Sick of shame?

Another month, another post about the limitations of public shaming, this time prompted by the people who seem to be confronting for the first time how to ethically oppose an ideology that you find to be abhorrent.

I've always been very vocally opposed to public shaming, even before I was the victim of it. At it's core, it uses the unwieldy weapon of mob mentality to enforce social norms, particularly those that its adherents believe have moral significance. Never mind that there is no universal morality, but rather that beliefs about morality are closely tied to such varied inputs as religion, culture, upbringing, genetics, etc. I'm not the only one who thinks that if shame had any value at all (perhaps evolutionarily or in certain smaller contexts),  although there have been other victims of shaming who still defend its applications. Most of these critiques fall under the category of the solution being worse than the problem, e.g. the self-censorship and resulting harm to open dialogue that can occur as a result.

But is it even an actual solution?

One thing that I learned in therapy is that everyone (1) is at a different stage than you (emotional, psychological, educational, etc.) and (2) that people can go through the stages in different orders, different ways, and prompted by different experiences than you did. To insist that other people go through their own progression at your pace, in your order, or in your way is just a denial of the realities of psychology. People can rarely make a lasting meaningful change in the moment. You can demand that they start doing or being something or stop doing or being another thing, but they are not psychologically capable of meeting your demand in that moment (although there is longterm hope because there is almost always possibility for real, meaningful, and lasting change in that area if they are open and committed to seeking it). So for instance, demanding that someone who has been socialized, educated, and undergone particular psychological development to the point where they are racist (at that moment in time), you cannot just demand that they stop being racist. And even if you could convince them at a certain intellectual level that there is reason to doubt their position, they need to go through whatever process is necessary for them to sort it all out in their head. Open dialogue could encourage this process, although it seems like more people on all sides are showing up to dialogues not to engage, but with already formed judgments that they seek only to make known.

Unfortunately, the shaming process does not encourage the sort of dialogue or safe space that is often conducive to people softening their opinions and being receptive to something new. What it does is foster reflexive defensiveness, further entrenching them in their viewpoint. Shame often targets the person instead of the behavior, which can lead to identity politics and culture wars:

In a guilt culture you know you are good or bad by what your conscience feels. In a shame culture you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you, by whether it honors or excludes you. In a guilt culture people sometimes feel they do bad things; in a shame culture social exclusion makes people feel they are bad.

I saw on Twitter last month this tweet regarding candied yams (my first encounter with them):

" y'all know what's going on " pic.twitter.com/25cNPIl0yz

— MOST HATED🕊 (@DuwopFrm89CG) July 25, 2017

And then subsequent chain involving a white guy ("@wwadas") who replied that he didn't recognize the candied yams. Black Twitter led him through the process of making the yams, with many praising what seemed to be an increasingly rare instance of building a cultural bridge:

Me, what's on the right?

— Will Wadas (@wwadas) July 26, 2017

Until others culled through the white guy's tweets to find good ol' boy and obliquely (if not overtly) racist content. Although some immediately tried to shame him, labeling him (not his behavior or beliefs) as being "problematic", other people were less inclined to jump to such conclusions:

It's an interesting thread, with some arguing that every instance of real or perceived injustice must be fought to avoid perpetuating such injustice and another person commenting: "Sorry not everyone is perfect, maybe he's on the way to making things right."

Of course, I may be speaking from a place of bias being religious myself, but I think religion gets it very right in this instance. From one of my favorite LDS talks from Elder Dale G. Renlund:

Just as God rejoices when we persevere, He is disappointed if we do not recognize that others are trying too. Our dear friend Thoba shared how she learned this lesson from her mother, Julia. Julia and Thoba were among the early black converts in South Africa. After the apartheid regime ended, black and white members of the Church were permitted to attend church together. For many, the equality of interaction between the races was new and challenging. One time, as Julia and Thoba attended church, they felt they were treated less than kindly by some white members. As they left, Thoba complained bitterly to her mother. Julia listened calmly until Thoba had vented her frustration. Then Julia said, “Oh, Thoba, the Church is like a big hospital, and we are all sick in our own way. We come to church to be helped.”

Julia’s comment reflects a valuable insight. We must not only be tolerant while others work on their individual illnesses; we must also be kind, patient, supportive, and understanding. As God encourages us to keep on trying, He expects us to also allow others the space to do the same, at their own pace. 

I understand that this requires forbearance from exactly those who are most likely to have been wronged, not just in this moment but from a long history of oppression. I understand this burden to be so heavy that I would not even ask it of anyone, much less demand. I would only hope to help them see, to persuade them that there is greater peace and joy there than in seeking to return the same. Or as Paul Gaugin said: "One day, you will feel a joy in having resisted the temptation to hate, and there is truly intoxicating poetry in the goodness of him who has suffered."

How sociopath target their "victims"

It turns out that sociopaths really do have an uncanny ability for spotting susceptible victims, as suggested in a study described by a Psychology Today writer:

In a study by Wheeler, Book and Costello of Brock University, individuals who self reported more traits associated with psychopathy were more apt to correctly identify individuals with a history of victimization. In the study, male student participants examined video tapes of twelve individuals walking from behind and rated the ease at which each could be mugged. The men also completed the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: Version III (Paulhus, Hemphill, & Hare, in press) which measures interpersonal and affective traits associated with psychopathy as well as intra-personal instability and antisocial traits. Finally, they were asked to provide verbal rational for their ratings. Overall results confirmed a strong positive correlation between psychopathy scores and accuracy of victim identification. This means that individuals that score higher for psycopathy are better at selecting victims.

The study is also featured in this video clip from I, Psychopath.

I think sociopath do tend to go for a particular type of victim, or at least a certain susceptibility to their "charms." I wrote about this a little here. A typical target would be someone the sociopath feels like he can dominate, or where he can tell there is some wound, some "damage" that he can stick his finger in and play with. Being with damaged people is good for socios in two ways: (1) the playing, and (2) the damaged person expects other people to be damaged as well, so socios don't have to do as good a job of keeping up appearances, i.e. can be more of their unapologetic selves.

But that begs the question: how do sociopaths know who is damaged, or at least so quickly and accurately? As one of my readers said "I put up armor but most sociopaths can see right through it."

It reminds me of a trip I made to New Zealand. New Zealand has been an isolated island so long that it traditionally had no mammals, except for bats. Instead, it had a extremely diverse ecosystem of birds. These birds had perfected "defenses" against the other birds in their ecosystems and had survived for millions of years that way. I was told that one of the natural defenses of the birds was to remain perfectly still, which made them almost impossible to spot by the predator birds flying high overhead. Or course this tactic made them (almost literally) sitting ducks when man brought rats with them to the island.

Simply put, we all have "defenses" to disguise our weaknesses, whether wearing clothes, cosmetics, compensating with a flashy car, acquiring meaningless degrees and titles, etc. Most people construct their defenses with the average person in mind -- your boss, your spouse, your kids, your colleagues, your friends and family. A defense that may work swimmingly with most people may work not at all with a sociopath. Asking a sociopath how he is able to see through these devices is sort of like asking a rat how he is able to see through the facade of a bird remaining perfectly still.

What you can learn from sociopaths (part 2)

Continued from the same reader, on the inauthenticity of neurotypicals, the downside of constantly looking to some uncertain future rather than living in the moment, the folly of "setting goals" for oneself, how empath wishful-thinking is a sociopath's playground, how the empath feeds the sociopath his lines, the impermeability of authentic empaths, and what you can learn from sociopaths:


The average neurotypical person is not in touch with his primal desires.  He is not authentic.  Instead he is concerned with some future benchmark that will bring in societal approval. This constant looking to the future prevents a realistic assessment and experience of the moment.  Instead the average neurotypical is constantly attempting to adjust and improve his character to something that will garner a legacy, social proof and close relationships.  Look at Facebook and see how many people are making plans for 5 years from now.  Then look at how they quote a famous philosopher whose words they have just read.  They haven't dwelled on these ideas long enough to comprehend them, let alone internalize them, and yet they think that by merely stating something that they will make it so.  Then before they are one step forward into living that quote they are quoting someone else.  

It's a character issue, average people constantly adjust their character in a Kentucky windage manner(also resembling the narcissist, albeit less extreme) leaving their authenticity just as muddled as before.  They lack a single-minded focus.  They are not in touch with their character because they don't know what it should be.  They are concerned with the future condition of their character and the acclaim that it will garner.  They are not concerned with where it is right now.  They don't know what it is because they see character as something to optimize.  They don't see it as something that just is--something that grows slowly, methodically and subconsciously through habit.  And since they are not interested in where their character is at present they are unlikely to figure out exactly what they truly feel or how they truly are at any given moment.  The average neurotypical thinks he can just wish a new and better character into existence. No wonder team-building workshops and self improvement seminars are always booked.  This wishfulness and lack of present-mindedness opens up weaknesses in the average person.  These weaknesses are ripe for the sociopath with his single-minded drive to exploit.

Character exists in the present, is personal and isn't subject to the reactions of others.  Socially brave/adept neurotypicals know this secret and so do sociopaths.  

The sociopath uses this character flux against the neurotypical and easily permeates the guard.  The sociopath can easily establish a strong rapport.  They just compliment the neurotypical on his/her latent gifts, brilliant opinions, great personality, groundedness, and his/her level-headed approach to life (which the sociopath also claims to share).  This validation of "I like you because I'm like you" feeds the social-proof need of the neurotypical.  The neurotypical leaves the interaction with the sociopath feeling better understood and more validated.  To improve the high the sociopath gave him the neurotypical doesn't apply a scientific eye to what just happened.  Looking at the rapport realistically would make it lose some of its wonder. This lack of realism accompanied with desire for more validation makes him drop his guard to the sociopath.  Once charmed the neurotypical will telegraph what he wants to hear before he asks.  The sociopath can just sit back and be coached into the right lines.

If the average person had more authenticity and a stronger sense of self than he wouldn't be as easily placated with the praise and agreement of the sociopath.

Outgoing authentic neurotypicals, or even cantankerous Clint Eastwood-types are not easily impressed by agreement and outside validation. Authentic neurotypicals are adept neurotypicals. I have great respect for them. They are confident and have the sociopath's level of calm.  They are authentic both inside and outside.  This manifests itself when they are not gun-shy on opinions (the way a sociopath is).  Their opinions are uniquely their own and not solely a means to impress.  In turn this means when they say something they validate themselves through consistency within themselves.  Adept people validate themselves through consistency and authenticity.  These kind of people become comfortable enough in conversation to take strong stances and open themselves up to argument and rejection. They let others know where they stand regardless of the chances for rejection.  This authenticity is a commodity to them and it works best when they project it.  They make what they think strongly apparent to others.  They project honesty, authenticity their personal brand into the environment. They attract strong allies and make it clear that dissenters, and sociopaths, should stay out of their way.  

So neurotypicals can say what they will of the sociopath's mask but at least the sociopath is internally consistent and that is something they should learn.

Love-ish (part 1)

A conversation with a reader begins thusly: "Does sociopathic behavior in an individual come from intense feelings of rejection from childhood? Could the lack of feelings or attachments to anything or anyone be a defense mechanism? And if they truly cannot feel love in the true sense of the word, why do they seek and pursue relationships?" My response:

Sociopaths feel love, just differently. I guess it would be like asking, why would blind people ever watch TV? But they do, they enjoy it for different reasons than you might, and sociopaths too find something worthwhile in love and relationships, not surprisingly. I would actually be more surprised to learn that there was any person who was completely uninterested in having some sort of a meaningful relationship. (Except maybe schizoids.)

With regard to your other question, I think most people now believe that there is a genetic connection to sociopathy, but that gene can either be turned on or not by environmental factors, e.g., as a defense mechanism, just like you say.