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
Ana, as a psych and mental health professional going TO therapy was difficult for me, being on the “worng side of the clip board” was hard for me, but I knew I had to have help and I wasn’t capable of providing that for myself.
Just as I go to a physician when I need surgery or a dentist when I need a tooth taken care of, or a physician to treat my other problems….Love Fraud is wonderful but it isn’t always all we need.
So getting some therapy should help…but like wiht any professional, I have quit doctors because they had an “attitude” or didn’t know what the fark they were talking about….and when I went to a new therapist and told him my tale of woe, he wondered (very rightly I think) if I was imagining all this paranoia that “my whole family is out to kill me” and so I had to give him a witness and some documents to show him my outlandish story was TRUE! LOL I didn’t resent it at all.
Therapists see people with all kinds of “ailments” mental and physical that are psychogenic (imagined) so they have to do more than just take you 100% at your “word”—that doesn’t mean that they don’t know anything just that they are being cautious and that is good.
But at the same time, you will want someone who will be open minded about psychopaths….and you may have to educate them a bit, but that’s not all bad either. Just give it some time and see how it works out….there is always another one if that one doesn’t work out. Don’t give up! You are a bright person and I think you are going the right direction! Good luck and God bless. (((hugs)))
LL, yea they keep the drama going….I am glad that I escaped their games. Glad you did too.
Thanks Oxy,
Yes I will just feel him out, see how it goes. I see people here going to therapy even though it is painful and getting through it, getting better. I appreciate your support and insight!
LL I think you are amazing! You just keep going even though you are in pain. A real inspiration you are.
Skylar: another one for your late night viewing pleasure. This one is a little longer, but so worth to watch to the end. When it was over I yawned and thought yeah, I can get on the eliptical…go for a walk…do a forward bend..at least my feeetsss are on the lovely earth!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC2eOl4f23Q
Superkid,
Yes, I had the same experience with my spath. She also had a sense that she was “different” and on occasion even made joking reference to her “personality disorder.” This is fascinating to me in retrospect, and I often wonder at what age she began to figure it out. My best guess is that it was somewhere between 14 and 22, but who knows? Still, the point I was making earlier is how utterly adept these people are at “mimicking”, and even using the language of spirituality and psychology to win new victims. I think that even the most astute “spathfinders” underestimate the bad guys’ ability in this regard.
Oxy, yes, it is a betrayal. But there is also a certain satisfaction in “pulling the mask off” of a clever manipulator and phoney – it shows that we are getting wiser! Of course, Sky might be correct that Peck isn’t quite a spath (he might well be, but in fairness, I don’t have enough information to make an absolute pronouncement); but to me the negative article has the ring of authenticity. The inteviewer is a bit nasty and pretentious, admittedly, but the portrait that shines through is unseemly enough that I’ve personally lost all respect for the man.
I would also add that I don’t hold such people to a HIGHER standard of morality: I would be more than satisfied with the NORMAL standard of ethics and common decency. And in my book people who lie and cheat on their wives (especially when they do it multiple times – and while on lecture tours dedicated to instructing the rest of us on how to live OUR lives!) fall far below even that modest watermark.
Adamsrib – How are you, young lady?! Great to hear from you! – though I’m sorry my post reminded you of your grandiloquent Irish lover (haha): It must be the influence of all those sentimental 19th century novels! Nevertheless, I hope all is well and that life is treating you kindly.
Oh, and another thing. I forgot to mention one caveat regarding Cleckley and “The Mask of Sanity”: in my opinion he shows a less than perfect understanding of the “high functioning” psychopath. In fact, the book is almost entirely concerned with the “low functioning” type (i.e. the guy who is arrested every other week, who makes a colossal nuissance of himself when drinking, is constantly defaulting on debts, etc.) As I said before, when analyzing these people, Cleckley is truly first rate. However, it seems to me that he had only a very nebulous sense that there might exist something like the “high functioning” sociopath. (I think a similar tendency is evident in Cleckley’s disciple, Robert Hare.)
Still, my own experience has shown me that high functioning sociopaths are quite real. I won’t belabor the point about Peck, except to say that even if he isn’t a socio., nevertheless, it’s a good case study; because that is more or less what a high functioning sociopath looks like (generally speaking). There are infinite varieties of that theme, and you will find them especially in things like the medical profession. The point being that Hare and Cleckley seem to have a bit of a bias that, over the long haul all (or at least most) sociopaths end up as failures. In other words, they might get jobs as CEOs and prosper for a time, but eventually – in the manner of a Greek tragedy perhaps – they always end up making a mess of things. This is undoubtedly true for a large portion of the spath population. But in my opinion it misses out on a very real but well-hidden subtype – the high functioning spath. (And from what I’ve witnessed, the high functioners seldom get their just comeuppance.)
I can only go by my own experience, but I think the general estimate for socios is too low (usually put at 1 to 4 percent), precisely because these high functioning spaths invariably avoid detection (i.e., they never end up in the office of a Cleckley or a Hare – precisely the ones who generate the statistics.). So I would roughly add at least 3 to 4 percent more to the usual “spath population estimate”. (And with “socio-like traits” I’d go well into the teens!)
What I am constantly trying to figure out, however, is what variable or variables account for someone ending up as a low functioning as opposed to a high functioning spath? Part of it is undoubtedly “stupidity” – it’s funny to put it that way at any rate! But I think this distinction goes well beyond IQ. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see many very high IQ scores for the low functioners. So what is it then? Concern with appearances? But why is one type concerned with appearances and the other isn’t? Really, there is a mystery here and I’ll be darned if I can figure it out! Any thoughts?
Interesting question… I would say my P was very intelligent. When he was living with me in my country for 3 months, he first saw DVDs with English sound and Spanish subtitles. By the second month he only watched them in English. By the third month he watched with Dutch subtitles, and paused the movie to ask whether that English word or saying meant that in Dutch. He picked up the language rather quickly. And it’s a hard language. And he was able to obvserve and note so many details in people around us, it was uncanny. For a long while I thought he may have had ADHD, because it was hard for him to stay attentive at something for a long time, and yet one person needed to pass by in a certain way and he would mimic their rhythm of their steps. One of the first things I remarked about him was that he would ask me a question, and when I would answer, he would be looking around, seemingly paying no attention at all. And yet when I would reference to it much later, he was able to respond verbally that proved he had heard what I had said. I even warned my parents of this “inattentive” seeming habbit of his, and not to take it personal. It also explained his lack of endurance and control and need for a very lively social life.
But of course ADHD does not explain the pathological lying, the narcism, the poor-me ploy, the lack of empathy and affection as it turned out to be.
He was certainly bright, but he had very low control, and his lies are so stupid, that once you ask around and do a little bit of research you catch them all. The only thing that saves him is that he can be so amiable to people and lively, including when drunk and on coke, and he has such brashness of staying around the people as a “friend” right after he robbed them but a minute before, that people end up thinking “nah, couldn’t have been him.”
Despite all this, I would say he is a “lower functioning” P, because of his inability to hide his control issue on his own behaviour. His goals are so lowly inspired, that he does not even have the incentive to acquire a more believable status than the one he acquires through the women he gets engaged too. He couldn’t scam a local (woman or man) in his town even if he wants too, because they know him too well. Lucky for him, his hometown is a feeding ground of surfer tourists, young people who are happy to get to know a “spontaneous, friendly” local who speaks English, and are the easiest targets to prey on. When it served his purpose though, he was able to exert control. Towards my parents for example, and even myself when in Belgium. I think he may have realized he was too dependent on me and my parents to risk messing it up too much. And while my city has parties and bars, people tend to be reserved and less in need of someone else showing them the good spots.
Perhaps the difference between a “high functioning” and a “low functioning” would be the P’s aspirations and inspiration. If they aim higher, they will exert more control, and the mask is less likely to slip.
That’s just my opinion of course. Maybe someone else has other ideas?
Ox just about finished reading Viktor Frankl. Very good read. It’s one of those gems that needs to be read several times to get the full impact.
Something you said, one of your famous analogies about relationships (with spaths) being like concentration camps in themselves. So very profound!!
Was reading Darwinsmom’s posts on simple acts of taking care of our bodies, showers that are pleasurable and cleaning up our living space, fixing a simple meal for ourselves. Small acts of kindness we show to ourselves.
This also made me think of Corrie Ten Boom’s book and film “The Hiding Place”. I too remember the story (back in the day before the Evangelical movement went mutant). Corrie talked about how upon her release (which was a miracle!) she relished her first cup of coffee and a long luxurious hot bath. She knew what Darwinsmom is saying. Thanks Darwinsmom!! You are a VERY WISE LADY!!
I am in recovery not just from one spath but two and I am a mess!! BUT I am doing what Darwinsmom is prescribing. Simple pleasures taking care of ME. Loving ME and staying close to my Divine source. And of course NO CONTACT NO MATTER HOW TEMPTING IT IS!!
LL, I recently dealt with the same scenario-my ex trying to get back with me while he has a GF. I agree with everyone here. DO NOT DO IT. Mine too likes to have two “sweeties” as he calls them going at once. I took myself off that “roller coaster ride from hell” (as another very wise poster here said to me once-don’t remember who but that image sure stayed with me). It’s all part of the game, a very sick game and guess what? We DON”T have to play!!
Take Darwinsmom’s advice-she has the right idea. Take care and love and focus on YOU. He wants your focus on him. Remember, SOME TURDS YOU HAVE TO FLUSH TWICE!!!
Adamsrib,
QUOTE: Remember, SOME TURDS YOU HAVE TO FLUSH TWICE!!!
LOL ROTFLMAO GREAT!!!!!!
Yes, Adam, I just ordered a couple of weeks ago the “Hiding place” and re read it…..hadn’t read it in years but wanted to reread it. I loved it and like Frankl’s book will re-read again before long.
The part of Frankl’s book that was so profound for me was I was feeling really bad that I was in such deep pain and my Trauma was NOTHING AS SEVERE AS HIS….and I felt bad for being so traumatized by my stuff compared to his…felt like I didn’t deserve to be so pained from something so much LESS than his trauma and pain…then I read the passage where he compares PAIN TO A GAS…a small amount of gas, put into an empty container will EXPAND to fill the container 100%, and a large amount of gas will also fill that same container 100% by compressing—and he says that pain is like that. So the AMOUNT of trauma has nothing to do with the fact that the PAIN IS TOTAL.
It FILLS US COMPLETELY so we have no reason to feel guilty or bad because someone else had it “worse” than we do, or on the other hand we can’t look down on someone else who didn’t have as much trauma as we did and say “well, they don’t deserve as much pity as I have because their pain isn’t as much.”
Each of us interpret pain individually and it is ALWAYS TOTAL.
From there, I started to heal…to validate that my pain was TOTAL and that my pain was REAL and I wasn’t some kind of a wuss for feeling so much pain.
Frankl’s talking about how the experience behaves differently in different people though is also a good example…because some people become angry and bitter and want to go out and hurt others because they were hurt. He also touches on the fact that people don’t understand what you have been through.
Just over all a great book, with many wonderful sources of inspiration. Glad you enjoyed it. I re read my copy every now and then and always find something I missed the first read throughs. The same with The Hiding place.
Mondays always hurt for me, as it was a day of reconnection for me and my former spath.
He’s long gone now, a month, 100% back with his ex.
I’m in pain.
Skylar, I know the book just says accept it, observe it, notice it, and that’s what I’m doing. I just can’t believe how much it hurts. I loved the man, he never loved me back.
Adams,
Ya know, this is what his card said,
E card content: Hope your Mother’s Day is as special as you are” (GAG)
His written content from an OLD email of his and not his current one, ”
“Hi K, I hope you’re doing well and that you are having a happy mother’s day. J.
WTF? The lack of use of MY FIRST NAME AND HIS IS REALLY AMAZING SHIAT!
LL