Some of My Best Friends Are Sociopaths (Made, Not Born)

Got blocked on Xitter for citing Veblen. Should've cited Steve Hall's theory of moral distortion.


Veblen never said that working for an institution makes a person a sociopath. My bad. But he did argue something more subtle, and frankly more interesting: institutions can deform character, pushing ordinary people toward trained incapacity, moral numbness, and predatory habits that mimic sociopathic traits without requiring any underlying pathology. Nothing in the sources suggests he used or implied the clinical term “sociopath.” 

What Veblen actually argued about institutions and character,

1. Institutions shape habits of thought. Veblen’s evolutionary institutionalism holds that institutions are not neutral—they mold perception, judgment, and behavior.

Institutions create “habits of thought” that become second nature.

These habits can be maladaptive, rigid, or anti-social in modern contexts. This is the core of his concept of trained incapacity: people become so shaped by institutional demands that they lose the ability to see or act outside them. 

This is not sociopathy, but it can look like moral blindness.

2. The “predatory” institutional order rewards anti-social traits. In The Theory of the Leisure Class, Veblen argues that many institutions—especially business, finance, and status hierarchies—reward:

Manipulation.

Deception.

Aggressive self-advancement.

Indifference to collective welfare. These are behaviors that resemble sociopathic traits, but Veblen frames them as culturally produced, not psychologically innate. 

He would say: “The institution makes the man predatory,”

not “The man is a sociopath.”

3. Ceremonial institutions suppress empathy and instrumental reason. Veblen’s ceremonial/instrumental dichotomy is key here:

Ceremonial institutions (status, hierarchy, prestige, ritual) reward conformity and invidious distinction.

Instrumental institutions (engineering, production, problem-solving) reward competence and cooperation. 

When someone works inside a strongly ceremonial institution, Veblen argues they may develop:

Callousness toward consequences.

Status-driven behavior.

Indifference to real-world effects.

Again: not sociopathy, but institutionally induced moral distortion.

So what would Veblen say in these terms?

He would never pathologize the individual.

He would pathologize the institution.

If you asked him directly, he’d likely respond with something like:

“The individual is not at fault; the institution cultivates predatory dispositions that are maladaptive to the life process.”

In other words: Institutions can make normal people behave in ways that resemble sociopathy, but the cause is structural, not psychological.

The blocker didn't like Galbraith 1.0 either. It's true Galbraith backed off from the conclusions to his analysis of the corporation in the industrial state. Intellectual error or moral failing?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Blueprint v. the Altar Call

Obama didn’t use the word deindustrialization as often as economists or critics did, but his administration’s stance is very clear in the record: he saw the long decline of U.S. manufacturing as a structural problem that needed active correction, not something to accept as inevitable.  In Obama’s view, deindustrialization was a threat to middle‑class stability. Obama consistently treated the erosion of manufacturing capacity as a danger to economic resilience and to the social fabric. His policy documents describe the loss of industrial jobs as something the federal government should reverse, not merely cushion. His “Blueprint to Support U.S. Manufacturing Jobs” explicitly framed offshoring as a harmful trend and proposed tax changes to discourage it. He regarded offshoring as a policy failure, not a natural market outcome.  Full marks, Mr. President!   His administration argued that the tax code rewarded firms for moving production overseas and needed to be rewritte...
Read more

The Century of Recovery

Image
Monbiot's reading list is pre=approved by moi. I have been following Raworth and Klein for years. They're hip to the evolutionary, historical, time-based entropy in human institutions which many take to last forever, taken for granted as products of natural law. My culture-hero character defined capitalism as profit-seeking in a price structure. He went on to say that fascism is the concluding form of capitalism. The seller will hold a gun to your head and compel you to buy only his product. This is when profit‑seeking detached from real human needs and from the social purpose that once justified it. And he's right to say that he saw a deep psychological deformation in the elites who came to dominate late‑stage financial capitalism when profit became an end in itself. Profit is never about human benefit, only incidentally. Human benefit is not its primary concern. The Quartet that financed Hitler were pseudo-psychotic psychopaths about profit. Any other system that did not ...
Read more

The Throughput World Order

Image
Isn't Immanuel Wallerstein's "world system" just the latest variant of a Universal Empire? Not quite — and the distinction is pre'-damn-near illuminating once you tease apart what Wallerstein is describing and what Toynbee means by a Universal Empire. There's a rhyme, but they’re not the same creature. In fact, the gap between them is where the modern world hides its deepest structural weirdness. 1. A Universal Empire is a political unification. Toynbee’s Universal Empire is a single sovereign authority that forcibly knits together a civilization after its creative energies have died out. Its traits are unmistakable: - one imperial center   - one administrative shell   - one military monopoly   - coercive unity   - cultural mummification   Rome, Qin-Han, the Caliphate, the Mauryas — these are Universal Empires. They are states. A Universal Empire is a political solution to civilizational breakdown. 2. Wallerstein’s world-system is not a ...
Read more