I really want a factual answer, but I think its probably better to put this here.
Are there any quality, scientific peer reviewed studies showing a stronger correlation of conservativism to sociopathy, then liberalism and sociopathy?
A WAG but I’d speculate there’s no correlation between sociopathy and either ideology. Conservatism and liberalism are political ideologies - by their nature, they’re about being part of a group of people. Sociopaths are not “joiners” - they’re people who feel isolated from all groups.
Also it’s often hard to nail down “liberal” and “conservative”
Keep in mind that Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot followed far-left ideologies.
NI don’t have a cite but I thought sociopaths leaned more libertarian. They would probably be unmoved by the appeals to justice and empathy liberals have as well as the appeals to tradition and morality conservatives have. Plus some studies have shown conservatives have a stronger fear reflex (which is part of the more pro military and law enforcement attitudes they have) while sociopaths knave a very low fear response.
OTOH, one of the key differentiators between political ideologies is peoples’ idea of Us vs Them.
A sociopath has an Us of one. The entire rest of humanity is Them; to be used, abused, and run roughshod over at will.
The classic far out “bleeding heart” inclusive Kumbaya-singing type has an Us of all humanity. In their view nobody is Them. Everybody must be included and cared for and their rights and needs and wants considered equally.
A pretty good argument can be made that classical liberal /progressive thinking is more the latter whereas the classical rugged individualist “my success is 100% the result of my efforts” thinker is more the former.
In this discussion we’re going to start bumping up against the fact that politics and peoples’ attitudes to the world have far more than a single dimension captured by terms like “left”, “right”, “liberal”, and “conservative.”
Its about a coin flip. A lot of the kids involved in school shootings seem to have been raised in fairly liberal households; this holds true some of the famous “lower body count” famous incidents as well. But on the other side you have things like the abortion clinic bombings and a couple of the more race-related murder sprees. So pretty much take your pick – both sides have a good representative sampling of nutjobs.
Ho was pretty much a mainstream communist and nationalist. There wasn’t anything particularly extreme about his ideology unless you feel all communism is extreme by definition.
I’ll grant that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were all extremists. And you could add people like Hitler, Saddam, the Assads, and the Kims. But I think it’s a mistake to think of any of these people as part of a movement. They may have started out that way but their goal was to subvert the movement and turn it into a tool of their own personal power. None of these people saw themselves as just a member of a group. They all saw themselves as the Supreme Leader who was above everyone else. For them a movement was just the people who served them.
By definition being a sociopath means you are mentally ill, you are not in complete control of your cognitive faculties. Therefore any other beliefs, behaviors, ideals etc. that you may ascribe to are utterly meaningless as they have not been arrived at thru the same processes as a non-mentally ill individual.
A mentally ill bad apple does NOT belong to any bunch (except other mentally ill)…
are you saying you think Ted Nugent is mentally sound… ?
Mentally ill does not mean a stark raving lunatic in a straightjacket who howls at the moon. Mentally ill people are capable of logical reasoning and inference, and indeed many of history’s most creative thinkers have been totally nuts.
I can turn up a few that you can find if you have access, although some of the methodological issues make me :dubious:. E.g.:
Arvan, M. (2013). Neuroethics. Conservatism associated with narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism.
Odgaard, E.C. (2013). Neuroethics. (Response to previous)
Tittle, Welch, & Grasmick. (2008). Sociological Spectrum. Conservatives more law-abiding, but controlling for factors shows little effect in either direction.
Sociopathy aka psychopathy aka antisocial personality disorder does not mean that “you are not in complete control of your cognitive faculties,” no more than any of us are. They are very aware that what they might do is legally and morally wrong (NB: many “sociopaths” are perfectly law-abiding), but don’t care. That is a far cry from a psychotic person who is decidedly not in control.
Good description…
Echoing this - many (most) sociopaths are law abiding simply as a practical matter, not because they believe it to be “right”.
Certainly anecdotal and I don’t know how you would measure it anyway, but I do feel that the Republican Party and conservatives in general do attract a lot of “jerks”. That is to say, going by Fox News commentators, comments on most other message boards, and folks I’ve met IRL, the sort of people who are angry, xenophobic, insensitive, intolerant, intractable, unsympathetic and narcissistic. Like the sort of people who if a law was passed outlawing bullying, would raise a stink about their “rights” being violated because they couldn’t call someone a “fag” and punch them in the face with impunity.
To my mind, “conservatives” are people more comfortable with tradition (for good or bad) and “progressives” are people more comfortable with innovation (again for good or bad). This is orthogonal to “sociopathy”.
If anything, I would say conservatism vs. progressivism is more associated with age vs. youth.
Keep in mind I’m not American …
I think any political ideology can be taken over by sociopaths and used to serve their own ends, because sociopaths would care about nothing but having the power. They would do anything, say anything, take whatever risks, to obtain the power. This gives them a considerable advantage over those who take the ideology’s tenets seriously to any extent.
Being a sociopath means you reject empathy and acceptance for others and/or society’s ‘norms’ in favor of your own personal beliefs. You reject your society’s social contract. Taking that and making a great leap to this specifically implying a very general political stance is going too far. Respect for others opinions is implicit in any mainstream Western political group. And disrespect for them is as common in the fringe left as it is the right.
Forgive my assumptions, but given the title of this OP I can’t help but assume it’s related to the idea put forth that Dylan Roof’s murder spree was somehow aided by so-called right-wing media. In any form this is an outrageous, ignorant, jingoistic, opportunistic, and very insulting idea.
If this was not implied then my apologies…
nope. inspired by my neighbor…who doesn’t care what you think
Well it’s clear from the thread title that the OP already has an opinion of which one sociopathic tendencies is more correlated.
The way I see it, it helps (or else doesn’t help) matters that it’s pretty easy and popular these days to label someone you don’t like a sociopath.
Sociopaths are supposedly good at lying, and don’t have “real” emotions, but are very good at pretending/faking. So if there’s someone whose behaviour you don’t like, you can insist that any emotions they seem to be feeling are being convincingly faked, and that the things they say are lies, because they’re good at lying. With that logic, once you’ve labelled someone a sociopath, it can be difficult to prove that they’re not. (It’s called “unfalsifiable” - not able to be proven false.)
Yes, afterwards I thought my title was a little biased, but that’s mainly because I’m currently pissed at my conservative neighbor. If I had a liberal neighbor who acted the same way, I’d probably had rephrased the question.
For the record, I’m fairly conservative on a lot of things…generally more libertarian…I love the second amendment…but I also love the first and all the others; as well as the ACLU