Thursday, January 2, 2014

Sociopaths = night owls?

According to the University of Western Sydney "a preference for staying up late or into the early hours has a direct link to anti-social behaviour and so-called Dark Triad traits," as reported by the Daily Mail. The dark triad, of course, refers to narcissists, sociopaths, and machiavellians.

People were then rated based on a narcissism scale and were asked how strongly they agreed with statements including 'I have a natural talent for influencing people.'

They were additionally asked how they felt about statements made on the psychopathy scale, for example, 'I think I could beat a lie detector', and a Machiavellian scale, such as 'It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there'.

Across the 263 students, the darker a participant's personality score, the more they tended to be an 'owl' and said they functioned more effectively in the evening hours. 

This was also the case when the three traits were analysed separately; each trait was stronger in people who considered themselves to be night owls.

Why might that be? Like almost all scientific findings about psychopaths, the theories explaining the differences seem to be as unbiased as a old-fashioned phrenologist unquestioningly explaining why certain races are naturally superior to others in order to justify the status quo:

Both nocturnality and Dark Triad traits are hereditary, and adaptive. Now that a link between the two has been established, researchers are speculating as to how it came about – likely, they say, people with Dark Triad tendencies use the cover of night to better engage a “cheater strategy.”

While the vigilant eyelids of morning people start drooping, the night owls are just getting revved up – using their optimal cognitive function for anti-social behaviour, “increased mating success in the short-term context,” mate-poaching, risk-seeking, and impulsivity (and, likely plot-hatching: there has to be a way to wipe the sunny smile off that breakfast server’s face).

It's a little like the people who try to straight-facedly give a scientific explanation for why they think that dolphins are nicer than sharks.

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Sociopath quote: indifference

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

— Charles Darwin

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

A tale of seduction: Der Erlkönig


From a friend:
To my favorite sociopath-

Musings on the art of seduction and Schubert’s Der Erlkönig, poem by Goethe.

Goethe sets us up with a seduction that leads us slowly to the Erlkönig's lair. First we think we see him, but others (the father) assure us that it's just mist. Then we hear him, but others say it's just the wind. Finally, we see him, but others see only a tree.


Schubert’s music takes it all to another level- listen to the range of the Erlkönig. He pleads in a magnificent and tender high range. First he offers beautiful and expensive items, then he offers experiences, servants, dancing. In his final persuasive moment he says that he loves you -- then he says he will take you by force! All the while Schubert builds the tension of the boy and father to unbearable heights, while the voice of Erlkönig is our only relief. We slip with the boy into a sweet death. It is only in our final submission that others consider the awful reality that our senses were accurate and theirs dull, but it is too late.

And so is seduction.

Monday, December 30, 2013

Sociopathic Buddhism: tautology or contradiction?

One of the most sought after sociopathic traits by normal people is the ability to be "zen" in the face of stress or danger. I've always suspected there may be a connection to the sort of consciousness that sociopaths experience and that sought to be attained by Buddhists, so I was glad when a reader took the time to explain the connection to me:

Consciousness is something that has always fascinated me, but until recently I've only explored it intellectually, not directly. I've been experimenting with Zen meditation for a few months now, and it occurred to me one day that there are some interesting parallels between sociopathy and Zen Buddhism, such as emotional detachment, no strong attachment to a self, not buying into belief systems, and having a focus on the present. Also, Buddhists, like sociopaths, can appear to outsiders as unemotional, or emotionally cold. However, Buddhists do appreciate emotions and actions that are spontaneous, and from the gut, just not those arising from the intellect. Given the above, I wonder if Buddhism, in spite of being a religion, would hold a special appeal to the sociopathic mind?

Is it possible even that the sociopathic mind is closer to enlightenment? Empaths identify so closely with emotions and find emotions so compelling, that I wonder if they would have a harder time attaining Buddhist awareness than logical, less emotional individuals, and might be more likely to fall into the trap of merely chasing after a spiritual high? Or would sociopaths, in spite of their detachment and greater awareness, have a harder time letting go of the scheming?

Being fully in the present requires letting go of the attachment to all thoughts, including concepts such as empathy, sociopathy, conscience, power, control, good, evil, and most importantly the self. It also requires letting go of the attachment to feelings, which are also a type of thought. You have to stop both thinking and feeling. As long as we are thinking (or feeling), we are busy either reflecting or anticipating. We're making a story from what is happening around us, and caught up in some illusion or other. Buddhists maintain that we suffer because we live in such states of illusion perpetuated by our thoughts. Giving up attachment to our thoughts brings awareness, and with awareness comes freedom from illusion, and thus freedom from suffering. With awareness also comes compassion. The compassion arises from experiencing directly, through meditation, our connection to everything and everyone. It doesn't matter if you are an empath or a sociopath. According to Buddhists, we all have this Buddha nature, even if we don't know it. We are all the same.

Looking at it this way, the difference between a sociopath and empath is only an illusion.

Here is a quote from "No self. No problem" by Anam Thubten, that I liked, that puts it well: "When one illusion doesn't work then we become disillusioned and we go around with our antennae up looking for another illusion. We look for one we don't associate with any memories of being disillusioned, one with no sense of disappointment. We look for something new, something different, something better. When we don't find an illusion we like, we make a big deal out of it. We say we're having a spiritual crisis. We're going through the dark night of the soul. We feel that the ground beneath our feet is shaky. We don't like being in darkness, in emptiness. We want to find an illusion that gives us comfort, that gives us what could be called a psychological massage. Soon we find another illusion, one that is full of promise."

You could say that, in a way, the sociopaths give empaths a psychological massage.

And from the other side of the fence, here is an excerpt from an article criticizing Buddhism (quoted here): "Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints. Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987. Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous."

The darker side of Buddhism, or the misunderstanding of an unenlightened mind?

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Power of empathy?

From researcher Brene Brown on the distinction between empathy and sympathy, among other characteristics of empathy:


It's interesting that Brown quotes another scholar, Theresa Wiseman, who studied professions in which empathy is (allegedly) important. Wiseman came up with four main qualities of empathy based on these studies:

  1. Perspective taking (ability to take perspective of another person or recognize their perspective as their truth)
  2. Staying out of judgment (not easy when you enjoy it as much as most of us do)
  3. Recognizing emotion in other people 
  4. Communicating that 
To me, I can say yes to all of those things. I can take people's perspective, as well as other people (maybe better?). I stay out of judgment (no bandwagon angry mob public shaming). I can recognize emotion in other people and communicate it back to them, it's why I am so good at reading and manipulating people. My main problem is recognizing emotion in myself. But Professor Brown then concludes that empathy is "feeling with other people." Ok, maybe that is what it is, or maybe that is what it feels like for most people (whether or not that's even possible or if people are just projecting their own emotions on the empathy target). But if the four main qualities don't include "feeling with other people," is that what is really valuable about empathy? If I can do the other four things, am I basically covering all of the important empathy bases?
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.