MIND RAGE: A Deeper Look Into Sociopaths
& Their Relationships With Codependents
Sociopaths are chronically under-aroused. Put differently, sociopaths may actually
seek stimulation in order to elevate arousal to an optimal level. Indeed, it has often seemed to clinical observers that that is the case (Cleckley, 1964).
Gary Gilmore, a sociopath, may well have experienced
under-arousal and the need for stimulation as a child.
Gilmore Said,
"I remember when I was a boy I would feel like I had to do things like sit on a
railroad track until just before the train came and then I would dash off. Or I
would put my finger over the end of a BB-gun and pull the trigger to see if a
BB was really in it. Sometimes I would stick my finger in water and then put
my finger in a light socket to see if it would really shock me."
To examine the sociopath's possible need for stimulation, sociopathic
and normal subjects were injected either with adrenaline, which heightens
arousal, or with a placebo and tested on the "mental maze" described above.
Once again, in both the adrenaline and placebo conditions, sociopaths
made no more errors than normal. But sociopaths who received the placebo
failed to learn to avoid shock. Only when they were given adrenaline
was their characteristic under-arousal overcome. Being already aroused by
the adrenaline, the sociopaths avoided the shocked lever just as the normal
did in the placebo condition (Schachter and Latane, 1964).
Cleckley's observation that sociopaths are emotionally flat was confirmed
in this experiment. Because they are under-aroused in general, the emotions
that ordinarily inhibit criminal behavior are not sufficiently aroused in sociopaths.
At the same time, the emotions that propel people into crimes of
passion are also absent. Sociopaths are mainly responsible for "cool" crimes
such as burglary, forgery, and con games. When they are involved in violence,
as Gilmore was, it tends to be impulsive and irrational violence, and
perverse because it so lacks in feeling.
There are several kinds of punishment. There is physical-punishment to
which sociopaths do not respond as the above experiments suggest. But
there is also tangible punishment such as the loss of money, and social-punishment
such as disapproval. Are sociopaths as unresponsive to the latter
kinds of punishment as they are to physical punishment? The same "mental
maze" was used to examine this question. But this time, if one of the wrong
levers was pressed, the subject lost a quarter. If another was pressed, the
subject received social disapproval, and the third wrong lever brought electric
shock. Once again, sociopaths learned the task as quickly as non-sociopaths.
And again, they were considerably less responsive to physical
punishment than were normal. They were also less responsive to social disapproval.
But they quickly learned to avoid the lever that would cost them a
quarter. Indeed, they avoided this lever somewhat more than normal, indicating
that sociopaths can learn to avoid punishment provided that the
punishment is noxious to them (Schmauk, 1970).
THE IMMEDIACY OF CONSEQUENCES. The greater the interval between
the time a behavior occurs and its consequences, the more difficult it is to
learn the relationship between that behavior and its consequences. Some
people generally have greater difficulty seeing a relationship between two
events across. time than do others. And it may well be that sociopaths have
greater difficulty than most people. If this is the case, it would explain why
sociopaths are not deterred from crime by the anticipation of punishment,
since the punishment usually occurs long after the crime has been committed.
An experiment was devised to determine whether individuals with antisocial
personality disorders anticipated punishment in different ways than
did normal. In this experiment, three groups of subjects were used: (1)
criminals who had been diagnosed as sociopaths; (2) criminals who had
been diagnosed as non-sociopaths; and (3) non-criminals. These subjects
were presented with the numbers" 1" through" 12," one at a time and consecutively.
They were told that they would receive an electric shock when
the number "8" appeared. In order to determine the level of anxiety experienced,
the galvanic skin response (GSR), which is one measure of experienced
anxiety, was assessed for each subject throughout the experiment.
Both normal and non-sociopathic criminals displayed fear of the anticipated
electric shock from the start. Moreover, their anxiety, as measured by
the GSR, mounted markedly as the number "8" drew closer, and it plummeted
afterwards. In contrast, sociopathic subjects exhibited dramatically
lower anxiety levels throughout the experiment, and their measured fear did
not increase as the number "8" approached. Even when the shock was administered, their arousal and GSR activity levels were far lower than those
in the other two groups (Hare, 1965).
When the data on avoidance learning are combined with those on family
and social antecedents of sociopathy, an interesting picture emerges. The
antisocial personality disorder does not arise simply from harsh circumstances.
Nor is its development deterred by physical punishment or even by
imprisonment. Neither poverty nor parental deprivation necessarily led to
sociopathy. But affectionate parents and parental supervision can inhibit
the development of sociopathy. So, too, can punishment when it is felt to be
painful and abhorrent, rather than when it is merely automatically applied.
Genetics and Criminality
The possibility that sociopathy has a genetic basis has long been attractive.
In the popular imagination, sociopathy and antisocial behavior have long
been associated with the "bad seed," and particularly the bad seed that came
from a family of bad seeds. That view, however, is hard to assess. The problems
of sorting environmental from genetic influences are as difficult here as
elsewhere. But the task here is further compounded by the fact that it is
criminals-those who have been apprehended and convicted of a crime who
come to our attention, not those who have eluded apprehension. Not
all criminals are sociopaths, of course, nor are all sociopaths criminals.
The data on the biology of sociopathy are fascinating for, though they are
complex, they appear to indicate that both genetics, and environment play
strong roles in the development of sociopathy. We begin by considering twin
and adoption studies, and then examine studies of men with an extra Y
chromosome. But before doing so, one thing should be made clear. Most of
these studies are concerned with the relations between biology and criminality.
Criminality, as we indicated earlier, is not synonymous with sociopathy.
Where the studies permit, we will distinguish between the two.
TWIN STUDIES
One way to examine the relative influence of genetic
and environmental factors in sociopathy is to study the concordance of sociopathic
behavior in twins. Recall again that monozygotic or identical
(MZ) twins each have exactly the same genetic heritage, while dizygotic
(DZ) or fraternal twins are as genetically dissimilar as ordinary siblings.
The environments of MZ and DZ twins are nearly the same.
(These environments are nearly the same, rather than downright identical,
because individuals contribute to their environments, and no two contributions
are exactly the same.) This allows us to look at the other variable, genetics.
If concordance for sociopathy or criminality is higher for MZ than
for DZ twins, one can infer that genetic factors playa role.
According to the series of studies that examine the rates of criminality
among MZ and DZ twins, there is a strong relationship between zygosity
and criminality. In a total of 216 MZ pairs and 214 same-sex DZ pairs, 69
percent of the MZ but only 33 percent of the DZ pairs were concordant for
criminality (Christiansen, 1977). By themselves, these studies would
strongly suggest that genetic influences are powerful in criminality.
There are two sources of evidence that suggest that such a conclusion
would be premature. First, such high concordance for criminality among
MZ twins was only marginally higher than for DZ twins (Dalgard and
Kringlen, 1976). The latter finding can be explained by the fact that MZ
twins share: a more similar environment than DZ twins. Monozygotic twins,
being identical, are more likely to be treated the same by parents and others
than are dizygotic twins. Indeed, they are often confused for each other. Second,
and even more interesting, are the data regarding opposite-sex DZ
pairs. Opposite-sex twins are no different genetically than same-sex DZ
twins, though patently they share different environment. If criminality is
determined by heredity and heredity alone, the data for opposite-sex twins
should be identical to the data for same-sex DZ twins. But they are not. The
concordance for criminality among opposite-sex twins is only 16 percent,
less than half of what it is for same-sex twins. The difference in concordance
rates between same-sex and opposite-sex twins underscores the environmental
influences on criminality.
ADOPTION STUDIES
When children are raised by their natural parents,
it is impossible to separate the effects of genetics from those of environment
on their development. But studies of children who have been adopted at an
early age allow these influences to be separated. These studies also provide
evidence for the influence of heredity in both criminality and sociopathy.
One study examined the criminal records of adopted persons in Denmark
(Hutchings and Mednick, 1977). Their names were drawn from the Danish
Population Register, which records the names of both the adoptive and the
biological parents of these adoptees. Thus, it is possible to compare the
criminal records of the adopted children with those of both sets of parents. The incidence of crime among these off spring was lowest when neither the biological nor the adoptive father had been convicted of a criminal offense. Nearly indistinguishable from that low rate was the rate among adoptees whose adoptive fathers had been convicted, but whose biological fathers were "clean."
The incidence of criminal conviction among adoptees jumped dramatically, however, when the natural father had a criminal record, but the adoptive father had none, providing clear support for the view that the tendency to engage
in criminal acts is hereditary. But highest of all was the incidence of criminality
among adoptees when both their natural and adoptive fathers had
criminal records, underscoring again the combined influence of heredity
and environment on criminality. These individuals probably inherited a
tendency toward criminality from their biological fathers and learned criminal
behavior from their adoptive fathers. As we mentioned, however, criminality
is not identical with sociopathy. But when a measure of sociopathy
rather than criminality was used, similar findings were obtained (Schulsinger, 1972,1977).
AN EXTRA CHROMOSOME?
A person's sex is determined by a pair of chromosomes. Women have two X chromosomes (XX). Men have a single X and a single Y chromosome (XY). But some men have an extra Y chromosome (XYY). Since it is the Y chromosome that defines the male, the XYY (which is also called the Klinefelter syndrome) is sometimes considered a "super-male." Such a person, for example, is especially tall, much
taller than the ordinary male. It is also widely believed that the XYY is
especially violent and often prone toward criminal behavior.
These beliefs are difficult to verify. Not all tall men are XYY's. Nor, of
course, are: all criminals XYY's. Indeed, not more than 1.5 percent of criminals
And delinquents who have been tested have this additional chromosome
(Rosenthal, 1970). Some of the studies take their evidence from a few
or even single cases, and they often fail to include normal control groups.
Until recently, a definite relationship between the XYY syndrome and violence
could neither be demonstrated nor disconfirmed.
A recent study examined the criminal records of all men who were born
in Copenhagen between 1944 and 1947 (Witkin et al.). Once again,
the Danish Population Register provides very complete data on Danish citizens,
and therefore permits this kind of thorough study. The investigators
began with a group of 31,436 men, of whom 4,591 were at least six feet tall.
Since XYY"s are tall, the latter group promised to produce the maximum
number of XYY's. In that group, twelve XYY's were discovered, yielding a
prevalence of 2.9 XYY's per thousand population. Of those twelve, five or
42 percent had been convicted of one or more criminal offenses, as against
9.3 percent or ordinary XY males who were six feet tall or more. While the
data support the view that XYY men are more likely to be convicted of a
crime, they do not confirm the view that XYY's engage in violent crime.
Only one of the five committed an act of violence against another person,
and that act was relatively mild. Otherwise, nearly all of the crimes involved
property. Indeed, of the 149 offenses for which the five XYY's were convicted,
fully 145 were against property-usually crimes of theft.
But while XVY's are not more violent, the evidence from this study indicates
that they are convicted of crime much more frequently than are "normal"
male criminals. Why should that be? One interesting bit of
information that emerged from the above study is that, compared to XY
criminals, XVY's have markedly lower intelligence. Conceivably, lower intelligence
itself leads to criminal activity, perhaps because the less intelligent
find it more difficult to get jobs or to resist temptations. Alternately, these
findings may not reflect differences in the incidence of crime, but merely
differences in apprehension and conviction. With lower intelligence, XYY's
may stand a greater chance of being apprehended, convicted, and sentenced.
Physiological Dysfunctions
To whatever extent genetics is related to criminality and sociopathy, the relationship is not likely a direct one. One does not directly acquire from genes
the skills and disposition to engage in crime. What then is it that is acquired
genetically? What is passed down through the genes that makes one more
likely to engage in sociopathic activities?
A number of investigators have sought to discover physiological differences
between sociopaths and normal people. And a good number of such
differences have been discovered. For example, a substantial proportion of
sociopaths have abnormal electroencephalograms (EEG's). This is especially
true of the most violent and aggressive sociopaths. The abnormalities
are of two kinds. First, sociopaths show the slow brain waves that are characteristic of children and that suggest brain immaturity. Second, a sizable
proportion of sociopaths show positive spiking in their brain waves. Positive
spikes are sudden and brief bursts of brain wave activity. These spikes occur
in the EEG's of 40 to 45 percent of sociopaths as compared to about 1 to 2
percent of' the general population (Kurland, Yeager, and Arthur, 1963).
Positive spiking is itself associated with impulsive, aggressive behavior.
Most individuals who commit aggressive acts and who also manifest positive
spiking report no guilt or anxiety about their actions.
These findings are of interest for several reasons. First, the possibility that
sociopaths suffer cortical immaturity (Hare, 1978) suggests that as they get
older (and their cortexes become more mature) sociopaths should engage in
less antisocial behavior. That is precisely what has been found. Particularly
between the ages of thirty and forty, a substantial proportion of sociopaths
show marked behavioral improvements (Robins, 1966).
Second, those positive spikes-the sudden and brief bursts of brain wave
activity-appear to reflect a dysfunction in the brain's limbic system, precisely
the system that controls emotion and motivation. And what emotion
might be affected by this physiological dysfunction? Some theorists speculate
that it is fear, the very emotion that is thought to be implicated in the
phenomena of socialization and self-control (Cleckley, 1976).The sociopath's
inability to inhibit behaviors and delay gratifications is generally thought to
Be similar to that of animals who have suffered lesions in the brain's sepal
region (Gorenstein and Newman, 1980).
"Thus, the sociopath's failure to learn from punishing experiences may be the product of faulty physiology. Biology, rather than malice, may be the wellspring of the antisocial personality disorder".
seek stimulation in order to elevate arousal to an optimal level. Indeed, it has often seemed to clinical observers that that is the case (Cleckley, 1964).
Gary Gilmore, a sociopath, may well have experienced
under-arousal and the need for stimulation as a child.
Gilmore Said,
"I remember when I was a boy I would feel like I had to do things like sit on a
railroad track until just before the train came and then I would dash off. Or I
would put my finger over the end of a BB-gun and pull the trigger to see if a
BB was really in it. Sometimes I would stick my finger in water and then put
my finger in a light socket to see if it would really shock me."
To examine the sociopath's possible need for stimulation, sociopathic
and normal subjects were injected either with adrenaline, which heightens
arousal, or with a placebo and tested on the "mental maze" described above.
Once again, in both the adrenaline and placebo conditions, sociopaths
made no more errors than normal. But sociopaths who received the placebo
failed to learn to avoid shock. Only when they were given adrenaline
was their characteristic under-arousal overcome. Being already aroused by
the adrenaline, the sociopaths avoided the shocked lever just as the normal
did in the placebo condition (Schachter and Latane, 1964).
Cleckley's observation that sociopaths are emotionally flat was confirmed
in this experiment. Because they are under-aroused in general, the emotions
that ordinarily inhibit criminal behavior are not sufficiently aroused in sociopaths.
At the same time, the emotions that propel people into crimes of
passion are also absent. Sociopaths are mainly responsible for "cool" crimes
such as burglary, forgery, and con games. When they are involved in violence,
as Gilmore was, it tends to be impulsive and irrational violence, and
perverse because it so lacks in feeling.
There are several kinds of punishment. There is physical-punishment to
which sociopaths do not respond as the above experiments suggest. But
there is also tangible punishment such as the loss of money, and social-punishment
such as disapproval. Are sociopaths as unresponsive to the latter
kinds of punishment as they are to physical punishment? The same "mental
maze" was used to examine this question. But this time, if one of the wrong
levers was pressed, the subject lost a quarter. If another was pressed, the
subject received social disapproval, and the third wrong lever brought electric
shock. Once again, sociopaths learned the task as quickly as non-sociopaths.
And again, they were considerably less responsive to physical
punishment than were normal. They were also less responsive to social disapproval.
But they quickly learned to avoid the lever that would cost them a
quarter. Indeed, they avoided this lever somewhat more than normal, indicating
that sociopaths can learn to avoid punishment provided that the
punishment is noxious to them (Schmauk, 1970).
THE IMMEDIACY OF CONSEQUENCES. The greater the interval between
the time a behavior occurs and its consequences, the more difficult it is to
learn the relationship between that behavior and its consequences. Some
people generally have greater difficulty seeing a relationship between two
events across. time than do others. And it may well be that sociopaths have
greater difficulty than most people. If this is the case, it would explain why
sociopaths are not deterred from crime by the anticipation of punishment,
since the punishment usually occurs long after the crime has been committed.
An experiment was devised to determine whether individuals with antisocial
personality disorders anticipated punishment in different ways than
did normal. In this experiment, three groups of subjects were used: (1)
criminals who had been diagnosed as sociopaths; (2) criminals who had
been diagnosed as non-sociopaths; and (3) non-criminals. These subjects
were presented with the numbers" 1" through" 12," one at a time and consecutively.
They were told that they would receive an electric shock when
the number "8" appeared. In order to determine the level of anxiety experienced,
the galvanic skin response (GSR), which is one measure of experienced
anxiety, was assessed for each subject throughout the experiment.
Both normal and non-sociopathic criminals displayed fear of the anticipated
electric shock from the start. Moreover, their anxiety, as measured by
the GSR, mounted markedly as the number "8" drew closer, and it plummeted
afterwards. In contrast, sociopathic subjects exhibited dramatically
lower anxiety levels throughout the experiment, and their measured fear did
not increase as the number "8" approached. Even when the shock was administered, their arousal and GSR activity levels were far lower than those
in the other two groups (Hare, 1965).
When the data on avoidance learning are combined with those on family
and social antecedents of sociopathy, an interesting picture emerges. The
antisocial personality disorder does not arise simply from harsh circumstances.
Nor is its development deterred by physical punishment or even by
imprisonment. Neither poverty nor parental deprivation necessarily led to
sociopathy. But affectionate parents and parental supervision can inhibit
the development of sociopathy. So, too, can punishment when it is felt to be
painful and abhorrent, rather than when it is merely automatically applied.
Genetics and Criminality
The possibility that sociopathy has a genetic basis has long been attractive.
In the popular imagination, sociopathy and antisocial behavior have long
been associated with the "bad seed," and particularly the bad seed that came
from a family of bad seeds. That view, however, is hard to assess. The problems
of sorting environmental from genetic influences are as difficult here as
elsewhere. But the task here is further compounded by the fact that it is
criminals-those who have been apprehended and convicted of a crime who
come to our attention, not those who have eluded apprehension. Not
all criminals are sociopaths, of course, nor are all sociopaths criminals.
The data on the biology of sociopathy are fascinating for, though they are
complex, they appear to indicate that both genetics, and environment play
strong roles in the development of sociopathy. We begin by considering twin
and adoption studies, and then examine studies of men with an extra Y
chromosome. But before doing so, one thing should be made clear. Most of
these studies are concerned with the relations between biology and criminality.
Criminality, as we indicated earlier, is not synonymous with sociopathy.
Where the studies permit, we will distinguish between the two.
TWIN STUDIES
One way to examine the relative influence of genetic
and environmental factors in sociopathy is to study the concordance of sociopathic
behavior in twins. Recall again that monozygotic or identical
(MZ) twins each have exactly the same genetic heritage, while dizygotic
(DZ) or fraternal twins are as genetically dissimilar as ordinary siblings.
The environments of MZ and DZ twins are nearly the same.
(These environments are nearly the same, rather than downright identical,
because individuals contribute to their environments, and no two contributions
are exactly the same.) This allows us to look at the other variable, genetics.
If concordance for sociopathy or criminality is higher for MZ than
for DZ twins, one can infer that genetic factors playa role.
According to the series of studies that examine the rates of criminality
among MZ and DZ twins, there is a strong relationship between zygosity
and criminality. In a total of 216 MZ pairs and 214 same-sex DZ pairs, 69
percent of the MZ but only 33 percent of the DZ pairs were concordant for
criminality (Christiansen, 1977). By themselves, these studies would
strongly suggest that genetic influences are powerful in criminality.
There are two sources of evidence that suggest that such a conclusion
would be premature. First, such high concordance for criminality among
MZ twins was only marginally higher than for DZ twins (Dalgard and
Kringlen, 1976). The latter finding can be explained by the fact that MZ
twins share: a more similar environment than DZ twins. Monozygotic twins,
being identical, are more likely to be treated the same by parents and others
than are dizygotic twins. Indeed, they are often confused for each other. Second,
and even more interesting, are the data regarding opposite-sex DZ
pairs. Opposite-sex twins are no different genetically than same-sex DZ
twins, though patently they share different environment. If criminality is
determined by heredity and heredity alone, the data for opposite-sex twins
should be identical to the data for same-sex DZ twins. But they are not. The
concordance for criminality among opposite-sex twins is only 16 percent,
less than half of what it is for same-sex twins. The difference in concordance
rates between same-sex and opposite-sex twins underscores the environmental
influences on criminality.
ADOPTION STUDIES
When children are raised by their natural parents,
it is impossible to separate the effects of genetics from those of environment
on their development. But studies of children who have been adopted at an
early age allow these influences to be separated. These studies also provide
evidence for the influence of heredity in both criminality and sociopathy.
One study examined the criminal records of adopted persons in Denmark
(Hutchings and Mednick, 1977). Their names were drawn from the Danish
Population Register, which records the names of both the adoptive and the
biological parents of these adoptees. Thus, it is possible to compare the
criminal records of the adopted children with those of both sets of parents. The incidence of crime among these off spring was lowest when neither the biological nor the adoptive father had been convicted of a criminal offense. Nearly indistinguishable from that low rate was the rate among adoptees whose adoptive fathers had been convicted, but whose biological fathers were "clean."
The incidence of criminal conviction among adoptees jumped dramatically, however, when the natural father had a criminal record, but the adoptive father had none, providing clear support for the view that the tendency to engage
in criminal acts is hereditary. But highest of all was the incidence of criminality
among adoptees when both their natural and adoptive fathers had
criminal records, underscoring again the combined influence of heredity
and environment on criminality. These individuals probably inherited a
tendency toward criminality from their biological fathers and learned criminal
behavior from their adoptive fathers. As we mentioned, however, criminality
is not identical with sociopathy. But when a measure of sociopathy
rather than criminality was used, similar findings were obtained (Schulsinger, 1972,1977).
AN EXTRA CHROMOSOME?
A person's sex is determined by a pair of chromosomes. Women have two X chromosomes (XX). Men have a single X and a single Y chromosome (XY). But some men have an extra Y chromosome (XYY). Since it is the Y chromosome that defines the male, the XYY (which is also called the Klinefelter syndrome) is sometimes considered a "super-male." Such a person, for example, is especially tall, much
taller than the ordinary male. It is also widely believed that the XYY is
especially violent and often prone toward criminal behavior.
These beliefs are difficult to verify. Not all tall men are XYY's. Nor, of
course, are: all criminals XYY's. Indeed, not more than 1.5 percent of criminals
And delinquents who have been tested have this additional chromosome
(Rosenthal, 1970). Some of the studies take their evidence from a few
or even single cases, and they often fail to include normal control groups.
Until recently, a definite relationship between the XYY syndrome and violence
could neither be demonstrated nor disconfirmed.
A recent study examined the criminal records of all men who were born
in Copenhagen between 1944 and 1947 (Witkin et al.). Once again,
the Danish Population Register provides very complete data on Danish citizens,
and therefore permits this kind of thorough study. The investigators
began with a group of 31,436 men, of whom 4,591 were at least six feet tall.
Since XYY"s are tall, the latter group promised to produce the maximum
number of XYY's. In that group, twelve XYY's were discovered, yielding a
prevalence of 2.9 XYY's per thousand population. Of those twelve, five or
42 percent had been convicted of one or more criminal offenses, as against
9.3 percent or ordinary XY males who were six feet tall or more. While the
data support the view that XYY men are more likely to be convicted of a
crime, they do not confirm the view that XYY's engage in violent crime.
Only one of the five committed an act of violence against another person,
and that act was relatively mild. Otherwise, nearly all of the crimes involved
property. Indeed, of the 149 offenses for which the five XYY's were convicted,
fully 145 were against property-usually crimes of theft.
But while XVY's are not more violent, the evidence from this study indicates
that they are convicted of crime much more frequently than are "normal"
male criminals. Why should that be? One interesting bit of
information that emerged from the above study is that, compared to XY
criminals, XVY's have markedly lower intelligence. Conceivably, lower intelligence
itself leads to criminal activity, perhaps because the less intelligent
find it more difficult to get jobs or to resist temptations. Alternately, these
findings may not reflect differences in the incidence of crime, but merely
differences in apprehension and conviction. With lower intelligence, XYY's
may stand a greater chance of being apprehended, convicted, and sentenced.
Physiological Dysfunctions
To whatever extent genetics is related to criminality and sociopathy, the relationship is not likely a direct one. One does not directly acquire from genes
the skills and disposition to engage in crime. What then is it that is acquired
genetically? What is passed down through the genes that makes one more
likely to engage in sociopathic activities?
A number of investigators have sought to discover physiological differences
between sociopaths and normal people. And a good number of such
differences have been discovered. For example, a substantial proportion of
sociopaths have abnormal electroencephalograms (EEG's). This is especially
true of the most violent and aggressive sociopaths. The abnormalities
are of two kinds. First, sociopaths show the slow brain waves that are characteristic of children and that suggest brain immaturity. Second, a sizable
proportion of sociopaths show positive spiking in their brain waves. Positive
spikes are sudden and brief bursts of brain wave activity. These spikes occur
in the EEG's of 40 to 45 percent of sociopaths as compared to about 1 to 2
percent of' the general population (Kurland, Yeager, and Arthur, 1963).
Positive spiking is itself associated with impulsive, aggressive behavior.
Most individuals who commit aggressive acts and who also manifest positive
spiking report no guilt or anxiety about their actions.
These findings are of interest for several reasons. First, the possibility that
sociopaths suffer cortical immaturity (Hare, 1978) suggests that as they get
older (and their cortexes become more mature) sociopaths should engage in
less antisocial behavior. That is precisely what has been found. Particularly
between the ages of thirty and forty, a substantial proportion of sociopaths
show marked behavioral improvements (Robins, 1966).
Second, those positive spikes-the sudden and brief bursts of brain wave
activity-appear to reflect a dysfunction in the brain's limbic system, precisely
the system that controls emotion and motivation. And what emotion
might be affected by this physiological dysfunction? Some theorists speculate
that it is fear, the very emotion that is thought to be implicated in the
phenomena of socialization and self-control (Cleckley, 1976).The sociopath's
inability to inhibit behaviors and delay gratifications is generally thought to
Be similar to that of animals who have suffered lesions in the brain's sepal
region (Gorenstein and Newman, 1980).
"Thus, the sociopath's failure to learn from punishing experiences may be the product of faulty physiology. Biology, rather than malice, may be the wellspring of the antisocial personality disorder".
In a relationship with a Sociopath, Borderline, Narcissist or Avoidant?
Of course you know the treatment method I recommend click here!
http://theliberatormethod.com/Welcome.html
More Codependency Treatment info:
http://codependency-treatment.weebly.com
Borderline Narcissist Avoidant Treatment FAILS Many...
Click here to learn more:
http://treating-borderline-personality.weebly.com/
Of course you know the treatment method I recommend click here!
http://theliberatormethod.com/Welcome.html
More Codependency Treatment info:
http://codependency-treatment.weebly.com
Borderline Narcissist Avoidant Treatment FAILS Many...
Click here to learn more:
http://treating-borderline-personality.weebly.com/