48 Laws of Power, animated

This was educational:

I can't think like that

SNL's Oliver skit, is this more sociopathic behavior, or more what normal people do?

Generosity

Maria Konnikova writes for Scientific American Blogs about the psychology behind gift giving. She cites research on how generosity is a winning game theory strategy, even seen from an self-maximizing economic perspective, because it is so difficult to tell whether you'll ever see that person again:

A group of psychologists from UC-Santa Barbara set out to test the long-standing conundrum that even in anonymous, one-shot games—in other words, in situations where you know that (1) you will never again encounter your partner and (2) no one has any idea what decision you’ve made—people more often than not choose to incur costs themselves in order to allocate benefits to others; an irrational behavior by traditional economic standards if ever there was one. In their model, the team managed to isolate an asymmetry that had previous been ignored: in an uncertain world, it is far more costly to incorrectly identify a situation as one-shot when it is in fact repeated than it is to mistake an actual one-shot encounter for a repeated one. Put differently, it is better to always assume that we will in fact encounter the same partners over and over. So costly is it to make a mistake in the opposite direction that, even absent any reputational or other mechanisms, it makes sense for us to behave generously to anyone we encounter. As the study authors conclude, “Generosity evolves because, at the ultimate level, it is a high-return cooperative strategy…even in the absence of any apparent potential for gain. Human generosity, far from being a thin veneer of cultural conditioning atop a Machiavellian core, may turn out to be a bedrock feature of human nature.”

That makes a lot of sense to me. Often people ask me, as a sociopath, whether I would leave a tip for a service professional whom I thought I would never see again, but I find that hard to imagine because one time I was accosted outside a restaurant by a service professional who felt that I undertipped him. Tipping generously not only had prevented that from happening since, it has also made a positive impression on my some of my dining companions that have had the chutzpah to actually check the tip that I've left, to ensure it was generous enough. So I find the hypo of never seeing a victim again difficult to imagine.

And if you're going to bother giving a gift, better make it count by getting something that they would particularly appreciate, or perhaps that could only come from you. Ariely describes these gifts:

Instead of picking a book from your sister's Amazon wish list, or giving her what you think she should read, go to a bookstore and try to think like her. It's a serious social investment.

The great challenge lies in making the leap into someone else's mind. Psychological research affirms that we are all partial prisoners of our own preferences and have a hard time seeing the world from a different perspective. But whether or not your sister likes the book, it may give her joy to think about you thinking of her.

I understand exactly what Ariely is talking about, having always made this type of tailor-made gift-giving myself. Konnikova suggests that people could do just as well with empathy (or maybe she is saying that this can only be done with empathy?):

Ariely singles out this type of gift as one that makes the mental leap from your own vantage point to that of someone else. It’s a leap that is incredibly difficult to take—exhibiting empathy, let alone perfect empathy to the point of complete confluence with the mind of another person, is a tough feat even in the most conducive of circumstances—but that may be worth taking all the same. For, even if you fail to make it as accurately as you may have wanted, the effort will be noted. The actual accuracy is somewhat beside the point. What matters is that you try to make the shift from your own mindset to someone else’s, that you make the effort to think about what present would be best suited to another person.

What if you don't use empathy to make the leap from your own vantage point to that of someone else? Is it still the thought that counts? 

A sociopath's love story (part 2)

(cont.):

Now comes commitment... At first, if the sociopath is truly interested in love, commitment should be a no-brainer. How can one expect to love another without the intention of staying with them? Like I mentioned before, a sociopath may have a reason for ending a relationship because of some flaw that they cannot get past. But this doesn't mean he/she should go into a relationship looking for flaws or expecting to find one. Rather the sociopath should begin the relationship with the intention of staying with that person. When some sort of failure presents itself, it is up to that person to decide whether or not it is something they can live with (or even embrace). Remember: flaws are what make us who we are, we all have them. It's just a matter of deciding "does this flaw affect me?" or "do I even care?" Recall what I said before about how a sociopath may come to the realization that they don't care about the power struggle anymore, so not caring about something is perfectly within their limits. So what happens when that time you have spent together with your significant other turns into weeks, months, years? The more time passes, the more the sociopath will become complacent and accepting of this new lifestyle. Now does complacence detract from the true feeling of love? Well for a sociopath who previously had other motivations for being with someone and would find any plausible excuse to leave, this is certainly a big change for them. They may realize that this is a much more pleasurable and worth-while life. Did the sociopath do this for their own self-interest? That's actually a hard one to answer being a sociopath myself. My idea is that at first the sociopath is simply interested in experiencing this feeling of love, something they should not be capable of, which (in my mind) would make one only want it more. This clearly points to self-interest as the motivating factor. However once they find themselves in a well-functioning relationship, things start to change. The sociopath may come to the realization that this new-found way of life is totally dependent on their partner and his/her happiness. This causes the sociopath to do uncharacteristic things that purely serve the interest of their partner. This makes their significant other happy, pleased, content, etc., which in turn translates to happiness for the sociopath. The sociopath achieves this happiness by a sense of knowing they affected another's emotions, which is something sociopaths are well known for doing, yet in a positive way. Is this self-interest?... maybe. Who doesn't like the feeling of helping someone else feel happy? Why do we (all humans) tend to band together in the wake of a disaster to donate enormous amounts of money and goods and services? We don't do it because we like giving away our crap, nor do we do it out of a sense of civic duty. We do it because we know we are making the lives of another better (no matter how marginal it may be). This makes us feel important because we made a difference, and it gives us a sense of self-worth. So we keep our partner happy so that we may be happy, simple enough. And to really know how to keep your partner happy and ultimately the relationship genuine, one must form an honest bond with the other. Mutual happiness is a good thing.

In the long term the goals and plans of both partners begin to seriously overlap. The sociopath must keep his/her goals grounded and realistic and make sure they don't jeopardize the relationship as a whole. He/she should keep in mind that the plans they make should benefit their partner whenever possible. This goes back to keeping your partner happy, but it does so much more. These shared plans whenever developed under the influence of a sociopath have the potential to be hugely beneficial to both partners. This is because the sociopath knows what to do to get ahead, and this means that not only will the sociopath profit but so will their partner as well as the relationship as a whole. Commitment is indeed very much within the realm of possibility for a sociopath given they understand what is required of them and what they may have to sacrifice.

So what does this all mean? If a sociopath finds themselves in a relationship that meets the criteria I have laid out, does that mean they have achieved love? First of all I don't consider myself to be an expert on love or relationships by any means, this is just my way of thinking. But what if there is some truth to what I have said? Is this really love, or is it something mechanically similar or even equivalent? Well according to Robert Sternberg's Triangular theory of love, if the individuals involved in an interpersonal relationship exhibit three components: Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment simultaneously then it is described as "Consummate love." This is also known as the complete form of love, an ideal relationship, the "perfect couple." Whether this is genuine love or just a carbon copy remains up for debate. But what's the point of debating when both people are perfectly happy being a couple? What should also be noted is that consummate love is not permanent, and can easily degenerate into one of the lesser "forms of love." My belief though, is that a sociopath will realize this ideal type of love as highly preferential. Consequently, the sociopath will use all of his/her abilities to preserve this status. So it stands to reason that a relationship involving a sociopath will be more adept at facing and overcoming otherwise daunting hardships that always tend to pop up in any relationship. 

I will reference Maslow's hieracrchy of needs in which self-actualization is at the peak. A typical definition of self-actualization according to Maslow is “the full realization of one's potential and one's true self.” If a sociopath realizes what he/she is and understands all of the benefits and consequences associated with sociopathy, then they can be recognized as having achieved self-actualization. Maslow maintains that those who have reached self-actualization are capable of love. My personal conclusion: Love is attainable for any sociopath, myself included. All it takes is a little willpower and some self-sacrifice, something that is within a sociopath's capacity. All we have to remember is "give a little, get a lot."

Boundaries: help or hindrance?

A reader asked about her sociopathic-seeming significant other, bringing up an interesting point about boundaries:

He knows he has thing's inside of him that work different from most people. I don't like to say, "normal" because to me, he is pretty normal or tries to go with the flow as much as he possibly can. I know to always be on my guard, and I have noticed that if I seem more like it does not bother me and if I am more stern with my remarks and answers, he seems to like that. Is that normal I suppose.

I don't know if I can speak for all sociopaths on this point, but I myself like well-defined boundaries, at least in personal relationships that I am interested in maintaining, and it sounds like he is the same. It is a little unusual for a sociopath to be in such a long relationship. By now he no longer derives most of his pleasure in the relationship from the constant acquisition of power, through playing games with you, seducing you, etc. You must provide something else to him that he values enough to try to keep the relationship working, whether stability, a front/beard/respectability, money, someone to take care of his kids, intimacy, or any other number of things. Basically you are still a profitable endeavour for him -- he may pay $100K a month to keep the thing running, but he gets at least $101K a month in return, so he'll keep that up forever. In other words, his brain is constantly running a cost benefit analysis of staying with you: all the time and effort it takes and possible negative consequences ($100K) compared to all of the benefit he receives ($101K). Just like a business, he might let things dip into the red here and there on a bad month, but ultimately will not continue seeing you if he sees it as a losing endeavor.

You being stern helps him keep the account in the black by reducing expenses. There is always going to be a certain amount of waste in a business, including breakage of merchandise, worker injuries, broken machinery, or hurt feelings. To fix that, businesses establish rules to promote optimum precautionary measures. For instance, instead of the business paying thousands of dollars to replace broken merchandise, they institute rules about putting breakable merchandise on the bottom shelf. Simple measures like properly training workers and forcing them to wear safety equipment (boundaries), can keep costs down and a business solvent. You are performing the same function with him when you establish boundaries. Instead of little things building up until you melt down emotionally (broken machinery), you are training him how to properly operate your machinery, so to speak.

Of course he will still do some things to hurt the business intentionally for his own gain, maybe the emotional equivalent of embezzling money, but when he does those things intentionally, he has no problem with them. Just because he kicks around the furniture one time does not mean that he wants to be accidentally stubbing his toe two weeks later. So some "stern" things you say will just make him angry and defensive, but if your sternness is just a matter of routine maintenance to prevent catastrophe, he will welcome any advice from you just as you would welcome the advice of a trusted mechanic.

Economics and sociopathy

I was talking to an economist friend recently. We were talking about how economics is not just a dismal science, but that economists have a pretty dismal view of human nature, possibly because economists themselves are not generally altruistic or prosocial? He told me that economists are different enough from the general population that economics researchers can't use economics undergraduate students for their experiments because they tend to give very different answers than the average person. Specifically he told me about a game where everyone chooses to either put in a black marble or a white marble in a bag. If you put in a white marble, you increase the overall size of the payout/pie, but you just have one piece of that pie. If you put in a black marble, you get two pieces of the pie, but of a smaller pie. The optimal result would be for everyone to put in white marbles, and a lot of people actually do put in white marbles either because of altruism or optimism or guilt or whatever else. Economists and economics students, however, almost always put in black marbles. My economist friend was using this as evidence that economists are not good people. And if this one scenario was the only thing you knew about economists, perhaps you could say that the results of the experiment are consistent with the economists-as-bad-people hypothesis too.

But I gave him another quick scenario to see how he would handle it: imagine that you are at war, just you and five other fellow soldiers, all standing around in a circle. A grenade gets launched into the middle of the circle. If someone jumps on the grenade, only one person dies. If no one jumps on the grenade, there's a 20% chance someone might die and everyone will suffer moderate to critical injuries. Everyone is equidistant from the grenade and has an equal opportunity to jump on the grenade. Before I tell you what he said, I want the sociopaths who are reading this to think what they would do.






So, I asked my economist friend what he would do and he immediately replied, "I would jump on the grenade." Of course he would. He's rational and cares about efficiency. He would be the type of person in the trolley problem to throw the switch and kill the one to save the five, and apparently that answer doesn't change even when he is the one who needs to die. I think his answer surprised even him, though I'm not sure why. Perhaps because he had convinced himself that economists are soulless or at the very least selfish (i.e., rationally self-interested). But there's nothing remotely selfish or even self-interested about jumping on the grenade.

The reason I knew that this example would "work" on him is that he and I think similarly and it's something that I think I might do too. I like efficiency, and it would be efficient to fall on the grenade. Also I like winning, and it would be "winning" to thwart the enemy. It would be powerful, to smother the force of such a powerful device with just my body. Also I'm impulsive and not particularly attached to life. I actually think that a lot of sociopaths would do the same for one or more of those reasons. In fact, and I wish there was some way to accurately test this, I predict that a higher percentage of sociopaths would jump on the grenade than non-sociopaths, if for nothing else than the indecision or paralyzing fear that a lot of non-sociopaths might experience -- by the time they got around to making the decision, it might be too late. These are just guesses, but I don't think it's crazy to think that sociopaths might be braver and more pro-social in certain situations than normal people, just like economists might be more selfless than the average person in certain situations.

Whether or not my prediction is correct, I think this example also illustrates how dangerous it is to perform a couple experiments in controlled situations and extrapolate the data far beyond those particular situations. Sloppy science writers (and even serious researchers) make this mistake all of the time, e.g. if sociopaths seem to not show empathy in one situation, it's easy to make the (apparently incorrect) presumption that they never feel empathy. The truth is context matters immensely and we only know a sliver of all there is to know about ourselves and others. 

Breaking Bad: Is Walter White a Sociopath?

AMC's hit show, "Breaking Bad" returns this Sunday and some are asking "How Walter White Found His Inner Sociopath".  The show details the exploits of a chemistry teacher turned meth kingpin who finds his hands getting dirtier and dirtier until he seems to lose most of his humanity. Or does he? A.O. Scott writes for the NY Times:

In truth, though, his development over five seasons has been less a shocking transformation than a series of confirmations. Mr. Gilligan’s busy and inventive narrative machinery has provided plenty of cleverly executed surprises, but these have all served to reveal the Walter White who was there all along. The sides of his personality — sociopath and family man, scientist and killer, rational being and creature of impulse, entrepreneur and loser — are not necessarily as contradictory as we might have supposed.
***
Walter may have wanted us to believe — and may, at moments, have convinced himself — that he was a decent man driven by desperate circumstances to do terrible things, but that notion was either wishful thinking or tactical deceit. Viewed as a whole, in optimal binge conditions, with the blinds pulled down and the pizza boxes and chicken wrappers piling up around the couch, “Breaking Bad” reveals itself as the story of a man mastering his vocation and fighting to claim his rightful place in the world. 

But is he really a sociopath? He is great at lying. That's probably one of the most entertaining parts about the show. He is amazing at coming up with an answer that fits the facts, like a sort of WebMD for excuses that fit the symptoms perfectly yet innocuously. Where did all of this cash come from? He has a gambling problem. Why did his wife just have an emotional breakdown? She was having an affair and her lover is in the hospital. He is the master of deflection and playing upon not just people's emotions, but especially their expectations about him (as a loser, but ultimately harmless) and the world (that bad people are not your friends, relatives, and neighbors but people who seem "off" to you).

However, I don't think he is a sociopath. He may act like how one expects a sociopath to act (ruthless, disloyal, power hungry), but his motivations seem all wrong. If he was a sociopath, why does he constantly cling to an image that he's a good dad/husband/friend making the most of a bad situation? From the NY Times:

Walter is almost as good at self-justification as he is at cooking meth, and over the course of the series, he has not hesitated to give high-minded reasons for his lowest actions. In his own mind, he remains a righteous figure, an apostle of family values, free enterprise and scientific progress. 

For instance:

Walt: "When we do what we do for good reasons, then we've got nothing to worry about. And there's no better reason than family."

Here he extends his typical self-justification to his wife:

Walt: Skyler, you can't beat yourself up over this thing. Please. You didn't set out to hurt anybody. You made a mistake and things got out of control. But you did what you had to do to protect your family. And I'm sorry, but that doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you a human being. 

Skyler: Stop it, Walt. Just stop. I don't need to hear any of your bullshit rationales.

And an incredibly insensitive and oblivious moment of self-absorption:

Walt: So how are you feeling? 

Jesse: Okay, I guess. Broke it off with Andrea. I had to. She's gonna tell Brock. I'm still gonna take care of the rent and stuff. It's the right thing to do, but, you know-- 

Walt: (interrupting) I meant this. (gestures behind) How are you feeling about the money?

And finally the over the top but insincere display of emotions and taking huge offense when the sincerity is questioned:

Walt: I am just as upset as you are. 

Jesse: Are you? 

Walt: Really? How can you say that to me? Jesus! I mean, I'm the one who's the father here. What, do I have to curl up in a ball in tears in front of you? 

Walt in all of his self-centeredness clearly thinks that not only do his ends justify any means he chooses, but it's clear that this process of justification is important to him. If he were a sociopath, why he would care at all? As a corporate executive put it upon seeing Walt and his team balk at killing two innocent witnesses, "I thought you guys were professionals." But there's hardly anything professional about them. Despite being extremely clever and calculating (he fakes an emotional breakdown in his brother-in-law's DEA office to tap his phone), he seems like a prototypical narcissist who lets his emotions rule him, particularly his feeling that his talents were never truly appreciated and so he is finally going to make them realize that he is a force to be reckoned with. A sociopath would not care what people thought of him, as long as he was getting and doing what he wanted to get/do.

Walter White is also a great example of why I don't value people's "good" intentions--because they're incredibly subjective, often misplaced, and sometimes used to justify horrible atrocities. People never feel that they have done anything wrong as long as their intentions were not malicious. It reminds me of this recent comment from a reader:

Intentions don't matter. Hitler's intentions were good. What are good intentions? It depends who you're talking to. If you talk to the chicken just before you kill it and tell it "Hey chicken, my intentions are good, I don't want to be misunderstood, I'm just gonna eat you and share you with my family."

And also from this NY Times review of Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion:

Traits we evolved in a dispersed world, like tribalism and righteousness, have become dangerously maladaptive in an era of rapid globalization. A pure scientist would let us purge these traits from the gene pool by fighting and killing one another. But Haidt wants to spare us this fate. He seeks a world in which “fewer people believe that righteous ends justify violent means.” To achieve this goal, he asks us to understand and overcome our instincts. He appeals to a power capable of circumspection, reflection and reform.

On selflessness

From a reader:

As a constant, I am aware of the fact that nobody means much to me as aside from what they directly provide. That actually doesn't sound terrible: while everybody tries to side-step the matter and down on the word "selfish," to be "selfish" is healthy. Normal people get a selfish pleasure out of the well being of those whom they care for. "Selfish" does not have to mean at the expense of others, only that you are doing it for yourself. If you feel good donating to charity, you are going to do it because you enjoy that. It is only when donating to charity makes you unhappy and you perform it as a perceived obligation that it is truly selfless (although, even then, you are probably donating for the personal reward of an afterlife, or for the personal reward of social approval). Can you imagine an atheist schizoid with better use of his money chucking it away instead? Where's the motivation?                                                                                 
    
But I don't feel bad when those presumably close to me suffer. I only choose to extend a facade of "are you alright?" because I fear that they will catch onto such and stop contributing to whatever it is that I keep them around for. How can I expect sympathy for my suffering or understanding when the root of my condition stems from the idea that I will never be able to reciprocate affection? What masochist is willing to love and attend to a brick wall? Perhaps one of delusion, but then, he doesn't understand, and can't even begin to entertain my honesty. So what can I say, except "I am sorry that this is how I am"? Even when I apologize for it, it is less because I feel bad that I hurt them, and more a wave of self-pity when I want something to preserve. I'm sorry. I can't help it.                                                                                                            

Narcissists = unpredictable

I thought this comment from UKan from a while ago was interesting, worth its own post:

I get in constant conflicts with narcisssists in real life. Around when I first came here I asked as a anonymous about a situation I had with someone and what kind of person they were. It was some guy who was pathologically lying to make himself look like some rockstar. This type of person is what my father is, and what almost every enemy I have ever had is. At the time I was ignorant of psychological terms. I knew the outline like I know many others, but I call them something else.

I don't like narcissists because they are costly in my business. They refuse to quit, because it's not about business for them. It's all about how they look and what their appearance is. They lie not to get out of trouble, con someone, or play games with people. They pathologically lie about who they are so that they add color to their drab life. So that they add worth to their pointless existence. Like my business partner with his fake rolex watch, or his car that 'looks like a bmw'. Or this guy who sat down next to me on my couch at the club and started giving me lip about how much of a big shot he was not knowing who I was. I can name them all day long. I despise their weakness. It disgusts me because even though nobody else can see it, I can. I can see the weakness and self loathing in every action they do. They constantly need validation and that's the main give away. They also for some reason always envy me while at the same time trying to be me which is even more ridiculous because to everyone else they spew nothing but hatred for me.

***

As far as victims are concerned, well they are easy. I'm drawn to them like a bee to honey. I'm always looking for a weakness. If that's all you display then the rest is a fucking cake walk.

One thing I hated about growing up with a narcissistic father is that he was very hard to predict because he didn't always act rationally (i.e., in his own best interest). Empaths can be this way too, if they get very emotional about things.

But I guess sociopaths would also seem unpredictable to a lot of people too. Maybe it's just because I'm used to my own mind that I find myself to be relatively straightforward. Plus, I like to think that I can be reasoned with, almost without exception. I have no problems setting hard feelings aside, for instance by allying with a former enemy, if I find it beneficial to do so in a particular situation. Or maybe I choose to destroy them completely in their hour of need because I'm tired of dealing with them? Either way, I like to think that most of my decisions are based on catering to my own self-interest, with a sprinkling of impulsive acts aimed at violence, swift retribution, or some other compulsion.

I don't know. I guess I don't think sociopaths are much better about this, but at least we seem more consistent than those ruled by their emotions.