Sociopaths: The Predators Among Us.

This is a repost from a thread I started on SoulForce, in response to a request to elaborate on a statement I made about sociopaths:

But, I can’t stress enough, it needs to be understood and accepted that some people do not have the brain capacity to feel normal emotions, and are human predators, just as sure as the brutality of any wild animal. And they don’t wear a bell, but often times wear an air of disarming charm.

Here’s an article (quoted from below) with some excerpts from another book I just read: Without Conscience: the Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us © 1993.

It pretty much confirmed what I had read in The Sociopath Next Door © 2005.

(Some simple Google searches will lead to a lot of articles on the subject.)

The subjects were asked to perform a simple task: hit a button as soon as they recognized a word flashed on a computer screen. While monitoring the subjects' brain waves, the researchers alternated nonsensical strings of letters with neutral words such as "table," and emotionally evocative words like "maggot" and "cancer." What they found was that normal subjects spent more time processing emotion-laden words than the psychopaths. "When you see a word like 'cancer,' you have all sorts of associations - fear, or you think of someone who's had cancer," says Hare. "But for psychopaths, the word 'cancer' and the word 'table' had the same emotional connotations - which is to say, not very many. It's as if they're emotionally color-blind."

Even more staggering were the findings of a study conducted by New York City psychiatrist Joanne Intrator, with Hare's collaboration, at the Bronx Veterans Administration hospital in 1993. The investigators employed the same language test, this time injecting the subjects with a radioactive tracer and scanning color images of their brains. As normal subjects processed the emotion-laden words, their brains lit up with activity, particularly in the areas around the ventromedial frontal cortex and amygdala. The former plays a crucial role in controlling impulses and long-term planning, while the amygdala is often described as "the seat of emotion." But in the psychopaths, those parts of the brain appeared to remain inactive while processing the emotion-laden words. That, says Hare, helps explain why a psychopath's conscience is only half-formed. "I showed the scans to several neurologists," recalls Hare. "They said that it did not even look like a human brain. One of them asked, 'Is this person from Mars?' "

Tests like these are scientific indicators, there are also checklists of behaviors that are taken into account in the attempt to diagnose a person as sociopathic/psychopathic.

(One caveat here, from what I’ve read, there’s little difference between sociopathy and psychopathy. In regard to the absence of conscience, they are essentially the same. The Wiki article on psychopathy has a section under the heading; Relationship to sociopathy, that helps to clarify.)

I think it's imperative that people become educated on this phenomenon of the human condition. Especially given its scientific nature. People may be much more inclined to accept that some people are inherently “bad” (at least by the standards of someone who does have a conscience), and that no amount of reasoning or love can “reach” them.

Which is not to say that we as a society should give up, but my point here is that if we can see the scientific/genetic factors involved in some of the worst human behaviors in this world, we can then also see that these people are not “bad” or “evil” per se.

Yet at the same time, we will also be able to accept the significance of the threat that people like this present, and by extension, examine and correct the societal influences that exploit the genetic potential that lies within these people.

In Without Conscience, Hare said that the only treatment at this point is first of all, catching it early, as in pre-adolescence. And even then the only practical “therapy” is to teach them that it’s in their own best interests to act in socially acceptable ways, and that EVEN THEN, that may only make the difference between a violent criminal and a white collar criminal.

Martha Stout said in The Sociopath Next Door that in the East, sociopathy is virtually nil, because their entire societies/religions are based on the connectedness of all life - so, though sociopaths/psychopaths there may still have little to no conscience, it is bred into them from an early age that it is in their best interests to behave in socially acceptable ways.

One practical example is that the promiscuity associated with sociopathy (as they are incapable of emotional connection) would be more noticed and less tolerated in such a society, thus passing on less of those genes.

Here in the west, especially the US, we have such an individualistic society, that any sociopathic genetic predisposition (35-50%, regarding any personality trait) will usually become fully expressed in that individual. And by the time they realize that the world is their personal oyster to be exploited, they’re basically lost for good. As I said before, it’s the only disease that does not cause dis-ease.

One point of note, she says that it’s about 4% of the population, whereas Hare and others say 1%.

So say that 1-4% of the population truly has no conscience. No remorse, no guilt, no embarrassment when found out about a lie, or any other horrific act they may have committed. These people have THE biggest human advantage. And the most intelligent among them are going to cause the most damage.

If you read the checklist in the Wiki article, you’ll see that manipulating others is one of the characteristics of psychopathy, as it naturally would be for someone who’s only goal is to get what they want. And manipulation, is really a form of domination.

Now here’s where I’m connecting all this with John Dean’s book, Conservatives Without Conscience. For more information I also have a thread on this here.

Dean talks about three groups, those who score high as Social Dominators (leaders), those who score high as Right Wing Authoritarians (followers), and those particularly “scary,” who score high as both:

...rare “Double Highs” want to be dominators. They probably endorse submission on the RWA scale because they like the idea of others submitting to them. High SDO-high RWAs would win the gold medal in a Prejudice Olympics, having even stronger prejudices than ordinary high SDOs and ordinary high RWAs. They are also more power hungry, more dominance-oriented, meaner, more Machiavellian, and more amoral than any other identifiable group in my samples. They have an almost magical ability to alloy the worst features of social dominators and rightwing authoritarians, and I have likened them to Hitler (Altemeyer, in press). They would seem to be the most likely persons to rise to the top of movements thickly sewn with high RWAs.

In other words, "double highs" are Social dominators who also score high on the follower scale because they’re thinking about how they would like to be followed.

What I’m thinking here is that your naturally manipulative sociopaths/psychopaths are typically going to fall under the Social Dominator category. And that the most intelligent and ambitious among them, are going to fall under the “Double High” category.

From the quote above: “They would seem to be the most likely persons to rise to the top of movements thickly sewn with high RWAs.” And remember, RWA’s are your Right Wing Authoritarian followers. For whatever reasons, they are prone to submitting to authority (think Bible, threat of hell, church think/group think), and as such, are RIPE for being dominated and manipulated by the most intelligent and ambitious sociopaths among us.

The public image of the leaders of the religious right I met with so many times also contrasted with who they really were. In public, they maintained an image that was usually quite smooth, In private, they ranged from unreconstructed bigot reactionaries like Jerry Falwell, to Dr. Dobson, the most power-hungry and ambitious person I have ever met, to Billy Graham, a very weird man indeed who lived an oddly sheltered life in a celebrity/ministry cocoon, to Pat Robertson, who would have a hard time finding work in any job where hearing voices is not a requirement. (p315)

~Frank Schaeffer, Crazy for God

1) For clarification, any personal examples I may use below, does NOT mean that I am saying that that person is a sociopath/psychopath. I’m trying to illustrate a pattern of behavior, the recognition of which lies foremost in the understanding of sociopathy - the absence of conscience.

2) For clarification: This is an almost exclusively conservative phenomenon, as liberal / progressive ideals are inherently egalitarian.

Egalitarian: believing in equality: maintaining, relating to, or based on a belief that all people are, in principle, equal and should enjoy equal social, political, and economic rights and opportunities

I’m not saying progressives are perfect, but I am saying that the heart of our ideals are based on our recognition of the emotional connections we have with others, and the rest of humanity; empathy, love, etc. All of which is the antithesis of a person without conscience.

That said, I’m also not saying that Right Wing Authoritarians are devoid of conscience, but that they are more adept at silencing their conscience. Which, under the right circumstances, most of us are capable of doing. See this post on the Milgram Experiment.

3) It’s generally easier to accept sociopathic behavior coming from a politician than it is from a religious leader. Even when a politician speaks of “moral values,” an air of bluster is a generally accepted accompaniment, as well as the assumption that any such statements were fashioned for the sake of political ends.

Look at David Vitter and Larry Craig, both republicans. Vitter was exposed for having cheated on his wife with prostitutes, and we all know about Larry “not gay” Craig. And after being found out and publicly humiliated, what do they do? Not only go right back to work, but team up to reintroduce the Federal Marriage Amendment as though absolutely nothing had happened!

As the joke goes:

Q: How can you tell when a politician is lying?
A: When his lips are moving

In the realm of politics, sociopathic behavior like that is to be expected. So I'm not saying that those two are sociopaths, as I do not throw the term around lightly. I would, however, consider Rob Blagojevich---in response to his corruption scandal---to be a case study.

4) Now, and this is what I’ve been wrestling with since I got involved in this equal-rights fight in ‘04, religious leaders are a whole different animal when it comes to explaining their sociopathic behavior. Mel White insists that they are sincere in their anti-gay beliefs, and he should know, as he served as ghostwriter to Falwell, Robertson and others.

When Falwell died, I started a thread called The end result of closet atheism? To be clear, it wasn’t meant as a slam on atheism, or atheists.

What I realize now, is that I was attempting to describe sociopathy in regard to the religious leadership that we are so familiar with. But at the time, I was still hung up on the idea that having no conscience must equal not having a belief in God. And I think I’ve figured out how that may not necessarily be the case.

Now, we know that Dobson/ilk they know that they lie, and that they do all that they can to demonize and spread hatred for those of us who are LGBT, and they do so without any regard or regret for the violence done to us or our families and friends. Nor do they take any responsibility when found out. Instead they further attack and play the victim.

A couple more examples before moving on, keeping in mind here that my point is that this behavior is especially perplexing when coming from those who vocally and vehemently attest to what amounts to adherence to the Golden Rule. In this case, Christianity, which admonishes to love, pray for, and do good unto one’s enemies.

Remember the shrieks and howls of victimization in response to the Prop 8 protests? Charges of mob violence were used to describe almost exclusively peaceful protests, and for awhile there, it was a daily occurrence. Box Turtle Bulletin tracked it well, and many LaBarbera awards were handed out. As I posted recently at BTB:

Martha Stout ph.d., author of The Sociopath Next Door, offers that the best clue to the sociopath without conscience is the repeated pity play.

"[A]fter twenty-five years of listening to victims, I realize there is an excellent reason for the sociopathic fondness for pity. As obvious as the nose on one’s face, and just as difficult to see without the help of a mirror, the explanation is that good people will let pathetic individuals get by with murder, so to speak, and therefore any sociopath wishing to continue with his game, whatever it happens to be, should play repeatedly for none other than pity."

Also, in Montgomery County Maryland, there is a group that seems to LIVE for the spreading of hatred against LGBTs. A non-discrimination ordinance was unanimously passed to protect transgendered individuals from discrimination -- the same as race, religion, disability, etc. -- and this group began a campaign to gather signatures to rescind the measure by having it put on last November’s ballot (they were unsuccessful btw).

The sticking point here is that they sold the effort by claiming that it would put women and girls at risk, because now male predators would have unprecedented access to female bathrooms and locker rooms, a bald faced lie. Yet when confronted with this misrepresentation, Michelle Turner, spokeswoman for the group (CRG) said: "If there was a misunderstanding, it was on the part of the individual signing the petition,"

And I’m not pulling this out of nowhere, I was on that blog the whole time, saw their antics and watched the whole thing unfold.

I mention that example, because in both of the books I read, it mentioned how sociopaths view the gullible, naïve and uninformed as deserving of being taken advantage of.

Which elucidates another point. The religious right leaders must despise their constituents. They have to. You don’t lie to people you respect. You don’t encourage people whom you value and cherish to act on false information, that in the end you KNOW will ruin their reputation, or possibly harm themselves and/or their loved ones.

5) A few more numbers here and I’ll sum up. John Dean’s book Conservatives Without Conscience estimates that about 23% of the population is in one of the groups described. Social Dominators, Right Wing Authoritarians, or both. As indicated above, your sociopaths, whatever their percentage may be, would also be included in this grouping.

So, generally speaking, 1-4% of the population has no conscience, and another 20% or so is highly skilled at setting aside their conscience. So let’s round it off to a cool 25% who are either sociopathic, or who are prone to sociopathic tendencies.

Empirically, last I heard (on Chris Matthews a few weeks ago), Bush’s approval rating was at 29%. I also heard that 70% of Americans were now against the war in Iraq (implying that 30% were still for it). So the numbers are similar. And for the sake of contrast, when the war began, it was about 70% in favor.

So here’s my theory, and hopefully my solution.

You’ve got the leaders of the “family” groups who are often sociopaths, and who may or may not believe in God.

Above and beyond the game of politics, what better place to get people to give you money? And tax free at that!

A crafty letter and a stamp is all it takes.

All of the elements are in play. Target those who “love God” and/or are afraid of eternal hell. Especially gullible and sedentary older folk, and housewives who are “too busy” to Google. They get to “protect marriage” and family for future generations, help to prevent the end of civilization, avoid hell, and please God, all by simply writing a check. Not to mention the boost it gives to their feeling of self worth - they may not be able to protest at school board meetings against the “promotion of homosexuality,” but through their donation, someone else can, which makes them a participant in the good fight and makes their lives effortlessly more meaningful.

And the worse the threat that the “homosexual agenda” is presented as, the more significant their donation becomes.

Now, if the leaders of these groups don’t believe in God, then they’re just frauds, and are as Christopher Hitchens described Falwell after his death: “He woke up every morning, as I say, pinching his chubby little flanks and thinking, I have got away with it again.”

Which, if sociopathy is a reality, then the above sentiment, in some circumstances, is a GUARANTEED reality.

Which brings us back to Mel White’s notion that these people are sincere (just sincerely wrong), which I now believe I may understand.

In one sense, sociopaths are just like the rest of us, in that they think that everyone else is just like them. We all tend to project like that. Just as the good hearted see the goodness in others, the person who comprehends only the human rat race of looking out for number one, is incapable of seeing that others are not like them, and do have feelings, and do love. Which may explain their justification in taking advantage of fools, the idea being that if they weren’t fools, they’d be trying to screw them over.

Which is why I feel that it’s imperative that we challenge our own beliefs and perceptions. We deserve to know the truth. And though the truth may be ugly, there is beauty in the desire to face it.

I think what I’m saying is that it’s entirely possible for someone without a conscience to believe in a god. They would just project their universe of meaninglessness and predation onto that god.

In that universe, one would need a written reminder not to kill, rape, rob or steal, and backed up by an ever watchful deity just waiting to pull the plug on your salvation to damn you to an eternity of suffering in a lake of fire.

I often wonder if those who scream so loudly of “God’s laws,” are really just trying to convince themselves. How much hell IS NOT unleashed unto this world, because of the threat of eternal damnation? How many sociopaths are constrained by that fear alone?

But from what I’ve read, even the fear of pain and/or death is a shallow emotion for the sociopath. They also tend to associate love with sexual desire.

So that’s another thing that is essentially a universal part of the human condition that we share with sociopaths, sexual desire. And since sociopaths/psychopaths are inherently devoid of anything but the shallowest of emotions, sexual desire would be the one feeling that would stand out (save perhaps for the fear of death).

And if this sexual feeling is equated with their definition of love, and love is God, then it would make perfect sense to match up their own revulsion for the idea of having sex with a member of their own gender (homosexuality), with “God’s” condemnation of it in the Bible.

Remember, in their world, everyone’s out to get everyone. Enter the gays, and now you have a movement that is trying to reverse the meaning of love itself. Which makes us capable of any and all evil. And just in case there’s any doubt, we can rest assured that even God says so.

Thus, all gay rights are seen as the intentional grossification of society, and are not only suspect, but are seen as Trojan-horses of infectious evil.

In other words, sexual desire is the only real deep feeling that they have. So it would follow that they would perceive God in the same manner. And that would explain why they feel no hypocrisy in focusing on the “sin” of homosexuality to the complete and utter exclusion of all others.

They can’t comprehend a god who really cares about those other sins, at least not like they can comprehend a god who hates homosexuality. Because as a heterosexual, that’s something they can relate to, they HATE the idea of having sex with someone of the same gender.

Now, on paper, the whole theory works out. Same sex attraction really is all about choosing to love what by nature can only be hated. Therefore we “love Satan” and “hate God,” and death and destruction God’s judgment blah blah blah, ensue… Until you get to know some of us, then, not so much.

Like it or not, we are ready made templates of sociopathy itself.

In essence, we have sociopaths, looking at the quintessential template of sociopathy (homosexuality as described above), and seeing themselves expressed in us.

They see our same gender attraction as choosing to reverse the order of conscience - to them, the best and most practical grasp they have on the meaning of conscience, is the “absolute truth” that they are attracted to the opposite sex. Their idea of love, and the deepest “feeling” that they can relate to.

Unlike we moral relativists who “choose” to be attracted to what revolts us the most, and thus choose to “love” the opposite of love itself.

So, again, in essence, we have sociopaths, recognizing and responding to the danger of sociopathy, but doing so by mistakenly equating it with homosexuality.

It’s as f___ed up as it gets.

Which is why I believe that the key to turning this world around for the better, is not in believing in the good in people -- as we already know that -- but in believing in the reality of the worst in people.

It’s not enough to accomplish a utopia in a predator world. In order for it to last it must also be built to withstand any foreseeable attacks.

I believe this is what our founding fathers attempted to do. Three branches of power (government), to minimize the chance that any one could overwhelm the others. And the constitutional, AKA fundamental right to exPRESSion, as in the press, the media, the so-called fourth estate of government to keep an eye on all three branches, in order keep we voting masses from becoming ignorami we’ve now become.

The Barack/Warren thing illustrates this mess so perfectly.

If this were just a disagreement on marriage, such as “marriage vs. civil unions,” then I really wouldn’t have a problem with the pick. At least not enough of one to be throwing the tantrum fit that I’ve been throwing of late.

What scares me -- above and beyond the whole promotion of hatred = promotion of violence = sends a message to other pastors to promote hatred/violence -- is that this scenario is the very breeding ground for another Bush Administration.

When Melissa Etheridge, her partner, Andrew Sullivan, Bob Ostertag, John Corvino, and plenty of others, here and abroad, see this culture war as a mere difference of opinion, I see that they are not seeing the full picture.

And I’m not just talking Rick Warren / Obama here.

I support efforts to reach out, if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be here at Soulforce, and I certainly wouldn’t put my money where my mouth is. Love is good, but sometimes love is also blind. And when love is blind, love can be evil, without even knowing it.

So, the biggest picture I can foresee here, is that to see the Warren pick, by Obama, as being an issue of even gay rights, is to guarantee another Bush Administration. Something that truly could result in the end of civilization. If it’s not already too late. I have the distinct impression that we have yet to even fathom the institutionalized and long term damage that has been wrought on this country over the past 8 years.

For our new president to send a message that “reaching out” to those who are proven to have every intention of molesting the constitutional freedoms that this country was founded on, is to mock his own victory, and all those who supported him.

Barack’s message, and those who support it, may be well intentioned, but I feel that it’s irresponsible in the worst way possible. And to not recognize that, is to not recognize the ever encroaching imminent threat to the free world as we know it.

This is no longer about sociopaths and "conservatives without conscience" - to varying degrees, they can’t help it. At this point it’s about we liberals and progressives who supposedly know better than them. And if we can’t even recognize and respond to the aspect of human nature that is capable of ensuring the downfall of civilization, then we truly are no better than them. At least in the sense that the effect will be the same.

But at least we’ll have the satisfaction of knowing “we did nothing” to cause it.

As the anti-gay bigots love to harp their "truth in love" song and dance, Well, I say that our understanding of love needs to start including the truth of evil.

Otherwise, we’re doomed.
_________
Back to Genocide For Jesus