Are libertarians sociopaths or vice versa?

First let me out myself as being libertarian, but with a little bit of a Burkean twist. for the uninitiated, libertarians are essentially socially and fiscally liberal -- kind of a "don't tread on me, laissez-faire" attitude regarding government interference. I'm a libertarian because my main fears are mob mentality and idiots having power. I think my fear of mob mentality is directly linked to my perception that i am an "other," i.e. sociopath, and a very unpopular one at that. I think a lot of non sociopaths could be afraid of idiots in power and naturally want to decrease the power of government in general, but I don't know.

There has been a lot of rubbish written about libertarians all being sociopaths, but fewer people suggest that all sociopaths are libertarians. I find the first suggestion ridiculous -- there are many reasons to be a libertarian without necessarily being a sociopath. Although if you want to read an infuriating discussion about this, look here. Just a snippet:

Libertarians to make moral judgements, they error on the side of freedom. THAT IS A MORAL JUDGEMENT.

Nonsense. Liking freedom is NOT a moral judgment. This illustrates the point of the study exactly. Sociopaths want to be free to do whatever they want, regardless of the harm they do to other people. All Libertarians are sociopaths, but NOT ALL sociopaths are Libertarians.

The commenters go on to indicate that many other political parties seem to appeal more to sociopaths than libertarianism, e.g. socialism, fascism, communism, and other forms of totalitarianism. Thoughts? Are sociopaths represented in every political belief system? Are they only at the extremes?

Libertarian leanings

Thanks to the Ludwig von Mises Institute for putting together a massive library of libertarian literature online: http://mises.org/literature.aspx

One reader suggested that for a sociopath like me "who equates feeling 'other' with being an at-risk minority, fear of mob rule and fondness for libertarianism makes sense. But for the sociopath who feels that their cunning and logic and fearlessness make them invincible and all-powerful (plenty of criminal sociopaths fall into this category, I think), totalitarian politics might be very appealing -- assuming, of course, that the sociopaths are in power."

Fascist sociopaths? That's probably the dirtiest thing you could call people in certain cultures.

Insights into empath minds

I just don't understand them sometimes. I do things for (mainly) logical reasons, with a core emphasis in efficiency. As a libertarian, I'm always interested in the suppression of markets for moral reasons, so I found myself reading an article on the altruistic kidney donations of strangers and how (wait for it) the empath hordes shun them, considering them "freakish, inhuman, even repellent."

Most people find it uncomplicatedly admirable when a person risks his life to save a stranger from fire, or from drowning. What, then, is it about saving a stranger by giving a kidney, a far lesser risk, that people find so odd? Do they feel there is something aggressive about the act, as though the donor were implicitly rebuking them for not doing it, too? (There is no rebuke in saving a stranger from drowning -- you weren't there, you couldn't have done it. And you can always imagine that you would have if you had been.) Or perhaps it's that organ donation, unlike rescue, is conceived in cold blood, and cold-blooded altruism seems nearly as sinister as cold-blooded malevolence. Perhaps only the hot-blooded, unthinking sort can now escape altruism's tainted reputation, captured in the suspicious terms for what people are really engaging in when they think they're helping (sublimation, colonialism, group selection, potlatch, socialism, co-dependency -- the list goes on).

And this quote from one of the fascists supporting the UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) kidney breadline at the expense of donors taking the private option of self-selecting donor recipients:

Douglas Hanto, the chief of transplantation at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, in Boston, for instance, feels that the system should work the same way for everybody--that there should be just one line to stand in. He concedes that it's possible that MatchingDonors draws in people who wouldn't otherwise donate--people who need the tug of a human story to sway them--thus making everybody better off, but, as long as its dating-service model favors the photogenic, the eloquent, and the computerized, he is against it. "We are all going to die," he says. "We have to do everything we can for our patients, but within the boundaries of moral principles. As much as we want to save everybody, we just can't."

I think the label "altruistic" is misplaced. I don't think the people donating need the tug of a personal story. From what I read, most of the donors think that it is inefficient to not donate a kidney that they're not using to someone who needs one to live. For instance, this description of a young donor:

The petty selfishness of daily life drove her crazy and she wanted to fix it. She hated the way that, in the checkout line at Target, a person with a whole cartful of stuff would not let a person with only one or two things go ahead of him. She hated that, when she was driving and let a pedestrian cross the road, the driver behind her would honk in frustration. She always tried to do nice things for others. At work, she would often buy coffee for her co-workers without being asked, though mostly this just bewildered people.

I know how she feels, but as much as I'd like to say that empaths live in a horrible world of their own making, I think it's just that they think so differently. Maybe their world doesn't seem so ugly to them.

Mob mentality

This was another interesting column in the New York Times about the history, origins, and power of fear + mob mentality in the U.S. Normal people sometimes don't like sociopaths because they don't like feeling that they are just a patsy to the sociopath's intrigues. They are hyper focused on thinking that the sociopath is the root to their problems. It may or may not be true that sociopaths are to blame for as many problems for which they are blamed. Historically, however, it is this fear, suspicion, and hate of "others" that not only perpetuates negative stereotypes to the utter disregard of reality, but leaves people open to be a further patsy to those who would capitalize off of their fear. These opportunists may include political or religious leaders, bosses and neighbors, and anyone else that would use your fear to drive their own ascension to power, or even turn other people's fears against you. Here are excerpts from the column:

A radio interviewer asked me the other day if I thought bigotry was the only reason why someone might oppose the Islamic center in Lower Manhattan. No, I don’t. Most of the opponents aren’t bigots but well-meaning worriers — and during earlier waves of intolerance in American history, it was just the same.

Screeds against Catholics from the 19th century sounded just like the invective today against the Not-at-Ground-Zero Mosque. The starting point isn’t hatred but fear: an alarm among patriots that newcomers don’t share their values, don’t believe in democracy, and may harm innocent Americans.

Followers of these movements against Irish, Germans, Italians, Chinese and other immigrants were mostly decent, well-meaning people trying to protect their country. But they were manipulated by demagogues playing upon their fears — the 19th- and 20th-century equivalents of Glenn Beck.

Most Americans stayed on the sidelines during these spasms of bigotry, and only a small number of hoodlums killed or tormented Catholics, Mormons or others. But the assaults were possible because so many middle-of-the-road Americans were ambivalent.

Suspicion of outsiders, of people who behave or worship differently, may be an ingrained element of the human condition, a survival instinct from our cave-man days. But we should also recognize that historically this distrust has led us to burn witches, intern Japanese-Americans, and turn away Jewish refugees from the Holocaust.
***
Historically, unreal suspicions were sometimes rooted in genuine and significant differences. Many new Catholic immigrants lacked experience in democracy. Mormons were engaged in polygamy. And today some extremist Muslims do plot to blow up planes, and Islam has real problems to work out about the rights of women. The pattern has been for demagogues to take real abuses and exaggerate them, portraying, for example, the most venal wing of the Catholic Church as representative of all Catholicism — just as fundamentalist Wahabis today are caricatured as more representative of Islam than the incomparably more numerous moderate Muslims of Indonesia (who have elected a woman as president before Americans have).

During World War I, rumors spread that German-Americans were poisoning food, and Theodore Roosevelt warned that “Germanized socialists” were “more mischievous than bubonic plague.”

Anti-Semitic screeds regularly warned that Jews were plotting to destroy the United States in one way or another. A 1940 survey found that 17 percent of Americans considered Jews to be a “menace to America.”

Chinese in America were denounced, persecuted and lynched, while the head of a United States government commission publicly urged in 1945 "the extermination of the Japanese in toto." Most shamefully, anti-Asian racism led to the internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II.

All that is part of America’s heritage, and typically as each group has assimilated, it has participated in the torment of newer arrivals — as in Father Charles Coughlin’s ferociously anti-Semitic radio broadcasts in the 1930s. Today’s recrudescence is the lies about President Obama’s faith, and the fear-mongering about the proposed Islamic center.

But we have a more glorious tradition intertwined in American history as well, one of tolerance, amity and religious freedom. Each time, this has ultimately prevailed over the Know Nothing impulse.

Americans have called on moderates in Muslim countries to speak out against extremists, to stand up for the tolerance they say they believe in. We should all have the guts do the same at home.

This is why I am anxious in crowds. This is why I am a libertarian. I think I have a healthy fear of persecution that helps constrain any inclination to persecute others. Similarly, I wouldn't mind if the tables were turned on some of those people who are so sure that they know what's right and best for everyone. Maybe if they were on the receiving end of persecution themselves, they wouldn't be so self-satisfied. But I am glad that with the prohibitions on women wearing face veils in France, protests against a Muslim community center in New York, etc., people who would normally consider themselves open minded, inherently "good" and "wise" individuals with clear definitions of "right" and "wrong" are being faced to stare down the barrel of reality.

I smell change.

Good intentions not good enough

The other day I was with a group of my relatives. One of the children is a quirky guy, probably could be diagnosed somewhere on the autism spectrum but his parents seem to worry about stigmatizing him with any sort of label. Another adult relative grabbed him in sort of a roughhousing way and the child screamed bloody murder. We were in a crowded place and everyone turned to look at what could possibly cause such a reaction. There should be nothing unusual about a child who does not like to be grabbed by surprise, but I guess a lot of children like it? So people do it and basically expect all children to like it; if they don't they're often labeled "too sensitive" or some other label that shifts the blame on them for their reaction, rather than it staying on the perpetrator where it belongs. Watching this scene, I couldn't help but think about how much I distrust good intentions (I write about it here, the tendency to self-deceive about good intentions here, and the inherent paternalism or one-size-fits-all hubristic approach of many good-intentioned behaviors here).

I'm not saying that the guy who grabbed the child was "wrong", largely because I don't care about the moral rightness or wrongness of such actions (even if morality plays a part in some decisions, I believe that most things in life have no moral implications at all). What I am saying is that the last thing in the world that my little relative wanted to have happen was to be grabbed in that way. The adult of course apologized, but I've also seen people in similar situations defend their position, as if trying to convince the victim that they should toughen up, or that the treatment is good for them (see above re paternalism and hubris), or often the perpetrators seem to honestly believe that the victim actually does like that treatment, but is just being intentionally difficult as a form of politicking or emotional manipulation. Whatever the reason, the violators in these situations (the persons who impose their own will on another person, ignoring the that person's autonomy and volition) often excuse their own behavior or believe that they are not responsible for the consequences of their own actions because that is not what they intended. And that is the most dangerous thing about them.

I really like this quote from C.S. Lewis from his essay anthology "God in the Dock" (1948):

My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

This is a major reason why I am libertarian -- people are bad enough about this without giving them the authority and power of the state to use. 

Moral codes, boundaries and food allergies

I think empaths' brains work differently than mine. There are certain things that they consider sacrosanct that I just think are normal, or even silly. Luckily I was brought up in a religious household, so I learned that some invisible things actually mean a lot to other people: love, patriotism, god, goodness, etc. I learned that the general rule to avoid unwanted conflict is to respect those beliefs in others, even though they do not mean anything to me. This is sort of a hallmark of a modern, civilized society. When we walk into holy buildings, we remove our shoes if that is the custom even though the god of that temple may not be our own.

That is what we are socialized to do, but there is some debate regarding how much respect we should give other people's beliefs. For instance, if you believe cows are sacred, I'm fine with your boycotting beef, but your beliefs won't stop me from eating a cheeseburger in front of you. If the average person is willing to take off his shoes in your temple but eat a cheeseburger in front of you, what will he do about your belief that abortion is murder or your beliefs that the female labia is dirty and needs to be cut off or the vagina stitched up to ensure the purity of the woman? What is legitimate?

To me it seems like random line drawing: sodomy between two consenting adults is legitimate, sodomy between an adult and a child not legitimate. Public nudity is wrong, but so is a woman covering up from head to foot. There are reasons, sure. I have heard reasons. But many empaths will criticize dolphin slaughter while eating animals raised in deplorable conditions. (By the way, stop eating octupus. They are very smart, precocious creatures.) How do they reconcile this? What makes them freak about one thing and be so permissive about another?

I am a very tolerant person. I attribute this to my sociopathy. Unlike empaths, who are so hard-wired to believe whatever their culture has programmed them to think, I can look at something from a blank slate point of view. I guess this is also why I'm a libertarian -- I don't believe that my ideas are so right that they should be imposed on others, even if those other people disagree. In other words, I am as skeptical about the beliefs I hold as I am about the beliefs of others. And I don't play favorites like empaths who say, "Imposing my beliefs on others is fine because mine are supported by (fill in the blank pet reasons: science, religion, logic, tradition, etc.), but you can't do the same because your beliefs are only supported by (fill in the blank hated reasons: science, religion, logic, tradition, etc.)." So I trend away from imposing my beliefs on others, and I don't necessarily think that one basis for beliefs is better than another. That doesn't mean I don't respect people's beliefs, though. To keep the peace and as a courtesy to others that I expect to be reciprocated, i will almost always take off my shoes when walking on someone's sacred ground.

Does that make me not a sociopath? Ha. Well, the process of how I do it sounds at least Aspergian. How do I know when to take off my shoes? It's like discovering a food allergy. Maybe you eat something at a restaurant and get sick. Other people from your party ate the same thing and did not get sick. Maybe you just caught a flu bug, you think. A few months later you eat something else and get similar symptoms. The symptoms seem the same, but you don't know what could be the common ingredient. You keep collecting info, eliminating this, eliminating that, keeping a mental log of what you could possibly be allergic to. It is clear to you by now that even though you cannot see what is making you sick, can't even identify it, there is certainly something wrong because you keep getting bad reactions. Maybe your boss periodically gets angry at you in the same way. Maybe your spouse can't stand to be around you when you are like _____. I am in those types of situations all the time -- people are mad at me and I have no idea why. chances are, though, I am encroaching on someone's moral code and/or sense of personal boundaries. I have learned that either I keep doing the same thing and getting the same adverse reaction, or I figure something else out. otherwise I'm in for a world of hurt, because it's like a moral/personal boundary minefield out there. Right aspies?

Wannabe sociopaths

I'm not talking about the people that sometimes frequent the comments section and forum of this site, but those who have adopted sociopathic traits due to their environment -- maybe a rough childhood leading to finding respite in gang and adopting the heartlessness of that life, or someone on wall street?  I was sort of charmed by this comment to a recent post:

Corporations are absolutely sociopathic because of their bottom line. However, like sociopaths, they can choose to act in a benevolent manner out of their own best interest- and often do. Corporations are amoral. Corporations reside in the world of power and winning first. I could do on, but there is nothing empathetic about a corporation in our present "free" market system. A benevolent sociopath could not survive intact in the corporate world unless they were lying to themselves all day every day. You want to talk about wannabe sociopaths? Talk to an empath on wall street. 

I have a friend who I am starting to believe is an empath on Wall Street. He worked for many years in his country's version of the CIA or MI-6. He is one of the most cold, calculating people I know -- the type that would never hesitate to pull the trigger on something. Now he is an investment banker, his attempt to cash out on his connections and background. Still he hates it because of the crushing workload, and every time he talks to me about it he has another exit plan fantasy. One of his escape hatches involved taking over an ammunitions company from an ailing client of his. He was talking to me about it, how the company is strong but not much room for expansion (the company primarily sells directly to militaries). I suggested that even if he just stuck with his government contracts, he would be doing well with the company at least for the rest of his lifetime because there would always be war. To his discredit he argued back, "yeah, but how long are we going to be shooting bullets?" Maybe I am wrong on this point, but I thought there were several treaties, including the Hague Conventions, that have basically insured that not only will we be using bullets in war, we will basically be using the same type and kind of bullets as we have always have (as opposed to hollow point bullets in conjunction with chemical warfare, etc.). Undeterred, I mentioned the possibility of expanding out of government contracts into the private market, which he also balked at, saying that he didn't want to be the equivalent of an arms dealer in a very "bullets kill people" sort of way. I was disappointed to hear him say that. How could he have done what he did as a spy, then become a ruthless banker, then take a moral stance on selling bullets that might end up in the brain of some thug?

This goes along a little with my post from yesterday. Sometimes I get a vibe from someone that indicates to me that they are a sociopath and I get all excited. Then they say something that makes it clear that although we may see eye to eye on some issues, there's an ocean of disagreement separating us. It's sort of what it feels like to be libertarian.

Pop science

A reader recently sent this article. I have no way of confirming whether this is an actual newspaper, but I decided to dedicate a post to it because I think it's important to remember that although I'm sure most of us surround ourselves with well-informed, well-educated, and reasonable people, there is still a contingent of crazies out there that not only are clueless, but are also incredibly insistent that the rest of us are deluding ourselves. This irritates my libertarian self (perhaps contradictorily? or hypocritically?) more than anything else -- the only thing this has to do with sociopathy is the subject matter of the article. Under the headline "psychopaths are hard to spot," we are treated to such gems as:

The issue of the psychopath in popular culture is, unfortunately, muddied by TV shows like "Dexter." He's no psychopath, he's just Old Testament, as in justifying taking a life for the greater good. Closer to the reality, only through adept use of satire and irony, is the film version of American Psycho.

True psychopathy has no moral, nothing to redeem taking a life. It's ugly, evil and dark because of the absence of anything resembling any positive human quality. The true psychopath is a destroyed human who can do nothing other than maliciously spread his or her destructive nature.

We are invited to "contact reporter Paul Walton at PWalton@nanaimodailynews.com or call 250-729-4230." Just, you know, if you would like to hear some more of his pet theories.

Now I am sort of questioning publishing this. Who cares, right? It's obviously so stupid that no one would give this sort of thing credence, would they? Yeah, tell that to the next mob that has decided to target one of your personally defining characteristics.

The morality of libertarians

This will be interesting and relevant to many of you. A reader sent me this article about recent research performed on the moral leanings of libertarians, "Understanding Libertarian Morality: The psychological roots of an individualist ideology." As described by Reason:

When it comes to morality, libertarians are often typecast as immoral calculating rationalists who also have a somewhat unseemly hedonistic bent. Now new social science research shows that libertarians are quite moral, just not in the same way that conservatives and liberals are.

***

[T]he study found that libertarians show (1) stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle and correspondingly weaker endorsement of other moral principles, (2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional intellectual style, and (3) lower interdependence and social relatedness.

In his earlier work, Haidt surveyed the attitudes of conservatives and liberals using what he calls the Moral Foundations Questionnaire which measures how much a person relies on each of five different moral foundations: Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. Typically, conservatives scored lower than liberals on the Harm and Fairness scales and much higher on Ingroup, Authority, and Purity scales. In this case, libertarians scored low on all five surveyed moral dimensions. “Libertarians share with liberals a distaste for the morality of Ingroup, Authority, and Purity characteristic of social conservatives, particularly those on the religious right,” notes the study. Libertarians scored slightly below conservatives on Harm and slightly above on Fairness. This suggests that libertarians “are therefore likely to be less responsive than liberals to moral appeals from groups who claim to be victimized, oppressed, or treated unfairly.”

The Schwartz Value scale measures the degree to which participants regard 10 values as guiding principles for their lives. Libertarians put higher value on Hedonism, Self-Direction, and Stimulation than either liberals or conservatives and they put less value than either on Benevolence, Conformity, Security, and Tradition. Like liberals, libertarians put less value on Power, but like conservatives they value Universalism less. Universalism is defined as “understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection of the welfare of all people and nature.” All three put high value on Achievement. Taking these results into account, Haidt concludes that “libertarians appear to live in a world where traditional moral concerns (e.g., respect for authority, personal sanctity) are not assigned much importance.”

***

“Libertarians may fear that the moral concerns typically endorsed by liberals or conservatives are claims that can be used to trample upon individual rights—libertarians’ sacred value.

***

“Libertarians are high in Openness to Experience and seem to enjoy effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks. In combination with low levels of emotional reactivity, the highly rational nature of libertarians may lead them to a logical, rather than emotional, system of morality.”

Probably the most interesting part of this article, though, was the discussion of the Empathizer-Systematizer scale:

The scale measures the tendency to empathize, defined as "the drive to identify another person's emotions and thoughts, and to respond to these with an appropriate emotion," and to systemize, or "the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system." Libertarians are the only group that scored higher on systemizing than on empathizing—and they scored a lot higher. The authors go on to suggest that systemizing is “characteristic of the male brain, with very extreme scores indicating autism.” They then add, “We might say that liberals have the most ‘feminine’ cognitive style, and libertarians the most ‘masculine.’”

Yes, tendency to systematize instead of empathize is something that libertarians, sociopaths, and autistics have in common.

Society of sociopaths

People are always asking what a society of sociopaths would look like. As i have suggested before, there already is a society of sociopaths. It is the Dutch. And I'm not the only one who has suggested that the Dutch are as cold and calculating as they come. A libertarian blogger posting about the proposed universal health care in the United States writes:

If the public sector atrophies, the scope for manipulation broadens, because the information about what's available outside the public sector shrinks. Nor is this just crazy speculation. I actually think it's pretty reasonable when conservatives worry that the Dutch attitudes towards euthanasia are influenced by the burden old people and severely disabled children put on the public purse. I don't see how they could fail to be.

What then does a society of sociopaths look like? The Dutch are very efficient, utilitarian, and all of them ride bikes. They invented several of the world's evils including things like slave trade, diamond trade, and imperialism. They're also very tolerant, traditionally a haven for religious minorities like the soon-to-be American pilgrims. Once you're too old to be functional to society, you kill yourself, always with one eye on the bottom line, e.g. gay okay but old decrepit, not so much. And they're firm believers in the free market. Not so bad, is it? I mean there are tradeoffs in everything, right?

Power hungry

A reader asks why sociopaths are so power hungry, do I suspect any historical or contemporary figures were/are sociopaths, e.g. Machiavelli, and how to learn to think like a sociopath.

I honestly don't know why sociopaths are so concerned with gaining power. I don't think it is necessarily unique to sociopaths, obviously, but I would say that it seems to apply to the vast majority of sociopaths. Perhaps there is something evolutionarily implicated here, that for the same reasons that sociopaths were evolved to not have a conscience, they were also evolved to crave power?

There's something very primitive about the sociopath's drive for power, like the sex drive, but it can manifest itself in many ways. For instance, I think a lot of sociopaths just want to make people jump, or at least know that they can. Some of them want the classical form of power, for example some political or business position or the money that can buy the power. Some of them, like me, channel the drive for power to include power over oneself, one's impulses and inclinations.

I do think that Machiavelli was a sociopath. There are a lot of people that I sort of suspect are sociopaths, but it's really hard to tell if anyone is without being privy to their thought processes. Anything else is complete speculation. For instance, I got in this idle debate once about whether Angelina Jolie was sociopath leaning. In my mind she had some of the clear identifying factors: creepy attachment to family, volatile, bisexual, and loves Ayn Rand (libertarian leaning politically). The person I was arguing with could not get over her humanitarian work, which to me is a nonstarter because there could be plenty of reasons why she does that. You know? Like why do I write this blog? People always want to know stuff like that, but there could be a million reasons, including accumulating power, respect, being able to influence the dialogue about a particular subject, etc. And with Angelina Jolie, how can you explain the other stuff? Like the fact that she has a look that makes people want to cry and she can be equally seductive with straight women as she is with men? But really I could go either way with her, and without looking inside her head there's no way to know for sure.

There are few people that I would feel confident to say are sociopaths, most of them literary because we actually get to see the "honest" picture of how they think, e.g. Tom Ripley, Cathy from East of Eden, and some others I have mentioned on the blog.

How to learn to think like a sociopath? I don't know, find one to apprentice with? But I would be careful. I think after you learn to think like a sociopath, there is something about you that changes and you can never really go back. I think this is particularly true if you learn to think like a sociopath at a young age and had all of those sociopathic neurological pathways reinforced instead of the "normal" ones.

For more information, please visit our Web Community.

Sociopath?

From a reader:

Confessions of A Sociopath, documenting your experience as a high-functioning sociopath, was an absolute delight to read. While I could relate to a large degree with your account, I am still on the fence about whether I fit the sociopathic classification and in writing to you, I’d like to gain some insight on my personal situation.

A bit of background: I’m 17, female, and an atheist who belongs to a conservative South Asian country. I identify as a Right-leaning Libertarian. I have a dysfunctional relationship with both parents. My father is an abusive sociopath (has a criminal record, is violent, glib, charming, Don Juan-esque in his heyday, hypocritical, possesses no empathy or remorse, is a pathological liar) and my mother exhibits signs of Stockholm Syndrome. I find myself unable to sympathise with her situation, often mocking and deriding her weakness for a man who treats her like trash. Vitriol flows seamlessly from my tongue at the slightest provocation. My father has been emotionally and physical abusive towards me, threatened by what he observed as a ‘fierce obstinacy’ in my persona since I was 7 years old. I learnt to cope, and it stopped mattering when I was 14, which lead me to hypothesize that perhaps sociopathy is an adaptation to adversity. However, I wouldn’t deny that there isn’t residual anger, bloodlust or a desire for revenge.

In my childhood, I was a sensitive, precocious and well-adjusted kid with one caveat: I liked squeezing babies deliberately to constrict their breathing. I enjoyed hearing their tortured wails. I had these violent impulses at the age of 10. This phase lasted about two years, until my parents brought me a puppy whom I genuinely loved. I hardly ever meet him now. I started stealing small bottles of shampoo and odd little trinkets from shops, although I stopped when my mother told me that was wrong behaviour. I knowingly stole only once afterwards; on an impulse I picked up coins of different currencies. I was much more intelligent than my peer group (I tested in the low-150s on the Stanford-Binet scale at 14, although I’m well aware that IQ is pseudo-scientific charlatanry) and thus was alienated, but being alone didn’t bother me. I did well in school, but I never aimed for top of the class because it wasn’t worth the extra effort. I find myself inexorably drawn to the depraved and the macabre, watching the Serbian Film for its extreme depictions of rape and necrophilia. I am highly sarcastic, ambitious, well-read and a reckless procrastinator. I have an ambiguous sexual identity; bisexuality is the closest equivalent to my sexual orientation but I can turn it on and off like a switch. My peers find me intimidating; I can silence them with a cold stare and take charge in most situations. I have trouble controlling my temper and heartily enjoy intense arguments/verbal jousts. I have sadistic and highly taboo sexual fantasies. In the few physical altercations I have been involved in, I have always been absolutely cold, calmly using my nails as pincers and slapping at opportune moments. I degrade my opponent in every way I can, regardless of who it is, when provoked; I am not merciful in breaking someone down. I do not have a fear response. My family often quips that my emotional detachment and composure in high-pressure situations makes me suitable for fields like Espionage, Neurosurgery or Trial Law. I do have a high opinion of myself and indulge in the odd flight of fancy but my rational bent of mind safeguards me from delusional thinking. I discarded my first romantic partner after dating him for more than a year when he wasn’t meeting my sexual needs. I find myself fascinated by the exploits of Marquis de Sade and Lord Byron; by accounts and memoirs of serial killers and volatile criminals. My peers tease me by calling me ‘ice princess’; I roll my eyes at the juvenility of the moniker but I find myself vaguely in agreement. I don’t follow a strict moral/ethical framework, but I also don’t fully submit to the pleasure principle- I do not knowingly hurt people, unless circumstances necessitate toughness or they provoke me. I have a very sexually charged presence, and I know just how to push all the right buttons when it comes to men- but I do not manipulate people outside the realm of seduction, although I can cry at will and have used that to my advantage in a few isolated instances. I do not have trouble transitioning from sex siren into an image of temerity and docility if the situation demands it; I do not cede control if I can help it, and feel violated when compelled to. I have near-zero levels of romantic jealousy. I’m also quite attuned to my environment and vacillate between a lack of, and a profound connection with, my body.

My argument against sociopathy would be that I’m often blunt and straightforward, rather than cunning and manipulative. My lying cannot be considered a statistical anomaly. I can form meaningful relationships with other people, but I find it easy to sever contact if their behaviour repulses me. I am currently in a relationship with a man I love very much and am very sexually attracted to. What I feel for him in terms of emotional intensity and depth is what stops me from classifying myself as a sociopath. I did seduce another man outside this relationship, but I did not cheat and came clean about the explicit conversations we’d been having because I couldn’t betray my boyfriend. His happiness was more important than my acting on a vague, capricious impulse. He forgave my transgression, and I severed all contact with the other bloke, who continues to follow me around like a lovestruck puppy. Did I feel guilt? It was more like a series of mechanical decisions, a crude cost-benefit analysis so to speak, rather than actual guilt. But the important thing to keep in mind here is that I came clean. That is what necessitated the cost-benefit analysis in the first place. I suppose I did feel vaguely remorseful. I see my current partner as an extension of myself- and have been involved in a physical altercation to protect him from harm.

I have no history of criminal behaviour. I scored a 21 on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. I don’t cry except while watching movies or listening to beautiful music. Fictional portrayals move me more than actual troubles. Perhaps it’s the mundanity in real life that turns me off.

So, where would you class me? 

Sociopath code

A frequent question I get is how can sociopaths be good? Why would sociopaths choose to "do the right thing" if they don't feel the emotion "guilt" like everyone else does?

We all use short cuts to make decisions. It would be impossible for us to make a fully informed, reasoned decision every time such a decision was necessary. Empaths use emotional shortcuts, sociopaths don't/can't, so we come up with some other shortcut. A lot of sociopaths use shortcuts like "anything goes," or "I am only in it for me," but I have also met/talked to many sociopaths who have a more "principled" approach to life. I have met sociopaths who are utilitarian, a la Jeremy Bentham, or even Rawlsian. Some of my readers use religious codes to guide their actions. I use the shortcut of economic efficiency, gap-filled by Judeo-Christian ethics, which for me acts like a mental/emotional exercise regime -- monotonous drudgery, but ultimately good for mental/emotional health. The one thing that sociopath "codes" tend to have in common is that they don't fully map with prevailing social norms.

To my eyes, normal people lack a certain consistency in their sense of right and wrong. I think the American political parties are a good example of this. Why is the christian right against helping poor people? How can big government square with a desire to maximize individual freedoms? I have often wondered why people choose to be "conservative" or "liberal" rather than libertarian or socialist. My mind can't reconcile the seeming inconsistencies like other people's minds do, apparently.

One sort of bad thing about the sociopath's "code" compared to the empaths' is that the empath really drinks the Kool-Aid and believes that their way of life is "right," and has intrinsic meaning and purpose. Sociopaths get no such benefit from our codes, which is why our coping methods for dealing with the world, with all its uncertainties and pointlessness, are not always adequate to keep the darkness out of our minds and hearts.