/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6402851]

/lit/, I have nowhere else to ask, so I'll do it here.

Can sociopathy be an evolutionary advantage?

[Anonymous No.6402862]

I suppose that there are obvious benefits to having a lack of conscience... But i don't think sociopathy is a trait desirable in finding a mate to procreate with. So even if it was a genetic trait i dont think it would have evolutionary advantages per se.

[Anonymous No.6402863]

>>6402862
>But i don't think sociopathy is a trait desirable in finding a mate to procreate with.
Stay beta

[Anonymous No.6402865]

Also, Humans as a species depend on cooperation, which in turn requires some amount of trust. A society consisting entirely of sociopaths would not be viable.

[Anonymous No.6402867]

>>6402862
Well, if finding a mate also entails the acquisition of resources to help secure a better living for his or her offspring, how could a sociopath not be a desirable mate? If the grand biological goal in life is to fuck and be alpha, don't most sociopaths have that in spades? Isn't our society already selfish to the point of apathy when it comes to these individuals?

[Anonymous No.6402868]

>>6402863
>>>/r9k/
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.6402878]

Maybe, in terms of sleeping with a lot of women. But in general one trait is not selected for at a time.

I.e if every man just fucked and chucked no fathers would be around less survival rate for kids, less selection of that gene pool.

Sociopath selection would probably be getting a girl in a relationship pregs and the guy not knowing it and raising it as his own. Which definitely happens, but its sort of a "leech" trait, as in it relies on the fact that lots of guys are sticking around and raising kids they think are their own.

But guys do that already, its not just a characteristic of sociopaths. Hell guys can do both, have a family and get some girl pregnant.

I dont see anything that makes a sociopath more likely to be selected. Lack of inhibition might give them more sexual partners, but if they dont result in children it means literally nothing

[Anonymous No.6402884]

>>6402867

I think most are too petty and distracted by whatever slights them or interests them, doesn't have to be the resources like cars but free time or control of relatives who they can live off.

[Anonymous No.6402967]

It would be to the detriment of the species overall. Being able to empathise with and understand each other, and then communicate complex ideas, build solid relationships and coordinate behaviour is exactly how humans became so successful in the first place. Humans don't tend to thrive as solitary-living, completely self-reliant creatures, but we are pretty good when we form complex societies and take on specialised roles, and that would not work as well if you were unable to fully understand the people around you or to ever place your trust in them or know your friends and relatives will help you out when you're in a tight spot without having to bargain with them.

Individual, high-functioning sociopaths may do well, provided their behaviour isn't overt, because people tend to reject anyone who is obviously just out for themselves and willing to fuck others over, meaning they may not thrive if everyone knows they're a dick. But there's also the fact that sociopathy/psychopathy tend to come saddled with many other negative traits like irresponsibilty and impulse control- it's not just the 'cool', predatory traits that you see in characters like Hannibal Lecter, it's also a very common personality disorder in petty criminals who are chronic, lifelong fuck-ups that can't achieve anything because they're mentally so different to normal, functioning humans.

[Anonymous No.6403026]

>>6402967
This

Sociopaths like Scott Peterson and Hannibal Lecture are NOT the norm. I've been a part of research to this effect and can tell you sociopaths on average are much more likely to be imprisoned (obviously) and are also much less likely be well educated, have good relationships, and make less money. For every high functioning sociopath like you might picture in the boardroom or whatever, there's 100 more that live in the hood and deal crack or live in a trailer and perform insurance fraud for a living.

[Anonymous No.6403053]

>>6402851
It usually arises from environmental disadvantage.

Predisposing to a mental illness can have evolutionary advantages. To a certain extent, predisposition to schizophrenia could be likewise classed as an "evolutionary advantage" as it makes one less likely to acknowledge disgust and more likely to acknowledge obscure threats. In terms of evolution, that it also correlates with a shorter life expectancy and lower quality of life is wholly irrelevant; that it makes the group more likely to survive is what matters.

Sociopathy lacks many of the advantages to the group and individual that schizophrenia or manic depression would have, so it's minor benefits to survival of the species in harsh and rare environments doesn't really overcome the disadvantages to the species of a fertile adult acting like a 180lb toddler.

[Anonymous No.6403249]

>>6402851
Cucking. You see the sociopath will just rape somebody if they feel like it. They act on impulse so they're unlikely to dampen their desires. So as a trade off to being so reckless that you'll probably get yourself killed either by the environment or by the tribe you're more likely to quickly reproduce. They might not be around to actually protect the kid, but everybody else will. It's pretty much that a sociopath is a freeloader who doesn't contribute as much, but is good at exploiting the fact that everybody else is responsible

[Anonymous No.6403258]

>>6402867
>Well, if finding a mate also entails the acquisition of resources to help secure a better living for his or her offspring, how could a sociopath not be a desirable mate?
Because he doesn't care much for sharing them, even with his own flesh and blood, because he feels no emotional connection?

'Alphas' in the biological sense are caring and have a sense of responsibility. Sociapaths don't have this.

[Anonymous No.6403260]

>>6402851
>evolutionary advantage
>evolutionary

[Anonymous No.6403263]

Evolution isn't real.

[Anonymous No.6403269]

>>6403263
It is real, but we humans as a thinking civilization with so much cultural 'distortion' (so to speak) going on, can't count on 'evolution' to explain our behavior.

[Anonymous No.6403272]

>>6403269
>this scientism

*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.6403275]

>>6403269
What scientism? If anything I'm opposed to pop science and the evolutionary psychology going around those days.

[Anonymous No.6403281]

>>6403275
Just banter, nothin' personal kid.

[Anonymous No.6403284]

>>6403281
Fuckin strayans and their banter

[Anonymous No.6403295]

There's no such thing as an evolutionary "advantage" because evolution is not a process working towards a specific goal. Every individual is an evolutionary end in itself, not a means towards some kind of eventual benefit.

[Anonymous No.6403301]

>>6403263
What do you mean by real? Do you mean that it is an abstraction created after observing phenomena? It isn't a perfect model of how life changes over time, but it isn't based on nothing. Are you not accepting the evidence that supports this? Nothing wrong with disagreeing with it as the distinction between a theory that "works" and one that doesn't is arbitrary and no matter how much evidence for it piles up it will not be definitely proven.

[Anonymous No.6403315]

>>6403249
Sociopaths attack weaker prey though, and usually previous victims of violence if they're available. Those that are cheaters are more likely to conceive many children and rack up unpaid child support, whereas the rapists are more likely to sodomise than conceive. Depraved indifference to consequences outweighs the tendency to violence for conception, and, while they are unlikely to protect the mother outside of pregnancy, once the child arrives they're likely to see them as a reflection of themselves out of narcissism. Even those violent during the pregnancy can see the advantages of a miniature version of themselves, but those more prone to violence are less likely to conceive unless female. If they're female: the child is more at risk; there are more children; children are usually for financial or other gain. For males, it's an instant partner and a wonderful cover.

[Anonymous No.6403335]

>>6402851
yes it is, but not in mating in humans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad#as_mating_strategy

inb4 wikipedia Check the index, articles and edit history if you dont believe something.

[Anonymous No.6403538]

>>6403295
This. Evolution is just a perpetual throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks, except shit is throwing itself for no reason and nobody cares what sticks or not.

[Anonymous No.6403987]

>>6403315
>whereas rapists are more likely to sodomise than conceive

wut

[Anonymous No.6404016]

>>6402862
>I'm a virgin

[Anonymous No.6404087]

>>6403987
Prisonsex adds up.

[Anonymous No.6404190]

>>6404087
I've read most of it is actually quite consensual. Why rape when so many men are actually willing?

[Anonymous No.6404244]

>>6404190
Of those that aren't consensual (which is higher than rapes in the general population) most tend to be the victims sociopaths would chose- those who are weaker, younger, and after that for personal gain. The US which imprisons 2% of its population has ~140,000 rapes in prison (Human Rights Watch 2010), with youths tried as adults seven times more likely to be victimised and more at risk than in foster care. Since consensual sex or sex with minimal coercion (such as prostitution) is freely available in prisons, and the type of victim is particularly vulnerable or chosen to show dominance, it's pretty safe to say the majority of prison rapes involving sodomy are sociopaths rather than lonely hearts, and have the chance to become repeat offenders in prison with more regular success than they would have as a pedo in a foster home.