This past week I was talking on the telephone with my student and research assistant when he was mugged by a group of 5-7 thugs. One hit him from behind, knocking him down and another punched him in the abdomen. Ironically, among the items stolen was a copy of “Without Conscience” by Robert Hare.
Yesterday, my student asked me, “Those guys in the group who do have empathy and guilt, how do they feel about doing this? What makes them do it?” To which I replied, “I don’t think they feel a thing. They are likely all psychopathic (sociopaths). No one wants to admit just how many of them there are. So they draw an artificial line based on the PCL-R (a psychopathy test) and say these thugs are psychopaths and these thugs are non-psychopaths. They call them non-psychopaths even though their scores on the test are far from normal. They do this because they want to hold on to hope that most of them can change.”
Dr. Reid Melloy, a forensic psychologist with years of experience working with criminals has a method of classifying them that I think is more correct. He has four groups, not two, based on the PCL-R, non-psychopaths, and mild, moderate and severe psychopathy. I do concede that the thugs that assaulted my student likely had the syndrome to varying degrees; and we know the ring leader is likely severely affected.
That gets me to a recent article that received a great deal of news coverage. In one Fox News article were comments from experts who in the past I have criticized for irresponsible public comments. The article discusses data from a study published in a top journal, it doesn’t give the title but it is, The Antisocial Brain: Psychopathy Matters a Structural MRI Investigation of Antisocial Male Violent Offenders.
The title should say, “the degree of psychopathy matters”. When you see stories like this you have to watch out because my colleagues have rotating definitions of psychopathy that they pull out depending on what they need to fit their data. In some studies like this one, they use a cut-off high PCL-R score. In other studies they separate offenders into groups depending on whether or not they show empathy and remorse. So groups may contain the same PCL-R score but be defined in terms of differing symptoms.
The study basically showed that higher scores on the PCL-R are associated with a higher likelihood of finding a shrunken “emotional brain”. Before you go writing me asking that your ex be forced to undergo an MRI which will prove the presence of psychopathy, let me tell you what is not in the news article. You cannot use an MRI scan to diagnose psychopathy.
A diagnostic test has to be sensitive, meaning that it picks up your ex and everyone else with the condition. Well we already know that there is mild, moderate and severe. So do we want the test to pick up the mild or the severe group? That will depend on what your ex actually scored on the PCL-R. I am sure that a “mild” case of psychopathy, does not make for a good life partner. That is why for the purposes of Love Fraud any comparison between “ASPD” and psychopathy is meaningless.
A diagnostic test also has to be specific meaning that only psychopaths show the abnormality. There is no test for psychopathy that is sensitive and specific enough to be useful. This article only shows us the obvious, that very high levels of psychopathy are more likely to be related to observable changes in the brain than are lower levels of psychopathy.
Since the brain produces behavior, their brains have to be different. The behavior they produce is different. All of the thugs who attacked my student to steal “without conscience” have something wrong with their brains.
Dr. Leedom,
Thank you so much for writing this. I imagine you’re going against mainstream thinking in your field. I admire your courage and willingness to take a stand. Thank you for providing us with something else to consider.
I have a few questions.
“They do this because they want to hold on to hope that most of them can change.”
How scientific is this? If we were talking pure science, why would hope be involved at all?
Wouldn’t pure science simply call it as it is?
Isn’t this hope actually the scientists/researchers imposing their value systems on the situation?
There are undoubtedly many people who go into the mental health field wanting to help people and in the process, they want to offer hope.
Hope for whom? Do the Ps even want help? Or hope? Aren’t they pretty well satisfied with themselves?
It sounds to me that hope is for the afflicted, but what about the many affected?
Isn’t holding out hope that they might be able to help “one or two” Ps, as opposed to warning and helping countless people who are adversely impacted by P behavior and end up emotionally harmed or with devastating consequences, rather short-sighted?
Is it selfish? Is this about “publish or perish” and making a name for oneself?
Is it passing the buck? Let somebody else deal with the many; I can feel satisfied helping one or two.
If the intention is to help others, how does the psychiatry field determine who is best served?
Your statement, “They call them non-psychopaths even though their scores on the test are far from normal.” targets the black-and-white thinking that it seems, at least to me, many people want in their lives. With black-and-white thinking, things either are or they are not, and if they are not, then we’ve essentially dodged that bullet and we can go on with our lives.
But as you so rightly pointed out, we haven’t dodged that bullet.
These are not people that would make good spouses, employees, bosses, administrators, teachers, bankers, politicians, or what have you.
Furthermore, these are people who enter our lives because of birth, such as our parents, siblings, or children. At least we can do something about people over whom we have a choice, but it’s very difficult to escape blood ties.
The worst case scenario that I see with this black-and-white thinking and blood ties situation is the courts returning children to abusive parents because this person didn’t score high enough on the P scale to be considered a P and therefore, the person must be normal.
If this person doesn’t qualify as a P on whatever scale is used, or we cannot identify this person as a P via a brain scan or some other medical test, then there is nothing to worry about. That certainly seems to be the presumption to me given how the courts, law enforcement, and even therapists deal with these people. “There is always hope.”
How often do people encounter messages about, “Go back. Give it another try. Try to work things out. If a problem occurs again, we’ll take another look.”
Having been on the receiving end of that thinking, I can tell you that it is tantamount to sending me back to be abused because those other people I’m supposed to work things out with, they’re never going to change.
Isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?
At what point is the psychiatry field going to wake up to “their best thinking got us where we are today”?
Know what? I don’t like where I am today. I feel battered and shattered, a mess of a former self that had potential for such a better life and doing so much more. I’ve wasted too much of my life trying to mend relationships that had no hope of ever being mended. All that energy I poured into fixing something that couldn’t be fixed was lost because it was unavailable for doing positive things for myself or others who would actually appreciate or benefit from my efforts.
Am I a better person for the understandings that I have now? Sure I am, but did I really need to go through hell to get here? A warning would have sufficed. Adequate education or training would have as well. Couldn’t I have become a better person by expending energy on positive things?
I would very much appreciate it if you could provide us with one or more articles on where the psychiatry field stands with respect to these matters.
Are they truly satisfied that they are doing the best they can? Do they even look at themselves and what they are doing? Certainly you can’t be the only one who sees the shortcomings?
If all these altruistic mental health professionals opened their eyes to how much suffering there really is going on in the world, would they take their focus off of their hope that these people, i.e., Ps, can be helped?
Should it be helping the greatest number first and then, after those people are helped, they can concentrate on the die-hard cases?
Do the professional organizations associated with the mental health field, such as the American Psychological Association, even address these questions?
When they discuss ethics, what kind of ethics are they talking about? I figure they cover subjects like, don’t exploit a patient’s confidential information for personal financial gain, or don’t become sexually or romantically involved with a client.
But what about ignoring the harm done to the general public because they hold out hope for “just a few”?
Isn’t that like trying to search for and rescue the handful of people hidden in the caves high up on the hillsides while ignoring the people in the valley who are being swept away in the flood?
I realize that I asked a lot of questions, but any insights to any of the above would be deeply appreciated.
And thank you, again, for speaking up.
G1S thanks for the thoughtful comment,
The worst case scenario that I see with this black-and-white thinking and blood ties situation is the courts returning children to abusive parents because this person didn’t score high enough on the P scale to be considered a P and therefore, the person must be normal.
The above statement is what has me speaking out about this. I am very worried the situation you describe could happen.
You are correct to say that hope is not scientific. But science is also about politics and the social construction of ideas. Reality is what we all agree it is. That is even true for scientific reality.
If you look at the various internet websites regarding psychopathy, many are outdated and still emphasize the distinction between ASPD (antisocial personality disorder) and psychopathy.
The history of making the distinction is that forensic psychologists wanted to try to find the group of criminals especially likely to commit violent crimes and repeat offenses. The idea was that “psychopaths” as defined by Cleckley are a group of people with a disorder that is largely genetic whereas “sociopaths” as defined by the DSM have an environmentally induced disorder.
The ideas above are good in theory but have proven to be false. First of all, criminal behavior is itself rooted in genetics even before we throw in a personality type. Second of all, ASPD and psychopathy are both substantially genetic and are associated with addiction and alcoholism in individuals and in families. While there is evidence that there are individual differences in how psychopathy manifests and to what degree, there is not a lot of evidence for separate syndromes. That is not to say that subgroups of psychopathic individuals might exist who have less deficit in empathy and remorse. Whether or not these symptoms could be markers for treatability has not been determined.
There are many articles about these questions. Do a Google scholar search for the terms ASPD and psychopathy. A recent article by Coid discusses the issues coherently and in detail.
Antisocial personality disorder is on a continuum with psychopathy
Comprehensive Psychiatry
Volume 51, Issue 4, July”“August 2010, Pages 426”“433
“there is not a lot of evidence for separate syndromes.”
I believe this is where the general public is confused – if A exists, then B cannot. Who is responsible for creating this perception? Who is responsible for correcting it?
“I am very worried the situation you describe could happen.”
I think it happens every day and in overwhelming numbers. In fact, I think it is the norm, not the exception.
While most of us are not experts in these fields, as long as there are politics involved, the social constraints can be changed by the general public speaking out and demanding better.
It’s time to stop rescuing people who are not in danger and have no desire for somebody else’s imposed hope on their lives. It is time to listen to the wounded people crying out for help.
Thank you for your prompt reply!
Liane and Grace,
worst case scenario I can think of is that one of them becomes dictator of a country and kills hundreds of millions…
oh wait, that already happened.
I think the reason that scientists start with hope is because they are human. scientists hope to cure cancer, hope to understand the universe etc.. You’d have to be a P not to have an emotional investment in your work or even your day to day activities.
Perhaps the reason they don’t invest a lot of money warning the rest of us about P’s is because they still don’t have a good grasp on the subject. They can’t even agree on a name for it. They seem to be desperately looking for a list of “markers” and they can’t do any better than the PCL-R, which was only meant for a clinical setting. If an MRI doesn’t work, then what will?
In the end, scientists are looking for “The science of evil”. (as Dr. Baron-Cohen called it)
But it would be unscientific to use the word evil, in his research papers, so he just uses it as a book title to sell books.
The book wasn’t that helpful, IMO, though I enjoyed it. He is primarily a researcher on the autism spectrum. From what I’ve read about his research in that field, I think he is on the cusp of a break through in understanding. His study of people who lack empathy lead him to a theory of the “extreme male brain”. This is (I would assume) a politically incorrect position to take. I imagine that a researcher less respected would never dare to postulate that theory.
It’s not about male bashing, it’s about the role of testosterone in the brain and how it affects empathy. Both women and men have testosterone.
My eyes are open to a whole new world….
I have deleted 3 post that I have just written in regards to this article. At a loss for words, as well as, to avoid writing a book of run on sentences, I believe the first sentence sums it up..
Knowing that some of the people on this site are informed and sharing to us on this site who are walking a new path due to the P experience has been a saving grace to rise with some kind of hope regardless of all the confusion.
Sky,
For me the issue is a.) do you devote your efforts to possibly saving one P, who may or may not turn into the next Hitler or b.) do you use the knowledge gained to educate as many people as possible thereby increasing the number of eyes capable of identifying Ps, so that they, the general public, does not get damaged or destroyed.
If the concern is a possible Hitler, then would Germans (or the modern day equivalent wherever they might be located) tolerate and accept such a person or with this knowledge, would they be able to identify a P early thereby rejecting the persuasion and manipulation thus preventing the rise of a second Hitler-type?
Where is the hope better applied?
GIS I really don’t think there should be hope to change a spath. I am not a clinician, but I have never heard of a story of a “cure”. If there is a story, I’d love to hear it. But I sincerely doubt it.
The last day or two I felt euphoric again as I go through my life spath free.
A painful lesson learned.
I found this site not long into the relationship – not sure exactly what I googed, I think I was researching personality disorders and finally stumbled here. If I had known that sociopaths were common and were real, I would like to think I would have reacted differently and RUN FOR THE HILLS when I first saw all the red flags. But even then, I kept going BACK to my spath, wondering….”did anything change yet? Does he love me NOW?”….. unwarranted hope. Stupid.
Athena
Grace,
here’s an article, written by Baron-Cohen, which compares Anders Breivik to Hitler.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/01/anders-breivik?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
It seems to me that all the education in the world isn’t working because we don’t really understand the problem.
It isn’t just Hitler, spaths are attracted to power so most of our “power structures” were designed by and run by P’s. How do we go NC with everyone who is in power? They contaminate everything. They’ve become the norm and people don’t want to see that.
To be honest, I was a worst case example myself, being in complete denial for so long.
I don’t think it’s a matter of either or: Either study the spaths or inform the empaths.
We need to study the spaths SO THAT we can inform the empaths. We simply don’t know enough yet to inform people well enough so that they recognize the spath IN ALL OF THEIR FORMS, in government, corporate, and domestic life.
When I first came here, I was ready to learn all about P’s so I could protect myself and inform the world. It was through learning about them, that I learned about US.
There is a way of understanding emotions (and consequently spaths) which reveals emotions, not as a dynamic inside an individual, but as a social relationship. In other words, emotions don’t happen to a person by themselves, rather, they happen as a response to another. In the same way, psychopathy doesn’t happen to a person alone, instead it is a pathological response to others, a response of envy and rivalry as opposed to friendship and goodwill.
That’s why we study them, to learn more about this contaminating social disease. I think it’s two sides of the same coin.
Athena, that’s great to hear that you’ve been feeling that euphoria! You’re spath free, you SHOULD feel great.
Skylar I like the thinking that emotions are in response to another. The concept makes sense to me. Is the emotion always in response to another human? Another being? Another thing? Another experience? Envy and rivalry.
I wonder how long spaths can go without supply.
But now I am wondering… it’s SUPPLY of what?
I always thought of “supply” as doting, loving attention – that’s what I provided to my spath. Obviously, that is NOT what he was receiving.
Athena
There are some schools of thought that would argue that our feelings follow on the heels of our thoughts. That is to say, we “feel” something in relation to what we tell our selves that something means.
At any rate, our emotions are OUR emotions and we are responsible for them. That means no one has the right to take them away from us, but, on the other hand, WE must be responsible for them. They belong to us. At the same time, others emotions belong to them. We can’t change them, fix them or take responsibility for them.