This was another great article. The meaning of life is such an interesting topic to me, and seeing all the different ways people approach it is super eye-opening. I especially liked the part about the den-man crafting and building even if he lived alone in the middle of the woods; I’d never thought of fulfillment and the meaning of life in those words, but it makes perfect sense. I write, and even though I love the social aspect of it and the idea of my stories one day being to people what my favorite stories have been to me, I’d still write even if no one ever saw a single word of them. Crafting these worlds and characters brings me so much joy and fulfillment to my days that I can’t imagine myself not writing. It’s a way to relax on a good day and a way to vent on a bad day as well as a way to escape when life is stressful.
But while writing (and art in general) is a part of my being, the core of my identity, I still wouldn’t call it the meaning of my life. Which is odd, and I can’t find a reason for that disconnect other than that I think there is no meaning to life. There are things that fulfill us, things that seem like we’re born to do (like the den-man with his decks or me with my writings), but a meaning? I don’t know.
There might be two different ways people talk of meaning. First is the ”religious” type that, in one way or another, believes in some sort of a plan made by some higher power. Second is the type that are actually talking of what makes their life feel worth living, and use the ”meaning of life” as a synonym for that whole thing. It’s more of a personal approach.
Personally, I can’t believe in the former, that there’s actually a reason for my existence. My parents were cold one night so here I am, and that’s how it’s been ever since the first ever living thing up my family tree. But maybe, if I look at the meaning of my life rather as something that fulfills me…
Eh. It still feels dumb to me to call art and being helpful the meaning of my life. No matter how I spin it, I just can’t remove the ”the meaning of my life = a reason I’m here” association. Which is probably just me and my stupid brain unwilling to understand the phrase, but I can’t seem to help it.
And really, a meaningless (aka reason-less) life does sound good to me. I know we’re slaves to our genes and gut-biome and the culture we were raised in and whatever, and by that logic we never truly have free will, but I like the idea of being a blank slate. That I just happen to exist for no real reason other than impossibly good but ultimately random luck (since in a meaningless world, the chances of me existing were infinitely close to zero), that I can find the things that make me the happiest, whatever they may be. Because meaningless doesn’t mean unfulfilled or unenjoyable, only that no one chose my life for me and that I get to be whoever I want to be.
Even if there is a meaning, it is very possible that we as humans could not comprehend it, to begin with, but it also stands to reason, to me anyway, is that it likely doesn't matter whether or not we know. If there is a grand plan, our conscious participation in that plan is likely irrelevant. We will likely meet that reasoning for our existence without ever knowing that it has occurred.
I would guess that if humans were created by something, a computer that is generating our world, a God, or some other idea that we haven't even thought of, that their perspective would be so outside our ability to perceive that it would seem completely bizarre to us.
Imagine someone named Kyle, and Kyle's entire meaning in this world is to help a woman get up after falling in the street. He encounters this situation, helps the woman up, and goes on with his day, her thank you echoing in his ears. Then he dies, and meets this creator type and asks what the meaning of life is, and it responds, "well, yours was helping that woman up."
Kyle lived eighty something years, and had many things happen to him, and he has no idea what this Creator is talking about. What women? When? So, it shows him a replay of the event. Kyle furrows his brow confused and says, "That's it? That was my "meaning of life"? Are you kidding me?"
However, to the creator, Kyle helped her up, which prevented her from getting hit by a car. She continued living her life, and has a child. Sixteen generations later, one of her distant grandchildren will challenge a line in a book of accepted information and be proven right, which in turns changes the course of an entire field of study in a direction that changes human civilization, but even that won't happen in that distant grandchild's lifetime. They won't live to know that they were right. However, it was necessary that event to occur for some other aspect of creation to continue on as it has, and as it will.
Kyle cannot see the chess moves so far away, and even if he could, the idea that his entire life's meaning was reduced to an encounter with a stranger that he doesn't even remember is probably not going to sit well.
That is why it is important for humans to find purpose, separate from meaning, as it is what makes their lives something that they value, regardless of whether they understand the grand plan of a Creator that may not even exist.
I agree. Plus, knowing would kinda ruin the fun of life for a lot of people. Or maybe it’s just me, dunno, but at least I would dislike finding out the truth about this whole thing, regardless of if it’s what I already believe or not. Not knowing for sure is easier because you can believe what you want. Sure, a lot of people would also be happy to know these big truths about the meaning of life and what waits for us after death and all that, but equally many would be terrified. Including me. Whatever the answers are, I don’t want to know.
On another but related note, hah. Maybe some benevolent creator exists, then. There’s that question that goes like, ”If we were created by god and he knows all of us, why isn’t he proving his existence to me? He knows what it would take to convince me.” But maybe that creator (god or not) hasn’t convinced me because it knows I’m happier not knowing as well as not believing.
Ahh, I’m giving myself an existential crisis. And that’s only half a joke.
Well, excessive coddling is not to the people's best interests.
Also, consider the Spinozian angle that asides from reincarnation being a thing we're all effectively facets of the One Creator, sort of like cells in a body or neurons in the same brain.
The reason why we come here would be to experience all there is from all possible angles, and the point of doing so is gaining discernment until we make it all the way back to the source. Under this framework - a person who is a victim in one life could have very well have been an abuser in the other.
I have noticed these sort of ideas are increasingly less wild sounding, and many people seem to find comfort in them - rather than get stressed out.
"The reason why we come here would be to experience all there is from all possible angles, and the point of doing so is gaining discernment until we make it all the way back to the source."
But, if there isn't any meaning, does it matter?
I read an article recently in the Atlantic that talked about people who were cheering for humanity's end. The idea that we will eventually be extinct, according to scientists, is deeply disturbing to a lot of people, but meaning or not, I am more perplexed by those who want to accelerate this process. That's baffling to me. I'm not a fan of Foucault, but the article starts with this:
'As Foucault writes in the book’s famous last sentence, one day “man would be erased, like a face drawn in the sand at the edge of the sea.”'
I hope Foucault is wrong, because I would rather that we return to the source, but that would be allowing myself to believe whatever I want to believe, and I just can't do that.
Then again, it doesn't disturb me if there's no meaning, and that disturbs me!!
But, at times, I think that there must be a source for us. When I hear Bach, Glenn Gould, Bob Dylan, et al, I believe there has to be. If anything would make a believer out of me, it would be music. It's a universal language that unifies us into a whole, or the source.
Really like this explanation. My son had a test question about why if there is a God he allows suffering. I’m going to ask him to read this, it covers that question too I think.
A thought provoking article. I think my take on it is based on the difference between motivation and intention.
The psychopath surgeon is selfishly motivated but has good intentions when operating. His aim is to cure not to harm. Result positive more often than not, we hope.
The disabled person is neutral in both motivation and intention. Result positive in this case but could be negative in another.
The charity worker honourable in motivation, well intentioned but result negative. To me though the difference here is that external factors ie the dishonesty of the charity he worked for resulted in result negative. Different charity ( agree many are corrupt) and he could have been result positive.
My point here is that you can’t control all the variables that impact an outcome. You are well intentioned or you have malign intention when interacting with others for the most part.
Sometimes you are neutral. Example, I said “Happy New Year” to a lady who goes to my gym. The lady is quite old, I like her, we chat a lot but I don’t know her outside of that environment. So I hugged her and said “Happy New Year!” Neutral motivation, neutral intention. She emailed me later in the day to tell me that she cried on the way home in the car because my gesture was so sweet. No one knows what the lives of others are like. If I had known I would make a difference to her day I would have had positive intention when I did it.
You can’t control external factors that feed into a result. You can control yourself. Motivation is important but it’s not my place to judge and allocate worth to the motivation of another. I do think though that we can be well intentioned with the tools we have at our disposal.
Well intentioned people do make mistakes, an outcome might be different than the one intended but, on balance, good intention should bring more positive results over a lifetime.
So, looking at this blog, I don’t pretend to know Athena well but the motivation for running it might include a pleasure of writing, a learning opportunity, to alleviate boredom, just as examples. The intention is positive, the aim being the creation of a space for intelligent, open, non judgemental discussion. Positive result.
People are the point I think. For me at least. Walking this world alone would not fulfil me. Even the beauty of it would be less impactful without the people I encountered along the way. I am well intentioned, I don’t always get it right, but I do try and again, for me, that’s part of the point.
Great article and great question "Does a person’s motivation to live a life that fulfills their need for purpose somehow outweigh a person’s motivation to challenge themselves because that is what they are entertained by if the outcome is a net positive for the world regardless?" I think not. Judging the motivation is irrelevant when there is a good outcome! And, who is self annointed to be the judge on high?
I have a friend who likes to post on FaceBook about her "dopamine hit of the day" whenever she does something that has an apparent positive effect on someone else which I always find entertaining.
It's also very profound to say that presuming that your life has some higher purpose is very judgmental. That never occurred to me before even though I've always been skeptical when someone made that claim about themselves
There are a number of examples that demonstrate that putting positive messages out into the world, or doing positive things for people have this effect. Also seeing positive things have this effect as well. This was one of the experiments that Facebook (interesting that you mentioned them) did on their users. They selected some and showed them entirely negative content, and selected others to be shown entirely positive content, and how it changed their activity on Facebook. I believe that it was through this experiment that they learned that rage bait was what drove the most traffic, and that is why it is so prevalent on the site.
But, what gave Facebook the right to conduct this social experiment? I don't use it, but if I did, I would be angry about being manipulated. Or, is consent part of having an account?
They didn't have a right, but there wasn't a law specifically against what they did. It is considered quite unethical, however. Here is an article about it:
Wow... That is profoundly unethical. I knew the results of the research, but had no idea that this was how they found out. It's inexcusable. This is how psy-ops work. This is how to manufacture outrage. The potential for abuse is just mind-boggling...
I loved this Athena. I couldn't agree more. I am a cluster b person who has been through and survived a lot in life. All the points you made about meaning and emotional attachment to that meaning was something that was used as manipulative tools by toxic family members as ways of control (people like to wind others up with guilt) but the more I journey on, I find I am of 2 minds: nothing matters/everything matters. I typically use my own mantra that I will try and be more mindful today than yesterday, no emotional attachment whatsoever, no judgement. Just acceptance for the moment. 💖
Thank you Amy. I am working on that balance and the maturity of what and where and whom gets to have them. I am not a zombie but I am also striving for less dysregulation. ❤
After two decades pursuing liberal arts, I finally realized that I wasn't talented, or suitable for any pursuit in those fields, so I switched to law for two years, then medicine (nursing). I found all of it fulfilling for myself, but found the most meaning in helping people medically. But, I wasn't just being "nice". I was being paid, too. It also helped me to acquire knowledge that's been repeatedly useful to me. So, it's selfish, profitable, meaningful, and needed all at the same time. I've enjoyed all of my life so far, despite many setbacks, and lots of tribulation. I'm content, but always actively searching for existential meaning.
As for you, Athena, does it give you any satisfaction that you're adding to humanity's knowledge of psychopathy? Despite the frustration you expressed in your previous article, you would acknowledge making that contribution? Don't you have a reason or purpose for doing that? Or, could it be found in the writing itself, the creative process? Is it solely because it "needs to be done"? Could it also be to exemplify successful psychopathy, with cognitive empathy, and a prosocial life worth living? To inspire?
I dislike misinformation, so that is one of the things that motivates me to write, and as psychopathy is widely misrepresented and I happen to know about it, and like writing, and it being that writing alleviates boredom for me, it all works together.
I don't really think about the effect that it has beyond that. It just doesn't occur to me as important. I have had a few instances where it has been brought to my attention that this is the case, but they don't factor into my reasoning for doing so.
Is there any chance that you would get bored enough to organize everything from Quora and here into a book, and reach a larger audience? Or, does that sort of work not interest you?
I have a question, this is off base Athena- but you say you dislike psychopathy misrepresented, which in turn makes those who have psychopathy or neurodivergence scapegoated..... You have stated that you lack affective empathy but hone in on your cognitive skills (I remember you stating this, correct me if I’m wrong). So, if an individual or group of individuals were to be targeted, or scapegoated and you were asked to join for a monetary or other benefit, would you do this out of pure self interest? Or would your affective empathy hold you back due to the fact that you yourself don’t enjoy being misrepresented so in turn, would hold off on doing this to someone else?
Looking at this now, maybe the actual scenario would matter, but I am curious whether self-interest and alleviation of boredom, a new interesting involvement would override the simple fact that misrepresentation is a major pain in the ass, for anyone involved. Is self interest greater than the greater good? I guess...
Hypothetically speaking, if you were asked by a group (maybe a powerful one by society’s standards) to target or misrepresent other individuals or a group of individuals in return for various rewards (money, power, influence, safety, etc). Misrepresenting would include any false information being told or spread about them, effectively or I effectively making them a society scapegoat. I’m finding it difficult to come up with an actual scenario but the scenario really isn’t the important part here. I wonder if you would misrepresent others out of self interest or would you decline due to the fact you yourself do not like misrepresentation (cognitive empathy at work) and also (again not trying to attempt to tell you about you just my wording) you have said things such as money and power hold little significance to you?
Would you clarify what you mean by, "if an individual or group of individuals were to be targeted, or scapegoated and you were asked to join for a monetary or other benefit, would you do this out of pure self interest"? That way I can understand what sort of scenario you are asking about.
I think that having an understandable journey is what is necessary for a story. People want to see themselves in the characters, but they also want to be on their self-discovery adventure. Whether there is a specific moral teaching, that I believe is up to the author. So long as they are a skilled writer one can be incorporated into the story and intuited by the reader. However, in current times story telling has fallen by the wayside and in it's place is preaching, which is quite disappointing.
Imparting knowledge and wisdom through storytelling is endangered, especially when 54% of American adults have a literacy rate at below 6th grade level. That is very disturbing. Dogma has taken its place, and misinformation.
What about Athena's response did you find disturbing, Amy? I've been reading her work for some time. I'm also very familiar with the characteristics of primary psychopaths. I don't need to trust her here, so I don't understand your concern for me. Could you explain?
Amy, no offense was taken. I'm more concerned that your sensitivity in this situation is misplaced. I doubt that there's anyone reading Athena's work who isn't already aware that she is a primary psychopath, and they know what that means.
The timing of this article, for me and for the people in my life who are neuroatypical, is amazing. I deeply appreciate what you do. Thank you for throwing me a little light.
Excellent answer. You're helping me understand a lot of things. For instance, how I can be an absurdist/nihilist without any feelings of existential dread. Mental stimulation, learning, and bettering myself are my goals in life. I have to accept that my goals don't make any sense to most people and people may think my life is a failure. As much as I find it a bit irritating, it's a waste of my time and energy to worry about it.
It really is a waste. People's opinions can have value, that's true, but they tend to be formulated in the world that makes sense to them. Just because they see something as a waste of time means nothing if they cannot step outside themselves and see things from your perspective.
"It is better to live in a community than a warzone." --> This is actually my favorite argument for the value of compassionate empathy (emotional + cognitive).
Opposites temper each other. An exclusively reasonable work would be callous and inhospitable to live in; a fully emotional world would be childish and trite. We need both sides more than we know.
Mental health is the ability to reconcile extremes. Why choose meaning OR purpose, when one can just as well have both - and focusing on only either side is bound to create blindspots that inevitably will source subjectively unpleasant experiences?
You know Athena, sometimes I get the sense that your writings are actually no longer about psychopathy - but rather about self-actualization as experienced through a human lens that happens to be psychopathic in nature. Well done!
Athena, have you ever read a thing seemingly plucked whole from your own mind? I just did, to the last line. You and I are different; references to the psychopath obviously don’t apply to me, the autist. Still, it was such a satisfying moment to finish this article and think: “yasss!!…THIS!!….exactly!!”
I've read and moreover perceived that psychopaths especially of the secondary variety lead very pessimistic lives due to a dark boringness of nothingness. I know this is not true of all, but it's certainly true of my mother, a primary psychopath, and of other cluster b trait types I've met. Another friend told me “I'm just waiting to die”. On the other hand, I've met very very successful psychopaths who are present in life and seem to have goals, and the ambition to compete at an above-elite level. Somehow, though I've always gotten a vibe from them that they are constantly fighting gloom and boredom. Is there any accuracy to this in your opinions? When I wasn't able, there was always ‘caine.
No, that isn't how psychopaths experience the world at all. There is boredom, yes, but wanting to quell that boredom introduces many new experiences that constantly inform us of how interesting the world is. Psychopaths don't think about death. It doesn't worry us, and we don't welcome it. It's just something that happens at some point. Until that point, there's stuff to do, see, experience, taste, etc.
I can't speak to how sociopaths experience the world.
That's a reasonably healthy outlook on your part but I'm not sure that it takes into account your unhealthy counterparts. When you mix a daily coke & drinking habit further nullifying an already out-of-wack dopamine reward system, it's not implausible to think of the psychopath that just sits at home and doesn't care whether or not the world goes by them. I'm glad you remain optimistic, but in this case, I might have more reference points than you.
It is totally incongruent with how our brains work. Psychopaths need to do things. Sitting and doing nothing can be done sometimes, but for the most part our brains require stimulation, and alcohol has no numbing effect on that. It is rare that I am not doing multiple things at one time. The same is true of the other psychopath that I know.
By sitting there, I mean doing nothing significant. Of course, my mother cooks dinner at 10 am during the summer so that she can sow instead of cooking during the hottest part of the day and then going through her to-do list. From what I've seen the older she's gotten the more she's purposefully isolated with progressively declining ambition or desire to feign social appearance. To me, that's like just sitting around and waiting for death. On the other hand, another friend of mine went from corporate leader to divorced, alone, and living off of interest to just not giving a fuck anymore as neither a positive nor a negative thing and I'm sure that was drug-induced. Then again my assessment can always be wrong. I'm a great proponent of I don't know what I don't know. So thank you.
I also want to note that what I'm describing is not at all coming from the state of depression but rather a state of conceding that there's nothing worth any additional effort of moving beyond their self-designed life. I suppose you can view it as “Big fish in the small pond” or just content with unextraordinary because they're no longer interested in novelty. But I've observed this for sure.
Boredom seems to be a defining trait of both primary and secondary psychopathies, and explains a lot more to me than the lack of empathy - a trait which neurotypicals can also have.
This was another great article. The meaning of life is such an interesting topic to me, and seeing all the different ways people approach it is super eye-opening. I especially liked the part about the den-man crafting and building even if he lived alone in the middle of the woods; I’d never thought of fulfillment and the meaning of life in those words, but it makes perfect sense. I write, and even though I love the social aspect of it and the idea of my stories one day being to people what my favorite stories have been to me, I’d still write even if no one ever saw a single word of them. Crafting these worlds and characters brings me so much joy and fulfillment to my days that I can’t imagine myself not writing. It’s a way to relax on a good day and a way to vent on a bad day as well as a way to escape when life is stressful.
But while writing (and art in general) is a part of my being, the core of my identity, I still wouldn’t call it the meaning of my life. Which is odd, and I can’t find a reason for that disconnect other than that I think there is no meaning to life. There are things that fulfill us, things that seem like we’re born to do (like the den-man with his decks or me with my writings), but a meaning? I don’t know.
There might be two different ways people talk of meaning. First is the ”religious” type that, in one way or another, believes in some sort of a plan made by some higher power. Second is the type that are actually talking of what makes their life feel worth living, and use the ”meaning of life” as a synonym for that whole thing. It’s more of a personal approach.
Personally, I can’t believe in the former, that there’s actually a reason for my existence. My parents were cold one night so here I am, and that’s how it’s been ever since the first ever living thing up my family tree. But maybe, if I look at the meaning of my life rather as something that fulfills me…
Eh. It still feels dumb to me to call art and being helpful the meaning of my life. No matter how I spin it, I just can’t remove the ”the meaning of my life = a reason I’m here” association. Which is probably just me and my stupid brain unwilling to understand the phrase, but I can’t seem to help it.
And really, a meaningless (aka reason-less) life does sound good to me. I know we’re slaves to our genes and gut-biome and the culture we were raised in and whatever, and by that logic we never truly have free will, but I like the idea of being a blank slate. That I just happen to exist for no real reason other than impossibly good but ultimately random luck (since in a meaningless world, the chances of me existing were infinitely close to zero), that I can find the things that make me the happiest, whatever they may be. Because meaningless doesn’t mean unfulfilled or unenjoyable, only that no one chose my life for me and that I get to be whoever I want to be.
Even if there is a meaning, it is very possible that we as humans could not comprehend it, to begin with, but it also stands to reason, to me anyway, is that it likely doesn't matter whether or not we know. If there is a grand plan, our conscious participation in that plan is likely irrelevant. We will likely meet that reasoning for our existence without ever knowing that it has occurred.
I would guess that if humans were created by something, a computer that is generating our world, a God, or some other idea that we haven't even thought of, that their perspective would be so outside our ability to perceive that it would seem completely bizarre to us.
Imagine someone named Kyle, and Kyle's entire meaning in this world is to help a woman get up after falling in the street. He encounters this situation, helps the woman up, and goes on with his day, her thank you echoing in his ears. Then he dies, and meets this creator type and asks what the meaning of life is, and it responds, "well, yours was helping that woman up."
Kyle lived eighty something years, and had many things happen to him, and he has no idea what this Creator is talking about. What women? When? So, it shows him a replay of the event. Kyle furrows his brow confused and says, "That's it? That was my "meaning of life"? Are you kidding me?"
However, to the creator, Kyle helped her up, which prevented her from getting hit by a car. She continued living her life, and has a child. Sixteen generations later, one of her distant grandchildren will challenge a line in a book of accepted information and be proven right, which in turns changes the course of an entire field of study in a direction that changes human civilization, but even that won't happen in that distant grandchild's lifetime. They won't live to know that they were right. However, it was necessary that event to occur for some other aspect of creation to continue on as it has, and as it will.
Kyle cannot see the chess moves so far away, and even if he could, the idea that his entire life's meaning was reduced to an encounter with a stranger that he doesn't even remember is probably not going to sit well.
That is why it is important for humans to find purpose, separate from meaning, as it is what makes their lives something that they value, regardless of whether they understand the grand plan of a Creator that may not even exist.
I agree. Plus, knowing would kinda ruin the fun of life for a lot of people. Or maybe it’s just me, dunno, but at least I would dislike finding out the truth about this whole thing, regardless of if it’s what I already believe or not. Not knowing for sure is easier because you can believe what you want. Sure, a lot of people would also be happy to know these big truths about the meaning of life and what waits for us after death and all that, but equally many would be terrified. Including me. Whatever the answers are, I don’t want to know.
On another but related note, hah. Maybe some benevolent creator exists, then. There’s that question that goes like, ”If we were created by god and he knows all of us, why isn’t he proving his existence to me? He knows what it would take to convince me.” But maybe that creator (god or not) hasn’t convinced me because it knows I’m happier not knowing as well as not believing.
Ahh, I’m giving myself an existential crisis. And that’s only half a joke.
I have to remind myself that people really stress out about these subject matters.
Well, excessive coddling is not to the people's best interests.
Also, consider the Spinozian angle that asides from reincarnation being a thing we're all effectively facets of the One Creator, sort of like cells in a body or neurons in the same brain.
The reason why we come here would be to experience all there is from all possible angles, and the point of doing so is gaining discernment until we make it all the way back to the source. Under this framework - a person who is a victim in one life could have very well have been an abuser in the other.
I have noticed these sort of ideas are increasingly less wild sounding, and many people seem to find comfort in them - rather than get stressed out.
"The reason why we come here would be to experience all there is from all possible angles, and the point of doing so is gaining discernment until we make it all the way back to the source."
But, if there isn't any meaning, does it matter?
I read an article recently in the Atlantic that talked about people who were cheering for humanity's end. The idea that we will eventually be extinct, according to scientists, is deeply disturbing to a lot of people, but meaning or not, I am more perplexed by those who want to accelerate this process. That's baffling to me. I'm not a fan of Foucault, but the article starts with this:
'As Foucault writes in the book’s famous last sentence, one day “man would be erased, like a face drawn in the sand at the edge of the sea.”'
I hope Foucault is wrong, because I would rather that we return to the source, but that would be allowing myself to believe whatever I want to believe, and I just can't do that.
Then again, it doesn't disturb me if there's no meaning, and that disturbs me!!
But, at times, I think that there must be a source for us. When I hear Bach, Glenn Gould, Bob Dylan, et al, I believe there has to be. If anything would make a believer out of me, it would be music. It's a universal language that unifies us into a whole, or the source.
But, I dunno...
Really like this explanation. My son had a test question about why if there is a God he allows suffering. I’m going to ask him to read this, it covers that question too I think.
A thought provoking article. I think my take on it is based on the difference between motivation and intention.
The psychopath surgeon is selfishly motivated but has good intentions when operating. His aim is to cure not to harm. Result positive more often than not, we hope.
The disabled person is neutral in both motivation and intention. Result positive in this case but could be negative in another.
The charity worker honourable in motivation, well intentioned but result negative. To me though the difference here is that external factors ie the dishonesty of the charity he worked for resulted in result negative. Different charity ( agree many are corrupt) and he could have been result positive.
My point here is that you can’t control all the variables that impact an outcome. You are well intentioned or you have malign intention when interacting with others for the most part.
Sometimes you are neutral. Example, I said “Happy New Year” to a lady who goes to my gym. The lady is quite old, I like her, we chat a lot but I don’t know her outside of that environment. So I hugged her and said “Happy New Year!” Neutral motivation, neutral intention. She emailed me later in the day to tell me that she cried on the way home in the car because my gesture was so sweet. No one knows what the lives of others are like. If I had known I would make a difference to her day I would have had positive intention when I did it.
You can’t control external factors that feed into a result. You can control yourself. Motivation is important but it’s not my place to judge and allocate worth to the motivation of another. I do think though that we can be well intentioned with the tools we have at our disposal.
Well intentioned people do make mistakes, an outcome might be different than the one intended but, on balance, good intention should bring more positive results over a lifetime.
So, looking at this blog, I don’t pretend to know Athena well but the motivation for running it might include a pleasure of writing, a learning opportunity, to alleviate boredom, just as examples. The intention is positive, the aim being the creation of a space for intelligent, open, non judgemental discussion. Positive result.
People are the point I think. For me at least. Walking this world alone would not fulfil me. Even the beauty of it would be less impactful without the people I encountered along the way. I am well intentioned, I don’t always get it right, but I do try and again, for me, that’s part of the point.
You are quite on point about my motivations
Great article and great question "Does a person’s motivation to live a life that fulfills their need for purpose somehow outweigh a person’s motivation to challenge themselves because that is what they are entertained by if the outcome is a net positive for the world regardless?" I think not. Judging the motivation is irrelevant when there is a good outcome! And, who is self annointed to be the judge on high?
I think the outcome may be the judge whether we prefer that to be the case or not. It simply is how things lay out.
Yes, quite so, sometimes unfortunately.
And, who is self annointed to be the judge on high?
Answer: My mother. In her mind, that is.
I have a friend who likes to post on FaceBook about her "dopamine hit of the day" whenever she does something that has an apparent positive effect on someone else which I always find entertaining.
It's also very profound to say that presuming that your life has some higher purpose is very judgmental. That never occurred to me before even though I've always been skeptical when someone made that claim about themselves
There are a number of examples that demonstrate that putting positive messages out into the world, or doing positive things for people have this effect. Also seeing positive things have this effect as well. This was one of the experiments that Facebook (interesting that you mentioned them) did on their users. They selected some and showed them entirely negative content, and selected others to be shown entirely positive content, and how it changed their activity on Facebook. I believe that it was through this experiment that they learned that rage bait was what drove the most traffic, and that is why it is so prevalent on the site.
But, what gave Facebook the right to conduct this social experiment? I don't use it, but if I did, I would be angry about being manipulated. Or, is consent part of having an account?
They didn't have a right, but there wasn't a law specifically against what they did. It is considered quite unethical, however. Here is an article about it:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/02/facebook-sorry-secret-psychological-experiment-users#:~:text=Unbeknown%20to%20users%2C%20Facebook%20had,emotional%20state%20of%20its%20users.
Thanks for the link.
Wow... That is profoundly unethical. I knew the results of the research, but had no idea that this was how they found out. It's inexcusable. This is how psy-ops work. This is how to manufacture outrage. The potential for abuse is just mind-boggling...
It is exactly what they discovered through the experiment which then dictated how FB boosted or deboosted posts
I'm grateful to find this out, Athena. Thank you.
Indeed true
I loved this Athena. I couldn't agree more. I am a cluster b person who has been through and survived a lot in life. All the points you made about meaning and emotional attachment to that meaning was something that was used as manipulative tools by toxic family members as ways of control (people like to wind others up with guilt) but the more I journey on, I find I am of 2 minds: nothing matters/everything matters. I typically use my own mantra that I will try and be more mindful today than yesterday, no emotional attachment whatsoever, no judgement. Just acceptance for the moment. 💖
Sounds like good progress
Thank you Amy. I am working on that balance and the maturity of what and where and whom gets to have them. I am not a zombie but I am also striving for less dysregulation. ❤
After two decades pursuing liberal arts, I finally realized that I wasn't talented, or suitable for any pursuit in those fields, so I switched to law for two years, then medicine (nursing). I found all of it fulfilling for myself, but found the most meaning in helping people medically. But, I wasn't just being "nice". I was being paid, too. It also helped me to acquire knowledge that's been repeatedly useful to me. So, it's selfish, profitable, meaningful, and needed all at the same time. I've enjoyed all of my life so far, despite many setbacks, and lots of tribulation. I'm content, but always actively searching for existential meaning.
As for you, Athena, does it give you any satisfaction that you're adding to humanity's knowledge of psychopathy? Despite the frustration you expressed in your previous article, you would acknowledge making that contribution? Don't you have a reason or purpose for doing that? Or, could it be found in the writing itself, the creative process? Is it solely because it "needs to be done"? Could it also be to exemplify successful psychopathy, with cognitive empathy, and a prosocial life worth living? To inspire?
I dislike misinformation, so that is one of the things that motivates me to write, and as psychopathy is widely misrepresented and I happen to know about it, and like writing, and it being that writing alleviates boredom for me, it all works together.
I don't really think about the effect that it has beyond that. It just doesn't occur to me as important. I have had a few instances where it has been brought to my attention that this is the case, but they don't factor into my reasoning for doing so.
Is there any chance that you would get bored enough to organize everything from Quora and here into a book, and reach a larger audience? Or, does that sort of work not interest you?
I'm not certain
Good enough, Athena, and thank you :-)
I have a question, this is off base Athena- but you say you dislike psychopathy misrepresented, which in turn makes those who have psychopathy or neurodivergence scapegoated..... You have stated that you lack affective empathy but hone in on your cognitive skills (I remember you stating this, correct me if I’m wrong). So, if an individual or group of individuals were to be targeted, or scapegoated and you were asked to join for a monetary or other benefit, would you do this out of pure self interest? Or would your affective empathy hold you back due to the fact that you yourself don’t enjoy being misrepresented so in turn, would hold off on doing this to someone else?
Looking at this now, maybe the actual scenario would matter, but I am curious whether self-interest and alleviation of boredom, a new interesting involvement would override the simple fact that misrepresentation is a major pain in the ass, for anyone involved. Is self interest greater than the greater good? I guess...
Hypothetically speaking, if you were asked by a group (maybe a powerful one by society’s standards) to target or misrepresent other individuals or a group of individuals in return for various rewards (money, power, influence, safety, etc). Misrepresenting would include any false information being told or spread about them, effectively or I effectively making them a society scapegoat. I’m finding it difficult to come up with an actual scenario but the scenario really isn’t the important part here. I wonder if you would misrepresent others out of self interest or would you decline due to the fact you yourself do not like misrepresentation (cognitive empathy at work) and also (again not trying to attempt to tell you about you just my wording) you have said things such as money and power hold little significance to you?
I would have no interest in bothering. It would be more trouble than it's worth
Would you clarify what you mean by, "if an individual or group of individuals were to be targeted, or scapegoated and you were asked to join for a monetary or other benefit, would you do this out of pure self interest"? That way I can understand what sort of scenario you are asking about.
That's a win-win. Thank you
I think that having an understandable journey is what is necessary for a story. People want to see themselves in the characters, but they also want to be on their self-discovery adventure. Whether there is a specific moral teaching, that I believe is up to the author. So long as they are a skilled writer one can be incorporated into the story and intuited by the reader. However, in current times story telling has fallen by the wayside and in it's place is preaching, which is quite disappointing.
Imparting knowledge and wisdom through storytelling is endangered, especially when 54% of American adults have a literacy rate at below 6th grade level. That is very disturbing. Dogma has taken its place, and misinformation.
Yes, I agree
Also a no. In fact setting out with that in mind might well stifle the creativity behind the story.
I would say no. A story doesn't have to have any purpose other than to entertain.
What about Athena's response did you find disturbing, Amy? I've been reading her work for some time. I'm also very familiar with the characteristics of primary psychopaths. I don't need to trust her here, so I don't understand your concern for me. Could you explain?
I would have been surprised by any other answer.
Amy, no offense was taken. I'm more concerned that your sensitivity in this situation is misplaced. I doubt that there's anyone reading Athena's work who isn't already aware that she is a primary psychopath, and they know what that means.
Written with so much clarity, Athena. Bravo.
Thank you, Merry
The timing of this article, for me and for the people in my life who are neuroatypical, is amazing. I deeply appreciate what you do. Thank you for throwing me a little light.
I am happy that it is helpful to you, Heather
Excellent answer. You're helping me understand a lot of things. For instance, how I can be an absurdist/nihilist without any feelings of existential dread. Mental stimulation, learning, and bettering myself are my goals in life. I have to accept that my goals don't make any sense to most people and people may think my life is a failure. As much as I find it a bit irritating, it's a waste of my time and energy to worry about it.
It really is a waste. People's opinions can have value, that's true, but they tend to be formulated in the world that makes sense to them. Just because they see something as a waste of time means nothing if they cannot step outside themselves and see things from your perspective.
There's no success like failure ~ Bob Dylan
That is so very true
"It is better to live in a community than a warzone." --> This is actually my favorite argument for the value of compassionate empathy (emotional + cognitive).
Opposites temper each other. An exclusively reasonable work would be callous and inhospitable to live in; a fully emotional world would be childish and trite. We need both sides more than we know.
Mental health is the ability to reconcile extremes. Why choose meaning OR purpose, when one can just as well have both - and focusing on only either side is bound to create blindspots that inevitably will source subjectively unpleasant experiences?
You know Athena, sometimes I get the sense that your writings are actually no longer about psychopathy - but rather about self-actualization as experienced through a human lens that happens to be psychopathic in nature. Well done!
Thank you, Doso
Athena, have you ever read a thing seemingly plucked whole from your own mind? I just did, to the last line. You and I are different; references to the psychopath obviously don’t apply to me, the autist. Still, it was such a satisfying moment to finish this article and think: “yasss!!…THIS!!….exactly!!”
Most appreciated!
I've read and moreover perceived that psychopaths especially of the secondary variety lead very pessimistic lives due to a dark boringness of nothingness. I know this is not true of all, but it's certainly true of my mother, a primary psychopath, and of other cluster b trait types I've met. Another friend told me “I'm just waiting to die”. On the other hand, I've met very very successful psychopaths who are present in life and seem to have goals, and the ambition to compete at an above-elite level. Somehow, though I've always gotten a vibe from them that they are constantly fighting gloom and boredom. Is there any accuracy to this in your opinions? When I wasn't able, there was always ‘caine.
No, that isn't how psychopaths experience the world at all. There is boredom, yes, but wanting to quell that boredom introduces many new experiences that constantly inform us of how interesting the world is. Psychopaths don't think about death. It doesn't worry us, and we don't welcome it. It's just something that happens at some point. Until that point, there's stuff to do, see, experience, taste, etc.
I can't speak to how sociopaths experience the world.
That's a reasonably healthy outlook on your part but I'm not sure that it takes into account your unhealthy counterparts. When you mix a daily coke & drinking habit further nullifying an already out-of-wack dopamine reward system, it's not implausible to think of the psychopath that just sits at home and doesn't care whether or not the world goes by them. I'm glad you remain optimistic, but in this case, I might have more reference points than you.
It is totally incongruent with how our brains work. Psychopaths need to do things. Sitting and doing nothing can be done sometimes, but for the most part our brains require stimulation, and alcohol has no numbing effect on that. It is rare that I am not doing multiple things at one time. The same is true of the other psychopath that I know.
By sitting there, I mean doing nothing significant. Of course, my mother cooks dinner at 10 am during the summer so that she can sow instead of cooking during the hottest part of the day and then going through her to-do list. From what I've seen the older she's gotten the more she's purposefully isolated with progressively declining ambition or desire to feign social appearance. To me, that's like just sitting around and waiting for death. On the other hand, another friend of mine went from corporate leader to divorced, alone, and living off of interest to just not giving a fuck anymore as neither a positive nor a negative thing and I'm sure that was drug-induced. Then again my assessment can always be wrong. I'm a great proponent of I don't know what I don't know. So thank you.
I also want to note that what I'm describing is not at all coming from the state of depression but rather a state of conceding that there's nothing worth any additional effort of moving beyond their self-designed life. I suppose you can view it as “Big fish in the small pond” or just content with unextraordinary because they're no longer interested in novelty. But I've observed this for sure.
Can I edit this, dark boringness of nothingness is akin to throwing up in the back of my throat.
Boredom seems to be a defining trait of both primary and secondary psychopathies, and explains a lot more to me than the lack of empathy - a trait which neurotypicals can also have.
This is one of your best I think. I love it.
Thank you, Carmen
Great answer, Athena.
Thank you
Good read👍🏻
Thank you, Mare
This may be the most profound article you have ever written. Very thought-provoking. Thanks!
Thank you, Wyn