Back in May and June, the media blitz for The Psychopath Test, by Jon Ronson, was in full swing. I finally got around to reading the book.
Ronson is a British journalist who apparently specializes in writing about nut cases. He wrote The Men Who Stare at Goats, which was made into a movie starring George Clooney and Jeff Bridges. He has a BBC radio show that, according to the New York Times book review, is considered comedy. But he’s famous, and people like him. I guess I wish that he’d used his clout and notoriety to do some good with this book.
Its full title is The Psychopath Test—A journey through the madness industry. The title is accurate. The book is essentially a history of how the disorder was identified and how the study and treatment of psychopathy evolved, with the stories of a few psychopaths included, most of them killers.
Ronson makes the most important point of the book almost in passing. He describes several meeting with Bob Hare, the respected psychopathy researcher who created “the psychopath test” that gives the book its title (the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, or PCL-R). Ronson includes a scene in which he is in the U.K., driving Hare to the airport.
Hare says that he wishes he hadn’t spent all his time studying psychopaths in prison—he should have also studied them at the stock exchanges. (I’ve heard Hare make similar statements.) Ronson writes:
“But surely stock-market psychopaths can’t be as bad as serial-killer psychopaths,” I said.
“Serial killers ruin families.” Bob shrugged. “Corporate and political and religious psychopaths ruin economies. They ruin societies.”
This—Bob was saying—was the straightforward solution to the greatest mystery of all: Why is the world so unfair? Why all that savage economic injustice, those brutal wars, the everyday corporate cruelty? The answer: psychopaths ”¦ We aren’t all good people just trying to do good. Some of us are psychopaths. And psychopaths are to blame for this brutal, misshapen society. They’re the jagged rocks thrown into the still pond.
I thoroughly believe that psychopaths are responsible for most of the human-caused pain in society. Ronson actually came out and said it. But unfortunately, he didn’t continue to make the case. After the statement on page 112 of the book, he never returned to the thought.
One other part of the book was enlightening. Ronson spends a few pages discussing the evolution of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), now in its fourth edition, with the fifth edition underway. On page 239, he explains why the mental health field has not agreed on what to call this disorder—psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder, whatever. He writes what he learned from Robert Spitzer, a psychiatrist who became editor of the third edition of the DSM:
I’d always wondered why there had been no mention of psychopaths in the DSM. It turned out, Spitzer told me, that there had indeed been a backstage schism—between Bob Hare and a sociologist named Lee Robins. She believed clinicians couldn’t reliably measure personality traits like empathy. She proposed dropping them from the DSM checklist and going only for overt symptoms. Bob vehemently disagreed, but the DSM committee sided with Lee Robins, and Psychopathy was abandoned for Antisocial Personality Disorder.
So there it is—the beginning of the dispute about naming the disorder and how to diagnose it, which has only kept the general public confused.
You might be entertained by this book—Ronson’s writing style is engaging, and the historical background is interesting. But if you’ve had a close encounter with your very own psychopath, you aren’t going to learn anything to help in your recovery.
Honestly, I am with dancing on this. I do not think my x-spath took joy from what he did to me. Rather, being without empathy, he could not understand the suffering he caused.
Actually, they do take joy from what they do to others. Just like you or I might get pleasure from eating a slice of pie or strawberry cake. They are aware they are causing suffering- and they enjoy twisting the knife in further because they’re empty and sick.
Edit : I think it’s more apt to refer to the excerpt I posted after this. To sociopaths, “power=pleasure”.
I found an excerpt on LF that helps to illuminate this (Source):
Wow, yeah, that was totally mine…totally.
Sarah I think we are saying the same thing, actually. Just viewing it from a different angle. Peace.
Just because a person has inherited a trait/feature, does NOT mean it came directly from his/her parents. Sometimes, traits skip generations, and sometimes an inherited trait, can just come “out of the blue”, e.g., A massively TALL person can come from a normal sized family.
The Minnesota Twins Study is probably the most scientific, comprehensive,
unbiased and up-to-date study of inherited vs. acquired characteristics, and is well worth looking into.
Sarah I agree with you on that 100% about inherited traits…they come through the parents but not all genotypes are phenotypes and vice versa…my P son is the grandson of two psychopaths, but neither of his parents are psychopaths, but we passed on the genes, that along with some unknown environmental aspect, caused him to start showing strong P-traits about puberty. My own P-sperm donor is a highly violent psychopath (or was before his death) and his mother was a high functioning person who was high in psychopathic and manipulative traits, though she was a physician and functioned in the medical field.
My son’s father’s father was a highly functioning military psychopath who was controlling to the max. His mother was a doormat who endured the abuse as a martyr her entire life.
On my egg donor’s side of the family, her M-GF was a drunken abusing man, who passed on the alcoholism to his grandson, my egg donor’s brother, but not the other grandchildren. My other biological son is not a psychopath, but neither the kind of man I wish he was, but he is not a thief or law breaker, and he works for a living and is a good employee. I don’t like him or trust him to tell me the truth, but I’m not afraid of him either.
Even with identical twins raised apart, only about 80% of them are BOTH psychopaths if one is, but thougt DNA may be identical, environment is never 100% identical, even in the womb it can be more or less favorable to one child.
I’ve bred and raised several species of animals as well as studied biology my entire life, and I’ve seen many “mental” and “personality” traits even in animals that “run in families” and I culled my herd of cattle very strictly on disposition, with aggressive ones being severely weeded out—and yet, every once in a while I’d have one wild as a deer born to parents who were both docile creatures, though most offspring resembled their parents in both looks and disposition. Having had the same line of cattle for 20+ years (15 or more generations) I have been able to follow the characteristics of the different family lines.
Sarah,
there is a book called “why is it always about you?” It explains the roots of narcissism as being emotionally arrested development. It is a survival mechanism to be able to manipulate your parents into feeding you and changing your diaper. It is natural and normal. The problem occurs when this survival mechanism becomes the only one.
Interestingly, in 2009, when all the evil happened, I read that book and I SAW it clearly. everything made sense. But to put the cherry on top, I also happened upon this article. It blew my mind. http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Woman-Duped-by-Dirty-Diaper-Faker-52875327.html
A personality disorder is by definition
Personality disorder: A disorder characterized by the chronic use of mechanisms of coping in an inappropriate, stereotyped, and maladaptive manner.
If you study child psychology, you will find that babies perceive the world as revolving around them. They do not perceive boundaries and everyone they see is considered an extension of themselves. This is natural.
God or Nature made babies cute just so that would work for them. I watched a film of a leopard killing a baboon. She realized after, that the baboon was nursing a baby. She ate the mom baboon but tried to nurture the baby. She tried to keep it warm at night but it died. Then she left it. Cuteness in childhood isn’t a coincidence, it’s a survival mechanism.
“Does he or she seem charming and affable while the center of attention? “
Jeez another bingo moment. My x-spath, when out with his friends, sat in the middle…
BBE:
Mine, too!