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
Blogger,
most of us have experienced more than one. We, who have had spaths as husbands or wives, have had them BECAUSE we were raised by and WITH spaths. We ATTRACT SPATHS. Let me tell you just from my experience, that my N-parents created my spath brother who was 1 year older than myself. We were the 2 middle kids. He is so magnetic that he makes women quiver when he looks at them. But he lives in my parents’ basement and they fear him. SPATH.
It is our upbringing that creates this attraction to and from spaths. It is epigenetics because nature intends for us to survive. if we can survive our parents, we are primed to survive what they have experienced.
I went to groom a friend’s cat because no one else could remove the hair balls. I walked out with my hands bleeding. My friend’s neighbor/renter saw me and came up to kiss my hands, offered to wash my car, love bombed me. He is about 90 years old. I later found many clues to understand that he is a spath and dying. (he will fuck anything, he has no family, he lies, he loves to tell stories bout being in the CIA and FBI, he is a thief, he will expose himself (his genitals) to strangers)
There is more going on in the human race than we want to admit. If you want to understand it, then go meet them in the wild. Be yourself, FEEL the pain, allow yourself to get sucked in, while maintaining objectivity. It ain’t easy.
Skylar,
And if the observations are not done with proper credible methods they are just that, personal observations/opinions. Doing proper research is complicated, difficult and for most dry and boring. But just going from anecdotal information is not enough.
For example you use “we” when should it not be “I”? Because some were and some were not raised by them, had spouses like them, only experienced one, etc. Your own experiences can, and often do, cause a biased view of things.
I would argue that “our uprbringing” may sometimes make people vulnerable but that is not true in all cases or possibly even most cases.
I would also point out that allowing oneself to deliberately be exposed/abused by a “psychopath” on and ongoing basis (this does not mean interviewing them but more like living with them) is 100% not credible science and it is not possible to remain objective. Everyone has biases and are subjective somewhat and good researchers know this and purposely take steps to try to control for it and always be aware of it.
Let me demonstrate one flaw in some research. Let’s say you are researching psychopathy and interview me and I tell you my parent, spouse, whatever, was a psychopath and so you interview me and use what I tell you. Do you see the obvious and glaring flaw already?
Just because I say, or even describe behaviors and actions, that the person was a psychopath does not mean they are and so unless you can clinically establish that the person is one (meaning assessing and interviewing them at least) your data is junk. One example was of a person who their spouse was a sociopath but when asked why they stated the proof was that the spouse was a social worker and knew the damage a divorce could do to the children and went ahead and did it anyway so that proved lack of empathy etc etc.
That is just one small example. Humans and human relationships are extremely complex with a ton of variables involved.
blogger,
it’s like anything else you do in life. Watch for patterns. you’ve been doing it since you were a child, it’s what humans do. Watch for patterns but when you see them, as revolting as they are, don’t withdraw, get closer, get up close and personal. it’s what spath do to us when they study us. So do it back and try not to be disgusted, or afraid. Just observe, try to act natural. Then you’ll see what they really are. Just try it.
Blogger,
Well, I think I have to agree with Skylar on this! However, let me make a few points. First of all, I don’t think anyone here has ever put himself forward as a “self-proclaimed expert” – except in the playful, tongue-in-cheek style of my earlier post. But that aside, I still think your attitude is towards “academic research” is a touch too deferential. Not to say that there isn’t a place -even a significant one – for good research and fidelity to the scientific method: one can hardly argue with that! However, what you have to keep in mind is that most psychiatrists and psychologists don’t have anything close to a “specialist’s” knowledge of this disorder. Indeed, for most, the majority of their professional time is occupied with issues like bi-polar, schizophrenia, ADHD, OCD, and so on. To the extent that they encounter sociopathy at all in their day to day practice, it’s really a gambler’s throw whether they will even recognize it for what it is, let alone make good recommendations for the family and friends who are suffering its unpleasant consequences.
It’s much like the General MDs who are licensed to pass out psychotropic drugs for things like depression, anxiety disorder, ADHD, and so on. Well, do you know how much time a general Med. student spends on such issues? Not much, according to the doctors I’ve actually spoken to on the subject. (And the same is true of most psychiatrists as they merely touch on ASPD in their post grad training.) So, yes, someone who reads extensively, or has actually lived with someone with one of these mental health issues, is very likely going to have a much profounder understanding than someone who merely skims a few chapters in an Abnormal Psych. book, and attends a few lectures in Med School on the subject. The educated layman still won’t be able to write prescriptions, obviously, but that does nothing to convince me that the average doctor is any better suited to the task!
Also, if there is an admitted bias to personal experience, there is likewise an inherent bias to research methodology. You see this quite clearly, for example, when you look at how our understanding of psychiatric issues has evolved over the course of many decades. Thus, at the turn of the century when Freud was in the ascendancy, everything was reduced to Oedipal stuggles and repression. Similarly, when Behaviorist Theory was all the rage they even went so far as to throw out the idea of the Unconscious altogether! (After that, the Cognitivists took over in the fifties and sixties, and there was yet another paradigm shift!)
The point being, when you refer to things like “clinically establishing” that someone is a psychopath, you are assuming that there is some indisputably objective set of criteria by which one could arrive at this diagnosis. But is that really so?The DSM 4/5 is a good case in point: just look at how many ludicrous disorders are listed in that book! So much of it is nothing more than political correctness all jumbled together with a non-spiritual, reductionist view of what a human being really is! In short, I see no compelling reason to acquiesce to the pronouncements of “authority” (in this case, basically the collective “groupthink” of the folks at DSM) when it directly contradicts what I’ve seen with my own eyes. At any rate, when I’m forced to choose between the bias of established dogma verses the bias of compelling first-hand experience, I will always opt for the latter.
In fairness, Blogger, you said you were playing the “Devil’s Advocate” – and I’m merely doing the same! I don’t mean to suggest that your points aren’t valid – I think they are. For all its flaws, I’m glad that we actually have something like the DSM manual – just as I’m glad that we have imperfect psychaitrists and psychologists practicing their craft. But I think the overall point I would make is that that craft is ultimately more of an art than a science: you can study all the scientific literature (what there is of it, at least), talk to psychopaths in an artificial clinical setting, help their victims recover from the spath-induced trauma etc. etc.; but if one hasn’t actually observed these people first hand (i.e. out in the world – not that I’m recommending we actively seek out the experience!), then I really have to wonder what kind of grasp a person could have of their true nature? Pehaps one can make a close approximation, but I’m skeptical that it will entirely hit the mark.
Well this is just another timely reminder to me about the pit falls of all or nothing thinking. Either/or…black/white. This is my issue and my focus right now, and I am encountering it everywhere.
Why the debate? The experts are all knowing. Oh no. The experts know nothing. The one’s who have lived the spath experience are the true experts. Oh no. They have no degree and are biased. They don’t know how to use the Scientific method.
For God’s sake. There is a comfortable space in the middle, folks.
I agree that we laymen can too easily appoint those “others” who annoy us, to be spaths. Especially if we are dealing with our own unresolved issues. More all or nothing thinking. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. Doesn’t really change much to wonder. We have to be responsible for ourselves and our lives. If it hurts, don’t do it.
I also agree that studying the spaths in a clinical setting is far from seeing them up close. They lie, they connive, they pose. They have a way of smelling like a rose. So, suffise it to say that they are out there. By their fruits shall ye know them. I have had it up to my ears with their fruit. I am NOT a professional, so don’t hold myself to the absolutes, and don’t need to. Spaths suck. Enough said.
Constantine,
I agree with you that someone who has never treated or worked around (like prison) these people are much less likely to understand the disorder than those who have.
I am very differential to evidence and scientific method when it comes to research. Personal experience may be right but then again can be flawed horribly. Is the person a psychopath because they divorced their spouse even knowing the damage it might cause to the children? No they are not but that person certainly believes it through their first hand experience. Good researchers know that our own minds can distort things and so they use established methods for research.
And by your definition who exactly gets to define/establish what a psychopath is? Anyone by the way you lay it out. Labeling someone with such a pejorative term is fine if it is true but can cause a great deal of harm to someone who is not.
I also agree with you that folks who have lived through/with someone like this have a ton of useful information and understanding to share. But that still does not make them any more skilled at researching them, treating them, etc. And while they might read everything available on the subject it does no good if they do not know how to sort junk research from good research.
So yes most day to day practicing clinicians may not on the ball with this disorder but that is how it is supposed to be. You can’t know everything about every disorder. I don’t expect my doctor to know much about dengue fever or even kidney stones. If I had these I would go to a specialist and the same applies for mental health issues. Now the arguement can easily be made that there should be more specialists that deal with this issue but that is a different issue. You can’t tar and feather every professional with the same broad brush because they don’t have knowledge about your chosen disorder.
One other point is I am not as deferential to academic research but rather proper research. I know very well that just because it looks good in a controlled setting does not mean it will hold up in the real world. Also yes mental health, just like medicine, engineering, physics, and every other science has evolved from primitive to current state and it will continue to evolve and change as we learn more. That is a strength not a weakness.
Kim,
When you said “We have to be responsible for ourselves and our lives. If it hurts, don’t do it.” you are quite right. This discussion I am having is not about all or nothing thinking though it appears that way to you. In the end, for the individual person what really matters is that no one deserves to be abused and if you are being abused get away from it. It does not really matter if the person is a psychopath or not. If they are hurting you they are hurting you.
My discussion is that for research/treatment of others a person needs to have a minimum of things to even begin doing it and just having experienced one is not enough.
Okay, Blogger. Agreed. I have seen some sweeping generalizations bandied about, as if they were facts. That is a problem, as it could be a transmission of mis-information.
It’s okay to talk about one’s personal experience and observations, and to have opinions. It’s not okay to present them as absolutes…that is, Fact.
Kim,
Of course you’re correct that there is a truth in the middle. But sometimes when it’s the middle of the night and one can’t sleep, it’s fun to just take a side and run with it! (Besides, if no one ever played “devil’s advocate” there wouldn’t be much to talk about!) We must all maintain the ability to laugh at ourselves and see multiple viewpoints; but on occasion it’s amusing to have a good-spirited debate with intelligent and well-meaning people: it passes the time, and the hope is that we come away with a deeper understanding of the issues.
That being said, I think the above discussion has more to do with that than with Blogger, myself, Sky, – or whoever else – being dogmatic or an “all or nothing” thinker.
Moreover, my former spath is a surgeon (an obtuse and remarkably dull-witted individual in everything outside of her profession – and probably mediocre in that as well!) so I have a bit of a sore spot there. (No offense to the bright MDs who post on this site! – you guys get it!)
Constanttine. Okay, Gotcha.
I was reading an article about a week ago about anxiety, depression and black and white thinking. I had been embroiled in a situation of wanting to fix someone, who I recognized as being on an emotional roller-coaster….I recognized it because I’ve been on that joy ride. Well, no matter what I said, this person could not stop her all or nothing thinking, step back, and take a breather.
I read that article and became aware of the fact that most people are uncomfortable with ambiguity. They MUST be certain, and cling to absolutes as a way of dealing with their anxiety.
I realized that even though I’ve come a long way, and recognize the drama-rama that others are caught in, I don’t always recognize it in myself.
So, I am working on the middle ground now, and freeing myself from the need for extreme absolutes. There is a certain peace in that.
Didn’t mean to be critical of you, or anybody else, C. Just wanted to point out that there are shades of gray, and it’s freeing to accept that.