Factor2: Aggressive narcissism
1. Need for stimulation / proneness to boredom
2. Parasitic lifestyle
3. Poor behavioral control
4. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
5. Impulsivity
6. Irresponsibility
7. Juvenile delinquency
8. Early behavioral problems
9. Revocation of conditional release
* a b Semple, David (2005).
The Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry.
USA: Oxford University Press, pp. 448–449.
ISBN 0198527837.
The Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry.
USA: Oxford University Press, pp. 448–449.
ISBN 0198527837.
The second set of typical psychopathic characteristics are much less attractive than the first. While the Factor1 list of traits can, to some, seem like admirable traits befitting of an enviable person, none would like to be associated with the second set. To carry the stigma of a person categorized as "lazy," "irresponsible," and even a "parasite" annotates a person, as a whole, as undesirable. And yet, the starkly different traits of Factor1 and Factor2 both reveal the components of the psychopath.
Famed psychopath David Berkowitz, a.k.a. the Son of Sam, is a prime example of the Factor2 psychopath. Although intelligent, Berkowitz's early childhood included stints of petty larceny and pyromania. Berkowitz was known in school for being bully, as well as exhibiting hyperactivity. Throughout his lifetime, he had only a single sexual experience and was unwilling and/or unable to make and cement steady friendships and/or romantic relationships with other people. In fact, his very first attack was of a young couple. Subsequent attacks suggest that he might have had a hatred of couples exhibiting traits, emotions and social connections he could not. Berkowitz frequently targeted couples, and the number of killings within one year suggests an average of over one person a month. Such high numbers given the time frame displays Berkowitz as an impulse killer. He did not have any clear-cut plans, and many times was he seen fleeing the scenes of the crimes. Berkowitz also attempted to divert blame from his actions onto others, claiming members of a cult committed the shootings. All of these, prime examples of the Factor2 psychopath.
It was the old idea that psychopaths were born the way they are, persons rushing fresh into this new world already infused with wicked evil from the moment of conception. A person meant to be evil, a person born to be evil. A human being that exhibited a lack of compassion, a lack of desire for human contact and/or willingness to participate in in social activities. A sort of standoffish-ness apparent since early years. And indeed, Dr. Pamela Blake of Georgetown University Hospital, reviewed the brain scans of 31 convicted murderers. Of the 31 reviewed, 20 had physical evidence of frontal lobe dysfunction. Certainly, this lends credence to the theory that a psychopath can, indeed, be simply born the way he is. Dr. Blake suggests:
Quote:
"They could impair someone's ability to learn social cues ... one's ability to control his reflexes ... and control his impulses."
Of course, the aforementioned ratio was 20 of 31. What of the other 11? These individuals did not show signs of significant brain damage. Who, or what, led them down the path of madness to be classified as a psychopath? Dr. John DiIulio, a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, theorized that psychopathic behavior can be the result of aggravated living conditions and negative environmental factors making a severe emotional and mental impact on impressionable individuals. He attests to the seemingly growing number of psychopaths to moral bankruptcy and "social poverty," a condition which he defines as:
Quote:
...the poverty of being without loving, capable, responsible adults who teach you right from wrong. It is the poverty of being without parents, guardians, relatives, friends, teachers, coaches, clergy and others who habituate you to feel joy at others' joy, pain at others' pain, happiness when you do right, remorse when you do wrong. It is the poverty of growing up in the virtual absence of people who teach these lessons by their own everyday example, and who insist that you follow suit and behave accordingly. In the extreme, it is the poverty of growing up surrounded by deviant, delinquent, and criminal adults in chaotic, dysfunctional, fatherless, Godless, and jobless settings where drug abuse and child abuse are twins, and self-respecting young men literally aspire to get away with murder.
Professor DiIulio's theories have credit (even if they are tempered with the obvious fires of insistent Christian morality): numerous studies have concluded that impoverished, low-income areas happen to be high-crime areas as well. And yet, not everyone from low-income, high-poverty, high-crime areas become psychopaths. Indeed, when it is discovered, when there is definitive proof that one among us is a psychopath, there is still a measure of shock and surprise. This sort of extremely violent, antisocial behavior is still a foreign idea to us. We see it enacted on television, in movies, but rarely do we experience it ourselves, or see it in action amongst others in close proximity. And even those who might exhibit Factor1 or Factor2 type symptoms of psychopathy do not always act out in violent ways. Why is this?
In the book The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of "Nature vs. Nurture," author David S. Moore explores the idea that the way we develop, from simple egg and sperm in the womb into full-blown adulthood depends not only on our genetic makeup, but how we are/were influenced by our friends, family and environment as we were developing and growing into our world. The book is described by Albris.com as:
Quote:
An antidote to the hard-line division between determinism and environmentalism, THE DEPENDENT GENE provides examples for and the basic science behind the theory that both genes AND the environment hold equal sway in the development of any living being.
Today, most scientists, psychologists and developmental therapists now believe that it is not simply nature or simply nurture that can cause a person to become a psychopath, but specific factors that guide the individual into increasingly radical and antisocial behavior. It is a meeting, perhaps a clashing of the two that can determine whether or not a person with the potential to be a violent criminal actually commits the act. After all, we are most surprised when a psychopath is found living amongst the affluent, the well-to-do, the rich and beautiful of high society. This is most likely because we associate deviant, violent behavior with the desperately poor, the disadvantaged, the "socially impoverished," to borrow Professor DiIulio's words. When those who seemingly have the world handed to them on a silver platter are not satisfied with their lot, when they act in ways unbecoming of those to whom the "lower class" supposedly aspire to be, it is shocking and scandalous. And yet, time after time we are proven that psychopathic behavior transcends social class, religious creed, gender and race (although the latter two seem to be weighed differently; statistics show that most psychopaths are white males). It can be anyone, at any time. We are all born with the tools, the potential to act in a violent manner. We have the hands to strangle. The feet to kick. The teeth to gnash. And yet, we are taught to temper our rages, to release our anger in nonviolent ways, to express what we feel and how we feel in order to ease the troubles in our minds and our hearts. Even those who, by medical/physical anomalies have the brain damage that can cause them to become violent offenders without the ability to sympathize, empathize, to pity or regret know what is right and what is wrong. They might not be able to articulate why something is right or wrong, or even acknowledge that they feel malcontent after committing a wrongful act, an individual knows the difference. This is an incredible, wonderful human distinction. Even he or she who does wrong and has no regrets for doing wrong can still know what that wrong is, and that it is looked down upon by society as a whole.
        There is still much to be studied in regards to the psychopathic brain. Interviews and CAT scans do much to provide insight to how the psychopath thinks, how he or she perceives things in everyday life, how he or she interprets signals and words and emotions, or why they have no impact at all on the individual. And perhaps, one day, if we come to understand enough about the varying degrees of the psychopath, from Factor1 to Factor2...
We may someday be able to prevent them from becoming the social horrors we've grown accustomed to seeing in the media.
Community Member