Sociopaths in Shakespeare: Edmund

“Now, gods, stand up for bastards!”

From Edmund’s soliloquy in Shakespeare’s “King Lear”

Edmund, bastard son of Gloucester, is one of Shakespeare’s most intriguing villains. Crafty, manipulative, self starting and utterly anti-social, Edmund ruthlessly climbs the social ladder and into the hearts of two sisters, which in turn finally leads to the destruction of a family and a dynasty. But as he himself lay dying near the end, Edmund seems to repent, to show a spark of humanity. Does this mean he wasn’t really a villain after all? Or can villains actually be more complex than is normally supposed?

If only people were as simple as their labels...

I, Psychopath

I watched the documentary I, Psychopath just now and I found it fascinating. It featured Sam Vaknin, a man who’d been convicted of securities fraud, and is a confessed narcissist who’s written several papers on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. His work on NPD has apparently been circulating around the internet for several years now. Although Vaknin was very aware of his psychopathic tendencies, I got the impression that he honestly believed he was not truly a psychopath, which was why he agreed to participate in the documentary. He was in for a bit of a surprise. He submitted himself to a battery of tests conducted by psychologists, including a brain scan and the famous Psychopathic Checklist Revised. His score on the PCL-R was 18, which is high when compared to the US population. The tests were conclusive: Vaknin was a psychopath.

One of the things that fascinated me about the documentary were the ways in which he and I were alike. For instance, I share Vaknin’s ability to be charming, even gregarious, when it suits me to do so. Even though he was surprised when he found out he scored so highly on the PCL-R, he was nevertheless highly self aware of his antisocial tendencies and so am I. This demonstrates why it’s a myth to believe that those of us on this side of the personality spectrum couldn’t possibly know what we are. On a related point, like me, Vaknin knew precisely what he was doing when he manipulated others, which was exemplified when he related the uses and effects of targeted bullying. Although I’m not a fan of bullies, the way he dissected what he called the “secret of bullying” was interesting in and of itself. Vaknin has been married for eleven years. He has never physically abused his wife. He admits that he does not feel for her what she feels for him, but nevertheless, he gives her what he can, even though she loses in the deal. I’m like this with my own family and friends. I know I may not feel for them the depth of feeling they have for me, but I do what I can. Finally, Vaknin mentions that he changes jobs every few years. I also like to plan my future in two year intervals. Two years seems a pretty decent time frame for me to plan some and to live some, so to speak.

Of course we differ in important ways, but the similarities surprised me. I suppose that the difference between sociopath and psychopath is not as profound as I might have once assumed. Maybe it’s merely a difference in degree rather than kind. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter anyway; I am who I am. Still, the film is interesting. Check it out.

Trolley problem

This was sent in by an anonymous reader. I remember reading the trolley problem before and being really surprised that some people might not kill the one guy to save the more. For some reason, I also feel that killing the wandering stranger is a mistake. Maybe it is because I know the statistics of organ transplant success. Or I know how expensive and dangerous it is to do those type of surgeries. In some sort of way, I think I feel like the young stranger is actually more deserving of his own organs than the other five. Or it could be my particular form of efficiency-loving Burkean libertarianism that generally doesn't like to mess with things because of unforeseen consequences -- the longer the period you're looking at (organ donations), the greater the uncertainty. Or maybe I do have a soul. Here it is:

Thought experiments can teach us about the cognitive processes involved in moral decision making, and perhaps none is ultimately so telling as the trolley problem. One formulation of the trolley problem goes like this:

Five people are tied to a trolley track, and a trolley is speeding toward them. You're standing next to a switch that can divert the trolley onto another track. If you do nothing they'll all be killed in a matter of seconds. If you throw the switch it will divert the trolley off of the track with the five people tied to it, and onto a track with only one person tied to it. While the five will be saved, the one who wouldn't have been harmed otherwise will now be killed. Do you throw the switch?

Another formulation can be stated this way:

Five people are tied to a trolley track, and the trolley is speeding toward them. If you do nothing, they'll all be killed in a matter of seconds. You're standing on a bridge behind a tall and extremely fat man who is leaning against a rickety railing. No one else is there, and he's totally oblivious to both your presence and his precarious position. If you push him, the railing will give and he'll fall directly in front of the trolley. He will be killed, but he'll also bring the trolley to a stop, preventing it from harming the five people tied to the track. Do you push the fat man?

For hard-headed readers who answered "yes" to the first two, there is at least one more formulation:

You are a talented surgeon in a small village where five people need various organ transplants. None of them are on waiting lists, and all will die in a matter of days if they don't get organs. Each is in a weakened state, so you can't use organs from one to save another. If you could find a healthy donor, you'd be able to save them all.

By chance, a young traveler with a minor cut on his arm visits your office. Just for kicks you run a blood test, and find out that he's a perfect match for all 5. He mentions that no one saw him come in. Furthermore, not only is he in the country illegally, traveling alone on foot, and paying for everything with cash, but he didn't even tell anyone back home where he was going because he's estranged from his family. etc., etc. Do you tell the young man to wait while you get a tetanus booster shot, only to return with a syringe containing a powerful sedative? Or do you just smile and send him on his way?

When answering the various formulations of the problem, what decisions did you make, and why did you make them? How long did it take you to arrive at your decisions? How long did it take you to come up with explanations for your decisions?

Joshua Greene of Harvard University has done extensive research on cognition and moral judgment by asking test subjects these kinds of questions while performing functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI). His results can be summarized in three sentences. When people choose a course of action which maximizes outcomes, the parts of their brain which show the most activity are those associated with rational and quantitative thinking. When people choose a course of action in which they do not perform acts which directly harm others, the parts of their brain which show the most activity are those associated with emotion and feeling. These parts of the brain 'light up' as soon as the questions are read, much more quickly than most people can formulate an explanation.

When I tried to answer the series of trolley questions myself, I found that I was making nearly instantaneous judgments as to which option made me feel least guilty. The process of using my intellect to come up with a list of justifications didn't even start until after my decision was final. The most troubling thing about this for me is that I approached the series of questions with deliberate intent to be as rational and consistent as possible. I realized that I couldn't be. In all likelihood, virtually no one can.

This raises important questions for readers who pride themselves on rationality. We could address hypothetical questions about judgments on specific situations, but I'm more interested in general questions like: "How can I trust my moral judgment on anything?" Well, how can you? The fundamental point of the trolley problem goes beyond whether any one decision is right or wrong. The real question is whether it's even possible for certain categories of human decision making to be rational. I don't think we can have a grown-up discussion about morality without addressing this.

At its core, the trolley problem raises a new kind of "duality" question; one which is thoroughly modern and scientific. Are we thinking with one brain, or multiple brains? Does the amygdala vie for control with the cerebral cortex? Do the right and left hemispheres struggle against each other? If so, what determines which will win? If we direct our own thoughts and decisions, then why are those decisions made as quickly as autonomic reflexes? Who or what is in control of our thoughts? What does our thought process say about who and what we are?

Strategy

Strategy isn’t mysterious. And it isn’t just for politics or business or war. Strategy is nothing more or less than the art and science of getting what you want. In that sense, we are all inveterate strategists. Fortunately, most of us don’t want much. We want to have satisfying relationships with family and friends, to make ends meet, to have fun from time to time. Even in those mundane circumstances, however, we’re still strategizing, still trying to figure out how to get mom to back off or our girlfriend to give us more sex or our boss to give us a raise. We’re all, consciously or more often than not unconsciously, trying to get other people to give us what we want. Or put another way, we’re all after power of one sort or the other. We’re all strategizing whether we want to admit it or not.

Here are a few pointers I’ve found helpful in strategizing. First, decide what it is you want and why. Knowing why you want what you want could prove illuminating. You might even realize you don't want what you thought you wanted after all, which brings me to the second pointer. Decide if what you want is worth the price you’ll have to pay to get it, because nothing is free, not even love.

Third, and this pointer is for the empaths reading this, you must find a way to manage your emotions, especially guilt and fear. If you have to do something society tells you is "wrong," then so be it. Don’t waste your limited time wrestling with your conscience. Fear can be a powerful motivator, but it can also hamper your ability to act, and it can cloud your judgment if you don’t know how to see fear for what it is and deal with it. This point can be expanded to cover emotions in general. Being overwhelmed by emotion is very often an impediment to effective strategizing.

Fourth, assess your resources. What resources can you use to accomplish your goal? And I’m not just talking about money. Intelligence, good looks, talents and so on are all resources.

Fifth, assess the context. What’s the historical and/or psychological background, if you will? What are the ‘political’ circumstances? And if you think this doesn’t apply to areas like romance, think again. In the case of romance, knowing your target’s psychological background, for instance, can play a critical role in determining how you’re going to seduce them. And politics, practically speaking, is just another word for strategizing, which boils down to people trying to get what they want. So you can see how this could apply to relationships. How do the people around you play politics, or attempt to get what they want? What games do they play or what tactics do they consistently employ? That knowledge can prove useful in your own strategizing.

Sixth, remember that our goals very often revolve around people. You need to be able to manage them, to push and pull them in the directions you want them to go in. This is why the sociopath’s innate ability to read others is advantageous. For instance, pretending to have suffered the same kinds of wounds is often an effective way to find out where another person’s buttons are, which comes in handy when you need to push them.

Seventh, pick your battles. Knowing what you want and why will clarify which battles you want to fight and which you want to avoid. The above is only a beginning. There are a variety of sources you can mine that will help you become successful strategists, from Epictetus to Machiavelli, from Sun Tzu to Robert Greene.

Why would anyone want to become good at getting what they want? The answer is simple: death. All of us, the sociopath and the saint alike, must die. Life is short and often hard. Go after what you want and don’t stop until you get it.

The ubiquity of bullshit

I was talking to a teenage family member the other day about her anger issues. As is typical of teenagers, she is often melodramatic and self absorbed. She is also unusually perceptive. One of the things she’s having a hard time dealing with is the staggering amount of bullshit she sees all around her. She’s noticed the hypocrisy, inconsistency, and lack of insight that characterize the lives of her parents, grandparents, and the rest of the family in general. These same dullards who have made messes of their lives are now trying to make her ‘behave’ by rules they don’t hold themselves to, and she resents the hell out of it. She asked me why there’s so much lying in the family and I told her what I wish someone had told me at her age. I explained to her that most people lie to themselves. They sell themselves on their own bullshit and they need their family, friends and other ‘loved’ ones to play along, like extras in a poorly scripted B-movie. I told her that we tend to judge ourselves by our intentions and others by the consequences of their actions. I told her that one of the unspoken meanings of ‘family’ is to be considered part of the circle of delusion that those within use to exempt themselves. I told her they resent facts because facts are hard, cold and inhospitable to their ego-boosting fantasies. I told her that it isn’t just the family who swim in a sea of bullshit. I told her that what I am saying is true for almost everyone. And finally, I told her that should she ever find a way to control her anger, she would be able to use her perceptiveness to her advantage. I explained to her that her insight into the ubiquity of bullshit could equal power.

Like I said, she’s a teenager, so much of what I said didn’t really penetrate her endless self justifications. And I'm sure I bored the hell out of her. She's a smart girl though. When she’s older, she’ll remember my words and hopefully find them useful.