The designation of 'mental disorder' is largely one of subjectivity and social convention. In some contexts, lack of emotional empathy is simply a gift[1]. As is the ability to apply rational empathy to a situation.
Physiological concerns aside, observed psychopathy is more or less a variation of behavior that allows the individual to apply more cerebral perceptions to social / emotional contexts.
Would the world be a better place if we had more people acting like this? or the opposite case of applying social / emotional perceptions to a more cerebral context? I would argue (for many reasons) that the answer to this question is the former, whereas it has been the latter through most of human history.
The capacity to act as a 'psychopath' may very well be a necessary evolution of our culture, and in fact may become a desired genetic trait in future years. More important that trying assimilate people with characteristics of psychopathy may be to foster this ability of the mind - keep children away from violence, keep young adults away from their egos.
[1] From my favorite new TV psychopath personality, Robert California of the Office: "I'll tell you some thing I find unproductive. Constantly worrying about where you stand based on inscrutable social cues, and then inevitably reframing it all in a reassuring way so that you can get to sleep at night. No, I do not believe in that at all. If I invited you to lunch, I think you're a winner. If I didn't I don't. But I just met you all. Life is long, opinons change. Winners, prove me right. Losers, prove me wrong."
"The capacity to act as a 'psychopath' may very well be a necessary evolution of our culture, and in fact may become a desired genetic trait in future years."
How so?
Recent genetic evidence suggests that, among the various traits that distinguish modern humans from the hominids we outcompeted (such as Neanderthals), one of them is improved empathic capability. We are better able to read and respond to social cues than our less-adapted cousins were. Our ability to work cooperatively was a major competitive advantage, and quite possibly the most critical competitive advantage.
It may be true that psychopathic traits enable certain individuals to game the system, as it were, and succeed wildly in modern society. The stereotype of the Psychopath CEO is grounded in some reality, after all. But if everyone behaved psychopathically, then society would possibly cease to function as we know it -- probably for the worse.
A recent study showed that the modern human genome and the Neanderthal genome are something like 98% identical (I'm making that number up; it's in the paper I read; the exact figure is fairly close to that). The 2% of genes that differ include the genes in modern humans linked to empathy, facial recognition, social aptitude, etc. (We found out which traits these genes are linked to because they are present, but not expressed, in modern-day people with severe forms of autism).
1. Communication capacity is the reason empathic capability is important. Human-human communication relies on perspective-taking and evolves over time as our brains get more exposure to people. Emotional empathic capacity is just the bootstrap for perspective-taking. If human cultural norms evolve for communication capacity, then there is a case that empathic capacity will simply use too much cognitive capacity to fit within these cultural norms.
2. We communicate more and more with non-human devices than humans. I can't even imagine what this looks like 100 yrs from now or 1000, but there is a chance that natural selection will favor brains optimized for communicating with devices and machines where emotional empathy is not present.
Natural selection would only benefit those who are more able to communicate with devices if that trait led them to produce more offspring than the people without it; that's the selection part.
Do you see people who have a more natural ability to work and understand computers as having more kids than the rest of the population? If anything, it's the opposite.
I meant selection criteria in the same sense that ability to succeed in college may be selection criteria today. It does not require birthing more kids, rather a consistent use of this selection criteria from generation to generation in a subset of the population. If machines are performing all the work, and being able to send 10M messages per day to these machines is a requisite for economic success, some parents will filter heavily for this criteria in he best interest of their children.
I would say that we communicate with other humans at least as much today as in the past. We just are spending more and more time using "high-tech" communication mediums that filter a lot of the nuance and nearly all of the non-verbal cues from conversation.
Arguably, the need to pick up on emotions through text- or audio-only communication might make empathy more important.
> It may be true that psychopathic traits enable certain individuals to game the system, as it were, and succeed wildly in modern society.
That's precisely why natural selection will encourage it, isn't it?
>probably for the worse.
I'm not sure I agree with that, a society where everybody can read each other accurately and perceptively..that may be a tougher society to live in, but it'll have its share of benefits (like perfect understanding), so it's not necessarily worse.
actually, empathy is pretty great for our species as a whole. the lack of empathy is what allows psychopaths to ignore the impacts of their actions on other people.
if you knew for a fact that you wouldn't experience any negative effects (like going to jail, having people label you as an outcast, etc.), would you kill a complete stranger for $100? if you had no empathy, you would.
Part of a comment I left on a discussion on LessWrong last week:
it has been annoying me lately that there are three distinct usages of "empathy" that are frequently conflated.
1) "Empathy" as the emotional interest in others, could also be called "moral sense", the kind of empathy that sociopaths are said to lack.
2) "Empathy" as the ability to identify emotionally with others, the set of instincts or "firmware" that make interpersonal communications and interactions go smoothly, the kind of empathy that autistics are said to lack.
3) "Empathy" or "imaginative identification with others", a more intellectual version, part of the definition of an intelligent being which is associated with metalaw. The ability to intellectually and purposely imagine yourself in the place of another, even a very different other, such as an extra-terrestrial alien, hence its association with metalaw.
Note, in the documentary "I, Psychopath" http://youtu.be/jKvhKI6Kxew they run tests in the MRI to predict psychopathy as the inability to consider future consequences on present choices. Thus, in view of this, lack of empathy is not the determining factor in psychopathy, it is lack of foresight. (perhaps it was about being oblivious to future pain - can't quite recall)
Interesting, I recently watched a show that showed that psychopaths are just as able to predict consequences, just like everyone else, but they just don't care if it negatively affects other people. Not because they're actively bad but because they have no empathic impulse.
Also it showed that they demonstrate no emotional response to words such as 'rape'. If you could monitor everyone's brain who just read that word in an MRI, you would be able to see mental activity that is associated with negative emotions. Everyone except psychopaths.
It looks like "empathy" and "psychopath" is being conflated with simply being moral and immoral. It is entirely possible for a very empathetic person to do something immoral, and a very psychopathic person to be moral (i.e. be categorically opposed to murder).
> Physiological concerns aside, observed psychopathy is more or less a variation of behavior that allows the individual to apply more cerebral perceptions to social / emotional contexts.
Not really. Many psychopathic behaviours are irrational. I.e. their long-term goals do not correspond to their actions.
The way I look at it, there's a spectrum of selfishness+impulsivity with psychopathy at the extreme end.
I.e. the psychopath's need to do what he wants to do outweighs any other concerns, including possibly your right to not be harmed / live. This may not always be true, but the impulsivity makes it true at the critical moment.
Does that quote really apply? I don't see how is worrying about where you stand socially a result of empathy.
Sure, if you analyze with less emotional involvement, it's easier to control that "social game", but as the letter describes, they still validates themselves for their ability to do so.
Seems to me like the disregard for the whole thing -which is what that character seems to be saying- is more common in the stereotypical "nerd," which either is either oblivious to it or simply uninterested, and that doesn't necessarily indicate less empathy.
Only tangentially applicable, was including for some humor and as a reference to the 'Gervais Principle' (an article that posits the Office's brilliant ability to characterize the effect of a psychopath on an organization). Robert California's complete lack of empathy was the basis of the situation - using both subtle and direct cues ('I think you are a loser') to re-create a team environment.
The sociopath described in that series is not a sociopath in the clinical sense. Venkat said as much in the second or third installment.
This entire thread here shows a deep misunderstanding by you of what sociopathy is and what its consequences are for an individual. You seem to be under the impression it turns a person into a sort of overman. You are very mistaken.
Sociopaths may be overrepresented in some niche you find desirable, but that says little about their success as a whole. If 1.3% of sociopaths are highly successful corporate officers - and the evidence for this is not conclusive - where the figure for the entire population is 0.9% (totally made-up numbers by the way), we still know little about a sociopath's fitness in society. Most evidence suggests they are worse off.
I really did not mean to discuss the clinical definition of a sociopath, so much as the common definition that I have read about - society's meaning of the word. Many 'sociopaths' who are designated as such may not fit the clinical profile at all. However, in some capacity they exhibited behavior they can act like people think a sociopath might.
Reading the message, I felt like this person felt stereotyped and misunderstood - but very in tune with himself. I wonder how he would succeed in an cultural environment with less emphasis on emotional empathy and guilt? Is it us or them that is actually best suited for the greater good?
So, the purpose of the thread was to elicit feedback on the idea that our world is changing fast, and this particular genre of behavior may be better suited. You can't deny that that 'overrepresentation' in some niches has grown, and is likely growing.
Incidentally, I've never seen my karma on comments on a single thread fluctuate so much. Its been very interesting to watch.
Physiological concerns aside, observed psychopathy is more or less a variation of behavior that allows the individual to apply more cerebral perceptions to social / emotional contexts.
Would the world be a better place if we had more people acting like this? or the opposite case of applying social / emotional perceptions to a more cerebral context? I would argue (for many reasons) that the answer to this question is the former, whereas it has been the latter through most of human history.
The capacity to act as a 'psychopath' may very well be a necessary evolution of our culture, and in fact may become a desired genetic trait in future years. More important that trying assimilate people with characteristics of psychopathy may be to foster this ability of the mind - keep children away from violence, keep young adults away from their egos.
[1] From my favorite new TV psychopath personality, Robert California of the Office: "I'll tell you some thing I find unproductive. Constantly worrying about where you stand based on inscrutable social cues, and then inevitably reframing it all in a reassuring way so that you can get to sleep at night. No, I do not believe in that at all. If I invited you to lunch, I think you're a winner. If I didn't I don't. But I just met you all. Life is long, opinons change. Winners, prove me right. Losers, prove me wrong."