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?
holywatersalt:
How many “normal” people watch the execution of a murderer and think it is a good thing?
Actually dominance motives correlate with this perception of “justice”. Normal people also may enjoy violent entertainment or watching violent sports. There are many rewards associated with the dominance system. Watching and enjoying violence relates to the dominance system in the same way that watching pornography relates to the sex system.
You bring up free will. I too believe it is important and therefore have to believe that the psychopath could at any point choose to live free of his/her pleasure. Just like if I had to choose to give up my food pleasures if I was diabetic. The psychopath is extraordinarily tied to his/her pleasures. That is also why many religions practice asceticism (sp?) as a way to holiness.
I think that part of the problem is the amount of subjectivity involved in this whole area of research. I personally think that the term sociopath or psychopath is very much overused by most people. The majority of people in prison are not psychopathic yet there are folks who would call any action that is anti-social or hurtful “psychopathic”. Hsving worked in the prison system I can say that psychopaths are hugely different than your everday anti-social criminal yet trying to explain it is difficult. I will also admit to a bias I have in being slightly skeptical of researchers who have not experienced numerous psychopathic individuals in person.
As for a successful psychopath I would ask what the definition of success is first. I know Kevin Trudea is one I would use as a great example of someone who may fit and even though he continues to get into trouble and knows he is conning folks he still keeps going and making millions off people.
Liane and Donna,
I’m going to respond to some of your statements below. But I want to say first that the results of one theory over another in terms of the psychopath’s or sociopath’s behavior are not meaningful. What is meaningful to me is understanding the underlying causes and doing something about it from a social and family perspective.
Liane wrote:
“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 my view, social dominance is rewarding to them for two reasons. One, it is the only means they have of interpreting the benefits of interaction, because they don’t experience empathetic bonding and the potential to share a building experience. They only know how to “build” alone, and the only meaning they see in interaction is contribution to their objectives.
Second, their psyches are split, due to the complete suppression of trust, and all the related capacities of empathy, bonding, loving, and the skills and rewards that evolve out of those capabilities. Their “functional” identities (what they use to survive) do not include the aspects of communal interaction that provide enjoyment and the wealth of opportunities for personal growth and achievement that the rest of us take for granted. This is painful. In simply the matter of identity, they have no ground except self-reference in a personality with no capacity for love and no reference for emotional security.
If there was ever a fertile field for addiction, it is this. And there is absolutely no relief here, except the most fleeting confirmation that they are “real” by the triumphs of dominance and achievement. They can’t even learn for sure that they are real from these triumphs, because they automatically discredit either the sources or the triumph as untrustworthy. But in a social world that is clearly the consensus world, it is their single option for survival, because they are irretrievably blocked from options that require empathy and trust.
Negative reinforcement, in my view, is just another means to reinforce their inability to trust, unless it occurs in within a larger strategy to force them to trust to survive. There are anecdotal stories of sociopaths who have been critically injured who are forced to experiment with trust in order to survive in a medical environment. There is also Stephen M. Johnson’s work, detailed in “Humanizing the Narcissistic Affect,” which suggests that narcissists at least can be treated by facilitation of trust experiments, if they are sufficiently motivated to do so.
Liane wrote:
“Remember that psychopaths do not pursue their own interests. They pursue short-sighted gratification of their drives for dominance and sex.”
I disagree. They do pursue their own interests. But their perception of their own interests is limited by what they can imagine as “good,” given their failure of trust and resulting split psyche. Dominance and sex (and other sensory enjoyments) are what they have left, along with a few other things that might be combinations of the two, like an aesthetic pursuit of excellence in their own terms.
Their idea of what is good is also influenced by two other things. One is the addictive need for relief from the pain of this split. The other is a secondary result of these issues, which is the impulsiveness. I believe that their baseline reality is a combination of desperation, despair and anger. Anything that looks like relief — that is anything that looks like gratification, fun, a chance to confirm that they exist, an chance to exercise their capabilities, a chance for validation of what narrow identity they have — is virtually a shot a redemption.
There is one other factor here as well, which is their understanding of their difference and that it is unacceptable or evil or, in more basic terms, reasonable cause of banishment from the tribe. I believe this failure of trust is already a kind of despairing acceptance of marginalization for no understood reason, but that doesn’t mean that no residual need for acceptance exists, even though it is blocked and buried. The shadow side of any character tends to be noisy.
So all this impulsive, short-sighted and typically self-sabotaging behavior (in our terms) may be a logical attempt (in their terms) to undo this inexplicable bad that left them so different and so crippled. Or it may be acting out of their resentment, envy, etc. for the situation in which they’re fundable coping mechanism left them. Both of which roughly fits into the parameters of addictive behavior.
The matter of oxytocin deficit is, to my mind, as likely to be a result than a cause in these cases. Oxytocin is counteracted by testosterone, but it is also blocked by anxiety or tension.
Donna, you wrote:
“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?”
I think the answer to this is probably where genetic temperament comes in. Though I think that further research with children of “dark triad” people is necessary for more clarification and identification of the specific traits.
I mentioned in my earlier post that these people also have the temperaments of heroes, leaders and high achievers. I’ve had close relationships with four sociopaths in my life. And as I’ve mentioned in other posts, I have a family trait on my father’s side that has turned out a number of sociopaths and addicts.
What I can see and what seems consistent with the descriptions of their behaviors are these characterists:
1. High energy levels and ability to respond to the requirements of crisis
2. High ability to focus, plan and execute
3. Strong survival instincts
4. High emotionality (even though it is self-referenced)
5. High and subtle sensory awareness (the N/S characteristic in Myers-Briggs), which could be termed hyper-vigilance
6. High pain tolerance and willingness to lose small in order to win big (as long as they’re not being impulsive)
7. High persistance
What all this adds up to, for me, is something the surviving people in my family have come to call high-voltage wiring. These are people who are designed to survive and achieve under the most extreme circumstances.
I don’t know how much of this is developed secondarily as a result of one or two primary characteristics playing out in extreme circumstances. But I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that high energy and high survival instinct are the two primaries. And that the rest of them are developed in circumstances that would cause less hardy individuals to die or fall into a state of despair that would be more depressive or catatonic.
I also wouldn’t be surprised to find out that their definition of what is unbearable enough to trigger that switch into no trust/empathy is relatively high. That they can survive a lot, before they make the switch.
So that is my answer to why they don’t just curl up and die. They’re not the type. They’re the type to survive, no matter what.
Your other question about why they purposefully harm people is probably answered by what I wrote in response to Liane’s comments. I’ve written here before that I believe that sociopath’s live in a state of feeling “ripped off.” Or that it is a underlying component of their pathology. I think that what we see (from our position as victims) as deliberate harm is more like a wounded bull in a china shop. And wounded is the operative word here. They are acting out, and if we are in front of them when they’re acting out, we are victimized.
But it’s not personal in the sense that we were chosen. We’re chosen by proximity, opportunity, and the state of their need. As well as by our own ability to identify the risk and take steps to get out of the way or otherwise neutralize it, before the damage is passed on to us.
I want to add her that I have one relationship with someone who doesn’t fit this model. Or had. It was a long time ago, and that person was in prison for a long time. He was probably the type of psychopath that is the worst-case scenario, but when I knew him he was still developing.
It was in Spain, in a small village where he was part of the village social scene, and most of the locals kept their distance. He was not only a psychological type but a physical type, and at the time a popular theory was the double-Y chromosome. He fit the type — physically powerful, aggressive, dominating, calculating, etc.
He was my gardener, handyman and go-to person when I lived there, and he guided me through the necessary things when my husband died. Later I discovered he had stolen many of my possessions. Ultimately, he attempted to force himself on me sexually, and I closed him out of my life. There were subsequent scary moments, and I got the police involved. But before things could get worse for me, he raped another woman, and was incarcerated.
I knew something about his background, which offered no explanations. But more than that, I saw a kind of implacability in him that went well beyond what I’ve seen in other people who match the sociopathic list of character traits. I get the feeling that he was another type, a more extreme type that does not fit into my model.
I also readily admit that my model, while it fits everything I know to date (except this man in Spain), is only my model. I keep reading, keep trying to refine it. But the model is definitely colored by two things. One is that I believe there are human tragedies involved here, not choices to be like this. And second, I believe that the increase in both sociopaths and autistic disorder are symptomatic of cultural issues that demand attention.
I thank you both for your generosity in these discussions. And as I said before, I am grateful for your work.
Kathy
Liane,
Personally, I don’t care for the term “moral agency.” When I first read the term I was perplexed, wasn’t sure what it meant, figured it out by the context. I prefer “moral reasoning ability” although, I agree, it’s not precise. I myself think psychopaths are able to reason morally. That they go to great lengths to deceive, imo, demonstrates their reasoning abilities are quite intact: they realize what they are doing is “wrong,” or at least will be perceived so by others. Difference with them, though, is they don’t care. They don’t care how they hurt others, they probably even like that they do. So it’s back to “moral agency,” but what the heck is that? I myself dislike academic-type jargon (but not being an academic myself, perhaps my opinion is not very valid) that obscures meaning, which much of academic jargon seems intended to do. That said, I don’t have a better suggestion. Moral indifference? Immorality? Hmm. I don’t think it’s lack of reasoning though; I think it’s lack of caring.
As far as successful psychopaths go, my ex is an extremely successful psychopath (except for the fact I am now onto him, which only happened because of several wild flukes). In his case he definitely relies on others to organize and order his life. On his own I’m sure he would flounder. When he moved in with me he came with all his belongings in a jumble in the back of his truck and his personal records thrown into a box (at least that) but in no order whatsoever, never having been weeded through or sorted out.
For the 18 years we were together I handled all of life’s little details. I actually felt that because of his (cough cough) other marvelous qualities, the trade-off was worth it. So what if I paid all the bills, took care of appointments, made sure our taxes were done. He was so sweet and loving, so caring and giving, so devoted and affectionate; to me that more than made up for his shortcomings. What I didn’t realize, because the bamboozle was so complete, was that all of that good stuff was a complete sham, part of the operation, intended only to keep me ignorant, unsuspecting, and serving his needs.
I asked him once, a year ago, when he was into confession mode (brought about by the fact that by that time I knew enough to expose him to his new honey and threatened to do so if he did not come clean), why he ever wanted to be with me if he knew he would never be faithful. He said he thought I could provide a good home for him and his son. “So you used me!” I said, and he said, “I guess you could say so.”
Yeah, I organized his life. I provided a nice base of operations for him. A nice launching pad. I made it nice and I made it easy (although I do not blame myself for this) because I was so trusting.
If there were ever a category of people who should be demonized I would say it is sociopaths. I also think the primary focus should be on providing loving support for the victims of sociopaths. Sociopaths themselves would probably only take advantage of such “loving support.” As far as I can tell there is ample evidence, amassed over decades, that sociopathy is an untreatable disorder and that sociopaths themselves will only use efforts intended to “help” them to better exploit others.
As far as trust issues, I cannot speak broadly of all sociopaths, but I will say that with my ex, lack of trust was not his problem. No way. Although there is huge dysfunction in his family of origin, much of which I have learned about recently, he did not stumble in the “trust vs mistrust” (if I have the terminology right) phase of development. In fact, near as I can tell, he was quite a well-adjusted, genuinely loving, cooperative child until his teen years.
And trust as an adult? He absolutely trusted me. Still does. He has a remarkable ability to assess others, which is probably common to successful psychopaths, to know who they can team up with, who they can victimize, who they can trust, and who would be useless (in their terms of course).
I think sometimes we are like the blind men examining an elephant, it is difficult to get the WHOLE and COMPLETE PICTURE by examining a PART of it. None of us can see the whole spectrum of psychopathy…we each “see” our individual piece. We can “study” other’s conceptions and views, but getting the entire picture of something so complex and with so many variations, so many variables as to cause etc. but I for one don’t feel like, even as many Ps as I have interacted with, have even scratched the surface of the disorder.
I can to an independent conclusion that there is a genetic basis of temperment in animals and in humans just by observation. Then I read more about that and confirmed my conclusion.
I also “figured” that there had to be a common thread with us (victims) as well, and I think it may have been answered in the research of “Women who love psychopaths”—we have all been somehow trained to accept the abuse and/or think we can “fix” it at least up to some point.
What makes some of “us” different from others is that some of us finally at some point (sooner or later) catch on to the patterns in the Psychopath(s) in our lives and start to work on ourselves after we have healed from the accute grief their D & D does to us. Others of us, never see the pattern and continue to stay with the original abuser, never breaking free, or if they do break free froom the first, not see the patterns and go on to find a series of abusers, living a life of total misery and chaos.
I don’t suppose I have all the answers for sure, heck I am not sure I know all the QUESTIONS, much less the answers! LOL I can only speak from my own perspective and what I have experienced or gleened from the experiences of others, and what I have read in research. I WISH I did have all the answers, or even all the questions. It seems when I get one new “answer” there are 50 new QUESTIONS it prompts. Does make me want to live for another 50 years to see what further research brings to light! God bless Dr. Hare and the others who started studying these people!
The s I was with self-diagnosed himself as having Aspberger’s.
He is NOT as aspie, even though he would love to be seen as one.
This self diagnosis always pissed me off; it seemed like such easy cop-out for acting like a jerk.
I also think that there is no single reason/cause for psychopaths but rather a variety of different things come together at the right time and right combinations which could be different for different people. Looking for a silver bullet has and I think is going to continue to fall flat because there is no single cause or answer. Most of the criminals I worked with who would have fallen under the psychopath label knew what they were doing, knew it was wrong, enjoyed how they were and did not want to change. And you can not force someone to change unless they want to. No matter what mental health treatments are tried it will not work unless the person sincerely wants to make the changes. I have yet to meet a true psychopath who has ever wanted to change. I have met anti-socials and some who could appear to be psychopaths (like gang members) who have wanted to change though.
I also have an issue with the whole moral reasoning bit because of the subjectivity of it. There were and are places and cultures and groups where it is acceptable to do whatever to “them” but not to “us”. And yet not all those folks are psychopaths. I have also seen quite a few “normal” people want to hurt someone else and feel it is a “good” depending on the circumstance (hurting the person that hurt them or their child is one example).
Liane,
My preference is “moral reasoning ability.” It lends more to “thought” or “purposeful decision making”. It puts responsibility on the sociopath to reason, which we know they can do.
Regarding success…… I tend to believe, based on my experience that they find someone to organize and order their lives for them. In the case of the XS, he used people in times of need, which led to his success financially and emotionally in many ways. (I do believe that will be short lived.) Even to the extent that he allowed his children to advise him in personal and financial matters. Adult children but they were extremely, immature, dysfunctional and totally financially dependent on him.
I spoke a few months ago to a woman with whom he had an affair years ago. He was successful in that when his father died, she helped him to organize his estate and money and she basically told me she was with him in NM when his father died and helped him with family finances. As I helped him with the same things in his divorce.
As far as the emotional drama……His daughter once stated that he would be in “all kinds of shit” if not for their mother. She “kept him under control”. He told me his daughter(who was in law school) was negotiating with his x wife on his behalf during divorce. (He also has grandiose ideas about her and insists theya re just alike and I htink he is right. She has serious issues.) Just caused more emotional drama and got her directly in the middle of the power struggle but he did it to make her seem more valuable to him and to try to WIN her from her mother.
He set up his girlfriend (former stripper on welfare, the one he cheated on me with) to clean houses for a living because he didn’t want her tending bar. So when he moved into his house guess who became his cleaning lady? When he had his heart attack and his kids weren’t available to care for him. She was available. I think that too will be short lived.
He has since lost his job. He couldn’t afford the house even when he was working but it’s a lure for him. All that he has was given to him by family or won in a lawsuit from an accident he had years ago. The financial success will not last. It was not made by him. As far as emotionally, It can’t be possible that I am the only one he treated like that but I am sure he will find more people like the x stripper to manipulate. I don’t think he will be happy enough and will cheat on her too.
So if emotional success to them is that they find more people to pull things over on. He has that now and who knows that may result in another 26 yr marriage as with his previous wife.
Under my definition of success, he will never have it financially or emotionally. He will just use people so that he APPEARS successful and after all, isn’t that what they want?
Sorry, this one’s a little esoteric for me. How about…”Immoral Agency”? Or “Amoral Agency” Immoral (or amoral) agents driven to do evil.
I’ve interacted with a few autistic people. I don’t see a strong connection, when viewed as their impact on the world for good or evil.
But, that’s just me…carry on.