After reading about the book, The Psychopath Test, Kayt Sukel, a Psychology Today blogger, wondered if psychopaths were, in fact, everywhere. So she asked Joshua Buckholtz, a neuroscientist. He said that psychopathy needed to have meaningful diagnostic boundaries. Buckholtz told her “a true psychopath is going to show high aggression, low empathy and high narcissism in all contexts.”
I wondered about that description. Here at Lovefraud, we know that psychopaths are capable of faking love and concern, quite convincingly, when it suits their purpose. How does the expert account for that?
Read Psychopaths everywhere? on PsychologyToday.com.
Link supplied by a Lovefraud reader.
Very interesting, Donna – thank you for the link!
OxD, I agree with your observation that lack of Empathy should be directly associated with this psych term. Empathy is the one thing that can be assessed by a professional in due time. Words, body language, and inferences all can point to a person’s level of empathy. My counseling therapist has never met the exspath, and has used the terms “Sociopath” as well as “Psychopath” in describing the exspath. She is using the terminology properly, but I am hesitant to use either term outside of her office simply because the facade of the exspath is so “normal” and (of all things!) “mild-mannered.” To use either term is to risk misinterpretation.
It may be time to alter the terminology, entirely – the connotations are just too pre-designed, anymore. When we talk about a “Sociopath” that we’ve encountered, people who don’t “get it” will roll their eyes, nudge the person next to them and wink, and respond with, “Sure, they were sociopaths….sure they were.”
Personally, I cannot think of an alternative term that would encompass the traits. “Soul-less dick-cheese” is not what I would consider to be a proper medical/psychiatric term, though it does fit the bill, nicely. Perhaps, a term that focuses on what OxD laid out: lack of Empathy and Remorse.
As it stands, the general public still does not “get it,” even though there are movies, talk shows, crime dramas, and so forth that clearly use the current terminology.
Sisterhood – thank you. You’ve touched on one of my frustrations with various mental health professionals – they seem to spend so much time splitting hairs over which traits and behaviors make up the disordered “construct” and which do not to me, it is a useless argument. Sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists – they all damage their victims. Once they are adults, none of them can be treated. So what difference does it make?
That is one of the points of my book – from the point of view of the targets, it doesn’t matter. And the solution for the target is always the same – as best we can, get the person out of our lives.
Sisterhood and truthspeak, I am with Donna and I have pounded on this construct here on LF for going on 5 years now…all the PDs “over lap” and there is NOT ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE as far as relationships are concerned….TOXIC IS TOXIC and what you call it does NOT MATTER A FIG!
So many people seem to fixate on “is he a sociopath or not” like if he doesn’t meet 100% of the criteria then maybe he really wasn’t all that bad after all.
Your X does not have to be Charlie Manson to qualify as a psychopath/sociopath.
The terms psychopath and sociopath have been twisted by the media until they are actually seen as the same as “serial killer” or “Crazed serial killer” so I agree that those two words have been “tainted.” However, Truthspeak, I think “Soul-less dick-cheese” is not going to meet the criteria for a new name. LOL ROTFLMAO The last term used in the Medical field was “anti-social personality disorder” which was ALMOST identical to, but not identical to psychopathy, in fact, though, the term sounded like they were describing a HERMIT. Anti-social sounds to me like a guy who doesn’t like cocktail parties. In medical-speak it meant he didn’t behave in a “social” way meaning go along with what society thinks is a good way to act.
Part of the problem I think in getting a “real diagnostic criteria” is the “rule by committee” where everyone has to get their idea in because of the egos of so many PhDs….it is like a “horse designed by a committee, turns out to look like a CAMEL, everyone has to put their hump on it.”
Donna and OxD………..yes, on all points!
Donna and Oxy, thank you, thank you, thank you!. I’m feeling really good a free today. So refreshing!!
What scared me about the article was its conclusion – that most Ps are safely locked away in prison.
Really? Based on what evidence?
My father had a little sign in his home office that said, “It’s hard to remember that your objective was to drain the swamp when you’re up to your neck in alligators.”
This article brought to mind, “It’s hard to care about a debate regarding which psychopathic characteristics may apply when your wounds from the P’s attacks are still bleeding.”
G1S;
Ps may be, but by definition these will be mostly violent criminal types.
What about Bernie Madoff? Next Gingrich?
White collar crime does not seem to fit the standard definition and since most white collar criminals go unpunished, I cannot see how somebody could make such a comment. In addition, domestic violence typically goes unpunished as well…
G1S & BBE, the shocking assumption that they’re “safely” locked away is absurd. What about Sandusky and the horrific Penn State situation?!?!?! And, that only continued because people ENABLED – nobody wanted to “be the one” who caused Sandusky to lose his important, prestigious, and successful position. SERIOUSLY!?!?!
I have a friend who is working for a spath – this person is not one of the best or most intelligent spaths, but he is engaging in the absolute patterns that they perpetrate: divide/conquer; intimidation; threats of dismissal; then, they’re you’re best buddy; etc. She is under SO much stress because she does not have the ability to walk the fark away, yet. Not from her JOB, but from this boss.
Uh………..Spath Island, as I’ve said. Put them ALL together with a few livestock and some vegetable seeds, and let ’em go.
Brightest blessings!
I’m catching up on this thread, and as usual I’m struck by the depth of insightful comments. So many brilliant, thoughtful people here, people who have lived through spath experiences, (some still going through it), and with such a strong desire for healing and making meaning of the experience… such good stuff. I’m so impressed and grateful for everyone’s sharing.
I’ll comment only on one, right now: Skylar said: “It was NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY to fix him, protect him or protect the world.
The one most important trait that spaths look for in a victim is the trait of TAKING RESPONSIBILITY when it isn’t ours to take.
It’s a very narcissistic trait to think we can SAVE the world or even save anyone, perhaps not even save ourselves.”
This is a pattern I myself have fallen into and am still vulnerable to (though not as much now as previously). Skylar, you described this very succinctly and compassionately; how a person can develop this trait of thinking it is our job to save others or the world, to be a “rescuer” or not knowing where our duty to others begins and ends. You are correct that it is a narcissistic trait — though thinking of it as “duty” (noble, or self sacrificing; a good thing) is why it can be so hard to recognize it for the mistaken belief that it is.
Seeing it as a misunderstanding of boundaries AND also “whose job is it” (God’s job) is helpful in releasing that mistaken belief or “need.” Thanks.
20years, I can only say that my own mandates to “fix” other people’s issues comes directly from my “inner child” experiences. Dad working all day, mom drinking all day, and dad comes home to find the house a wreck, nothing to eat, his wife passed out, and his 8 y/o daughter filthy and hungry – dad turns to daughter and says, “How could you let her drink like this, again?”
In examination of this broken, neglected, and abandoned “inner child,” I have (with PLENTY of trepidation) come to understand some of the reasons that I “chose” spaths and how to take baby-steps to address some of these issues, even if it’s on a very tiny level.
I’m heading in a direction that is painful but truthful. These things that we have all experienced are often as a result of what we were either taught or what we learned as a child, plain and simple. Attempting to look at these truths with an objective and compassionate eye is not my forte – I don’t like it one little bit. But, if I don’t stare down the truths and learn how to manage these issues, I’ll run right out, latch on to someone who is going to rescue me from the spath devastation, and put myself on the victimization block, AGAIN. And, I hate the experiences more than I can describe, so I never, ever want to find myself making choices and decisions based upon my “shame core,” anymore.
What is evolving, as a result of this effort, is someone who I don’t recognize as myself. I am becoming more intolerant of people’s bad behaviors. I am finding it very hard to excuse a person’s choices because of their upbringing, social status, etc. I am not accepting of the notions that all people are generally “good,” and that my trust is available until someone actually does something to break that trust. I am becoming something that I don’t particularly like, and I don’t know if it’s being “jaded” or “cynical.” Either way, I won’t say something unless it’s the truth, EVEN if the truth isn’t all that pleasant.
Has anyone else experienced this? Did they find it to be an uncomfortable space to be in? I have always wanted to be like a hippy-dippy person – nonjudgmental, all-inclusive, loving and giving, etc. Today, I am NONE of those things, and I am very uncomfortable with this evolution (or, DE-evolution).