A couple of months ago I was contacted by Caitlin Dickson, a reporter for the Daily Beast blog (the online presence of Newsweek magazine). She was writing an article about the book Confessions of a Sociopath, by M.E. Thomas. She asked me what I thought of the book. I explained that I refused to buy it so I hadn’t read it, although I did read Thomas’ article in Psychology Today (which was online). Here’s my previous post about the book:
Confessions of a Sociopath: a book I don’t want to buy or read
I talked to Dickson about the millions of sociopaths who live among us, and how destructive they are. I explained Lovefraud’s work in helping people recognize, avoid or escape them. I recommended that she call Dr. Liane Leedom for an authoritative explanation of this complex personality disorder.
Dickson was not interested in my information, and included none of it in the story she wrote. She didn’t bother calling Dr. Leedom. Instead, this cub reporter (graduated from journalism school in 2010) wrote an article that struck me as being sympathetic to sociopaths. Read:
How to spot a sociopath (Hint: It could be you), on thedailybeast.com.
Point by point critique
Here are some points of the article, along with my comments
“Sociopathy is not simply a disorder of serial killers but one that exists on a spectrum, plaguing to varying degrees a large portion of successful, apparently well-adjusted people.”
Yes, sociopathy is not just for serial killers and it does exist on a spectrum. But “a large portion of successful, apparently well-adjusted people” are not sociopaths. Experts estimate that sociopaths make up 1% to 4% of the population—that doesn’t qualify as a “large portion.”
Of this small slice, many sociopaths are obvious criminals and substance abusers, and many more can’t seem to hold their lives together. Still, there probably are millions of sociopaths who do appear well-adjusted to everyone but their spouses. And the people who work most closely with them know that their success is built on bullying, intimidation and playing loose with the rules.
“Psychopathy, more or less, is the clinical term for sociopathy, and the two are often used interchangeably.”
Psychopathy is not a clinical term; it is the term that researchers use. Clinicians call it “antisocial personality disorder.”
“A September 2012 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ranked U.S. presidents in order of their possession of a psychopathic trait called ‘fearless dominance.'”
“Fearless dominance” is not universally accepted as a trait of psychopathy. However, I can understand how Dickson could have been influenced by the idea, because several scientific papers have been published about the concept. In fact, it was the subject of a heated debate at the Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy conference that I attended in June.
One side argued that fearless dominance is part of psychopathy and is linked to success. The other side argued that fearless dominance is not a valid concept and reminded the group that there is nothing good about the psychopathic personality disorder. In my opinion, the researcher speaking against fearless dominance had a much stronger argument and won the debate hands down.
“In 1980, criminal psychologist Robert Hare developed the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R).”
The PCL-R was released in 1991.
“Thomas isn’t an actual killer—and she and other researchers emphasize that most sociopaths aren’t killers either. Instead, Thomas says her favorite preferred sociopathic pastime is ‘ruining people.’”
Dickson never says or implies that there’s anything wrong with “ruining people.” In fact, the article does not even hint at the true destruction that sociopaths cause.
“(John Edens, a psychology professor at Texas A&M) argues that ‘saying someone is a psychopath or not is drawing a bit of an arbitrary line in the sand,’ suggesting that all people likely possess a certain amount of sociopathic traits, some just more pronounced than others.”
This is an incredible oversimplification of two distinct concepts. First of all, Edens is right. Psychopathy syndrome a group of related traits. It is also a continuum individuals can have each of the traits to a different degree. The point at which someone qualifies to be “a psychopath” usually the cut score of 30 out of 40 on the PCL-R is somewhat arbitrary.
Secondly, although non-disordered people may have sociopathic traits, they score exceptionally low perhaps under 5 on the PCL-R. The behavior of people who score 5 or less is nothing like the exploitative behavior of those who score over 30.
“There’s virtually no known treatment for ruthless, manipulative, law-abiding citizens who lack empathy. And, really, should there be? These are traits that are often attributed to success.”
Here’s where Caitlin Dickson shows how clueless she really is. Let me be blunt: Sociopaths are evil. Sociopaths view the world as predators and prey they are the predators, and everyone else is prey. Even those who appear to be successful leave a wake of destruction: ruined lives, abused children, financial wrongdoing and corporate collapse. Sociopaths are not ruthless and manipulative in business only that’s also how they treat their spouses and kids. The human toll for this “success” is unbelievably steep, so it is a crying shame that there is no treatment for this disorder.
“In lieu of therapy, Thomas has discovered some alternatives to treatment. For one, she credits Mormonism, specifically its doctrine that anyone can change and its required social engagements, with keeping her on track.”
Sociopaths are not religious. They join churches to find easy prey. I wonder how many people Thomas targeted at the church? And if Thomas considers herself to be on track while ruining people for fun, what would she be like while “off track”?
“Sociopaths are mostly ‘problematic in terms of the stress they cause other people.’”
Stress? Stress is being late for work. Sociopaths are so abusive that many of their targets —including 21% of romantic partners consider suicide. Some, tragically, go through with it, a phenomenon I’ve heard called “murder by suicide.”
“Said Lauren (friend of M.E. Thomas), ‘Her ultimate goal is to be out as a sociopath, accepted by society and not vilified.’”
M.E. Thomas wants to be accepted and not vilified, even though her favorite pastime is ruining people?
Keep in mind that sociopaths are not delusional they always know exactly what they are doing. So when they engage in exploitative behavior, it is by their own choice. They can refrain from exploiting people. They do it all the time in the beginning of relationships, romantic or otherwise. They’re fun, helpful, caring, attentive until the person is hooked. Then the knives come out.
Sociopaths are vilified for their behavior, which they freely choose. Society should do a better job of not accepting them, and holding them accountable for their actions.
“With regard to whether Thomas could legally be fired for coming clean, employment attorney Jessica Kastin explained that Thomas would probably have a very hard time making the case that she was being discriminated against because of her disorder.”
Sociopaths make lousy employees. They lie, cheat, back stab, steal from the company, swindle customers and create a hostile working environment. Is Dickson really suggesting that employers should not be allowed to get rid of them?
Skipping over the abuse
What really bothered me about this article is how the reporter failed to acknowledge, in fact, minimized, the harm sociopaths inflict on others. Sociopaths abuse people physically, emotionally, psychologically, sexually and/or financially. They are social predators. One researcher estimates that national cost of psychopathy is $460 billion per year. Hello? I’d say that’s a problem.
So why would Dickson write an article that was essentially sympathetic to M.E. Thomas and other sociopaths? I’d guess that Dickson is one of those lucky people who never had a run-in with a sociopath (so far). She may still believe that all people are basically good, and all people just want to be loved. She doesn’t understand that there are people in the world who are intrinsically abusive.
I was like that when I was a young journalist. Then I married a sociopath.
It also seems to me that when Dickson interviewed Thomas, the sociopath presented herself as a woman who was simply misunderstood, and was doing her best to cope with her disorder. Dickson didn’t understand how good sociopaths are at playing the victim, so she bought the story.
“I am naturally manipulative,” Thomas told Dickson. Guess what. Dickson was manipulated.
Uninformed editors
I can understand this young reporter not fully grasping the topic she was dealing with as I said, I’ve been there. I remember some of the magazine articles I wrote when I was her age, and I now grimace at how naive they were. So my question is, where were her editors?
The Daily Beast is a sophisticated publication, edited by Tina Brown former editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker. It claims to be dedicated to “breaking news and sharp commentary.”
So either the Daily Beast editors don’t understand this personality disorder which is likely, because most people in the media, like the general population, don’t get it. Or, the Daily Beast is so intrigued by “sharp commentary” that they’re willing to say that sociopaths aren’t all that bad.
What’s scary is that the Daily Beast gets 18 million unique online visitors a month. So millions of people may have read this article and come away with the impression that sociopaths are just misunderstood people who play manipulative games not that these people can ruin their lives.
This article is truly a disservice to all Daily Beast readers. But hey, at least it conveyed the point that sociopaths aren’t all serial killers.
I had a hard time keeping up with this. I would have liked to have read the complete article and then the comments afterward.
I would like Caitlin to work in my job for a couple of days, I work with people who have been affected by homicide. A large proportion of these cases are an escalation of domestic violence, usually a woman killed by her partner. I am also convinced that a large proportion of these people who abuse are sociopaths/psychopaths, they have no remorse, guilt or sense of responsibility and are always keen for some-one else to take the blame. If we are willing to accept that people without any conscience or empathy are ‘well adjusted’ I fear for humanity. I wonder how she would explain to the children, families, friends and the person no longer here that it is only they not the sociopath who suffers from ‘stress’
The very reason S’paths cause so much damage is because they are so skilled in their craft of conning people ( and themselves usually) about who they really are. Lacking ‘normal’ human emotions and self discipline they systematically destroy those closest to them whilst to those not so close they can appear charming and sensitive. They are good actors, unless you are able to read the signs and never believe they have done anything wrong. Whilst as a society we make excuses and dare not confront their dysfunction they will continue to wreak havoc on so many lives. I witness many children left without either parent and often having endured a lifetime of seeing this abuse every day, finally many of them seeing one of their parents kill the other. It is an insult to all those children and those who’ve lost their lives to believe that S’Paths are misunderstood.
A friend recently said to me that she would never accept being abused by anyone – I once said the same and am only happy that she has never had to test that idea. I believe we are all capable of being conned by some-one whose life work is to control and manipulate others, after all they’ve had years to hone their craft. They are usually exceptionally good at starting relationships because again they have had years of practice in charming and knowing what makes a person tick. One tell tale sign is how long they can maintain them…………..
You know, I think that unless someone experiences a sociopath, it’s just not possible to understand the insidiousness of their behavior and the ripple effect it has on those involved with them.
That said, I don’t believe that M. E. Thomas IS a sociopath. She might be a fame-hungry, money grubbing narcissist (which a lot of sociopaths are), but, after reading the article in Psychology Today and reading comments by those who worked with M. E. Thomas, I’m convinced that she is not a sociopath. She’s just too ‘self aware.’ Reminds me of Sam Vaknin in female form.
Rest assured, though, one day Caitlin Dickson will encounter a real sociopath and, let’s hope, writes about it.
Until then, I think I’m with Dr. Phil and don’t think she is anything but a narcissist with a vapid book to hawk.
When people who ought to be in possession of the facts get something wrong, it’s always useful to know why they got it wrong. Dr. Dale Archer, Dr. Seth Meyers, arguably Dr. Paul Ragan too, not to mention the abominable Jackson Katz: all of these got something important wrong. In each of these cases there’s at least a plausible explanation, often an obvious one, of why they “got it wrong.” I only regret that I haven’t had the time to write commentaries on each of those articles.
With Caitlin Dickson it’s not so much the facts she presented that need explaining, but her attitude toward those facts. While she does highlight the fact that sociopathy is not limited to “serial killers,” but exists on a spectrum, she also takes that idea a little too far by publicizing the view that “all people” may be somewhat sociopathic—thus blurring the distinction between people like Thomas and the rest of us. Why does Dickson seem to sympathize with a woman who freely admits that she takes great pleasure in “ruining” people? Why does she seem so dense about the threat that sociopaths pose? I’m as much in the dark about that as anyone else.
Still, that doesn’t mean I’m devoid of theories. I could think of several reasons why Dickson might have written this article the way she did. They don’t all have to be mutually exclusive either.
1. She might just be an airhead who hasn’t bothered to think through the implications of socioopathy. If she wasn’t interested in the information Dr. Leedom had to offer, maybe she doesn’t care to learn. (However, she doesn’t sound like an airhead.)
2. She might have written the article that way on purpose, intending it to stir up controversy. Reporters do that kind of thing because it sells newspapers (and their online equivalents).
3. She might have interviewed the Thomas woman herself and been taken in by her. Since Dickson herself has never been on the receiving end of Thomas’s malevolence, its full implications might have gone clean over her head.
4. She might just be a “bleeding heart” who “can’t help feeling sorry” for anyone at all, no matter how undeserving or even downright criminal. Mainstream journalism has had too many of those in recent decades; witness for instance the deplorably biased, not to say irresponsible, media reaction to the Zimmerman verdict, even in (gasp!) the UK Daily Mail. Aspects of Dickson’s article could easily be seen as evidence of the same mindset. It could explain her refusal to openly condemn Thomas (being “judgmental” is a cardinal sin rather than a moral duty), her attempt to make “all of society” seem guilty of sociopathy (“not so very different from Thomas”), and her treatment of Thomas as a member of just another “poor disadvantaged group” suffering from “discrimination.” (Whatever next—“pedophile liberation”?)
5. Far from being a “bleeding heart,” her real mindset could be very different. Now I cannot criticize Dickson simply for omitting to express any negative value judgments of Thomas. As far as that goes, it’s perfectly adequate to present the facts (“she fantasizes killing people for trivial reasons, she likes to toy with people’s emotions”) and leave readers to make up their own minds what they think of Thomas. However, I couldn’t help noticing that when Dickson did insert an opinion, it seemed to be a positive one!
Judging by this line, Dickson places more importance on “success” than she does on the effects of “ruthless, manipulative” behavior by people who “lack empathy.” She sounds as if she actually admires people like Thomas.
So perhaps Caitlin Dickson has marked sociopathic traits herself! That would certainly explain why she seemed so sympathetic to Thomas as a kindred spirit, and so unmoved by the fact that Thomas’s favorite pastime is “ruining people.” It would also offer an alternative explanation for Dickson’s attempt to minimize the difference between Thomas and ordinary people—including her assertion that “you might be a sociopath too!” This could all be simply projection, which also serves as the malefactor’s excuse that “everybody does it, so I’m no worse than anybody else!”
Being openminded, I have to admit there isn’t enough evidence to prove which of these explanations might be correct—or even another explanation that I haven’t thought of. Others may have suspicions of their own, however.
Dear Redwald,
I agree with your post. It is my observation that those who see nothing wrong with sociopathic behaviors, or think it’s not that big a deal, have that perspective because they are measuring the sociopath by their own choices of behavior. Me thinks Dickson doth protest too much (or in this case, barely at all).
thanks for this Donna – I sniggered at the phrase, ‘arbitrary line in the sand.’ Uh no, it isn’t freaking arbitrary at all – one one side is evil and on the other side not evil.
I am now 4 years out and the damage done is only really starting to show itself. my trust in others has been shattered. i have been dealing with the medical system for months now, and as one doctor after another contradicts the previous one i am looking sideways at them all – i feel like i am being gaslighted, and i feel paranoid. I haven’t felt this bad since jsj.
i feel like she ‘infected’ me – leaving me with some belief that there is some power in being a lying, horrible, manipulative person. Some of my family are narcs…and they are like this. it took years of illness and being battered psychologically by the spath and an n ex lover to get me to crack- but crack i have. i don’t how to get past this. i am reaching out for help, but i can’t seem to stay ahead of the cracking.
spaths are lying evil people. they ruin, they destroy, they are vile.
…most of us were once that naive. unfortunately, not many of us are now.
one/joy – so nice to “see” you. I’m thinking of you as you deal with the fallout. I think the reference to “cracking” is exactly right. After so much betrayal we have to crack – because that’s how we get the poison out of our systems.
I hope you find doctors who can give you straight answers.
hi redwald – the journalist’s writing seems like that of a young person trying to prove how cool they are. a little danger and all that. just dumbly young.
mind you, that doesn’t explain the lack of intervention by the editors.
This article makes me so sad. You put it so well, she was manipulated. The Sociopaths know exactly what they are doing and they are having fun, in fact live for it. It’s a sick sick deal. Did you happen to write the Editor? It is such a wreck less piece.
One-Joy-
I hear a desperate plea for help and I immediately want you to know that some of us have been there, lived through the pain and the gas-lighting, and have recovered from it. Hang onto all the positives you know of yourself. The rest is the shock and confusion of the betrayal you feel.
As you wrote, there is power in being a lying, manipulative person. That is why they do it. There is a wonderful axiom that may put things in perspective for you: “What you get provides you with a living, what you give provides you with a life.” The person who hurt you took all they could get from you. And they are all the poorer for not comprehending that the true richness of life comes from giving. Unfortunately, only morally developed folks can see life through that prism.
Rather than debate the terminology to use, I prefer to consider predators “psychopaths” simply because they lack affective empathy, have shallow emotions and no conscience. Whether they have sufficiently met the litmus test of a score of 30 on Dr. Hare’s scale is of little consequence to the person on the receiving side of their behavior. They are sufficiently high enough on the scale (spectrum) to be a predator. That’s really all that matters to the victim.
All folks behave in ways that may resemble a psychopath at times. We can all get angry, we can all lose our tempers, we can all lie, we can all do things we shouldn’t. It’s not like a psychopath breathes fire out of its nostrils as a distinguishing behavior. It does things that are within the bounds of human behavior. Every “normal” person is capable of using “adaptive” behavior when a situation calls for it. The difference is that a psychopath sets out to secure power or wield influence by manipulating tools, has no remorse for the bad things it does, no conscience that keeps lying as the exception, not the rule, and is only capable of showing love to fool someone, they really don’t feel love. Feeling love would require affective empathy. They just plain don’t have it.
Many of us part with the psychopath thinking they’ll go on and find true love…… wrong. They will go on and find their next victim. If the victim is wealthier or has something of greater value than what you could offer, they may be on their best behavior for a longer period of time, but that’s all.
The oxytocin (love glue) that morally intact folks produce internally from trusting acts, is the means by which a predator will reel you in. Once you’re reeled in, that love glue makes it hard for you to get away. That’s why they “lovebomb” you.
They will have drive and ambition from their elevated levels of testosterone, making them successful employees for many tasks, just don’t leave your wallet (or your heart) out around them. And if they appear law abiding, it’s simply fear of getting caught.
The reporter got bits and pieces on the profile of her subject, but she didn’t do sufficient research, or have sufficient understanding to put it all together.
As to your recovery, even therapists can be confused when it comes to your reactions to the behavior you were subjected to. My advice is to look for one who works with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and has helped people recover who were victims of psychopaths. If they say, come in and let’s explore why you THINK you’ve been victimized, move on and find another. Trust what your heart is telling you and find a therapist who trusts it as well.
Gas lighting means you are beginning to doubt your own sanity. Don’t. You are not nuts, you are terribly hurt. Find a therapist that gets it.
Jm
Hey Jim: You nailed it. These Predators delight in the game, they don’t hide it, well maybe until they ‘get you’. The moment they get you, everything changes.
After my wedding vows were spoken, things began to change. Quickly. Like that day.
It was very confusing.
He began saying things like:
‘give me enough time,I will break your spirit’
“You’re too sensitive”, “I didn’t say that.” “when you give in, it’s like I smell blood and go in for the kill” ..I could go on and on…but we have all heard it.
It’s like we were pretending to be a family but it was all a facade.
Getting the right Therapist is vital to regaining sanity. PTSD is exactly what you leave the relationship with. It’s a horrible existence.
Getting away takes unbelievable courage. And it might not be over when you leave.
To break the connection more quickly,
do not engage with the predator, whenever possible. There is no repairing the relationship.
Remember, they have no real feelings and only want to continue the game. They will not change regardless of any promises.
Be diligent in getting better, it is possible. What you experienced is real and true. 100%. Be kind and loving to yourself, let go of blaming yourself. It does get better.
Promise !!
One joy, so nice to see you here. I hope for you that you will find whatever it is you need to truly heal. It’s hard to trust when you just don’t trust and you’ve never been given a reason to, or your reasons have been shattered by evil. But I hope you can find one human being who is honest and straightforward with you. I’ve had so much betrayal in my life, too. It’s only recently that I’m starting to understand what a real friend is. Please don’t let that spath win.
one/joy,
It’s been a long time since we’ve “seen” each other. My perspective is that there is good and there is evil. We have been attacked (in my opinion) by those who practice evil. It takes stamina to keep fighting. My prayer is that God’s light surrounds you, protecting you from further harm. You are in my prayers. Peace.