Dr. Robert Hare, who did seminal work in identifying psychopaths, refers to them as “intraspecies predators.” This prompted questions from a Lovefraud reader who asked,
- If psychopaths are indeed natural predators (by implication, their design is part of nature’s plan to maintain some balance) then would we ever be able to weed them out of society?
- Do they have a purpose in the natural order of things?
In this article, I’m going to address the second question. Then, next week, I’ll suggest an answer to the first question.
I don’t know about a purpose, but there are researchers who believe psychopaths are around us today because they survived the natural selection process of human evolution.
These researchers call psychopathy “a nonpathological, reproductively viable, alternate life history strategy.” This theory is outlined in Coercive and Precocious Sexuality as a Fundamental Aspect of Psychopathy, a paper published in 2007 by Grant T. Harris, PhD; Marnie E. Rice, PhD; N. Zoe Hilton, PhD; Martin L. Lalumiere, PhD; and Vernon L. Quinsey, PhD.
Evolution
Let’s talk about the evolution idea first. The authors write that our distant ancestors probably formed stable groups, characterized by cooperation and adherence to rules, which enabled early mankind to survive and flourish. However, some humans survived through cheating and exploiting others—the alternative life strategy.
Grant et. al. write that from childhood, psychopathic personalities are fundamentally different from others, but the differences are not the result of a medical failure or injury. They point out that pregnancy difficulties can be related to schizophrenia and mental retardation, but not psychopathy. “While many adverse medical conditions and injuries lead to antisocial and violent behavior, our selectionist hypothesis suggests that they do not cause psychopathy,” they write.
The early psychopaths—cheaters then as now—put a lot of energy into acquiring sexual partners, and were willing to use deception and coercion to do it. As a result, they produced a lot of offspring. Even if early psychopaths died young because then, as now, they probably engaged in high-risk behavior, their liberal procreation was enough to get the hereditary train rolling.
Sex and criminal behavior
Psychopaths first have sex at a young age, have many partners, and are uncommitted in sexual relationships. Studies show that people who have this approach to sex also are more likely to engage in criminal and violent behavior.
Some people, called life course persistent offenders, Grant et. al. write, “begin aggressive and antisocial conduct at very young ages and persist at rates higher than any other offenders throughout the lifespan.”
People tend to think that their problem is poor social learning, that individuals who break laws against crime and violence also break social norms regarding sex. But research has also shown that delinquency and antisocial behavior are associated with early onset of puberty and sexual activity. Young people don’t learn, or decide, when to mature sexually. So why is there a connection between early onset of puberty and crime?
The study
Grant et. al. believe that “coercive and precocious sexuality” is not a result of the psychopathic personality, but a key to defining it. For the study described in the paper, the researchers predicted “early onset, high frequency and coercive sexuality would be a key, unique and diagnostic feature of psychopathy.”
The researchers studied the case histories of 512 male sex offenders. (Sex offenders were selected because their files generally contain detailed information about their sexual history.) They established the scores of the offenders on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). They also looked at the sexual histories of the offenders prior to age 15. A statistical analysis revealed correlations between early and frequent sexual behavior and sexual coercion with general antisocial behavior and elevated PCL-R scores.
“We propose that interpersonal sexual and nonsexual aggression are not best conceived of as the consequence of psychopathic personality traits, but as fundamental aspects of the condition itself,” the authors wrote.
Genetic history
The researchers’ expected that coercive and precocious sexuality were indicators of psychopathy because of their original hypothesis—psychopathy is an alternative life strategy.
“From a theoretical perspective, the present results lend some support to a selectionist hypothesis that psychopathy exists because it has been a heritable and reproductively viable condition during human evolution.”
Psychopaths, in other words, are not physically defective or medically ill. These researchers believe that they are just different, and, because they engaged in a lot of sex, were able to pass on their genes through the millennia.
Read the complete study:
Coercive and Precocious Sexuality as a Fundamental Aspect of Psychopathy
They are what they are
It’s shocking to think that there may be nothing medically wrong with these “intraspecies predators.” But in a way, the idea that psychopaths are pursuing an “alternate life history strategy” dovetails with what we often say here on Lovefraud. Psychopaths are what they are. They are cheaters and exploiters. They take advantage of others because that’s what they do.
Did nature intend this? I don’t know, but they survived.
While researching this story, I came across another paper with an interesting perspective on what to do about it, which I’ll discuss next week.
I find this subject fascinating. After my encounter with a sociopath (over three years ago) the evolution thing became interesting to me again.
But the thing to remember about evolution is there *isn’t* a purpose to it. There’s no idea of ‘design’ – simply, the things that survive are those most fitted to their environment. This led to lots of people, Darwin included, being concerned about political ideas such as Social Darwinism, focussing on the idea of a ‘nature red in tooth and claw’; in effect, a breeding ground for sociopaths.
However, things have moved on a bit since then in gene theory, and I really recommend the work of Richard Dawkins for the most wonderful and vivid explorations of this. One of the reason I think Dawkins’ ‘The Selfish Gene’ is such a moving book, is because it explains, via game theory, that altruism is the best strategy. Over time (and not just over a short spell, i.e. I’ll scratch your back you scratch mine) a co-operative ‘strategy’ is the one that pays dividends in survival terms.
So…with any luck, the sociopath is an endangered species. But…we’ll have to wait a bit!
I also agree that this is a fascinating approach to looking at psychopathy. And recommend The Selfish Gene, for its explorations of selfishness vs. altruism.
Although, I want to respectfully add that altruism was not the successful strategy in Dawkins’ models, but “enlightened altruism.” The model was designed by looking a monkeys (chimps) whose mutual grooming behavior removed lice and other insect predators that could affect the monkey’s likelihood of survival. (Dawkin’s models all examined how behavior affected survival outcomes, not for the individuals but for the genes they carried.)
If all the monkeys were altruistic and groomed each other, everyone thrived equally. But if only one selfish monkey (one who took grooming but did not return it), that monkey would have more time to spend on other survival enhancing behaviors, like obtaining food and caring for its young. So that appears, at first, to be a more successful strategy for genetic survival. However, in being more successful That genetic strain of selfish monkeys would eventually reproduce more, and over time there would be no altruists left, and the selfish monkeys would also die off for lack of anyone to groom them. (These were fairly simple computer models, just testing certain ideas that might also be found in game theory.)
Given like likelihood that selfish monkeys might show up in any group, Dawkins found the most stable situation was enlightened altruism. Which was that altruistic monkeys groomed another monkey once. If that monkey did not groom in return, the altruistic monkey never groomed that one again.
Obviously the selfish monkey could move on to get groomed once by other enlightened altruist monkeys, but only once. Eventually the survival advantage gained by being selfish would would run into the wall of no more first-time altruists to hit. And the gene, in this model, would lose its survival advantage and die out. At least in that monkey, but that attraction of enlightened altruism is that the principle continues to serve as a good survival strategy, if other selfish monkeys who up. And it creates a clear recognition of community among the monkeys who knew they could depend on each other.
The book also includes an analysis of fidelity vs. promiscuity as a genetic survival strategy. He got in a lot of trouble with feminists for that one.
Thanks again, Liane, for a very interesting post.
Kathy
Right off the bat, I see holes in this theory. If psychopathy is nothing more than an alternate “species” of human, a totally selfish way of living, in which altruism, loving relationships, bonded committed sexuality are replaced by full out self-interest and sexual promscuity, as just an alternate strain in evolution, then I would have to ask where all the other abnormalities fit into the psychopathic portrait.
What about addiction? From everything that I’ve read about and experienced with those that fit the criteria for psychopathy, they all have problems with addiction and substance abuse. This doesn’t fit with a true self interested survival mode.
What about poor impulse control? Optimal survival, to anyone with at least an average intelligence, presupposes the ability to control ones impulses on a daily basis.
What about the distorted thinking patterns? Sure, there are some higher functioning and more self aware psychopaths that use the games of projecting and push and pull as a weapon to weaken and make someone they want to use submissive. But, I would argue that most if not all of the distorted thinking of P’s, especially Cluster B’s comes from something inherently WRONG with them that cannot just be explained away by an alternate survivalist species theory.
There is paranoia.
There is poor language ability (in so far as confusing or not “getting” the MEANING of words and language).
There are memory problems and distortion.
There is self sabotage (how would you explain that one?)
There is the INABILITY (NOT an unwillingness) to see something from anyone else’s perspective (to step in the other’s shoes). It can be argued that THAT is a survival tool as well as a cognitive ability that when missing shows a definite disorder, not just an alternate species.
Those are just a few points off the top of my head.
Does the author discuss higher levels of testosterone at all and how this might influence psychopathy?
Also, there is a passage in Martha Stout’s book, “The Sociopath Next Door” that talks about the John Bowlby’s study on attachment disorder. Personally, and I’m no expert, but from my experience, many of the behaviors that I witnessed and lived with, with a sociopath can CLEARLY be seen as an extreme reaction to lack of attachment or bonding as an infant.
This is an interesting article. I’d like to read Dawkin’s book.
Also, as a last point – I think altruism is being used incorrectly in a few instances here. Altruism is something you do without ANY self interest, which includes the supposition that you will get something in return. What’s been described as altruism, is actually just give and take social contract, not true selfless altruism.
According to Mirriam-Webster, the second definition of altruism is:
behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
Dear Dr. Leedom,
A fabulous article and while I know that you agree with me that genetics is NOT “everything” I think we both agree that it does have a large genetic component as demonstrated by quite a few studies, and by my own genetic history of psychopaths who were not raised by their psychopathic genetic donors, and of psychopaths who were raised by non-psychopathic individuals. (As well as the “identical twins raised separately” study.
I also see many benefits for the psychopath especially in an earlier civilization where the leaders and rulers were the “biggest, meanest guys on the block” who took what they wanted by force, which included more food and more women in which to spread their genetics further and wider, with “rulers” have access to hundreds of women while slaves and less powerful men might actually have little or no access to women.
In situations where food supply was limited which until modern times in this age was ALWAYS the case due to poor ways of preserving foodstuffs, the psychopath would I think, have been the one to “help himself” to a plenitude of food at the expense of others.
Being high risk takers, early to physically and sexually mature would give a decided advantage I would think in the P spreading genetic material widely, giving his genes more chance of surviving in an age when there was a high rate of infant and child death due to disease and malnutrition.
Thank you for this very very interesting information, and I do know that YOU ARE the expert on this subject due to education and interest as well as personal experience.
Very interesting article – thanks for picking up on this topic.
I’ve been kind of interested in this whole 2012 thing, and in my spare time, I contemplate what would happen if the earth went through a terrific geologic upheaval. Would humans survive? Perhaps some would; most likely, the ones who would really survive would be the ones who are capable of withstanding some pretty awful stuff without any emotional repercussions – thus, it would be the psychopaths/sociopaths, etc.
And then I guess we’d be dealing with Kathleen’s paradigm of the Selfish Monkey vs. the Altruistic Monkey.
Gotta say – I was the altruistic monkey picking the lice out of my selfish monkey’s fur. I did it right up until the time I fled. I think he considered me an enlightened altruistic monkey. Now he considers me a deserter, and probably the greatest sinner of all. I often wonder: if he and I got into a fight, who would survive? If it were a battle of wits, it would be me. If it were a physical battle, I’m not quite so sure. . .
Louise. LOL I can’t picture you as a monkey.
I’m the monkey that was hiding in the little monkey cave, reading a book, while my brother threw banana peels at anyone who looked at him cross-eyed.
🙂
Whether you agree or disagree with this article, please know that I wrote it, not Dr. Leedom.
An interesting point about the early psychopaths is that the “alternate life strategy” only works when there are small numbers of psychopaths compared to the numbers of non-psychopaths. The psychopaths need to be hidden. If too many people know about them and stop cooperating, their scams don’t work.
This has implications for how to deal with them today, which I’ll discuss next week.
I think that there are more and more revealing themselves in this time frame of history.. and think about it.. seems like they have many children.. married many times, and children with several people.
They have been here since the beginning of time…
The deal is our awareness of them.. wise as serpents.. gentle as lambs…