[W:#113]Mass Sociopathy

[NWRatCon]

This is a thought process still in development, so some of the conceptions may be disparate. Because the content will tend to be dark and perceived as accusatory, I began it here in the Loft to focus on the concepts, not the subjects.

In college, as an ancillary to my career path in law, I studied what was called "abnormal psychology". I do not have any credentials in it, but it has been an interest of mine for decades.

As the Thread Title suggests, there are two fundamental concepts at work here, so I am going to define them before I get into the meat of the discussion. First is sociopathy. From Psychology Today:

"Sociopathy refers to a pattern of antisocial behaviors and attitudes, including manipulation, deceit, aggression, and a lack of empathy for others. Sociopathy is a non-diagnostic term, and it is not synonymous with "psychopathy," though the overlap leads to frequent confusion. Sociopaths may or may not break the law, but by exploiting and manipulating others, they violate the trust that the human enterprise runs on.

The defining characteristic of the sociopath is a profound lack of conscience—a flaw in the moral compass that typically steers people away from breaking common rules and toward treating others decently. This disconnect, however, may be hidden by a charming demeanor. There is both art and science to spotting sociopathy."

We are confronted, daily, with sociopathic behaviors of varying degrees, even here on these forums (that's the perceived accusatory part), but this is a broader, more nascent conception. The "mass" part refers to both the prevalence and the contagious elements of this abnormal psychological trait.

We're probably somewhat aware of the concept of "mass hysteria", or what is now termed "Mass psychogenic illness (MPI)", which involves "the spread of illness symptoms through a population where there is no infectious agent responsible for contagion." There are a variety of ancillary conditions of relevance here that will probably come into the discussion, such as cult behavior, mob behavior, and such, but they all revolve around the concept of negative social behaviors that are "acquired" in the sense of "nature vs. nurture". Some people may have a predisposition to such behavior, but there has to be a set of conditions that triggers the underlying predilection.

My thesis, here, is that we are in an age of such conditions that I have termed "Mass Sociopathy" (as it turned out, I am not the first to use this conjunction of concepts - more on that in a bit). I find it alarming, which has prompted the initiation of this discussion. More musings to follow.

 

[NWRatCon]

Next, I want to focus on the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate when it comes to psychological traits. Inherent in my conception is that the sociopathy I am focused on is acquired. In order for it to spread within the population, the mechanism for acquisition is from the society itself, rather than any inherent mental defect (although sometimes it may project as such).

People are not generally "born" sociopaths, although, as I mentioned earlier, some people may be mentally prone to developing such tendencies. It is, principally a "learned" behavior. But, like Autism, I think these traits exist on a continuum or spectrum, and they are displayed on such a spectrum in our society. In this instance, the sociopathy is like or related to antisocial personality disorder. "Some people seem to have no regard for others and can cause harm to them without any regret or feelings of guilt. When this behavior is pervasive, a person may have a chronic mental health condition known as antisocial personality disorder. Sometimes people with antisocial personality disorder are called 'sociopaths.'"

The gist of this conception is how such behavior patterns, that are not inherent, can spread throughout a society. How such "abnormal" psychology can become "normalized".

I mentioned that I was not the first to coin the phrase "Mass sociopathy". As it turns out, it has been used before. In researching this thread, I came across this article: This is Neoliberalism, Part II: Alienation and Mass Sociopathy by Design by Joe Brunoli. It was not the trigger for the discussion, but, conceptually, it is related, so I am linking it here as part of the discussion. What we share in presentation is the belief that the sociopathy is not only acquired, but deliberately germinated.

The starkest example of the concept is "the Big Lie" promoted by Donald Trump. But, I do not want this thread to become about that. Rather, this is an example that sprang from a seedbed of such examples, and a societal trend. Mr. Brunoli identifies one of the sources as "neoliberalism", and I agree. Let's go back to that definition of sociopathy: "a pattern of antisocial behaviors and attitudes, including manipulation, deceit, aggression, and a lack of empathy for others." When put together, we call it a pathology, but I think we all recognize it in our everyday lives, and that, my friends, is that point. Where does it come from, and why is it so ubiquitous?

Some people are just jerks, of course - they cut in line, make rude gestures or comments, and are all-around boors. But we call them jerks, boors and "assholes", because those behaviors are "out of line", not the norm, socially dysfunctional, deserving of opprobrium. So how did we get from the point that that was unacceptable to it becoming ubiquitous?

 

[Ambig]

My thesis, here, is that we are in an age of such conditions that I have termed "Mass Sociopathy" (as it turned out, I am not the first to use this conjunction of concepts - more on that in a bit). I find it alarming, which has prompted the initiation of this discussion. More musings to follow.

I believe there's a cult-like base of voters in America, the members of which don't seem to care a thing about fair or decent behavior.

 

[NWRatCon]

I believe there's a cult-like base of voters in America, the members of which don't seem to care a thing about fair or decent behavior.

Yes, and I'd like to discuss where that came from and why it persists.

 

[NWRatCon]

I'm going to go back a century, or thereabouts. During the election of 1928 the phrase "a chicken in every pot" (and a car in every garage - although it was originally "backyard") sprang from Hoover's ad campaign. It then became a source of ridicule in the 1932 campaign because it so obviously had not come to fruition. But the point, really, is that both sides - Republican and Democrat - were asserting collective prosperity as the social goal or norm.

Throughout the next decades of the 30s and 40s, the collective interests of the population were pushed - first to get us through the Depression (Social Security, Works Progress), and then to power us through the Second World War. Following that war, we entered the 1950s and one of the most sustained, and broadest, periods of social prosperity in the nation's history. (It was not equal, but it was widespread.) Unions, collective bargaining, had a prominent role in spreading that prosperity. We were all in it together, and we faced a common enemy! Underlying that circumstance, however, were serious undercurrents that were going to disrupt that apparent tranquility. They grew into movements - Civil Rights, anti-war, counter-culture, feminism. But those were reactions to what already existed in society but was being ignored.

To counter these movements, there arose another trend - the "me" generation, the "go-go" 80s where "greed is good", the rise of "neoliberalism". Richard Nixon rose that wave to the White House in 1968 and established a trend that has continued to today. His was the last Republican presidency that actually looked at the collective good, although he was personally against most of it. Eisenhower had the National Highway System and NASA, LBJ the Great Society, but the trend toward real collective effort ended with the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the EPA.

Underneath all of that, Nixon was engaged in a series of deceptions and divisions. It wasn't just Watergate. Let's go back to that sociopathy, "manipulation, deceit, aggression, and a lack of empathy for others." What was set in motion then, has persisted and metastasized to what we are experiencing today. Ultimately, Nixon got away with it, and that hubris informs the sociopathy that inundates us today.

 

[ataraxia]

I believe there's a cult-like base of voters in America, the members of which don't seem to care a thing about fair or decent behavior.

I think maybe that's because they had a conception of what "their" society was to be like: White, Christian (preferably a protestant denomination), all speaking English, preferably with a southern or maybe midwestern accent. As their world changes, they do not feel like this is their society anymore. So they are fine burning it all down. If it's not longer their world, why should they care?

 

[Ambig]

Yes, and I'd like to discuss where that came from and why it persists.

I know some of them, so here's my guess: Poor parenting. Inattentiveness in Sunday School. Inadequate higher education. Anger and frustration at elite city folk, at a world which doesn't appreciate them.

Morality, in my view, is well-represented by the blind Lady Justice. It's building one's outlook on fair play. Treating your friends and your enemies the same, as much as possible. Valuing principle over self-interest.

That kind of high moral thinking has to be taught or absorbed from the society around us.

On the other hand, I do know some well-educated guys from good families who lean in that direction, so there's gotta be an organic component, too. At least sometimes.

And I know some good country people who never made it through high school.

So it's complicated.

 

[Visbek]

In college, as an ancillary to my career path in law, I studied what was called "abnormal psychology"....

Here we go

We are confronted, daily, with sociopathic behaviors of varying degrees, even here on these forums (that's the perceived accusatory part), but this is a broader, more nascent conception. The "mass" part refers to both the prevalence and the contagious elements of this abnormal psychological trait.

Yeah, it's a pretty huge mistake to try to map a personality disorder that operates on an individual level to a social group or entire society.

E.g. no one would say that "Canada has OCD," except in the most broad metaphorical sense.

Along those lines, it makes no sense whatsoever to say "Canada fails to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors," or "Mexico is impulsive and fails to plan ahead," or "Denmark displays a glib, superficial charm and can be quite voluble and verbally facile." (Quotes from DSM-V entry on antisocial personality disorder.)

My thesis, here, is that we are in an age of such conditions that I have termed "Mass Sociopathy" (as it turned out, I am not the first to use this conjunction of concepts - more on that in a bit). I find it alarming, which has prompted the initiation of this discussion. More musings to follow.

Oh, please.

Groups of humans have engaged in actions that are callous, unempathetic, impulsive or irresponsible for as long as humans have been in groups. If you're suggesting that humanity is somehow worse today than they were 10 or 50 or 100 or 1,000 or 100,000 years ago, then you're making at least two major errors:

• Ignoring actual history, which shows that humans are generally less violent today than in the past
• Indulging in declinism, a common pastime of anyone who thinks that proclaiming "everything is worse!!!" will somehow motivate others to do what they want

Perhaps you should spend your time researching declinism instead of trying to map personality disorders onto societies....

Declinism: is the world actually getting worse? | Pete Etchells

Pete Etchells: A recent survey suggests that 71% of people think that the world is going to the dogs. Are things actually that bad, or is it a psychological trick of the mind?

www.theguardian.com

 

[NWRatCon]

I think maybe that's because they had a conception of what "their" society was to be like: White, Christian (preferably a protestant denomination), all speaking English, preferably with a southern or maybe midwestern accent. As their world changes, they do not feel like this is their society anymore. So they are fine burning it all down. If it's not longer their world, why should they care?

I agree, but I don't think they reached those conclusions on their own. I think they were manipulated into reaching them, from promoting the myth of the "welfare queen" to "the big lie" they are elements of a pattern of deceptions devoted to dividing society.

 

[NWRatCon]

I know some of them, so here's my guess: Poor parenting. Inattentiveness in Sunday School. Inadequate higher education. Anger and frustration at elite city folk, at a world which doesn't appreciate them.

Morality, in my view, is well-represented by the blind Lady Justice. It's building one's outlook on fair play. Treating your friends and your enemies the same, as much as possible. Valuing principle over self-interest.

That kind of high moral thinking has to be taught or absorbed from the society around us.

On the other hand, I do know some well-educated guys from good families who lean in that direction, so there's gotta be an organic component, too. At least sometimes.

And I know some good country people who never made it through high school.

So it's complicated.

I agree, and that's getting at some of the roots of my disquiet. It is not organic, in the main, but a set of deliberate manipulations over decades.

 

[ataraxia]

I agree, but I don't think they reached those conclusions on their own. I think they were manipulated into reaching them, from promoting the myth of the "welfare queen" to "the big lie" they are elements of a pattern of deceptions devoted to dividing society.

Yes, you make a good point. The wealthy elite in this country are exploiting all the massive levels of fears, ignorance, anxieties, and bigotry of this particular base to advance their own agenda of cutting their personal income taxes, often on the backs of these very folks if necessary; and of course they are succeeding. It's tragic to watch.

I just don't understand the mindset of those wealthy elite who do this though- from this, to spreading confusion on climate change science, etc... do they not realize the recklessness of this level of myopic self-interest, at the expense of prudent, sustainable long term growth of their world and society? Or is it that they think they will be dead and long gone by the time those consequences come to bear? Or are they thinking that if they make enough money they will not have to worry about a disintegrated society in which they will be living?

I just don't get it.

 

[NWRatCon]

Here we go


Yeah, it's a pretty huge mistake to try to map a personality disorder that operates on an individual level to a social group or entire society.

E.g. no one would say that "Canada has OCD," except in the most broad metaphorical sense.

Along those lines, it makes no sense whatsoever to say "Canada fails to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors," or "Mexico is impulsive and fails to plan ahead," or "Denmark displays a glib, superficial charm and can be quite voluble and verbally facile." (Quotes from DSM-V entry on antisocial personality disorder.)


Oh, please.

Groups of humans have engaged in actions that are callous, unempathetic, impulsive or irresponsible for as long as humans have been in groups. If you're suggesting that humanity is somehow worse today than they were 10 or 50 or 100 or 1,000 or 100,000 years ago, then you're making at least two major errors:

• Ignoring actual history, which shows that humans are generally less violent today than in the past
• Indulging in declinism, a common pastime of anyone who thinks that proclaiming "everything is worse!!!" will somehow motivate others to do what they want

Perhaps you should spend your time researching declinism instead of trying to map personality disorders onto societies....

Declinism: is the world actually getting worse? | Pete Etchells

Pete Etchells: A recent survey suggests that 71% of people think that the world is going to the dogs. Are things actually that bad, or is it a psychological trick of the mind?

www.theguardian.com

Nonsense, in the main. I'm not saying any of those things, not ignoring history or psychology. I think your dismissal is a sign of reaction rather than thought. Consider that for a moment.

Do you know what social psychology even is? Sociology? Shallow, shallow response, my friend. I believe you can do better.

 

[NWRatCon]

I just don't get it.

I'm trying to make sense of it, too.

Yes, you make a good point. The wealthy elite in this country are exploiting all the massive levels of fears, ignorance, anxieties, and bigotry of this particular base to advance their own agenda of cutting their personal income taxes, often on the backs of these very folks if necessary; and of course they are succeeding. It's tragic to watch.

I just don't understand the mindset of those wealthy elite who do this though- from this, to spreading confusion on climate change science, etc... do they not realize the recklessness of this level of myopic self-interest, at the expense of prudent, sustainable long term growth of their world and society? Or is it that they think they will be dead and long gone by the time those consequences come to bear? Or are they thinking that if they make enough money they will not have to worry about a disintegrated society in which they will be living?

In part, I think it is force of habit, and in part I think it is being the victim of the same manipulative efforts. For decades, business schools taught a fraud - that maximizing profit for shareholders was the only responsibility of management. That false thought pattern is now ingrained in multiple CEOs of major corporations. It explains the conflict between Bob Chapek and Bob Iger at Disney; the dysfunction at Amazon and Facebook; the lack of corporate "vision" and pervasive customer dissatisfaction.

The focus for many of them is on the next quarter and their golden parachutes.

 

[Ambig]

I agree, and that's getting at some of the roots of my disquiet. It is not organic, in the main, but a set of deliberate manipulations over decades.

Yeah, I think it's always been so with demagogues and such, but the bullhorn is much louder now.

 

[NWRatCon]

Because our friend Visbeck brought it up (in a very backhanded way), I think it important to understand what Social Psychology is, and how it relates to this topic.

"Social psychology is the scientific study of how thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the real or imagined presence of other people or by social norms.[1] Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as a result of the relationship between mental states and social situations, studying the social conditions under which thoughts, feelings, and behaviors occur, and how these variables influence social interactions." (Wikipedia)

That is, in essence, the core of the topic - how human behavior in society, and its manipulation, is affecting social interactions at various levels.

My thesis is that there is a set of behaviors that are being "enhanced" within our society, deliberately, to display "sociopathic markers".

 

[Ambig]

I just don't understand the mindset of those wealthy elite who do this though- from this, to spreading confusion on climate change science, etc... do they not realize the recklessness of this level of myopic self-interest, at the expense of prudent, sustainable long term growth of their world and society? Or is it that they think they will be dead and long gone by the time those consequences come to bear? Or are they thinking that if they make enough money they will not have to worry about a disintegrated society in which they will be living?

I just don't get it.

Never underestimate greed, right here and right now, with little concern for the larger picture.

 

[lwf]

Would you think this would be the same phenomenon that happens in criminal gangs and organized crime? If everyone else is doing it, and we learn what is acceptable by watching the social consequences of others' behavior, this would seem to be essentially the same thing happening. When such behavior becomes normalized, and the consequences are desirable, tolerable, or absent, more people engage in it for their own gain.

 

[Ambig]

I think maybe that's because they had a conception of what "their" society was to be like: White, Christian (preferably a protestant denomination), all speaking English, preferably with a southern or maybe midwestern accent. As their world changes, they do not feel like this is their society anymore. So they are fine burning it all down. If it's not longer their world, why should they care?

That's how I counsel them -- the ones who will listen a little. Focus on your personal goals. Stop worrying about 'the government' or 'the society' and find a way to get what you want out of life.

They whine when they should be working, it seems to me.

I tell them to run for office if they're feeling so disaffected.

 

[NWRatCon]

Yeah, I think it's always been so with demagogues and such, but the bullhorn is much louder now.

Again, I agree. Mussolini and Hitler, and the Sakurakai in Japan were examples of how such manipulation can occur in a modern society, through mass communication channels. I think the channels of communication have broadened, but the techniques remain essentially the same.

 

[NWRatCon]

Would you think this would be the same phenomenon that happens in criminal gangs and organized crime? If everyone else is doing it, and we learn what is acceptable by watching the social consequences of others' behavior, this would seem to be essentially the same thing happening. When such behavior becomes normalized, and the consequences are desirable, tolerable, or absent, more people engage in it for their own gain.

I do think so, but on a much broader scale. You are very correct, though, that "normalization" is the central goal, or acculturalization. It overwhelms the "right and wrong" instinct.

 

[Visbek]

Next, I want to focus on the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate when it comes to psychological traits.

Here we go

Dude, that's a false dichotomy. Genetics, heredity, environment, socialization all have an impact, to varying degrees with varying individuals. E.g. antisocial personality disorder may be a result of both genetic factors and abuse in childhood.

It's not a virus, it's not "contagious." A Korean who moves to the US won't get infected with sociopaty. It is probably "acquired" by getting the shit beaten out of you by a parent.

Antisocial Personality Disorder - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I came across this article: This is Neoliberalism, Part II: Alienation and Mass Sociopathy by Design by Joe Brunoli.

Who?

Did you actually read this guy's blog? He's an election denier with 270 followers who thinks the Ukranians are Nazis.

The starkest example of the concept is "the Big Lie" promoted by Donald Trump. But, I do not want this thread to become about that.

Informally speaking, it is much more likely that Trump is a narcissist than a sociopath. However, Trump getting elected, or people believing what he says, does not mean that society has become "sociopathic" or "narcissistic."

Rather, this is an example that sprang from a seedbed of such examples, and a societal trend. Mr. Brunoli identifies one of the sources as "neoliberalism", and I agree.

Neoliberalism is a political ideology that emphasizes free market competition and laissez-faire lack of government regulations over other values, such as equity, product safety, common goods, or regulation of behavior.

Are you saying that free markets are turning people into sociopaths? Really...?

Let's go back to that definition of sociopathy: "a pattern of antisocial behaviors and attitudes, including manipulation, deceit, aggression, and a lack of empathy for others." When put together, we call it a pathology, but I think we all recognize it in our everyday lives, and that, my friends, is that point. Where does it come from, and why is it so ubiquitous?

Dude. Who are you hanging out with?!?

C'mon, man. People are no more manipulative, deceitful, aggressive or unempathetic than the past. Just read The Decameron as an example of how Medieval Italians saw deception and callousness (and adultery btw) as rampant in their society.

The always-on 24-7 international news cycle can certainly make daily life seem like that's gotten worse, but that's because bad news sells, and today you can get bad news from anywhere in the globe, tailored to your personal preferences, in seconds.

For example, let's consider a simple fact. Right now, there is not a single war anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. There's criminal violence but no interstate wars, no civil wars, no uprisings, no insurgencies. As recently as the 90s, there were civil wars in Guatemala, Colombia, Peru, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Ecuador.

Conversely, I see quite a bit of empathy for others, in a place you presumably do not: Civil rights. For decades, some whites -- who at a minimum aren't directly impacted by discrimination, and at most are often seen as benefitting from anti-black bigotry -- have worked to protect the civil rights of blacks. Young white college kids didn't risk getting beaten or killed during Freedom Summer or in George Floyd protests so they could lord it over Republicans 60 years later. It's because they have empathy for people who they see as suffering from injustice.

Similarly, it's easy to look at a thread about, say, an anti-vaxxer who dies of COVID, and see lots of callous comments -- while ignoring expressions of sympathy, even for someone that may be seen as causing harm. However, social media simply didn't exist 50 years ago -- so what measurement could you possibly use to justify your claims? You don't have any data, you're just going off of a subjective impression, which is easily subject to bias.

Sure, society is far from perfect. But it's much better off than you assume.

 

[NWRatCon]

I see the circumstance I am describing, mass sociopathy, as analogous to the propagation of waves in a large body of water. Initially, disturbances in the water are disorganized, but as they overlap, they begin to become synchronized, and develop into wave patterns. Like the waves in an ocean, the water itself is not moving, but the energy is traveling through the water to create the effect. Also like waves, they can be artificially generated.

That's how I see this process. The mass of the people is like the mass of the water, and these behaviors are the energy that creates the waves or events, like Jan 6. Charles Blow described it as "Normalizing Mass Hysteria" In an article (NYT, Subscription) earlier this year, but I am looking at it more critically and specifically.

Social Psychology demonstrates that people's behavior can be affected - positively and negatively - by the actions of others, and can be manipulated toward a goal. 8 Famous Social Psychology Experiments (VeryWellMind) It has also demonstrated that social pressure can overwhelm the "right-wrong" instincts of otherwise "normal" people. Novels have been written about it (Lord of the Flies, anyone?) So, it is a real phenomenon.

What I am suggesting is that it can be expanded to a much larger portion of society.

 

[ataraxia]

That's how I counsel them -- the ones who will listen a little. Focus on your personal goals. Stop worrying about 'the government' or 'the society' and find a way to get what you want out of life.

They whine when they should be working, it seems to me.

I tell them to run for office if they're feeling so disaffected.

Huh, interesting. Are you a therapist or something, or are these just the guys here on debate sites?

 

[Visbek]

Nonsense, in the main. I'm not saying any of those things, not ignoring history or psychology. I think your dismissal is a sign of reaction rather than thought. Consider that for a moment.

Sure, let me consider it.

Please stand by.



Nope, you're still wrong.

If you believe society is on a one-way road to hell, then yeah, you're ignoring history.
If society is getting "more sociopathic," then...

Why did crime rates decline precipitously between 1990 and 2016? Why is violent crime so rare in the US? Europe is also "neoliberal," why do they have a violent crime rate roughly 1/4 that of the US? Isn't high rates of unlawful activity associated with APD?

Why do people donate huge sums of money when they hear about a natural disaster abroad?

Why does non-violent civil resistance work better, and produce more peaceful and longer-lasting results, than violent uprisings?

Why are there fewer wars today, that kill smaller percentages of the population, than 100 years ago? Why are there no wars at all in the Western hemisphere? Why are there fewer armed conflicts in Africa? Why are wars between nations -- which, by the way, cause a lot more harm than civil conflicts -- a rarity, whereas they were routine in the past?

As I asked in a previous post, what yardstick are you even using? You haven't provided a single objective measure yet.

Do you know what social psychology even is?

I do. It refers to the psychology of how individuals operate in groups. E.g. group dynamics, response to authority, etc. It doesn't mean you should, or can, apply personality disorders of individuals to groups or nations.

I'm reasonably confident that any professional psychologist or social psychologist would tell you that's a huge category error.

Sociology?

Yup. Sociology is the study of how societies operate, typically with an emphasis on institutions. Got an "A" in that many years ago.

Shallow, shallow response, my friend. I believe you can do better.

Seems more like a shallow reading than a shallow response....

 

[Ambig]

Again, I agree. Mussolini and Hitler, and the Sakurakai in Japan were examples of how such manipulation can occur in a modern society, through mass communication channels. I think the channels of communication have broadened, but the techniques remain essentially the same.

Sure. Preach fear and hate.