Sociopaths and society
18/7/11 17:19![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
kinvore.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI 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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 18/7/11 22:20 (UTC)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).
(no subject)
Date: 18/7/11 23:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/7/11 23:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/7/11 23:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/7/11 02:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/7/11 02:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/7/11 04:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/7/11 18:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/7/11 00:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/7/11 01:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/7/11 03:20 (UTC)It's also important to note that they are dead.
(no subject)
Date: 20/7/11 12:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/7/11 18:15 (UTC)You might call it a morality if it weren't quite so removed from the conventional sense of the term. In short, whether or not George Patton was truely a sociopath is up for debate .
(no subject)
Date: 21/7/11 01:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/7/11 14:11 (UTC)First of all keep in mind the book doesn't make any sort of condemnation of the military itself. It just says it's a place where a sociopath's ability to harm others without remorse is an asset. And don't forget sociopaths are masters of disguising their natures, chances are they will know what reactions they are "supposed" to give in order to avoid detection.
I may have initially misread what you were asking, if it's for what the rate of sociopaths are in the military it doesn't give numbers. I had thought you were asking more about the soldiers rate of fire. Here's what it says on the matter:
First it cites the controversial statistics of Brig. Gen. S.L.A. Marshall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall) and his book Men Against Fire, where he claimed in WW2 up to 75% of soldiers never fired their personal weapons with the intent the kill, even when engaged in combat.
The book goes on to cite On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Lt.Col. Dave Grossman who adds to Marshall's research with his own among law enforcement as well as military, and not just American military.
The whole point of it was to show that rate of fire may be far lower than popular perception (although the exact numbers are often the cause of controversy). That despite training most of us wouldn't kill at the "moment of truth" whereas a sociopath would have no such struggles with harming another. Which is why it's an environment where they'd be able to thrive.
But that's not to say that the military is chock full of sociopaths or that they're allowed to just kill anyone whenever they want, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of our war crimes were committed by sociopaths. I admit it's pure speculation on my part, just a conclusion I've drawn.
(no subject)
Date: 20/7/11 23:16 (UTC)I wouldn't be surprised if many war criminals are sociopaths. It's hard to understand how people could commit torture, executions or genocide if there wasn't something seriously f'ed up in their heads.
I'm not saying... WHY NOT? Why should the military get a pass?
Date: 19/7/11 13:58 (UTC)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.