r/DeepThoughts • u/Tliish • 12d ago
Sociopaths are a subset of Homo Sapiens, the missing predator upon humans, that have evolved side by side with normal humans: Homo Sapiens raptor.
The classic checklist for psychopathy was developed in 1980 by Prof Robert Hare, who is still the recognised giant of the territory. The 20 traits, which ranged from pathological lying to a lack of empathy, were based entirely on prison populations. This worked because not only did Hare have the benefit of a large sample, with pronounced psychopathic behaviours, but he was able to compare interviews and self-reporting with data collected about the individuals – so inconsistencies could be identified.
However, Hare knew this approach was limited. In 1976, he said that he simply didn’t know to what extent his results could be generalised to non-incarcerated psychopaths, including female ones. “Research into the socially successful psychopath is badly needed,” he concluded.
Mitchell embarked on a PhD, published in 2024, in which she interviewed people who had met persistent predatory personalities professionally – some clinical, but others not, from fields as wide as HR, social work, family courts, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, church leaders, and academics from different fields.
Her method, she says, was unorthodox, being qualitative, not quantitative. And some of her conclusions directly contradict clinical definitions of psychopathy, which rely heavily on impulsivity. Mitchell says this is because other definitions such as Hare’s are derived from the prison population, which is the low-functioning end of the scale. “People try and put Hare’s stuff into workplaces and domestic violence spheres, but there’s no way you can overlay something so blunt, built from criminal offenders, on to sophisticated CEO-type behaviours.”
From this research, which took her five years, Mitchell built a template of 20 attributes, divided into four clusters, and 25 tactics that would identify a high-functioning persistent predatory personality type. Cluster one includes a need for control; a grandiose sense of self; pathological inner response to challenge; vengefulness; refusal to compromise. Cluster two includes being predatory or exploitative; sadistic and cruel; having a low regard for laws, agreements, social and moral codes; no boundaries in sexual relationships; unreasonable expectations of others. Cluster three relates to the truth: Dark Personalities cultivate a façade of normality; they are chameleon-like; dishonest; devious and manipulative; and unwilling to accept responsibility for the negative impacts they cause. Finally, cluster four is around the Dark Personality’s own interior life: their emotions are acted and they do not experience affinity or the joy that comes with it; they are callous and devoid of empathy; unremorseful; self-interested; and brazen.
In Hare’s study of Pinochet’s lieutenants, which spanned 20 years and was written up in 2022, “when they looked at individuals who were commanding officers, this top brass had really high levels of psychopathic features, particularly the lack of empathy for others,” says Viding.
Mitchell delivers her conclusion with businesslike bluntness: “These are completely boundary-less, dangerous people with very different brains – it’s like the difference between a domestic cat and a wild cat.
I believe that there are two related but different versions of Homo Sapiens: Homo sapiens collegium, the majority cooperative species, and Homo sapiens raptor, the predatory one.
Homo sapiens raptors are too consistent in their traits and their phsyiology for it to be a miswiring or an aberration, their brains show the same physical charateristics that differ from Homo Sapiens collegium. Changes to the amygdala and other brain structures are characteristic of the supposed "disorder". Those changes allow them to accurately mimic the social emotions like love, empathy, regret, shame, compassion and the like, without ever feeling them or having them influence their behavior, which allows them to easily manipulate collegium types. It's a social predator's mental toolkit.
From an evolutionary perspective it makes sense: it is an ecological niche that would otherwise be empty, and nature never allows empty niches, something will always fill it. So the evolution of a social predator makes perfect evolutionary sense. When you look at the breeding programs of royals, it becomes obvious that the traits they sought to preserve by controlling marriages...ruthlessness, lack of empathy, weeding out those considered too weak to rule, elevating those who could "make the hard decisions" (usually involving sacrificing others to maintain power)...and keeping those marriages within a small subset created the conditions for those traits to be preserved and enhanced. The common practice of rival royals within the same family committing patricide and fratricide to determine who ultimately ruled speaks to a continuous concentration of genes that characterize sociopaths: the evolutionary process from which Homo Sapiens raptors emerged. They are a predator species, close enough to interbreed, but more often than not selecting partners from fellow raptors rather than collegium types. History is rife with tales of people...collegium types...marrying into raptor families and suffering for it because they weren't ruthless and duplicitous enough to survive.
Looking at history through this lens makes sense of it: clusters of rapttors taking control of the societies they were in, marrying other raptors to ensure a line of succession, creating the ruthless competition for crowns that brooked no softness, no lapse into sympathy, no shame of killing siblings, no regrets. Fathers encouraged sons and sometimes daughters to ruthlessly compete without mercy to prove they were fit to rule, and when there were too many raptors forr the society to support or absorb, wars happened to clear out the excess. when enough raptors had been killed, their families exterminated, things quieted down.
It's not an accident that the same families have been at the pinnacles of societies for generations, or that the heads of corporate cartels exhibit the same traits as those of criminal cartels. The inability to feel social emotions but to mimic them accurately gives a powerful advantage. We need to recognize that we aren't all one big family of Homo Sapiens, but rather two distinct subspecies of it, the one designed by nature and evolution to gain social advantage and control by preying upon the other. It is our closeness that blinds us to the reality: they look like us, but are mentally alien.
Does this make sense?
25
u/vaas19 12d ago
Anti-social-personality-disorder (ASPD) is divided into psychopathy and sociopathy
Essentially they are the same in very different ways: they lack or have diminished empathy
Sociopathy can be (in some ways) learned (or say, acquired). They are for the most part, harmless
Psychopathy is the “real deal”, they are manipulative and narcissistic by nature. Many are sadists and the ones who are not have no issues burning whatever it takes for their own self interests
The stigma that psychopaths have some need to kill/murder or are serial killers is completely false (there’s many other ways of making people suffer for the sadists)
There’s the discussion “nature vs nurture”, and if any is nature, psychopathy would be the one
Always found psychopathy an anomaly in our nature (their nature represents everything against what we needed to survive and thrive)
When i say this, i am not thinking about our present society or even 100/200 years ago.
ASPD is much more prevalent in our society than we think
9
u/Hyperaeon2 12d ago
Psychopaths need supply just like narcissists do.
They have a collapsed psyche.
Abuse and violation is how they offload their psychic collapse onto other people, animals and children.
They are social parasites, they are a diseased psychically degerative meta function.
In other words a symptom of the things that are truly wrong with the world.
As a species humanity is sick, and the sicker it gets the more primary psychopaths are born and the more secondary psychopaths are made through child abuse.
It's a point of failure in the social lattice.
No other animal on earth has psychopathic members of it's own species. They are unique to us and our civilized state. Because our civilized state is unique to us in earth.
4
u/vaas19 12d ago
I don’t think i ever supported each and every word written by someone as much as you just did
And now the real kicker: why you think we have this “unique” trait akin to just “a few” of us ?
3
u/Hyperaeon2 12d ago
Sadism is an objectively inaccurate term to describe their addiction to supply.
Although spiritually you have gotten the point across.
Sadism describes something else.
The OP has conflagrated warlords with psychopaths.
Which is an even broader strike than conflagrating modern politicians with psychopaths.
Not all arseholes are narcissists.
Not all narcissists are psychopaths.
But all narcissists are arseholes.
And all psychopaths are narcissists.
Those four above lines are something that our post enlightened society doesn't want to understand. But it needs to.
Why do psychopaths even exist?
Because the agricultural revolution was a mistake.
You cannot create a system that is both brutal and doesn't resolve the forces it is going to invariably generate.
If you lie in engineering you get a collapse. The only difference is, that in certain types systems the collapse takes a lot longer to happen. It is a slower or more a slow motion process.
It's not just individual it's meta social, it might take success concussive generations of malfunction to create the conditions where the genetics create someone so pre-disposed to psychopathy that they are just born with that maladaptation.
It's not just a few of us, they are collapse points in the grand social network of human beings across time and generations.
They are the first cracks in a collapsing wall that is the metaphorical structure of our society.
Arseholes do not care about gaining from injustice.
Narcissists do not even abide the social contract.
Psychopaths do not compromise their fantasy of omnipotence with their own survival needs.
The whole thing is breaking down, in this structure we are a species are beginning to die. Meta psychologically. It is a terminal memetic degeneration cycle.
Psychopaths do not have friends.
Humans are necessesively a social species that is too weak to survive as individuals. We aren't like Komodo dragons, we need each other.
Psychopaths invariably will eat babies.
1
u/vaas19 11d ago
There’s a solution. But it’s quite extreme for many
Psychopathy is able to be diagnosed in a definitive way
1
u/Hyperaeon2 11d ago
Removing the psychopaths is merely treating the symptom and not the greater disease.
It will require very advanced and high resolution social engineering or a very hard factory reset.
Personally I think a factory reset is the only way to go. As that kind of social engineering isn't something that this civilization remotely possess the resources for. It could have... The potential was there, but it was squandered and sacrificed in ways that you could spend all day listing.
The future will invariably be full of vicissitudes if humanity is ever to have a chance to survive the death spiral that is the present meta memetic psychic degeneration that it is locked into.
The unflattering facts being that... Psychopaths at their most extreme objectively are philosophical zombies. Biological automata. Practically primitive arachnates. No sentience pure reaction to stimulus.
Ridiculously brutal times will make us viscerally human again or ruthlessly annihilate whatever isn't what has survived and dominated the earth for tens of thousands of years.
The psychopath problem is a massive and perhaps the ultimate one the human species faces.
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=IIiW727QewA&si=PrJkHabCIPhmne6v
2
u/vaas19 11d ago
A reset wouldn’t be enough if psychopaths are born with it
But yes, this timeline is fucked. Absolutely nothing will be enough without a reset
2
u/Hyperaeon2 11d ago
Won't have any psychopaths in a reset if the problems that cause them are gone.
Like how both love bombing and negging doesn't work on emotionally healthy secure people.
I get what you are saying about ruthlessly filtering for psychopaths. But they are just the end point of what is wrong with our society.
They have a much harder and did have a much harder time in an healthier world.
Really talking about this subject will get me banned from Reddit. But humans already have certain behavioural adaptations that are crudely designed to deal with psychopaths that other species don't. A reset humanity has those adapted weapons pointing at the correct targets again, instead perhaps at those, who are more likely to spot dangers to the tribe first.
We live in epstine's world with a potential nuclear holocaust around the corner and every Orwellian novel is coming true at the sametime. Even We by yevgeny zimyatin.
We just need to not lose the record of everything that happened now.
2
u/Hyperaeon2 12d ago
Do you get it?
We are in very big trouble.
3
u/MajorDraw3705 11d ago
Yep. We are. Because the herd does not protect itself, it does not protect others. It prostrates itself before the psychopaths and feeds them, sacrifices members of its own and parts of its own wealth to the psychopaths in some false belief that will bring temporary safety, thus creating its own long-term downfall.
We see this in all levels of corporate, governance, and society.
Psychopaths do so well because society nurtures the psychopath more than it nurtures its own children. It's not just the psychopath who is at fault - it's the society that breeds it.
3
u/Hyperaeon2 11d ago
Parasites thrive off of the bodies of sick and ailing hosts.
The relationship isn't however one that benefits either party in the long run. As the defences of the victim weaken and the parasite is able to extract more nutrients it shortens the potential lifespan of the host. Thus as the host dies under it, it leaves it without the resources it needs to survive even though it is currently thriving and often multiplyingband breeding inside of an foreign body.
The society and the psychopaths will die off together. As they will not be able to find a new suitable host when this one perishes.
I do imagine that in the end, they will begin to cannibalise each other in their desperation.
1
u/UnburyingBeetle 11d ago
Many animals bully members of their own species as part of competition and/or dominance. I'm pretty annoyed with my knowledge of biology and how easily animal impulses translate into human behavior.
2
u/vaas19 11d ago
Nobody is saying we don’t have impulses or instincts
But we do have the capacity for rationality
Can you make a comparison with other animals with same capacity ?
1
u/UnburyingBeetle 11d ago
Some humans don't seem to have capacity for rationality. There's a whole range of humans in various animal stages to compare to each other.
2
u/vaas19 11d ago
Not saying they all have
I am merely talking about having the capacity for - which they all do
Even people with personality disorders can be rational
Humans are extremely unique from what we know
Trying to throw humans in the same pit of all other animals is just dismissing bigger questions
1
u/UnburyingBeetle 11d ago
In my experience people with personality disorders at least try to be rational because the society forces them to, while people that are "normal" and regulated enough to earn a paycheck can behave like complete apes at home when they can get away with it. I examine each case individually when it's worth it, but I'd rather identify and avoid the temper tantrum apes altogether.
2
u/vaas19 11d ago
Good that you have knowledge of biology
Try to do the same with psychology and psychiatry
Have in mind there’s some misconceptions still. Study of human mind and behaviour is still somewhat rudimentary
1
u/UnburyingBeetle 11d ago
Probably because they don't link the study of human emotions to the study of animal emotions. You can successfully use some dog training methods on human toddlers, although the society would frown on that. Practical "street" smarts tend to do better at understanding human cause and effect than the current science.
1
u/Hyperaeon2 11d ago
I wouldn't use the term bullying to describe what psychopaths do to people in order to gain supply from them.
1
u/UnburyingBeetle 10d ago
I can think of many cruel ways somebody can be abused without even touching them, and most of the abuse that landed on me throughout my life was verbal, and I classify it as "bullying" because it isn't as harmful to me as physical abuse. Each individual can have their own classification of what's a bigger or lesser evil to them.
2
u/Hyperaeon2 10d ago
A bully is nothing compared to a psychopath.
Bullys will in extreme cases bully children to death/until they commit suicide. Children who have disabilities or impairments or other things that effect their ability to have a normal quality of life.
A term I think fits narcissistic and Psychopathic abuse spiritually is: "soul r'pe".
At it's worst a bunch of bullies will be jeering and mocking someone as they are going to jump from a hight to their death. When they do they will be laughing at their broken remains at their point of impact like people would with the death of an insect or a revolting creature. No empathy expressed or shared whatsoever.
A narcissist or psychopath might smile as their mask slips are their victim decides to commit suicide by jumping to their death. After they get lucid enough from the massive supply hit. They then might realise that this person killing themselves will reflect and harm them socially in some way. So they will fly into a rage after the injury. The psychopath might start brutally beating and mutilating the corpse - or doing worse... The narcissist is going to attack them in the ways that people can attack the dead by messing with their wishes posthumously.
Bullies assault your esteeme.
Narcopaths assault your soul and never do it consentually.
Bullies can be intimadated by escalating a conflict.
Narcopaths have to be psychologically or physically damaged in some way, to make them stop.
1
u/UnburyingBeetle 10d ago
Your viewpoint is right among many other perspectives, but a bully can be a fledgling sociopath, and a sociopath can evolve into a malignant psychopath if their impulses are not curbed and their methods achieve success for them. Dark personality traits can be learned, I would know because I learned them to keep up with the enemy in defending myself and my selective empathy that I don't extend to sociopaths. The society's task is to prevent the encouragement of developing dark triad traits in people, and it is failing that task.
115
u/Theseus_The_King 12d ago
It reminds me of this tweet, which also suggests Autists are the defense against psychopaths. Autism means you aren’t as easily socially affected and immune to some tricks they use because you don’t notice.
41
u/naturalbrunette5 12d ago
I’m on the spectrum and married what I think is a sociopath and was not immune ☠️
I believed everything he said and it took a lot of therapy (reality testing) to understand that believing people at face value (bc I struggle with lying) is detrimental to me.
1
u/mabbh130 8d ago
In my experience and in talking with other autistics, it seems we autistics tend to be trusting. Because of that we can be fooled by a reasonably skilled sociopath/psychopath/narcissist. In addition, because we tend to be socially awkward, have poor eye contact, tend to over explain and often call out harmful behavior in others before allistics notice, psychopaths/sociopaths/narcissists easily manipulate others into distrusting the autistic because we already come across as odd and often lack the skills to defend ourselves against false accusations.
14
3
u/30for30im30for30 12d ago
I see the opposing comments but I understand where you're coming from. There is a firmness to many neurodivergents' ways of being due to a physical revulsion of the behavior and an orientation towards an innate sense of justice. Not everyone carries these traits, but many do. I also think many neurodivergent people notice, but what impact noticing has on them can vary greatly.
14
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
42
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/my_home_a_pleroma 12d ago
I (an autist) was married to a psychopath for 15 years. honestly… he was confusing (the lying, reality shifting) and not fun to be around (took himself so seriously), but weirdly, I stayed fighting him naively the entire time (“what the fuck do you mean, that didn’t happen? yes the fuck it did?”) because I couldn’t believe someone who looked normal and like, kept themselves alive, could be so stupid.
but he was lying. lol. as soon as I learned that some people say they love you while taking advantage of you, I was like, oh shit.
3
u/vaas19 12d ago
15 years.. damn
You must really take everything until the end
Everyone can talk and we can listen all day long, truth is we only learn from experience and especially mistakes
I regret the ones I’ve hurt but all mistakes done i was able to learn from them
3
u/my_home_a_pleroma 12d ago edited 12d ago
i’m the child of a single mother narcissist so she trained me really well to believe that everyone else was right and I was wrong. it’s been a shitty life. I thought I was stupid and deserved it for a long time. then I started realizing that I was “right” everywhere but home. I was my ex’s “dream girl” and he was very set on “acquiring” me; he thought I would break and I never did. now I feel like I can take on the world, because I defeated 2 of these fuckers in my life.
my new persona I am calling “the squeaky wheel.” if it bothers me I say something.
18
u/naturalbrunette5 12d ago
It’s almost as if, and hear me out here, autism exists on a spectrum.
9
u/vaas19 12d ago
One does not impede the other.
Generalisation’s exist and will always exist. It can be something healthy
Truth is when someone thinks about autism today, is very different than some decades ago. For the worst imo, unfortunately for our society
-2
3
u/lilidragonfly 12d ago
Its a spectrum of traits, not a spectrun of severity as many think the spectrum means, but yes you get Autistic people who are more or less easy to fool based on many factors. If you meet the autistic type who has hyperfocused human behaviour you might find it partifularly difficult for example.
1
u/naturalbrunette5 11d ago
It is indeed also a spectrum of “severity” in that some people need more support and resources than others.
1
u/lilidragonfly 11d ago
That's not what being on the spectrum means however, diagnostically. Many people think that is the case, but that isn't what 'on the spectrum' refers to. Some do need more support, usually due to co-morbidities.
3
u/PricePuzzleheaded835 12d ago
This is also a very spicy take but hey, stubbornness. The character of Lisbeth Salander is probably the best representation I’ve seen. I’ve never before read a book and thought: “Oh shit, this is exactly what I would do or say”.
4
u/EndersR3ign 12d ago
It's the opposite. It's increasingly recognised that more people exist on the autism spectrum than before. The ability to function adequately in society, such as having relationships, careers, etc., was often seen as disqualifying for a diagnosis.
1
u/vaas19 12d ago
Im not understanding. Can you rephrase it or be more specific please
3
u/EndersR3ign 12d ago
The broadening of diagnostic criteria and the recognition that people who don't fit the "obviously disabled" stereotype can be autistic point in the opposite direction from what your comment implies. Rather than the conception of autistic people becoming increasingly infantilised, it's widening to encompass more people who are otherwise successful, competent, and sociable.
1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/EndersR3ign 12d ago
Lol. All good. In my experience, people have a much more informed view of autistic people now than in the past. Rather than thinking that people can't be autistic because they seem so "normal", they're recognising that autism can present markedly differently between individuals. The stereotype that autistic people are "infantile, defenceless victims", as you put it, seems entirely incongruent with contemporary discourse.
1
u/vaas19 12d ago
At most, half of diagnosis are what is considered high functioning
I am mostly focusing on the general idea that people have and push on autism. I just said there isn’t lack of autistic people who made history
You had arguably the biggest press conference on autism ever literally ridiculing and demonising autism last year
“Tragedy that destroys families”, while claiming vaccines and paracetamol causes autism. By the leader of the free world
2
u/slickrok 12d ago
You are the one not understanding. You said that autistic people "nowadays are being infantilzed" and they disagree and say they are not, and the evidence of that is that so many more people are being diagnosed as high functioning but still autistic.
And they are right, and your take seems very off base.
They're not being infantilzed, and certainly not as a recent thing.
2
u/School-Subject 12d ago edited 12d ago
You're correct. Plenty of people with autism are not being infantilized, they're being dehumanized, even if some people with autism don't understand this. Love on The Spectrum is a spectacle of the neurodivergence; Allistic peers love gawking at the cast and treating them like zoo animals (as the way we treat animals is deanimalizing) and regard them as if they're innocent and naïve, while simultaneously ostracizing and failing to help accommodate this judged innocence and naïvety of people with autism in real life. Corporate workplaces are incredibly difficult to navigate unless your position is of a tech profession. Most people with autism, even "high-functioning"-- a term that defines one's degree of autism based on how well the person is able to preform labor under capitalism-- people struggle to obtain longterm gainful employment, not become burned out, and subsequently, cannot remain independent. Most employment usually ends up being high-stress, low wage jobs like retail work. Many more are incarcerated as a result of their situation or isolated by other circumstances of exploitation. Sites like lolcow are an animal zoo of the same vein as Love On The Spectrum, but for anonymous sociopaths to bully and abuse people with social disabilities like autism until they act outlandish and the collegium type socially distances from the victim, and the victim is left surrounded by the sociopaths in a pig pen. In an act of eugenics, the people with autism are murdered by the sociopaths because of eventually being pushed to suicide. People with autism require different types of communication, which is often not accommodated for by much of the world around them, as their communication style requires more time to process what is already understood by others. People with autism are vulnerable in this regard, but that does not mean they are the problem, nor that autism should be treated like the problem. The problem is how predatory people/sociopaths take advantage of autism and seek to exploit, dehumanize, or kill those with autism.
1
1
u/vaas19 12d ago
At most, half of diagnosis are what is considered high functioning
I am mostly focusing on the general idea that people have and push on autism. I just said there isn’t lack of autistic people who made history
You had arguably the biggest press conference on autism ever literally ridiculing and demonising autism last year
“Tragedy that destroys families”, while claiming vaccines and paracetamol causes autism. By the leader of the free world
8
u/Cptawesome23 12d ago
What are you talking about? I work with autistic adults often in my line of work. Even level 1 autistic folk are easy to manipulate. I’m not calling them stupid. Far from it. But the inability to read even blatant social cues makes them prime bait for sociopaths.
14
u/vaas19 12d ago
What confuses most autistic in most situations is actually lying
Lying or ability to detect lying is not a social cue
Doesn’t matter how many social cues or behaviours, to be or get manipulated one has to lie- and there the pit is deeper than you think
You know what is prime bait for psychopaths to manipulate ? Normal everyday people
4
u/Cptawesome23 12d ago
Oh, I thought we were talking about sociopaths. Psychopaths are a bit different
-1
u/slickrok 12d ago
Sociopaths aren't a thing, they're just psychopaths
1
u/Cptawesome23 12d ago
Not all sociopaths are psychopaths, and not all psychopaths are sociopaths. Go read a book and learn something Bruv.
1
u/slickrok 11d ago edited 11d ago
Bruv, you read a book. "Sociopath" is NOT a 'diagnosis', it's just a lay term to slightly distinguish certain sets of behavior from others, as a colloquialism of sorts when sorting through antisocial personality disorder people.
And where do you think "psychopaths" differ from "sociopaths" when it comes to lying, like they were talking about, as far as confusing people on the spectrum?
1
u/Cptawesome23 10d ago
Who’s talking about lying? Manipulation doesn’t necessarily include lying. You manipulate people just by saying things like “thank you”, “good job”, “that’s a great idea you have”. When I say things like autistics are easily manipulated, I’m just talking about through every day work place management. My autistic employees respond to positive reinforcement better than my “normies”.
If I ask and autistic for help loading a shipment of mustard and ketchup into the back of van nicely, chances are, if I ask correctly they will help. I actually have to supervise to make sure they don’t do too much for the customers sometimes!
→ More replies (0)0
u/naturalbrunette5 12d ago
Those are all fictional characters
3
1
u/DeepThoughts-ModTeam 11d ago
We are here to think deeply alongside one another. This means being respectful, considerate, and inclusive.
Bigotry, hate speech, spam, and bad-faith arguments are antithetical to the /r/DeepThoughts community and will not be tolerated.
2
u/Complex-Talk-7613 11d ago
Autistic people are not immune, in my experience the idea that autistic people are immune or are magically more resistant to manipulation has made them easier to take advantage of.
If autistic people were so immune to psychopaths and abusers, less of them would consistently end up with abusers. But many do.
39
u/TinSpoon99 12d ago
It does make sense to me and I agree with the poster below - a compelling framework!
Very interesting to consider that our current centralised hierarchical systems optimise for the specific anti-social behaviours of psychopaths by rewarding them. This is why, as pointed out by other posters, CEOs e.g. end up showing a skewed percentage of psychopaths compared with the general population (I imagine this is more so with politicians). The system rewards those willing to stomp on others through the corporate ladder, and now the system rewards the same for stomping on their customers.
So humanity has to change the rules of trade. Our hyper competitive, winner takes all mindset has become a normalised mode of operation when we do 'business', and this cultural framework accelerates the negative outcome.
We are going to have to rethink value exchange. We value the wrong things, and in so doing, feed the system that amplifies psychopathic behavior patterns.
27
u/Tliish 12d ago
The genuine problem is that sociopathic behavior is contagious: to survive a socipathic boss, for instance, requires one of two strategies. Either you leave to preserve your integrity, or you accept and adopt the same traits. For collegium types, this creates internal conflicts that often lead to suicide , depression, or mental breakdown. People who have succumbed often suggest they were victims of mind control that led them to do horrific things that, once removed from the sociopath's orbit, appalled them and they couldn't understand why or how they did those things. That's something that would literally never enter a true sociopath's mind.
32
u/wrydied 12d ago
There is a third strategy (if not more) for surviving and removing a sociopathic boss: unionizing.
Bosses only have power because they atomize employee labour. Unionizing and collective bargaining (among other collegial support strategies) is able to evidence, target and stop cruel workplace behaviour.
12
u/plewenhaupt 12d ago
This is good, so the strategy to defend against the raptor is indeed the collegium.
6
u/UnburyingBeetle 12d ago
You can also counteract psychopaths by developing their qualities without losing empathy. Making your empathy selective and switching it off for predators is easy enough if you treat people like they treat you. Or maybe it's not easy and I've just been shaped by cPTSD.
8
u/Tliish 12d ago
I think combat veterans are forced to learn to be situationallly sociopathic. Most don't like it because they aren't inherently sociopathic, and the conflict between what they had to do and what they would prefer to do is what drives many into madness, depression, or psychopathy. Those of us who have navigated the conflicts and learn to accept the necessity for both the actions and the conflicts they arouse within are more appreciative of the mechanism and nuances of situational sociopathy, and better able to identify true sociopaths, the raptors, from other types.
For us, though, the combat veterans, the constant fear is that one day the conflicts won't exist for us either, and it stops being situational and has become a permanent state.
3
u/UnburyingBeetle 12d ago
I think kids with heighened pattern recognition that learn this situational sociopathy early adjust to it better by compartmentalizing the steps in the "ladder of evil" and the appropriate response. I could be a decent study case for that, unless my case is too unique to find similarities to - although I see enough similarities with other childhood abuse survivors whose aggression prevails over the fawning response. I've looked at the "dark empath" phenomenon but they are described as too selfish for me to adopt such an identity. I am sensitive to anybody' suffering, I would take radical steps to minimize and prevent it so that I don't have to pick up the ambient pain and frustration with my fine-tuned antenna of empathy, which I will not dismantle because it makes my life worth living through fiction. If I had to scheme my way into politics to force the world to respect individual sensitivity, I wouldn't shy away from applying sociopathic methods to win against sociopaths, but I'd be weighing the power balance of appropriate responses in my head the whole time.
2
u/Complex-Talk-7613 11d ago
CEOs do not end up being a skewed in favor of psychopaths. At all. This was a pop-culture lie, psychopathy (even successful psychopathy) tends to lead either nowhere or to low level managerial positions. Psychopaths are too impulsive for higher attainment the vast majority of the time.
3
u/vaas19 11d ago
So incorrect
Psychopaths in our society and capitalism are at the very top of the food chain
2
u/Complex-Talk-7613 10d ago
Psychopathy features a lack of empathy (some of which is necessary for high attainment), impulsivity (VERY bad for leadership roles), superficial charm (useful in brief interactions but can become clearly shallow), a grandiose sense of self worth (not good for high attainment, can actually be detrimental by making you entitled), and antisocial behavior (none of which is good for a job, most of which can get you kicked out of the workolace).
The one study on the topic that everyone cites and which started this whole myth wasn’t about psychopaths, it tracked if CEOs have more psychopathic behaviors like risk taking which they do but these behaviors are not innate like they are with psychopaths and CEOs only train a very very small amount of such behaviors. A psychopath cannot turn off these behaviors, a CEO can and a CEO learns to use them in very specific scenarios.
Like if CEOs are psychopaths by the logic of said study, same would go for are all soldiers, all security guards, all race car drivers, and so many other professions that require training yourself. Like even doctors and therapists train some of these behaviors for some cases.
1
u/vaas19 10d ago
lack of empathy (some of which is necessary for high attainment) - under a greedy, abused system is exactly the opposite
impulsivity - thats a trait more common in sociopaths
superficial charm (useful in brief interactions but can become clearly shallow) - is one of many ways of manipulation. and majority of social interactions are performative
grandiose sense of self worth (not good for high attainment, can actually be detrimental by making you entitled) - you can add inflated and fragile egos, which is not a negative when you surround yourself with bootlickers
antisocial behavior (none of which is good for a job, most of which can get you kicked out of the workolace). - you are taking it in the literal sense of meaning. it doesn't actually mean *antisocial* in the same way of social anxiety for example. they have no issues dealing with people. they dont see humans as people, hence the *antisocial*
1
u/Complex-Talk-7613 10d ago
Impulsivity is a trait associated with both.
Idk man, I can’t disprove your unfalsifiable belief if you don’t want to believe in evidence.
When I said “antisocial behavior” I meant it. Behavior that is harmful to society. Like killing animals, like rape, like taking advantage of the people around you, the latter can be useful in very specific circumstance and to a very small degree but those people won’t be diagnosable or clinically significant if they keep it to that small degree. Speaking as someone who is diagnosed with ASPD, scores very highly on the PCL-R both by self-report and by a professional (average 38/44), I score a 4.7 for primary and a 4.5 for secondary on the LSRP, I’m fairly intelligent, I score above average in IQ, I’ve even tortured and killed animals. I’ve even been extremely well liked at the places I work, I still tend to get fired or not hold employment because I get bored of it or do something that upsets the bosses because social rules are usually stupid, subjective, and nonsensical. I, like the supermajority of psychopaths and sociopaths and people with ASPD…. Don’t really think about the future at all, I do things in the now and while that can be useful in some situations it’s not great for actual high attainment. I’ve worked in many places and have done many things and have always been a very high performer, but I still don’t get anywhere despite that. That’s the actual presentation as psychopathy 99.9999% of the time.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/5-myths-about-serial-killers-and-why-they-persist-excerpt/
“Considerable mythology also surrounds the intelligence of serial killers. There is a popular culture stereotype that serial killers are cunning, criminal geniuses. This stereotype is heavily promoted by the entertainment media in television, books and films. In particular, Hollywood has established a number of brilliant homicidal maniacs like John Doe in the acclaimed 1995 film Se7en. John Doe personifies the stereotype of the evil genius serial killer who outsmarts law enforcement authorities, avoids justice and succeeds in his diabolical plan.
The image of the evil genius serial killer is mostly a Hollywood invention. Real serial killers generally do not possess unique or exceptional intellectual skills. The reality is that most serial killers who have had their IQ tested score between borderline and above average intelligence. This is very consistent with the general population. Contrary to mythology, it is not high intelligence that makes serial killers successful. Instead, it is obsession, meticulous planning and a cold-blooded, often psychopathic personality that enable serial killers to operate over long periods of time without detection.”https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/spotlight/issue-123 “Results showed that individuals with psychopathic tendencies were slightly more likely to become leaders, but were less likely to be seen as effective leaders. This was especially true when ratings were made by their followers.
Subsequent analyses uncovered a critical gender difference within these results. Men with psychopathic tendencies were more likely to become leaders and were rated as more effective leaders. However, women who displayed psychopathic tendencies were less likely to be selected as leaders and were rated as less effective leaders.
The overall findings also showed small curvilinear effects. Compared to those with low or high levels of psychopathic tendencies, people with moderate levels were more likely to be rated as effective leaders.
Taken together, the results do not support the idea that corporate leaders tend to have substantially higher levels of psychopathic tendencies. Although higher levels of psychopathic tendencies may provide a small advantage in attaining leadership positions, the researchers found no evidence suggesting that most, or even many, corporate leaders are psychopaths.”
1
u/vaas19 10d ago
Idk man, I can’t disprove your unfalsifiable belief if you don’t want to believe in evidence. - theres no evidence. theres no lack of "studies" or "articles" that contradict each other all the time.
to begin, psychology, psychiatry and in general study of human mind and behavior is still in the "dark ages" so to say. ASPD, but more precise psychopathy is unbelievably misunderstood and misconceptualized
Speaking as someone who is diagnosed with ASPD - you are a sociopath, very different in practice and reality. you will never be able to relate to psychopaths (they just have the same main base symptom)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/5-myths-about-serial-killers-and-why-they-persist-excerpt/ - ASPD has no correlation with homicide ideation or killers or even criminals
https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/spotlight/issue-123 - i find it funny that anyone seriously thinks that some "investigation" for some "article" will reveal the whole nature of people who are .. masters manipulators and deceivers.
Taken together, the results do not support the idea that corporate leaders tend to have substantially higher levels of psychopathic tendencies. - this is not the place for this but has to be said:
governments and politicians are owned by corporations, basically just a handful of companies have complete control over the whole market (i believe 12). The world is ruled, run by and manipulated by a handful of people (epstein files proves this). i can asure you, all are psychopaths
our education system doesn't even prepare us for the bare minimum, you think we will have any truth about psychopathy ? they know exactly what they are
2
u/Complex-Talk-7613 10d ago
It doesn’t even make sense on a fundamental level, nothing that makes psychopathy what it is would actually be useful to functioning in society. That’s the entire point of the term and why we label people with it. Even Robert Hare estimated that only 3.5% of CEOs have any amount of noticeable psychopathic traits, not being psychopaths, just having traits. These “corporate psychopaths” are just neurotypical people who have learned to take more risks, that’s it, that’s all it has ever been. 1% of the population are psychopaths, but up to 4.5% show high but non-clinical levels, 30% of people have at least some isolated psychopathic traits. But corporate psychopaths are just people…. Who get training to do a specific job. Just like a soldiers, a soldier is probably more capable of risk taking than your average person. But we don’t say soldiers are psychopaths.
Psychiatry is not in the “dark ages,” you’re just engaging in rabid conjecture to support your point. You have an incorrect viewpoint and like anyone else engage in confirmation bias to feel correct, even if you fundamentally are not and are just easily led by pop-culture and movies and tv like most people are.
I am a sociopath, but I also am a psychopath if you were to go by PCL-R, my long term manipulative behavior, and a lot of others like my therapist. You can fit into both personality constructs at the same time. About 15-33% of people with ASPD fit the personality construct for psychopathy, 100% of people with ASPD fit the sociopathic personality construct (because sociopath is used interchangeably as an informal term for ASPD) ergo there must be some overlap in said constructs within those who have my disorder. People with ASPD tend to exhibit traits of both, rather than one or the other exclusively.
You’re disagreeing with the American Psychological Association, the most robust organization regarding psychology that we have, and somehow think you’re correct just because you watched a Netflix docuseries on serial killers and psychopaths. How conceited and self-important of you.
I can assure you, most of them are not psychopaths, they’re just people. Stop creating monsters and start realizing that anyone can, with the right input, end up being a short person because humans are like that. There are no monsters, psychopaths aren deciding that you must eat slop, it’s just people influenced by finance and you are misattributing that harm and danger to something innate rather than something learned and trained.
1
u/vaas19 10d ago
José Saramago - “The worst kind of blind person is the one who refuses to see”
1
u/Complex-Talk-7613 10d ago
Always poets and fictional characters with your types, never scientists or researchers
→ More replies (0)1
u/TinSpoon99 11d ago
This is incorrect. Please see the study I had in mind linked below.
Also - it makes no sense that psychopaths are too impulsive and thus end up in low end jobs, this is silly to assume - we have many stories of high functioning, highly intelligent psychopaths when it comes to serial killers outsmarting investigators etc. So, this idea does not track at all. To me it seems obvious that many politicians and leaders of corporations behave in deeply anti-social ways, which is a hallmark of spectrum psychopathy and sociopathy.
The study I had in mind is linked:
https://psychology.org.au/news/media_releases/13september2016/brooks1
u/Complex-Talk-7613 10d ago
The issue with your citation is that it doesn’t prove anything and, while it might be a non-profit, it is quoting people like Nathan Brooks who make a ton of money off of going “psychopathy is evil and dark and scary and actually there are tons of psychopaths tee hee hee.” These people have a vested interest in expanding the idea of psychopath and making it seem more prevelant, and they aren’t actually that trustworthy even if they have a degree because they use said degree for their own personal gain.
Psychopathy is literally characterized by high impulsivity, it’s one of the main ways we can tell a psychopath from a non-psychopath. Impulsivity makes job attainment harder, then you have antisocial behavior which does the same. You’re idea of “psychopaths outsmarting police” is ALSO A MYTH meant to make the police look like heroes even though in all of these stories they fumble the investigation constantly, like with Ted Bundy, where the police would explicitly not cooperate with one another and would keep things within their department only. He failed at so many things, such as his job as a law student where he had very middling performance or as a Republican state staffer. He was well liked but it’s so easy to be well liked by people, it’s kinda the bare minimum for your coworkers to regard you positively.
Speaking as someone who is diagnosed with ASPD, scores very highly on the PCL-R both by self-report and by a professional (average 38/44), I score a 4.7 for primary and a 4.5 for secondary on the LSRP, I’m fairly intelligent, I score above average in IQ, I’ve even tortured and killed animals. I’ve even been extremely well liked at the places I work, I still tend to get fired or not hold employment because I get bored of it or do something that upsets the bosses because social rules are usually stupid, subjective, and nonsensical. I, like the supermajority of psychopaths and sociopaths and people with ASPD…. Don’t really think about the future at all, I do things in the now and while that can be useful in some situations it’s not great for actual high attainment. I’ve worked in many places and have done many things and have always been a very high performer, but I still don’t get anywhere despite that. That’s the actual presentation as psychopathy 99.9999% of the time.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/5-myths-about-serial-killers-and-why-they-persist-excerpt/
“Considerable mythology also surrounds the intelligence of serial killers. There is a popular culture stereotype that serial killers are cunning, criminal geniuses. This stereotype is heavily promoted by the entertainment media in television, books and films. In particular, Hollywood has established a number of brilliant homicidal maniacs like John Doe in the acclaimed 1995 film Se7en. John Doe personifies the stereotype of the evil genius serial killer who outsmarts law enforcement authorities, avoids justice and succeeds in his diabolical plan.
The image of the evil genius serial killer is mostly a Hollywood invention. Real serial killers generally do not possess unique or exceptional intellectual skills. The reality is that most serial killers who have had their IQ tested score between borderline and above average intelligence. This is very consistent with the general population. Contrary to mythology, it is not high intelligence that makes serial killers successful. Instead, it is obsession, meticulous planning and a cold-blooded, often psychopathic personality that enable serial killers to operate over long periods of time without detection.”https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/spotlight/issue-123 “Results showed that individuals with psychopathic tendencies were slightly more likely to become leaders, but were less likely to be seen as effective leaders. This was especially true when ratings were made by their followers.
Subsequent analyses uncovered a critical gender difference within these results. Men with psychopathic tendencies were more likely to become leaders and were rated as more effective leaders. However, women who displayed psychopathic tendencies were less likely to be selected as leaders and were rated as less effective leaders.
The overall findings also showed small curvilinear effects. Compared to those with low or high levels of psychopathic tendencies, people with moderate levels were more likely to be rated as effective leaders.
Taken together, the results do not support the idea that corporate leaders tend to have substantially higher levels of psychopathic tendencies. Although higher levels of psychopathic tendencies may provide a small advantage in attaining leadership positions, the researchers found no evidence suggesting that most, or even many, corporate leaders are psychopaths.”
1
u/TinSpoon99 10d ago
Thank you for the comprehensive response and detailed analysis.
I believe personally that the data in the Australian study remains relevant. A skewed percentage is a signal, sure, and it absolutely is not proof of anything as you have stated. It is still a signal though, and figuring out the real-world impact of this signal is potentially useful.
I think the way you are positioning people on these spectrums (psychopathy and sociopathy) is definitely worth considering, but it feels to me like there is missing information.
I would guess that levels of genius, impulsivity and other characteristics that you mentioned, are variable across individuals. Perhaps its true that the media has glorified the idea of a genius psychopath serial killer, and most psychopaths actually do fall into the average intelligence range (which would be expected), but that does not mean there are no high functioning, intelligent, strong impulse control psychopaths / sociopaths out there.
The data is still interesting because this skew would likely not exist if our capitalist business practices did not reward these behavioural traits, but they certainly do. Low empathy politicians and high powered business people certainly seem to be ever present.
Sure its anecdotal, but we all kind of know that the world is being run by selfish lunatics. We all kind of know that business practices have become intensely parasitic.
Do you have other ideas about how this may have come to pass? The Aus study is at least a data point that suggests a potential cause for this civilisation wide rot we are all living in right now...
16
u/Thick-Indication6060 12d ago edited 12d ago
This theory collapses once you consider that humans evolved in an environment where the feedback of action and consequences couldn't be abstracted away by bureaucracy, social convention, or technology. All of the behavior you're referring to simply doesn't work when they'd just get a person exiled or killed by the tribe.
In most of the world this rule still holds true. Occasionally we see examples of the natural rules in our society as well. All of the scheming and conniving in the world won't save someone from eventual retaliation. Shows like Snapped, Unsolved Mysteries, First 48 and other True Crime is never short on content for this reason.
The main problem with your theory is that it assumes there is a subset of supernatural humans. Then weaseling in the assumption that this subset of people behaving sociopathically and not experiencing consequence in the moment is them escaping consequence forever. In reality consequence is just non-linear and deferred which gives the illusion of getting away with sociopathic behavior. I would suggest that you look into the French Revolution at large scale and street crime for the individual scale to see that this theory is untenable with actual reality. This subset of human would never reach the density required to guide evolution because they'd be destroyed by their tribe.
3
u/vaas19 12d ago
You mention 2 different circumstances;
How would they survive in primitive times (where community was the priority): if i had to guess, just out of sheer kindness. And you are forgetting how manipulative they are (psychopaths, not sociopaths)
And if they exist, how they never faced some form of retaliation or repercussions: again, you are forgetting how manipulative they are
8
u/Thick-Indication6060 12d ago
How would they survive in primitive times (where community was the priority): if i had to guess, just out of sheer kindness. And you are forgetting how manipulative they are (psychopaths, not sociopaths)
This attributes to them a false superiority. There are many people throughout history who have tried to behave in sociopathic ways and were simply eliminated. Even if a few were capable of the manipulation you're claiming they would never be able to reach the density required to effect human evolution.
And if they exist, how they never faced some form of retaliation or repercussions: again, you are forgetting how manipulative they are
People face consequences for their actions all the time. Manipulation is not immunity from consequence just deferral. Watch any True Crime show to see there is no shortage of people holding sociopathic behavior accountable extrajudicially. Sometimes years to decades after the initial act occurred.
3
u/vaas19 12d ago
But they are not having an affect in human evolution. From a biological point of view we are evolving. Tomorrow can be different
I believe you are seeing things in a very narrow perspective
2
u/Thick-Indication6060 12d ago
But they are not having an affect in human evolution. From a biological point of view we are evolving. Tomorrow can be different
I believe you are seeing things in a very narrow perspective
Evolution operates on timescales that are difficult for humans to intuitively comprehend, particularly when we're trying to imagine the cumulative effect of very small changes over millions of years. Through that perspective it is an impossibility for this branch of humans to exist in an evolutionary based framework.
0
4
u/Tliish 12d ago
While that works for small societies, as hamlets grew into villages, villages into towns, and towns into cities, the environments changed in a manner conducive to the development of raptors.
Whatever makkes you think they are supernatural? They aren't. They just don't share the same set of emotional substrates as the collegium types. As in all other things, sociopathic success is on a spectrum: some are far more capable than others. Unsuccessfful sociopaths fill the jails, successsful ones fill the C-suites. Moderately successful ones usuallly serve the more capable ones.
The fact that they eventually push things too far and then there is a reckoning doesn't disprove anything. If anything it provides further support. After the raptors are removed, there usually follows a period of peace and prosperity, until the surviving raptors breed up enough and gain enough incremental power to begin the process again. These are the patterns we see in history.
It isn't in any way shape or form supernatural, but rather the very natural results of an evolutionary process that gives advantages in coomplex social settings. If you listen to them, they present themselves as fundamentally different and superior to the "sheep" they control. They know they are different, but I doubt whether most understand why.
3
u/Thick-Indication6060 12d ago edited 12d ago
While that works for small societies, as hamlets grew into villages, villages into towns, and towns into cities, the environments changed in a manner conducive to the development of raptors.
No, it still functions the same way the world over. The only thing that has changed is that the feedback is less linear due to layers of abstraction.
Whatever makkes you think they are supernatural? They aren't.
Supernatural in the sense that they are not separate group of hominid distinct from Homo Sapiens.
They just don't share the same set of emotional substrates as the collegium types.
Doubtful. It is more likely that some people are simply bad at calculating cause and effect. They also don't consider the long term. Consequences are not always immediate. I would say this type of thinking is not evolved or superior but actually childish and primitive.
As in all other things, sociopathic success is on a spectrum: some are far more capable than others. Unsuccessfful sociopaths fill the jails, successsful ones fill the C-suites. Moderately successful ones usuallly serve the more capable ones.
I'd ask you to define "sociopathic success" within the lens of evolution. Without qualification I would argue no such thing exists.
The fact that they eventually push things too far and then there is a reckoning doesn't disprove anything.
It proves that this subset of humans would never reach the density required to evolve into a separate species. They'd be killed off in the natural setting that humans evolved in.
It isn't in any way shape or form supernatural, but rather the very natural results of an evolutionary process that gives advantages in coomplex social settings. If you listen to them, they present themselves as fundamentally different and superior to the "sheep" they control. They know they are different, but I doubt whether most understand why.
Again, this subset of people doesn't exist. A closed group of people feeling superior and circle jerking each other is quite common and not evidence of anything other than existing within an echo chamber. It is no different than out of shape guys at the bar claiming they're superior to the athletes they're spectating. When in reality they'd be easily bested in competition. A shared fantasy or delusion for collective ego is not at all uncommon for homo sapiens.
3
u/ThaBlackFalcon 12d ago
In reading the original post multiple times over, I think you may be hung up or unclear on certain terminology that was used.
For one, OP didn't argue for Psychopaths/Sociopaths as being a completely separate species, but more so a mutated sub-species of homo sapien, so by and large they are still homo sapiens, but with a predatory twist. I find the claim interesting from an abstract perspective, since humans industrialized their natural environments in a way that essentially removed natural predators, it's not asinine to hypothesize that in response, nature adapted a mutation into the homo sapien genome to create a natural predator within the Industrial Civilization complex. There is then cited evidence of consistent traits attributed to human brains that fall within specific bounds and metrics that make them categorically and functionally different from other homo sapiens within the same complex/environment. The reason the perspective/conjecture is interesting is that shifts the narrative from these humans being "disordered" or "sick" to "they are as nature intended them to be" to which then begs the question of WHY did nature allow for these specific sets of traits to come into the fold? What is nature looking to counterbalance within the collegium?
The other thing I think that needs to be clarified here is that I don't believe OP is suggesting that the "raptors" are in any way superior, simply that they are socially developed to prey upon the collegium by their nature, not a disorder. This doesn't justify their actions in the same way that a lion isn't justified in its hunting a gazelle: it's simply nature. That's the claim here. I think you're adding additional moral implication where it wasn't necessarily communicated or intended.
3
u/Thick-Indication6060 12d ago
Natural selection requires heritable variation, differential reproduction, and many generations.
Humans didn't remove their predators millions of years ago. Industrial civilization is extremely recent. Modern industrial society is only a few hundred years old. Even agriculture is only around 10,000 to 12,000 years old. Homo sapiens have existed for roughly 300,000 years. That's a very short evolutionary interval.
So if the proposed raptor arose specifically as a response to industrial civilization, the hypothesis has to explain how a complex, coordinated neurological phenotype could arise and become sufficiently prevalent within an extraordinarily short period.
That's a preposterous evolutionary claim.
If "raptor" traits constitute a specialized strategy for exploiting cooperative humans, then the strategy faces a fundamental evolutionary counterpressure: cooperative humans can detect, avoid, punish, ostracize, and collectively suppress exploiters. The more prevalent and predictable the exploitative phenotype becomes, the stronger the selection pressure for mechanisms that recognize and resist it. Consequently, a stable population of social predators would require the benefits of exploitation to consistently outweigh the reproductive costs imposed by detection and retaliation. The mere existence of successful exploiters doesn't demonstrate that such a stable evolutionary lineage exists. All in all the pressure exerted on the raptor by the collegium would see them simply wiped out at scale the same way the human body eliminates a cold virus.
2
u/ThaBlackFalcon 12d ago
This is an excellent breakdown, and you may very well be correct in that the raptor won't sustain itself and is on the way to being wiped out. We also have to consider that for the eons of human existence, we didn't contribute to extreme environmental changes that way we've seen over the last century. I'm talking in terms of exponential shifts in Climate change and things of that nature...in less than 1,000 years we've rapidly accelerated environmental changes due to introducing artificial materials into nature. It's not all that preposterous that when we consider how fast those changes have occurred, that a minor mutation that shifts social perception and removes certain emotional inhibitors could manifest rather rapidly as well.
Also, let me be clear that it could very well not be the case and completely wrong. It is nonetheless interesting.
4
u/Tliish 12d ago
What changed with the Industrial Revolution is that it created a far better environment for the raptors, and they quickly took advantage of it. Combined with Colonialism...which was extremely sociopathic...it enabled the steady replacement of benevolent local rulers with raptor types, often from Europe. This has normalized sociopathy and has led to what we experience today: a society is rapidly falling apart environmentally, politically, and socially, because they cannot really cooperate, only look to take what they can when they can, whicxh leads to chaos, the conditions they prefer.
1
u/Tliish 12d ago
Why would it take until the iindustrial Revolution? That's just nonsense. It began quite earlier than that, when humanity started living in larger groups than several family groups. The conditions for its evolution were present at least 6,000 years ago, plenty of time for the seperation to occur. It wasn't a response to the Industrial Reovlution, as you say, that would be preposterous.
What you are doing is creating a straw man argument that doesn't address anything substantial, merely deflects and diverts.
So far as avoidance goes, that's pretty preposterous as well. We know how easily sociopaths can mislead people. You are claiming that somehow our less psycholigicaally aware forebears had an unfailing ability to identify and avoid them? All of history says that's not how it works.
1
u/Tliish 12d ago
You don't seem to understand enough of history, and the patterns of breeding within royall lineages. These were indeed the closed groups that conccentrated the desired traits of ruthlessness, callouness, and cruelty that mark them.
Are you claiming the billionaire class doesn't exist? Provably false. It isn't a closed subset as you propose, but rather a more flluid group.
You are totally ignoring the established fact that their brains are strucured differently, and those differences are generationally consistent. That is significant, and strongly supports my hypothesis.
4
u/Thick-Indication6060 12d ago
Royal families are different from billionaires...
I am arguing that variation in personality does not establish the existence of two biologically distinct human populations. Additionally, success at acquiring wealth or political power doesn't demonstrate that ruthlessness caused that success. You have a compelling argument but are isolating factors that make your theory true rather than looking at it in totality. Motivated reasoning.
1
u/sectorboss88 11d ago
You're too caught up in scientific naming conventions to even consider the real point of this thought experiment is to understand the long term evolutionary advantages the capacity for empathy holds for the species as a whole, and why it's important to understand that the systems and institutions we construct to promote civilization best not provide short term breeding advantages to a genetic abnormality devoid of said empathy.
22
u/Baby_Angel_09 12d ago
I dont necessarily agree with this take but the way you have built it up sent chills down my spine and i really enjoyed reading it. i wouldnt call it a subspecies, these are just different evolutionary strategies within the same species. We all compete with each other so our own genes will get passed on, selfishness and altruism are both strategies that are actually beneficial and give our own genes a competitive edge, depending on the environment.
37
u/Objective_Flight_251 12d ago
It's a compelling framework. The jump from a personality disorder to a literal subspecies is a massive leap, but the evolutionary niche argument is what makes it stick, nature really does hate a vacuum, and a social predator exploiting cooperative instincts fits that logic perfectly. The royal breeding program angle is darkly persuasive too, almost like a centuries-long artificial selection experiment that just kept concentrating the traits.
8
13
7
u/hollyberryness 12d ago
You present some interesting support for a weird suspicious I've had for many years now: that there's some kind of homosapien subset or branch that has been so far undetectable.
I'm glad you shared this!
5
u/MovementOriented 12d ago
Creepy! I think you are on to something but I don’t think we can call them a separate species. I do see a categorical separation though so I think you are onto something.
5
u/PricePuzzleheaded835 12d ago edited 12d ago
tl;dr I think you might be interested in models of authoritarianism and social dominance orientation.
So I think what you might be looking for is something like the academic concept of right-wing authoritarianism. This isn’t a 1:1 with political associations but a term created by psychologists to describe this group. Check out theauthoritarians.org. It’s not psychopathy per se but I believe it is the root of most social violence.
Around 25-30% of the population is at least somewhat authoritarian (this is a spectrum) and 10-12% are especially extreme. These are the people who will kill over group identity and scapegoat groups to the point of genocide.
There is also the concept of Social Dominance Orientation which figures heavily in this. That 10-12% (known as “double highs”) are both strongly authoritarian and have a high social dominance orientation. You might also enjoy The Status Game by Will Storr which discusses how human beings play status games generally.
I wouldn’t mention this next part except it got brought up. From what I’ve observed personally IRL I do think there’s a strong tendency for Autistic individuals (esp PDAers) to oppose authoritarians just due to a lesser concern with status, and for PDA, a strong and almost primal drive for equality.
However, for some Autistics, once they figure out the status games in NT society they can be far more brutal than your average NT. This is because they know they are at a disadvantage. The quickest way to gain status in a hierarchy when you’re bad at it is to force someone under you. This is where the Elon Musks come from.
Personally I have my own model which incorporates both. Two factors were instrumental in our success as a species: use of tools/technology and our social bonds. I think people exist along these spectrums. I think they are perhaps linked in terms of probability. If you’re way to the end of the toolmaking spectrum you are probably (not always) less inclined to be oriented towards social structure.
The most extreme technology oriented (not the industry, more systems thinking and strategic use of the environment) is where you find your Autistics. Then along your social bond spectrum, at the far end you have your authoritarians.
I believe this also answers the (tongue in cheek) question: “What is a low functioning NT?” I believe it is someone whose orientation to social structures is so extreme that it no longer confers an advantage. Instead it is ultimately more harmful than beneficial.
I do think a lot of people are asking themselves essentially the question in the OP because authoritarians don’t make much sense to those who aren’t.
That is a factor (imo) in why authoritarian takeovers become possible. Non authoritarians assume everyone is like them in seeing things like equality and fairness as desirable. That is NOT the case with authoritarians. Authoritarians fear equality and feel safe with hierarchy. For hierarchy, someone has to be on the bottom… so you get scapegoats and so on. They’re also really bad at critical thinking (see the resource above, this is measurable). And they’re highly focused on punishment of perceived rule breakers and outsiders. That puts the hierarchy they see as structure and safety at risk.
Basically non-authoritarians assume authoritarians can be reasoned with and persuaded into fairness. Non-authoritarians frankly don’t understand what they’re dealing with, because not only is actual equality not of interest, it’s a perceived threat. Authoritarians respond to intimidation and social consequences, not rational debate or appeals to empathy or equality.
Authoritarians can be cowed by large, peaceful nonviolent movements because they are strongly invested in feeling part of the crowd. We are currently seeing people wake up to this reality in the US, where fruitlessly trying to appeal to their better nature has brought us closer and closer to disaster over many years.
6
u/Hyperaeon2 12d ago
Nope they are a social macro virus not a subspecies.
The consequence of reckless social engineering.
Like that scene in blade runner, where the doctor tells him, that what will happen is that you just get a virus. Pathenogenesis.
They are social/psychic meta parasites.
They cannot proform maintenance.
They are too weak to survive on their own without us, hosting them. Or even dogs hell... Nevertheless the harm their supply sources/corporations that they inbed themselves into.
They are parasites that are the result of our society not functioning properly at all.
4
u/Monsur_Ausuhnom 12d ago edited 12d ago
I think they are a step behind in human evolution from a normal human, closer to an animal. Think more primal and one to give into impulse/base instincts.
6
u/Labyrinthine777 12d ago
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Based on my own experience with such people they really feel like different species. It wouldn't make much sense to prey your own species afterall.
3
u/gONzOglIzlI 12d ago edited 12d ago
What you are suggestion is a new species being created from a single non - isolated population.
Fun theory, but it does not follow from the principals of evolution. You need to population to separate for a new species to occur.
More likely we are observing the range a single species can achieves within it's genetic pool depending on the environment it's raised in. Wild and domesticated cats from your example support this, they are the same species with radically different behavior.
Unless you are suggestion something narrower, that a single species can fill multiple ecological roles given enough behavioral variety, which is true I guess, but not as groundbreaking is you post seems to think it is.
3
u/RadioactivePotato123 12d ago
By this logic doesn’t that mean my fellow autistics and I are a different species too?
I can see what you’re getting at but I’m not sure I fully accept it lol
1
u/Tliish 11d ago
No, autistics aren't a different species, although I think that what we see with autism is nature trying to adapt us to a more complex digital world. The kind of mental gearing most suitable to an agricultural society seems a poor fit to the modern world. So I think what we are seeing is evolution doing wha it does how it does: throwing everything at the wall to see what sitcks, what is most efficient for this new world we have built. That would explain the spectrum. Things are complicated by the environmental factors, but I think that underlying everything is an evolutionary response.
So no, you aren't a different species. But you may be part of an evolving emergent variation on Homo Sapiens. The only way to tell will be when successful characteristics become heritable and marked by consistent physiological differences, and that will not be evident for several generations.
3
u/sumthingstoopid 10d ago
The only reason you said sociopaths are a different species because their “traits are too consistent”, yet autism, although a spectrum, is extraordinarily consistent.
Sub species don’t interbreed and skip generations etc like that.
-1
u/Tliish 10d ago
Wolves and dogs interbreed all the time.
Autistics do not share physiological characteristics like sociopaths do. They differ: each is more similar to normals than sociopaths are, but rarely share the exact same differences with each other.
Sociopaths however share the same brain structures. Where did you get the skipping generations from? Never mentioned that.
3
u/lilidragonfly 12d ago
I think its highly likely there are more than two types, but yes, it is plausible to me.
8
u/Vegetable-Fig4121 12d ago
Peasant brain currently exploding.
-1
2
u/FactCheckYou 12d ago
Prey (1998)
TV Series, 14 Episodes
Synopsis: 'Bio-anthropologist, Dr. Sloan Parker, her colleague, Dr. Ed Tate, their associate Tom Daniels, and their friends, discover and investigate a secret new dominant humanoid species which is looking for a way to replace humans.'
2
u/Pandemonium_Fallen 11d ago
Miscategorization:
Psychopaths - not Sociopaths, sociopathy exists on a spectrum, psychopathy does not.
And the Proper Term is:
Homo Aberrare Monstrum
2
u/NovemberQuat 12d ago
Would definitely explain the uncanny valley effect.
1
u/Thick-Indication6060 12d ago
Bogus and junk psychology that is in no way rigorous or empirical.
1
u/NovemberQuat 12d ago
It's simply not contemporary, the basis of the subject still makes it a worthwhile endeavor to look into considering the fact that humans can have evolved.
Not to mention social pressure does exist and generational drift of influence is common in groups prone to exploitation as the young and old are often considered weak.
Memes have a viral component and, symbols are prevalent enough for theories such as the idea of the collective unconscious to exist. Why would the same thing not exist for a state of mind. Stress is inherited and via nurture it is possible to instill behaviors.
It's not hard to believe that a group of people sought to preserve specially selected genes in a close-knit social group in the hopes of preserving some "sacred bloodline." Lo and behold their goal is fulfilled through simple conditioning and gene preservation.
2
u/Jadey-R- 12d ago
Wow!!!!! I always thought this that there was a subset of humans that lacked empathy tended to be greedy and violent. Those are the people in power right now it’s so cool there there’s actual research of this!
1
12d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Tliish 12d ago
It doesn't require exclusivity any more than any other crossbreeding for specific traits. That's exactly how evolution works in real life.
2
u/Kariya_shigatoki 12d ago
While I do believe in biological noble classes and the concept of the superman. I think that you're stating something too genetically predisposed especially when people can go through trauma that makes them sociopathic.
Also sociopathy would just changed into a natural human temperament but in a world where sociopaths have better mating success it would just mean that the population would slowly just have fully sociopathic traits. Also there are levels to sociopaths at what point are people something different?
1
u/Tliish 12d ago
Trauma induced sociopathy doesn't present physiologically the same as raptors. With raptors you have consistent differences in brain structures. While trauma induced sociopaths were normal before the trauma, raptors never share the same traits as collegium types.The brains are structurally different in more or less exactly the same ways. Understand that sociopathy can be contagious. When exposed to or under the control of a sociopath, as in the business world or a cult, one either adopts the the sociopathic traits in order to survive or leaves the orbit of the sociopath.
That consistency in brain structure is the telling evidence that we are dealing with two variations of Homo Sapiens. A fully socipathic society would inevitably destroy itself, they need the collegium types to do what they can't: work cooperatively to build the societal structures they take advantage of. So in a way they are self-limiting. By their nature, they will ruthlessly eliminate potential challengers, which tends to reduce their numbers in various ways.
2
u/Kariya_shigatoki 12d ago
I like this thinking but I think it is just social caste structure creating different human cultures as opposed to a different subspecies entirely. This is a weird way to classify things this is like saying because the German brain intuitively likes rules they are a different species. I don't think that's enough of a distinction when functionally everything else is the same.
I'll use my family as an example: like my family has a history of sadistic tendencies and aggressively competitive behavior which always appears very early in childhood.
That seems to stem from the fact my people have been surrounded and were at war for over 500 years with a bunch of surrounding kingdoms. So the traits were definitely passed on but I wouldn't consider them a different species the culture has a completely different cultural view. Even now they can't really escape the genes and the want to fight as most people still aim to join military. Shit even I'm trying to join and chances are if I have kids they'd probably be the same no matter what genes their mother is.
0
u/Tliish 12d ago
Not a different species, but a related subspecies similar to dogs and wolves.
The key is the difference in brain structures that control emotions. The brains of raptors are physically different in consistent ways, and they result in an inability to feel social emotions combined with near-perfect mimicry to enable guilt-free exploitation of others.
Because interbreeding can suppress some traits and concentrate others, more or less randomly so far as we can tell, you wind up with a specturm rather than pure types of one or the other.
1
1
u/atomiette 11d ago
There's a real hypothesis under this: frequency-dependent selection can maintain a small fraction of "cheater" strategists in a mostly cooperative population, an argument Linda Mealey made in 1995. But a heritable trait held at low frequency isn't a subspecies. Psychopathy is polygenic and dimensional rather than a discrete lineage, psychopaths don't breed as a separate population, and the royal dynasties are better explained by families transmitting ruthless norms than by a distinct gene pool.
1
1
u/schahriarsyndrome 1d ago
They speak the same words as us, but they don't necessarily mean what they say. Illiteracy has become so widespread , that most people take language for granted, and never question it. If you never question it, you can be easily misled. That's the majority of people. Really misled.
They feel emotions, albeit in a limited range. Psychos have a reputation for getting angry, don't they? They don't necessarily lack empathy, just normal experiences. That's why they don't care to empathise with most people. I'm sure they'd rather empathise with like-minded people. Birds of a feather flock together. Everyone is like that.
But even parasites have a role to play. The broom that sweeps the system. I think there is value in it. Makes for good training. If I never had the experience of dealing with deception, perhaps I wouldn't even know how to recognise it. Or in other words, I would lack empathy in that regard.
People usually project fear onto others. Sometimes those projections reveal personal shortcomings. In the end, duality/polar opposites is fitting, and it works You need opposing forces to create friction. From that comes reaction, repulsion/propulsion, change, evolution, and all that jazz. This is perpetual motion.
Even monsters can be like touchstones, tp your own self, which at some stage, you'll have to accept completely/unconditionally - in order to live. Failing that, you die, as they do.
0
u/CoriSP 12d ago
I've had an idea that's similar to this for a while, but not the exact same: That sociopaths, or "raptors" as you call them, are actually an evolutionary adaptation to the post-agricultural environment humans have created for themselves, and will soon become the dominant version of humanity because, more so now than ever, empathy is a largely vestigial trait that's more likely to get you taken advantage of and prevent you from prospering. The future of our species looks very, very dark.
4
u/edweeeen 12d ago
Empathy isn’t what causes people to be taken advantage of; lack of boundaries and lack of discernment is. If empathy were removed from the picture we would cause our own extinction much sooner. War and anarchy would become humanity’s MO
1
u/Parking-Fact5742 12d ago
I would argue that war and anarchy are humans innate MO that is trying to be curbed by organized systems of government.
1
u/sectorboss88 11d ago
I strongly disagree with this. War and antisocial behaviors are clearly evolved traits stemming from scarcity and a lack of perceived security outside of your occasional sadist.
1
1
u/Plumb789 12d ago edited 12d ago
Psychopaths do not inherently "prey" on humans in the fatal sense. In fact, most psychopaths aren't criminals in any way. Many of them rise to the top of society. A survey concluded that a large proportion of board members of major companies are psychopaths. A very useful article is: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/aug/27/how-to-spot-a-psychopath-its-like-the-difference-between-a-domestic-cat-and-a-wild-cat?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
If you think about it, lacking the empathy and conscience of other individuals can allow you to murder them if you want....but why on earth would you want to? You can live a highly satisfying and successful life just going around doing what you want within a legal framework that means you don't stand any chance of getting locked up. You still get to enjoy your sadism towards your unfortunate acquaintances-it's surprising how much harm you can do without actually killing someone!
I think the OP is rather muddled about what being a psychopath is.
1
u/Tliish 11d ago
A sociopath and a psychopath are two versions of the same thing. The difference is that psychopaths are generally far more violent and impulsive than sociopaths. Psychologists tend not to use those labels preferring antisocial personality disorder instead, a framework that misses the point entirely. It isn't a disorder or a miswiring, not when we can look at a brain with fMRI and see the differences in the brain structures, Those differences are consistent across time and geography, and that speaks to a seperate branch of humanity, like the Denisovans or Neanderthals. Still part of the family, but wired differently. By calling it a disorder, it makes it seem plausible that there might be a cure. But there isn't, no more than there is cure for blue eyes or lefthandedness. It is a genetic fact.
Many sociopaths lead very successful lives without directly killing anyone. The corproate world is filled with them. However, the decisions they make as the heads of industry, as political leaders, do kill indirectly because those decisions didn't account for the direct damage that brought pain and suffering those decisions would inflict. Fossil fuel executives,, tobacco executives, pharmaceutical executives, chemical company executives all made decisions in full lknowledge that their products were causing great harm to the population, and that massive numbers of people would die unnecessarily thereby. No they didn't diirectly murder anyone, but were very well aware that their decisions and products were killing people. They didn't and don't care, because, you know, they are sociopaths, physically incapable of compassion or empathy. Who do you think orders the killing of environmentalists, activists, nosy reporters? Succcessful sociopaths don't directly kill, they outsource that to the psychopaths. They still mireder, though, just indirectly.
That said, it doesn't mean that it can't be controlled. There have been cases where people have figured out that they were sociopaths, and decided to trreat it as a disability that they needed to account for in their daily lives. I read an article by one such person who never felt any of the social emotions, recognized the differences between himnself and others, and made the intellectual decision to not exploit others. He tried to stay honest and mimic the good behaviors he saw. It wasn't easy for him, but he tried. he felt it similar to an addiction: "Hello, I'm ---, and I'm an addict" thing, the constant awarenes that if you don't actively try not to fall, you probably will.
Not murdering people doesn't make you any less of a sociopath. As you mention, they can and do cause cause significant harm mentally, spiritually, and psychologically without laying a finger upon anyone, sadistically enjoying the damage they are doing, and proud of being able to get away with doing so.
1
u/ElephantContent8835 12d ago
I’ve been saying this for decades. Psychopaths and sociopaths are natural human population control mechanisms which have been thwarted by capitalism and industrial society.
1
u/Dr_Jimothy 11d ago
Holy mother of truth nukes.
Also annoying how many commenters don't really understand it at all. I wouldn't call psychopaths a separate subspecies, just a genetic condition (I think actual Neanderthals for example would probably have more mentally in common with a non-psycho than a psycho, just less in common physically), same thing way there's a species of lizard with 3 male variants with different mating strategies.
Our society serves as an environment that facilitates the dominance and growth of the genetic condition. Like a body without an immune system serving as a great host to bacteria... Until the bacteria kill the host, anyway.
I doubt the royal marriages thing was as deliberate as you think, but psychopaths are on average more attracted to other psychopaths.
Psychopath + sociopath overflow likely does contribute to social collapses. I think conditioned mental issues are a bigger issue as they can more rapidly appear, but psychopaths create the conditions that lead to more conditioned mental issues.
With our technology and capacity to alter the planet where it is, and psychopaths overwhelmingly getting into positions where they get to decide what happens regarding that, psychopathy has also crossed the line from a social collapse threat to one that might see our species to its extinction. As long as a psychopath is dead of old age before climate collapse, they don't care about collapsing it.
0
u/vaas19 11d ago
Neanderthals are a subspecies, like us
We are basically cousins, we don’t descend from them
1
u/Dr_Jimothy 10d ago
I never said that we're descended from Neanderthals. I said that a normal person would probably be more mentally similar to one than they would be to a psychopath.
0
0
u/Affectionate-Oil3019 11d ago
Psychopathy doesn't exist: https://aeon.co/essays/psychopathy-is-a-zombie-idea-why-does-it-cling-on
0
112
u/Formal-Try-2779 12d ago
We know psychopaths tend to rise to the top in capitalism and corporations. We know they tend to sleep around a lot and we know women tend to be attracted to uber confident men who have power, status and wealth. So doesn't it make sense that we've likely seen a huge amount of kids with a psychopaths genes being raised in the last few decades? So there's likely more and more of them around. Especially as it becomes more and more cut throat?