"Some people didn't take to being civilized; their DNA wasn't right for it." (p. 185)
In the Psychotechnic History, the Psychotechnic Institute fights the protean enemy, the primitive revolt against civilization and freedom. By contrast, in the Technic History, Nicholas van Rijn claims that he and his colleagues are wild and free - he identifies these two states - whereas most contemporary human beings are scorned domestic animals.
Who is right?
14 comments:
Human beings are self-domesticated in the technical sense: we show the same traits (neoteny, preservation of juvenile traits like playfulness and empathy, etc.) as other domesticated animals. Even in animals whose ancestors were social (dogs, cattle, sheep) the domestic forms are -more- social; it's even more notable with, say, cats.
There's a lot of variation between human individuals on this scale, which indicates that the phenomenon is probably fairly recent.
Eg., sociopaths are essentially non-domesticated human beings, and it seems to be mostly a genetic condition though the consequences of extreme environmental causes can mimic it.
Sociopathy can be a big competitive advantage -- many people in positions of power are sociopaths, and for most of human history power and reproductive success were closely linked.
But it's only an advantage when combined with very high intelligence. S
tupid sociopaths, even now, tend to die young. Very smart ones can imitate 'normal' human behavior enough to avoid punishments and the peck-the-different reflex, while still cashing in on it to aid competitive success.
This is why the genes for sociopathy don't die out, but don't become very common either.
They need to join up with the (also largely genetic) IQ feature, and there's no inherent genetic link between the two.
All I can say is thank you for all these informative essays.
Note that intelligent sociopaths tend to be very good at manipulating people and extremely good liars.
This is because they analyze and mimic behaviors to get desired results; and their lack of emotional 'affect' makes it very much easier for them to be convincing when they do so. They have none of the subliminal signs of guilt and shame that trip up ordinary people in those situations.
The best way to be convincing is to actually believe what you're saying; this explains a lot about the human psyche.
But a close second is sociopathic detachment.
A guy attends a family funeral, meets a female distant cousin that he wants to meet again, gets her phone number but then loses it. A week later, he murders his uncle. Why?
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree! One of the scariest books I ever read was Taylor Caldwell's WICKED ANGEL, precisely because of her convincing depiction of how psychopaths/sociopaths think and behave. The stupid ones among these amoral monsters get themselves killed or imprisoned, the smart ones figure out how far they can safely go.
While I sympathize most times with Nicholas van Rijn's views, I have to largely disagree with his views about "wild humans," at least in its more extreme formulations. And we should remember Old Nick himself was no psychopath! He certainly did have a conscience, a sense of ethics, and even faith in God.
Ad astra! Sean
I think what Poul meant by "wild" was more or less "self-actuated". van Rijn says that "wild" people like him do things because they want to, or because they think it's right.
But this contains an unspoken assumption that their sense of what's right is a choice; whereas in fact this is something you're taught at an early age. You can elaborate and complexify it, but not invent it -de novo-.
Paul: probably because of poor impulse control, which is the root cause of a great deal of crime.
Murderous -impulses- are common as dirt -- nearly everyone has them from time to time. Impulse control (for a complex of reasons) prevents most people from acting on them most of the time.
Interesting fact: while female murderers are much less common than male ones, women -hire- murderers to kill just about as often as men do.
So it's not the desire to kill that differs by gender, but something else. Risk aversion, probably.
The guy murders his uncle because he wants to meet the woman again and he met her at a family funeral so he causes another funeral.
He is and thinks like a psychopath.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I agree that a person's sense of what is ethically right is not invented by him ex nihilo, that it's taught to him from an early age.
Old Nick might have been a "wild man," but he was most certainly not a psychopath.
Paul: And a pretty stupid psychopath! Any competent police investigator will look first at those closest to a murder victim for possible suspects. Which means this nephew who murdered his uncle will face scrutiny, and possible exposure and arrest.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yup. The -connection- is how a lot of murderers are caught, when they are caught.
There's an old underworld joke that you pay an out-of-town hitman for the same reason you pay a hooker.
Not so much for the service done, as for going away afterwards.
If a hitman comes into town, does the hit, and leaves, it's almost impossible to catch him in any given case, because there's no day-to-day link with the victim.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Unless a police investigation shows up suspicious transfers of large sums of money by a possible suspect, which that "person of interest" is then unable to convincingly account for. The funds might even be traced back to that hit man!
I am sure there are ways of getting around such difficulties by people who want to hire a hit man; my point being that does not always work.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: yup, that’s psychopathic. It’s also typical of people with poor impulse control; he does the first thing that comes into his head. It’s psychopathic that the first thought was casual murder, but not thinking of easier and safer ways to get the same result was impulsive.
Also rather dumb. Sociopaths get that sort of impulse all the time and have no inner ‘stop’, which is why the stupid ones don’t live long. The smart ones figure the odds.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Which makes the smart psychopaths all the more alarming!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment