Love the sinner, hate the sin?

From a very old comment, a concept that many find difficult or nonsensical:

Sam Harris makes this argument in his book "Free Will". If you "get" this line of thinking, you stop blaming people and you stop experiencing pride and shame, because all those are based on the idea that there is a "you" that "freely chooses" to do things that are either bad (blame), good (pride) or bad (shame). 

The best parts of his book relate to psychopaths like Uday Hussein and how we ought to kill them (of course) while loving them (because they aren't blameworthy). It is a very Epicurean/Stoic/zen approach to things, free of the faulty assumptions that almost all humans share - which is quite sociopathic. 

Choosing the sociopath

A reader writes:

Just read your book, and I thought it was fascinating stuff.

I have a question about Morgan, though. You talk about her losing her job, falling into eating disorders and drug abuse. You say you can't take all the "credit" for her decline, and I know you don't feel an ounce of remorse, but do you think her decline would have occurred if you had never met?

My response:

Actually, in this case, I think it would have. You may be surprised to hear that we are still very good friends, we probably talk a few times a week on the phone. After she went to several treatment facilities and spend some time in 12 step programs, she really turned her life around and is now making six figures in a high-powered job with a side business that is her passion and that fulfills her creative outlets.

I certainly don't think that messing with her during that time somehow led her to this good result. But I do feel like as a result of our interactions she adopted a lot of my ways of thinking and looking at herself with a harsh brutality that allowed her to, finally when she was ready, look at herself with unflinching honesty and make the changes necessary -- to eliminate her personal obstructions to her success and continued growth as a person.

The thing is, and this is what I had hoped to communicate in the book but maybe was unclear on, people like that are seeking self-destruction and they will get it in any form, whether it is from me their friendly sociopath friend, or from drugs and alcohol, or from cutting, or from self sabotage of any other form that seems to appeal to them in that moment. When someone seems hellbent on self destruction, it's easy to villainize the drug dealer (or bartender? or Hostess cupcakes? or gambling establishments? or escort for hire?) or the the sociopath friend because they're a handy target but they're of course more the method than the root cause in a guns don't kill people sort of way. This may not actually be true, but I have found that people on this path to obliterate themselves or their life, at least partially and for whatever reason, will continue that way no matter what you do or how you react to them until they are ready themselves to change. I'd be very interested to hear other people's opinions about this, but am less interested in bystanders' random thoughts than from people who have actually experienced this first hand. 

(It's a little popular on this blog to take the Sam Harris side of life and say that people don't have as much choice as we often think we do, but I think when it comes to people's involvement with sociopaths I think there is often more choice and responsibility there than some would like to acknowledge. It's not like sociopaths have an otherworldly superhypnosis ability to compel people into engaging in activities that they would never do without compulsion.) 

Perhaps surprisingly, I think that because I was willing to indulge her on these activities rather being preachy, I am one of the few friends that she still has from that time period. With the other friends of that era, I believe that she either gave up on them, or they gave up on her. In fact, I know that I am one of only a few friends from longer than a couple years that she stays in regular contact with, and that she would consider me her best friend.

For some reason this reminded me of this recent comment on a not so fresh post:

My father is narcissistic. I was his favoured child, his very best billboard. Which is as much as to say I was the most codependent. 

No one can keep up with my father.

I won't labour the details other than to say I was fertile ground for the most charming of seductive sociopaths.

That whole affair woke me the fuck up. I like referring to this gentleman (with whom I still work) as our Friendly Neighbourhood Psychopath (FNP).

He gave me the red pill stuffed inside a Koko Black chocolate. Delicious. He set me free in the Matrix while everyone else dreams. I see the world in an utterly different way now; in which society is a context rather than a constraint; that rules are mere control; that morality is instinctive, a social adaptation to keep us cooperating and not excluded from our place by the campfire; that we are merely organisms in a perennial competition for resources. All that PLUS neurotypicals *are* wired for connection. And we dwindle when we don't get it (hence all the weeping socios cause). You know, I really didn't know this last point. 

I crave the FNP 'cause his games and his sex hit some dopamine high notes. Not to mention his beauty and intelligence. His intelligence and thrill seeking are - surprise, surprise - reminiscent of my father's.

Yet not even the FNP could keep pace with my narcissistic father (the food chain, the food chain, oh that is a story!) No one can. And I wonder if the rhythms my father set as the cadence of my life can ever be changed.

All this stuff about love - I learnt many things from the FNP and the best thing I learned was self-sufficiency. By this I mean integration, living in accordance with your own nature. An adult should be able to look after their own emotional needs and for a neurotypical, this involves thriving in community. Socios must live in community too and it is a tension for them.

We all have our struggles. I take my lessons from running head on into life and to be frank, it's the best way to change. Emotional and novel experiences provide fertile ground for remodelling the brain. 

I keep a vision of being integrated, adventurous and thriving... but those games, baby, are better than sex (and that's saying something!) Dear me, perhaps I still have some lessons to learn the hard way (counts down to next meeting in T - 10d while we are both obliged by the court to refrain from contacting the other)

Yeah, so that's my struggle. I do want a companion. And it's better to be honest about that lest the FNP play his pipe again to that tune. 

Free will = not what you think it is

This is an interesting lecture from philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris about how the common conception of free will is not scientifically supported. Specifically he debunks two assumptions on the popular conception of free will: (1) we are each free to think and act differently than we did in the past ("you became a police man, but you could have become a firefighter") and (2) we are the conscious source of our thoughts and actions, i.e. we feel like we want to do something so we do that thing. The problem with these assumptions is that "Everything that could possibly constitute your will is either the product of a long chain of prior causes, so you're not responsible for them, or it's the product of randomness, and you're not responsible for that, obviously, or it's some combination of the two."

He has an interesting analogy at the beginning about a man sleeping in a park and getting his face bitten off by an alligator versus a man with the axe. The result is the same, but people hate the man and not the crocodile because wWhat else is a crocodile going to do, coming upon you napping in the park" whereas a man is allegedly in control of his actions.

Another interesting assertion: "Most people imagine that a belief in free will is necessary for morality. . . . The difference between happiness and suffering exists without free will." Still, there are a lot of interesting implications for morality. At 46:00 he talks about how we can make reasonable distinctions between premeditated and impulsive crime given that free will doesn't exist. punishment, morality, etc.

"In specific cases we have already changed our view of evil. Whenever we see the cause of someone's behavior, when we see for instance that a murderer had a brain tumor . . . so as to explain his violent impulses, that person suddenly becomes a victim of biology. Our moral intuitions shift utterly. Now I'm arguing that a brain tumor is just a special case of physical events giving rise to thoughts and actions. If we fully understood the neurophysiology of any murderer's brain, it would be as exculpatory as finding a tumor in it. If we could see how the wrong genes were being relentlessly transcribed, if we could see how his early life experience had sculpted the micro structure in his brain in just such a way as to give rise to violent impulses, the whole conception of placing blame on him would erode."