Sorry for the provocative title. It could just as easily been titled "Why religious believers aren't all sociopaths".
Sociopathy is a fascinating condition which can most simply be described as the "absence of conscience". Sociopaths have no empathy or affection for people or animals. Classic sociopathic behavior is exhibited by children who enjoy pulling the legs off bugs - this does not mean that every child who does this is sociopathic. However, if a child truly seems to enjoy the misery of others, the odds are that they will end up comprising the roughly 4% of the population who are sociopaths.
Having no conscience does not mean that sociopaths will end up becoming serial murderers. It just means that they would experience no moral agitation if they murdered someone and, in fact, would probably enjoy it. The reason why they usually don't commit murders is because they don't want to spend the rest of their life in prison. A sociopath is not a psychopath (although they may share some of the same personality traits) - a psychopath is much more likely to be a serial murderer. Psychopaths often have deep seated mental illness and/or dysfunctional unbringings. On the other hand, sociopaths usually have unexceptional upbringings and usually have siblings who are not sociopathic.
What does any of this have to do with atheism or religion? Well, the connection relates to the fact that both atheists and theists would generally agree that sociopathic behavior is bad. Atheists would describe it as immoral. Theists would describe it as evil. What perplexes me is why sociopathy is prevelant enough to be statistically significant and yet still remain a fairly small percentage of the population as a whole. In other words, if the absence of a conscience is a trait that improves an individual's evolutionary fitness (i.e. more likely to result in reproduction of one's genes), why aren't more people sociopathic? Or, viewed from the other perspective, wouldn't one expect sociopathy to become extinct if it is not an evolutionarily stable strategy?
I am not aware of any studies to date which have proven conclusively, one way or the other, as to whether sociopathy is hereditary. My educated guess is that it is not and here is why: it clearly is not an evolutionarily stable strategy. Although one might think that self-interest to the extreme and disregard for others might flourish in a population with a majority of selfless individuals, results such as the supremecy of the "Tit for Tat" strategy in the Prisoner's Dilemma strongly suggest otherwise (see The Evolution of Cooperation). In other words, the best chance to ensure that an individual's selfish genes succeed in propagating themselves is by "playing nice". Please remember that this is not a conscious exercise. Genes don't care how they make it to the next generation - they just do what is necessary to best ensure their reproduction. Of course, anyone who ponders that fact for more than a moment will quickly realize that free will is likely a mirage but that topic will have to wait for another post .....
If you are interested in this subject, I highly recommend a reading of Dr. Martha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door. There are several authors who do an excellent job of exploring how moral behavior best ensures genetic survical and my bet for the best is Robert Wright's The Moral Animal.
I think it is evolutionarily stable. Look at it this way: a population only survives if the 'tit for tat' rule is followed...but a large population can support a small number of non tit-for-tat individuals. They can flourish as CEOs (seriously - sociopaths tend to be more intelligent, I think) or soldiers or what have you. It's just like a predator-prey distribution. A large population of 'honest' players can support a smaller population of 'dishonest' players.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is any dispute about the fact that sociopaths can and do flourish in our midst. I guess what I would like to see is more study on whether there is any kind of hereditary link. Dr. Stout seems to think that part of the answer is genetic but her argument is far from convincing.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this post I went next door and debated with my neighbour which one of us is the sociopath. It's a coin toss.
ReplyDeleteI would say it is somewhat genetic and somewhat environmental (which is odd for me, since it is my professional theory that personality disorders are almost entirely environmental. Neglect produces Narcissists and such, but here I'll make an exception because of brain scan results.)I believe that there may have been two evolutionary "camps" of stone age humanity when it comes to this subject. The sociopaths, and the non-sociopaths. Now, in the beginning, it is impossible to tell the exact ratio of sociopaths to non-sociopaths, but in my opinion both are evolutionarily practical, or at least were back in those days. The sociopathic groups of people were willing to do anything for personal survival, and with everyone on watch, suspicious of those around them, and some people serving stronger people for their own safety, a system of checks and balances was established, similar to the cold war relationship of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. However, at the slightest sign of weakness, an individual could be attacked and killed. However, in the non-sociopathic groups, while some infighting did occur, people generally looked out for each others safety, took care of other peoples children sometimes, looked after the old and sick. As a result, the numbers of non-sociopathic people rose over that of the sociopathic people. Now at some point, these two gene pools merged, the sociopaths perhaps filling some parasitic niche (religion?), and inbreeding occured. It's impossible to say how long certain exclusive or near exclusive sociopathic groups held out for (Sparta?). But it is certain that all fell into the melting pot eventually. As a result, few or no pure-bred sociopaths remain. I believe that in these new, heterogenous individuals, it takes some currently unknown environmental factor at a young age to set off their sociopathic predisposition, which would explain why some sociopaths have non-sociopathic siblings. Also two things worth noting. 1. I believe that with enough environmental stimulus at a young age, it is possible to create a sociopath from an individual with purely non-sociopathic genes. and 2. Psychopaths and sociopaths come from the same gene-pool. Psychopaths are simply individuals who's environmental stimulation was extreme, or they are one of the few purely bred sociopaths left in the world.
ReplyDelete