Sociopaths make great first impressions. They are exciting, dynamic, charming, even electrifying. No one is better at seduction than a sociopath. Back in the days before birth control, this meant that a sociopath was likely to spread his seed more widely.
To call people manipulative is to disparage them. But most successful manipulators are that way because people don't recognize them for what they are. And the ability to hide one's true natures is another sociopathic specialty.
Sociopaths are dishonest, disloyal, and treat others inhumanely. In the long run, these traits cause others to seek revenge. But a sociopath would be good at making his exit before his true nature was discovered, but after he had impregnated a few females.
(This is why so many serial killers have been characterized as "drifters." They leave places as soon as their acquaintances -- or marks -- catch on to their true character.)
Their percentage is key. If sociopaths were, say, 20% of the population, people would be more familiar with them, and be on their guard against them, perhaps to the extent of assuming everyone to be guilty until proven innocent (of being lying, conniving, backstabbing, irresponsible, hypocritical, and downright evil).
Another evolutionary benefit of sociopathy is narcissism. (All sociopath are narcissists, even if only a relatively small subset of narcissists are sociopaths.) Narcissism boosts confidence, which in turn can help performance. When it comes to swaying others, having the right body language is crucial, and having enough confidence can often make the difference.
For a man, there's little genetic payoff to being shy around women. (There is a benefit to being fearful in general, but that is a different quality.)
Sociopathy could be viewed as simply another evolutionary strategy. It's a high risk strategy, since people will want their revenge on you. But it's also high reward, since before others try to exact their revenge, you're more likely to have planted your seed widely.
Perhaps the fact that it is a more viable strategy for men than women (whose reproductive capacity is limited) accounts for the fact that the incidence of sociopathy is generally reported to be three times higher among men than women.
Posts
20 comments:
I read a book about North Korea by Barbara Demick, which claimed that people of worse character were more likely to survive the 90s famine because they wouldn't hesitate to steal food. I'd imagine that sociopaths are likely to survive not just famine, but all sorts of other scenarios better than empaths. Natural disasters, warfare, genocide, drought, fire - having low empathy in any of these situations would lead to increased survival chances. I can't imagine a sociopath risking his life to stop and rescue a crying baby or a trapped animal on his way out of a burning building.
- Gethin
Gethin --
Great points, which make perfect sense. Though I suspect that if the situation were dire enough, a lot of us would find our behavior a little more sociopathic, even if we're not sociopaths. Starvation or dying of thirst or plain old fear can make us act in ways we wouldn't ordinarily.
What I was referring to in the post was more the sort of unforced sociopathic behavior which we'd never see from empaths (I LIKE that word) in normal circumstances. But I'm sure you're absolutely right about the benefit of low empathy in wartime, etc.
I see what you mean. I've long thought that there are careers to suit sociopaths. For example, the SAS requires soldiers to be fearless enough to undertake risky missions. Who better than an extreme narcissist with a grandiose view of his own abilities and a heartfelt conviction that, in risky situations, he will always be lucky? Other jobs require employees to be Machiavellian: lawyers, salesmen and private investigators are all economical with the truth. So you're right - even in peacetime, sociopathy can be an advantageous trait.
- Gethin
Gethin --
I've long thought the same. In fact when my son was considering trying out for Special Forces here, I warned him that he would end up cheek by jowl with a lot of sociopaths if he made it. And I've always thought the same about (certain kinds of) lawyers and salesmen; that had never occurred to me about private investigators, though I suppose that's true too. In this country the three biggest magnets for sociopaths seem to be Washington DC, Hollywood, and Wall Street. DC attracts lawyers, Wall Street attracts a certain type of salesman, and Hollywood attracts a certain type of narcissist, so I suppose it fits with your view. This isn't to say, of course, that the majority of people in those places are sociopaths; it's just that the percentage of them there is larger than the usual 3-4%. (10%?)
"Their percentage is key. If sociopaths were, say, 20% of the population, people would be more familiar with them, and be on their guard against them, perhaps to the extent of assuming everyone to be guilty until proven innocent (of being lying, conniving, backstabbing, irresponsible, hypocritical, and downright evil)."
Dat be raciss!
What?!
I question if "sociopathy is an evolutionary adaptive behavior", thinking instead that it occurs because of the poor parenting that the sociopath received from his/her bio parents. The sociopath that I know (who referred to himself as a "bad-ass" once, not looking the part though - he looks like your average, conservative Joe Shmoe) had a mother who was incapable of mothering effectively (thus, he was not able to bond with her) and a father who (I believe) was also a sociopath (the guy physically abused his children), so, basically, this sociopath was screwed from the get-go. In my opinion, parents can destroy their kids, creating sociopaths.
-birdie
Birdie --
I was thinking about that while writing the post, and agree with you that sociopaths become that way because of a lack of a close bond with a parent very early on. You're right, from that perspective, sociopathy is not an evolutionary strategy in the sense that it necessarily gets passed on from parent to child generation after generation. (Orphanages are filled with little sociopaths-to-be whose dead parents weren't necessarily sociopaths themselves.) But, as a strategy to pass your own genes on to the next generation, sociopathy makes sense, as long as only a small proportion of the population is that way. And humans seem to be constructed so that if no one else loves you, you end up "loving" yourself (albeit with a very twisted, misguided sort of love), which is one way of describing sociopathy. Why would humans be constructed to become sociopaths this way? Because from the dawn of human evolution, if you've had no parents to take care of you, the best way to overcome that was to become a con artist of sorts, and fool other people into treating you well and taking care of you. So in that sense it's an "evolutionary strategy."
It so happens that the same little kids who are good at ingratiating themselves with strangers in quick fashion will grow up to be adults who are manipulative and expert seducers as well. That goes with the territory of being a sociopath, and is an evolutionary strategy" in the sense I described in the post.
I know exactly what you mean about sociopaths being screwed from the get-go. I knew a sociopath on Wall Street whose mother had had her own mother die when she was an infant, and her father had then remarried, then died himself when she was six. So she spent her entire childhood as the unwanted stepchild, and did her best to make her own sons feel the same way. The sociopath's father had had to pay rent to his own parents from the time he was ten; which I'm sure molded his view of the world. So you can imagine what type of family atmosphere that was to grow up in. (I knew two of the sons, and they were both sociopaths; they were also "screwed from the get-go.")
I think that sociopaths are controlled by their psychological make-up, behaving according to their disorder. Males and females are irresponsible, not putting too much thought into whether they should or shouldn't have children (most of them probably could care less if they have children, is my guess) - they'll have kids and be below-average parents. I've known male and female sociopaths (unfortunately) and they are not great parents. Sociopaths breed just because they can, not as the result of some evolutionary strategy. Of course, the genes for the disorder can be in the "family tree," so depending on the right dynamics (eg. a good, stable, nurturing parent, etc.) being at play, sociopathy does not necessarily have to express itself in the offspring (that's the hope at least). It's tough (challenging) for the "normal" parent to raise the child(ren), because he/she is the sole moral, ethical, and spiritual influence on the offspring. You just hope that everything within their make-up is in good, working order.
-birdie
Birdie --
I agree with you completely about the kind of parents sociopaths make. And I agree that one can have a sociopathic parent but not necessarily end up as one (usually because the other parent was nurturing).
But bear in mind, throughout most of human evolution, people bred not because they made a conscious decision to have children, but because they wanted to have sex with the other person they ended up breeding with. And when I talk about an 'evolutionary strategy," I'm not suggesting that people consciously think about what will propagate their genes into the next few generations; I'm talking about their instincts, in particular, their instinct to have sex (which we all have) and the instinct to want to bend others to your will (which sociopaths have more than others).
Have you done a sociopath analysis of L. Ron Hubbard? Look at his face in the picture at this link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508032/New-Scientology-building-Florida-floor-members-super-powers.html
Remnant --
I've never really known much about him other than that he is the founder of Scientology, an organization which itself seems to give off "sociopathic" vibes, if such can be ascribed to an institution.
I just read the Daily Mail article you sent, and also took a look at the "Early Life" section of his Wikipedia bio, which often has clues to someone's sociopathy. What I got from that is that Scientology itself has distorted his life to the point where he was practically born in a manger. Reading about his later life, though, it certainly sounds as if he was a sociopath, given his later conviction for fraud, his multiple marriages, and his founding of a cult/religion, with himself as its messiah.
I'll look into him more at some point, thank you.
I've never known a sociopath well, so I'm curious-what exactly is so "charming" about them? The ones I've seen on telivision either disgust me or leave me indifferent, and the possible ones I've met in real life left me with the same impression from the get-go. Maybe I don't respond to "charisma" the way most people do?
Anon --
Villains on TV tend to have their villainy signaled to the audience in some obvious way right from their introduction, so that the audience knows to root against them from the start. TV representations also tend to be somewhat cartoonish.
The sociopaths I've known in real life all had a sot of superficial charm which was partly occasioned by their lack of inhibition: they were more effusive, more "in the moment," and more full-throated with their jokes. They all projected a certain confidence which could win you over, or at least make them SEEM more credible at first, and with a couple of them, even their friendship seemed more genuine. It was only when you got to know them that their basic hollowness and dishonesty became apparent.
Oh, I didn't mean supervillians, I meant serial killers and some of the people you've blogged about. But you're right,they did seem to "dominate" the room. Maybe it's an introvert thing to respond more skeptically to someone who presents themselves that way.
Pavonine --
Aha, gotcha. I thought you were talking about fictional characters.
TV can either renounce or diminish, but as I said, in person, most sociopaths tend to dominate, at first usually in a superficially positive way.
"Sociopaths are dishonest, disloyal, and treat others inhumanely."
Do all sociopaths treat others inhumanely?
Steven --
Yes, at some level, they all do. It may not be apparent at first, but where there is no conscience or sense of shame and an inability to love, there will be a lack of humane treatment. They may fake it well, but eventually the sociopathy will express itself in some way.
Do you think the Levenson self report psychopathy scale test is good test? Are there any other good tests that a psychologist can administer? How would it normally be diagnosed?
Steven --
I hadn't even heard of the Levenson self-report until you just mentioned it, I just looked it up, didn't get many details on it, but it sounds almost as if you rate yourself on various measures of empathy. Without having seen an actual test, it certainly sounds like the kind of test it would be easy to "cheat" on. anybody who wanted to make himself look good could, simply by lying. (Again, I haven't actually seen the test, so I'm just speculating here.)
The classic test for sociopathy, the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) seemed to me a pretty good test. It was larded with questions that only a sociopath would lie about, and if someone answered enough of those questions the wrong way, it was a giveaway of his sociopathy.
Sample questions: Do you ever put off till tomorrow what you could do today? Have you ever lied?
Obviously, everybody puts things off, and everybody has lied at some point or another. But only a sociopath would claim not to have done these things, so answering no to those would be a sociopathic tell. I think the MMPI is good because it effectively "tricks" the sociopath into giving himself away, rather than relying on his honesty, which is not something you want to rely on.
Post a Comment