Toxic Advocacy

A position made clear...

In a prior post, I wrote about a right-to-die debate that I had with someone else. In that debate, I thought her positions were rather unsupported and extreme. If you want to read that and haven’t already, you can find that here:

Sometimes it is a good thing to advocate for things you believe in, and other times that advocacy can become a demon in the disguise of good work. In my opinion, it is something that tends to follow along the nonprofit argument. That is to say, if we make too many strides and get too many wins, we are all out of a job. The job can never end if the problem is never solved, or if we can continue pushing the goalposts. It is a habit that annoys me in general, but that’s not what this post is about.

This post is to be very clear on my position of advocacy when it comes to psychopathy. There are a number of people that I have met who have tried to convince me to go along with some sort of general push making psychopathy a pet project. Their belief is that it is terribly stigmatizing how people currently see psychopathy, and that should be changed through public, political, and legal pressure. It’s a lofty goal and it is a kind thing to consider, but my response is and always will be the same.

Don’t.

Psychopathy does not need to be a social crusade in any respect. You might think, Athena, you write about it and, therefore are in a way advocating for this behavior.

No, I am not.

What I am doing is making it a point to illustrate that what people perceive psychopathy to mean and what it actually is, is quite different. I am pointing out that the word is used incorrectly on a very regular basis. I am encouraging people to learn about what they speak prior to speaking. I am interested in people simply having the information. That’s it.

I have noticed that there is a habit of taking knowledge that is best heard and categorized under “useful information” and that be the end of it. That it might be drawn on to better understand the world around us in general, and perhaps make us question the way we interact with that world. It should not, however, be taken further and force change on others, and that certainly should not be the case with psychopathy.

Why? You might ask? There are three circumstances that I can see this happening under, and I am going to go through them. I may be missing some, but these are the most clear concerns that I would have.

1. The people like those who have messaged me looking for a spokesperson. They may have very good intentions, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is unnecessary, and could also be dangerous, which we will get back to in a moment.

2. People who think they are psychopathic, but are not, or those who outright know that they aren’t, but are pretending to be anyway. These types come from different perspectives, but they have a misconception in common, and that is that a psychopath would care. It’s not that surprising that this is a misconception when you think about how neurotypicals tend to think, and are unable to not understand that it isn’t universal.
   
   There is no part of a psychopathic way of thinking that feels the need to be seen as a victim or to want that victim status to be recognized for the injustice that it is. Psychopaths don’t think this way. We simply want to be left alone and not bothered for the sake of existing. You might think that there is no way that I would know this about all psychopaths, but you would be wrong about that. That human need to be seen in a favorable light for the sake of tribal acceptance is not a working connection in the psychopathic brain. We are us, and everyone else is everyone else. Nothing about them has anything to do with us, and vice versa. We mask to blend in for the very specific purpose of not having to deal with the fallout from not doing so. It’s inconvenient.
   
   A psychopath is not looking to be the face of a movement. That is the mind of someone who understands the connection to others on an emotional level. We lack that, and we also lack the desire to “fit in”. Our “fitting in” goes as far as what makes our lives the best version that they can be for what we want out of it.

3. Actual psychopaths.
   
   Athena, you just said that a psychopath wouldn’t care, and you are correct I totally said that. However, there is one circumstance that which this would be contrary, and that is when it serves a purpose. There is one group of people that would find being seen as a victim infinitely useful, and that would be antisocial psychopaths that are either currently serving time, or will be serving time in the future.
   
   Now, why would they care? Because psychopathy can be used against a criminal when deciding on sentencing. I know this, but this is not remotely enough for me to be making moves to change it. I recognize that it’s silly and ridiculous, but I am not inclined to go out and make a sign to protest in front of a prison or anything of that sort. Instead, I simply make the point that a person being a psychopath or not should have nothing to do with sentencing. Be more direct about it. You committed X crime, and that crime comes with Y punishment. There, done, no further thought required. There are likely issues with this sort of thinking that I am not appreciating at the moment, but it is my current point of view.
   
   However, if I were a psychopath who is in prison and I suspect that there is a possibility of having to serve less time, or that my conviction might be reevaluated based on the prejudicial perspective of psychopathy, that I might get out early, or not be sentenced to as much time, why wouldn’t I make it a point to complain about how unfair it all is? Of course, I would. Opportunism is sort of a hallmark of psychopathy, and in the spirit of not wanting to be inconvenienced with a long prison sentence, I could make this my focus, and possibly benefit from it long-term.
   
   Also, keep in mind that there are many people in prison who are assessed using the PCL-R and are found to be “psychopathic” by people who have no idea what they are doing. I spoke about this in my Robert Hare series. I have been very vocal about my disagreement with his methodology and his thinking, but I do agree with him that if people are going to use that garbage checklist of his, they should at the very least follow proper training to do so. A very large percentage of the time, they are not trained, but they administer it anyway. If I were an antisocial prisoner who was falsely labeled psychopathic, and because of that label I was sentenced to death, I might be inclined to push against how psychopaths are perceived. I wonder how many of them think that they actually are psychopathic when in reality they are simply antisocial neurotypicals… Hmm, that’s interesting. They add another element to this issue.
   
   People who are not psychopathic but believe themselves to be are approaching the world through clouded glasses. Being told you are psychopathic by someone who has alphabet soup after their name is a pretty convincing label if you don’t understand the problems that surround how criminal psychopathy and ASPD are handled. Once you dive into it, it becomes a whole mess on its own, but those criminals have no idea. They think that they have the full emotional spectrum and are also psychopathic. That would mean that they have the ability to feel persecuted and want to make the world aware of their persecution. Psychopaths don’t think this way. Let me provide an example of how a psychopath perceives things as opposed to how an antisocial neurotypical does.
   
   Let’s use murder. It is a significant crime that has a lot of motivations to it. An antisocial neurotypical might kill someone because they are angry or enraged. They might be jealous, they might want revenge for something, they might be sadistic and want the other person to suffer. There could be a whole host of other reasons that they decide to kill someone, but if they get caught, a lot of them try to find ways to obfuscate their guilt. It might be someone else’s fault in their argument. It might be that the other person caused the problem so it is their fault that they were killed. Now, tell this person that they are a psychopath and that gives them a harsher sentence, they might very well feel that this is totally unfair and go on a crusade about it.
   
   Now for the psychopath. Psychopaths kill because they either want to for some reason that I have yet to understand, or because it is a means to an end. This one I do understand. It is the most direct way to achieve what is necessary. There isn’t a need to give the motivation any other lens to be seen through. A psychopath cannot say that they killed someone else in the heat of the moment. There are no emotional highs or lows that could account for that. If a psychopath killed someone, they chose that action. They wouldn’t go on a crusade about a harsher sentence because they feel persecuted, but certainly, if they thought it would make their life easier and give them something to do while serving time, why not?
   
   The difference between the two is significant in motivation, but the result is the same, and that is psychopathy being someone’s windmill to tilt at. The antisocial neurotypical and the psychopath committed the same crime. They should serve the same time regardless of their brain wiring, but I am not interested in standing before a podium on the courthouse steps to advocate for either of them. The people in charge of how sentencing is arrived at should seriously reconsider using such things like the PCL-R for sentencing recommendations, but frankly, it doesn’t affect me, so I don’t have an interest in doing anything more than pointing it out for people

I recognize that my writing may very well contribute to this possibility. The more psychopathy is understood and discussed in more reasonable ways, which I have heard some shifts in that regard, the more likely it is that misinformed people who want to do a good thing, people who are interested in making psychopathy their whole identity and seek attention from it, or pure opportunists will use it to get what they want out of the world. The path has been laid countless times, and it is pretty formulaic to follow. It’s plug-and-play really. Take an issue, take the strategy that has proven to be successful time and again, put them together, and push forward. Usually, with enough time and manipulation, things do change eventually.

This does not need to happen with psychopathy. It in no way needs to be seen as something that those with it are victims. It should not be something that someone gets social clout for becoming the voice of the voiceless. It definitely should not be something that negates responsibility for criminal activity. Nothing about psychopathy removes a person’s ability to choose what they are going to do. It might make them not consider that the results of an action are going to prove to be inconvenient or unpleasant, but that is their problem to consider, not for the legal or social world bend to accommodate. What is that lovely saying:

Your lack of planning does not become my emergency.

Psychopaths do not need a cheering section, a victim designation, or legal advocacy. I want to make that very clear. Understanding that a thing exists and acquiring knowledge about that thing is often far enough. Nothing more needs to be done. The saying, knowledge is power, is a true statement. You know more information and it changes how you experience the world. That information can help you understand someone else, and I get it, a lot of people are driven by this sense of empathy that tells them that they need to stand up for the little guy.

Psychopaths might be the extreme minority of the population, but we are not the little guy. As much as it might seem like the right thing to do, do not encourage psychopathy advocacy. It will invite in the worst kind of people and result in bad outcomes. If a person wants to help spread more information, cool. Do that. Leave it at that, however, because the other people are hot on your heels trying to make all things of social change be the hill that they die on or the tool that they use to achieve the outcome that benefits them. The pretend or mistaken psychopaths will assist the actual criminal psychopaths that want any break they can get to dodge responsibility for their actions. Back in the day, I certainly would have. Not because I believed it, but because it was convenient.

Let me put it this way. Back in the day, when I was a toxic little beastie and got into all kinds of trouble, I didn’t feel bad about it, I didn’t feel sad about it, I didn’t feel shame about it, I didn’t feel fear when I got caught. I still don’t. That doesn’t change the fact that I used all of those emotional presentations to get out of trouble. It was easy and it was preferred to dealing with negative things that caused me problems. Let me also say, I was good at it. I could make a believer out of everyone that I came into contact with. I used the tools that I had access to.

Psychopathy never needs to be a tool that is used for this purpose. It definitely doesn’t need to be in the hall of fame for social justice causes, it does not need to go on another round of being the diagnosis de jour as it has several times over, and it doesn’t require anyone feeling sorry for those of us that are psychopathic.

It simply is what it is. No advocacy needed.