Social Psychopathy
--
How radicalization replaces personal responsibility with collective psychopathy.
A psychopath in unable to feel genuine human connections, and in this way will stop at nothing to achieve their goals, regardless of the impact on others. But there is something more dangerous than the individual psychopath. It is the phenomenon of group psychopathy.
What is a psychopath?
First things first, what do I mean by psychopath? The term psychopath was first applied around 1900, then changed to “sociopath” in the 1930s to emphasize their apparent damage to society. Modern researchers have returned to using the term psychopath— and curiously reclassified sociopath as less dangerous. However, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not include either of these designations, and doctors do not diagnose people as psychopaths or sociopaths. Instead, they diagnose people with antisocial personality disorder. In any case, both psychopaths and sociopaths are defined by a distinct inability to authentically feel emotions or emotionally connect with other people, and thus do not have a moral compass.
They key difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is a conscious. Whereas the sociopath typically exhibits a very weak conscious and has the ability to feel remorse, the psychopath does not. Generally, the major symptoms of the psychopath include a shallow affect or emotional response; lack of empathy, guilt, and remorse; irresponsibility; impulsivity; and poor planning and decision-making (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011).
In addition, the individual who exhibits psychopathic symptoms may also be extremely violent. Putting themselves and others in harms way is part of the “game” of life. Their lack of empathy leads them to use people to achieve their goals, and indeed, any means are justified in their pursuit. Psychopathic serial killers such as Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and Dennis Rader (BTK) are aware of the criminality of murder while they are in the process of killing their victims. But that understanding does not prevent them from achieving their goal. Though it is difficult to prove, psychopathy appears to exhibit itself in the murderous political figures of the 20th century, the pattern of cruelty to others in the name of their singular vision is elucidated in Jon Ronson’s “The Psychopath Test” as he attempts to apply modern psychologists’ frameworks to diagnose dictators and ruthless economic leaders. In his book entitled The Psychopathic God, Robert Wait argues that Hitler’s psychosis was biological in origin and that his obsession with watching videos of executions were symptoms of his insanity. It is highly likely that the infamous Ernesto “Che” Guevara, renowned political revolutionary and progressive icon, was himself a psychopath — having commanded the slaughter of innocent civilians, children, and homosexuals without any sign of remorse, but rather self-aggrandizing fervor. And like most psychopaths, he used his charm and wit to manipulate those around him and create an image of heroism- even manufacturing war stories to enhance his ego.
Not only do psychopaths tend to disregard the safety of others in the pursuit of their glory — but they often do not take precaution when it comes to their own life. They are often marked by an impulsivity — without thought to the convenience or comfort of others, they will do whatever feels right for themselves in the moment, whatever will feed their empty ego or empower them. This can lead them to do seemingly daring, or more accurately egregiously dangerous acts. Without regard to how their actions might effect others — who could possibly attempt to try the same sort of stunt, and cause themselves serious injury. One conjures the images of turn of the century daredevils — or even modern thrill seekers. I recently watched Free Solo, a documentary about Alex Honnold scaling the 7,573 feet of El Capitan without a harness — gleeful at the concept of inspiring others to attempt to do the same, and in the back of my head I felt a ping of horror that not only could he have died, but those who try to emulate him may be putting themselves into such a deadly situation. And yet he smirked at the thought.
In another moment of authenticity, Alex admitted he didn’t factor in his girlfriend when he contemplated his own death — which indicates a symptom common to sociopaths rather than psychopaths: an honesty about not thinking about how she will be affected. Sociopaths are less likely to play along with a charade and make it clear their priorities. In psychopaths, who are generally harder to spot, they would feign interest — indeed, psychopaths tend to be great actors. Later, Alex admits that crying on camera would be good for the film — but opts not to, another sign of authenticity and awareness of his own apathy.
Perhaps, psychopaths already have a physical defect that has caused their condition — their distorted view of life — their shallow connections to the world may be due to brain abnormality— some studies indicate the psychopath’s amygdala shows less activation when viewing pictures depicting moral violations. There may also be a reduction in the grey-matter in the orbitofrontal cortex, which correlates to antisocial behavior and impulsivity. Regardless of the cause, a psychopath may view life as unimportant and fleeting- and this may explain why some psychopaths seem to be incredibly flippant with their own life.
In our modern world, in an age of political correctness and progressively radical mentalities — we are seeing a climate ripe for the reaping of the more devious psychopaths. As societies advance, antisocial behaviors are increasingly and more effectively punished by the rule of law — outright vicious attacks on others is not the best way to achieve one’s goal in this context. This whittles down the outright sociopaths — but the psychopath adapts, learning how to feign empathy and fit in — vainglorious, they tend to gravitate to trends and accepted norms. Having no internal compass, they adopt the moral compass that others seem to have. But they do not, and cannot understand why. Only that it results in them being able to achieve their goal- of glory, wealth, fame, or some other end. The result is a seemingly normal, or even exceptional, citizen — generally very vain, gregarious, and perfectly able to parrot what others want to hear. Though there are instances where the forcing function of their goals leads them to manipulate people more overtly — they know full well that if they are caught in their holding pattern, they will be endangering their goals. They will lose their tenuous friends, who may not be intelligent enough to notice or fellow psychopaths, or simply too busy to properly assess them. They must keep up the charade. For if they end up alone, they will not be able to control others for their ends.
Though the psychopath is generally great at pretense and acting, they often crumble when confronted with the task of showing real human emotion. When supposed loved ones die, when people get hurt, when they are telling a lie, the psychopath has a hard time feigning authentic emotion. They may cover up their face, or exhibit contraindicating behavior — for instance, smirking or smiling when recounting a terrible experience. (The smirking of Smollett or Jake Paul when they recounted their respective tragedies.) They may overact during otherwise mundane events — crying on command, or behaving ecstatically at the mundane. They often manipulate those close to them with “love bombs,” heavily laying on praise and adoration — and then wrecking them with criticism and cruelty. Oblivious to the devastation they cause. Perhaps they are in search of connection, trying to learn about human emotion, refining their craft by getting a rise out of their targets— using the person, so they can dispose of them and use their learnings on their next victim.
How does the behavior of the individual psychopath relate to crowd behavior?
There is an increasing tribalization cracking the earth’s population into irreconcilable factions. Even in the United States, the guiding principles of Western culture have faded, leaving a terrible darkness where primal cries empower the collective horror of human history. Civilization has been a repeating story of the cruel collectivization of human beings into opposing mobs whose group symptoms check the list of psychopathy.
The history of tribes is a history of violence. Warring nations fighting over land and resources, raping and pillaging, and enslaving each others people for millennia. It is the history of dehumanizing the other — because they are not part of your group. It is the inability to connect — and the resulting total lack of empathy of the psychopath. The inability to form a moral compass.
The individuals of a tribe fall away, and as a collective, they absorb the tenants of the tribe- the goals passed down by ritual. Those who question the tribe are exiled or slaughtered- and the group is groomed through tribally enforced selection to be susceptible to groupthink — to adhere to arbitrary dictates. Or else. There is no remorse, neither for those in the tribe, nor for those outside. Opposing groups are treated simply as means to their ends.
The behavior of the tribe is only modulated by other, more powerful tribes- and they will only apologize if it serves their goal, or if they cannot lie themselves out of reprisal. In such a way, the tribe mimics a psychopath’s shallow emotions. Only feigned when it is suitable. Only learning behaviors to fit in — but always thinking of their goal of collective power and glory. These behaviors underwrite the entire history of human warfare — from the tribes of Africa, to the warring Clans of Europe— through to the Imperial Age and the present day unrest in the Middle East. It is the history of mobs manipulating, annihilating, and enslaving each other on such horrific scale that no single person can comprehend the atrocities. And in a group, they don’t have to.
In the present political spectrum, I fear we are seeing an extreme partisanship that will exacerbate and empower this psychopathy. A lack of communication — congruent with the rise of tribalization and the inability to have empathy for opposing groups. Regardless of your personal politics and privately held principles, the translation of those into collectivized power is likely to transmute them into a group psychopathy. A movement without conscious is highly effective, but the creation of these entities is not without extreme consequences whether realized now or in the future. But there is one movement that is more closely aligned to the group psychopathy discussed above. Radical progressivism.
Did you expect me to say conservativism? Let me explain. A sociopath has the vestige of remorse, and in this way, the modern conservative movement has diverged from the establishment Right. We are living in the shadow of the rise of Neoconservatives who, taking their lessons from Machiavelli, espoused religiosity and nationalism to gain power- shedding the principles of limited government. Mangling itself into a sort of theocratic movement since Ronald Reagan. But the curiosity is that the leaders of this movement were open about their rouse- much like a sociopath admitting their tactics. Why do we see this kind of self-reflection in the conservatives? Why do we see the collectivist White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis thrown out by conservativism, whereas outright Communists and Anti-Fa Anarchists are defended by progressivism? This manifestation of remorse stems from an underlying conservative movement that demands adherence to principles that are based in the echoes of individualism. Conservatism is not simply a tendency to keep the status quo — but through the weirdest political switch of American politics, ended up inheriting the original liberal ideas of limited government and personal freedom once ascribed to the liberal movement that then morphed into modern progressivism. A movement that is based in despising collectivist ideologies that destroy individual freedom, of which Nazis are a prime example. That root of principles operates like a self-correcting pressure, a weak conscious, on the sociopathy of the Right, to varying levels of success. Resulting in the “extreme” we see in conservative political policy being more of the same. Cut taxes. Strong defense. Pro business. The Right is thus an internally conflicted elephant, with the seed of Enlightenment liberal conscious as the only thing taming it from outright authoritarianism.
The progressive movement has no such conscious. Indeed, it exhibits full psychopathy. As its name implies, it is a movement solely devoted to progress — and like any pure psychopath, by any means necessary. It has gone to an extreme unmoored by principles. Fed by expedience and promises to please the whims of the populace with gifts, to affirm their grievances in exchange for their votes. It’s leaders vying for abolishing borders, aborting babies after they are born, and embracing and conflating the word Socialism as if the principles of socialism do not lead to mass murder and starvation. (The good they attribute to socialism is actually true liberalism — flourishing markets, mutual respect, etc. Conflating the term destroys both.) Why has this happened? Because Progressivism is operating as a group psychopath with no remorse, and therefore, no limits. It will achieve it’s goals by any means necessary, without acknowledging the evil within its own ranks, and it will dehumanize it’s opponents in order to do so.
There is no way to box in this kind of mentality — there are no ways to check it with guilt. And it is for this reason that even good natured, well-intentioned modern “liberalism” tends to edge ever closer to the more dangerous progressivism, the Wilsonian progressivism with open contempt for the constitution. Contempt for principles or limitations on impulsive actions to achieve their ends. It is power at all cost, so that they accomplish good in the world. Who decides what is good? That is precisely the right question.
Not only does the mob thus take on the qualities of sociopaths, but it also attracts individuals who are sociopaths. Those who can plug in easily to the tenants of the mob. This is easier for progressivism — where the psychopath’s mantra of “by any means necessary” is fully embraced. Where the individual behavior or health isn’t important as long as the collective goal and narrative is being achieved — where allegiance isn’t to honesty and personal rationality but to extreme tribal tenants — and where hesitations about the long-term consequences of establishing authoritarian power that could then be used by one’s enemies are derided because of the impulse for power, now. Radicalization is the dehumanizing effect of replacing personal responsibility with collective psychopathy.
How can we stop group psychopathy?
First, we must understand individual psychopathy. We must be aware of the tricks used to manipulate us — and demand brutal honesty and clarity above all else. Political correctness and pretense is a shroud readily adorned by psychopaths. A tool to ignore empirical data and heavy intellectual lifting that might lift the charade. To be naïve about the existence of individual psychopaths is reasonable, as they represent only 1% of the total population (sociopaths represent 4%)— however, psychopathic and sociopathic symptoms exist in a spectrum. And my argument is that regardless of individual diagnosis, when humans collectivize their identities become subsumed by an entity that is functionally a psychopath. A group does not have a conscious — and the fiction that tribes are thinking individuals is a dangerous myth that sets the stage for true psychopaths to take the helm and spout out their beliefs to fill the void of reality with their vision. Individuals may bounce ideas off of one another, but in the end- it is the political leader, the ones vying for power, who become the voices of the vicious movements of history. The monsters who take a beast incapable of remorse or guilt and direct its power to their purpose.
The cure for social psychopathy is individuation. A return to rational, sovereign responsibility of consciousness. Individuals, not groups, are capable of sanity — each of us are capable of forming authentic principles to live by, and of caring truly and deeply about one another. This does not mean we must turn to our backs on each other, indeed, it is the toxicity of collectivization that leads us to disregard our personal duties. We offload the “good” to the directives of the State, and recuse ourselves of the morality of our decisions — for it is only volition that gives our actions moral quality. We must realize that in order to create a society with honesty — a sane society, we must decentralize the psychotic beast. The people must be brought together by ideals, fundamental values — our politicians have discarded values for mutable platitudes, because principles are unhelpful to the manipulative psychotic. It is time we stop enabling.
We must return to true liberalism if we are to reign in the terrible effects of social psychopathy. The original liberal idea was a philosophy of personal responsibility and freedom — the goal of American liberalism was to tame the psychopathic behavior of mob rule and curtail the power of any single ruler — indeed, whether explicit or not, it’s result was to disincentivize psychopathy. By designing a society where, as much as possible, men were ruled not by other men, but by objective standards of law — the door would be closed to tyranny.
In the United States, our Constitution acts as our conscious. It is only with a core of principles derived from individualism that we can fight group insanity — based on the idea that a functioning republic requires free, responsible people capable of reason. Knowing that to treat our citizens as children, and eternally shield them from the responsibility of making independent moral actions, is to stunt them into the conscious of toddlers in the overbearing custody of a psychopathic State. They understood that the empirical evidence of history shows the human-destroying monster that grows proportional to the size of the society — and the only way to stem this social psychopath is to formalize its conscious. To design it around clear human rights, and weaken its power- to put it in gridlock, unable to act on impulse to destroy those rights.
You hear the common complaint from politicians that government isn’t effective enough, that the European Union needs teeth, that our leaders need more power to effect change- and we see centralized governments that do have power adored despite their travesties. In 1984 Bernie Sanders returned from the USSR to adoringly recount to congress his tour of the Communist utopia. He openly praised their mission and ability to execute their vision unilaterally, while ignoring the hundreds of millions slaughtered in the glorious pursuit, innocent women and children starving to death as he spoke. Political pontificators overlook the horrors perpetrated by China to lament, wouldn’t it be nice if we could enforce change like them? What they are coveting is the same lack of conscious that allows psychopaths to excel in ruthless corporate systems- a lack of empathy and thus worry about the consequences and collateral of others allows you to plow through with your grand vision. To obtain greater power. A lack of conscious which is the inherent quality of these all powerful entities, which treat individuals like livestock that feeds the machine. What they want is power to control that machine, by any means- and that is what they envy.
They spout their admiration while deflecting the horrors with cultural relativism, which allows them to ironically feign empathy for others while allowing actual horrors to be perpetrated by evil actors on actual innocent people. To disassociate responsibility. It is the act of psychopaths holding each other’s ruthless adherence to rituals — to collective good or glory- above the reality of their consequences to their fellow human beings. It is a way to avoid the conversation about right and wrong, because the psychopath can’t understand the notion. They have adopted a façade- but there is nothing beneath.
In the West, we have gone far along the path to accepting centralized authoritarian systems of power, gone far along the path to destroying personal responsibility and genuine empathy. But if we are to survive, we must wake up from our fiction — we must realize that the collective creature we have formed has no conscious, it is a great troll whose neck is slung with the chain of thirsty power hungry masters who regurgitate talking points to keep us calm — to keep us in psychosis, while they control our fate. We must wake up from our own insanity, and bear the burden of reality- because it is right.
Because humanity is not a collective. Humanity is people, real people — with thoughts, feelings, and dreams— and social psychopathy crushes humanity’s potentiality- reforms it into a blind, primal organism. It is time to redesign society to contain that beast in the ward of the past — and strive for the perfection of a society whose moors are sanctified in our social contract, and encourage rational, honest human relationships and progress to the greatest possible future. It is time to revive authentic liberalism as the antidote to psychosis.
Please check out more of my opinion pieces on the intersection of philosophy and culture:
