Evil Genes

by Barbara Oakley

  Pockets of such “stable sinister systems” are apparent not only in the ancient world but in modern-day social systems as well: a cubicled group led by an unscrupulous, chameleon-like director of sales; a city government controlled by a corrupt longtime mayor; a religious group that rewards and promotes even the most unsavory types as long as they obey; or—the ultimate in free rein to rewrite rules—the repressed country led by a dictator. By taking advantage of their own dysfunctional but simultaneously advantageous traits, as well as the compliant characteristics and emote control reasoning of others, Machiavellians can build tightly interlocked systems that keep naysayers in check and allow themselves to remain in control.

  A Prototypical, Modern-Day, Stable Sinister System—Texas Southern University

  In August 2006, flamboyant Texas Southern University president Priscilla Slade, along with three board members, was indicted for “misapplication of fiduciary responsibility” in relation to millions of dollars of misspent, misused, and disappearing funds. Many of Slade's apparent accomplishments were ultimately shown to disguise a sordid reality. For example, TSU's doubling of enrollment brought a dangerous element to campus even as the tuition helped fund her flamboyant lifestyle—Slade was eventually caught illegally spending $260,000 to landscape and furnish her home, $10,000 for limousines, and $9,000 for a bed. Meanwhile, only 6 percent of TSU students graduated in four years—one of the lowest rates in the nation.

  Freshman class president Justin Jordan and his friends Oliver Brown and William Hudson—the “TSU 3”—were motivated to investigate the school after the death of a student bystander who died when a firefight erupted in a campus parking lot. Their investigation uncovered rampant corruption on the TSU campus. Christina Asquith, a reporter for Diverse Issues in Higher Education,57 related how the TSU 3 discovered a paper trail of evidence revealing that associates of campus administrators were being paid thousands each month even when they didn't work for the university. State representatives were paid by TSU to be “guest lecturers.” Two highly publicized parking garages were built for tens of millions of dollars over budget. Administrators at many levels appeared to be stealing state funds.

  Through their diligent efforts, the TSU 3 built a slam-dunk case against TSU's administration that immediately provoked indignation from the board and state authorities and resulted in the immediate firing and indictment of the guilty parties.

  JK, as the instant messengers say. Just kidding.

  Instead, despite the increasingly squalid nature of the material the TSU 3 was uncovering, the administration responded by offering semesters abroad and other bribe-like inducements to the trio of would-be whistleblowers. When the TSU 3 brought their evidence of corruption to the university's board, board members responded with a vote of confidence for TSU's corrupt president—neatly shifting blame for the problems on lack of funding from Republicans. When the students met with Texas state governor Rick Perry to provide evidence for criminality, the governor simply referred the matter back to the TSU board—who ignored it. The young men were harassed by campus police officers and ultimately arrested on trumped-up charges. Then, as Asquith relates:

  In late Spring 2005, administrators brought the students before the Student-Faculty Disciplinary Committee on charges that included “inflicting mental harm,” “insubordination, vulgar language” and “disturbing a meeting.” They say they were denied legal representation and told to write a letter to Gov. Perry saying that “everything was OK now” at TSU. One of the TSU 3, William Hudson, was suspended for a year and required to take anger management classes in order to return. He was also fired from his campus job in the office of enrollment management. Each of the TSU 3 was forced out of his role in student government…. By the fall of 2005, the three were feeling demoralized and ready to give up. “Every time we took information to someone, we ran into a brick wall,” said Jordan.58

  Finally, luck turned their way—a sympathetic DA took on the case and the goings-on at TSU came under legal scrutiny. The indictments came down, and Slade lost her job, after a fashion. She was a tenured professor, so she was simply moved to a teaching position.

  “With corruption, everyone pays,” Jordan says. “Now the faculty has to teach more classes, the students have had a tuition increase, the taxpayers—they're sick of paying more money, and people in the administration are going to jail. We are all paying somehow.” Adds Jordan: “Dr. Slade and the administration did a wonderful job of charming the board. They were mesmerized by her. People were mesmerized by her.”59

  One can easily imagine that, if the charismatic Slade had had friends in the DA's office, Jordan and his friends would have been further harassed until they had no psychic resources remaining. The lives of the TSU 3 would have been derailed, and corruption at TSU could have gone unchecked for decades to come.

  DEFINING “MACHIAVELLIAN”

  Earlier, I defined a Machiavellian—which I've used interchangeably with the term successfully sinister—as a person who is charming on the surface, a genius at sucking up to power but capable of mind-boggling acts of deceit for control or personal gain. I've also stated that Machiavellians are unscrupulous and self-serving and therefore are capable of deeply malign behavior. But, given the research results we've covered, it's now possible to refine the definition. Ultimately, a Machiavellian, as I use the term throughout this book, is a person whose narcissism combines with subtle cognitive and emotional disturbances in such a fashion as to make him believe that achieving his own desires, and his alone, is a genuinely beneficial—even altruistic—activity. Since the Machiavellian gives more emotional weight to his own importance than to that of anyone or anything else, achieving the growth of his preeminence by any means possible is always justified in his own mind. The subtle cognitive and emotional disturbances of Machiavellians mean they can make judgments that dispassionate observers would regard as unfair or irrational. At the same time, however, the Macchiavellian's unusual ability to charm, manipulate, and threaten can coerce others into ignoring their conscience and treading a darker path.

  I recognize it's problematic to use a single term, Machiavellian (or my synonym, successfully sinister), for disturbed individuals who in all likelihood come by their disturbances from a variety of neurological quirks and environmental influences and who vary significantly in their dysfunction. But psychologists use inherently vague terms like antisocial personality disorder, which has a similar nomenclature-related problem, all the time. The trouble is, it's difficult to conceive of an alternate, more refined shorthand that conveys the same sense of phenotype as Machiavellian. In point of fact, as with many personality types and disorders, there are almost certainly hundreds—perhaps thousands—of genotype configurations and resulting differences in brain function that could underlie Machiavellian behavior, all of which could vary further, depending on slight differences in how one might define the term Machiavellian. And the effect of the environment on those with a potentially Machiavellian genotype is not necessarily as straightforward as it might seem. For example, a talented boy with an underlying set of problematic genes might, as a result of abuse, descend by adulthood into obviously pathological behavior—borderline or psychopathic—that could result in his incarceration and removal from society. However, the same Machiavellian-oriented child with a mild upbringing might flower into a full Machiavellian as an adult—a charismatic man whose sinister influences could ultimately affect millions.

  Perhaps psychiatrist Regina Pally puts it best in her description of borderline personality disorder:

  Neuroscientists agree with Darwin's assumption that variation is healthy for a species as a whole, even if some variations may be maladaptive for a given individual. Darwin's theory of natural selection argues that, in order for a species as a whole to survive and to adapt to changing environments, the individuals of that species need to exhibit a wide variety of physical traits and capacities…. Since what is maladaptive in one environment may be adaptive in another, e
volutionary pressures have resulted in the retention of maladaptive variations…. It can be conceptualized that for evolutionary reasons such as these the biological impairments of BPD [borderline personality disorder] have been retained in the human species. What Darwin's theory implies is that normal is relative. Normal exists as a range. Every biological factor, whether it be height, eye color, blood type, serotonin level, cortisol level, or autonomic reactivity, exists on a continuum—a bell-shaped curve—in which some variations are more common (i.e., in the middle range of the curve) and other variations are less common (i.e., at the tails at either end of the curve). I stress Darwin's theory of natural selection to emphasize that every symptom of BPD exists somewhere on a bell-shaped curve of the traits found in humans, albeit on the statistically less common tails of the curve.60

  Ultimately, of course, the genes that predispose borderline traits, when combined with genes that predispose psychopathy and narcissism, could be thought to be the foundation for Machiavellian behavior. For some with a naturally gentle, giving, and loving character, almost inconceivably great environmental influence would be needed to provoke Machiavellian behavior.f.61 For others with a particularly unfortunate confluence of traits, Machiavellian behavior seems to come naturally.

  LINDA MEALEY

  We've covered a great deal here, tossing emotional steering wheels out the window on our way to visit “evil” genes, playing tit for tat as we drank milk and lingered with royalty. But it might be nice to end this chapter back where we first began, with psychologist Linda Mealey. Despite Linda's disappearance from the Web half a decade ago, she still affects the studies and careers of those in her field and beyond. Linda's father, George Mealey, has worked with the International Society for Human Ethology to establish an in-perpetuity fund to maintain the Linda Mealey Award for Young Investigators. In contrast to the sociopaths she sought so diligently to understand, Linda continues to serve as a model and inspiration for the generations to come. Her Web site hangs suspended in cyberspace, never updated, in tribute to her life. Even as she lay dying, she faxed copies of notes and handouts to friends at the International Society for Human Ethology meeting in Montreal, enduring her illness with great courage, grace, and dignity. In the end, however, Linda was no match for the tiny, mutant genes inside her. She passed away on November 5, 2002, of colon and liver cancer.

  * * *

  a.In this section, psychopaths, borderlines, Machiavellians, and the “successfully sinister” are often alluded to in virtually synonymous fashion. To some, this may seem an unfair blurring of phenotypes. To clarify matters, it might help if you were to think of psychopaths and borderlines as extreme examples, in slightly different but often overlapping fashion, of Machiavellian tendencies. The successfully sinister might be thought of as a less extreme form (“intermediate phenotype,” or subclinical manifestation) of these personality types. In a sense, then, all four of these terms blend into one another.

  b.Wine connoisseur Robert Parker has made a living from his ability to discern and remember flavors and odors—perhaps a rare gift he received from our distant ancestors. Parker has an extraordinary taste memory, and is known for recognizing wines on blind tests that he hasn't tasted in over a decade. One wine reporter noted that Parker “has got a nose like a dog. He sees wine like other people see color.” The canine olfactory comparisons run deep—as a child, Parker's father, an avid hunter who kept bluetick hounds, mentioned that his son could tell a breed of dog by the smell alone. Only later did Parker realize his father shared the same abilities.

  c.You may wonder why modern despots don't seem to have many children. While it's true that Hitler had none, in general, the relatively recent spread of venereal diseases unheard of in Genghis Khan's day may play a role. Additionally, many despots seem to have had a number of children who are unacknowledged or often simply not mentioned. Mao, for example, is thought to have had from seven to ten children before becoming infertile, probably due to venereal disease. Kim Jong Il has far outdistanced Mao's relatively tame sex life by systematically recruiting the most beautiful girls in the country to join the thousands of women in his “Happy Corps.” As biographer Bradley K. Martin wryly comments—“Eat your heart out, Hugh Hefner.” Both Kim Jong Il and his father, Kim Il Sung, are thought to have scores of well cared for but publicly unacknowledged children.

  d.It's been pointed out that Marcus Aurelius appeared to really love Faustina, so she likely wasn't all that bad. Still, evidence abounds of decent people who truly love their borderline spouses—trying endlessly to please them and happily lapping up the moments of wickedly funny humor and deliciously uninhibited activities. No one will ever know definitively whether Faustina—or Roxalena, for that matter—had borderline or borderpathic traits, but it's worthwhile to keep in mind that the same personality traits and disorders seen worldwide today were undoubtedly present during Roman and Ottoman times as well.

  e.Stanley Bing's delightfully entertaining Rome, Inc. points out the many similarities between the Roman Empire and the modern multinational business environment. As he notes: “Sometimes the emperors were just kids, sons of somebody with some marquee value, thrust into the corner office by one special-interest group or another. These had to be ‘helped’ by powerful second and third bananas, as is often the case with any weak chief executive. This decayed culture fosters henchmen and elevates toadies and other forms of reptilian life to very senior roles indeed. I've been there, and I can tell you that it's worse than working for a straightforward despot any day.”

  Bing also notes: “Before 100 B.C. the incidence of gigantic, pathological, preening, egotistical and thoroughly modern nutcases in the ranks of senior management is relatively rare, and you have many examples of noble Romans who lived to serve the state. After, you begin to get moguls. In the absence of a strong center, and the corruption of daily life in the Republic, these competing moguls have free rein to marshal their forces and make a run at the top slot, which they may occupy for a time, but never own.”

  f.Scottish anthropologist Colin Turnbull described a kindhearted little girl named Adupa who was born into the Ugandan tribe known as the Ik, which was just beginning a nightmare descent into famine. By Ik standards, Adupa was insane:

  “Her madness was such that she did not know just how vicious humans could be, particularly her playmates. She was older than they, and more tolerant. That too was a madness in [the world of the Ik]. Even worse, she thought that parents were for loving, for giving as well as receiving. Her parents were not given to fantasies, and they had two other children, a boy and a girl who were perfectly normal, so they ignored Adupa, except when she brought them food that she had scrounged from somewhere. They snatched that quickly enough. But when she came for shelter, they drove her out, and when she came because she was hungry they laughed that Icean laugh, as if she had made them happy.”

  Adupa was eventually locked away by her parents and allowed to starve to death.

  “He is absolutely untrustworthy, as was his father before him.”

  —Lord Derby on Winston Churchill1

  It is people like Linda Mealey who remind us that not everyone is a self-serving Machiavellian. Far from it. Ordinary people by the thousands have raced into burning buildings to save children from certain death, thrown themselves onto hand grenades to protect their squad mates, or leapt into icy waters to help strangers who were drowning. And, just as even the most sinister of the successful have their good traits, it seems even the most angelic among us have bad traits. Christopher Hitchens, for example, describes Mother Teresa's buttering up of despotism in his The Missionary Position.2 Altruistic Christian pacifists have given their lives for their beliefs—yet so have Muslim terrorists. In loop-the-loop fashion, one man's Machiavellian could be another man's Messiah. You can't help but wonder—are Machiavellian traits necessarily evil? If there are Machiavellians, couldn't there also be quasi-Machiavellians? Would quasi-Machiavellians do quasi-good?

  What are we t
o make of people such as Salvador Allende, a socialist with the best of intentions who set himself above the law and sent the Chilean economy into a tailspin? Allende's successor, brutal martinet Augusto Pinochet, was responsible for torturing and killing thousands who opposed his regime. Yet most observers agree that Pinochet's economic policies have left Chile the envy of South America—arguably saving tens of thousands of lives, and improving the lives of millions more, by providing better possibilities for economic sustenance. At the same time, many far less able, but sometimes even more brutal, right-wing dictators have waved the anticommunist flag to maintain their power and simultaneously drive their country toward ruin, as with Haiti's “President for Life” François Duvalier, or Nicaragua's Somoza regime. Along similar lines, fascist Benito Mussolini had a reputation for making the trains run on time and built magnificent monuments, but at what price—particularly for the hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians killed in Mussolini's grand imperialist schemes? Yet Turkey's Ataturk and Poland's Pilsudski could also be ruthless, with no compunction against using dictatorial methods, but each inarguably left his country far better off than it had been before he took power.

  Still further back in history was Catherine the Great, empress of all the Russias, who seized the throne in a coup d’état, while her eccentric husband and other claimants to the throne conveniently died around the same time. However Catherine achieved power, she was the epitome of the enlightened despot, doing much to improve the lot of her subjects. Even further back was Genghis Khan, who conquered vast territories in an often horrifically brutal fashion. Yet once these lands were under his control, the Great Khan proved himself to be a surprisingly benevolent and visionary ruler whose new political system, based on talent rather than nepotism, helped tie East to West.3