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.
I have a hard time knowing if the h-spath is a mild or a moderate sociopath. He is charming (although not with me since I have a hard time being civil toward him), irresponsible with money, a liar, a thief, etc. I haven’t been aware of him cheating on me, but heck that could have happened, I just don’t know (nor do I care). When things were uncomfortable and/or he wanted to go play, he would have disappearing acts, leaving for a day or more (usually telling me where he was at, but finding out some of his stories were b.s.). One time he told me he was going to attend a wrestling association meeting in Jacksonville, FL – I learned via the owner of a local gas station who had talked to my h-spath that he was going to attend the Daytona 500 (which happened to be held at the same time period). The h-spath insisted that he was at the wrestling association meeting – later on, I saw a credit card bill clearly showing purchases that were made at the Daytona 500 – the h-spath told me that his friend, M., was down there too (the friend was at the Daytona 500, NOT the h-spath), letting him borrow his credit card. Absolute rubbish.
“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?””
THAT’S IT…GOOD LORD…THAT’s IT!!!!
Finally I have read the entire experience in a single paragraph. You could not put a realtionship with a psychopath in to a more clear and suscinct statement.
This should really be the motto.
“OxDrover says: Liane, I think this one article is THE MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLE ON LOVE FRAUD OR ANY OTHER SITE ON THE INTERNET about this subject.”
HEAR HEAR.
There is something eery about the term ‘mild sociopath’ it actually sounds more menacing, threatening than a full on one…..
If some mildly-disturbed psychopaths can love, then what is the deal with all of the seduction and “love-bombing” in the early stages of many of these dysfunctional relationships?
Why not just let the relationship progress naturally, if it is possible for some of these psychopaths to love, or at least be in a loving state?
I still believe POWER is at the root of everything a psychopath does, even the mildly disturbed ones.
At least that has been my experience.
LOVE is at the core of an empath, and POWER/WINNING is at the core of a psychopath.
I really think that’s what it boils down to at the end of the day.
I believe to truly love someone or something, you have to be able to leave yourself VULNERABLE.
Psychopaths, including the mildly psychopathic, can not do this.
In fact, I don’t think they even understand the concept of vulnerability.
One thing I’ve noticed about the psychopathic individuals I’ve been involved with is that they never leave themselves vulnerable.
They are always in the driver’s seat…or so they think.
A person who can truly love puts the other person’s happiness equal to or ABOVE their own!!
A psychopath will NEVER do this, even if they are only mildly disturbed.
They always have an agenda, even though it may be hard to see at the time.
They are great at seducing us into thinking they can love, though.
That’s how many of us got hooked into these toxic relationships to begin with, right?
I read a great quote a while ago (can’t remember where) that read, “A sociopath will put you above others, but he will never put you above himself.”
So true.
Everytime I asked my ex to do something that would leave him vulnerable or not in the driver’s seat within our relationship, he became resentful and nasty towards me.
And I was not asking for much, either….which really confused me at the time.
That’s why it’s impossible to have an authentic, loving relationship with these psychopathic types.
Their desire for power/control over-rides everything…..even LOVE.
No kidding, Rosa. I think they experience OUR love as an attempt to control them and it brings out rage.
neveragain -ouuuu, THAT’S an interesting thought! if their fake love is all about power and control, of course they would project that, exactly as we project their being empathetic. Good one!
“Love” is one word for meaning a THOUSAND things. I loved my dog. I love my kids. I love ice cream (look at my arse and you’ll know that’s true!) so each of us interprets the word “love” in different ways and with different meanings. I think Ps have a bit of trouble interpreting that word, even more than the rest of us.
There are a million different variations and depths of “love”—sure, the more we love a person, the more vulnerable we are to hurt coming from a betrayal or loss of that person or the relationship we have with them.
People are dying all over the world this minute and in my community, but because I either don’t know these people or have no special love for them, I am not badly grieved for their deaths on a personal level. When my husband died, that was a horse of a different color. MY WORLD CRASHED WITH THAT PLANE THAT DAY. I LOST THE MAN I LOVED. I grieved. I hurt. I was devastated.
A couple of weeks ago, I lost my precious Border Collie, Boss Dog. I was DEVASTATED. I cried and I grieved, and I still grieve. I feel more grief over the loss of my dog that I LOVED than I feel when I read the obit of a neighbor that I hardly knew.
Would I have sacrificed my life for that dog if he had been in the road and a car was coming, would I have thrown my body in front of him to die instead of him dying. I can say for sure that I would NOT have done so. He is, after all, no matter how much I loved him, a DOG. If it had been my young child in the road, you bet your life, I would have sacrificed myself to save the child if I could have. It is a CHILD. If it had been YOUR child in the road, a child I didn’t even know, I probably would also have done my best to save that child even if it meant risking my own life.
Did that mean I “loved” your child without even knowing him? In a way, I think, YES. Because “love” is an ACTION as well as a “gushy feeling.” Jesus said to “Love your neighbor as yourself” which means I think to ACT KINDLY toward your neighbor. You’re not going to have a “gushy feeling” toward everyone that is your “neighbor” and you might even have an active dislike, but ACT KINDLY toward them anyway.
Psychopaths (or any of the cluster Bs) don’t as a policy ACT LOVINGLY to others, act kindly, but instead they act in a way that will benefit them the most.
Tiger Woods might have been “really nice” to his wife at home, but he was not ACTING LOVINGLY to her when he was sporting around with all his GFs and then come home and make “love” to her. Did he “love her”? Probably “sort of” but the kind of “love” we want from a man? NOT ON YOUR LIFE. He was not consistent with his “loving actions.” He was a liar and a cheat. THAT is not LOVE. He might have even had some “gushy feelings for” her, but still —-is that LOVE? Not by MY definition.
A RELATIONSHIP with a man, for me, must comprise a love that is consistent and honest, putting me– before all others— as the marriage vows say. So even if a person was only a “little” psychopathic I don’t want a relationshit with them.
Tiger Woods absolutely DEVASTATED his wife…He willfully and knowingly lied to her and totally BETRAYED her in a way that is SHOCKING and HUMILIATING…He now acts like he has remorse..okay ..well I’m watching…I would not put it past the man to FAKE emotional..to FAKE remorse because that’s what the million dollar therapist told him to do if he wants his wife back…his golf game isnt as good as it used to be…maybe he has feelings…maybe it’s an act …would YOU ever trust him again??
Oxy I hear you and how much you loved Boss dog and that you are feeling huge grief around his death….that DOG was loyal, loving, a hard honest worker, he loved life, ran to help others..if a DOG can demonstrate these admirable qualities…then whats the problem with human beings???
The conclusion is a border collie called Boss had more integrity and warm heartedness than Tiger Woods….end of.
Neveragain ( they experience our love as an attempt to control them and it brings out rage ) yep your so right, specially when we ask them where they have been for the past few days, that really makes em ragey..