Good diggings. Does that seem to be a 66% to 33% ratio, or am I just crappy at math today?
75-25
Found the textbook. Best cite I could find from the text without making an all-day project out of it:
Developmental studies of antisocial behavior (ASB) have found two subgroups of behaviors, roughly described as aggressive and nonaggressive ASB. Theoretical accounts predict that aggressive ASB, which shows greater stability, should have high heritability. In contrast, nonaggressive ASB is very common in adolescence, shows less continuity, and should be influenced both by genes and shared environment. This study explored the genetic and environmental influences on aggressive and nonaggressive ASB in over 1,000 twin pairs aged 8–9 years and again at 13–14 years. Threshold models were fit to the data to incorporate the skew. In childhood, aggressive ASB was highly heritable and showed little influence of shared environment, whereas nonaggressive ASB was significantly influenced both by genes and shared environment. In adolescence, both variables were influenced both by genes and shared environment. The continuity in aggressive antisocial behavior symptoms from childhood to adolescence was largely mediated by genetic influences, whereas continuity in nonaggressive antisocial behavior was mediated both by the shared environment and genetic influences. These data are in agreement with the hypothesis that aggressive ASB is a stable heritable trait as compared to nonaggressive behavior, which is more strongly influenced by the environment and shows less genetic stability over time.
THALIA C. ELEY, PAUL LICHTENSTEIN and TERRIE E. MOFFITT (2003). A longitudinal behavioral genetic analysis of the etiology of aggressive and nonaggressive antisocial behavior. Development and Psychopathology, , pp 383-402. doi:10.1017/S095457940300021X.
I was going from memory, without re-consutling the data, , However, it is not a statistically exact number, because the criteria for the condition do not have sharp edges…
If you mean former CEO (now Chairman) Brabek-Letmathe I agree, he’s terrifying. Case in point: - YouTube
This is a combination of elements that I think the psychological terminology needs to catch up on. There is no clear term which differentiates a person who operates without conscience but doesn’t necessarily enjoy causing pain. I think that’s actually a lower level of psychopathy than the completely conscienceless person, who gets no sort of “buzz” from the pain of others. The total psychopath would just be bored, and perhaps annoyed by the noisy screaming. He/she would also never put that much energy into something with no end benefit for themselves.
This describes my ex to a “t”. He is one of those charming people who can shift personality in accordance with whatever gets him what he wants from the person he’s talking to. The only time you really see him nervous is when different people in his life come together into one room, and he can’t maintain all his masks at once.
I finally understood what was going on one afternoon when I mentioned that I needed to call a friend and apologize because I thought something Id said may have offended her. He then asked a series of questions regarding what I might want from her, and what I hoped to achieve with this apology. He spent the rest of the afternoon making fun of me for “just caring” whether I had hurt her. He considered this a serious weakness of character on my part.
Czarcasm: The best reference I’ve seen is Robert Hare’s “Without Conscience.” The 1% estimate is from his work. Another great one is Martha Stout’s “The Sociopath Next Door.” I believe that Stout is responsible for the 3% male 1% female research. As for the CEO stats, those come from the work of Paul Babiak (in concert with Hare.) Babiak’s “Snakes in Suits” is also a great read on the subject.
hth
The OP seems to boil down to this question:
If we accept the term psychopath to be the commonly understood use, as in someone who lacks any ability to feel empathy, the answer is yes. There are a lot of reasons someone may act like a heartless asshole but a true lack of ability to feel empathy is a neurological disorder. Culture and upbringing can’t teach someone to learn that ability if they lack it, nor can they cause someone to lose it if they have it.
There are two kinds of ‘morality’ in human cultures. One is imposed on us by our social/religious/legal norms and the other is at least in theory, an innate, neurological makeup that causes emotions that allow empathy which has been termed ‘neuro-morality’. A reluctance to cause harm to others for example is innate in most humans. So is a desire to help others in distress. There are obvious reasons these qualities have been rewarded by evolution in a social species such as ourselves. They would, it is hypothesized, exist in most humans even if they were not reinforced by any of the social/religious/legal dogmas the OP presumably is referring to as being ‘civilized’.
Like all things human there are many shades of gray in this area. Someone may appear to delight in tearing the wings off butterflies and drowning kittens but actually have the ability to feel empathy, neurologically speaking, and could be causing themselves great internal pain and regret while still demonstrating this behavior. Others may lack that ability but live a relatively normal life free of violence or treacherous business practices.
A true inability to feel empathy is uncommon but nothing more mysterious than a person born without sight. They simply lack the neurological wiring to generate those emotions. Brain injury can also cause the same result. The exact wiring that is missing is unknown as is most of the inner workings of the brain, but studies using MRI and other techniques have demonstrated there are physical differences in the brains of true sociopathic/antisocial personalities. Therefore, all humans do not start out this way until we are taught otherwise by civilization.
The majority of people casually called sociopaths do not actually have this problem - they are just selfish assholes. The same way we can force ourselves not to eat despite being hungry, or to stay awake despite being sleepy, we can force ourselves to override empathetic feelings for many reasons in many contexts.
If I understand your answer, it seems to imply that “pre-civilization” humans possessed no sense of empathy. I’m not sure that can be demonstrated, nor logically deduced from the observation of “pre-civilized” cultures.
Even primates display conspicuous evidence of empathy.
Recent studies have suggested that even rats exhibit this behavior, but some were quick to poo-poo the findings, accusing the researchers of anthropomorphizing the observed results.
I’ve often wondered if the near-universal tendency for humans to seek revenge for perceived injustices was instrumental in our evolutionary history because it limited the number of antisocial individuals in a given population.
You didn’t understand my answer then. My point was that empathy and a desire to help others are innate qualities that exist without “civilization”
In addition to reluctance to cause harm to others, and desire to help others in distress, an instinct to punish ‘cheaters’ is also hypothesized to be innate. I’m in a hurry and can’t provide cites right now but a search for “neuro-morality” will yield many studies about that exact question.
Since we are all about asking for cites today, can you back this claim?
“Psychopath” and “sociopath” are neither medical or legal terms. They are words commonly used to describe the medical term: “antisocial personality disorder.” DSM IV.
Thank you for the clarification.
Actually, according to http://allpsych.com/disorders/personality/antisocial.html they were formerly used: