Asperger's in popular culture

Andy from the television show "Weeds" talking about the 5 abortions he helped his girlfriends to get: "It's no big deal. For me. The ladies tended to get a little weepy. Except for Deirdre. But I found out later she had Asperger's."

The sick and the dying (part 2)

My response:

Interesting question. I am the world's worst sick person. When I was a teenager, I had a hard-to-diagnose health problem that made me very sick for some time. During that time I lost every single friend I had.

When I am sick, all I can think of is me. Usually I have the energy to keep up appearances, keep the mask on, etc. When I am sick, I simply do not. I typically don't even notice my ill behavior myself. For instance, when I was sick as a teenager, I thought I was handling things remarkably well. I was honestly surprised when all of my friends abandoned me. Since then, nearly every time I am sick, I get into an unprovoked argument with someone. The sickness makes me less patient, more easily annoyed, which I mistakenly attribute to that person being particularly troublesome. Does this ever happen to you? Where you feel nauseous and equate it to being nervous, but really you have the flu? Or you are short tempered and equate it to other people being difficult, when really you have a migraine? This is what happens to me when I am sick.

I think my emotions are so low level that I have gotten used to reading changes in my body as signs of how I may "feel" about something. If my stomach is upset, I figure that I am probably nervous so my adrenaline is up. If I have a fuzzy brain or a headache, I assume that I am tired or overwhelmed. Because I have gotten used to doing this, when I am sick because of a virus and not just sick and tired of something or somebody, I mistakenly believe at first that I am responding to things going on around me. But they are just emotional hallucinations -- my body is tricking my brain into thinking that certain negative things exist, but they don't -- it's all just my brain misinterpreting data.

So I could see how your father might blame you or others for the discomfort he feels. Even if that isn't true, he certainly has much less energy to put on a happy face. What you are getting from him right now is the uninsulated, un-papered over version of him. And you're right that he is probably annoyed that life (and you in some weird way) has betrayed him, failed him by allowing him to become the shadow of the man that he was. But that must be pretty normal for old people with a touch of narcissism, I would imagine.

The sick and the dying (part 1)

A reader asks:

I would be very interested in knowing how a sociopath deals with illness and old age. I am an RN and have cared for many a sociopath in my day (without knowing it). As I mentioned in previous emails my father is sociopathic. He is now in his 80's and a very miserable person to be around. He hates the fact that he is growing feeble, like we all will/do but his behavior is not the norm.

There seems to be no way to interact with him that does not turn out be a disaster. If I show my empathy and caring, he finds something to put a wedge between us. For example, the last time, I tried to talk to him about his physical health he threw in my face my teenage years and how I was not there for him during a difficult time. He let me know that he gave up on me at that time and that he had no use for me. If I ignore his ailments, he gets angry because no one understands or cares. It obvious that he feels quite less than everyone else and he makes little effort now to communicate with others with the exception of his wife who has devoted her life to him. I have not seen my father in almost 4 years.

I am wondering what is the best way to deal with an ailing sociopath. When sociopaths are faced with life-threatening illness and require hospitalization, do they look for empathy from others? Do the games stop even then or do they continue to manipulate people with a feeling of enjoyment? How does a sociopath think, feel and behave in times of such extreme vulnerability such as a terminal or life threatening illness along with the perils of aging?

Sociopath quote: virtue

"Most virtue is a demand for greater seduction."

-- Natalie Clifford Barney

Morality, capital "M"

This is an interesting summary of the dominant views in the scientific community regarding morality. Many have been discussed here before, including Jonathan Haidt's views on intra-culture morality and Paul Bloom's findings on the moral world of children. I liked this insight into the role that empathy/emotions play in morality vs. logic:

People who behave morally don’t generally do it because they have greater knowledge; they do it because they have a greater sensitivity to other people’s points of view. Hauser reported on research showing that bullies are surprisingly sophisticated at reading other people’s intentions, but they’re not good at anticipating and feeling other people’s pain.

The moral naturalists differ over what role reason plays in moral judgments. Some, like Haidt, believe that we make moral judgments intuitively and then construct justifications after the fact. Others, like Joshua Greene of Harvard, liken moral thinking to a camera. Most of the time we rely on the automatic point-and-shoot process, but occasionally we use deliberation to override the quick and easy method. We certainly tell stories and have conversations to spread and refine moral beliefs.

When you put it that way, it seems obvious why sociopaths would struggle with having an internal sense of morality.

My favorite part of the article, though, was this critique, lower case "c":

For people wary of abstract theorizing, it’s nice to see people investigating morality in ways that are concrete and empirical. But their approach does have certain implicit tendencies.

They emphasize group cohesion over individual dissent. They emphasize the cooperative virtues, like empathy, over the competitive virtues, like the thirst for recognition and superiority. At this conference, they barely mentioned the yearning for transcendence and the sacred, which plays such a major role in every human society.

Their implied description of the moral life is gentle, fair and grounded. But it is all lower case. So far, at least, it might not satisfy those who want their morality to be awesome, formidable, transcendent or great.

Sociopath song of the day: Becoming a Jackal

The beast in me

A favorite clip.

powered by Splicd.com

Libertarian leanings

Thanks to the Ludwig von Mises Institute for putting together a massive library of libertarian literature online: http://mises.org/literature.aspx

One reader suggested that for a sociopath like me "who equates feeling 'other' with being an at-risk minority, fear of mob rule and fondness for libertarianism makes sense. But for the sociopath who feels that their cunning and logic and fearlessness make them invincible and all-powerful (plenty of criminal sociopaths fall into this category, I think), totalitarian politics might be very appealing -- assuming, of course, that the sociopaths are in power."

Fascist sociopaths? That's probably the dirtiest thing you could call people in certain cultures.

More sociopath stories

From a reader:

I can be whomever you want to be. Be your best friend. Your most trusted confidante. The girl of your dreams. I will learn discreetly everything that you love or what makes you tick. And from there I will gradually build myself up. Love what you love and hate what you hate. Not too much as to make you feel that I'm patronizing you. But just enough diversity to make you feel that I am normal. That I am the right person. For you.

I will listen to you. To your most boring problems. To issues as mundane or as complicated as the world. And make you feel that I sympathize. I can make you feel like I am the only person you can trust and understand you.

To you I will always be perfect. But to me, you're just one of the many opportunities for me to re-invent myself.

I've lived hundreds of different lives. And I see my past acquaintances, friends and lovers, as one hit wonders.

One day they will interest me so much that I will be constantly thinking about them. Manipulating ways and tricks to reel them in. It never fails. It also helps that I take really good care of myself. I work out excessively everyday. Eat right. Of course I have vices, smoking and drinking. But those vices fall in shadows once I magnetize a person.

I can be the most charming, graceful, articulate woman and turn into a laid-back hippie or country girl, depends on who I'm with.

I have no real identity. Maybe I have. But it's hidden deep down somewhere, where I can't find it anymore. And I don't have any wish to.

Fascinating really, I get my self worth for the fakery I emulate myself into.

I read, study, work, converse with anyone from the most idiotic moron to the most intellectual people, men and women. And I always get away with it.

Problem is, when I get tired of someone. When that person starts failing to stimulate me intellectually and physically. I move on. Disappear without a trace. And I hurt people that way. I know I do, but I feel no guilt. This is how I am, how I operate.

I apologize and say sorry but I never feel sorry.

So when you meet anyone who seems too good to be true. A person of your dreams. Remember what I said here. It could save you a lot of heartaches.

Take it from me, I'm a sociopath.

Psychopath: the documentary

This hour long documentary is probably worth watching, particularly for people who are just learning about sociopathy. For the sociopaths, most of it will seem a little over the top, like a caricature at best and outright false at worst.

Interesting moments:

27:42 What sociopaths are doing/thinking when they are talking to you.

31:14 Nature vs. nurture -- environment alone isn't enough to create a sociopath, otherwise we'd see more sociopaths in war torn areas, also "intervening" with child sociopaths.

34:40 Biological basis for the condition.

42:40 Treatment.

45:05 Mandatory brain chips and/or "surgical intervention" for sociopaths.

Microchips in the brain is by far the scariest idea I have even heard of to "deal" with the "psychopath problem," and I have heard of a lot of creative ones involving islands, internment camps, or specialized soldiers. My favorite comment:

“we will replace ‘dysfunctional’ brain mechanisms with microchips” what the…!?!?!?!!! no you wont, i’ll quite happily be labelled as psychotic for violently opposing such an idea! ultimate mind control! ill be thankful for some violent psychopaths when the powers that be try that one!!!! The moral authority of these guys is terrifying to say the least it absolves them as ‘normal’ people, my definition of psychopath would include anyone who thinks mind control chips are an acceptable course of action! microchip control for difficult people who dont fit into a society that worships money and rewards the ‘industrial psychopaths’ with untold riches. i wonder if we are all a little bit psychotic and these therapists are the abnormal ones in trying to standardise emotional response to life events- prescribing that any given situation has a ‘proper’ emotionally standard response? the guy who describes the psychopaths abnormality as reading someone else’s faces and tailoring what they say in response- like this is some sort of weird anomaly. pathologically frightened control freaks are what the therapists come across as by their own diagnostic criteria, desperately seeking to reign in the personalities they cannot understand. i’ve watched some scary documentaries by alex jones et al about social control but this one is far more frightening in its implications. eugenics is alive and well, cull the abnormal, praise be to the sheepthinkers.


UPDATE: If you're having troubles with the video, you can see it here.

Free won't

In doing some research on the sociopath's supposed lack of impulse control, I stumbled upon this article from Scientific American (found in full here), which questions the popular conception that we make a conscious choice then act on that choice (i.e. free will). The abstract:

Most of us have a sense that our everyday actions are controlled by an intention that precedes the action: I decide to turn on the light, then flip the switch. But experiments don't consistently support this notion. Some psychologists believe that our sense of intention and purpose is constructed by the brain after the action takes place. Others disagree. The authors discuss ingenious experiments that probe this question, along with bizarre phenomena, such as "alien-hand syndrome," where brain damage leaves patients struggling with actions they cannot control.

The experiments:



Another experiment suggests even more strongly that our sensation of control is largely imaginary:

In one such experiment . . . two participants worked together to move a cursor over objects on a computer screen. One of the participants served as a confederate of the experimenter, but the experimental subject never knew this. The genuine subject heard words over a set of headphones that related to particular objects on the screen. For example, a subject might hear the word "swan" while moving the cursor over a picture of a swan. Unbeknownst to the subject, all of the movement of the cursor came from the confederate. The results showed that, when the relevant word was presented 1 to 5 seconds prior to the action, subjects reported feeling that they had acted intentionally to make the movement. In other words, they had experienced will. When the word was presented 30 seconds prior to the action or 1 second after it, however, there was no false feeling of willing the action. The authors argued that this experiment provided clear evidence that the human brain constructs feelings of causal agency after an action has taken place. It could be that a proper temporal order between intentions, actions and consequences triggers the brain—after the fact—to feel a sense of control.

This type of self deception is perhaps seen best in sufferers of alien hand syndrome, who often rationalize the behavior after the fact, "fool[ing] themselves that the actions they performed were indeed intentional" although "patients are not aware of what they are going to do until after the action has been made." Interestingly, schizophrenics, who frequently "describe an external agent as causing their actions, thoughts, speech or emotions," may largely suffer from an inability to delude themselves into believing that they are acting on their own intentions like "normal" people do.

We are not slaves to impulse, however. The literature suggests that rather than experience free will, we instead experience "free won't," or the ability to avoid acting on the impulse, possibly with the aid of the dorsal fronto-medial cortex, as explained in this article.

The idea of decisions being unconscious impulses that we either reject or make our own raises interesting issues for sociopaths with alleged impulse control problems, but raises even more issues for neurotypicals and the role that a sense of control plays in how they define themselves:

More than a matter of simply turning on a switch, this feeling of control over actions might even contribute to a conscious sense of self. In other words, I am because I control my actions. The question is: How do we go from mundane, everyday actions—like turning on a light—to developing a sense of self as a causal agent?

Sociopaths in the news: psychics

Under the headline, "Portland man accuses Hawthorne psychic of defrauding him of $150,000 including cash, Rolexes and a Hummer":

Drakar Druella was struggling with wrenching emotional problems last October when he walked into the Hawthorne Psychic Shop in Southeast Portland for a palm reading and met Cathy Stevens.

Over the next seven weeks he would give the psychic $150,000 in cash and gifts so she could rid him of his "negative energy" and heal him. Druella says the 39-year-old woman was so convincing, he didn't realize he was being scammed until he heard Stevens launch into the same story with another client.

"That's when it all went 'click, click, click,' " said Druella, 42, who called police in November and is now filing for personal bankruptcy. "The people she was taking advantage of were so vulnerable and in so much emotional pain."

According to the police search warrant affidavit and an interview with Druella, he first paid Stevens $265 for advice on Oct. 8. She told him he had "negative energy" and a demon attached to him, and she could help him get rid of it. But in order to do so, she said she'd need $22,000 to buy a "tabernacle" and she'd conduct an exorcism. She instructed him not to say anything to others and also asked him to turn over to her his personal journals.

Druella said he grew to view Stevens like a "mom" and believed she was "saving " him from death. On one occasion, he went to Lloyd Center with Stevens, and bought four Rolex watches , totaling $37,840. Stevens told him she needed a special component in the watches, also to use toward his healing, he said.

"I've never seen anybody as convincing as her. She could cry on will. Her display of emotion and authenticity. She becomes what you want and need her to be," Druella said.

San Francisco fraud investigator Greg Ovanessian, who teaches nationally about fortune-telling frauds, transient criminals and the gypsy culture, said the question often is raised: "How can someone be so stupid to give this much money for some ritual? It's easier for people to say when they don't have a real understanding of the situation most of these clients, or victims, are in," he said. "They're essentially in a very vulnerable state and are susceptible to suggestion and trickery. People want to believe that things are going to get better. That doesn't mean they deserve to be ripped off."

Madden and Druella suspect that other victims may be too humiliated to come forward. "To others, I'd say , please speak up. Don't be ashamed," Druella said. "Though I'm embarrassed and humiliated, this is about someone who is a predator, who preys upon the vulnerable."

I love gypsies.

Identity

A sociopath-leaning reader asked, "How are you able to determine your true self? Your true interests, your true you and not just a collection of identities you've worn?" My answer:

Good question. I guess I don't really expect there to be some underlying true me. I am partly my experiences. I am even more so my thoughts. I see my identity as being more a formula, less the numbers that get plugged in, and especially not the result of the formula. I am the way I perceive the world, the way I choose what I decide. Does that work for you? I know it's nice to think that you are someone or something definable. I call this the Harry Potter syndrome, people who want more than anything else to have some strange white bearded old man show up to their door and say -- don't worry, there's a reason why you are different, it's because you're a wizard, and not only are you a wizard, but you're a celebrity. Don't we all wish that we had that sort of defining purpose to our life. But we don't, I'm afraid. And those people that aren't like us are largely just amalgamations themselves. Or maybe you believe this: "People often say that this or that person has not yet found himself. But the self is not something one finds, it is something one creates." Thomas Szasz

Reader's response:

I appreciate your well-reasoned response. Your example of the Harry Potter syndrome is right-on. I have always been unable to really grasp the Western culture, and especially American culture, desperate need to be succinctly defined, for their need to be truly unique, and their love of the ostentatious. For a while I thought my problem with the "masks" was that I never felt like their was a significant purpose and I have never been able to believe in a god or the other supernatural, though I did play the religious role quite well when I was a wee one.

Nature vs. nurture

This New York Times article states the obvious -- bad parents can't take all the credit for good children and good parents can't take all the blame for bad children. Interestingly, it goes out of its way to say that bad behavior does not necessarily equal sociopathy:

“I don’t know what I’ve done wrong,” the patient told me.
She was an intelligent and articulate woman in her early 40s who came to see me for depression and anxiety. In discussing the stresses she faced, it was clear that her teenage son had been front and center for many years.
When he was growing up, she explained, he fought frequently with other children, had few close friends, and had a reputation for being mean. She always hoped he would change, but now that he was almost 17, she had a sinking feeling.
I asked her what she meant by mean. “I hate to admit it, but he is unkind and unsympathetic to people,” she said, as I recall. He was rude and defiant at home, and often verbally abusive to family members.
Along the way, she had him evaluated by many child psychiatrists, with several extensive neuropsychological tests. The results were always the same: he tested in the intellectually superior range, with no evidence of any learning disability or mental illness. Naturally, she wondered if she and her husband were somehow remiss as parents.
Here, it seems, they did not fare as well as their son under psychiatric scrutiny. One therapist noted that they were not entirely consistent around their son, especially when it came to discipline; she was generally more permissive than her husband. Another therapist suggested that the father was not around enough and hinted that he was not a strong role model for his son.
But there was one small problem with these explanations: this supposedly suboptimal couple had managed to raise two other well-adjusted and perfectly nice boys. How could they have pulled that off if they were such bad parents?
To be sure, they had a fundamentally different relationship with their difficult child. My patient would be the first to admit that she was often angry with him, something she rarely experienced with his brothers.
But that left open a fundamental question: If the young man did not suffer from any demonstrable psychiatric disorder, just what was his problem?
My answer may sound heretical, coming from a psychiatrist. After all, our bent is to see misbehavior as psychopathology that needs treatment; there is no such thing as a bad person, just a sick one.
But maybe this young man was just not a nice person.
For years, mental health professionals were trained to see children as mere products of their environment who were intrinsically good until influenced otherwise; where there is chronic bad behavior, there must be a bad parent behind it.
But while I do not mean to let bad parents off the hook — sadly, there are all too many of them, from malignant to merely apathetic — the fact remains that perfectly decent parents can produce toxic children.
When I say “toxic,” I don’t mean psychopathic. . . .

I often tell readers that not every asshole ex of theirs is a sociopath, and the same applies for misbehaving children. In this situation, though, I actually think it is foolish to discount the potential role of sociopathy. There is a strong genetic but weak environmental link to sociopathy, which is consistent with having two normal sons and one sociopathic one. Furthermore, although inconsistent discipline may not be enough to cause anyone to become a sociopath, it could trigger sociopathy in someone who was genetically predisposed to it, as sociopath children are particularly sensitive to incentive structures and perceived fairness (i.e. consistency and reciprocity). I obviously don't know the full story, but just based on the article, the description fits sociopathy, at least for this kid.

After spending time with my family recently, I am more convinced that nurture had a significant role to play in my development into a sociopath. When people ask me whether I had a bad childhood, I tell them that it was actually relatively unremarkable, however I can see how the antisocial behaviors and mental posturing that now define me were incentivized when I was growing up -- how my independent emotional world was stifled and how understanding and respect for the emotional world of others died away. Still I don't think I was "made" into a sociopath, nor was I born one. I feel like I was born with that predisposition, that I made a relatively conscious decision to rely on those skills instead of developing others, and that the decision was made in direct response to my environment and how I could best survive and even thrive in that environment. It's a bit similar to this author's description of her own survivalist adaptations:

If you’ve read much about writers, you know that many of us grew up with an alcoholic parent or in some otherwise dysfunctional home. Me, too. Kids who are raised in households where feelings of safety and predictability are up for grabs might be more likely to turn into storytellers. We spend a lot of emotional energy trying to guess what might happen next, and mentally drawing up different contingency plans. It puts us in the “what if” habit early.

Genetics are important for sociopathy, but environment plays a crucial role as well. Although the NY Times article notes that "[f]or better or worse, parents have limited power to influence their children," such that they should be reluctant "to take all the blame — or credit — for everything that their children become," unfortunately (or luckily?) they can still take quite a bit of blame (or credit) for sociopathic children, particularly with new "studies suggesting that such antisocial behavior can be modified with parental coaching." Knowledge is power.

Orthodox sociopathy (part 2)

(cont.)

I've never had a strong religious background growing up. I was baptized at the age of 13, however it wasn't my choice. I would like to think that the first thing I did after the baptism was jerk off to gay porn would kinda invalidate that. I've never liked how in Christianity how the masses pick and choose which portions of the Bible they'll follow. Take the gay issue for example. Most people conveniently forget that the laws of Leviticus are for the Jews to follow. Yet even though everyone eats lobster and shaves their facial hair, they go hating on the gays. And in my Orthodox community, everyone seems to follow the rabbi's opinion. Never mind the fact that he's just as prone to keeping up with community standards as everyone else. The verse "Thou shall not lay with a man as you would a woman. It is an abomination" is the most condemning arguement against homosexuality. Nevermind the fact that I take the "as you would a woman" part to mean that a) God allows us to sex up other men as long as I don't do him as a woman and b) everyone seems to forget that part. My rabbi has a different opinion on that. He thinks it's ok to lay down with another guy, so long as there is no sex. Nevermind the fact that to lay with is a biblical euphemism. I much prefer the Karaite movement, they rely more on their individual interpretation than a rabbi's. However, in order for my conversion to be universally accepted, I have to go the Orthodox route.

One thing I didn't really touch upon when I was being wordy though were my thoughts on the nature of God. I've never really believed in God until my stepfather's death, and as I mentioned, it was only because I felt cheated out of a victory. Before that, and after that, I always acknowledged the existence of forces outside of my control or influence. So when I told people I believed in God, what I wasn't telling them was what exactly I believed in.

One thing I do have problems with is when people ask me why I want to convert. I find that all I can do is give them a canned response. Something like my love of Judaism, I love the sense of community, I want my (future) kids to grow up with others who'll share their beliefs. I know that I don't have to convert in order to have my part in the world to come. I don't have to convert for my children to be Jewish or even to have a Jewish wife (though marrying outside the clan in frowned upon). Perhaps my goal is to successfully assimilate? I don't know, but I'm having fun doing it, touching the lives of others, and being the prosocial sociopath.

Orthodox sociopathy (part 1)

Being sociopathic is not necessarily inconsistent with being religious. An addictive spiritual high frequently accompanies the practice of religion. Like tantric sex, denying yourself certain things intensifies the pleasure of your indulgences. Religion is a good beard and a prosthetic moral compass. For some, it can also be a welcome respite from the sociopath's legendary feeling of emptiness, at least as much as any other opiate. Plus it's not that hard -- sociopaths are used to keeping up appearances. In short, the benefits of religion for a sociopath can and often do exceed its costs. I asked one of our sociopath readers to describe what role religion plays in his life:

In order to understand my religious upbringing better, you'll have to understand the back story of my life. I was born in a small town in Florida. My mother was an Adventist and my father Agnostic. Me and my mom would go to church every Saturday, and me being little at the time, I couldn't care less. When I was eight years old, my parents divorced, mostly because my mom hung out in these places on this new thing called the internet call chatrooms. She met a guy, divorced my dad, and we moved to Montreal. A few months later, she had enroled me in a Catholic school, and married my stepfather. She quit being religious at the time, but was more than glad to send me to a private school because of Quebec's language laws at the time- I could only go to a public french school.

When I was fourteen, my stepfather died. At that point in time my stepfather had become a heavy smoker and a total drunkard. One beautiful Friday morning, he broke into my room with a butcher's knife as I was getting dressed for school. He was drunk and therefore easy to subdue. A few well placed punched to the ribs and he was out. He had to be hospitalized for his injuries. He died that day. And my mom blamed me for his death. The police also thought I killed him, they escorted me out of class that day, and in my opinion, they could have shown more discretion. My mother decided to have him cremated, and under Quebec law, you need to have an autopsy before you do something so irreversible to a body. Luckily for me, it revealed that he had lung cancer, and that it had spread to his brain. That was my first major religious experience. I was not sure whether his death had been ordained by God, or if it was His way of laughing in my face.

A few months later me and my mom had moved back to Florida. At first we were living with my father. We arrived in time for me to finish the last week of school in the Florida calender. Summer had come and gone, and because of the moving process I had failed a grade because I missed so many days of school. On top of that, The States have one more year of high school compared to Quebec. So instead of graduating in 2006 as I had planned, it was 2008. To add insult to inconvenience, because I wasn't around for the FCAT testing, they put me in remedial classes.

It wasn't until I was 20 that I moved back to Montreal. When I first arrived here, I found myself in the middle of a Jewish neighborhood. I always wanted to have a sense of community. I did my research on Judaism vs Christianity, and found that I rather prefer the monolithic portrayal of God. I fabricated a little story about how my grandmother practiced Judaism, but never converted. My first time at the shul, and I didn't even have a yarmulke (head cap). I was quickly welcomed into the community, and after a while, I realized that they have resources I don't have, and that it would only be a matter of time before my parents quit supporting me. I made sure to attend the social functions, and mingle. At first I thought that I would have to manipulate them to get what I need, however I've learned since then that they are good people.

Sociopath quote: pleasure of the mind

"Martyrs and fanatics...show what power the pleasure of the mind has. And further, even the pleasures of the senses reduce to confusedly known intellectual pleasures."

-- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

The paternalistic pull of conscience

I asked a reader why it is a relief to know that his ex was a sociopath. His response:

Woah, Never thought about that one, I guess it makes me feel better because of two reasons.

First reason would be that it means that I can just let go, As I've read sociopaths can't change, I'm not saying "Can't get better" on purpose because I don't think you're that much different to people who can't see certain colors or can't hear certain tones. If it she can't change that means I have the complete right to let her go and not try to help her and still feel good about myself.

Second reason is that it gives me the right to actually blame everything on her, keep my hands clean as some people say. I guess I sound about low on the empathy when saying that but truthfully that's how I feel.

My response:

That reminds me of a comment one of the socio readers once wrote: "Empaths are the idiots who will help anything that's in pain or distress for no other reason than its state." A couple of weeks ago, I witnessed a wild animal intrude on civilization. The animal was in no danger, the area wasn't that urban, but people were so surprised to see it that they began discussing what they should do about it, how they should protect him. To me it seemed bizarrely paternalistic and presumptuous for these people to assume that they knew better than this animal how best to survive, or to see any potential action on their part as anything but unwanted interference. Anyway, I guess you can't help it, but what you said reminded me of seeing people react to that wild animal.

Normal people are always trying to do the right thing, God love them, which makes it even more tragic when things like this scene from a television series happen, as described by the New Yorker:

When the three [friends] head out of the city for a day hike, in the first episode, Joe hits a possum in the road and is torn about what to do. He can’t tell whether it’s dead or alive, and he decides that the only humane solution is to make sure it’s dead, so he backs up over it, then pulls ahead again. It becomes clear that the possum is definitely not dead, as they look back and see it walking across the road. Of the three guys in the car, Joe is the most upset by this mess; at first, he thought he might have killed the animal, then he tried to kill the animal, and now he’s left wondering whether it will die because of him. It’s to the show’s credit that this isn’t (only) a metaphor for the uncertainty and the inevitable mistakes of adult life; the scene is viscerally disturbing, and you watch it closely, as if some magical method for undoing irreversible damage will reveal itself, not just to Joe but to you, too.

I always say that one of my biggest fears is well-intentioned people, from the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to the colonization of the New World, to everyone who has ever done something "for my own good."

Sex, drugs, and rock and roll

A reader suggested that I expand my emotional horizons by taking MDMA, the pure ingredient in the drug ecstasy. I told him that it was an interesting idea, but that I sort of already manipulate myself into feeling other emotions via film, music, art, etc., and I wasn't sure if it would be all that different. It was an interesting question, though, and reminded me of something another reader had asked, whether sociopaths like music and what effect drugs have on a sociopath. My response:

I don't know if I can speak for all sociopaths, but I love music. I was raised in a musical home and am a classically trained musician, and have participated in many popular music groups. I would imagine that other sociopaths would like it as well, depending on how open they are to exploring their emotional side. There's no doubt that music is manipulative, as is film (primarily because of the music in it?). The whole purpose of music seems to evoke some feeling or sensation in the audience. Music makes you feel things, if you let yourself get caught up in the experience. It can be a good way to learn about other people, allowing you to experience emotional experiences the way other people experience them or the way the composer/lyricist experienced them. Music is like a drug in some ways because it forces you to feel something different, which is another one of your questions. When I am taking mind altering substances, I feel like a detached observer noticing the differences in my brain chemistry, realizing that I now feel happier or sadder or whatever it is I am feeling, as if the feeling is being forced on me. I don't really like it. I don't feel like it is a welcome freedom from my inhibitions because I don't have inhibitions. If anything, it is the opposite of freedom; someone is playing with my mind, playing with me like a puppet on a string. Maybe that's just me, though. I could imagine that certain sociopaths or certain substances might be used more like the way I use music.

Okay, no sex I guess, just drugs and rock'n'roll.

Sociopath song of the day: Lied des Verfolgten im Turm

Happy birthday Mahler.



The prisoner:
Thoughts are free,
who can guess them?
They rush past
like nocturnal shadows.
No man can know them,
no hunter can shoot them;
for it remains thus:
thoughts are free.

The maiden:
In summer it is good to be merry
on high, wild meadows,
where one finds a green little place;
my heart's beloved treasure,
I do not wish to part from you!

The prisoner:
And if they lock me up
in a dark dungeon,
it is all only
in vain that they try,
for my thoughts
rip apart the barriers
and break the walls in two:
thoughts are free!

The maiden:
In summer it is good to be merry
on high, wild mountains;
one is always alone there;
one hears no children shrieking,
and the air is so inviting.

The prisoner:
So may it be, just as it is;
and if it is proper,
may it be in silence;
[ And what gladdens my heart,]1
my wish and desire,
no one can restrain;
for it remains thus:
thoughts are free.

The maiden:
My darling, you sing so cheerfully here,
as if you were a bird in the grass;
and I stand so sadly by the dungeon door.
If only I were dead, or if only I were with you!
Alas! must I always lament?

The prisoner:
And because you lament so,
I will renounce love,
and if I dare,
then nothing will torment me.
So in my heart
I can always laugh and joke,
for it remains thus:
thoughts are free!

I, Robot

This is an interesting article about therapeutic robots that are designed to look like adorable animals such as baby seals and interact in comforting ways with individuals like the senile elderly. I think you'll enjoy the parallels:

Paro is a robot modeled after a baby harp seal. It trills and paddles when petted, blinks when the lights go up, opens its eyes at loud noises and yelps when handled roughly or held upside down. Two microprocessors under its artificial white fur adjust its behavior based on information from dozens of hidden sensors that monitor sound, light, temperature and touch. It perks up at the sound of its name, praise and, over time, the words it hears frequently.
***
After years of effort to coax empathy from circuitry, devices designed to soothe, support and keep us company are venturing out of the laboratory. Paro, its name derived from the first sounds of the words “personal robot,” is one of a handful that take forms that are often odd, still primitive and yet, for at least some early users, strangely compelling.
***
But building a machine that fills the basic human need for companionship has proved more difficult. Even at its edgiest, artificial intelligence cannot hold up its side of a wide-ranging conversation or, say, tell by an expression when someone is about to cry. Still, the new devices take advantage of the innate soft spot many people have for objects that seem to care — or need someone to care for them.

Their appearances in nursing homes, schools and the occasional living room are adding fuel to science fiction fantasies of machines that people can relate to as well as rely on. And they are adding a personal dimension to a debate over what human responsibilities machines should, and should not, be allowed to undertake.

But if there is an argument to be made that people should aspire to more for their loved ones than an emotional rapport with machines, some suggest that such relationships may not be so unfamiliar. Who among us, after all, has not feigned interest in another? Or abruptly switched off their affections, for that matter?

In any case, the question, some artificial intelligence aficionados say, is not whether to avoid the feelings that friendly machines evoke in us, but to figure out how to process them.

“We as a species have to learn how to deal with this new range of synthetic emotions that we’re experiencing — synthetic in the sense that they’re emanating from a manufactured object,” said Timothy Hornyak, author of “Loving the Machine,” a book about robots in Japan, where the world’s most rapidly aging population is showing a growing acceptance of robotic care. “Our technology,” he argues, “is getting ahead of our psychology.”
***
Dorothy Marette, the clinical psychologist supervising the cafeteria klatch, said she initially presumed that those who responded to Paro did not realize it was a robot — or that they forgot it between visits.

Yet several patients whose mental faculties are entirely intact have made special visits to her office to see the robotic harp seal.

“I know that this isn’t an animal,” said Pierre Carter, 62, smiling down at the robot he calls Fluffy. “But it brings out natural feelings.”
***
”When something responds to us, we are built for our emotions to trigger, even when we are 110 percent certain that it is not human,” said Clifford Nass, a professor of computer science at Stanford University. “Which brings up the ethical question: Should you meet the needs of people with something that basically suckers them?”

An answer may lie in whether one signs on to be manipulated.

Training the low-functioning sociopath

A reader asks how she can better interact with her lower-functioning sociopath ex for the benefit of their child:

Growing up with an extremely high functioning sociopath for a best friend, I perhaps not understand but appreciate the logical thinking that comes along with not having to consider others' emotions. I've seen the game well played, but my soon to be husband keeps shooting himself in the foot. He is now destitute, living without so much as a car and is about to lose everything he will ever make in the divorce settlement. Have you met any sociopaths who completely sabotage themselves to this degree? Is this a challenge to him, an insult to me, or a result of a game gone horribly wrong? Or am I missing the point entirely? Is there a way to encourage him to use his advantages for more productive means or am I dealing with a real chump and should call it a day?

My response:

Sociopaths are allegedly slow learners, particularly experiential learning, which I'm sure is a large part of why sociopathic criminals are very likely to re-offend. Sociopaths don't respond effectively to punishment because they don't fear punishment in the same way that neurotypicals do. Dr. Hare illustrated this in a study where participants watched a timer ticking down to a painful electric shock. Normal people would get increasingly anxious as the time for the shock approached, but psychopaths did not. Because sociopaths do not fear consequences in the same way empaths do, they are prone to making the same mistakes over and over again. Even mice can be trained to stop pushing particular buttons that lead to certain negative consequences, but sociopaths struggle. Because sociopaths are risk takers, they also tend to be overly optimistic about their chances. Finally, sociopaths are largely emotionally empty -- their lives do not have much meaning beyond the power they can acquire and gratification in which they can indulge, so they don't have much to lose.

still, if sociopaths seem oblivious to punishments, at least the more successful ones are surprisingly sensitive to incentive systems. my personal theory is that the lowest functioning sociopath is only sensitive to immediate rewards, while the highest functioning sociopath has learned to also feel pleasure in accumulating delayed rewards. for example, low functioning sociopaths might be enticed to do an honest day's work for a honest day's pay, but are less likely to save money for retirement.

how would i use this knowledge to train a low functioning sociopath? i think the same way that you might train a small child or a pet -- break up rewards into small, frequent, easy to achieve increments. for instance, if he does a small task, you will let him have more time with his daughter, you will let him borrow your car, you will let him be late with support payments, whatever the small reward you want to provide is. he probably won't like thinking that you are messing with him or manipulating him, which to him will smack of a power struggle or paternalism, so expose for him how you are benefiting from his behavior. for example, if he picks up your daughter on time, you won't have to pay the babysitter extra money to stay, so you are willing to send her out with spending money. or his calling ahead when he cannot make his appointed visitation allows you to make other arrangements so you do not need to miss work. in economic-speak, sociopaths are rational actors, perhaps the purest form of rational actor, as that term is defined. you can always count on them to look out for their best interest, and as long as what you want is also something they want, they can act in your best interest as well.

Lock 'em up

The role that a diagnosis of psychopathy should play in criminal sentencing is an admittedly thorny issue. The legal standard for an insanity plea is that the perpetrator must not be able to distinguish between right and wrong. Sociopaths actually know the difference between right and wrong most of the time, they just don't care (enough to conform their behavior to societal standards). The debate is whether this faulty wiring makes them more culpable, less culpable, or equally culpable to a similarly offending non-sociopath. A prominent researcher who specializes in scanning the brains of sociopaths in prisons, Kent Kiehl, suggests in an interview with NPR that we should cut them some slack:

Brian Dugan . . . is serving two life sentences for rape and murder in Chicago. Last July, Dugan pleaded guilty to raping and murdering 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico in 1983, and he was put on trial to determine whether he should be executed. Kiehl was hired by the defense to do a psychiatric evaluation.

In a videotaped interview with Kiehl, Dugan describes how he only meant to rob the Nicaricos' home. But then he saw the little girl inside.

"She came to the door and ... I clicked," Dugan says in a flat, emotionless voice. "I turned into Mr. Hyde from Dr. Jekyll."
***
"And I have empathy, too — but it's like it just stops," he says. "I mean, I start to feel, but something just blocks it. I don't know what it is."

Kiehl says he's heard all this before: All psychopaths claim they feel terrible about their crimes for the benefit of the parole board.

"But then you ask them, 'What do you mean, you feel really bad?' And Brian will look at you and go, 'What do you mean, what does it mean?' They look at you like, 'Can you give me some help? A hint? Can I call a friend?' They have no way of really getting at that at all," Kiehl says.

Kiehl says the reason people like Dugan cannot access their emotions is that their physical brains are different. And he believes he has the brain scans to prove it.
***
Psychopaths' brains behave differently from that of a nonpsychopathic person. When a normal person sees a morally objectionable photo, his limbic system lights up. This is what Kiehl calls the "emotional circuit," involving the orbital cortex above the eyes and the amygdala deep in the brain. But Kiehl says when psychopaths like Dugan see the KKK picture, their emotional circuit does not engage in the same way.
***
Kiehl says the emotional circuit may be what stops a person from breaking into that house or killing that girl. But in psychopaths like Dugan, the brakes don't work. Kiehl says psychopaths are a little like people with very low IQs who are not fully responsible for their actions. The courts treat people with low IQs differently. For example, they can't get the death penalty.

"What if I told you that a psychopath has an emotional IQ that's like a 5-year-old?" Kiehl asks. "Well, if that was the case, we'd make the same argument for individuals with low emotional IQ — that maybe they're not as deserving of punishment, not as deserving of culpability, etc."
***
This argument troubles Steven Erickson, a forensic psychologist and legal scholar at Widener University School of Law. He notes that alcoholics have brain abnormalities. Do we give them a pass if they kill someone while driving drunk?
***
At trial, Jonathan Brodie, a psychiatrist at NYU Medical School who was the prosecution's expert witness, went further. Even if Dugan's brain is abnormal, he testified, the brain does not dictate behavior.

"There may be many, many people who also have psychopathic tendencies and have similar scans, who don't do antisocial behavior, who don't rape and kill," Brodie says.

The jury seemed to zero in on the science, asking to reread all the testimony about the neuroscience during 10 hours of deliberation. But in the end, they sentenced Dugan to death. Dugan is appealing the sentence.

With this and the recent U.S. Supreme Court case allowing governments to indefinitely detain pedophiles, the halcyon days of believing in rehabilitation for criminals seem to be over. If there was one piece of advice I could give this upcoming generation of sociopaths, it would be to master the ability to authentically mimic the empath's exaggerated remorse and self-hate, a performance that is quickly becoming necessary to keep the lynch mobs at bay.

Sociopath quote of the day: principles

I like persons better than principles, and I like persons with no principles better than anything else in the world.

-- Oscar Wilde

Sociopaths in popular culture: Scott Disick

A reader sent this regarding the omnipresent Kardashians:

Interview with a seducee (part 4)

(cont.)

I didn't think too much about it when I got home. I remember thinking just one or two times thinking about the whole night in general and remember afterward telling people that I hadn't been talking to you anymore, but it was specifically, it was really when we were going to get those cables. You had driven and we were in the parking garage area and we had to get into an elevator to get into the store, which I found odd. All of the sudden there was a lightness and a comfort between us, and maybe it was a newfound comfort in someone that you've kissed or shared enough conversation or time in one day that we're able to coexist in the same store or the same location with a lightness as opposed to all of the awkwardness of times past, that was very refreshing and exciting.

We were talking about this person you were dating long distance and also this other person who you told me about with whom you felt there was something going on there, something less than a relationship so far but that person was going to go to see you play and was either more interested in you than you wanted, but essentially you were sharing with me the parameters of having to balance three people at the same time and that that was a little bit more, perhaps, than you had anticipated at the time. I remember distinctly feeling at the time that I was no better or worse than them and certainly wasn't competitive with them. I either stand on my own or I don't. I wasn't taken aback in any way by the idea that you were either dating other people or you weren't, it was more the fact of the matter. But I remember, just by the way you were characterizing those people, thinking about how I would be characterized and thought of myself in terms of an explanation to someone else through your words and cautioned myself when I noticed even just standing in the elevator that I wanted to be physical with you, to touch you, kiss you, push you against the wall and kiss you, and show that physical sexual aggressiveness because of an intensity I was feeling. I knew that had to be controlled because whatever feelings I was having had to be tempered by the fact that it didn't appear that there was anything sustainable about whatever this was.

[regarding different sides of m.e.] I wouldn't say you seem like you have been different persons, I realize I have said that a lot in this narrative, but for me it's more those first impressions that you take from someone -- all those assessments that we make about people based in that blink and we roll from there and they either end up proving or disproving initial theories. I don't feel like you morphed into some different person or character so much that I had made different assumptions about you, and that's not even to say that your actions in one particular instance proved or disproved those assumptions, it just felt as if it was an out of character experience based on those assumptions. I don't know if the narrative sounded negative, I hope it didn't. I tried to be honest about what I felt in the situation, but I wouldn't be talking to you tonight if I thought that you had been disingenuous with me and showed all these different characteristics that had you as angry, liar, etc. If I thought those were actual aspects of your personality, I don't think I would still be in contact with you.

My biggest frustration with you is openness, transparency. I wish you would be more open with me, even if it was blunt or harsh. I guess because you don't tell me everything I assume there are lots of bad things that you aren't telling me; I feel like you are holding things back, calculating. You're just more reserved about things, I guess. That's probably smart, to approach things that way, be more protective of yourself. And I'm the opposite, this verbal diarrhea thing. At first, I probably should have never been as open to you, but by now I'm convinced that we've shared enough experiences, whether you can add them up on one hand or not, that I do have an idea of who you are. I don't have a problem sharing myself with you. I can't ask that you return that, but I feel that particularly where it feels the most confusing is that there was such an awkwardness about that email and us being together, there were these awkward moments for me and I guess I think that nothing is ever entirely clear but I just wish that this was a little more clear. Can't that just be the case? I just remember you saying things like "I thought about what it would be like to date you," and what goes through my mind when I hear that is that you've thought about the possibly of (1) dating and being with someone like me and (2) whether that would be a secret relationship, because I think of you as a plotting and calculating person, because you wouldn't go through any decision making process blind, so I was trying to think about what you would even think about to make that sort of statement to me.

You know, I still wonder why. Why the manipulation?