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 don’t understand well that of the “succesful” psychopath.
Both, my ex “partner” and my current T are psychopaths who have both a decent job and they both are able of keeping it for the long run. But they both have most of Hare’s checklist psychopathic traits except had been in prison.
Because the trait “early problematic behaviour” who doubts they both had it since they both exhibit powerly all the traits?
And people hide them, tolerate them. It’s not a psychopathic problem what we have, i think, but a social problem. Many non psychopathic people share their hungry for power. No few non psychopathic personalities support their methods of abuse, control and annihilation of freedom.
Think of Hitler and so many other dictators, they wouldn’t have done anything similar to what they did without the support of other non psychopathic, however, hungry for power common individuals.
Redwald,
FemFree was the “Head manager” (I didn’t realize that she “owed” it) but she worshiped at the feet of Sam. At the time I didn’t of course realize he wasn’t legit…
I had gotten in trouble and been “warned” by the managers that if I mentioned that I was a Christian one more time that I would be banned by the “mean-ole FemFree” they played good cop-bad cop there for a while. The “reason” I couldn’t mention I was a Christian was that it might offend people who had been “religiously abused.” However II noted that if someone was Wiccian or new age or any other religion besides Christian it was OK to mention it and to explain it etc. So I finally got the idea that it was an anti-Christian stance.
Then, Sam posted an article “Jesus was a Narcissist” article and pointed out why Jesus was really a narcissist, “thought he was God” etc….I commented on that article….and then the next day the article was taken down and no mention was ever made about that article.
They also closed down the “private messaging” feature where bloggers could privately talk to each other….because some of the bloggers were organizing actually….and things got really hairy there for a while.
I was right in the throes of the worst of my persecution, living in my RV hidden out on the lake on some property belonging to a friend, and crying 24/7.
At that time I found Love Fraud, sometime in the middle of that summer of 2007 and I stopped posting there (they never did ban me I just quit) and came here to LF. I was still pretty nervous, but a few weeks after I started here I got flamed by a passing troll, she got both me and Aloha really badly (Aloha was one of the very earliest posters here but still raw) and Donna contacted both of us and banned the troll, and slowly I got to where I realized that THIS SITE was not like the old one, that this site was not abusive.
There have been trolls pass through here from time to time, and they used to bother me, I wanted to “tell’em off” but now I just for the most part ignore them. I started the “potted plant” (ignore them) movement and Sky started the “gray rock” (be boring) movement and donna added the “report abusive comment” link….and so trolls are pretty easily spotted now and taken care of…even people who are just continually irritating.
Donna is open to discussions of religion, but not to the “believe my way or you are doomed for hell” kind of “discussions” and I do for one think that a SPIRITUAL aspect of us as humans is important to our healing…whatever form that spiritual aspect takes. Toleration of diverse views is the hall mark of LoveFraud, whatever rings your chimes and helps you is okay. We have to find some kind of personal meaning in life and the things that happen to us along the way.
I know there are other “support” blogs out there and I occasionally read them but no longer post anywhere but LF.
I so agree about the spiritual componant to healing! But, I can also understand the cringing of some people as a reaction to Christianity, (or any other kind of dogma) if they feel they’ve been conned by it. It takes a while to trust, again, and to find our own paths.
I know sometimes I can be a little dogmatic about my own beliefs. I can take it personally if someone doesn’t agree with me. I’m usually set straight in a gentle way, here at LF, and it isn’t long til I’m feeling fine again.
I can appreciate the understanding that SV has of Narcissism, and believe I can learn a lot from him. But I would never fool myself into thinking that it’s his priority to help me. His helping me is a by-product of his grand-standing. Just knowing that takes the drama out of it, and I can take in what he has to say. If I got locked into my feelings of indignation, I’d be missing out on a real resource. He really is pretty sharp….and why wouldn’t he be, he is one.
I think Redwald is right in that SV’s attitude of superiority and so on is triggering and off putting to us—frankly I imagine it is to most people who are around him very much. But that’s okay, his self promotion and getting to the tops of search engines etc. does make some people AWARE of Ns and Ps (and I do believe he qualifies as a P as well as being an N) but it is “an ill wiind that blows no one good” and I think if he increases knowledge of sociopathy, psychopathy etc. then I think it is a good thing.
Most of his writing is taken from other sources and I am not sure there is much if anything original in it, but that’s okay too as long as he increases people’s knowledge of what they have been through. His trying to get across the concept that HE is a “benign” Narcissist is a JOKE as far as I am concerned….he is anything BUT BENIGN.
I know that people have been religiously abused (I was one) but you know, the ANTI-Christian stance that his (FemFree’s?) blog had and the drama and mind games and BPD type carp that the monitors played with me, and with other bloggers….and believe me I did NOT preach on that blog, and I don’t think I “preach” here, and believe me there is NO ONE who is more down on people who misuse religion to punish or control others than I am. So I felt abused and manipulated by the monitors there.
Here Donna’s is the final word (as it should be) but she also relies I know on the bloggers here to “police” ourselves and I think over all we do a pretty good job of it. We share our spiritual beliefs and our opinions but don’t demand that others agree with us, and are tolerant and accepting. When someone is raw and sort of goes off it usually blows over if the offending party doesn’t strike back and realizes that the person who reacted or over reacted is RAW and IN PAIN, and not take it personally.
I am kind of down in my back last night and today, and Ii realized that my physical pain made me cranky and that ANYTHING irritating made me grind my teeth….even the light shining in my face from the kitchen. Thank goodness son D was here to “wait on” me and more than willing to do so. LOL But when we are in pain of any kind it makes it much more difficult to tolerate anything that irritates or triggers us. When we are NOT in pain, we can “blow off” lots of irritating things and not let them bother us.
Oxy, I hope you don’t think that I meant YOU when I talked about folks knee jerk reaction to religion. I think you do a fine job of teaching a little scripture where it’s appropriate and might help someone. I have never thought of you as preaching!
And I think it’s interesting to have a muti-faceted way of seeing the world and our place in it.
No, Kimmie, I took no offense at what you said, and didn’t take it as aimed at me. You know me well enough I think that if you were aiming something at me you would say “Now, Oxy, about X…” and I still wouldn’t take offense…you and I can and have been honest with each other for a long time without at least on my part any feeling that there was any undertow of snarkyness.
We’ve pointed out dysfunctional things in each other’s lives and been there to support the good things…that’s what friends are for and I consider you a friend, and one I value very much. And because I value you and your insight, I can trust that if you have a problem with my posts you will say so.
“He who dare not offend, cannot be honest.” Thomas Payne.
Here’s some more on John Edwards and the sex tape scandal.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388360/John-Edwards-rages-mistress-Rielle-Hunter-destroying-sex-tape.html
Ox Drover:
My spath was definitely the John Edwards type. Very successful, married, children, somewhat wealthy, etc. But at the same time, very unreliable, irresponsible, lazy, etc. How can that be???? I don’t get it! Is it because he has had others holding up his a&& all this time…supporters? His wife, co workers, even his bosses? Because he charms them all? What do you think?
Dear eb92044,
Most likely that is the case….many can charm the green off of a frog…so you know it just depends on how many people they have snowed and charmed to support them, provide for them, cover up for them, and “forgive” them….
Read the articles here about Gov. Jim McGreevey and his “charm”—he charmed a woman into marrying him so he would look good for the governor’s race with a wife and “family” though he was more interested in men than in women….but then accused a man (after the man filed suit) of having ann AFFAIR with him, and tried to present himself pitifully as a “gay american.” Instead of the CHEAT and liar he is….the man he accused of having an affair with says it was NOT an affair that McGreevey sexually harassed him when he was not interested in any relationship with McGreevey, and Frankly I believe the man, as McGreevey is a proven pathological liar.
The wife was totally dumbstruck…
Look At Maria and Arnold….at the ballsy behavior and shameful, or without shame, actually, of Arnold in having a baby with the maid the same week his wife had their youngest child…then keeping the woman on in the house for the next TEN YEARS…..but actually, as far as I am concerned, the maid didn’t have much more shame than Arny to stay on in the employ of the family knowing she was messing with him and had his child….that’s pretty ballsy and with lack of shame as well I think.
Plus, he paid the maid $1200 a week…..I think that’s a pretty expensive maid service….LOL