Boredom: the three year itch

Someone sent me a link to a blog that is apparently written by a sociopath. I haven't read anything else but this post about sociopath's boredom, but I thought it addressed some interesting issues:

I’m suffering from a very specific sociopathic malady just at the moment: boredom. You may think that doesn’t sound so bad, but to a sociopath it’s a huge problem, something we can’t shake off or ignore or alleviate except by extreme measures.

***

So divorce or a breakup followed by serial dating and a new seduction; being promoted or headhunted OR fired – all these provide excitement, chaos to be skillfully negotiated, new people to be charmed and controlled and moulded. You’ll notice that the negative experiences carry the same value as the positive. It shouldn’t make sense, but to us it does. Change is good, and because of our tendency to grandiosity we think we’re equal to anything. We can do anything, deal with anything, overcome anything. We’re not afraid. Sadly when we charge off for our shiny new adventure we can forget that not everybody finds it quite so wonderful, and that it impacts on others in ways we hadn’t considered or felt responsible for.

***

The interesting thing I’ve found, in discussing with other people like me, is that for all of us it happens on a regular cycle. The length of the cycle varies from one to another, but for me it appears roughly every three years. It hasn’t been obvious up until now because with that timescale, naturally-occurring events in my life have often provided change at just the right time. Job changes, pregnancy, college etc all synchronised with my cycle and I haven’t often found myself feeling this way. I’ve also been lucky that the changes I’ve made have fit with the needs of my partner and family, and we’ve never found ourselves materially or emotionally worse off.

***

The interesting thing I’ve found, in discussing with other people like me, is that for all of us it happens on a regular cycle. The length of the cycle varies from one to another, but for me it appears roughly every three years. It hasn’t been obvious up until now because with that timescale, naturally-occurring events in my life have often provided change at just the right time. Job changes, pregnancy, college etc all synchronised with my cycle and I haven’t often found myself feeling this way. I’ve also been lucky that the changes I’ve made have fit with the needs of my partner and family, and we’ve never found ourselves materially or emotionally worse off.

Society of sociopaths

People are always asking what a society of sociopaths would look like. As i have suggested before, there already is a society of sociopaths. It is the Dutch. And I'm not the only one who has suggested that the Dutch are as cold and calculating as they come. A libertarian blogger posting about the proposed universal health care in the United States writes:

If the public sector atrophies, the scope for manipulation broadens, because the information about what's available outside the public sector shrinks. Nor is this just crazy speculation. I actually think it's pretty reasonable when conservatives worry that the Dutch attitudes towards euthanasia are influenced by the burden old people and severely disabled children put on the public purse. I don't see how they could fail to be.

What then does a society of sociopaths look like? The Dutch are very efficient, utilitarian, and all of them ride bikes. They invented several of the world's evils including things like slave trade, diamond trade, and imperialism. They're also very tolerant, traditionally a haven for religious minorities like the soon-to-be American pilgrims. Once you're too old to be functional to society, you kill yourself, always with one eye on the bottom line, e.g. gay okay but old decrepit, not so much. And they're firm believers in the free market. Not so bad, is it? I mean there are tradeoffs in everything, right?

Experts on sociopathy

The following were taken from an article on Dr. Robert Hare, psychopathy expert.

History of the term psychopath:

The condition itself has been recognized for centuries, wearing evocative labels such as "madness without delirium" and "moral insanity" until the late 1800s, when "psychopath" was coined by a German clinician. But the term (and its 1930s synonym, sociopath) had always been a sort of catch-all, widely and loosely applied to criminals who seemed violent and unstable.

Why we should care about psychopaths:

Psychopathy may prove to be as important a construct in this century as IQ was in the last (and just as susceptible to abuse), because, thanks to Hare, we now understand that the great majority of psychopaths are not violent criminals and never will be. Hundreds of thousands of psychopaths live and work and prey among us.

On their inability to respond to punishment or learn from negative experiences:

For his first paper, now a classic, Hare had his subjects watch a countdown timer. When it reached zero, they got a "harmless but painful" electric shock while an electrode taped to their fingers measured perspiration. Normal people would start sweating as the countdown proceeded, nervously anticipating the shock. Psychopaths didn't sweat. They didn't fear punishment--which, presumably, also holds true outside the laboratory.

On the sociopaths' lack of familiarity with emotional language:

Hare made another intriguing discovery by observing the hand gestures (called beats) people make while speaking. Research has shown that such gestures do more than add visual emphasis to our words (many people gesture while they're on the telephone, for example); it seems they actually help our brains find words. That's why the frequency of beats increases when someone is having trouble finding words, or is speaking a second language instead of his or her mother tongue. In a 1991 paper, Hare and his colleagues reported that psychopaths, especially when talking about things they should find emotional, such as their families, produce a higher frequency of beats than normal people. It's as if emotional language is a second language--a foreign language, in effect--to the psychopath.

On the potential for abuse:

"We'll let people out [of prison] on the basis of scores on this, and we'll put them in. And we'll take children who do badly on some version of this and segregate them or something. It wasn't designed to do any of these things. The problems that politicians are trying to solve are fundamentally more complicated than the one that Bob has solved."

On using the diagnosis to argue in favor of the death penalty:

"A psychological instrument and diagnosis should not be a determinant of whether someone gets the death sentence. That's more of an ethical and political decision."

On the sociopath's level of humanity:

Are these people qualitatively different from us? "I would think yes," says Hare. "Do they form a discrete taxon or category? I would say probably--the evidence is suggesting that. But does this mean that's because they have a broken motor? I don't know. It could be a natural variation." True saints, completely selfless individuals, are rare and unnatural too, he points out, but we don't talk about their being diseased.

On the possibility of a cure:

Asked if he thinks there will ever be a cure for psychopathy--a drug, an operation--Hare steps back and examines the question. "The psychopath will say 'A cure for what?' I don't feel comfortable calling it a disease. Much of their behaviour, even the neurobiological patterns we observe, could be because they're using different strategies to get around the world. These strategies don't have to involve faulty wiring, just different wiring."

Quote: Morality

Rope-a-Dope

I recently watched Fight Night Round 4. This had inspired me to go back and watch some classic fights. One of the fights I watched was the George Forman vs. Muhammed Ali.

Ali has always amazed me. Not just by the fact that he was a amazing boxer, or how he was socially conscious. It's the fact that he won his fights by getting in his opponents' heads. Before fights he would taunt and insult the other fighters that were big hitters. This way he could play against their strengths turning them into weaknesses.

In his fight against Foreman it was no different. Almost all of Foreman's fight were won by knocking out the opponent by the fourth round. Ali, however, can take it the distance round after round. His goal would have to be to tire his opponent out, and survive till then. Ali was also older and came out of retirement, and Foreman was in his prime as the World Champion.

Before the fight it was found out that the ropes were too long for the ring. The fighters agreed to fight anyway since everyone was already there. Now here's where things get interesting. Ali found himself getting hit hard and against the ropes. Only he found out he could lean against the rope steadily and Foreman's hits wouldn't hit as hard, and then he realized he could fire shots off of it. His corner screamed at him for spending round after round against the ropes. However, Ali continued. Meanwhile (Ref's account), Ali was tautning Foremen, calling him names, laughing at him, and telling him "Is that all you got?" This caused Foremen to hit even harder, much to the dismay of Ali's trainer.

Ali was able to expend all of Foremen's energy to the point where he was not even throwing punches anymore--he was just pawing slowly at him. They called his movement "Sleepwalking" because he was so slow and unfocused. Ali played with him for one more round and ended up knocking him out.

Now I'm sure you're wondering why I'm giving you a play-by-play on boxing. It reminded me of a strategy that I've always used in my life against others who try to bring me down. I portray my strengths as weakness and weaknesses as strengths. People take you for what you portray to be more times than not. You don't have to be a sociopath to get people to take you for face value (though it's easier for us since we do it constantly). People are keen on boasting their strengths only to brag. It's natural. Your key lies in playing your strengths off as a weaknesses, luring you opponent into a false sense of security where they fall into a trap of playing your game. In the same way you play your weaknesses off as strengths, deterring them from attacking you where you have no game. Know yourself and know your enemy.

Participation time: I want to know from the readers if you've used this strategy? How successful was it for you? How did you pull it off and when did you decide to strike?