Speaking in an evolutionary context, I should have the same neurological sexual infrastructure as anyone else. The intimacy should be possible, but without any empathy to properly contextualize it, my brain has nowhere else to put it (beside the usual “after actually having sex” part) than in pure principle/general cognitive space.
Logically speaking, there's no other way this could possibly happen. There's no tactical reason to love/care about humanity the way I do, and even if there were, the evolutionary algorithm would have no context to develop that awareness as a formal genetic trait. It's only the alignment of preexisting traits that makes this possible, but the quality with which that alignment can occur is unknown. There really is no way of knowing how these traits would play off of any other genetic assemblage. The traits are there, so in theory they should be able to juxtapose a second time without my immediate genes, but the odds of environmental trait activation retaining the sequence configurations necessary to elicit awareness of and attachment to these traits in individuals like myself are ever diminishing.
The thing is, I don't have any attachment to my current identity. I'd prefer to have been born with neuronormative affective empathy and I'd be more likely to bequeath my legacy on someone otherwise similar to me who had what I lacked than I would even my own reincarnation. What I care about is the work, and helping potential vectors for fragments (or else aspects (expressible)) of my identity means that others who are unlike me can benefit from that work. Therefore, even in the ways I'd help myself, assuming there could be any method of helping myself that wouldn't automatically extend to everyone else as soon as I were able to do it, the main value I can provide is a way for others like myself who would be less likely to ever be able to express these conflicts in their natural psyche, function better in this wretched, wonderful, exciting world. I have at the very least realized (or been told/informed on multiple occasions) that my written elocution abilities are worthy of note ("separate from the norm"), so if I can write something that helps people recognize potential configurations of these traits in themselves or others, then I can have an obvious positive impact on the world on a (potentially) large scale, in a way that nobody could ever replicate, predict, or plagiarize. Nobody can, with sufficient accreditation, ignore that these realizations first came from a psychopath.
And yet, neither of my parents were psychopaths. Retracing my (current) family history doesn't recall any communicated anecdotes that give me rise to consider a psychopathic ancestor, which is information I would expose because I believe in time travel, and controlled subtle manipulation of their genes at a critical stage in their life could potentially result in me as I am physiologically known to be born with a more natural empathic frame. I might not love humanity the way I do now, but I'd predict that I would retain most of my other aspects (expressible). I'd have to talk to them myself to decide if I consider such a modified version of my genes was really still "me." Alternate possibilities notwithstanding, I really have no way of knowing where these traits found expression within my family trees. The most likely scenario is that the genes that made way for my tendency toward primary psychopathy (genetic predisposition, and not something I consider to be unable to be repaired through some (unknown) upbringing methodology) are unique to my exact traits, and any progeny (with a relevantly applicable partner) could only inherit the tendency toward that configuration and not the configuration itself.
Seen in this light, it's tempting to believe that rather than the outsiders I had previously considered us to be, psychopaths are instead base points from which character ascertainment can begin on a social level in a manner that would be reflected by natural breeding patterns. Using Pareto arithmetic, this would mean that 10% of the population were evolving toward morality, 80% towards tradition (preservation of the values inherited from principled parents), and 10% toward an unknown factor. (Where "morality" is considered to be a natural result of the evolution of principle in the human context, ie., it's not possible to evolve in full general form toward immorality.) Half of all genetic forms contributing to strong principles may then end up being psychopaths, which meets the tacit heuristics I've heard already. ("One in ten" and "one in twenty" people are supposedly psychopaths.) This adequately falsifies my previous hypothesis that psychopaths are required to "reign in" the (otherwise) uncontrolled intuitional emotions of the mass, because sensible (principled) people would emerge even without the severe exacerbative state leading to psychopathy and other empathic disorders.
* Any neurogenetic psychological discoveries inferred from this essay are to be considered the full intellectual property of SmoothPorcupine Pirate, especially and particularly where time travel is known to be possible.
This is possible because I've already inferred many of the true genetic traits, things which emerge into expressible aspects through trait configuration, and attempting to recreate my work through tacit inference would rob others of the awareness of the process by which I'd been able to eventually formulate this essay. There are discoveries I believe myself to have made (believe them to be an accurate depiction of the genetic function) that are critical to the understanding and confidence thresholds that fuel the thought process lending credence to this essay.
