.
I'm not sure if I would call it an advantage...because there are things socio's lack that are almost a necessity for living a healthy happy normal life. I would love to meet someone without having to have a motive first. That's way i hate when people come in here asking for "advice" on how to be a "SocIoPAtH". Fucking idiots.
No. Nothing is a necessity. Most people in hunter-gatherer tribes would have no problem beating a traitor's skull in with a rock. Sociopaths are only labels in our developed society. It is seen all over the world that when society falls away the people go out and do horrible acts, sociopaths are not the only ones.
Sociopathy is not a real diagnosis for a good reason. The way a person thinks and their brain works is of no interest, unless truly extraordinary. The way "sociopaths" like "M.E." think is nothing special what so ever, it is only the ones that go out and do significant crimes against society on a regular basis that are of note. That is why antisocial PD should be used over the "oh so special" sociopaths.
People's basic instincts will lead them to anything, my friend. Do not be fooled, we are not any better than African countries dominated by militia groups that hunt people, steal their belongings and rape their women.
I thought morality was originally a matter of survival, since we're much less capable of surviving by ourselves, especially as a social animal. It's only in our current development that it's become outdated as a necessity at best.
Isn't it more what those morals themselves are, as a product of where we are as a civilization, that's constructed?
In what way is it a necessity? Obviously not murdering parts of your in-group is bad but I do not see why it takes morals to simply reason that you should protect people in your group for the sake of your own survival. Caring for others is different than morality, because one can be instinct based and ultimately selfish (caring for others).
Altruism gave humans the ability to not have to constantly look behind them when in the company of other humans, reducing stress and increasing survival in the process. It was the idea that if someone wasn't out hunting with the pack, simply staying behind and guarding their home, cutting down trees to gather firewood, tending to their young, or any other non-hunter/gather activity, they could count on still being fed for their efforts instead of starving to death for being helpful. If Survival of the Fittest's drawing had shown that to be a weakness, then an entirely different species of human would be the norm.
Altruism is largely associated as an aspect of good morality. It's only now that we don't have a natural predator to fear, other than eachother, that it's seen as something else.
There really can be no scientific backing of that what so ever and it is a huge assumption but I guess you are allowed to make those. It is like Freud saying women have penis envy without knowing it because it is in their unconscious. Women cannot PROVE they do not have penis envy because the entire argument is that it is in their unconscious and consciously out of reach.
It is safe to assume though that the only things that made us evolve directly concerned our breeding and survival up to the point of breeding, and morality nor altruism are in any way NECESSARY to live long enough to reproduce...