Garcelle Renaud
Dr. Sheila Marie Schreiner
FYBI100 Communicating in the Sciences
3 November 2016
The True Nature of Antisocial Personality Disorder
At some point, every person has declined to attend a social event or rejected an outing with friends simply because they wished to stay home. Often times, young people especially will hastily advertise these kinds of ‘antisocial tendencies’ without realizing that their wording is off. Many people believe that antisocial personality disorder is the act of withdrawal from others, avoiding contact with people and sticking to oneself. The word “antisocial” has many myths surrounding it, which have even been romanticized and seen as an ideal quality to have. This is likely due to the general population acquainting the term with introversion. But in reality, the word ‘antisocial’ connotes something much deeper, much more sinister; something dark, twisted and sadistic. Antisocial personality disorder (hereafter referred to as ‘ASPD’) does not equate to introversion, nor is it a higher level of introversion. ASPD can either refer to psychopathy or sociopathy, and it is the overarching term that defines a person as such.
ASPD and introversion are two distinct features that have no direct relation to each other. Introversion is a character trait in which a person genuinely prefers to be alone and thrives in their own company. An introvert is energized by being alone and is content with living in their own thoughts. They enjoy time alone, and as a result, they tend to shy away from people and refrain from a large social circle. On the other hand, ASPD is a mental disorder defined by the absence of remorse or guilt, ignorance of the rights and emotions of others, and extreme carelessness (Mayo Clinic Staff). Because there is no absolute correlation to the two, a person suffering from ASPD may exhibit either an introverted or an extroverted personality. However, this cannot change the fact that this personality disorder exists within them.
ASPD is relatively rare in comparison to the general population but can be seen more commonly in some areas of the world more than others. According to John Grohol, up to 3% of the general population may fall under the criteria to be diagnosed with ASPD. ASPD individuals may display behavior such as pathological lying, financial or social irresponsibility, an innate lack of empathy, disregard for the safety and emotions of others, and the absence of a sense of remorse. In addition, ASPD individuals may be prone to internal or external aggression. The 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) diagnoses ASPD to individuals that display 3 or more of these qualities (Grohol). And while these are the overarching defining characteristics of ASPD, there are two distinct branches within its realm: psychopathy and sociopathy; each one a specific mental disorder with particular traits differentiating them from one another.
Psychopathy is an extension of ASPD characterized by the inability to feel emotions. While psychopaths are unable to feel emotions, they are extremely observant, and as a result, they are able to mimic human emotions and can appear to feel (Robinson). As a result, psychopaths tend to have a personality that they set forward when dealing with people, but this facade is often a stark contrast to the cold and callous mentality lying underneath. In addition to having no emotional perception, psychopaths are identified by the absence of a conscience (Robinson). In other words, psychopaths understand the moral code of conduct and know right from wrong; however, they choose to do wrong anyway because they simply do not care about the outcome. They act based on their own selfish desires, and their displaced sense of guilt allows them to act without remorse.
On the other hand, sociopathy, while sharing many characteristics with it, differs from psychopathy in that a sociopath does feel emotion. However, sociopathy is defined by the placement of one’s emotional rights above those of others and extreme carelessness in various facets of everyday life, including social relationships. Sociopaths have virtually no regard for the difference between what’s right and wrong. They have an exceptionally weak conscience; while it does exist, a sociopath will not care enough to listen to it (Robinson). Rather, they would silence their conscience for the sake of carrying out their egotistical and dangerous actions, resulting in a disconnection to the feelings of guilt and shame. Manifestations of sociopathy include manipulating and treating others harshly with ease, callous and impulsive violent behavior and frequent criminal behavior (Robinson). Often, sociopaths are depicted as violent, unpredictable, manic beings living on the fringes of society.
There are many misconceptions and controversies surrounding the branches of ASPD. Most notably, many are inclined to believe that psychopaths and sociopaths are clinically insane, possessing demented, maniacal, and irrational tendencies. In fact, people may often use the words ‘psychopathy’ and ‘psychotic’ interchangeably, confusing the two terms indispensably. However, this is not the case. Psychopathy and psychosis are two completely different mental disorders, and psychosis is more closely related to the definition stated above (Brogaard). In contrast, those sitting on the spectrum of ASPD are not so much irrational as they are immoral. The common thread between the branches of ASPD is the lack of empathy, regret, and ethical judgment. And as the overarching defining characteristic of ASPD, this may blur the lines between what a psychopath and a sociopath are.
Overall, the implications of psychopaths and sociopaths may appear to be similar. And in many ways, they are. But there are some incredibly non-subtle differences that set the two apart. For example, since psychopaths are able to pick up on and feign human emotions, they are viewed as charismatic and charming beings. On the other hand, sociopaths are more impulsive and do not care enough to do so; as a result, they are more closed off and solitary. Also, since they see no reason to feign human emotions, sociopaths are more upfront about their indifference, whereas psychopaths are more covert about it and may often never be suspected. And finally, what may be the most polarizing of the differences, psychopaths are calmer and more meticulous, while sociopaths are more erratic and disorganized (Robinson).
Psychologists have been tasked with discovering the ultimate reason why ASPD individuals are the way they are. Since the causes of psychopathy and criminality have long been heavily extensive and seemingly inconclusive, such enigmas have led to the psychological debate between the theory of nature vs. the theory of nurture. Proponents of nature state that humans are born with a nearly fixed personality, leaving little room for change over the course of their lives. Nurture states the opposite; humans are born with no personality, no intellect, and no true disposition; therefore one’s personality is established entirely through their lifetime experiences, leaving much flexibility in how much one can change over the course of even a few years, let alone a lifetime. Over time, neuroscientists have found new evidence pointing to one direction or the other, making the debate continually indecisive. However, there is more scientific evidence pointing to the position of nature.
One argument against the stance of nurture stated that because not all psychopaths are criminals, “it remains to be seen whether non-criminal psychopaths… have reduced activity between the amygdala and the vmPFC,” and that this reduced activity is not necessarily “an abnormality specifically linked to psychopathy” (Brogaard). In other words, the brain activity of two individuals suffering from the exact same mental disorder is altered by whether one has perpetrated a crime or not. But that claim was quickly supplanted by a study made over a period of five years, where several men underwent MRI scans to measure the amount of grey matter in their brains, a key neural structure involved in empathy, moral reasoning, and feelings of guilt. The study concluded that “men with psychopathic traits had significantly less gray matter in two brain areas than the nonpsychopathic offenders and the healthy control group. The gray matter volumes of violent offenders without psychopathic traits were quite similar to those of the nonoffenders” (Miller-McCune). Brain structures that grey matter affects most, like “the anterior rostral prefrontal cortex and the temporal poles play an important role in… processing the fear of others, the empathic understanding of distress, or having self-conscious emotions like embarrassment or guilt” (Miller-McCune). In addition to this, a recent study has concluded that up to 60% of what makes a person a serial killer is biological, indicating that “psychopathic traits are due more to DNA than to upbringing” (Brogaard). This means that although one’s experiences may influence them to act a certain way, their innate personality is what truly determines who they become.
Another thing is that the criminality of psychopaths and sociopaths differ slightly due to their different temperaments. When a sociopath commits a crime, they act on impulse due to “their fondness in risk-taking,” and are “predisposed to commit opportunistic and impulsive criminal behavior… [leaning] towards sadism. They carry out crimes as if they are entitled to, resulting to a lust for blood” (Examined Existence). But as stated above, psychopaths are more calculated in committing crimes to avoid leaving behind clues, and will “often participate in schemes. Usually driven by revenge or greed, they often commit premeditated crimes with manageable risk” (Examined Existence).
Amid all these differences, one similarity for many ASPD individuals is a history with the so-called Triad of Evil: enuresis (bed-wetting), arson (fire-setting), and animal cruelty. Over the last century, studies have been conducted to show that if a child exhibits these behaviors, it can indicate that they have ASPD or some other mental disorder, and they are more likely to grow up to be a serial killer. But these studies aren’t reliable. However, “together or alone, the triad behaviors can indicate a stressed child with poor coping mechanisms or a developmental disability; such a child needs guidance and attention” (Ramsland).
The case of nurture is true in some respects. Morals, ideals, theories and habits are things to be learned. But personality traits are inherited. Scientists have found that “social factors have some… role to play,” but while issues like “childhood abuse or neglect may be a factor in making psychopaths commit crimes, but it’s not a likely contributing factor to psychopathy itself” (Brogaard). This means that the main root of the issue is how personality traits determine how one deals with experiences, which makes it appear as if experiences have shaped them. In other cases, some people just do not have a conscience. Maybe some criminals are strong enough not to let harsh childhood experiences phase them at all; maybe they didn’t have harsh childhood experiences to begin with. The fact is that they do not have any sympathy, and therefore they do not feel any remorse for their immoral actions.
A notorious example of this is the case of Ted Bundy. Arguably one of the most notorious and widely studied serial killers, Bundy is known for abducting, raping and killing multiple women across various states throughout the 1970’s. Bundy had a relatively good upbringing, having no real traumatizing events occurring within his childhood to effectively shape his psychopathic character. However, it was realized that he exhibited signs of mental disturbance from childhood, and his family disregarded them. This could be an indicator that the argument of nurture is inherently flawed. Another detail that could insinuate his psychopathic nature being embedded into his genes is Bundy’s childhood shyness. To overcome it, he observed people speaking on the radio and the successful guys in his school; feigning a charismatic and socialite personality, he wanted to be like them. As a result, he had many personalities when approaching and dealing with people, which explains how he was able to victimize so many unsuspecting women (Ramsland).
Overall, misinterpretations of scientific words exist in everyday conversation. Humans love using elevated, medical terms (especially personality disorders) to describe the strangeness of people observed in the natural world, even if they may not know what the true implications of them are. ASPD is a very common one. However, the misconceptions of ASPD and the superficial relation to introversion is a huge fallacy. Introversion is an innocuous characteristic, with no implications of criminality or mental disturbance. ASPD, on the other hand, is a dangerously innate disorder; a chemical imbalance in the brain that keeps the person disconnected from feeling emotions and, as a result, keeping them from feeling any guilt or shame.