Reviewed by Joyce Alexander, RNP (retired)
Cold-Blooded Kindness: Neuroquirks of a Codependent Killer, or Just Give Me a Shot at Loving You, Dear, and Other Reflections on Helping That Hurts is the tongue-in-cheek title of this book by Barbara Oakley, with a foreword by David Sloan Wilson. It belies the serious research and investigation done by this remarkable, highly educated and acclaimed woman.
Oakley is associate professor of engineering at Oakland University in Michigan, and her work focuses mainly on the complex relationship between neurocircuitry and social behavior. The list of her varied experiences reads like fiction ”¦ she worked for several years as a Russian language translator on Soviet fishing trawlers in the Bearing Sea during the height of the Cold War. She met her husband while working as a radio operator at the South Pole station in Antarctica. She went from private to Regular Army captain in the U.S. military, and is also a fellow of the American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering.
In Cold-Blooded Kindness, along with a project called Pathological Altruism (forthcoming book by the same name this year), Oakley was investigating if altruism could be taken to the extreme and become pathological and harmful.
Some “researchers” have, for what they thought was the “greater good,” slanted their research to show what they believed was an altruistic motive. For example, many people have heard about the “battered woman syndrome,” and how it is now incorporated into laws in many states as a mitigating factor in cases where women wound or kill the men who have battered (or supposedly battered) them. What isn’t known, though, is that the “research” into this “syndrome” was badly flawed. The researcher was a woman who was so intent on doing the “greater good” of protecting abused women, that her altruism caused her to slant her studies, and anyone who pointed out that her research was suspect, was in fact, “blaming the victim,” and therefore, evil.
Oakley points out that she started to seek out a person who appeared to be altruistic to the point that it became harmful, but her own research led her to see the situation differently than she had planned.
She started investigating a Utah woman and artist named Carole Alden, who had “been abused” and had killed that abusive husband, Marty Sessions. But the book really isn’t so much about Alden murdering Sessions, for which she ended up in prison, but about how Carole Alden, though presenting herself as the ultimate altruist (rescuing animals and people), was instead, the ultimate abuser.
The examination of the human brain, and the social interactions of children, and the development of empathy and altruism in children, are explored. Both the social and the genetic aspects of these are gone into in depth.
Oakley explores “co-dependency” and “enabling” behaviors and calls for more actual research into these areas, especially concerning possible sex hormone links and to genetics. She also points out while little, if any, real research has been done on “battered women syndrome,” and it is not accepted in the DSM-IV, it is accepted in many state statutes.
Oakley never comes out and actually says Carole Alden is a psychopath (though the word is used and described in the book itself), but Oakley’s book describes Carole Alden’s behavior relative to the Psychopathic Check List-Revised. It shows that while Carole presented herself to others as a victim of circumstances, and as altruistic to the nth degree, she was, in fact, a controlling, manipulative, using, abusing, pathological liar, who took in dozens, if not hundreds, of stray animals. She cared for them poorly in most cases, but better than she cared for her own children.
It is also possible that Carole is a serial killer, as there are two other deaths of men she was involved with that were “suspicious” in their very nature.
When Oakley was corresponding with Carole Alden, she was convinced by the letters that Carole Alden was the personality she was seeking for her thesis of “altruism gone too far,” and that Carole was indeed the victim of this. Upon meeting Carole though, in prison, Oakley began to see the real situation. When she investigated the family, the crime, the real history of Carole Alden, not just the self-serving tales of how everyone abused her, Oakley began to see the malignancy. Carole changed her story, came to believe her own lies, and slanted all aspects of “truth,” even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Not only is this a history of one pathological woman who murdered one man and possibly more, and who abused and neglected her children, it is about the personality disordered in general who present themselves as victims, when in fact, they are at best—co-victims/co-abusers with their partners.
Oakley is not “blaming” legitimate victim, but seeking to find the common thread in some partners (women and men) who participate to one degree or another with the abuse they endure. She is seeking a way to educate and warn these people so that the abuse can be prevented.
While Carole Alden took in a series of ex-convict men, who were addicts, to “cure” and “fix” them, which appeared to be altruistic in nature, in fact, it was anything but altruistic. It supplied Carole with her “professional victim” and “professional altruistic” persona that she was seeking to establish. What caused this in Carole, when her parents and other siblings were apparently normal and highly functioning members of society?
I tend to underline and highlight important passages in my books as I read, and I finally gave up trying with this book, as the first 100 pages are almost all day-glow yellow.
This is a highly readable book, and I am anxiously awaiting the arrival of one of Oakley’s previous books. I will also be one of the first in line to buy her upcoming one Pathological Altruism. I highly recommend that anyone who is seriously trying to figure out how we (former victims) are alike, and how the fake altruism of some psychopaths works, read this book.
Cold-Blooded Kindness on Amazon.com
We need all the stages of grief to go through, but it is never neatly laid out in steps, from one to the other. It’s like accepting one part, crying over it, being angry over it and then being grateful over it… Meanwhile while that is happening, you realize something else and the same cycle occurs for that new acceptance. But while you’re grateful for one thing, you’re still bawling over something else.
The longer my list of gratefulness becomes, the more i’ve worked through.
It’s nowhere near it’s end I expect though
Dear Redwald,
Yep, that’s me, conspiriing to make this woman a rich author! LOL you caught me! LOL
Actually I am into her next book now, “Evil Genes…how my sister stole my mother’s boyfriend…”
This woman gets it! It is so wonderful to find such an insightful author and one with such credentials as well! I’m IN LOVE WITH THIS WOMAN! (or at least her books!)
She has naother one due out in August that I want to read asap too, so might even pay full price for it. I shop the used books off Amazon and B&N so my cost is low and the authors get little or nothing out of my purchases…but recycle, recycle….and if you are as big a book-a-holic as I am you have to buy used or go broke! I also loan books out and share books with others who may not can afford them at all….and I keep some to reread and this is one of those that is a permanent installation in my library.
I think, knowing your way of thinking, Redwald, that you WILL like this book and will also get her Evil Genes book as well….let me know what you think!
Darwin’s mom,.
I agree with your “gratefulness” list, or “c ount your blessings” and the “thank yous…” as well.
I’m glad everyone likes my review of the book, I really did love the book, and the points she made…both about the fake altruism of the psychopaths, but how they fool so many people with it…
I have read lots of books that I LIKE and gained something from, but this one just made my HEART SING! “SHE GETS IT!” Yep, she does and the next one I am reading “Evil Genes” is just as good, but I am going through it slowly so not to miss savoring a single line!
I think the fact that this woman has a psychopathic sister helps her to understand a lot more than just “studying them in a cage” in a prison or at a university. She has a vested iinterest in understanding what is going on, and she also has the credentials to understand what is going on with their brains and minds. Great combination for someone to study psychopathy.
It was strange, but I did skip all the stages, at first. I went straight to acceptance, gratitude and surrendered my ego.
I think it’s because I was soooo relieved and grateful to finally know why he had tortured me for sooo long, and to be relieved of this bizarre RESPONSIBILITY that I thought I had, to stay with him for the rest of my life! We weren’t even married!! The relief was so great. But then, I thought about it and I went right back to square one with the pain and anger and grief over loss. All of these stages, have been hard, but I’m learning so much more from them than I could have if I’d skipped them. So I’m even grateful for them.
I had an initial “good riddance” feeling (partly angry) as well as a, “sheesh, I’m glad that he was never able to come and live with me here and make my life even a bigger nightmare.” But it was rather bitter, not actual gratefulness. For me it felt more like a way to help me accept that it was over and there was no turning back and I better should not wish him to come to make up again. And that was what it did.
I did it 10 years ago, first surrendering of ego and gratitude of having known my Inspiring Soul, and just holding on to my love and gratitude for him… got me straight into depression. Took me almost a year to even allow myself to feel wrath over the one big mistake he had done towards me… rejecting me. On the other hand, it’s a total different case, a total different man, and I’m grateful that he exists, and that he was in my life for a short romantic period, and since then always as a platonic-best-stay-friend type of thing.
Sky
Got it!!!
Being grateful for our blessings….and for the LESSONS in life.
My husband used to say “life is a tough teacher, she gives the TEST first, then the lesson” but sometimes we don’t get the lesson, so we have to repeat the class….at least I had to do repeats several times to GET IT.
We learn from experience….and sometimes that experience is painful, but hopefully we will maintain that lesson and continue to grow from it. I’m grateful for the opportunity to grow.
Superkid, just keep on peddling…..
Annie,
Thank you – I’m glad that you took an interest in the question I was addressing. I suppose the overly-specific focus of the PCL is both a curse and a blessing: it is a curse because it misses many significant variants on the “psychopath theme”; and a blessing because it at least does an excellent job of assessing and labelling one of the more odious and flagrant types. (Actually, that’s not a good way to put it – they are all equally odious!)
Another thought is that perhaps this narrowness of vision was an inevitable a product of the time. With the advent of the Internet, we now have access to a vast amount of information and “spath horror stories”, that must far exceed what was available for a Cleckley or a Hare in the sixties and seventies. (Hare is still at work, of course, and is one of the best in the field; but perhaps he is still guided by a preponderance of early experiences with respect to the “low-functioning” Ps? I honestly don’t know. But as I was saying, just look at the thousands and thousands of “spath tales” that are recorded on this site alone: no doubt this was all going on forty years ago, but the stories and data were spread out all over the place, rather than in potentially concentrated form like we now have with the Internet.
So in a very real sense I don’t think anyone back then – even brilliant fellows like Cleckley – had the chance to form a perfectly fleshed-out picture of this disorder in all of its grotesque permutations. (Speaking of which, I don’t think you’ll get any “groans” here for referring to female psychopaths – I believe the phenomenon is quite well understood by LF members and has been documented time and again on this site.) In a sense, though, the only way to really “get it” is number one, to have been spathed oneself; and number two, to have spent a couple of years reading about the manner in which thousands of other people have likewise been spathed! Once we accomplish both of these things, then a PHD in the field is redundant and probably a waste of time and money! (Though perhaps Donna will start issuing degrees at some point – after which we can go and teach these people ourselves!) Of course, I’m just being mock-arrogant; but graduating from the Ivy League version of the “School of Hard Knocks” perhaps gives us the right to approach these issues with a mild degree of swagger!
Constantine,
thank you for your precision post.
You hit so many of the targets right on. First of all, you cannot understand spaths until you study them “in the wild” as we all have done. It’s unfortunate that the experts haven’t done this, only because the PhD gives credence to the investigation. Who cares about that? I only care that the truth gets out there and eventually it gets spread far and wide so that it becomes COMMON KNOWLEDGE about what the spaths are. In the past, we had stories about witches and vampires. We don’t need those anymore, because we can understand the meaning of the words: Moral Insanity.
Playing devils advocate here, I would also point out that just experiencing one does not make a person any more qualfified on the subject. It only makes them “expert” on their own experience because every person, every experience is unique unto itself. Just like having the title behind your name does not mean a person is an expert, qualfified or correct. I could easily make the argument, and it has been seen on here even, that some self proclaimed experts are as wrong and misguided as are some degreed experts. You need both experience and degree to start, keyword being start, to truly research and understand such a complex thing as human personality disorders. Just basic proper scientific method/research is needed for credibility. Remember that anecdotes are not evidence or plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
And people can “get it” even if they have not experienced it themselves. If they couldn’t it would be a waste of time trying to educate people about it.