Comment on this entry
Addicted To Being Good? The Psychopathology of Heroism
We look at heroes and do-gooders as a special sort of breed: people who possess extraordinary traits of altruism or self-less concern for the well-being of others, even at the expense of their own existence. On the other end, sociopaths also have an extraordinary set of traits, such as extreme selfishness, lack of impulse control, no respect for rules, and no conscience.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by sraosha on 11/17 at 11:32 PM
i've been wondering about this issue for sometimes... thank you for the article!! now things are a bit clearer for me...(or shall i say, ...now we can justified ourselves...lol...)
although it can cause some nuisance, yes, sometimes we do need to bend/break 'stupid' norms and or rules when they basically don't serve 'the common good'.
Posted by AndiK on 11/21 at 03:29 AM
I must admit........... part of writing this article was a bit of catharsis. However, I feel we need more people like this who are willing to look beyond the "rules and norms" and into what is the "right thing to do". Not an easy path in life, but those who take that path pave the way for progress in society.
Posted by ok.well on 11/21 at 02:03 PM
Thank you!
Posted by rigel on 11/21 at 02:06 PM
"How exactly do we support necessary rule-breaking for virtuous intent, yet punish malicious rule-breaking for ill-intent? Can it be done?"
I think that's called a "judicial system" - it isn't perfect, but it does a reasonable enough job, much of the time.
P.S. there's a typo, "their/there" in the paragraph after the characteristic lists.
Posted by Mike Treder on 11/21 at 02:23 PM
We've fixed that typo. Thanks, rigel, for the catch!
Posted by Anonymous on 11/21 at 02:45 PM
Of course, there's an even finer line beyond the two: what if one's extreme empathy extends to things that are beyond the scope of what society deems acceptable (for good or ill). Things like lab animals, fetuses, old-growth forests, the reputation of the Prophet Muhammad, it seems to me that the difference between a crusader and a jihadist is often a question of values.
Posted by posthippie on 11/21 at 03:13 PM
I'm not convinced that the X-altruist's ability to experience empathy ought to be cited as a principal distinction -- there is evidence that sociopaths are not incapable of empathy, but tend to avoid its practice (otherwise applying the information acquired to selfish purposes). It might be useful to replace the word 'empathy' here with 'regard for others' -- a sociopath confers relatively low regard to the interests of other individuals.
Posted by Lilith on 11/21 at 03:52 PM
To Rigel in Baltimore: If the judicial system is working as designed, it would be a blind system of rules, and rule-breakers would be dealt with as the laws prescribe. Of course, that doesn't prevent judges from throwing out the rules and siding with the rule-breaker, but I'd suspect that the judges in both cases would be either x-altrustics or sociopaths in their own rights.
Posted by Dan Wilson on 11/21 at 04:59 PM
Interesting article. Your points actually remind me of a lot of the character work done in action and superhero fiction, where the sociopath is a highly esteemed member of society and considered an altruist, heroes are often misunderstood and persecuted, and the villain always says "we're not as different as you'd like to think."
One minor note about the Twin Towers situation: My understanding about the firefighters who rejected the order to withdraw is a bit of political spin that was put out for both myth making and to cover Mayor Giuliani's butt. According to fire fighters in NYC, the order to withdraw was never received by fire fighters in the building. The radios that had recently been put into action lacked the range and power required and had failed reliability tests. The men and women who died did so not because of extreme altruism, but because of faulty equipment.
Interesting video on this at http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=341
Posted by pecoto on 11/21 at 05:26 PM
For more information see the last 10 years of Batman comics...
Batman as X-Altruist and The Joker as Sociopath.
And people say comic books have no merit...such people obviously don't read them.
Posted by rigel on 11/21 at 05:44 PM
Lillith: I suppose that depends on your conception of justice, no?
Given that we're both in the US, the following points seem relevant:
judicial discretion in sentencing
jury of one's peers
use of intent or "mens rea" in determining guilt
all point to a non-mechanistic definition of justice as it is conceptualized here.
Posted by rigel on 11/21 at 05:47 PM
Just as an aside, this is a pretty shaky thesis. Try arguing a little less from anecdote and more from actual data.
Posted by cdkrall on 11/21 at 07:38 PM
I think you conflated this nicely enough, but it overlooks something, which is that rules are there for people who need them, not for people who have developed a sense of appropriateness and are motivated by love for all beings and act "from a good place".
For example, once you learn to drive and have experience in many locations and situations, you can drive reasonably correctly even with missing signage. At 50, I often find myself going the correct speed limit unconsciously in a new place, from situational clues. A 17-year-old might not, and there are several varieties of reasons for that, some genetic, some cultural.
And then there's the fact that rules were written over there back then, and we're now in a situation over here right now. Failure to accommodate changes in the way things are is a consistent failure of rules-oriented processes. Try using a 1976 phone book to find a friend's number, in an extreme example.
Also, there have been experiments with removing all traffic info and findings that show people act more cautiously when confronted with that lack. A Sociopath would see opportunity for advancement or mayhem here, one of your X-peeps would not see anything different from the rest of the proles unless there was a situational difference, such as a gasoline truck running away toward a stroller. The X-peep would be more likely to deconstruct the motivations of the removal of the traffic aids, and more quick to act appropriately in the new situation.
So the external versus internal motivation is very important, not just a list item. We see this difference in attitude and source of motivation all the time in our daily lives, and it is profound in its effects on all of us.
I think it's interesting what the article says about you, that you consider rule-following to be the ne plus ultra of human behavior.
Posted by Kimmo on 11/21 at 09:22 PM
I also noted a bit much surprise at the notion that goodness and rule-breaking could go hand in hand...
One only has to consider how much injustice is fostered and locked in by rules, often intentionally, to realise that those who blindly follow them are part of the problem.
Posted by Kimmo on 11/21 at 09:29 PM
...Or to contemplate how much more you can get done by breaking rules.
A fictional but entirely valid exemplar of this 'X-altruist' archetype is Hawkeye Pierce. The borderline sociopath Frank Burns (although less credible a character) is far more comfortable within the rules; they legitimise his machinations.
Posted by Wil on 11/21 at 10:05 PM
Really shallow,there's way more to human actions and reactions.
Are we talking about a perfect world here?Got news,thats also a dream.One can be independent without being feisty,argumentative or convention-breaker as you put it.
Social rules were meant to be broken,last year the government redefined marriage.
It all comes down to being a follower or being independent,which side are you on?
I chose mind independent long time ago,that gave the motivation and ability to identify rotten hazards a mile away.
Posted by Rebecca on 11/21 at 10:11 PM
Interesting article, but not without bias, and in my opinion, unprofessionally written. Never before have I heard a health-care professional refer to a sociopath as "nasty". As a behavioral specialist, I would expect you to know better than anyone that sociopaths do not choose their hereditary personality disorders anymore than your beloved X-altruists do. Why call names?
And how do you define virtue and "good" intent? Is not the X-altruist's all-consuming desire to help others, at the expense breaking these rules you seem to value so much, just as selfish as the sociopath?
Posted by Demosthenes on 11/22 at 02:45 AM
Your intentions are obvious. Try as you like, we'll never associate heroes with sociopaths.
And the social order will thus survive, despite your kind's attempt to weaken and destroy it.
Posted by Alex on 11/22 at 03:03 AM
This is interesting. I know two people who fit your description of a sociopath and an extreme altruist who are closely related. A father and daughter-- the father a classic sociopath, and the daughter so empathetic and compelled to altruism as to impair her functioning. I had never before thought of this as two sides of the same coin, because caring about others is such a large difference as to result in completely different personalities.
Do you think being a sociopath is genetic? (Many do, but I can't tell for sure from your post.) If so, would sociopaths and super-altruists tend to occur in the same families, that is do you think they share the same genetic underpinnings? What about environmental factors? In the case I mentioned above, I had always surmised the daughter's altruism was a reaction to the abuse she suffered from her father-- she feels her life isn't worth much unless she is helping others.
Posted by Alchemipedia on 11/22 at 09:12 AM
Are behavioral twins also genetic twins?
With schizophrenia and bipolar disorder having similar genetics, a plausible hypothesis would be that heroes and sociopaths also have similar genetic origins. A hypothesis well worth testing.
Posted by Commnet on 11/22 at 11:42 AM
The law ("society") has always provided for altruistic rule-breaking, the defense of necessity for example, e.g. you are absolved of stealing a car if you "stole" it to get a dying person to the hospital and there was no alternative transportation. It's not really even breaking the rules, this is a caveat to the rules.
Aside from low impulse control and novelty-seeking I see little similarity between a sociopathic reptile and a hero, but perhaps this is why evolution gives us these people generation after generation. Occasionally we need a hero to save the day --we can't all be deliberative, prudent farmers and accountants.
Posted by Joe on 11/22 at 08:30 PM
Interesting analysis and commentary!
Your description of empathy, as arising out of a desire for "a fair and just world", your subsequent comment about "people like this who are willing to look beyond the 'rules and norms' and into what is the 'right thing to do'", and then subsequent comments concerning the judicial system remind me of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, where "empathy" seemed to be branded by conservatives as a word nearly as evil as "liberal". I imagine that many judicial activists may be playing the role of hero, whether they see themselves that way or not. I wonder about the distribution of heroes and sociopaths across the liberal / conservative spectrum. And I find myself musing about the sociopathological characteristics exhibited by some politicians.
Regarding your (and my) desire for more heroes, I wanted to finish this comment by sharing an excerpt from the movie "Hero", in which the reporter, Gale Gayley (played by Geena Davis), asks John Bubber (played by Andy Garcia), "If everyone thinks of you as a hero, Mr. Bubber, how do you see yourself?" Bubber answers "I think we're all heroes, if you catch us at the right moment."
Posted by web j on 11/23 at 03:38 AM
It sounds reasonable to me. It also seems warply reasonable that an altrustic personality might get caught up in a sociopath's manipulative designs. I've seen these types (flip sides of same coin) drawn to one another time and time again. Generally with disastrous results for the "good" one.
Posted by Tim on 11/23 at 06:01 PM
Interesting take on an older subject. I recall reading an article on this same fundamental observation in Psychology Today 20+ years ago.
Posted by Abraham on 11/23 at 07:47 PM
There's a teaching from over 1500 years ago that says some people are born "under the constellation of blood" -- or something strange like that. It goes on to say that people with this attribute will have a proclivity towards becoming either murderers or surgeons.
Posted by Nicholas West on 11/25 at 12:51 AM
Great article. As a comic book writer it got my creative excitement flowing.
However, I would say Ghandi was an X-altruist. He sure as hell broke a lot of rules. I don't know much of the history of Mother Teresa, but I'm willing to bet she ruffled a few feathers in her time.
Posted by Scott on 12/01 at 01:13 PM
You misspelled Gandhi.
[thanks for the catch, Scott - it's been corrected]
Posted by Abraham on 12/01 at 02:30 PM
"The word "altruism" conveys images of people like Mother Teresa or Gandhi, passive, extremely self-less people. They are altruistic, sure. But the X-altruistic person is anything but passive or meek. They are often feisty, argumentative, independent, idealistic risk-takers and convention-breakers. "
According to http://www.citehr.com/146551-gandhi-hr-manager.html Gandhi was a risk-taker. Also, Gandhi was not being passive or meek when he said, "Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress."
Posted by Sharon Presley on 12/01 at 09:10 PM
It seems to me that "psychopathology" is being misused in the title and by implication, in the article. Psychologists define pathology as maladaptive and harmful behavior and "psychopathy" as essentially anti-social personality or sociopath (though it's not quite the same) so by this definition, heroes are NOT engaging in psychopathological behaviors. Their behavior is NOT maladaptive nor is it harmful. Conflating the terms to make a point is dishonest. As for empathy, psychopaths not only have little (no one said "none"), they don't care about others. The term, as used by developmental and forensic psychologists, includes the idea of caring about others, not just understanding others. Psychopaths typically do not. See Harre's work on psychopaths.
Posted by AndiK on 12/01 at 10:48 PM
Sharon:
Read the article again, and you will see that you either missed some information or misinterpreted what was stated.
First:
"The sociopath, on the other hand, is motivated by internal factors; selfish desires and the advancement of their own cause, rather than the causes of others or society as a whole. They don't have the ability to empathize, so they see no logic in acting in any way other than selfishly, since they cannot imagine themselves in anyone else's position. Everything they do is driven by their quest to satisfy their own needs, rather than (and often at the expense of) the needs of another person."
Second (in regards to X-Altruists):
"Because this type of person often engages in such extreme behavior that results in harm to self on some level, he earns a spot on the dysfunctional end of the personality scale, nearing psychopathology."
"Psychopathy" and "psychopathology" are not the same word, and are not interchangeable.
Thanks for reading!
Posted by Sharon Presley on 12/02 at 01:56 AM
No, I didn't misread, I just wasn't clear. The part about empathy was not directed toward the article (which is clear on the issue of empathy) but toward one of the earlier comments that claimed psychopaths may show empathy. So the article was not the problem here but the other commenter. My apologies for not being clear on that.
However I still disagree that risky altruistic behavior is pathological. There is a world of difference between risk for the sake of thrills and risk to save a human life. I don't really see how they can be equated. The motivations as well as the results are quite different. Saving human lives is hardly maladaptive,which is after all, part of what is meant by psychopathology. That would make parents who risk their lives for their children, to say nothing of police officers, all pathological. Though I am not a Christian, it occurs to me that by this definition, the behavior of Jesus would be classified as pathological. Perhaps some non-Christians might buy that but I'm sure Christians (and me too) would have a hard time with that. How is are these examples different? Or are they?
Posted by Tabris Macbeth on 12/31 at 02:53 AM
You know, I'm reminded that America has stopped being a land of freedom and justice, and has become a "nation of laws". We're not about doing what's right anymore. We're all about CONTROL. We're about mediocrity and homogenization. It disgusts me that right and wrong are being determined nowadays by the rules written by whoever's writing them.
I'm with AndiK and anyone else who seems to have some moral and ethical fiber.
-Tabris
Posted by Marilyn on 02/09 at 02:27 PM
I found this idea very useful for the course I taught last month on religious responses to Harry Potter. What's the difference between H.P. and Lord Voldemort? Empathy! Which is something I wish could be taught somehow; I think greater empathy would be a good antidote to things like bullying.
Posted by navygunner on 03/20 at 08:23 PM
This bears a striking similarity to "On Sheep, Sheepdogs and Wolves" By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D.,
In particular, "If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path."
The full text can be found at:
http://www.johnsonpd.com/Sheepdogs.html
Posted by Constance X on 04/01 at 11:04 AM
As a gifted and sensitive child with one malicious sociopathic parent, one insensitive narcissist parent, several siblings, including an older malicious sociopath "golden child" whom I roomed with my whole childhood, I can tell you that there is far too much emphasis here on genetics. I am in my forties and just getting to the bulk of teasing out all the "para-moralities" -- I propose the term "patho-moralities" instilled in me in seventeen years -- my FIRST 17 years of life -- of brainwashing. I was groomed to be an altruist; for the family values and superego to prohibit and crush my own will -- to do everything I could for others, and that the right answer was to say, "For me, I want nothing." To consistently model that behavior to others, and not complain when I was disappointed, but to examine my right to be disappointed, instead, my rights to anything at all. YES, I DO THINK THERE'S A LINK BETWEEN SOCIOPATHS AND ALTRUISTS.
Posted by Constance X on 04/01 at 11:13 AM
"Trying to be good" is a classic part of captive trauma, I'd like to add.
Posted by Digia on 07/10 at 12:12 AM
This article actually gives a fairly good explanations for some vigilantes. In the case of vigilante justice, it is sometimes carried out for purposes of necessity, sometimes out of revenge, or due to a feeling that the legal system has failed them; but there are a rare few who act on such notions due to an "addiction to being good." I've known one such kind of person, and the ideations are just as dangerous as that of a sociopath.
Posted by Mia on 08/11 at 02:30 AM
Constance X:
That explains so much! Thank you!
Posted by postfuturist on 08/11 at 10:49 AM
Nixon is-- was-- the classic example of how an altruist and a sociopath can exist in the same person.
Posted by Janice on 08/22 at 03:05 PM
Brilliant article--thank YOU! Like Constance X, I grew up in a family that polarized the children into sociopaths and x-altruists. I've been called a do-gooder or altruist all my life; I was in one job for ten years, but constantly fighting the admin. for the good of students and colleagues; since then I've left many jobs when I could not tolerate the injustice toward myself and others. My eldest brother committed suicide rather than burden his family with the costs and misery attending his terminal disease. On the other hand, my elder brother killed animals, abused his siblings physically, verbally and sexually (raped me when I was 5); my elder sister, a victim of his as well, became epileptic and psychotic, finally coercing a will change that cut the rest of us out of our estate. I have been questioning my knee-jerk altruism for some time now. I try to pick my battles and truly do some good without harming myself. Still, I am glad that my narcissist/ sociopathic parents (themselves abused, I'm sure) affected me to be x-altruist rather than sociopathic.
Posted by B. N. Frank on 12/21 at 07:43 PM
I guess another trick to this argument stems from the fact that, as often as not, real-life "heroes" are not the only victims they create. If an approval-seeking X'er runs into a burning building to save babies or kittens, often others will follow, assuming the X'er(s) have some kind of idea what they are doing. They typically do not. This often leads to more injury or death. While the X'ers can inspire heroism, they are also sirens to the rocks. They will take you down with them. I don't care how conflicted X'ers are about [insert friend's name here] after the fact, but the simple fact is that [insert friend's name here] probably wouldn't be quite so dead had they not had [insert friend's name here] bounding after them across a partially frozen lake or trying to hold off a pack of rabid wolves to save someone with a ridiculously low survival rate, even in the event of their unlikely success. Both pathologies are dangerous. Make no mistake.
Posted by Janice on 01/29 at 08:21 PM
BNF, I agree. Both syndromes (x-altruism and sociopathy) are dangerous because they ARE syndromes. Anything kneejerk is by definition irrational and automatic. I am trying quite hard to look at life like a 'normal' person (as far as such exists, let's call it The Middle Way) and it is wonderfully liberating. I had never realized what a martyr--and inspiration for martyrdom--I was. I now, as I said, am in recovery and find your point very apt.
Posted by DM0 on 05/22 at 12:53 PM
I think you guys need to stop picking this article apart. Obviously this article is taking reference from psychology. However, psychology is limited to generalities in the human condition. Everyone is unique and so it is impossible to give a "blanket" statement that would be correct for everyone.
What we can say however, is that all actions start with a thought.
All thoughts have a root. And that root is either Good or Evil.
Someone who is willing to put their life in danger for another, regardless of their relationship is clearly acting on good.
These actions need to be commemorated and should set the example for others. We make the world in which we live, what do you want your world to be like?
"A Dream you dream alone is just a dream. A Dream we dream together is a reality" - John Lennon
Posted by Duff on 06/16 at 02:50 PM
Why claim that the x-altruistic person is not selfishly motivated? Many so-called altruistic people are motivated by appearing to be altruistic to others, by portraying themselves as more ethical and selfless, etc. Within religious organizations there is often competitions to see who can appear more selfless.
Meanwhile folks like Gandhi do not have low impulse control, but incredible discipline. Some sociopaths also have high discipline, aka Darth Vader type evil.
Posted by post-post on 06/17 at 11:57 AM
"However, psychology is limited to generalities in the human condition. Everyone is unique and so it is impossible to give a 'blanket' statement that would be correct for everyone."
And psychologists/psychiatrists/researchers can be as intellectually dishonest or more so than the patients they study/treat.
Posted by Laymanzbearings on 08/08 at 04:27 PM
No need to adjust the rules. The selfless actor knows the cost and they gladly pay it. The selfish is unhappy to pay, that's punishment enough.
Posted by Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres on 08/31 at 10:40 PM
Spoken like a true non-hero. Well, it certainly is interesting how we look from the outside.
Posted by iPan on 09/27 at 08:59 PM
Judging by Andrea's criteria, I am an x-altruist.
And I can tell you, it's curse.
Society will hate you for it.
Posted by post-post on 09/27 at 10:08 PM
You got it right, ipan.
BTW, the gullible are those hated most, or more accurately, not respected. It took a long time (too long) to figure out the difference between like and respect. For example a self-sacrificing individual-- say for instance a homeless person-- is liked but not respected; while an alcoholic is both liked & respected ("he's one of us") and sent to Alcohol Recovery and 12 Step. The substance abuser is liked, respected, sent to Rehab and whatever else comes next. However a gullible person is a fool, chump, sucker, and ultimate loser, he is:
a) to be neither liked, nor respected.
b) to write futurist books & articles-- and be ridiculed all the way to the bank 
Posted by iPan on 09/27 at 11:43 PM
Damn, I like you a whole lot now post-post.
You show a great understanding. Not right nor wrong, but I feel a deep understanding based on experience.
I will be listening closer to your writing from this point forward.
Posted by post-post on 09/28 at 07:20 PM
"You show a great understanding."
I don't understand anything- merely read alot of books.
The Wizard said to the brainless Scarecrow in the 'Wizard of Oz':
"what does a professor have that you don't have? a diploma!"
The Wizard didn't say anything about understanding.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog