Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Almost sociopath (part 1)

From a female reader wondering where she falls on the sociopath spectrum:

I've been reading your blog from your first post on since I found it at the beginning of this week (still reading, expecting your book by end of week).  It's...fascinating.  But, more than that, it often times rings shockingly true.  I've spent years studying sociopaths, but given much out there was negative I'd frequently told myself "well I don't kill/rape/assault" and thus couldn't possibly be one.

This being said it seems highly possible I am.  I have done "bad" things - taken what wasn't mine, gone places I shouldn't have, destroyed psyches and lives - with nary a care in the world.  ...In fact even the "I don't assault" statement isn't entirely true given I'd been in a few fights; but they were non-chargeable incidents, disbelieved by others (no one believes the adorably pint-sized blue-eyed, blond, girl is capable of violence, especially when she targets bigger kids and boys), when I was young and they were often provoked or a playfulness that went awry...I thought I was playing, the other person found me to be physically bullying.  What I've always found most troubling - still do find most troubling - was how not troubled I was/am.  When my friends wept at movies I laughed, when they seemed horrified by the latest terrorist threat I shrugged, and when they grew cross at something in the news I simply did not see why they were making the fuss (after all, it did not personally affect them, did it?).  ...I used to torment my best friend thinking it was playful/it didn't bother her and hadn't a clue what I'd done was considered wrong/cruel until junior high when she wrote an explicit poem on how it made her feel...and then directly told me that the poem was about our interactions.

I slip in and out of interests and infatuations with both things and people without a second look back.  When asked what I love I simply gauge the people I'm with and go with the most satisfactory-to-them answer - with nerdy friends I like Lord of the Rings, with jock friends I like weight-lifting and kick-boxing, and on and on it goes.  This holds true for people as well...while I've had a small handful (3-5) of friends for years, since childhood, it seems due to not being able to keep any others.  I make friends fast, easily, but rarely keep them - they all just seem to slip away on me.  Of course I confess others have run off do to some game I played with/on them that they were not overly fond of.  Whatever the reason though I find I don't mind too much provided I didn't lose them to someone else - this holds overly true in the romance department; people don't leave me, I leave them, and I'll reconnect with exes just to ensure, in the end, I left them.

I cannot, for the life of me, say with any certainty what/who I, myself, love.  I have interests, yes, and can hold them for years upon years, at times almost obsessively I've been told, but loves?  ...I don't know...

After knowing me for a while some people have mentioned my...personality.  High school friends called me the Devil's puppy and said I was like the manipulative Katherine from Cruel Intentions (the modernized Dangerous Liaisons with Sarah Michelle Gellar).  Another friend noted that I was "the one that gets people to do things and then hides in the bushes, laughing, while the cops arrest them" (she was unaware at the time that I'd, in fact, done something just like that in my earlier youth...my then friend got kicked out of that store as a result, it was hilarious to me).  Even my grandmother declared "that's you!" as I read off some sociopathic traits I'd learned of.  My eyes have been mentioned once or twice, but only in positives (in that they were attractive) except from enemies who've noted I "stare right through" people...of course I don't know if they mean through like into the "soul" of or through like the other person wasn't there.

In argument for not having sociopathy: I am female (thus making it statistically less likely, so the research says).  I do understand sarcasm - which you mentioned would be hard for sociopaths - but there's a caveat on this one: I understand it in my family and close relations who use it with great frequency, I understand the kind I grew up on.  If I'm with someone new - a new friend, a new mate - I'm slower to pick it up...especially if written out without a winky/smiley emoticon or some other signifier that states the person is joking.  I also can at least speculate why another might cry should there be a stimulus for it around - she's crying because someone in the movie is dying - and have cried once or twice at movies myself (the greatest emotion attached to my crying though is frustration, even in a movie situation where I'm often finding something keenly unfair in the narrative towards a character I identify with in some way, but still I cry at a situation I know, logically, to be completely falsified...something I hate, the sense I'm being manipulated into a feeling, which is probably why I'll never watch a movie that's made me cry again).  ...Of course these might be due to years of experience and/or my exceptions, not my rules, in personality.  Not sure.


Monday, September 2, 2013

Iceland: Nation of sociopaths?

From a reader:

Thought you might find this interesting @ 21:10.



Iceland was originally largely founded and built by a large number of outcasts, sociopaths, murderers, and those that were allied with loosing warlords. They fled from the other parts of Scandinavia, largely Norway. Many names of places in Iceland are exact replicas of norwegian west-coast locations. Since much of the Viking population in Norway at that time was located there, it was only natural to see these names replicated.

Further in the video right after that time stamp I am showing you, they speak of how women from the British islands were enslaved and right out simply kidnapped and taken to Iceland, forming much of the initial female population. Needless to say, they picked the women they liked best. Perhaps a good step in evolution.

Here it is explained how 60% of the women were British while mostly the men were Scandinavian. I read once that genetic research suggests that 90% of male Y-chromosomes in Iceland are accurately Norwegian, while 80% of the women carry a marker in their X-chromosomes that is traceable to accurately Ireland and Scotland. But I guess they have been mixing a bit on these Islands, so I would not know how accurate that science is.

The whole of the Icelandic population is genetically mapped(ref: DeCode genetics). If you brain scan them as well, you could always do research on sociopathy and psychopathy looking for genetic- an brain signatures. Then write another book. I would read it.

And lastly, if you like slaughter, betrayal, manipulation and cold bloodedness you should read the Icelandic sagas. They are about real people in real places, a long time ago. I especially recommend "Egil Skallagrimsons saga", and "Saga of Grettir Asmundson."

"Some say he felt nothing when his father died, some say he cared." I remember that sentence from "Saga of Grettir Asmundson." I remembered it again when I read your book and you explicitly mentioned that this trait helped you get a diagnose. Grettir Asmundson was a sociopathic bad guy. Not because he was evil, he was also both a national hero and the oppsite. I identified with him alot, even though I am an empath, his trouble with society rooting in non-empathic traits were identifiable to me. I think you would identify with him too. Same goes for Egil Skallagrimson, however, he was never and outcast. Especially note the tone of the story telling as the violence takes place. It is ver un-emotional and straight forward, the way I imagine a sociopath would relate to anything, violent or not.

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Contradictions

An interesting reaction to the book is that it has contradictions. The most popular one is that I say that I was not the victim of abuse but then describe a less than idyllic childhood. Perhaps a close second is that I say that I have average looks yet consider my own breasts to be remarkably beautiful. Or maybe another is that I say I don't necessarily think anybody is better than anybody else, but I happen to be smarter than most people.

To me these things aren't contradictions. I never felt like the victim of abuse. Although I have sometimes played the role of victim (provoking my father, trying to get teachers fired or get better educational/job opportunities, etc.), perhaps due to my self-delusion/megalomania about being powerful and being someone who acts rather than be acted upon, or perhaps due to an inability to really feel bad about bad consequences that happen to me, I have never been able to actually identify with victimhood. I love my breasts, but I know that objectively I am average looking (I feel like men should understand this concept well, I feel like I have almost never known a man who wasn't infatuated with his genitalia). And I just happen to be smarter than most people -- that is exactly what it means to score in the 99th percentile on tests measuring intelligence (at least speaking of the type(s) of intelligence that these tests are meant to measure, and I acknowledge even in the book that there are a variety of different ways to be intelligent). Being smarter than most people is a fact about me the same way that my height and weight are facts. If I were exceptionally tall or fat, I would acknowledge those things about myself too without making any normative judgment that being tall makes me better or being fat makes me worse. I know people tend to think that smarter = better, but I have seen enough incompetent geniuses to not hold this opinion myself.

But I think people's negative reactions to seeming contradictions suggests something about people's discomfort with ambiguity. From Joss Whedon's recent graduation address to Wesleyan University:

[Our culture] is not long on contradiction or ambiguity. … It likes things to be simple, it likes things to be pigeonholed—good or bad, black or white, blue or red. And we’re not that. We’re more interesting than that. And the way that we go into the world understanding is to have these contradictions in ourselves and see them in other people and not judge them for it. To know that, in a world where debate has kind of fallen away and given way to shouting and bullying, that the best thing is not just the idea of honest debate, the best thing is losing the debate, because it means that you learn something and you changed your position. The only way really to understand your position and its worth is to understand the opposite.

That doesn’t mean the crazy guy on the radio who is spewing hate, it means the decent human truths of all the people who feel the need to listen to that guy. You are connected to those people. They’re connected to him. You can’t get away from it. This connection is part of contradiction. It is the tension I was talking about. This tension isn’t about two opposite points, it’s about the line in between them, and it’s being stretched by them. We need to acknowledge and honor that tension, and the connection that that tension is a part of. Our connection not just to the people we love, but to everybody, including people we can’t stand and wish weren’t around. The connection we have is part of what defines us on such a basic level.

I liked this a lot. Some of the most black and white thinkers use sources that are anything but, e.g. the ultra-religious using scriptural texts that portray a God of seeming contradictions (both kind and vengeful, both forgiving and damning) to justify making their own black and white assessments of certain things as being pure evil and others being unassailable good. A little like the junk science you see in sociopath research. The Joss Whedon quote also reminded me of one of my favorite twitter quotes:

UPDATE: I think this article about being gay and Catholic is very interesting and relevant to any discussion of seeming contradictions and how there are many ways to live a life consistent with what you believe, despite what everyone else might think.

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Junk science

I often see sociopath research that by itself is not dubious, but the implications or the conclusions that the researchers draw from the evidence seems stretched, non sequitur, or wholly unsupported by the data. For instance, I wrote about research suggesting that the sociopath's corpus callosum is longer and thinner than the average person's brain, resulting in a faster rate of transfer of information between the two hemispheres of their brain. Rather than cite this as a possible advantage of the sociopath brain, researchers conjectured that this might explain why sociopaths have "less remorse, fewer emotions and less social connectedness." What? Maybe it's just my lack of understanding, but that conclusion doesn't seem to follow at all from the fact that sociopaths have a more efficient corpus callosum.

Sometimes the problem with the research or logic is the complete circularity of the research -- i.e. the tautology of the assertion people who manifest antisocial traits tend to behave antisocially. For instance, a new study found out that people who self-report that "what matters for me is the bottom line,"will behave more ruthlessly and selfishly in prisoner's dilemma style games:

The study involved normal undergraduate students around age 19. The students were divided into small groups and told to converse on a topic of their choice for 10 minutes. Then, they were separated and given a questionnaire to measure their psychopathic tendencies. The questionnaire asked them to rate their agreement with statements, such as"what matters for me is the bottom line," or "I am often angry in social situations." There are two kinds of psychopathy, but this study was looking at the classic "conniving and cold" psychopaths.

Next, the researchers had the students play a "prisoner's dilemma" game, in which each person was given a sum of money that they could keep for themselves or transfer to a partner, for whom it would be doubled. For example, both people would start with $3; they could either keep $3 or give $6 to their partner. If the game has several iterations, it is in both people's best interest to cooperate and give the money away, because both will receive $6 instead of $3. But if it's just a one-shot game, it's in a person's best interest to keep the $3 for himself or herself, as there can be no consequence of not cooperating. (This experiment involved a one-shot game, though participants weren't told that fact.)

The students who scored higher on the questionnaire (meaning they were more psychopathic) were more likely to betray their partner and keep the money for themselves if that partner interrupted them more frequently (a sign of disrespect). The more psychopathic students were also more likely to betray a partner with whom they appeared to have less in common, and were therefore less likely to see again. In other words, those with more psychopathic tendencies only cooperated if there was something in it for them.

The conclusion:

"Traits such as deceitfulness and conceitedness — as opposed to honesty and humility — involve a willingness to take advantage of others when the opportunity arises."

Hm.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Borderline personality disorder vs. sociopathy

This was an interesting article from the Psychology Today blog relating an experiment done examining the brain activity of sociopaths and comparing it to that of people with borderline personality disorder. Why these two disorders? Apparently, sociopathic and borderline traits occur with equal frequency among violent offenders, but they reach their antisocial behavior in different ways:

Typically, antisocial offenders with borderline personality disorder are emotionally reactive, unable to regulate emotions, bereft of cognitive empathy (knowing how another person feels), rageful, and reactively aggressive. By contrast, antisocial offenders with high psychopathic traits can be characterized as emotionally detached, cognitively empathic, morally problematic, exploitative, and proactively and reactively aggressive.

The experiment:

The investigators took MRI scans of the two groups of antisocial offenders, with the aim of exploring differences in the cerebral structure of their brains. All offenders had been convicted for capital, violent crimes (including severe bodily injury such as murder, manslaughter, robbery, or rape) from high-security forensic facilities and penal institutions and were formally diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. There was also a comparison group of healthy men.

The results:

The antisocial offenders with borderline personality disorder had alterations in the orbitofrontal and ventromedial prefrontal cortex regions, which are involved in emotion regulation and reactive aggression; there were also differences in the temporal pole, which is involved in the interpretation of other peoples’ motives. By contrast, the antisocial offenders with high psychopathic traits showed reduced volume mostly in midline cortical areas, which are involved in the processing of self-referential information and self reflection (i.e., dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate/precuneus) and recognizing emotions of others (postcentral gyrus). 

I thought this was interesting. I wrote previously about the connection between sociopathy and alexithymia, or the decreased ability to identify, understand, and describe one's own emotions. This trait has been linked to a lack of empathy, the idea being that if you are unable to understand your own emotions, you don't stand much of a chance of understanding the emotional worlds of others. I feel like I don't understand my emotions, that they feel out of context to me, like I'm getting only snippets of a movie played backwards. This feeling probably contributes to my weak sense of self. This brain scan study seems to comport with this theory -- that sociopaths suffer from an ability to process self-referential information and to self-reflect, and that consequently sociopaths have flexible understandings of not only morality, but basically every human trait.

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.