Edit: Cognitive empathy also includes a grown affinity for the individual, although the degree or type of affinity may be the same or different than the type or degree of affinity experienced by those who primarily utilize and experience affective empathy for individuals.
"Does anyone have the information to either confirm or deny this claim?"
Before going any further, we have to be clear about the terms we are using here. Psychopathy refers to a genetically-loaded pattern of neurodevelopment, while sociopathy refers to antisocial personality disorder. Brain scans of criminal samples of those groups reveal some of the differences:
Are you talking about psychopaths or sociopaths?
It's not. This is a wonderful paper about the neuronal correlates of different empathic states:
http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/Morelli(InPress)SCAN.pdf
There are also various lesion studies which demonstrate how what we call "empathy" is a specific set brain functions.
The orbitofrontal cortex, for example, imparts affective empathy to cognitive states. We know this because people with lesions to that area have been subjected to batteries of tests, and have demonstrated reduced affective empathy and increased Machiavellian behavior. Statistically, criminal offenders—especially psychopathic ones—have less orbitofrontal cortex grey matter compared to controls. The inferior frontal gyrus has also been shown to be part of the affective empathy network by lesion studies.
Patients with damage to their medial and/or ventromedial prefrontal cortex have deficits in cognitive empathy. Lesions to either hemisphere of the prefrontal cortex reduce the ability of a person to understand sarcasm. Researchers say there is a "double dissociation between cognitive and emotional empathy" because what is often termed "empathy" is actually the amalgamation of two disparate types of empathizing.
I have a theory for you all. Apparently there are two types of empathy which are processed in two different ways. There's cognitive empathy which is the ability to understand a persons situation and relate to it on a cognitive level, and then there's 'affective' empathy which is the ability to actually experience the feelings/sensations felt by the person in the situation they describe. I would argue that contrary to popular belief, and even scientific literature, sociopaths have a capacity, and arguably an even greater capacity than 'empaths' to be cognitively empathic, while empaths have a greater capacity to be affectively empathic. Does anyone have the information to either confirm or deny this claim?
One system interprets the mind-states of others, while the other reciprocates emotional states. Phylogenically, the cognitive empathy circuits are older (we know this because they are close to the brain stem), while the affective empathy system was among the last parts of the human brain to evolve. The primary center for morality is the brain matter in your skull right above your eyes. I would assume this center evolved along the same time that testosterone levels began dropping, and people began living in large agrarian collectives.
Harmony being a requirement for a collective to function properly, affective empathy would have been a selective advantage, and those who caused discord were likely ostracized, or killed. How the Inuits treat psychopaths may be a good analogy for how early societies handled low-affective empathy Machiavellians who were prone to causing trouble:
"In a 1976 study anthropologist Jane M. Murphy, then at Harvard University, found that an isolated group of Yupik-speaking Inuits near the Bering Strait had a term (kunlangeta) they used to describe 'a man who … repeatedly lies and cheats and steals things and … takes sexual advantage of many women—someone who does not pay attention to reprimands and who is always being brought to the elders for punishment.' When Murphy asked an Inuit what the group would typically do with a kunlangeta, he replied, 'Somebody would have pushed him off the ice when nobody else was looking.'" (Source)
Self-simulating and mirroring has more to do more with mirror neuron network—which is a big part of how empathy is able to function. If your ability create a mental simulation of the physiological actions of others is faulty, you're not going to have much to work with in the decoding process.
I have not heard of that book, but I'll check it out.
What is somewhat ironic about the Inuit situation: it might've taken a psychopath to get rid of the offending psychopath. XD
I guess all this stuff explains why I tend to be "revealed" when I can't seem to grok the reactions of others and respond accordingly. Too many flat stares and "concern lag."
So one side is detection and behavioral processing, while the other is the self-simulating and mirroring agent? With them properly aligned, one has a smoother ride in society...or whatever the human cultural climate/environment is?
It is interesting that the best way to study something is observe it when broken. Have you ever read "The Terminal Man" by Michael Crichton? You might enjoy it.