Cyre2067
The Living Force
Hey Guys, I've been working rather hard on this term paper for my Principles of Evolution class. I wanted to present it here for use on sott, after any modifications y'all deem prudent or necessary. The original idea was to find an interesting topic within evolution and present a 12 page, double spaced research paper based on original thinking. In my paper I chose to study the evolution of psychopathy, and identified them as a new species based upon their total different way of functioning from normal humans. Anyway here's the paper, feel free to carry it on sott in whole or part, and any feedback is welcome. I have to submit it this Tuesday, so I'm not really looking to add much (and technically it's supposed to be based on my work alone), but if you notice any spelling/grammar or other editorial oddities pointing those out is much appreciated. If anyone would like a document copy I can send that a long (i'll send one to sott@sott.net now for you guys to tinker with).
The Psychopath: A New Subspecies of Homo sapien
Contrasting Several Evolutionary Hypotheses
The psychopath is an unique and quite dangerous subgroup within our species. He, or she, is capable of deadly manipulations executed with unbelievably cold, calculated intellectual and emotional maneuvers. Charming, lacking in empathy, guilt, responsibility and the normal range of human emotion, they move among us with an often impeccable mask that makes them virtually undetectable. There are several evolutionary hypotheses which attempt to explain their behavior, however the best fit is that they represent a cheating reproductive strategy, one geared towards the production of many offspring for which they afford no long term care.
Support for this thesis comes in a various forms. We know that psychopaths are callous, deceptive, promiscuous, and egocentric (Cleckley, 1941: 337-364). They are also mostly male: almost four times as many more psychopathic men then women (Sigvardsson, et al, 1982). This makes them ideal for mating with many women and then leaving them subsequently, once the deed is done, so to speak. It also confers a psychological advantage in that they have the ability to manipulate women by mimicking emotional attachment, or deceiving them about resources they can offer. The same is also true for female psychopaths, who can often create the impression of being in distress which elicits more financial and physical support from the men they mate with. There is a genetic basis to the trait, demonstrated in many twin adoption studies (Viding et al, 2005 & Larsson et al, 2006: 221-30).
Alternatively, Harpending and Draper (1988) proposed an anthropological hypothesis, in their study they discuss two tribes, the Kung Bushmen and the Mundurucu villagers, who fit two different ecological niches and how pro-social and antisocial behavior is a geographical adaptation. The first group, the Kung, live in the Kalhari desert of South Africa. It’s a harsh environment, which forces all members of the tribe to contribute to their collective survival, reliable reciprocation of altruistic acts is crucial. The Kung form nuclear families, stable, long term relationships and thus have a strongly selective pressure on pro-social behavior. Reproductive success is thus dependent on consistent collective altruism.
The Mundurucu, on the other hand, live the Amazon Basin, a lush environment with plentiful food. In their tribe, the women do most of the farming while the men compete physically and politically for social status. They spend most of their time engaging in gossip, fighting, planning warfare, and complex rituals, occasionally hunting for meat which can be traded for sex with the women. Here, reproductive success is dependent on the male’s ability to compete in a social hierarchy; he needs good verbal skills, fearlessness to fight other men in physical competitions, and the ability to deceive women about the potential resources he can offer her. This environment favors the expression of the antisocial trait, which can potentially explain the evolutionary origin of psychopathy.
Another potential hypothesis is the need for a warrior caste within a group of evolving humans. Early competition among groups is suspected to have been high, often with groups competing for local resources and environmental niches. Baily (1995) suggests that aggressive inter-male competition for social status, and thus access to females was very prevalent in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, favoring men who lacked humanities more empathic features.
While the two proposed alternatives have evidence and logic to support the reasons why there is a genetic basis to antisocial behavior in general, they fail to enumerate the evolutionary cause of psychopathy specifically. For example, if the anthropological perspective was accurate, we would expect men in the Mudurucu tribe to more accurate represent the full spectrum of psychopathic traits. While they do have more antisocial tendencies, they do manage to engage in long term, same sex relationships, and cooperate effectively in times of warfare. The western male psychopath seems to take antisocial behavior to a new level, beyond that which would be successful in this particular ecological niche. He never forms stable long term relationships, nor is able to cooperate within a group without being it’s sole dominant member.
Baily’s hypothesis tends to make more sense then the anthropological hypothesis, however there are several key points at which it fails to explain the profound psychological differences. Humans are, by nature, social organisms. We survive when we cooperate. While they may have been an early need for a violent subgroup in order to compete with other groups, it would have been virtually impossible to control a psychopath or a group of psychopaths for collective benefit and defense. This again, may have explained the genetic basis to some antisocial traits, but fails to plumb the depths and total differences between the psychopath and normal humans.
The sociobiological perspective, that psychopathy is an alternative reproductive strategy, is the only theory that explains the full manifestation of the condition. According to this theory, psychopathy would have a genetic basis, it has variable expression, it would be found most often in males who would tend to be very promiscuous, and they would have an average level of fitness. Macmillian and Kofoed (1984) enumerated these predictions for antisocial personality traits in general, and added the condition would manifest at puberty and decline with age, as well as the carriers would tend to have low socioeconomic status. These last two predictions correlate with sociopathy, a learned form of antisocial behavior, but fail to correlate with psychopathy.
A portrait of the Psychopath
Understanding the phenomenon requires some discussion of the condition in depth. Serial killers, torturers, rapists, are all excellent candidates however the phenomenon of psychopathy extends above and beyond violent criminals. Glib and grandiose, cunning and manipulative, no ability to comprehend responsibility, empathy, guilt or love the most dangerous psychopaths escape detection and avoid the criminal justice system their entire lives. They are able to climb corporate ladders, acquire PhDs and MDs, law degrees or even act as a religious or spiritual leaders (Hare, 1993:102-23), and it’s often only too late their victims realize they are being milked of money, dedication, time or other resources. Sometimes the truth is so hard to bear the victim’s mind circumvents its realization as a measure of self protection (Lobaczewski, 1998:107). They learn at a young age that they are different from the rest of us, and they quickly learn to construct a mask of normality that allows them to blend in. This mask can be so effective as to fool professionals trained in psychology. They can murder, torture, and rape with as much emotional concern as we carve a turkey or change a tire. In fact, some psychopaths are quite capable of fooling lie detector tests, as they do not have the same physiological reactions that normal humans do (Hare 1993: 1).
Every normal human being has a conscience, a part of their mind which allows them to quickly determine ‘right’ from ‘wrong’. Typically this has to deal with our ability comprehend the results of our actions and how they affect other people, in the psychopath this higher function is completely absent. In its place is a malignant narcissism, a device that allows the individual to formulate quickly, coldly, and with complete emotional detachment (Hare, 1993:53) – How can I get what I want? Their desires are varied, money, sex, and power over others seem to be the most common, however some are content with a place to live, video games, and a work-free existence. How our actions affect others, empathizing, considering responsibility are all higher functions of the brain which are completely absent in the psychopath.
These desires force psychopaths to focus their manipulations on other people. The psychopath needs normal humans to do his dirty work, or to be his prey. He needs them to produce money, or be available for sex, to be his murder victim or perhaps to defend his character when exposed. All of their hungers require interaction with normal humans in order to be fulfilled. The psychopath views all others as objects, to be used, discarded, or destroyed as he sees fit. He cannot understand guilt, sadness, remorse, love, or true joy because he does not possess them. He can mimic them in order to elicit a desired response, but he does not truly possess them as normal human beings do. This dependency on others could be taken as evidence for frequency dependent selection.
He uses a preternatural charm as his primary weapon. Flattery and confidence mixed with their ability to ‘read’ normal humans allow them to change and adapt their personalities:
Criminal psychopaths frequently end up in jail, they have higher recidivism rates, and demonstrate a vast versatility in their crimes (Hemphill et al, 1998: 139) . Much more interesting, and often causing far more damage are the non-criminal or white-collar psychopaths. Robert Hare provides many examples in Without Conscience & Snakes in Suits, they range from lawyers, to businessmen, doctors, psychiatrists, even clergymen. Any position of power which can be used to further allow the psychopath to appear credible and trustworthy. The only apparent difference between these psychopaths and criminals is their ability to maintain a more effective mask of normality (Hare, 1999:109).
As you can see there is no doubt that these individuals would not thrive in a tribal community, regardless of the ecological niche, nor be manageable as a warrior caste within a tribal group. In fact, Andrew Lobaczewski demonstrates how their pathological thought processes can infect the minds of normal humans, thus transmitting their narcissism, callousness, and manipulative traits (Lobaczewski, 2003: 102-28). An appropriate ideology, whether religious, political or otherwise, is used as a screen to justify their actions, with an end’s justifying the means mentality overriding normal human empathy and conscience. As such, if these individuals existed in a tribal community, they would either take it over, or be excluded over time. The difference lies in the psychological hygiene of the group, and its ability to spot pathological behavior and thought processes as such.
It's in Their Genes
There are several studies which demonstrate categorically that the trait is genetically influenced. In 2005 Essi Viding et al, completed a study on 3687 twin pairs, using the Twin-Early Development Study (TEDS). They demonstrated that the callous-unemotional (CU) traits of the children were under a particularly strong genetic influence. The children were also rated on anti-social behavior (AB), and for those that had a high CU value, they also exhibited a strong genetic influence for AB.
Another study was done with over a thousand twin pairs (Larrson, et al. 2006), and this study more or less demonstrated the same thing. They used a different test, and rated the classic three dimensions of psychopathy searching for a genetic basis. What they found was that the callous/unemotional as well as the impulsive/irresponsible/need for stimulation dimensions had a strong genetic influence.
Going further, it is also likely that criminality has a genetic basis. Mealy (1995) reviewed multiple studies in which she demonstrates a heritability of approximately 0.60 for repeated crimes of property. She also reviews adoptive studies that analyzed the behavior of children who had one or more ‘risk factors’ (a criminal biological or adoptive parent) and found that the trait (in this case criminality) was much more likely with one or more risk factors, and even more greater when both were present. This suggests that the criminality may have a genetic basis and an environmental trigger. She explains Cloninger’s two-threshold model, referring to ‘sociopathy’, however in the beginning it is clear she is using the term loosely to denote the more genetic, extreme cases of antisocial behavior.
The condition itself manifests in childhood (Hare, 1993: 155-79; Forth, 1998; Frick, 2002; Lynam, 2002; Glenn 2007), and can take a variety of forms. It is distinguished from other antisocial childhood problems by the severity and/or violence of the acts committed, as well as the inability to improve or lessen with treatment. For such a severe trait to manifest so early in life we would suggest again, a strong genetic component.
A New Subspecies?
Psychopaths have a completely different inner landscape than normal humans, there is a genetic component to their behavior, and the evidence suggests it represents an alternative breeding strategy within the human population. The modern day human is defined by his emotional inner life, while some may have deeper emotions then others there is the potential for empathy, sadness, love, anger, and guilt within us all. Compassion, understanding, and altruistic acts are some of our highest qualities, and again the potential for such acts is how I define a human.
Psychopaths are genetically and biologically incapable of such behaviors and emotions. They may mimic, or create the illusion of behaving nobly, however with a little attention to detail, and careful observations their facade can easily been seen for what it is. Repeatedly, with a cold, calculating intellect they can perform the most heinous acts of pedophilia, cannibalism, murder, rape and torture without batting an eye. Whats worse is that their thinking, or paralogic, if accepted into a normal human mind will slowly twist the thought processes, allowing the psychopath to effectively manipulate a normal human to do his bidding. Robert Hare and Paul Babiak demonstrate how this process works in detail in Snakes in Suits, and Andrej Lobaczewski gave a more macrosocial approach to the phenomenon in Political Ponerology.
More over, they have a unique biology: ranging from increased corpus callosum’s – which orchestrates complex interactions between the attention, arousal and emotion (Raine, et al. 2003), smaller amygdalas – long recognized as a key component in emotional processing, moral reasoning, and social interaction (Yang, et al, 2009), and fMRI scans which show a distinct failure of normal brain activation when psychopaths are charged with an emotive task (Kiehl, et al, 2006). These few examples are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to their biological differences from normal humans.
As such, the problem is quite evolutionary; without an understanding of this new subspecies, their capabilities, and how they differ from us we will be ‘as sheep amongst the wolves’, ripe for the picking. Given the political and economic scandals of the last ten years, it’s amazing that this topic has not received further attention. It also explains how large banking conglomerates, corporations and intelligence agencies can function without a moral compass, sacrificing the lives of countless innocent people and justifying their actions with an appropriate ideological mask. The phenomenon that is psychopathy affects the lives of everyone on the planet, and we as a society require a comprehensive understanding if we are to navigate the difficult waters of the new millennium.
Works Cited
1.) Baily, Kent. “The Sociopath: Cheater or warrior hawk?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1995. Vol. 18, 542-43.
2.) Cleckley, Hervey. The Mask of Sanity. 1941. C.V. Mosby Co.
3.) Forth, A. E., & Burke, H. C. “Psychopathy in adolescence: Assessment, violence, and developmental precursors” 1998. In D. J. Cooke, A. E. Forth, & R. D. Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory, research, and implications for society (pp. 205–230). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
4.) Frick, P. J. (2002). Juvenile psychopathy from a developmental perspective: Implications for construct development and use in forensic assessments. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 247–253.
5.) Glenn, Andrea; Raine, Adrian; Mednick, Sarnoff; Venables, Peter. “Early Temperamental and Psychophysiological Precursors of Adult
Psychopathic Personality” Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2007, Vol. 116, No. 3, 508–518
6.) Hare, Robert. Without Conscience: The disturbing world of psychopaths among us. 1993. The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
7.) Hare, Robert & Babiak, Paul. Snakes in Suits: When Psychopath’s go to work. 2006. HarperCollins Books, New York, NY.
8.) Harpending, H. and Draper, P. “Antisocial behavior and the other side of
cultural evolution.” 1988. In T .E. Moffitt and S.A. Mednick ( eds) , Biological Contributions to Crime Causation. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
9.) Hemphill, James F.; Hare, Robert D.; Wong, Stephen. “Psychopathy and recidivism: A review.” Legal and Criminological Psychology. Vol 3(Part 1), Feb 1998, 139-170.
10.) Kiehl, Kent; Laurens, Kristin; Liddle, Peter; Bates, Alan; Hare, Robert. “Brain Potentials Implicate Temporal Lobe Abnormalities in Criminal Psychopaths.” 2006. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol. 115, No. 3, 443–453
11.) Larsson, Henrik; Lichtenstein, Paul; Andershed, Henrik. “A Genetic Factor explains most of the variation in the psychopathic personality.” 2006. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol 115, No 2, 221-230.
12.) Lobaczewski, Andrew M. Political Ponerology: A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes. 2006. Red Pill Press, Grand Prairie, AB, Canada.
13.) Lynam, D. R. (2002). "Fledgling psychopathy: A view from personality theory." Law and Human Behavior, 26, 255–259.
14.) Mealy, Linda. “The Sociobiology of Sociopathy: An Integrated Evolutionary Model” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1995. Vol. 18, 523-99.
15.) MacMillan, J. & Kofoed, L. “Sociobiology and antisocial personality: an alternative perspective.” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1984. Vol 172, pp701-706.
16.) Adrian Raine, DPhil; Todd Lencz, PhD; Kristen Taylor, PhD; Joseph B. Hellige, PhD; Susan Bihrle, PhD; Lori Lacasse, BSc; Mimi Lee, BSc; Sharon Ishikawa, PhD; Patrick Colletti, MD. “Corpus Callosum Abnormalities in Psychopathic Antisocial Individuals.” 2003. Archives of General Psychiatry. 60:1134-1142
17.) Raine, Adrian & Venables, Peter. “Antisocial Behavior: Evolution, Behavioral, Neuropsychology, and Psychophysiology.” 1992. In Handbook of Individual Differences: Biological Perspectives. Edited by Anthony Gale and Michael Eysenck. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
18.) Sigvardsson, S., Cloninger, R., Bohman, R. and von Knorring, A.L. “Predisposition to petty criminality in Swedish adoptees: Sex differences and validation of the male typology.” 1982. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39,1248-1253.
19.) Widom, C.P. “A methodology for studying non-institutionalised psychopaths.” 1978. In R.D. Hare and D. Schalling (eds), Psychopathic Behaviour: Approaches to Research. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
20.) Viding, Essi; Blair, James; Moffitt, Terrie; Plomin, Robert. “Evidence for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds.” 2005. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 46:6, pp 592–597
21.) Yaling Yang, PhD; Adrian Raine, DPhil; Katherine L. Narr, PhD; Patrick Colletti, MD; Arthur W. Toga, PhD. “Localization of Deformations Within the Amygdala in Individuals With Psychopathy.” 2009. Archives of General Psychiatry. 66(9): 986-994
The Psychopath: A New Subspecies of Homo sapien
Contrasting Several Evolutionary Hypotheses
The psychopath is an unique and quite dangerous subgroup within our species. He, or she, is capable of deadly manipulations executed with unbelievably cold, calculated intellectual and emotional maneuvers. Charming, lacking in empathy, guilt, responsibility and the normal range of human emotion, they move among us with an often impeccable mask that makes them virtually undetectable. There are several evolutionary hypotheses which attempt to explain their behavior, however the best fit is that they represent a cheating reproductive strategy, one geared towards the production of many offspring for which they afford no long term care.
Support for this thesis comes in a various forms. We know that psychopaths are callous, deceptive, promiscuous, and egocentric (Cleckley, 1941: 337-364). They are also mostly male: almost four times as many more psychopathic men then women (Sigvardsson, et al, 1982). This makes them ideal for mating with many women and then leaving them subsequently, once the deed is done, so to speak. It also confers a psychological advantage in that they have the ability to manipulate women by mimicking emotional attachment, or deceiving them about resources they can offer. The same is also true for female psychopaths, who can often create the impression of being in distress which elicits more financial and physical support from the men they mate with. There is a genetic basis to the trait, demonstrated in many twin adoption studies (Viding et al, 2005 & Larsson et al, 2006: 221-30).
Alternatively, Harpending and Draper (1988) proposed an anthropological hypothesis, in their study they discuss two tribes, the Kung Bushmen and the Mundurucu villagers, who fit two different ecological niches and how pro-social and antisocial behavior is a geographical adaptation. The first group, the Kung, live in the Kalhari desert of South Africa. It’s a harsh environment, which forces all members of the tribe to contribute to their collective survival, reliable reciprocation of altruistic acts is crucial. The Kung form nuclear families, stable, long term relationships and thus have a strongly selective pressure on pro-social behavior. Reproductive success is thus dependent on consistent collective altruism.
The Mundurucu, on the other hand, live the Amazon Basin, a lush environment with plentiful food. In their tribe, the women do most of the farming while the men compete physically and politically for social status. They spend most of their time engaging in gossip, fighting, planning warfare, and complex rituals, occasionally hunting for meat which can be traded for sex with the women. Here, reproductive success is dependent on the male’s ability to compete in a social hierarchy; he needs good verbal skills, fearlessness to fight other men in physical competitions, and the ability to deceive women about the potential resources he can offer her. This environment favors the expression of the antisocial trait, which can potentially explain the evolutionary origin of psychopathy.
Another potential hypothesis is the need for a warrior caste within a group of evolving humans. Early competition among groups is suspected to have been high, often with groups competing for local resources and environmental niches. Baily (1995) suggests that aggressive inter-male competition for social status, and thus access to females was very prevalent in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, favoring men who lacked humanities more empathic features.
While the two proposed alternatives have evidence and logic to support the reasons why there is a genetic basis to antisocial behavior in general, they fail to enumerate the evolutionary cause of psychopathy specifically. For example, if the anthropological perspective was accurate, we would expect men in the Mudurucu tribe to more accurate represent the full spectrum of psychopathic traits. While they do have more antisocial tendencies, they do manage to engage in long term, same sex relationships, and cooperate effectively in times of warfare. The western male psychopath seems to take antisocial behavior to a new level, beyond that which would be successful in this particular ecological niche. He never forms stable long term relationships, nor is able to cooperate within a group without being it’s sole dominant member.
Baily’s hypothesis tends to make more sense then the anthropological hypothesis, however there are several key points at which it fails to explain the profound psychological differences. Humans are, by nature, social organisms. We survive when we cooperate. While they may have been an early need for a violent subgroup in order to compete with other groups, it would have been virtually impossible to control a psychopath or a group of psychopaths for collective benefit and defense. This again, may have explained the genetic basis to some antisocial traits, but fails to plumb the depths and total differences between the psychopath and normal humans.
The sociobiological perspective, that psychopathy is an alternative reproductive strategy, is the only theory that explains the full manifestation of the condition. According to this theory, psychopathy would have a genetic basis, it has variable expression, it would be found most often in males who would tend to be very promiscuous, and they would have an average level of fitness. Macmillian and Kofoed (1984) enumerated these predictions for antisocial personality traits in general, and added the condition would manifest at puberty and decline with age, as well as the carriers would tend to have low socioeconomic status. These last two predictions correlate with sociopathy, a learned form of antisocial behavior, but fail to correlate with psychopathy.
A portrait of the Psychopath
Understanding the phenomenon requires some discussion of the condition in depth. Serial killers, torturers, rapists, are all excellent candidates however the phenomenon of psychopathy extends above and beyond violent criminals. Glib and grandiose, cunning and manipulative, no ability to comprehend responsibility, empathy, guilt or love the most dangerous psychopaths escape detection and avoid the criminal justice system their entire lives. They are able to climb corporate ladders, acquire PhDs and MDs, law degrees or even act as a religious or spiritual leaders (Hare, 1993:102-23), and it’s often only too late their victims realize they are being milked of money, dedication, time or other resources. Sometimes the truth is so hard to bear the victim’s mind circumvents its realization as a measure of self protection (Lobaczewski, 1998:107). They learn at a young age that they are different from the rest of us, and they quickly learn to construct a mask of normality that allows them to blend in. This mask can be so effective as to fool professionals trained in psychology. They can murder, torture, and rape with as much emotional concern as we carve a turkey or change a tire. In fact, some psychopaths are quite capable of fooling lie detector tests, as they do not have the same physiological reactions that normal humans do (Hare 1993: 1).
Every normal human being has a conscience, a part of their mind which allows them to quickly determine ‘right’ from ‘wrong’. Typically this has to deal with our ability comprehend the results of our actions and how they affect other people, in the psychopath this higher function is completely absent. In its place is a malignant narcissism, a device that allows the individual to formulate quickly, coldly, and with complete emotional detachment (Hare, 1993:53) – How can I get what I want? Their desires are varied, money, sex, and power over others seem to be the most common, however some are content with a place to live, video games, and a work-free existence. How our actions affect others, empathizing, considering responsibility are all higher functions of the brain which are completely absent in the psychopath.
These desires force psychopaths to focus their manipulations on other people. The psychopath needs normal humans to do his dirty work, or to be his prey. He needs them to produce money, or be available for sex, to be his murder victim or perhaps to defend his character when exposed. All of their hungers require interaction with normal humans in order to be fulfilled. The psychopath views all others as objects, to be used, discarded, or destroyed as he sees fit. He cannot understand guilt, sadness, remorse, love, or true joy because he does not possess them. He can mimic them in order to elicit a desired response, but he does not truly possess them as normal human beings do. This dependency on others could be taken as evidence for frequency dependent selection.
He uses a preternatural charm as his primary weapon. Flattery and confidence mixed with their ability to ‘read’ normal humans allow them to change and adapt their personalities:
Criminal psychopaths frequently end up in jail, they have higher recidivism rates, and demonstrate a vast versatility in their crimes (Hemphill et al, 1998: 139) . Much more interesting, and often causing far more damage are the non-criminal or white-collar psychopaths. Robert Hare provides many examples in Without Conscience & Snakes in Suits, they range from lawyers, to businessmen, doctors, psychiatrists, even clergymen. Any position of power which can be used to further allow the psychopath to appear credible and trustworthy. The only apparent difference between these psychopaths and criminals is their ability to maintain a more effective mask of normality (Hare, 1999:109).
As you can see there is no doubt that these individuals would not thrive in a tribal community, regardless of the ecological niche, nor be manageable as a warrior caste within a tribal group. In fact, Andrew Lobaczewski demonstrates how their pathological thought processes can infect the minds of normal humans, thus transmitting their narcissism, callousness, and manipulative traits (Lobaczewski, 2003: 102-28). An appropriate ideology, whether religious, political or otherwise, is used as a screen to justify their actions, with an end’s justifying the means mentality overriding normal human empathy and conscience. As such, if these individuals existed in a tribal community, they would either take it over, or be excluded over time. The difference lies in the psychological hygiene of the group, and its ability to spot pathological behavior and thought processes as such.
It's in Their Genes
There are several studies which demonstrate categorically that the trait is genetically influenced. In 2005 Essi Viding et al, completed a study on 3687 twin pairs, using the Twin-Early Development Study (TEDS). They demonstrated that the callous-unemotional (CU) traits of the children were under a particularly strong genetic influence. The children were also rated on anti-social behavior (AB), and for those that had a high CU value, they also exhibited a strong genetic influence for AB.
Another study was done with over a thousand twin pairs (Larrson, et al. 2006), and this study more or less demonstrated the same thing. They used a different test, and rated the classic three dimensions of psychopathy searching for a genetic basis. What they found was that the callous/unemotional as well as the impulsive/irresponsible/need for stimulation dimensions had a strong genetic influence.
Going further, it is also likely that criminality has a genetic basis. Mealy (1995) reviewed multiple studies in which she demonstrates a heritability of approximately 0.60 for repeated crimes of property. She also reviews adoptive studies that analyzed the behavior of children who had one or more ‘risk factors’ (a criminal biological or adoptive parent) and found that the trait (in this case criminality) was much more likely with one or more risk factors, and even more greater when both were present. This suggests that the criminality may have a genetic basis and an environmental trigger. She explains Cloninger’s two-threshold model, referring to ‘sociopathy’, however in the beginning it is clear she is using the term loosely to denote the more genetic, extreme cases of antisocial behavior.
The condition itself manifests in childhood (Hare, 1993: 155-79; Forth, 1998; Frick, 2002; Lynam, 2002; Glenn 2007), and can take a variety of forms. It is distinguished from other antisocial childhood problems by the severity and/or violence of the acts committed, as well as the inability to improve or lessen with treatment. For such a severe trait to manifest so early in life we would suggest again, a strong genetic component.
A New Subspecies?
Psychopaths have a completely different inner landscape than normal humans, there is a genetic component to their behavior, and the evidence suggests it represents an alternative breeding strategy within the human population. The modern day human is defined by his emotional inner life, while some may have deeper emotions then others there is the potential for empathy, sadness, love, anger, and guilt within us all. Compassion, understanding, and altruistic acts are some of our highest qualities, and again the potential for such acts is how I define a human.
Psychopaths are genetically and biologically incapable of such behaviors and emotions. They may mimic, or create the illusion of behaving nobly, however with a little attention to detail, and careful observations their facade can easily been seen for what it is. Repeatedly, with a cold, calculating intellect they can perform the most heinous acts of pedophilia, cannibalism, murder, rape and torture without batting an eye. Whats worse is that their thinking, or paralogic, if accepted into a normal human mind will slowly twist the thought processes, allowing the psychopath to effectively manipulate a normal human to do his bidding. Robert Hare and Paul Babiak demonstrate how this process works in detail in Snakes in Suits, and Andrej Lobaczewski gave a more macrosocial approach to the phenomenon in Political Ponerology.
More over, they have a unique biology: ranging from increased corpus callosum’s – which orchestrates complex interactions between the attention, arousal and emotion (Raine, et al. 2003), smaller amygdalas – long recognized as a key component in emotional processing, moral reasoning, and social interaction (Yang, et al, 2009), and fMRI scans which show a distinct failure of normal brain activation when psychopaths are charged with an emotive task (Kiehl, et al, 2006). These few examples are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to their biological differences from normal humans.
As such, the problem is quite evolutionary; without an understanding of this new subspecies, their capabilities, and how they differ from us we will be ‘as sheep amongst the wolves’, ripe for the picking. Given the political and economic scandals of the last ten years, it’s amazing that this topic has not received further attention. It also explains how large banking conglomerates, corporations and intelligence agencies can function without a moral compass, sacrificing the lives of countless innocent people and justifying their actions with an appropriate ideological mask. The phenomenon that is psychopathy affects the lives of everyone on the planet, and we as a society require a comprehensive understanding if we are to navigate the difficult waters of the new millennium.
Works Cited
1.) Baily, Kent. “The Sociopath: Cheater or warrior hawk?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1995. Vol. 18, 542-43.
2.) Cleckley, Hervey. The Mask of Sanity. 1941. C.V. Mosby Co.
3.) Forth, A. E., & Burke, H. C. “Psychopathy in adolescence: Assessment, violence, and developmental precursors” 1998. In D. J. Cooke, A. E. Forth, & R. D. Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory, research, and implications for society (pp. 205–230). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
4.) Frick, P. J. (2002). Juvenile psychopathy from a developmental perspective: Implications for construct development and use in forensic assessments. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 247–253.
5.) Glenn, Andrea; Raine, Adrian; Mednick, Sarnoff; Venables, Peter. “Early Temperamental and Psychophysiological Precursors of Adult
Psychopathic Personality” Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2007, Vol. 116, No. 3, 508–518
6.) Hare, Robert. Without Conscience: The disturbing world of psychopaths among us. 1993. The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
7.) Hare, Robert & Babiak, Paul. Snakes in Suits: When Psychopath’s go to work. 2006. HarperCollins Books, New York, NY.
8.) Harpending, H. and Draper, P. “Antisocial behavior and the other side of
cultural evolution.” 1988. In T .E. Moffitt and S.A. Mednick ( eds) , Biological Contributions to Crime Causation. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
9.) Hemphill, James F.; Hare, Robert D.; Wong, Stephen. “Psychopathy and recidivism: A review.” Legal and Criminological Psychology. Vol 3(Part 1), Feb 1998, 139-170.
10.) Kiehl, Kent; Laurens, Kristin; Liddle, Peter; Bates, Alan; Hare, Robert. “Brain Potentials Implicate Temporal Lobe Abnormalities in Criminal Psychopaths.” 2006. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol. 115, No. 3, 443–453
11.) Larsson, Henrik; Lichtenstein, Paul; Andershed, Henrik. “A Genetic Factor explains most of the variation in the psychopathic personality.” 2006. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol 115, No 2, 221-230.
12.) Lobaczewski, Andrew M. Political Ponerology: A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes. 2006. Red Pill Press, Grand Prairie, AB, Canada.
13.) Lynam, D. R. (2002). "Fledgling psychopathy: A view from personality theory." Law and Human Behavior, 26, 255–259.
14.) Mealy, Linda. “The Sociobiology of Sociopathy: An Integrated Evolutionary Model” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1995. Vol. 18, 523-99.
15.) MacMillan, J. & Kofoed, L. “Sociobiology and antisocial personality: an alternative perspective.” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1984. Vol 172, pp701-706.
16.) Adrian Raine, DPhil; Todd Lencz, PhD; Kristen Taylor, PhD; Joseph B. Hellige, PhD; Susan Bihrle, PhD; Lori Lacasse, BSc; Mimi Lee, BSc; Sharon Ishikawa, PhD; Patrick Colletti, MD. “Corpus Callosum Abnormalities in Psychopathic Antisocial Individuals.” 2003. Archives of General Psychiatry. 60:1134-1142
17.) Raine, Adrian & Venables, Peter. “Antisocial Behavior: Evolution, Behavioral, Neuropsychology, and Psychophysiology.” 1992. In Handbook of Individual Differences: Biological Perspectives. Edited by Anthony Gale and Michael Eysenck. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
18.) Sigvardsson, S., Cloninger, R., Bohman, R. and von Knorring, A.L. “Predisposition to petty criminality in Swedish adoptees: Sex differences and validation of the male typology.” 1982. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39,1248-1253.
19.) Widom, C.P. “A methodology for studying non-institutionalised psychopaths.” 1978. In R.D. Hare and D. Schalling (eds), Psychopathic Behaviour: Approaches to Research. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
20.) Viding, Essi; Blair, James; Moffitt, Terrie; Plomin, Robert. “Evidence for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds.” 2005. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 46:6, pp 592–597
21.) Yaling Yang, PhD; Adrian Raine, DPhil; Katherine L. Narr, PhD; Patrick Colletti, MD; Arthur W. Toga, PhD. “Localization of Deformations Within the Amygdala in Individuals With Psychopathy.” 2009. Archives of General Psychiatry. 66(9): 986-994
