Wednesday, November 28, 2012

How to raise a sociopath

Lately, both Bnonn and I have had some revealing encounters on the issue of abortion. There are commenters who have no sense of social responsibilities. If we bring up the example of a newborn baby left on our doorstep, they don’t feel any obligation to the baby in that situation.

They act as if there are absolutely no circumstances under which they should ever be imposed on. They exhibit sociopathic indifference to the needs of others.

There is, of course, a profound contradiction in their position. They think everyone should treat them with utmost deference even though they shouldn’t have to defer to anyone else.

How should we evaluate these responses? Should we take them at face value? Assuming they’re sincere, what accounts for this degree of moral pathology?

i) In some cases, I think people say things they don’t really believe. They make outrageous, irresponsible statements as long as the issue is safely abstract. If, however, they actually found themselves in that situation, some of them would come back down to earth in a hurry.

ii) However, it’s probably the case that many people really are that ruthless. How did we get to this point?

When things go wrong, liberals blame “the system.” They don’t think humans are innately prone to evil. It must be due to purely external factors. “The system” failed them.

By contrast, Christians think this is ultimately a problem of the heart.

iii) However, even though humans have a propensity for evil, that doesn’t mean social conditioning is irrelevant. The Bible also lays great emphasis on moral formation in childhood. Conversely, it describes dysfunctional societies. Given the human predisposition to evil, a morally deficient upbringing or other social forces can reinforce that prior disposition. So there’s nothing wrong with considering aggravating factors. Here are some possibilities.

iv) Traditionally, people grew up in large families. Extended families. Many siblings and relatives under one roof. Likewise, many people were poor.

As a result, you learned to share. You learned to sacrifice. You cared for your own. There was no alternative.

Nowadays, many people grow up in tight little nuclear families. Maybe one or two kids. Likewise, they’re often fairly affluent. The parents have their own bedroom. Each kid has his own bedroom. The kids get new clothes every year. No hand-me-downs. There’s no need to share. No need to make personal sacrifices for the benefit of others.

v) Many teen dramas depict a eugenic utopia where everyone is young, strong, healthy, wealthy, and good-looking. A world of physical, material perfection. I wonder if that doesn’t subliminally foster intolerance towards the needy.

vi) I wonder if cellphones and emergency services haven’t bred a 911 mentality, where our notion of getting involved is limited to making a phone call.

vii) Rationalizing abortion has spawned many arguments that dissolve any sense of social responsibilities or parental duties. And this caters to people’s natural selfishness.

viii) In some cases, I think libertarian politics contributes to this outlook. Libertarians are justly fed up with government intrusion. As a result, they instinctively and viscerally react to any suggesting that gov’t should “force” us to do something.

That attitude is understandable and warranted to some extent. But it easily becomes an overreaction.

21 comments:

  1. Steve this really resonates with me. You worked very hard to understand any potential causes for the question "what accounts for this degree of moral pathology?", but I'm wondering what you think we can and should be doing in the face of this? How do we respond?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid a lot of folks will have to learn the hard way by suffering the consequences of their misguided views.

      Delete
    2. "You worked very hard to understand any potential causes for the question "what accounts for this degree of moral pathology?", but I'm wondering what you think we can and should be doing in the face of this? How do we respond?"

      Share the Gospel that Jesus gave His disciples with those who unknowingly exhibit moral pathology. If it's truly a "heart" problem (which I as both a theological and political conservative believe it to be), then the Gospel is the way forward for those possessing a moral pathology.

      Of course, one HAS TO JUDGE whether his or her neighbor possesses a moral pathology. And then one HAS TO HAVE COURAGE and WISDOM to address his or her neighbor's moral pathology. Prayer helps too.

      Delete
  2. "How to raise a sociopath"

    A more civil title would be: How to Raise a Liberal

    ReplyDelete
  3. "However, even though humans have a propensity for evil, that doesn’t mean social conditioning is irrelevant.... they [libertarians]instinctively and viscerally react to any suggesting that gov’t should “force” us to do something."

    The implication seems to be that all "social conditioning" are a result of governmental actions or inactions. Seems to me that social conditioning is organic rather than some mechanical response to government.

    Take the Chineese and their long history. They seem to be a very duty bound society and this has been inculcated over many milenia. I would guess that the murder of unwanted daughters is still a societal norm. If the Chineese government were to outlaw this would it have any real impact on that society? I don't think so.

    The other implication is that libertarianism is necessarily selfish and therefore uncaring of others. This seems wrong headed. If libertarians believe the sanctity of the individual is the greatest good then they would seek the sanctity of the other to ensure their own sanctity. Governmental force is appropriate when the sanctity of the individual is threatened.

    The question is, what would a socially conditioned society to that way of thinking look like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "They seem to be a very duty bound society"

      Maybe in the same way America is supposed to be a Christian society. There's so much more that needs to be said, clarified, etc. It's not as if modern China is the same as it was when Confucius was around. Or even the same China as in the 1800s when many Western nations colonized China and perhaps formed a lot of the modern mystique about the Orient. Confucian ideas of duty (if that's what you're getting at) certainly still form much of the backdrop to understand Chinese society, but again at best I would think that's sort of like saying Christianity forms much of the backdrop to understand American society. A bit worse, though, is that it's an exaggerated stereotype.

      "I would guess that the murder of unwanted daughters is still a societal norm"

      Actually, it seems to me like a large chunk of murdered daughters (although many more are sent to orphanages at least from what I understand) is due to the one child policy, which might still be in effect in rural areas but isn't the case in urban areas like Shanghai.

      Sure, I suppose we could say there's a cultural preference for boys. But this too varies in time and place.

      However the point is even if we say for the sake of argument daughters are "unwanted" by most Chinese families, it doesn't imply these families will murder unwanted babies such as by aborting them if that's what you're suggesting. Anecdotally I think it's more likley they simply raise their daugthers but dote on their sons.

      "If the Chineese government were to outlaw this would it have any real impact on that society? I don't think so."

      To my knowledge the Chinese gov't does outlaw murdering unwanted daughters if they have been born. Abortion is a different matter.

      However if the Chinese gov't took away the one child policy everywhere then it could be quite arguable it would have an impact on society. Or if they encouraged people to have more kids like Scandinavian nations do with various incentives including money.

      Delete
    2. rwh-
      Of course we are dealing in generalities which is necessary when talking about any culture and there will always be exceptions to the norm.

      Then there is the question of how culture changes and what is that effects those changes. I'm not dismissing that government can effect change but what about Art, the Academy, and a pluralistic religious enviroment, to name just a few factors.

      Interesting note on Scandinavian countries: I wonder if it has had any effect and it brings up the question of the difference between incentives and coercion?

      Delete
    3. gsnieder

      "The implication seems to be that all 'social conditioning' are a result of governmental actions or inactions."

      That's only implied because you strung together two sentences that didn't follow each other in the original post.

      "Seems to me that social conditioning is organic rather than some mechanical response to government."

      As far as that goes, public schools are a perfect example of social conditioning.

      "The other implication is that libertarianism is necessarily selfish and therefore uncaring of others."

      Of course, you add adjectives like "necessarily," which weren't part of the original post, then proceed to burn the straw man you erected.

      That said, some libertarians do value personal autonomy above social responsibility. Their "don't tread on me" ethic make them resist laws against abortion, &c.

      Delete
  4. Sociopathy (or psychopathy, as it used to be called) has very little to do with social conditioning. Countless studies have shown that most psychopaths come from completely normal families. These people start behaving in extremely deviant ways when they are very young. No amount of discipline or correction seems to turn them from wrongdoing. If you wish to understand psychopathy, read these two books: The Mask Of Sanity by Hervey M. Cleckley and Without Conscience by Robert O. Hare. Both of these books are considered classic studies of the psychopathic mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Steve never said discipline or even good discipline would certainly turn people away from wrongdoing.

      2. As far as I can tell The Mask of Sanity was originally written in the 1940s and last updated in the 1980s while Without Conscience was published in the 1990s.

      The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is regarded worldwide as the standard for classifying various psychiatric disorders. Our current DSM (DSM-IV-TR) was updated in 2000 and DSM-V is set to be published in mid next year from what I last heard.

      If the publication periods for the two books are correct, then at best the former book would've taken into account DSM-III-R while the latter book would've taken into account DSM-IV.

      Given this background, how much of their research is still relevant?

      Delete
    2. "Both of these books are considered classic studies of the psychopathic mind."

      Of course, "classic" is not necessarily the same as up-to-date or accurate or relevant. For instance, Galen's works are considered classics in the history of medicine. But it doesn't mean they're up-to-date or accurate or relevant to modern medicine.

      Delete
    3. Scotju,

      Try to be intelligent for a change. I know that's hard for you.

      Was I using "sociopath" in a technical sense? Was I talking about young boys who torture the neighborhood cats before moving on to serial murder? Obviously not.

      Delete
    4. Steve, I offered intelligent commentary on psychopathy. I was not speaking about the worst type of psychopaths, I was speaking about psychopathy in general. I referred your readers to the two most renown books on the subject. I have known several of these sad individuals. One of them was a Reformed Baptist minister. To the best of my knowledge, he never tortured cats and became a serial killer. He did however tick off several Baptist churches he pastored over the years. Thankfully, they had enough common sense to get rid of him before he could do much damage. BTW, try not to be insulting to your commentators (like me) who mean you no harm. I merely wished to inform you and your commentators about some information on psychopathy and you reacted like a total jerk. RWH didn't react that way and you didn't have to either.

      Delete
    5. All commenters are not equal. You have a track record. You're a Catholic troll.

      Your information is totally irrelevant to the actual point of my post.

      Delete
  5. Great post! Thanks, Steve.

    Other possible aggravating factors:

    1. I think indoctrination into evolutionary theory as it's popularly conceived might also have further hardened already hardened hearts. If nature is truly red in tooth and claw, if only the fit survive, then why should it be my responsibility to take care of the enfeebled or helpless? Indeed, the demise of the weak may in fact mean the betterment of our species as a whole. This sort of rationalization.

    2. Couple this with the veneration of science as the arbiter of all truth including (somehow) ethical truths. If scientists tell us it's true, then it must be true. A priesthood of all scientists.

    Closely related is the intellectual bullying and tyranny of many scientists. If people don't buy it, then they're ignoramuses. Thus saith the Dawkins.

    This isn't just among scientists even many without formal or informal scientific education may believe they have to trust what scientists claim is true. Some of these lacking scientific education even attempt to browbeat others into kneeling before the scientific oligarchy.

    So, if we can't seem to imagine let alone square scientific claims with reality, then the fault must be our own. We're not educated well enough, we're not smart enough, we don't have the right qualifications or credentials, and so on and so forth.

    If this newborn really isn't a human being in the fullest sense of the term, then we have to fight against our natural instincts in order to believe science. (I'm not suggesting we shouldn't believe the scientific evidence if valid and reasonable. But the way I see it evolutionary theory is more about smoke and mirrors than sound reasoning.)

    3. What's more, I think the volume as well as pace of information fed to us on a day to day basis can be quite staggering. As T.S. Eliot put it, "Where is the life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" It makes many feel adrift at sea. Unable to process so much information, to say nothing of interpreting it and appropriately assimilating it in the context of everything else we may know. We're inundated with so much stuff to learn! Much of it fascinating info too.

    Plus, we have clocks that regulate our days and nights. When we wake and sleep. When we do certain activities or make appointments with others. Nothing wrong with this, per se.

    But the volume overload of info and our tight schedules can create quite busy lives for many people. There's no time to stop and smell the roses. No time to reflect on the fundamentals in life like relationships. It's like we're on a high speed train and just trying to catch glimpses of all the interesting scenery as it rushes by, and don't really have a lot of time for the other passengers who are all trying to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Couple this with the veneration of science as the arbiter of all truth including (somehow) ethical truths. If scientists tell us it's true, then it must be true. A priesthood of all scientists.

      Closely related is the intellectual bullying and tyranny of many scientists. If people don't buy it, then they're ignoramuses."


      Your objection is echoed in this article I read yesterday about how the liberal media is portraying Sen. Rubio:

      "... science often is just manipulation of the facts and a lot of 'just trust me' coming from empiricisms authorities.

      We look at all the facts to determine if they are correct, but when a predisposition driven by human pride is in play, we accept conjecture and speculation from science and the scientists become very authoritarian, priest-like, inquisitors and judges who sit and decide against those who not only dare to think, but whose empirical findings are in conflict with the status quo.

      People of faith are not allowed to question any part of scientific conclusion, and scientific authoritarians refuse to accept any part of the faith message. The scientists seem to have won, at the very same time they have lost everything. Truth, subjective or objective cannot always be empirically determined. Thus when placed up against prophecy, (the forth telling of the will and counsel of God) science will always come up short.

      This writer has always been amazed at the preponderance of speculation used by scientists today. No one dares to question them on the smallest matters much less the very creation of the universe. Any speculation about what took place billions of years past would be missing any eye witnesses and untold decayed, deterioration and non-existent proof for modern eyes to subject to repeatable observable scrutiny."

      From: HERE

      Delete
  6. 4. At the same time technology has created various social media as well as virtual communities for all manner of personalities and interests and the like. Communities which often feel closer to their kindred spirits online than to people they see in real life. Many are disconnected from real life and living like saying hi to your next door neighbor, going to support the local sports team, taking part in townhall meetings, etc. Although a lot of it could be well and good, a lot could also have a corrosive effect in terms of social obligations. Am I my brother's keeper if I don't even know him all that well?

    5. In the past people used to be able to look up at the starry skies. Or see a beautiful field of flowers. To appreciate God's creation. To see themselves as quite small in the universe. Tiny specks of dust in the grand scheme of things. It's quite humbling. It can help put life in perspective. We're not the center of the universe.

    Similarly, as recently as the early 1900s I believe America was a largely agricultural society. Many if not most families grew their crops, butchered their own cattle, etc. But we had to wait for crops to planted, watered, grow, and harvested before we can eat them. Sometimes crops wouldn't be able to be grown. And we might not always get what we want that year.

    But from what I understand most of the Western world today lives in urban areas. We get our food from the grocery store or McDonald's. If we want something, we can just order it. We can tailor order a lot of stuff to suit our whims.

    6. I've read most our houses in the year 1900 would have a coffin somewhere in case a family member should die. Death and disease were quite palpable experiences to many if not most Americans. I believe Steve has discussed this in the past in a way that's far better than I could ever put it.

    Anyway, much more could probably be said. Maybe my observations are mistaken. But my impression is it does seem like the love of many has grown cold in our society.

    ReplyDelete
  7. RWH, I see you are a medical student. I hope you become a good doctor after you finish your studies.
    While both books were written years ago, much of the research is still relevant. Their descriptions of psychopathic behavior is still on target. I have known several psychopathic individuals in my lifetime and most of the traits and behaviors they displayed were walking examples of both books descriptions of psychopathy. The only thing that wouldn't be up to date, would be what causes psychopathy in the first place.
    The two ideas I've heard about the origin of psychopathy revolve around early childhood. The first one says the child failed to become emotionally attached to his mother in the earliest months of life. As a result, he has no empathy toward other human beings. The second one was that the parts of the brain that we use for emotions and feelings are not developed or damaged in these individuals. I saw this one on a website that's sadly no longer up. If I can remember the name of the site, I'll give it to you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't know why gsnieder is so defensive about libertarianism when he simultaneously defends socialized medicine. Make up your mind. Do you want a nannystate or limit gov't? You can't have both.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grifman also seems to be another libertarian who defends socialized medicine (here). (Unless grifman and gsnieder are the same person.)

      Delete
  9. steve:
    "As far as that goes, public schools are a perfect example of social conditioning."

    Which goes to show you get what you hope for.

    "...then proceed to burn the straw man you erected. That said, some libertarians do..."

    I take the time and effort to build and burn a strawman and you proceed to rebuild it?

    "I don't know why gsnieder is so defensive about libertarianism when he simultaneously defends socialized medicine."

    Hey Stretch- nice reach.

    ReplyDelete