Murderous children

This is an interesting article about the parents of one of the victims of the Columbine school massacre meeting with the parents of one of the shooters:

Approximately ten years and four months after Eric Harris murdered their child, Linda and Tom drove into Denver to greet his parents. The Harries declined to comment on the meeting. These are Linda’s impressions.
* * *
Wayne [Harris] was mystified by his son. Wayne and Kathy accepted that Eric was a psychopath. Where that came from, they didn’t know. But he fooled them, utterly.

He’d also fooled a slew of professionals. Wayne and Kathy clearly felt misled by the psychologist they sent him to. The doctor had brushed off Eric’s trademark duster as “only a coat.” He saw Eric’s problems as rather routine. At least that’s the impression he gave Wayne and Kathy.

They shared that perception with the Mausers. Other than the van break-in, Eric had never been in serious trouble, they said. He and Dylan were arrested in January 1998 and charged with three felonies. They eventually entered a juvenile diversion program, which involved close monitoring and various forms of restitution.

Eric rarely seemed angry, his parents said. There was one odd incident where he slammed his fist into a brick wall and scraped his knuckles. That was startling, but kids do weird things. It seemed like an aberration, not a pattern to be worried about.

Wayne and Kathy knew Eric had a Web site, but that didn’t seem odd. They never went online to look at it. “I found them kind of incurious,” Linda said.

From time to time, she wondered whether the Harrises were lying, or exaggerating. Her instincts said no. They did not strike her as calculating or devious; maybe a bit hapless. And Wayne was somewhat inscrutable. Honest, but not revealing. Linda believed them, but wondered whether the couple second-guessed themselves enough. “Honestly, if it were me this happened to, I think I’d still be questioning myself,” Linda said. “They did not seem to doubt themselves.”

But doubting oneself is only useful if there was another, better option available to you at the time given the information you had.

All the world's a stage

From a reader:

In the "Handbook of Emotions," 3rd edition, chapter 3 (titled "The Sociology of Emotions") one can read under the section "Dramaturgical Approaches:"

"... These studies show how emotions are culturally scripted as to "when" to feel and "how" to express these feelings. Through the socialization process, individuals learn how to associate particular emotion vocabularies with specific eliciting situations, internal sensations, and expressive displays. [...] What makes this approach dramaturgical is that individuals are viewed as acting on a stage configured by social structure in front of an audience (of others). [...] However, individuals are more than dramatic actors manipulating emotions through expressive control in accordance with the feeling and display rules of culture. They are also strategists who present themselves to others, manipulating their forms of talk, role cues, bodies, staging props, and expressive display to their audience to realize their goals. [...] Various cognitive and behavioral strategies are available for managing emotions. [...] Cognitive strategies include invoking thoughts associated with the emotions demanded in the situation to shore up the emotions, using meditation to arouse the emotions dictated by the culture, or psychologically withdrawing from the situation to mask the incongruence between actual feelings and feelings expected in the situation..."

If that is the case, then the difference between neurotypical people and sociopaths seems to be one of degree, not quality.

Lifetime learner

I sometimes post favorite comments (sometimes not, if it is hard to reduce it to a quotable quote), but there were two in particular that I have been thinking about recently. One was from a reader who said that he observes his own behavior in order to interpret his emotions. I found that to be very interesting, and very true of my life too. When I was in secondary school I got very/acutely sick for a while. To me life felt normal, apart from dealing with pain and other physical symptoms of being sick, but after about two weeks my friends all stopped talking to me. I got better, but they still stayed away. I didn't know what to make of it. Since then I have realized that when I am sick or otherwise not feeling well, I can be very mean, short-tempered, even irrational without knowing I am doing it. Now when people start acting offended around me or I otherwise struggle to maintain healthy interpersonal relationships, I often (correctly) assume that I am sick. The same applies for a lot of my other "feelings," particularly negative ones. Frequently I am unaware of them until I find myself engaging in some irrational behavior or another (always my red flag). Only then do I stop what I am doing and take time to reassess what's really going on in my world.

Another commenter (aspie?) remarked on the definition of love, saying that he believed love is basically gratitude. Coming from an aspie, I thought this was hilarious because I don't think any neurotypical would describe love that way. It is, however, exactly the sort of thing that someone would say who has never experienced love the way a neurotypical would. Yes, little aspie, to the sociopath as well love feels a lot like gratitude and loyalty.

Sociopath song of the day: You're not the kind

Fair warning.

Sociopath quote: success

The library is full of stories of supposed triumphs, which makes me very suspicious of it. It's misleading for people to read about great successes, since even for middle-class and upper-class white people, in my experience, failure is the norm.

-- Kurt Vonnegut, from Hocus Pocus (1990)

Sociopaths vs. schizoid, etc.

This clever anecdote was send to me by a reader, originally appearing here.

If you really want to know who you are, just ask yourself "Why am I doing this and what do I want out of it?"

If your answer is, "I don't know, does it matter?" you're a schizoid.

If your answer is, "I want to rule the world, or at least a portion of it," you're a psychopath.

If your answer is, "I am scared," you're an avoidant.

If your answer is, "I want attention...I want them to love me," you're a narcissist.

If your answer is different every three hours you're a borderline.

Personality disorders are only confusing when you think in terms of behavior. But any good psychologist knows, all behavior originates from thought. What is the overall theme of your thoughts? Simple.

Seducing too well

Everyone wants to be seduced. There are risks to seduction, but the person being seduced is almost always willing to take them—the allure of seduction is too strong. What people don't usually think about are the risks to the person doing the seduction. There are hazards to seducing too well. It's like building a fire: there are a lot of types of fires you can build, from slow-burning, red-hot coals, to flashes in the pan that burn quickly up and quickly out. The type of fire you never want is one that gets so big you burn down your house.

Seductees are subject to the whims of seducers, but seducers are subject to the emotional outbursts and vagaries of seductees, which can often be much worse. If the seducer maintains control over the seductee, these outbursts can often be reigned in. Logic can and will prevail. Seduce too well, however, and terrible things can happen to both sides. Who do you think gets murdered more frequently? Seducers or seductees?

Even if you are not getting killed, there's the risk of major emotional fallout when you seduce too well. People can get so into you that it cripples them. They lose touch with reality. They become a walking ball of emotions ready to spew at anyone who gets near them—your family and friends, your landlord, your neighbors. If they get jealous, you're toast. How will you ever get rid of them? They are unstable, and any attempt to separate from them will likely include you on the collateral damage list.

I recently over-seduced. Part of the problem was that we met once, then didn't meet again for a month or more. Letting that much time elapse is tricky. It's like throwing a match on a wood pile and walking away. When you come back your fire could be thriving, or it could be dead. I planned the activity to be "strong" enough that even if the fire had died out, I could still revive it, thinking I could later temper it if it seemed too much.

The second complication was that during that particular night I was tired and sick and could only bring myself to ask probing questions. I came across as mysterious, intense, and interested. After the night, I was almost immediately assaulted by phone calls and SMS messages. The fire I built had gotten out of control—this person was obsessed with me. I thought about just writing off the seduction attempt as a loss, but I'm a scrapper so I hung in there. I replied, but not frequently. I made and canceled plans. I used my illness and the holidays as an excuse. When we met again, I spoke straightforwardly about the seduction, in a way to keep the person both flattered and interested, but not seriously interested in me.

It was worth it, I suppose. I mean, it's like watching a movie where you already know the ending—the movie may still be good (hopefully it's a good movie), but the thrill is gone. And I'm constantly worried about over-seduction relapses because people are into people who can seduce so well, then talk intelligently about it afterward. So overall, not a complete success...

Sociopath quote: self-knowledge

The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly - that is what each of us is here for.

-- Oscar Wilde

Chew toys

A reader asks:

Do you like to be the boss in relationships? What I mean by that is do you respect boundaries at all for instance, open others mail, walk into the bathroom on somebody, check cell phones, hide things, lock doors and have the only key, that kind of thing. What the hell is that anyway? I thought it was insecurity.

My response:

I don't like to be the boss in relationships. I like to be in relationships with equals in power. I don't like to run all over people, but I do like playful sparring, people who act slightly difficult with me, people who need me to win their devotion again and again. I need stuff to do, stuff to think about. I grind my teeth at night, and without the little plastic guard I'd grind my teeth away. That's how I feel about relationships. I grind on them the same way I grind on everything else in life, so I like it when the people I'm with give me a chew toy -- rather than letting me chew on their favorite shoe.

Addiction

A reader writes:

I'm a recovering addict, clean from drugs for 8 years. I notice a higher concentration of ASPD (Anti-Social Personality Disorder) addicts in 12-step fellowships and was wondering if there is a connection between addiction and ASPD. I displayed sociopathic traits as well as addictive behaviors long before I picked up drugs. I've found those of us with ASPD have a harder time fully addressing the various aspects of our addiction than those without. Just curious if you're a recovering addict as well.

My response:

I'm not a recovering addict but I know that I am very prone to addiction so I have actually tried to avoid addictive substances. I always want to try everything at least once, but I can usually tell when something is too good to be good for me, if you know what I mean.

Sociopaths allegedly don't learn well from experience/mistakes. I think that is because we have a higher tolerance for pain, discomfort, etc. This can be a huge advantage in situations where pain is paralyzing or otherwise not constructive. It also makes us dangerous to ourselves, though. We're like those people who can't feel physical pain. I have had way more near death experiences than anyone else I know of in my peer group or family. I'm also reckless emotionally and mentally. I have taken on emotional or mental burdens before that have led to the brink of a breakdown. We have to be extra careful about what we do to ourselves because we don't have the risk-averseness and emotional/psychic pain to signal to us to stop doing something because it is hurting us. I can see how this would make us especially prone to acquiring addictions.

Sociopaths in literature: Dangerous Liaisons

I shall have this woman; I shall carry her away from the husband who profanes her; I shall even dare to ravish her from the God she adores. What a delicious pleasure to be alternately the cause and the conqueror of her remorse! Far be it from me to wish to destroy the prejudices which torture her! They will add to my happiness and my fame. Let her believe in virture, but let her sacrifice it to me; let her slips terrify her without restraining her; let her be agitated by a thousand terrors and not be able to forget and to crush them save in my arms. Then I agree, she may say “I adore you,” and she alone among all women will be worthy to say so. I shall indeed be the God she has preferred.

-- Valmont, Dangerous Liaisons

Heroes and sociopaths

I have posted before about how being a sociopath can make you *feel* like you are a superhero. I think this feeling (narcissistic self-import) is relatively common among sociopaths. For instance, I stumbled upon this not-me description of it here:

Being a sociopath doesn't mean you have to be evil. We struggle to feel the difference between right and wrong, but we do know the difference since we have had it drilled into our heads since we were children, right? Fact is, us sociopaths have more choice in this world than the rest. That is because we can choose to be heroes or we can choose to be villains. No one else can do that, they have to be what they are, they are born a certain way, they will always be that way. Us sociopaths can change to our surroundings. We can do anything we choose to do.

Interestingly, some say this feeling goes both ways -- that superheroes can sometimes feel (or act) like sociopaths.

We look at heroes and do-gooders as a special sort of breed: people who possess extraordinary traits of altruism or self-less concern for the well-being of others, even at the expense of their own existence. On the other end, sociopaths also have an extraordinary set of traits, such as extreme selfishness, lack of impulse control, no respect for rules, and no conscience.

As crazy as it sounds, there may be a closer link than than most people would think between the extreme-altruistic personality and sociopathic personality. Would it shock you to know that two people, one with the traits of extreme-altruism (X-altruism) and the other the traits of a sociopath, could be related? Even siblings? And that their personality traits are very similar, with only a few features to distinguish them? Research by Watson, Clark, and Chmielewki from the University of Iowa, “Structures of Personality and Their Relevance to Psychopathology” [pdf], present a convincing argument in which they support the growing push for a trait dimensional scheme in the new DSM-V to replace the current categorical system.

[X- altruists are risk takers and rule breakers.] When they are faced with that moment, they just act. Compulsively. Barely considering any other course. The lack the impulse control to stop themselves from doing “the right thing” when it comes to the welfare of others, yet ironically, it almost always results in some form of negative consequence for themselves. They have no problem breaking the rules when it means helping an innocent, yet they highly value the importance of obeying rules in other contexts. That’s crazy, you say? Now you’re getting the idea.

[but sociopaths are unfeeling monsters, altruists are so great, bla bla bla]

Interestingly, these two type of individuals, the sociopath and the X-altruist, may appear similar in their displays of behavior, and at times, even confused for the other type. If an X-altruistic person is compelled to break rules without remorse in order to help a disadvantaged person, is may seem as if he is acting rebelliously, especially if the motives behind his behavior are not known. On the other hand, a sociopath may donate a large sum of money to a charity, a seemingly altruistic behavior, but his actions may have been motivated by his selfish need to appear better than or more generous than a colleague. The defining characteristic that separates the two personality types is their ability to empathize, either not at all or too much, which then drives the extreme behavior of each.

And my favorite comment from the article:

Interesting article, but not without bias, and in my opinion, unprofessionally written. Never before have I heard a health-care professional refer to a sociopath as "nasty". As a behavioral specialist, I would expect you to know better than anyone that sociopaths do not choose their hereditary personality disorders anymore than your beloved X-altruists do. Why call names?

And how do you define virtue and "good" intent? Is not the X-altruist's all-consuming desire to help others, at the expense breaking these rules you seem to value so much, just as selfish as the sociopath?

followed closely by this one:

Your intentions are obvious. Try as you like, we'll never associate heroes with sociopaths.

And the social order will thus survive, despite your kind's attempt to weaken and destroy it.

It's an interesting point, though. Are sociopaths considered "bad" just because they seem to do, on average, more "bad for society" type things? If so, can't we just punish the "bad behavior" without singling out everyone with the condition and eradicating them? For another interesting look at heroes and sociopaths in fiction/media, see this article on the "heroic sociopath," including such gems as this rationalization of Peter Pan: "He's only slightly less uncaring towards others as his nemesis Captain Hook and comes across better mostly because his sociopathy is a result of being a perpetual child, whereas Hook really has no excuse." Aspies or Auties, anyone? I'm not so much saying that the hate against sociopaths isn't at all warranted, more that there is no principled way to hate sociopaths and not hate other people/personalities/disorders that are widely accepted or even beloved in society.

Seducing a sociopath

An unusual question from a reader:

I've read some of your articles on your website. I have checked most of the titles but I didn't find one thing I was looking for. I might have just overlooked it. So what interests me is: if my sociopath boyfriend broke up with me, is there any way to seduce him back? How?

My response:

This is a really good question and you are right that no one has ever asked me it before. I didn't even know that people might want to do something like this until you asked. I have a feeling that it will end up being somewhat contextual. In other words, it will depend on your particular circumstances. Could you give me a little bit more background about your relationship with your boyfriend?

This was followed by another email from the reader with details, to which I responded:

I have been thinking a lot about your email. I think from what I read, you smothered him. ("So why we broke up: because he never showed his love, and I realized he didn’t care about me. I knew that but I hoped that with time he could get to like me. I was very kind to him, showed him my love in many ways. And the more I showed it the colder he turned.") Sociopaths can't handle excessive emotional output from anyone. If the sociopath really likes you, then the worst thing you can do is get all upset about something the sociopath has done. ("He hurt me every day, I was crying a lot.") I can get really angry when people cry because I have hurt them. It's sort of like a slap in the face -- "You monster, look what you have done to me." You probably were just unable to really accept him for how he was, or be able to put up with it, or maybe you were, but he saw what an effort it was causing you and how hurt you were becoming because of it. ("So I told him that if he could not live a day without telling me bad things, then we should consider parting." He agreed, saying it was better “so you don’t have to have these arguments again.” And never replied to me again. That was 8 weeks ago.") So he broke up with you so that you both wouldn't have to be in a dead-end relationship anymore.

In terms of seducing him back again, I sort of doubt you would be able to. Your best hope would be to wait for him to try to reconnect with you. If he doesn't, you are out of luck. If he does, then play cold/rational/normal/hard-to-get. Act like nothing bothers you. Pretend that you don't have any emotional needs. After a while of that, suggest that you hook up, but just for sex. Since you say he is sensitive about his body, tell him something about his body that you particularly crave. Appeal to his vanity. Sociopaths can be flattered just as easily as anyone else, you just have to find their weakest spot or their greatest insecurity and exploit it. I don't know, maybe I'll ask my readers for other ideas.

Readers?

Autism whitewashed, sociopathy maligned (again)

For as socially lacking as auties supposedly are (and interestingly this seems to be one of their key press points -- don't hate us because you think we are a cold, unfeeling jerk, we're just socially awkward), they sure do seem to be in the cool kids' club of socially acceptable. Coming fresh off the heels of my last post, this amazing piece of investigative journalism:

“One of the most devastating myths about children with autism is that they cannot show affection. While sensory stimulation is processed differently in some children, they can and do give affection. However, it may require patience on the parents' part to accept and give love in the child's terms,” Colston said.

A person who fully understands that they are harming others and simply does not care is called a “sociopath.” A sociopath is adept at reading social cues, is very aware of the feelings of others, and knows precisely how to respond in order to get what they want. They simply do not care whether or not their words or actions harm other people or often, society in general.

Autistic people have no intention of harming or upsetting others. They simply lack the ability to read and respond to social cues. For example, while most children learn that a smile from their friend means the other child is happy through everyday social interaction, an autistic child may have difficulty understanding facial expressions.

Thanks for the shout-out, auties. Next time, though, why don't you try to defend yourself without making us a scapegoat.

Sociopath quotes: shell

“Excitement and depression, fortune and misfortune, pleasure and pain are storms in a tiny private, shell-bound realm – which we take to be the whole of existence. Yet we can break out of this shell and enter a new world.”

-- Eknath Easwaran

Altruism, cruelty, and sociopathy

I have been thinking recently about whether lack of altruism is a sociopathic, but not necessarily sociopath-specific trait. I have also been thinking about whether, if altruism is the result of an excessive amount of empathy, is cruelty necessarily the result of too little empathy?

A reader recently wrote questioning whether he could meet the diagnostic criteria for ASPD (Asperger's). After listing the behaviors that he considered sociopathic, he equivocated:

Then again, I do care about my friends and all. I'm not a hundred percent sure, but I think I feel a little bad when I walk over someone's heart. And I never walk over someone with the sole intention of hurting them. So I am definitely not a sociopath. Yet, if your blog is anything to go by, then I can't be too far from being a sociopath (a mild sociopath, of course).

My response:

Yeah, I was just going to say, not all sociopaths are out there hurting people just to hurt them. What does that even mean? That you gain pleasure from their pain? I never hurt people to watch them suffer. I do it for my own purposes, to get in a better position, etc. I feel like a good analogy is the stock market. When you short trade stocks you are basically doing a wealth transfer from you to whomever you are buying low from and selling high to. It seems like you would have to be a sociopath to engage in that sort of business, no? But people do it all the time. They just probably don't like to admit that that is what they are doing. Same thing in the emotional/social realm. You make alliances, you may consider certain people "on your team," in a way of self-insuring should disaster strike. But people who are not on your team are people who will either gain from your loss or vice versa. That's just the way of things in this mostly zero sum game.

Is my worldview cruel? Does seeing the bulk, if not the entirety, of human relations as a zero sum game part of what makes me a sociopath? Or am I just seeing the world clearly?

Sociopath quote: self

"People often say that this or that person has not yet found himself. But the self is not something one finds, it is something one creates."

Thomas Szasz

Cameron from Terminator: prototypical sociopath

Apart from Dexter and some less friendly portrayals of psychopathic killers, there aren't too many sociopaths depicted accurately in the media. There are some depictions of empathy-challenged individuals who share a lot in common with sociopaths, though. We have the new Star Trek movie coming soon with a very rational Dr. Spock. We also have the very sociopathic acting Cameron from the television show Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. In the most recent episode, "Complications," John (human) gives Cameron (humanoid/machine) a hard time:

(Cameron is riding with her foot draped out the window)
John: What are you doing?
Cameron: Feeling what it's like to get away from it all.
John: I don't think you are.
Cameron: What do you mean?
John: If by feelings you mean emotions, I'm pretty sure you still don't have any of those. And if by feeling you mean what it feels like to have the wind blow through your toes or your hair, (sighs) I'm pretty sure you can't feel that either.
Cameron: I don't think you understand how we work. I have sensation. I feel. I wouldn't be worth much if I couldn't feel.

Like Bladerunner, the show promises more exploration of what it means to be human via exploring what it means to be a machine.

This episode uses the Bladerunner imagery of flipping an overturned tortoise back on its feet in the desert, a hypothetical that was used in Bladerunner during psychological tests to distinguish humans from replicants who do not possess the same capacity for empathy. In perhaps a bit of overexplanation, Cameron comments on John's mother flipping over a tortoise in the desert:

Cameron: There are many things I don't understand.
John: Like what?
Cameron: The tortoise.
John: What tortoise?
Cameron: It was on its back by the side of the road in Mexico. Your mother turned it over.
John: She was helping it.
Cameron: I know. But why?
John: 'cause that's what we do. When we, uh... When we see something that's, uh, in pain, or in trouble, or whatever, we try and help it.
Cameron: Empathy.
John: Something like that.
Cameron: But not everyone would turn the tortoise over.
John: No. Some would just leave it there.
Cameron: Some would probably drive over it and crush it.
John: Yeah, I guess they would. Is that what you'd do?
Cameron: It didn't seem like much of a threat. We're not built to be cruel.
John: Yeah, that's one for cyborgs.
Cameron: Yes.

Questions from readers

Here are some questions from a reader and my responses in regards to this post:

i'm curious why you didn't say 'I love you too' to your sister. I for one have always had trouble saying it to my family, but not to anyone else. The only conclusion I've come to is that I know my family knows who I really am, they see past the superficial, and know that I don't really get what it even means to love someone. With girlfriends it's easier, they start out as strangers so it's easy for me to create that role since they will take it as truth.

Is there a reason you left it out?

Ha, I'm glad you picked up on that. I purposefully didn't say "I love you too" because I didn't want to be disingenuous with my sister. I lie or pretend with strangers much more than with family. I guess part of it is because I know they won't believe certain false emotions. But more than that, I don't want to have to put on a show for them. It's exhausting to always pretend to be someone you're not. And I don't think being a sociopath should mean you have to live in the shadows. I mean, fine for those who want to live in the shadows all their lives and be what a friend termed "shadow players," but we should at least have a choice. I think sociopaths should have the same legitimacy that other empathy-challenged people enjoy: aspies, ADHD, etc. I don't want to have to pretend around my family because I don't want to feel like I always have to pretend. I actually want some people to know and like me for who I really am. And that is what family is there for -- unconditional love and/or acceptance. Or at least that is the bargain that my own family has worked out amongst ourselves.

Similarly, this question:

How do you categorize sociopaths who are willing to be open about it? Does that willingness mean they're not fully sociopathic? Maybe its the inherent narcissism (everyone has at least some) coming out, wanting others to fear and respect? I know my goal was to purposefully create fear when I was open about it. What's your purpose?

Like I said in response to the last question, I'm open about being a sociopath sometimes because I don't want to feel like I can never be open about it. I don't see how that would make someone not sociopathic. I mean, I don't shout it form the rooftops or anything, of course. but if I always have to pretend, then I am the powerless one -- I am the sheep subject to other people's whims, not the empaths.

I think it is shortsighted for sociopaths to believe that they will gain more for remaining hidden than they ever would through selective exposure. first of all, i think that sociopaths will not always be able to remain hidden. scientists, geneticists, psychologists are all looking for ways to tag sociopaths. sociopaths are subjected to tests that are then used to legally persecute them based on their sociopathy, either in enhancing jail sentences as an "aggravating factor," keeping them from parole, or keeping them from seeing their children. in addition to the legally sanctioned discrimination, there is a lot of informal hate for sociopaths. people crazy hate sociopaths, and sociopaths are easy to hate because we're faceless. if we banded together like the aspie's and other empathy-challenged, we could see some political/social gain and/or acceptance for our kind that would be greater than the sum all of the shadow playing from individual sociopaths. or let's have our cake and eat it too. at least i think that those scenarios are enough of a possiblity that it is smart to start laying the groundwork now for a worldwide sociopath PR campaign.

also i like to brag about certain conquests. what's the worth of skillful power plays if you can't ever share your successes?

War = sociopath breeding ground

On the topic of whether sociopaths are born or created, I just heard about the Japanese movie Battle Royale, in which a class of high school students is sent to an island to kill or be killed until there is one left standing. According to an imdb synopsis:

At the dawn of the new millennium, Japan is in a a state of near-collapse. Unemployment is at an all-time high, and violence among the nation's youth is spiraling out of control. With schoolchildren boycotting their classes and physically abusing their teachers, a beleaguered and near-defeated government decides to introduce a radical new measure: the Battle Royale Act Overseen by their former teacher Kitano and requiring that a randomly chosen school class is taken to a deserted island and forced to fight each other to the death, the Act dictates that only one pupil is allowed to survive the punishment. He or she will return, not as the victor, but as the ultimate proof of the lengths to which the government is prepared to go to curb the tide of juvenile disobedience.

The students have varied reactions:

Some of the kids immediately embrace the carnage, others reluctantly join in for self-preservation, others gather together into smaller groups that war with each other, still others seduce allies in, only to kill them in short order, and still others kill themselves in refusal to participate in the violence. The problems arise even in the groups of trusted souls as a greedy suspicion grasps them all. Those that don't succumb to this violent infidelity, surely risk falling victim to their external classmates' hunts.

When I first heard about the plot of the movie, I thought the island was meant to serve as an accelerant for natural selection. Of course if you are putting high school students on an island with weapons, the only thing you would be naturally selecting for is sociopaths. Under my revised-per-imdb understanding of the film, the island is not just naturally selecting out sociopaths, it is actually creating them out of normal empaths. Do I think this actually happens in war and other times of exigency? Yes, I do.