Depressed sociopath?

My therapist says (something like, forgive my rough paraphrases) that a lot of people have the symptoms of depression without having actual depression -- that people can have the symptom of depression without having the clinical diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Maybe this is obvious to some, but I feel like it's kind of gotten lost in the past decade or so as a concept. I think it's gotten pretty common for people to believe that if their symptoms of depression last for more than a few weeks, then they have Depression (capital D). The therapist says often what is actually happening is the person has particular beliefs or expectations that are not being met. From Psychology Today:

"I must be loved." "I must do well." These are classic rational emotive philosophies, or mind styles, that foster depression. There may be beliefs about the world: "The world should recognize me." Or "I need a guarantee of success, otherwise it's too hard to live with my dreams and hopes." A belief that things must go your way can lead to very destructive rage: "The world must see me fairly and favorably, otherwise the world is contemptible."

Things like that. And when they're not met there is frustration (and maybe rage). When the frustration continues, the person loses hope that the world can ever be made right in a way that comports with their beliefs. The hopelessness becomes despair (literally "loss of hope"). Your body and mind can't stand to feel despair for longer than a week or two, so it numbs the feeling -- all feelings actually, the same way that your overwhelmed body might go unconscious in reaction to severe pain.

So I've heard from a bunch of people that identify as being sociopathic but have also experienced or are currently experiencing depression and wonder how the two could possibly co-exist, but sociopaths have wrong beliefs about the way the world should work just as much as other people (maybe sociopaths do not have as many wrong beliefs as a normal person, because they are less susceptible to socialization, but having a personality disorder by definition means you have some wrong beliefs). When failed expectation turns to frustration and frustration turns to loss of hope that things will work out the way they seem to need to, depression.

From a reader:

The reason for this email is to determine whether I'm a sociopath or not. Which must be 75% of your emails. I've read your book and It's lead me to thinking I'm a sociopath. I seem to exhibit a lot of sociopathy symptoms but there are a few contradicting aspects to my personality. Which is why I'm hoping you can help me determine whether I am a sociopath or not. I've always knew I was different since I was little. I was dubbed "The Weirdo". Though growing up I quickly learned how to befriend these people and was soon able to become a member of any social group. Despite this 'acceptance' to any group I still knew that I was different and everything I did to be a part of these groups was fake. Before reading your book I attempted to determine what made me different. After a view internet searches I started relating to people living with Asperger's syndrome. I went as far as visiting a doctor to be diagnosed. I was sent to an autism centre and I was asked a myriad of questions. I dropped all of my façades and answered them honestly. They told me that my answers showed signs of Asperger's but some of my behaviour contradicted this. When I probed for specifics they told me I locked eye contact with the interviewer which is usually difficult for someone with Asperger's. They asked If I could attend another appointment but this time to bring my mother. I declined as I felt that my contradicting behaviours was enough to convince me I didn't have Asperger's. Since then I gave up on figuring out why I stood apart from my peers. It wasn't until I read your book that my interest was reignited. As I said before I show signs of being sociopathic.

I fail to read a lot of social cues and get very angry when someone tries to make me feel guilty for my actions. I become very bored, very quickly, especially when it comes to my job and my interests. I got straight As in high school but didn't attend university as I knew that there was nothing that I could dedicate 4 uyears of my life to and still be interested. Since then I've been a bartender; a sales agent; a bee-keeper; a funeral director and embalmer; a full time male escort and now I'm currently teaching English in China. These jobs usually require previous experience but I'm managed to persuade my way into these positions only to become bored and move onto the next best thing. To blend in with these careers my personality changes. Embalming [NAME] differs from the [NAME] my childhood friends know and that [NAME completely differs from [NAME] in China. I seem to seek out what is needed in a group and become that person. This is not even mentioning my male escort persona, which brings me to my sexuality.

You noted that a fluid sexuality is one of the give aways to a sociopath. I had a lot of girlfriends and I did 'love' them but again, just like my career path or my interests, I become bored and I move on. I'd like to highlight that one of my ex-girlfriends, who was obsessed with Twilight, literally believed I was a vampire which you stated in your book is a creature that has a sociopathic nature. After an x amount of girlfriends I became curious about the same sex and, mostly to vex my mother, I came out as gay but like everything in my life this title, along with it's shock factor, bored me and I gravitated back to girls identifying as straight. Currently when people ask me what my sexuality is, since having a defining sexual identity is the 'in' thing now, I simply say I go for personality since I have no real preference.

I could go on about my sociopathic traits but I want to mention the parts of me that contradict being a sociopath. I don't have feelings towards humans, I've manipulated them and used them, but I do have a desire to be their friend. I meet some people and I try and manipulate them into being my friend not to use but because I crave the companionship. I have no feelings towards human but I have a big heart for animals. I love animals. I don't need to act for them and it saddens me to see an animal heart which I feel goes against being a sociopath. Finally I have a a lot of depressive traits. If my 'mask' slips and I'm caught, it can knock me into a depression. For example I was out drinking last night with friends and half way through the night I started observing the situation and failing to find the point in any of it. From that point on I stopped trying in conversation and cut short my niceties. When my friends noticed and confronted me, I became down and went home. I remember it being mentioned in your book that sociopaths don't really get depressed. Using the evidence I've given you can you help me find out whether I am sociopath or not?

The morality of sociopaths, clueless, and losers

I have forgotten how I got linked to this (sorry twitter people or emailers!), but it is a further explanation of the Gervais Principle, previously discussed on this blog, in which the author discusses the relative roles of the losers, the clueless, and the sociopaths in a modern work environment. The author, Venkatesh Rao, makes clear that he is not necessarily talking about clinically diagnosed sociopaths, but the way he defines them does share a lot of overlap with at least a certain subset of clinically diagnosable sociopaths:

I originally characterized “sociopath” as will-to-power people. Let me add a few more characteristics.

First, sociopaths are driven by unsentimental observation of external realities, no matter how unpleasant. Second, they use the information they acquire through reality-grounding in skilled ways. Third, their distrust of subsuming communities and groups leads them to adopt personal moralities. Whether good or evil, the morality of a sociopath is something he or she takes responsibility for.

Finally, and most importantly, sociopaths do not seek legitimacy for their private morality from the group, justify it, or apologize for it. They may attempt to evade the consequences of their behavior. In fact their personal morality may legitimize such evasion.  Equally, they may, out of realistic and pragmatic assessments, allow themselves to be subject to codified group morality (such as a legal or religious system), that they privately disagree with. So they might accept consequences they feel they do not deserve, because they assess attempts at rebellion to be futile. But in all cases, they reserve for themselves the right to make all moral judgments. Their private morality is not, in their view, a matter for external democractic judgment.

So yes, this entire edifice I am constructing is a determinedly amoral one. Hitler would count as a sociopath in this sense, but so would Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

In all this, the source of the personality of this archetype is distrust of the group, so I am sticking to the word “sociopath” in this amoral sense. The fact that many readers have automatically conflated the word “sociopath” with “evil” in fact reflects the demonizing tendencies of loser/clueless group morality. The characteristic of these group moralities is automatic distrust of alternative individual moralities. The distrust directed at the sociopath though, is reactionary rather than informed.

It then goes on to contrast this group, characterized by the members' personal morality, with the clueless and the losers:

The key here is that the clueless and losers often externalize their moral sense, into some sort of collectively (and ritually) adopted code, thereby abdicating responsibility for the moral dimension of their actions entirely. You don’t have to think about the morality of what you do if you can just appeal to some code (religious texts are the main kind, but there are others, such as Hippie or Joe the Plumber codes). The morality that they defer to is always a codified communal version of the views of some charismatic sociopath, but it is the abdication of responsibility, as a group, by the clueless and losers, that amplifies the impact of both the Hitlers and Gandhis of the world. Without this group dynamic, Hitler would have been a random local psycho, perhaps serial-killing a dozen people. Gandhi might have been no more than a friendly neighborhood do-gooder.

Which implies, by the way, that organized religion is incompatible with sociopathy.

This entire view can be disturbing to some of you, so take a step back here. What do you fear most?An evil group or an evil person? Read Shirley Jackson’s thoroughly scary story of group insanity, The Lottery. Watch Children of the Corn. Would you rather live in a town where there is a sole vampire terrorizing the population, or be the sole non-zombie in a town that has gone all-zombie? Ask yourself, who scares you more — Hitler or the mindless army he inspired? Would you prefer the tyranny of a dictator or the tyranny of an illiberal democracy, where a mob tramples over individuals? Dictators can be overthrown. Can an evil group culture be as easily displaced?


I don’t want to offer flippant and easy solutions to these age-old moral conundrums. I just want to point out to those who are equating “sociopath” with “evil” (modulo any semantic confusion) that morality needs to be looked at in more complex ways.

Reading people

I liked this comment from a while ago:

Being able to read people to an irregularly deep degree isn't exclusively the province of sociopaths and headcases, they're just the poster children because there's something about the juxtaposition of understanding and predatory apathy that appeals to sheep. Sort of like why people are fascinated by the myth of the vampire, as long as it can be tamed and made 'comfortable' to their understanding of the world(*coughTwilightcough*).

But no. In my experience, people dislike being understood because there's always a chasm of difference separating the person they project themselves as being from the person they really are. A man I know, to pull an example from my hat, wants to be seen as suave, genius in his chosen field of study, worldly but still passionate about geeky things, a great gentleman with regards to women, etc. He doesn't want to be regularly acquainted with someone who sees him for the flaws he so desperately ignores or explains away underneath the exterior projection. They always want to project those flaws on you if they're afraid you understand them: I've had problems in the past with one specific group of my friends who has known me a long time and also is aware of at least some of my aptitude for reading people's patterns to an uncomfortably accurate degree. I've only ever had this problem with this one group, but reliably, whenever I would be seen as getting close to a member of the group, certain individuals would go out of their way to 'poison the well' so to speak and cast doubt on me, belittle me, or do whatever it took to keep that person away from me. Had I ever displayed malicious intent towards any of my close friends? Nah. I hadn't used them and discarded them, screwed them over, or done anything socially or morally unacceptable to them. But nonetheless they would cast me as a coward, deceiver, 'weird', and so forth as a means of isolating me because they feared me, and that I would bring their whole game crashing down if I got too involved. That's the conundrum I found myself in, with them: I made certain that they respected me, but as Machiavelli so famously made into an axiom, the only way to do that reliably is fear if you can't elicit love.

I think it ties into that primal instinct of 'us and them', where 'us' is the people playing the game 'by the rules', so to speak. The rules are that people want to feel good, enjoy humor and having their ego scratched, and make memories with other people that they can point to, whenever they want to reminisce about how awesome they are. Anyone who doesn't play the game, or who plays it differently, is 'them'. That includes people who see that most of the game is bullshit posturing, If you expose yourself as someone who doesn't observe a particular set of rules, the traditional social response is persecution and isolation. That's how groups maintain themselves, from street gangs (where the persecution usually comes in nine millimeters) to the social elite.

Vampires vs. zombies

Vampire movies and television are a guilty pleasure of mine. I like them because I think there are fun parallels to my own life. I watch zombie movies or television because I think there are fun parallels to the way everyone else lives their lives. That's why I enjoyed this article in the New York Times so much, "My Zombie, Myself: Why Modern Life Feels Rather Undead."

A lot of modern life is exactly like slaughtering zombies.

IF THERE’S ONE THING we all understand about zombie killing, it’s that the act is uncomplicated: you blast one in the brain from point-blank range (preferably with a shotgun). That’s Step 1. Step 2 is doing the same thing to the next zombie that takes its place. Step 3 is identical to Step 2, and Step 4 isn’t any different from Step 3. Repeat this process until (a) you perish, or (b) you run out of zombies. That’s really the only viable strategy.

Every zombie war is a war of attrition. It’s always a numbers game. And it’s more repetitive than complex. In other words, zombie killing is philosophically similar to reading and deleting 400 work e-mails on a Monday morning or filling out paperwork that only generates more paperwork, or following Twitter gossip out of obligation, or performing tedious tasks in which the only true risk is being consumed by the avalanche. The principal downside to any zombie attack is that the zombies will never stop coming; the principal downside to life is that you will be never be finished with whatever it is you do.
***
This is our collective fear projection: that we will be consumed. Zombies are like the Internet and the media and every conversation we don’t want to have. All of it comes at us endlessly (and thoughtlessly), and — if we surrender — we will be overtaken and absorbed. Yet this war is manageable, if not necessarily winnable. As long we keep deleting whatever’s directly in front of us, we survive. We live to eliminate the zombies of tomorrow. We are able to remain human, at least for the time being. Our enemy is relentless and colossal, but also uncreative and stupid.

Battling zombies is like battling anything ... or everything.

“I know this is supposed to be scary,” [a friend] said. “But I’m pretty confident about my ability to deal with a zombie apocalypse. I feel strangely informed about what to do in this kind of scenario.”

I could not disagree. At this point who isn’t? We all know how this goes: If you awake from a coma, and you don’t immediately see a member of the hospital staff, assume a zombie takeover has transpired during your incapacitation. Don’t travel at night and keep your drapes closed. Don’t let zombies spit on you. If you knock a zombie down, direct a second bullet into its brain stem. But above all, do not assume that the war is over, because it never is. The zombies you kill today will merely be replaced by the zombies of tomorrow. But you can do this, my friend. It’s disenchanting, but it’s not difficult. Keep your finger on the trigger. Continue the termination. Don’t stop believing. Don’t stop deleting. Return your voice mails and nod your agreements. This is the zombies’ world, and we just live in it. But we can live better.

I say that this is how everyone else lives their lives, but my life is remarkably similar. Someone asked me recently why do I seduce people, why do I play games, what's the point? I guess I wasn't aware there was some other choice for how to live your life other than find things that keep you engaged and entertained. But yes, empaths play one version of this game, and I guess we play another, and you can say that one is about love or emotions and that is somehow better than having it be about power and winning, but is it? Seems like a matter of personal preference.

The definitive sociopath test?

I was talking with a socio reader about the possibility of someone developing a foolproof method for identifying/diagnosing sociopaths (e.g. brain scans), and what that would mean in terms of our own sense of self and identity:

You know, I have given a lot of thought over the last year about whether this sociopath label really does fit or if I am trying to make it fit when it really doesn’t. As we both agree, in the end it doesn’t really matter anyway. The value of the exercise for me though, was conceptualizing my life experience in an entirely different but ultimately much more enlightening way. That is what matters.

I think the people that say that you and your readers are not sociopaths are right and wrong. They are right to the degree that people like us are indeed not like the prison/institutionalized population. Obviously. They are wrong to then surmise that the label has little to no direct link to what is referred to the suite of behaviors collectively referred to as sociopathy. Everyone assumes all sociopaths must look exactly like the ones in prison and if you don’t, the label can have zero relevance to you (or me). That assumption is based on a lack of research as well as a lack of independent thinking. I know. Even as I don’t wrap myself up with that label or identify all of myself with it, I nevertheless recognize it’s utility. I don’t have to say any of this to you. I’m preaching to the choir.

Bottom line for me anyway, is that I wouldn’t be shocked to discover that my brain looks normal. It really could be that those psychopaths whose brains look different are different in precisely those ways that gave rise to behaviors that landed them in prison to begin with. It might go back to the whole primary versus secondary psychopath distinction. The primaries may be the way they are because of their brains while the secondaries may be the way they are because of social/childhood issues. Maybe you and I would fall under the secondary category. Who knows? Although I do think it would be interesting to have more scientific research done on this, research involving an entirely non-institutionalized population of would be sociopaths. There would be many correlations between the two groups I’m sure (prison verses non-imprisoned), but I imagine there would also be some interesting and maybe even startling differences. While we’d share traits like a relative absence of conscience, low empathy, shallow emotions, an aptness for deception and manipulation, grandiose sense of self, etc, all the traits that set us apart from the psychological average, there might be some very important reasons why you and I aren’t in prison while the prototypical sociopaths are. Has there been any research done in this particular area?

Having said all of that, an exciting possibility that the naysayers brings up is that maybe we are so different that no one has thought of a label for us yet. Maybe we aren’t sociopaths at all. Maybe we represent undiscovered country, psychologically speaking. Who knows?

In any event, finding out your brain looks perfectly normal wouldn’t change a thing about your life experience up to this point, would it? It would be like a homosexual (I like using homosexuals as examples) discovering that his brain looks precisely like a heterosexual’s would. So what? Would that knowledge change him into a hetero? Would he suddenly start liking women? Would the results of this scan invalidate everything he’d been through his entire life? Would he have to force himself to like women because a brain scan indicates that his preference for men may have more to do with how he grew up and less to do with his genes and hormones? I don’t think anyone would seriously suggest that other than the religious fundies. I think it would be similar for you (and for me). Ditto for Hare’s checklist. I have already surmised that I wouldn’t score high enough on his list to justify labeling me as a Hare psychopath. I’m guesstimating that I’d get somewhere between a 22 and 26 tops and in the US, you have to score 30. What would it mean to have that guess proved right if the test was administered to by Hare himself? Not much.

I asked myself why I did the verbal diarrhea thing with this response. It’s because your email struck a chord. I spent so many years trying to be normal. I kept thinking that if I found my calling or found my true love (that was back at the beginning of my search phase, in my early twenties… my ex-wife quickly disabused me of that fantasy), found god, found spiritual enlightenment, I would then be full of all those emotions I lacked. I thought it was the absence of these things that created the absence, the vacancy, I saw within myself. That’s what movies and books and TV and my family and friends all told me in one way or the other. I was stupid and blind enough to believe them. It wasn’t until a few years ago, when the search began to look like the dead end it was, that I finally started giving up hope. During that winding down period I had my “wow, I have went about my search in an entirely self centered way” insight. You know the drill, seducing, manipulating, then abandoning once I discovered that the other person or persons didn’t have what I was looking for. I hadn’t thought of it that way at all up until that moment of insight. I suppose that in a very real sense, I discovered that I was a bit of an emotional vampire. A year or so later, I found your blog and for the first time, someone else had my experiences. Someone else knew what I had gone through because they had gone through life in a very similar way. Even down to the moment in your childhood when you knew something had changed and that you couldn’t go back! I’d never told any of my closest friends or family that, yet you’d been through it yourself! Finding out my brain looks normal wouldn’t alter any of that. Not one single bit. In fact and if anything, it would only deepen the mystery. If we can’t point to any specific neural distinctions, then what the hell created the differences? Why do I not understand guilt on an emotional level after all these years? Why are my emotions so superficial? Why don’t I have a stable sense of self? Etc.

Ok, I’ll stop now. You just got me thinking for a bit, that’s all. What would it mean to you to discover that per your brain scan or per Hare’s checklist, you can’t possibly be a socio/psychopath?

It's funny, how we're always going on about self-awareness and self-knowledge, trying to ferret out or at least understand any delusions. Sometimes I wonder if so much self-introspection can actually create delusions, though. I know how easy (sickly easy) it is for me to compartmentalize and have one part of me trick the other part. I've done it in the past and lived lies for years. Am I currently in the middle of a delusion? Is everything I think I know about who I am and what sort of world I live in completely delusional? Including being socio-leaning?

Sometimes I think to myself, if my life depended on it, would it be easier for me to prove that I am a sociopath, or that I am not. Interestingly, I think it is my "sociopathic" traits that would make either scenario seem about equally likely or unlikely. There does seem to be something to it all, though, something consistent between me and other people that find me at this site, although I'm not wedded to the term "sociopath." Sometimes it's creepy what I discover in common with those who email me. Whatever I am, there must be a lot of others like me.

Thin line between Aspie and sociopath?

A lot of people who write me show signs of both, maybe not quite fitting either. For instance:

Thanks so much for your fabulous book, which has really helped me to understand myself. I know (partly because you specifically say so in the book) that many of your readers say this, but I see so much of you in me and me in you.

I've always known that I'm different, given my inability and disinclination to form deep emotional bonds and to make personal sacrifices for the sake of morality. I once thought that I might be have Aspergers Syndrome, as it's a common condition among geeks like me, but there are some characteristics of Aspies that I can't relate to at all, most notably their tendency to feel genuine remorse when they finally realise that they've hurt someone.

Until recently I didn't believe that I could be a sociopath because I was prone to worry and upset, and because I thought that I was terrible at playing the game. However, since being medicated for anxiety and depression I've become much less susceptible to distress, and your book has helped me to understand why I don't always win (as I previously assumed that sociopaths do) when playing the game - like you I crave stimulation, this unfortunately means that I have a tendency to throw away the game in favour of the momentary thrill of riling someone up.

Also like you, I struggle to react appropriately to other people's confusing social cues (the main reason I thought I was an Aspie), and must train myself to behave with "sensitivity". Although I'm almost your age I'm not as far along as you in that regard, but I'm making progress (I think about half the people I meet today find me charming, as opposed to about 10% when I was in high school), and your success gives me hope that I'll eventually develop into a convincing wolf in sheep's clothing, able to form long lasting relationships (like you, I'm not completely immune to loneliness) and to keep a job for more than a couple of years. However, I have no desire to become an empath, even if that were possible - over the last few years a series of setbacks destroyed my supreme confidence, feeling like I was just like everyone else was so horrible that I went to my doctor to get doped up.

I know that some people think that my life - directionless, meaningless, and solitary (like the fictional vampire you mention, I didn't seek out a lonely existence but I live one to the fullest) - must be terribly sad. I don't give a damn, in fact, one of the things that I really like about going to restaurants, movies, etc., alone is that it's defiant. I just love making others uncomfortable, watching them squirm as they decide whether to confront my violations of social norms - I feel empowered doing it, even though I know that, in the long run, making enemies erodes my power base. I'm not as big a risk taker as you though, my taunting of others is usually limited to staring at people (like you I have a predator stare, I used to think that my unusual eye contact habits meant I was an Aspie, but I can make normal eye contact, I just choose not to) and flaunting my high carbon footprint lifestyle (environmentalists are my favourite targets, partly because their ridiculous irrationality and hypocrisy invites it, partly because, like you, I find it infuriating when someone tries for force me to experience guilt or shame).

On the subject of the hypocrisy of empaths, I found your discussion of East of Eden's Cathy (whose insight into the frailties of others leads her to conclude that people are gross hypocrites and wholly unworthy of her respect) absolutely fascinating. Unlike you, I've never had anyone teach me that empaths are "just like me" (I've never had any close relationships - my megomanical father and highly anxious mother were always cold to me, my relationship with my brother is very competitive, and I've never bothered to build close friendships or long lasting romantic relationships), all I see when I interact with other human beings is hypocrisy - they judge me for being inconsiderate, yet they don't consider my needs when push comes to shove (during my depressive episode most of my "friends" avoided me and my boss and colleagues pushed me out of my job). I haven't read East of Eden but I'm going to, I've been making an effort to read more fiction since I heard that Aspies are told to read fiction to learn (the very useful skill) cognitive empathy.

Anyway, you may or may not hear from me again - I've become an avid follower of your blog but I'm a lurker, like you I think that we learn much more when we just listen (or read, as the case may be). I think that you've achieved your goal of creating a community of like-minded individuals who have a lot to learn from one another - thanks again.

Sincerely (or as sincerely as a likely sociopath can write),
C.

I have a personal interest in solving the mystery. A lot of my relatives seem to have one foot in both aspie and sociopath camp. Does anyone else fall along this border?

Literature: Interview with the Vampire (part 2)

The other selections from Interview with the Vampire that I thought were interesting included this one about apparent inconsistencies, particularly with regard to being able to feel but also being detached:

You ask me about feeling and detachment. One of its aspects, detachment with feeling, I should say, is that you can think of two things at the same time. You can think that you are not safe and may die, and you can think of something very abstract and remote. And this was definitely so with me.

I think this accurately describes sociopaths as well.  Sociopaths are notorious for holding two inconsistent views at the same time.  I believe this is due to their exceptional ability to compartmentalize.  This ability to compartmentalize also manifests itself in the way sociopaths feel and express feelings -- sometimes there, sometimes not really there at all, sometimes an inappropriate emotion.

I realize that normal people are also quite capable of being grossly inconsistent, but for some reason I feel like there is a difference there.  I believe that people who do that successfully are employing extensive amounts of self-deception, whereas a sociopath is more likely to see every distinction collapsing in on itself at a certain level of abstraction and so there is no such thing as "inconsistent."

Another quote was from a vampire about his choice not to exercise the influence he naturally would have had being the eldest among them:

If I exercise such power, then I must protect it. I will make enemies. And I would have forever to deal with my enemies when all I want here as a certain space, a certain peace. Or not to be here at all. I accept the scepter of sorts they've given me,but not to rule over them, only to keep them at a distance.

This was also brought up in the book "Power", this issue of whether and when people choose to cultivate power.  Sometimes I would read things in "Power" and think, yes, I guess that is a form of power to take over the planning and production of a charity event, but for what purpose?  Maybe some people (control freaks) would choose to take on thankless, go nowhere jobs for the sake of power, but I don't tend to be one of them.  It's the same reason why I don't really think most high profile politicians are sociopaths but more likely narcissists.  I believe there is too much thankless work required to achieve power as an elected public official.  Unelected political officials (shadow players, as one of my friends used to call them) are an entirely different story.

Sociopaths in literature: Interview with the Vampire

I was given Interview with the Vampire by a friend and have been reading it over the past year on airplanes.  I was not surprised to see many parallels between the vampire protagonist and sociopaths.  I thought before I finished the book and discarded it in the seat of my next plane, I might share some passages that I thought were particularly relevant, like this one:


"Babette, the way you speak of her," said the boy. "As if your feeling was special."
  
"Did I give you the impression I could not feel?" asked the vampire.
  
"No, not at all. Obviously you felt for the old man. You stayed to comfort him when you were in danger. And what you felt for young Freniere when Lestat wanted to kill him . . . all this you explained. But I was wondering . . . did you have a special feeling for Babette? Was it feeling for Babette all along that caused you to protect Freniere?"

"You mean love," said the vampire. "Why do you hesitate to say it?"
  
"Because you spoke of detachment," said the boy.
   
"Do you think that angels are detached?" asked the vampire.
  
The boy thought for a moment. "Yes," he said.
  
"But aren't angels capable of love?" asked the vampire. "Don't angels gaze upon the face of God with complete love?"
  
The boy thought for a moment. "Love or adoration," he said.
  
"What is the difference?" asked the vampire thoughtfully. "What is the difference?" It was clearly not a riddle for the boy. He was asking himself. "Angels feel love, and pride . . . the pride of The Fall . . . and hatred. The strong overpowering emotions of detached persons in whom emotion and will are one," he said finally. He stared at the table now, as though he were thinking this over, was not entirely satisfied with it. "I had for Babette . . . a strong feeling. It is not the strongest I've ever known for a human being." He looked up at the boy. "But it was very strong. Babette was to me in her own way an ideal human being. "

Subspecies

A posting at Rifters.com recently featured this blog saying things like: "As everyone agrees, the word for getting rid of a whole subspecies is not 'cure'. I’m not quite sure what the right word might be, but it’s probably somewhere between extermination and genocide."

But specifically about this site:

I do not know the name of the person behind “Sociopath World”; doubtless that’s by design.  He or she (actually, screw it; I’m gonna go with he) refers to himself merely as “The Sociopath” on his contact page, as “M.E.” on Twitter, and as me@sociopathworld.com when he hands out his address (which makes me doubt that the “M.E.” Twitter handle is an actual set of initials).  No matter.  This is either a subtle and very labor-intensive hoax, or it’s your one-stop-shopping center for the interested empath (they call us “Empaths”, apparently, which I find both more precise and less condescending than the “neurotypical” label the Autistic Spectrum types seem to prefer).  The most popular posts end up on the FAQ list: Do Sociopaths Love?  Are Sociopaths Self-Aware? Am I a Sociopath? Can Sociopaths be “Good”? There are helpful how-to pointers:  How to break up with a sociopath, for example (the illustration to the right was taken from that particular entry; at least we know that sociopaths have a sense of humor). 

There are pop-culture observations: whether the new Twenty-first-century Sherlock really is a sociopath in the world of fiction, whether Lady Gaga is in real life, the potential infiltration of sociopaths into Occupy Wall Street drum circles. There’s a forum, rife with trolls and assholes and deleted posts; but there’s also legitimate debate there.  And surprisingly, it also seems to function as a kind of support group for people in emotional distress. 

You can even, I shit you not, order a Sociopath World t-shirt. 

So. ME is out there, fighting the good fight. He’s getting noticed (at least, his blog gets shitloads more comments than mine, not that that’s a high bar to clear in the wide webby world). He’s showing up on the occasional psych blogroll. So now, I’m going to sit back and see if the neurodiversity community is willing to pick up the torch.  If he is trying to kickstart the Vampire Rights League, though, I think he’s fighting an uphill battle.

Reading the comment section, there is a remarkable absence of people arguing that Aspies and Auties should not be lumped in with filthy, no-good sociopaths.  Instead we get things like: "When I first ran into sociopathworld.com I thought that’s what it was, evil trying to represent itself as less than totally harmful or at least as something not to be so rightly feared. I’m less sure, now, and we should probably all spend some time reading there."

Blindsight

A lot of readers have been telling me that I should read the book Blindsight, by Peter Watts--that it is very topical.  I just started reading it.  It's available for free here.  Here is one reader's review:

Author and biologist Peter Watts contributed Blindsight to the body of hard sci-fi fiction in 2006, with the intention of simultaneously exploring and criticising themes of consciousness and the perception of the sociopath as monsterous inhuman. The reason why Watts and Blindsight are of interest here, are the most memorable creations in Blindsight, the flesh-and-blood hominid vampires Homo sapiens vampirensis. Drawing his inspiration from the modern Gothic image of the vampire as a pallid sociopathic human, Watts has created an alternative evolutionary timeline in which modern humans formerly co-existed and interbred with a previously extinct subspecies of ancient hominid predators possessing the biological traits that inspired the folktales about vampires around the world.

Within the Rifters universe, the existence of sociopathy among humans is explained as the re-emergence of this ancient phenotype in exceptional human individuals, and paleogeneticists working with the 'blood of sociopaths' have been able to recreate this ancient, super-powered species that takes on and exaggerates the characteristics of clinical psychopathy. 

Although the vampire Jukka Sarasti is on the one hand presented as a predatory beast, Watts also stresses not the human nature of the vampire, but the vampiric nature of the human crew that makes humns uneasy about vampire – in the Rifters universe, nobody travels past Jupiter without having vampire subroutines inserted into their human DNA in order to allow the 'undead' state. 

"Empathy for sociopaths isn't common," I remarked

"Maybe it should be. We, at least—" he waved an arm; some remote-linked sensor cluster across the simulator whirred and torqued reflexively— "chose the add-ons. Vampires had to be sociopaths. They're too much like their own prey — a lot of taxonomists don't even consider them a subspecies, you know that? Never diverged far enough for complete reproductive isolation. So maybe they're more syndrome than race. Just a bunch of obligate cannibals with a consistent set of deformities." 

"And how does that make—" 

"If the only thing you can eat is your own kind, empathy is gonna be the first thing that goes. Psychopathy's no disorder in those shoes, eh? Just a survival strategy. But they still make our skin crawl, so we—chain 'em up." 

Although Jukka Sarasti remains a brooding presence on board the Theseus, throughout Blindsight the author uses his human characters to describe Jukka's behaiour and thoughts in an atypically sympathetic way for fiction. 

"Anyway, I just think he's—cut off." A nervous tic tugged at the corner of Szpindel's mouth. "Lone wolf, nothing but sheep for company. Wouldn't you feel lonely?" 

"They don't like company," I reminded him. You didn't put vampires of the same sex together, not unless you were taking bets on a bloodbath. They were solitary hunters and very territorial. With a minimum viable pred-prey ratio of one to ten — and human prey spread so sparsely across the Pleistocene landscape — the biggest threat to their survival had been competition from their own kind. Natural selection had never taught them to play nicely together. 

That didn't cut any ice with Szpindel, though. "Doesn't mean he can't be lonely," he insisted. "Just means he can't fix it."

[...] "You asked about Sarasti. Smart man. Strong Leader. Maybe could spend a little more time with the troops." 

  Vampire doesn't respect his command. Doesn't listen to advice. 

  Hides away half the time. 

  I remembered transient killer whales. "Maybe he's being considerate." He knows he makes us nervous. 

  "I'm sure that's it," Bates said. 

  "Vampire doesn't trust himself."

And finally, Watts dares to shatter what is a taboo nowadays – to question the value of empathy. For anyone interested in unusual fictional portrayals of psychopathic characters, or interesting psychological themes in general, I'm sure you'll find that Blindsight is well worth a look.

"That, too, had slipped out before I could stop it—and after that came the flood: "You put so much fucking stock in that. You and your empathy. And maybe I am just some kind of imposter but most people would swear I'd worn their very souls. I don't need that shit, you don't have to feel motives to deduce them, it's better if you can't, it keeps you—" 

  "Dispassionate?" Cunningham smiled faintly. "Maybe your empathy's just a comforting lie, you ever think of that? 

Maybe you think you know how the other person feels but you're only feeling yourself, maybe you're even worse than me. Or maybe we're all just guessing. Maybe the only difference is that I don't lie to myself about it."

Sociopaths = vampires?

Does this seem familiar? The plot of the Swedish film "Let the Right One In":

A fragile introverted boy, 12-year-old Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant), is regularly bullied by his stronger classmates but never strikes back. His wish for a friend comes true when he meets Eli (Lina Leandersson), also 12, who moves into the apartment next door with a man who is presumably her father. But coinciding with Eli's arrival is a series of disappearances and macabre murders—a man is found strung up in a tree, another frozen in the lake, a woman bitten in the neck.

Captivated by the gruesome stories and by Eli’s idiosyncrasies (she is only seen at night, and unaffected by the freezing cold), it doesn't take long before Oskar figures out that Eli is a vampire. Nevertheless, their friendship strengthens, and a subtle romance blossoms as the youngsters become inseparable. In spite of Oskar’s loyalty to her, Eli knows that she can only continue to live if she keeps on moving. But when Oskar faces his darkest hour, Eli returns to defend him the only way she can...

Based on the best-selling novel by John Ajvide Lindqvist, Swedish filmmaker Tomas Alfredson weaves friendship, rejection and loyalty into a haunting and darkly atmospheric, yet poetic and unexpectedly tender tableau of adolescence.

The connections between sociopaths and vampires are obvious. Sociopaths are sometimes described as emotional vampires, and modern day vampire covens seem to be all about the psychopath. Some think that the vampire myth originates from vampires. It makes sense: life-sucking, preternaturally powerful, charming, seductive, dangerous... and somehow always falling in love with or befriending normal humans. Hard to know why that is, but I hope all the vampire love will spill over a little onto the sociopaths.

Guest post: schizophrenic sociopath

From a reader:

Schizophrenic sociopath: a joyous autoportrait of Pabaisa

And they worshiped the dragon [the prototype of Pabaisa] which gave power unto the beast [the archetype of Pabaisa]. And they worshiped the beast, saying: "Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"

- The Revelation of John, 13, 4

Pabaisa – the Immoralist, the Antichrist, the Anarchist, everything, that is opposed to civilization, the breaker of codes and rules; the man with the strength of a giant and the brain of a child; the soul contract Terminator and the wish fulfilling Mephisto. Pabaisa imagines himself as a green-skinned, sharp-toothed, bird-of-prey-nosed, hatty, sabotted and with dingy purple dusters, even if no one is afraid of him outwardly and react to his grotesque smile neutrally. The blind, who don’t see the accursed wickedness and consider him as a friend. The feelings of abandonment, terror and lost identity spring from the degenerate’s inner being, his projection of himself as a despicable demon, who looks at his own reflection in pond like Narcissus, and cannot see himself truly, so he rolls away from his Olympian mountain of solitude and seclusion, and engages on a journey through dark, naked forests and barren, scorched deserts, searching for something, which would give him an identity, an understanding and a shelter. The beast does not look aggressively in reality, even on the contrary, like a sociopath, like all the rest, maybe even a perfect replica of a human. The intra-speciary predator is unfazed by the hunters in this regard.

The problem of Pabaisa‘s sexuality: Pabaisa is only partly a man. At least, he doesn‘t perceive himself as one. Due to accidental meiosis and gene selection, his body was born as a man. Pabaisa doesn‘t see himself as a woman, either. There is no hidden desire to be a woman, no secret jealousy. For all he knew, it didn‘t matter, if he‘s a man, a woman or both. Things like sex and sexuality didn‘t matter, from an abstract perspective to life; he could become any with the circumstances. He was a man, but he could easily become a woman any time he wished, if he felt, that the circumstances demanded it. The mastery of disguise.

First metamorphosis: Schizophrenia and split-personality disorder. Five different voices in his head and 1 = ½ + ½, or A = B + C. A as the state before Lucifer gets thrown out of Heaven, like a pure state, B and C as different embodiments of “evil”, annihilators of “good” and destroyers of life, i.e. chimeras and killers with the thirst for power and the hate for weakness. Question: Why? Answer: The man’s becoming a half-man, or two half-men, was prompted by his genius-overman flight to the skies of brilliance, which was replaced by anti-genius, when he flew too high to the Sun, or madness, and burned like Icarus. The absence of identity, family, friends from birth or losing them along the way. Adam without his Eve, or the inability to hide from humanity without his species representative. The Colossus B is Pabaisa’s A part, which doesn’t want an identity from the start, being the universal bodily brutality in the world of objects. The Titan C is Pabaisa’s A part, which wants an identity from all his heart, despite the consequences, being the conscious identity-subjectivity seeker. From appearances alone, one would say that here exists an extreme complex duality and conflicting characteristics, despite this, they both are nihilistic psychopaths, who, due to an open intimacy, love each other more than the lost A, the last connection with humanity, which they forged.

It seems, that monster’s C only goal, like some kind of ambitious animal, who is playing God, is to give others power, or value, maybe he even wants to create a race of snakes. Save himself by saving his saviors? Still, when the vampire extracts and reaches the other person’s zenith of happiness and the height of potential, when there is no place to climb higher, for him that person becomes a bore and he feels incomplete, which makes him act with cruelty and kill the parasitical person from hunger. On the other hand, the giant B is bathing in nihilistic conscious revelations about the indifference of the universe and the relativity of values, by which he tries to justify his murders. Cerber C didn’t want an identity connected to physical activity, which will never satisfy him, but with intellectual; he wanted an identity, which embodies everything he is opposed to, so he searches out the aristocrats.

Second metamorphosis: Narcissistic possession of a Prince. Prince is not as much of an ogre’s fruit of labor, as that, which Nietzsche claimed to be as soul-awareness transformation’s third stage. In short: 1. The camel – memory. 2. The lion – will-to-knowledge. 3. The child - wisdom. In this case, Prince is something of a “second childhood”, radiation of will-to-live and the forging of new values. Prince to the devil is everything, which he desires by his understanding of identity at that time: a status in society, political power, money, reactionary disregard for the sheep morality, wide connection circle, etc. The creature endures his hunger and postpones this inevitability for a long time for the means to an end, but one thing is missing – the War ambition, the natural evolutionary development condition, the only Art form of the ruling elite. The seven-headed, ten-horned and ten-crowned behemoth rises up and swallows up his Father and Mother, the King and the Queen, burning everything behind him and searching for a greater height, a new order within himself, which would shake the whole foundation of the Earth. The barbarian should not be held responsible for the killings of other people, because it is in his nature to be the Machiavellian, to be the blond beast-of-prey, devouring the lives of others.

Third metamorphosis: Re-integration into one person. The need to become singular: the pianist’s cut off arms, the drowning man's oxygen, the thirsty man’s water need. I am you. You are me. We are one. Prince is the outcast. We always were a monster, with a human side, which desperately clung to an identity, to save ourselves from drowning. The dragon with his identity as a Prince and as a Kreator gulps down the centaur without an identity. The active nihilism overcomes the passive nihilism. The monster, with a monster’s hunger, with a monster’s appetite, munching his other half from within. Pabaisa in a poisoned garden of Eden, knowing and wallowing in his own death, was made wild and totally uncontrollable, to satisfy his every desire, to realize his every ambition with unconditional commitment. And only then the Leviathan experiences his second true suffering, - having in mind, that the first one was the absence of identity, - not by killing his family and humanity, but whilst assimilating his other half, his primordial anonymity. The formless, faceless, nameless mammoth of a Prince, in the past only thinking of himself as un-and-in-human, feels a human, an all too human, familiarity with humanity, as if being a slave to the collective unconscious programming, which doesn’t have any uniqueness, personality or individuality, as if all the memory was implanted into his robotic brain – the gargoyle, who achieves cold intellectual empathy, the Satan, who finally kills God and outgrows the nameless humanity and its identity, swallowing it and making it his little, dirty dog-bitch. Ego-centrism as a whole humanity’s ego. Not power through wisdom, but the “real” world’s transcendence, which is denied to the rational mind. My name is Titas, for I am many.

Mutant A, troll B and savage C in the consequence of all the metamorphoses become phoenix A again, who has no identity, because it is stolen from the Prince, and made his own. The achieved pseudo-identity results in an existentialist tragi-heroism: after finding an identity, a meaning of life, Moby Dick understands, that the identity is the reaction between him, the other person and the whole world, that there is nothing, who could call him by his name, his meaning of life effectively disappears. The eternal incognito, a walking corpse and the super-cannibal in the end returns not even there, where he started, but into a negative sequence, because the beauty of the identity has disappeared, leaving only a heart filled with choking terror and disgust. The last man standing syndrome: will-to-life and will-to-power as will-in-itself, the loss to the world is its conquering. And so stands the Prince of princes, saying to himself, that if he is made of the parts and characteristics of dead people, then, basically, he is a person, but because they are dead, he never himself is alive. What scares the most – the paradoxical hunger in Pabaisa’s eyes and a satisfaction with his fake identity. Nobody stands on top of the world, except the highest alpha predator, who doesn’t have any dreams or hopes, who exists alone only to write himself an ending, then he will stop wandering and not knowing eternally his unbelievably mysterious soul, ignorant of boundaries and fears, but constantly fighting within itself. The realization, that you cannot become “a fake somebody”, but you can become “a true nobody”, the last prophet of the nihilistic truth of the universe. The wind became stronger, its screeching howl louder, and the air colder, as the demiurge’s eyes ached, while he was smiling into the Void.

Question: What is meaning of the story? Answer: No meaning. The worthlessness of efforts. To acquire, what is wanted, but to understand, that it doesn’t mean anything. To see, that there is no difference between good and evil, well and bad. Finally, a man can become anything he wants according to his wishes. He doesn’t have to take the walked-out road. He has a freedom of choice… People are like dice, they throw themselves in the direction of their own choosing.

Moral: If you admit your ontological uniqueness, identity becomes unimportant.

Sincerely, your friendly neighborhood Pabaisa.

Edward Cullen = sociopath?

Apparently, Debra Merskin, associate professor for the school of journalism and communication at the University of Oregon, as claimed that the vampire protagonist from the teenage vampire series Twilight, is a sociopath. From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Writing in a recent issue of the Journal of Communication Inquiry, Merskin argues that Edward has all the hallmarks of a "compensated psychopath".

Unlike full-blown psychopaths, compensated psychopaths have learnt to conceal their limited emotional repertoire and "pass" as normal. "While he is incapable of feeling compassion, or remorse, there is an awareness that the full-blown psychopath doesn't have - that these feelings do exist in the world but he is somehow lacking," Merskin explains via email.

Edward, she says, ticks all the boxes.He's psychologically immature; although born in 1901, Edward is fated never to develop beyond the age of 17.

He's socially withdrawn, living far out of town, and he's controlling. He frequently belittles Bella, saying she's emotionally unobservant, she's absurd and, most patronisingly, "You've got a bit of a temper, don't you?"

Edward's inability to love is the crucible for the romantic tension throughout Twilight. "I don't know how to be close to you. I don't know if I can," he says to Bella. And, perhaps most tellingly, Edward admits: "I'm not used to feeling so human. Is it always like this?"

Merskin says these types aren't new in literature and cinema. Oscar Wilde's Dorian Gray, serial killer Patrick Bateman in American Psycho and Wall Street's Gordon Gekko are all examples of compensated psychopaths.

But unlike Edward, none of these fictional characters was presented as boyfriend material. This, Merskin says, makes Edward novel. It also makes him concerning- especially given that its target audience is young women and adolescent girls.

I don't know. I'm not convinced. I like vampire stories typically because they echo some themes from my own life, not surprising if you believe (as I do) that the vampire myth originates from sociopaths. I'm no expert on the Twilight series, but to the extent that Edward acts like a vampire I'm not surprised people would think he is sociopathic. However, I thought the whole point of the series was that Edward does not act like a vampire? A chaste defanged vampire?

Guest post: Partner in crime

Every sociopath needs a partner, somebody who a sociopath can act out their tendencies with. Someone who they can be themselves, or get the warm comfort from. I have multiple partners, all female. I love all of them. I have one who I call Wilson, based off of the House character. I have one I call Cuddy, another House character, another called Harley, based off of the Batman character.

My Harley is bad, she's sexy, and she's manipulative. I also whore her out. She has sex with guys for money, she doesn't have sex with me. She's a golddigger, my golddigger. She's loyal to nobody but me, she knows there's nobody better for her than me. I get enjoyment out of the misery she brings men, I like the fact she has sex with other guys, it turns me on that she can have sex with other men and always came back.

My Wilson, is smart, introspective and the main one I tell all this shit too. I tell her my thoughts, she's a mirror, I talk to her and I can see myself. She's also sexually interested in me so that's even better. She knows all about the shit in my life. She knows she is part of the system. She doesn't care, cause now she needs me.

My Cuddy, is smart, sexy, and most of all compassionate. It's nice to talk to a pleasant person, someone who doesn't act the way I do. Someone who is kind. Plus she is sexually interested into me. She is mostly kept in the dark about all the others. She calls me King, I am the King of her world. I love it.

These three keep me grounded. I can channel my diabolical energies into someone else, I can channel my thoughts into someone else, I can be loving to someone without thinking I'm going to get taken advantage of.

House is a sociopath, Joker is a psychopath, Batman is a psychopath, Christian is a sociopath/narcissist (sociopaths and psychopaths are completely different). All have partners that serve functions. Socios and psychos don't have "friends". We have complete partners. We are vampires. You see vampires with human minions all the time. We feed off their presence.

We are not exactly the type of people you be friends with. The people around us love our wonders and inhumanity and we love their plainness and humanity.

We discipline our partners. I have regularly disciplined mine with sociopathic lash outs. It helps me establish boundaries, to control behaviors.

All my partners know what I am and how I operate. All of them love me. Most can't even escape me or resist me. Cause I am a vampire, dead to humanity, but a charming, thirsty drainer of life.

Conversation with a sociopath (?) (part 3)

D.R.: When it comes to interpersonal relationships, my closest friends will tell you I am not like other people. I don't consider this a bad thing as most other people are overdramatic dumbasses. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy the interaction. My friends, are not in this category. There are times when I feel they are being irrational, and sometimes I feel they are selfish when they refuse to help me (how often do I go out on a limb for them?), but usually sarcastic comments like "isn't that sweet of you" are just made in passing so that they will see themselves for who they really are and not who they want to be. I love sarcasm, even if it is the most base form of irony. Although, I have to admit, I'm not always on the ball when it comes to being on the receiving end. I can take it when I recognize it, but often I don't.

M.E.: I don't understand sarcasm well either. I can tell that you use manipulation as a major communication tool with those in your "inner circle."

D.R.: It would seem so. But I also make sure they feel comfortable around me and get something in return. Did you feel as if you were helping them in a "tough love" sort of way? A way to encourage introspection?

M.E.: Yeah, I used to think that I was just giving my friends "tough love." And it sounds like your friends like you and that you're not tweaking with them too much, so maybe you are fine. But I sense that this will be a constant source of difficulty in your life, at least if you are even remotely interested in maintaining interpersonal relationships and not burning bridges.

D.R.: My father always told me I take things too personally. I genuinely felt like he was trying to be an asshole. But I can sure as hell dish it when I want to. My friends, however, are all very intelligent. They (usually) are very understanding of how I see the world, or at least, accept that I see it differently. My dearest friend (and probably my mother too), is what I believe you call an "uber empath." She relates to everybody. It has led her to associate with people who I call "vampires" (emotional leeches who crave attention so badly, they fuck up their lives).

M.E.: And you, an emotional vampire.

D.R.: I'd like to think I'm more sauve about it though. I guess the difference is how they are all about themselves and I am about the other person. I love her as if she were myself (nothing sexual, nothing romantic), and naturally I want to protect her.

M.E.: This is a very interesting description of your love for her. I think for socios more than normals, we love and hate in others what we love and hate in ourselves, i.e. we see everyone as a reflection of ourselves.

D.R.: Yes, this is an accurate description of it. Especially for my last attempt at-for lack of a better word-an intimate relationship. He reminded me very much of myself. I find I'm more attracted to those that do. The same goes for all my friends in accordance to the loyalty I feel to them.

M.E.: Maintenance is really hard. You're young, so you probably are starting to realize that. It's hard to keep a relationship going. It's hard to keep a job going. It's hard not to get bored and selfish and just want to escape. All my life has been one escape after enough, with never much more than a few years in between each escape. When I was young it came more naturally -- everyone was moving from one thing to another, changing what they were studying in school, changing schools, matriculating and going to different schools, starter jobs, secondary climbing the ladder jobs. I don't know, I guess it's just good to be aware that escape is not always possible, or it shouldn't always be what you resort to first.

D.R.: Funny you should mention escaping. I used that exact term to tell one of my closer friends why I seemed so flighty lately. I get bored very easily, so I'm constantly looking for a change in pace or scenery. I know all too well that escape isn't always possible, especially in the financial situation I'm in. I keep telling myself that when I get to where I need to be I can pack up and haul off to start over.

Sociopaths want to eat you or cheat you

A reader wrote (edited for length):

I noticed your interest in the origins of sociopathy. One sadly deceased researcher published a long paper called "Sociobiology of sociopathy" that was an attempt(probably one of the earliest) to put it in an evolutionary perspective. I'm not an expert in that sort of thing, but the case looked tight enough to me. To her, it looked like sociopathy is a biological adaptation to a cheating strategy at life. True sociopaths have a certain set of genes, and are from problem families. People of low intelligence with same backgrounds may appear to have some of these traits, but in them it's just the environment and so on.

http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.mealey.html

Another thing you may not have come across is Blindsight(novel, not syndrome). I don't know whether you like speculative fiction, but this one is very dark, very bleak, and very anti-neurotypical (compares ordinary humans to the equivalent of Oz marsupials..). It's mostly about mind, consciousness, utility of consciousness and how at some point in the future, homo sapiens will become somewhat obsolescent.

It was written by Peter Watts. One of the chief characters of Blindsight is a vampire (not the fantasy variety, sort of believable - an extinct sub-species of exclusively man-eating completely sociopathic* humans, brought to life again through modern science). The others are less weird, though. In other books, he loves having various non-standard characters, from serial killers, sexual sadists, wife-abusers, pedophiles.. ptsd sufferers, etc.. )


*obviously, if wolves empathized with sheep.. they'd go hungry.

I started reading the article. It's very good but long. I'm not surprised that vampires have once again been connected to sociopaths. I myself am hoping that this blog will ride the new vampire popularity and get picked up for a miniseries. Not true.

True Blood: Sociopath Rights Amendment

The HBO show True Blood features vampires who have recently come out of the closet (due to the development of a synthesized blood food source called "true blood") and are demanding their legal rights in the form of an equal vampire rights amendment to the United States Constitution -- with regular opposition from the humans. Some think that the show's premise is a metaphor for gay rights, but it portrays equally well the issues that would face sociopaths if we ever came out of the closet and began demanding anti sociopath discrimination laws. The vampires, like sociopaths, are not united in the desire to "mainstream" their lifestyle and become like the human sheep they have long fed on. And for good reason -- although the vampires gain the freedom to live more publicly, they are also the target of violent hate crimes and other backlash from the humans.

Seeing all the problems the vampires are having, one wonders why they chose to come out of the closet at all. Unfortunately sociopaths may not always be able to remain in the closet themselves, but may instead be outed by genetic testing and overt discrimination. For instance, this is a relatively interesting collection of people's musings on the pros and cons of governments genetically screening for sociopaths.

Conversation with a sister

M.E.: Do you think that you have a pretty good ability to empathize?

Sister: I think so. I definitely cry when other people do.

M.E.: Was it weird for you to grow up with a narcissistic father, distant mother, and sociopathic siblings? Did you sometimes feel like a changeling?

Sister: Well, I don't exactly fit the family mold in many ways.

M.E.: So did you notice that the rest of us are emotionally void

Sister: Mmm, I think our family isn't emotionally void, but constipated. We don't tend to express emotion.

M.E.: I think that's because we don't have it. I am a sociopath. So is most of the rest of the family

Sister: I think the way our family adapts to the crap that goes on in our lives is that we put on this facade that everything is okay. We keep in the feelings of hurt and that teaches us to keep in all our feelings, to not show weakness, we don't show emotion at all.

M.E.: Yeah, that is interesting that you think that's what happens, but i think some of us just don't have emotions, or only have shallow ones.

Sister: That might be another reason why the others of us don't like to show our emotions, because it makes us different from the ones that don't have them.

M.E.: Haha, exactly. That was what I was wondering because it'd be like growing up with deaf parents--you'd be all signing with the rest of the family and maybe ashamed to let your hearing self show around the family. Read this, I’ll send it to you

Sister: Okay. ... I like it. I definitely feel like the empath you describe, because there are times when I can't control the emotions I'm feeling. Like, someone will be crying and I cry with them, even if I don't want to. I have some control over the intensity of the emotion, but not over which emotion it is.

M.E.: Hmm, so a volume dial, but not a tuner dial. Interesting.

Sister: Do you wish you weren't a sociopath? Or, do you like the control? Like, when you try to fit in by finding and focusing on the strongest signal, do you do it because you want to be in tune with people around you, or because you want to fit in? Be liked? Not stand out or be ridiculed?

M.E.: Good question. Usually it's for personal or social gain, power, control.

Sister: But only usually. What about in your closer relationships?

M.E.: For closer relationships I do it for the other person. Well, I know that they will only put up with so much sociopathic behavior so I try to mimic empath behavior for them when I can, like a dutiful husband accompanying his wife to the opera.

Sister: But is it because you want to make them happy or because you don't want to lose the happiness their friendship brings you?

M.E.: I don't want to lose the happiness their friendship brings me. And it is sort of nice to have people treat me like a normal person. Nice to feel like I belong

Sister: Naturally, that seems normal to me. So far, the only parts that seems kind of not so great about the whole sociopath thing as far as you have described it, are that it is kind of selfish as far as only working to pick out the strong signal and act "normal" for your own profit, instead of wanting to be closer to or helpful to others, that part is kind of sad, and the broadcasting a signal of your choice to control the situation, could be done out of concern for others, I suppose, to save them from hurt, but it seems like the motives are more like conceit, or entertainment, or emotional or professional gain.

M.E.: Yeah. So sort of bad, but not as bad as people think, right?

Sister: Yeah, not nearly as bad as people think. And with the proper motivation, could be good.

M.E.: I think knowing this might make people reevaluate their hate. People think that sociopaths are evolutionarily helpful, like they can be little soldiers or otherwise get things done in times of crisis. But it's also sort of scary to have them around in times of no crisis

Sister: Yeah, definitely more flexible than the empathy. But the power is intimidating, because can be for good or ill.

M.E.: Yeah, good or ill, like a super hero. We are like the X-Men. Mutants, good and bad. Do you think if you didn't have family members that were sociopaths, you would be inclined to hate on them?

Sister: The taking pleasure in the pain of others thing creeps me out

M.E.: Read the difference between narcissist and sociopaths that i just sent you.

Sister: K. I like the difference, except can't the sociopath just keep acting like a sheep? Does it have to devour?

M.E.: Ha, yeah it can. Or i mean, that is the question, yeah? Is it like X-Men or vampire? Or if vampire, the good vegetarian vampires.

Sister: It's time for me to go sleepy time. Just keep eating grass. Maybe with the occasional snack on road kill or something.

M.E.: Haha. Yeah, I will.

Sister: I love you. That's the great thing about family. You get to love each other, no matter what. You are easy for me to love.

M.E.: Ah thanks lady