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.
Too bad Australia is already inhabited. There would be a perfect solution. There’s always Siberia hmm 🙂
Ican – the issue of abortion is huge with these guys – trauma bonding big time.
One of the kids told me today that the S told them all they were not wanted!
EEEsssh! They said, mom there’s a lot we haven’t told you…..and 2 said they went througha period of not seeing thepoint of life…..because they were NEVER WANTED!
I have a picture of my very good friend who passed in June of 09…..I was working with him at the time i got preggers first time…..The kids adored this guy….he was a keeper!!! for sure!!! But as I saw him looking at me from the picture It borught me to tears wishing he was here to talk to the kids about the JOY he saw in me when I was preggers.
He never had kids, and he said I was the only pregger woman he knew ‘closely’ and went through the pregnacies with from the inside/outside…..
It breaks my heart to know the kids were told this…..what a fucker…..I WANTED THE KIDS…….and I have always been here for my kids!!!! ALWAYS…….and how could he plant any seeds of doubt of that in little-formitable heads and hearts…..
They said they never realized how much those words affected them……
He told them I shoulda had an abortion. the kids said they were taught IN SCHOOL….that abortion wasn’t acceptable in the 80’s and 90’s?????? Where did this info come from…..
so that is why I didn’t have an abortion.
I told the kids, I had never had an abortion and I was very grateful I had never been in that position to ‘chose’ what to do…..but after the S and I married, bought a house,etc….there was no reason to even consider it when I got preggers. the kids were shocked to hear we were married when the oldest was conceived??????
Hellooo……do the math>>>> They thought we got married because I was preggers….???? S told them that too????
I said, no….we were married in May of 1990…..and eldest was born in May of 1992?
It goes to show…..kids/people don’t investigate any facts for themselves if they have no ‘reason’ to….it’s all taken as stated.
He also told one kid that he wasn’t his father…..Jack Daniells was his real father. So that kid now has the percetion he was only a drunken afterthgouth……
Times like this…..when I know the kids are hurting……is when I just KNOW Karma will kick him in the ASS hard…..and as due!
It’s sick how they re write history.
Yeah…..he wanted abortion…..I didn’t even consider it an option……and It made me sick to think of it……he wanted it as a form of BC…..uh sorry….
Talk about stick the knife in!
oh mannn polly 🙁 they are sick creeps!!! they really do put the boot in when we’re down (((hugs))) It’s despicable.
The one I was with was using both me and another woman at the same time. I’ve no doubt that she has her own trauma to deal with. They leave a trail of devastation wherever they go, not only with us but with the kids too.
EB – I’m saddened reading your story 🙁 I’m out of words to describe the abuse. I just keep coming back to evil. My mother did the same kind of shit to me and my siblings. The stuff that monster said to us is beyond comprehension.
Ick Erin – what a bastard doing that. they sure do leave trails of devastation behind them while they skip off to the next target.
Makes me wonder whether that has anything to do with gender ratios in sociopaths – Females benefit less reproductively from being promiscuous(since they can only have one every 9 months anyway) and the offspring harmed more by abusive tendencies. Just wondering.
In evolutionary terms there are a number of ways to ensure the survival of a species. Two such examples are animals that nurture and protect their young, while others have as many young as possible, thus increasing the possibility that at least some would survive.
The first example provides protection in a social background to ensure survival by encouraging close family groups while the second relies purely on having as many sexual partners as possible with little or no interaction afterwards. This second method, not only discourages active social participation but such participation would be anathema to it.
As with most species, humans have evolved over time and it could well be that, amongst many other evolutionary tactics, these two methods above have been utilised in the past. The most successful being the one, more or less used in the majority of case today. Why is it the most successful? Simply because it is the most used. However, in order for an evolutionary tactic to survive, all that is required is pro-creation. Thus the second method is not, in evolutionary terms, a bad one in that is does ensure the survival of our species.
Evolution is not a personal thing, it has no personality, trends come and more successful ones stay, while the evolutionary dead ends die out. Nature does not choose, it reacts to the environment and the biological beings within that environment to produce beings that are varied and adaptive to certain key elements within that environment, with the occasional mutation thrown into the mix.
So, in evolutionary terms, the sexual predator, as we may call them, survives because they fulfill the most basic requirement of evolution, the propagation of the species.
I can think of a few precise examples in a modern context where, having a cold blooded, remorseless creature can be an advantage. If there was a natural disaster of 2012 (the film) proportions, who better to ensure the survival of the human race than someone who is not beset by morals, who does not ponder what others will think, who does not second guess themselves but who acts decisively and without remorse? Who better to decide to leave behind the old, the wounded and the infirm because, in those conditions, they would pose a very real threat to the survival of the group as a whole? These would most likely be the short term qualities required should such a disaster befall this planet.
I am not saying that this is so, I am merely suggesting the possibility. In our present context, as we are, certainly in the West, relatively war and disaster free, they are the aberrations. Those that do not fit into the human social model, though they survive relatively well in it all the same.
Perhaps in dealing with these people, we should take a leaf out of natures book and treat them as we would any threat to our survival, something to be avoided. In order to avoid a danger, it is necessary to first perceive it. Learn to “see” them so that you can avoid them. Learn the skills necessary to survive the occasional confrontation with them.
That was really a fantastic answer if I compare it to what I get from most people knowledgeable in the field of psychology.
It is a theory that carries hope too since, by implication, the smaller non altruistic population is entirely dependent on a majority of altruists (us). Consequently we really don’t need them.
This is very evident in my home country where approximately 50 people die at the hands of another every day. We have an unusually high percentage of sociopaths in South Africa. Some speculate that early childhood trauma during the apartheid era could be largely responsible and account for the environmental factors necessary for a person to develop ASPD.
In conclusion, I think that South African society very much confirms that if the ratio of altruists to non altruists is too low that the structure of the society will crumble. You only have to be here for about a month to verify this empirically.
EB,
I have been through a similar situation that I am just finding out about, putting the pieces of the puzzle is difficult for us.. people not investigating the facts/kids are more perceptive than we are at times they can see the BS……as soon as it starts….
Hi spirit! how are you?