h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi B

I wanted to set off a debate on an idea you sent reverberating around my head for a while, which needed to escape; your suggestion that some people are 'born sociopaths'. My position is that unborn children are incapable of inherent sociopathy.

I can't see how any foetus is capable of swimming around in its amniotic world and thinking to itself, 'when I get out of here, I'm going to care about the third world debt' because obviously it has no concept of 'debt' 'world' 'third', 'care', or for that matter, 'I'. The very concept of compassion is meaningless to a creature that hasn't had the chance to understand that such a thing is necessary, because for the time it's there, it is everything and everything is it.

We know that in the first 6 months or so of life begins the process of ascertaining the difference between self and non-self (i.e. the universe). We know what the consequences are for anyone who experiences serious trauma in that time.

So, in nurture of environment, we are presented with copious choice between invitations to contort self to satisfy non-self, or to contort our environment to satisfy us, depending on our need. And lets face it, there's plenty of options to choose from. So infers a scale available between martyrdom and sociopathy.

This brings neatly in the absence of free lunches. Whatever your demonstrable compassion for other people, there is an inherent self-interest that comes with the deal. I tell jokes and bow and scrape to feel better about myself. Perhaps then, if you *don't* care about someone, there might be some inherent non-self-interest there, as for example, if someone were to persecute a race for the preservation of his own (however twisted that concept might sound, Hitler's plan was beneficial for those who espoused it).

But, as the shrink said to me a while before I got into the dichotomy schtik, 'there is the capacity in all of us to be both victim or aggressor'. What I'm saying is just as you have seen relative morality you need to accept that there is an element of martyrdom to sociopathy and an element of sociopathy to martyrdom. Thus, we are all capable of both, and it is the choices we are presented with, the lessons we learn, the questions we ask and don't ask, and the ideas of good and bad that define our 'presented' capacity for either, or both. Pre-birth though, it is impossible to be conscienceless, if you don't have a concept of what conscience is, or what non-self events might exist to demand it of you.

I'll finish with the wisdom available in every respectable scriptwriting textbook on earth;

'The villain is always the hero of his own movie.'

Talk to you soon.

It occurred to me I've missed out a salient point, one of pre-birth trauma or foetal injury.

I could see a case for patterns of control/be controlled reactivity in any baby whose period of ante-natal existence was in some way affected by an injury to the mother, possibly in the same terms as babies born addicts.

My point remains though that I see no case for a *genetic* predisposition toward sociopathy or (whatever appropriate term would apply to martyrdom).

All right. I've done some research and there is no clear and definite known gene for sociopathy or, as it's called now, anti-social behavior syndrome (though the 'popular' term, sociopath, is used, as such, in DSM - IV.)

There is is plenty of indication that such behavior moves in chains from father to son, but if there is a genetic predisposition for it, then it is only invoked by abuse.

My position had been that if sociopathy was due to a genetic failure in the individual's ability to empathize and place hirself within the matrix of society, then it might or might not be a sex linked dominant trait. (The fact that female sociopaths are so relatively rare argues for the linkage to sex.) The fact that the problem is so common (1 in 10) also argues for a genetic condition.

However, it is just as likely that the progression from father to son might be the result of environmental issues which would naturally follow through the perpetuation of methods and beliefs from generation to generation.

The important thing here, for me is, that there is no inevitablilty attached to the son of a sociopath being a sociopath.

Also, please note: The diagnosis of sociopathy cannot officially be made till after the age of 18 and is still largely based on the history of the patient.

Obviously, such a diagnosis should only be made made by a trained and licensed psychologist or psychiatrist.

This means that for people, like myself, who are inclined to do such things, there is only left the alternative of describing such people as really nasty, awful, but supeficially pleasant s.o.b.s (or perhaps that should be s.o.p.s -- where p stands for psychopath which is also diagnotically equivalent to sociopath with a few minor differences dependant on local practices and the amount of involvement with the legal authorities. That is a sociopath is a psychopath but a psychopath is not necessarily a sociopath.)

That this disorder is, in fact, a disorder and not merely an expression of a nasty disposition does ameliorate to a certain extent the harm that such a person can do, but the blame that is lifted is then placed firmly on the society that tolerates and even encourages such behavior.

A sociopath seems to exemplify all the characteristics of a successful competitor in our societies. He may even go home to a loving family after having been out screwing the world for a living.
After all, why not, it's profitable?

So, having my concession to that degree, Chris, where do you want to take this? I could post some sites but they are easy to find by searching for 'sociopath', 'psychopath', or 'anti-social behavior'.

The more interesting question here, for me, is assuming that one has identified such a person, what does shi do with (in all likelihood) him? Need he wear a sign and ring a bell when he approaches? Need we drive this particularly dangerous pink monkey from our midst? Should we not recognize the raw survival talent of such a human lone wolf variant? And most intriguing of all, is such a person human at all and should he be permitted to participate in things human?

Has scientific diagnosis provided us with a valid form of prejudice? What does this say about other people with disabilities? Is this disability really a disability or is it an advantage? What is the evolutionary significance of empathy and honest emotional involvent in the lives of those around us?

Since there is no known cure for this condtion and no drug that can be conviently administered to patients who will, in any case, not be interested in being 'cured', are we not justified and driving these 'strangers' out or even killing them for the protection of all?

What are we to make of the fact that our society seems to be deliberately emulating such emotionally disabled people and nearly always has set such standards as being the highest goals of justice.

After all, justice is embodied in law and law decrys emotional decision when the question is always did the offender break the law or not. This is the purpose of lawyers (barristers). Yet, do not the most successful (and therefore presumably the best) take advantage of the emotions of a jury where shi can to support hir client and insist upon the letter of the law, where that is best? is not everyone entitled to get off if shi can only beat the system? Guilty or innocent has nothing to do with whether the crime was actually committed but rather refers specifically whether the accused is convicted.

Is there such a thing as a crime when the criminal is never brought to justice because the crime, heinous elswhere, was committed in the home upon hir own children or spouses?

Must an abuser be a psychopath? Must a psychopath be removed from society? Is there some other reason or excuse that allows us to continue to love the ones who abused us despite our hatred for the practices which we endured and survived.

So forth and so on.

Barton

I'll go into some of these questions in a bit, but I saw a review this morning of something to chew on, I'll get a copy before I come over.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713992565/026-3544779-8226827

I've bought it and tucking in already. I'll give you the gist later.

Have a good weekend,
Chris

Man, this book is intense, but I'm getting there, though there's no point in me picking it apart until I'm through it.

But I wanted to revive this thread in anticipation of the film I'm off to watch this evening - 'Max'. I wanted to see how it might influence the culture of acceptance currently in social science that nurture accounts for the greater part of behaviour, at the expense of nature, the defence of which it is argued, fosters racism.

This film reminded me of a classic and chilling story by Roald Dahl, from his 'Kiss Kiss' collection.

http://www.roalddahlfans.com/shortstories/gene.php#plot

I still haven't found cause to disagree with the nurture position but I'm giving it a good try. I'll let you know what it's like.

Max was an excellent film, beautifully and subtly orchestrated and performed, and served neither to forgive nor wholly condemn.

It portrayed a 30-year-old poor and starving war veteran Hitler traumatised by Ypres and desperate for a channel for the intense fury within him. Looking for it in art, but finding it affected most by his feelings for Max Rothman, a rich and decadent Jew who lost his arm not fighting and who saw Hitler as an incredible potential, if only he'd get off his high horse and trust his creative voice; and his incredibly charming anti-semite commander who suffered with him in the first war and viewed him with equal dedication, compelling him to ride to glory. Thus, torn between these two influences Hitler came to a simple solution to the equation tearing him apart, which gives us the tagline; Art + Politics = POWER.

Max comes off very well, a passionate and considerate tutor, though there are intimations of a blase cruelty to his talent for manipulating people for *his* (local media) empire. This is explored nominally by Max's attitude to his own children and the considered sanctity of his role as parent.

But it was clear all the way through that Hitler was a very bad penny waiting for someone to spend him. He had already read Nietzche, and it was clear that his contempt for the unhygenic presence of the Jew in his country was perfect motivation for his politics, which was the prefect motivation for his art, which was the perfect motivation for his very obvious need to find acceptance from the unaccepting world he was in. Through it all though it was clear he had no time for anyone but himself and had no need to respect the rights of anyone who stood in his way.

It makes no attempt to ascertain what caused him to become so power-driven and whether he was affected as a child or to the manner born. But the terrible (if such a word could do it justice) irony is that if politics was to be his art, Hitler was a success as an artist. His message, his truth, was fortunately for every generation to follow a message that humanitarianism has interpreted to serve *its* purposes in direct opposition to his intention. As a grandchild of a commando I continue to remind myself that there was at least one valuable idea that came from his creative vision - 'Don't for f***'s sake end up like me'.

More in a while.

Actually no. I've got to clean up the flat and I don't have time, and you're off to the faire so I might as well say see you on Tuesday.

Plus I just reread and found that last paragraph contradictory. Hitler wasn't a success as an artist if humanitarianism denied him the article of his creative vision, quite the reverse. Ultimately though he clearly got himself heard, and some still listen.

Well, so much for Tuesday.

I'll crystallize my thoughts now after reading 25% of the contents of that book, you can play with when you've got some time away from 'Just Wondering'.

Forget the martyrdom-sociopathy scale for a minute and consider that in modern Western culture at least, SELF is the single most important thing there is; how that is channelled determines a person's presented capacity for empathy, or lack thereof. I refer you to that article on 'the new infantilism'.

We are presented with a zillion choices on how to reinforce our sense of self - some of which will depend on the wellbeing of others, some of which will be at their expense. All of us I think are something of a mix, but those with a greater sense of guilt and self-recrimination will be more geared toward the former.

The problem is not whether people are sociopaths but the degree to which they have identified with the latter more than the former.

Slick types who work in marketing, Satanists and Politicians are all better evidence of the latter. Charity workers and campaigners for rights are better evidence of the former. Ultimately though, it all comes down to self. TANSTAAFL.

In 'Blank Slate' Pinker provided evidence of a man in the States who suffered serious damage to a particular part of his brain when he was struck by a railway spike. Apparently, before the accident he was kind and generous. After, he was rude and selfish.

This would suggest that his empathic centre was destoyed, but as Pinker relates, mind is not so dependant on any one part of brain that it cannot be repaired by compensatory action across the rest. All work together to ensure integrity of mind and protect SELF. To say there is only one place in the brain for empathy, is to discredit the efforts of the whole.

I could honestly see myself a sociopath, who has compensated for his lack of empathy by training the language centres of his mind to know how to interpret and respond to people who need support. Where's the empathy there? Wouldn't that be just good training? More importantly, how would you know the difference? Is there one?

People who don't care at all about others are not beyond the bounds of assistance in doing so. No-one is that beyond help. I refuse to believe it.

Once, my stepmum asked my dad 'Martin, why do you do the things you do?' His response was 'I don't know.' That was as close to an apology as either of us ever got. But it was proof enough that there is still a glimmer of hope in every heart.

If we want to extinguish sociopathy, we must extinguish sociopathic IDEAS. Elements of our CULTURE that reinforce them; Greed Is Good, Dog Eat Dog and suchlike. To deprive someone of their right to change is similarly heartless.

That's as good as I've got right now. Take care, talk to you soon.

Love,
Chris