Psychopath vs Sociopath

Over the years, Psychologists have been unclear about what a psychopath is, as opposed to a sociopath; and psychologists have often used the two terms interchangeably.  I would prefer to define the two words—psychopath and sociopath—by saying that the “sociopath” is a person who is capable of understanding morality and who is able to relate, at least superficially, to others in terms of sympathy, friendship, loyalty, etc.  It is just that this person, the sociopath, is also capable of turning off these feelings—especially while under stress or the influence of drugs and alcohol—and they can act for brief periods of time in a way that is more characteristic of the psychopath. 

The ability to turn these feelings off and then on again is a clear evolutionary advantage, especially as the human population has expanded and people have become much more mobile, and immigration has become much more fluid. The actual number of sociopathic personalities in society has been estimated with both very high and very low numbers, but I would suspect that estimates of, perhaps as much as 10% of the population, would not be out of line with the reality that many of us see, day to day, and especially in larger cities.

In a complex and fluid society, the sociopath is perfectly adapted to camouflage himself (or herself) with the appearance of a traditional morality, often taking on as his disguise and identifying himself as a member of a conservative religion. Traditional morality is much more easy for the sociopath to simulate—with its rigid and very clearly defined distinctions between right and wrong—than a more fluid liberal morality full of sepia and shades of gray and blends of hard-to-distinguish pastel colors.  For the sociopath, a conservative persona is much easier to create and maintain. He can blend into the background. But, as always, when the sociopath senses a clear advantage in tossing aside this disguise, he can do so, and then act as a human predator.   

This is why so many child molesters have used the Catholic Church as a screen for their predatory activities, there is fairly clear evidence that the Catholic priesthood and Protestant clergy probably have a larger percentage of sociopaths than the overall population. When we find that a priest or minister is, in reality, a child molester, we should be no more surprised than we discover that the women’s basketball coach is a lesbian. The lesbian is probably not a sexual predator, but that doesn’t mean she can’t “window shop.” The men’s basketball coach is probably gay and doing the same thing. People are always drawn to the things they desire. Like the Boy Scout leader….

On Psychopaths

Compared to the sociopath, the “psychopath” is a somewhat different sort of critter. The psychopath is someone who really cannot understand morality or distinguish what the ideas of “Good” and “Evil” really mean, nor can he understand why anyone would give such things a second thought. All he understands are his own needs, and very little else. These psychopaths are actually “insane”—that is, born without a moral impulse; or for some reason they failed to develop it very early on in their young lives. Perhaps it is the result of severe fetal alcohol syndrome or some other environmental cause, but I suspect that the psychopathic personality is actually a genetic mutation.  In prehistoric times it would have been difficult for true psychopaths to survive.  A close-knit community of forty or so individuals would quickly identify the true psychopath in their midst and expel him from the community.  A true psychopath, without the support of the community, would quickly fall victim to animal predators or die from starvation. 

The modern psychopaths and sociopaths find the 21^st century much more comfortable, and there is much less likelihood of his (or her) being ostracized by society—especially if he comes from a wealthy or politically prominent family. There are, for example, several recent cases where powerful political and business figures have assaulted unsuspecting women in the comfort and convenience of luxury hotels. Some of these men have long histories of sexual predation, including the conservative writer Arthur Koestler (1905-1983) who—according to a recent biography—frequently bullied women into sex and, when he committed suicide in 1983, may have “convinced” his much younger wife to commit suicide with him (he was seriously ill, but she was perfectly healthy). Their desires take priority over such mundane ideas as social equality or the value of human life. The women in their lives are simply animate tools to enhance their own experience of pleasure. They have the same attitude toward their employees, their investors, and anyone else who has the misfortune of falling under their power.

Traditionally, we have associated psychopaths with serial killers, but here it would be helpful to clarify what these words mean. A serial killer is someone who derives pleasure from killing other human beings.  It is likely that most serial killers are psychopaths, but not all psychopaths are serial killers.  It is only the psychopaths who enjoy killing humans, deriving pleasure from physically dominating and killing others, who become “serial killers.” The psychopaths who do not enjoy murdering others are simply psychopaths. They seek their pleasures in other ways. They may enjoy dominating and even torturing others, but the more animalistic act of killing is not—in itself—pleasurable to them.

The BTK Killer—His Motives and Desires

An interesting case to examine is that of Dennis Rader, the notorious BTK Killer (Bind/Torture/Kill) who terrorized Wichita, Kansas, in the late 70s and early 80s. The interesting thing about Rader as a serial killer is that he was able to stop himself from killing. In 1991, Rader got a job as a compliance officer for the county Board of Zoning Appeals.  Apparently this job gave Rader enough power over others to satisfy his desire to dominate people.  The ability to go measure the grass in his neighbors’ yards and issue citations and warnings was sufficient to feed his appetite for power. As strange as it may seem, this job was just enough power to satisfy Rader’s lust for dominating others. Some years later, Rader was captured after sending a message to taunt the police and newspapers (thus allowing himself to relive his glory days of terrorizing the city). His message, left on a computer disk, was traced back to the Lutheran Church where Rader was President of the Congregation Council and a Cub Scout leader.

Based on events, it seems likely that Rader derived intense pleasure from binding and torturing and killing, but his primary motivation for killing his victims was to cover up his crimes. I think it would be interesting to know how many “Dennis Rader”-types live in the average city. These are people who enjoy enough power to make satisfy their lusts—just by dominating and torturing their employees, co-workers, & families—but without having to go to the extreme of actual physical torture and murder. Rader was clearly a psychopath by nature and a serial killer out of necessity. The murders extended the range of his power, and the media coverage served as a reminder and a kind of trophy for his murderous career. It is an open question how many sadistic people there are who would like to torture others, but are only restrained by the idea of being caught.               

In the modern world the true psychopath is fairly rare.  They are basically predatory animals who stand on two legs and try to mimic the behaviors of humans.  The psychopath has the same basic needs for food, shelter, and sexual contact, but what we call the higher-order desires are basically foreign to them. His main goal is to pursue physical pleasure, usually by dominating the weaker and more psychologically damaged people who have the misfortune to meet him and fall under his influence. To call him “human” is to denigrate humans everywhere.

The sociopath, on the other hand, is a more subtle and amiable creature.

On Rape and Pornography

Several researchers have discovered (in an idea later popularized by Steven E. Landsburg in his book, The Big Questions) that more access to pornography means that fewer rapes are committed.  This statistical fact was first noted years ago when comparisons of crime statistics showed that Sweden (known for its lax laws on porn) had far fewer rapes than other countries. This strange fact has since been reaffirmed by several studies and more recently by studies on access to pornography on the internet.  Today, boys in their teens and twenties can find easy access to plenty of porn on the internet. As Lansburg notes, “More Net access, less rape. A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes.”

So how does this work? Can access to fairly mundane sorts of porn act as a "safety-valve" that prevents or reduces the number of rapes that take place?

When the BTK Killer/Denis Rader took a job working for the zoning department of local government, he suddenly had access to bureaucratic power over his neighbors; and this minor power to bully people with fines & citations appears to have reduced his need to torture others, much the same way that access to non-violent pornography seems to lower the incidence of rape.  Perhaps many young men, who might be tempted to commit rape, are satisfied by photos and films that show sexual encounters, but without the violence.  

Criminologists seem to think that when Denis Rader murdered his victims, it was primarily in order to escape punishment. Perhaps the potential rapist is easily satisfied with simply viewing sexual acts, and he only commits rape in order to achieve a sexual goal.  This idea seems to fly in the face of modern sociologists who proclaim that “rape is an act of violence” (which, of course, it is). Except that the main goal of rape, at least among the “novice” group of young men in their teens and twenties, is sexual release. Acts of violence are mainly the by-products of rape as a sexual act.  Those men who become serial rapists are men who have — through repeated experience — linked the act of violence to the sexual act and essentially develop a psychological need for both.

The more porn that is available — and especially non-violent and non-demeaning porn — the less rape we will see going into the future.

The Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka

In times of trouble, the public always fall back on religious explanations for what went wrong.  A minister in Kansas believes that the Iraq War was caused by homosexuals.  He frequently pickets the funerals of soldiers, proclaiming that they died because of our acceptance of homosexuality in this society.  He and his followers maintain this fantasy in spite of the evidence that the soldiers died from bombs and gunshot wounds while serving in Iraq.   

On a similar note, Rev. Jerry Falwell proclaimed that Hurricane Katrina was caused by giving women access to abortion.  Another Christian pundit proclaimed that Katrina was caused by our lack of support for Israel.  On the other hand, several Muslim leaders have ascribed Katrina to the will of Allah, who is punishing us for supporting Israel.  We just can’t win.

These strange pronouncements hide a more tangible reality.  Belief in God (or the gods) is often a function of group identity.  We, as a group, have a God who reflects our views—no matter how bizarre—and being part of our group is more important to us than questions of truth or falsehood.  Our first act, as a nation, after the tragedy of 9/11 was to “come together” and surrender our individual rational minds to the overarching groupthink.  Dozens of government officials and Right-wing pundits implied and suggested that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11.  This was in spite of the fact the the majority of hijackers were Saudi nationals!  And, after all, the Saudis have had close financial ties to the Bush family for many years—so they couldn’t possibly be responsible for 9/11.  It had to be that jerk Saddam Hussein.

In a country inclined to "magical thinking" this is what passes for rationality.

Is Reagan really dead?

Is Reagan really dead?

Why is it that the Clinton administration (1992-2000) failed to change many of the policies established during the previous twelve years? Could it be because, although Clinton and the Democrats offered a critique of Reaganism, they did not challenge the basis of Neo-conservative ideology. The basis of Reaganism, meaning corporate capitalism, easily survived and even flourished under Clinton. You could say that Clinton saved neo-conservatism from self-destructing, much the same way that F.D.R. saved corporate capitalism in the 1930s and 1940s. Clinton merely gave the military/industrial/media complex the chance to pause and consolidate its power.

With the election of George W. Bush, this was only a shift from idealistic corporatism to crude corporate power, much like the shift from Lenin to Stalin. Today we suffer under an ideology of unbridled corporate power. If you believed that George II cared about small business and Christian values, then you probably also believed that Reagan's death during the presidential campaign was a coincidence.....