Why not prey on the weak?

I think it's a myth that sociopaths tend to prey on the very weak. I typically don't, at least. I don't have a categorical rule against preying on the weak, but unlike the mighty lion I just don't tend to go for the weakest wildebeest. And why is the lion always going after the weak? It must be because eating is more or less a chore for him. He must not get much additional pleasure in taking down a fast wildebeest and eating it then just settling for the slowest one. Eating's more or less a chore for me too. I also will not go out of my way to make eating more difficult than it needs to be -- for instance won't travel to the grocer in inclement weather. Not to say I don't enjoy eating or even sometimes the experience of eating/acquiring food, but like the lion I just don't see the point in making it harder than it is to achieve my endgame.

If the endgame in eating is largely consumption of calories, what is the endgame of interacting with people? It's not pure consumption, although that is certainly part of it. No matter how you describe "consumption" with regards to people, whether number of sexual partners or number of friends or people that love you or who would do anything for you, everyone has some level of standards. You don't want to consume just any person, you want to consume a particular type of person, a particular quality of person or for a particular reason. Consumption isn't just about numbers for anyone, including sociopaths. Yes, I could target more people if I only went after the weak, but I don't need to do so, nor do I want to do so. I don't see the point in mindlessly stacking up conquest after conquest, it just doesn't appeal to me. My endgame is not adding another name to my list of conquests, it's the process and pleasure of making the attempt.

In fact, if I see someone weak, I usually just ignore them. If I see someone emotionally limping along in front of me, most of the time I make like the Levite priest in the good Samaritan story and cross over to the other side of the street so I don't have to even look at them. I like my prey to be strong with a tragic flaw, like Achilles. My dream prey would take every ounce of mental strength, agility, and ingenuity to conquer. My dream prey would keep me up at night wondering how I was going to win. I would suffer setbacks and wonder if I would ever recover. I would experience small victories and feel the exhilaration of attaining some progress, however incrementally small. My dream prey would take everything out of me, and that would be the value of it -- all of me.

I wonder if lions ever hunt for pleasure. Other animals certainly seem to:

Sociopath quotes: hunting

"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter.

Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

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. 

Sociopath = pet monster?

A reader relates why she wants to win back her sociopath ex, and asks how:

Looking back I realize in the beginning he was so attentive and "caring" He swept me off my feet with a broom of charm. I don't quite understand him b/c he would go out of his way to help me and he was even trusted by his family mysteriously to take care of his nephew. He was like my soulmate at first, he showed total romance and after awhile we started fighting. My ex made a point to let me know my flaws when we parted ways. The very same flaws my father always nit picked at me for. How strange? Very. It seems like he was quite like my father, he had this way about him that made me feel loved, safe, warm, the same way I felt around my father as a kid. My ex was strangely kind. He admitted he felt nothing at times but he told me he loved me. When we broke up the first time he threw a childlike tantrum childishly accusing my friends of ruining his chances of getting me back. He wanted to fight my male friend who is diagnosed a sociopath, but they had no clue that they were both sociopath. Ah the beautiful irony! They never did fight though. But he swears he hates him still. (I don't doubt it). Why is dating a sociopath like having a pet monster? I need answers! I want him back a year later I find myself wanting more. He's quite addictive. I read in one of your post on sociopathic love that they can become your soulmate and I realize he did just that and with me still waters run deep applies. There are many sides of me I think I discovered through him. I just want him back what should I do?

My response:

Have you ever been to a zoo during feeding time? Some animals are very willing to eat out of a trough like any domesticated animal would, fattening up for the slaughter. Other animals have to be fed in a way that simulates how they would eat in the wild, whether through scavenging or hunting. Sociopaths are like that. They don't like to be spoonfed, so to speak. They would rather starve. This instinct possibly reflects an evolutionary wariness and fear of traps -- if the prey seems too easy, the sociopath will naturally believe that he is being set up; he will not even want to eat, the same way you may be wary of overaggressive salesmen or food that smells off. What does this mean for you? Take a lesson from the zookeepers and figure out how to simulate a plausible hunting/scavenging scenario (whichever your particular sociopath seems to prefer) in which you are the target. How did he first get you? Try to tap into that person you were, try to replicate the feeling of the hunt for him. How you go about doing that will be very context specific to your sociopath, but it is theoretically possible.

Pet predators are like this too, aren't they? Like snakes? I guess that would make sociopaths pet monsters.

Earthly delights

From a reader:


This detail from Bosch's curious painting, The Garden of Earthly Delights, reminds me of a dangerous lady whose favourite painting it is. The penetrating beak, the huge mouth, the underbelly being feasted on by hommes moyens sensual who are on their way to self destruction and especially the grasping hands. She is a sociopath or psychopath making a successful career in a big tobacco company. 

The picture she says is "as much about contemporary New York as Holland centuries ago". She has stared for hours at every detail trying to imagine the story behind each figure and to learn as much from it as she can, because sociopaths are only interested in knowlege they can use. 

Everyone in the painting is suffering or will suffer as a result of their weaknesses, except the pitiless satanic creatures who efficiently administer the punishments and are enjoying their task. Victims, the lady is convinced, want to be victims. 

The Satanic agents are the only pure figures, although possessing, one supposes, all the deadly sins themselves.  They are evil yet not corrupt, are in fact incorruptible. They are sociopaths, in fact, who are curiously inhuman. They seem, like the lady in question, oddly to transcend their nationality and social class and even their sex.

I would be informative to know what the painting means for her but all she says is, 'How enjoyable it is to be eaten'. 

She also tells me only bad women are attractive. 

Saint Augustine said

Since love grows within you, so beauty grows. For love is the beauty of the soul. 

St. Augustine was right but he was playing on the opposing team from the lady and he was talking about beauty not sex appeal. 

Cesare Pavese had a germane point when he said it was only possible to love without reservation a completely selfish person because only a completely selfish person will always remain objective and not alter to please you. 

Sheeps, wolves, and sheep dogs

This was a sort of interesting (and a little blowhard-y) essay on the role of sheeps, wolves and sheep dogs:

Everyone has been given a gift in life. Some people have a gift for science and some have a flair for art. And warriors have been given the gift of aggression. They would no more misuse this gift than a doctor would misuse his healing arts, but they yearn for the opportunity to use their gift to help others. These people, the ones who have been blessed with the gift of aggression and a love for others, are our sheepdogs. These are our warriors.


We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin’s egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

“Then there are the wolves,” the old war veteran said, “and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.” Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

“Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.” Or, as a sign in one California law enforcement agency put it, “We intimidate those who intimidate others.”

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.


Sheep dogs? Maybe. (Cue the young sociopath want-to-bes asserting that they are wolves raised to be sheepdogs?) I am actually fine with the idea of there being sheepdogs. Generally speaking, it's the sheep dogs that keeps everyone else in ignorance. I have nothing concrete to really base this on, but it seems like sheep are not like deer or other natural prey that are naturally skittish? They get lulled into this false sense of security? Which is actually a pretty great way to run a society, for a lot of reasons.

Why we need wolves

This was a fascinating NY Times article entitled "Why the Beaver Should Thank the Wolf" that is worth reading in its entirety, but here is the first part:


THIS month, a group of environmental nonprofits said they would challenge the federal government’s removal of Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in Wyoming. Since there are only about 328 wolves in a state with a historic blood thirst for the hides of these top predators, the nonprofits are probably right that lacking protection, Wyoming wolves are toast.

Many Americans, even as they view the extermination of a species as morally anathema, struggle to grasp the tangible effects of the loss of wolves. It turns out that, far from being freeloaders on the top of the food chain, wolves have a powerful effect on the well-being of the ecosystems around them — from the survival of trees and riverbank vegetation to, perhaps surprisingly, the health of the populations of their prey.

An example of this can be found in Wyoming’s Yellowstone National Park, where wolves were virtually wiped out in the 1920s and reintroduced in the ’90s. Since the wolves have come back, scientists have noted an unexpected improvement in many of the park’s degraded stream areas.

Stands of aspen and other native vegetation, once decimated by overgrazing, are now growing up along the banks. This may have something to do with changing fire patterns, but it is also probably because elk and other browsing animals behave differently when wolves are around. Instead of eating greenery down to the soil, they take a bite or two, look up to check for threats, and keep moving. The greenery can grow tall enough to reproduce.

Beavers, despite being on the wolf’s menu, also benefit when their predators are around. The healthy vegetation encouraged by the presence of wolves provides food and shelter to beavers. Beavers in turn go on to create dams that help keep rivers clean and lessen the effects of drought. Beaver activity also spreads a welcome mat for thronging biodiversity. Bugs, amphibians, fish, birds and small mammals find the water around dams to be an ideal habitat.

So the beavers keep the rivers from drying up while, at the same time, healthy vegetation keeps the rivers from flooding, and all this biological interaction helps maintain rich soil that better sequesters carbon — that stuff we want to get out of the atmosphere and back into the ground. In other words, by helping to maintain a healthy ecosystem, wolves are connected to climate change: without them, these landscapes would be more vulnerable to the effects of those big weather events we will increasingly experience as the planet warms.

Scientists call this sequence of impacts down the food chain a “trophic cascade.” The wolf is connected to the elk is connected to the aspen is connected to the beaver. Keeping these connections going ensures healthy, functioning ecosystems, which in turn support human life.


I was reading one of the recent comments: "whist I'm all in favour of integrating such people into society as well as possible, I have serious concerns about situations were sociopaths have this kind of power over others." The thing is that sociopaths have always been a part of society. There is no need to integrate us. We are as integrated as any group can be perhaps, scattered as we are throughout every continent and culture, every religion or political group, every family and tribe. People may wonder what our net effect is on society when you add us all up together. I also wonder that. But I think it's not crazy to suggest that, just like any predator, although we may have a somewhat negative effect in the micro, our effect on the larger ecosystem is overall positive.

Sociopath fish: bluestriped fangblenny

Does any of this sound familiar? From a science blog:


Nature is rife with charlatans. Hundreds of animals have evolved to look like other species in order to fool predators into thinking they’re more of a threat, or to sneak up on unsuspecting prey. In the Indo-Pacific lives a fish that does both and has the rare ability to switch between different disguises – the bluestriped fangblenny.
***
Its model is the bluestreak cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus, an industrious species that provides a cleaning service for other reef visitors by picking off parasites and mucus from hard-to-reach places. The fangblenny’s intentions are less welcome. Its resemblance to the helpful wrasse allows it to get close enough to mount quick attacks on larger fish, biting off scales and skin (see image below for why it got it’s name).
***
Now, Cheney has provided further evidence for the opportunistic colour changes of this con artist. She captured 34 fangblennies of various colours and after 60 minutes alone, all the mimics had switched to non-mimic colours – it seems that there’s no point putting on a disguise if there’s no one around to see it.

When she added another fish, nothing happened unless it was a juvenile bluestreak cleaner wrasse. At that point, a third of the fangblennies swapped back to their black-and-blue coats. Cheney noticed that only the smaller individuals changed colours. She believes that as fangblennies grow larger, the rewards of looking like the smaller wrasse are reduced, so they don’t bother.
***
A disguise may look right to us, but our colour vision is very different to that of most animals, including those whose reaction actually matters. To get a more objective view of the fangblenny’s disguise, Cheney analysed the light reflecting off its scales when it went through its different colour phases. Sure enough, its black-and-blue form reflected light in almost exactly the same way as a real cleaner wrasse would.
***
The bluestripe fangblenny’s many faces gives it great versatility. By matching the colours of a variety of different fish, it greatly expands the area of reef where it can safely hide from both predators and potential victims. Unlike the mimic octopus, it makes no effort to change its body shape and some of its models, like the chromis, are very different. But in a shoal, that hardly matters. A superficial resemblance to the surrounding throng may be advantage enough.


I love everything about this fish: pretends not just to be a neutral fish, but to be a helpful fish, careful to project an image suitable to its audience, but of course only superficial changes because that's often advantage enough.

Perfect prey (part 1)

From a reader:

Do you believe that there are empaths who are perfectly suitable partners for sociopaths?

I have been playing cat and mouse with a certain sociopath for four years now. We have gone back and forth between 'love', hate, jealousy, possession and everything in between, and I can't imagine anyone more intellectually or emotionally stimulating. I consider myself to be in love with this person, and know from their inability to get away from me, they reciprocate this to some degree.

I have had others boyfriends (all who I believe are empaths), and I couldn't stand them. I am inextricably proud of 'my sociopath' when they are exerting power over others, and I find it hilarious and thrilling when I know that they are trying to manipulate me also. 


M.E.: It makes sense that there would be certain empaths who value sociopathic traits more than others, such that they would be willing to put up with a lot more of the "negative" traits (or not even see them as negative) than most would.  And it is odd to read some of the comments and see that some people have had multiple interactions with sociopaths over their lifetime--almost like they are a magnet for sociopaths.

But I feel like I should give you some unsolicited advice, just because I just got done emailing someone who pushed her sociopath too far and had him abandon her.  The tricky thing about sociopaths in relationships is that nothing is certain.  You are probably right that your sociopath is intrigued with you, maybe even infatuated.  There is no such thing as "can't live without" in the sociopath's world, though.  They are extremely adaptable and changeable and if you are gone, they really will hardly notice (if notice at all).  That is not to say that they couldn't be a lifelong companion.  But, you would have to be like a plate spinner--constantly going from plate to plate, tending to this need here, being ever so slightly difficult and playful there--to keep things going.  It's a lot of work, and if you're not naturally interested in those sorts of interpersonal machinations, it might wear on you.

Sharks = psycho killers

According to this article sent in by a reader, scientists are using the known patterns of serial killers to explain the hunting patterns of sharks:

What do great white sharks have in common with serial killers? Refined hunting skills, according to a paper recently published in the Zoological Society of London’s Journal of Zoology. Researchers have found that sharks hunt in a highly focused fashion, just like serial criminals.

Predation is one of the most fundamental and fascinating interactions in nature, and sharks are some of the fiercest predators on Earth. However, their hunting pattern is difficult to study because it is rarely observed in the wild. As a result, shark predatory behavior has remained much of a mystery. Now, researchers from the United States and Canada are using geographic profiling -- a criminal investigation tool used to track a connected series of crimes and locate where serial criminals live -- to examine the hunting patterns of white sharks in South Africa.

I wonder if they can go they other way: use known behaviors of animal predators to explain the behavior of serial killers. But it brings up a good point: how many of the arguments for eradicating sociopaths could equally be applicable to sharks, tigers, lions, killer whales, and other man/animal predators? Maybe people are just scared because man has gotten used to thinking that he is at the top of the food chain. But most species have natural predators -- it's nature's way of keeping things in check. Is man an exception?