Sociopaths Among Us
Introduction
If you google the word "sociopath", you will surely find a variety of definitions. For example, from dictionary.com, "a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience." The DSM has a more rigid definition, "Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a psychiatric condition characterized by an individual's common disregard for social rules, norms, and cultural codes, as well as impulsive behavior, and indifference to the rights and feelings of others. People diagnosed with this disorder are typically called Sociopaths." I propose a paradigm shift, a new way of looking at behavior that defines an act as sociopathic if the actor has the ability to understand that the act will have a negative impact on society yet takes the action anyway. For example, driving a Hummer without a good reason is a sociopathic act because it consumes more of a scarce resource than is necessary.
December 19, 2007
Teen Birth Rate Spikes After 14 Years of Decline
Listen to the story, and you will hear Carly Broder, the teenage mother, state that she acted in her own best interests. Only a person blinded by a conventional primitive thought process could deny that her actions are sociopathic, because she chose to act selfishly and favor herself over what is best for society, and even the child itself. Later in the report, a nurse states that statistically, teenage mothers are bound for poverty. Furthermore, teenage pregnancies exert a tremendous financial burden on society. Additional, though not stated, it should be easy to find statistics linking childhood poverty to lessed chances for success in life. Given all these consequences of teenage pregnancy, how is it not an egregiously sociopathic act for this girl to choose to have and keep the child.
But the blame for the effects of her irresponsible procreation does not lie solely on her shoulders, for she is just acting according to her animal insticts. It is society and government that has the greater responsible to forcibly prevent individuals from making choices that harm society. In this case, this girl should have been forced to give her child up to a suitable adoptive family, or, if not such family were available, to have an abortion. The girl should then have been counseled on birth control, and, if she fell pregnant again, forcibly sterilized. These measures sound Draconian, and by definition they are, but today's world is fraught with so many problems that we cannot allow individuals to contribute additional problems to society. Those who would think forced control of procreation cruel are suffering from a primitive moral sense that prevents them from realizing that when we as a society allow a girl like Carly Broder to bear and raise that child, we share in the reponsibilty for the poverty that she will, statistically, endure. For the poverty that the child will endure. For the reduced educational opportunitys and life chances of the child. For the drain on societies resources that will result if Carly and child have to go on welfare, and for the effects that deprivation of those resources will have on other citizens who might more legitimately and blamelessly be in need (for example, a person who suffers a catastrophic accident and is unable to work).
August 6, 2007
In Some Circles, Four Kids Is the New Standard
Traditionally, it is the poor who have more children. You can probably find research that explains the reason why, but the fundamental reason is that humans are animals, and in the absence of education humans will act like animals, and animals reproduce as much as possible without concern for the world around them. While this behavior can be called animalistic, I would not call it sociopathic because the uneducated do not have the ability to understand the consequences of their actions. The wealthy, however, have the benefit of the best education money can buy, and thus have a responsibility to understand the consequences of their actions on the world. Given this, we have to judge the egregious procreation of these women as a sociopathic act. They demonstrate that they care for themselves above society, and every additional child they have will have a future effect on the environment and global conflict.
Furthermore, it is possible that these people are doing additional harm by setting a poor example that might trickle down to the lower classes. Even worse that the wealthy having too many children is the not-so-wealthy trying to compete and having more children that they can properly raise. The effect of this is to unleash yet more animalistic sociopaths on the world.
What can be done about this? I have no idea. Attacking them and their children would be dangerous proposition. They would most likely react like animals and fight viciously, and being wealthy they have the resources to defend their interests no matter the cost to society. So I just don't know.