Everyone has some degree of sociopathic and empathic attributes. Both types of attributes are necessary for the survival of the individual and the survival of the species, which is why they will never be able to successfully root out the full blown sociopath of the species.
To begin with, I don’t believe a person can be a pure sociopath or a pure empath and survive. A pure sociopath would be unable to relate at all to other human beings, a pure empath would not be able to put its needs above another’s. The closest on the sociopathic side is the serial killer, the closest on empathic side are many of the holy men of various religious persuasions (I am not refering to religious leaders, but men and women that exhibit behaviors that show an extreme sacrifice for others, what some would call a saint. Men and women that serve the sick, even at the risk of getting afflicted, or serve them even though the result is their own death). There is a reason holy men and women tend to get martyred.
Do you eat meat? That shows a lack of empathy. Can you kill an animal and clean it, even less empathy. Work in a slaughter house? Less empathy. I am not condemning people for eating meat, just pointing out that it takes a certain amount of “It’s just an animal, it’s what you do,” attitude and less of “It just wants to live and we should all be in harmony” attitude. You need to be able to kill in certain settings to survive.
Love your friends and family and don’t want them to suffer? Empathy. Donate or volunteer to charity? Empathy. Go to work and provide for a family? Empathy.
The traits on both sides have valuable social functions, and in each person they get a jumble of them, that can change over time.
Men and women can be made into dangerous sociopaths. The military did it to some of their special forces during WWII and near the end of the war they put those types of men on the front lines because they knew they knew they would have trouble integrating back into society.
Men and women can also change in the other direction, usually through a religious epiphany, but not necessarily.
Sometimes both empathy and sociopathy are combined. The ability to kill to defend children, your tribe, your country combines the need to protect (empathy) with the desire to kill (sociopathy).
On the primative level sharing (empathy) food was necessary for survival, but so was selfishly hording (sociopathy) it. Finding food often required risk taking (sociopathy) yet there was also a need to stay close to protect (empathy).
The idea that a great man, a great leader, a successful man had a dark side that was tempered, constrained and directed by his good attributes is an old idea and it persists because it is true.
At the risk of labeling my self a Trekkie ( I loved the old shows in middle school) there was an episode called “The enemy within” where Kirk was split into two sides, the angry, selfish, violent (rapist) half, and the empathetic, kind, rational half.
Without that dark half though, Kirk could not lead, could not make decisions, could not be captain. Without the empathic side, Kirk couldn’t be rational, couldn’t control his fear, couldn’t be trusted to lead, couldn’t do what need to be done.
Disciplining someone, punishing them comes for the sociopathic side. Forgiving them comes from the empathic side.
The ideal man for women combines the right attributes of both, the perfect balance. It is as rare as the perfect ten with a sweet disposition.
