Sociopath World

The divided brain

2012-02-08T00:30:00.000-08:00

From a reader:

This may or may not be of interest to you, but it did make me think of you so I thought I'd send it:

It is a new perspective by psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist on the significance of the anatomical division of the brain (i.e. left vs right hemisphere). He does not make reference to sociopathic behaviour but it would be difficult not to make some associations.

It struck a chord with me as I have always found the existence of sociopaths profoundly disembodied, ie living in their heads, in a concrete, abstract, explicit, decontextualised and heavily simplified world.

You might find it interesting.

Lying fluently

2012-02-07T00:30:00.000-08:00

I was going out for cheeseburgers with my friend the other day. There was no parking, so I told her to park in the garage for a nearby mega-music shop. I thought the chances of getting towed were quite low, but I also thought we might as well walk through the shop and have "witnesses" should there be a problem. It was a slow night in the shop, though, and so we got immediately accosted by a salesclerk.

"Can I help you?"

"Yes, do you stock Shure microphones?" I was half hoping that he wouldn't know, and would just send us downstairs to where the DJ stuff was (and the exit).

"Sure, I'll take you down. What are you looking for?"

"SM-57s," I responded, choosing what I consider the rarer model that he would be less likely to know about.

"Oh, are you doing some recording or something?"

"No, sound reinforcement."

"Oh, ok. Well, here they are."

"How many do you have in stock?"

"How many do you need?"

"I don't know, maybe 5 or more? It's for my brother, I told him I would swing by and check to see if you had them in your inventory."

"Well, we should have at least 5, maybe as many as a dozen."

"How much are they?"

"XX"

"Do you do any sort of bulk discount?"

"Only for orders of several dozen or more."

"Not even like a 10% something?

"Sorry man, no."

"Ok, thanks. I'll let him know. Thanks for your help."

My friend asked as we left, "What was that? Do you really need microphones."

"No," I replied, "I was just making sure they would remember us if it came to complaining about a tow charge, and it was on our way out anyway."

"It's unsettling to see how fluently you lie. I mean, I thought I knew from the start that it was a lie, but then you kept adding these odd details and follow-up questions that normal people wouldn't think to include in a lie and I started to wonder myself. You did that same thing on our trip a couple years ago with those city rats -- you made up an entire life history on the spot without a single hesitation. It makes me wonder how I would ever be able to tell if you were lying to me."

"Yeah, I know. I say it with just the right earnestness and sincerity. It's sometimes hard for me to tell when I'm lying too."

Evil children

2012-02-06T01:00:00.000-08:00

Just because:

Hyperlexia

2012-02-05T00:00:00.000-08:00

I have a hard time understanding verbal speech. I can't pay attention to conversations with the television on -- my friends hate me for it. Even if I'm really concentrating, I can only understand 90-95% of what is said when I am watching television or a film. In fact, most of the time I don't bother going to the cinema, but wait until a movie is on DVD to watch it with the subtitles.

I noticed it when I was a teen. I assumed that I had hearing loss due to playing in rock bands and attending loud clubs. I started religiously wearing earplugs, hoping (as a musician) to guard what remained of my hearing. When I stopped studying music and went to graduate school, I had to sit at the very front of every class, or I couldn't "hear" what the professor was saying.

Concerned that I might need hearing aids, I had my hearing tested several times. Each time, my hearing was completely normal. I was concerned that I was just gaming the hearing test. When I was little I also had my hearing tested. I learned to anticipate "tones" by watching the face of the person giving the test -- looking for "tells," microexpressions or other evidence that I should be raising my hand. (Sociopaths must be difficult to diagnose for certain things because of this.) At my last hearing test, several years ago, I insisted that I face away from the examiner who was already in another, darkened room separated by glass. I passed with absolutely normal hearing. Still I doubted the results, wondering if my acute sense of timing was causing me to hear tones in what I knew would otherwise be an uncomfortably long silence.

The puzzle was that I did not have a hard time hearing in general. I took several acoustics and sound recording classes at university and had an exceptional "ear" across the sound spectrum. It was just speech that I had a hard time deciphering. Not language. My reading comprehension has always been off the charts. Verbal language.

My friend's niece learned to read when she was just one year old from (shockingly) those "your baby can read" DVDs. Someone opined that the niece might be hyperlexic, characterized by an extraordinary facility with written language, frequently paired with a difficulty in understanding verbal speech. Hyperlexia is associated with the autism spectrum (as with other language issues), with some experts believing that all hyperlexics are autistic. I don't think I'm hyperlexic. I show no real signs. I do think, however, that my inability to decode verbal speech has less to do with my ears and more to do with my brain. Brain wiring? Attentional problems? Whatever it is, it seems to not affect music cognition, but that's another thing shared with the autism spectrum.

Song: Bang Bang

2012-02-04T01:00:00.000-08:00

A classic, from friend TNP.

Overdiagnosing Asperger's

2012-02-03T00:00:00.000-08:00

Two recent NY Times pieces discuss the overdiagnosis of Asperger's.

This op ed is written by someone who was mistakenly diagnosed with Asperger's as a teenager by his psychologist mother who (surprise!) specialized in Asperger's. He eventually outgrew his social awkwardness, but wonders if he would have if he had been diagnosed younger, or would he have withdrawn even more in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy:

I wonder: If I had been born five years later and given the diagnosis at the more impressionable age of 12, what would have happened? I might never have tried to write about social interaction, having been told that I was hard-wired to find social interaction baffling.

The authors of the next edition of the diagnostic manual, the D.S.M.-5, are considering a narrower definition of the autism spectrum. This may reverse the drastic increase in Asperger diagnoses that has taken place over the last 10 to 15 years. Many prominent psychologists have reacted to this news with dismay. They protest that children and teenagers on the mild side of the autism spectrum will be denied the services they need if they’re unable to meet the new, more exclusive criteria.

But my experience can’t be unique. Under the rules in place today, any nerd, any withdrawn, bookish kid, can have Asperger syndrome.

The definition should be narrowed. I don’t want a kid with mild autism to go untreated. But I don’t want a school psychologist to give a clumsy, lonely teenager a description of his mind that isn’t true.

Under the headline: "Asperger's History of Over Diagnosis,"we get a shout out as the only people who might not eventually be labeled as being a bit of an Aspie:

For better or worse, though, Asperger syndrome has become a part of our cultural landscape. Comments about a person’s having “a touch of Asperger’s” seem to be part of everyday conversations. Even an episode of “South Park” last year was devoted to Asperger syndrome. We can only hope that better physiological markers distinguishing between the autism-spectrum disorders and pure social disabilities can stem this tide of ever more pathologizing.

But, as Martha Denckla, a pediatric neurologist at Johns Hopkins University, has lamented, the only Americans in the future who will perhaps not be labeled as having a touch of Asperger syndrome will be politicians and lobbyists. Members of the political establishment may have other kinds of psychopathology; but, unlike the rest of us, they at least cannot be thought of as Aspies.

Of course we can all be glad that we will never be diagnosed as having Asperger's (which doesn't mean that I won't sometimes throw out that I am also a little bit Aspie to get sympathy and leeway). I guess we can also be happy that people seem so reluctant to diagnosis anyone who isn't a murderer a sociopath (and categorically exclude children). In my mind, though, I don't see anything wrong with labeling people a little bit Aspie or a little bit sociopathic, unless it's an issue of prescribing medication or other radically different treatment. But if there are no meds and there is no treatment, then what is wrong with slapping a label on someone as long as it helps others understand them (and helps them understand themselves) better?

Subspecies

2012-02-02T00:00:00.000-08:00

A posting at Rifters.com recently featured this blog saying things like: "As everyone agrees, the word for getting rid of a whole subspecies is not 'cure'. I’m not quite sure what the right word might be, but it’s probably somewhere between extermination and genocide."

But specifically about this site:

I do not know the name of the person behind “Sociopath World”; doubtless that’s by design. He or she (actually, screw it; I’m gonna go with he) refers to himself merely as “The Sociopath” on his contact page, as “M.E.” on Twitter, and as me@sociopathworld.com when he hands out his address (which makes me doubt that the “M.E.” Twitter handle is an actual set of initials). No matter. This is either a subtle and very labor-intensive hoax, or it’s your one-stop-shopping center for the interested empath (they call us “Empaths”, apparently, which I find both more precise and less condescending than the “neurotypical” label the Autistic Spectrum types seem to prefer). The most popular posts end up on the FAQ list: Do Sociopaths Love? Are Sociopaths Self-Aware? Am I a Sociopath? Can Sociopaths be “Good”? There are helpful how-to pointers: How to break up with a sociopath, for example (the illustration to the right was taken from that particular entry; at least we know that sociopaths have a sense of humor).

There are pop-culture observations: whether the new Twenty-first-century Sherlock really is a sociopath in the world of fiction, whether Lady Gaga is in real life, the potential infiltration of sociopaths into Occupy Wall Street drum circles. There’s a forum, rife with trolls and assholes and deleted posts; but there’s also legitimate debate there. And surprisingly, it also seems to function as a kind of support group for people in emotional distress.

You can even, I shit you not, order a Sociopath World t-shirt.

So. ME is out there, fighting the good fight. He’s getting noticed (at least, his blog gets shitloads more comments than mine, not that that’s a high bar to clear in the wide webby world). He’s showing up on the occasional psych blogroll. So now, I’m going to sit back and see if the neurodiversity community is willing to pick up the torch. If he is trying to kickstart the Vampire Rights League, though, I think he’s fighting an uphill battle.

Reading the comment section, there is a remarkable absence of people arguing that Aspies and Auties should not be lumped in with filthy, no-good sociopaths. Instead we get things like: "When I first ran into sociopathworld.com I thought that’s what it was, evil trying to represent itself as less than totally harmful or at least as something not to be so rightly feared. I’m less sure, now, and we should probably all spend some time reading there."

Children's primer

2012-02-01T00:00:00.000-08:00

I saw this the other day and was reminded of the Lovefraud types. I especially like how it could be read by a six year old.

Morality pill

2012-01-31T00:00:00.000-08:00

My friend sent me a link to this NY Times op-ed titled "Are we ready for a morality pill?" with the instruction "let your followers discuss their impending extermination through pills." Apart from the obvious Clockwork Orange implications, I thought this was the most controversial part

Why are some people prepared to risk their lives to help a stranger when others won’t even stop to dial an emergency number?

Scientists have been exploring questions like this for decades. In the 1960s and early ’70s, famous experiments by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo suggested that most of us would, under specific circumstances, voluntarily do great harm to innocent people. During the same period, John Darley and C. Daniel Batson showed that even some seminary students on their way to give a lecture about the parable of the Good Samaritan would, if told that they were running late, walk past a stranger lying moaning beside the path. More recent research has told us a lot about what happens in the brain when people make moral decisions. But are we getting any closer to understanding what drives our moral behavior?

Researchers there took two rats who shared a cage and trapped one of them in a tube that could be opened only from the outside. The free rat usually tried to open the door, eventually succeeding. Even when the free rats could eat up all of a quantity of chocolate before freeing the trapped rat, they mostly preferred to free their cage-mate. The experimenters interpret their findings as demonstrating empathy in rats. But if that is the case, they have also demonstrated that individual rats vary, for only 23 of 30 rats freed their trapped companions.

The causes of the difference in their behavior must lie in the rats themselves. It seems plausible that humans, like rats, are spread along a continuum of readiness to help others. There has been considerable research on abnormal people, like psychopaths, but we need to know more about relatively stable differences (perhaps rooted in our genes) in the great majority of people as well.

Must it? This may just be an issue of semantics, but I don't think that this is necessarily a question of morality (big surprise). I think that the fact that there are some very moral people who sometimes do bad things (i.e. Milgram subjects or the Good Samaritan preachers) suggests that it is not really an issue of morality at all, but perhaps of attention. Sometimes our attention is directed at a "good" behavior and we have an impulse to act. Sometimes we are distracted or our attention is never caught or there is not the impulse. Under my theory, generally moral people are on the lookout for moral things and are willing to act (unless they get distracted or get conflicting cues, like in an experimental setting trying to make them look amoral). Is this too behavioralist? Has that all been refuted since I took psychology at university?

And what about mental state? One thing that most criminal laws and religions have in common is a distinction between a good/bad act and a good/bad mental state. For instance, many religious people believe that if you do good things and don't have good intentions that is not moral and vice versa. Similarly, many crimes require a particular bad intent or are mitigated by the lack of a bad intent.

I understand the rationale behind wanting to test morality by observing people's objective actions rather than subjective mental state (not just a "walk the talk" argument but an ease, consistency, and accuracy of measurement motivation), but I think (if my understanding of morality is at all accurate) that a person's level of morality is not merely a sum of a person's actions. I hope that's not true, at least.

Crying

2012-01-30T00:00:00.000-08:00

This is going to date me (and possibly make me sound like I have terrible taste in movies), but I remember watching City of Angels when it came out. (Actually I had seen the sequel to the original first, and was very confused. Film depictions of fallen angels always remind me of sociopaths, a la the Meet Joe Black angel of death -- to complete the bad 90s romantic comedies references.) But in the City of Angels version, the fallen angel asks the Meg Ryan character about crying:

Seth: Why do people cry?
Maggie: What do you mean?
Seth: I mean, what happens physically?
Maggie: Well... umm... tear ducts operate on a normal basis to lubricate and protect the eye and when you have an emotion they overact and create tears.
Seth: Why? Why do they overact?
Maggie: [pause] I don't know.
Seth: Maybe... maybe emotion becomes so intense your body just can't contain it. Your mind and your feelings become too powerful, and your body weeps.

Here's what a sociopath reader wrote about it:

I think I can recognize it, but I do honestly get confused when a person cries. My sister is always crying during a movie called animal farm. I assume she is sad because I personally know she loves animals, and in that movie a lot of animals are tortured, killed. If I was not aware of her liking animals, I would be a little confused to her crying, because people cry when they laugh, and when they are angry. I always figured she was pissed at the movie, and thus cried. If she did not love animals as obsessively as she did (as in I didn't know her on a personal level), that would be my first conclusion. That makes more sense to me, to be so frustrated or angry, that she would cry. I've seen people so pissed that they cry. I was so frustrated once that I cried, part of it was forced, but I cried nonetheless. Vanessa cried all the time, but I'm not exactly sure why now that I think about it. It may have been anger. People cry due to pain right? Sadness is a form of pain? I think that's what you were saying.

When I watched Passion of the Christ (hilarious movie, also tedious and somewhat redundant), I chuckled, and smiled, and wanted to laugh. Those around me were crying. I heard the sniffles, saw the wiping at their eyes, and naturally I knew they were upset. It did confuse me, I didn't know specifically why they were crying, but they were. It grew annoying very quickly. One time in church when I was visiting family in the east coast the preacher was preaching his bull, and people around me started to convulse, and cry. This confused me more than any other experience of people crying (I was a child btw when this happened). I still can't come to a rational explanation of their crying other than it was fake, and these people didn't want to be the out casts. That's why I did it. I did cry that day, but only after everyone else was at it for a while. I watched my mother, who was crying, I watched those fainting around me, I watched my sister, who was crying. Then I studied her, hard, and tried to think of something that could make me cry. I tried to think of a time that I cried, and all I was able to come up with was when I was in physical pain. So I hurt myself. When no one was paying attention I used the bottom of my palm and pushed harshly upward right underneath my nose, which caused me to tear up. Then I thought of how my sister looks when she cries, looked at everyone else's expression when they were crying, and did that, mixed with the tears I produced because I hit myself. Once everyone stopped, and settled down, I put off the act, and once we left, I was confused, disturbed. I just, in general, don't like church scenarios. The fact that a mass of people can use mob mentality and conform to emotions that I don't think any are actually feeling is beyond me. I remember asking my mother why everyone was crying, and she told me they were feeling the spirit. How? How can you feel something that isn't there? A spirit meant nothing to me because it was not a solid physicality, existing (as in I can see it) thing, so how can you feel for something that isn't there?

Lady Gaga again

2012-01-29T02:30:00.000-08:00

I was talking to one of my musician friends about what makes someone a very interesting artist, and she mentioned how Tony Bennett's most recent duet album is of note because even though his voice is shot, he collaborates with such interesting people that they're still worth listening to. She told me that she was watching an interview with Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga about the album and is now convinced that she is in fact a sociopath. According to her:

"Sociopaths are like a narcissist in so many ways, but they still manage to make you feel good too. That's how I can tell someone's a sociopath."
"Lady Gaga was swooning over Tony Bennett and Tony Bennett was eating it up, yet everything remained about Lady Gaga and Tony Bennett seemed fine about it."
"She was kissing his cheek and talking about him, yet somehow it was all about her."

I tried to find the interview, but could not manage to get a full clip. This is the best I could do:

Even in this short clip there is a reference to how she is spontaneous (impulsive) and how she changes from day to day, more than anyone he has ever met in the entertainment industry. I'm not saying that these small things make a sociopath. I'm just saying that she is a good example of someone famous who could be a sociopath that you wouldn't necessarily think of as being a sociopath.

(Completely off topic for you music lovers) I have a new theory that Beethoven 7 is the orchestral version of a woman's little black dress -- it is universally flattering and appropriate for any occasion. Feel free to quote me liberally at your next cocktail party.

Sociopaths = narcissistic, not narcissists

2012-01-28T00:00:00.000-08:00

Question from reader "R" re sociopaths vs. narcissists (edited):

Dear Sociopath:

I hope you don't mind but if you have chance I have some questions for you. I've never knowingly dealt or spoken with a sociopath before (as far as I know) and this is my first time reaching out. I've become interested in sociopaths because I recently realized through a very melodramatic relationship that I was searching out a sociopath under the guise of trying to seek a highly romanticized romantic relationship. It turned out I think that all I got was narcissist... and after he fired me (he was my boss) I realized part of my bitter disappointment was that he was only a narcissist.

I don't think a narcissist is much like a sociopath... they just operate on a lower emotional level that rules them entirely where as it seems sociopaths function without the entanglements of the regular fears and ambitions that the rest of us have? What do you think?

my response:

I think that sociopaths and narcissists are very different, although they both demonstrate a certain amount of "narcissism," which is confusing terminology for some people. There is clinical "narcissism," the disorder, and narcissism in the traits of self love, overconfidence, delusions of grandeur, etc. "Narcissism" the disorder is just a term for a bundle of traits that happens to include narcissism the trait. Narcissism isn't necessarily the dominant trait of the narcissist, although it is certainly a prominent one. Sociopaths also frequently manifest the narcissistic trait, but the sociopath would believe he has more justification for his narcissism, and with good reason. The sociopath is exceptional -- his brain is hardwired differently to think rationally all the time, to exploit, to be a predator/scavenger. I don't think this is true of narcissists. I believe narcissism is deeply based in self-deception. as Fyodor Dostoevsky said in The Brothers Karamazov:

"A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself and for others. When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love, and in him, he yields to his impulses, indulges in the lowest form of pleasure, and behaves in the end like an animal in satisfying his vices. And it all comes from lying--to others and to yourself."

Empaths may think that all of this is a distinction without a difference because interactions with narcissists may seem very similar to interactions with sociopaths. Both may seem uncaring, but with the sociopath it is more because he is incapable of caring about you the same way you care about yourself, whereas with the narcissist it is more because he is too self-involved to notice you. But there is arguably more hope of a stable relationship with a sociopath because sociopaths are self-aware and manifest greater control over their behavior (i.e. ability to adapt to individual needs and preferences). That said, a relationship with a narcissist could be more stable because they are more constant (albeit constantly selfish) and have more genuine (albeit histrionic and self-involved) emotions. And narcissists too can change their behavior if they think that the change is more consistent with their deluded self-image of themselves -- a-friend-to-man, a superhero, a-good-guy, or whatever it is they are telling themselves that particular day. If you don't mind everything always being about him in a relationship, a narcissist should be fine. If you don't mind everything always being about you in a relationship, a sociopath should be fine. but I like your description, too -- that narcissists operate on a lower emotional level that rules them whereas sociopaths function without the entanglements of the regular fears and ambitions that empaths have. To the extent that means that sociopaths have much greater control over their behavior/destiny, I think that is true.

SNL Dateline

2012-01-27T00:30:00.000-08:00

A reader sent me this very funny portrayal of creepy SNL Dateline parody Keith Morrison: "When I was four years old I saw a birthday clown drown in a pool."

"Tell me, did killing him get your rocks off?"

"No. You know, I'm not weird like that."

"Not even a little?"

"Ah, what the heck, it got me off a little."

"Yeah..."

In the same episode, gaslighting, or a copy of the teleplay here for those that cannot watch.

Weegee

2012-01-26T00:00:00.000-08:00

I have recently gotten into Weegee. I have also always enjoyed gazing (Weegee-like) at human suffering. Studying? The real phrase I want to use is "watching at," because it suggests a certain detachment and dehumanization of the subject, but I don't think that is proper English.

There has always been something very compelling to me, seeing people laid naked, bare for all the world to see them at their most piteous moments. I like the violent Weegee photographs the best, or the ones that imply violence or display the results of violence. I also like the apathy of some of the onlookers. There is something so self-congratulatory about the faces of some of these bystanders -- as if it was a credit to their skill, determination, and faithful church-going that they had avoided a similar fate.

Don't you love the word akimbo? I know that the word akimbo must have derived to describe the curious angle of the limbs of a dead corpse (among other things), but there is something of certainty about the word that suggests the contrary -- that dead corpses exist to give purpose to the word.

Weegee himself is not a sociopath, of course. He's quoted in a recent Slate article as saying: "I’m very sensitive and artistic and hate the sight of blood, but I’m spellbound by the mystery of murder." Too bad.

For collections, see here, here, here, and here, among others.

Managing expectations

2012-01-25T00:00:00.000-08:00

For several years I was in a very corporate environment (until I got fired for shirking almost all work assignments). My bosses would always admonish us to manage our clients' expectations. By that they meant that we should under-promise so we would look like the hero when we exceeded expectations, or at the very least always meet their expectations. This was an ok strategy most of the time, particularly when there was some information asymmetry between you and the client that made it difficult for the client to assess for itself the likely outcomes from your type of services. In situations where the client is not clueless and can actually make an educated guess itself about what you should and shouldn't be able to accomplish, this can be a self-defeating strategy. If they know from their own experiences that they can expect x quality at y price, when they come into your office and you tell them that you can only provide (x-10) at (y+1000) price, they'll just look elsewhere for services.

As part of my current job, I often give training presentations or workshops, either in-house or for other organizations or conferences. I just started one in-house presentation yesterday -- a multi-week affair that most people have to attend because it looks good for promotion. I have done this particular series before and found that most people's complaints revolved around it being too much work. It also was too much work for me. This time around I've revamped it to be the sort of thing that people (including me) can just show up to and have an interesting discussion. But there is always the worry that people will not take it seriously at all, and then things will truly fall apart before the end of the series with possible damage to my reputation from people thinking that I am a "joke" or can otherwise be taken advantage of. My plan of action (a risky plan of action) is to have the class be easy but to maintain appearances is to be seen as an authority such that they are afraid of my judgment, and also highlight the accomplishments and good ideas of their colleagues to foment peer pressure. This way they will feel both vertical and horizontal pressure to put forth their better efforts, despite the casual structure of the class.

To establish myself as an authority, I told them that I chose this particular topic because it is something that I didn't know much about but wanted to learn. I then told a story about someone famous in my field who happens to be in his 80s, and how he does a similar series with an emphasis on technology because that's the only way he can keep up with the latest and still remain relevant. Still, I really played up my ignorance, turning to particular articles written by experts and saying I don't even know what they're talking about, and could someone get more esoteric? I then proceeded to lead the discussion by asking insightful questions that I knew would be some people's specialities or at least a handful of people would know because of current events. I stirred up this almost feeding frenzy of bragging, everyone eager to try to show off their own knowledge and expertise lest they be thought the lone idiot in the seminar, but I never let anyone get too comfortable either. Finally at the end I take them along a particular polished thought experiment that blew their minds. The truth is that although I am not an authority in this general subject area, I am in the particular subject matter we discussed this week and will discuss next week. So now I've basically told them I'm an ignorant dilettante... who can also blow their minds. If my plan has worked correctly, the thing they should be asking themselves today is -- if I think I'm an idiot at something in which I am so far above them, how good am I at the things that I would actually admit expertise?

Psycho-path to success

2012-01-24T00:00:00.000-08:00

A reader sent me a CNN feature about psychopaths, which has been sort of a theme recently but this one has an interactive quizz! And clever headline! "Bad Bosses: The Psycho-path to Success." And quotable quotes:

"Most of us have an image of psychopathy that's inaccurate -- we think of the killer, a crazy person ... the fact is, psychopathy is a personality disorder that may or may not result in criminal behavior."
"Squint at the symptoms of psychopathy, and in a different light they can appear as simple office politics or entrepreneurial prowess."
"They can't get any one thing done because they're prone to boredom, but that can be easily called 'multitasking.'"
"Risk-taking can be beneficial. A lack of empathy can be beneficial, if you need to make a rational-based decision."

From the reader:

I saw this today and immediately thought of you. Especially funny is the interactive flash quiz at the top, where it you can answer questions about your boss to find out if he/she is a psychopath. It comes replete with scary pictures, including Christian Bale's "American Psycho" dvd cover. On a more serious note, I find that knowledge of psychopathy, and all it entails, is slowly creeping into society's collective conscience. The word is used conversationally, with increasing accuracy, by the general public, and mentioned increasingly often in movies / on tv. Perhaps you can write a post regarding this phenomenon? Personally, I am dismayed by this pattern, and hope it is just my imagination playing tricks on me, because I have always relished the complete ignorance of psychopathy's very EXISTENCE most people display.

There does seem to be something of a trend, doesn't there? There's the "Occupy Wall Street guy, the remake of American Psycho starring (possibly? please be true, rumor mill) someone famous for acting like a psychopath. Next up should be a book, of course by me. Then a scripted television show, about my life. Then a reality television show, which I will produce. And then cashing out and becoming a life coach. At least that is my five year plan. Maybe the extra publicity will be bad for the average psychopath, but it's sort of a prisoner's dilemma situation, is it not?

But realistically, will being aware of the existence of psychopaths really change the way people live their lives? Just because I'm aware of the dangers of automobile travel, does that mean that I do not travel in a car? At a certain point, all of the information about the baddies (terrorists, murderers, rapists, white collar criminals) and the health risks (cancer, AIDS, accidental death, mental disease) in the world just becomes background noise. Adding one more thing to worry about will not affect the way most people go about their lives. I don't think about cancer daily. Then again, I might if I actually got diagnosed with cancer.

Sociopaths in the news: Megaupload

2012-01-23T00:00:00.000-08:00

From a reader:

I was wondering if you followed the arrest of the megaupload.com crew in New Zealand. Kim Schmitz also known as Kim Dotcom, the founder had some pretty interesting reactions, and I think he might be sociopath as well. In addition to having a history of scamming and shady deals of which he was also convicted of in Europe, I personally have dealt with him and was almost scammed by the guy. I dealt with him once many years ago when he tried to organize an exotic car rally, the entry was supposed to be 50,000$ and the pot 1 million. Of course the race never happened and all those who paid didn't get their money back. He managed to collect quite a few deposits and made off with them. The very first time I spoke to him I had my spidey sense tingling me and decided against any further dealings with him. He does exhibit a lot of ASPD traits as observed by myself and as you can probably deduce from the following article, if you please to read it.

So first after the police descended on his mansion with helicopters he hid behind electronic defenses installed in his house, after those were breached by the police he hid inside a "panic room" and the police had to cut through it to get to him. Sounds almost like a caricature. After that debacle, he goes on to say he has nothing to hide, and was happy to pose for pictures to the press. All of his past dealings and convictions related to him are scams, accusations of insider trading, stock manipulation, and more scams.

What cemented my opinion about him having ASPD was also the fact that in between him trying to convince me to sign up for his rally, the next subject of conversation was how awesome and rich he was, and every few phrases or so he made a reference to his wealth. He talked about how much money he was making to the point I felt that he was either a very very insecure man, or a complete fool. Now I know better, and I'm pretty sure he is a bona fide sociopath. I've met a lot of people with fragile egos that need to boast and such but this guy... Nothing like him. He was definitely wealthy back then too, no doubt about it, but he was acting like we should be grateful to him for giving us the "amazing opportunity" to participate in his event.

One more thing to note, in spite of his flaws and quirks, he struck me as a very very intelligent man.

Editor's note: I was also persuaded by the aforementioned article's reference to his ties to two germans and one dutchie, who apparently were also megaupload.com leaders. Central Europeans do not have a good track record for morality, and if they were attracted to Kim Dotcom (also German) enough to want to work under him, that is further proof to me that Dotcom was a charismatic and amoral leader. Or it could be the shared language and culture. Also from the article:

Possessions taken from Dotcom's Coatesville mansion provided a hint of the accused men's extravagant lifestyles. Eighteen luxury cars worth a combined $6m were taken from the site, including a 2008 Rolls-Royce Phantom Drop Head Coupe, with the licence plate GOD, and a 1959 pink Cadillac. Others including Mercedes Benz, a Maserati and a Harley Davidson motorbike with licence plates including POLICE, STONED, GUILTY and MAFIA.
***
Dotcom maintained an extraordinary public profile, funding a huge New Year's Eve fireworks display over Waitemata Harbour in 2010 and commenting publicly on his charitable giving, including to the victims of the Christchurch earthquake and the Starship Foundation in Auckland.
***

In a recent online missive Dotcom wrote about his life in New Zealand, saying how he heard local singer Gin Wigmore on the radio and wanted her to record the "Mega Song".

With a casual mention of how he was "chilling in the studio" with the Black Eyed Peas, he said Wigmore took the offer, came to the studio in Auckland, and nailed the song in three takes.
***
Other material found uploaded [on megaupload.com]
included child pornography and terrorism propaganda videos, according to the indictment.

Occupy Wall Street and Psychopaths

2012-01-22T00:00:00.000-08:00

A reader sent me this video clip of an OWS crusader who specializes in spreading the good word against psychopaths:

I always feel a little badly for these people. For some reason, whenever people start preaching against the wicked sociopaths that have "probably been with us since humanity evolved," and is "probably where our idea of vampires come from," I feel like they have about the same credibility as the foil hat gang. He actually makes some interesting points about sociopaths taking an ideal and twisting it, whether a religious, economic, or other ideology, to "take in large groups of people," because most people are identified with some sort of ideology. Interestingly, I don't know if he ever acknowledges that the OWS movement itself was susceptible to this sort of mass manipulation.

Oxytocin and morality

2012-01-21T00:00:00.000-08:00

A reader recommended this TED talk about the role of oxytocin and morality. The talk description:

What drives our desire to behave morally? Neuroeconomist Paul Zak shows why he believes oxytocin (he calls it “the moral molecule”) is responsible for trust, empathy, and other feelings that help build a stable society.

Here's what the reader said about it:

It seems relavant that he says about 5% of people do not release oxytocin upon the usual stimuli, and I usually see a predicted psychopathy incidence at around 4% of the population. Also, the background for individuals with this lack of release is similar to that often found of p/s types.

Could the distinction between empaths and sociopaths really as simple as that? Even if it is not, it's interesting to see how much of people's humanity is based on something as simple as a hormone.

Blindsight

2012-01-20T00:00:00.000-08:00

A lot of readers have been telling me that I should read the book Blindsight, by Peter Watts--that it is very topical. I just started reading it. It's available for free here. Here is one reader's review:

Author and biologist Peter Watts contributed Blindsight to the body of hard sci-fi fiction in 2006, with the intention of simultaneously exploring and criticising themes of consciousness and the perception of the sociopath as monsterous inhuman. The reason why Watts and Blindsight are of interest here, are the most memorable creations in Blindsight, the flesh-and-blood hominid vampires Homo sapiens vampirensis. Drawing his inspiration from the modern Gothic image of the vampire as a pallid sociopathic human, Watts has created an alternative evolutionary timeline in which modern humans formerly co-existed and interbred with a previously extinct subspecies of ancient hominid predators possessing the biological traits that inspired the folktales about vampires around the world.

Within the Rifters universe, the existence of sociopathy among humans is explained as the re-emergence of this ancient phenotype in exceptional human individuals, and paleogeneticists working with the 'blood of sociopaths' have been able to recreate this ancient, super-powered species that takes on and exaggerates the characteristics of clinical psychopathy.

Although the vampire Jukka Sarasti is on the one hand presented as a predatory beast, Watts also stresses not the human nature of the vampire, but the vampiric nature of the human crew that makes humns uneasy about vampire – in the Rifters universe, nobody travels past Jupiter without having vampire subroutines inserted into their human DNA in order to allow the 'undead' state.

"Empathy for sociopaths isn't common," I remarked

"Maybe it should be. We, at least—" he waved an arm; some remote-linked sensor cluster across the simulator whirred and torqued reflexively— "chose the add-ons. Vampires had to be sociopaths. They're too much like their own prey — a lot of taxonomists don't even consider them a subspecies, you know that? Never diverged far enough for complete reproductive isolation. So maybe they're more syndrome than race. Just a bunch of obligate cannibals with a consistent set of deformities."

"And how does that make—"

"If the only thing you can eat is your own kind, empathy is gonna be the first thing that goes. Psychopathy's no disorder in those shoes, eh? Just a survival strategy. But they still make our skin crawl, so we—chain 'em up."

Although Jukka Sarasti remains a brooding presence on board the Theseus, throughout Blindsight the author uses his human characters to describe Jukka's behaiour and thoughts in an atypically sympathetic way for fiction.

"Anyway, I just think he's—cut off." A nervous tic tugged at the corner of Szpindel's mouth. "Lone wolf, nothing but sheep for company. Wouldn't you feel lonely?"

"They don't like company," I reminded him. You didn't put vampires of the same sex together, not unless you were taking bets on a bloodbath. They were solitary hunters and very territorial. With a minimum viable pred-prey ratio of one to ten — and human prey spread so sparsely across the Pleistocene landscape — the biggest threat to their survival had been competition from their own kind. Natural selection had never taught them to play nicely together.

That didn't cut any ice with Szpindel, though. "Doesn't mean he can't be lonely," he insisted."Just means he can't fix it."

[...]"You asked about Sarasti. Smart man. Strong Leader. Maybe could spend a little more time with the troops."

Vampire doesn't respect his command. Doesn't listen to advice.

Hides away half the time.

I remembered transient killer whales. "Maybe he's being considerate." He knows he makes us nervous.

"I'm sure that's it," Bates said.

"Vampire doesn't trust himself."

And finally, Watts dares to shatter what is a taboo nowadays – to question the value of empathy. For anyone interested in unusual fictional portrayals of psychopathic characters, or interesting psychological themes in general, I'm sure you'll find that Blindsight is well worth a look.

"That, too, had slipped out before I could stop it—and after that came the flood: "You put so much fucking stock in that. You and your empathy. And maybe I am just some kind of imposter but most people would swear I'd worn their very souls. I don't need that shit, you don't have to feel motives to deduce them, it's better if you can't, it keeps you—"

"Dispassionate?" Cunningham smiled faintly."Maybe your empathy's just a comforting lie, you ever think of that?

Maybe you think you know how the other person feels but you're only feeling yourself, maybe you're even worse than me. Or maybe we're all just guessing. Maybe the only difference is that I don't lie to myself about it."

Sociopaths on facebook

2012-01-19T00:00:00.000-08:00

These are pretty funny, courtesy of a reader, "The 50 most brilliant, obnoxious, or delightfully sociopathic Facebook posts of 2011." Obviously only some of them are "sociopathic." For those of you too lazy or unable to click on the link, highlights include crass reactions to announcements of imminent suicide, careless death announcements, revenge, betrayal, emotional outbursts, and pedophilia. I think the Germans have a word for the sort of enjoyment of others' pain that Facebook has wrought. Facebook: by sociopaths for sociopaths?

In other random news, I completely forgot that I recently spent a month being stalked until I was reminded of it today by the person cutting my hair (sideways glance, "you're always so nonchalant about things..."). This hair person is one of those oddly insightful savants of human nature that makes me squirm in my chair. The only solution is to get her to relate to me the entire plot behind a recent television show. Today it was "Homeland"--plot points interspersed with the ubiquitous, "I don't want to give it away, but...." Is it time for a new hairstyle?

Elderly sociopath

2012-01-18T00:30:00.000-08:00

A reader relates a funny story about a family member that she suspects is a sociopath -- her elderly grandmother:

I showed your site to my sister (who also has tendencies more than your average person as well), and we both agree that our grandmother was/is definitely a sociopath. It's interesting to see her now, since just recently she was put into an assisted living home. She's in the early stages of dementia, but sometimes when something isn't going her way, I see her mask drop from her face and it takes her just a tad bit longer than usual to recover it. I was tempted over the holidays to whisper something to her about it when her mask fell away, but decided against it.

I'm sure she has no idea we know her true nature. I'm not even sure she's self-aware enough that she would even know the label (which I think labels are stupid anyway).

She was definitely high-functioning because as far as I know she was never a criminal. Though I do think there are family secrets about tax evasion.

A side note though, I recently discovered through a scrapbook of newspaper clippings that she had had a hit out on her in the 80s. Apparently, that was an open family secret and I asked her about it (this was before the dementia) and she didn't have much to say about it. I'd even say she was very nonchalant about it. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't keep a scrapbook about someone trying to have them killed and when asked about be so blase about it. I have so many stories from my childhood that point to her sociopathy it's not even funny. So yeah, the genetic component is there.

Contextualizing emotions

2012-01-17T00:00:00.000-08:00

I was trying to describe to someone the other day what emotions feel like for me. It's not like I don't feel them. I feel a lot of different emotions, but some of them I don't recognize or understand. By that I mean that sometimes (actually a lot of the time) it feels like my emotions lack context. They're not completely without context. It is sort of like I am watching a movie, but backwards. Not completely backwards--like I am watching 30-60 second increments, and then skipping back in time to the next increment. Or when you read an email chain, but start at the most recent email and read back in time. You can get an idea of what is happening, but because the conversation is not really linear -- does not progress organically (at least to your eyes) -- there will always be holes to your understanding. It's sort of like the character in the movie Memento trying to make sense of his surroundings when every seven minutes or so, he forgets what came before.

When I was younger I frequently gave into emotional impulses. I felt like if I was mad there must be a reason that I was mad so I was justified in lashing out in whatever manner I felt proper. In order to rid myself of that behavior I learned to second guess any emotions. I would ask myself: could I identify the type of emotion I was feeling? What was the source? What had prompted the emotion? If I didn't have the answer to these basic questions I would ignore the emotion, writing it off as being (at least probably) an emotional hallucination.

I'm sure that many emotions are "hallucinations" and I'm sure that everyone must experience this to a certain extent. But by ignoring any emotion that I could not explain to myself, I am sure I was also being over-inclusive, thereby excluding legitimate emotions from which I simply lack the ability to contextualize and extract any real meaning. I am unable to separate the wheat from the chaff. Consequently, I am forced to throw the baby out with the bathwater (pardon the mixed metaphor).

Sometimes I wonder if this is the core of what I generally perceive as being self-aware or not amongst the sociopathic population, i.e. the self-aware ones in my eyes are the ones who have realized that their emotions deceive them and vice versa. It's also why I generally consider narcissists to be unaware, because in my eyes they are constantly acting on bastard emotions that they believe justify reprehensible behavior.

Portrait of a sociopath

2012-01-16T00:00:00.000-08:00

I stumbled across this "self portrait" of a sociopath here, and thought it was one of the most accurate depictions of an everyday sociopath I've seen, and by that I mean it is the description of a sociopath that is the most similar to how I view myself:

I've often suspected I have sociopathic tendencies, but I don't fit all the criteria on your list.

I've lied and stolen from a very young age despite being brought up in a normal, loving, two-parent home. I had never been particularly loving until I learned consciously what the display of this behavior could do for me. In arguments with my sibling I was always labeled cold and unfeeling because I would turn off the outward expression of emotion to the point that I'm not sure I felt anything at all.

Despite this, I have forged some stable long-term relationships, married, and now have a daughter. I have learned to blend in with the status quo so much that I highly doubt if anyone suspects my inward nature. Once I learned consequence I stopped stealing and now only lie when it benefits me in some tangible manner and the risk of being outed is low. Despite this outward appearance of normalcy, I lack any sort of depth or substance. Emotions are often faked, and I have to work at performing regular friendship and relationship maintenance to keep these relationships going when there is no emotion behind the act whatsoever-(for instance, buying and providing a nice birthday card and gift for a long time friend with loving sentiments).

I struggle often with behaving appropriately and in a manner acceptable to society. I am still tempted to steal and have to slowly walk myself through the consequences of doing so. I don't avoid stealing by arguing the morality of it, but rather what would happen to me if I was caught. In my teen years I was promiscuous and to this day still struggle with my urges, though I have never cheated on my husband for fear of being caught. Sex and lust for me is more of a function of manipulation that it is a physical urge, though I can and have enjoyed sex.

I often fantasize about soulful, deep, searing love relationships but don't think I could ever truly experience this. I've used my looks and sexuality in the past to draw men in and after they fell I was through. I finally married after pressure from family, and conceived after 10 years due to pressure from my husband. I love my husband to the extent of what he can provide for me, financially and sexually, but I don't know what it means to have an aching heart for anybody real.

Nearly everything I do, even today, is calculated for personal gain. I am constantly weighing energy output VS gain VS acceptable behavior.

The only unfettered love I've experienced so far is for my daughter. She is the only one who I have *ever* given more to that I expected to receive in return, without calculating what my contribution will get for me.

I wish I wasn't like this, that I could feel a normal depth and range of emotion and not constantly be tempted by my urges. I really don't think anybody could help me, I think that my constant self-checking and chameleon lifestyle is really the best I can ever expect, I don't think a head shrink could provide me with any better "therapy". I some ways I think my disorder is a gift, because I am a consummate logician, being unfettered by normal depth of emotion.

I think there are probably many *many* people out there just like me, who live in a cloak of normalcy. I could be your neighbor, or even your wife. I firmly believe I was born this way and it is just how I am wired. I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me but I wanted to give my own perspective on my APD.

I think I am more normal that anyone would care to admit, even to themselves.

Cluster B

2012-01-15T00:30:00.000-08:00

A reader gives a theory on the interactions between the DSM-IV's cluster B disorders:

My take on BPD is that it is a fake label, made up by "reformed" BPD's in the field. It's the lowest on the totem pole for the cluster B's, which succeed as follows; BPD, HPD, and AsPD...As for NPD, it does not belong here (although the new DSM is removing this and referring to Cluster B as the "Dramatic Cluster", which in a way it is. But in my opinion, it greatly differs from any type of sociopathy (AsPD). If you think about it, narcissists aim to make you dependent on them through deception and manipulation, while sociopaths seek outright control over someone. Also, Narcissists can empathize but only for themselves, while sociopaths have no ability to empathize at all. They pretty much just follow instinct and thus are “selfish” in their pursuits....A “survival of the fittest” mechanism.

But I feel that with the exception of codeps, all narcissists are horrid people, whereas all sociopaths are not.

Now here is the twist in my theory; AsPD can be comorbid with narcissism…and these are the most despicable/evil humans to walk the Earth (think Hitler…better yet, the embodiment of The Devil himself). Their aim is to have absolute control by any means without regard to any boundaries...societal or personal. But thisnarcissistic comorbidity can run hand-in-hand with any of the remaining cluster B’s. I.e. Add Narcissism to BPD and that would give you Histrionic.

I am implying is that there are degrees of sociopathy, which can be exhibited in virtually anyone and narcissism is not a high form of it but separate…and when comingled, narcissism multiples the nastiness of sociopaths by a significant degree. BPD's have little narcissism, HPD's much more. AsPD's are higher on the sociopathic spectrum but this does not mean they have a degree of narcissism...add Narcissism to
AsPD and you have Hitler/ Satan.