Genetically predisposed to crime?

Yes, although that is not the full picture. From the NY Times:

Researchers estimate that at least 100 studies have shown that genes play a role in crimes. “Very good methodological advances have meant that a wide range of genetic work is being done,” said John H. Laub, the director of the justice institute, who won the Stockholm Prize in Criminology last week. He and others take pains to emphasize, however, that genes are ruled by the environment, which can either mute or aggravate violent impulses. Many people with the same genetic tendency for aggressiveness will never throw a punch, while others without it could be career criminals.
***
Kevin Beaver, an associate professor at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, said genetics may account for, say, half of a person’s aggressive behavior, but that 50 percent comprises hundreds or thousands of genes that express themselves differently depending on the environment.

The article is interesting because it talks not only about one's childhood environment, but one's current environment. One such environmental factor is marriage:

[Steven Pinker] mentioned one of the biggest risk factors leading to crime: remaining single instead of getting married, a link uncovered by Mr. Laub and Robert J. Sampson, a Harvard sociologist who was a co-winner of the Stockholm Prize. Marriage may serve as a switch that directs male energies toward investing in a family rather than competing with other males, Mr. Pinker said.

For those who are interested in improving their environment in order to maximize self control, this NY Times article about decision fatigue is good. The gist of the article is that you have limited amounts of self control, so don't waste it on unimportant things. Also be very aware of your blood glucose levels-- glucose can erase the effects of decision fatigue. It's oddly a lot of things I have just intuited about myself over the years, but still helpful to learn the science behind it.

Defining normal

Before I jump into a small rant, let me say that I believe there are true differences between sociopaths and neurotypicals. I also believe that the number of people who could be classified "neurotypicals" may be an actual minority (e.g. less than 50%). Furthermore, I understand that defining someone as being neurotypical does not necessarily mean that this person is "normal" or somehow better than everybody else who is not neurotypical. Let's call those the three assumptions.

My problem with some of the sociopathy research et al. is that too often people do not account for these assumptions. We talk about sociopaths being 1-4% of the population as if the other 96-99% are normal, maybe even the opposite of the sociopath. Maybe we believe that if sociopaths have low empathy, then everyone else has robust empathy? Maybe if we believe that if sociopaths do not feel guilt, everyone else must? Maybe if we say that sociopaths frequently engage in crime, then no one else does?

It's interesting, I started this blog in part to help people realize that sociopaths are natural human variants. I thought at the time that the big challenge would be to try to showcase some of our strengths in a more positive light, that we have more in common than people maybe realize. Recently I have been thinking that the real problem is not in getting people to believe that we're better than they think, but that they are worse than they think.

The weird thing about the three assumptions mentioned at the beginning is that I think most people don't believe them, not really. Most people assume that they are that minority of "normal" people instead of thinking that they might be one of those majority of people who are a little jacked up. Equally if perhaps more troubling is that many people lament that the psychological world would label half or more of us with a diagnosis/neurosis. So what if the majority of people have a label? Doesn't that seem equally if not more probable than assuming that half of the people in the world are pretty much interchangeable in terms of brain/emotional function? I understand the urge to define normal as the way most people are, but if there is not a clear way that most people are, is it really that helpful to distort our definition of "normal" to arbitrarily include some small deviations and not others?

The appeal of defining normal as whatever you happen to be is quite convenient. No need to confront the possibility that maybe you aren't as empathetic as they seem. Maybe your conscience doesn't have quite the sway that you thought it did. Maybe you are both capable and incapable of much more than you had hoped. Maybe you have a lot more in common with sociopaths than you'd like to think. Maybe it is just one big long spectrum with only a few of us at the extremes and the rest of us huddled closer to the middle. Could it be that self-diagnosed sociopaths are just much more honest with themselves than the rest of you who sneer, "that's not sociopathic, everyone does that." Could both be true? That something could be sociopathic and that everyone does that? Or most people do that? Specifically, you -- that you sometimes do those things? Does that make you normal or me?

Sociopath quote: volunteerism

--volenti non fit injuria

to him who consents, no harm is done

Manna from heaven

A funny thing about being religious is that sometimes an exploit happens so perfectly that it must be a gift from god. I like to think that if there is a god, he must be a fan.

One time I was meeting my boss for the first time (telecommuting from a different office before). I had gone to the symphony the evening before, which although it is not an unusual occurrence is also not an every week type of thing (I happened to get fantastic tickets from a musician friend of mine with connections to what turned out to be a blockbuster performance). The next morning I traveled the hour plus to the office where my boss was located. We met, I pulled out all my seduction stops, we got on the elevator to go to lunch and I immediately recognized a threesome of men from the night before at the symphony (I had noticed one of the men wearing outlandish orange frames the previous evening, and he was still sporting them the next day). I started salivating because I knew something special was about to happen (all for the sake of my boss?). I could tell upon entering the elevator that these men were talking about the performance 14 hours later and in a different city. Coincidence? That I noticed them, that we were at the same performance, that I recognized them, that they happened to be talking about the concert, that the concert happened to be an incredible blockbuster with incredible amounts of buzz? With only four floors to go until we hit the lobby, I knew I had to act quickly.

"Are you talking about the XX performance last night?"

"Why yes!" (heavy German accent).

"Wasn't it outstanding?"

"We absolutely loved it! What passion! Maybe you could help us, which concerto was it? We can't remember whether it was the second or the third."

"Oh, it's the second" (it turned out to be the third, but who cares).

"Thank you so much! You've saved us much discussion."

And then we got off the elevator. My boss gave me this astounded glance of what-the-hell-just-happened, and from then on my boss was putty in my hands.

This sounds harmless, I'm sure, maybe god would want people to succeed in their job. But would god also drop love triangles into people's lap, purely for their pleasure (as he has several times into mine)? Would god have someone unwittingly confess a harmful secret to you so you could use it against them in a clever power play? Is god in the business of giving good little sociopath girls and boys gift wrapped victims for personal consumption? Sometimes I think that can be the only explanation for it, not that I'm complaining.

We Need to Talk About Kevin

Someone recommended that I read the book "We Need to Talk About Kevin," but I haven't gotten around to it. But, it's apparently the story of a mother dealing with the fallout of having a sociopathic son who has brought the ire of the community to the family. Luckily they have made a movie based on the book, starring the questionable Tilda Swinton: