Sociopaths: net gain or loss?

From a reader:

This is about a one minute clip of David Mitchell, british comedian, talking about atheism and religion in general. I don't know why, but it made me instantly think of your blog and book, and the way you talked about including mormon faith as a guidance in your life. I have had similar thoughts of catholicism and religion in general for quite a long time, and I think Mitchell brings up excellent point, where beliefs are not really there to be right or wrong, but to provide comfort in life. For me, one of the few emotions I experience is void feeling, grasping me from my stomach up my throat, when i think of death. When my consciousness ceases to exist, I am going to be no more. Unimaginable, yet so tempting to think about. I really would like there to be something after we die!


I related with his suggestion that people often mistakenly identify cause and effect relationships. Are religious people war mongering killers? Or do war mongering killers just find a helpful vehicle in religion. And if the former, if we took out religion, would there be fewer wars and deaths? Would something replace it? Is there some offsetting advantage to religion? Perhaps certain aspects of religion increase the likelihood for violence and hatred and other aspects decrease it so that there it's a wash? (Also it's funny that we as a society used to think that it was the godless atheists that were the cause of all the world's horrors, so it's still a little funny to see the opposite argument getting made all of the time).

The religion angle is interesting to me personally, but more interesting for purposes of this blog is the tendency for people to reduce complicated correlations into simple cause and effect relationships where they believe that if they only removed the cause, the effect would stop happening. For instance, if a sociopath wreaks a little bit of havoc and we remove sociopaths, there would be less havoc and the world would overall be better. But will something else take their place? At least in certain circumstances?

Imagine the example of someone who chronically speeds while driving. He gets pulled over by a police officer who cites him for speeding. In some ways the police officer could be seen as the cause of the ticket, but if that particular cop didn't pull him over, does that mean he would never have gotten a speeding ticket that day? Or worse, have gotten in a serious accident? The existence of police officers might seem terrible for speeders, but are speeders actually better off without a particular police officer? Or police officers in general?

The other argument is that even if sociopaths do bad things, could it be possible that they also do good things? Enough good things to make them overall beneficial to society? Isn't that true of most of us? We sometimes cheat on a spouse or don't pay our taxes or lie to our boss or fudge a CV or steal cable or exaggerate a claim for reimbursement, but we also volunteer for our church or coach our son's football team or plan parties for our co-workers' birthdays or mentor young sociopaths? :)

I'm just saying, I've met some people who have asserted that sociopaths cause billions of dollars of damage a year, and part of my does not doubt it, but the other part of me wonders if it's possible that their risk-taking in business and go-getting mentality doesn't earn even more for the people that back them.

I know I've said this before, but from a recent comment, if you dare take a sociopath's word for it:

I absolutely think sociopaths can be morally good people. In fact I would argue that sociopaths have the potential to be more effective citizens of society. Because I am not clouded by emotions as more empathetic people are, I make decisions based on logic, reason, and common sense. I'm charitable, kind, and compassionate because I know that will improve society.

Q&A Tomorrow

When the book came out a year ago (by the way, the paperback came out last week), I promised a Q&A that I never got around to doing in the ensuing fallout. I've been thinking about going on a hiatus for the summer or otherwise being less active on this site, or at least maybe trying that out. But before that, I wanted to do another Q&A. So I'm going to be around tomorrow periodically checking the comments section throughout the day and answering questions that people may have.

To get us in the mood, some Q&A I did with a reader recently:

1) You have attributed your ability to see inconsistencies (in belief systems and behaviors) to your sociopathy. Don't you think that may have more to do with your native intelligence than your personality disorder? I, too, score in the 99th percentile on shit, and I often see inconsistencies in political platforms, news reports, stories friends tell me, etc. I'm also about as empath as you can get.

I do think some of it is intelligence, but also when I used to hang around very smart law professors all of the time, it was also apparent that my different worldview made me see certain things that they wouldn't unless pointed out to them and vice versa.

2) I frequent a few recovery sites for people who have been involved with psychopaths. People often post what "their" psychopaths have said. What struck me about most psychopath apologies is that they often allude to shared blame. Something like: "I'm sorry things turned out the way they did", not "I'm sorry I hurt you." My ex was very fond of citing "miscommunication" as the cause for all of his interpersonal problems, for example. 

It seems to me that the perfect manipulation would be an imitation of a sincere apology, and sincere apologies involve taking responsibility for one's actions. If you really wanted to manipulate someone into sleeping with you again, giving you money, etc., you would say something like, "I take full responsibility for what I did. It was wrong. You didn't deserve that." And then proceed to ask for what you really want. 

Why wouldn't sociopaths imitate a sincere apology? Why is there always a hint of self-justification, which weakens the manipulation significantly?

In fact, why would any truly amoral antisocial person feel the need to justify themselves or their existence? Presumably a desire for self-justification falls on a spectrum, just like anything else. I suppose sociopaths' unwillingness to claim responsibility for their destruction of others reflects their belief that victims are complicit in their destruction. But why wouldn't they even seem to take responsibility

I think the sociopaths are usually being a little sincere in their apologies when they're mixed like that. Sometimes I give insincere apologies, and you're right, they are profuse and over the top and I accept all blame.

3) On the topic of self-justification, you mentioned recently that sociopaths' ruination of others can paradoxically improve their targets. This sounds like disordered thinking to me.

Destroying victims' boundaries and making them feel bad about who they are can make them realize their own worth and, to a lesser extent, rectify their flaws. Sure. But you can achieve the same goal by being kind to someone, becoming their close friend, and then gently suggesting that they improve themselves in a certain way. Sure, it stings a little when a friend tells you that you're not perfect. Once the sting is over, you feel grateful to this friend who helped you understand yourself and improve. It seems to me that there are better, less destructive ways of accomplishing what sociopaths accomplish, and that the ability to "reset" people's character ought not to serve as justification for the widespread destruction.

Targets have told me that, but I do agree it seems a bit of a paradox. Maybe see this.

4) Would you say that the following statements reflect how many sociopaths think?

You have said that sociopaths often see empaths as hypocrites. Empaths have moral codes but do not always follow them, and sometimes (often?) the codes themselves are flawed. For their inconsistencies, empaths deserve to be violated in every possible way - physically, emotionally, and mentally. (You may not feel that way, but that is certainly how my mega-psycho ex thinks.)

This, to me, exemplifies disordered thinking. It also amounts to what is, essentially, a stringent moral code - a strange circumstance for a group of people who call themselves "amoral".
This morality places consistency as the highest good and hypocrisy (really, imperfection) as deserving of severe punishment. (The term "punishment" implies morality, as well. If there really is no good or evil, then there ought to be no justice.)

Consistency is not the highest virtue. You can't say, "I am superior because I am consistently a hedonistic nihilist." One commenter on your blog suggested that, instead of framing this discussion in terms of absolute right and absolute wrong, we should view society as an organism and the actions of individuals as damaging or strengthening that organism. Empaths overall do way more to strengthen the organism. Sociopaths, intentionally or unintentionally, leave severe emotional damage wherever they go. And you yourself have admitted that sociopaths need society. They need the organism, but they often try to justify their damage to its members by citing empaths' "hypocrisy".

Isn't it better to be a "good" person most of the time than a "bad" person all of the time? And by "good", I mean good for something - for society. You yourself have said that sociopaths can do "pro-social" things (your blog being a prime example). If sociopaths think that society's norms are bullshit, who are they to mete out punishment according to their own simplistic sense of right and wrong?

I don't think sociopaths need to see empaths as hypocrites to justify their treatment of them. They were going to treat them that way no matter what, but hey, also they noticed that they're hypocrites. They're basically unrelated in the sociopath's mind, although it makes for good deflection when the sociopath is confronted about his behavior.

5) You talk extensively about your flexible sense of self, yet your writing voice is very consistent. You always sound like "you". How is this possible?

Also, you frequently associate empaths' strong sense of self with "Harry Potter" syndrome. The fascinating thing is that "sense of self" is actually a totally misleading phrase. I don't really have a strong sense of who I am. In fact, my association with a psychopath revealed myself to me in ways I had not anticipated. I cannot act, for example, to save my soul. I hate lying; it makes me uncomfortable. This is a good thing because I can't lie, either. Any time I try to act out of character, it is utterly unconvincing, but at the same time, I'm not really sure what my character looks like. I'm not looking for any sort of external validation of my self (a la Harry Potter) because I'm not really sure who I am or even how I appear to other people. What I'm trying to say here is that I have a self, not a sense of self.  That's why the Harry Potter thing doesn't really ring true, from my perspective.

I feel like I am me the same way that an operating system is a distinct entity. I have an iphone. It operates in particular ways. But I am not that particular model of iphone or version of the operating system. I'm not what I look like or act like in a particular moment. I don't identify with any of my output, only the way I think and process things.

You're not sure of who you are, but wouldn't it be great if someone came up to you and told you exactly who you were? Gave you an identity and said, without a doubt this is you and what you should be doing?

Also, about whether sociopaths are a net gain or loss to society.

Practical empathy

This was an interesting video about the relevance (possibly revolutionizing effect?) of empathy in our society. The video discusses the difference between affective empathy where you feel what another person is feeling, and cognitive empathy, which is about perspective taking or "stepping into somebody else's world."

An interesting assertion was "We make assumptions about people. We have prejudices about people which block us from seeing their uniqueness, their individuality. We make we use labels and highly empathic people get beyond those labels by nurturing their curiosity about others." Do people make assumptions about sociopaths? Do empathic people choose to go beyond those labels by nurturing their curiosity about sociopaths? And if so, is this a net good or net bad?



The video tells the story of how George Orwell tried to nurture his curiosity about the under privileged classes by going on an "empathy adventure", "tramping" about London in disguise, to understand what it felt like to be in the lower classes -- literally putting himself in the shoes of another.

The narrator also discusses the possibility of having empathy not just on a personal level, but on a grander scale -- political, national, religious, etc. As an example, he tells the story of the English abolitionists who got former slaves to share their experiences as slaves, which movement eventually led to the illegalization of slavery.

The narrator talks about how traditionally people try to empathize with the downtrodden, but argues that we should be more adventurous in who we try to empathize with and to focus on more practical and strategic purposes of empathy, e.g. empathizing those in power because "only then are we going to be able to adopt effective strategies" for social transformation. Similarly, he thinks the gap between what we know about climate change and what we do about climate change is also due to a lack of empathy, particularly individuals failing to empathize with people on the other side of the world and people who have yet to be born.

The thing I found interesting about this video was that (1) it was very practically and not morally based analysis of empathy and (2) although the narrator only made the distinction once, he basically was only talking about the practical usefulness of cognitive empathy. I don't think that means that affective empathy is never useful, but it has its limitations in time and space. For instance, it's difficult to say that you are feeling the emotions of people you have never met and know nothing about. Similarly, it should be impossible to say that you are feeling the emotions of people who have yet to be even born. And yet we can feel cognitive empathy for these people by trying to imagine what it might be like to be them. If we exercise our cognitive empathy by putting ourselves in their shoes like George Orwell did, our perspective will broaden and we will get greater insight into not only the institutions of the world that we live in, but also perhaps some insight into our own selves. The good news is that anyone with theory of mind can practice cognitive empathy, including sociopaths, who actually do it perhaps better than most.

More on trying to gain more awareness of our own minds:

Bully's bully

I've always considered myself a bully's bully. Bullies are particularly attractive targets to me because they are very adept at swaying the beliefs and behavior of mobs. As I have said before, mob mentality freaks me out. I feel like attacking the bully is like cutting off the head of the mythical mob beast, or to mix a metaphor, a mob is nothing without its ringleader.

Recently I have been exposed to a bully in a work setting. I never had much interaction with this person before, and then only in positive ways, which was why I was so surprised when a coworker of mine confided that this person makes his work life hell. This particular bully doesn't have any real authority. If anything, my coworker friend is the bully's superior, so the bully is always careful to cover any suspicious activity with passive aggressive behavior. The bully also preemptively attacks my friend's character and credibility so when/if my friend ever complains, he's not going to seem credible. This is a classic manipulative tool, making it seem like your target has a personal vendetta against you so when he reacts (seemingly unprovoked), he = crazy and you = victim. (I feel like this is the plot of many a cat/dog fighting antique cartoon. I also feel like sociopath may have been the inventor of the popular myth -- the completely unjustified personal vendetta.)

Before my friend warned me, I was lulled by the bully's seeming good-nature and charms. I disclosed valuable information, like what projects I was involved with, how things were working out, etc. The bully lulled me into a false sense of security by talking about his own personal details -- disappointing children, bumps in the road of life, etc. The bully did not seem like a threat at all, and I started to question my friend's assessment. But the bully quickly showed his true colors -- yelling, screaming, picking on his legitimate inferiors. I suddenly saw so clearly how the bully was targeting me indirectly -- asking me about my current projects because he wanted to help me fail.

As the bully was saying goodnight to everyone, I pulled him aside, put my hand on his shoulder and said, "You know, I have to apologize to you.Ii made a joke this morning that was in poor taste. You asked how everything was going with my new project and I said 'So far so good.' I didn't mean to imply that i wasn't giving the project my full attention and skill. On the contrary, I am 100% dedicated to the success of this project. I think I was just trying to be self-deprecating, but I realize now that the joke fell flat." Such a non sequitor, uncomfortably sincere apology where no apology was expected will always catch the receiving party off-guard. Granted, the apology was really for nothing, it was really more of a brag. All the better. It confuses the receiving party and makes him feel as if you are very sensitive/weak/vulnerable (even though you aren't), and therefore not at all a threat. They suddenly feel as if they too should be apologizing about things, or explaining, or something -- ANYTHING -- just to fill the oppressively awkward silence while you keep staring into their eyes with your hand meaningfully on their shoulder. I stood there and listened to the bully spill. "Well, it's true that the last few people in charge of that project got fired, and I was just thinking, maybe... but maybe you'll be different..." See what has happened here? I have forced my opponent to show his hand. He has acknowledged that he is aware of what my project is (even though he pretended to have no clue the day before), its history, its importance, his obvious interest in it, etc. It doesn't really matter if his cards are aces or deuces, in a world where bluffing and image mean everything (or almost everything), I immediately gain the upper hand. And he knows it.

The next day I was all deflection. He asked me a question, and I gave him a non-answer and asked him questions back, even for the most meaningless of things. "What did you get for lunch?" "Oh you know, same old. What did you get for lunch?" "What are you working on now?" "Little this, little that. What are you working on?" The terser the answer, the more offputting it is, like someone returning your baseline hits from the net. You pin him there. You want him to know that for every worthless piece of information he may get from you, you are getting twice the value and 10X the number. The bully, now desperate and sensing the shift in power, quickly progressed from "chummy" sideways questions to direct inquiries. "So how did that project turn out yesterday? Did it get approved?" Wouldn't you like to know.

Moral of this story: empaths who complain about sociopaths, who do you think will fight the bullies among you if we're not around? Empaths can be just as horrible (if not more so) than sociopaths, and some of them don't even realize it. If we are all locked up in your dream sociopath gulag, who will protect you from yourselves? We may not be the only ones who can beat you at your own little bully games, but we are certainly the most ruthlessly efficient about it.