Sociopaths and society

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I strongly recommend that everyone read a fascinating book called The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout, Ph.D.

What is a sociopath?
A sociopath (aka psychopath) is a person unable to feel emotions for other people the way most of us do. They can hurt us in many ways and sleep like a baby that night. They have no sense of guilt or remorse and are often a destructive force in our lives, both personally and sociologically. Studies indicate as many as 1 in 25 of us may have this lack of conscience (EDIT: it's only fair to remark several members of this community dispute that number and have provided their own links in the comments section that show this may be an inflated figure).

Many think of serial killers when they think of sociopathy, but those actually make up a small percentage of their numbers. One may think prisons would be filled with them but according to the book a study indicates roughly 20 percent of the prison population has this deficiency. They can be criminals and terrorists but they can also be a CEO or a politician. The scariest trait other than their lack of empathy is their ability to hide among us and remain difficult to detect.

Not all are violent, in fact many are smart enough to keep a low profile by avoiding violent behavior. In the book Dr. Stout gives several examples based on real cases, from a man who takes advantage of his wife, unemployed and sitting at the pool all day, to an administrator in a psychiatric facility who gets her pleasure from undermining the work of her colleagues (by sabotaging the progress of their patients), to a mild-mannered man that starts fires in post offices just to watch the frantic efforts to put out the blaze.

They are usually charming, spontaneous, and complex. And almost without exception they wreak havoc in the lives of those around them, usually because we refuse to believe that anyone can do such hurtful things to others just for the sake of hurting. They can be especially adept at getting others to go along with their schemes. They can be a terrorist, or a con man, or a teacher. They can be your next door neighbor, they can be in your family.

What does this have to do with politics?
Now here's where the book can really get interesting. As mentioned before, roughly 4% of the world's population is a sociopath, but in some countries the population can be much lower. In countries like Japan and China where there's greater social pressure to work cooperatively, the estimated rates vary between about .03% to .14%, far less than their counterparts in the Western world.

According to the book the United States has the fastest growing rate of antisocial behavior in the world (although no specific numbers are given). Our emphasis on individualism tends to both encourage sociopathy and makes it easier for them to hide among us. We tend to admire many of their traits, their risk-taking and daring natures.

Is this to say that individualism in itself is somehow wrong? Absolutely not, but it certainly demonstrates the need reevaluate the behaviors it may encourage.

Sociopaths can be a serious threat to our way of life. At times in history when many have risen in power we've seen the catastrophic results. So I think we need to work on better ways of detecting them among us. But let's say we find a fool-proof means of finding those among us without conscience, what is to be done with them?

There is no known "cure" for sociopathy, their brains simply work differently from the rest of us. Do we imprison them? Do we find some other way of sequestering them from society? Do we try to work with them, find a use for their lack on conscience? In the comments section I'll go more into detail about this, as well as something else mentioned in the book that deserves its own discussion.

Comments

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Can sociopaths benefit society?
The book mentions one area where sociopaths tend to thrive: the military. According to studies most soldiers even with the most intensive of training will hesitate to kill an enemy at the "moment of truth". However since sociopaths have no conscience they can take a life without any hesitation or remorse.

I need to emphasize I'm not saying this as some sort of attack on the military and/or its soldiers. I'm speaking purely from a scientifc viewpoint here, they make great killers.

They can also be heroes with the right encouragement. Firefighters often have to take great risks to save the lives of others, and not only will a sociopath not feel the fear that so many of us do when risking our lives, they can actually thrive on the adrenaline rush (as well as the admiration their actions earn).

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Does the book bear out this claim with studies, or does it just assume that sociopaths would thrive in the military? From what I've seen, creepy, mentally unstable, kill-a-commie for mommie types don't have successful military careers.

I'm not saying... WHY NOT? Why should the military get a pass?

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Your black-hearted meanness is social pathology, mine, on the other hand, is righteous indignation and understandable defensive outrage...

Why does the military get a pass? Are we suggesting that sociopathology cannot or does not hide behind patriotism?
Thank You for Your Service? (http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance250.html) by Laurence M. Vance
Imperial Priorities: Obedience First, Character Last (http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w223.html) by William Norman Grigg

"It is without question that Americans are in love with the military. Even worse, though, is that their love is unqualified, unconditional, unrelenting, and unending."
— Laurence M. Vance

I think our perverse love of violence, or bland indifference to it, when it is covered in patriotism and slathered with baseless references to "the collective security or interest" could easilly count as a form of mass sociopathology according to the criterion applied in this post.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Sociopathy and authority
Another fascinating section discusses Stanley Milgram's infamous psychological experiments on authority. The premise is simple. Two people are participating in an experiment where one is strapped to a chair with electrodes that give an electric shock, while the other is at the control panel that controls the generator.

The person in the chair is asked questions and when he gets them wrong he is shocked at increasingly higher voltages. However there is only one subject to this experiment, the person at the controls. The person in the chair is an actor and part of the study.

The voltage is increased and the subject is told to keep administering the shocks. The person in the chair yells louder and louder in pain as the experiment continues. The subject shows extreme discomfort but most times will continue to apply the voltage.

What's fascinating is that the vast majority will defy their conscience and continue with the experiment all the way through despite their obvious discomfort (34 out of 40 did so in Milgram's original experiment). The presence of an authority figure was usually what made the difference. If no one was in the room with the subject, commanding him to proceed, the subject was less likely to administer the entire test. If the authority figure was dressed as a scientist in a lab coat the rate jumped up considerably.

In other words we tend to obey authority even when we know we shouldn't, which is why it's so dangerous to let sociopaths get in positions of power.

Running out of time for now, but if anyone wants to hear what the book says about the origin of conscience and the theories on why we have one, I'll gladly make a comment about that later.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

~but if anyone wants to hear what the book says about the origin of conscience and the theories on why we have one, I'll gladly make a comment about that later.~

Yeah. Please do.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

If you have any actual links or something concrete to refute it, it would be appreciated more than just a "you're crazy".

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You may also be interested in The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson that just came out.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I'll have to check that out, thanks!

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Aye, not the most sophisticated book on the subject, but it does a good job of conveying the flavor of sociopathy. And Ronson is a terrifically entertaining writer.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

I always thought of sociopathy as being a condition someone is born with but the difference in rates between Japan and America would seem to contradict this belief. Does the book say anything about that, is it the author's position that sociopathy is a learned behavior?

btw, this stuff fascinates me so I'm pleased we're getting to discuss it here.

[bex.livejournal.com]

I don't know if the author uses psychopath/sociopath interchangeably, but the overly-simplified definition was, as far as I knew, that psychopaths are born and sociopaths are made.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

It's genetic but one can be raised to discouraged to act out in antisocial behavior, at least that's what I gathered. So I guess if they learn to not indulge in certain behavior they become more difficult to detect? I'm guessing because the author doesn't address this specifically as far as I recall.

[bex.livejournal.com]

A sociopath (aka psychopath)...

Are you using clinical terms or pop-psych terms? I was under the impression that, while academics debate endlessly over definitions, there is a general recognition that sociopath and psychopath are not interchangeable terms. Psychopathy usually refers to some innate trait, whereas sociopathy is thought to be "made" through environmental factors. This is a layman's distinction, of course, but sociopath != psychopath.

I don't really like these kinds of books, tbh. To appeal to a popular audience, I think they dumb down these extremely complex psychological and sociological issues. If I wanted to know about psychopathology and sociopathology, I would sooner review recently published, peer-reviewed journal articles by multiple authors than read a book by a single author that had to pass no peer-review process. I've seen a lot of stupid books out there. In academia, peer-reviewed (or refereed, depending on your field) journal articles are the typical currency.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

According to the book the terms are interchangeable, so it may just be a matter of opinion/preference.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I'll be honest:

I have not read the research or the critiques of it.

However, I am immediately wary of a lot of pop-psychology press claims, regardless of the credentials involved.

These kinds of diagnoses are usually done on ratings scales. A respondent answers questions and trained rater scales the replies. Reach a certain point and you are over the threshhold.

This makes sense because a lot of psychological diagnoses are for behavior that exists on a spectrum -- take autism, for example. We all know people who tilt towards the autistic end of the behavioral spectrum. If you work in engineering, odds are that you know a LOT of people like that. But it isn't until the behavior reaches a level where it can interfere with normal functioning that we will consider a diagnosis of even high functioning autism. Part of why we have a much higher diagnosis rate of autism today is that a lot of people who were previous just thought of as extremely weird are actually getting needed assistance to help them in school and work -- venues that used to leave them to struggle and often fail.

But this diagnosis? At this rate? I have trouble intutively accepting that rating scales can find it at this level given the defition you used of someone UNABLE to feel emotions normally? That's too damn high. I know plenty of people who have some empathy problems -- even people with terrible judgement about socially acceptable behavior. But they exist on a continuum of behavior where INABILITY to feel these emotions is the extreme end. For this contention to be right, the distribution of this behavior in the general population would have to have a big skew at the far end of the behavioral continuum.

It reads as a big oversell of the diagnosis when the reality is probably much greater variance.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I don't want to get too personal here but let's just say my own experiences make the numbers fairly believable to me. It may be a matter of degree.

Be nice to sociopaths.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

What is a "conscience"? Do we mean culturally inculcated aversions? Do we mean moral rationalization? Do we mean cognitive habits? Our "conscience", as far as I can tell, is equal parts guilt and rationalization. It is our conscience that tells us it is ok to yell at the coffee server, because that coffee server is slow and incompetent, therefore I am justified in treating that person badly.

We don't need to worry about sociopaths. I'm probably a sociopath, and so do not engage in daily piss fests and turf battles like all you little people. Mostly I just look down on everyone as silly billys.

What you need to worry the most about is a man with a conscience and reason to kill. The sociopath isn't quite so committed.

Re: Be nice to sociopaths.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Welcome back :)

[aerashive.livejournal.com]

cure sociopathy by bringing kids up better? Maybe we should have people take a test before they are allowed to have kids? I think that is the answer to this. First of all social norms/morality/what we feel is bad or good comes from how we were raised and what we were exposed too.

I am not sure what person you are referring to, that you think is a sociopath and is in a position of power...I would assume that they are only considered a sociopath by you and have not exhibited 3 of traits in group A. I would say a lot may fall into 1 or 2 of the above. But I think most people are a little antisocial after all America is full of "individuals". We are always rationalizing when we hurt someones feelings, otherwise I am not sure how people sleep at night. Gees I didn't hold open the elevator door for the women with the cane, because I was late for work. I do not think this makes me a sociopath next to the person that does something worse.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

A sociopath (aka psychopath)

A sociopath is not a psychopath (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1013712/sociopath_vs_psychopath_there_is_a.html).
psychopath - A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.
sociopath - A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The problem for me is that people tend to use sociopathy, which is a mental illness, as a word that refers to behavior that is actually evil. Attributing evil to mental illness trivializes the concept of evil and is an insult to the mentally ill.

Yeah, and there is a reason for that

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Evil implies moral judgement, and that is out of favor right now. Pseudo-science and scientism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientism) are the religion of the day.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Political Ponerology (http://ponerology.com/) is a fascinating crackpot take on this subject. It basically argues that psychopaths' effect on society and politics are the reason why we cannot have nice things.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I'll have to look into that one as well, it's a fascinating subject to me.

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

We are all sociopaths in some way or another. Every watch America's Funniest Home Videos, or Jackass and laugh, if you say yes, you have sociopathic tendencies. Every say, "to hell with it", and stay to yourself for a few hours, your have sociopathic tendencies. If you are secretive, easily bored, cool under pressure, or have the gift of gab, a clear sign of sociopathy.

Great, I am surrounded by sociopaths. But you are all in good company, I am one as well (narcissism).

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

If you are secretive, easily bored, cool under pressure, or have the gift of gab, a clear sign of sociopathy.....

really? is that true?! :S

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I have been called "bad" before. Many have said I do things... that are not correct to do. I don't believe in such talk as this. I am nice man with happy feelings all of the time!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And at that point the chosen one learned a valuable lesson about iron claws-they hurt like crap, man!

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

What does this have to do with politics?

I really like the way you clearly state your writing prompts *cheers* This prompt especially. I do wish others might adopt this format. Especially those whom choose to post on all religiosity matters.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[the-s3ntinel.livejournal.com]

Sociopathworld (http://www.sociopathworld.com/) is worth a visit.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Oooh interesting...

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

There has been times in my life where I've hurt people in various manners and absolutely didn't give a shit.

You might argue that those are probably isolated cases and that I am in all likelihood capable of giving a shit, but the fact is, in the given situation, I did not have an emotional reaction linked to that harm; functionally, I responded in a psychpathic manner.

I somehow doubt this scenario is not also something that virtually everyone else in the world has experienced at some time or another..

The conception that sociopaths are a breed apart from the rest of us, is dubious at best and is far more likely to be a form of deliberate self-deception, because we prefer to think of ourselves, and project ourselves, as conscientious, inherently moral beings. Unlike Sociopaths.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

The difference is a sociopath is incapable of feeling any sort of remorse whatsoever. So if you can't, stay the hell away from me. ;)