Thoughts on Psychopathy's Cultural Implications

[LQB]

Some thoughts upon completion of Hare's book [Without Conscience]: The “predator’s mind” alludes to our Initial Condition (as I have termed it). And the “predator’s mind” leans toward psychopathy due to self-interest and inherent lying (both to self and others). So, although we are not out-and-out psychopaths a la Hare, we have an alignment of sorts via the “predator’s mind”. Let’s suppose the “predator’s mind” has a genetic component to its makeup, and tampering along this line occurred in our ancient past (and maybe still does). Further suppose that this tampering allows for occasional distinct genetic expression of the out-and-out psychopath. So we have a majority population of “normal” humans with a sprinkling of psychopaths here and there. This highlights what is truly scary about Hare’s book [Without Conscience]. For if the genetic component is strongly expressed in offspring, then today’s Western cultures are great breeding grounds for the massive increase of psychopaths relative to the “normal” population. Hare makes this point several times in WC. Laura’s material indicates that psychopaths may be of both direct and indirect use by 4D STS, ultimately, to prevent significant numbers of humanity from re-aligning with STO and proceeding down the path to Truth.

So what are the cultural implications? A “primitive”, small, tribal/shamanic culture could very easily deal with the occasional psychopath – banishment. Self-interest-only based behavior would endanger survival of the tribe and would most likely be dealt with harshly preventing any propagation of that genetic expression. So in the small tribal culture (hunter/gatherer type) the psychopathic “gene” could not survive. With the advent of large farming-based communities, the occasional psychopath might find a place to hide and propagate the genetic expression. However, as long as the larger community maintained good moral, ethical, and cultural health, the psychopathic expressions might still be dealt with successfully by revocation of citizenship, rights, etc. The propagation of the psychopathic “gene” might still be controlled/limited. But as this civilization begins any moral/ethical decline, the psychopathic population might be expected to rise quickly bringing with it all the symptoms that we see today in our own. Under these conditions, complete collapse might be expected in just a few short generations. And so, we have cyclical time again expressing itself in a never-ending rise and fall, DESIGNED to never get anywhere.

 

[QueenVee]

But as this civilization begins any moral/ethical decline, the psychopathic population might be expected to rise quickly bringing with it all the symptoms that we see today in our own. Under these conditions, complete collapse might be expected in just a few short generations. And so, we have cyclical time again expressing itself in a never-ending rise and fall, DESIGNED to never get anywhere.

Wow. Very incisive analysis. A perfectly logical explanation as to why history continuously repeats itself.

It makes me think of Amish and Mennonite communities, and how they have sought to break the cycle by refusing to "modernize". Most people think that these communities refuse modern conveniences because they somehow see them as inherently evil. But in fact, their stated aim is to keep everyone in the community on an even playing field, to eliminate "competition" between members, which could cause strife. If everyone works the land with horse and plow, everyone proceeds at the same pace. If one member gets a tractor, he can increase production, make more money, buy more land, and self-interest starts to take over the common interest of the community. But if a member suffers an injury that causes him to be unable to use horse and plow, they will allow him to get a tractor, so that he may continue to keep pace with his brothers, but not exceed them.

But without such artificial restraints, the self-interest of a few inevitably takes over the common-interest of the whole. There have been attempts to introduce and impose such restraints through political systems such as Socialism and Communism, with varying degrees of success and failure, but the religion of free-enterprise Capitalism, which pronounces ANY restraint on self-interest to be a cardinal sin, is a ideal breeding ground for the kind of self-interested psychopathic behaviour that can only lead to destruction of the whole.

 

[nemo]

For if the genetic component is strongly expressed in offspring, then today’s Western cultures are great breeding grounds for the massive increase of psychopaths relative to the “normal” population

Would it be wrong to say that Western Culture (Capitalism, Free Trade, technological "anything goes" progress which pretty much ignores social, economic and human rights consequences) mirrors individual pathology on a grand scale? Like, the way the system works, the more ruthless and nonempathic you are, the more likely you are to rise and have success in the hierarchical system. Well, actually this is pretty much a cliche, albeit propably a true one.

It makes me think of Amish and Mennonite communities, and how they have sought to break the cycle by refusing to "modernize"

I don`t know enough about the Amish people, but I`ve always had a certain respect towards them, since they seem to be one of the few fundamental groups, which don`t cause havoc outside their own environment. (Muslims on the other side are heavily critical of western influences but at the same time are happily embracing new technologies and superflous consumer goods like the rest of us). They just follow their paths in a very consequent way and let the rest of the world follow their own paths. The question is, inhowfar their model can be applied to the rest of western civilization.
I`m afraid it can`t, because it seems, that the idea of societies evolving is so profoundly linked to so called technological progress with no regard as to their various fallouts. Our left brain directed worldview is blind to other forms of evolution. Like most people develop their egos, personalities and neglecting the development of their selves, the same happens with whole societies.

 

[LQB]

Would it be wrong to say that Western Culture (Capitalism, Free Trade, technological "anything goes" progress which pretty much ignores social, economic and human rights consequences) mirrors individual pathology on a grand scale? Like, the way the system works, the more ruthless and nonempathic you are, the more likely you are to rise and have success in the hierarchical system. Well, actually this is pretty much a cliche, albeit propably a true one.

If you mean - is it a mirror of Ignorance expressed in the general population? - then I would say yes. Is it the institutions themselves such as Capitalism, Free Trade, etc? - no. As general Ignorance increases, the values of the institutions become distorted making much free ground for the psychopath (the real ones) to tread. This is the same as giving them a greater and greater edge in the culture. And they will take advantage and multiply - all the while further distorting those same institutions, ultimately to collapse. Its not the technological advancement so much as the degradation in values due to Ignorance.

 

[Color]

So what are the cultural implications? A “primitive”, small, tribal/shamanic culture could very easily deal with the occasional psychopath – banishment. Self-interest-only based behavior would endanger survival of the tribe and would most likely be dealt with harshly preventing any propagation of that genetic expression. So in the small tribal culture (hunter/gatherer type) the psychopathic “gene” could not survive.

I am not so sure about this theory... From what you're saying it presents the psychopath as unable to perceive the dynamic of the tribe-group and to adjust his agendas within that dynamic. From what I've read/seen about psychopaths - it looks to me like you're simplifying things too much. Maybe they are lacking common human emotions, but that doesn't mean they aren't able to observe and imitate and develop a suitable way of getting it 'their way', without being spotted right away and labeled as self-interest-only. If looking at it from that perspective, then their ability of not being 'bothered' by morality or consciousness (and depending on the quality level of their masks), is an advantage within a small community as tribe, just as it is in today's world, within the masses of people. At least it seems like that to me...

 

[LQB]

I am not so sure about this theory... From what you're saying it presents the psychopath as unable to perceive the dynamic of the tribe-group and to adjust his agendas within that dynamic. From what I've read/seen about psychopaths - it looks to me like you're simplifying things too much. Maybe they are lacking common human emotions, but that doesn't mean they aren't able to observe and imitate and develop a suitable way of getting it 'their way', without being spotted right away and labeled as self-interest-only. If looking at it from that perspective, then their ability of not being 'bothered' by morality or consciousness (and depending on the quality level of their masks), is an advantage within a small community as tribe, just as it is in today's world, within the masses of people. At least it seems like that to me...

First, it wasn't offered as a theory - just some thoughts - and I did not intend it to be a comprehensive explanation of the historical rise and fall of cultures/societies. Hare's books clearly show that a psychopath's continued involvement with any group, institution, etc involves simple self-gratification. And that "continued involvement" invariably leads to great damage to the group/institution. It is doubtful that a small tribal group could sustain such damage and survive - if the psychopath were allowed to continue operations, the group would be destroyed (along with the psychopath). According to Hare, that psycopaths lack the feeling of human emotions and a corresponding conscience is not a "maybe". And in a small community, discovery is assured.

 

[Color]

First, it wasn't offered as a theory - just some thoughts

And I saw like that, but I used a word 'theory' for the group of connected thoughts you suggested, sorry if the word itself means something much stronger than from what I used it for.

- and I did not intend it to be a comprehensive explanation of the historical rise and fall of cultures/societies.

And I didn't see it that way, but simply discussing what crossed my mind, while reading your thoughts on the matter. I never said or intended to imply such a thing, so I am sorry if you 'got' that from my response, although I still don't understand why.

Hare's books clearly show that a psychopath's continued involvement with any group, institution, etc involves simple self-gratification. And that "continued involvement" invariably leads to great damage to the group/institution. It is doubtful that a small tribal group could sustain such damage and survive - if the psychopath were allowed to continue operations, the group would be destroyed (along with the psychopath). According to Hare, that psycopaths lack the feeling of human emotions and a corresponding conscience is not a "maybe". And in a small community, discovery is assured.

The 'maybe' was not for doubting their lack of feelings, but emphasizing the later point of the sentence. Wrong choice of word for doing that, as I see now how can it be read in completely different way. Sorry.

And about the book, I didn't read it so it's good to hear the further explanation about the whole tribe-matter, thank you. I have some new questions rising now, so aloud me to ask them, for better understanding the whole thing.

When I think of psychopaths, somehow I find that the very knowledge of such a phenomena helps a great deal with understanding and recognizing one, within the community of any kind. While this term was not known, and all the revelations about it, I'm guessing how ordinary people would be dealing with such an individual - seeing them as a strange and confusing 'neighbor'.

And... if having troubles with such a person, they would probably trying all the reasoning for this person, in order to understand why he/she acts the way he/she acts. They wouldn't have to be aware of the fact how this person has no 'regular' emotions, it would be almost 'impossible' for them to get to such an understanding and therefore they would make a 'better victim material'.

So, what I'm trying to explain here is that without the basic knowledge of this phenomena itself - the whole dynamic of the group is different then from the one which knows it. That's the only thing I tried to point out while discussing the tribe-issue. It was about my thoughts on the matter and not knowing the rest of the story and implications about the whole self-distraction tribe issue.

But I still have my doubts about the "assured discovery" of the psychopath in such a group... Maybe I'm under the influence of observing all the today-victims around the world, struggling to survive such an encounters, and understanding of what happened to them, as well as the mass of blind psychopath's fallowers...

 

[Cyre2067]

From my perspective, it seems psychopathy can gain footholds anywhere. If a group, regardless of size or constitution, is unable to discern one's antisocial and pathological behavior they become immediately susceptible to ponerogenesis (psychopathic take-over).

Now within the context of a tribe, this can be spotted or not. Many tribes were warlike and survived by conquering others, taking their land/resources and selling their victims off as slaves, thus they were ponerized at some point. So I don't think having a small tribe necessarily means they are immune, or more likely to spot the psychopath within their group, it's all about one's level of awareness that these people exist.

Can they hide in a larger society better - definitely. In our lives we only see people for a few hours a day, within a tribe or village, you'd get much better overall exposure to individuals, allowing you to better analyze their behavior, and there's more feedback from the group sotospeak as you can discuss it with others who have the same amount of exposure to the individual in question. Though without the knowledge that 'consciencelessness' exists you might still be grabbing at straws to explain their behavior.

I also think, that in our global society, there exists huge potential for this information to propagate. There was a horrible meme the other day that i caught, apparently a video called 'two girls one cup' was circulating around the internet. It's content purely 'entertainment' if you could call it that, but the fact that it was so outlandish, so disgusting, so unbelievable, allowed the discussion to spread. And it was definitely fostered by radio talk shows.

The problem with the truth about psychopathy is that it's hard to believe, unless you've been at the recieving end of psychopathic behavior, and thus it's likely that until Americans get a huge shock from our psychopathic leaders they won't seek the info.

I also wanted to add, about the Amish, we have a large community here in Pennsylvania, Lancaster specifically. They've had their bouts with psychopathy as well. There was a story awhile ago about a brother raping a sister, how she tried to get law enforcement involved, and failed because the community was protecting the rapist! They didn't want their good name tarnished by media attention on their lil psychopath, and so his crime was buried and the girl left the community. So in this situation they effectively 'banished' the victim, covered up the psychopath's crime, thus allowing the cycle to continue.

Just some thoughts.

 

[anart]

First, it wasn't offered as a theory - just some thoughts - and I did not intend it to be a comprehensive explanation of the historical rise and fall of cultures/societies.

It seems you're over-reacting a bit here, LQB. Reading Color's response to you, I see no reason to think that she implied any of the above.

Hare's books clearly show that a psychopath's continued involvement with any group, institution, etc involves simple self-gratification. And that "continued involvement" invariably leads to great damage to the group/institution. It is doubtful that a small tribal group could sustain such damage and survive - if the psychopath were allowed to continue operations, the group would be destroyed (along with the psychopath). According to Hare, that psycopaths lack the feeling of human emotions and a corresponding conscience is not a "maybe". And in a small community, discovery is assured.

I don't think that Color implied that it was a 'maybe' - why did you take such offense to her post? Also, to Cyre's point, there is ponerization that can, and does, inherently change a small group or tribe, while still allowing it to exist - although, admittedly, once a society if fully ponerized, there is no where to go but down.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

If you mean - is it a mirror of Ignorance expressed in the general population? - then I would say yes. Is it the institutions themselves such as Capitalism, Free Trade, etc? - no. As general Ignorance increases, the values of the institutions become distorted making much free ground for the psychopath (the real ones) to tread. This is the same as giving them a greater and greater edge in the culture. And they will take advantage and multiply - all the while further distorting those same institutions, ultimately to collapse. Its not the technological advancement so much as the degradation in values due to Ignorance.

I think this is a very important point, and a very lucid definition of the "first criterion of ponerogenesis". Naive and doctrinaire individuals create systems based on those very naive and doctrinaire concepts, which are then accepted by normal people and co-opted by more psychopathic individuals. With knowledge, psychopaths can't take advantage of an opening. Then again, they seem to ALWAYS find an opening... But it seems that the more secure the system (based on knowledge), the less of an effect the psychopath has. It is only in the weakest, most ignorant, environment (e.g. Marxist revolution) that the effects seem to reach the most extreme form of pathocracy.

As for tribal groups being more resistant to psychopathy, there is evidence for this. Linda Mealey talked about this in her work on the evolution of sociopathy. Many pre-agriculture tribes even had words for psychopaths. They would identify them and then leave them in the wilderness to die, because they knew they were unchangeable, and only trouble. It is possible, however, that those psychopaths with a larger hippocampus (i.e. the subclinical types) evaded detection.

There are also some interesting statistics. For example, there is a higher number of Scottish psychopaths in English prisons than in Scottish ones. The psychopaths "migrated" to more urban areas where they could easier avoid detection. Psychopaths live in the darkness, that is, they rely secrecy and anonymity (to a certain extent). In Barbara Oakley's words, "We have agriculture to thank for those increased population densities." Christie and Geis, in their work on Machiavellianism, wrote:

[H]igh population density and highly competitive environments have been found to increase the use of antisocial and Machiavellian strategies, and may in fact foster the ability of those who possess those strategies to reproduce.

 

[QueenVee]

As for tribal groups being more resistant to psychopathy, there is evidence for this. Linda Mealey talked about this in her work on the evolution of sociopathy. Many pre-agriculture tribes even had words for psychopaths. They would identify them and then leave them in the wilderness to die, because they knew they were unchangeable, and only trouble. It is possible, however, that those psychopaths with a larger hippocampus (i.e. the subclinical types) evaded detection.

There are also some interesting statistics. For example, there is a higher number of Scottish psychopaths in English prisons than in Scottish ones. The psychopaths "migrated" to more urban areas where they could easier avoid detection. Psychopaths live in the darkness, that is, they rely secrecy and anonymity (to a certain extent). In Barbara Oakley's words, "We have agriculture to thank for those increased population densities." Christie and Geis, in their work on Machiavellianism, wrote:

[H]igh population density and highly competitive environments have been found to increase the use of antisocial and Machiavellian strategies, and may in fact foster the ability of those who possess those strategies to reproduce.

It makes sense that the psychopath would thrive in highly-populated environments where survival/success depends on the ability to compete against others with a high degree of self-interest, and would not fare as well in smaller groups where survival/success depends on the ability to be mutually cooperative and work towards the benefit of the community as a whole.

 

[LQB]

It seems you're over-reacting a bit here, LQB. Reading Color's response to you, I see no reason to think that she implied any of the above.


I don't think that Color implied that it was a 'maybe' - why did you take such offense to her post?

The context of my response included all of the posts up to that point - not just Color's. And this was not wholly fair on my part without more words of explanation (written over coffee first thing in the morning and hurrying to get out the door to meetings- no excuse). Rereading the post and putting myself back in my "morning seat", there was no feeling of taking offense with Color's words nor any negative feelings on response. Rereading the post and putting myself in Color's position, I do see how it might be taken to be sharp, dismissive, unresponsive, and thus offensive. This was not the intent during the writing. For the benefit of readers and myself, I admit to a tendancy, at times, of impatience. This is not so bad when it is at a full level of awareness, however, if it sinks below this level, then I know it can color my writing. So to Color, anart, and anyone else who took even mild offense to my response-post to Color - I offer apology. In the future I'll pay closer attention to the tone and completion of content to better minimize distortions in communication. Thanks for the feedback.

Larry

 

[LQB]

And about the book, I didn't read it so it's good to hear the further explanation about the whole tribe-matter, thank you. I have some new questions rising now, so aloud me to ask them, for better understanding the whole thing.

Hare's book(s) don't address the tribe-matter - that was my thought/application. What I wrote applied his work/concepts to that scenario in contrast to our own mega-culture in an attempt to guess at the relative dynamics and problem/solution. Since my first post, I finished his second book [Snakes in Suits] - you can get both books pretty cheap - used (amazon).

When I think of psychopaths, somehow I find that the very knowledge of such a phenomena helps a great deal with understanding and recognizing one, within the community of any kind. While this term was not known, and all the revelations about it, I'm guessing how ordinary people would be dealing with such an individual - seeing them as a strange and confusing 'neighbor'.

It does! - and I highly recommend reading both. For me the second was most rewarding since he discusses their role in today's mega-corporations - in which I have spent 30 years (Gov Aerospace). And I can say - he is right on!

And... if having troubles with such a person, they would probably trying all the reasoning for this person, in order to understand why he/she acts the way he/she acts. They wouldn't have to be aware of the fact how this person has no 'regular' emotions, it would be almost 'impossible' for them to get to such an understanding and therefore they would make a 'better victim material'.

That's just how they work, but the deeper reasons for this have to do with the gradual corruption of the institution's values which they further contribute to in a cascade of decay that greatly favors the psycopath's rise to very senior levels of power and control. This is made possible through Ignorance of the greater population where advantage is taken to ponerize/program the work force with "values" that "appear" good on the surface but achieve the opposite through implementation/enforcement. And the individual techniques of the psychopath [Hare] become identifiable in the policies and "values" of the institution.

So, what I'm trying to explain here is that without the basic knowledge of this phenomena itself - the whole dynamic of the group is different then from the one which knows it. That's the only thing I tried to point out while discussing the tribe-issue. It was about my thoughts on the matter and not knowing the rest of the story and implications about the whole self-distraction tribe issue.

True but the problem in today's institutions is that recognition/identification of the psychopath is nearly non-existent [Snakes in Suits, and my own experience]. Even those that are victimized personally rarely understand what happened - just like executive management can't figure out how/why a major program self-destructed. The suggestion I was making in the original post is that in a small tribal culture, it would be nearly impossible for the true psycopath to hide. In today's culture - easy and rewarding, of course, at great cost to all of us.

But I still have my doubts about the "assured discovery" of the psychopath in such a group... Maybe I'm under the influence of observing all the today-victims around the world, struggling to survive such an encounters, and understanding of what happened to them, as well as the mass of blind psychopath's fallowers...

The "assured discovery" rests is the fact that the survival/well being of a small tribal culture depends on a much greater degree of self-less action of each of the members directed toward the common good of the group. Any significant deviations from this (guaranteed by the psychopath) would be quickly spotted, and the danger represented would have to be a "high crime" against the tribe. And today, we can't even see who/what we depend on for the common good (although the truth is - its still your neighbor).

Larry

 

[LQB]

From my perspective, it seems psychopathy can gain footholds anywhere. If a group, regardless of size or constitution, is unable to discern one's antisocial and pathological behavior they become immediately susceptible to ponerogenesis (psychopathic take-over).

A point that Hare makes in both books about the continued existence of a psychopath in a given group is that unless the psycopath is removed (or attracted elsewhere), the group is destroyed. I think this applies to the war-like tribe as well. My example of a small tribal culture assumed one intent on survival - not one destroyed by a psychopath.

 

[QueenVee]

Laura's lead article on the SOTT page (JFK and the Psychopathology of Politics) is directly related to this discussion, particularly the following passage she quotes from an article about Elizabeth Marshall Thomas:

In 1950, a 19-year-old girl left the elite Smith College in Massachusetts to join her family on an expedition that would change their lives. Prompted by her father's desire to visit unexplored places, the family set off for the Kalahari desert in search of Bushmen living out the "old ways" of hunter-gatherers. The girl, Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, went on to celebrate them in her 1959 book The Harmless People, which became a classic of popular anthropology. Nearly 50 years on, Marshall Thomas's latest book The Old Way revisits the story - and finds that the Bushmen's fate is more complex than it seems.

The interviewer asks Marshall Thomas: Westerners mourn the loss of this hunter-gatherer society, but you take a rather different view...

Marshall Thomas responds : Yes, for me they are living in somewhat the same way, but with different economics. The idea that you help your own is still present. This is what kept the human race alive for 150,000 years.

The hunter-gatherers told anthropologists they don't define themselves by how they get food but by how they relate to each other. We saw that. They tried to keep jealousy at a minimum, with nobody more important or owning more things than anyone else. You gave things away rather than keep them. You wanted other people to think of you with a good feeling.

Q: Is that the "old way" of your book title?

A: Yes.

There was a time when the playing field was level and all species lived in this way. How people and their domestic animals live now is profoundly different.[...]

Q: What do you make of the accusations by some academics that your writing is too sentimental? A: My mother Lorna also wrote about the Bushman culture and we were both accused of over-emphasising the lack of violence in Bushman culture, but we were only reporting what we had seen. In the Bushmen groups we visited, we observed that there was much emphasis on cooperation and on avoiding jealousy. The reason was that life was pretty marginal and one way to get through was to have others who help you in your hour of need. Everything in their culture was oriented to this. So it isn't that they have a natural "niceness" - I never said that they did.They're just like everybody else. What they have done is recognise the damage one person can do to another and try to put a limit on it....