If there is one thing that gets me argumentative it is statements like this one that appeared in a recent research paper: “non-incarcerated psychopaths have an arguably equal potential to illuminate our understanding of the emotional difficulties, such as lack of empathy and lack of conscience, which underlie psychopathy and which lead to offending behaviour.” (emphasis mine)
Now I agree that we can learn from non-incarcerated psychopaths, I wrote recently about a well designed study where sociologists conducted interviews of some. But I cannot believe that statements like the one above make it through editorial review for another reason. Researchers in psychology have spent the last 50 years and untold millions of dollars uncovering the cause of behavior. There is no mystery, we know what causes behavior!
Behavior is caused by rewards and stopped by punishment. Actually rewards cause behavior a lot better than punishment stops it in most people. That is because the brain reward system is functionally stronger than the brain punishment system for most, and especially for sociopaths/psychopaths. The rewards that cause behavior do so because they increase dopamine activity in the mesolimbic dopamine system.
Offending behavior exists and persists because it is rewarding and that reward affects the activity of the mesolimbic dopamine system. To put it bluntly, nothing but desiring/liking to offend leads to offending behavior. To say otherwise is to negate all the work that has been done in this area. The evidence is so strong that genes involved in dopamine metabolism and that system have been identified as candidate genes in the familial transmission of “offending behavior”.
I will repeat, a lack of empathy does not cause offending behavior, neither does a lack of conscience. These two may cause a person to show restraint if he is tempted to aggress against another, but it is the aggressive impulse that causes aggression. So a person with empathy and conscience can still offend if he has the inclination to do so. Furthermore, there is evidence that repeated offending erodes away empathy and conscience.
There is another source of evidence that calls into question the hypothesis that lack of empathy causes the sociopath’s behavior. That source of evidence is people with autism and autism spectrum disorders.
I recently found two very impressive discussions comparing moral agency in autism and psychopathy. The first is, Autism, Empathy and Moral Agency, a paper published in The Philosophical Quarterly (52:340, 2002) written by Dr. Jeannette Kennett, Deputy Director and Principal Research Fellow, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, The Australian National University. Since I didn’t know to search Philosophical Quarterly for papers on psychopathy, I didn’t find that paper until I read “Moral Psychology, Volume 3, The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders and Development” MIT Press, 2008. Dr. Kennett also has two chapters in that book. But Chapter 5, Varieties of Moral Agency: Lessons from Autism, is a discussion of Dr. Kennette’s paper by Dr. Victoria McGeer, of Princeton University’s Center for Human Values. There is a back and forth discussion of the issues raised, with several noted professors also participating.
Both sources begin their discussions by saying that moral agency has two parts two it, a thinking part and a feeling part. They trace these concepts back to philosophers Kant and Hume. Dr. Kennett concludes that Kant is right and that reason is the most important aspect of moral agency. Dr. McGeer points to emotions being important even for people with autism. I am going to summarize the arguments, then give you my own opinion.
Now like sociopathy, autism is a spectrum. A large percentage of people with autism are mentally retarded, so this discussion involves those autistic individuals who are not mentally retarded. I should point out that many sociopaths also have poor intellectual functioning. These sociopaths tend to live in prison.
Dr. Kenneth quotes the following description of autism,
The most general description of social impairment in autism is lack of empathy. Autistic people are noted for their indifference to other people’s distress, their inability to offer comfort, even to receive comfort themselves. What empathy requires is the ability to know what another person thinks or feels despite that is different from one’s own mental state at the time. In empathy one shares emotional reactions to another person’s different state of mind. Empathy presupposes amongst other things a recognition of different mental states. It also presupposes that one goes beyond the recognition of difference to adopt the other person’s frame of mind with all the consequences of emotional reactions. Even able autistic people seem to have great difficulty achieving empathy in this sense.
Autistic people also experience an “aloneness,” yet this aloneness does not bother them. They are indifferent to the presence of other people and do not require affection. One autistic adult is quoted as saying, “I really didn’t know there were other people until I was seven years old. I then suddenly realized that there were people. But not like you do, I still have to remind myself that there are people. I could never have a friend. I really don’t know what to do with other people really.”
High functioning autistic people recognize that they are very different from other people and report feeling “like aliens.”
Dr.Kenneth correctly concludes, “Both psychopaths and autistic people experience outsider status, deficiencies in social understanding and social responsiveness… Both have a tendency to treat other people as tools or instruments, (they have) a lack of strong emotional connectedness to others and impaired capacity for friendship.” She says clinicians and researchers link these impairments in both psychopathy and autism to impaired empathy. But autistic people are in fact worse off in this respect than psychopaths. Psychopaths at least can interact socially with ease and behave in a charming way.
She correctly questions, “If empathy is crucial to the development and exercise of moral agency, then why is the autistic person not worse off, morally speaking, than the psychopath?” She points out that in spite of the lack of empathy which is at the core of the disorder, “Many autistic people display moral concerns, moral feeling and a sense of duty or conscience.”
That autistic people are not antisocial is evidenced by the observation that few come to the attention of police. I did a Google news search using the terms autistic and arrest. Although there were many arrests of people for abusing those with autism, all of the arrests of autistics for aggression were for aggression that stemmed from self-defense. For example, a 10 year old boy with autism was arrested for assaulting staff at his treatment facility. The boy assaulted staff members because he was afraid and they tried to prevent his escape.
Drs. Kenneth and McGeer basically agree on the source of moral agency in those with autism, and what they say is fascinating with respect to sociopaths. The source of moral agency in autism is a preference for order and organization. Autistic people have reported that their sense of morality comes from a desire to see their world as orderly and organized. Dr. Kenneth states that this need for order gives rise to an extraordinary rationality in high functioning people with autism. She says that since morality is organized and logical that those with autism easily pick up moral principles.
I also did a search on morality in autism and can attest to several studies demonstrating normal levels of moral reasoning in autistic children who are not mentally retarded.
Drs. Kennett and McGeer also agree on the issue of the lack of moral agency shown by sociopaths/psychopaths. They both say that this group just plain doesn’t care about morality or regard moral principles as important. This is where psychopaths and autistics differ. Autistics identify with and value moral principles. Dr. Kennett states, “It is not the psychopath’s lack of empathy, which (on its own at any rate) explains his moral indifference. It is more specifically his lack of concern, or more likely lack of capacity to understand what he is doing, to consider the reasons available to him and to act in accordance with them.”
The point of disagreement of the two experts involves the relative role of emotion and reason in autistic people’s moral agency and valuation of morality. Dr. Kennett says that the autistic person is like Dr. Spock of Star Treck, and views life in purely logical terms. Since morality is logical and rational, autistics embrace it. Dr. McGeer disagrees, she states that the autistic need for order leads to an emotional connection to order and rationality. She feels that emotion does play a role in the moral lives of autistics, since she sees them as emotionally as well as rationally invested in maintaining order.
What about sociopaths/psychopaths and the need for order/organization? This disorder truly involves disorder. Psychopaths/sociopaths thrive on chaos and seem to have a dislike for order. Everywhere they go they are a source of extreme entropy as they take order and turn it into disorder. Both Drs. link the lack of appreciation for order to a lack of thoughtfulness in sociopaths/psychopaths. Sociopaths are both disordered and not fully rational or logical.
Dr. McGeer States:
This failure of reason may seem surprising. After all, our image of the psychopath is of a person who is rather good at serving his own interests without concern for the damage he does to others; hence of someone who is rather good at thinking and acting in instrumentally rational ways”¦As Dr. Carl Elliot observes, “While the psychopath seems pathologically egocentric, he is nothing like an enlightened egoist. His life is frequently distinguished by failed opportunities, wasted chances and behavior which is astonishingly self-destructive. This poor judgment seems to stem not so much from the psychopath’s inadequate conception of how to reach his ends, but from an inadequate conception of what his ends are.”
I agree with Dr. McGeer in that I believe that the emotionality associated with the need for order leads to the rationality of autistic people. The brain punishment system is relatively intact in autistics as compared to sociopaths and when an autistic person senses danger instead of being disconnected from the source of anxiety/fear, the autistic person engages thoughtfully to avoid danger (punishment).
The brain punishment/anxiety system of sociopaths is both hypofunctional and hyperfunctional in that they experience anxiety but fail to engage their thinking brains in the presence of danger. The high functioning autistic is well practiced at using his thinking brain to avoid anxiety. The psychopath rarely uses the thinking brain he has- to do anything other than get into trouble and hurt other people.
There are interesting parallels between the autistic’s use of reason to manage anxiety and normal development. It turns out that anxiety and fearfulness in the first two years of life actually predicts the development of conscience. The brain punishment system seems to be more plugged in to the rational brain in kids who are dispositionally more anxious. These kids also have a more highly developed sense of empathy later on.
I am thankful to Drs. Kenneth and McGeer for their seminal contributions to our understanding of sociopathy/psychopathy. I encourage the scholars among you to purchase their book from Amazon. However, I think they both missed a further unifying explanation for why autistics are moral and psychopaths/sociopaths are not.
That explanation involves the brain reward system, which is fundamentally different in autistics and sociopaths. Autistics do not experience social reward, maybe not even in the sexual sense. They are indifferent to relationships. The main reward autistics live for must be the love of thinking because that is all they have. I don’t see that too many are obese, so I don’t think they even turn to food for their source of pleasure. Instead their inner worlds are rich with thoughts and reason. They busy themselves with their own thoughts. Most like who they are, enjoy life and wouldn’t choose a different life if they could.
The sociopath on the other hand, is completely dependent on social reward. The sociopath cannot tolerate aloneness because he has no entertaining thought-life to fall back on. The problem with the social reward system in sociopaths is that the only social reward they experience is dominance. All of their antisocial behavior is motivated by their dominance drive. When they lie, cheat or steal it is about gaining short term interpersonal dominance over some poor unsuspecting person. Autistics can’t lie and are as indifferent to dominance reward as they are to affection reward.
Dr. Keltner and associates at UC Berkeley are engaged in important research on the effects on people of obtaining social power. It turns out that when many people get power reward they change. Self-esteem increases, empathy is suspended, and they become uninhibited and less rational. They also think more about sex and tend to use more foul language. Their moral agency is diminished.
I believe that this response to power reward is the point of connection between sociopaths and the rest of us. Sociopaths are constantly in a state of power intoxication, or are in search of their next power fix. The rest of us can manage the power reward better, but the behavior of our politicians suggests that power intoxication doesn’t only make sociopaths less rational.
I could use your help on two things this week. First, I want your opinion on the term moral agency. I have been looking for a single term that would describe the moral deficits of sociopaths. Up until now I have used the term low “moral reasoning ability” because I couldn’t find another better term. Do you think people will better connect with/comprehend the term low “moral agency” or poor “moral reasoning ability”? Actually moral agency is more precise and technically more correct, but will people get it?
The second question I have concerns successful psychopaths. When I read the autism papers, it occurred to me that successful psychopaths do one of two things that unsuccessful ones don’t do. They either have a better appreciation for order or organization, or they find someone to organize and order their lives for them. If you know a successful psychopath, can you comment on how he/she is successful in spite of the chaos he/she tends to cause?
Liane,
Terrific article. A good, thought-provoking analysis.
In regard to your questions – when you first referred to “moral agency” in this article, I didn’t know what it was. I don’t think the term can be used without explanation. With “moral reasoning ability,” I can figure out what you’re talking about.
And a successful psychopath – how would you define that?
” Do you think people will better connect with/comprehend the term low “moral agency” or poor “moral reasoning ability”? Actually moral agency is more precise and technically more correct, but will people get it?”
The downside of “moral agency” is that the vast majority of people will have no clue what it means. The up side of that is that you get to define it for them.
As long as you consistently provide a concise definition to people the first few times they encounter the term, it should work out very well.
“If you know a successful psychopath, can you comment on how he/she is successful in spite of the chaos he/she tends to cause?”
Yep.
He was an Administrative Officer in the U.S. Marines.
1. An administrative officer always has the direct services of an experiences senior staff non commissioned officer. He also has a staff of 3 or more other well trained clerks. Because of these circumstances, the performance of his primary duties was not a challenge.
2. He had an excellent understanding of human weakness. In any military unit, there are inconvenient people and circumstances. It is very helpful to the Commanding Officer to have subordinates who will do unethical things to make these people and problems disappear without the CO or the unit looking bad. This made the P an asset.
3. The P enjoyed human degradation. He loved to tell depraved stories of perversity and cruelty. This played to the worst aspects of many people’s natures, and made him socially popular in key circles.
4. The military affords officer’s a great deal of power over the lives of their subordinates. Subordinates who complain are usually destroyed, but professionally and personally. This is because it makes the entire chain of command look bad when there is a documentable case of abuse. It is in the best interests of everyone but the victim for the victim to be labeled as crazy and/or dishonest. That’s the way complaints almost always play out. He was very, very safe from his victims.
5. He was in a unique position to know things his peers and seniors did not want known. If he ever went down, he wasn’t going down alone. They knew that.
6. I would guess that the P’s IQ was about 110. Many of his victims and dupes were significantly smarter, but not nearly as cunning.
P.S. The P physicallyabused his son and emotionally abused his wife and daughters, boasted of committing a vehicular hit and run, and practiced every perverse cruelty conceivable against subordinates. In spite of all that, he charmed almost everyone he met. He could find the dark side of anyone and persuade them to degrade themselves in short order. He’s the most profoundly evil person I’ve ever known, bar none. I’m no mental health professional, but if he’s not a succesful P then he’s satan’s right hand man.
Liane,
I want to get in early on this thread, because I have a number of problems with this article. As well as with the research behind it. As usual in a lot of this research, the conclusions reflect the questions asked, but there is little effort to understand the internal reality of either autistics or sociopaths. The question of “why are they like this?” ends at a fairly superficial level. There is little interest in the possibility that the symptoms of both conditions are actually responses to circumstances.
And your own bias in the analysis comes out with statements like “The psychopath rarely uses the thinking brain he has- to do anything other than get into trouble and hurt other people.” Which may reflect your feelings about your own experience, but is a broad generalization that is not consistent with the facts that sociopaths, especially intelligent ones, are high-functioning in many ways and have to be to mask their internal life in order to be accepted among feeling people.
I have a son who has been diagnosed with Aspergers and it has caused me to do a great deal of research on the experiences of parents of autistic children, as well as the writings of people with Aspergers and autism. This research looks into symptoms, but not causes of social alienation. And it doesn’t even begin to try.
Likewise most research on sociopaths examines their behaviors and thinking, but does not even start to examine their inner life. What is going on with them, and why are they like that? Not in terms of their current operating strategies, but what would cause those operating strategies.
I realize that I’m in the minority here, but I believe that their fundamental underlying problem is a failure of trust. I believe it is the underlying problem in RAD and other bonding disorders. And I believe that every symptom that we see with them can ultimately be explained by that. Beyond that, the failure of trust and the resulting bonding disorders orients them in a chaotic universe with nothing to depend on, including no ability to lean on and learn the security benefits of social structure — whether those structures are communities, one-on-one bonding, belief in God or even respect for their own need for personal integrity. They live in a survival-level reality without rules except to survive, and they live in a pain-based reality that keeps them reeling toward addictive fixes.
The social problem involved with these people — beyond the obvious damage they create in their no-holds-barred tactics for survival and pursuing addictive fixes — is that they cannot learn past this failure of trust. The failure of trust closes the door to the acceptance of risk associated with social learning. In particular, they reject any strategy that involves learning to trust.
While this plays out in the symptoms, creation of social damage, and unfixability of these people, the implications from my perspective are someone different than yours. It think it’s pointless to demonize them, except as a temporary state in our own healing and getting real about what’s going on, and more important to consider prevention — both of social damage and the causes of this failure of trust.
I understand that there are genetic considerations. And there may be genetic circumstances that just stack the deck too high for some individuals to avoided being triggered into permanent failure of trust. But I don’t think that is the situation with most of the garden-variety sociopaths who are creating havoc in the lives of feeling people. I think their capacity to be sociopaths was triggered by circumstance.
I think that study of these circumstances, the sensitivity of proto-sociopathic types, and the possible family and social strategies for addressing the growing problem of this type of damage and response is ultimately the the most useful area of research and action. It would also be nice if we could find a therapeutic approach to reconnect them with their social capacity, but if that is ever going to be likely (and it is not now), the answers are more likely to come from these paths of study than finding a dozen more reasons to confirm what we already know about their symptomology and its social effects.
You asked about the meaning of moral agency. Agency is power or capacity or ability to act. Moral agency is the power to link action with internal moral structure. Everyone has moral agency. The question is: what is the nature of their moral structure?
For all of us, our moral structure is a balance between what we would like to be possible and what our experience tells us is likely to present obstacles. That is we would like to be in a world that reflects our original state of total support in the womb. Where everything is there for us, and we can depend on that, and our relationship to what is around us is mutually benevolent and loving. The separation or interruption of that “Garden of Eden” ideal is based on what we have learned about what keeps us from it.
So depending on our level of trust in the ultimate benevolence of the outside world, we are open to shared consciousness, common standards and rules, life navigation based on good expectations, and feelings that we are okay as we are. If we are very damaged, or have a lot of unresolved trauma, our moral structure includes that information. And what is “right” becoming increasing based on what is necessary to survive in a dangerous and nonsupportive world.
In other words, the sociopath has morals. They are just not the morals of some one who is more socially integrated. They are the morals of the person who has learned that the structures of community were not designed for him.
And in this I agree with your viewpoint on positive and negative reinforcement. But what we are dealing with here is the result of negative reinforcement at a very deep level. A creation of a belief system based on a social dissonance that is so damaging and so profound that it has transformed despair into rigid distrust of anything but itself, and even that is warped, because its definition of self has blocked the normal human need for bonding and social dependency.
So the sociopath’s moral structure is that s/he has the right to survive and to care for himself or herself in this vaccuum. This is part of a normal human moral structure, but it is made pathological by the lack of the balancing piece of the normal human moral structure — that virtually every “great good” of life derives from connection.
The difference between autistic people and sociopaths (or people with that spectrum of emotional disorder) is that the autistic drama is fundamentally a need to adjust to internal conditions, not external. What I’ve gathered from reading and from my experience with my son is that autistic people have intense sensory sensitivities and related anxiety issues that require them to invest a lot of attention in managing their internal “weather.” A need for order, high-focus and various types of disassociation are typical responses.
The causes of this are neuro-electrical and brain chemical issues, not trauma-related personality disorder. My personal belief is that a lot of it is a complex issue related bacterial and fungal overgrowth related to diet and use of antibiotics. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t issues of established neural pathways for coping, as there are with other types of trauma response, but a great deal of progress has been made with diet-related strategies as well as direct work on the neural pathways through neuro-feedback.
To get back to moral agency in terms of autistics, their moral structure or belief system about what is good reflects what they have learned about what is good for them. Their battle is not with an uncaring world, but with an overactive sensory response and their need to manage their persistent and well-established reactive anxiety. They have no need to be predatory in the sense that sociopaths are. But they do have a deep need to create order that relieves their symptoms.
I hope this makes sense. I do appreciate your work in attempting to make sense of all of this. But I deeply wish there was less effort placed on demonizing sociopaths and more at understanding the temperamental types that are at risk and developing programs to support their maintenance of some level of trust before they are triggered to give it up permanently. I am not suggesting enabling, but providing loving supportive mechanisms to integrate them successfully into communal social structures.
I believe this is possible, especially if the formative years can be navigated successfully, and I believe their temperament is also the temperament of great people, of heroes and leaders and high achievers. That one issue — the belief in the reality of trust — makes the difference between preserved and lost potential, both personally and in the context of society as a whole.
Respectfully,
Kathy
Dear Liane,
Great article.
Although MORAL AGENCY may be more correct, I think “most people” would not get it, and MORAL REASONING ABILITY is I think clear enough that ANYONE could “get it.” I think that CLEAR is always better than using a word that has to be defined in its context to the majority of people who will read it in that context.
Successful psychopaths: First, I’m not sure what a “successful” psychopath is, but if it means money and/or social status then BERNIE MADOFF would be a “successful” psychopath.
My own sperm donor was “successful” in that he finally made a pot of oney (was on the Forbes 400 list one year) and so was “successful” in his own eyes and got people to listen to him because he was “successful” (READ: Filthy Rich)
My own opinion is that Bill Clinton was a “successful” psychopath, and a fairly good president as politicians go (and in general I dont have a high opinion of politicians) The Gov of Illinois was a “successful” psychopath if being Governor of a state is successful, dittoo the ex gov of NY, and the Senator of Alaska who was convicted etc.
All these men have become “successful” in terms of money, position, and power. What makes them more “successful” than my P-son who was basically a criminal and convict by age 17? Maybe more impulse control, less rebellion as a teenager, more cunning and rebelled but didnt’ get caught like my son did.
My son scores in the 99th percentile in IQ, but I think he is perpetually STUCK in the “rebellious 15 year old” stage, only now his parents are the guards at the prison, and his continual game is to “out wit” his “parents.” His “reward” is a successful con on the guards, and he succeeds frequently enough to keep him playing the game. The odds are high risk and he loses often enough that it keeps his risk level high, so he gets plenty of adrenaline, win or lose. Typical adolescent, loving that risky behavior and the high they get from it. Only catch is, he will be 38 years old in a few days.
I’m not sure WHICH KIND of psychopath does more damage to society, the “successful” one with money and power, or the criminal one like my son.
Kathleen Hawk,
“I believe that their fundamental underlying problem is a failure of trust. ”
I’m willing to keep an open mind here. This is one of the incidents that makes me inclined to be open minded about the nature vs nurture question:
The P used to like to boast about torturing and starving his elder sister’s cat to death after she went to college. In order to accomplish this, he had to abuse the animal over a period of time, and right under the nose of his parents. How was this possible? What kind of people were they?
What I know about the P and the S makes the nurture theory just as probable as the nature theory. I’ve got nurture deficit information about each of their formative years. Information, I might add, which I tend to find believable. While both men lied easily, some of the nurture deficit information either passes rigorous logical cross checks or is independently provided/verified.
What I know about the N is more problematic. He was adopted, and his adopted mother spoiled him outrageously. If there was a nurture deficit, it was well and truly disguised. On the other hand, narcissism has been credited to catering parenting styles as well as abusive ones. What to conclude in his case? I dunno. When we point to faulty nurture, some counter by pointing to genetics. In the case of the N, that issue is somewhat blurred.
I suspect two people I know may be Borderlines. It’s hard to say. There’s serious long term inability to bond, plus a lot of personal and professional chaos. Both of them were “favorite” children of otherwise neglectful parents. In other words, they were spoiled rotten while their siblings were neglected. What’s to be gleaned from that? Again, I dunno! I’m not a mental health expert. I do wonder if there’s an aspect of failure to trust there. After all, both show signs of understanding that their favored status was patently unfair and irrational. As children, it seems they also considered the status tenuous, and the parents capricious.
Interesting questions.
As for the Autism, I come at that one from a different angle than you do. Diagnosing Autism has become a fad in public education. As a parent of a hearing impaired child, I’m more than a bit fed up. Here the nature vs nurture question takes on a more sinister quality. If a child is treated as if they do not have empathy, s/he develops a deficit in the ability to appreciate and use empathy. Not only that, but people discounting the child’s emotional life behave cruelly. It is absolutely possible for people who project autistic characteristics onto a child to do severe harm.
Real Autism is a serious problem. A projection of Autism on a healthy child is emotional abuse. For this reason I pray Autism loses its fad status and joins the list of possible diagnoses, rather than the default label.
Kathy-
Thanks for the great contribution to our discussion here. It is not my desire to demonize sociopaths beyond the extent to which they demonize themselves by their actions. I too hope for a day when the condition will be treatable. I see the key to treatment as understanding the rewarding effects of social dominance. I believe that reward accounts for the compulsive nature of their antisocial behavior.
In terms of relative failure of the trust system which I believe is based on oxytocin action. Search my previous posts on this. I believe autistic people also have deficits here, since many don’t derive much anxiety relief or pleasure from the company of others.
Anyway how does a failure of the trust/oxytocin/love system relate to the predatory behavior of psychopaths? Remember that psychopaths do not pursue their own interests. They pursue short-sighted gratification of their drives for dominance and sex. There is a difference between being and ‘egoist’ and a predator. Psychopaths are predatory because in the absence of the ability to love, they develop excessive dominance behavior. This doesn’t usually happen in autism because there is a general disinterest in social reward.
There are two studies of Autistic individuals who offend, that I found. The consesus developing is that they are double disordered, psychopathy and ASD. So they derive some pleasure in aggression though they derive little to no pleasure in affection/love.
I want to state publically that for me the purpose of this blog is to provoke a discussion that will move the field forward. I hope everyone will feel free to disagree and that no one will take that personally. My students commented that I seemed upbeat last night. The reason was that the works I talked about this week are new and different contributions to the field of social emotions and morality. The idea of psychopaths not valuing order/organization and rationality is part of the literature, but it is not discussed much and has not before been linked to problems with moral agency.
Just by coincidence beginning next week I will discuss the important research on temperament and sociopathy as reported in a book, “Sex differences in Antisocial Behavior” by Dr. Moffitt and colleagues. I encourage you to read that book Kathy, it explains much of what you are discussing and is all based on thorough research.
I have read a bit on “neuro-diversity’ and been intrigued by the differences and seeming similaries between psychopaths and autistics. Here’s a comment from someone with Asperger’s : http://holywatersalt.blogspot.com/2008/03/aspergers-syndrome-vs-narcissistic.html
Especially since my highly manipulative psychopath claimed to have Asperger’s. Uh, he was too much of a womanizer to qualify. But I give credit for use Asberger’s as cover- I mean he has no empthy and was/is interested in only himself.
I want to write more on this topic- add it to my list-but I am struck by the fact moral agency is really free will. And that I don’t really believ everyone operates just for rewards and to avoid punishment, if that were the case we’d have no martyr’s , no self-sacrifice.
For myself, when I feel I am going int he right direction- doing good- it’s as if I am whole. I am working with in the egood, natural order.
Kathleen,
One of the issues with saying that the central problem with sociopaths is a “lack of trust,” or, for that matter, a “lack of conscience,” is that it doesn’t answer the question, “why do they harm people?” What gives them the motivation to purposely, aggressively, inflict harm on others? Why don’t they just shrivel up in the corner?
Dr. Leedom addresses these type of questions in her upcoming book, Driven to Do Evil. I will admit to being at an advantage here, because I’ve read the first draft. It is truly an important work, which will answer a lot of the questions that frequently get posed on Lovefraud.
To add to my point RE; rewards/punsihment- they are relative.
For a psycho hurting someone is a good.
For a normal person, causing someone pain is never a good – so the normal person has different higher drive.