Hmm, that question of inevitable filling of the niche in a species with language is a good one, and one I hadn’t thought of.
In part it seems to be downstream of questions about what sociopathy and/or psychopathy actually is, which have been in debate for decades and still very much are. “Limited prosocial emotions” is necessary but not sufficient. Willingness to lie and violate social norms established to preserve the rights of others at a cost to the actor, probably also necessary, I’m not sure (no coffee yet) if sufficient in combination with limited prosocial emotions.
My housemates have 3 cats, one of whom I would describe - as a cat lover who has lived with many cats the majority of my life and has one in my lap right now - as the cat equivalent of a violent psychopath. (I actually like that psycho cat and she likes me as much as she’s capable of liking anything.) Since she’s a cat, she’s not capable of the sociopathic pattern of abusing and/or manipulating social structures at a high level, e.g. by deception, to further her aims.
She is basically limited to violence, either direct (you touch her, and if she’s not in a good mood she shreds your hand) or instrumental as instrumental as an animal without complex planning ability can be (she stalks the cat currently in my lap who she hates, and maintains a more or less continuous campaign of suppressing fire to minimize that cat’s territory in the house; if I leave the house for a few days, she quickly steps it up because I am the human in the best position to intervene in her suppression efforts).
In humans there is likely some distinction between those who are violent psychopaths with little to no manipulative behavior, versus ones with psychopathic traits (limited prosocial emotions, problems recognizing and thinking about certain emotions in others) who are manipulative and may or may not be violent. The question this brings me to is, is language necessary for such socially manipulative traits like the much-ballyhooed “superficial charm,” and others like tendency to deceive, to arise? I’m not sure. And then subsequently, in a language-using species, is deceptiveness based on language and theory of mind - lying - for personal gain such an attractive niche that it must always arise?
I’m sure there’s a lot lacking about my ramble here, it’s early in my day. And I might be off topic. But I’ve been researching these traits as a layperson for decades because my life has been strongly impacted by people with psychopathic and narcissistic traits in several contexts, and thus I’ve developed an interest in understanding how their minds work.
I’ve had similar experiences with psychopathic humans and cats.
I think, broad strokes- humanity is probably very similar to any other social intelligent species with language. Obviously no evidence of this exists, but evidence that we aren’t in a privileged or special position in the universe abounds, so it’s a fair assumption. With that out of the way, the question just becomes, “why is this behaviour such an effective strategy?” And we can kind of see why, these people are often stupendously successful. So, is that because of human societal factors being susceptible to this kind of manipulation? Your cat example is a brilliant illustration of why that’s not the case: because animals do it too.
You’ve made some really interesting points there, I don’t know if you’re in agreement but I tend to think now that, unless dark triad personalities are somehow shown to be a property of mammals by some mechanism, it’s fair to say it’s probably present in extraterrestrials too, and it’s a strong candidate for a great filter, because, hey, look around.
Hmm, that question of inevitable filling of the niche in a species with language is a good one, and one I hadn’t thought of.
In part it seems to be downstream of questions about what sociopathy and/or psychopathy actually is, which have been in debate for decades and still very much are. “Limited prosocial emotions” is necessary but not sufficient. Willingness to lie and violate social norms established to preserve the rights of others at a cost to the actor, probably also necessary, I’m not sure (no coffee yet) if sufficient in combination with limited prosocial emotions.
My housemates have 3 cats, one of whom I would describe - as a cat lover who has lived with many cats the majority of my life and has one in my lap right now - as the cat equivalent of a violent psychopath. (I actually like that psycho cat and she likes me as much as she’s capable of liking anything.) Since she’s a cat, she’s not capable of the sociopathic pattern of abusing and/or manipulating social structures at a high level, e.g. by deception, to further her aims.
She is basically limited to violence, either direct (you touch her, and if she’s not in a good mood she shreds your hand) or instrumental as instrumental as an animal without complex planning ability can be (she stalks the cat currently in my lap who she hates, and maintains a more or less continuous campaign of suppressing fire to minimize that cat’s territory in the house; if I leave the house for a few days, she quickly steps it up because I am the human in the best position to intervene in her suppression efforts).
In humans there is likely some distinction between those who are violent psychopaths with little to no manipulative behavior, versus ones with psychopathic traits (limited prosocial emotions, problems recognizing and thinking about certain emotions in others) who are manipulative and may or may not be violent. The question this brings me to is, is language necessary for such socially manipulative traits like the much-ballyhooed “superficial charm,” and others like tendency to deceive, to arise? I’m not sure. And then subsequently, in a language-using species, is deceptiveness based on language and theory of mind - lying - for personal gain such an attractive niche that it must always arise?
I’m sure there’s a lot lacking about my ramble here, it’s early in my day. And I might be off topic. But I’ve been researching these traits as a layperson for decades because my life has been strongly impacted by people with psychopathic and narcissistic traits in several contexts, and thus I’ve developed an interest in understanding how their minds work.
I’ve had similar experiences with psychopathic humans and cats.
I think, broad strokes- humanity is probably very similar to any other social intelligent species with language. Obviously no evidence of this exists, but evidence that we aren’t in a privileged or special position in the universe abounds, so it’s a fair assumption. With that out of the way, the question just becomes, “why is this behaviour such an effective strategy?” And we can kind of see why, these people are often stupendously successful. So, is that because of human societal factors being susceptible to this kind of manipulation? Your cat example is a brilliant illustration of why that’s not the case: because animals do it too.
You’ve made some really interesting points there, I don’t know if you’re in agreement but I tend to think now that, unless dark triad personalities are somehow shown to be a property of mammals by some mechanism, it’s fair to say it’s probably present in extraterrestrials too, and it’s a strong candidate for a great filter, because, hey, look around.