I'm claiming is that people have tried to take advantage of me, including the examples I gave above, as well as every car salesman I've ever met. It's not a high percentage -- most people are good/neutral -- but there are some people who are mildly amused by trying to hurt me.

I want you to acknowledge that the people in the examples I gave more likely than not tried to hurt me for reasons including their own amusement.

Ah. It looks to me that some of our disagreement, as is often the case, is a terminology problem.

You've been talking about sociopaths. "Sociopath" is a diagnosis of a mental illness, a personality disorder. You asked:

How sociopathic would an example have to be to meet your arbitrary criteria?

The answer to that is provided by the DSM. You can read it here. Sociopathy is not common.

I don't think you are using this term properly. Instead I'd like to offer you two other alternative expressions.

On a colloquial level those you've been talking about are usually called assholes (and sometimes dicks/bitches as appropriate). Assholes are certainly plentiful in the world and complaints about being surrounded by dicks and assholes...

...must...not...make...bad...allegories...

...oh, where was I? sorry. So, there are lots of assholes and there are lots of complaints about them throughout the history in pretty much every society. You want to join the litany? Sure, the line is over there, please take a number, it is sevenbillionmumblemumble, wait for it to be called.

On a slightly more analytical level, I think a better word for you to use is amoral (or, maybe, immoral). It seems to me that you're not bothered by these people's lack of emotional reaction, you're bothered by what they find fine to say and do -- and that's morality and ethics. You probably think that their morals are either absent or bad.

That is different from claims of sociopathy and -- surprise -- also very very common.

Why is it so important to you that the world is...what?

I am participating in a conversation on an internet forum. In the great scheme of things that's not particularly important to me. But the (meta) subject of this discussion is accuracy of maps, not features of the territory.

I want better solutions for negotiating with and ideally changing sociopathy

If you want to learn negotiating, any B&N will have a shelf of books devoted to that. I think you'll be able to find a variety of materials on LW as well which will be helpful.

By "changing sociopathy" I think you mean changing the morality of some people. I don't think it's going to be a fruitful endeavour, but that's just me.

Who is truly unbiased and therefore in your view able to make reliable decisions?

Someone who is not too excitable and not emotionally invested in particular conclusions.

I could tell you some true stories about people who are much richer than you taking advantage of people in your class.

LOL. You are not referring to something like political assassination stories from Salon about how the Koch brothers orgasm every time their tentacles tighten a bit more around the throats of hard-working widows and orphans..?

And what is my "class", by the way?

because these relationships are risky for the lower-status person

A relationship with another low-status person is risky, too, in different ways. If you are a trailer-park girl, is it really better for you to choose a trailer-park mate?

It sounds like you're OK with polyamory with status differences. In that case, it appears the "winning" strategy is to build a harem of lower-status partners.

Interesting. That's a... revealing comment. What "winning" means is defined by your values. Looking at myself (since I can speak for myself), I would not consider lording over a harem of low-status partners to be "winning", in fact if I would probably actively try to avoid such a situation. But do you think that's what "winning" is?

with a wife who'd rather be monogamous

LOL. And how do you know this, do tell... You're not engaging is some blatant gender stereotyping, are you?