Successful breeding and Sociopathy

May I suggest the better liar could out-breed, the honorable man. May I also suggest, the most extreme view in ancient times not only was many times successful, but the descendants inherited a mind just as intelligent and capable. What it came down to was, dominance and confidence. Whether it be vociferously for peace, or voraciously for violent upheaval. Either successful breeder over time would end up dominating their local gene pools, then by time and success have abundant offspring to further extremes if society is too damning for them. In itself a breed for Dominance & Rebelliousness. The more we conquer successfully, by time and chance we will produce our own Nemesis. We are doomed... or we figure it out Nature/Nurture...

Sociopathy article.

Not really. If you look at the 'upper class' here in the UK, the ones that inherited their wealth, most of them aren't very bright. They're a 'breed' that spent centuries outside an environment that had to think for itself.
I argue that intelligence can't be inherited - it must be gained, developed and exercised somehow.

Originally posted by XeroOne
Not really. If you look at the 'upper class' here in the UK, the ones that inherited their wealth, most of them aren't very bright. They're a 'breed' that spent centuries outside an environment that had to think for itself.
I argue that intelligence can't be inherited - it must be gained, developed and exercised somehow.

edit on 6-8-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)

I completely agree with you and totally disagree with the OP. I don't really think he knows what the hell he is talking about.

But the 'upper claarse' believe in what the OP pointed out. They believe in genetic superiority, inherited 'nobility', pedigree and all the rest of it. Probably because 70% of them are a bit thick (come on, let's be honest here).

The successful class of leaders, is a relativistic modern expression of the success of our dark ages ancestors. Success of a species involves a successful reaching of maturity and passing on of genes, on sheerly a scientific & fundamental level. As we move away from tribal, regional, and cultural difference those which were prone successful would develop a new bar to attain. In order to be more successful beyond self-sufficiency. This involved a great value being placed on acquiring belongings, money is the medium to gain or lose things. It''s not based on labor in, creation out. It's based on proxy of value to gain things by a "imaginary unit = to toil" Our ancestors were not dumb. If one could gain more by lying, faster than your rival or neighbor using an imaginary unit of toil...you could go farther rather uniformly in social standing. Creating a dominance, under false pretense and plenty of people to support you. Many opportunities to spread your genes would come of this.

Very interesting OP. It has been postulated a number of times that there is a higher incidence of psychopaths (not really an accepted term anymore) high up in business etc. The article is out of date, and misuses terms but I like your theory. I need to brush up on my nutter butters a little but I thought I would give you a bump.

While both psychopath and sociopath are no longer accepted within the DSM, as I understood it sociopaths were better described as being those on the fringe of society, generally unsuccessful in pretty much every way (school, work, relationships etc...) while psychopaths can be highly successful. Both share a common trait in only really caring about themselves.

In many ways a person that only cares about themselves does have an advantage over others. Think cavemen. Dude has hot young fertile cave womaness, club his ass, take his food and have some babies. Today's world, screw people over, become financially viable, attract women with promise of security (and you get to take your pick) breed, have successful spawn that will carry on your DNA.

Most of the studies done come after someone is arrested for something. You don't get to walk up to a high power lawyer or Dr. and say 'Hey, I think you might be a psychopath. Wanna take a test?'.

reply to post by Domo1


Holy crap Domo1 you don't hate Ron Paul in this thread.

Forgive me, I jest. Thank you for your valuable input.

I get what you mean OP.

Your saying liars are basically better at getting women into bed than the average honest bloke therefore its likely that if the ability or propensity to lie are genetic traits then it makes sense there will be alot of liars out there.

Couldnt agree more, In my younger days I had no issues with saying whatever was necessary to get a girl in the sack and being totally honest ( ironic Im being honest about lying LOL) Im not 100% against doing it nowadays, Im jjst careful I dont make promises or lead people on.

I know I get alot more action than my friends who either cant or wont lie.

This year alone I have been looking for a serious committed relationship, just out for some fun, leaving the country tomorrow never to come back, just confirmed Im staying in the country for the next 5 years, broken up with my GF a few days before I met you (at least twice) basically whatever I thought the girl wanted to hear.

I havent left a trail of broken women behind me and dont cheat when in a serious relationship.
I dont consider myself an Ahole or a heartbreaker, just playing the game as far as Im concerned

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


You sum it up well. This is what I am getting at.

Thank you. I beat myself up over knowing what I can do, vs. what I should do, in regards to this particular issue. I hoped others would enjoy this reflection.

reply to post by matthewgraybeal


Makes perfect sense to me.

Everything is a competition for resources, and some excel with wit, some with brute force, some with deception, etc.

The most successful in our society are not always the most moral, but then again, what are morals anyway? Morals are based in religion, religion based in control, control based in wit, force, and deception, so it is just a furtherance of the competition for resources.

In modern "civilized" society, we often protect the weakest members of our society, reward the lazy, coddle the inept, lower the expectations, and in the process we lower the quality of the collective gene pool and who does this benefit? It still benefits those with the wit, force, and deception. It might seem like a charitable thing to do, but it creates an easier populace to manipulate and control.

I think it makes perfect sense that our world is controlled by sociopaths, and it will continue to be so until the collective populace rises up and changes things with brute force, but then a witty, deceptive leader will emerge, and the whole thing will start over again.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I agree with everything you said except one thing. That being morals are based in religion. Perhaps objective morality, but atheists often still have subjective moral principals which guide their actions. I'm agnostic and follow the latter.

reply to post by unityemissions


Ive had a life of extremes, an exceptionally rewarding and an exceptionally punishing life. I albeit with my limited understanding, though I try, suspect, and suspect mutably, I must incur God's wrath. Is it rationale? My god I have no idea, but faith has taken hold, and I pray to be able to be a "faithful" jack-ass who can be forgiven.

However this is why I come here, to explore with fellow subject scholars.