Monday, September 10, 2012

Wannabe sociopaths

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

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

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

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

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Exceptionalism

I was at a conference this weekend where the buzzword was exceptionalism.

I met this man who is well respected in my field.  It turns out that he had heard of my own work and had been promoting me to some of his colleagues.  We quickly became friends, spending much of one day and evening together, the activities gradually escalating in terms of personal intimacies shared and substances consumed.  As I saw his professional mask begin to drop around me I was suddenly struck with the thought, this man is like me.  I almost wanted to talk to him about it, at least feel him out about it.  But then I was struck with another thought -- this man does not believe he is like me.  If I started asking him about it, he would vehemently deny it.  He would be horrified to hear me describe my own thoughts on the matter.  I might be outted and shunned.

This second train of thoughts was triggered by one realization -- this man thinks that the concept of exceptionalism aptly applies to him.  The Wikipedia definition of exceptionalism is the perception that something is exceptional in some way and "thus does not need to conform to normal rules or general principles."  In the context of my conference, people would refer to things as being part of a particular group, but despite that inclusion, they warranted special treatment from other members of the group.  A quick and dirty example is a baby.  Let's say the general rule is that citizens of a country should carry their own weight.  Let's also say that babies are unable to carry their own weight because they're by their nature relatively helpless.  Exceptionalism would apply to that baby to excuse it from complying with that particular rule.

This guy's version of exceptionalism was more like the classic ubermensch mentality that (I have found) is still quite popular amongst people who consider themselves to be intellectuals.  Morality is for the bourgeoisie.  They do not need to actually adhere to those moral standards because they are exceptional.

When this man that I met was evidencing his clear lack of moral standards about things that I think are pretty clear, societally speaking, I got excited, thinking that I had met another someone like me.  On second thought, I realized that although he doesn't believe morals apply to him, he believes they apply to everyone else.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Sociopaths make friends

“We turned over the book together, and I endeavored to explain to him the purpose of the printing, and the meaning of a few pictures that were in it. Thus I soon engaged his interest; and from that we went to jabbering the best we could about the various outer sights to be seen in this famous town. Soon I proposed a social smoke; and producing his pouch and tomahawk, he quietly offered me a puff. And then we sat exchanging puffs from that wild pipe of his and keeping it regularly passing between us.

“If there yet lurked any ice of indifference towards me in the Pagan’s breast, this pleasant, genial smoke we had, soon thawed it out, and left us cronies. He seemed to take to me quite as naturally and unbiddenly as I to him; and when our smoke was over, he pressed his forehead against mine, clasped me around the waist, and said that henceforth we were married; meaning in the country’s phrase, that we were bosom friends; he would gladly die for me, if need should be. In a countryman, this sudden flame of friendship would have seemed far too premature, a thing to be much distrusted; but in the simple savage those old rules would not apply.”


-- from Melville's Moby Dick

I meet people every day who trust me from our first conversation forward. In the city, I meet three people a night on average who subject themselves to my whims with an enthusiasm unimaginable to me. This naivete and silliness, for obvious reasons, boosts my ego and sense of superiority. Not only does these people’s trust allow me complete control over them, but it destroys my respect for them and ironically makes it so that I would never really consider these people "friends." They have no idea what they might possibly subject themselves to when they hand a sociopath that kind of power over them. When empaths beg so hard to be used, how can anyone really resist?

And honestly, I will admit that I do resist. Not all of these people are useful anyways, so naturally you don’t always use them, but it isn’t because it’d be a difficult thing to do, I assure you. And when usefulness presents itself, I take it. Imagine salesmen put into this position. How many salesman have you put in this position of absolute trust because of a feeling you have that you can trust them? How many things have you easily been swayed and guided to buy because you felt a certain trust toward someone whose intention is to somehow gain a commission from you? Even in shopping malls, you’ve upgraded to certain cell phones because of the notable advantages of the more expensive model.

The cultural difference between savage and sophisticated in the passage from Moby Dick above can easily be used as a metaphor for the comparison of acting rationally versus acting emotionally, so for the sake of argument we’ll utilize such an advantageous comparison. Quequeg, the savage, illustrates a naivete to “the system” caused by his emotional dictation of his actions. He acts on a “gut feeling” when he accepts the author so willingly, having only known him for a day. The author’s thoughts preceding this are known, and show an indifference toward the savage, but also a civility, which was mistranslated by Quequeg’s emotions. Quequeg, following this new bond, proceeds to give the author half of his money and an embalmed head (one of his treasured possessions). The author even tries not to accept the gifts, but Quequeg forces them on him. Another beautiful illustration of empathic emotions making people do dumb things by refusing to consider logic. And again the idea of superiority is obviously pushed upon the functioning logical person because he's the one able to see such detrimental behavior for what it is.

If empaths could see their actions as being to their detriment, the idea of superiority would not come into play. But the sociopath seems isolated in his comprehension. In the above example, the characters struggle with language barriers and cultural differences, so the savage obviously hardly understands the man’s minute efforts to help him, and he translates them to friendship automatically. What sociopath has been offered such unconditional friendship to a smaller degree? And when having such opportunities consistently thrust upon you by people you do not respect, how do you continue to deny the uses these people present? The sociopath can hardly help who they are when people are so willing to subject themselves to their whims.

Friday, September 7, 2012

Sociopaths in Shakespeare: Richard III

Richard III, our crafty anti-hero, reveals in the play's opening lines below that boredom is at least one of the motivating factors behind all of his subsequent actions:
“Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son of York;
And all the clouds that lowered upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths,
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front…

He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass…

Why, I in this weak piping time of peace
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity.
And therefore since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.”
All is well in the kingdom. Too well. Richard doesn’t have much to distract him, so he decides to while away the days with a little ‘game of villainy’ designed to ease his brother off and himself on, to the throne. Why not? At the very least, the game will be amusing.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Are sociopaths psychologically dumb and blind?

It has been said repeatedly that by definition it is impossible for a sociopath to be introspective and insightful. Why is that so impossible? Very few people bother to answer that question, so I thought I’d share my own ideas about it.

First let’s look at the definitions. The operational definition of introspect is to examine and comprehend one’s own thoughts, emotions and actions. I’m broadly defining sociopaths as people who have little to no conscience, who have flexible personality structures and who are emotionally indifferent to social norms. And I’m defining insight as clear and deep perception. I think these definitions, taken separately, would be generally agreed upon by most people. What I don’t see is why any of them, taken together, must also mean that people without conscience have to, by definition, be incapable of introspection and insight. The very people who say that immediately contradict themselves when they go on to say, for instance, that sociopaths disdain those with consciences and are themselves master manipulators. How would a sociopath know that she doesn’t have a conscience without examining her own thoughts and emotions? And how else would a sociopath be able to so effortlessly manipulate people around him unless he had clear and in-depth perception of other people’s psyches? Also, if one needs to be an empath to be introspective and insightful, how do we explain the prevalence of denial, delusional thinking, neuroticism and self destructive behavior in the ‘normal’ population? It doesn’t take a scientific study to see that knowing one’s self isn’t on most empaths' to-do list.

There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark and it isn’t the herring. It’s the stereotype of the psychologically dumb and blind sociopath. It's spread by professionals and laymen alike and it is based on what they think a 'typical' sociopath says and does and not on how a sociopath sees and feels. The uninformed empath believes this stereotype because they can’t imagine that a sociopath could possibly examine his own thoughts and emotions, with depth and clarity, and not condemn himself. It is quite literally unthinkable for them.
Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.