A Sociopathic Consociety

[Nachtswalbe]

Realistically how would a con world where the majority of inhabitants are violently sociopathic but willing to submit to authority function?

How would the basic trust that undergirds even a relatively-less-community-centered like American society even appear here?

Inspired by Green Antarctica and the Kzin
A Green Antarctica version of The Christmas Carol

Skrog cares nothing for people, and refuses to participate in the rites of guarding. God sends a series of visions to terrorize Skrog, but instead of knuckling down, Skrog becomes ever more adamantly opposed to God and God's will. His example is so ferocious that the community rallies around Skrog, and in the end, they sacrifice all the newborns, in a massive blood ritual.

[zompist]

I must be in a cynical mood, since my first reaction is "But how does this differ from Earth?"

OK, that's unfair. But arguably most societies have co-opted rather than suppressed their sociopaths. Think of how kings are socialized: told from infancy that they are divinely superior to everyone else, trained in personal violence and suspicion of others. A gang or a nomadic army provides jobs for thousands of sociopaths. Many a CEO is a sociopath. The way the Yanomano treat their women is depressingly sociopathic.

Now, a human society does appeal to our better nature as well, and in your posited society they have none. But a sociopath may be willing to follow social norms when they benefit him, or when authority is sufficiently ruthless that he feels cowed. For that matter a ruler, knowing the potential for violence of any of his subjects, would be wise to rule with rewards as much as by fear.

[Ares Land]

I must be in a cynical mood, since my first reaction is "But how does this differ from Earth?"

Heh. I think the exact opposite.

I don't think this would work.
Human beings are able to function as a society because we can assume that a certain amount of cooperation will happen as a matter of course.
A society of sociopaths would have to spend a considerable amount of energy keeping its members into line.
I think even cooperative hunting would be a difficult proposition.
Getting back to a few things early Homo probably did: You can't trust your brother or sister to keep watch on the kids. Your baby's dead the minute letting it die offers the slightest advantage. Cooperative hunting is right out. Your fellow hunters will just throw you in front of the mammoth to keep it distracted.
Essentially without ethics the species would lose a huge comparative advantage. We're able to do great things as a society precisely because we can trust in our fellows to some extent. It's a huge energy saver.
I think the concept would work with non-humans. And even then we'd be looking at something very alien. (Squids may be a good model. They're smart, solitary and leave their offspring to fend for themselves.)

@zompist: I do agree there are a lot of successful sociopaths! But sociopaths can be successful in our societies precisely because they have non-sociopaths to prey upon. They're in a sense social hackers, taking advantage of our base assumption that other human beings adhere to a certain ethical minimum.

I love Green Antarctica! Not all of it is realistic. (And that's OK! Sometimes realism just gets in the way of a good story.) The Tsalal were probably intended as sociopaths... But I don't think they fit the criteria.
The bit you're quoting (For those who haven't read it, the idea is that a citizen from one of Antarctica's brutal society answers an AMA) is particularly clever in that respect. The main character, Lovegrove, doesn't read as a sociopath; he feels the value of solidarity, friendship and love. Sure, it's clear he sees the Irish as subhuman, but as he's quick to point out, so did the English historically.

I don't think sociopathy is required for awful practices. That bit you quoted mentions child killing. The Greeks thought nothing of killing newborns; I don't think they were sociopaths. (Where did we even get the name and the concept of ethics from?) The Mesoamericans killed children as a matter of routine; their own accounts show that they had a refined sense of right and wrong besides -- and contemporaries always mention they were fundamentally very decent people.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Another question to posit is whether or not the inhabits of the society are human, or human-like, and if human-like, how similar to humans in both psychology and capacity are they?

If they are reasonably human, I think Zompist's ideas are generally what I would imagine — either our sociopathic humans are cowed into obedience, or else it would look more like a gang, horde, or whatever else.

To go into more detail, I think a "lawful" sociopathic society would be extremely rigid and legalistic, probably with extremely strict adherence to the letter of the law (with plenty of unscrupulous manipulation thereof, with the more extreme examples in our observable human society being probably being more common) and little concept of "human rights" which are not also "property rights". The economy will probably be some form of mercantile or capitalistic system, might well allow both indentured servitude and chattel slavery. Crime will likely be severely punished, with frequent application of the death penalty, and various disproportionate punishments (like transportation to some unpleasant or undesirable part of the world) for fairly minor offences.

I could see both a highly corrupt, and overly puritanical, variant emerging.

I could also see there being spaces of both extreme legalism, and near lawlessness, within the same society. It's remarked in a cutscene in Tales of the Abyss (which starts out with a fairly dystopian world order) that killing others isn't a crime outside of cities when it isn't demonstrably for personal malice. If there is no law enforcement outside of major population centres, black markets, and other such unlawful activities, if present, could well exist there, with the people in lawful cities content to ignore it as long as it doesn't touch them. There would, of course, probably be plenty of backroom dealing between the movers and shakers in "society" and those on the "periphery" who would be useful to them.

Also expect class and caste systems, and other unpleasant things people would probably use to entrench their positions within society, and give an air of legitimacy to whatever behaviour; this could, of course, go in both puritanical (those in high positions are more ruthlessly punished) and corrupted (those at higher levels are more free to behave in antisocial ways and less-likely to face consequences) directions.

If your people are not human, or not as human as Earth humans, there are other points that may be interesting to consider.

To begin, is there some reason members of this species need to live in something like a society? Do they have trouble surviving on their own, but their banding together is only grudging, even if it is permanent and settled? I imagine this would be the case with more sociopathic humans (individually, humans are not particularly physically noteworthy as a whole, and they can broadly accomplish more in groups).

Also, is their society structured somehow based on their reproductive needs (either males or females might be significantly weaker and need protection during the reproductive cycle, so society would be so formed that the species could survive, even though its individual members do not feel anything for each-other beyond understanding of their need for mutual protection).

Are they actively able to harm each-other physically in meaningful ways? Some not-quite-humans may have significantly greater durability and physical (and emotional) resilience than humans. It might simply be that they congregate because it's useful to them, and tend not to be physically violent towards each-other because there isn't any real hope of doing anything with (physical) violence.

It might also be worth considering whether this sociopathic group is the baseline for the species, if any non-socipoathic variants exist, or a non-sociopathic variant is the baseline, but has instead suppressed its sociopathic members through exile, causing this society to be formed. This is roughly what appears to have happened with some of the more lawless areas in my own worldbuilding — the humanoid species involved has a higher tendency to benevolence and altruism than Earth humans, and have much more visceral reactions to antisocial behaviour; antisocial individuals also tend to come out physically and magically weaker than non-antisocial ones, so they have no real way of imposing their will on existing society; the species is also incidentally far harder to harm physically than Earth humans, and there are usually magically-nasty consequences for killing them outright, so acts of petty violence are extremely rare.

[zompist]

Getting back to a few things early Homo probably did: You can't trust your brother or sister to keep watch on the kids. Your baby's dead the minute letting it die offers the slightest advantage. Cooperative hunting is right out. Your fellow hunters will just throw you in front of the mammoth to keep it distracted.

These are good points. I do think brutality gets romanticized way too much. We like stories about great villains much more than stories about saints (indeed, to make those readable, the saints have to confront villains). So, yeah, primitive hunters are in actuality quite egalitarian, discourage the prideful, and share the meat with the whole tribe.

Still, I'd ask: can the sociopaths not figure this out? I mean, if you picture them all as The Joker, then they can't help being serial killers. But "if we work together we can hunt a mammoth, and if I hunt alone I'll just eat rabbits" seems like something a sociopath could reason out. Similarly, though in my view most kings are sociopaths, they know not to murder all of their subjects.

[Otto Kretschmer]

Getting back to a few things early Homo probably did: You can't trust your brother or sister to keep watch on the kids. Your baby's dead the minute letting it die offers the slightest advantage. Cooperative hunting is right out. Your fellow hunters will just throw you in front of the mammoth to keep it distracted.

These are good points. I do think brutality gets romanticized way too much. We like stories about great villains much more than stories about saints (indeed, to make those readable, the saints have to confront villains). So, yeah, primitive hunters are in actuality quite egalitarian, discourage the prideful, and share the meat with the whole tribe.

Still, I'd ask: can the sociopaths not figure this out? I mean, if you picture them all as The Joker, then they can't help being serial killers. But "if we work together we can hunt a mammoth, and if I hunt alone I'll just eat rabbits" seems like something a sociopath could reason out. Similarly, though in my view most kings are sociopaths, they know not to murder all of their subjects.

Isn't the Joker a narcissist rather than a psychopath/sociopath?

[zompist]

Isn't the Joker a narcissist rather than a psychopath/sociopath?

Well, he's both. He does love to kill people.

[Otto Kretschmer]

Isn't the Joker a narcissist rather than a psychopath/sociopath?

Well, he's both. He does love to kill people.

A psychopath/sociopath has no empathy at all. A narcissist has some even if little or very little.

I have seen Joker being described as a narcissist.

[Ares Land]

Still, I'd ask: can the sociopaths not figure this out? I mean, if you picture them all as The Joker, then they can't help being serial killers. But "if we work together we can hunt a mammoth, and if I hunt alone I'll just eat rabbits" seems like something a sociopath could reason out. Similarly, though in my view most kings are sociopaths, they know not to murder all of their subjects.

Sure, the smart sociopaths figure this out. The rest don't. Many of them don't get by very well. They tend to get stuck into destructive patterns, and there's a strong correlation with other mental disorders.
There's something of a spectrum too. (High-functioning sociopaths are kind of broken morally but they're not completely lacking in empathy.)
It looks like there's an advantage in being purely Machiavellian but as a species we're not. From an evolutionary standpoint I think it helps to have some of the prisoner dilemma calculation built in.

I'm not sure most kings were sociopaths. I don't think we have the data to really answer that question, but to me it looks like a number of them had sociopathic traits but most would have fallen somewhat short of the DSM criteria. To some extent it's true of a worrying number of democratic leaders too (many of these certainly show the cunning, superficial charm and seeming lack of remorse.)

[Otto Kretschmer]

Sociopaths do not exist for any reason, they're a byproduct of biology and statistics. The world would be much better without them.

[zompist]

Still, I'd ask: can the sociopaths not figure this out?

Sure, the smart sociopaths figure this out. The rest don't. Many of them don't get by very well. They tend to get stuck into destructive patterns, and there's a strong correlation with other mental disorders.
There's something of a spectrum too. (High-functioning sociopaths are kind of broken morally but they're not completely lacking in empathy.)

Yeah... I was just doing some shallow reading on sociopathy, which suggested some nuances:

* Sociopaths are more inclined to manipulation than violence.
* They're often impulsive and even self-destructive, which leads to as many problems as their antisocial nature.
* They get bored easily, so it can be hard for them to keep a job.
* Quite a few do fit into society— uneasily, but without being criminals.

I'd refine my predictions for Otto's question:

* The sort of sociopaths I was talking about— charismatic, amoral manipulators— would rise to the top.
* Another type, the ones who can't moderate their impulses, will have difficult and sad lives.
* Yet others would form a kind of simulacrum of human society. I.e. there's no reason they can't do work, study, play games, serve in very hierarchical institutions, etc. Probably the model for relationships would be very different; I'd expect women to have to raise children mostly by themselves.

This is reminding me of Jane Goodall's description of chimpanzee life. They're often murderous, they get into fights a lot, there is no real pair-bonding, and the head chimp often gets his position by intimidation. To be sure they are also gregarious in their own way, and can form friendships.

Oh, and I just noticed the reference to Kzin. Don't trust Larry Niven on any aspect of biology. I'd suggest Konrad Lorenz's King Solomon's Ring, especially his discussion of wolves and other predators. Actual predator species usually have deep instincts against fatally harming each other: the loser of a fight is allowed to run away. Prey species lack such instincts, and if two male rabbits or doves are kept in a small cage together, the results can be gruesome.

[Nachtswalbe]

Sociopaths do not exist for any reason, they're a byproduct of biology and statistics. The world would be much better without them.

Polish eagle on AH.com has argued that every psychological type has a place in society-so sociopaths or neurtypicals ruthless enough have certain roles to fill, especially with certain positions in impersonal institutions where empathy is frankly irrelevant to the overall functioning of the organization

[Otto Kretschmer]

Sociopaths do not exist for any reason, they're a byproduct of biology and statistics. The world would be much better without them.

Polish eagle on AH.com has argued that every psychological type has a place in society-so sociopaths or neurtypicals ruthless enough have certain roles to fill, especially with certain positions in impersonal institutions where empathy is frankly irrelevant to the overall functioning of the organization

.

I doubt that. Psychopaths exists because they can exist. Just think how many suicides/suicide attempts take place each year due to psychopaths in workplace/relationships and how much money is spent on mental health care for people harmed by psychopaths... and how much money needs to be spent on housing psychopathic prison inmates since psychopaths commit 15% of all violent crimes

[linguistcat]

Sociopaths do not exist for any reason, they're a byproduct of biology and statistics. The world would be much better without them.

Polish eagle on AH.com has argued that every psychological type has a place in society-so sociopaths or neurtypicals ruthless enough have certain roles to fill, especially with certain positions in impersonal institutions where empathy is frankly irrelevant to the overall functioning of the organization

.

I doubt that. Psychopaths exists because they can exist. Just think how many suicides/suicide attempts take place each year due to psychopaths in workplace/relationships and how much money is spent on mental health care for people harmed by psychopaths... and how much money needs to be spent on housing psychopathic prison inmates since psychopaths commit 15% of all violent crimes

Psychopathy and sociopathy are often considered related but separate conditions, although that depends on the time and the overarching tendency in psychology for lumping or splitting at said time. A psychopathic culture might be a complete contradiction of terms, but a sociopathic culture isn't necessarily. Assuming that the two are considered separately. In fact, if humans were more likely to be sociopathic but still social, it might even select for smarter individuals in a way. The ones who are too dumb to see they are being self destructive die miserably, the ones smart enough to work together despite the lack of empathy do not. I'm not saying it would be a better world, but I think it could be functional.