Keeping in mind, of course, that Rao is not talking about literal sociopathy here, it’s merely the term he’s chosen for his Gervais Principle model. Here he provides a useful distinction between the two types of Sociopaths:
[E]ffective Sociopaths stick with steadfast discipline to the letter of
the law, internal and external, because the stupidest way to trip
yourself up is in the realm of rules where the Clueless and Losers get
to be judges and jury members. What they violate is its spirit, by
taking advantage of its ambiguities. Whether this makes them evil or
good depends on the situation. That’s a story for another day. Good
Sociopaths operate by what they personally choose as a higher
morality, in reaction to what they see as the dangers, insanities and
stupidities of mob morality. Evil Sociopaths are merely looking for a
quick, safe buck. Losers and the Clueless, of course, avoid individual moral decisions altogether.
This is why I find the Clueless of the SF world to be so mind-bogglingly stupid. While they correctly recognize me as a Sociopath who is dangerous to the system, they don’t understand that I am the proverbial Good Sociopath. And because they are so Clueless, they completely fail to recognize the Evil Sociopaths already well-ensconced within their midst.
I mean, how hard can it possibly be for anyone conversant with this model to identify a specific Evil Sociopath who has repeatedly taken advantage of ambiguities in the science fiction world’s rules in order to make a quick, safe buck? You’d think Rao was describing that individual.