Is Psychopathy an Evolutionary Strategy?

Through millions of years of human evolution, psychopathy has persisted as an uncommon, yet infamous extreme of human psychology. Has this happened by accident, or could it be by evolutionary design?

Diversity can be found everywhere we look. From eye colour and shape to hair texture, from bone structure to height, there are a multitude of differences clearly visible between each of us. Most of us are aware of the roots of these differences as adaptations. Originally, Homo sapiens evolved in Africa with more melanin to protect their skin from harsh UV rays, before those who moved to Europe lost this melanin to instead favour Vitamin D absorption. Physical variations, then, are changes that slightly improved the chances of our ancestors surviving.

This variation occurs internally too, within the brain. Different ways of thinking and problem-solving are equally as important for survival as physical adaptations. Historically, we can see the importance of those whose brains analyse the world a little differently - think Alan Turing, whose phenomenal mathematical ability changed the course of millions of lives, and who, like Einstein, has posthumously been diagnosed with autism. The famous free-solo climber, Alex Honnold, has been found to have abnormally low activity in his amygdala (the region of the brain involved in detecting threats and generating an appropriate fear response). This may explain his lack of fear to heights paralysing for the average person. Honnold’s difference may disadvantage him in social scenarios, where he is less able to empathise with others. Under extreme conditions, however, this quirk may be beneficial - think sweaty fingers clinging to rock, or panic clouding one’s judgement. Here, Honnold would be much more likely to survive and go on to reproduce, making his neural variation a successful evolutionary strategy.

We can apply this idea to psychopathic individuals, who’s lack of empathy, remorse and inhibition often results in inappropriate emotional responses. Indeed, psychopathy is often associated with criminal behaviour (present in a disproportional 10-30% of incarcerated offenders, compared to less than 1% of the general population), while many ruthless dictators throughout history such as Stalin, Mao, and Genghis Khan have shown psychopathic traits.

Furthermore, psychopathy tends to run in families, and has been linked to changes in particular genes also associated with empathy, autism and socialising. However, evidence suggests that the development of psychopathy is, like many things, down to a mixture of ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’. Our environment also plays a role: genetics simply affects the risk factor. For instance, psychopathy is more likely to develop in the absence of ‘warm and responsive’ parenting, in circumstances of poverty, or if the mother smokes or drinks while pregnant.

As social animals, we rely on others for survival. Someone else harvests your food, paves your roads, makes your clothes, spearheads your politics… we are pack animals, and these actions are necessary for our continuing survival. Many of the actions that keep society a vaguely enjoyable place to live come from people doing good for others, even at one’s own expense. Think donating blood, taking part in charitable work, or giving one’s seat up to someone in need - the polar opposite actions associated with psychopathy. A successful, functioning society therefore seems to have no place for psychopaths..

So how could psychopathy ever be a good evolutionary strategy?

Psychopathic dictators have always made history one way or another, and in doing so have shaped the genetic landscape of the world. Genghis Khan, for example, historical leader of the Mongolian Empire, is a direct ancestor to an estimated 16 million men in Asia. That’s 0.5% of the entire world’s male population. Khan’s genes have (very) successfully been passed on to an incredible number of descendants. For the rest of society at the time, however, this was not such good news - namely for the 40 million who died at his hands.

Psychopaths are often also, somewhat counterintuitively, incredibly charismatic individuals. Think Ted Bundy, a charmer of women that he subsequently raped and murdered. This combination of ruthlessness and charisma makes psychopaths good leaders in extreme conditions, and if on your “side”, fantastic people to have around. Of course, loyalty is a fickle, transactional exchange without empathy or emotion, and is only kept when it benefits the psychopath. Trusting a psychopathic leader or lover, then, is certainly not without its risks.

So, although psychopathy may be a good evolutionary strategy for the individual, evolution has also ensured that the condition is uncommon. An abundance of psychopaths in society would be unsustainable, simply because empathy is a fundamental aspect of living in a community. That said, the presence of a few psychopathic individuals can be beneficial (as suggested by their continued survival), with infamous leaders setting the perfect example.

However, psychopathy can also be an obstacle to survival, as suggested by its presence in a disproportional percentage of criminals. Studies have also found that psychopaths tend to die earlier, and that their causes of death are often violent or linked to suicide and substance abuse. Ultimately, traits like impulsivity and risk-taking, alongside the inability to sustain long-term relationships, do not seem to be conducive to a long or healthy life.