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
BloggerT, your point about “research” and PROPER RESEARCH is a very well made point.
Back in the days of the belief in “spontaneous generation” before there really was anything such as “research” people believed (through observation) that pieces of meat would SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATE maggots….they did not get the connection that there was another thing involved (flies laying eggs) but OBSERVED that a piece of meat would “generate” worms.
Back in the days when I was doing wild life photography, we caught crocodiles by imitating the sound of baby crocs coming out of the eggs, by doing that (at night) crocs would come to the top of the water and we would snare them….we thought that it was the crocs coming to EAT the babies…in fact, we had OBSERVED crocs scooping up babies in their mouths…in FACT, when proper research was done, it was seen that the mother crocs would come and take the babies in their mouths to move them to water and protect them.
We also had a lot of other ideas about wild like migrations and habits that were in error, even though for GENERATIONS the observations had been x, the fact was Y.
I agree that living with, interacting with, psychopaths gives people experience with them, just like me living with dogs gives me some experience in interacting with dogs, but NOT ALL DOGS ARE ALIKE…and there is no way I can know about every individual dog in every breed of dogs. And I may in some ways know more about dogs in general than someone who has never interacted with one, but only read about them from books….but just having owned a dog, or 10 or 100 does not necessarily make me an expert in or about dogs or training them.
A combination of EXPERIENCE, exposure to, and study of a particular subject (legitimate research) I think makes for a person who has a greater level of knowledge of that subject that just someone who may have had experience with 1, 2, 10 or even 100 of the subject of the study.
The book I just reviewed which was written by a woman who is a trained scientist in bio-engineering and actually knows what a real research study is all about, Barbara Oakley, took a OBSERVATION and decided to study it and see if it was true or not.
Here’s a small example of an observatrion vs study.
Which would you think would be cleaner and easier to keep clean, a plastic cutting board, or a wooden one?
In a survey about this question, most people answered, “the plastic one” so the OBSERVATION AND CONCLUSION OF MOST PEOPLE before the study was done was that plastic would be cleaner.
Actually, when a RESEARCH project was done, where germs were cultured from multiple plastic and wooden cutting boards after cleaning it was found that the WOODEN boards harbored MANY fewer germs with just washing off with soap and water than did the plastic ones.
On more study, it was shown that the wood itself had a germ killing property that was lacking in the plastic.
I threw my plastic cutting board out and use a wooden one to this day.
BloggerT’s example of using a survey where you ask someone about a “psychopath” they have dealt with as “evidence” is totally correct. First….what qualifications does that person have in which to judge whether someone is a psychopath or not?
I have “interviewed” (talked to at great length) a woman who described the psychopathic x she had in great detail….only to find out a little later that that woman herself was 1) a chronic liar 2) a user 3) abuser 4) manipulator and very likely a psychopath herself. So if I had used her testimony as “evidence” about psychopaths, my conclusions would have been greatly flawed.
While on this board, we “recognize” and “validate” the opinions of the bloggers that the person they are dealing with is a psychopath IF THEY SAY THEY ARE, then we “believe” them. The purpose of this blog is NOT RESEARCH, BUT SUPPORT for those who have been injured and hurt by interactions with people who have been abusive to them.
I have no doubt that some of the X’es here are/were dangerous psychopaths that would score 30+, but others may not “qualify” as “diagnosable” psychopathic people, but you know what, it doesn’t matter to me if “susie” wants to call the man who cheated on her for 25 years a psychopath when he ONLY would score 20 points on the PCL-R (which, BTW while it is accepted in courts as a diagnostic tool doesn’t “catch” every person high in P traits)
I happen to think that John Edwards and Jim McGreevey are both psychopaths or at least very high in the traits and lack empathy, impulse control, compassion and kindness and consideration for others. Neither of these men would score all that high on the PCL-R, and since I have never met either one of these men I am “jumping to conclusions” about their psychological problems or lack of them….my OPINION is just that, an OPINION, based on my own ideas and experiences and reading about the behavior of these men.
We can form opinions from observations….but sometimes those opinions are in error because we don’t have enough information to come to a factual conclusion.
That is why research is important. Genuine research based on quality controlled studies, done properly, and peer reviewed.
There is sometimes a hidden reason for flawed research or even FAKED research like the British physician who did the “research” which was FAKED to “prove” that MMR vaccine caused autisim, the reason? He had invented a competing vaccine that would have made him a zilliionaire if he could get the current MMR vaccine dumped and his used….he was eventually caught, his medical license revoked both here in the US and the UK, and exposed as a fraud….but in the meantime, he had stirred up a group of people that ACCEPTED HIS FAKED “research” and are now refusing to vaccinate their children which may in the end cause untold thousands of deaths, and has already caused some deaths from children dying from whooping cough and other PREVENTABLE problems.
GOOD RESEARCH is necessary in medicine and in psychology, and I agree there has not been enough done in the area of psychopathy, and the observations of victims should be part of the study, but it must not be ALL of the study of this very complex problem which is apparently both genetic and environmental.
While I do not discount the OPINIONS of other victims, or even discount my own opinions about psychopaths, well done and designed RESEARCH (not just surveys and interviews with victims) needs to be done into the genetic aspects as well as the environmental aspects of psychopathy.
As Barbara Oakley pointed out in “Cold blooded Kindness,” the “victim” Turned out to be in FACT the abuser POSING AS A VICTIM, so if Carole’s word alone had been taken as “proof” that her husband (that she murdered) was the abuser there would have been an entirely different picture of the “truth.”
Kim, I agree with you about the “shades of gray” in our lives, and that things don’t have to be BLACK-BLACK or WHITE-WHITE in order to be okay, we can have that middle ground of the “grays.” BTW, it is always easier to recognize the drama-rama in others than in ourselves! LOL Ah yes, you said a mouth full there!
Thanks, Oxy. Your above post is clear and concise. You said what I wanted to say….and very eloquiently.
The Psychopath condition is not even an absolute, it is a spectrum, right? Perhaps my ex-fiance is not a P after all, but he hits the mark on plenty of the diagnostic list. While I knew that I’m not a clinical professional, I actually gave hi marks on the traits. Because I accept I’m not a professional, I gave him only 1 point for lack of affection and empathy skills based on the few incidents where it cannot be denied, and I wasn’t fooled into believing he was an empathic caring guy. I gave 0 on the childhood and adolescence years as well as breaking probation, because I know too little about, only his own claims about it and soem vague references to it from his sister (well cousin), and in Nicaragua you can buy a police record with a clean slate, and well the country is too corruop to be able to speak of breaking probation. I know he steals and deals though, even if he just spent a night in jail (so I could consider that breaking probation), and has been in jail several times for assault until his family paid up the damages done to the other.
So, I’ve been cautious in my scoring. He ended up scoring 26 out 40. So he well may hit 30 and more if assessed by a professional in clinical circumstances.
That’s high enough for me to consider him a P for my own safety and comprehension of what actually occurred during our relationship and who I may have to deal with in the future if he were to contact me, or I run into him.
Hi Darsmom. I was enjoying our Tarot convo yesterday, but my day was done and it was time for me to go home. No computer access there.
Do you have a favorite spread? I usually stick to the Celtic cross, but will venture out on occasion.
I used to only do the Celtic Cross spread. But I made a booklet of several spreads depending on the need, during the time I used to do some free readings on a forum. And now I prefer 3 of those over the Celtic one, which often have but 5-8 cards. They are often more handy in my opinion and more clear. The cross one is very intricate, and very focused on self-analysis. Besides the cards themselves are so deep and complex by themselves and with each other. You don’t need 10 cards to get a good picture.
My most preferred one is called the magic star:
_ _5
3_ _ _2
_ 1_ 4
1 is the problem, question, beginning situation card
2 is the cause of 1
3 stands for factors to be considered
4 advice or solution card
5 end result
another fav of mine now is called REALITY SHIFT, very empowering
_ 7
4 5 6
_ 3
1 _ 2
1: what are you telling yourself right now, what are you instructing yourself
2: how these instructions reflect in the outer world
3: how to empower
4: outer self reaction in response to 3
5: reality shift of life
6: what you create
7: new path
A RAINBOW
_ _ 3 4
_ 2 _ _ 5
1 _ _ _ _6
1 (RAIN): what stops you
2 (DRIZZLE): 1st step to goal
3 (CLEAR) : who or what can or may help
4 (SUN): what is the best you can hope for
5 (RAINBOW) : shortterm advice
6 (GOLDEN POT): long term advice
BIRD spread
1 2 _ _ _ 6 7
_ _ 3 _ 5
_ _ _ 4
_ _ _ 8
1 & 2 : now
3 : how to go where you want to be
4 : where you are going
5 : what you will find on your way
6 & 7 : what you will learn
8 : end of journey
WHAT’s GOING ON
4 3 _ 9 8
_ _ 5 _ _ 10
1 2 _ 6 7
1 & 2: the now, including what you may not see
3 & 4 : 2 upcoming events that influence outcome
5 : where you are headed
6 & 7: what you can expect
8 & 9: how you can change it
10: overall outcome
Those are the ones I tend to use depending on what is asked. Usually I prefer the magic star
Boy, the things you miss when you step away from this site for a few hours: discussions of tarot cards and heated debates about research protocols!!! That’s why I love this site!
I have to say that, in my opinion, the comment of the day goes to Kim:
“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. “
Another observation: having read this exchange in the light of day after a good night’s sleep, I wonder how much of the ‘heat’ behind some of the exchange came partially from the late hour? Another factor we often overlook is how much our own opinions and observations vary in certain conditions (like being tired). All the more reason for supporting the notion of “sober second thought”.
This reminds me very much of an on-going discussion my FIL and I had some time ago re: how to tell the difference between truth and propaganda (and I now have to extend that to include mis-guided thinking). The conclusion we came to is that you have to throw every intellectual logical attack at it that you can: if it is propaganda or untruth it will begin to disintegrate when pressure is applied, but truth will only become clearer and more visible.
As for Hare and the PCL-R, I am in complete support of his use of scientific method – it has provided one of the only bright spots of repeatable measurement that has credible functional application (e.g. by law enforcement) in this very subjective field. What I take issue with is that it seems to have beome set in stone and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny beyond its limited initial application (male prisons). Not that I think it is wrong necessarily, but that it’s – perhaps – incomplete and is being inappropriately applied far beyond its proper scope (meaning beyond the scope in which its scientific assumptions were tested). It was never developed or tested to be used against – for instance – non-convicted executives, or women, and its use to measure those groups without proper scientific and research ‘legs’ should be vigorously questioned until it can be proven that its conclusions are scientifically valid against those groups. Although he’s furthered and advanced his thinking in published books and articles when it comes to executives (for instance) he has NOT, at least that I’m aware, updated the PCL-R accordingly. And he really doesn’t cover the issue of female psychopaths at all. Theoretically he appears to have blind spots that need to be scientifically challenged in order for his tool to become what it really could, and should, be.
Darsmom, Thanks for the diagrams. I especially like the reality shift one. Will try it on Saturday morning.
Morning everyone,
here’s an excellent post on Claudia’s Psychopathy Awareness Blog. It’s so good, I thought I’d share it here.
http://psychopathyawareness.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/why-sociopaths-win-by-losing/
Funny, I did a bird spread couple of months ago on the progress of my ex-relationship, early winter, late fall… I had 8 of disks and swords of 7 in position 6 and 7. 4 or 5 had 9 of disks. And number 8 was the Lovers card. Turned out that at least 6 and 7 was straigh on.
Yeah, the reality shift one is very self-empowering… but not one I want to use too often.
Yes, sky… it’s an excellent site.
When I read this part of the blog, my eyes were immediately opened:
http://psychopathyawareness.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/the-psychopaths-relationship-cycle-idealize-devalue-and-discard/