This week we are continuing to discuss The Psychopathic Mind by J. Reid Meloy, Ph.D. The author is diplomate in forensic psychology, former Chief of the Forensic Mental Health Division for San Diego County and Past President of the American Academy of Forensic Psychology. As I said last week, my initial reaction to the book was rather negative because I believe this author has made some assertions that have become the basis for inaccurate folklore that has spread over the internet (to be discussed in the coming weeks). But Dr. Meloy made up for all that by setting the record straight on a very important issue—the spectrum of psychopathy.
The idea that psychopathy is a spectrum and that “sociopaths/psychopaths” vary in severity means that there is no real point at which “normal” stops and “sociopath/psychopath” starts. Any decision about where to draw this line (after gathering information on a large group of people) is in a sense arbitrary.
The idea that “psychopathic disturbance” (as Dr. Meloy calls it) is a spectrum can be very confusing. Many people feel a sense of relief when they finally figure out that the person who has harmed them is “a sociopath.” By “sociopath” they mean categorically different from everyone else, a different type of human. Now I am saying there is really no category, just an extreme on a continuum.
I want to point out that we talk about the extremes of the continuum of traits as if they are categories all the time. Think about the adjectives tall, genius, beautiful, athletic etc. and you will realize that although these concepts exist in theory, it can be difficult to correctly place individuals into any of these categories on a strictly yes/no basis. The only time it is easy is when you are dealing with the extreme cases.
It is however; very important to understand how the interaction between spectra and categories affects us. For example, if you are used to being with players in the NBA, most everyone outside of the NBA will seem “short” and the perception of “tall” will also be skewed. To the NBA, 6’2″ is short!
This problem of perception while in the midst of an extreme population has created a problem for forensic psychology. When Dr. Hare first developed the psychopathy checklist, it was thought to differentiate criminals who are “psychopaths” from other criminals who are “not psychopaths.” Well, I maintain that this is exactly the same as calling a 6’2″ NBA player “short.”
I am also concerned with how our perception of psychopathy changes when we see it in the community. When we are in the community a person who has “a little” psychopathy stands out as a 6’2″ person would in a crowd. Many pose the question, “Is my _______ a jerk or a psychopath?” When we understand psychopathy as a spectrum we see that such distinctions are not very useful. It is more useful to ask “How much psychopathic disturbance does my ________ have?”
I have looked extensively in the scientific literature for the exact Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) scores that might indicate mild, moderate and severe psychopathic disturbance. If you are following what I am saying you will immediately realize that these definitions are important in determining just how many “psychopaths” there are. When I searched the literature several years ago, I reported on this blog that about 10% of the population has significant psychopathy. That 10% figure corresponds to a cut-off score of about 12 on the PCL-R.
In The Psychopathic Mind, p. 318 Dr. Meloy says the following:
Mild psychopathic disturbance 10-19
Moderate psychopathic disturbance 20-29
Severe psychopathic disturbance 30-40
This is more or less what I also determined given my clinical experience and reading of the literature. You might ask why I harp on this so much and why am I harping on it again? The reason I bring this all up is to help those of you who are stuck in a relationship with someone who has “mild psychopathic disturbance.” Steve Becker also talked about the problem of “mild psychopathy” this week When he’s just a bad dude, though he did not call it that.
In what I am about to say I depart from Meloy and give you my own opinion.
The nature of “Mild Psychopathy”
Psychopathic disturbance as Meloy also describes it is a disorder of motives. Since we all have these motives psychopathy is a spectrum. Psychopathy is an imbalance between love and power motives along with degrees of poor impulse control.
A person who is severely affected with psychopathy has no love motives at all. If we could perfectly measure the love motive, we could indeed form a category of those who have NO capacity for love. That category probably also includes some individuals with “moderate disturbance” and all with “severe disturbance.”
Individuals with mild psychopathy have some ability to love. Because they can love a little, what they do is particularly harmful to “loved ones.” They switch back and forth, in and out of “loving” states. When they are in a loving state, they truly have no emotional or other memory of their experiences outside of that state. Similarly when they are in the “power mode” they have no access to the memories of the love mode. It’s as if they have a split personality. Their poor partner is left asking, “Will the real ________ please stand up?”
The dilemma for partners and family members, is that both states are real. Those involved with the “mildly psychopathic” have to make a tough decision. They have to decide whether or not to let go of a person who they have shared real intimacy with. That is much harder than letting go of someone with severe psychopathic disturbance where the entire relationship was a sham.
Oxy and Bullet:
Steve Becker wrote, “When Sociopaths follow the rules” and here is an exerpt. He says:
And so there is a certain irony here. Yes, the sociopath, in the greater scheme of things, is a rule-breaker, a transgressor with a seriously defective conscience. And yet, at least in many cases, in the smaller scheme of things, he is a good enough rule follower to abet the construction of the very mask behind which he unconscionably violates, or surely will unconscionably violate, his victim(s).
I don’t think it’s a matter of a sociopath saying, “hey this sociopath thing isn’t working for me or anyone else. I think I’m going to live my life with integrity.”
Also, Dr. Steve wrote an article about the pathological lying of the sociopath using even TRUTH to manipulate because it makes them seem more credible. Makes sense. Mine was an egregious liar and will tell you just enough truth. Does this make him a nicer person? Hell no!
Hopeful6596
hopeful6596,
Yes, the h-spath will mix truth in with his lying, creating just another b.s. story – half truths, half lies.
I think I’m unclear as to what Dr. Leedom is saying. If she is saying that they can indefinitely change their behavior, doesn’t this preclude them from being a sociopath? I’m confused, but then again, sometimes I need everything qualified. I also think that is part of the aftermath of spathisodes with a spath. Such an incredible mind f***. You don’t know what’s real and what isn’t.
No she isn’t saying they can “change” or even “want to” change, but that they can manipulate anything, I THINK.
Yea, they do mix the truth with lies. Just like RAT POISON is 98% PURE CORN MEAL, AND 2% POISON, it will STILL KILL you though it is MOSTLY GOOD food. LOL
Oxy,
OOOH, great analogies, Oxy OX!
smoke and mirrors….that is life with spath!
My x-spath’s is independent, friendly, chilled, and reserved — all his words. In person he comes across as responsible, well-mannered and law abiding, even waiting at corners for lights to change before crossing.
Does he conciously choose this mask or is it part nature, part nirture? I think a little of all.
It certainly suits him well, allowing him to use an innocent, responsible exterior to mask one of the darkest sexual beings I have ever met.
As chinagirl said “Smoke and mirrors”—-I think they try to keep up “appearances” and to play a role, consciously or unconsciously, but it is all about manipulating others to do their bidding.
I don’t think they even eat an ice cream cone just for pleasure, I think they do everything for the effect it has, or the image it presents. It isn’t about what is REAL it is about what they can appear to be. To them, I think, if they can get others to believe it, then it becomes “reality” as far as they are concerned.
Sick? Yea! Reality may suck at times, but it is at least REAL! If that makes any sense!~well maybe not, but it’s late and I need to go to bed!G’nite
Regarding the part truths they tell: reading Dr. Hare’s book and in repeated interviews with experienced S/P’s (criminals) they consistently report mixing in the truth as a strategy to make people believe what they say.
Hopefully, understanding this piece of the puzzle we can be on the look out for this type of behavior to avoid this trap in the future. I say, if you see this behavior once, don’t question, just note the inconsistency and the doubt in your gut. If you see this behavior twice, don’t walk run!
Oxy,
Yes there are some who seem to do everything for an effect like they are fiddler on the roof while the rest of the world are plain hobos. What I find interesting about psychology, and the study of psychopathy is that who defines what normal is? They say that there is a fine line between genius and insanity, and in that they are correct. A shifting spectrum is the mind of man. Even normal people can have thoughts and actions that are on the crazy side while mad people can have their moments of love and clarity. I guess that is when you have to look at the big picture of the person, and their patterns of behavior. A complicated subject. It is a crazy world in which we live. Good thing there is an established rule book to go on for many of us, but even that is very muddy and hazy at points.