Sociopathic decisionmaking

Along the same lines as yesterday's post, another reader writes about what motivates him (gratification) and what keeps him from doing other things (negative consequences). From a reader:

dear m.e. thomas:

i just wanted to write this to you to express gratitude.  until reading an excerpt from your book, i had always had the vague sense that there was something different about me.  perhaps it was always wishful thinking, or some kind of desire to be special.  who knows? i've never been fully examined by a psychologist or any other kind of -ist, for that matter.  so, after all these years of wondering and suspecting, i came across your writing.

now, all i have is relief.  can sociopaths feel relief?  i don't know.  i have no better explanation for it than that. i am relieved at having read your writing.  the feeling of relief was so palpable that it brought tears to my eyes.

i am 30 years old, and i've felt this way to one degree or another for most of my life. i think it started when i was younger, and had to learn to read people to gauge their responses to my words and actions.  it wasn't until later that i learned that empathy is usually what people use to do those things.  i've always had the burning curiosity, and the desire to experiment.  i truly enjoy experimenting, and over the years it has gotten me into minor troubles, but thankfully i learned early on that i can't just do things for the sake of my own desire.  

i can relate to many things you write about.  i especially relate to the desire to hurt others who have seemingly slighted me.  the only reason i don't act upon my urges is the knowledge of reprisal.  i don't necessarily fear consequence; i simply acknowledge it as being more inconvenient than some short-lived gratification. as a matter of fact, the inconvenience of consequences is the only thing that holds me back from my desires.  the wants themselves run the gamut of importance... sleeping with a woman who isn't my wife is not ethically or socially objectionable to me.  overall, the impact on the world because of 'cheating' is incredibly minimal.  the risk-analysis of temporary physical enjoyment Vs long-term stability is more effective in decision making than any kind of ethics. refusing to slow down at an intersection, when i have the right-of-way and someone pulls out in front of me, is not ethically or socially objectionable to me.  however, going to jail and being locked in a cage seems especially repugnant- not to mention the hassle of repairing my vehicle.

i think things that don't seem to be commonly thought.  i've gone to the point of isolating myself from society because i know i'm different.  the quality of the difference has always been irrelevant, but now i have more to think about.  i constantly want to test and experiment with the 'norm'.  i want to change things, both for the better and for the worse, and i want to observe the reaction.  i WANT to do so much. the gross inconvenience of consequence is the only thing stopping me.  guilt and shame are non-existent. the only thing i truly feel with any kind of passion is a certain amount of hatefulness towards that which i can't control.  the barrier between my wants and satisfaction is maddening.  obviously i can cope with that; you'll not see me in jail any time soon.

please realize that these are merely statements of fact. i would no more act upon them than i would t-bone the car that pulls out in front of me, or fuck a woman simply because i can.

thank you for your writing, and for being straightforward in your words.  if you wish to reply, please do.  if not, i won't really be that upset, will i?

I still get a lot of emails from people that suggest that they don't really understand the sociopathic decisionmaking process. Is it because they make Decision X a particular way, let's say by using empathy, so they expect that anyone without empathy would not be able to reach Decision X? I find that religious people can be this way -- assume that atheists must do bad things because atheists have no reason to be good?  Likewise, do some people believe that sociopaths only choose bad? And if so, what consequences, if any, do they suffer? I feel like there are people who fall into either extreme: believe sociopaths magically get away with things (i.e. won't suffer any consequences) or think that sociopaths will eventually suffer for every choice they make (i.e. karma's a bitch). The reality is that sociopaths probably get caught a little less often than other people because they're better liars and manipulators, but even the best laid Ponzi scheme will eventually collapse. Not all sociopaths are intelligent and sociopaths as a group tend to fail to learn from their experiences (possibly because punishments don't affect them as much as normal people?) but sociopaths are also sensitive to consequences in the form of incentives. So yes, sociopaths are capable of and often do take into consideration consequences (e.g. the reader's comment "thankfully i learned early on that i can't just do things for the sake of my own desire"). And maybe this explains why sociopaths can often function very well for a stretch of time, but willpower has its limits for everyone and sociopaths don't have great judgment, which maybe explains how sociopaths can also self destruct in huge ways.

Or am I wrong? Are sociopaths always scheming ne'er-do-wells? And if so, do they always get what they have coming to them or get away with everything? 

Sociopath treatment

There is no "cure" for sociopathy, but it can be managed well or it can be managed poorly. Sociopaths don't respond very well to punishment, but they do respond to incentives. As discussed in this little blurb, referencing the successful treatment of teenage sociopaths:

Psychopaths aren’t murderers and criminals by their nature, they’re simply people without compunction. Naturally this can make them callous and cold, but it doesn’t automatically make them dangerous. In fact, in cases where it has been demonstrated and proven to psychopaths that they will personally benefit from abiding by rules, then it is possible they can become relatively well assimilated into society. Let me explain, where traditional treatment is used, (like psychotherapy or counseling), the sessions merely act as a kind of unintentional specialized training to help psychopaths more effectively mimic healthy emotional behavior. They are not treated or helped by traditional therapy as any insane (or sane) person might be. But Dr. Robert Hare developed a system whereby by accepting that the psychopath may never be anything but rational and uncaring, and used logical process to demonstrate that it is in their own interest to behave appropriately. Apparently there are criminal rehabilitation systems which are testing out this process, offering instant rewards for psychopathic subjects who follow the rules, appealing to their need for instant gratification and it is shown to be relatively effective. This is the first treatment in the history of psychopathy that has been been effective at all.

What is the difference between a successful sociopath and a less successful one? Sometimes I wonder if it's a matter of chancing upon a good thing first and sticking with it rather than a bad one -- like we're monkeys in an experiment, and if you press one button you get heroin, if you press another you get food, and if you press another you somehow get sexual pleasure. Once you find a good thing, you'll probably just stick with it, right? I always got good results being legit, ever since I was little, but if I didn't, or if my first good results came from being less legit, I'm sure I would have gone that way.

But if you want to "manage" yourself or someone else, I do think the key is incentives and immediate gratification. The caveats are that the incentive cannot be discretionary (because sociopaths will see it as arbitrary and not actually associate it with their own behavior) and the reward can't seem too good or the task too hard, otherwise he will spend all of his time trying to figure out how to trick you into giving him the reward without actually completing the task.

A utilitarian view of justice? (part 2)

From the reader, additional ideas about this post on utilitarian morality:

I sent this in because of a discussion I was having at that time with my husband.  He is an uber-empath who is extremely open minded, except when it comes to psychopathy.  He’s afraid of you and worries when I read your blog, which cracks me up (I think he worries that psychopathy is contagious …. would that it were, lol)!  We were talking about whether you could have a morality not based on empathy, and to my surprise, he disagreed that such a thing was possible.  “Disagree” is putting it mildly - he was deeply repulsed by such an idea, which surprised me because he’s normally very open.

To him, morality and empathy go hand in hand, in the same way that for religious people morality and god go hand in hand (both he and I are atheists).  Oddly, he sees how ridiculous (wrong) is it for religious people to impose their god-oriented morality on non-believing people, but he doesn’t think twice about imposing a morality based on empathy on the world. I am less convinced that empathy is necessarily a part of morality, and am more of a utilitarian, which is why I am interested in the utilitarianism of pre-modern cultures and decided to send this into you. 

Fyi, I very much share your instinctive fear of crazed mobs, most especially when they are fueled deeply felt sense of righteousness. I have seen groups of people in the clutches of religious fervour and other deeply felt emotions, and it is frightening beyond belief.

My response:

I think your analogy is spot on. Your husband's perspective is very interesting and hard for me to understand (but I lack empathy, so...). I can't even really reason out what the connection is between empathy and morality for most people. We don't do "bad" things because we feel the pain that our victims feel? What if there is no victim? Also, we sometimes do hurt people but for "good" reasons. For instance, we punish children, even though they are hurt when we do, for their own "good". Where does that assessment of "good" come from if not from a utilitarian point of view? This is especially true when you consider all the limitations of empathy. Might as well construct a view of morality that values the needs of your own loved ones and tribesmen over everyone else... 

Criminal sentencing for sociopaths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro-social sociopath (part 3)

Ok, a few more responses about the legitimate foundation of the stigma against sociopaths, and then we'll stop this series.

• you said you salivate at the thought of ruining people (that's been stuck in my head for a while btw). 

Yes, I do. It's an involuntary reaction to a stimulus, like someone becoming sexually aroused. I once heard a (possibly specious?) statistic that men think about sex every seven seconds. And I bet some of those times are triggered by girls younger than 16 years old. Maybe they even wish that it was ok to sleep with girls that young but since it isn't, they don't. And in any case, they can't control the fact that they are attracted to them. It's just the way they're wired. Similarly, I am also wired to enjoy the aggression inherent in power games. And there are certain contexts in which these power games are particularly useful, like in times of war/diplomacy/debate, just like how there's nothing wrong with sex in the right contexts. It's good for society to have a few people around that don't shy away from conflict but actually enjoy it, particularly as long as you can convince us we're on your team. I understand that people are concerned that I actually "ruin" people in that the person is "ruined". I don't. I have always defined and used the term to refer to power games (ruined in this sense means the same thing as it would in the context of a game, "I've ruined her" = I've beat her in a game). I'm not results-oriented about the ruining. I don't actually want to hurt them. But I still make a game out of it. To use the previous example, a man might flirt with a young girl just to see where it could possibly lead without actually intending to sleep with her. Similarly, I will sometimes exercise small degrees of influence over people to see how quickly I can acquire even larger degrees of influence over them. I don't actually use that influence to intentionally or malicious harm them (unless that's what they're asking me to do).

• and that you've never killed anyone but very likely could. how can you not think that would make people hate sociopaths?

Yes, I understand, it would be scary if I had actually ever said that I "very likely could" kill someone or if a significant percentage of sociopaths are killers (I don't know what percentage of sociopaths are killers, and I don't think anyone does, but it can't be that high because there simply aren't that many murders committed). I think what I said was roughly (and even this was taken out of context): "is it possible that I would kill someone? I don't think I would, but it's possible." This is true. In my mind pretty much anything is possible -- I'm naturally very open-minded about what is and is not possible and my educational background has also led me to believe that it is foolish to not believe that it's within the realm of possibility that killing (either as a perpetrator or victim) could be part of my life -- or having a child with down syndrome, or becoming an amputee, or any number of unusual and unlikely but very possible events. I actually think it's weird that people assume that they're much more likely to be the victim of killing than the perpetrator, particularly because if most killers have only killed once, the odds of killer/killed happening to you are not so different. I wish more people would acknowledge that they too could be killers, given the right circumstances, then maybe they would take appropriate precautions to avoid things that might trigger any latent violent tendencies, like I do and have done since the DC metro worker incident from the book. If you have never experienced anything approaching a murderous rage, good for you but I fear you are in the minority of the population and there's no guarantee that you won't ever ("she always seemed so mild-mannered..."). But despite sometimes feeling like or wishing that I could "stick it to" someone, I have no real history of non-consensual violence and I don't really have the skills for killing someone even if I wanted to. My guess is that there is a greater chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by a sociopath and I am certain that there is a much greater chance of being the victim of violence perpetuated by a non-sociopath than by a sociopath. Do you know what kills much more frequently than sociopathy? Love kills. Emotions kill. It happens so often that we have a separate version of homicide for it, voluntary manslaughter. If you really want to decrease your likelihood of being murdered, you'd never get married, disown your family, never have kids. But of course this is stupid to do when the chance of getting murdered by anyone is so low and much lower than dying doing any number of other activities we still willingly engage in (driving automobiles, working, biking, etc.)

• You are as repulsed by the fat girl as anyone else, but you see an opportunity to use her and have no qualms against taking it.

No, let me be very clear -- I am not repulsed. The fat woman does not bother me. Not only am I not repulsed, I don't understand why your feeling of repulsion and your mind-blindness are so strong that you can't imagine anyone not feeling repulsed to the point that you keep insisting that I am. I am not you. And your continued projection of your own failings unto me (along with a laundry list of failings that you imagine me to have) are telling as to how and why there is such a negative (and still unfounded, as far as this recent exercise is concerned) stigma against sociopaths. Why would her appearance offend me at all? I'd love to see someone even attempt to come up with a rational reason why, and yet you all conveniently write off this particularly ugly and antisocial empath trait as being "trivial" or necessary to the survival of humanity by ensuring that there be social conformity. Conformity as to what? Fit of clothing? Is it also ok to make everyone conform to the same religion? Same political beliefs? No? And yet, you all think there's an incredibly compelling reason to shame a fat person out of completely innocuous behavior. This is nonsense. It's irrational and hurtful and it's so common that you can't even imagine what humanity might look like without it. I don't think this example is trivial, rather I think this example and your reactions to it clearly illustrate how convinced empaths seem to be that their fecal matter doesn't stink.

• And when you've used her up, when her value is gone, there's no marriage contract, no division of property, just a social umbilical cord to cut which thrusts her back out into the world, cold, naked and alone.

This is a funny thing to say, especially when the actual marriage success rate is 50%. I guess empaths are all selfish and self-interested? I don't think I've met anyone who consistently acts outside their own self-interest, and I don't think we'd want them to, or at least rational self-interest is the basis of capitalistic economies.

• The person who commits a crime in a moment of temporary madness, or a blackout, is considered to be less dangerous than the one who knowingly and willingly commits an identical crime. The former is not held responsible, and in less need of reform. The latter is responsible for his actions, and heavier penalties are necessary to discourage future crimes.

It's not clear that sociopaths are actually deterred by heavier penalties. In fact, there has been substantial evidence suggesting that sociopath do not respond in the same way to punishment (but they do respond to incentives). If the idea is to actually prevent sociopaths from doing criminal acts, a one-size fits all method is not at all optimal. And I don't believe that sociopaths are incapable of reform. Sociopaths may not respond well to the current methods of prisoner reform, but we are far from having exhausted every possible option in terms of attempted reform of criminal sociopaths.

• Sociopaths do not feel guilt and will never atone, and thus commit social crimes in perpetuity without any legal or social recourse. The solution, then, is to identify people who are sociopaths and ostracize them, strip them of social privileges and cast them out.

Sociopaths don't need to feel guilt/atone to choose to behave in socially beneficial ways. And your solution seems difficult to execute. Historically, what typically happens when you disenfranchise a group of people and treat them as less than? Does it work out well? No, because after they are no longer invested in your society (nothing to lose), they will have every incentive to tear it down (French Revolution, and really every other revolution, terrorism, etc.) And if we're imprisoning people based on their status (and an inborn genetic propensity at that), then we're opening the door to any number of atrocities committed against types of people that we might, in all our infinite and flawless wisdom, consider a net loss to society -- disabled people, mentally sick, even poor children who, just like sociopaths, are statistically more likely to grow up and become criminals. And if we're going to eliminate things that seem to cause problems, let's also get rid of religion because it makes people bigots and terrorists, and children in general because killers have to come from somewhere, and money because people don't like that other people have more of it and sometimes they commit crimes or murder for it, corporations, and a slew of other really great ideas for social reform. A certain degree of conformity is beneficial to society, but absolute conformity is absolute death.

• I mean, sociopaths, almost all of them, have antisocial behaviors. And you are asking why humans, who life together, who organize in a society, stigmatize those who have antisocial behaviors?

My point is that everyone has antisocial behaviors. The sociopath's antisocial behaviors may seem uniquely distasteful to you, and it may be difficult for you to acknowledge your own failings, but it's not at all clear that sociopaths as a class of people are a net loss to society. You may have an intuition that this is true, but your intuitions appear to be tainted by your visceral negative reactions to the very idea of sociopaths. So I'm not just going to take your word for it on sociopaths being pure evil, and I don't think any reasonable person should. If your beliefs are really based in fact, they should hold up to even a modest degree of scrutiny. Otherwise, “that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." I'm not saying that people can't hate sociopaths -- they can and they do and I'm sure nothing will change that, particularly for some of you. But sociopaths are here, we're queer, and if you want to make our lives worse in some way, at least acknowledge that you are really just blindly enforcing your own personal and subjective set of aesthetic preferences of what humanity should look like onto sociopaths in the same way that you bully fat girls in a tube top. And it's not even effective -- as much as society shames fat girls in tube tops, they keep doing it.

• A clue - empaths, and people of this ilk, especially in a group, as you know, are a thousand times as intelligent as any sociopath.

One more outrageous claim to add to the pile of irrational outrage. But this has been incredibly enlightening to me. I am pretty sure I now know where the intense stigma and dislike for sociopaths comes from, but unfortunately it's not anything that any of you seem to be able to put into words. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Altruistic punishment

I had not heard of the phrase altruistic punishment (or had forgotten it), until I read this BBC article talking about why motorists hate cyclists for what they perceive to be cheating in the typical rules of the road, e.g. passing on the right, not waiting their turn, etc. Some motorists hate cyclists so much they would like to run them down. Why? Altruistic punishment:


Humans seem to have evolved one way of enforcing order onto potentially chaotic social arrangements. This is known as "altruistic punishment", a term used by Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter in a landmark paper published in 2002. An altruistic punishment is a punishment that costs you as an individual, but doesn't bring any direct benefit. As an example, imagine I'm at a football match and I see someone climb in without buying a ticket. I could sit and enjoy the game (at no cost to myself), or I could try to find security to have the guy thrown out (at the cost of missing some of the game). That would be altruistic punishment.

Altruistic punishment, Fehr and Gachter reasoned, might just be the spark that makes groups of unrelated strangers co-operate. 

The researchers set up a game in which players were incentivized to cheat in repeated rounds of the game, until...


A simple addition to the rules reversed this collapse of co-operation, and that was the introduction of altruistic punishment. Fehr and Gachter allowed players to fine other players credits, at a cost to themselves. This is true altruistic punishment because the groups change after each round, and the players are anonymous. There may have been no direct benefit to fining other players, but players fined often and they fined hard – and, as you'd expect, they chose to fine other players who hadn't chipped in on that round. The effect on cooperation was electric. With altruistic punishment, the average amount each player contributed rose and rose, instead of declining. The fine system allowed cooperation between groups of strangers who wouldn't meet again, overcoming the challenge of the free rider problem.

So this was interesting to read, because for the most part I don't participate in altruistic punishment. And by that I mean to say I don't think I do or ever have, but I'm reluctant to say something so certain without its having been on my radar for the entirety of my existence.

To give an example, on a recent trip my phone was stolen. I have tracking software installed on it and was able to track my phone going away into a sketchy part of the city where I was visiting until it stayed there. I sent some messages offering a "found" reward and sort of threatening police action, but really it was a longshot. The next morning I went to the store to buy a new phone. I asked the guy if I could transfer my extended warranty on the phone to the new phone and he said no, but he could label it as "stolen".

"What happens when it gets labeled as stolen? Do you somehow prevent them from using the phone?"

"No, but if they bring it and ask to have it repaired, we tell them it's stolen."

"Do you confiscate it?"

"No, usually they just walk out of the store with it immediately."

"Well, what's the point?"

"They wouldn't be able to use our services or benefit from the warrantee."

"Oh, well, then no. I want them to benefit from the warranty. I paid for that, someone should benefit from it. And good on them for managing to steal my phone."

Maybe the store owner thought that I was being particularly forgiving, and in a way I guess I was, but really it was just realizing that I had gotten beat at a game whose rules I of course had understood and accepted when I bought the expensive phone and traipsed around with it all over.

I suppose even if I had listed it as "stolen" it wouldn't have even been that altruistic because there didn't seem to be any additional cost to me in terms of time lost or whatever. But this makes me think it's even less likely that I would actually altruistically punish people. This doesn't mean that I don't hold grudges or keep score sometimes and try to punish people for benefits that accrue directly to me somehow (reputational or establishing a particular power dynamic). And I guess I might from time to time take on someone else's "cause" just for the sake of having an excuse to rabble-rouse -- but I don't really believe in the righteousness of the cause.

Why don't I altruistically punish? Could have something to do with the origins of the impulse:

They dished out fines because they were mad as hell. Fehr and Gachter, like the good behavioural experimenters they are, made sure to measure exactly how mad that was, by asking players to rate their anger on a scale of one to seven in reaction to various scenarios. When players were confronted with a free-rider, almost everyone put themselves at the upper end of the anger scale. Fehr and Gachter describe these emotions as a “proximate mechanism”. This means that evolution has built into the human mind a hatred of free-riders and cheaters, which activates anger when we confront people acting like this – and it is this anger which prompts altruistic punishment. In this way, the emotion is evolution's way of getting us to overcome our short-term self-interest and encourage collective social life.

Of course because it is emotionally driven and not necessarily rational, it leads to such anti-social behaviors as advocating for violence against cyclists.

Educating children sociopaths

This was an interesting article about the delicacy between not wanting to diagnose sociopathy in children because it can be such a damning prognosis, but also wanting to do it to possibly put at-risk children in some sort of early intervention program. As researcher put it:

To me it seems a no-brainer,” says Essi Viding, professor of psychology at University College London. “Nobody’s going to get psychopathy as a present when they turn 18. Of course you’re going to see some precursors."

What might early intervention look like?

“If you’re labelling someone a psychopath, it does seem to assume that there’s nothing we can do for them, that they’re going to grow up to be a criminal, and that you might as well just lock them up,” Frick says. “But you can teach a child to recognise the effects of their behaviour.”

The lack of success in educating children sociopaths to recognise the effects of their behaviour may have more to do with using the wrong methods than it does a sociopath child's inability or unwillingness to learn:


“What [people who use social shaming as a method of punishment] assume is that children have the motivation to shift their behaviour. That their primary social motivator is the relationship,” says Warren.

She interviewed more than 1,000 children with behavioural problems, aged eight to 18. “I was beginning to see children who weren’t responsive to these interventions, who weren’t interested in what adults, parents, educators, think,” she says.

“If a child or group of children isn’t interested in pleasing someone, doesn’t care about sanctions, what they’re driven by is pleasure or reward. They will take the pain of the consequences but won’t change their behaviour.”

What does work?


The programme, called Let’s Get Smart, replaces sanctions with rewards. Some teachers were uneasy. “Some teachers felt that punishment happens in the real world; if they misbehave in the real world they will still go to prison. Why are we setting them up for unrealistic expectations?” says Jones. “Our point is that it doesn’t work.”

By offering regular rewards, perhaps three times a day, controlled by the adult in authority, it aims to provide a rational, self-interested motivation for pleasing adults where that motive is emotionally absent. “The adult becomes the clear intermediary between the child and what the child wants,” Warren says. The rewards are tailored to each child’s interests.

These children often have a strong desire for control and teachers have to resist attempts to negotiate, because any concession just leads to more demands. “I teach parents and teachers to say, ‘It’s not open for discussion, go away.’ Adults don’t like to dismiss children,” Warren says.

All this is backed by role play and other exercises that are intended to build children’s capacity to pay attention to and respond appropriately to others’ emotions. Video playback helps the children to see their behaviour as others do, often to their surprise. (“I do swear a lot,” one girl told Warren.)

What sort of results can you expect?

“These kids are still having quite significant problems: they are not cured. But they are improving. Some have gone back to mainstream school, which is incredible,” she says.

Whether children ever really learn greater empathy or just learn to manage their behaviour is not clear. “My personal gut feeling is that you can modify behaviour perhaps more readily than you can improve the empathy response,” Viding says.



There are a couple of other interesting tidbits, like this one about "circle time" type emotional sharing activities:

“(In circle time) children say what makes them scared and children who have callous-unemotional traits think, ‘This is a useful piece of information to have’,” she says.

Hilarious.

Experts on sociopathy

The following were taken from an article on Dr. Robert Hare, psychopathy expert.

History of the term psychopath:

The condition itself has been recognized for centuries, wearing evocative labels such as "madness without delirium" and "moral insanity" until the late 1800s, when "psychopath" was coined by a German clinician. But the term (and its 1930s synonym, sociopath) had always been a sort of catch-all, widely and loosely applied to criminals who seemed violent and unstable.

Why we should care about psychopaths:

Psychopathy may prove to be as important a construct in this century as IQ was in the last (and just as susceptible to abuse), because, thanks to Hare, we now understand that the great majority of psychopaths are not violent criminals and never will be. Hundreds of thousands of psychopaths live and work and prey among us.

On their inability to respond to punishment or learn from negative experiences:

For his first paper, now a classic, Hare had his subjects watch a countdown timer. When it reached zero, they got a "harmless but painful" electric shock while an electrode taped to their fingers measured perspiration. Normal people would start sweating as the countdown proceeded, nervously anticipating the shock. Psychopaths didn't sweat. They didn't fear punishment--which, presumably, also holds true outside the laboratory.

On the sociopaths' lack of familiarity with emotional language:

Hare made another intriguing discovery by observing the hand gestures (called beats) people make while speaking. Research has shown that such gestures do more than add visual emphasis to our words (many people gesture while they're on the telephone, for example); it seems they actually help our brains find words. That's why the frequency of beats increases when someone is having trouble finding words, or is speaking a second language instead of his or her mother tongue. In a 1991 paper, Hare and his colleagues reported that psychopaths, especially when talking about things they should find emotional, such as their families, produce a higher frequency of beats than normal people. It's as if emotional language is a second language--a foreign language, in effect--to the psychopath.

On the potential for abuse:

"We'll let people out [of prison] on the basis of scores on this, and we'll put them in. And we'll take children who do badly on some version of this and segregate them or something. It wasn't designed to do any of these things. The problems that politicians are trying to solve are fundamentally more complicated than the one that Bob has solved."

On using the diagnosis to argue in favor of the death penalty:

"A psychological instrument and diagnosis should not be a determinant of whether someone gets the death sentence. That's more of an ethical and political decision."

On the sociopath's level of humanity:

Are these people qualitatively different from us? "I would think yes," says Hare. "Do they form a discrete taxon or category? I would say probably--the evidence is suggesting that. But does this mean that's because they have a broken motor? I don't know. It could be a natural variation." True saints, completely selfless individuals, are rare and unnatural too, he points out, but we don't talk about their being diseased.

On the possibility of a cure:

Asked if he thinks there will ever be a cure for psychopathy--a drug, an operation--Hare steps back and examines the question. "The psychopath will say 'A cure for what?' I don't feel comfortable calling it a disease. Much of their behaviour, even the neurobiological patterns we observe, could be because they're using different strategies to get around the world. These strategies don't have to involve faulty wiring, just different wiring."

Artistic imperatives

The other day I took a tour of a prison.  I was interested in the security measures and the very idea of having an institution like a prison, the thought of which seems common enough but the reality of which we rarely get to experience firsthand.  I was even more interested in hearing about some of the more famous inmates and what got them there.

Later that afternoon I was visiting a modern art museum, the type that has a few key pieces to bring in the gray haired and the tourists but prides itself on also presenting a lot of fresh talent.  The diversity of the types and style reminded me that anything can be looked at from an aesthetic perspective.  The context of seeing these works in the museum made me look at the art, even the unfamiliar and nonuser friendly art, in a way that invited me to appreciate the small aesthetic choices that the artist made, whereas the context of the prison invited me to distance myself from the actions that led the prisoners to their sojourn there.

I had this odd epiphany in the museum that, particularly for some of the more gruesome and "senseless" crimes (like serial killing) that may seem to unfathomable to most people, there is a certain aestheticism and set of choices that is not unlike the art.  It reminded me of some of my own fantasies about slitting someone's throat, and how if I were a killer, I could imagine myself really enjoying exploring the nuances of this particular way to kill, in all of its infinite variations.  I could see how someone could devote their entire life to this exploration and feel quite fulfilled -- how some might actually feel compelled, either by the beauty of the art form or by the need for self expression in a particular way, to continually seek out this cathartic release of truth in concrete form.

Is the imperative that a killer often feels to kill in a particular way and a particular type of person any different than the artists' need to express himself in a very different, but similarly particular way?

I had never thought of killing that way, but now that I have it makes complete sense that serial killers will get apprentices, or imitators, or plain fans, just like artists.  It suddenly became clear to me that many people kill not because it is bad or good, deviant or heroic, but just because it is beautiful.  Even the way that formal justice has historically been enacted in the form of torture and capital punishment suggests a certain flair for creativity and desire for expression.  It's a shame that formal justice has become more sterile recently, for the punishers and the punished, at least in western society.  It is becoming a lost art.  

What is a sociopath's weakness?

I think the young sociopath's biggest weakness is trusting in the power of logic and reasoning. In this post I talked about how high functioning sociopaths (more than empaths) realize that it is not the content so much as the context of a message or belief that is important. It hardly matters if you are speaking the most precious pieces of wisdom ever uttered, some people will just not care or not listen or will misinterpret what you say. People who realize the importance of context over content can go on to be great leaders. People who do not realize this go on to be great scapegoats -- often much later in history to be labeled martyrs.

Punishment comes to two types of people: those who deserve to be punished, and those who are punished to send a message to everyone else that the ruling party is powerful and should not be toyed with. The first can lead to the second as long as the punishment is well-publicized. The second sometimes coincides with the first, but not always. Sometimes people get stuck on the wrong/losing side of an issue by chance and they end up being made-an-example-of through no fault of their own. Examples could be well-meaning Nazis in pre-World War II Germany, American Confederates in the Civil War, etc. These type of people end up getting castigated not because what they did was "wrong," but as a signal to others that the winning party is strong and will not tolerate disobedience. Everyone should be worried about both scenarios happening to them, but the "innocent" should be especially worried about the latter.

I have always been something of a hothead -- always trying to overthrow little dictators as I encounter them. I loathe incompetence and obsess over efficiency, so I'd typically rather just oust those who offend my tender sensitivities than put up with them to any degree. Of course one need supporters to stage coupes. This is where I've sometimes succeeded, sometimes failed. Sometimes my charisma has been enough to gain a critical mass of followers, or in some cases the popularity of the leader was so low that his enemies quickly became my friends. When the incompetence has been less obvious, however, or the leader was popular, I've consistently failed and have even been vilified for my troubles.

Because of my love of efficiency, I've always wanted to be as direct as possible. I'd think that surely the people would understand if I just present the arguments and let them judge for themselves. But people are stupid and blind and doubt anything that contradicts what they "know" to be true (actually, conveniently, one of the reasons why sociopaths can remain undetected so well). It took me a long time to learn that indirect attacks often were much more effective than direct attacks. To this day, I am still more frightened by an angry mob than anything else. As Galileo learned, there are many victims of the inconvenient truths they espoused. And to the mob -- question the origin of your beliefs, lest you be a puppet to an unknown puppeteer.