Karen,

I admit that the minute I read the paragraph from Martha Stout's book, I gasped in horror. This statement does not recognize the differences between attachment disorders, the reasons behind attachment disorders, and the treatments that are available which may address problems associated with attachment disorders. In addition, her statements do not take into consideration the familial, contextual, neurological, genetic, individual and cultural factors which may play a role in attachment disorder and in the shaping of a child's development. Therefore, to answer your questions, attachment disorder is not the environmental root of sociopathy or antisocial personality disorder.

In addition, the description above sounds more like some children who have conduct disorder and are more at risk of having antisocial personality disorder. However, the description provided by Martha Stout would describe behaviors that can be found in subtypes of conduct disorder and traits. Finally, just because a child was diagnosed with conduct disorder does mean they will become sociopath. If that were true, percentage of people with antisocial personality disorder would be much higher. Also once again, the multiple factors influencing a child's development must be considered for predicting outcome. 

I hope this was helpful. If you are interested in articles related to what I discussed, I would be happy to send them in your direction. Have a good day!

Dear Karen, 

These papers may shed some light on this complicated issue: 

Article Diagnostic evaluation of the juvenile offender: toward the c...

Article The emergence and development of psychopathy

Article This issue: Psychopathy Versus Sociopathy

Article Childhood Physical Abuse and Sociopathy: Is This Link Magnif...

I will echo Judith, and perhaps lay out a few ideas:

There was a book written in the 1980's, the name of which escapes me at the moment, that was actually endorsed by someone in the US congress. It was on attachment styles of children and sociopathy. Arguing basically that sociopathy was a continuum and it was highly related to the degree to which security in attachment could be fostered.

The idea that attachment disorder is a primary indicator of sociopathic behavior has some merit. However, it is an oversimplified answer.

A child's relationship to their environment may contribute greatly to the ability to trust, to feel empathy, and to construct a symbolic meaning structure that allows self-esteem to be built through cultural affinities.

Behaviors are also not a good indicator. As there are many inequities which may cause a child to act out, or be perceived to act out. It is a socially constructed concept except in the few rare cases of homicidal intent on the part of the child. For example, here in the US, we send kids to jail for truancy, which further institutionalizes them, and accelerates their decline and trust in the world. These are largely children of color, in the so-called "school to prison" pipeline. We also remove kids from their homes at high rates, in the name of child safety. Some studies have shown that many children who go through such an event end up in prison. So there are some deep social problems which contribute that are deeper than attachment disorders.

(Doyle.2008. http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_jpe_aug08.pdf)

I would consider that primary caregivers, must be consistent, even if they are consistently poor at meeting the needs of the child by societies standards. This allows for adaptation which many children from less than desirable situations are able to overcome. So how do we consider "bad parenting" versus "unreliable parenting"? When the later is more likely to cause pathology? Again, we run up against values which are largely culturally ascribed in the former, and biological concerns in the latter. As a biological creature, the inability to influence the environment  in order have our needs met (ie crying to bring food) can be fractious on a level that is deeper then the socially constructed values of parenting, and even attachment styles. It can be what I would call "primordial trauma". 

From a psychoanalytical perspective we would see that this would create repressed animalistic fear and anxiety. If the child is able to adapt over time, it is typically through manipulative means, thereby furthering the emulating of emotions etc we see in sociopaths, in order to manipulate the environment to have their now symbolic needs met. Their animalistic fear and anxiety is translated to symbolic desires to maintain control of the environment at the expense of emotions and empathy. 

We know that such traumas can irreparably change the brain structure as well. While there is some debate about the pre and post synaptic pruning effects on this, I would think that a "primordial trauma" would have the ability to make deep and enduring changes to the physiology of the brain.

(Casella. 2004. http://www.antoniocasella.eu/dnlaw/Lorber_2004.pdf)

There are several problems with Stout's book, not the least of which is the confusion between sociopaths and psychopaths. Her descriptions in the book actually fit more with psychopathy (in the DSM 5 now Antisocial Personality Disorder) than they do with sociopathy. Another good reference for you is David Lykken's chapter in Patrick's Handbook of Psychopathy.  It is a bit dated, but he has some very nice discussion of the differences and also has a great theoretical chart showing the different likely genotypes and interaction of different genotypes with environmental events.  I'll attach a graphic of his figure so you can look at it. The summary of this is that as Judith points out Attachment disorder is a complex issue with many factors that are greatly oversimplified in the question posed, it is also possible that the negative experiences and environments that lead to attachment disorder, if not dealt with fairly quickly and changed for the better, could be one potential route towards the development of either sociopathy or psychopathy.  In case you don't know, David Lykken is one of the major researchers on psychopathic personality for the past several decades.  Here is the full reference on Lykken's chapter:

Lykken, D.T. (2006).  Psychopathic personality: The scope of the problem. In C.J. Patrick (Ed). The Handbook of Psychopathy. New York: Guilford Press.  

Thank you so much for your response. I am not familiar with Lykken's research though I plan to be after I read her book. My background is in Sociology and therefore, since the science is geared toward environmental factors as the causative agent of  deviance, that is what I have focused on. However,  I noticed that some of the most heinous crimes had been committed by felons such as Jeffrey Dahmer, and Eric Harris/Dylan Klebold (Columbine), who were from the Upper Class of our society. Since they did not fit the profile, I began researching other causes.

Another good book, although it is quite old now, is Robert Hare's Without Conscience. It was written for public consumption a number of years ago and while some of the data reported in it is now old and there is better new information, it gives a good broad overview of psychopathy. If you go to Hare's website  (see link below), click on the Key References link at the top of the page -- you will be blown away by the sheer amount of really good research that has been done on psychopaths. It is truly overwhelming and awe-inspiring which is why it is so sad that so little of that is known by policy makers, judges, attorneys, and law enforcement. I believe that there has been a lot less research done on sociopaths.  There are plenty of crimes and violent behaviors committed by sociopaths, although they are less violent and recidivate less than psychopaths as a group. Lykken even argues that sociopaths are the more dangerous group to society, not on a per-person basis, but because there are so many more of them than there are psychopaths.  

http://www.hare.org

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. WOULD YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW THE ISBN NUMBER FOR LYKKEN'S TEXT?  WITH THE NUMBER I WILL BE ABLE TO TO GO ONLINE + CHECK FOR THE TEXT AT THE UNIVERSITY BOOKSTORES IN  THIS REGION.

David Lykken was the author of the first chapter, but Christopher Patrick is the editor of the book  The 13 digit ISBN number (soft cover) is:  978-1-59385-591-8.  Robert Hare's site is also a treasure trove of references.  If you are not aware, he is the creator of the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised which is the major clinical tool we use in assessing psychopathy.  

Robert Hare's  youtube video explains it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4d4euAOq7s

Béatrice, nice find. 

 Thank you, Anton, for the ISBN number. I can't wait to read it

 Thanks also to Beatrice for the youtube video. I have worked with both psychopaths and sociopaths but I like to read the clinical etiology of the conditions in order to try and make some sense of it.

Dear Anton, 

I took part in his lectures

There might be another angle to this issue too. Have a look at what Robert Moss PhD (on RG) has to say about "Givers" and "Takers". See his Clinical Biopsychology and Emotional Restructuring. There are genetics, epigenetics, etc. - but at the end of the day I would think that we are what our emotions are - and our emotions will dictate our behaviour. Attachment issues and what Bob Moss calls the "Taker" personality type might have a lot in common. I find Bob's ideas reasonable. Conditioning lies at the root of our behaviour. Have a look at Bob's work and give us your opinions. I do not want the hijack this discussion - but Bob's work has a bearing on the question.

Dear Beatrice,

I advice you Howard Gardner: Art, Mind and of Multiple Intelligence, (1983), and Multiple Intelligences After Twenty Years (2003). 

Also: B. F. Skinner, was an American psychologist behaviorist: Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical Analysis.

Finally, the extraordinary psychoanalyst Melanie Klein: The Psychoanalysis of Children and Narrative of a Child Analysis, 

I hope you find it useful

Vania

I find Simon Baron-Cohen's book "The Science of Evil" to be highly informative on this topic. He lists three types of individuals who characteristically portray what he dubs zero degrees of empathy: Narcissists, borderline personality disorder, and psychopaths.

The question about the relation of attachment disorder with sociopathy has some merit, according to Baron-Cohen's work. Specifically, adverse childhood experiences are extremely problematic in the first 0-8 months after birth, a critical time window when the development of the infant's capacity for intentionality and agency detection (primal components of the empathy module), depends on a nurturing bond. If that bond is not established in that time, the child's model of interaction with moving objects crystalizes as an inability to detect intent, having no concept of "good will" existing in others, and must therefore adopt an anti-social strategy of interaction with his or her social environment.

That agency and intentionality detection modules are so primal explains why anti-social traits are so pervasive and the prognosis of conduct disorder so bleak.

Thank you, Anton. I will get that book and read it over the Christmas holiday.

Dear Vania, 

It is not my question!

Thank you, Vania.

Thank you , as well, Dr. Funk

Anthony, I haven't read Baron-Cohen's book, but I do wonder about some of the concepts you summarize. It is very clear that those with narcissistic personality disorder struggle to have empathy; NPD is associated with increased risks of violence and in situations involving themselves, are unlikely to show much compassion for competitors or those they view as not supportive of themselves.  Narcissism is also a core feature of psychopathy.  However, I am not certain about the "no empathy" hypothesis. I have seen narcissists who, when faced with situations that dismantle their  defenses actually become quite emotional, and I think they could have some compassion, possibly, in situations where their personal interests are not at stake.  As for BPD, I don't see as strong a connection there. BPD's central characteristic is emotional instability and fear of abandonment. Certainly there are times when folks with BPD act in ways that are aggressive or lash out at others; they are certainly strongly self-focused on their own pain and fears.  I would just think that their emotional range would encompass empathy or at least compassion for others, especially when treatment reduces the intensity of their own internal agony.  So maybe I could entertain the idea of untreated BPD showing very little empathy, but I don't think that it is missing.  I think it is overshadowed or overpowered by the other emotional intensities going on. Baron-Cohen's book sounds like it might be interesting to read how he backs up his position.  

The answer is yes. Gregory Zilboorg, a psychoanalyst, in his article, "Loneliness" (The Atlantic Monthly, 1938) intrinsically connects narcissism (the original, primary ego) with loneliness and then hostility in the infant. Thus unbridled narcissism in its extreme cases leads to "megalomania," entitlement issues, delusions of grandeur, and hostility directly leading to murder and/or suicide (see google: My Twisted World by Elliot Rodger, the Santa Barbara killer, PDF; so called "loners"). This dynamic is not only true of individuals and groups but of nations as well, e. g., the Nazis and ISIS today (Zilboorg and Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism). See Ben Mijuskovic, Loneliness in Philosophy, Psychology,  and Loneliness (2112) and Feeling lonesome: The Philosophy and Psychology of Loneliness (2015). 

You might find the work of Robert Moss on "Givers" and "Takers" interesting and relevant. Bob is on RG.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Moss2

At the end of the day we are what we have been programmed to be - conditioning/learning (and attachment issues play a major role).

I found Bob's description of the "Taker" and the "Giver" quite reasonable. The "Giver" at one end of a continuum and the "Taker" at the other end.

Problem is of course that the "dyed in the wool" (my words) "Taker" (sociopath) has no desire to change his/her behaviour for the better - and counselling/psychotherapy is not of much use it seems to me.

Comments?

Most current researchers on loneliness claim that it is caused by external conditions--environmental, cultural, situational, and even chemical imbalances in the brain--and therefore transient and avoidable. This misconception is promoted by the doctrines of materialism, empiricism, phenomenalism, behaviorism, and the neurosciences in general (Paul and Patricia Churchland at the Universsity of California at San Diego, John Cacioppo at the University of Chicago, etc.). Very often it is misdiagnosed as depression, anxiety, and so forth without searching for its deeper roots. By contrast, I argue that it is constituted by the innate, intrinsic activities and structures of reflexive self-consciousness (Kant) and transcendent intetionality (Husserl) and consequently universal, permanent, and unavoidable. This principle and paradigm can be found in the philosophical writings of idealism, rationalism, phenomenology, and existentialism; in the psychological works of Fromm-Reichmann, Fromm, and Erikson, etc.; and the novels of Thomas Hardy, Joseph Conrad, Thomas Wolfe, etc. The opposite of loneliness is intimacy, a sense of sharing and belonging with another self-conscious being, whether animal, human, or divine. So instead of implementing certain therapeutic treatments, for example, cognitive behavioral therapy and psychiatric medications, I believe it is more efficacious to promote insight.

Ben, while I agree with the existential reality of loneliness, I don't see that it has that much connection to this discussion.  Loneliness, in its painful manifestations, is not usually something that psychopaths report or experience. Sociopaths might experience loneliness, but I don't know of any studies on that. Similarly, there are several studies showing that typical approaches to psychotherapy have not worked well with psychopaths, at least those that have been incarcerated. The major reason is that they do not have the emotional base or foundation that these methods are tuned to. They have no problem with cognition, even insight, into their situation -- but by and large, they don't care. The fundamental core of psychopathy appears to be a superficial degree of emotional life and understanding -- they do experience some emotions, but typically these are transient and tied to key experiences (e.g. excitement, anger). Their lack of loyalty to others, lack of connection to the emotional lives of others around them does not result in loneliness - it is due to a deficit in empathy. In fact, several studies with incarcerated psychopaths has shown *increases* in recidivism following standard treatments; this seems to be most likely because they believe they learned something about how to better manipulate others and may feel emboldened to engage in their behaviors. For sociopaths, it is a different story. The studies show you CAN have a potential impact on their behavior and connection to others, at least for significant numbers of them. For these individuals, CBT as well as other forms of treatment may be effective. By and large, unless there are comorbid psychiatric disorders, medications are not useful with either of these disorders.  However, there are some newer studies that are suggesting there may be subtypes of psychopaths and that this older conclusion regarding treatment may need to be modified.  

Thank you, Ben Mijuskovic, for your input. I tend to agree with you on this issue. Have a Happy New Year!

Anton Tolman: I'm basing my contentions on four documents First, Gregory Zilboorg's article, "Loneliness," in the 1938 January issue of The Atlantic Monthly, pp. 45-54, that posits a synthetic a priori relation between narcissism>loneliness>hostility leading to murder and suicide, e. g., Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, Adam Lanza, Andreas Lubitz, the Columbine teenagers, et al., classic "loners," who with premeditation murdered others in preparation for killing themselves. (Read Rodger's autobiography, "My Twisted Life by Elliot Roger" on google; it's a PDF 140 pp.). Now if you believe that they weren't sociopaths, then I think we can just assume that we will simply continue to "argue" past each other. Simply put, extreme and prolonged loneliness will eventually lead either to self-harm or the harm of others. Both Zilboorg and Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism, also go on to blame a national sense of loneliness, estrangement, alienation from the world community as the "cause, " the motivation for Nazism and you can throw in ISIS today as well. Their point and mine is that loneliness "makes," i.e. eventually constitutes sociopathy. I've worked for CPS, APS, locked psychiatric hospitals for children, adolescents, and adults, out patient mental health clinics, and state institutions for the developmentally delayed Harbor-UCLA Hospital, etc.for thirty years and I lived as a child during WW II in Europe and North Africa until I was eight years old and all I can say is that perhaps my experiences are merely different than yours and we can let it go at that. But the last two publications I would ask you to consider are Loneliness in Philosophy, Psychology, and Literature, published 2012 (Amazon) and Feeling Lonesome: The Philosophy and Psychology of Loneliness, published 2015 (Barnes & Noble). My take on all this is that the fear of loneliness and the desire for intimacy are innate to all mankind, they are universal. In order to understand these twin aspects of the human condition, a viable theory of consciousness is required. The principle and paradigm I am proposing is grounded in Kant's reflexive view of self-consciousness and Husserl's concept of intentionality. I'm not a great fan of "Big Pharma" or cognitive behavioral therapy, which I regard as superficial. I view the difference between Neuroscience and Humanism is comparable to the "argument" between, for example, materialism and idealism. Without a common first principle, basic premise, ultimate assumption disputants can only argue PAST each other but never WITH each other. 

Anton Tolman: I was a Caseworker for the Cook Co. Department of Public Aid on Chicago's South Side from 1965-1967. I was at the Midway Office on 63rd St. A few blocks down the street there was a second office on 63rd and Cottage grove, "Sin Corner." My caseload was on 63rd and Blackstone. The El train ran the length of the street. The port of entry for southern Blacks was 63rd and Stony Island, the Greyhound bus depot. Many didn't get much farther. I worked ADC cases--Aid to Dependent Children's cases.It was called that because fathers were not permitted to live in the home. It was considered fraud. (When slavery existed in the South as an institution, it was a practice to separate fathers from the family so slaves could be controlled more easily. Take something of incredible value away from someone and you will have destroyed their spirit and you will be able to control them.) Of the 500 children on my caseload, only one girl looked like she might graduate from high school and she got pregnant in her senior year. Saul Alinsky, a famous union organizer, organized the Blacks into The Woodlawn Organization (TWO) in order to improve the lot of the poor in the Woodlawn District. Housing, poverty, welfare, education, health, employment, and slums were huge problems. One of the major slum owners was the University of Chicago. After working for the County, I worked for the War on Poverty at an Urban Progress Center. A book  by Michael Harrington, The Other America, documented the plight of the poor and had an enormous influence. It was designed to implement a comprehensive approach to the social problems of the poor. I was a Headstart Social Worker and assigned to the same street. Sadly, the war on poverty was aborted by another war, a foreign war, called the Viet Nam War and the funding evaporated.

From 1986-1994, I was a social worker and a mental health worker for San Diego Co. If a baby was born and both the child and the mother had a positive tox screen for drugs, the infant was immediately removed from parental custody and placed in a foster home. The mother was required to submit to random drug testing, take parenting classes, and receive psychiatric/counseling treatment at her own expense. If she did not comply, after 18 months the child was "freed" for adoption. The foster mother, not infrequently an elderly woman, was warned at trainings not to bond with the child because it might be returned to the mother. Quite often these children as they grew up were shuttled from foster "care" to foster "care" and not unexpectedly experienced oppositional defiant and conduct disorders, the prelude to "sociopathy." When they reached the age of 18, the system no longer supported them financially. And as can be expected, they were very angry at the world and society at large. They felt that they owed no one anything. In fact, they felt and believed others owed them because of what had been taken away from them from the time they were born. In Durkheim's Suicide, he points out that it is natural for human beings to try to secure something "greater than themselves," to belong to something of value that they can share with others. Absent a father, a genuine mother, and a family, these teenagers gravitate toward their peers and without prospects of employment, they become alienated from society and angry. Loneliness has many synonyms. Actually, it's an umbrella concept, including under its extended spokes the terms hostility, abandonment, betrayal, depression, anxiety, guilt, shame, envy, and so on. I cannot begin to tell you how many children, adolescents, and adults I have seen at my clinics who exhibit this identical "profile." From 1994 to 2014, I have been employed at LA County Mental Health. Things were not much better.

Well, now I don't feel so old. I remember ADC and restrictive rules on men living in the household who were non-supporting. I also remember the General Relief rolls. My clients who were on court ordered probation (as well as General Relief) used to spend their $87.00  monthy stipend on  crack cocaine!

Well, now I don't feel so old. I remember ADC and restrictive rules on men living in the household who were non-supporting. I also remember the General Relief rolls. My clients who were on court ordered probation (as well as General Relief) used to spend their $87.00  monthy stipend on  crack cocaine!

Thanks Karen. I write articles and books on theories of consciousness in relation to human loneliness. Loneliness in Philosophy, Psychology, and Literature is a PDF. Feeling Lonesome: The Philosophy and Psychology (Praeger, 2015) is a promoted by Barnes & Noble and Amazon.

Dear Ben,

In the 19th and 20th century, the Canadian federal government's Indian Affairs department officially encouraged the growth of the Indian residential school system as a valuable agent in a wider policy of integrating Native Canadians with the European-Canadian society, so as to avoid racial segregation. 

The policy was to remove children from the influence of their families and culture, and assimilate them into the dominant Canadian culture. Over the course of the system's existence, about 30% of native children, or roughly 150,000, were placed in residential schools nationally.

In the last few year we had a royal commission on what happen in these residential school where children were abduced from their family.  Tje  report spoke on the horrors of Canada’s residential school system calling it nothing short of a “cultural genocide,”.  Generations and generations have been destroyed and we are far from being out of this cultural genocide.

Thank you Louis. That's certainly a cultural tragedy of major proportions. There are incredible dangers when governments assume the role of the "parent" and a bureaucratic system takes over the task of the nurturance of children.

Altho the social service system practice in the US of removing children from parental custody seeks to protect children from sexual, physical abuse, and neglect, protection without nurturance is not enough. The foster care system is severely inadequate.The resulting loneliness is a huge problem. Bruno Bettelheim, a famous child psychiatrist (I used to live next door to him in Chicago) has a book titled, Love is Not Enough. Well, protection alone is not enough either. But it's more complicated than that. Children and all human beings require nurturance, intimacy, and insight.

Caring for one's children is a natural thing and originally we survived and benefited from being supported in extended families. I wrote an article for the Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, "The Organic Community, the Atomistic Society, and Loneliness" (1992). Both paradigms have their pluses and minuses. The care of children requires both great affection and wisdom.

Thank you , everyone, for your help. I understand that I need to do more research on this topic! 

Kaen, there has been a lot of research done in the past decade or more on the developmental pathway to psychopaths, but I'm not sure if as much work has been done on sociopaths. I think a good place to start would be to look at the developmental psychopathology literature on conduct disorder and work from there.  If you are interested in psychopaths more than sociopaths, there is a lot of recent work including assessment tools and various other avenues of research. I would encourage you to look for the work of Adelle Forth, Paul Frick, and David Lynam among others. 

Thanks, Anton Tolman, for your suggestion.  I appreciate your help

Thank you Professor Anton for your insight. 

Thank you Professor Scott for your insight.