Freud said and did some very controversial things during his some odd 50 year professional career in neurology, psychology, and psychotherapy. It is partly a mark of the brilliance and creativity of Freud's mind that modern day scholars, theorists, and therapists are still debating the value and/or non-value of probably literally thousands of ideas that crossed through Freud's brain, and from Freud's brain, onto the paper that laypersons, students, teachers, and professionals from not only psychology and philosophy but probably almost every other cultural discipline, still read today.
Some say, 'Throw all his ideas out...they are all garbage...'
Others say, 'Protect his ideas exactly the way that he presented them with no "deviations" or "modifications".'
And still others say, 'Pick and choose...Either you accept this Freudian idea (for example, 'The Seduction Theory' in 1896) or you accept this idea (The Oedipal Complex, 1897...)...You cannot accept both ideas at the same time because they are mutually exclusive...'
Anyway you want to look at it, there was no greater rebel of Freudian psychology -- or what Freudian psychology (Psychoanalysis) stood for at any one point in time between, let us say, 1888 and 1938 -- than Freud himself...(He just didn't like anyone else rebelling against his ideas in a way that compromised his thinking at any one particular point in time...although Freud didn't seem to hold the same rigid standards for either Fliess or Melanie Klein...I would be interested to read -- but have not come across -- what Freud thought of Melanie Klein's revolutionary psychoanalytic work that was as different from Classical Psychoanalysis as was Jungian or Adlerian Psychology...Freud didn't seem to have the same type of 'father-son transference relationship' with Melanie Klein -- for obvious reasons --she was not male -- that he did with all the 'male psychoanalysts' that were influenced by -- and then 'rebelled' against -- Freud's thinking...i.e., Adler, Jung, Wilhelm Reich, Ferenczi, Rank, Stekel...)
My goal is to put all of Freudian Psychology through a new, 'DGB-Hegel's Hotel screening test' that screens out certain Freudian ideas, keeps a great number of others, but in 21st Century revised, post-Freudian, post-Hegelian, Humanistic-Existential fashion...
And so it is with Freud's classification distinction between the 'oral' and 'anal' personality...which still lends well with much of what I am trying to do here...
To be continued...
.................................................................................................................
It has been almost a week since I started this theme....my writing time has diminished as I work longer hours at my 'day job' trying to put my financial pieces back in order again...leaving at the moment Saturday and Sunday morning for writing....anyway, let's see what we can do with this essay to finish it off in the direction that it was started....
..................................................................................................................................
Freud's idea of 'body zones of eroticism' is not a bad idea....and what I would like to do here is to connect this idea to the later 'object relations' idea of 'compartmentalized ego states'...specifically, seven of them as I have differentiated in previous essays: 1. 'The Oral-Nurturing (Maternal) Superego'; 2. 'The Anal-Righteous (Critical, Rejecting) Paternal (or Apollonian) Superego'; 3. 'The Dionyisan (Hedonistic-Narcissistic) Superego'; 4. 'The Oral-Needy, Approval-Seeking (Submissive Child) Underego'; 5. 'The Anal-Rebellious (Defiant Child) Underego'; 6. 'The Dionysian (Hedonistic-Narcissistic) Underego'; and 7. The Central Mediating Ego.
The 'individual, developmental timeline' on the 'psycho-sexual stages of development' is not particularly important to me -- not worthy of 'knit-picking' over how and when each stage developed from infancy to the beginning of puberty -- but the 'ego-state distinctions' that result from this 'childhood evolutionary process of development in every individual', both generically in a more generalized, abstracted form, and more uniquely in each and every individual depending on the particular environmental and social, family, and outside family factors that went into each unique person's development, are important to me...
Collectively, all of these different 'factors' come together to form our 'transference-lifestyle (Freudian-Adlerian-Jungian-Gestalt-DGB) serial profile' in a manner that is very similar to what you have probably seen the 'Behavioral Analysis FBI agents' do on the popular late evening television show -- 'Criminal Minds'...
Now in real life, I do not profess to be as 'specialized in my Behavioral Analysis knowledge' as the real life FBI agents who train excessively in this area, and have access to thousands of different case files to aid them in their training... However, I do bring with me a particular 'depth psychology' perspective that both dovetails with, and embellishes, the type of work that these men and women are doing...
The domain of 'sexual eroticism and fixation' is huge -- even bigger if we change the terminology slightly to 'narcissistic childhood traumacies' and 'compensating adult fixations' which includes and brings together a whole assortment of psycho-sexual-developmental factors pertaining to: self-esteem, hedonism, narcissism, egotism, sensuality, sexuality, love, lust, guilt, anxiety, panic, resentment, anger, rage, hate, power, revenge, fixation, obsession, compulsion, addiction...phobia and counter-phobia...
One presses the remote on the tv and we come across the tv show 'Hoarders' -- a rather nasty (as in 'un-hygienic) form of obsessive-compulsion that Freud would have probably linked to some sort of a 'anal-fixation' or 'anal narcissism' disorder.... Without plodding through years of Psychoanalytic literature (I don't have either the time or the energy to do so), it would seem feasible to me to distinguish between an 'anal-phobic (retentive)' and an 'anal-narcissistic-(explosive) personality...which plays itself out respectively as either the 'excessively organized' or 'excessively disorganized' personality respectively. (Personally, I have elements of both.)
We press the remote again and now we are looking at the tv program 'Intervention'....a program on a wide assortment of different (usually drug related) addictions. Freud would have called all these different types of drug-related addiction 'oral erotic fixations'. Similarly with food and alcohol addictions...
I would take these -- and indeed all forms of 'OCD' ('Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder') and/or addiction and/or 'serial behavior pattern' one step further, adding an Adlerian component to the following 'Freudian-Adlerian-DGB' formula...
Specifically, an internal and/or external 'stressor' sets off in an 'OCD-addictive-serial-behavior-pattern' person the internal feeling of 'emotional agitation'...that can usually be linked to a 'self-esteem deficiency' (or in Adlerian terms, an 'inferiority feeling') which in turn can be traced back to a 'transference-lifestyle childhood narcissistic traumacy' that is 're-asserting itself' in the person's adult life... In such a state of being, an 'OCD-addictive-serial-behavior-pattern' person feels a compelling internal need (his or her internal state of fantasy-directed-obsessive-compulsion and/or addiction) to act in a 'compensatory' manner that aims to 'alleviate' and/or 'overcome' and/or 'master' this internal feeling of 'emotional agitation' and/or 'internal distress' and/or 'internal self-esteem deficiency'....The particular 'movement', 'fantasy', and/or 'action' of the particular person in this state of emotional agitation or internal distress is intimately connected -- indeed, the same as -- the person's particular form of OCD and/or addiction and/or serial behavior pattern.
Freud linked 'oral fixations' to a certain type of personality -- the 'oral personality' -- which in turn, could be further differentiated into the 'oral nurturing personality' (the person who always needs to 'give love, acceptance, and/or approval' -- and/or at the same time usually has a hard time giving 'disapproval') vs. the 'oral-needy (approval-seeking) personality' (the person who always needs to 'receive love, acceptance, and/or approval -- and/or to avoid 'disapproval'). Often, these two 'personality types' and/or 'ego states' are tied together in the same 'personality package'.
In contrast, Freud put different types of 'anal fixations' together in describing the makeup of 'the anal personality'. In this regard, issues of 'organization' vs. 'non-organization', 'order' vs. 'disorder', 'work' vs. 'non-work', 'discipline' vs. 'non-discipline', 'hygiene' vs. 'non-hygiene', 'punctuality' vs. 'non-punctuality', 'production' vs. 'non-production', 'tightness vs. generosity with money', 'righteousness' vs. 'non-righteousness', 'criticalness' vs. 'non-criticalness', 'rejection' vs. 'non-rejection' became important relative to describing this type of personality...
Within the classification of the 'anal personality' and/or the 'anal ego state', it is important to sub-classify and distinguish the 'anal-retentive (or anal-phobic) personality/ego state' from the 'anal-explosive (or anal-erotic-narcissistic and/or counter-phobic) personality/ego state. The first type of 'anal topdog or superego' personality/ego-state reflects a very 'organized, neat, hygienic, punctual, parsimonious' type of person -- someone who is metaphorically and/or literally 'in love with rules, regulations, and restrictions' whereas the second type of 'anal underdog or underego' personality/ego-state reflects a much more disorganized, non-neat, non-hygienic, non-punctual, non-parsimonious, rebellious type of person...This latter type of person/ego state basically 'hates all rules, regulations, and restrictions'...and/or wants to invent his or her own...
In regard to the anal distinction just made above, we can distinguish in similar fashion the 'collector' from the 'hoarder'. The 'collector' -- whether he or she be a 'car collector', a 'train collector', an 'art collector', a 'coin collector', a 'butterfly collector', or whatever...in all of these different cases the 'collector' is usually going to reflect an 'anal-organized personality' whereas the 'hoarder' is going to reflect an 'anal-disorganized personality'.
The 'hoarder' -- as you can see on tv if you watch this particular show -- reflects a much more disorganized personality than the 'organized collector'. The hoarder lets basically anything and everything just 'stay where it lands' with no thought or feeling or impulse towards 'organization, order, hygiene, detoxification, functionality, throwing un-needed stuff out, etc...everything just more or less explodes out of control...'
I watched one particular episode of 'Hoarders' where the female hoarder involved recalled the memory as a child or teenager where her aunt 'burned all her property'...and she became 'property-less'....The particular 'hoarding OCD' in this woman's case would seem to reflect an 'overcompensating' need to 'hold onto' all her property...regardless of how dysfunctional this OC serial behavior pattern was...
There are a number of different but interconnected 'learning functions and/or mechanisms' that are tied up to all forms of learning including OCDs and 'transference-lifestyle complexes/disorders'..
Chief amongst these learning (and often pathological) functions are: 'introjection', 'identification', 'compensation', 'projection', 'sublimation', 'displacement', and 'transference-reversal'...
'Introjection' and 'identification' are basically related versions of 'copying' our parents, siblings, and/or other childhood mentors. When I 'introject' a particular thought, feeling, impulse, belief, characteristic...I am metaphorically 'swallowing it whole' in the way that it was taught to me by someone from my usually but not always childhood past.... Similarly, with 'identification', I am 'identifying' with someone who I 'want to be like' and in this regard 'copy' one or more of this person's behavioral idiosyncrasies, and/or patterns...
'Compensation' requires an 'adjustment' in our personality and/or behavior pattern in order to deal with a particular type of 'obstacle', 'problem', and/or 'conflict' in our life. For example, if I had an extremely 'anal-righteous, domineering father' in my upbringing, then two very common forms of 'compensatory behavior' designed to deal with this type of 'problem' are: 1. 'approval-seeking (and/or disapproval-avoiding) behvavior; and/or 2. 'anal-rebellious' behavior...When these two opposite types of compensatory behavior patterns are 'mixed', then we get what is often called 'passive-aggressive' forms of behavior...
'Projection' is where we see in others what we -- at some level of consciousness or subconsciousness -- see either in ourselves and/or in some 'transference figure' from our past...
'Sublimation' is where there is some 'underlying narcissistic and/or erotic fantasy/desire' that is motivating the type of 'work' that we do that both hides and alludes to the underlying 'fixation/obsessive-compulsion-serial behavior pattern' that is attracting us and holding us to this type of work...
Often these learning mechanisms, functions, and resulting OCDs/addictions/serial behavior patterns can become 'pathologically and/or neurotically twisted' in destructive and/or self-destructive ways...
An 'identification rapist' is a rapist who is copying the type of behavior pattern learned from a pathological role model/mentor...usually the father...
A Barrie man was just arrested the other day on 'child pornography' charges. He had been the local 'Santa Claus' for years previously and otherwise liked to 'work around children'. This is what I would call a 'sublimation pedophile' (or at least 'sublimation closet pedophile' depending on whether he actually 'assaulted' any children or not -- or 'restrained' himself from such dark underlying desires...).
Ed Kemper might have been either an 'identification serial killer' and/or a 'compensatory serial killer'...for sure, he was a 'compensatory transference killer'...As a child he used to 'cut the heads off of dolls'....Was this an 'identification behavior pattern'? If so, he would have had to have seen a 'beheading', a 'decapitation'...Regardless, it became one of his 'signature, compensatory, narcissistic transference fixatons'...Years later he would behead his mother as well as a host of other women...
John Henry Lucas also eventually ended up killing his 'anal-sadistic mother' (as well as perhaps hundreds of other men and women -- no one knows anywhere close to the exact number...) who among other childhood events: 1. beat him with a wood plank (he would suffer from various brain injuries as a child); 2. shot his pet mule; 3. beat him up for accepting a 'teddy bear' from a teacher'; 4. dress him up in little girls clothing (verified by his sister); and 5. would make him watch her having sex with 'customers'...
For bad, ugly, and horrific, nothing that 'goes around' in the life of a serial killer 'comes around any worse' than in the 'horrifically violent obsessive-compulsions of a serial killer'...partly to those who may by some be judged to partly or wholly deserve it (i.e., the 'anal-sadistic' mothers in the case of Kemper and Lucas) but more often to those who don't deserve it at all...who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time...as unsuspecting 'projective-transference figures'...
It is in this vein that Anaximander's most famous fragment becomes even more haunting...
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
According to necessity;
For they give to each other justice and recompense
For their injustice
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
At the same time, it is probably 'violent revenge' that remains man's worst obsessive-compulsion...
'Violence begets violence'....and never does the circle of 'perceived justice' and/or 'real injustice' end...Someone's friend, family member, and/or lover is violated and/or murdered and someone else picks up the pathological mantra of 'hatred, violence, and revenge'...and keeps the circle going..and spreading wider...seemingly without end...
Sadly and regrettably, in the words of Brian Bird, 'transference is a universal phenomenon' -- sometimes in its most pathological extremes, and this, for better or for worse, is what keeps both psychotherapists and religious practitioners in business...
Fortunately, for every Ted Bundy, Ed Kemper, Paul Bernardo, and Henry Lee Lucas, we can 'fly' to the other extreme end of the 'transference spectrum' and bless our good fortunes for the 'amazing altruism' and/or creative brilliance of a Florence Nightingale, an Edith Cavell, a Gandhi, a Mother Teresa, a Sigmund Freud, an Albert Einstein, and so on...
Paradoxically -- and seemingly shockingly but not once you come to fully understand the paradoxical nature of 'transference' -- sometimes both 'altruistic' and 'narcissistic' character traits appear in the same person, the same personality -- as 'opposing ego states'...for example, Ted Bundy, before he lost control of the 'narcissistically pathological part of his personality' actually 'saved lives' as a crisis and suicide prevention counselor...
One of the key ideas that I would like to make immensely clear in this paper is my 'synthesis' of pre-1897 and post-1897 Freudian Theory...In other words, I want to make it abundantly clear that I am integrating Freudian Traumacy-Seduction Theory with his later Classical Oedipal Theory...In other words again, 'childhood narcissistic -- and sometimes sexual traumacy/assault, especially in the case of male children -- can and often does become the transference springboard for a cycle of sexual and violent 'fantasy' often but not always leading to a 'serial behavior pattern' of actual physical, sexual, and/or psychological abuse of another 'victim'... This 'other victim' may be either 'a projected image of himself as a child' and/or a 'projected image of his childhood victimizer ( his 'childhood victimizer' is most likely to be either his father and/or mother...but it could be an older sibling, an extended family member, a family friend, or a stranger...all documented by Freud in his 'infamous 1896 Seduction Theory'...)
In effect, the usually but not always male child 'identifies' with, and 'copies' the behavior of his 'violent/sexual abuser/victimizer'...In Psychoanalysis, this is called 'identification with the aggressor'. I have extended this name to include 'identification with the abuser/victimizer/abandoner/rejector...'...and will also sometimes call this obsessive-compulsive behavior pattern 'transference reversal'...
I will leave you with this rather provocative paper below that I just found on the internet...
-- dgb, April 24th, 2010.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process......
...............................................................................................................................
We look at heroes and do-gooders as a special sort of breed; people who possess extraordinary traits of altruism, or self-less concern for the well-being of others, even at the expense of their own existence. On the other end, sociopaths also have an extraordinary set of traits, such as extreme selfishness, lack of impulse control, no respect for rules, and no conscience.
As crazy as it sounds, there may be a closer link than than most people would think between the extreme-altruistic personality and sociopathic personality. Would it shock you to know that two people, one with the traits of extreme-altruism (X-altruism) and the other the traits of a sociopath, could be related? Even siblings? And that their personality traits are very similar, with only a few features to distinguish them? Research by Watson, Clark, and Chmielewki from the University of Iowa, "Structures of Personality and Their Relevance to Psychopathology", present a convincing argument in which they support the growing push for a trait dimensional scheme in the new DSM- V to replace the current categorical system.
Personality has consistently shown to be extremely heritable. However, the same genetic material arranged and weighted in a slightly different way, may at times express as vastly different phenotypes: the "extremely good" and the "extremely bad" individual. How is this possible?
At a first glance, one would be compelled to put the sociopath and the X-atruistic person on opposite ends of a personality scale. After all, the chances of a serial killer running into a burning building to save a child are pretty slim, right? And wouldn't a hero-type be one of the last people likely to break rules? WRONG!!!!
Someone who goes out of their way to help others, even at the expense of their own welfare, is actually more likely to break rules than the average person. Think of Dr Ross from the early days of the TV show "ER". He was constantly pushing limits, breaking the rules, throwing caution to the wind, all for the sake of the child-patient, even when it ultimately meant getting fired. On 9/11, after it was apparent that the buildings were about to collapse, teams of firefighters were called back, yet they disobeyed orders and pushed on anyway, only to perish in the quest to possibly save even one more life. Those are the actions of a hero, or an X-altruistic personality type. But consider the type of rule-breaking that the X-altruist engages in- would you classify it as criminal, or even unlawful? How does motive factor in?
People whom we consider to be heroes (or X-altruists, as I am referring to them here), while among some of the most admired individuals, they possess many of the same traits as the sociopath. However, there is a fundamental difference in the motivation behind their actions that distinguish them from their nasty cohorts. Incidentally, that one difference is vitally important in determining if someone turns out to be the comic book hero or more like his archenemy.
X-altruists are compelled to good, even when doing so makes no sense and brings harm upon them. The cannot tolerate injustice, and go to extreme lengths to help those who have been wronged, regardless of their personal relationship to them. Now, I am not speaking of the guy who helps an old lady cross the street. I am speaking of the guy who throws himself in front of a speeding bus to push the old lady out of the way, killing himself in the process. The average, kind, thoughtful person does not take these kinds of extreme personal risks on a regular basis.
If you asked someone with an X-altruistic personality why they take the actions they do (and I have personal knowledge of at least one person like this), they would tell you that they couldn't help themselves. When they are faced with that moment, they just act. Compulsively. Barely considering any other course. The lack the impulse control to stop themselves from doing "the right thing" when it comes to the welfare of others, yet ironically, it almost always results in some form of negative consequence for themselves. They have no problem breaking the rules when it means helping an innocent, yet they highly value the importance of obeying rules in other contexts. That's crazy, you say? Now you're getting the idea.
The word "altruism" conveys images of people like Mother Teresa or Gandhi, passive, extremely self-less people. They are altruistic, sure. But the X-altruistic person is anything but passive or meek. They are often feisty, argumentative, independent, idealistic risk-takers and convention-breakers. Sound sort of like the sociopathic personality? Let's take a closer look at some similarities and differences between the two.
Sociopath:
X-altruist:
Both X-altruists and sociopaths have high impulsivity, need for novelty, and the tendency to break rules, but there is a fundamental difference in the motivation driving their behavior. Someone who is altruistic is always looking to the idealistic good situation, or the way things should be in a fair and just world. They are able to empathize- feel what the other person is feeling, or imagine themselves in another's shoes. This empathy is the force that moves them to engage in heroic behaviors. They have a need to live in "a fair and just world", and will go to great lengths to try and maintain that. They are driven by factors outside of themselves,externally motivated drives, such as aiding the plight of society or serving the "greater good".
The sociopath, on the other hand, is motivated by internal factors; selfish desires and the advancement of their own cause, rather than the causes of others or society as a whole. They don't have the ability to empathize, so they see no logic in acting in any way other than selfishly, since they cannot imagine themselves in anyone else's position. Everything they do is driven by their quest to satisfy their own needs, rather than (and often at the expense of) the needs of another person.
If an altruistic person is able to empathize, and thus is motivated to help others, the X-altruistic person has too much empathy for others, driving them to break rules and put themselves in harms way in order to alleviate the suffering of others or bring fairness to the world. That extreme empathy, combined with a lower impulse control, the need for novelty, and an intolerance for injustice, is the trait formula of the X-altruistic personality. Because this type of person often engages in such extreme behavior that results in harm to self on some level, he earns a spot on the dysfunctional end of the personality scale, nearing psychopathology.
Interestingly, these two type of individuals, the sociopath and the X-altruist, may appear similar in their displays of behavior, and at times, even confused for the other type. If an X-altruistic person is compelled to break rules without remorse in order to help a disadvantaged person, is may seem as if he is acting rebelliously, especially if the motives behind his behavior are not known. On the other hand, a sociopath may donate a large sum of money to a charity, a seemingly altruistic behavior, but his actions may have been motivated by his selfish need to appear better than or more generous than a colleague. The defining characteristic that separates the two personality types is their ability to empathize, either not at all or too much, which then drives the extreme behavior of each.
So while the X-altruistic person indeed acts for the good of the people, he often violates laws, breaks rules, or otherwise causes ripples in the order of society. To be a good citizen, we are required and expected to follow laws at all times. But we can all agree that the world needs extreme heroes; they are the ones who consistently go above and beyond the call of duty, for self-less reasons, even when it could mean losing their job, receiving hefty fines, or even serving time in jail.
But are they really criminals? Or do we need to bend the rules at times in order to allow for these types of do-gooders to continue on their path, bringing righteousness and justice to an otherwise corrupt world? Where do we draw the line between criminality and heroism?
Here's an even better question:
How exactly do we support necessary rule-breaking for virtuous intent, yet punish malicious rule-breaking for ill-intent? Can it be done? Maybe someday we will be able to write public policy that actually serves the best intent of the people, even if it means that once in a while, some rules need to be broken in the process.
I want to send a message out to all of those heroic, X-altruists out there, continually putting their butts on the line for our well-being: Thank you. The world is a better place because you dare to do good... even when it seems crazy to do so.
*For more on the HEXACO Personality Inventory and how traits define psychopathology, lookhere. (this was added after posting the original article)
As crazy as it sounds, there may be a closer link than than most people would think between the extreme-altruistic personality and sociopathic personality. Would it shock you to know that two people, one with the traits of extreme-altruism (X-altruism) and the other the traits of a sociopath, could be related? Even siblings? And that their personality traits are very similar, with only a few features to distinguish them? Research by Watson, Clark, and Chmielewki from the University of Iowa, "Structures of Personality and Their Relevance to Psychopathology", present a convincing argument in which they support the growing push for a trait dimensional scheme in the new DSM- V to replace the current categorical system.
Personality has consistently shown to be extremely heritable. However, the same genetic material arranged and weighted in a slightly different way, may at times express as vastly different phenotypes: the "extremely good" and the "extremely bad" individual. How is this possible?
At a first glance, one would be compelled to put the sociopath and the X-atruistic person on opposite ends of a personality scale. After all, the chances of a serial killer running into a burning building to save a child are pretty slim, right? And wouldn't a hero-type be one of the last people likely to break rules? WRONG!!!!
Someone who goes out of their way to help others, even at the expense of their own welfare, is actually more likely to break rules than the average person. Think of Dr Ross from the early days of the TV show "ER". He was constantly pushing limits, breaking the rules, throwing caution to the wind, all for the sake of the child-patient, even when it ultimately meant getting fired. On 9/11, after it was apparent that the buildings were about to collapse, teams of firefighters were called back, yet they disobeyed orders and pushed on anyway, only to perish in the quest to possibly save even one more life. Those are the actions of a hero, or an X-altruistic personality type. But consider the type of rule-breaking that the X-altruist engages in- would you classify it as criminal, or even unlawful? How does motive factor in?
People whom we consider to be heroes (or X-altruists, as I am referring to them here), while among some of the most admired individuals, they possess many of the same traits as the sociopath. However, there is a fundamental difference in the motivation behind their actions that distinguish them from their nasty cohorts. Incidentally, that one difference is vitally important in determining if someone turns out to be the comic book hero or more like his archenemy.
X-altruists are compelled to good, even when doing so makes no sense and brings harm upon them. The cannot tolerate injustice, and go to extreme lengths to help those who have been wronged, regardless of their personal relationship to them. Now, I am not speaking of the guy who helps an old lady cross the street. I am speaking of the guy who throws himself in front of a speeding bus to push the old lady out of the way, killing himself in the process. The average, kind, thoughtful person does not take these kinds of extreme personal risks on a regular basis.
If you asked someone with an X-altruistic personality why they take the actions they do (and I have personal knowledge of at least one person like this), they would tell you that they couldn't help themselves. When they are faced with that moment, they just act. Compulsively. Barely considering any other course. The lack the impulse control to stop themselves from doing "the right thing" when it comes to the welfare of others, yet ironically, it almost always results in some form of negative consequence for themselves. They have no problem breaking the rules when it means helping an innocent, yet they highly value the importance of obeying rules in other contexts. That's crazy, you say? Now you're getting the idea.
The word "altruism" conveys images of people like Mother Teresa or Gandhi, passive, extremely self-less people. They are altruistic, sure. But the X-altruistic person is anything but passive or meek. They are often feisty, argumentative, independent, idealistic risk-takers and convention-breakers. Sound sort of like the sociopathic personality? Let's take a closer look at some similarities and differences between the two.
Sociopath:
- low impulse control
- high novelty-seeking (desire to experience new things, take more risks, break convention)
- no remorse for their actions (lack of conscience)
- inability to see beyond their own needs (lack of empathy)
- willing to break rules
- always acts in the interest of himself
X-altruist:
- low impulse control
- high novelty-seeking
- little remorse for their actions (would "do it again in a heartbeat")
- inability to see past the needs of others (very high empathy)
- willing to break rules
- acts in the best interest of others, or for the "common good" (because it is the right thing to do)
Both X-altruists and sociopaths have high impulsivity, need for novelty, and the tendency to break rules, but there is a fundamental difference in the motivation driving their behavior. Someone who is altruistic is always looking to the idealistic good situation, or the way things should be in a fair and just world. They are able to empathize- feel what the other person is feeling, or imagine themselves in another's shoes. This empathy is the force that moves them to engage in heroic behaviors. They have a need to live in "a fair and just world", and will go to great lengths to try and maintain that. They are driven by factors outside of themselves,externally motivated drives, such as aiding the plight of society or serving the "greater good".
The sociopath, on the other hand, is motivated by internal factors; selfish desires and the advancement of their own cause, rather than the causes of others or society as a whole. They don't have the ability to empathize, so they see no logic in acting in any way other than selfishly, since they cannot imagine themselves in anyone else's position. Everything they do is driven by their quest to satisfy their own needs, rather than (and often at the expense of) the needs of another person.
If an altruistic person is able to empathize, and thus is motivated to help others, the X-altruistic person has too much empathy for others, driving them to break rules and put themselves in harms way in order to alleviate the suffering of others or bring fairness to the world. That extreme empathy, combined with a lower impulse control, the need for novelty, and an intolerance for injustice, is the trait formula of the X-altruistic personality. Because this type of person often engages in such extreme behavior that results in harm to self on some level, he earns a spot on the dysfunctional end of the personality scale, nearing psychopathology.
Interestingly, these two type of individuals, the sociopath and the X-altruist, may appear similar in their displays of behavior, and at times, even confused for the other type. If an X-altruistic person is compelled to break rules without remorse in order to help a disadvantaged person, is may seem as if he is acting rebelliously, especially if the motives behind his behavior are not known. On the other hand, a sociopath may donate a large sum of money to a charity, a seemingly altruistic behavior, but his actions may have been motivated by his selfish need to appear better than or more generous than a colleague. The defining characteristic that separates the two personality types is their ability to empathize, either not at all or too much, which then drives the extreme behavior of each.
So while the X-altruistic person indeed acts for the good of the people, he often violates laws, breaks rules, or otherwise causes ripples in the order of society. To be a good citizen, we are required and expected to follow laws at all times. But we can all agree that the world needs extreme heroes; they are the ones who consistently go above and beyond the call of duty, for self-less reasons, even when it could mean losing their job, receiving hefty fines, or even serving time in jail.
But are they really criminals? Or do we need to bend the rules at times in order to allow for these types of do-gooders to continue on their path, bringing righteousness and justice to an otherwise corrupt world? Where do we draw the line between criminality and heroism?
Here's an even better question:
How exactly do we support necessary rule-breaking for virtuous intent, yet punish malicious rule-breaking for ill-intent? Can it be done? Maybe someday we will be able to write public policy that actually serves the best intent of the people, even if it means that once in a while, some rules need to be broken in the process.
I want to send a message out to all of those heroic, X-altruists out there, continually putting their butts on the line for our well-being: Thank you. The world is a better place because you dare to do good... even when it seems crazy to do so.
*For more on the HEXACO Personality Inventory and how traits define psychopathology, lookhere. (this was added after posting the original article)
