Who is better?

Although I've never had any opinions on who is better as a whole, empath or sociopath, I found this to be an interesting argument for the former, from a recent comment:

I disagree, i think we are worse. Logical? yes. Intelligent? generally. Efficient? absolutely. But when i see regular people forego logic and efficiency for love, it impresses me. Logic has led me to believe we are lesser beings. They see something we don't, and it is more important to them than efficiency, sometimes more important than their lives. We are the superior tacticians, and can easily exploit these weaknesses. Many are aware this advantage though, and still choose to follow their emotions. Logic would dictate these people have superior judgement to us on the matter of what is important in life, they are aware of a side of the human experience we cannot be. They know they are vulnerable, not all of them, but many, this has led me to believe what they see is more important than us. They, as servants of this great sight unseen, are more important than us. I have come to believe our rightful place is not their rulers, but their servants, their guardians from the dangers they leave themselves so undefended from. They found something greater than we can ever know. So i serve them, i give them my honest and non emotionally driven guidance. I use my propensity for, and lack of aversion to, violence to protect them. We are more efficient, but in the grand scheme of things, were useless. We cant make the world better, because we cant care in that special way, but we can serve those would. I guess that is how one could be a "good" sociopath. 

The Wolf of Your Street

Andy Jones writes for Men's Health UK about how I (sort of) mentored him to (sort of) success. The article is pretty entertaining. One of my favorite stories:

Olga, our cleaner, has to go. My partner Jennifer adores her, even though her work is sloppy. Also I'm paying 40 a week for someone to break stuff and push a vacuum around. Empathetic Me would have given he a warning; then -- if I had to -- the 'it's not you it's me' talk and sent her off with a tip. Weak. 

Sociopaths don't just take what they want, says Thomas. They take more. "Say a friend is selling a car for 5000 and another is looking to buy one for 10,000. Most people would simply put the two in touch. Not me. I would buy form the first friend, sell it to the second and double my money." Emboldened by Thomas's ruthlessly simple rationale, I corner Olga on Monday, cleaning day

"We're done here. No more cleaning." 

"Ok, I see you next week." 

"No, I no longer need a cleaner." 

"But Jennifer..." she starts. "No, I am saying I don't need a cleaner."

Now for the profit: I like to Jen that I have booked the cleaner for the next week then do a deliberately half-arsed job of cleaning the house myself. Jen notices the house is still a tip. "You know what, you're right -- we need to let Olga go." I offer to do the firing -- covering my tracks while looking both decisive and strong -- and pocket the 40. Later on, conscience racked, I pay for dinner. This kind of stuff doesn't come naturally. Deep down, I'm a nice guy. On a night out both the drinks and the jokes are on me. I'm ambitious but cautious and often think what I could achieve with sharper elbows.

I really enjoy hearing about empaths trying out sociopathic traits, although I wouldn't have bothered cleaning the flat, even half-arsed, I would have just told Jennifer that she decided to move back to Estonia (but I guess he did get some money out of it?). It's funny that many of them see it as something to aspire to, as if they could accomplish many more of their dreams if they just toughened up a bit. But frequently as they start toughening up, they start realizing that accomplishing the dream is not actually the most important thing to them. And I think that's good for them. Good for them to realize that there are other things they would rather have than that particular brass ring, so they can stop pining for it and feeling miserable when they don't get it. Because it is not all that sociopathic to be envious (except for the mythological covetous sociopath, whom I sort of suspect is just a malignant narcissist?).

But don't stop at that realization, I say. Explore the experience for what exactly it is that you really do want above all else. For instance, later in the article he describes being sociopathic in his relationship:

In the bedroom, I've been persistent in my campaign against Jen's negligence with negligees. It's working. "I like this power game," Jen purrs, as she tries the lacy ensemble I've picked. But I don't enjoy manipulating her. Being a sociopath is fine in emails. Face to face, it's a very different matter.

Not to read too much into what is mainly just an entertaining piece, but it's interesting that he says he doesn't enjoy manipulating her. And I'm sure he doesn't. But why? Is it because he thinks she doesn't like being manipulated? Because it seems like she does, at least in this seductive way (everyone wants to be seduced). The problem seems to be more that manipulation doesn't suit his "nice guy" vision he has for himself, even if that is exactly what his partner desires from him apparently. If so, this example sort of supports my theory that one reason that sociopaths are such charming chameleons is because they have a weak sense of self, i.e. that they don't allow their own need for personal integrity and identity to interfere with their desire to please another.

Also, apropos of nothing, but have I noticed before that "pathetic" is in "empathetic"? There must be some interesting shared root analysis there.

Vampires vs. zombies

Vampire movies and television are a guilty pleasure of mine. I like them because I think there are fun parallels to my own life. I watch zombie movies or television because I think there are fun parallels to the way everyone else lives their lives. That's why I enjoyed this article in the New York Times so much, "My Zombie, Myself: Why Modern Life Feels Rather Undead."

A lot of modern life is exactly like slaughtering zombies.

IF THERE’S ONE THING we all understand about zombie killing, it’s that the act is uncomplicated: you blast one in the brain from point-blank range (preferably with a shotgun). That’s Step 1. Step 2 is doing the same thing to the next zombie that takes its place. Step 3 is identical to Step 2, and Step 4 isn’t any different from Step 3. Repeat this process until (a) you perish, or (b) you run out of zombies. That’s really the only viable strategy.

Every zombie war is a war of attrition. It’s always a numbers game. And it’s more repetitive than complex. In other words, zombie killing is philosophically similar to reading and deleting 400 work e-mails on a Monday morning or filling out paperwork that only generates more paperwork, or following Twitter gossip out of obligation, or performing tedious tasks in which the only true risk is being consumed by the avalanche. The principal downside to any zombie attack is that the zombies will never stop coming; the principal downside to life is that you will be never be finished with whatever it is you do.
***
This is our collective fear projection: that we will be consumed. Zombies are like the Internet and the media and every conversation we don’t want to have. All of it comes at us endlessly (and thoughtlessly), and — if we surrender — we will be overtaken and absorbed. Yet this war is manageable, if not necessarily winnable. As long we keep deleting whatever’s directly in front of us, we survive. We live to eliminate the zombies of tomorrow. We are able to remain human, at least for the time being. Our enemy is relentless and colossal, but also uncreative and stupid.

Battling zombies is like battling anything ... or everything.

“I know this is supposed to be scary,” [a friend] said. “But I’m pretty confident about my ability to deal with a zombie apocalypse. I feel strangely informed about what to do in this kind of scenario.”

I could not disagree. At this point who isn’t? We all know how this goes: If you awake from a coma, and you don’t immediately see a member of the hospital staff, assume a zombie takeover has transpired during your incapacitation. Don’t travel at night and keep your drapes closed. Don’t let zombies spit on you. If you knock a zombie down, direct a second bullet into its brain stem. But above all, do not assume that the war is over, because it never is. The zombies you kill today will merely be replaced by the zombies of tomorrow. But you can do this, my friend. It’s disenchanting, but it’s not difficult. Keep your finger on the trigger. Continue the termination. Don’t stop believing. Don’t stop deleting. Return your voice mails and nod your agreements. This is the zombies’ world, and we just live in it. But we can live better.

I say that this is how everyone else lives their lives, but my life is remarkably similar. Someone asked me recently why do I seduce people, why do I play games, what's the point? I guess I wasn't aware there was some other choice for how to live your life other than find things that keep you engaged and entertained. But yes, empaths play one version of this game, and I guess we play another, and you can say that one is about love or emotions and that is somehow better than having it be about power and winning, but is it? Seems like a matter of personal preference.

Beware of pride

In church I heard someone recite the quote "Usually our criticism of others is not because they have sins, but because their sins are different than ours." I have a theory. If we had to break down the seven deadly sins, I would think that sociopaths are overrepresented for gluttony, lust, sloth, and wrath. Throw in deceit and invasion of other people's personal autonomy, and that is maybe 85% of the bad behavior of sociopaths? Empath seven deadly sins tend to be more greed, envy, and pride; sins come from the very thing that they treasure the most, their personal interconnectedness with others. One can be a glutton, or playboy, or lazabout, or hothead pretty much by oneself. Envy explicitly involves comparing oneself to another, typically in the same culture -- someone that you might interact with regularly. Pride is also a sin of comparison, as LDS President Dieter F. Uchtdorf taught, "for though it usually begins with 'Look how wonderful I am and what great things I have done,' it always seems to end with 'Therefore, I am better than you.'"

[P]ride turns to envy: they look bitterly at those who have better positions, more talents, or greater possessions than they do. They seek to hurt, diminish, and tear down others in a misguided and unworthy attempt at self-elevation. When those they envy stumble or suffer, they secretly cheer.

Similarly, greed depends on what you are exposed to. If you are raised in poverty, greed might mean the desire to eat meat every day. In more affluent cultures, greed might mean the desire for a trophy spouse

I know these are fine distinctions, because aren't sociopaths greedy egocentrics who think they're better than most people? Yes, but they are much less caught up in a desire to maintain their place in the social hierarchy. They don't feel greed because they just go after what they want, so don't feel deprived. They don't feel envy because they think they're better than others. They do feel pride, but they would feel pride no matter what situation they're in and who they're surrounded by -- that is, they don't necessarily need to be around their "lessers" in order to feel "better."

I was thinking about this when I read yet another story about a young person committing suicide due to vicious and unrelenting bullying. She was 12 years old and she jumped to her death after 15 middle-school children texting her such things as "Why are you still alive?” “You’re ugly" and “Can u die please?” The thing is that she wasn't ugly. She was pretty and apparently smart and a cheerleader. How could someone like her become the target of such hate? Apparently there was a dispute over a boy she dated. And maybe the fact that she lived in a mobile home? I wonder why things like this happen, what is the trigger to this seeming mob mentality. Maybe there is a sociopath ringleader, could be. But are all 15 bullies are sociopaths? No, empaths are susceptible to the siren call of bullying, I think more susceptible than sociopaths.

A sociopath uses bullying as a tool. An empath lives bullying as a lifestyle. There is something that is compelling about bullying to empaths of all ages and cultures. How else to preserve the social order and their tenuous place in it? In fact, research supports this. Bullies are neither at the very top or the very bottom of the social hierarchy but just under the top, envying those that are just above them and willing to sell out those under them to finally make it to the coveted top:

In her work videotaping children, she has found that 85 per cent of the time, an act of bullying is witnessed by other children. And 75 per cent of the time those watching are encouraging the bully, Prof. Pepler adds.

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."

Empath song: Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood

I was listening to this song the other day and thought it was a perfect example of the sort of self-justifying stories that empaths tell themselves about how they're not really "bad people" even though they admit that they do bad things.


Baby you understand me now
If sometimes you see that I'm mad
Doncha know no one alive can always be an angel?
When everything goes wrong, you see some bad

But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood

Ya know sometimes baby I'm so carefree
With a joy that's hard to hide
And then sometimes it seems again that all I have is worry
And then you're bound to see my other side

But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood

If I seem edgy
I want you to know
I never mean to take it out on you
Life has its problems
And I get more than my share
But that's one thing I never mean to do

Cause I love you
Oh baby
I'm just human
Don't you know I have faults like anyone?

Sometimes I find myself alone regretting
Some little foolish thing
Some simple thing that I've done

Don't let me be misunderstood
I try so hard
So please don't let me be misunderstood

Why we can't all be empaths

A lot of people think that the book and the blog argue that sociopaths are better than empaths. I make no such claim, I never have. But if people want me to justify my existence, I have some not-specious arguments about why we can be useful and an overall benefit to society. 

Even then, I acknowledge that the reason we work well are because there are so few of us, just like predators. If there were more sociopaths than there are already (maybe 25%), who knows, the world might be chaos. It would definitely throw our ecosystem off and certainly any competitive advantage that a sociopath has now would dwindle down to nothing.

So we can't all be sociopaths (or even have many more than we currently have), but we also can't all be empaths, at least not without throwing our ecosystem into a similar tailspin of chaos. Sociopaths within a society give that society an edge against other societies. And the very presence of sociopaths makes empaths behave in different, more robust and active ways that help propel a society forward instead of letting it stagnate or backslide. 

The NY Times provides an interesting economic analogy to this dynamic in "Why Can't America Be Sweden":

“We cannot all be like the Nordics,” Acemoglu declares, in a 2012 paper, “Choosing Your Own Capitalism in a Globalized World,” written with his colleagues James A. Robinson, a professor of government at Harvard, and Thierry Verdier, scientific director of the Paris School of Economics.

If the “cutthroat leader” – the United States — were to switch to “cuddly capitalism, this would reduce the growth rate of the entire world economy,” the authors argue, by slowing the pace of innovation.

***

These findings, if substantiated, will disappoint those who long for a Swedish-style mixed economy with universal health care, paid maternal leave, child allowances, guaranteed pensions and other desirable social benefits.

In a more detailed paper, “Can’t We All Be More Like Scandinavians?” Acemoglu, Robinson and Verdier expand on their argument that the world is dependent on American leadership in technology and innovation to sustain global growth. In order to maintain its position at the forefront of global innovation, the authors contend, the United States must maintain an economic system that provides great rewards to successful innovators, which “implies greater inequality and greater poverty (and a weaker safety net) for a society encouraging innovation.”

***

The three authors make the case that the interconnected world economy has reached what they call an “asymmetric equilibrium” in which the United States “adopts a ‘cutthroat’ reward structure, with high-powered incentives for success, while other countries free-ride on this frontier economy and choose a more egalitarian, ‘cuddly,’ reward structure.”

Directly challenging what they describe as the consensus view – that a country can substantially expand the welfare state without sacrificing its pioneering role in technological innovation – Acemoglu and his colleagues write that it is “the more ‘cutthroat’ American society that makes possible the more ‘cuddly’ Scandinavian societies based on a comprehensive social safety net, the welfare state and more limited inequality.”

In an e-mail, Acemoglu provided the following analogy: The U.S. is also the military leader of the world, and it cannot imitate Finland and reduce its military to a trivial size without taking into account the global repercussions of this (and I’m saying this as somebody who is strongly opposed to U.S. military interventions around the world).

Of course there are many criticisms to this argument (see the link to the original article), but it's not at all absurd to think that there is some element of truth to the idea that we can't all be the same and still see the sort of dynamic growth and prosperity we've become accustomed to. Similarly, the diversity that everyone (including sociopaths) provides has value to society as a whole.

Jim Fallon spoke similarly of sociopaths as being the members of society who do the "dirty work":

And not just the dirty work but the good work. You don't want your neurosurgeon to be empathetic and caring emotionally when they're working on you. You want them to be cold machines that don't care. Same thing with an investor. . . . A society almost demands that we have psychopaths. It's a very stable feature throughout society in history that these people are there. And they pop up in a very malignant way sometimes but these traits seem to be very useful to society so we almost ask for it, or our genes and our behavior ask for it. 

This is going to be especially useful in the zombie apocalypse. 

Soul searching

A reader asks: "How is it that sociopaths can 'see' someone's soul or see people as they truly are? How come the rest of society doesn't see the person for who they really are?" My response:

That is such a good question. I feel that you probably only notice the sociopath's ability to see because it is such an unusual perspective, everybody else's perceptive abilities are so familiar to you that they have become emotional background noise (Von Restorff effect?). As a thought experiment, stop and listen to all of the noise around you. Try to identify the source of all the noise you hear, whether street noise, other people, television, radio, automobile noises, wind, etc. You never pay attention to this noise, never even notice it is there most of the time because you are so used to it. You only notice things that are out of the ordinary.

I think a similar thing happens with empaths reading people. You are probably very used to other empaths seeing things about you that you never told them, e.g. when people see your face and realize that you are sad, when people don't stand too close to you because they realize you need your personal space, when people don't either scream at you or whisper at you. With all these behaviors, other empaths are seeing parts of who you truly are and acting accordingly.

Sociopaths see things that you never told them too, just not always the same things a typical empath would see. First, sociopaths have a very different focus, different expectations about the world and the people in it. While you and everyone else are doing emotional sleight of hand meant to distract the average observer from certain harsh truths, e.g. you no longer love your spouse, or hate your boss, or are having an affair, or can't stand your children, the sociopath remains undistracted. It's like telling a joke to a kid with autism -- your attempts at subterfuge will simply not always have the same effects on a sociopath as they have on empaths. Second, sociopaths are students of human interactions, closely studying others so they can pick up on the right social cues to blend in, imitate normal behavior, etc. The truth is that the more you pay attention to something, the more aware you will be. I am a musician, and I can listen to a recording and tell exactly what is going on, who is playing what, even the way the music was mixed in the studio. You could learn that too, if you practiced as much as a musician does.

I think this is what you are referring to when you say that sociopaths seem to be able to see a person's soul or see people as they truly are. Or maybe it is more of an extraordinary bias in which you honestly don't expect a sociopath to understand anything, so when they do they seem very clever? I don't actually know, these are just my guesses.

Fear of the unknown

Regarding why empaths seem so wary of sociopaths, a theory from a reader:


So I pretty much boiled down why I think empaths are afraid of sociopaths.

It's the fear of the unknown.

Let me explain.

When I was at the zoo a few years ago, I casually asked a zoo keeper why the giraffes don't choose to escape. They don't put up a fence high enough to prevent the giraffes from simply walking out of the enclosure. All there is a little ditch and a tiny wall. The zoo keeper explained to me that the reason the giraffes never leave is because they can't see what's in the ditch. Since they don't know what would happen if they tried to step over it, they choose to stay in their enclosure instead.

This is pretty good analogy for humans and death.

If God were to go “After life you get to be in heaven and it's perfect,” to everyone after they were born, people would throw themselves off of cliffs as soon as they were able to walk.
The reason people generally don't run around killing themselves is because they have no idea what happens after death.

So how does this relate to sociopaths? 

People eventually  had to come up with unspoken rules that would prevent people from hurting each other. Not because they cared about the other people, but because they didn't want to be killed themselves. They didn't want to face the unknown.

And thus we have “empathy” which is really just the fear of something that has happened to someone else either affecting you or happening to you. 

What's really scary to an empath about sociopaths is that they have no idea what they're going to do next. Their thought process is completely foreign, since empaths have always functioned with, well, empathy. 

Even if you explain how a sociopath thinks to an empath, they're still a little bit afraid. They have no idea what a sociopath will do, or maybe do to them, because they do not function under the normal silent rules humanity came up with. The sociopath's thought process is still relatively unknown to the empath. 

So for an empath, trying to understand a sociopath is kind of like the giraffe trying to see what's in the ditch. You can kind of tell what's down there, but because you don't really know what, you'd prefer to stay away.

I hope that makes sense. 

-Thoughtful empath

Empaths, see also this post for the answers to some of these questions. 

Are sociopaths better than empaths?

I don't actually think that sociopaths are superior to empaths.  Unlike some (most?) people, I haven't formed a mental hierarchy of types of humans from sociopaths down to aspies, or empaths down to sociopaths, or any other sort of arrangement based on value to society or dominance or anything else.  We're different, yes, and some of those differences are strengths and some of them are weaknesses and some of them are strengths in one situation and weaknesses in another.

When I studied music seriously, I spent a lot of time practicing orchestral excerpts.  Excerpts are specific to a particular instrument, e.g. french horn or flute.  They are passages from the standard repertoire that either feature the instrument prominently or are particularly challenging to play.

In music there are basically two types of technical difficulty: (1) idiomatic but intricate passages and (2) deceptively simple passages that, due to the inherent weaknesses of the instrument, are still quite challenging.  The former are passages that play to the strengths or unique features of the instrument, for instance double or multiple stopping on a string instrument, glissandos on a harp, diatonic runs in the key of a woodwind instrument.  These passages showcase the instrument at its very best and can make even an average player look like a superstar.  The latter are passages that often were written by a composer without considering the particular difficulties of the instrument.  They may require awkward alternate fingering to be performed successfully.  They may be in a bad range of the instrument or require complicated breathing or sticking.  They are not a vehicle for showing off, rather they are an attempt to mask the awkwardness created by vulnerabilities of the instrument.

I have intentionally avoided using the word "flaw" to describe the instruments.  The truth is that no instrument is perfect.  Instrument designers have improved upon the originals and they continue to make small improvements, but inherent in the idea of there being a "better" range, there must be a worse range.  To make one passage easier to play, you must consequently make another hypothetical passage harder.  There's nothing to be sad about.  But when it comes to empaths talking about how sociopaths are an evolutionary mistake or sociopaths talking about how empaths are idiots it sometimes reminds me of how trombonists try to argue that their instrument is the best because they can tune to the exact pitch or string instruments arguing their instrument is the best because they can sustain a note for forever.  I find those sorts of arguments to be quaint and in a way that reflects a particularly small view of the world.

How to detect when someone is lying

Everybody has some ability to detect whether people are lying or not, though some of us are better at it than others. Psychologist Paul Ekman has developed a tool that he believes will improve that ability for everyone. Ekman is a leading authority on reading microexpressions (unconscious facial expressions that in a split second can reveal the owner's true thoughts) to detect lies. His work has been dramatized by the American Television show Lie to Me. I haven't had the time to use the microexpression training tool, but apparently it takes only an hour. It's available at www.PaulEkman.com.

I think the ability to read microexpressions would be more useful against empaths than sociopaths. Why? Because sociopaths have a less rigid sense of self, they are able to actually believe their own lies much better than empaths are. For instance, I am able to compartmentalize quite well -- just like the protagonist in the movie Memento, I'm able to tell myself lies that I can actually believe. Once I believe a lie, any microexpressions seen on my face would seem to support the lie, not undercut it. Empaths, on the other hand, seem to need a stricter sense of identity. Although I'm sure they unconsciously lie to themselves all the time and microexpressions wouldn't be able to detect those lies, they seem much less able to consciously lie to themselves to the point of believing the truth. In those situations, the ability to read microexpressions would be a very useful tool against a lying empath.

Why sociopaths seem more normal than normal

One of the reasons that the average person won't be able to identify a sociopath when she meets one is that sociopaths do a better job of acting normal than even neurotypical people do. Here's an illustration of what I mean: once I had a colleague review a resume I'd drafted using several different typefaces. The colleague, in an effort to make the document appear uniform, insisted that more space be put here, less there. I explained that the spacing was actually uniform, according to the program, and that the lack of uniformity was just the result of an optical illusion. She told me that it doesn't matter if the spacing is technically uniform, it doesn't matter if it is an optical illusion, the whole point of the endeavor is for the spacing to appear uniform, so if it doesn't appear uniform, we're not going to change the human perception of the document, we're just going to change the document.

Uber-empaths always feel like they need to be true to their feelings. If they feel something, it must be right. But sometimes these more emotional empaths have the equivalent of optical illusions -- maybe they are cranky and overly sensitive, maybe they are hormonal, maybe they are taking mood modifying drugs. Reality is different for everyone, but most empaths aren't daily confronted with that fact like sociopaths are. So empaths just go on their merry little way screaming in a coffee shop when their order is incorrect and generally being true to their feelings even if it makes them look like a crazy person.

Sociopaths, on the other hand, realize that emotions are at best shadows of truth and at worst complete fabrications. Sociopaths are not interested in being true to their feelings, but rather constantly projecting an image of normalcy. This ability to detach actual emotions felt with impressions conveyed is why some politicians and celebrities succeed and some don't. Nowadays everyone has an image consultant. The average person knows that. But does the average person realize to what extent the expression of emotions or convictions is being falsified in order to convey what the audience perceives?

Today I had an opportunity to do a little public speaking. By working with the uber-empath's predictable propensity to the emotional equivalent of optical illusions, I was successfully able to convey sincerity much better than if I had actually been feeling it. I think there may be a career in politics for me after all.

An empathy exercise

A lot of the empathy-challenged have expressed an ability to "imagine" what it would feel like to be another person going through a particular situation. I was explaining this to someone and they asked -- isn't this empathy? If it is, then I guess I'm an empath too. But first let me describe what it feels like using an unusual analogy that I hope works.

Imagine that you are having sex with someone. Better yet, imagine that you are engaged in foreplay, attempting to stimulate a reluctant lover. This is your first time. You have been on an island, grown up there alone, and one day another island dweller like yourself appears. Your experience so far has been auto arousal. You are very familiar with the ins and outs of your own equipment but have had no other exposure to sex other than what you have seen in wildlife. As you attempt to elicit a reaction from your partner, you think of everything you like to do to yourself and try that first. The more similar your partner is to you, the more accurate and effective your actions will be. But what if your partner's equipment looks nothing like your own? In that situation, the best you could do is extrapolate from your own experiences to imagine what it might feel if you had equipment more like your partner's, and act accordingly.

The process may seem very artificial to you at first, like when you scratch a part of your skin that has been numbed by anesthesia and feel only the scratching, not the being scratched. But the more similar the situation is to something you have experienced yourself, the more you can rely on your own personal experiences. Even if the other person is rather different from you, if you have done a decent job data-mining them you should be able to come up with a relatively accurate picture of them. And just like with the sex analogy, you would be getting positive or negative feedback indicating whether you are on target. If you engage in this imaginative exercise enough you can get quite good at it, the same way a professional pianist is not born with the ability to play, but can make it seem like he was with the ease with which he manipulates the keys. As I tell my loved ones all the time -- I don't understand you, but I can predict you very well.

If this is empathy, then I feel empathy. If empathy involves some automatic response to the emotions of another, though, or vicariously experiencing the emotions of another, then probably not. I don't feel vicariously what another feels any more than I vicariously feel the pleasure that I give someone else. Or maybe empaths don't feel empathy either. Maybe they think they are feeling what another feels, but really they are just projecting their own emotions on another.

Rejoinders, empaths?

Losing a sociopath (part II)

My response (cont.)

Empaths look at the amount of hurt caused by loss and say, "This is what this meant to me, this is how much I valued that thing and now I am grieving in equal amounts." Empaths examine their own grief that way, and they also take cues from others about how much something meant to them: "He seems to be handling this well, he must not have cared very much." But sociopaths experience grief in a much different way; it's like comparing apples to oranges. You will never know how much your sociopath cared about you or your relationship because you have absolutely no context for the amount. It would be like me telling you that he cared for you 10 martian kroners worth, or 10 billion solar pesos. There is no reference point for you to understand, no known exchange rate. And I think that is what you are really asking, right? Not does he feel sad, because I am sure if you were together with him for a year you would know that yes he does feel sad. What you are really asking is how sad does he feel, how does he feel sadness, and what makes him sad, and particularly whether he is sad about the prospect of your leaving him?

But more than just that, what you want is meaning. You want an explanation for everything that happened in the relationship, everything he said, everything you did together. I understand this about empaths -- it is not so much what happens to them but how/why that matters. Take hypothetical situation: an empath starts out with $100 in the morning, gives $50 to a homeless guy, and then gets mugged for the other $50. Or they lose the other $50 in a storm drain. They feel good about the $50 to the homeless guy and feel bad about the other $50. That is very strange to the sociopath, because both are arguably just a loss of $50. But here is the weirdest part! Empaths would rather have lost the other $50 in a storm drain than have been mugged for it. Why?! As a sociopath I see the justification for giving the homeless man the money -- you are transferring wealth to someone who will value the money more than you. But the same applies to the mugging! The money goes to someone who probably needs/values it more. The only arguably bad outcome is losing the $50 in the storm drain, which empaths feel fine about. But that's because to the empaths it is not the fact that $50 was lost in these various ways, but how it happened.

Similarly, because you are an empath, you will concoct a huge story for the relationship, an explanation for everything you were, everything that happened. You will rehash every memory, relive every conversation, even reread past correspondence searching for "answers." You will try to find meaning in this story that you piece together of what "really happened." You will look for motives, you will question everything you thought you knew about him and the relationship, and it will be very very painful. Your sociopath will not do any of this. He only knows that the relationship failed. He will only see the result, perhaps the most immediate cause. He will not suffer this rehashing pain, but it is not because he cared any more or less. He just cared differently, and he is emotionally evolutionarily advanced enough to not indulge in an elaborate investigation and revisionist history. He will grieve, and he will move on. And there is no reason at all to fault him for that. In fact, when you look at things this way, is he really the one that is causing you so much pain? You are devastated because the relationship failed and you are suffering loss. But you are in pain because you are a reactionary empath and you are making things worse by reliving and rethinking every tiny detail. You are overreacting and focusing on things that don't matter, like the whys and hows while he is focused on the true measure of success, failure, loss -- the what. I think if you are honest with yourself, you will see that your pain/disease is more autoimmune than viral. So no, I don't think he gets what "he has done" to you. I bet he doesn't attribute any of your self-inflicted pain to himself, and for good reason.

With all of this said, I realize that pain is pain no matter what the cause, and you are an empath so you probably can't be expected to do better than you're doing, and I understand that sociopaths are very difficult to deal with and that you have probably suffered a lot of frustration over the past year with him. I hope that you are able to quickly find peace and wish you all the best in your time of grief.

Desperately seeking sociopath

More from reader "R":

I realized part of my bitter disappointment was that [the man i was dating] was only a narcissist [not a sociopath]. I am a person that is highly sensitive and I do think that I have an almost debilitating capacity to understand and at times feel what other feel. Is seems that just because you are emotional does not necessarily make you good. It has however after a lot of time of introspection made me realize that I can understand people's motives pretty easily. I'm distressed because they are usually, well... So I oscillate between thinking I 'm a crazy narcissist or I'm doomed to be lonely, because I'm afraid I'm on to something. Anyway, I think I was trying to find a sociopath, 1) for relief from having to feel all the time and 2) so I could objectively share information. What do you think?

My response:

I think your reasons for seeking out a sociopath make perfect sense. From what you are describing, you sound like what I call an "uber-empath," someone who is on the opposite extreme of the empathy spectrum as the sociopath. Like many extremes, sociopaths and uber-empaths actually seem to get along quite well. I have had many friends and relationships with uber empaths. In this post I say the following with an uber-empath friend:

Uber-empaths and sociopaths actually make okay friends because the empath is constantly emoting all the time, like kryptonite killing off lesser things, but the sociopaths are unfazed, immune. And sociopaths rarely get to show off to people who really appreciate them, but uber-empaths can understand and appreciate.
So I think there can be a healthy, symbiotic relationship between the two.

How to fight a sociopath -- and win!

A book like that would be an instant bestseller. If you figure there are 50 million sociopaths in the world and every one of them knows about 200 people, that's ... that's a lot of people who would be buying the book. It seems like most empaths can't tell how to spot a sociopath, so you go reading all these books and looking at all these websites purporting to tell you how. The problem with those sources is that they may be have some valid information, but they're about as useful as a book about becoming a millionaire. Maybe some of those methods would work with some empaths looking for some sociopaths some of the time, but there is no surefire method. That's why you have all those books and websites.

Still, I sympathize with your position, empaths. You're creeped out that there are these otherworldy beings wandering around making your life miserable for their own sport.

The truth is that sociopaths are largely harmless. Just ask Andrew Bird. Sure, we may play with your minds a bit, but with me it's more like teasing than anything else. Let's say you had a younger sibling who you liked to give a hard time. Or when you're out and about and you see a little girl dressed up like a princess or a little boy dressed up like a pirate, what do you do? You say, "Wow a princess!" or "Oh no, a scary pirate!" You play along with the kid because you can. It's sort of fun and you get to feel like you are being superior and nice at the same time -- so superior that you can afford to condescend to their ridiculous level and play along with their little fantasies for a while. Empaths are for the most part harmless too, so why not go along with their make-believe? Meet an empath who thinks he's beautiful or smart or talented? Feed that belief. That's pretty much all the sociopath interactions you'll see in your lives. All we do is tell you the equivalent of "Santa is real." Is that really so bad? Those of you who are smart probably realize it's just for your own good.

But with that said, I can predict situations in which you might want to beat a sociopath at his own game. What next? Well, as mentioned in earlier posts, one of the sociopath's main tools is mimicking human emotions. How do they know what to mimic? By watching you. How do you trick them? By feeding them false information. A sociopath's ability to act normal is only as good as the information he has available to him about what you expect. When you feed him false information, it ends up like one of those dry British farces where misunderstandings and confusions abound. But you're not confused because you know what's going on. And then you've beat him. That's all there is to it.

Congratulations, you fought a sociopath -- and won! Was it worth the effort? How about a nominal charge for a bestselling book of the same name?

Empaths = ticking time bombs

A reader emailed this article with the subject line, "What happens when you don't properly break up with a sociopath." I was excited for a possible sociopaths in the news post, but disappointed to read that it looked like a simple crime of passion:

Carol Anne Burger killed her former lover by stabbing her 222 times with a Phillips-head screwdriver and then took pains to hide her crime, police said Wednesday.

Jessica Kalish, who shared a house with Burger despite breaking up with her more than a year ago, was found last Thursday stuffed in the backseat of her gun-metal BMW sedan, abandoned behind a medical office at 2300 S. Congress Avenue. Her blood was splashed around the rear end and undercarriage of the car, as if her killer had tried to load her into the trunk. The driver-side window was shattered.

Examining the body, detectives absorbed what had been done to her. Stab wounds were clustered around the back of her head and stitched across her back and arms and face. Most were between an inch and an inch-and-a-half deep. A blow to Kalish's neck probably killed her, investigators determined.

Okay, murder with a screwdriver, not bad. I feel like I have seen that before in scary sociopath type movies, but that's where the sociopath connections end:

Burger, a 57-year-old writer, did yoga, had a fondness for Shark Week on the Discovery Channel and preferred to watch musicals in theaters with Dolby Sound. She recently stopped drinking coffee. She thought Jackson Browne's "For a Dancer" was good to listen to when you were sad, and she refused to take anti-depressants despite her relationship problems with Kalish.

Okay, so not a sociopath. I mean, maybe with the "fondness for Shark Week," but you keep reading the article and can only come to one conclusion: crime of passion. Yes, sociopaths can kill, maim, or otherwise injure "loved ones," but at least we act predictably. Empaths! They are the scary ones! They'll get all worked up about things, get into this emotional frenzy, and next thing you know you have a screwdriver shoved in your neck. "Watch out for empaths" warns this article:

On the morning she realized her husband and son would learn the family was losing their house, Carlene Balderrama, 53, faxed a note to the mortgage company, then went to the basement and shot herself.

"I hope you're more compassionate with my husband than you were with me," she wrote in a suicide note left for the company.

It is a dramatic picture of the worst that financial stress can wring. As home foreclosures and unemployment mount, so do their companion tales of fraud, robbery, arson and even murder. And though suicides remain rare, evidence that financial stress is erupting in rash, often illegal behavior isn't difficult to find.

Not just suicides, murder-suicide--like that man who killed his his wife, mother-in-law and three sons, and then shot himself at their Los Angeles home. Empaths are on the rampage!

I admit that sociopaths are sort of scary. But that's just because we don't have the same boundaries for human behavior that you expect in neuro-typical individuals. But what is scarier? Being out in a jungle where you know there are tigers and you take the appropriate precautions? Or being in a zoo with your family when the tigers suddenly break free from their enclosure? Empath boundaries don't do any good when they can just hurdle over them whenever they're upset. That's what empaths are like: ticking time bombs. Screwdriver-murderer's friends know what I am talking about:

Her friends, the ones who can bring themselves to believe what police said about her, turn the question over in amazement.

If this could happen to someone like her, they said, what does it mean for the rest of us?

Interview with an Empath (part V)

Empath: By the way, I believe my friend still has a listserv on yahoo or somewhere. Would you like to talk a little with your peers? I could refer him to your blog and ask if he thinks the listerv is up your alley. Although they don't tend to talk that much about being sociopaths, specifically. He let me on the list at one time in the past, but I couldn't handle it when one of the more serial-killer-esque individuals on the list actually posted child porn and it came directly in my in-box. So I unsubscribed. The rest of them aren't like that, but a number of them are into conspiracy theories for some reason.

M.E.: Definitely interested. I'm so lonely, really. Mainly I have to hang out with people on the autism spectrum who are also unempathetic, or the uber-empaths who are so empathetic they even empathize with the sociopaths. You might be one of those, btw. Particularly if your friend stole your girlfriend and you still sort of felt bad for him.

Empath: That sounds right.

M.E.: Uber-empaths and sociopaths actually make okay friends because the empath is constantly emoting all the time, like kryptonite killing off lesser things, but the sociopathis are unfazed, immune. And sociopaths rarely get to show off to people who really appreciate them. Uber-empaths can understand and appreciate. That said, I'd like to meet other sociopaths.

Empath: Sure, but if you do get on the listserv, my friend sometimes refers to me on the list. Many things he has said about me are blantantly false or some shade of embellishment. I don't really care, because he doesn't use my real name, but if you read anything about me in the archives or whatever, assume it is not true. My friend periodically accuses me of being Lecter to his Starling. Which is almost flattering.

M.E.: So you were on the listserv for a while? Did you ever think that you were a sociopath?

Empath: No, I am definitely not one of your ilk, though at times I wish I were, because I recognize how base, disgusting, hypocritical, and virtually intolerable the world is but am stuck on that radio dial picking up the waves of empathy, unable to control. Compassion can be a handicap, I recognize. One of my favorite movies is American Psycho, because I appreciate the beauty and truth of the film's ending. Most people do deserve to die in horrible ways. I just know that I want to save them rather than than use or slaughter them. I am a crusader and semi-socialist, you know?

M.E.: Yeah, I know.

Interview with an Empath (part IV)

Empath: I think I have taught my sociopath friend a ton, over the years, about how to imitate the type of behavior you refer to as "empathic." Or, perhaps, I give myself too much credit and he has just learned on his own.

M.E.: Oh, I'm sure you taught him a ton about how to pass. I constantly check with my friends all the time to make sure I am passing, help me pinpoint weak points, vet potential plans of attack. I've devoted crazy amounts of time to passing, but I figure it is all the better to enact my own little machinations.

Empath: He functions quite well in society, unless he takes a disliking to a particular person, in which case he is given to psychologically smashing them into tiny pieces. Which, if that person happens to be someone else I care about, tends to cause tension in our relationship.

M.E.: Have you ever been a target of his psychological warfare?

Empath. Not directly. For whatever reason, my friend has decided I am one of the few "sheep" in the world that he truly likes. Maybe because I (sometimes tacitly, sometimes explicitly) accept him as a sociopath, even when I am horrified or exasperated by his actions.
M.E., I think you're right, sociopaths can/will sometimes pick out favorites among the empaths, people they are fond of. Like how Dexter is sort of inexplicably fond of his step sister. Similar to people with Asperger's and others with low degrees of empaths, sociopaths can be extremely loyal.

Interview with an Empath (part III)

M.E.: So how did you discover that your friend was a sociopath?

Empath: The hard way.

M.E.: Is there any other way?

Empath: Not that I know of. I actually don't know how we've managed to stay friends for so long. At one point, I didn't speak to him for two years because he slept with my girlfriend and wrote me a letter basically rubbing it my face. I was devastated. Through a few discussions with him over time, I began to realize that he is a sociopath or, at least, very close. It was like . . . I had to explain to him on an intellectual level how wrong what he did was. I began to see he couldn't really understand on a gut empathetic level, why his actions would be so devastating.

M.E.: Ha, yeah, that sounds like textbook sociopath.

Empath: I used to comment, during that period, that I wouldn't have been surprised if I went over to his house and found body parts in his freezer. But he has external constraints that I think would prevent him from ever going that way. Not that he necessarily would have, of course.

M.E.: Of course.

Empath: But my friend is a brilliant, original thinker. Although his worldview is constantly evolving and changing. He gets very irritated when I talk about spirituality and love or compassion, which he views as primarily aspects of bourgeois decadence as manifested in current culture. I could go on. He is most likely a sociopath, but I love him dearly. Most people I know can't understand why I "tolerate" him. He is strange and brilliant and interesting and . . . so different from everyone else I know. Not in an everyone-repeat-after-me-"we-are-all-individuals" kind of way. You know?

M.E.: sure.

Empath: Anyway, I have come to respect and (sort of) understand him for what he is.