Our modern world, even while affording great comforts and conveniences
to some, remains perpetually riddled with examples of cruelty and
indifference in every facet and on every level. On the family level, we
see domestic abuse, neglect and strife involving partners and children.
On the social level, we see bullying of the weak and vulnerable in
schools and online. In business and in politics, rapacious, corrupt
behavior is so commonplace that, at this point, it has become almost
expected. And this is not even to mention the often vicious and chilling
treatment of other animals and of our environment.
Upon seeing people act – or fail to act – in ways that lead to such
suffering, sensitive people naturally wonder why this situation has
arisen.
“How could they do – or neglect to do – such things?” they ask.
And, just as importantly, how could they seem so completely unfazed by the pain displayed by the victims of this behavior?
“I would feel afraid, guilty or ashamed of acting that way. So why don’t they?”
Such attempts to understand the roots of cruelty and callousness, and to
possibly address them, are age-old. For millennia, everyone from
theologians to philosophers to scientists has asked these questions. So
it was probably inevitable that I, too, would eventually become
fascinated with them. Indeed, even before I could clearly articulate it,
it was certainly a desire to understand the nature and causes of
hurtful behavior that drove much of my study in areas ranging from
child development to
personality types to
relationships to
politics.
Through all of this study, I came to understand that a variety of reasons underlie the existence of cruelty in our world.
Some of what we may perceive as cruelty simply occurs as part of the
natural conflict and competition of development and life. Even healthy
families, societies and ecosystems are faced with periodic hardships and
challenges. However, there remained other behavior that I saw and
experienced that seemed too sadistic and systematic to be explained
simply as "the way life is."
An additional swath of cruelty could be explained as emerging from the
system of incentives that dominates many of our social institutions,
often rewarding exploitative behavior while discouraging long-term
compassionate approaches. In other words, those enacting this behavior
may not personally intend to do harm. They may simply be taking the
well-worn path of least resistance within the organizations in which
they participate. But this only raised the question of who allowed or
encouraged these institutions to develop such a destructive incentive
system in the first place.
I finally started to get more satisfying answers when I learned more about conditions such as
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).
This opened the door for me to begin understanding how mental illness,
and especially personality disorders, played a role in the emergence of
unnecessarily destructive behavior in our institutions and our world.
Gradually, I came to realize how just a few "toxic" characters could
disproportionately and detrimentally shape and influence a
human system.
And yet, some of the harmful behavior that I saw and experienced seemed
even more egregious, strategic and consistently devious than could be
explained by BPD and NPD alone. It lacked the signs of underlying
insecurity and repression that mark NPD or the fear-driven, alternating,
splitting features of BPD.
There simply still had to be more to it.
Eventually, persisting in my search for deeper understanding about the
genesis of extreme manifestations of cruelty, I was led to Andrew M.
Lobaczewski’s extraordinary book
Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes) and to the field of
ponerology. From there I was led to
related books like:
I was also led to the work of
Sandra Brown.
In short, I was led into the fascinating and chilling world of the psychopath.
Of course, having earned an undergraduate degree in psychology and
having studied and done several rotations in psychiatry in medical
school, I was familiar academically with psychopathy (though I feel
that, for a variety of important reasons, the topic remains
underemphasized). And, eventually, re-encountering
Derrick Jensen’s track "Locked in a Room with Psychopaths" from his
Stand Up Tragedy
album reminded me that he had long ago introduced me to the central
role psychopaths have played in fueling our culture’s destructiveness.
Yet, as is so often the case, it wasn’t until my own experiences drove
me to revisit and expand my understanding of the topic that I finally
managed to internalize the importance and magnitude of influence of
psychopathy.
What is Psychopathy?
Individuals with the condition of psychopathy are marked by a combination of several general features, including the following:
- Lack of conscience
- Extremely limited emotional range – Psychopaths may simply be
biologically incapable of experiencing certain common human emotions.
- Severe reduction in ability to experience empathy for others –
One cannot empathize with emotions in others that one is almost
completely unable to experience oneself.
- Willingness and remarkable ability to lie convincingly
- Superficial, deceptive charm – Because psychopaths are able to
skillfully feign emotional understanding and connection, they frequently
come across to others as quite likeable, and, therefore, go unsuspected
of devious behavior. Associates and acquaintances are often quite
surprised when their actions do come to light.
- Aggressive pursuit of selfish goals
- Various forms of reckless power and thrill-seeking
- Highly Machiavellian behavior – In fact, psychopathy, along
with Machiavellianism and narcissism make up what is known as the "dark
triad" of character traits.
- Lack of guilt or remorse for consequences to others of their destructive behavior
Tools for Diagnosing and Measuring Psychopathy
Robert Hare, the world’s leading expert on psychopathy, has developed several
psychopathy scales.
These scales are designed for use by clinicians and researchers to
test, to various degrees of precision, for the presence of psychopathy
in an individual. While there is controversy around these scales,
presently Hare’s
Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) is considered by most to be the gold standard instrument for assessing the condition.
The PCL-R was originally developed in the early 1990’s and often applied
in criminal populations to predict an offender’s likelihood of
recidivism as an aid to deciding on appropriate sentencing and
treatment. However, over the years, it has been validated for
application in a wider variety of settings.
Using the PCL-R, a qualified professional analyzes a subject’s case
history and a structured interview to rate the degree of presence or
absence of twenty specific criteria – similar to those listed in the
previous section - including various aggressive, narcissistic and
manipulative personality traits and elements of an irresponsible
lifestyle. The subject’s score is then compared to that of the
prototypical psychopath and, if it is above a certain threshold, the
condition is diagnosed.
Hare’s work followed and built upon the seminal work of Hervey Cleckley, M.D. In his landmark 1941 book
The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Clarify Some Issues About the So-Called Psychopathic Personality, Cleckley – who also co-authored
The Three Faces of Eve,
a famous account of a woman with Multiple Personality Disorder -
brought the condition to the public’s attention to an unprecedented
degree while laying out a checklist of what he considered the sixteen
core features of psychopathy.
Psychopathy vs. Sociopathy vs. Antisocial Personality Disorder
Given the current state of the classification systems as of this
writing, there is ample confusion and some disagreement about the exact
relationship between psychopathy and two related, and sometimes
overlapping, conditions termed sociopathy and antisocial personality
disorder (ASPD). Some people use these terms interchangeably. And Sandra
Brown, whose work focuses on assisting victims of abuse, emphasizes
that all of these labels refer to potentially harmful people, an
interaction with whom can lead to a nearly identical painful aftermath.
But even Brown acknowledges that many experts recognize sometimes
subtle, but very important, distinctions between them, even if they
disagree somewhat on exactly what those distinctions are.
Having consulted various sources and synthesized their feedback, here
are some general guidelines on the relationships and distinctions
between these three terms. It is important to note that future changes,
including the publication of new classifications in the DSM-V (the next
version of psychiatry’s main diagnostic and statistical manual, the
DSM-IV)
and additional research into genetic and environmental origins, may
bring additional clarity about the connections between these conditions,
as well as others, like NPD and BPD, which also can, at various
intervals, share a fundamental feature of reduced empathy.
Psychopathy
Psychopathy is not an actual clinical diagnosis in the DSM-IV. Instead,
it is a term used by people in a variety of fields to describe an
individual marked by a particular set of characteristics. These
characteristics generally include those mentioned earlier and have been
even more precisely defined and operationalized in the diagnostic tools
discussed in the previous section.
Some of these traits overlap those that define antisocial personality
disorder. However, psychopaths are recognized as displaying a level of
callousness not necessarily seen in all of those with ASPD or in all
sociopaths. And, while both conditions are defined by a combination of
traits or temperament and behaviors, one is labeled a psychopath
primarily based on his or her traits or temperament, while one is
diagnosed as ASPD primarily based on observable behaviors.
Criminality and Non-Criminality among Psychopaths
Psychopaths can display the full range of criminality or
non-criminality. Some psychopaths are caught committing illegal acts and
are therefore identified as criminals. Others commit criminal acts but
are never caught. Still others, however, while acting in ways many of us
would find unethical, never actually cross the line into lawbreaking.
And some psychopaths are not only never identified as criminals, but are
highly successful and even widely admired individuals. This contrasts
with ASPD, the diagnosis of which usually requires criminal and overtly
aggressive behavior.
Psychopathy’s Biological Focus
The term psychopathy originated within the "hard sciences." Therefore,
there is a tendency to view the term as referring to those who differ
from non-psychopaths because of significant differences genetically and
in brain structure and function. These differences and their
implications will be discussed in much greater depth later.
Sociopathy
Like psychopathy, sociopathy is also not listed as an actual clinical
diagnosis in the DSM-IV. Unlike psychopathy, this term originated within
the "softer" social sciences in the course of examining how our
behavior is influenced by our environment and our nurturing (or lack of
nurturing).
In
Snakes in Suits, Robert Hare describes sociopathy as referring to:
"…a pattern of attitudes and behaviors that are considered
antisocial and criminal by society at large, but are seen as normal or
necessary by the subculture or social environment in which they
developed."
In other words, a sociopath might inherently be an ethical person, born
with a normal genetic and biological capacity for empathy and
conscience, who internalizes potentially destructive propensities for
behavior through their development and participation in some pocket
within society. This would include many of those discussed earlier who
contribute to destructive acts not because they themselves are
malicious, but simply because of their adherence to the norms of the
exploitative institutions of which they are a part.
Antisocial Personality Disorder
Unlike psychopathy and sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder is,
as of this writing, an actual clinical diagnosis. It is listed in the
DSM-IV as one of the Cluster B (the dramatic, emotional or erratic)
personality disorders, along with
NPD,
BPD and Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD).
ASPD is defined primarily based on an individual’s externally verifiable
behaviors - especially those that break the law or violate the rights
of others – and less so, as in the case of psychopathy, on character
traits or temperament. Thus, ASPD is more clearly detectable than
psychopathy, which often goes unrecognized.
Anyone who exhibits the definitive features and behaviors can be
diagnosed as having ASPD. But in only some of those cases is the
individual’s presentation driven by the types of character, and
presumably genetic and other biological, differences associated with
being labeled a psychopath. Thus, ASPD is far more prevalent than
psychopathy and only a fraction of those with ASPD also qualify as
psychopaths.
Who and Where are the Psychopaths?
For many, the word psychopath conjures up notions of extremely
physically violent serial killers or terrorists. And, without doubt,
those terms do describe some psychopaths. At the very least, for most of
us, the word conjures up the idea of some type of criminal. This also
has some basis in reality as it has been
estimated that 20% of prison inmates are psychopaths.
But narrowly focusing on such descriptions is dangerous. It reinforces
the myth that psychopaths are exceptionally rare and only affect the few
people unlucky enough to encounter them in some wildly extreme
situation. The truth is that psychopaths are a far more prevalent and
diverse group that influences all of us on a daily basis.
Here are some very important facts about psychopaths:
Psychopaths are More Common than You Think
There is some debate about the exact prevalence of psychopathy, as well
as of the overlapping conditions termed antisocial personality disorder
and sociopathy. However, Robert Hare estimates in
Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us and
Snakes in Suits
that the condition exists in about 1% of the population, making it
about as common as schizophrenia. (Estimates for antisocial personality
disorder are even higher at 3% for men and 1% for women according to the
DSM-IV. Martha Stout, in
The Sociopath Next Door, estimates that 4% - fully 1 in 25 – of the population qualify as sociopaths).
Even using the estimate of a 1% prevalence of psychopathy in the general
population, we realize that this is a surprisingly common condition.
While 1% may sound small to some, this amounts to 1 out of every 100
people you see around you. In a population of 7 billion people, this
amounts to 70 million psychopaths walking among us. In the United States
alone, assuming a population of 300 million, it amounts to 3 million of
our neighbors, incapable of empathy, who are willing to charm us and
lie to us in ruthless pursuit of their selfish ends.
Even more disturbingly, for a variety of reasons we will soon discuss,
members of this callous minority – already larger in size than we might
imagine - regularly attain positions that afford them disproportionate
influence on the rest of us.
Psychopaths are Everywhere
As alarmist as it might sound, it is simply a fact that psychopaths
truly are all around us and among us. They are scattered throughout the
population in every capacity.
You may work with them, since - as is the focus of
Snakes in Suits - they are particularly
influential in corporate and business settings.
You may go to school with them. As we will discuss later at length,
they maintain an instrumental presence in the political arena, so you
may have voted for or been governed by them. Hare also describes in
Snakes in Suits how religious organizations are particularly vulnerable to infiltration by psychopaths. As implied by Stout’s title
The Sociopath Next Door, psychopathic individuals may be your neighbors. Or you might even have psychopaths within your very own family.
In short, whatever the context, if you’ve ever experienced strategic,
devious behavior, lacking in compassion, you may have been in the midst
of an environment being influenced by a psychopath.
Psychopaths are Notoriously Skilled at Deception
Upon learning just how prevalent and pervasive psychopathy actually is
in our society and how likely it is that they themselves have been
touched by it, most people are quite surprised. This is actually a
curious situation. How is it that a condition that is so common and so
influential, and with which nearly all of us are familiar to some extent
from the many popular sensationalized accounts, can nonetheless remain
under the radar when we are right within its midst? The answer lies in
the psychopath’s remarkable capacity for deception.
Throughout nature, a variety of predatory and parasitic organisms employ
a combination of mimicry and adaptability to prevent other organisms on
which they depend from detecting their energy-draining motives. Amongst
humans, psychopaths are the keepers of this tradition.
While unable to actually experience or empathize with many of the
emotions of those around them, psychopaths’ ability to lie without
experiencing guilt or shame, as most of us would, enables them to fake
it quite well. Through careful observation, they may learn to simply
mimic some of the outward expressions and phrases that they notice
others interpret as signs of sensitivity and rapport. As a result, they
can project the appearance of emotional insight and concern without
genuine feeling or understanding. This is why it is commonly said that,
in terms of emotions, psychopaths "know the words, but not the music."
(This description was even used in the title of a
study about psychopaths' processing of affect and language.)
Unfortunately, for their uninformed targets – and, at times, even for
those familiar with their duplicity – the "words" alone can be
persuasive enough. So convincing is the psychopath’s resulting
superficial charm that it not only puts potential victims at ease, but,
in many cases, even turns them into admirers. Consider one of recent
history’s most famous psychopaths, serial killer Ted Bundy. Bundy often
impersonated others or faked vulnerabilities or injuries in the process
of luring his victims to their gruesome deaths. Yet, despite his
murderous motives, he often provoked deep attraction and was commonly
described as "handsome," "cultured," and "charismatic."
This combination of sinister intent lurking beneath a convincing and
appealing exterior is so core to psychopathy that Cleckley chose to make
it the focus of his landmark book’s title,
The Mask of Sanity.
If this mask allows even extremely violent individuals like Bundy to
fool their victims, imagine how effectively it can be employed by
apparently charismatic, charming manipulators and predators working more
insidiously from established positions in business, politics or other
sectors of society.
As we have seen, professionals can ultimately identify psychopaths using
well-researched and validated tools like the PCL-R. And, as we will
soon discuss, some claim that psychopaths are adept at recognizing and
attracting each other. But for most of us, in everyday life situations
within modern society, it requires great vigilance to avoid being fooled
by their mask and to recognize the presence or influence of a
psychopath.
The Spread of Psychopathic Influence in Society
Throughout history, psychopaths have managed to dominate power
arrangements and shape institutions - and possibly even entire social
structures - in their own image. Theorists in the field of
ponerology,
especially its pioneer Andrew M. Lobaczewski, describe how this
relatively small number of people then used their positioning to exert
significant control over a generally submissive population that tends to
follow the lead of authority figures. Through these mechanisms,
psychopaths – along with those with
BPD,
NPD
and other personality disorders – have contributed to generating the
seemingly endless parade of massive wars, man-made death, environmental
disasters and other ruthless destruction that characterizes modern
history. They continue to wield surprising levels of influence over
events in our world today.
How is it that this relatively tiny minority has been able to achieve
such a remarkable feat? The answer lies in a combination of the
abilities made possible by the psychopath’s unique traits and talents
and certain characteristics of modern society’s structure which they
themselves may have helped create.
Psychopaths are Especially Adept at Negotiating, Manipulating and Climbing Hierarchies
Psychopaths are tremendously skilled at identifying
leverage points
– what needs to be done and who needs to be pressured, wooed or
manipulated – for achieving their desired ends within hierarchical
systems of power. And once they recognize them, they are willing to lie
without guilt and exploit others’ vulnerabilities and weaknesses without
conscience in the process of pressing those levers. Furthermore, they
are extremely savvy not only at evading detection, but at engineering
situations so that they are, in fact, rewarded with money, status,
recognition, power or influence.
Both
Evil Genes and
Snakes in Suits
look more deeply at just how psychopaths go about expertly using these
talents to rise up the ranks of our business, political and other
hierarchies.
Modern Civilization’s Extremely Hierarchical Structure Offers
Vast, Previously Unseen Opportunities for Exploitation by Psychopaths
Throughout nearly all of our species’ hundreds of thousands of years on
this planet, we lived in relatively egalitarian bands and tribes of just
a few hundred people at most. This social structure was characterized
by several important, relevant features, including:
- Even the most powerful leader was quite limited in the number of
people and the amount of resources over which he or she could exert
control.
- Living at the mercy of, yet dependent upon, a sometimes
perilous wild environment, in which few, if any, individuals could
survive alone, the maintenance of cooperation and mutual support within a
band or tribe was a life or death matter for all of its members. Thus,
not only was the incentive to detect and neutralize the destructive
influence of deceitful, selfish individuals extremely high, but, living
in such small groups and in such close quarters, it was, at least in
many cases, relatively difficult for these individuals to hide that
toxic social influence for long.
A story reported by Dr. Jane M. Murphy, now
director of Harvard’s Psychiatric Epidemiology Unit, serves as an
example of the vigilant stance that one millennia-old indigenous culture
– a group of Inuit in Northwest Alaska – takes regarding psychopathic
types within their midst. So aware is this group regarding the existence
of these individuals that their language includes a term for them - kunlangeta
– which is used to refer to a person whose "mind knows what to do but
does not do it," resulting in such acts as lying, cheating, stealing and
taking advantage of the tribe without making sufficient contribution.
And how seriously do the group’s members take the need to respond to the
threat such individuals pose to the group’s sustainability? When asked
what the group would typically do with a kunlangeta, Murphy was told “Somebody would have pushed him off the ice when nobody else was looking.”
This all changed drastically with the rise of modern civilization only
several thousand years ago – the blink of an eye in the timeline of
human history. Small egalitarian entities were supplanted by massive,
hierarchical governmental, military, business and religious
institutions. Suddenly, for the first time, positions actually existed
in which a person or small group of people could wield arsenals of
economic and technological weapons with the potential to cause massive
suffering and destruction in order to exert power over thousands,
hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. And, while the masses
may still have had an incentive to detect and neutralize deceitful,
destructive individuals, powerful forces now often had both the
incentive and the means to limit investigation and control
communications so as to obfuscate the true nature of some of their
devious activities.
In time, many seem to have been lulled to sleep, forgetting almost
entirely about the social threat posed by their culture’s own version of
the
kunlangeta.
Psychopaths Took Great Advantage of this New, Highly Exploitable Social Structure
Given their talents for climbing hierarchies and their extraordinary
lust for the thrill of power, psychopaths were well adapted for this new
kind of social structure and, unsurprisingly, took to it like a virtual
playground. Once positions with such obscene power existed, within a
society that remained undereducated about psychopathy and lacked
immunity to its insidious influence, psychopaths disproportionately
found their way into those circles of power.
Evil Genes examines in depth how this flow of the
empathy-disordered into positions of leadership and influence in our society has posed a problem of inestimable importance with incredibly destructive consequences.
Due to Their Inherent Nature, as well
as Their Power within Hierarchies, Psychopaths May Have Historically
Bred Relatively More Often, Thus Significantly Increasing Their
Representation in the Gene Pool
As they were busy climbing these newfound hierarchies, psychopaths were
also hard at work increasing the proportion of individuals carrying
their genes. Many psychopaths employ sex and sexual manipulation as
tools of power and have few qualms, if need be, about leaving behind a
number of neglected children. So it is likely that, in any even
moderately hospitable environment, they would begin to increase their
numbers.
But the spread of "psychopathic genes" may have been even further
propelled as a growing number of psychopaths attained positions of
power. Like many others in such positions, this status often granted
them greater sexual access than the rest of the population – perhaps to
an even larger degree in past centuries than today. Some rulers and
warlords even maintained vast harems. The result, somewhat shockingly,
is that some quite possibly psychopathic individuals were able to breed
on such a relatively large scale that it actually had a statistically
significant impact on the prevalence of their genes in the population.
For example,
Guinness World Records
declares that the record for most children is held by Ismail Ibn
Sharif, a sultan who ruled Morocco in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Guinness
credits him with 867 children, conceived with a number of wives and
concubines. The sultan also happens to be nicknamed "Ismail the
Bloodthirsty" for his legendary and almost inconceivable cruelty. When
we consider the number of grandchildren, great-grandchildren and so on
produced by such a number of children over the course of just a few
generations, we see that – in a classic example of exponential growth –
it can quickly and significantly impact the makeup of the gene pool.
This concept was stunningly demonstrated in a 2003 study published in the
The American Journal of Human Genetics entitled
"The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols". The study was covered in UPI in an article called
"Genes of History's Greatest Lover Found?"
by Steve Sailer. The study showed that, of the Asian men tested, 8% had
a virtually identical Y chromosome, indicating a common forefather.
This meant that that one forefather’s Y chromosome – and presumably some
of his other genetic material, as well – is carried by an estimated 16
million men in a region spread over a vast expanse of Asia. To put it
more starkly, this person’s genes reside in 1 of every 200 men alive
today. And that is only counting the male descendants! To put it even
more starkly, this man was 800,000 times more successful at passing on
his genes than the average male.
By estimating the time in which this man must have lived and the amount
of power and influence required to parent so prolifically, the study’s
authors concluded that he is none other than Genghis Khan, known, due to
his epic ruthlessness, as "Mighty Manslayer" and the "Scourge of God."
Sailer reports that among the mothers of these many children were
daughters of kings that Khan conquered and many women that he raped in
the course of his warring. He also quotes a historian’s report that the
one special privilege that Khan demanded from his subordinates upon
plundering a territory was that beautiful young women be handed over to
him.
Thus, while still not numerically dominating the population,
civilization’s hierarchies laid the foundation for a few conscienceless,
bloodthirsty conquerors to prolifically spread what Barbara Oakley
cleverly terms their
Evil Genes. This may have set in motion a
positive feedback cycle that, to an extent, continues to progress today.
If so, it would represent one of the most important such feedback
cycles in human history.
Psychopaths May be Adept at Recognizing and Attracting Other Mutually Supportive Psychopaths
As if the hierarchy-climbing exploits of an increasing number of
individual psychopaths weren’t chilling enough, consider Martha Stout’s
claim that, while difficult to identify for the rest of us, such
sinister characters seem to have a special knack for identifying and
attracting each other to work toward mutual goals. If true, this would
add another layer to our understanding of how this small group manages
to achieve so much influence. There is enormous power in the combination
of even a few such people - without conscience or respect for
boundaries, willing and able to lie and bully inconspicuously and
remorselessly – mutually reinforcing and rewarding each other’s efforts.
Certain Modern Institutions Have Come to Mirror Psychopathic Traits
Due to the combination of all of the aforementioned factors, psychopaths
have been so successful at influencing modern society that they even
appear to have shaped whole institutions in their image. For instance:
- The film The Corporation
uses World Health Organization ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria to show how
the very structure of modern corporations encourages behavior that
exemplifies psychopathic patterns.
In a sense, the case is made that the corporate legal structure forms the corporation itself into a psychopathic entity.
- Others have documented the oft-repeated and frequently
catastrophic historical tendency for psychopaths and similarly
disordered individuals to progressively penetrate and shape governments.
In Political Ponerology, Lobaczewski adopts the term "pathocracy"
to refer to "a system of government...wherein a small pathological
minority [consisting of those he calls 'pathocrats'] takes control over a
society of normal people" and details the mechanisms by which, time and
again, such destructive regimes have risen to power.
Psychopathy May Have Even Been Instrumental in the Genesis of Civilization Itself
It may be no coincidence that modern civilization is flush with
opportunities for psychopathic exploitation and image-shaping. Some,
including myself, have hypothesized that exactly this type of
psychopathic influence may have played a role in the transformation of
human societies from hunter-gatherer bands and tribes to civilization in
the first place. A look at the nature of civilization’s emergence
explains why.
Our modern civilization was born when a certain form of agriculture, which
Daniel Quinn
calls "totalitarian agriculture," began to be practiced around 10,000
years ago in the Middle East. Quinn describes how early practitioners of
this intensive form of agriculture, driven both by its inherently
expansive nature and a possibly religious belief in its status as the
"one right way" to live, began to conquer neighboring cultures and force
them – violently, if necessary - to similarly "take up the plow."
This new, expanding form of food production enabled, in an unprecedented
fashion, a sedentary lifestyle characterized by large surpluses of food
and storable goods which required guarding. And it was out of this
newfound need for security that hierarchical power structures and
militaries emerged. The ultimate result of this process was the growth
of cities and the modern civilization within which nearly all surviving
humans live today.
The question that must be asked and which leads to hypotheses about the role of psychopathy in civilization’s rise is this:
What kind of people would develop such a dominating form of agriculture that literally requires constant expansion,
insist on it as the "one right way" for everyone to live and then set
about ruthlessly forcing them to do so through often violent conquest,
setting in motion a process that would eventually engulf nearly the
entire world?
Given what we know of their nature, it must at least be considered that
psychopathic individuals may have been centrally involved.
Evolutionary Views of Psychopathy
We have already seen earlier how essential cooperation and mutual
support - based on constant reinforcement and, when necessary, repair,
of tight-knit ties within a band or tribe - were for the survival and
flourishing of early
Homo sapiens.
Given this evolutionary history, we understand clearly why the emergence
of empathy and conscience were so central to human survival and
success. The sustainable functioning of a band or tribe, and the
survival of its members, would have been nearly impossible without the
widespread development among individuals of the abilities to:
- Recognize and care for the feelings and needs of others
- Experience guilt and remorse, which motivate us to make amends, upon unfairly harming or neglecting another
In other words, conscience is, quite literally, at the very foundation
of what enabled our species to survive and thrive on this planet.
This is why, in
The Sociopath Next Door,
Martha Stout claims that, perhaps even more fundamental than gender or
race or intelligence, the presence or absence of conscience is "possibly
the single most meaningful characteristic that divides the human
species." How then do we explain the case of the psychopath, who lacks
the very aspects of character upon which the emergence and survival of
human societies have relied?
Defect or Alternate Evolutionary Strategy?
Well, the most basic approach simply views psychopaths as mutations or
aberrations of the normal human being, who, as reviewer Martha Beck put
it, "lack scruples the way someone born blind lacks eyesight." Advocates
of this perspective would explain that, just as some people are born
with damaged eyes or hearts or kidneys, psychopaths suffer from a birth
defect involving the moral and emotional processing centers of the
brain. In
Political Ponerology, Lobaczewski informs us that, at
one time, psychiatrists often used to describe those whom he calls
"essential psychopaths" – people with a form of psychopathy that he
believed to be inherited and most centrally involved in catalyzing
pathocracy – as "Daltonists of human feelings and socio-moral values,"
thus making the analogy between them and people with a form of color
blindness known as Daltonism.
However, other experts hold a more complex view of the psychopath not as
a "broken" normal human, but rather as a different type of human
entirely. They believe that, just as humans of conscience were naturally
selected for via the pressures of their environments, certain
environments may also, in parallel, have naturally selected for the
survival and reproduction of a certain number of humans without
conscience. In this paradigm, psychopaths are seen as a subset of
humanity, wired to enact an alternate evolutionary strategy that -
though perhaps reprehensible to many of us and possibly dangerous to our
long-term sustainability - has nonetheless served them relatively
effectively within the context of our recent history.
Intraspecies Predator or Subspecies of Homo sapiens?
Our understanding of the psychopaths’ essential difference is reflected
in the labels attributed to them by some experts. Because their life
strategy, generated by their profound biological differences, frequently
places them in fierce – though often unseen - competition with their
fellow humans, Robert Hare has referred to the psychopath as an
"intraspecies predator."
Others have gone even farther, drawing the perspective out to its
ultimate conclusion by classifying the psychopath as a separate
subspecies of humanity - what Lobaczewski, in one interview, termed "a
para-
Homo Sapiens." For these thinkers, empathy and conscience
are so fundamental to what it means to be a normal human being that a
person without those traits represents a new evolutionary branch.
The Biological Basis of Psychopathy
The fundamental and seemingly intractable nature of psychopathic
influence in our society may stem from and be mirrored by the underlying
biology of the condition. As has been mentioned, psychopathy, unlike
some related conditions, is a term with a history in the "hard sciences"
and experts have long speculated on its likely biological basis. As our
ability to examine genetic influence and brain structure and function
has improved, this speculation is increasingly being verified.
Research is finding that, far from simply normal humans motivated - due
to poor parenting, trauma, abuse or just personal preference - to make
unethical choices, psychopaths are, in some respects, "a different
animal" from the rest of us. Various techniques are allowing us to
correlate their many abnormal traits and behaviors – their lack of
empathy and conscience, their inappropriate reactions to disturbing
emotional stimuli, their inability to experience normal fear, guilt and
shame, their failure to relate to the horror of victims – with
demonstrable differences in their physical constitution.
Some of the relevant studies and findings include:
Genetic Basis for Psychopathy
- "Evidence for Substantial Genetic Risk for Psychopathy in 7-Year-Olds"
– This twin study demonstrated 81% heritability for antisocial behavior
among those twins that were highly psychopathic. As Barbara Oakley puts
it in Evil Genes, “Discarding the belief in the natural innocence of children and eliminating a century of social engineering, this means that some kids are born with a marked tendency toward evil.”
Several other studies have also found a very significant level of
heritability for psychopathy. No specific genes, however, have yet been
identified that cause psychopathy. Most researchers believe that there
are multiple genes that contribute to the development of the condition.
Since psychopathy is not 100% heritable, that means that the environment
does play some role in determining whether a person ultimately becomes a
psychopath or displays antisocial behavior. However, the exact role
that the environment plays can vary in sometimes surprising ways. For
instance, Oakley explains how, in some cases, those who experienced a
normal upbringing actually show
more severe neurological impairment than those who were abused as children.
Brain Abnormalities in Psychopaths
- "Limbic Abnormalities in Affective Processing by Criminal Psychopaths as Revealed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging"
– This study showed that criminal psychopaths, when repeating
emotionally charged words, show less activity than normal people in some
brain areas and more activity than normal people in others. In other
words, criminal psychopaths process emotions using different brain
regions in different ways than do the rest of us.
- The amygdala, a brain area deeply involved in emotional
processing and reactions, has been shown to be less reactive in some
situations among psychopaths than among normal people.
- While still being investigated, preliminary findings
have shown that psychopaths may exhibit differences in the functioning
of mirror neurons, special neurons that allow us, upon observing the
actions and responses of others, to simulate them in our own minds, and
therefore to empathize.
- A number of studies show impairments in psychopaths in specific
brain areas whose activation is associated with the experience of moral
feeling.
- Some of the symptoms of psychopathy are reproduced in patients with injuries in relevant brain areas. A University of Haifa study
showed that the psychopath’s impairment in empathy is remarkably
similar to that found in frontal lobe brain injury patients. And the
term "pseudopsychopathy" has been coined to refer to those who exhibit certain psychopathic traits after incurring frontal lobe lesions.
- "Corpus Callosum Abnormalities in Psychopathic Antisocial Individuals"
– This study revealed that, in psychopaths, the corpus callosum, the
area that connects the two brain hemispheres, has significantly more
white matter volume and is longer and thinner than normal. This means
that their brain hemispheres may have difficulty communicating properly
with each other.
- "Temporal
Lobe Abnormalities in Semantic Processing by Criminal Psychopaths as
Revealed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging" - Psychopaths
show less activity than others in the right anterior superior temporal
gyrus when hearing abstract words, though they show similar activity to
others when hearing concrete words. This may explain the psychopath’s
diminished ability for grasping abstract concepts.
This is just a sample of the voluminous research documenting the
biological underpinnings of psychopathy. Most of these, as well as many
other, examples are described in great detail and with wonderful
explication in
Evil Genes,
which features a section called "The Genetics of Psychopathy" and the
fourth chapter of which is entitled "Using Medical Imaging to Understand
Psychopaths."
I strongly recommend the book and those sections to anyone interested in
learning more about the origins of harmful behavior in our world.
Reducing Psychopathy’s Detrimental Impact
Humanity, and potentially our ecosystem as a whole, approach destructive
tipping points on a number of fronts. And psychopathy – along with
related empathy-reducing disorders - plays integral roles in creating
and perpetuating many of the patterns that underlie our
unsustainability. Therefore, for the sake of ourselves, future
generations, and our ecosystem, it is imperative that we take seriously
the responsibility to address its potent impact.
Doing so will entail measures in a variety of areas. But the decisions
about which specific measures to take, or not to take, will provoke
significant controversy and raise riveting ethical quandaries previously
the domain of science fiction. Some of the potential strategies may
seem highly unreasonable to implement. And yet, at the same time, the
consequences of doing nothing seem equally unreasonable.
Here is a categorized look at some of the measures that might be
considered as part of an attempt to address psychopathic influence.
Measures Focused on Managing or Treating Psychopaths
Identifying Psychopaths
In considering any approach to managing psychopathy’s effects, we are
immediately faced with the question of how, and to what extent, we
should aim to identify psychopaths. Especially as genetic, physiological
and anatomical markers become more defined, the following questions
will become even more pressing:
- Should we enact proactive screening of any kind to detect psychopaths?
- If so, who should be screened? Should we screen everyone?
Should we screen particular groups known to be at higher risk? Should we
screen those seeking important offices or positions?
Once we do identify a psychopath, we are then veritably forced into new ethical dilemmas, much like those raised in
Minority Report, some of which are discussed later.
While some find a certain degree of screening sensible, for others it
raises enormous civil rights and privacy concerns. Some scientists -
including even Robert Hare, himself a proponent of fundamental reforms -
have expressed serious qualms about the potential abuses that such
measures could unleash.
Early Intervention in Families
As we have seen, psychopathy does, in many cases, begin to reveal itself
at early ages. Therefore, to whatever extent we choose to implement
proactive screening, we may want to employ it to properly identify high
risk children. We increasingly test children for various other physical
and psychological disorders so that we can mitigate their detrimental
expression by intervening early with special attention or care for them
and their families. For a variety of reasons, including slowing the
generational cycle of abuse, we might consider doing the same in the
case of psychopathy.
Such a strategy, however, raises challenging questions:
- How would such programs be guarded against the same potential for abuse of power that dogs any such screening program?
- What is the proper special attention and care for psychopathic
or at-risk children? We have already seen that even the healthiest
upbringing and nurturing often fails to eliminate the condition. And,
strangely, in some cases, healthier parenting seems to be associated
with even more severe neurological impairment. So while we should
certainly investigate how to most effectively intervene with such
families, we should also be prepared for some counterintuitive results.
- What if, in the course of the screening process, we discover
that the parents or other caregivers are themselves psychopaths? This
would raise unbelievably difficult ethical questions about the rights
vs. responsibilities of any authorities to mediate contact with the
children - especially if there was no concrete documentation of abuse.
Incarceration or Institutionalization
Currently, most psychopaths that are caught committing serious enough
crimes are sentenced to prison or institutionalized to protect the
public from them. These will likely remain primary methods of responding
in such cases. As our understanding of psychopathy progresses, however,
we will increasingly be challenged to determine to what degree
particular offenders belong in which setting and what exactly should
take place while they are there. We will also be challenged to
continually re-establish the degree of offense necessary to merit
separating a psychopath from society.
Psychological and Behavioral Treatment of Psychopaths
We should certainly work with psychopaths to reduce their harmful
behavior to the extent that we can. But, as we have seen, research
reveals that psychopathic behavior is significantly genetically based
and emerges from substantial abnormalities in brain structure and
function. This biological basis imposes limits on our ability to alter
psychopathy through non-invasive forms of therapy.
Within the mental health community, there is widespread, though not
unanimous, understanding that psychopathy is a condition that cannot be
treated in the traditional sense. In other words, most experts believe
that there is no currently feasible method that can change the
psychopath him or herself into a healthy – or even reasonably healthier -
normal human being. In fact, some, including Robert Hare, have warned
that it can even be dangerous to attempt to treat psychopaths in typical
psychodynamic or group therapy contexts.
Here is why:
Many attendees of such treatment programs, even if they have acted inhumanely in the past, still have somewhat normal
capacities
for empathy and conscience intact. Thus, they can become more caring as
a result of the interactions with therapists and fellow group members
and go on to apply their newfound skills toward more pro-social ends.
Psychopaths, on the other hand, are likely biologically incapable of
even moderate levels of empathy or conscience. Thus, traditional
treatment programs do little more than provide these master manipulators
with access to even more advanced knowledge of how to exploit others.
They are able to interact with professionals, observe guided dialogues
about the vulnerabilities of their fellow attendees, absorb new
understandings and skills, and then apply them to even more ruthlessly
and effectively pursue their own selfish ends.
This is why Hare has proposed a tailored approach focused not on
eliminating, but on managing the psychopaths’ condition. He advocates
for pragmatic methods that accede to their emotional and moral
limitations, while appealing to their self-interest. Primarily, such
work focuses on helping psychopaths to develop and reinforce alternate
strategies that allow them to meet their needs without committing
violations that are likely to result in consequences, such as
incarceration, that even they themselves find undesirable. Hare has
summarized his views on treatment along with co-author Dr. Steve Wong in
Guidelines for a Psychopathy Treatment Program.
Biological Treatment of Psychopaths
Perhaps no area will be more ripe for controversy and science
fiction-like speculations than the issue of biological treatment of
psychopaths. Because the impact of psychological and behavioral
treatments is so limited, as we are better able to identify psychopaths,
we may be tempted to employ more invasive measures. These might include
the provision of existing or newly developed medications, surgical
procedures or, someday, perhaps even gene therapies.
And, in the case of each method, we will have to decide at what point,
if any, coercive treatment is merited. Should psychopaths be subjected
to such invasive approaches even if they have only been identified by
screening, but have committed no crime? What if a psychopath has
committed antisocial acts, but technically broken no law?
As challenging as these questions already are, they become even more intriguing in light of data such as that revealed in the
University of Haifa study,
which shows that the psychopath’s empathy challenges are remarkably
similar to those of frontal lobe brain injury patients. What would our
approach be if a person underwent a severe head injury and, as a result,
began to treat those around them in a dehumanizing way? Is it possible
that we should be treating psychopaths less like psychological clients
and more like neurological patients with brain injuries?
Measures Focused on Educating the Public, Relevant Professionals and Officials about the Truth of Psychopathy
It is unlikely, and perhaps appropriately so, that we will implement
widespread screening and invasive treatment plans for psychopathy in the
near future. The less invasive treatment options that remain available
have limited impact. Thus, at least for quite a while to come, we will
continue to live in a world highly vulnerable to the machinations of
psychopaths.
Given this situation, it is imperative that we work to make sure that
the public at large, as well as those in key professional and social
positions, are aware of and making decisions based on solid
understanding about the nature of and threat posed by the condition.
Raising Awareness
In recent decades, we have seen massive education campaigns regarding
many serious disorders and diseases ranging from depression to AIDS to
lupus. While not everyone heeds the warnings, we’ve made great progress
in alerting people about the dangers of, for example, sexually
transmitted diseases or smoking-induced lung cancer.
Yet, as history has shown time and again, even one person with
psychopathy or another empathy-reducing disorder, when situated in a key
position in a
human system,
can contribute as significantly to a public health risk – through
consequent wars, genocide, economic collapse or the domestic and child
abuse that tend to perpetuate them - as anyone with any other condition.
As we develop even more advanced technologies of control and
destruction, this only becomes ever more true. Therefore, in order to
instill a greater immunity to their tactics, the facts about these
disorders need to be widely known. It is a travesty that, in our
society, conditions like psychopathy,
Borderline Personality Disorder and
Narcissistic Personality Disorder are not yet household names.
Using an array of communication mechanisms, including television, radio,
print media and the Internet, to aggressively educate the public, we
can prepare them to better detect and respond to deceptive psychopaths.
It is especially important that we properly train and inform those who
work most directly with psychopaths, those whose work often focuses on
issues or institutions touched by psychopathy’s influence and those
authorities with the power to shape public opinion about the condition.
These include mental health and public health professionals, educators
and school administrators, legal scholars and law enforcement agencies,
activists and watchdogs.
Overcoming Denial of Psychopathy’s Fundamental Nature and Relative Intractability
Unfortunately, even after being educated, some have found it hard to accept – or even to believe – the truth about psychopathy.
The evidence increasingly shows that psychopathy is biologically based,
hardwires an incapacity for empathy and conscience, often appears early
in life, does not respond well to most treatment, and is seldom
substantially improved by even the best parenting, most compassionate
social measures or harshest punishment. Environmental factors
are
relevant. In some cases, it seems that a healthier environment may lead
a psychopath to develop less destructive behavior. And investigations
of many of the most violent psychopaths do reveal severe abuse in their
past. But, these external influences can limit the destructive potential
of psychopathy only to a degree and only in a proportion of cases.
These facts have profound implications for all of us, including those
who work with psychopaths professionally, as well as those who simply
encounter them or the systems they affect in our daily lives. But, for a
variety of reasons, our
defense mechanisms
may urge us not to believe them. As a result, we may continue to
respond to psychopathic behavior with denial or repeated attempts,
doomed to failure, to somehow evoke care and compassion from them or the
institutions they shape.
It is especially troubling that such ineffective and irresponsible
responses persist even within the systems whose frequent encounters with
the condition’s effects should make them the most aware of its true
nature – often the very systems most trusted to protect us from its
dangerous consequences.
Such denial was demonstrated remarkably within the law enforcement community in the 1990’s when
Robert Hare
worked to reform how Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) treated
psychopaths within its prison system. He urged them to stop attempting
to treat psychopaths in the same groups and using the same methods as
were used with other inmates. Officials were close to implementing a new
approach based on his ideas. But, shortly before the implementation,
the service changed personnel. Hare was extremely frustrated when the
new administrators scrapped his plan based on a viewpoint that Hare has
summarized as "We don't believe in the badness of people." Driven by
this untested, politically correct belief system, the leadership
insisted on continuing to treat psychopaths just as before.
It is very telling that Hare’s ideas met strong resistance within CSC.
It shows that even administrators experienced in working with a violent
prison population can find it uncomfortable to accept that there are
people who, even with intensive treatment, are simply incapable of
respecting the feelings and needs of others. For many, even in the face
of contrary evidence, hope springs eternal.
As Hare explained in a
2001 interview:
"There's still a lot of opposition -- some criminologists,
sociologists, and psychologists don't like psychopathy at all," Hare
says. "I can spend the entire day going through the literature -- it's
overwhelming, and unless you're semi-brain-dead you're stunned by it --
but a lot of people come out of there and say, 'So what? Psychopathy is a
mythological construct.' They have political and social agendas:
'People are inherently good,' they say. 'Just give them a hug, a puppy
dog, and a musical instrument and they're all going to be okay.'"
If experienced professionals have had such difficulty accepting the
truth about psychopathy, you can imagine how difficult it can be for
many everyday people. Yet, despite the denial, research increasingly
demonstrates that psychopathy is a real, fundamental and highly
influential condition that may not be treatable – and may even be made
more dangerous – by most mainstream methods. It is in our best interest
to heed these lessons, however they may clash with cherished dogmas
about human nature.
Luckily, in recent years Hare’s ideas on
treatment of psychopathy
are being revisited and further disseminated in the mental health and
law enforcement communities. This is a step in the right direction that
we can only hope will continue and be mirrored in other areas of
society. But it will take persistent work, as it always does, to foster
acceptance of rational, realistic, evidence-based approaches in the face
of dearly held mythology and wishful thinking.
Measures Focused on Limiting Psychopaths’ Leverage and Resources
Even the best education and awareness campaign, combined with the
moderate success in identification, management and treatment of
psychopaths that is realistic to expect in the near future, can only
provide a certain level of protection. As long as psychopaths are able
to acquire and wield enough power and resources, they will likely find
ways, through manipulation or force, to continue to disproportionately
impose their will. Therefore, we must simultaneously work to prevent key
social positions and potentially destructive tools from falling into
their hands.
We recognize the irresponsibility of allowing even the most well-meaning
child, still limited in foresight, discretion and impulse control,
unsupervised access to inappropriate levels of control or dangerous
materials. But consider how much greater is the threat posed by a
psychopath, allowed - or even intentionally granted - similar access,
who also lacks these attributes and who is capable, to a degree far
greater than most children, of consciously planned malice. Just as
responsible parents must child-proof their homes, so must we all
contribute, to the best of our ability, to the psychopath-proofing of
our world.
This psychopath-proofing approach may consist of several components,
each of which can be addressed to more or less radical degrees.
Limiting Access to Influential Positions
Time and again, modern power structures have proven highly vulnerable to
infiltration – due to force and/or voter manipulation - by psychopathic
characters. As long as we maintain such structures, it is crucial that
we more effectively guard them against this occurrence. Doing so may
involve a combination of education about the "mask of sanity," fostering
greater skepticism about charming figures who aim to manipulate
important systems, and stricter screening and oversight of both visible
and behind-the-scenes players that vie for impact on powerful
institutions.
At the more radical end of the spectrum are
those, including many anti-corporatists and anti-statists, who believe
that the very existence of inordinately influential positions will
inevitably lead, in a world harboring a significant contingent of
Machiavellians, to the evolution of a
pathocracy
and, thus, represents an inherently untenable risk. They favor greater
decentralization of power, if not outright abolition of governments
and/or certain types of corporate and other institutional structures.
(NOTE: It is extremely interesting to consider how we can categorize
people based on which of society’s power structures they most fear being
hijacked for sinister purposes and how they believe we should respond
to that potentiality.
Many "small government conservatives" are most fearful of the violations
made possible when sinister forces seep into authoritarian centralized
governments. Therefore, they want to reduce the size and power of those
"abusive parent-like" governments. Yet, many of these same people do not
seem as concerned by the transgressions made possible when those same
forces seep into powerful corporate or other leadership structures.
On the other hand, many "big government liberals" seem to minimize the
dangers posed by malicious infiltration of centralized governments.
Instead, they are most fearful of potential violations by unethical
people and entities in other sectors of society, such as
regionally-institutionalized civil rights abuses and the predations of
unchecked Machiavellian corporate power. These people feel that
eliminating or highly decentralizing the government would represent a
dangerous overreaction that would render us vulnerable because they see a
strong, centralized government as the only "protective parent" powerful
enough to safeguard us. If they even acknowledge the risk of government
hijacking, they claim that we must simply act as constant watchdogs to
ensure that its leadership is as clean and accountable as possible.
Then there are those who make less distinction between the various types
of power structures and simply see large power structures of any kind
as dangerously susceptible to Machiavellian hijacking. These people
advocate for limiting the size and power of all such structures, whether
political, corporate, religious or otherwise.)
Limiting Access to Potentially Destructive Tools
The rapidly advancing development and increasing availability of
potentially destructive tools and technologies enable even a single
psychopathic individual, and certainly a small group under psychopathic
influence, to assert leverage within society to a previously impossible
degree. In fact, for quite a while, the greatest threats to humanity
have included the use of nuclear or biological weapons of mass
destruction by conscienceless, self-serving terrorists. But, as we have
seen in recent years, even the employment of irresponsible, poorly
regulated financial instruments can, in the hands of aggressive, greedy
profiteers, precipitate a form of mass destruction on a global scale.
Thus, it is essential that we limit psychopathic individuals’ and
entities’ access to and control of dangerous mechanisms and instruments.
Doing so raises controversial questions about wise non-proliferation
policies and regulation of devices, ranging from guns to financial
derivative products, which are susceptible to abuse.
The Anti-Civilization Approach
Even more radical than the anti-statists and anti-corporatists are some of those, like
Derrick Jensen,
in the anti-civilization movement. They believe that civilization
itself is inherently psychopathic and, for this reason among many
others,
can never be sustainable.
In their view, there is simply no way within a civilized structure to
sufficiently limit abusers’ access to destructive positions and tools.
For this reason, they advocate for a revolutionary shift in social
structure.
This important and controversial viewpoint is powerfully advocated in Jensen’s
Endgame.
Information, Support and Care for Victims of Psychopaths
As we address the impact of psychopathy, it is important that we not
become so myopically focused on the activities of psychopaths themselves
that we forget to attend to the other side of the equation – their
victims. Given psychopaths’ pervasive influence in our modern world,
there are a tremendous number of people who have, in some form, been
impacted detrimentally by them. In fact, if psychopaths have indeed
played a central role in the emergence of our social structure’s rampant
suffering, then, to some extent, we could all be considered victims.
While some victims, who have achieved consciousness about their
encounter with psychopathy, will relate what a harrowing experience it
is, most still remain unconscious or in denial of the link between their
pain and the existence of such a condition. However, thanks to decades
of hard work by researchers and experts and the increasing speed of
information distribution, this situation is changing. More and more
victims are beginning to consider and investigate how their experience
may have roots in the personality anomalies of abusers. As they begin to
connect the dots, they seek information and support to make sense of
and recover from what happened to them. And they are increasingly
finding a world ready to provide the answers and support that they need.
- At the bookstore
and online, they encounter a marketplace ever more full with
information, published by professionals and laypeople alike, about
psychopathy and its consequences.
- If they seek communion with others who understand, they will find growing numbers of online and in-person support groups for victims of psychopaths and other predatory characters.
- If they carefully and selectively seek treatment, they will
discover a broadening community of clinicians educated about the impact
of psychopathy and related disorders. These professionals, trained to
investigate more deeply into the roots of abuses, no longer prematurely
misdiagnose victims with simplistic, superficial, symptom-focused labels
like "depression" and "anxiety." This group includes clinicians, like Sandra Brown, who actually specialize specifically in treating victims of psychopaths and other antisocial people.
Because of this growing set of resources, psychopaths’ victims can, more
effectively than ever before, begin to recover. In the process, they
can also start to build the proper defenses that will help them more
astutely identify deceptive predators and protect them from being
re-victimized in the future.
These developments are promising. Not only does recovery have direct
benefits on particular victims’ current and future health, but it goes
hand in hand with prevention in society at large. Assisting in the
recovery of victims is, for a variety of reasons, one of the best ways
to generate a ripple effect of awakening and immunity to psychopathy’s
influence in the world.
- Most obviously, a conscious and empowered victim, bolstered by the
support of caring others, is more capable of taking legal action against
the psychopath. This can result in further increasing public awareness
and, potentially, impelling the protective removal, through imprisonment
or institutionalization, of the psychopath from society.
- A recovering victim who understands the origin and meaning of
his or her abuse is also less likely to pass it on to family or others
around them.
- Moreover, a recovering victim, empowered to tell his or her
heartfelt, genuine story, provides perhaps the most compelling means of
all for shedding a more revealing light on the psychopath’s mask of
sanity, penetrating layers of defenses, and planting protective seeds of
skepticism in others.
Hopefully, as we continue to challenge the denial that befogs
psychopathy and its consequences, even more people will seek and provide
appropriate education and support, ultimately inspiring a global
breakthrough in understanding and response.
Summary
For anyone wishing to truly understand today’s world, as well as most of
our recent history, psychopathy is a fascinating and crucially
important condition about which to learn. Here is a review of our
(sometimes shocking) current knowledge about psychopathy.
- Psychopaths’ brains process moral and emotional experiences and
information, as well as abstract concepts, differently than others’.
- As a result, they are simply incapable of conscience and
empathy, the very faculties that have always allowed human communities
to maintain their bonds and, in turn, for humanity to survive and thrive
in harmony with this planet.
- There may be no limit to the ruthlessness and remorselessness with which psychopaths seek their selfish ends.
- While psychopathy is widely understood, not only among the
public at large, but even among many professionals, as a psychological
disorder, the brain abnormalities that underlie psychopaths’ aggression
and lack of empathy more closely resemble those seen in primarily
neurological disorders, such as certain brain injuries.
- Psychopathy has a genetic basis and appears to be strongly heritable.
- Therefore, as is asserted by many advocates of the field of ponerology,
the "evil" that emanates from the maneuvering of psychopaths may be
most usefully framed as a scientific and medical, rather than a
theological, concern.
- At best, we may view the psychopath as someone following an alternate life strategy that may have been consistent with sustainability for some period of time within the environment in which it evolved.
- At worst, we may view the psychopath’s condition as the result
of dangerous aberrations or mutations that form him or her into a
predator, and possibly even, in the eyes of some, a subspecies of Homo sapiens.
- Psychopaths are uniquely suited to exploit civilization’s
extremely hierarchical structure. This may be because psychopathy and
civilization developed in tandem. The history of civilization may, in
fact, fundamentally consist of a positive feedback cycle in which the
genetic spread and ascent to power of psychopaths and the development of
increasingly extreme hierarchy mutually reinforced each other.
- Psychopathy is more prevalent (1%) than most people realize. It
is likely that nearly all of us know or interact with someone with this
condition. Even more of us interact with the systems they influence.
- Psychopaths exist within every facet of modern society, from
its sleazy underbelly to its middle class to positions of high power and
prestige.
- While some psychopaths are indeed stereotypical violent
killers, many cause great harm while rarely, if ever, committing such
overt physical violence.
- Psychopaths can be quite deceptive and difficult to detect. They can even be quite attractive and charming.
- Psychopaths sometimes operate in isolation and, in other cases, likely attract each other for mutual support.
- The psychopath provides an apt metaphor or symbol that reflects
the pattern of qualities and values embodied by many of our modern
institutions.
- The profound influence of psychopaths may provide the common
thread that connects a wide spectrum of today’s most serious problems –
some of which we tend to assume are "just the way things are" – ranging
from large scale threats like terrorism or extensive financial fraud to
the small scale domestic and child abuse that may reciprocally reinforce
those larger issues.
- Some even believe that, throughout civilized history, psychopaths have repeatedly managed to catalyze the establishment of pathocracy, as described in Political Ponerology. Our initial instinct may be to write such people off as wild-eyed conspiracy theorists. But, credible sources, such as Evil Genes and Snakes in Suits,
are teaching us more about how just such a thing could, in fact, have
occurred. The idea appears still more credible when we stop to consider
that perhaps the quintessential horrors of the 20th century were the
deaths of untold millions at the hands of pathological leaders and the
threat – still with us today - of such people obtaining and using
nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction.
- The psychopaths’ way of life puts them at odds with, and may
pose a grave threat to, the future health of humanity and its
environment. Even if there ever was a period in which psychopathy was
temporarily compatible with sustainability, given the extreme nature of
today’s world, that time is, most likely, long past.
- Evidence reveals that psychopathy is not highly amenable to the
types of environmental measures or therapeutic styles that are
effective in preventing or addressing the repercussions of other mental
health conditions.
There are many benefits to understanding this information. It provides
sensitive, empathetic people with insight into why and how some, who
lack those traits, continue, often unseen, to foster harm and
destruction. It helps explain why, for all the benefits it bestows upon
various segments of the population, civilization stubbornly continues to
generate appalling examples of cruelty and exploitation, some of them
institutionalized, at all levels of society, as it reels further into
unsustainability. And it offers us guidance about how to most wisely and
strategically respond to this situation.
Of course, even the most complete understanding of psychopathy will not,
on its own, enable us to explain or fix all of the world’s problems.
Some of our difficulties must simply be accepted as parts of life that
can likely never be eliminated. Other challenges stem from social
policies that are misguided, not due to any insidious malice, but simply
because, despite our best intentions, our current understanding in
areas such as parenting and education is always limited and continuously
evolving.
But far more commonly than most of us realize, our world’s complications
remain entrenched – and potentially constructive reforms are resisted –
at least in part due to the role of mental illness or disorders.
Borderline Personality Disorder,
Narcissistic Personality Disorder,
psychopathy and related conditions like sociopathy and Antisocial
Personality Disorder contribute most significantly to these processes.
All of them merit greater consideration and investigation.
However, of these disorders, psychopathy is probably the primary one
that we are called to understand and address, for at least two reasons:
- Psychopathy is the most striking example of just how deeply
malevolent moral and emotional abnormalities can be embedded, even at a
genetic and anatomical level. Thus, it serves as a landmark, providing
context for the other somewhat similar, though at times less
fundamental, related conditions.
- Working together, even in small numbers, psychopaths are often
most intimately involved in laying the groundwork for incentive
structures that persuade both seriously disordered and relatively normal
people to, consciously or unconsciously, cooperate in ultimately
detrimental missions.
Responding to this call begins with the surprisingly difficult tasks of
acceptance and internalization. Lacking the benefits of our complex
technology and research capabilities, some communities, like the Inuit
one described, nonetheless intuitively appreciated the nature of and
existential threat posed by psychopaths. Yet, even with all of the
relevant knowledge so readily available to us, many of us still
experience a dangerous blind spot.
There are a variety of forces at work in the maintenance of this denial.
Some of these forces confuse or misdirect us from positions outside of ourselves. Among these are:
- The direct effects of particular psychopaths’ deceptive abilities.
- A culture that, for a variety of reasons – perhaps including
the influence of powerful pathocrats with vested interests – sometimes
makes funding and policy decisions that limit or even discourage related
investigation and inquiry.
Other forces supporting denial assert themselves from within.
It is an unfortunate aspect of human nature that, when faced with the
surfacing and recognition of crucial, but uncomfortable or frightening,
information, many of us go to great lengths to deny, consciously
suppress or unconsciously repress this knowledge. This is especially
true when the information challenges political correctness, deeply held
religious beliefs, or cherished, optimistic views of human nature and a
just world. In such cases, our psyches find themselves locked in a
classic internal struggle between rational, critical thinking and
wishful thinking.
For many, awareness of and knowledge about the existence, nature and
threat of psychopathy powerfully trigger such psychic conflicts. We fear
ripping off the mask of sanity, afraid of what we will see looking back
at us. So, instead, we become increasingly paralyzed as the cycle of
perpetration and denial repeats. It is especially troubling that this
cycle plays out even within the communities most responsible for
addressing psychopathy’s impact, such as among the Canadian law
enforcement administrators who so frustrated Robert Hare.
Even after consciousness of psychopathy’s existence, nature and role
does finally emerge from beneath our blind spots, some would,
nonetheless, prefer to simply attempt to walk away from the issue and go
about their lives. Unfortunately, in the grand scheme, this is just not
actually possible. It is true that, on the personal level, some of us
may be able to walk away from particular psychopaths in certain
situations. However, many, tied to them through their ethical
obligations in the family or workplace, cannot even escape to this
extent. More to the point, in a world where, as ponerology explains,
psychopaths wield enormous influence over the entire global structure,
frequently exercising sweeping authority from positions of vast
political or economic power, we are, in effect, left with nowhere to
walk away
to!
Whether we want to admit it or not, there is a fight taking place
between those with and without empathy and conscience, which is quite
possibly pivotal in determining our future. Psychopaths are quick to
exploit the vulnerabilities perpetuated when even those with the
capacity to care engage in denial and escapism. And, as the CSC case
demonstrates, every year spent obstinately defending falsehoods
needlessly sets us further behind in implementing realistic protective
policies.
So it is left up to those with intact empathy and conscience to wake up,
transcend our defense mechanisms and wishful thinking and emerge into a
phase of effective discussion and action.
As we do so, we will discover both hopeful and challenging news.
The hopeful news is that, in contrast with our relative impotence in the
face of some of the world’s ills, we do have an expanding array of
potentially ameliorative approaches at our disposal when confronting
those aspects associated with psychopathy.
The more challenging news is that, in choosing amongst these options,
there are no easy answers. In the face of various forms of adversity,
human systems
have always, to an extent, struggled to reconcile the tensions
generated by competing values. But, the extreme nature of modern
civilized life has elevated such conflicts to a central, almost
definitive role. Many of today’s most potent threats at all levels -
from the intimate crises that strain the health of families to the
scandalous governmental and corporate corruptions that strain the
foundations of global structures - force us, in our attempts at
resolution, to carry out precarious balancing acts.
Psychopathy is exemplary of these vexing modern issues in confronting us
with strategic double binds and ethical quandaries. As we strive to
respond appropriately to the threats associated with psychopathy, we
encounter various faces of each of these archetypal balancing acts.
For instance:
First and foremost, in responding to almost any serious threat, we must
negotiate a balance between the consequences of taking no action at one
extreme and the consequences of taking exceedingly forceful and
expansive action at the other. In addressing psychopathy, which imposes
serious, inescapable consequences regardless of which of the various
available paths we either take or do not take, we must be especially
conscientious in continuously determining and aiming for the sweet spot
along this spectrum.
In addition, whenever we are faced with an insidious influence,
potentially deadly in even small doses, yet difficult to detect, we are
challenged to balance our inclination for heightened security with
respect for privacy and civil rights. This requires us to implement
measures firm enough for protection but not so intrusive that we risk
abuses of power as bad as or worse than the original threat itself.
The world has been striving to find this particular form of balance in respect to numerous specific issues, including:
- How do we respect the rights of the public or nations to
self-defense while keeping weapons, ranging from guns to nuclear arms,
out of the hands of dangerous individuals or groups?
- How do we identify unscrupulous terrorists without invading the privacy of every citizen or traveler?
- In the face of aggressions by seriously disordered leaders, how
should we optimally intervene to protect their own people and the rest
of the world while respecting sovereignty and the right to
self-leadership?
We must seek this same balance between
security and privacy/civil rights in responding to psychopathy. This
balancing act is made all the more difficult by the fact that
non-invasive techniques demonstrate limited efficacy in altering the
psychopath’s biologically-based antisocial characteristics, requiring us
to wrestle with the trickier dilemmas introduced by more invasive
responses.
Another related balance, relevant as we respond to many of today’s
perils, is that between cultivating a sufficiently protective degree of
suspicion and maintaining an atmosphere reasonably conducive to healthy,
trusting relationships. Because psychopaths simultaneously aim to take
advantage of and threaten to destroy our capacities for trust and
mutuality, psychopathy’s challenge offers a tailor-made prism through
which to consider this balance.
One way that psychopaths facilitate damage is by feigning a
non-threatening, and even helpful, character, thus eliciting unmerited
trust and mutuality. This renders the ignorant and gullible, who trust
too easily and indiscriminately, easy prey. That is why we have
repeatedly emphasized the importance of remaining alert for potential
signs of psychopathic influence.
However, if our alertness blurs into indiscriminate and pervasive
suspicion, this protective system can, as in the case of an auto-immune
disease, backfire. Psychopathy’s very presence can induce damage, at
this other end of the spectrum, by fostering generalized paranoia,
unleashing a witch hunt in which the "p word" is recklessly thrown about
and, thus, rendering impossible the healthy trusting relationships that
humanity needs to thrive. In addition, some psychopaths may consciously
encourage this crisis of confidence as a form of sabotage by purposely
disseminating confusing disinformation or leveling false accusations
(perhaps, most ironically, by accusing innocent others, or even their
own victims, of actually being the psychopaths, while casting themselves
as the real victims). If we allow such chaos and paranoia to take hold,
the very purpose of our vigilance would be defeated and, as the cliché
goes, "the psychopaths would win."
Our best asset in seeking this balance between appropriate suspicion and
reasonable trust is a keen understanding of psychopathy. There is no
substitute for a wise approach based on ever-improving precision in
discriminating between the dangerously disordered and the rest of
society. And the more deeply we learn about psychopathy and how to
recognize both its presence and its absence, the more likely we are to
protect those that need protection while avoiding the trap of paranoia.
We may never be able to perfectly proactively distinguish the genuinely
malicious from the relatively benign. But, every improvement in our
insight regarding psychopathy will enable us to better reconcile caution
with cooperation and to more quickly and appropriately correct our
inevitable mistakes when they do occur.
One more archetypal balance associated with solving many modern problems
is that between concentrating our focus on perpetrators and paying
significant attention to the needs of victims and potential victims. In
the case of psychopathy, our quest for security requires us to
recognize, understand, neutralize and, at times, bring to justice the
small, but disproportionately influential portion of the population who
are themselves abusive psychopaths. But, at the same time, we must never
forget that our ultimate goal is not to sustain a battle against
psychopaths for its own sake. It is to ensure that the vast majority of
humanity who are not psychopaths has the opportunity to live healthy,
sustainable lives within the ecosystem of which we are all a part.
Therefore, there is a crucial complementary role for providing
psychopaths’ victims and those vulnerable to their predations with
avenues by which to identify themselves, share their stories and receive
protection and rehabilitation.
Considering the enormous stakes involved for ourselves, our descendants,
and even other species, we as a society, as well as most of us
personally, still have a ways to go in achieving a stance toward the
threat of psychopathy that appropriately balances these various
concerns. We have even further to go in discovering and developing the
third-hand solutions
that will not only balance our competing values, but transcend the
relevant dichotomies via integral solutions. Thus, we must, remaining
mindful of both the opportunities and risks, embark on an honest
exploration of potentially constructive strategies. In developing a
sound, multi-pronged approach, we will be forced to consider:
- How far to go in applying our ever-improving identification
capabilities to screen for psychopathy in individuals, families and
institutions
- Which interventions, given psychopathy’s often counterintuitive dynamics, are actually most effective
- When to resign ourselves to the limited impact of non-invasive approaches - such as Hare’s suggested treatment model
based on appeals to the psychopath’s self-interest - and which
behavioral lines psychopaths must cross to warrant more invasive, or
even coercive, intervention
- How to "psychopath-proof" our powerful political and
technological machinery, denying charming impostors access to positions,
tools, mechanisms and resources that they can leverage to do serious
damage.
Even after carefully examining these questions, we may find that still
more revolutionary responses are called for. It is possible that
psychopathy represents a crisis that challenges our way of life to its
core. It may be that (some or all) modern hierarchical power structures,
such as massive corporations and centralized governments, are simply
untenable in the presence of a substantial cohort of manipulative,
conscienceless power-seekers. (Or is it, rather, as some claim, the lack
of certain central structures, strong enough to protect us from
Machiavellians, that is untenable?) It may even be that civilization as a
whole, in its mutually catalytic relationship with psychopathy, always
contained the seeds of its own self-destruction.
The Inuit, sensitive to the stakes involved and acceding to the condition’s intractability, responded to the
kunlangeta’s
disturbances by floating him or her out on the ice. It may be
difficult, especially for those who benefit from the status quo most, to
accept that the persistently reckless influence of psychopaths may
someday require such radical approaches from us.
As we advance the conversation about how to stimulate a ripple effect
that will replace psychopathy’s cycles of abuse with cycles of
protection, prevention and immunity, our struggles with all of these
controversies will intensify. But, in the meantime, we can take some
relief in the fact that at least a few initial steps appear to be
"no-brainers."
We should first reject approaches, regardless how established or
ostensibly beneficial, that ultimately fail to generate real benefits or
even, paradoxically, do harm. For instance, we must stop attempting to
treat psychopathy using techniques that alleviate other conditions, but
that, when applied to psychopaths, only strengthen the arsenal of
knowledge, tools and skills that they can maliciously deploy. This also
implies the importance of reducing misdiagnosis by professionals who are
confused or misled by the superficial or inessential symptoms that
psychopathic clients may exhibit or deceptively project.
We should accept that, while addressing the role of the social and
familial environment in psychopaths’ development may yield some
worthwhile dividends, such approaches have limited impact and cannot
ultimately be our main priority.
Each year, many of us enjoy the benefits of the new, even more powerful
resources that modern industrial civilization seems to perpetually
produce. But, along with each advance that we enjoy come greater risks
associated with psychopaths acquiring control over those very resources
and employing them to do damage. Thus, as time goes on, the mask of
sanity hides ever greater potential for destruction. Education is
urgently needed to begin to tear off that mask. There are several
educational endeavors in which we should certainly invest as soon as
possible.
- We should institute a proactive public education campaign,
harnessing a broad range of media, to begin shattering barriers of
denial, provoke investigation and raise awareness and understanding
regarding the truth about and unrecognized impact of psychopathy and
related conditions like BPD and NPD. Ideally, these terms should become a widely and accurately used part of the public’s working vocabulary.
- We should also ensure that updated, high quality, detailed
informational materials about these subjects are readily available at
those teachable moments when people break through their defense
mechanisms and bravely seek answers.
- We should aggressively institute training programs based on our
most current research and knowledge of best practices for relevant
professionals and officials.
- We should remember to maintain a focus on reaching out to,
supporting and caring for victims (a category that increasingly, in some
sense, includes our entire ecosystem) to help them process their
experience, integrate it, and go on to share their stories and serve as
examples in the community.
In all of these areas, we see some promising signs, which, we can hope,
taken as a whole, may reflect a change in the zeitgeist regarding the
role of personality disorders and anomalies in general and psychopathy
in particular. For instance:
- Thanks to experts like Robert Hare, we now have clearer definitions of and measurement tools for psychopathy than ever before.
- Researchers throughout the world continue to bolster our
understanding of the genetic foundation and brain abnormalities that
underlie psychopathy.
- A growing number of books, organizations and entire fields such as ponerology – many of which have been featured here – are disseminating this knowledge more extensively than ever before.
- Thanks largely to the Internet, all of this information is spreading at an ever-accelerating rate.
- Support groups are increasingly available, both on and offline, to cultivate healing fellowship amongst victims of psychopaths.
- More authorities are learning and accepting the therapeutic realities of psychopathy.
- More clinicians, including an expanding cadre of specialists,
have internalized the truth about psychopaths’ impact, allowing them to
avoid yesterday’s pitfalls while offering much more effective care for
their victims.
- In their discussions about the next major versions of their
classification systems, the psychiatric and psychological establishments
are considering new definitions and conceptual frameworks that may
better embody and reflect the truth about psychopathy and related
disorders. Whatever the actual outcome of these discussions, the ongoing
debates alone may serve to provoke crucial dialogue about the nature of
and relationships between these disorders.
- We even find a number of lawyers, teachers and other
professionals conscious of psychopathy and beginning to integrate that
knowledge, when relevant, into their practice.
So, perhaps we are on our way to cultivating that more psychopathy-proof
immune system that we so desperately need. But it is, nonetheless,
important that we continue to accelerate the pace at which awareness is
achieved and responsive action is taken.
We are, in a sense, in a race. It is a race not just against any
particular current manifestations of destructive behavior – war,
poverty, environmental threats like global warming and species
extinctions, economic collapse, domestic and child abuse and so on.
Rather, it is a race against an overall pattern of various forms of
harm, ever-evolving, mutating and adapting to newfound opportunities and
resources, driven by and encouraged within a vulnerable populace by
psychopaths and similarly-disordered people.
There are cultures that have been, or nearly been, wiped out due to
their ignorance of the serious threat posed by aggressive psychopathic
behavior. If we want to avoid that path, and address the ills of our age
and of the near future, we must recognize the centrality of the split
in humanity between those with and without empathy and those with it
must continue to study and learn more about psychopathy and take action.
