The Psychopath: A personal theory

Having only recently reread Hare’s book Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us, I am reminded that the situation for dealing with the psychopath ( the word “dealing” a highly inadequate word) in current sociatal conditions, seems woeful. One of the list of psychopathic traits on the list is “revocation of conditional release” – basically the psychopath is a serial and unrepentant offender. Because their ‘without conscience’ psyche seems so fixed, because of all the traits that make them up ie., their impulsivity, the completely selfish user ways and thus all their potential to continue on with their calculatory ways of predatation, it seems unlikely, that anything can really be done to rehabilitate and encourage them to behave in socially responsible ways. Unlike people who merely do selfish things and through those acts of selfishness end up harming others, the selfishness of the psychopath is something at their very core of the self, therefore the psychopath is always a dangerous individual with potential for great harm.

I have formed a theory, one that comes from my own experiences, much reading and meditations on the nature of the psychopath.  In this article I will attempt explanation of  it.

I have found it interesting that there are many groups to be found online in which people say that they are themselves a “psychopath”, and there appears some pride to be found among these self-declarations. It’s of an attitude of “this is me, I accept this is me, now you can accept it.” And, in this presumed “acceptance” of their self-proclamations of having ‘no conscience’, no natural empathy to other human beings, and naturally leading onto this, amazing excuse for all their ensuing bad behaviour, I have imagined that within that attitude  (especially by acknowledging together in an online group)  they have found a way to pardon themselves somehow. But, no matter how they might find others of  like-mind, they are ultimately alone: the very nature of the psychopath is that of the lone, the feral. For that individual is alone in their own world of their supreme self – how it could be that there could be another that they could possibly acknowledge as having the same self-styled ‘supremecy’ as themselves? You see, they are the lone creature…

Hare discusses at length in his book about whether the psychopath knows right from wrong. “In my opinion, psychopaths certainly know enough about what they are doing to be held accountable for their actions” (Page 143  Guildford Pub. 1998 ed) – basically they are ‘sane’, while presenting a form of “moral insanity” (Ibid).  I agree with his view, that indeed they do know right from wrong. So why do they choose to do wrong? And, I think, here’s the question by which a theory, or theories, can be formed.

It does appear more than likely that nature is involved, that there’s genetic disposition towards someone manifesting as a psychopath: signs can be seen from childhood. There are those that go onto to do violent crimes, while some are like the “white collar criminal”. There are also those that are psychopath, but have found some sort of a niche in life, like a ‘minor’ snake, a hole or burrow to dwell most of the time out of which to continue their acts. So, they are not the ‘serial killer’ or violent rapist etc., but they are a psychopath nonetheless, fitting the checklist of traits.

I have read, and it’s in Hare’s book as well, that  some psychopaths will appear to curtail their toxic, destructive-to-others behaviour in middle age. What might that be saying? A thought of mine on that particular matter is that, by middle age, much of the sexual appetite has reached a peak, and middle age bringing about the tolls of life experience and all weariness (it could be said) by merely living and surviving the rigors of life. By middle age, much of the earlier spark of exploration and experimentation that was enjoyed in earlier years has now been experienced. And so, even the psychopath can settle down into a place where physical expenditure can find its own level. They will remain the psychopath, but their forays of toxic behaviour, is now tempered by a lack of former youthful sexual energy and sexual-identity energy.

The sexual nature of the human is tied into the processes of the body – for instance, a young woman might appear to ‘unconsciously’ fall pregnant because her hormones, the ones that demand the mammalian animal reproduce, have won over her will to actively plan to have or not have a child. I feel that much of the psychopath’s energies come from this baser place in the mammalian nature. Indeed, somehow there could exist an intrinsic link to the higher parts of the brain (those that are tied to the moral will for eg) from the baser ‘animal’ parts of the brain. There’s some wiring there that is not so active  in the person that has a normal societal empathy. The brain wiring for the empathetic more greatly wired for social conscience thinking decision-making and behaving. (I will note here that wiring would require constant/continual ‘use’ (ie., learned behaviour) for that neural connection to be and remain strong).

Is it any wonder you might read that the psychopath might be referred to as a serpent-kind?

Yes, there is nature and there is nurture. Hare says in his book Without Conscience (and I will loosely describe here)  that psychopaths may chose a life of violent crime if their family background has been a particularly dysfunctional one. They may, however, become a white-collar criminal if their family background has been one of good nurturing. And that’s the thing,  psychopaths can come from nurturing parents and a good family homes.

Back to ‘nature’  then…

Regardless of whether we come into this world a twin, a triplet or a quadruplet, we are in this world alone – and each individual is their own world of self.  All the infant knows is the infant’s needs from the beginning: hunger, need for attention etc; the infant will react to the stimulous of its immediate needs. Later comes the wants and the first formings of the developing sense of  the self- in-process.

There may be some children in which the very soul, the very personality, is as an unknown within one family group. Each family group (including single parent or larger family group – any immediate familiar group) has its own appreciation of how things should be. Each has their own mores, own belief systems, own expectations on all the individuals within that familiar sphere.

But lo and behold, there’s this stranger appearing, forming within their midst – someone they try desperately to mould into their own image of sorts. But it does not work! for this small person seems hell-bent on trying it on, harming other children/animals, making life hard and working havoc. No matter what these loving, supporting parents do, the child impulsively will crave the sensations that appeal to a forming self, those sensations that are somehow stimulated from the more primeval parts of the brain, appealing to the instant gratifications of the psyche.

The parents/family would not be expecting that their child be a stranger within their midst. They are expecting, rather, that the immediate demands of the infant pass away as that child grows. But not so with this child! His mind works in a way unknown to them. His sense of self is a very fragile thing, yes, his demands are strong – but I think that what he wants and demands does not directly attribute his sense of self , they are merely his immediate demands. However, the family begins to attribute his behaviour to his selfhood. And it is through that constant input from those who grow to their wits end in coping and managing with the psychopath child, that the child learns to attribute the feedback on his behaviour to his sense of self. And the more his behaviour is rejected, the more he sees he is rejected. And rejection behaviour can be self-feeding, seeking via behavioural acts to test how loved/accepted the person doing the behaviour can be.

Like ADHD and other conditions that manifest strongly in behaviour, could it be possible that the time will come when the psychiatric community is more aware and can test for psychopathy in young children? If that could be possible, then maybe the brain wiring that causes the behaviour of the child to be extremely self-gratuitious, could be acknowledged in a behavioural training/conditioning whereas the child would grow not associating the negative feedback for his behaviour to his selfhood?

I will note here that the psychopath has the same kind of brain as anyone, the capacity for normal society empathic functioning not used/employed like others. The trouble, I believe, arises when the negative feedback for bad behaviour becomes directly attributed by the psychopathic personality to his own selfhood.

From then on it’s a matter of him/her-against-the-world. A world that rejects him, basically put, because it cannot tolerate his/her completely self-gratuitous behaviour.

Thus, I feel, that the psychopath knows rejection like no other! His way of dealing with rejection is to master those who he knows will reject him – the rest of the world. He will not, I believe, realise this at all consciously, it will just happen as a consequence of the nature and nurture factors. His desperate need for self-esteemed selfhood will cause the imbalance and he will develop the narcissism required to con, conquer, control, use others.

As a psychopath does not experience normal feeling as their empathetic counterparts, they can imitate feeling, ‘act’ it out, but when they do acts that gratify them – and those acts can be destructive to the uttermost – that place of sensation – a place that has replaced empathetic – a place of  feeling somewhere within their psyches – is excited. So the psychopath learns to enjoy the causes and the effects of their behaviour. It is therefore, their way of experiencing feeling as they can only know it. At those times they are experiencing something, and are out of the feeling-flatlining for a while. Ask yourself why psychopaths are repeat offenders…

Recently in a doctor’s waiting room, I read an article in the New Scientist magazine. Unfortunately I cannot cite this article at this present time but I will try to get the issue so I can amend this article with a citation. The article is about how a society flourishes if more individuals within a societal group have more consideration and care towards the other members of the societal group.

So it is of great concern in our times of ‘stuff’ replacing quality human relationship times, gadgetries and games replacing quality in interaction, material wealth and hedonism replacing societal stability through good values, sexual gratifications and other instant ‘fixes’ replacing work-for-reward, that the incidence of individuals with psychopathy and its traits could steadily be on the rise. And as there appears to be more tolerance and less judicious punishment for criminal offences, then there appears greater likelihood that individuals with those traits towards selfishness/hedonism will be reproducing – nature at work. Society, growing towards more ‘tolerance’ will become more immune to the valueing of those mores that help individuals discriminate as to who they share their genetic material with. This leads to a veritable and ripe breeding ground where the psychopath becomes a greater presence within human population. (Read the chapter in Hare’s book “The Roots of the Problem” – it will give you chills).

In our contemporary society where materialism and commercialism is promoted as desireable then wealth, and the ‘stuff’ one has, replaces  the ‘rock’ of social grounding through values. Indeed, it appears that values is something more abitrary these days as lack of societal cohesion, especially through greatly polarised views on all manner of human issues, becomes more and more fragmented.

Ultimately the psychopath is an individual apart, and could now potentially become a ‘breed apart’ as less compassion, care and consideration is shown by individuals in a society towards other individuals in that society. It is a frightening thought. While some might consider such a thing could be a de-evolution, it is far more an implication to mankind than just nature, for human mores exist, and values – that a society needs to remain a society in any sort of flourishing – will need to remain in situ without all excuses that ‘nature’ might condone.

It is my theory that the psychopath, as I have mentioned in other articles in this series, is a person who is, in all reality, a person of miniscule sense of ‘good self’ (if it exists in any real sentiency at all). The real ‘self’ – a person lost for want of personal definition, of personal inner truth, of any healthy and right self esteem- is still in an infantile state. What the world sees is a replacement self in the psychopath – and ‘alter ego’ – a personality that is assumed to make up for what is lacking, what remains underneath all the gradiosity in that infantile state. It is my belief that the essence-reality of the individual is hidden underneath the complete egocentricity of the psychopath personality. And that real-self does not really know who they are, for that sense of self, and the need for the sense of self, has never, somehow, been met. And so they assume a compensatory personality.

Look at this image of the see saw. A healthily-orientated individual (the ‘sun’ image in the picture) can find a balance with their own needs and wants in a necessarily selfish way and for also others in society (the ‘earth’ image). Each individual is a creature of the ‘self’ afterall, so I think the image of a sun representing the individual’s sense of selfhood is a suitable illustration here.

But in the psychopath, there is the imbalance. The person that they are capable of being, normally empathetic like others in society is still within them, but it is not ‘present’ as such. No, it is hidden within an alter-ego -a calculating, predating feeder who seeks his/her own lust fulfillment. Often considering themselves ‘superior’ their true – but lost -self has, I think, the real and true self esteem of a gnat. In the desperate need to compensate for that incredible lost self-esteem/self-worth, they have assumed this character in compensaton that they, from the beginning of life, have found too hard to assume, to be or become. And so, a nurturing family can produce, within their midst, this little ‘stranger’- a personality that is different from others.

And so, they are arrogant, yes! Arrogancy is a human trait which treats others with disdain. Does elevated self-love make up for the truth, which could actually be a self-loathing? And if the real self has a gnat’s worth of good ‘real self’ self worth/esteem, then the psychopath could be the ultimate at psychological projection.

And so, is there a possibility for treatment? I don’t know whether the world has enough love and patience to be able to reach past that compensatory ego manifest as I have described in my theory to get to that infantile, underdeveloped, fearful, lack of self-worth underneath.

A quote a psychopath from page 203 of Without Conscience:

“Everybody swears psychopaths can’t be treated. That’s a lot of hogwash,” said Joseph Fredricks, a homosexual pedophile whose long history of violence included the murder of an eleven-year old boy. “Psychopaths are as human as anyone. They’re psychopaths because they are more sensitive than anyone…They can’t stand pain of any sort, that’s why they let it roll off their backs,” he said. [Canadian Press, September 22, 1992]

If my personal theory on the nature of the psychopath has some merit, that they assume an alter-ego that is more directly linked to the ‘reptilian’ part of the brain, as compensatory for a lost (or undeveloped) sense of real self, then there’s naturally a lot more to be considered in terms of how society ‘deals’ with what appears to be a rising occurance of this personality type.

Thank you for reading. Note that this article has been amended since it was first published. I felt I needed to refine the explanation.

This has been part 8 of Series Psychopath

Advertisement