In defense of empathy

Warnings against Sociopathic Thinking & possible solutions

Category: Uncategorized

All things in moderation

Writing about all this, I fear I might come off as being a purist, someone who believes that there is only one way to approach life. I do like to put things on the edge, to state things categorically, but how else can you make a point?

I do believe that everything is on a scale. There are very few things in life that are completely black or white, on or off. No one is completely pure or completely evil, there is nuance to everything, it is what makes life interesting and it is important to keep this in mind. Acting selfishly, being narcissistic, seeking wealth & happiness is not necessarily bad. In fact, it is essential to be human, to survive. If you only care about the welfare of others, you’ll soon burn out. Trust me, I know. My mother tried it and ended up drinking herself to death. She did more good in the world than most, but maybe there is a way to do good, without burning up?

Not really sure how to express this, but I think it is important for any discussions of an alternative future to take all aspects of human nature into account. It is easy to say that people should just act in a responsible, empathetic manner, but we contain multitudes. Sometimes we are assholes and that is okay, as long as we try not to hurt others, try not to destroy & break consent.

I do believe that we can minimize greed & egotistical behavior by ensuring that all humans have a way to get their needs met. Another way to limit these antisocial tendencies, is to ensure that whatever system we create is relatively fair. Personally I do not care about fairness. If you have more than me, good for you. I just want to do my work. However, I know that this is not the general perception and so any system should account for that, without resorting to millimeter-democracy (as it called in Danish). I think that as long as no one feels taken advantage of, we can create good & supportive communities.

Another thing I would like to emphasize is the need to know yourself. In order to help a new system to emerge, you need to know what you need and what you are willing to accept. To be true to yourself. I remember as a child, visiting my mom in one the many collectives she lived in, and being perplexed at the cognitive dissonance of these hippies. The men would sit in the living room, drinking beer, talking about women’s liberation, while the women would be in the kitchen, doing the work. It is no wonder the hippies became the boomers.

Anyway, know yourself, know what you need, know what you are willing to accept. Then, find those that you can work with, your affinity group. Then change the world, no big deal.

January 21, 2025
No such thing as a good billionaire – why the pursuit of wealth will always lead to sociopathy

I have been a poor man most of my life and lived by the adage: Always trust in the kindness of strangers. It has stood me in good stead and I have always tried to reciprocate, most often in a practical way, being finance-restrained. Then a few years ago I got educated, got a reasonably well-paid job and decided to start donating to good causes. Initially I had planned to do 10-20% of my take-home pay, but I discovered an inner friction, a reluctance, that I could not quite understand. I had the excess money and I have never had an issue with altruism, what was the issue? And more to the point, what did it say about me?

The issue, I think, is that giving up a capital, under capitalism, means giving up agency and that feels wrong. No matter my own shortcomings, it did lead me to this realization: Having excess agency, while others starve, leads to sociopathy. It is an old idea of mine, but until now, only an intellectual one. Suddenly I had to face the fact that I too am human, dammit!

Most people who seek & hold power are sociopaths. They might not have started that way, but they will end up in the same place. The reason is simple. If you have outsize agency, you will, at some point, have to ask yourself: Why do I have excess, while others starve? Now, a few might come to the true realization that it is simply a matter of luck & being in the right place, at the right time. Of course, skills & personality plays a role as well, but not nearly as much as luck. You can be as brilliant as you like, it does not matter if you are born in the slums, with a disability, in the wrong body etc. Meritocracy could work, in a world where everyone had equal access to education, healthcare, familial & communal support… If you believe that such a world is possible, I salute you, you are more of a Utopian than me.

Actually the one thing, more than anything else, that guarantees success under capitalism, is ruthlessness. As is clear, when we look at the silicon valley & other “entrepreneurs” of the new economy. The ability to lie, cheat, cut corners, misuse is the best indicator of success. Sociopathy, in other words.

So what is an empathetic billionaire to think? How can they come to terms with this? Well, a few might see the truth and decide to give away all their money. I have only ever read of one billionaire that did this and good on him, but almost always they come up with some kind of excuse: I worked harder. No one ever helped me. I deserve this, because x,y,z. And so they lose empathy, and so they fall deeper & deeper in the hole. The dichotomy breaks their brains & their humanity is lost.

This is true for all people, not just billionaires. In order to justify our good fortune, we have to deny the humanity of others. Which is why, capitalism will always lead to sociopathy.

There is another wrinkle to this. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, there will always be someone that suffers, so you can have your creature comforts. Our reluctance to deal with this fact, is another route to sociopathy, another factor of sociopathic thinking.

January 21, 2025
Humans are only human in community – Why empathy is essential for society

When human beings are isolated, we go mad. There is a reason why Amnesty regard solitary isolation as a form of torture. It is not just in prison this happens, it is everywhere, even if it is something we choose for ourselves. When we are isolated from our fellow humans, we get unstuck from our shared humanity. It is easy to get lost in your own mind, you need feedback, reflections. In short, empathy.

To live as close together as we do, you need empathy, in both senses. Without it, every day would be a constant struggle against strangers. If you do not have some amount of understanding, of trust, in your fellow humans, you would live every day in fear.

We could not have taken the jump from hunter/gather to city-living without empathy. I do not know the validity of Dunbar’s number, but it does seem to relate to the size of tribes. We can relate to about 150 people, beyond that, everyone is a stranger. So, in order to live in larger societies than that, we need to have some amount of trust that they will not hurt us (and vice-versa). We can only achieve that trust by having some understanding that these strangers are just like us. To understand how they think, how they feel and see that it is not that different to us. I think, therefore I am, but I feel, therefore I can understand & live with you.

This understanding and acceptance of other humans is often based on having an in-group, in opposition to the out-group. This is how we started building community, society. But the interesting thing is that the in-group can be expanded. When we wandered the plains, the circle was small, only encompassing our tribe. The name of the tribe was quite often “human”, others were not included. As time went on, the in-group got larger & larger, to encompass people that spoke the same language as us, who lived in the same area, who worshiped the same gods as us. One day it even started to include non-humans and we could start to see humanity in animals, like cats, dogs, cows & whales. We started to have empathy for all feeling beings.

From the beginning of this process there were parasites, who discovered that they could manipulate this system to get more than their fair share of resources. Sociopaths. So societies came up with defense mechanisms, like religion & laws. We started to get rules, like do not kill, do not cheat, steal, consume more than what is available. As time went on, we forgot why these rules were instituted and they became corrupted by sociopathic thinking and eventually that system failed. I do not have any proof of this, but it is my firm belief that all societies fall because of this (unless conquered or destroyed by outside forces). When we start to loose sight of the humanity in our fellow citizens, we forget why we are in community. Why should I care about others, if they don’t care about me? If everyone is only looking out for number one, then that society can only hold one person.

January 21, 2025
Old: Sociopathic thinking: The most existential threat to humanity

We could live in paradise, but we don’t. Why is that?

Humanity faces a plethora of existential problems (as in, they can destroy either our species or society). A few are deemed natural disasters, but most are created by our own ingenuity. What is true for almost all of them (save for something like a nearby star going nova) is that they are solvable by humans. Fairly easily too. So what is the problem? What is stopping us from taking appropriate action? Sociopathic thinking is the problem. It is the foundation behind all the existential issues we face.

Sociopathic thinking has always been with us and that will probably never change. To be human is to be a bastard, at least some of the time. However in 1602, they found a way to codify sociopathy, to start the journey of making sociopathic thinking the default option. Limited Liability just means you can profit off other people’s misfortune, without suffering the emotional qualms.

Corporations, colonization, capitalism are all just codified sociopathy. As is: Individualism, manifest destiny, religious doctrine, enlightened self-interest, consumer culture, nationalism, bigotry, evasion of responsibility etc.

There’s no conspiracy here. No one planned this, it is just a result of their nature. They found a kink in the defense of our minds, our humanity. Pouring in the poisonous idea that there’s no such thing as society. One of the worst things it has done is to encourage us to see our fellow humans as “others” or objects. To regard them as not human, not like us, thereby making it easier to treat them inhumanely. There’s no intelligence here. They are not masters of the Universe or superior geniuses. They have just created a system where their kind thrives.

They reckon that about 1-5% of the population are sociopaths. A small minority and throughout our history, societies have found ways of dealing with them, but societies fall. I would argue that, in most cases, it’s because the societal defenses against sociopathic thinking falls.

Sociopaths are empty people. Since they can’t share in humanity, they try to fill the void with power, greed, id. It would be sad, if not for the fact that they don’t want to be cured. Saw a documentary about psychopathy, where one man said he’d rather die than be cured. He knew the pain he’d inflicted & how bad it would feel, if he suddenly could experience that pain.

It’s still sad. Maybe they’ll find a cure one day. Wouldn’t count on it, but maybe.

Sociopaths can be defined & identified by many traits, but one seems always to be present: Their complete belief that everyone should think like them, that they are right in everything they say or do. That we all should live like them, enlightened self interest and all that.

As I said, it’s sad.

But it’s also very bad, since it means they constantly try to undermine any system, to bend it to a form they can better control. Machiavelli was a mofo, no doubt, but his adherents are so much worse.

Sociopathic thinking is short-term thinking. Why worry about the consequences of an action, when all that matters is your own happiness or pursuit of power. It discourages caring about others, since they are just objects to be manipulated for your own pleasure.

It is also:

* Growth at all costs. Just like cancer. They gotta fill that emptiness with something.

* Believing only in yourself. Since no one else matter, they must be right in all regards.

* Conspiracy thinking. After all, it is what they would do if they had power.

* Only caring for power & pleasure. There is nothing else to care for.

* Choosing style over substance. When the center is empty, disguise it.

* Not wanting to sacrifice anything for the common good. What common good?

* To remove all friction in life. Friction reminds them of death.

* Always choosing the easy way out. It is the easy way, after all.

* Having a pathological fear of death. Since the world ends when they do.

* Having nothing but disdain for kindness & charity. Why care about others?

* Winning at all cost. You don’t win silver, you lose gold.

* Being authoritarian. You can’t climb the power-structure if it is not there.

* Traitorous. Cooperation should only serve you.

* Believing might make right. The goal justifies the means.

* Capitalistic. The easiest way to control others. A way to keep score as well.

* Paternalistic. It is so much easier to retain power if the power structure leans in your favour.

* Consumerist. Taking the place of any kind of genuine belief.

* Individualism. Other people are dangerous, they are not you. You are all you need.

I am very focused on existential threats and one push back I get, over & over again, is this: Humanity has always thought the world was on the brink, that these are the worst & most dangerous of times. This is true, as soon as we learned to write, we have written about the end of humanity. However, the sages of old were wrong. Until we discovered the fearsome power of the atom bomb, nothing had the power to end all of humanity, just local civilizations. Since then, the existential threats have multiplied, to the point where nuclear annihilation almost seem quaint. They might not all be able to end the human race, but they all carry the risk of ending advanced human society and it does not seem clear that we could claw our way back to a bright future, one more time. If we fall now, it seems doubtful that we can make it back up. Who knows, the cockroaches might make for better stewards of this planet, but is that what we want? Maybe, by being aware of the underlying problem, we could do better?

Another common push back is this: Why are you so obsessed with sociopathic thinking? We face so many challenges, why is this what you are so focused on and why do you feel we should care as well? The term sociopath or psychopath gets thrown around a lot. It seems to be in vogue to deem anyone you disagree with, a sociopath. This is not only dangerous, but it also muddies the waters. It takes away from what is at stake and it waters down the significance of the term.

Sociopathic thinking needs to be front and center, because it is what drags us down, both individually and as a society. There are people, who think we can co-exist with these people and these ideas. That people like Musk, Bibi, Thiel & Trump can be reasoned with. That they can change and become good people. They cannot. They might profess to have a change of heart, but in the end, they will always betray humanity. The greatest danger are those that are seemingly aligned with humanity, people like Taibbi or Brand. They start out saying all the right things, but in time it becomes clear what monsters they are. We need to be aware of this and deny people like this a role in our movement. If you accept small evils, you open the door for great evils. As TMBG wrote so elegantly: You can’t shake the Devil’s hand & say you’re only kidding. By focusing on sociopathic thinking and behaviors, you can also avoid the dangers of purity-culture. You might not agree with everything a potential collaborator believes, but as long as they adhere to humanistic ideas, they can be a potential partner. It is a way to avoid the infighting that so often cause the downfall of anti-authoritarian popular fronts.

January 21, 2025
In defense of the concept of Good & Evil, against relativism

There’s good & evil, no gods needed to explain it. It’s good to help other people. It’s evil to hurt other people. It’s simple. You need proof?

See the joy, the pain in others, how does it make you feel? That biological response is the result of a long evolutionary process, never discarded and spread throughout most, if not all, of humanity. So I’m guessing it’s pretty important. It’s the reason we can live together, a most essential biological necessity for community to exist.

Sometimes there might be a need for hurting other people, for defense for example. To choose the lesser of two evils. That does not mean it is not evil, it means that it can only be done with careful consideration and should be sought to be eliminated going forward.

You can only be expected to act in a good way, if your essential needs are met. If you or a loved one is starving or in danger, you must do what is needed to rectify this. It is commendable if you do not resort to evil, but if your basic needs are not met, the situation is evil and you must do what needs doing. However, if you have enough to drink, to eat, if you have a safe place to live and you still choose to hurt others, then you are evil. It is simple.

It also means that there is no way around this. If you accept evil in others, saying it is all relative, then you are evil. It is the most basic foundation of human relations and cannot be gradated.

For society to exist, you do not necessarily need for everyone to act in a good manner, you just need for evil to be banished or punished. As long as you do not hurt others and allow them to live as they wish, then you can expect not to have others do evil to you, to not interfere in how you live your life. Don’t start none, won’t be none, as the old saying goes.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. An old hippie saying, used to undermine the group-think of the fifties. Unfortunately it got co-opted by the right, by the people who could not accept reality and lead to relativism. This is one of the most dangerous ideas of the 20^th century, that you can choose your own reality, that there is no objective truth. Of course, finding certainty is hard, so hard, but that does not mean you can just fill in your own phantasms. We might not be able to ever find an objective truth, but that does not mean we should not try.

January 21, 2025
Definitions, loosely defined
I will be reiterating many terms in the following text, so I thought it would be good to clarify what I mean. I am neither an academic nor a professional communicator, and I am certain there are more suitable terms than those I use, but this is my perspective on the matter.

I will be discussing the concepts of empathy, sympathy, sociopathy, sociopathic thinking, low-level empathy, and institutional/societal sociopathy. However, it is crucial to remember that when we discuss the mind, everything exists on a scale or spectrum, if you will. Humans are intricate beings, and it is rarely a matter of either/or.

Empathy: The capacity to comprehend and share the feelings of another. This is a fairly good, fundamental definition; however, there are actually two concepts involved:

Cognitive empathy: The ability to grasp another person’s thoughts or beliefs. To know how others see the world.

Emotional empathy: The ability to experience what another person feels emotionally. To understand them.

This distinction is very significant, as sociopaths are often quite skilled in cognitive empathy. Their understanding of others’ minds is what allows them to manipulate us so effectively. What they lack is emotional empathy; they are aware of how we feel and think, but they cannot share in our emotions. They do not possess the mirror neurons or whatever it is that allows us to experience the joys and pains of others. Moving forward, I will be using empathy in the emotional context, as I believe this is how it is generally understood.

Sympathy could also serve as a term for emotional empathy, but it does not resonate with me. Sympathy, in my view, is not always a positive thing; it is emotional empathy turned up to 11, it is excessive. I often say that I suffer from sympathy, meaning that the emotions of others impact me in a frequently debilitating way, often without my understanding why I feel this way. It is instinctive, unlike my moderate levels of cognitive empathy, which I have had to diligently cultivate.

Sociopathy: While not a scientific term, it is commonly referred to as Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), which is defined as a pattern of antisocial behaviors and attitudes, including manipulation, deceit, aggression, and a lack of empathy for others. Psychopathy is also not a scientific term, yet it is likely the term most frequently used in popular discussions. It is often framed within the concept of the Dark Triad: Psychopathy, Narcissism & Machiavellianism, with Sadism being a more recent addition. The common thread among these is the absence of emotional empathy (or, in the case of sadism, the perversion of empathy).

I use the term sociopathy (social disease/disorder) for two reasons:
1. The consequences of the disorder impact the community more than the individual (the individual does suffer, but they are unaware of it and do not seek a cure).
2. It is a term that carries less stigma than psychopath, which often suggests someone who is violent and criminal. A sociopath CEO can inflict far greater damage, often legally, than a psychopath mass murderer.
There is another term/idea that is relatively new, at least to me: Low empathetic people. This concept came to my attention in relation to studies conducted on supporters of MAGA and authoritarianism in general. These individuals possess empathy, but it is limited to their own “in-group,” and I believe they are significantly more dangerous than pure sociopaths. They have enough empathy to hold convictions, but not enough to care about those they classify as “out-group.” In fact, their ability to feel the pain of those similar to them makes it much easier for them to advocate for the dehumanization of those who are not.

What words & terms we use is less important (as long as we all comprehend each other). The key point is to distinguish between those who can feel other people’s joys & pains and those who can’t. Or more importantly: To tell the difference between good & evil.
January 21, 2025