antisocial can quickly devolve into a useless exercise in semantics preventing you from actually solving problems.

Anti-social personality disorder is recognized in the DSM-V.

Iʹm not looking for an exact definition, Iʹm looking for how people would define it on their own so I can better understand how anyone can confuse asocial behavior with anti-social behavior.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought asocial was someone who just lacked the desire to make friends and socialize. They have a super low or nonexistent need for affiliation. Introverts and shy people still want friends and still have a need for affiliation.

Antisocial is a whole different ball game but gets thrown around a lot by groups when someone would rather do their own thing and doesn’t want to kowtow to their clique.

Hmm. I figured it was a preference and not necessarily the incapability to socialize. Preferring to be alone wouldnʹt necessarily mean that they donʹt ever socialize, or have friends. I figured this could fit into introversion.

Anti-social behavior suggests a lack of care for others, from what Iʹve seen.