Archives for posts with tag: sociopath

As most other words, loyalty describes a ‘multidimensional interval’ rather than the ‘precise something’ most of us usually expect.

What kind of loyalty?
Loyal to whom/what?
How far would it go?
How is it affected by the passage of time?/How does it change the passage of time?

I’ve been mulling over this subject for more than 10 years now…

For me, this is closely related to the famous “Prisoner’s dilemma”.
You now, where two guys break the law together, get caught, are indicted for two felonies and the prosecution  has solid evidence only for the lesser charge. The two guys are held in separate cells, with no way to communicate, and are pressed hard to confess of the higher charge and/or to betray the other guy. During the interrogation each of them learns that:
– If both betray, each of them gets 2 years in prison.
– If one betrays and the other stays mum, the snitch walks and the ‘mute’ gets 3 years.
– If both shut up, each of them gets a year for the lesser charge.

Interesting enough for somebody who was never in such a situation. And it gets even more interesting if you start reading what the ‘pundits’ have to say about the whole thing.

The ‘cold rationalists’ maintain that it’s only logic for both of them to betray, simply because this is the only sure way to avoid the longer sentence. You never know what the other guy might do in a pinch, right?
The more down to earth, specially those with a more ‘intricate’ knowledge of the ‘underworld’, will loose no time to point out that something like that won’t happen if the the pair belongs to the mob…
Those with economically biased minds will be quick to point out that both of them should shut up simply because this way the team would ‘minimize the aggregate cost’.
Last but not least, sociologists will consider that it’s a good thing, for the society at large, that the criminals tend to be more disloyal than the law abiding citizens – otherwise crime would be even harder to fight than it is now.

Confused?

Then let be present the situation from the ‘loyalist’ point of view.

The ‘what’ of the matter has to do with the proportion between ‘blind’ and  ‘willingly/knowingly assumed’. A mobster will be loyal because he has no other alternative – he’d walk into a self-sprung trap if he’d snitch on his partner while a true friend/brother would be loyal for completely different reasons.

Loyal to a person? To a ‘moral value’? To a ‘time honored tradition’? To a ‘local custom’?
If both guys were loyal to each other…
If both were loyal to ‘do no harm unto others’ they wouldn’t have got here in the first place…

As far as ‘distances’ are involved… In the standard example, as ‘formalized’ by Albert W. Tucker, there’s a relatively small difference between what both of them ‘get’ if both of them snitch and what the ‘mute’ would get if the other one would choose ‘the easy way out’. It’s only fair to presume that the pressure for both of them to betray the other would be far bigger if the ‘betrayed mute’ would be ‘rewarded’ with ten years instead of three while ‘mutual betrayal’ would remain at two each.

Time… isn’t this the most interesting dimension? Where you can only look, but never actually go, back and where haze always increases with distance …
Time, where the ‘good’ kind of loyalty helps those who ‘practice’ it and where bad loyalty constitutes an extremely heavy dead-weight …

How to tell ‘good’ from ‘bad’ in this case?

Consider the long term fate of the provinces/countries controlled by organized crime or by any-other form of dictatorship. No capo/dictator/authoritarian figure would ever be able to impose his will over the rest of the population, absent the loyalty of his supporters…

OK, loyalties are what defines us. What keeps us in one piece. What keeps all of us together.
In fact, the few of us who have no loyalties are nothing but sociopaths.

“Joseph Newman argues that the sociopath has an attention bottleneck that allows him to focus only on one activity or train of thought, to the exclusion of others. Researchers, including Howard Kamler, say that the sociopath lacks not “moral” identity but self-identity altogether.”

Hence, it’s up to the rest of us to spot them and to protect ourselves against them.

How?!?

By not extending misplaced loyalty towards them, of course!

Sociopaths are people who have little to no conscience. They will lie, cheat, steal and manipulate others for their own benefit. They know exactly what they are doing, they just don’t care because they don’t think that way. If you are naive enough, they will brainwash you into doing exactly what they say and what they want which is the only time a sociopath is truly happy.

‘They know exactly what they are doing’…

What’s keeping us from doing the same thing? From keeping at least an eye open for those who demand undeserved loyalty? Under which ever disguise and under which ever pretense?

“Middle Class doesn’t understand wealth”:

“Few people in the middle class really understand the mindset of the richest people.

After all, if they did, they would be among the top earners as well.

“Among the many money issues misperceived by the general public is the notion that acquiring great wealth is more about showing off than creating choices. While money certainly brings status, it’s acquired mostly for the purpose of attaining personal liberty.It’s impossible to be truly free without wealth. The middle class is controlled by employment, government, and other entities with superior resources that dictate what they can and can’t do. It’s tough to make a moral stand for freedom when you’re worried about making your next mortgage payment.Rich people can afford to stand up and fight oppression. They can afford to buy their way out of unhealthy work environments, bad bosses, and other unpleasant situations. They have the means to enlist the best doctors when they get sick, and they are able to make themselves as comfortable as possible when they can’t get well. When they want to raise money for business, politics, or charity, a few phone calls to their rich friends is all it takes. If they need more money, they throw a party or host an auction and charge $1,000 a ticket. The examples of how much money buys freedom are endless.Start thinking about the freedoms you’ll gain when you are wealthy!

“It’s impossible to be truly free without wealth. The middle class is controlled by employment, government, and other entities with superior resources that dictate what they can and can’t do. It’s tough to make a moral stand for freedom when you’re worried about making your next mortgage payment.

Rich people can afford to stand up and fight oppression. They can afford to buy their way out of unhealthy work environments, bad bosses, and other unpleasant situations. They have the means to enlist the best doctors when they get sick, and they are able to make themselves as comfortable as possible when they can’t get well. When they want to raise money for business, politics, or charity, a few phone calls to their rich friends is all it takes. If they need more money, they throw a party or host an auction and charge $1,000 a ticket. The examples of how much money buys freedom are endless.

“The rich really are different”

“This one-room house was about a mile away from any road. It had no floor, no latrine, no electricity, no running water, no windows. Twelve people lived in it, all under the age of 25, and every one of them were born in that house.
  Several of the kids were showing signs of malnutrition. Their only source of water was a fetid stream that was polluted with cholera.

 There were a lot of houses like this, but this one was the worst.

  When I tell my friends in the States about this place their responses are always “Wow. That’s sad.” or something like that.
   What my friends don’t do is ask questions like, “How do they do such-and-such?” The questions never occur to my working class friends because this level of poverty is foreign to them.

  Sure, people in America understand the fear of not being able to find work, or losing their homes, or having their kids go to bed hungry.
   But that isn’t 3rd world poverty. So while working class Americans empathize, they can’t understand it in a day-to-day way.

  As for the super wealthy, who have never experienced the fear of losing a home, or missing a meal, they simply have no associated experience.
  They say to themselves, “I work hard. Why can’t you?”
And one thing you can’t hold against the super wealthy on Wall Street and elsewhere is that a lot of them do work hard and put in long hours.
   What they don’t understand is simply not having opportunity. Something their lives are filled with. They don’t have empathy because everyone they have ever met has succeeded if that person worked hard.”

 

See what I mean? Both articles amply demonstrate one thing and one thing only. ‘Having it’ or ‘not having it’ dramatically changes one’s perspective on almost all things.

Why did I bother with such ‘common knowledge’?

Because this is NOT AT ALL ‘common knowledge’. Had it been common it would have created mutual understanding, as it is it creates a wider and wider chasm.

People knowing that something exists doesn’t mean ‘common knowledge’. It becomes so only after enough of those people have an at least partially overlapping view of that something.