It sounds like the mother knows this (whether consciously or subconsciously) and is engaging in this sort of enabling behavior JUST SO she can have a “pseudo-real” relationship with her son. There is probably sad desperation deep down motivating her.
You seem to come to this topic with a sort of sophomore dorm room bull session level of philosophy; specifically, that if the sociopath is successful at getting what he wants, he must be the smartest guy in the room. The truth of the matter is that most sociopaths don’t want anything beyond immediate gratification; they don’t think logically about the ultimate consequences of their actions, and don’t engage in the social give and take that provides an emotional cushion and safety net . Most sociopaths are not ultimately successful people, or at least, not nearly as successful as they might be with greater genuine social aptitude. Violating social expectations of honesty and integrity typically have negative repercussions to the transgressor that eventually result in partial or complete exclusion; hence why many sociopaths are loners and transients who often prey on the emotionally vulnerable.
A sociopath may gain the upper hand by taking advantage of the group altruistic nature of other people, but he or she will probably not be able to maintain the kind of trust necessary to continue “using” someone, whereas the normal give and take between trusted business acquaintances and friends allows one to “use” them over and over again, with the tacit assurance that aid provided will be paid in future dividends. A game theory analysis of human social behavior–and there are thousands of these of varying degrees of fidelity and value–generally converge on a cooperative strategy that includes acts of asymmetrical altruism as a display of good faith and allows only very limited predatory self-interest. So no, I wouldn’t expect a “hypothetical super intelligent computer to act solely in its own self-interest,” to behave in a fashion destructive to its patrons; it would calculate just what it could get away with indefinitely while as a cost versus benefit analysis.
To borrow your analogy, the wolf may use his ways to feed upon one or two sheep in the flock, but sooner or later the sheep will flee at the sight of the wolf, and he’ll have to find a new flock. Being a sheep, however, provides advantages against predation, disease, et cetera. Of course, the shepherd needs guard dogs, too, which are a sort of middle ground; a creature that doesn’t object to aggression and the shedding of blood, but appreciates the necessity of protecting rather than preying on sheep. The dogs, while carnivores, appreciate that their self-interest is intertwined with the survival of the sheep; the wolves only know that sheep is tasty and they want some, now. Which do you think lives a longer, healthier, and more satisfying life?
Sociopaths are often clever, but they are rarely “smart”, in the sense of cultivating the kind of social relationships that would allow them to maintain an advantage indefinitely. Even when they do, they are often enabled by the emotional dependence and insecurity of others.
Stranger
In a sense, I agree with you. A normal person will have an advantage over a sociopath of average or lower intelligence, because normal people are instinctively capable of acting as members of society, while sociopaths aren’t. However, a highly intelligent sociopath will overcome this problem by faking social instincts, enjoying society’s benefits while ignoring its restrictions. That’s what makes them so dangerous.
Sociopaths are no more or less intelligent than anyone else. Some are stupid, most are average, and a few are smart. It’s the smart ones - the Bernie Madoffs and Joseph Stalins - who you have to look out for.
I read an article a few months ago (possibly about one of the author’s listed above) which mentioned an interesting thing. Years ago, they found a reliable test for a 'path was to wire them up to a machine with a timer and an electric shock.
Ring a buzzer and wait a fixed time before you shock them. Regular folk quickly put two and two together and would exhibit fright behavior between the buzzer and the shock. Increased sweating, pulse, breathing. 'paths wouldn’t. They knew they were going to get shocked and just didn’t care.
This “test” is now banned due causing pain (but no burns, scars, etc.).
This is a key aspect. They not only don’t care about harming others (seeing them as things), but they don’t care about harm to themselves.
This result fits in with the general information regarding the lack of emotional life that is present in the mind of a psychopath. Fear (anticipation of the pain of the electrical shock) is an emotional state (Schachter’s Two-Fact Theory of emotion states that emotions are a combination of a physiological arousal state and a cognitive label of that state). The fact that the psychopath neither exhibited the cognitive label of “hey, my palms are sweaty and my heart’s beating faster, I must be scared” NOR the actual physiological arousal itself is a pretty good indication that emotional experiences are not occurring in a psychopath.
Another recommendation for a book is The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson.
From the description…“is a fascinating journey through the minds of madness. Jon Ronson’s exploration of a potential hoax being played on the world’s top neurologists takes him, unexpectedly, into the heart of the madness industry. An influential psychologist who is convinced that many important CEOs and politicians are, in fact, psychopaths teaches Ronson how to spot these high-flying individuals by looking out for little telltale verbal and nonverbal clues. And so Ronson, armed with his new psychopath-spotting abilities, enters the corridors of power. He spends time with a death-squad leader institutionalized for mortgage fraud in Coxsackie, New York; a legendary CEO whose psychopathy has been speculated about in the press; and a patient in an asylum for the criminally insane who insists he’s sane and certainly not a psychopath.”
It’s by the same journolist who wrote “The Men Who Stare At Goats” and is a really entertaining, and frightening read.
I’m not sure I’ll be able to take seriously a book that talks without irony about a concept like “the madness industry,” (said phrase being chock full of bias), but I’ll put it on my list.
was told by a psychologist yrs ago, not a forensic specialist or anything I don’t think. didn’t believe it at the time & resented it…but as many yrs have gone by have had to accept that certain things seem to be true—the intelligence used for manipulation & covert behavior, the charm that gets cut off like a spigot when gratification doesn’t come about (a scary thing to see—makes you KNOW that the “caring” was fake), the rages that can go on for a long time with the same intensity—no building up or tapering off, only stopped by some outside influence. I was going to ask if there might be different levels of sociopathic illness but from reading the posts it seems there are only different degrees—not “how sociopathic are they” but “how much of it do they exhibit.”
everything you’ve said here is right on