A Sociopath is someone who lacks what are sometimes called the higher emotions: love, compassion, or a sense of shame. They only have the basic lizard brain emotions such as fear and anger. They lack the ability to feel sorry for anyone else, or any sense of empathy whatsoever.
A Narcissist is someone who has the higher emotions but only as they apply to themselves. Like sociopaths, they lack the ability to care about anyone else.
Depending on which study you are looking at, between 1% and 10% of the population in the west is either a sociopath or a narcissist.
Studies also show more than half the people in prison for violent crimes are sociopaths.
While most sociopaths and narcissists can blend in well, there are easy ways of testing for it. For example, upon seeing someone grievously hurt there are certain psychological changes that can’t be faked. Those changes can be tested for. There is no reason a society could not have mandatory testing for all its people upon adulthood.
So knowing the above what if a society decided to treat them as second class citizens? Tattoo them, forbid them from running for office or anywhere that lives would depend on them.
There is no real data on what would happen to our society at large. From what little data we have a large percentage of CEO’s and politicians are either sociopaths or narcissists (sociopaths at least tend to gravatate to positions of power and money, such as being a surgeon). While we have no way of knowing for sure what would happen, I think the changes would be both profound and subtle.
Both groups are fond of the big lie. The idea that if a lie is big enough and absurd enough it will be believed. This often works because we assume everyone’s brain works like ours does. We assume people we are talking to or who are talking to us have compassion as we do.
Doing this would of course create an underclass. What I find interesting is how this would be an underclass that would have little to do with money or with hereditary. You would be putting people there because of who they are and not what they are.
The outcome of this could range on one extreme from being disabled. Little socal stigma, they would just be unable to do certain jobs. The other end of the spectrum they would be untouchables, shunned by all and trusted by none.
Neurodiversity is a new term, most of those who it does not apply to do not know what it means or the movement it represents.
Neurotypical is what most people are, it means their thinking processes are basically normal, they are not autistic, dyslexic ect.
Neurodiversity is of course the inverse, one of the large ideas in the community is that people who are autistic or dyslexic or any number of other things are not lesser then ‘normal’ people but different.
All that established one idea that you see in the neurodiversity movement is the idea of a kind of soft genocide. If the genes that cause autism for example were found then they could just stop being born.
After all if a segment of a population is taking a disproportionate amount of public resources why not try?
Realistically I think this will be a thing that will become possible at some point, not in my lifetime maybe, but at some point. Given my book takes place in about five hundred years it is something I have to think about.
How many advances were made by people who were outcasts, or who were different? Does it not make sense that having more then one way of thinking will help solve problems?
We have had neurodiversity since the very start of our species. Its part of the human condition. So what happens if we change that? What effects would it have?
What would it be like to be an illegal autistic? If for example the government has genetic standards for children (and Liang, one of the major powers in my novel does). Assume you are a mistake, or your parents bribed a doctor to not alter your genes.
How would you feel? Would you be resentful of the world, or angry at your parents for not “Fixing” you? Would you run away to somewhere you could fit in the first chance you got?
It could start with trying to cut out the extremes, those who can not live and function on their own and who can’t contribute. Cutting out what the society considers to be flaws that will not allow the person to live a normal life. Over generations the definition of normal gets smaller, peaks and valleys in personalities get smoothed out. What we would consider to be normal differences would be severe psychological conditions to them.
I think that one of the outcomes of this would be that advances would slow down to a crawl. You would see small incremental improvements in science and technology but you would no longer produce the kind of people who radically change things.
How would such people interact with other cultures? Would they see everyone else as maladjusted to the world and slightly insane? Would they be resentful that they will not be able to carve a place in history as big as those before?
Even if humanity wanted to go back to the way things were, how would you convince parents to allow it? A great amount of effort by parents is put into making their children appear normal (often against the best interests of the children). How many parents would be okay with giving their children a harder life because some of the people born randomly might help society?