Why are there so many sociopaths in America?
This semester I am teaching Psychology of Women at the University of Bridgeport. This is the second time I have taught this course. It is a fun course to teach because everyone likes it. This week we took up the issue of whether overall women’s personalities are different from men’s. A significant percentage of the class believes that men and women are very different in many domains and that this difference is biologic or genetic. The author of our textbook is a feminist from New York so she tends to down play any gender differences found, and she attributes nearly all gender differences to culture.
To balance the views of the textbook, I look for other articles to share with the class. This week I found a great paper, and coincidentally some interesting statistics were also reported in the news. The paper I found is entitled Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Differences in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures. It was just published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The results are shocking and a wake up call.
The authors found that there are significant sex differences in personality in the areas of neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion. This means that around the world, women are more anxious/fearful, more agreeable, more conscientious and possess more positive sociability traits than do men. Of course all the sexist people in my class attribute this to an inherent biological difference between the sexes. They also expect me to agree with the biological view. After all I spent five years in a lab at Yale studying the effects of sex steroids on the brain.
In spite of my background I do not accept that these gender differences in personality result from a preprogrammed unfolding of the genetic plan. I believe they are largely culturally determined. My position is supported by the study I am sharing with you. It turns out that gender differences in personality are the LARGEST in Western countries where women have the most opportunity and the greatest equality. Furthermore, gender differences in personality around the world are due to differences in men, not differences in women.
Yes, that means that America and Europe lead the world in producing men who are fearless, disagreeable, lacking in conscientiousness and positive sociality. This is very important to us because these are the very personality traits that are associated with sociopathy (See Are they just evil people?).
The study found that communal, trusting cultures produce men who are more androgynous in their personalities. The men from communal cultures are more fearful, more conscientious, and more prosocial. Fearlessness, is perhaps the most important temperamental trait leading to the development of sociopathy. Furthermore, smoking among women around the world is associated with the largest sex differences in personality. This is interesting because maternal smoking has been linked to sociopathy in offspring (see Maternal smoking linked to sociopathy in Offspring).
So how do we put this all together? I think maleness and the hormone testosterone make boys more sensitive to early environmental experiences. If boys are raised in a loving environment, where social bonds and self-sacrifice for the family are strongly encouraged, then they will grow up more loving and prosocial. If boys are raised to be independent and look out for number one, they are more likely than girls to develop antisocial attitudes. Add to that, the effect environmental toxins have on impulse control and you have an explanation for the high prevalence of sociopathy in our society.
That brings me to the news this week. According to the Pew Center on the States Public Safety Performance Project , 2,319,258 adults were held in American prisons or jails at the beginning of 2008. This means that 1 in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars. Since 80 percent of those in prison are sociopaths, nearly 3 percent of the young adult male population is a jailed sociopath. In spite of this the crime rate remains stable due to the many who are not in jail. To read more see MSNBC.com. What percentage of the total young adult male sociopaths are in prison anyway? If you guess 30 percent, that means a sizable percentage of young adult males are sociopathic. We just don’t know.
These statistics are a wake-up call for us all. The practices and beliefs of our society are leading to more sociopaths being formed than would otherwise be formed. We need to rethink our values and our child rearing practices. We need to say strongly that it is very important for boys to grow up possessing the capacity for guilt and empathy. We need to stop believing that dominance and competitiveness are the most important personal qualities to possess. We need to stop conditioning boys to be callous by bombarding them with violent entertainment.
Furthermore, we need to provide our children with a safe clean environment. That starts by eliminating smoking in women of child bearing age and telling teen aged girls they have a responsibility not to start smoking. If teen aged girls start smoking, it is unlikely they will quit in time to prevent exposure of the unborn. In some segments of our society, up to 30 per cent of pregnant women smoke.
Women can sit around complaining that there are not enough “good men” to go around. Or, they can do something about these issues so that future generations will not face these largely preventable social problems.
written by Liane Leedom, M.D. • Permalink •
M.L. Gallagher says:
Wow Liane, what a powerful message! Thanks so much for sharing your learning and your insight.
What a stunning thought — The practices and beliefs of our society are leading to more sociopaths being formed than would otherwise be formed.
The fact that these are ‘preventable social problems’ puts us right back where we belong — turning up for ourselves and our children. Creating a world we can live in, not one that’s killing our spirit.
Question: Which communities were communal? What attributes do they possess that are lacking in our society?
Thank you!
ML
Saturday, 1 March 2008 @ 10:43am
alohatraveler says:
I am sure you are not saying that it’s women’s fault in any way that there seems to be a shortage of good men in our culture.
Many times though, I have thought that our culture does not produce good men. The messages we get as women about body image and expectations hurt women and men. Men start to get addicted to these images and start thinking “I can only love a girl that looks like THAT!” (pant, pant, pant) BLECH! In fact, a know a woman who was dating a guy who she seemed to get along with so well but finally he admitted that he just couldn’t take the relationship further because she didn’t look like Sandra Bullock. GROWN MEN SAY THESE THINGS! Whatever buddy! Take a look in the mirror!!!
Anyway, I have long felt frustrated that some how I am not hot enough or whatever. I am a very casual person and I don’t like to get all tarted up to go out and meet men. HAHA!
I am actually putting a little more effort in wearing nicer things but I love flip-flops… hence, Hawaii. But now that’s gone. I still have a wardrobe of flip flops and summer clothers. Winter is hard to get through. :o)
Aloha………. E.R.
Saturday, 1 March 2008 @ 11:59am
OxDrover says:
Dr. Leedom,
Another statistic that I have noticed is the rise of teenage births, and the lack of fathers’ in the homes of many children. I don’t think the lack of a father is the CAUSE of sociopathy in these children, I think it is a symptom of the sociopathy of the fathers.
I realize that many young males so are sociopathy sire manyy of these children, then move on, to sire more from another young woman.
With the “average” family having 1-2 or at most 3 children, and you look at the young women who are starting to have children at 15, 16 yrs old and having 1-2 children sired by a sociopath who moves on, then she has successive children by the next one, etc. so that she may have 3-4 children, or even 5, all sired by sociopaths.
Since she has little or no education, and lives in a “bad neighborhood” where there are many sociopaths congregated, the chances both genetic and environmental that a majority of her children will become sociopaths would be obvious to me.
I recall a 15 year old pregnant girl, whose boyfriend and the father of her child was having affairs with several girls at the same time. This young woman was very happy to be pregnant as it would show “John” how much she loved him, and he would love her more than the others as she was “having his child”—that woman now has 4 children by 4 different men, most of whom I would calculate from their criminal and other behavior that are sociopaths.
I realize that this is not “scientific proof” of anything, but I have seen countless young women in the same situation and I believe that there could be a “trend” there.
Also, much of America was settled by people who were encouraged to be independent and to think for themselves, the Scots-Irish, the Irish, the Germanic people etc. and especially in the Scots-Iirish (my family back ground) there was a great deal of alcoholism, which in some cases can be associated with sociopathy. Violence was common among these fiercely independent people. The sterotypical “red neck” who drives drunk, beats his wife, etc. is not sterotypical because it is not observed frequently, it is sterotypical because it is COMMON among this group (and believe me I come from a Scots-Irish red-neck back ground so I am not slurring some other ethnic group) I am simply observing the worst of my own group.
I recently read a research book on the character of the “Johnny Reb” soldiers as demonstrated by the letters that they wrote, and the author did I think a good job in presenting the character and beliefs and behavior of various groups–the Scots Irish, the American Indians, the Germans, and the “elite” in their beliefs and behavior during the war.
Many of the loosely organized gorilla raiders were bands of outlaws and sociopaths if ever there were any. These men were not controlled by the amry of either country, but instituted a reign of terror on the population, robbing and killing both their own people and the enemy.
In a book I researched and wrote on my local history for my county showed that there was documentation for many men who were from “good families” who rode with these groups, changing sides as was convenient, and pillaging their neighbors at will regardless of which side these neighbors were on.
Since we do know that socipathy/psychopathy is somewhat heritable, and also influenced by environment, the offspring of these men would have the “double whammy” of both genetics and environment (and a culture of independce and violence.)
My own grandfather was born only a few years after the civil war, and grew up in the reconstruction (which lasted until the 1950s here) and as a young man was a heavy drinker and he and his brothers were quite violent…as an adult, he realized that this was not a life style that he wanted and quit drinking completely and was not violent with anyone that I ever knew, and not with his children…yet his son was a psychopathic monster. His wife’s father was also a psychopathic violent alcoholic…and that line (maternal grandmother) can be traced back to a long line of psychopathic violent alcoholics, and enabling women.
Yes, there is some culture and environment in it, but I think the propensity of many sociopaths to produce more offspring than “normal” people has some contributing factor as well.
I would like to see a study of diagnosed criminal psychopaths and how many children they have (that they know about). I think the results might be very interesting. Except for a few like my son who went to prison before they had much of a chance to sire children, most of the “friends” of his that I also think are psychopaths all have 2-6 chldren by several women.
Saturday, 1 March 2008 @ 12:29pm
Liane Leedom, M.D. says:
There is one study that estimated that up to 25 percent of children in a Brittish neighborhood were fathered by sociopaths.
Saturday, 1 March 2008 @ 8:12pm
OxDrover says:
The record numbers of teenaged and unwed mothers is very worrysome to me. I would not be surprised if 25% of the teenaged and unwed mothers in this country did not have children sired by sociopaths. FAthering children and going to jail seem to be “rites of passage” for certain segments of males in society today, and having a “love child” by these young men seems to be the female version of the rite of passage.
While I would not wish a “stigma” attached to any child because of his/her birth situation as in the past when a child was labeled a “bastard” which followed them for the rest of their lives–especially in rural cultures, but at the same time there seems to be no community stigma toward any young girl who has a child out of wed lock, or several children out of wed lock. The number and growing numbers of grandparents who are raising children from unfit parents, and parents who simply abandon the children for someone else to raise is also disturbing, though I am glad that those grandparents at least try to raise these children.
In the rural health clinics though, I have seen grandparents, and even great grandparents trying to raise 4-5 or even 6 young children from their drug addicted or sociopathic and/or criminal grandchildren or children. It is I think in most cases better than the “system” of unstable foster homes, but still leaves a great deal to be desired.
When I worked in a mental hospital, most of the patients we had were NOT psychotic, but the children were mostly “conduct disorder” children, many who were adopted by good parents, but genetics seemed to play a part…I have noticed now that the medicos are starting to recognize that there is an “adoption syndrome” of many of these youngsters who are availabe for adoption come from situations where one or both of the biological parents is personality disordered, and a greater percentage of them follow in their biological parent’s footsteps even with almost “ideal” adoptive homes.
A 10-year-old child that will burn the house down on your head without any concept or remorse and that cannot be left alone is a terrible burden to a parent who chose to raise this child, not realizing that the child they chose was not a “blank slate” on which their love could write a wonderful life.
The suffering of both the child, the parents, and society by the propogation of the psychopaths and other disordered people to me is a “silent” epidemic….and unfortunately, most people do not realize such epidemic is the case, and think only drug control, alcohol control, or tougher laws will “fix” it.
I think there needs to be an educational program about the “psychopaths next door” so that people can be forewarned that not all psychopaths are Ted Bundy or Charlie Manson. What other things could turn this tide socially, I wish I did know the “answer” (if there is one).
Having given birth to a psychopath, who was raised with love and care, who had every opportunity to turn out to be a “good” man, if I had known then what I know now, I doubt that I would have chosen to give birth to biological children. My non-psychopath son who has no biological children of his own has now chose to not have biological children.
My adopted son who also has at this point no children, and comes from a family that is not psychopathic or seriously disordered at all, is quite “leery” of any woman he dates at this point. He broke off an enagement with a woman who after getting to know her and her mother realized that she and her mother were both disordered…though it broke his heart to do so, as he loved her very much. He is a bright young man and will choose a life mate with his head as well as his heart, for which I am quite glad. With a 50+% divorce rate it is enough to make someone think twice about getting married if they don’t want to end up a single or divorced parent with only part time “visitation” for their children.
I also in retrospect realize that I somewhat “neglected” the needs of my “good son” because I was so wrapped up in trying to “save” the psychopathic one. I kept thinking that there was some “magic” phrase or thing I could say or do that would “make him see” what he was doing to himself.
I realize now that the pain and chaos that has reigned in my life for the last 17+ years due to my psychopathic son (though I never bailed him out of jail, or paid his fines or the consequences of his crimes) never the less I enabled him because of my toxic malignant HOPE that I could save him, and his manipulative and toxic interactions designed to “con” me.
I pray for those parents whose children are born from a sociopath, and who are required by the law and courts to allow the children to interact with the sociopath, I pray for those young mothers who have given birth and have “no clue” that they have put their children at risk for a lifetime of pain, and themselves at risk for the pain that being the parent of a sociopath brings.
When my son killed the girl he murdered, I would gladly have changed places with the mother of the girl, and had my son dead and her child in prison for doing it. It would have been less painful for me (as awful and as selfish as that may sound) but now, my son is “dead” to me as much as if he had stopped breathing, and total NC is the only way I can deal with the grief. The delightful and bright young child that he was until early puberty set in is no longer “there”–and the man who is in prison is not “my son”–
Sunday, 2 March 2008 @ 1:23am
Beverly says:
Yes Liane, I live in the UK and there is a huge number of teen mums. Infact I live in an area characterised by teen mums (they call it ’sink housing estates’) and feral children - one of the reasons I want to move away - constant low level nuisance behaviour that disrupts peace. Here in the Uk, local housing is still given to young girls with children - so a carrot to get pregnant - the state picks up the tab.
My ex N’s best friend (a physically abusive man) fathered 6 children by 6 different women and doesnt support any of them. Another red flag (why has he a best friend like that?) ( know now.
Sunday, 2 March 2008 @ 3:55am
Beverly says:
Three days ago I spoke with a woman who lives on the estate next door and she said the same as me. We hate it when the sun shines and the summer comes, because many of these feral children come out and are up to mischief. We love the rain and the dark nights because it keeps them in. I have kept a log of what has been going on and it runs into pages. I even confronted a group of males from 6-16 about harrassing me and my property and they dont care a jot. Since my encounter with my exN I now have a sense of what I am dealing with and realise it is much more pervasive in the community. Problem is that there isnt community here anymore. That was society’s strength (I used to be a community worker), the women and men would come out and stand together. Now people are too afraid to receive the abuse and stinging attacks that these children retaliate with. The local authorities are impotent when it comes to doing anything as they know that they have to house these people somewhere else and they just move them around. It is the minority, but they cause such trouble.
There was a programme of prevention of teen pregnancies, I had a friend who ran a course, but it hasnt worked. Some young people and children are out of control and I have spoken with their parents (waste of time) who seem powerless. There have also been parenting classes and ‘anti social behaviour orders’ dished out, but the newspapers here are constantly reporting the appalling deeds that some of these children are up to. I am not saying that the kids have PD’s, but together with the fact that children seem to think they have the rights to do what they like and in an over indulgent society - these are certainly the ingredients which could foster PD’s.
On my other blog to Swallow, I said I have my house for sale and am planning to move out of the area to get a better life even to the extent of leaving my daughter behind (she doesnt want to move out of the area) a big sacrifice for me, because she is my only and I am on my own. Things are very tight here in the UK, economically and housing wise, but I am still thinking of the advert I saw ‘believe in better’.
Sunday, 2 March 2008 @ 4:30am
OxDrover says:
Beverly, I agree that the sense of “community” even in the country is eroded a great deal since I was a child. I am fortunate that there is some sense of community left here where I live in the rural central south US, but it is also going, and probably within the next 10-20 years will be completely gone.
The inner cities are going to the Ps as others get up and leave for safety, and even some of the bedroom communities are becoming over riden with the “feral children”—that is really a great (though very SAD) description. Sometimes I think it is like the book “The Lord of the Flies” which depicted children left on a deserted island without any adults.
Interestingly enough, in Africa when they were relocating adolescent elephants, they became violent and would pack up and kill rhinos just for “sport”—after they brought in adult males to socialize the adolescents, that violent gang behavior stopped. So I actually don’t even think it is just a human thing, I think it is some need for socialization from adults in many species on what is acceptable behavior.
I think in gang behavior the meanest biggest P is the “leader” manipulating the non-P children into evil deeds, anti-social behavior and criminal behavior until they accept that as “Ok” when they are praised by the “leader.”
On an evolutionary level I would think where resources are scarce, food for example, the hypersexuality and the lack of conscience would be benficial to a P “spreadiing his genes” but in a civilazied society it doesn’t play as well, I think, for the community and society, yet it continues to spread due to some of (I think) social policies that you discussed.
I saw a very sad cartoon once of the “normal” people behind baracades with gun towers, but they were protecting themselves from the world.
We have enough nut cases and “survivorists” here, one recently found with a very toxic poison (racine) in his house and hotel room. While I don’t agree with their tactics I can sympathze with their fear. Fear drives some people off the edge. Having been personally pushed to the edge of sanity by the Ps in my life, and fearing for my life, fleeing for my life, I can understand very well.
Sunday, 2 March 2008 @ 11:55am
EnnLondon says:
Dr Leedom, could you please give the name of the study (the one about the British neighbourhood)? I’m writing a bit of fiction that is heavy on sociopaths and on the sort of housing estate I grew up on and it sounds as if it’s exactly the sort of thing that might spur me on and make some sense of my themes.
Sunday, 2 March 2008 @ 1:14pm
jules says:
ox dover dr L: i found this blog interesting . i am from two scottish parents and you are right they drink a lot in that country my father is aheavy drinker and maybe s path not totally but some personality traits. my mother is passive and accepts everythign he does. also my father did not know his own fathr he was a father less child growing up in scottland. my brother could be a s path i know he lies a lot . my mother had a brother who was an alcoholic and lived on the streets. me i married young he was an alcoholic s path. i think i married him to get out of my home life with my parents. this mad e my life even worse. then later after he and i divorced i met the other s path n and now that is over i am alone . my sis ter does not choose good men really either i dont know wether s path or not but she seems to be the main provider which is wrong in my eyes. the husband i married came from a broken family his father cheated and left his mother to raise the children she drank a lot and he my husband ended up drinking at an early age a nd became alco. my ex s path who cam e along later. his mother and father broke up think his mother cheated, his father used drugs and drank and wasnt around much when he grew up his mother i think she smoked when she was pregnant also. he said he was left to look after his sister a lot like a carer while still a child himself. so you see the pattern, also he has an uncle who is a drug addict on his fathers side and an aunt who is a drug addict on his mothers side. so i see how it is all inherited even in my own family. it seems other mental illness is inhereted too i have a friend who has schisophrenia and his father was i think undiagnosed the same and drank to self medicate. my freind has been terribly ill and his sister also now suffers depression. it s all relevent i think woman need to be educated at school or home about choosing the right men to have children with and providing the right home life has alot to do with it,.my friends mother whos son has schisophrenia said to me she just wishes she had never married his father and done this to her children she is guilt ridden to this day and they are adults now. it is aobut choosing wisely and teaching your daughter s to see men for what they are, not what they seem or what you w ant them to be. i w ish my mother could of done this but she let my father do anything she was so passive and i grew up seeing this i thought men are all good and you let them get away with a lot. its a cycle and we have to break it to chang e the world it is very hard cause things are getting out of control in my country sooo many single mothers trying to get money from the government with fatherless children being born. society is breeding so many sociopaths no wonder we came in contact with them. but i am trying to make better choices now for me the rest of my life . thanks to you all.
Monday, 3 March 2008 @ 10:26pm
OxDrover says:
Dear Jules,
I applaud you for seeing the “pattern” in your family’s history. It is I think partly “social training” and what is seen as “Ok” in any group of people, and partly the genetics of the thing.
Many bad choices in drugs/alcohol, etc. also lead to lack of education, lack of opportunity, poverty, poor support networks and other things that in themselves make life difficult.
When the Scots-Irish (an American term for the people of Scots descent who had been in Ireland since approximately 1609) came to America primarily from 1715-1771 they were known for being a very independent group of people, and quite quarrelsome as well as hard drinkers. They were as a group partly responsible for the success of the American revolution as they hated the British to a man, and there were so many in the American army that the Pennsylvania troops were called “The Irish Line.” The descendants of these people migrated to VA, NC, TN, KY, AR, and then into Texas, generally settling in the back woods or the frontier towns which gave them more independence than the settled areas.
They brought their customs which persisted well up into the 1950-s and 1960s in some rural parts of the south. They were suspicious of other ethnic groups, and very devoted to their families and extended families.
The women were generally passive, and subservient to their husbands,; male children were valued above female children. Large families were the norm, and were of great value on the subsistence farms to the prosperity of the family in general.
Many cultures, though, not only the Scots-Irish, Scots, and Irish, are heavy drinkers, and the men “rule the roost” in the home. If you put the genetics, the “drugs” (alcohol is a drug) together with customs, you have the recipe for a psychopath.
I am glad for you Jules that you are making better choices for yourself, that is really all any of us can do. Unfortunately none of us had the chance to “pick” our ancestors, we kind of have to do the best we can with what “cards” were dealt to us.
God bless, you are a brave person.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008 @ 12:32am
jules says:
thank you fo rwhat you said it is very interesting to me, i love history. my family must sound awful now. they arent they arre pretty normal really. but i can see the patterns. my fathers family were big and poor. my mothers family were big too but more wealthy. my s paths back ground was russian and i have heard they are very hard tough people. so maybe its in his genes far back as well. thank you again and i do feel brave cause ive been through an awful lot in my life so far. x
Tuesday, 4 March 2008 @ 8:26am
Laura says:
Liane wrote: “In spite of my background I do not accept that these gender differences in personality result from a preprogrammed unfolding of the genetic plan. I believe they are largely culturally determined. My position is supported by the study I am sharing with you. It turns out that gender differences in personality are the LARGEST in Western countries where women have the most opportunity and the greatest equality. Furthermore, gender differences in personality around the world are due to differences in men, not differences in women.”
There may be a reason for this that IS related to genetics. The very fact that, in the West, women have “the most opportunity and the greatest equality” could be a clue to the problem.
Linda Mealey of the Department of Psychology at the College of St. Benedict in St. Joseph, Minnesota, proposed certain ideas in her paper: The Sociobiology of Sociopathy: An Integrated Evolutionary Model. These ideas address the increase in psychopathy in American culture by suggesting that in a competitive society - capitalism, for example - psychopathy is adaptive and likely to increase. She writes:
“I have thus far argued that some individuals seem to have a genotype that disposes them to [psychopathy].
“[Psychopathy describes] frequency-dependent, genetically based, individual differences in employment of life strategies. [Psychopaths] always appear in every culture, no matter what the socio-cultural conditions. […]
“Competition increases the use of antisocial and Machiavellian strategies and can counteract pro-social behavior…
“Some cultures encourage competitiveness more than others and these differences in social values vary both temporally and cross-culturally. […] Across both dimensions, high levels of competitiveness are associated with high crime rates and Machiavellianism.
“High populaton density, an indirect form of competition, is also associated with reduced pro-social behavior and increased anti-social behavior. […] [Mealey, op. cit.]”
The conclusion is that the American way of life has optimized the survival of psychopaths with the consequence that it is an adaptive “life strategy” that is extremely successful in American society, and thus has increased in the population in strictly genetic terms. One might also consider that a “free market, dog eat dog” type of economy would attract more psychopathic types from other areas in the world which would add to the increasing numbers of genetic psychopaths. What is more, as a consequence of a society that is adaptive for psychopathy, many individuals who are NOT genetic psychopaths have similarly adapted, becoming “effective” psychopaths, or “secondary sociopaths.”
(Many experts differentiate between primary and secondary sociopaths. The first is a sociopath because they have the “genes” and the second is more or less “created” by their environment of victimization. Other experts refer to these two categories as “psychopaths” for the genetic variety and “sociopaths” for the reactive variety. We prefer this latter distinction.) Mealey writes:
“Of course, because they are not intellectually handicapped, these individuals [psychopaths] will progress normally in terms of cognitive development and will acquire a theory of mind. Their theories, however, will be formulated purely in instrumental terms [what can claiming this or that GET for me?], without access to the empathic understanding that most of us rely on so much of the time.
“They may become excellent predictors of others’ behavior, unhandicapped by the “intrusiveness” of emotion, acting, as do professional gamblers, solely on nomothetic laws and actuarial data rather than on hunches and feelings.
“In determining how to “play” in the social encounters of everyday life, they will use a pure cost-benefit approach based on immediate personal outcomes, with no “accounting” for the emotional reactions of the others with whom they are dealing.
“Without any real love to “commit” them to cooperation, without any anxiety to prevent fear of “defection,” without guilt to inspire repentance, they are free to continually play for the short-term benefit.
“At the same time, because changes in gene frequencies in the population would not be able to keep pace with the fast-changing parameters of social interactions, an additional fluctuating proportion of sociopathy should result because, in a society of [psychopathy], the environmental circumstances make an antisocial strategy of life more profitable than a pro-social one. [Mealey]
In other words, in a world of psychopaths, those who are not genetic psychopaths, are induced to behave like psychopaths simply to survive. When the rules are set up to make a society “adaptive” to psychopathy, it makes psychopaths of everyone.
Psychopathic behavior seems to be on the rise because of the very nature of American capitalistic society. The great hustlers, charmers, and self-promoters in the sales fields are perfect examples of where the psychopath can thrive. The entertainment industry, the sports industry, the corporate world in a Capitalistic system, are all areas where psychopaths naturally rise to the top. Some observers believe that there is a psychological continuum between psychopaths (who tend to be professionally unsuccessful) and narcissistic entrepreneurs (who are successful), because these two groups share the highly developed skill of manipulating others for their own gain. It is now being thought that they are actually the “same” but that the “unsuccessful” psychopath is merely flawed in their calculating abilities. They are unable to recalculate based on new actuarial data. Successful Narcissists seem to be perfectly able to add to their actuarial database and “recalculate” and shift course and develop new subroutines based on ongoing input.
In general, the successful psychopath “computes” how much they can get away with in a cost-benefit ratio of the alternatives. Among the factors that they consider as most important are money, power, and gratification of negative desires. They are not motivated by such social reinforcement as praise or future benefits. Studies have been done that show locking up a psychopath has absolutely no effect on them in terms of modifying their life strategies. In fact, in is shown to make them worse. Effectively, when locked up, psychopaths just simply learn how to be better psychopaths.
Since the psychopath bases their activities designed to get what they want on their particular “theory of mind,” it is instructive to have a look at this issue. Having a “theory of mind” allows an individual to impute mental states (thoughts, perceptions, and feelings) not only to oneself, but also to other individuals. It is, in effect, a tool that helps us predict the behavior of others. The most successful individuals are those who most accurately predict what another person will do given a certain set of circumstances. In the present day, we have Game Theory which is being used to model many social problems including psychopathy.
When two individuals interact with each other, each must decide what to do without knowledge of what the other is doing. Imagine that the two players are the government and the public. In the following model, each of the players faces only a binary choice: to behave ethically either in making laws or in obeying them.
The assumption is that both players are informed about everything except the level of ethical behavior of the other. They know what it means to act ethically, and they know the consequences of being exposed as unethical.
There are three elements to the game. 1) The players, 2) the strategies available to either of them, and 3) the payoff each player receives for each possible combination of strategies.
In a legal regime, one party is obliged to compensate the other for damages under certain conditions but not under others. We are going to imagine a regime wherein the government is never liable for losses suffered by the public because of its unethical behavior - instead, the public has to pay for the damages inflicted by the government due to unethical behavior.
The way the payoffs are represented is generally in terms of money. That is, how much investment does each player have to make in ethical behavior and how much payoff does each player receive for his investment.
In this model, behaving ethically, according to standards of social values that are considered the “norm,” costs each player $10.00. When law detrimental to the public is passed, it costs the public $100.00. We take it as a given that such laws will be passed unless both players behave ethically.
Next, we assume that the likelihood of a detrimental law being passed in the event that both the public and the government are behaving ethically is a one-in-ten chance.
In a legal regime in which the government is never held responsible for its unethical behavior, and if neither the government nor the public behave ethically, the government enjoys a payoff of $0. and the public is out $100 when a law detrimental to the public is passed.
If both “invest” in ethical behavior, the government has a payoff of minus $10. (the cost of behaving ethically) and the public is out minus $20. which is the $10. invested in being ethical PLUS the $10. of the one-in-ten chance of a $100. loss incurred if a detrimental law is passed.
If the government behaves ethically and the public does not, resulting in the passing of a law detrimental to the populace, the government is out the $10. invested in being ethical and the public is out $100.
If the government does not behave ethically, and the public does, the government has a payoff of $0. and the public is out $110 which is the “cost of being ethical” added to the losses suffered when the government passes detrimental laws.
(Unfortunately, I can’t insert here a Game theory bi-matrix chart to give a visual representation.) But, in any event, in this game, the government always does better by not being ethical and we can predict the government’s choice of strategy because there is a single strategy - no ethics - that is better for the government no matter what choice the public makes. This is a “strictly dominant strategy,” or a strategy that is the best choice for the player no matter what choices are made by the other player.
What is even worse is the fact that the public is PENALIZED for behaving ethically. Since we know that the government, in the above regime, will never behave ethically because it is the dominant strategy, we find that ethical behavior on the part of the public actually costs MORE than unethical behavior.
In short, psychopathic behavior is actually a POSITIVE ADAPTATION in such a regime.
The public, as you see, cannot even minimize their losses by behaving ethically. It costs them $110. to be ethical, and only $100. to not be ethical.
Now, just substitute “psychopath” in the place of the government and non-psychopath in the place of the public, and you begin to understand why the psychopath will always be a psychopath and why such a society actually attracts psychopaths. If the “payoff” is emotional pain of being hurt, or shame for being exposed, in the world of the psychopath, that consequence simply does not exist just as in the legal regime created above, the government is never responsible for unethical behavior. The psychopath lives in a world in which it is like a government that is never held responsible for behavior that is detrimental to others. It’s that simple. And the form game above will tell you why psychopaths in the population, as well as in government, are able to induce the public to accept laws that are detrimental. It simply isn’t worth it to be ethical. If you go along with the psychopath, you lose. If you resist the psychopath, you lose even more.
Game Theory shows us that the psychopath is free to choose to do things that are potentially self-destructive without giving a single indication to another “player” that his or her choice is based entirely on a delusion. Very often, they “win” because of the sheer boldness of their actions which is unrestricted by conscience which is a construct of emotions.
It’s like a poker player who has absolutely nothing in his hand, but because he is so intent on winning, and is so unmoved by the possibility of losing because lying produces absolutely no internal, emotional reaction of fear of being discovered or the potential shame or disaster inherent in such an event, is able to bluff so convincingly that the other players - any of whom might have a winning hand, fold and walk away because they are convinced by the psychopath’s confidence that he must have the winning hand of all time.
Only he doesn’t.
And this means that the psychopath’s strength is also his Achilles heel. Once he has been spotted, identified, understood, he no longer has the power to bluff. Once knowledge enters the game, the psychopath is exposed, and has no more ability to “con” the other players. The sad part is: he also has no ability to learn from this experience anything other than how to make his bluff better and more convincing next time. The psychopath never gets mad because he is caught in a lie; he is only concerned with “damage control” in terms of his ability to continue to con others.
Societies can be considered as “players” in the psychopath’s game model.
The past behavior of a society will be used by the psychopath to predict the future behavior of that society. Like an individual player, a society will have a certain probability of detecting deception and a more or less accurate memory of who has cheated on them in the past, as well as a developed or not developed proclivity to retaliate against a liar and cheater. Since the psychopath is using an actuarial approach to assess the costs and benefits of different behaviors (just how much can he get away with), it is the actual past behavior of the society which will go into his calculations rather than any risk assessments based on any “fears or anxieties” of being caught and punished that empathic people would feel in anticipation of doing something illegal.
Thus, in order to reduce psychopathic behavior in society and in government, a society MUST establish and enforce a reputation for high rates of detection of deception and identification of liars, and a willingness to retaliate. In other words, it must establish a successful strategy of deterrence.
Since the psychopath is particularly unable to make decisions based on future consequences, and is able only to focus attention on immediate gratification - short term goals - it is possible that such individuals can be dealt with by establishing a history of dealing out swift social retaliation. That is, identifying and punishing liars and cheaters must be both immediate and predictable that it will be immediate.
And here we come to the issue: concerning the real-world, human social interactions on a large scale, reducing psychopathy in our leaders depends upon expanding society’s collective memory of individual players’ past behavior.
Any reasonable scan of the news will reveal that lies and cheating are not “covered up” as thoroughly as American apologists would like to think.
Even the less well-informed Americans have some idea that there was certainly something fishy about the investigation into the assassination of JFK. In recent years, the man in charge of the Warren Commission, Gerald Ford, also a former president, admitted to “cheating” on the report.
Then, there was Watergate followed by the Iran-Contra affair, not to mention “Monica-gate.” And here we are just hitting some highlights familiar to all Americans.
What consequences did the cheaters of society suffer?
None to speak of. In fact, in nearly every case, they were rewarded handsomely with those things of value to the psychopath: money and material goods. If anyone thinks they were shamed by public exposure, think again!
But what is of CRUCIAL interest here is the fact that the American people have simply NOT responded to the revelations of lies in government with any outrage that could be considered more than token. At the present time, there isn’t even “token outrage.”
Don’t you find that odd?
But we have already noted the reason: the American way of life has optimized the survival of psychopathy and in a world of psychopaths, those who are not genetic psychopaths, are induced to behave like psychopaths simply to survive. When the rules are set up to make a society “adaptive” to psychopathy, it makes psychopaths of everyone. As a consequence, a very large number of Americans are effective sociopaths. (Here we use “sociopath” as a designation of those individuals who are not genetic psychopaths.)
And so, we have George Bush and his criminal administration (so many of whom have been caught in lies or outright malfeasance that it’s shocking) calculating how much they can get away with by looking at the history of the reactions of the American People to cheating.
There aren’t any because the system is adaptive to psychopathy. In other words, Americans support Bush and his agenda because most of them are LIKE him.
But that is not because they are ALL born that way. It is because psychopathy is almost required to survive in Competitive, Capitalistic America.
And it is the same types of individuals - psychopaths as arbiters of right and wrong in religious garb - who help to increase psychopathy. Consider the “moral majority’s” war on women’s rights including the right to abortion on demand. How many psychopaths have raped women, producing more genetic psychopaths because the woman was either too ashamed, or unable to legally obtain an abortion? Think about the “moral” control as well as the legal controls on that issue. Does that really demonstrate that women have more rights and freedoms in America? Even if, at certain periods, abortions are available, there is the ever-present moral condemnation that gets a lot of media attention. The result? Probably more genetic psychopaths on the Western front, so to say.
As a society gets larger and more competitive, individuals become more anonymous and more Machiavellian. Social stratification and segregation leads to feelings of inferiority, pessimism and depression among the have-nots, and this promotes the use of “cheating strategies” in life which then makes the environment more adaptive for psychopathy in general.
Psychopathic behavior among non-genetic psychopaths could be viewed as a functional method of obtaining desirable resources, increasing an individual’s status in a local group, and even a means of providing stimulation that socially and financially successful people find in acceptable physical and intellectual challenges. In other words, the psychopath is a bored and frustrated sensation-seeker who “does not have the intellectual capacitiy to amuse and occupy himself” internally. Such individuals may begin their lives in the lower socio-economic levels, but they often rise to the top.
In America, a great many households are affected by the fact that work, divorce, or both, have removed one or both parents from interaction with their children for much of the day. This is a consequence of Capitalistic economics.
When the parents are absent, or even when one is present but not in possession of sufficient knowledge or information, children are left to the mercies of their peers, a culture shaped by the media. Armed with joysticks and TV remotes, children are guided from South Park and Jerry Springer to Mortal Kombat on Nintendo. Normal kids become desensitized to violence. More-susceptible kids - children with a genetic inheritance of psychopathy - are pushed toward a dangerous mental precipice. Meanwhile, the government is regularly passing laws, on the demand of parents and the psychological community, designed to avoid imposing consequences on junior’s violent behavior.
As for media violence, few researchers continue to try to dispute that bloodshed on TV and in the movies has an effect on the kids who witness it. Added to the mix now are video games structured around models of hunting and killing. Engaged by graphics, children learn to associate spurts of “blood” with the primal gratification of scoring a “win.”
Again, economics controls the reality.
Aside from the fact that television has been conjectured to be extremely detrimental to children and that it is now thought that most of the deteriorating aspects of society can be attributed to the decaying values portrayed on television, there is a deeper and more insidious effect upon the human psyche. As quoted, it is a planned and deliberate manipulation to spread acquiescence and conformity and to hypnotize the masses to submit to the authority of the masters of economics through their false prophet, the television.
A picture is forming of a deliberately contrived society of televised conformity, literate and creative inadequacy, and social unrest and decadence. It is apparent that the media is in charge of propagating these conditions, and the media is controlled by what?
Capitalistic, competitive Economics.
It would seem that the motivation masters would, in the interests of their industrial clients, plan programming to bring about beneficial societal conditions - which they could, in fact, do. It is apparent that the final authority on televised programming is in the hands of the advertisers, backed by the industries whose products are being sold. With all the psychological input to which they have access, it would seem that they utilize programming to correct societal conditions which cost them money. Over 25 billion dollars a year is spent to teach workers to read and write, after graduating from the combined effects of a public school system and the television. It is accepted that the burgeoning crime rate, which also costs these industrial giants vast sums of money, is mostly attributable to the frustrations and dissatisfactions engendered by the false view of reality presented over the television.
Why don’t they use their financial resources to back the motivation masters to figure out how to present programming which could effect positive changes?
Can it be that the conditions of society, including the programed response to “minimal signs of authority” are planned? Would anyone care to suggest that the figures and studies relating to the detrimental influence of programming is not available to them and that they don’t realize that it is costing them money? If that is the case, then they are too stupid to be arbiters of our values and we should disregard them entirely in any event. If it is not the case, then we must assume that there is an object to this manipulation: psychopaths seeking more power over society.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008 @ 10:19am
OxDrover says:
Laura, thank you for that wonderful and insightful post…you said much more clearly what I was trying to say…I too believe that a person of “normal” genes can be “created” by certain harsh conditions in which they must assume that “mind set” in order to survive or prosper.
It is unfortunate that the “biggest meanest dog in the pack” gets the most food–in most packs–
Your comments about advertising and television are also very right on—
It is also interesting to me that a child of the projects is smart enough to see that “getting an education” and getting a job at McDonald’s is not nearly as “rewarding” as selling dope on the street.
There is a book written years ago, I can’t remember the author now, “We who are About to Die Salute you” about the economics of the Roman Empire and the downfall of their culture, society, and the diversion of 90% of their GNP to the “games” in order to keep the population quiet and compliant. Every Roman Citizen of that time was on welfare, there were no workers left, cheap foreign labor produced all the goods and services that the citizens used, and the politicians kept the population quiet with the games….until the collapse.
There are so many corelations between their culture, economics, etc. and ours that it is kind of scary. The rise to the top of the psychopathic “leaders” and a culture that is supporting this.
I think in most societies psychopaths have advantages in that they are not hampered in their rise by their ethics—Hitler is a good example—but at the same time his wild and uncontrolled ideas brought down his country and his people. At the end of the “history lessons” aren’t most wars fought for the purpose of either driving out a psychopath, or installing one in office? Or one group trying to steal resources from another?
While I think these cultural psychopaths and manipulators of countries and societies do great harm–on a personal level, the “psychopath next door” is the one I am having to deal with on a daily basis.
I may see what is going on in the world as a whole in terms of socio/psychpathy but I am not able to influence it to any significant degree. Dealing with and recovering from the trauma of the “psychopath next door” is my focus, and avoiding as much psychopathic interaction as I can.
I worked with a psychopath that was destroying a whole hospital, a whole corporation, and not only I but others saw this happening, knew what was going on, but were powerless to stop it–it was extremely frustrating to see what was so good brought down for the malice of one person. I wasn’t the only one who saw what was going on by any means, and we were all incredilous that we couldn’t get “anyone to listen” or to stop the down-hill slide. I feel that way about the world as a while too, when I think I see what is going on but am powerless to stop it.
Unfortunately, I am powerless, and many other people who “think they see” the problems too are powerless as well, but, like I learned about the hospital’s destruction, I also realize that I can only change what I can change, and the things that I can’t change I must accept and deal with on a personal level. Beating myself up over the “destruction of civilization as I know it” is futile. I am only one, I cannot change everything, but I can change what I can change and accept the rest.
In his book, “Man’s Search for Meaning,” Dr. Viktor Frankl who spent years in the Nazi concentration camps Dr. Frankl addresses the psychopathic society/culture, the insanity of the hate, the “normal” people who became capos (prisoners who became guards) the inhumanity of the German guards, and the strength of some of the captives, the internal strengths that helped some people who were physically weak survive…it was a microcosm of the hell on earth that can be created when the psychopaths rule. Yet, Dr. Frankl found healing from his traumas, in which he lost literally everything he held dear, except his own body.
If any man can survive that hell-on-earth at the hands of a society of psychopaths, and come out spiritually intact, it gives me hope that any victim can come out whole and spiritually intact, and find some meaning from the losses and their own survival.
I can’t fix the problems of a psychopathic society, or change the world to one in which the non-psychopath has the culturall and genetic advantage, all I can do is to work on being a survivor like Dr. Frankl, who is spiritually, emotionally, and mentally healthy in SPITE of the advantages the psychopath has.
Laura, your comments are, I think, pretty RIGHT ON, unfortunately, for our world and our species…but Dr. Frankl gives me HOPE, and I have to cling to that hope in order to find “meaning.”
Tuesday, 4 March 2008 @ 11:45am
DR GOAT says:
I have come to believe that the lack of a core family-friend base is the most damaging effect of the addiction to the sociopath. In my experience, as a son of a mother who was addicted to her sociopath and father of a daughter who is addicted to hers, that the abandonment of these women is total. Unfortunately this act alone cements the relationship in ways that family and friends did not intend.
It is a major challenge to overcome this need to abandon these women. The frustration, the “impending” failure, is so great that one feels the urgency to run away. I ran away from my mother when she ignored all common sense and stayed with her man. After he had beat my grandmother almost to death, and beat me almost to death at age 5, she still was compelled to stay with him. She saw him through to an early death. Then she spent 30 years recovering. Realizing that she had missed the last years of her mother’s life, and her children and grandchildren’s childhood. Growing old by herself.
People, who are not addicted to these freaks of nature are quick to abandon their closest family ties. Making the victim a double victim. Society looks at it as “they” have chosen to ruin their lives, I’m not going to be a part of it.
Really, they have become the sociopath’s greatest ally in this game.
I have learned that being a victim advocate is the toughest thing I have ever done. The frustration, the impending failure, is intense. Family and friends tend to think you are nuts for taking this on. You have to draw on your successes as a parent.Love, respect,and walking on water is the prerequisite for doing this. I call it starting over as the parent raising an adult. The greatest asset you have is your ears. Listen, allow the victim to come forth with their story. Give advice when helpful. Only when wanted. Avoid the I told you so. Avoid the long winded sermons. Do introduce them to other victims. This may seem to backfire, but they will eventually draw from the experience.
Keep your sanity, you need outlets. This blog is excellent. Try to involve your family in helping you to cope. Don’t drive them away by wearing them out.
Look for friendship of other people who have gone through this. You will be amazed at the number of people that can help. Most of them gave up. They tend to be sorry for doing that. In the end, this is the same old story of the person who arrives to find that their loved one is dying and cannot reconcile their estranged relationship before death. Spending the rest of their life in wonderment of “what if?”.
More family members need to be involved in this forum.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008 @ 11:47am
OxDrover says:
Dr. Goat, I hear you, loud and clear, unfortunately, my own mother is “addicted” to her psychopaths to the point that she does NOT want to abandon enabling them. She is so angry at me for “abandoning” the psychopaths that she cannot remove the rage from her heart. I had no choice but to go NO CONTACT with her as well.
The story in the Bible in the Book of Samuel, which talks about King David’s son Absalom and DAvid’s enabling of this young man, even telling his generals when they went out to fight for the life of the country against this man, to “deall gently with the young man.” Upon hearing of the success of his troops against his son, and the death of his son, David went into screaming, clothes tearing mourning for his son. Having NO appreciation for anyone’s loss but his own, and his general came to him and said, “I perceive that if the young man had lived and ALL OF US had died, that you would have BEEN WELL PLEASED”
David, a man who had many faults, but always received rebuke well and changed his attitude, saw that what his general said to him was true. He immediately washed his face, put on clean clothes, and thanked his people for their sacrifices.
Unfortunately, my own mother would have been “well pleased if I had died, even at the hands of my own son, if he had gotten out of prison before she died.” When I realized that even my own death at my son’s hands would not have made my mother turn her back, or abandon her grandson, I had no choice but to go No Contact with my mother as well.
My mother is now growing old by herself, (I am her only child) and it is a shame that it had to be so, but I am not able to change anyone but myself. I cannot help her because she does not want my help. The only person in the world that has any value to her is the “golden child” (my P-son) and since I am opposed to his release from prison (he is a murderer and would kill again if given half a chance) then she sees me only as the “enemy” of her GC.
Yes, I am very sorry that the situation is what it is, but it is not one I can change by any action. I can only change myself, I cannot change others. Continued interaction with her is toxic to my own healing, and at this point in my life, I am done with jousting at windmills and trying to “fix” the unfixable.
If and when my mother is willing to accept reality, to see what is REAL and not what she imagines is real, I will be there to help her, but I do not expect that to ever happen.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008 @ 12:41pm
holywatersalt says:
DR. G-
Even the Bible says to walk away from those who will not see.
We cannot sacrifice ourselves for the unrepentant- I have learned from experice the ONLY action that reaches addicts, narcissists and psychopaths is NO CONTACT.
They hear nothing else, that includes those who choose to stay close to them. Our presence gives them a semblance of normalcy, which does not help them recognize the psychopth in their life.
And we also have to remember spouses who allow their family members to be put in harms way are culpable. They are so self-absorbed they sacrifice tehir children for some attention from a psycho.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008 @ 1:06pm
metachosis says:
You all have articulated what I have been wanting to say.
Holywatersalt, I too have learned the hard way that no contact is often the only way to deal with a sociopath.
I dated a sociopath I met at church. After trying to reason and bargain, I finally conceded not to respond to him in any way.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008 @ 4:32pm
Beverly says:
Ox drover, I symphathise, its very tough to have NC when its a family member, especially your mother. You’re right at the end of the day you cant change others. Many of us have spent years wrestling over our obligations to family members, the very people who we hope would support us, but we have to take a long hard look and weigh up what is in our best interests.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008 @ 5:00pm
OxDrover says:
Beverly,
I appreciate your support and understanding, though I realized that I HAD to go NC with my P son, admitting that my mother was TOXIC in her enabling, and going NC with her was a very difficult step for me.
It was the LAST GREAT HURDLE for me to go over. Being an only child, and having been raised to “respect your elders” (if not them personally, then their “position”) and also with a very deeply religious back ground, of “honor thy father and thy mother”—though this was a passage that had been, in my family at least, that should have read in it’s twisted interpretation “put up with anything your parents dish out to you, and take it lying down, or you will burn in hell”—so I had some conditioninng to over come as far as religon was concerned as well.
I realize that the way we can “honor” our parents is to become the kind of people that would BRING HONOR to any parent. It does not mean that you have to put up with abuse or insanity just because someone gave birth to you, any more than you have to put up with abuse and insanity because you gave birth to someone.
Through the months before I finally went NC with my mother I studied the Bible and worked with some very immentent Bible scholars in coming to a final “interpretation” of what the Bible says about how we “honor” our parents, and how our parents should “provoke not your children to wrath” etc.
I feel strongly that we have an obligation to our fellow man, and to our family, and friends and neighbors, but I don’t find any where in the Bible that it says we need to tattoo “door mat” on our backs and in fact, the Bible encourages us to speak with people, if that doesn’t work, to take witnesses and speak with them, if that doesn’t work to “treat your brother” (fellow christian) as a heathern, i.e. do not associate with him, do not eat with him, etc. If that is not the Bible advising NC I can’t say what it is doing. To me at least it seems clear.
Since that is my belief, then I can NC with a clear conscience. Someone who did not share my beliefs might not be able to do that, but I think we have to examine OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL consciences and to make our behavior fit our conscience, so that we are not torn about “what is right” and what is not.
Our parents, our culture, our schools, our peers, etc. instill various moral constructs in us as we are growing up. Some of these constructs may be “faulty” but we accept them as “truth” because they come from our early years when our parents and other adults are “gods” to kids 3 ft. tall.
In examinging these constructs and precepts we may find that some of them are FAR OUT OF SYNC with reality.
I was raised with the notion that certain people were not “OK” and for a long time I thought that was so, but upon examining this precept, I realized that it was a generalization and that “certain people” encompassed groups of people thatj some of whom were ok, and some of whom were not. I realized that what I had been taught was not entirely true.
These constructs covered a great deal of ground from intellectual levels, to racial, ethnic, etc. I began to realize that the things I had been taught growing up needed to be reexamined for validity in light of my maturity. Now I try to see people as individuals within a group.
I do see some “stereotypical” things about some groups, and those stereotypes are there because there are some things that “stick out” in some groups, but for the most part, people are INDIVIDUALS not just “red-necks” or “ignorant” or “poor white trash” etc. I don’t ignore stereotypes completely, if I did I would be a fool–but at the same time, I understand why young black men would be offended if I hurried down a dark street clutching my purse if they were behind me, dressed in baggy pants and wearing a bandana—I don’t know that young man personally and can’t know that he is a PhD student at Yale, I have to presume that he might be after my purse. At the same time, when I get to know him, I am not going to “judge” him by his race or his dress ONLY.
Some of my closest people are “off the wall” folks, not what they may appear at first glance. If you met me you might “judge me” to be an ignorant old hillbilly woman with an 8th grade education, but if you got to know me, you would find I am something else.
But if I encounter someone who exhibits the “stereotypical” behavior of a psychopath, I am not likely to get to know them much better, but to flee from them as quicly as possible. That is “prejudice” somewhat, but at the same time, it is survival instinct, better safe than sorry. If that person is offened, and isn’t a psychopath, well I may have missed a chance at a good friendship with that person, but that’s the chance I take. We can’t get to know everyone on an intimate level.
My family is filled with Ps and enablers, and I have finally recognized that face…it is a sad fact, but one in which I have realized that I only have X amount of energy, and if I expend it on them, I have none left for myself. I am not willing to give my life away to someone so disordered that they suck your soul right out of your heart. I would love to have all loving and caring children, and a loving mother. I was fortunate to have had a great step father (who kept my mother somewhat in check during his life) but after his death, her disfunction had free reign. I chose not to deal with that in the only way that I can handle it. I can’t change it. I can’t fix it, I have to distance myself from it.
I actually had expected my biological son to object to my NC of my mother, but was completely surprised when he actually encouraged it. He is “dealing with” her completely, and though he no longer trusts her at all, he thinks that she needs to be “watched” so that she does not send money to my P-son which would enable him to further endanger us. I am glad to turn this task over to him and am glad that he has the strength of mind and character to accomplish this, by telling her that if she does cross that line that he also will go NC with her, move and leave her no forwarding address. His attitude totally surprised me about this, and I am so thankful for it.
My adoptive son is also supportive of this. Even my first cousin, who is now my mother’s power of attorney, at first did not support my NC with her, but even he now supports my NC and realizes why and that it is my only choice. Since that is my entire family, I am very glad that these important people are supportive of me in this. Many people hwo have gone NC with their parents or sibs have other family members trying desperately to undermine this, and it is very painful for them.
I was prepared to do what I “had” to do, even if NO one agreed with me, but I am grateful that I have the family support I do, especially with such a small family.
I have an email friend I met on another forum who is 70+ years old, in very poor health, and who is NC from her X-P husband of 47 years, in terrible poverty, and whose daughters are NC with her because they “side with” her abusive X-husband because she kept the abuse secret from her children during her marriage. Yet, this courageous woman still hangs on to her NC because she knows it is the only way for her to survive.
When I see and hear of other’s problems I realize just how many blessings I have and that I am NOT alone, and I give thanks for those blessings.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008 @ 6:21pm
DrSteve says:
Liane - You raise some very interesting questions.
Just one of them is if men became more like women would women still be attracted to them and vice versa? It does seem as though some difference is necessary to generate (heterosexual) heat - and thereby hangs a heck of a tail!
Thanks for the interesting post.
(P.S. I’ve sent you an email about another matter.)
Tuesday, 4 March 2008 @ 11:52pm
Concerned Viewer says:
I ran across this article purely by accident while doing mathematics on the male to rape ratio (which is incidentally would be 1000:1 if you did not take into account serial rapists and repeated reports of rape by a single individual). Upon reading your entry and the accompanying responses I would immediately assume that this is a feminist blog, since the responses are primarily female and the discussion centers on men in most of your articles.
I however wanted to point out some issues that I had with the suppositions in this entry and I will be posting another for the following entry, on said entry. I say supposition, because it seems that it has been decidedly shown by you and your viewers that it is men which need to change. It would also seem that the majority of your readers believe that it is men that are the variable which raise the population of sociopathy in our society. Lastly, I believe that you have misstated a important fact in your entry.
I would like to note and hopefully draw your attention to the following attributes of American society. It has been overwhelmingly seen in the last 5 years that there has been a rise in the amount of women who have been convicted of murder, imprisoned for pedophilia, dismissed for abuse of power and misuse of company assets and allocations and lastly who have began to acquire the levels of stress and heart disease, which were priorly held by white collar male employees. The statistics have become so prevalent of female abuse of the family court system that it has lead to a closer look at the actions of the proceedings and reformation of decisions by the bench judges. I point this out, not to display a disparagement upon women, but to show that it is women themselves who have begun to adopt many of the same aspects of actions and reactions which you have denoted as being male related.
I noticed that the descriptive nature of a sociopath that you have defined meets the criteria often associated with a person of lower economic means. Yet, I propose that it it has been proven that APD, sociopathy as defined in the DSM IV-TR, defines sociopaths in a more stringent manner and the act of lumping sociopaths with psychopaths is a dividing ideology amongst most professionals in the Psychological field. However, despite this divide, there have been numerous studies which have denoted that economics is in no way a determining factor when concerning sociopathy, it quite easily crosses those barriers.
My final point of contention is with your statistics concerning the present prison population in America. Your overall numbers may be correct, yet I debate that you may not define the persons who have entered into the system as sociapaths. It has been shown that the numbers are alarming as to the percentage of prisoners that show sociopathy once inducted into the system. I do not think that you take into account that the majority of those placed into this system, which in my own opinion shapes individuals to be anti-social, were convicted of non-violent crimes relating to drug related offenses. Sociologist almost hands down agree that the drug phenomena in America is an economic problem which has been continually aided by the government and ignored by the rich and middle class.
Though I do agree with you on consistent ideology that most, non-biological, mental and emotional disorders are sociological in nature, I would suggest restraint in the fervor that you suggest. The social engineering of docility into men sounds more like something from the book ‘1984′ than a professional concept for an educated person. The feminist movement created a conceptual void for men that very closely resembled that which women have and still do face. Men were expected to be more feminine in nature, in touch with their emotions and those of others, while retaining masculine traits. The displaying of to much femininity guarantees ridicule by peers and reduced ability to attain proper relationships with a female, due to their own ideologies of wanting the ‘Adonis’ man. Yet the reverse, is rewarded by peer acceptance and feminine attention. So I ask, how is your concepts any different from those stated by feminist from decades past and what responsibility do you hold for making those statements without first considering the path that would elicit them and the ramifications of the actions which you propose? It is easy to make presumptions on the need for others without considering the process and effects that can occur do to these movements.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008 @ 6:08am
righteous woman says:
To Concerned Viewer,
You are a beautifully open minded person, and I think every blogger here commends you in your pursuit of higher education. Doing an analysis of rapists in America would have you land on this site for its subject matter.
I read your other post, and I agreed some with your perspective. It IS fair to get to know someone before judging them.
But this site, and its bloggers, are here for a support that is hard to get from people whom have not been victimized by a man, or a woman, who turn out to show all (or a high majority) of the signs of anti-social personality disorder. It is NOT a man bashing site. It is a site of commiseration, understanding and healing, from men and woman who said they loved us one minute, and called us fat ugly stupid and worthless literally the next minute. Had no empathy for our pain and our struggles, particularly the pain that they themselves inflicted.
I assume that you began reading and said to yourself “This is a man haters blog…” It really isn’t. We are not physical rape victims, we are emotional rape victims. When you have more time, please start from the home page, and see what drove the sites creator (Donna) to start the page and the blog. Read the articles and the blogs from the beginning, if you can stand to hear about our assorted misjudgments, for which we all freely admit, in retrospect were just foolish. We trusted and we loved, and our trust and love was used against us…we are not talking about society. We are talking about our problems and issues with particular individuals. You sound very bright, and are going for a degree in ??? (psychology?) My wish for you, is that you never need this site for more than research.
Take care and enjoy your time in college, may you always look back on it fondly and with great appreciation.
I have a website for you for generalizations of sociopathy and signs http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html
RW
Wednesday, 5 March 2008 @ 11:03am
OxDrover says:
Concerned viewer,
Righteous Woman is correct in her description of this site.
I am also aware of the rise in incarceration of women for violent and criminal behavior. My “guess” is that it is both a case of a bigger percentage of women who do those things being prosecuted, and an actual rise in the number of crimes of this sort being committed by women.( vs. Men)
Your assessment of the “drug problem’ i think is a bit sophmoric –I remember a sociology class I had as an undergraduate where the prof told us that if “two teenagers shoplifted and one was caught and “labeled” and the other one got away with it without any sanctions, the one who was “labeled” a shoplifter would go on to be come a career criminal and the one who had not been labeled by society would become a good upstanding citizen and stop his stealing.”
Calling a duck a duck is not what makes it a duck. If you call something that looks like a duck, acts like a duck, swims like a duck, lays eggs like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and most of the time you are right–it is a DUCK.
Most of the people here have had their lives devestated by psychopaths/sociopaths/Anti-social personality disordered people.
We are here to learn about “how to spot them” in the future and also how to heal from the devestation that having been involved with them in an intimate way has caused in our lives, our spiritual and emotional and mental distress.
Yes, we are “down on” people who behave in a narcissistic and pathological way toward others, as individuals, as groups, as dictators, and as societies. But most of it is as individuals because we have been INDIVIDUALLY devestated by their behaviors.
We are also aware that there is NO CURE for these people.
As Righteous woman said, good luck with your degree.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008 @ 12:45pm
alohatraveler says:
Concerned Viewer,
Your comments are completely misplaced and while they sound oh-so-academic, they are not a fit here.
Did I get you right at the end there? That it is the feminist movement that has caused personality disorders in men such as Sociopathy? Back to the books my friend!
Please read if you desire to understand what this Blog is about. Wait awhile before you try to interject your studies and misdirections.
Righteous Woman & Oxdover, you are so gracious to this person. I applaud you. I am however, totally annoyed.
This is absolutely NOT a blog of man haters. There are several men that visit this site and offer their comments, insights and find healing here. This is a site for victims of Sociopaths. Men have been victims of Sociopaths as well. And please, don’t give us a lecture on being victims either.
Bad things to happen to well meaning people. People do get exploited. Sometimes it is obvious; sometimes it is not.
Also, there is no economic criteria to Sociopaths and though we often talk about being taken financially by Sociopaths, the behavior this is indicating is actually, EXPLOITATION.
Your counsel is exactly the kind of thing that people (men or women) do not need to hear when they are trying to recover from what we call a “Sociopathic Encounter.” It’s not pretty. Count yourself lucky if you don’t understand it.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008 @ 2:41pm
righteous woman says:
Aloha - LOL….”If ignorance is bliss, why aren’t more people happy?” Insight is insight..”opinions are like roses..” And a favorite from Maya Angelou “When you know better, you do better”.
I honestly don’t think that CV knew better.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008 @ 2:47pm
righteous woman says:
And Aloha..You made me laugh with you….
Concerned viewer will probably never look at this again…there is no long term interest here for them….But thank you for the compliment.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008 @ 2:50pm
Beverly says:
I had a little snigger too, especially at Oxdrovers duck description. I was going to place a short blog that said ‘Quack Quack’, but I thought that would be far too flippant and disrespectful for the serious contributors here. Aloha - you are so polite!
Wednesday, 5 March 2008 @ 3:11pm
OxDrover says:
Ditto, Aloha, thanks for the compliment–
I don’t think CV “got it either” but have been young and ignorant myself once, now I am just old and realizing that I know less, MUCH LESS than I THOUGHT I did at 19. LOL
Learning about life is like trying to get a drink of water from a FIRE HOSE, no matter how thirsty you are, or how hard you swallow, MOST OF IT GETS BY YOU!
If I ever get back to where I think I “know everything” again, my kids said they would put me in a nursing home for the demented. LOL
Wednesday, 5 March 2008 @ 3:13pm
Beverly says:
To avoid any misunderstanding, my last blog was in response to that of CV - but I think many of you guessed that!
Wednesday, 5 March 2008 @ 3:24pm
alohatraveler says:
Righteous Woman,
Those were not my comments… but, Hello! and good morning!
Beverly,
You thought I was polite? You should see what I wrote first. HAHA! I am very direct but I am learning to tone that down a little in my old age and make my insights more palatable. :o)
I don’t care to look academic. I prefer to be easily understandable. The information we have needs to be accessible to all kinds of people; we have some foreign readers too. I have not found a site that is easier to use or understand than LoveFraud.
Those comments from our “guest” were meant to look smarter than all of us. That annoyed the crap out of me! And did anyone feel enlightened or learn anything from them? I didn’t.
I got one thing out of it. Though the “guest” thought they were so much smarter than all of us, they had no idea what they were talking about.
But then again, neither do most people who simply can not grasp what we went through. (I am having one of my anxiety attacks now… ) BREATHE.
Okay. I am okay. (I hate those waves of grossness!) I guess that was an upsetting post from that person. Anytime I feel like I am talking in circles with someone, I get that wave of anxiety wash over me and the strange choking coughing thing. I hate this. I hope it will go away someday. I think it’s like cell memory or something. My body remembers arguing in circles and defending myself when I shouldn’t have to. I know that person’s comments weren’t directed at me but still, I felt offended by the dissertation. BLECH!
Wednesday, 5 March 2008 @ 3:36pm
righteous woman says:
Aloha - Oh I know - I am sorry - that created a misunderstanding…those were quotes that I like generally - I can see how they could be interpreted as coming from you…but that wasn’t my intention. Good morning to you too… ; - )
Wednesday, 5 March 2008 @ 3:41pm
Concerned Viewer says:
Dear OxDrover
I agree, my explanation may have been over simplified on the prison asset of my contentions. I was actually stating ideas originally presented to me by the warden of the KSR state prison in Oldham County, Kentucky. We were discussing the paths needed in the prison system, incarceration versus rehabilitation versus catch and release. It was during these discussions that he stated that more than 50% of those incarcerated in the United States had been non-violent crimes, which were actually perpetrated because of low economic means and strengthening due to social and cultural pressures. He then went on to state that in his opinion, the prison needed to initiate psychological exams upon entrance into the system and to segregate these non-violent criminals, who do not show signs of APD or Psychopathy from the general population to increase the possibility of their rehabilitative chances. I agree though, the prison system is laden with APD & Psychopaths, and that this is in itself a disturbing trend that needs to be further investigated by psychologist and Sociologist alike. It is when people such as yourself begin to question these things that will eventually lead to the likelihood of these studies.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008 @ 3:56pm
alohatraveler says:
Concerned Viewer,
You still have more reading to do.
It is my understanding that most of the Sociopaths we talk about here are not violent. Mine hated violence. He was an ex-Minister.
Being violent is not a criteria for Sociopaths. I am not sure if that is the distinction between Sociopaths and Psychopaths. I don’t have time to look into that at the moment.. time to go to work. :o)
You still have lots of misinformation. You are basically illustrating an example for us as to why rational, normal, people get involved with Sociopaths.
Keep reading and learn.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008 @ 4:42pm
OxDrover says:
CV,
Thank you for “toning down” your comments and being more infromational than judgmental.
As you can see, the people on this blod do not deal well with people “word slinging” with opinions.
My son is a psychopathic murderer currently incarcerated in Texas, so I have done some reseach and reading on a great deal of the social and psychological causes of violence. I am also a retired registered nurse practitioner with a wide variety of medical and psychological experience, and a heck of a lot of degrees from the “University of Hard Knocks” in post-doctoral studies. (Laugh) I am not slinging around credentials here, but to make you see that many of the people here have advanced degrees including MDs with speaialties in various fields, social workers, etc. and others with PhDs….we are NOT an ignorant blog of “man haters” or people who sling around a bunch of opinons that are not based in both FACT, RESEARCH, and LIFE EXPERIENCE.
This is probably the most literate blog on any subject that I have ever done more than just take a quick glance at. Even with my knowledge and experiences, I am not a flea on an elephant’s butt compared to the knowledge and credentials and experience of most of the people here. Some of them are so learned and knowledgable here that I am in AWE, however, that said, the purpose of this blog is to get the information, the research, down to a level that anyone can understand it in PRACTICAL TERMS.
My son meets the criterial for a diagnosable psychopath, and is also violent. I have dealt personally with other people that come darned close to “being diagnosable” but it doesn’t matter if they are OFFICIALLY DIAGNOSED or not, if their behavior is “close enough for government work” then what difference does it make? Back to the duck analogy, it doesn’t matter what BREED it is, or if I can tell a mallard from a muscovie, it is still a good “guess.” So if you behave like it is a duck, you ought to be close enough.
Research has shown that psychopaths (and frankly, the possible differences between Anti-Social Personality disorder, Sociopath and Psychopath are tiny) actually become WORSE with therapy, as it gives them new tools with which to manipulate others. Their crime rate even goes up and they are more frequently reincarcerated than those that had no therapy.
I am all for prison reform, and personally I think the prison system and judicial system in this country is absolutely (well, I can’t say that word, but you get the idea)!!!!!
It is run apparently by the politically correct idiots, who have never heard of common sense. If you were TRYING to make people in prison worse (psychpath or not) then they are accomplishing that.
Plus, 20% of theprison population, or more are actually psychopaths. If they weren’t violent when they went in there, they will be when they come out.
Incarceration is a “manhood rite of passage” for certain social groups, and is “expected.” You aren’t going to get the idea across to a kid in the projects that he should stay in school so he can get a job at McDonald’s making $5 an hour when he can already at age 12 make several hundred dollars a day standing on the street corner as a look out for the dope dealers, and besides, if he doesn’t want to work for them they are likely to “capp his butt”—yea, our society is twisted, but I can’t solve all that and neither can you.
There was a time when I was about 19 that I thought I knew it all, and how to fix everything. Now that I amm 60 I realize I don’t know all the questions much less the answers. The answers that I think might work or at least help, our democratic society won’t “let me do”—the BEST thing I think that has ever been passed is the “three felony strikes and you are out”–actually IN for life. That will at least keep some of the psychopaths incarcerated for life where they should be.
It scares the stink out of me that MOST of the psychopaths that are in prison WILL EVENTUALLY be released back into society, after receiving a PhD in rage and hate. My 20+ year education in prison psychology is not something I wanted to learn but ended up learning it anyway.
The “reformation” of prisoners on the whole is dismal the way we are doing it now, there needs to be some “changes” made and the ones that have a posibility for reformatin need to be weeded out from the majority that have no hope for rehabilitation. There are some people that there is NO hope for rehabilitation and those unfortunately are the worst ones, that are the BIG cons, the Psychopaths, that can fake remorse better than the kid who actually feels it.
Until newer and better methods of determining which inmates are definitely psychopaths and which are not, we sort of have to go with criminal records. Unfortunately for every crime someone is arrested for, they get away with no telling how many. The majority of crimes go unsolved, or at least unconvicted. My son probably committed 50-100 felonies in his short (years wise) criminal career, but he only got convicted on 3.
I assume you are a young and very intelligent person, and I hope that you can go out into the world and effect some change. All of us here have tried to effect changes for the better in both our lives and the lives of our children and others. We continue to try to help and support others who are either in abusive relationships (violent physically or emotionally) or recently out of such a relationship(s). There are some common denominators in both the psychopaths and sometimes in the victims as well, and generally psychopaths choose their intimate victims just as carefully as the lions choose their prey–they pick on the ones that they think they can over come,, and they leave the others alone.
Sometimes the fact that we are open minded and caring individuals leaves us more vunerable to being prey.
I do hope that you will go to the home page and read and learn about some of these people, because chances are that you have either already dealt with one or in the future you will deal with one on an intimate level that without being forewarned, and having knowledge of how they stalk their prey, you too may become a victim and be here needing the support and counsel of others who have walked that path before you. Good luck and God bless you.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008 @ 5:15pm
DR GOAT says:
Funny thing I ran into along the way. As I was entering my daughter into crisis center. I was noticing an individual who was so intimidating, so demanding of the center personnel, that I thought he was being held there. When he walked out of the door, I thought he had escaped. I then noticed a very meek lady standing by herself, looking as her husband walked to his car. She was very likable. Very soft spoken. She admired her husband of 17 years, and had glowing things to say about him. She was particularly proud of his being a minister. She continued to praise God, and love Jesus through the whole ordeal. Her beloved husband left her standing alone with absolutely no acknowledgement of her existance. He was mean, loud, demanding, and showed no compassio