Well that explains a whole to me about…myself. No, I don’t think I need to elaborate.
Behaviorally speaking, heroes and serial do-gooders have a lot in common with sociopaths, according to this paper on psychology and neuroethics: “their personality traits are very similar, with only a few features to distinguish them.”
We look at heroes and do-gooders as a special sort of breed: people who possess extraordinary traits of altruism or self-less concern for the well-being of others, even at the expense of their own existence. On the other end, sociopaths also have an extraordinary set of traits, such as extreme selfishness, lack of impulse control, no respect for rules, and no conscience.
As crazy as it sounds, there may be a closer link than than most people would think between the extreme-altruistic personality and sociopathic personality. Would it shock you to know that two people, one with the traits of extreme-altruism (X-altruism) and the other the traits of a sociopath, could be related? Even siblings? And that their personality traits are very similar, with only a few features to distinguish them? Research by Watson, Clark, and Chmielewki from the University of Iowa, “Structures of Personality and Their Relevance to Psychopathology” [pdf], present a convincing argument in which they support the growing push for a trait dimensional scheme in the new DSM-V to replace the current categorical system.
November 23rd, 2009 - 4:17 pm
Seems like a pretty weak argument. The opposite of the shared factors are: high impulse control, low interest in novelty-seeking, unwilling to break rules. Sounds like pretty boring drones, to me.
The article indicates that a sociopath has no (zero, zilch, nada) empathy; while an x-altruist has “too much”? How much is “too much”? The author defines it as “driving them to break rules and put themselves in harms way”; or further “extreme behavior that results in harm to self on some level”. This could include much of humanity.
One aspect of this article is the law and order focus of the author. “To be a good citizen, we are required and expected to follow laws at all times.” Given the dizzying number of laws in modern nation-state, this is almost an impossible task. Further still, as the author points out sometimes it is beneficial for people to break a law to help others. The author never raises the concern that some laws may actually be bad (slavery, segregation, etc…). Civil disobedience inherently means breaking the law, for whom the participants think it is more moral to break the law at that time, than not do so. Usually, it’s quite pedestrian and involved standing or sitting in a large group somewhere where you are not arbitrarily allowed to be. Yet, depending on how bad the law, or how good and urgent the cause… almost all nation-states tolerate violent illegal action as their original narrative.
Part of the problem with this article seems to be trying to argue that the “too much” empathy is psychopathology. Yet, at the same time… the author wants to make space for people who do, do these things… because the ones we hear about really did do some good things. Ofcourse, folks tend to prefer the MLk Jr. over Malcom X, and Abraham Lincoln over John Brown. Would Harriet Tubman beheld in such esteem today if she hadn’t caught ill and had been in Brown’s raid?
I think part of the problem is that the author doesn’t develop a concept of morality, beyond that there is a middle ground between sociopathy and x-alturism. The author struggles with how those who break the law for good reasons might escape legal punishment. I think an application of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development might be useful in this puzzle. Sociopaths are often at pre-conventional morality (obedience/punishment and self-interest). While most people are at conventional (conformity/law & order)–that is the follow the law because it is the law and they do what is expected of them by society. Then perhaps the x-altruist are the post-conventional (social contract/universal principles).
The moral question is examined in Heinz dilemma’s: should a husband steal a drug to help his sick wife?
Are certain regimes sociopathic in structure? The film “The Corporation” made a cute argument that according to the DSM-IV, if corporations were people–they’d be sociopaths. If we remove this issue from a current political/economic question; and instead reflect on history–are certain institutions sociopathic? Slavery? Feudalism? A theocracy that engages in human sacrifice? When confronted with a society ruled by sociopaths in their interest; then wouldn’t someone who was just “ordinarily” altruistic appear potentially x-altruistic if their desire to improve the lives of others runs the risk of extreme harm? They are executing protesters in Iran as terrorists–and reformers and protesters have been executed elsewhere in the past. Further, considering the totalitarianism of the regime… if they had been terrorists, would that have been so very wrong? While an ordinary member of society might be functioning with a conventional morality when they enlist in the armed forces of their nation state; perhaps they are sent into harms way for the self-interest of those doing the ordering (who are willing to sacrifice their soldiers, and the soldiers and civilians of other countries).
Science can often do a good job explaining how people think, perhaps why they think the way the do, etc… but the morality of any action is a moral question. It’s moral rightness cannot be deduced only through harm mitigation or a rigid application of the law (the legal system doesn’t try for a rigid application of the law, either). Science doesn’t care if we live on a lifeless rock. It’s just an explanation of how the universe is. Likewise, psychology also can’t morally say what is “right”. To often I feel that psychology strays towards focusing upon normalcy at the same time realizing in a post-modern way that there is no normal. The DSM defined homosexuality as a disorder up until 1974.
Generally speaking I think we subjectively value empathy (and even x-altruism) because we evolved as a very social, interdependent species–albeit with isolated consciousnesses. Human mothers are more likely to abandon their young than any other primate, but it seems that unrelated adults are often quite willing to adopt those abandoned offspring. Sometimes, sociopaths can game the acceptance, trust and empathy of others for their own selfish gain–but “always generous” becomes “firm but fair” and the sociopath runs out of easy marks until they move on to the next group. Tolerating the odd sociopath from time to time might be the price we pay for having a general operating principles of empathy and generosity. It might not be tolerable, even to the extremely altruist, to tolerate rule by sociopaths.
Pop-psychology amusement; I think most of the Myers-Briggs NTs and NFs would be qualified as rules-breakers with high interest in seeking novelty. Discussion on “impulse control” implies that we did something that we shouldn’t have–and I think in the case of altruism or selfish actions; we may often feel rationally or emotionally justified in taking the actions we take, when we take them.
Just be good, ok? I hate it when people fight.
November 23rd, 2009 - 5:07 pm
one could also argue that true altruism does not exist.
when you question an altruist about the motives for their actions, it almost always boils down to the truth, which is that doing deeds that benefit others makes the altruist feel good. so then one could posit that the altruist is just like any other pleasure-seeker, engaging in specific behaviors that bring them joy. which, by the definition of altruism, negates itself. since the altruist is purported to be selfless as opposed to selfish, most of the altruists that exist, save for those with some other mental disease or defect, are actually not altruists at all. they’re just normal people who get their rocks off on making other people happy as opposed to themselves, as though they were unable to fully recognize their own self-worth, if they do indeed have any.
sociopathy though, or in actuality antisocial personality disorder, is an entirely different beast. sociopathy, for the sake of argument, can be measured. like nearly all mental and mood disorders, with the right scientific equipment a doctor can actually test for this disorder. areas of the brain that would light up with certain stimuli and certain chemicals remain unchanged during these tests. there is a distinct physical element as well as a psychological one when the brain of a sociopath is more closely inspected. the altruist (if he even exists) may not have such biological issues.
but then again, all this is speculation. though i will admit that i don’t believe there is such a thing as altruism.
November 23rd, 2009 - 8:49 pm
I am totally naming my supervigilante group X-Altruists!
Yes. Magneto will be invited to join.
November 23rd, 2009 - 10:47 pm
Since I consider myself a true heroine in the tradition of She-Ra, Sailor Moon, and Arwen Evenstar, I’m going to use this to explain away a few unwise crushes I experienced in my youth …
December 10th, 2009 - 1:26 am
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_study_reveals_most_children