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
Constantine,
Hi ya! I have to comment on your discussion with the others on research, experts, diagnosis etc. I am not relating what I am to say here to anything you wrote. Just commenting in general.
I really don’t know enough about the science behind Narc/Spath disorders BUT I am very interested in learning and though I am not the brightest bulb in the candelabra on this issue I do know that my first ex N/S (Irish guy) is a PSYCHOLOGIST WITH A PHD!! Who better to F with the mind than an expert on how to do it effectively??
When I was involved with ex N/S #2 (the turd) 🙂 I asked a friend of mine, who is a retired psychologist from NYC about turd possibly being a Narc, he warned me to be careful not to diagnose people based on what we read on the internet. He said he worked with many NARCs in relationships and they can be treated!!! I just about pulled my hair out on that one and as a result of his “schooling me” I WENT BACK TO THE TURD!!!
Consequently my take on “experts” is I tend to not trust what some of them they. They CAN be in error.
I really appreciate your humor RE: the Ivy League version of the school of hard knocks.. Brilliant!! I have enjoyed your posts.
I’m surprised that a psychologist would give such an optimistic prognosis for a real narcissist. Assuming that what he meant by “Narc” was someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, NPD is reputed to have a very low recovery rate. That’s not to say NPD is never treatable—some who undergo therapy do succeed in changing, with a great deal of work—but their numbers must be very small. I’ve seen figures quoted (accurate or not, I can’t tell) claiming that only TWO percent of NPD cases actually recover. And that’s out of those who seek treatment. The majority of narcissists never do seek treatment, because they don’t think there’s anything wrong with them! We have to remember that old joke:
Q. How many psychotherapists does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Only one—but the light bulb has to WANT to change!
The typical narcissist’s belief, as with many chronically abusive people of all kinds, is “Why should I change when our problems are all YOUR fault?” That’s how it seems to them with their twisted perceptions. It’s the main reason they abuse others in the first place. If only a few narcissists ever realize “I’ve got a problem and seek treatment,” and only a few of those are cured, the chance of any particular narcissist becoming a reformed character, while not utterly impossible, must be minuscule. It hardly justifies this man’s sanguinity about curing NPD.
Of course, judging from his first remark, he may have had something different in mind. Since he cautioned against making “amateur” diagnoses of people’s mental conditions—good advice in itself—he could have entertained the possibility that your “turd” didn’t have NPD at all, but something milder. Unfortunately the word “narcissist” (or “narc”) is more often used loosely to label people who may be obnoxious in various ways, but are not “narcissists” in the clinical sense. They may be bigheaded or opinionated or abrasive—they may well have “narcissistic” traits—but that doesn’t mean they have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. (In the same broad way, I’ve seen the term “psychopath,” and especially “sociopath,” used to label certain people who probably aren’t psychopathic at all. They may have other disorders, but not that one.) If this psychologist guy thought your “turd” fitted this far broader category of people who are just mildly “narcissistic” in some way, that might account for his undue optimism.
I often think there’s a need for a condition I’d call, in the style of the DSM, “Abusive Personality Disorder NOS”—that’s to say, “Not Otherwise Specified.” There seems to be a fair sized class of people who are chronically verbally abusive, to their partners especially, and usually controlling in one way or another. Yet they’re not psychopaths; they’re not hardcore narcissists with their minds nailed shut about their faults, though they are self absorbed; nor are they crazy borderlines, though they may exhibit similar symptoms. Many seem to be woefully insecure. Quite a number of those people CAN turn around—IF they wake up to the reality that they DO have a “problem,” AND are willing to work on it. Your psychologist guy may have worked successfully with a number of those types, and thought your “turd” might belong to the same type.
But if he’d never even met your “turd,” he had no basis for such a judgment. And if anyone does have hopes of an abusive partner changing, the FIRST essential they need to see is an ADMISSION from the partner that they’ve been behaving badly!—followed by a serious attempt to work on changing that. Sometimes that happens when the offended partner has “had enough” and walks out. (Even so, it must be mentioned that many abusive people “promise to change” over and over again, and never keep it up. So a promise is no guarantee.) But if a chronic abuser won’t even take the FIRST step of admitting they’ve “got a problem,” hoping for change is futile.
Hey AR –
Of course, there needn’t be an opposition between a proper respect for the scientific method, and a healthy skepticism regarding the conclusions of so-called “expert opinion.” What I am advocating is not that we should take a contrarian philistine’s view of science or scientists – on the contrary! I think it is incumbent upon us to keep up with the latest research in the field and to be educated and informed laypeople. However, this doesn’t mean that we should surrender our ability to critique and filter what is being put forward as indubitably true by figures of authority.
Besides, there is only so much one CAN know about sociopathy. That is, after a certain point, there just isn’t that much more to be said on the subject: A new development here or there regarding something like genetic influence, a new cognitive theory or approach to treatment, etc. – these should certainly be digested and taken into careful consideration. But once we’ve studied the subject in some depth (and also lived through it!), I think we really can acquire a significant level of competency ourselves, and needn’t defer our ability to reason and think through these issues to others.
For example, I just saw a psychiatrist being interviewed on Youtube (I can’t find the link now), and he was actually telling the news reporter that “Bernie Madoff isn’t a sociopath because he’s a family man.” (Those were his exact words!) Really?! Now I’m not saying that all or most psychiatrists are so clueless. I certainly hope that isn’t the case! However, that’s what I was getting at before when I pointed out that sometimes our own experience and knowledge are a better guide to this, than what an arbitrary “figure of authority” may happen to claim at a given moment.
To be sure, it is a caricature to assume that we “amateurs” are just an uncritical lot who are blindly applying terms like “psychopath/sociopath” to anyone who happens to offend us! Nor should it be supposed that we are unable to apply a high degree of scientific rigor when filtering and organizing our own experience in the process of forming more general conclusions.
True, Redwald… It’s quite alright for him to have a scientific sceptical mind whether a layman could make such a judgement. But on the other hand, instead of being clinically “ojective”, he should have had been foremostly concerned about the listening ear, and that he should have been extremely cautious to feed the natural hope of someone in victim trauma after abuse that the other might be curable.
Skylar – great link!
I particularly noted this quote: “In their own warped perspectives, sociopaths win by destroying other human beings and their social institutions…”
From our (my husband and I) experience in audit and governance, that is where the corporate predators work – at the level of undermining rules and controls. That leaves them free to exploit with impunity and without consequence. A lot of what happened on Wall Street would have been considered unehtical and actionable – if not illegal – prior to the loosening of the banking and market regulations in decades past.
Redwald – excellent post. Another thing that stood out for me was that an evaluation of risk/danger seemed to be missing. It’s one thing to tell someone not to jump to conclusions, and that it’s possible this person has a minor ‘condition’ that could be cured. It’s another entirely not to warn them that the reverse may also be true and should also be considered, that this person may be more dangerous than had been previously considered (which is frequently the case). I’m starting to note when the advice to ‘not jump to conclusions’ only goes one way, and see that as a red flag.
Constantine, speaking of red flags and corportate paths, I used to think statements like “Bernie Madoff isn’t a sociopath because he’s a family man.” were just naivete. Now I realize they are also a possible “Snakes in Suits” red flag. The person is either misguided or purposely misleading. Either is a reason for closer scrutiny and follow-up. I think that’s a good example of what Oxy warns about when she warns against paying attention to the Sam V.’s of the world – there are just too many places to slip in subtle-looking but significant misinformation.
Redwald I don’t remember what I told him about turd just that he is a “narcissist”. I told him about LF.
I am finding out that that label has so many meanings to so many different folks. For example when I was discussing LF and turd with my sister (who is a retired criminal investigator) she INSISTED I was wrong on my info that I was getting here on LF. I became frustrated with her and my psychologist friend (not my Irish ex) that I gave up and said “maybe I AM the one who is messed up”. And yeah that’s all it took to let my guard down and take him back.
I really get confused and frustrated trying to figure out all the diagnostics. I just know WHAT I KNOW and it’s enough for me to stay the hell out of his way.
Wow Constantine I don’t have the brain chops to give you a decent reply just thanks for listening and I will re read your post when I get back from my ballroom dance class. Yeah, yeah you heard right! Twinkle toes over here 🙂 I think I’m going to have to read it a few times to understand what you are saying. Are you some kind of professor? WOW!
C,
p.s.
What I wouldn’t give to have Gabriel Byrne as my partner in the Viennese Waltz..sigh…
It is interesting to me that many times IT APPEARS THAT people who are “high in psychopathic and narcissistic traits” tend to go into fields where they can obtain power over others….CEOs, teachers, physicians, cops, military, ministers, politics, etc….
Here’s a little story about “research” and drawing conclusions from observations.
Two men were on a trains going through Ireland, and one of the men looked out the window and observed a flock of sheep. He stated that “THE SHEEP IN IRELAND ARE WHITE.”
Then the other man said “SOME OF THE SHEEP IN IRELAND ARE WHITE.”
The first man thought a minute and said “SOME OF THE SHEEP IN IRELAND ARE WHITE—SOME OF THE TIME.”
The second guy thought a minute and then said “SOME OF THE SHEEP IN IRELAND ARE WHITE ***ON ONE SIDE*** SOME OF THE TIME.”
LOL
So those of us who have personally observed someone we think is high in P-traits can draw conclusions from some of those observations, but we can’t necessarily generalize them to the entire population of people who may be high in P-traits or who WE THINK may be high in P traits.
Now, that being said….what is the PURPOSE OF LOVE FRAUD? It is to provide support and education to people who have been abused by SOMEONE….who may be high in these traits, who may have the PATTERN that is SOME TIMES SEEN in people who could be diagnosed by a professional as “psychopathic.”
As for some professionals not getting it about psychopaths some of the time***on one side*** (smile!) I have seen physicians who were also probably not really smart on the “germ theory of disease causation” either by the way they conducted themselves. Remember that 50% of people finish in the bottom half of their classes, and 10% finish in the bottom 1/10th…so there are some incompetent people out there in EVERY field I think, including psychologists and psychiatrists, Nurses, physicians, engineers, pilots, bus drivers and people who flip burgers at McDonald’s.
Then there are those people who are TOTALLY unqualified to flip burgers who by virtue of their ego latch on to some kind of faulty or fake “research” (like the stuff on vaccines causing autisim) and start a crusade against vaccination that results in the loss of lives of children which could have easily and cheaply been prevented. These people are totally unqualified to even know what “research” is much less to conduct it, yet they are influential and use their opinions formed on faulty or even fake data and pass that information on as truth.
oh jayzus Oxy don’t get into irish sheep – it was one of the spath’s favourite topics – i kid you not!
i have been wondering about this, and i would like everyone’s input: are all child molesters spaths? i never went beyond assigning the label ‘child molester’, but i have been wondering about this lately.