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
I’m not sure. Most child molesters have been victim of the same in their own youth, which would be the cause of a dissociative mind, where it becomes easy to click off emotions, and see other people as objects. It would create a shell much like a P, as well as a view as if they are the victims and their own victims asked for it. I’m not sure it’s genetic though. Although I’m sure Ps and Spaths could be into sexual child abuse as well.
jayzuz? well 1steprs – onetime when my x was drunk, he told me his grandmother accused him of wanting or trying to molest his niece and nephew , he was so upset he took the kids back to his aunt’s and in tears told her he would never do a thing like that, he was so hurt by his grandmothers acusation that he left town that very night and never went back…well of course when he was telling me this through tears i felt sorry for him and thot how unfair of his grandmother…but ya know what? I would of never left him alone with my grandkids,,,,i just never really knew who he was -still dont,,,,
One Step,
Jayzaz I haven’t heard that expression in a while! Since my mother passed! LOL
Oxy that’s a great analogy. I have seen Irish sheep that are sometimes blue, sometimes red, fuschia, purple depending on what farmer spray painted the wool to id them. So yes it’s all in how we look at it!
Thanks for re framing the purpose of LF. I got tired of trying to explain to certain folks what it is about. They just don’t get it. I am here FOR ME NOT FOR THEM.
OneStep, seems to me a person would have to be a spath to groom a child for rape, molestation. I do think SOME may feel remorse but most probably are upset not because they hurt a child but because they were caught.
I am not sure, I’ll have to check with bloggerT who I bet will know, as that is his specialty, but MY OPINION IS **NOT** MOST MOLESTERS HAVE BEEN THEMSELVES MOLESTED….and not all molested kids become molesters….
I have read several books by Dr. Anna Salter, one of THE premier experts in the world on pedophiles, but I would say that YES, most pedophiles are psychopaths….she seems to believe that there is “no cure” for pedophilia and that the lack of impulse control and the pure risk taking they are willing to do….seems to point in that direction though she does not use the word psychopath or sociopath.
BloggerT is the “expert” on female sexual offenders (see his web site, Female offenders, linked here on the blog roll) and believe it or not, though like the MAJORITY of pedophiles that are prosecuted or reported are male, there are at least as MANY FEMALES as males…which means there is a GREAT DEAL of under reporting on females who offend.
Every pedophile I know personally and I know of three who have been in prison for it or still are….all 3 are psychopaths who are professionally diagnosed. So that is an OBSERVATION on my part, and a “guestimate” that the majority of pedophiles in the US are psychopaths “on one side some of the time.” LOL
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-ronson/five-reasons-to-be-concer_1_b_861092.html?ncid=wsc-huffpost-cards-image
This is so wrong.
thanks all for weighing in re pedophilia and spathy. I could also see that Ns could easily be pedophiles, (the caveat being my somewhat limited understanding of Ns).
i don’t think all people who physically hurt their partners are spaths or Ns, either.
Is pedophilia like any other aberrant behavior? – different motivations, causes, actual actions?
My grandfather was ‘hinky’ – something not quite right about his response to females, and the same is true of my father. I don’t’ know a lot about my grandfather – except that he copped a feel when i was 21 and i went NC with him after that (see,i said earlier that my 18 year old self was smart….so was my 21 yr old self!). a neighbour of my mom’s, who is a nurse, had an opp to help out my grandfather years later (long story), and she felt their was something hinky about him, too. she told me this without any solicitation on my part. my sib accused my sire of sexual abuse. now, please understand my sib has been extremely odd FOREVER, and i don’t trust what she says about most things. she went no contact with the sire 20 some years ago, after she tried to have him charged and he sicked a very highly placed lawyer on her.
i know that my sire once told me that he didn’t see anything wrong with most sexuality, including bestiality (which for many years made me wonder about the farm. and then, last year a childhood friend told me 2 things: one, that he saw my dad almost beat a cow to death when he was in a rage, and two, that my dad had bestiality porn hidden in his work shop. now, i guess i don’t ‘wonder’ anymore. i remember being about 24 and visiting my family and being in the barn – and just being angry about his access to all those vulvas facing the aisle – again, my young self was SMART!))……the one thing he said he thought was wrong was pedophilia and incest….yup, uh huh….that’s why i found a yahoo group called ‘false memory syndrome’ on his computer years ago….it was the only suspicious one i could get to without a password. Well, this group WASN’T about ‘false memory’, it was an ongoing story – in prose – about an incestuous family. 2 adults and 2 kids. ahem. just like his own family.
I’d like to throw another perspective out there. And I should note that I’m speaking more about Hare’s definition of sociopathy (as darwinsmom and Oxy said earlier: blunted conscience rather than pure genetic psychopaths). And my research has been more about rapists than pedophiles specifically (they’re often lumped together in the same category).
An old room-mate of mine, who was working on her Masters of SW, did a stint as a worker in a group home. I remember her ‘tricking’ me into letting her practice her holds on me. It was an odd experience being held completely immobile and dropped to the floor in a way that didn’t feel at all like an assault but definitely prevented me from doing pretty much anything. (Incidentally if anyone knows what that is called I’d appreciate hearing it.)
The grouphome she worked in was for teenage developmentally delayed sex offenders. These kids had the bodies of teens or adults (some over 200 lbs) but the mental/emotional capacity of young children. A few of them had autistic-like behavioural problems (e.g. head-banging) and were quite capable of harming themselves or others. I sometimes drove over there to pick her up and met the kids. It was so obviously clear to anyone who met them that these kids didn’t have the capacity to form ‘intent’; they were merely replaying what had been done to them. Most of them had the mental equivalency to 10year olds. Sadly the abuse they experienced had been normalized for them (the disabled are assaulted at an alarmingly higher rate than the norm, and due to their limited capacities it is rarely prosecuted). So it was clear that, for some of them, they were merely doing what to them was normal and expected. Some of them were labouring under the delusion that they were being “good boys” because that is what they’d been taught that good boys do – and it was very difficult for my room-mate to convince them otherwise.
So her job with them was strictly behavioural reconditioning on the most basic level. It made me question everything I thought I believed about sexual assault (her too – her previous job had been in a women’s shelter).
Since then I’ve spent some time researching the backgrounds of rapists and serial killers. And even though it doesn’t get talked about much the consensus seems to be that almost all have been assaulted themselves in some way in childhood (see Roy Hazelwood for instance). And Oxy is right: even more disturbingly, because it is so rarely talked about, a signficant percentage were sexually &/or psychologically abused or terrorized by the opposite sex (this is true for both male and female abusers). Exposure to pornography is also frequently involved. I’ll see if I can find the links and post them later.
It is already well known and documented that most rapists start their behaviour at a young age – early/mid teens or younger. So I’ve had to rethink my whole understanding here. Everyone ‘thinks about’ rapists as if they started to do this as fully formed adults with full mental capacities (at least I did). But the truth seems to be for at least some of them that they’ve had some misfortune happen to them which linked sex and violence for them at a time when they were less capable of fending off that association. And most of them have had no type of justice for their own abuse and no positive influence to counter the negative.
I think the good news here is that, if we’re willing to look this problem squarely in the eye, we could accomplish a lot by using targeted intervention stragegies for vulnerable youth at an early age.
So are they all P’s? Quite possibly. But not all P’s commit sexual assault/rape – particularly against children. It may be that there is a combination of P traits plus uncountered inappropriate exposure that needs to happen before someone becomes a rapist or pedophile.
One/joy,
I had my browser open for a long time and didn’t see your earlier post. I’m so sorry to read what you’ve said here. The content in my post wasn’t meant in any way to be a comment or reply to what you’d written earlier.
Just wanted to let you know that I’m sorry you’re in a situation to have to work through this stuff, and I hope you’re finding some answers.
Sending hugs and good thoughts your way,
Annie
1step Your being very graphic..your sire is a pervert if nothing else…and you think this man is going to give you your money? think again…