Do There Exist Unlovable People?

The liberal concept that everyone is deserving of, and capable of, love is laughable to me.  Love is little more than a chemical reaction to shared interests and other commonalities.  People describe a burning desire to the see the other person succeed as well as an emotional state that renders them vulnerable and blinded.  Often logic gets thrown to wind as individuals in love succumb to emotional decisions rather than rational ones.  In general, the psychopath experiences none of this, and if he does, it is exceedingly rare and usually with “less” disordered individuals.  This point has been explored thoroughly in this blog and I will not revisit the topic in depth here.  What I wish to focus on in this post is the concept of loveability, the state of having others love a person.  Liberal voices decry the proposition that there exist those that are unlovable.  While it may be true that there is some probability close to 1 that someone on this earth may be compatible with a person, the logistics of finding such an individual are often negligible.  Just as the left tries to sweep the concept of antisocial personalities under the rug, they try to give false hope to many that simply will never see the love of another.

The extremely disabled or those with toxic personalities are those most likely to be unlovable.  Who would maintain a relationship with someone that has no arms or legs and is blind, for instance?  Maybe a masochist, but I would propose that anyone that gravitates toward such a person is mentally damaged.  What interests me more is the narrative that many antisocials can be “fixed” if someone would just show them love.  I suspect this ill-conceived narrative is what drives many into abusive relationships where love is not present anyway.  To the rational person, they should stay away from the antisocial.  They should see the uncaring mind, and in the case of psychopaths, the narcissistic soul.  They should see that they hold little value beyond what they provide to the antisocial and that he undoubtedly cannot reciprocate any feelings given to him.  In short, they should run like hell.  And, wisely, many do.

I suspect that most antisocials do not care if they are loved.  They may long for companionship, but the concept of another lowering themselves to an emotional state is often treated laughably.  For the antisocials that do care, I suspect that the realization that they are incompatible with the entire human race is a damning one.  I am unsure whether I care.  I miss companionship, but I will never have the affective empathy required for another person to show true love.  I would be upset when they are gone, but only because I would miss what they did for me, not because I would cry for their very soul.  There exist people that should be unlovable by the neurotypical and there are those people that are unlovable by the neurotypical.  Not everyone can be loved and we need to destroy the narrative that everyone can be, as it is lie that sets people up for false hope.

The Waterhole
In the Name of Tragedy

Comments

  1. FNP says

    There’s gotta be some component of effort involved. I personally can’t bother to utilize that effort involved in finding that one person out of 7.5 billion that fits the loveability quotient and honestly understands and doesn’t care that I’m psychopathic.

    It’s like finding the right needle in a stack of irritatingly similar needles.

    • Andrew says

      FNP – Why do they have to fit the loveability quotient? If you’re a psychopath you can’t love anyway, right?

      • FNP says

        The loveability quotient is the amount of effort I have to expend in order for them to care about me. The lower it is, the better.

        It’s all about limiting the effort I have to expend to make the me they’ll like. If they like the real me, that’s the best outcome, obviously.

        • Andrew says

          Do you want them to care about you because you want to be cared about or just so that they will give you what you want?

  2. Andrew says

    At least you have enough sympathy to warn neurotypicals. Vaknin says the same thing. For us it is much more than a chemical reaction. What about old people who fall in love? They do, you know. That can’t just be a reaction to oxytocin or other “love” chemicals. And what about the soul? Do psychopaths have one?

  3. Andrew says

    On the oxytocin front, I just read an article called “Oxytocin, Trust, and Why We Fall for Psychopaths” on Lovefraud.com. In it there is the mention of a book, The Moral Molecule, by Paul J. Zak. Just thought it might be an interesting read and so thought I would put it out here. According to Zak, oxytocin is responsible for love, empathy, and, therefore, morality. He says that psychopaths don’t have the normal amount of oxytocin receptors and that children need to develop them early or they never will. I don’t know then if this means psychopaths are born without the normal amount of receptors or just don’t get them stimulated early enough. Fallon says he had a great childhood. Apparently no one else in his immediate family is a psychopath but, although he has had the same wife for a very long time, he still states, about people in general, “I do not care.”

    • FNP says

      I tend to be on the side of “nurture doesn’t matter” in regards to psychopathy. I had a pretty good childhood and came from an upper-middle class family, and yet, I’m still a psychopath.

      • Andrew says

        So I guess psychopaths are just born with less oxytocin receptors then, if it really does come down to oxytocin. This would be in the genes then I imagine and I suspect these genes have evolved from where and when people have had to be violent in order to survive. Take the bonobos and common chimps for example. The bonobos live on one side of crocodile infested rivers and the common chimp on the other. The common chimp has had to share their land with gorillas, the latter of which eat a lot of food. The common chimps, therefore, have had to fight each other for food and have consequentially become quite aggressive. The bonobos, on the other hand are peaceful, playful, and pro-social.

  4. beneficii says

    I can see some of this, especially regarding effort. I’m on the autism spectrum, but I also have a hard time seeing other people except in relation to the self, what they can do for me or do to me. I am often barely aware of other people, and the ones I am aware of I tend to almost see auras around them: An aura of the forbidden (don’t mess with this person, or at the very least be polite to them), the difficult but needed (this is someone who is kinda like the forbidden, except that there is something I really need from them), the friendly/business (I lump these 2 together), and everyone else. I am often concerned about the friendly, if they suddenly change and act against me, depriving me of what I need, so I watch them for signs and try to guess how likely it is they are about to turn against me.

    Back to effort: I know other people exist, and I can understand things like the golden rule, but I have a hard time putting these things into action. I try, because I do want to get along with what’s going on around me, but I still fall short, my relationships remain quite egocentric.

  5. andrew says

    I learnt how to live with people a long time ago. I just make sure I am willing and can do almost anything better than the next person. That way, I rarely have to need others for things and if I do, I entertain them just to keep their company.
    I find people fascinating and you will find they enrich your life even when you don’t need much from them. I am a person too and I find out things about myself when I deal with others. I also get a feel of that person’s mental and emotional make up when I deal with them. When they are no longer there, I get someone else.
    We have a lots of people. You don’t have to befriend everyone, but the only way I can realisticallybdeal with people in a fair way, is not to be too attached to them.
    The only way to understand the next person is to remove your emotions out of the situation, and you will see things for what they are.
    When emotions cloud judgement, things go awry.
    When a psychologist says there are those who are not clouded by emotions and that that is wrong, they are telling you to throw away conventional wisdom.
    You can not lump evil people, with people who’s thoughts are not clouded by feelings. Psychologists do. They demonize those people who can choose not to commit a crime and have a logical reason for doing so as opposed to thise who avoid crime for emotional reasons.
    It does not matter what motivations exist if there is no crime.If there is a crime, you punish the deed.
    The psychologist parlay with the psychopath has, in effect setting up of emotional and thought police.

    And so, this comment shows up the dangers that exist with the current trends in mainstream criminology studies, however good the stated intentions are

Leave a Reply